Jump to content

Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24


Recommended Posts

Yes, I choose to hate people who willingly stand by scummery. Your point isn't quite as clever as you think. 
So you think it's ok that you actually are hating people based purely on your own skewed perception of a group they belong to, not the actual people themselves or their individual actions towards you or others, while at the same time berating those people, who haven't done anything to confirm they have any prejudice at all, like you have, because you imagine they are doing exactly what you're actually doing and that's wrong?

I'm not trying to be clever, there's no point really, you're too far gone anyway. I just find your inability to see the hypocrisy of your stance mind blowing.

Personally I like to base my opinion of people as individuals on what they actually do, rather than decide that large groups of people are badduns just because they're members of a specific group. That's just me though, I don't hate anyone, life's too short for that shit. [emoji106]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gaz5 said:



Personally I like to base my opinion of people as individuals on what they actually do, rather than decide that large groups of people are badduns just because they're members of a specific group. That's just me though, I don't hate anyone, life's too short for that shit. emoji106.png

Your talk of groups is drawing false equivalences with racism. What rangers fans 'actually do' is be OK with the massive damage their club and fan base does to our country. That's different from a group whose defining feature is that they 'are' something. 

And I didn't say anything until two wee men started accusing me of supporting Kudela.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Your talk of groups is drawing false equivalences with racism. What rangers fans 'actually do' is be OK with the massive damage their club and fan base does to our country. That's different from a group whose defining feature is that they 'are' something. 
And I didn't say anything until two wee men started accusing me of supporting Kudela.


I haven't mentioned racism, or sectarianism, intentionally, because I refuse to play whataboutery with who's prejudice is worse.

Prejudice is prejudice, in whatever form it comes and I don't care for it in any form.

But I'm not talking about any event outside of the contents of this thread.

All I'm pointing out is that you have taken a position that your observed and proudly announced prejudice towards a distinct group of people, who likely only share one attribute in common (being Rangers fans) that makes them "different" to you is OK.

And at the same time you are proclaiming that everyone in the group is bad because you assign prejudice to all of them as a certainty based on nothing but your own, self acknowledged, prejudice around that group.

And furthermore you make specific, sweeping and unfounded in the context of this thread assertions about that whole group, as if they were one, based purely on that single attribute that in your mind makes them "different" to you, regardless of actual observed action of the handful of Rangers fans you've interacted with.

None of those Rangers fans on this thread have done anything to suggest they are prejudiced themselves. But your stance has been that they are, because of the group they belong to and not what they have our haven't done.

You can't have it both ways, was really my initial point.

I know plenty of Rangers (and Celtic and other clubs) fans who are absolute bangers and have proven to be so through their actions. People who are, unfortunately, perpetuating an archaic problem. Is this more prevalent in the Old Firm? Of course it is.

But I know far more who aren't, they're decent people without a prejudice in them who just happen to support a football team. Supporting that football team doesn't make them prejudiced in and of itself, nor does it make them enablers.

I've no idea if you supported Kudela or not, I'll take you at face value that you didn't. Most people have called it for what it was.

But you've defo gone really far down a different rabbit hole to prove it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

But your stance has been that they are, because of the group they belong to and not what they have our haven't done... 


Supporting that football team doesn't make them prejudiced in and of itself, nor does it make them enablers.
 

 

There are the two principle points we disagree on. For the first one you've ignored my comments on your lazy use of group and the importance of choice. 

The second point we just simply disagree. 

You've written your post as if you're unfailing right, and I've all but done the same. The truth is, however, we simply just disagree on the two arguable points. 

The point I'm making is that if we disagree that being a supporter makes you an enabler then clearly we are going to disagree on absolutely everything which flows from that, which is why G51 got bogged down in the sideshow of trying to prove he's not a loyalist paramilitary. 

My view is that if you're a rangers fan you look at the decades of toxic, divisive and ultimately damaging identity politics and think, yep, I'm OK with that. That's what I choose to identify with. 

For me, that's enough to show you're a p***k. Others disagree. 

Edited by FrankChickens1
Link to comment
Share on other sites






There are the two principle points we disagree on. For the first one you've ignored my comments on your lazy use of group and the importance of choice. 
The second point we just simply disagree. 
You've written your post as if you're unfailing right, and I've all but done the same. The truth is, however, we simply just disagree on the two arguable points. 


I actually pointed out in my last answer that I had drawn no equivalence with "group" and "racism" at all, because I've never been talking about nor mentioned racism in anything I've said. That was a false assumption that you made and thus a false equivalence drawn by yourself.

You've now choosen to ignore my answer to the thing you're accusing me of ignoring that you actually made up that I'd said in the first place.

I'm seeing a pattern emerging here. [emoji846]

But I'll humour you. Is someone's religion a choice, given the crux of your argument is around religious prejudice and choice? And given that religion is a choice (I'm an atheist for the avoidance of doubt), then people fall into religious "groups". And given that "group" is, obviously, one that people are in by choice it is your position that what? They can't be victims of prejudice because they are in a group that they chose? Or that by simply choosing to be a part of that group they are enabling anything bad that goes on within it, past, present or future and that if people want to hold that against them and berate them for it, even if nothing to do with them, that's ok? Or in other words, arguing for sectarianism?

Or does choice only matter if it's a football team you don't like personally?

If you're happy with your position though that's absolutely fine, I have no need nor interest in convincing you to change your mind.

I'm merely pointing out, having stumbled across this when reading through the threads, that of all the posters in this thread so far, many people, myself included, will consider that you are the only one showing any prejudice at all. Whichever banner you want to file that under.

You've confirmed it again by the second point you've listed, where your stance remains that all Rangers fans are bigots simply by being Rangers fans.

That, quite frankly, is tinfoil hat stuff.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On your humouring point, yes religion is a choice. Being born into religion is not. If it were as simple as that then that would be an argument in favour of permitting religious intolerance. It isn't that simple though, and we all know that people are victims of religious discrimination not because of their religious choice but because of religions they were born into, have names of, or in some cases, visually resemble, at least in the eyes of ignorants. None of that applies to rangers fans (although they are guilty of it themselves - see Mikey O'Halloran). It's not like I have an issue with someone cos their da's a gersman. 

My definition of bigot includes enablers and so I stand by my views on rangers fans. Not unlike the clichés espoused by rangers fans over previous pages that it's not enough to not be racist, you have to be anti racist. 

Yes my views are more divisive, and more contributory to division, than not holding them. Just like it would be less divise to let injustice prevail rather than cause a scene. I'm not so vain as to think I can effect any social change through spouting off on a forum, so the views are in that sense pointless and ineffective, save that all that's left is to hold willing rangers fans as conscious enablers of bigotry, and so bigots, which I do. 

45 pages later I'll stop clogging up the thread for gers to discuss their fitba. 

Edited by FrankChickens1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On your humouring point, yes religion is a choice. Being born into religion is not. If it were as simple as that then that would be an argument in favour of permitting religious intolerance. It isn't that simple though, and we all know that people are victims of religious discrimination not because of their religious choice but because of religions they were born into, have names of, or in some cases, visually resemble, at least in the eyes of ignorants. None of that applies to rangers fans. It's not like I have an issue with someone cos their da's a gersman. 
My definition of bigot includes enablers and so I stand by my views on rangers fans. Not unlike the clichés espoused by rangers fans over previous pages that it's not enough to not be racist, you have to be anti racist. 
Yes my views are more divisive, and more contributory to division, than not holding them. Just like it would be less divise to let injustice prevail rather than cause a scene. I'm not so vain as to think I can effect any social change through spouting off on a forum, so the views are in that sense pointless and ineffective, save that all that's left is to hold willing rangers fans as conscious enablers of bigotry, and so bigots, which I do. 
45 pages later I'll stop clogging up the thread for gers to discuss their fitba. 
Sorry, but that's just nonsense, you're scrambling for an argument now to fit your position.

No one is "born into religion". People are brought into religious groups after they are born by their parents. You are correct, they don't have a choice.

But, that applies in exactly the same way to Rangers, or Celtic fans who are brought into that group by their parents in exactly the same way they would be brought into religion? That is going to be a pretty high proportion of their support, especially in the West of Scotland? They have grown up with it through a parent.

But not all people join religion when they are children, nor do all old firm fans pick it up as children. It's a mixed group.

But everyone still gets a choice when they are old enough to be able to make that informed choice themselves.

That applies to religion as well as football team (as it must unless you have inconsistent positions). So why would anyone, in your own words, looking at the history of Christianity or Catholicism and thinking "yep that's for me" be afforded a pass from you for that history and future ill deeds when someone, again in your own words, looking at the history of Rangers and thinking "yep that's for me" inherit that past and future I'll deeds and become an instant p***k?

If it's truly about the past and present ill deeds, surely your position would be the same?

Both of those people belong to a specific group, both had a choice at some stage, potentially after both having been indoctrinated when they were too young to know better and both chose to stay in their "group". Arguably one chose a path with a far longer history of issues and societal problems, which is your measure, than the other, but you're fine with that one and not the other.

Further, why would you treat everyone in those groups, hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland, as if they were the exactly same for no other reason than they are in the group?

Could that be because of your own initial bias towards one of the group's?

So we've debunked group, choice and religion now. What else you got?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google...show me an example of an entire country being shown up to be absolute racist c***s.

The fact Czech ministers are getting involved in defending that p***k says everything.

I hope we absolutely ridicule them at the Euros. Both on the pitch and off it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FrankChickens1 said:

which is why G51 got bogged down in the sideshow of trying to prove he's not a loyalist paramilitary. 

 

yes this is definitely what I was doing, because there was so much doubt about it prior to that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disappointing from bbc news this morning. Made a big deal of lacazette taking the knee but just referenced that slavia ‘have a player accused of racially abusing an opponent’. 

No reference to the fact this opponent was a Scottish team and it’s actually a big story here and rangers and Scotland as a whole are trying to take a big stance as a result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FrankChickens1 said:

On your humouring point, yes religion is a choice. Being born into religion is not. If it were as simple as that then that would be an argument in favour of permitting religious intolerance. It isn't that simple though, and we all know that people are victims of religious discrimination not because of their religious choice but because of religions they were born into, have names of, or in some cases, visually resemble, at least in the eyes of ignorants. None of that applies to rangers fans (although they are guilty of it themselves - see Mikey O'Halloran). It's not like I have an issue with someone cos their da's a gersman. 

My definition of bigot includes enablers and so I stand by my views on rangers fans. Not unlike the clichés espoused by rangers fans over previous pages that it's not enough to not be racist, you have to be anti racist. 

Yes my views are more divisive, and more contributory to division, than not holding them. Just like it would be less divise to let injustice prevail rather than cause a scene. I'm not so vain as to think I can effect any social change through spouting off on a forum, so the views are in that sense pointless and ineffective, save that all that's left is to hold willing rangers fans as conscious enablers of bigotry, and so bigots, which I do. 

45 pages later I'll stop clogging up the thread for gers to discuss their fitba. 

^

Has spent the past day enabling racism by being dismissive of valid claims of racism due to the football club the victim plays for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AJF said:

Confirmation that Ryan Jack’s season is over and he’s also ruled out of the euros. Big blow for Rangers and Scotland.

From a Rangers perspective, it might be a blessing in disguise if the doctors have found the root cause of his injuries and he becomes more reliable. Which seems to be what Gerrard is saying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, G51 said:

From a Rangers perspective, it might be a blessing in disguise if the doctors have found the root cause of his injuries and he becomes more reliable. Which seems to be what Gerrard is saying

We can only hope. We really need him raring to go from the outset next season for the CL Qualifiers, especially now that Kamara will miss them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AJF said:

We can only hope. We really need him raring to go from the outset next season for the CL Qualifiers, especially now that Kamara will miss them.

Aye. We’ve missed a No.8 since he’s been gone. Arfield is either out of form or starting to decline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...