RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:I was having this discussion with someone senior at my rugby club the other day. He was talking about a player he played with years back who had a nickname that, as far as he was aware, was completely his choice and which everyone called him and there was never any issue about, but which was, in and of itself, a racial slur. I suspect he was a bit concerned about it being the kind of thing that could come back up in the current environment and sought my advice because he has seen my Facebook postings and I'm probably the most opinionated liberal he knows.

I told him that, the thing was, I could absolutely see how a decent person could do it - gods knows I've said shitty things in the past, especially in a team environment where everyone else was saying it and, if the guy in question appeared fine with it, then it would've seemed permissable. And it's entirely possible that the guy *was* fine with it and it wasn't a problem! However, sometimes a person with a marginalised identity may seem fine with something and laugh along and even join in, because it's easier than standing up to a whole changing room and the popular people in it and declare yourself to not only be different, but "one of those types" who get offended at everything and define themselves by their identity ("woke" in the days before the bigoted had that word as a dedicated insult to hurl). It's easier to just accept it as "not that bad" and "just banter" when it actually makes you feel pretty shit, but you're scared of the jokes and laughter if you try and introduce yourself to the new guy as, "Hi, I'm Jamal".

The thing we all have to remember, and the thing which I'm fairly sure Vaughan hasn't got, is that one can be racist without being irredeemably evil. We were taught in school that racism was universally awful, which it absolutely is, but it leads to the cognitive dissonance of, "Racists are all horrible people. I don't think I am a horrible person. Therefore I am not a racist. This person is saying what I said is racist. That would make me a horrible person and I don't *want* to think of myself as a horrible person. Therefore it wasn't racist and the problem is theirs for being offended." It's not a binary of good/evil :: racist/non-racist that you're one side of or the other. You can absolutely be a decent person who has said something racist.

I am racist - I try very hard not to be, but I am certain that I have blind spots and biases. Moreover, I *know* I was more racist in the past. Some of the things which I said 10 years ago... sheesh, I'm just glad I don't keep a twitter. The trick is to try to do better every time. You're only a horrible person if you are happy being a racist and don't want to improve. When someone from a marginalised group tells you that you were out of line, fight that internal voice that tells you, "Nah fuck that, I don't want this, so it's their problem." First and foremost, look at what they're saying and where they're coming from - there is maybe 5% of the time where they're wrong and you're right, so if you're coming out being right more often, then you're likely doing it wrong. Secondly, and most importantly, apologise. No-one from a marginalised group is bringing this up for the lulz or because they want to upset you, they're bringing it up because you hurt them and they're hopeful that speaking might do something this once. The correct answer is always, "I'm sorry I hurt you" (at minimum), rather than, "I still think I was right," even if you still do.

Puja

Puja wrote:2 down. Starting early, even for England.

Puja

Galfon wrote:Top seamers + bit of grass + eng batsmen =....
Too early for JR this.

Big D wrote:

Puja wrote:2 down. Starting early, even for England.

Puja

Was going to go to bed but might stay awake for an hour to see who opens the bowling for England.

Puja wrote:

Big D wrote:

Puja wrote:2 down. Starting early, even for England.

Puja

Was going to go to bed but might stay awake for an hour to see who opens the bowling for England.

I'm stealing that line.

Why on earth did we elect to bat? I get that we wanted to bowl last because we picked Leach, but he's not a good enough spinner to be worth giving up this fast bowler paradise and our batting lineup definitely isn't good enough to survive it. Far better to have bowled first and used our strength in the hope of getting at least some semblance of confidence into the team.

Puja

Big D wrote:

Puja wrote:

Big D wrote:
Was going to go to bed but might stay awake for an hour to see who opens the bowling for England.

I'm stealing that line.

Why on earth did we elect to bat? I get that we wanted to bowl last because we picked Leach, but he's not a good enough spinner to be worth giving up this fast bowler paradise and our batting lineup definitely isn't good enough to survive it. Far better to have bowled first and used our strength in the hope of getting at least some semblance of confidence into the team.

Puja

If your opener can't hit a leg stump half volley and number 3 can't leave a ball bouncing like that then I'm not sure it matters what you do. Root is the only one that was victim of a good ball.

Puja wrote:

Big D wrote:

Puja wrote:
I'm stealing that line.

Why on earth did we elect to bat? I get that we wanted to bowl last because we picked Leach, but he's not a good enough spinner to be worth giving up this fast bowler paradise and our batting lineup definitely isn't good enough to survive it. Far better to have bowled first and used our strength in the hope of getting at least some semblance of confidence into the team.

Puja

If your opener can't hit a leg stump half volley and number 3 can't leave a ball bouncing like that then I'm not sure it matters what you do. Root is the only one that was victim of a good ball.

I don't think either of us are disagreeing with each other - our batting is shunt, so why did we give Australia an early shot at them in the best conditions that they could hope for?

Puja

Big D wrote:Rain is England's only hope

Mellsblue wrote:I’d forgotten the ‘joy’ of waking up to an ashes batting collapse.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’d forgotten the ‘joy’ of waking up to an ashes batting collapse.

TBH, I stayed up till 41/4, so waking up to 147 all out feels like a resounding victory.

Puja

fivepointer wrote:We're massively under prepared. Bowlers who havent got enough overs under their belts and batsmen unfamiliar with the conditions. To say we're under cooked would be quite an under statement.
Nothing that has happened so far should be surprising.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:We're massively under prepared. Bowlers who havent got enough overs under their belts and batsmen unfamiliar with the conditions. To say we're under cooked would be quite an under statement.
Nothing that has happened so far should be surprising.

The three main seamers were excellent- I'd say the mistake with the attack was picking an undercooked Leach, esp with two aggressive left handers. Stokes seems to be crocked. TBH, our top 3 aren't test quality batsmen in any conditions, cooked or undercooked.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:We're massively under prepared. Bowlers who havent got enough overs under their belts and batsmen unfamiliar with the conditions. To say we're under cooked would be quite an under statement.
Nothing that has happened so far should be surprising.

The three main seamers were excellent- I'd say the mistake with the attack was picking an undercooked Leach, esp with two aggressive left handers. Stokes seems to be crocked. TBH, our top 3 aren't test quality batsmen in any conditions, cooked or undercooked.

or no Cook(ed).

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: The three main seamers were excellent- I'd say the mistake with the attack was picking an undercooked Leach, esp with two aggressive left handers. Stokes seems to be crocked. TBH, our top 3 aren't test quality batsmen in any conditions, cooked or undercooked.

or no Cook(ed).

I'm Boycotting opener puns