The New Raith Rovers Thread

[TxRover]

5 hours ago, Scottydog said:

Ftfy

3-1, Sammon from outside the box, on the left side, into the top corner at 21’…Vaughan from a free kick, 25 yds out at 41’…Tait from a Tumilty cross at 53’…Mitchell from 10 yds out, fed by Arnott, at 88’.

[Yoss]

I know you all want to get back to the football, but this stuff is important and I make no apologies for posting to explain why I'm shoulders with RATM on this.

A large part of the problem with discussing anything to do with the r-word is that there's a wide misperception of what it involves, and a tendency to get very defensive because people think they're being accused of racism in its worst and most malicious sense, of deliberate and wilful discrimination against minority groups. This isn't, by and large, how racism works. (Except when it is, but no one was being accused of that here.) For the most part, it's about unconscious biases which makes us more likely to perceive or notice or associate certain characteristics with some 'races' than others. This is subtle and often difficult to pick up in individual instances because it's not necessarily untrue - it is possible to see some similarities of style between some of the players mentioned on the thread, it's just that we might have been less likely to have perceived it without the other, obvious, factor they have in common. This has been easy to observe in the language of commentators and pundits over a period of time, certain players are more likely to be associated with certain attributes than others.

This is difficult because it's much harder to identify individual instances where the assessment is unfair than it is to observe the overall effect. So, black players are much more likely to be associated with concepts such as strength, pace and athleticism - and once again the issue is not that it might not be have some truth, in and of itself, in any instance where it's applied; but much less likely to be associated with intelligence, craft, or guile. And thus, a few years down the line, much less likely to be considered as potential managers. And again, even where the overall trend is easy to see, its much harder to say which specific assessments are unfair, which particular black ex-players should have been given a chance in which particular jobs.

But if we're to have any hope of tackling and changing the generality, we need to be aware of at least the possibility of our own cognitive biases - to repeat, this is not a malicious thing but deeply ingrained and we all have it. I've been challenged on it on occasion too, and rightly, and likewise my first reaction was to get defensive and observe that I didn't mean it that way at all. Which I didn't, but that isn't the point. 

By and large, anytime you're confronted with any such suggestions of your own internal biases, the correct response is not to dismiss it immediately and out of hand but to at least stop and give pause for thought as to whether there's anything to it. And indeed, without and before being challenged on it, to give some thought to it any time you find yourself making such comparisons. It doesn't mean you're being accused of being a bad person, it doesn't mean you even need to agree, ultimately, that the accusation is fair. Maybe it isn't. But that, at the very least, needs some self-reflection. It's been my general experience that those who react angriest and are quickest to dismiss any such possibility are the ones least likely to have understood the nature of the problem.

[Hank Scorpio]

I know you all want to get back to the football, but this stuff is important and I make no apologies for posting to explain why I'm shoulders with RATM on this.
A large part of the problem with discussing anything to do with the r-word is that there's a wide misperception of what it involves, and a tendency to get very defensive because people think they're being accused of racism in its worst and most malicious sense, of deliberate and wilful discrimination against minority groups. This isn't, by and large, how racism works. (Except when it is, but no one was being accused of that here.) For the most part, it's about unconscious biases which makes us more likely to perceive or notice or associate certain characteristics with some 'races' than others. This is subtle and often difficult to pick up in individual instances because it's not necessarily untrue - it is possible to see some similarities of style between some of the players mentioned on the thread, it's just that we might have been less likely to have perceived it without the other, obvious, factor they have in common. This has been easy to observe in the language of commentators and pundits over a period of time, certain players are more likely to be associated with certain attributes than others.
This is difficult because it's much harder to identify individual instances where the assessment is unfair than it is to observe the overall effect. So, black players are much more likely to be associated with concepts such as strength, pace and athleticism - and once again the issue is not that it might not be have some truth, in and of itself, in any instance where it's applied; but much less likely to be associated with intelligence, craft, or guile. And thus, a few years down the line, much less likely to be considered as potential managers. And again, even where the overall trend is easy to see, its much harder to say which specific assessments are unfair, which particular black ex-players should have been given a chance in which particular jobs.
But if we're to have any hope of tackling and changing the generality, we need to be aware of at least the possibility of our own cognitive biases - to repeat, this is not a malicious thing but deeply ingrained and we all have it. I've been challenged on it on occasion too, and rightly, and likewise my first reaction was to get defensive and observe that I didn't mean it that way at all. Which I didn't, but that isn't the point. 
By and large, anytime you're confronted with any such suggestions of your own internal biases, the correct response is not to dismiss it immediately and out of hand but to at least stop and give pause for thought as to whether there's anything to it. And indeed, without and before being challenged on it, to give some thought to it any time you find yourself making such comparisons. It doesn't mean you're being accused of being a bad person, it doesn't mean you even need to agree, ultimately, that the accusation is fair. Maybe it isn't. But that, at the very least, needs some self-reflection. It's been my general experience that those who react angriest and are quickest to dismiss any such possibility are the ones least likely to have understood the nature of the problem.

Eloquently put. Can we all just repost this when this discussion happens next time? Non-accusatory and addresses proper issues without aggravation. Spot on, too.

[roverthemoon]

44 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

Eloquently put. Can we all just repost this when this discussion happens next time? Non-accusatory and addresses proper issues without aggravation. Spot on, too.

 

Seconded

[Broken Algorithms]

I've been on this thread since it started and that's one of the most sensible and nuanced posts I think I've seen. Very well put Yoss.

[L. Brilliant]

I hope Yoss is still a Rovers man, I had a feeling he binned it when Murray got sacked

That was a very welcome post

 

[Double Jack D]

4 hours ago, Yoss said:

I know you all want to get back to the football, but this stuff is important and I make no apologies for posting to explain why I'm shoulders with RATM on this.

A large part of the problem with discussing anything to do with the r-word is that there's a wide misperception of what it involves, and a tendency to get very defensive because people think they're being accused of racism in its worst and most malicious sense, of deliberate and wilful discrimination against minority groups. This isn't, by and large, how racism works. (Except when it is, but no one was being accused of that here.) For the most part, it's about unconscious biases which makes us more likely to perceive or notice or associate certain characteristics with some 'races' than others. This is subtle and often difficult to pick up in individual instances because it's not necessarily untrue - it is possible to see some similarities of style between some of the players mentioned on the thread, it's just that we might have been less likely to have perceived it without the other, obvious, factor they have in common. This has been easy to observe in the language of commentators and pundits over a period of time, certain players are more likely to be associated with certain attributes than others.

This is difficult because it's much harder to identify individual instances where the assessment is unfair than it is to observe the overall effect. So, black players are much more likely to be associated with concepts such as strength, pace and athleticism - and once again the issue is not that it might not be have some truth, in and of itself, in any instance where it's applied; but much less likely to be associated with intelligence, craft, or guile. And thus, a few years down the line, much less likely to be considered as potential managers. And again, even where the overall trend is easy to see, its much harder to say which specific assessments are unfair, which particular black ex-players should have been given a chance in which particular jobs.

But if we're to have any hope of tackling and changing the generality, we need to be aware of at least the possibility of our own cognitive biases - to repeat, this is not a malicious thing but deeply ingrained and we all have it. I've been challenged on it on occasion too, and rightly, and likewise my first reaction was to get defensive and observe that I didn't mean it that way at all. Which I didn't, but that isn't the point. 

By and large, anytime you're confronted with any such suggestions of your own internal biases, the correct response is not to dismiss it immediately and out of hand but to at least stop and give pause for thought as to whether there's anything to it. And indeed, without and before being challenged on it, to give some thought to it any time you find yourself making such comparisons. It doesn't mean you're being accused of being a bad person, it doesn't mean you even need to agree, ultimately, that the accusation is fair. Maybe it isn't. But that, at the very least, needs some self-reflection. It's been my general experience that those who react angriest and are quickest to dismiss any such possibility are the ones least likely to have understood the nature of the problem.

Drawing a line under the issue with a bit of class. 

Well played.

[Yoss]

Thank you, all.

I'm not as regular as I once was, even at games or on here, but I do still lurk sometimes and will try and get back to Stark's again at some point soon. Though since my dad is now getting a bit unsteady on his feet we've just been toddling along to Warout to watch Glenrothes recently.

Nice to see some old faces still around. Hope everyone is well.

[Raith_Raver]

5 hours ago, Yoss said:

I know you all want to get back to the football, but this stuff is important and I make no apologies for posting to explain why I'm shoulders with RATM on this.

A large part of the problem with discussing anything to do with the r-word is that there's a wide misperception of what it involves, and a tendency to get very defensive...  etc etc

ie Lets get back to the football, but not before the anti racist racists we have the last word on racism. But lets see who's defensive and racist:

So, if Blaize is compaired to Marv because they're both big guys with a robust playing style – THAT'S RACISM!

But if it's pointed out that say, Kai Kennedy and Dan Armstrong, who are both slight guys and have a quick tricky style of play, that's NOT racism.

Why do “unconscious” or “cognitive biases” come into play in one scenario but not in the other identical scenario? Ah I get it, you've got to point out that the first involve black people. Who's unconsciously biased and racially motivated? Can't you see that it's people like you who are racist, so brainwashed by an arrogant assumption of moral superiority that you're blind to simple fact and logic?

You believe the generalisation “that black players are much more likely to be associated with concepts such as strength, pace and athleticism”,  but it's subtly racist to make that observation - we need to have a “hope of tackling and changing the generality”.  So you claim these racial characteristics exist but if they pertain to black people we are to deny they exist or we're racist ! YOU'RE RACIST FFS

This next bit is what in Burger King is known as a Whopper, with cheese:

Standing “shoulder with RATM” on the current matter, it's your “general experience that those who react angriest and are quickest to dismiss any such possibility are the ones least likely to have understood the nature of the problem“::

RATM: “NO! f**k! OFF! 

BLACK PLAYERS DON'T IMMEDIATELY HAVE TO BE COMPARED TO OTHER BLACK PLAYERS! FOR f**k SAKE! WE ARE NOT DOING THIS AGAIN! 

The blind hypocrisy is boundless.

[roverthemoon]

Strange the hills that some people choose to die on. There really is a time to stop digging.

[roverthemoon]

If, big if, we manage to beat Alloa tomorrow then how weird will it be to be in the League Cup draw on Sunday. It’s been a while.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

25 minutes ago, roverthemoon said:

If, big if, we manage to beat Alloa tomorrow then how weird will it be to be in the League Cup draw on Sunday. It’s been a while.

Since we won the cup we've made the last 16 (used to be the 3rd round) eight times, the last being 15-16, it'll be great to get through the mini league set up for the first time.

[Frankly, Mr Shankly]

Everyone shut the f**k up now man. Yass had the final word. Let’s go back to making shite rumours and telling McGlynn to change it.

[Frankly, Mr Shankly]

Back to football talk. Do we need Gullan?

[Beachbum]

 

[Frankly, Mr Shankly]

We currently have four strikers, in Matej, Lewis, James and Ethon. Gullan is most certainly a very good player but at the same time, it’s a central midfielder that we are in desperate need for. 4 strikers is plenty. 3 centre mids? Not so much. Don’t think having 3 strikers in on loan is very smart. 

[D'Jaffo]

I am racist

FTFY

[HoBNob]

7 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

Eloquently put. Can we all just repost this when this discussion happens next time? Non-accusatory and addresses proper issues without aggravation. Spot on, too.

 

The times when it's been picked up on and mentioned on this thread) that I've seen anyway) the posts haven't been accusayory or racist. The replies from people tend to be the aggressive ones, as shown by the poster a few above. 

 

"woke pish" etc etc. Tade and Ugwu ffs. 

[Beachbum]

Time for me to sign out for a while. This is doing my head in.

[renton]

1 hour ago, Frankly, Mr Shankly said:

We currently have four strikers, in Matej, Lewis, James and Ethon. Gullan is most certainly a very good player but at the same time, it’s a central midfielder that we are in desperate need for. 4 strikers is plenty. 3 centre mids? Not so much. Don’t think having 3 strikers in on loan is very smart. 

4 Central mids including Matthews, albeit no idea when he is back.

Wide players? You can probably shunt Keatings out there if need be, and the more often we play a diamond, the less likely we are going to need two at any given time.

Suspect it will be a wide/winger type of player we bring in. Arnott will be filling in for the 15-20 min midfield cameo for the foreseeable I guess.