• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

why was i banned?

Status
Not open for further replies.
davado

davado

School Boy/Girl Captain
Son Of Coco said:
From a multitude of sources - life experience, reading reliable sources, talking to people, introspection.

I think most people complaining that they are in some way 'discriminated' against because they are holding views from decades ago when society has moved on only have themselves to blame. They're either tone deaf, or they have refused to recognise the shift over time. This goes for those who were educated this way as well as those whose god tells them it's ok.

I'm not saying every person's new line of thinking is necessarily correct, but I went to school in the 80's, and things have obviously changed since then. Hanging onto education as a reason for having outdated views loses its validity the more time that has elapsed since that education occured. If someone genuinely believes something they held to be true 20, 30, 40 years ago or more is still fact when there's a weight of evidence that suggests otherwise, there's more at play that just how they were educated.
Click to expand...
SON, where exactly is social progress going?.
And what is it progressing from?
Has it occurred to you that there might be a conspiracy behind it?
what is their objective?
there might be powerful people behind it. Who are evil
it tells you who they are in the bible ( not that ive bothered to look at one for 30 years)

you really should think for yourself these days or you might be lulled like a lamb led to slaughter .
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Ahh yes. I missed the reference in the 1st line.

I now see he is referencing that famous biblical scene where Jesus has supper with the 12 moderators.
 
Last edited:
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
davado said:
SON, where exactly is social progress going?.
And what is it progressing from?
Has it occurred to you that there might be a conspiracy behind it?
what is their objective?
there might be powerful people behind it. Who are evil
it tells you who they are in the bible ( not that ive bothered to look at one for 30 years)

you really should think for yourself these days or you might be lulled like a lamb led to slaughter .
Click to expand...
Is it the UN?

Agenda 21?

Bill Gates?

COVID?

Alex Jones (I hope I got the fat ****'s name right)

Some other batshit crazy conspiracy theory?
 
Line and Length

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
Son Of Coco said:
From a multitude of sources - life experience, reading reliable sources, talking to people, introspection.

I think most people complaining that they are in some way 'discriminated' against because they are holding views from decades ago when society has moved on only have themselves to blame. They're either tone deaf, or they have refused to recognise the shift over time. This goes for those who were educated this way as well as those whose god tells them it's ok.

I'm not saying every person's new line of thinking is necessarily correct, it's not, but I went to school in the 80's, and things have obviously changed since then. Hanging onto education as a reason for having outdated views loses its validity the more time that has elapsed since that education occured. If someone genuinely believes something they held to be true 20, 30, 40 years ago or more is still fact when there's a weight of evidence that suggests otherwise, there's more at play that just how they were educated.
Click to expand...
Life experiences colour our views of others. 'reliable sources' are becoming harder to find with the media being used as a propaganda tool and many non-fiction works are coloured by life experiences. 'talking to people' is valid, but only to an extent.

I still maintain that education has a powerful influence on people's beliefs - after all children are at the most impressionable stage of their lives and impressions can be lasting (particularly if they are reinforced at home and/or by the mass media of the time).
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Line and Length said:
Life experiences colour our views of others. 'reliable sources' are becoming harder to find with the media being used as a propaganda tool and many non-fiction works are coloured by life experiences. 'talking to people' is valid, but only to an extent.

I still maintain that education has a powerful influence on people's beliefs - after all children are at the most impressionable stage of their lives and impressions can be lasting (particularly if they are reinforced at home and/or by the mass media of the time).
Click to expand...
The media has never been a reliable source. Of course, it depends on what you are talking about, but scientific journals are a good place to start, if applicable.

Identifying the appropriate source to find the answer to a question you might have is a life skill isn't it? Of course, you're not going to go to a science journal to solve an argument about whether Kohli or Smith are better batsmen. You probably should start there in an argument about climate change though. I know we're probably talking more about differences in societal attitudes, and as you say, education and parental attitudes play their part. But, if you still steadfastly believe homosexuals don't deserve to be an accepted part of the community (as an example, I'm not saying you do), then you've managed to bury your head in the sand and ignore much of what has changed within society as well as what we now understand about human biology. That's a choice based on a number of factors, and while those factors might make it harder to change, it's still a choice. I'd say a lot of people on this forum have grown up in times vastly different to those we find us in now. It's obviously difficult to change pre-conceived ideas that are deeply-rooted, but if someone's excuse for not doing so is that they're being silenced/discriminated against when that's clearly not the case, then it's simply a matter of them being too lazy to make an effort really.

I mean, I wouldn't confidently say I could handle a situation where I have to accurately address a trans person with the correct pronouns without ****ing it up. You shouldn't be hammered for getting something wrong in a situation you are unfamiliar with. However, anyone railing against the right of someone to choose how they are addressed is wilfully ignorant. It has zero impact on their lives, apart from requiring them to make a small attempt to change.
 
Line and Length

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
Son Of Coco said:
The media has never been a reliable source. Of course, it depends on what you are talking about, but scientific journals are a good place to start, if applicable.

Identifying the appropriate source to find the answer to a question you might have is a life skill isn't it? Of course, you're not going to go to a science journal to solve an argument about whether Kohli or Smith are better batsmen. You probably should start there in an argument about climate change though. I know we're probably talking more about differences in societal attitudes, and as you say, education and parental attitudes play their part. But, if you still steadfastly believe homosexuals don't deserve to be an accepted part of the community (as an example, I'm not saying you do), then you've managed to bury your head in the sand and ignore much of what has changed within society as well as what we now understand about human biology. That's a choice based on a number of factors, and while those factors might make it harder to change, it's still a choice. I'd say a lot of people on this forum have grown up in times vastly different to those we find us in now. It's obviously difficult to change pre-conceived ideas that are deeply-rooted, but if someone's excuse for not doing so is that they're being silenced/discriminated against when that's clearly not the case, then it's simply a matter of them being too lazy to make an effort really.

I mean, I wouldn't confidently say I could handle a situation where I have to accurately address a trans person with the correct pronouns without ****ing it up. You shouldn't be hammered for getting something wrong in a situation you are unfamiliar with. However, anyone railing against the right of someone to choose how they are addressed is wilfully ignorant. It has zero impact on their lives, apart from requiring them to make a small attempt to change.
Click to expand...
While I'm agreeing with all you have said in this post, much of the education I am referring to is more a case of different interpretations of history. In my youth there was a far greater emphasis on nationalism and Anglo-Saxon history.
 
R

RootingforEngland

Cricket Spectator
Athlai said:
An ex member coming in to say they're not racist and then when immediately remembered and quoted back with their own posts, saying they have no memory of the posts is pretty funny tbf.
Click to expand...
I can imagine it would be absolutely hilarious. I mean if your sense of humour is revelling in calling people who aren't the slightest bit racist racist, then it would be side splittingly funny I should think.

But it's not what's happened in this conversation so I don't see that your comment is directly relevant.

As I've said, I was banned for saying that Commonwealth soldiers who died fighting the nazis weren't a bunch of no good racists. If you are interested enough to look back at the applicable thread (I'm not personally) then that is what you'll find.

Someone else has brought up a conversation which seems to be about colonialism which includes some reference to aboriginal Australians. I have said that:

* I had completely forgotten such a conversation (which so far as I'm aware was not the cause of my removal from the site)
* However yes that account was mine, and I don't dispute that those comments were mine
* But I can't see where I have condoned genocide as alleged by the other poster

I'll also say now that as you've claimed that my comments in that discussion were "racist", that I can't see where the racism is in those comments. If you are willing to educate me on the matter and point out the racism that you've alleged then I would happily listen and consider your observations.

Cheers.
 
Shady Slim

Shady Slim

International Coach
RootingforEngland said:
I can imagine it would be absolutely hilarious. I mean if your sense of humour is revelling in calling people who aren't the slightest bit racist racist, then it would be side splittingly funny I should think.

But it's not what's happened in this conversation so I don't see that your comment is directly relevant.

As I've said, I was banned for saying that Commonwealth soldiers who died fighting the nazis weren't a bunch of no good racists. If you are interested enough to look back at the applicable thread (I'm not personally) then that is what you'll find.

Someone else has brought up a conversation which seems to be about colonialism which includes some reference to aboriginal Australians. I have said that:

* I had completely forgotten such a conversation (which so far as I'm aware was not the cause of my removal from the site)
* However yes that account was mine, and I don't dispute that those comments were mine
* But I can't see where I have condoned genocide as alleged by the other poster

I'll also say now that as you've claimed that my comments in that discussion were "racist", that I can't see where the racism is in those comments. If you are willing to educate me on the matter and point out the racism that you've alleged then I would happily listen and consider your observations.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
the point re "the british brought law and order to the indigenous", language like that is most often used as a dogwhistle to cast the white man as the liberator of the simple savage, as opposed to a recognition that they hacked and slashed their way through thousands of kooris on their way to imposing their own legal system on a flourishing society which did in fact have its own laws
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
but if this is going to turn into straight up n+p then yeah this is getting closed pronto
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top