Twitter

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

2 hours ago, Stormzy said:

Fucking hell, imagine still believing that made up nonsense. 

The stuff in the post you quoted might not be true but i’ll not fully believe in the everyone’s welcome message until a very large number of their fans stop singing songs about being up to their knees in blood of a religious group and other such ditties. 

[SANTAN]

5 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

The stuff in the post you quoted might not be true but i’ll not fully believe in the everyone’s welcome message until a very large number of their fans stop singing songs about being up to their knees in blood of a religious group and other such ditties. 

No might about it. It's undeniably untrue. 

You can believe what you want. That stance seems very counter productive to me though. 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

17 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

No might about it. It's undeniably untrue. 

You can believe what you want. That stance seems very counter productive to me though. 

I dont think its particularly outrageous to suggest Rangers have missed an opportunity to call out all kinds of hate crime.

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

I dont think its particularly outrageous to suggest Rangers have missed an opportunity to call out all kinds of hate crime.

Neither do I but i do think when someone or something does something positive it's counter productive to disregard the positive because they've previously done something negative. 

Especially when it's made up signing policies...

[101]

4 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Neither do I but i do think when someone or something does something positive it's counter productive to disregard the positive because they've previously done something negative. 

Especially when it's made up signing policies...

Yes, hopefully this signals a change in policy and we will see sectarianism from both teams in Glasgow receive appropriate punishment. However if next season the same old shite is trotted out and the club do nothing then all this good work is up in smoke. Hopefully that doesn't happen.

[MONKMAN]

I dont think its particularly outrageous to suggest Rangers have missed an opportunity to call out all kinds of hate crime.

It would go against the beliefs of 99% of their fan base, if they were to do that.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

29 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Neither do I but i do think when someone or something does something positive it's counter productive to disregard the positive because they've previously done something negative. 

Especially when it's made up signing policies...

You say previously like a culture of sectarianism isnt absolutely fucking rampant at the club?

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

You say previously like a culture of sectarianism isnt absolutely fucking rampant at the club?

I concede, the existence of sectarianism in a section of the supporters means that Rangers Football Club should be banned from showing solidarity with any future social justice movement. We probably should have told Kamara that nobody will give a f**k about his racist abuse and he won't get any support from the club because people online will call out hypocrisy. We should also disband all charity ventures linked with the club and do nothing positive going forward. 

That better? 

[101]

12 minutes ago, Pato said:

I don't blame her for pulling the strings she has pulled as a BBC editor but it's a bit shite that's the only reason she's in the papers for this.

Aye exactly just shows if you don't just pack your bags and fight back a bit you might be able to stay

[101]

1 minute ago, Stormzy said:

I concede, the existence of sectarianism in a section of the supporters means that Rangers Football Club should be banned from showing solidarity with any future social justice movement. We probably should have told Kamara that nobody will give a f**k about his racist abuse and he won't get any support from the club because people online will call out hypocrisy. We should also disband all charity ventures linked with the club and do nothing positive going forward. 

That better? 

Tbh it's not just supporters that have an issue employees of the club at the very least play up to them with the orange strips and sashes and such.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

6 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I concede, the existence of sectarianism in a section of the supporters means that Rangers Football Club should be banned from showing solidarity with any future social justice movement. We probably should have told Kamara that nobody will give a f**k about his racist abuse and he won't get any support from the club because people online will call out hypocrisy. We should also disband all charity ventures linked with the club and do nothing positive going forward. 

That better? 

Its not just the supporters...

No im just wondering how you can be against one kind of bigotry and then glorify another?

Also would that be the ‘charity days’ for things like veterans groups with abseils down the stands, cannons firing yet still despite the absolutely rampant #staunchness of the support still managed to raise less money than several other clubs including the staggeringly non british Celtic? 

[SANTAN]

3 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Its not just the supporters...

No im just wondering how you can be against one kind of bigotry and then glorify another?

Also would that be the ‘charity days’ for things like veterans groups with abseils down the stands, cannons firing yet still despite the absolutely rampant #staunchness of the support still managed to raise less money than several other clubs including the staggeringly non british Celtic? 

Well I certainly disagree with your framing of the club glorifying bigotry. You make an interesting point about people being hypocritical over bigotry, you find that on this forum on a daily basis with the "***" word and it's application.

There's various charity groups that have raised substantial funds for things like children's hospitals etc that local community groups greatly appreciate. 

Do you think Rangers shouldn't take a stand on the Kamara incident and subsequent racist abuse of our players on social media? 

 

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Just now, Stormzy said:

Well I certainly disagree with your framing of the club glorifying bigotry. You make an interesting point about people being hypocritical over bigotry, you find that on this forum on a daily basis with the "***" word and it's application.

There's various charity groups that have raised substantial funds for things like children's hospitals etc that local community groups greatly appreciate. 

Do you think Rangers shouldn't take a stand on the Kamara incident and subsequent racist abuse of our players on social media? 

 

Thats cool, all the proof is in my camp. Its absolutely fucking ingrained, to the point the club releases orange coloured strips ffs. I dont use the word *nuh* so thats nothing to do with me, I dont necessarily think its a bigoted word however. 
Yes i think they should take a stand, but they shouldnt be selective about which sort of hate crime they take a stand over. Its entirely hypocritical. 

[101]

11 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Also would that be the ‘charity days’ for things like veterans groups with abseils down the stands, cannons firing

The tax payer foots the bill for the soldiers and cannons, they may raise money for charity but it also has a cost to the tax payer via the MoD the cost was just shy of a grand.

[Sergeant Wilson]

Not one person was ever offended by the word ***. It was appropriated simply to equalise the expression of victimhood from the other side.

They should be ostracised from all civilised organisations. A simple thanks but no thanks, until you clean up your act.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Sergeant Wilson

[velo army]

Not a position I. a Lanarkshire catholic (the papiest of papes imo), might be expected to be occupying, but here we are.

Rangers are taking a laudable stance in support of their player. It's actually a great bit of leadership which will make it easier for other clubs to emulate should their players be on the receiving end of abuse (and if it isn't happening already, it will). There will be those at the club who bridle at the association Rangers and its support have with sectarianism and anti-catholic bigotry, and who want to move wholesale away from that atavistic shite. Their hand will be strengthened by this. 

Attacking Rangers for having a history of sectarianism in response to this action is weird. Of course they had a policy of not signing catholics and of course that was wrong. I don't think you'll find too many people defending that record on here. But using that as a stick to beat them with while they're showing strong leadership and great support for a player daily abused because of his race isn't constructive. 

When your first response to an act of social good is shaming then it's generally because the person or people doing the good have stepped out of the role you had assigned for them. It means that you depend on them being the big bad wolf of the story, on whom you can heap blame and opprobrium. It's what we do when we want them to return to the role we had for them. People will live up or down to our expectations. If we want Rangers to reform (and for their fans to become less interested in the integrity of Derry's walls etc) then the best thing to do here is to praise this unconditionally. People move towards praise, but if they don't get it then they'll move towards criticism and become what we criticise them for (a hug is better than a punch, but a punch is better than nothing).

So aye, if you care as much as you claim to about bigotry then you're duty bound to give the sticky buns a hearty slap on the back for this. If you're not doing that then you need to own your part in its continuation. 

E.T.A. 1000th post!!! Expecting a telegram from the Queen if she's not too busy right now.

Edited April 9, 2021 by velo army

[Sergeant Wilson]

9 hours ago, velo army said:

Not a position I. a Lanarkshire catholic (the papiest of papes imo), might be expected to be occupying, but here we are.

Rangers are taking a laudable stance in support of their player. It's actually a great bit of leadership which will make it easier for other clubs to emulate should their players be on the receiving end of abuse (and if it isn't happening already, it will). There will be those at the club who bridle at the association Rangers and its support have with sectarianism and anti-catholic bigotry, and who want to move wholesale away from that atavistic shite. Their hand will be strengthened by this. 

Attacking Rangers for having a history of sectarianism in response to this action is weird. Of course they had a policy of not signing catholics and of course that was wrong. I don't think you'll find too many people defending that record on here. But using that as a stick to beat them with while they're showing strong leadership and great support for a player daily abused because of his race isn't constructive. 

When your first response to an act of social good is shaming then it's generally because the person or people doing the good have stepped out of the role you had assigned for them. It means that you depend on them being the big bad wolf of the story, on whom you can heap blame and opprobrium. It's what we do when we want them to return to the role we had for them. People will live up or down to our expectations. If we want Rangers to reform (and for their fans to become less interested in the integrity of Derry's walls etc) then the best thing to do here is to praise this unconditionally. People move towards praise, but if they don't get it then they'll move towards criticism and become what we criticise them for (a hug is better than a punch, but a punch is better than nothing).

So aye, if you care as much as you claim to about bigotry then you're duty bound to give the sticky buns a hearty slap on the back for this. If you're not doing that then you need to own your part in its continuation. 

E.T.A. 1000th post!!! Expecting a telegram from the Queen if she's not too busy right now.

No-one depends on them. They shouldn't exist.

[SANTAN]

11 hours ago, velo army said:

Not a position I. a Lanarkshire catholic (the papiest of papes imo), might be expected to be occupying, but here we are.

Rangers are taking a laudable stance in support of their player. It's actually a great bit of leadership which will make it easier for other clubs to emulate should their players be on the receiving end of abuse (and if it isn't happening already, it will). There will be those at the club who bridle at the association Rangers and its support have with sectarianism and anti-catholic bigotry, and who want to move wholesale away from that atavistic shite. Their hand will be strengthened by this. 

Attacking Rangers for having a history of sectarianism in response to this action is weird. Of course they had a policy of not signing catholics and of course that was wrong. I don't think you'll find too many people defending that record on here. But using that as a stick to beat them with while they're showing strong leadership and great support for a player daily abused because of his race isn't constructive. 

When your first response to an act of social good is shaming then it's generally because the person or people doing the good have stepped out of the role you had assigned for them. It means that you depend on them being the big bad wolf of the story, on whom you can heap blame and opprobrium. It's what we do when we want them to return to the role we had for them. People will live up or down to our expectations. If we want Rangers to reform (and for their fans to become less interested in the integrity of Derry's walls etc) then the best thing to do here is to praise this unconditionally. People move towards praise, but if they don't get it then they'll move towards criticism and become what we criticise them for (a hug is better than a punch, but a punch is better than nothing).

So aye, if you care as much as you claim to about bigotry then you're duty bound to give the sticky buns a hearty slap on the back for this. If you're not doing that then you need to own your part in its continuation. 

E.T.A. 1000th post!!! Expecting a telegram from the Queen if she's not too busy right now.

Your post is mostly spot on but the emboldened part is nonsense. 

The reason people won't argue against it here is quite simply because they want it to be true and know very little of the history of the club. You can perhaps argue Rangers did not sign as many Catholics as you would expect per demographics but you can not argue that we have ever had policy which aims at this. It's just untrue and there are numerous Catholics that have played for the club before Mo Johnston.

[SANTAN]

Back on topic. 

 

[velo army]

17 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

Your post is mostly spot on but the emboldened part is nonsense. 

The reason people won't argue against it here is quite simply because they want it to be true and know very little of the history of the club. You can perhaps argue Rangers did not sign as many Catholics as you would expect per demographics but you can not argue that we have ever had policy which aims at this. It's just untrue and there are numerous Catholics that have played for the club before Mo Johnston.

Fair enough. I don't fancy getting into exactly what the policy was, whether it was a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of thing or whether it was an urban myth that the club never overtly challenged. We can agree that your club had an anti-catholic problem for decades and just leave it at that.