01 Nov 07
Originally posted by RagnorakThis wasn't a joke. I am not surprised you did not understand that, your compression abilities being so far beneath those of the average person.
This is the joke I was referring to. It is constructed based on the colour of the subjects skin and their country of origin.
Please explain why you chose to make this racially loaded joke? If it wasn't a joke (why the smileys? ), I'd have to deem the racist intentions as being more sinister than accidental, as I currently think.
D
Those aren't smile faces, they are crazy faces. One typically uses those to indicate that the post being responded to has an idiotic statement in it.
Here, I'll give you an example:
This could easily be my response to 90% of the tripe you post...
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
01 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightThat was your take and you may be right and I do not want to argue the point.
This wasn't a joke. I am not surprised you did not understand that, your compression abilities being so far beneath those of the average person.
Those aren't smile faces, they are crazy faces. One typically uses those to indicate that the post being responded to has an idiotic statement in it.
Here, I'll give you an example:
This could easily be my response to 90% of the tripe you post...
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
My take was different and my argument was that it was too close for comfort under the circumstances.
If you accuse Crowley of being a racist because of a joke based entirely on socio-economics and Mugabe's mismanagement of Zimbabwe just because it mentions blacks, then, unfortunately, you must live by those same rules by which you besmirch his name for your own cheap thrills.
It is unfortunate that it has been implied that you are a racist, but unfortunately, looking at your response to Crowley's joke, I see no other reasonable response. Either it's racist to make jokes/ironic statements based on colour and location, or it's not.
Please don't resort to your usual childish antics. Just admit your mistake, and move on.
D
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by Ragnorak🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
That was your take and you may be right and I do not want to argue the point.
My take was different and my argument was that it was too close for comfort under the circumstances.
If you accuse Crowley of being a racist because of a joke based entirely on socio-economics and Mugabe's mismanagement of Zimbabwe just because it mentions blacks, then, un ...[text shortened]... ase don't resort to your usual childish antics. Just admit your mistake, and move on.
D
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by Red NightYes. Rugby is still a game mostly played and watched by white people in SA. Soccer is still the number one sport under the black population.
There is still a long way to go before rugby is a truly multi-racial sport in South Africa.
I don't know why people seem to always harp on about the number of black players in the National side. What does the race demographics of a side have to do with the pride a nation shares when that team does well?
The side is full of South Africans and that is all that should matter IMO.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by saffa73You need to take a friggin chill pill buddy, because you're starting to really irritate me.
You're saying it was a joke? Fine.
So it was a joke about Black people. That's racist. Please remove your post.
It was a joke referring to the economic crises in Zimbabwe leading to their current food shortage 😕
Just because a white person makes a joke about a country with a majority black population, doesn't automatically make the joke racist.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by Crowley120,000 Black South Africans played rugby in 2003, almost as many as whites. Yet, only 2 played any signifigant minutes for the national team.
Yes. Rugby is still a game mostly played and watched by white people in SA. Soccer is still the number one sport under the black population.
I don't know why people seem to always harp on about the number of black players in the National side. What does the race demographics of a side have to do with the pride a nation shares when that team does well?
The side is full of [b]South Africans and that is all that should matter IMO.[/b]
From Sky News October 19, 2007
Thirteen years after the end of Apartheid, the Springboks are still a mainly white team.
Soweto has several amateur rugby sides, a sign of the grass roots transformation of this once white-dominated sport in South Africa.
But at the national level, change has been slow. In recent matches just two non-white players have been included in the first team.
But South Africa's Rugby Union talent spotters rarely venture to Soweto.
The grand private schools which have groomed generations of Springboks players are still the prime hunting ground, and those schools are still largely white.
There is still a long way to go before rugby is a truly multi-racial sport in South Africa.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by Red NightSome of your 'facts', as always, are useless...
Some 13 black players have been selected for South Africa in the decade since 1992, compared with 121 white. It is estimated there are 120,000 black rugby players and 180,000 white.
The inclusion of Chester Williams, a black winger, in the 1995 competition was hailed as a triumph of reconciliation for a sport regarded by black people as a symbol of whi ...[text shortened]... n both were selected for the squad and ordered to report to the team's pre-tournament camp.
Your amount of black players selected the last 15 years seems too low...
I don't know the official numbers, but just in the last two seasons I count about 10 non-white players who have been included in bok squads.
The claims about James Small's comments are unsubstantiated according to me, but I wouldn't put it past that arrogant hot-head to have said that. There will ALWAYS be racist people, why single this out? Even if it were true, it doesn't represent a whole country...
Geo and Quinton are both hot-heads, both of them have pretty bad disciplinary records. They also come from old rival provinces and didn't like each other. That was all. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=18&art_id=qw1062250021418S163
Next time, get your facts straight before posting about a prickly issue like racism.
Have a nice day.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by CrowleyPerhaps you dispute those facts with the original sources Sky News and the players who were quoted.
Some of your 'facts', as always, are useless...
Your amount of black players selected the last 15 years seems too low...
I don't know the official numbers, but just in the last two seasons I count about 10 non-white players who have been included in bok squads.
The claims about James Small's comments are unsubstantiated according to me, but I wouldn't ...[text shortened]... your facts straight before posting about a prickly issue like racism.
Have a nice day.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by Red NightMaybe you should read your own references before posting them.
120,000 Black South Africans played rugby in 2003, almost as many as whites. Yet, only 2 played any signifigant minutes for the national team.
From Sky News October 19, 2007
Thirteen years after the end of Apartheid, the Springboks are still a mainly white team.
Soweto has several amateur rugby sides, a sign of the grass roots transformation ...[text shortened]...
There is still a long way to go before rugby is a truly multi-racial sport in South Africa.
Soweto has several amateur rugby sides, a sign of the grass roots transformation of this once white-dominated sport in South Africa.
Let me spell it out for you:
- Amateur sides
- Grass roots transformation is working, but that talent has not yet developed fully
- Neither you, I, nor that journalist knows how the talent scouts work etc., so don't put too much stock in that sentence
The so-called 'rugby schools' still deliver the most professional rugby players, because they have their own talent scouts who recruit young students with sport scholarships. Again, I don't have accurate stats, but what I saw in the Craven Week (our schoolboy rugby tournament) these last few years - has been good to see many many talented black players coming through.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by Red NightI don't understand what you are saying.
Perhaps you dispute those facts with the original sources Sky News and the players who were quoted.
There has definitely been more black players selected for national squads these past 15 years. I can't point you to a site, because I don't know of one that lists all the players every year. Ask any SA rugby supporter and they will corroborate my statement.
Chester has made a claim of racism against. So what? Will you just believe him, because he's a black person making that claim?
The Cronje/Davids saga was proven to not be a racist row.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by CrowleyHold on a minute.
You need to take a friggin chill pill buddy, because you're starting to really irritate me.
It was a joke referring to the economic crises in Zimbabwe leading to their current food shortage 😕
Just because a white person makes a joke about a country with a majority black population, doesn't automatically make the joke racist.
You are a moderator on these forums. In what way am I irritating you?
I accused you of making a racist joke. I also accused you of using blasphemous language. Please comment on these accusations, rather than just saying that I 'irritate' you.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by CrowleyRed Night made the following comment :
You need to take a friggin chill pill buddy, because you're starting to really irritate me.
It was a joke referring to the economic crises in Zimbabwe leading to their current food shortage 😕
Just because a white person makes a joke about a country with a majority black population, doesn't automatically make the joke racist.
The one US player who was black was from Zimbabwe.
I guess the blacks in Zimbabwe are different then those in SA...
You answered :
Yeah, they're much slimmer for a start.
He commented on Black people. You made a joke back ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE not Zimbabweans in general. Your use of the word they refers to BLACK Zimbabweans does it not??