Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[Cope]

Yes it is. Which is why the discussion of why something is racist is always more interesting than the accusation itself. Of course, increasingly phony explanation of why something is not actually racist tends to speak for itself.

You're right. A country with a history of discrimination cannot possibly be racist. Though of course, the crux of the matter isn't racism, BLM, or some other left-wing social justice cause. The attitude of the crowd speaks for itself and what it tells us individually is up for each person to decide on their own time. How the larger picture plays out is probably more consequential, though as I have little to no interest in soccer outside of the world cup, I am largely un-interested.

This is simply circling back to the original insistence that rejecting "anti-racist" rituals is self-evidently racist. See especially the repetition of the phrase "speak for itself" which attempts to assign motive (both to myself and the crowd) without providing evidence or argument. Those familiar with, and interested in, the sport are aware that there were anti-discrimination campaigns (most notably "Kick It Out") long before BLM, none of which were greeted by hostility from crowds, and none of which had to be scaled back due to overtly political messaging.

[Love Mountain]

This is simply circling back to the original insistence that rejecting "anti-racist" rituals is self-evidently racist.

No, the original contention was that rejecting "anti-racist rituals" is inherently racist, not that it is self-evident. I agree that rejecting an anti-racist ritual is not inherently racist, however, depending on the context, personal or not-so-personal history, and of course the manner of the rejection itself, it can certainly be self-evidently racist.

See especially the repetition of the phrase "speak for itself" which attempts to assign motive (both to myself and the crowd) without providing evidence or argument. Those familiar with, and interested in, the sport are aware that there were anti-discrimination campaigns (most notably "Kick It Out") long before BLM, none of which were greeted by hostility from crowds, and none of which had to be scaled back due to overtly political messaging.

And as we know, football fans are perfectly rational and consistent with their behavior. They listened to those anti-discrimination campaigns and decided that they should scale back their racism. Or maybe not. Oh dear.

Either way, what the boos imply is up to you to decide, but considering Hungary's history, and the charged political climate post 2016, I'm not going to rule out racism. Actually, it is, as you guessed, rather self-evident to me. Actually I'll take that back. It's not like racism is really the issue here, it is the normalization of casual bigotry, and it is not exclusive to Hungarian football fans.

[Cope]

No, the original contention was that rejecting "anti-racist rituals" is inherently racist, not that it is self-evident. I agree that rejecting an anti-racist ritual is not inherently racist, however, depending on the context, personal or not-so-personal history, and of course the manner of the rejection itself, it can certainly be self-evidently racist.

As per post #1160, it was strongly implied that the jeering was discriminatory in nature. No explanation or evidence was provided beyond the assertion that the fans attitude "spoke for itself".

And as we know, football fans are perfectly rational and consistent with their behavior. They listened to those anti-discrimination campaigns and decided that they should scale back their racism. Or maybe not. Oh dear.

Either way, what the boos imply is up to you to decide, but considering Hungary's history, and the charged political climate post 2016, I'm not going to rule out racism. Actually, it is, as you guessed, rather self-evident to me. Actually I'll take that back. It's not like racism is really the issue here, it is the normalization of casual bigotry, and it is not exclusive to Hungarian football fans.

Stadium bans are issued even when only a small minority of supporters are involved in bad behaviour. The rationale here requires that the actions/motives of a fringe group (in a different game to the one in question, I might add) be superimposed onto Hungarian supporters at large (an expectation which, along with the other assumptions about football fans and Hungarians, is itself a form of "casual bigotry").

The point about a "charged political climate" is interesting, but it inverts the primary actors. It is the PL/FA/England national team (not Hungary fans) who insist on politicizing the game with this controversial ritual, even when it is poorly received and even when it is counterproductive.

The saddest irony is the implicit expectation among liberals that UEFA should take some disciplinary actions against the Hungary supporters for jeering the ritual, even though the most recent iteration of "taking the knee" was originally promoted, among other things, as a form of free speech advocacy.

[Love Mountain]

As per post #1160, it was strongly implied that the jeering was discriminatory in nature. No explanation or evidence was provided beyond the assertion that the fans attitude "spoke for itself".

If you wanna get fixated with posts, the original post was #1154, which was replied with by post #1158.

Stadium bans are issued even when only a small minority of supporters are involved in bad behaviour. The rationale here requires that the actions/motives of a fringe group (in a different game to the one in question, I might add) be superimposed onto Hungarian supporters at large (an expectation which, along with the other assumptions about football fans and Hungarians, is itself a form of "casual bigotry").

So we are referring to the jeering minority?

The point about a "charged political climate" is interesting, but it inverts the primary actors. It is the PL/FA/England national team (not Hungary fans) who insist on politicizing the game with this controversial ritual, even when it is poorly received and even when it is counterproductive.

The saddest irony is the implicit expectation among liberals that UEFA should take some disciplinary actions against the Hungary supporters for jeering the ritual, even though the most recent iteration of "taking the knee" was originally promoted, among other things, as a form of free speech advocacy.

So is your point then, that the ritual is controversial, that "taking the knee" shouldn't be promoted, or that Hungary's right to free speech is being infringed?

[Cope]

If you wanna get fixated with posts, the original post was #1154, which was replied with by post #1158.

There were different claims made in different posts. The first was that rejecting liberal preferences was not "inherently racist"; the second was that "the attitude of the crowd speaks for itself" (i.e. was racist). In #1161 I was responding to the latter.

So we are referring to the jeering minority?

We are comparing a significant minority, if not a majority, of supporters (mostly children) who jeered/booed a pre-match ritual to a small group of attendees who, in a different match, had racially abused specific players. These groups are not synonymous with one another, despite the attempts to impose the motives/actions of the latter onto the former.

So is your point then, that the ritual is controversial, that "taking the knee" shouldn't be promoted, or that Hungary's right to free speech is being infringed?

The implication here seems to be that these positions are mutually exclusive, even though they aren't. In any case, it was not argued that "Hungary's right to free speech is being infringed" (UEFA have taken no action), only that some seem to hypocritically believe that the Hungary fans should be punished for dissenting against the political gesture (free speech for me, but not for thee).

[Muizer]

@Cope, you greatly overestimate how deep a bunch of under 14 Hungarian kids knows about the ideological underpinnings of 'taking the knee' or any ideological debates waged in the US. To think that they were jeering it as anything other than an anti-racism gesture full stop is super contrived. There's a much simpler explanation. The UEFA banned adults from attending after a previous racist incident, and when the players of England took the knee, the kids decided to double down on their adult counterparts' offenses.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The UEFA banned adults from attending because every time a black player get the football the hungarian fans imitated the sounds of apes.

Naturally some Right wingers have no issue with that.

[Cope]

@Cope, you greatly overestimate how deep a bunch of under 14 Hungarian kids knows about the ideological underpinnings of 'taking the knee' or any ideological debates waged in the US. To think that they were jeering it as anything other than an anti-racism gesture full stop is super contrived. There's a much simpler explanation. The UEFA banned adults from attending after a previous racist incident, and when the players of England took the knee, the kids decided to double down on their adult counterparts' offenses.

This (again) falsely suggests that the jeering was an extension of the racist abuse perpetrated by a small minority in a prior match. The ritual has been repeatedly jeered across Europe, including by England and Hungary supporters, since it began over two years ago. It has nothing to do with the stadium ban. The children were not "doubl[ing] down" on previous "offenses"; they were imitating a common reaction to the gesture.

As the season continues, it’s likely that like last year we will still see fans booing players who take the knee. But the hostility of some sections of the crowd to a gesture associated with the Black Lives Matter movement should not be misconstrued as racism.

The founders of BLM describe themselves as ‘trained Marxists’. Their aims are to overthrow capitalism, undermine the ‘patriarchy’ and dispense with the kind of ‘toxic masculinity’ that is essential to the success of black, brown and white footballers.

Some black players, like the Palace winger Wilfred Zaha, claim taking the knee is ‘degrading’. He recalled his parents teaching him to be ‘proud to be black no matter what and we should stand tall’. The problem is that the very idea of standing tall, and the ethic of personal responsibility and resilience it implies, runs counter to the way the idea of being anti-racist has been ideologically weaponised.

What matters to football players is they are rewarded for their skill and character. Fans of all colours support those values. They also used to be the values of anti-racists. Inspired by Martin Luther King Jr and his steadfast belief in the primacy of character over colour, anti-racism united people as individuals. It allowed for error and forgiveness. It emphasised the common challenges that all people shared. It gave those who were racist the space and dignity to grow out of hate and learn to love and respect people as individuals, whatever the colour of their skin.

The cause of anti-racism in football is embraced by all fans with the exception of a tiny residue of unreconstructed white supremacists and emotionally stunted Twitter trolls. The boos now are not against black players. They’re aimed at the divisiveness of anti-racist ideologies imported from the United States that define being white as being racist. The fans resent being divided against each other in the name of a cause that they all want to see succeed. This is why most fans who boo when players take the knee are like Andrew, an England fan in his 40s, who objects to ‘an identity politics agenda that focuses on black people and skin colour when as far as I am concerned we are all England fans regardless of colour’.

If football wants to tackle racism it needs to learn from these black leaders. Virtue signalling has its obvious rewards. Like any ritual, it confers status on those whose signals attract the most attention. But dividing the world into black and white, good and evil, oppressed and oppressor is naive and dangerous. It teaches people how to hate. It re-segregates fans by essentialising racial differences and collectivising guilt regardless of individual beliefs and behaviours. It opens the gates of hell and it will take more than a league of kneeling players to close them.

The animosity of some fans towards taking the knee is not about racism. It’s an awareness than they are being divided on grounds of race by a gesture weaponised by a Marxist organisation. The former England international John Barnes claimed that football ‘is the least racist industry in this country’. We need to get off our knees and keep it that way.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...aking-the-knee

[Muizer]

This (again) falsely suggests that the jeering was an extension of the racist abuse perpetrated by a small minority in a prior match. The ritual has been repeatedly jeered across Europe, including by England and Hungary supporters, since it began over two years ago. The children were not "doubl[ing] down" on previous "offenses"; they were imitating a common reaction.

The animosity of some fans towards taking the knee is not about racism. It’s an awareness than they are being divided on grounds of race by a gesture weaponised by a Marxist organisation.

You must know better. I don't dispute there are arguments against the form of the protest, but to think that that is what this is about is just not credible. 30K under 14's from a well known xenophobic country protesting an anti-racism ritual, not because of its anti-racism, but because the ritual has something to do with an American philosphy that has the word "Marxist" in it and their parents remember Communism from childhood ..... come on. It's laughable. Truly laughable.

[Mithradates]

You must know better. I don't dispute there are arguments against the form of the protest, but to think that that is what this is about is just not credible. 30K under 14's from a well known xenophobic country protesting an anti-racism ritual, not because of its anti-racism, but because the ritual has something to do with an American philosphy that has the word "Marxist" in it and their parents remember Communism from childhood ..... come on. It's laughable. Truly laughable.

Those kids are football/sports fans so this isnt the first time they saw "The Kneeling", they asked their parrents what is this about and they have been told that kneelng originates from the US were the police killed a black criminal and because of that the Americans let their cities looted and burned by black rioters. Why? Dont know why.
Long story short.

The kids see this as weakness and foolishness and they put this to the same group with "woke" and "gender"

...a well known xenophobic country

lol

[Cope]

You must know better. I don't dispute there are arguments against the form of the protest, but to think that that is what this is about is just not credible. 30K under 14's from a well known xenophobic country protesting an anti-racism ritual, not because of its anti-racism, but because the ritual has something to do with an American philosphy that has the word "Marxist" in it and their parents remember Communism from childhood ..... come on. It's laughable. Truly laughable.

It is "laughable" to assign any sort of political agency to children. They were merely imitating previous protests of the gesture (which happen every time it is made and are not related to the stadium ban).

This "anti-racism" routine has been met with widespread hostility because, unlike previous anti-discrimination campaigns in football (which were not protested), it is an overtly liberal/left-wing political statement (which is precisely why so many lib/left activists are so insistent on promoting it). Quelle surprise that it often isn't received well.

[Love Mountain]

There were different claims made in different posts. The first was that rejecting liberal preferences was not "inherently racist"; the second was that "the attitude of the crowd speaks for itself" (i.e. was racist). In #1161 I was responding to the latter.

That would make sense, if it wasn't for Post #1161 where you clearly said, "This is simply circling back to the original insistence that rejecting "anti-racist" rituals is self-evidently racist." thereby clearly referencing posts earlier than the one you replied to.

But that's neither here nor there, your confusion over an otherwise clear record, distracts from the original argument(s) in said record. It's quite clear what you want to argue about, and I don't think clarifying what you or I originally wrote moves the debate in any meaningful direction.

We are comparing a significant minority, if not a majority, of supporters (mostly children) who jeered/booed a pre-match ritual to a small group of attendees who, in a different match, had racially abused specific players. These groups are not synonymous with one another, despite the attempts to impose the motives/actions of the latter onto the former.

Yet clearly there is a connection between the two groups. Other than the fact that both groups are Hungarian, both groups are football fans, and both presumably understand the context of the UEFA disciplinary action. In either case, I'm surprised you're actually implying that there was racism involved in the earlier match. Though why we are denying the obvious and possible connection and the self-evident nature of the booing, is bey... well no, it's actually not beyond me. Some people just don't ever want to own up to anything.

The implication here seems to be that these positions are mutually exclusive, even though they aren't. In any case, it was not argued that "Hungary's right to free speech is being infringed" (UEFA have taken no action), only that some seem to hypocritically believe that the Hungary fans should be punished for dissenting against the political gesture (free speech for me, but not for thee).

The implication is that racism and casual bigotry is acceptable in Hungary and that Hungarians are upset that someone made an anti-racist gesture. Whether Hungary should, or should not be punished is a different conversation. I personally don't care either way. I'm not fond of politics infecting their way into sports either, that's not really why I, or I imagine most people, watch sports. But I'm also not going to boo players for protesting X, Y, and Z. It's not like I watch pre-game rituals anyway.

[Cope]

That would make sense, if it wasn't for Post #1161 where you clearly said, "This is simply circling back to the original insistence that rejecting "anti-racist" rituals is self-evidently racist." thereby clearly referencing posts earlier than the one you replied to.

But that's neither here nor there, your confusion over an otherwise clear record, distracts from the original argument(s) in said record. It's quite clear what you want to argue about, and I don't think clarifying what you or I originally wrote moves the debate in any meaningful direction.

The "original" claim was made (by insinuation) in post #1151. I rebuked this claim in #1154, yet in #1160 it was restated (hence circling back).

Yet clearly there is a connection between the two groups. Other than the fact that both groups are Hungarian, both groups are football fans, and both presumably understand the context of the UEFA disciplinary action. In either case, I'm surprised you're actually implying that there was racism involved in the earlier match. Though why we are denying the obvious and possible connection and the self-evident nature of the booing, is bey... well no, it's actually not beyond me. Some people just don't ever want to own up to anything.

I'm not "implying" that racist abuse occurred in the Budapest WCQ match; I'm stating it outright. Deducing, on the basis of this abuse (perpetrated by a small minority), that the large mass of ritual dissenters are also racist because they too are Hungarian and football fans, is a non-sequitur drawn from "casual bigotry". It also ignores, as mentioned, the well-documented history of opposition to the gesture (which predates the 9/2 abuse and stadium ban) and the absence of dissent directed toward other anti-discrimination initiatives within the sport, including the "Respect" programme.

The implication is that racism and casual bigotry is acceptable in Hungary and that Hungarians are upset that someone made an anti-racist gesture. Whether Hungary should, or should not be punished is a different conversation. I personally don't care either way. I'm not fond of politics infecting their way into sports either, that's not really why I, or I imagine most people, watch sports. But I'm also not going to boo players for protesting X, Y, and Z. It's not like I watch pre-game rituals anyway.

Setting aside the fact that this isn't a coherent response to the line of the conversation it is addressing, it has already been explained why this view is intellectually lazy and disconnected from the facts. The lack of interest in, or knowledge of, football and its attempts to monetize controversial liberal "social justice" initiatives has been evident from the start.

[Cyclops]

Bizarre to see what's clearly a racist mob of 14 year olds being described as clear and objective thinkers. Hungary's leadership seems to engage in IRL ****posting and if you think I don't know about that look at my location.

[Muizer]

It is "laughable" to assign any sort of political agency to children.

Hey I am not the one involving contrived links to US politics and ideas into this.

They were merely imitating previous protests of the gesture (which happen every time it is made and are not related to the stadium ban).

I don't blame the children. They can't help what their society exposes them to. It's a sign of things to come though.

This "anti-racism" routine has been met with widespread hostility because, unlike previous anti-discrimination campaigns in football (which were not protested), it is an overtly liberal/left-wing political statement (which is precisely why so many lib/left activists are so insistent on promoting it). Quelle surprise that it often isn't received well.

It's primarily an overtly anti-racist gesture, and unlike the wearing of an armband or shirt with a slogan on it, it provides a discrete opportunity to show dissent, and that's what happened.

[Cope]

Hey I am not the one involving contrived links to US politics and ideas into this.

The ritual is directly borrowed from US politics. Claiming that the connection is "contrived" misunderstands its origins in English football. Players started making the gesture and wearing "Black Lives Matter" jerseys (a logo on the sleeve and printed text on the back) at the time of the George Floyd protests, two years ago. BLM iconography was also used relentlessly by clubs and broadcasters. As noted above, all of this, other than the gesture, was ditched when the BLM Global Network (run by "trained Marxists") and BLM local chapters started posting controversial comments about capitalism, family life, Israel and "defunding" the police.

I don't blame the children. They can't help what their society exposes them to. It's a sign of things to come though.

In order to advance the allegation of racism, the youth of the crowd was invoked to ridicule the idea that the dissent was a reaction to the ritual's leftist political associations. The reality was that the children were not acting with any political agency; they were merely continuing, by way of imitation, a trend of dissent against the ritual. This would have been apparent to anyone who knew that opposition to the ritual significantly predates the stadium ban (and was not, therefore, a reaction to it).

It's primarily an overtly anti-racist gesture, and unlike the wearing of an armband or shirt with a slogan on it, it provides a discrete opportunity to show dissent, and that's what happened.

It wouldn't be possible to decouple the gesture from its political associations even if there was a good-faith attempt to do so. The FA/PA/broadcasters et. al. want a cost-free leftist connection to harvest social credit, appease activists and distract from the game's increasing inequalities and domination by Middle Eastern oil barons and American billionaires. That was/is the entire point of this never-ending virtue-signalling campaign.

[Love Mountain]

The "original" claim was made (by insinuation) in post #1151. I rebuked this claim in #1154, yet in #1160 it was restated (hence circling back).

Post #1160 was a statement remarking that while racism is not an inherent component to booing an anti-racist gesture, it can certainly be present. The current conversation, has logically evolved into a general discussion about whether racism was present at all, distinctly different from whether racism is inherent or "self-evident" or otherwise. Your confusion as to what discussion is on-going, when it originated, and who initiated, is entirely of your own making.

I'm not "implying" that racist abuse occurred in the Budapest WCQ match; I'm stating it outright. Deducing, on the basis of this abuse (perpetrated by a small minority), that the large mass of ritual dissenters are also racist because they too are Hungarian and football fans, is a non-sequitur drawn from "casual bigotry". It also ignores, as mentioned, the well-documented history of opposition to the gesture (which predates the 9/2 abuse and stadium ban) and the absence of dissent directed toward other anti-discrimination initiatives within the sport, including the "Respect" programme.

It is not "bigotry", because the assumption that the "mass of ritual dissenters" are either racists or bigots does not stem from the assumption that Hungarians or football fans, or that Hungarian football fans are racists and bigots. The assumption is made on the basis that Hungary has a history of racism and bigotry, in fact, recent history, particularly at football stadiums. Furthermore, the fact that the booing occurred as a reaction to an explicitly anti-racist gesture, which has become a rather well-known and popular gesture at that, and perpetrated by 14 year olds, unlikely to understand or venture into the rather convoluted politics of racism and discrimination, is a firm affirmation that even young Hungarian football fans disagree with the UEFA punishment and show solidarity with the fairly unpleasant adults who are responsible for the UEFA punishment to begin with.

Setting aside the fact that this isn't a coherent response to the line of the conversation it is addressing, it has already been explained why this view is intellectually lazy and disconnected from the facts. The lack of interest in, or knowledge of, football and its attempts to monetize controversial liberal "social justice" initiatives has been evident from the start.

It hasn't been explained, nor am I interested in a contrived explanation. The history of racism and bigotry in Hungary is well-documented, and its presence is visible from the top levels of its government, downright to the masses at football stadiums. This is not to imply that the entire nation of Hungary is racist, founded on racist values, or seeks to become more racist. It's simply a statement of well-documented fact. Which is helpful in identifying the impetus behind the booing that we are discussing.

As for the complaint about the monetization of "liberal" initiatives, I believe the football jerseys still show just the sponsor, the player name/number, and the country he plays for. Or is there a rainbow flag requirement on them now? I can see how that would clash with the white on the jersey.

[Cope]

Post #1160 was a statement remarking that while racism is not an inherent component to booing an anti-racist gesture, it can certainly be present. The current conversation, has logically evolved into a general discussion about whether racism was present at all, distinctly different from whether racism is inherent or "self-evident" or otherwise. Your confusion as to what discussion is on-going, when it originated, and who initiated, is entirely of your own making.

See again:

As per post #1160, it was strongly implied that the jeering was discriminatory in nature. No explanation or evidence was provided beyond the assertion that the fans attitude "spoke for itself".

Hence, it was returning to the original claim made in #1151.

It is not "bigotry", because the assumption that the "mass of ritual dissenters" are either racists or bigots does not stem from the assumption that Hungarians or football fans, or that Hungarian football fans are racists and bigots. The assumption is made on the basis that Hungary has a history of racism and bigotry, in fact, recent history, particularly at football stadiums. Furthermore, the fact that the booing occurred as a reaction to an explicitly anti-racist gesture, which has become a rather well-known and popular gesture at that, and perpetrated by 14 year olds, unlikely to understand or venture into the rather convoluted politics of racism and discrimination, is a firm affirmation that even young Hungarian football fans disagree with the UEFA punishment and show solidarity with the fairly unpleasant adults who are responsible for the UEFA punishment to begin with.

An attempt was made (repeated in #1177) to conflate the small contingent of 9/2 abusers with the mass of gesture dissidents on the following basis: (1) that both groups are Hungarian; (2) that both groups are football fans and; (3) that Hungarians are known to be racist.

A further attempt (also repeated in #1117) was made to suggest that the jeering was a response to the "UEFA punishment" (another supposed commonality between the two groups), despite the fact that the jeering was a regular occurrence before the 9/2 incident and does not, therefore, stem from it.

It hasn't been explained, nor am I interested in a contrived explanation. The history of racism and bigotry in Hungary is well-documented, and its presence is visible from the top levels of its government, downright to the masses at football stadiums. This is not to imply that the entire nation of Hungary is racist, founded on racist values, or seeks to become more racist. It's simply a statement of well-documented fact. Which is helpful in identifying the impetus behind the booing that we are discussing.

This is an example of the intellectual laziness mentioned above. It is a catch-all non-sequitur which, even in the presence of countervailing evidence, extrapolates a racist motive from generic allegations of racism leveled against an entire society. To return to my initial posts, this flawed reasoning creates a convenient excuse to accuse, or assume, that anyone resisting/protesting/dissenting against particular political preferences is a bad-faith actor (especially when the claim of "historic discrimination" or "systemic racism" is applied to almost every European and North American country).

As for the complaint about the monetization of "liberal" initiatives, I believe the football jerseys still show just the sponsor, the player name/number, and the country he plays for. Or is there a rainbow flag requirement on them now? I can see how that would clash with the white on the jersey.

See again:

Players started making the gesture and wearing "Black Lives Matter" jerseys (a logo on the sleeve and printed text on the back) at the time of the George Floyd protests, two years ago. BLM iconography was also used relentlessly by clubs and broadcasters. As noted above, all of this, other than the gesture, was ditched when the BLM Global Network (run by "trained Marxists") and BLM local chapters started posting controversial comments about capitalism, family life, Israel and "defunding" the police.

and;

The FA/PA/broadcasters et. al. want a cost-free leftist connection to harvest social credit, appease activists and distract from the game's increasing inequalities and domination by Middle Eastern oil barons and American billionaires. That was/is the entire point of this never-ending virtue-signalling campaign.

[Love Mountain]

See again:

Hence, it was returning to the original claim made in #1151.

An attempt was made (repeated in #1177) to conflate the small contingent of 9/2 abusers with the mass of gesture dissidents on the basis that: (1) both groups are Hungarian; (2) both groups are football fans; and (3) Hungarians are known to be racist.

A further attempt (also repeated in #1117) was made to suggest that the jeering was a response to the "UEFA punishment" (another supposed commonality between the two groups), despite the fact that the jeering was a regular occurrence before the 9/2 incident and does not, therefore, stem from it.

I'd rather not, seeing as how we can simply look back at your original clarification of what you meant and what I was apparently circling back to. Of course this is all irrelevant, and distracts from the main discussion, so I'm not going to reply to this branch any longer. I think it's obvious for any observer to follow the actual string of posts and claims, rather than the claimed one.

This, combined with the casual bigotry, is the intellectual laziness mentioned above. It is a catch-all non-sequitur which, even in the presence of countervailing evidence, extrapolates a racist motive from generic allegations of racism leveled against an entire society. To return to my initial posts, this flawed reasoning creates a convenient excuse to accuse, or assume, that anyone resisting/protesting/dissenting against particular political preferences is a bad-faith actor (especially when the claim of "historic discrimination" or "systemic racism" is applied to almost every European and North American country).

The accusation that racism is a non-sequitur is moot, as it is perfectly logical to connect booing an anti-racist gesture, with racism. Furthermore, the ability to extrapolate an explanation that is agreeable with your position, no matter how convoluted or dubious, is not a hallmark of critical thinking. In fact, side-by-side with intellectual laziness, it looks even worse.

See again:

and;

That would make sense if your ire was directed at the ability and actions of these organization to monetize iconography and causes, rather than the iconography and causes itself.

[alhoon]

Rant time. NOTE: I didn't read what you guys are arguing about before me.

There's another mass shooting in Maryland. 3 dead, 3 injured. Following another one in Oklahoma, with 3 dead last time I checked. A friend of mine that lives in Tulsa had parked in the parking lot of that hospital in Oklahoma about 1 1/2 hours before the mass shooting.

Americans, you should DO SOMETHING about those mass shootings!
You don't have the monopoly of angry teens and psychos. With global news turning their attention to your mass shootings, again, our psychos here may decide to go for an elaborate suicide too. And I don't want to be shot to pieces by an angry teen in his quest for a blazing death and 15 minutes of infamy.