Mike Procter interview

[BoyBrumby]

Nah, complete bull**** IMO. Just because someone gives you a bit of lip doesn't mean that all bets are off the table and you can be a racist wanker and say whatever you like. Doesn't work like that.

Quite so.

I think one instinctively understands racist abuse is of a different magnitude to calling someone a "See You Next Time". In the UK at least this difference is enshrined in legislation now. Whether one agrees with this or not is a question for another thread, but to use the example of that **** who was gaoled for posting a load of racist guff after Muamba collapsed, if he'd left it at "Muamba's dead LOL" or whatever it was he'd have probably been all right. That he then responded with a torrent of racist invective earned him a holiday at her majesty's pleasure.

 

[Flem274*]

"bit of a lip"? **** you

Who decides what kind "lip" is acceptable? I don't live by your standards so it is better to shut up or have the balls to accept what is coming your way. If you can't handle the heat then get out of the kitchen.

I find this arrogance quite amusing tbh. "I feel this is wrong so everybody has to feel it is wrong".

This is unacceptable. It's been reported and in the meantime, don't continue in this manner. Thanks.

 

[Cevno]

If that is reported and warned, then it is REMARKABLE what some others get away with time and again. And not in just thread.

Can't also then completely blame others for following the same lead.

 

[Spark]

"bit of a lip"? **** you

Who decides what kind "lip" is acceptable? I don't live by your standards so it is better to shut up or have the balls to accept what is coming your way. If you can't handle the heat then get out of the kitchen.

I find this arrogance quite amusing tbh. "I feel this is wrong so everybody has to feel it is wrong".

Personal attack aside, I've always wondered what it'd be like to live in a world that only has two colours, black or white. Would love to know.

I mean, I find the whole idea that somehow all abuse is equally bad regardless of whether it contains racial under/overtones... difficult to reconcile, tstl.

---

BB's made my argument for me anyway.

 

[Cevno]

I find words like "Mother F****","your sis is a C*** " etc. are lot more offensive than any racist slur thrown at me.

Tbf, i think Sanz and Smali were comparing this with something with Racial overtones to it and not just a "See you next time". Equally bad if not more worse for me.

 

[Spark]

Struggling to see the racist undertones to "****" tbh.

 

[Cevno]

Yeah, their isn't and I never said there was. But it's still abuse directed towards your family on a cricket field.

 

[smash84]

Personal attack aside, I've always wondered what it'd be like to live in a world that only has two colours, black or white. Would love to know.

I mean, I find the whole idea that somehow all abuse is equally bad regardless of whether it contains racial under/overtones... difficult to reconcile, tstl.

---

BB's made my argument for me anyway.

Sorry. That wasn't supposed to come off as a personal attack. It wasn't.

You completel missed my point. My point is that who decides that comments with racial overtones are clearly worse than commenting on somebody's mother or sister? I don't this load of crap.If Symonds can't cope with racist **** because that is a no no from the value system that he comes from then cricketers from this part of the world feel the same if words like "mofo" etc are used for them. So cricketers from other countries should learn to respect that the lines are not the same for everybody which is why I am completely against any form of sledging.

Tbf, i think Sanz and Smali were comparing this with something with Racial overtones to it and not just a "See you next time". Equally bad if not more worse for me.

This

 

[BoyBrumby]

Sorry. That wasn't supposed to come off as a personal attack. It wasn't.

You completel missed my point. My point is that who decides that comments with racial overtones are clearly worse than commenting on somebody's mother or sister? I don't this load of crap.If Symonds can't cope with racist **** because that is a no no from the value system that he comes from then cricketers from this part of the world feel the same if words like "mofo" etc are used for them. So cricketers from other countries should learn to respect that the lines are not the same for everybody which is why I am completely against any form of sledging.



This

Lol. WAT.

Talk about blaming the victim. If he doesn't want to be abused, then he shouldn't be mixed race. It's as simple as that.

 

[uvelocity]

man i've had this conversation a thousand times. in many countries the worst thing you can do is insult someones mother or sister. they just take it seriously. Stealing their car wouldn't be as bad.

with that in mind racial and insults like the above are equally off limits. people in the public eye should be educated in that regard imo and set a proper example

 

[smash84]

Lol. WAT.

Talk about blaming the victim. If he doesn't want to be abused, then he shouldn't be mixed race. It's as simple as that.

LOL. NO.

If he doesn't want racist **** to come his way he should shut his mouth and not indulge in sledging himself.

man i've had this conversation a thousand times. in many countries the worst thing you can do is insult someones mother or sister. they just take it seriously. Stealing their car wouldn't be as bad.

Thank you for pointing this out.

Some people are having a hard time grasping a simple point.

 

[GIMH]

If he doesn't want racist **** to come his way he should shut his mouth.

Need to think about how this is worded smiley. Deary me.

 

[smash84]

what GIMH? (Oh ok....edited that)

 

[CWB304]

Lol. WAT.

Talk about blaming the victim. If he doesn't want to be abused, then he shouldn't be mixed race. It's as simple as that.

No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that there appears to be a certain perhaps unconscious cultural totalitarianism being perpetuated by some posters here who are automatically assuming that the scale of values which is recognized in countries such as the UK - in which 'racist' abuse has been somewhat arbitrarily set above and beyond other forms of abuse which might in fact cause just as much, if not more, pain to those on the receiving end in other cultural contexts - is the right one.

Why can not people be more willing to be flexible in seeing others' point of view? To me calling my mother or sister a whore would be far worse than being abused for the colour of my skin. Yet in for example the English (football) Premier League as things stand a player may obtain an advantage over an opponent by winding him up in calling his sister a whore (in the knowledge that culturally this is the form of abuse that is most likely to destabilize him) and get away with it, even as said opponent who has responded by using a racial epithet receives a long ban and the enduring obloquy of having been branded a racist. Such double standards are unjust and not consistent with the egalitarian values which we in the West have been brought up to aspire to.

Abuse is abuse; there can be no hierarchies. The moment one establishes such then one is 'empowering' (dread word) certain more protected groups who will only abuse the system in a cynical way as of course would any other humans (not just minority groups).

 

[smash84]

thanks for articulating it very nicely CWB

 

[Sanz]

Struggling to see the racist undertones to "****" tbh.

It just means that some people value their moms/sis/family a lot more than their race. I have been called "Sand N*****" many times and tbh it doesn't affect my and I find it lol worthy at the ignorance of the person who makes those remarks but abuses like "Motherf*****" etc. just infuriate me and I can easily see myself losing my self control.

 

[Sanz]

No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that there appears to be a certain perhaps unconscious cultural totalitarianism being perpetuated by some posters here who are automatically assuming that the scale of values which is recognized in countries such as the UK - in which 'racist' abuse has been somewhat arbitrarily set above and beyond other forms of abuse which might in fact cause just as much, if not more, pain to those on the receiving end in other cultural contexts - is the right one.

Why can not people be more willing to be flexible in seeing others' point of view? To me calling my mother or sister a whore would be far worse than being abused for the colour of my skin. Yet in for example the English (football) Premier League as things stand a player may obtain an advantage over an opponent by winding him up in calling his sister a whore (in the knowledge that culturally this is the form of abuse that is most likely to destabilize him) and get away with it, even as said opponent who has responded by using a racial epithet receives a long ban and the enduring obloquy of having been branded a racist. Such double standards are unjust and not consistent with the egalitarian values which we in the West have been brought up to aspire to.

Abuse is abuse; there can be no hierarchies. The moment one establishes such then one is 'empowering' (dread word) certain more protected groups who will only abuse the system in a cynical way as of course would any other humans (not just minority groups).

I think this sums up my feeling in a very articulate way.

 

[Sanz]

Quite so.

I think one instinctively understands racist abuse is of a different magnitude to calling someone a "See You Next Time". In the UK at least this difference is enshrined in legislation now. Whether one agrees with this or not is a question for another thread, but to use the example of that **** who was gaoled for posting a load of racist guff after Muamba collapsed, if he'd left it at "Muamba's dead LOL" or whatever it was he'd have probably been all right. That he then responded with a torrent of racist invective earned him a holiday at her majesty's pleasure.

As usual Brumby having his way with words by significantly distorting and making light of the original point that was made and being discussed.

 

[BoyBrumby]

No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that there appears to be a certain perhaps unconscious cultural totalitarianism being perpetuated by some posters here who are automatically assuming that the scale of values which is recognized in countries such as the UK - in which 'racist' abuse has been somewhat arbitrarily set above and beyond other forms of abuse which might in fact cause just as much, if not more, pain to those on the receiving end in other cultural contexts - is the right one.

Why can not people be more willing to be flexible in seeing others' point of view? To me calling my mother or sister a whore would be far worse than being abused for the colour of my skin. Yet in for example the English (football) Premier League as things stand a player may obtain an advantage over an opponent by winding him up in calling his sister a whore (in the knowledge that culturally this is the form of abuse that is most likely to destabilize him) and get away with it, even as said opponent who has responded by using a racial epithet receives a long ban and the enduring obloquy of having been branded a racist. Such double standards are unjust and not consistent with the egalitarian values which we in the West have been brought up to aspire to.

Abuse is abuse; there can be no hierarchies. The moment one establishes such then one is 'empowering' (dread word) certain more protected groups who will only abuse the system in a cynical way as of course would any other humans (not just minority groups).

I don't think the idea that "abuse is abuse" holds water for very long; it's pretty obvious that if someone was abused for (say) having a clashing shirt and tie or an unfortunate haircut and someone else is abused for their race, ***ual orienation or moral probity of their sister then the latter examples are graver offences, so there is demonstrably a hierarchy.

That aside, I'm not advocating a western cultural hegemony, but there has to be some recognition of the "when in Rome" principle. I don't take my shoes off on the rare occasions I'm forced to go to church, but if I went to a Mosque and refused to do it I'd be behaving like a prick, yes? I personally couldn't care less about removing my shoes, but as I'm aware my hosts do I'd happily acquiesce.

If my memory serves Harbhajan's alleged offence took place during the Sydney test? I'll admit I don't recall what Symonds reportedly said to him initially, but there's no way the off-spinner would've been unaware of the host nation's sensitivity towards racial abuse, especially in light of his previous (undenied) use of the term during the Australians' preceding 2007 tour of India & Indian spectators being arrested for making monkey noises and gestures towards Symonds.

If Symonds had called Harbhajan's mother a whore or whatever then he's an arsehole too, but your argument is at best of the "two wrongs" variety.

 

[benchmark00]

Brumbeh bang on here.