Champions League 2020/21 | Group H

Hapless_Hans wrote:

M99 wrote:

Simply put, referring to someone as "black guy" is not okay in a professional setting. Imagine doing that on your office. Or even on the streets or any public place. Efficiency is not an excuse for this. Ridiculously tone deaf from the official.

Yeah that's actually absolutely right. That is just not ok.

At first i thought so too but then I flipped. If there was one white guy among black guys and the ref asked who is that white guy there nobody would be offended.

Vibe wrote:

Clutch wrote:

Vibe wrote:Everyone is waiting for a chance to be offended, this is the world of today.

We need context. Was he the only black guy out there? If I was the only white guy and someone said the white guy I would not be offended.

Everything is labeled as racism today. We are all about PC and protecting rights and shit like that, but it's all play pretend. Fake and abused... In reality racism hasn't been worse since slavery.

You can't change anyones nature, human garbage will always exist. And making scandals around every single little thing doesn't improve things, it's just the opposite, as evidenced by the current state of the world.

you sound triggered my guy

I'm not your guy, dude

I'm not your dude, buddy

Myesyats wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

M99 wrote:

Simply put, referring to someone as "black guy" is not okay in a professional setting. Imagine doing that on your office. Or even on the streets or any public place. Efficiency is not an excuse for this. Ridiculously tone deaf from the official.

Yeah that's actually absolutely right. That is just not ok.

At first i thought so too but then I flipped. If there was one white guy among black guys and the ref asked who is that white guy there nobody would be offended.

Still doesn't make it right, especially in a professional setting

Myesyats wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

M99 wrote:

Simply put, referring to someone as "black guy" is not okay in a professional setting. Imagine doing that on your office. Or even on the streets or any public place. Efficiency is not an excuse for this. Ridiculously tone deaf from the official.

Yeah that's actually absolutely right. That is just not ok.

At first i thought so too but then I flipped. If there was one white guy among black guys and the ref asked who is that white guy there nobody would be offended.

That wouldn't be ok either.

But no, nobody would be offended, cuz I don't get disadvantaged through life constantly in basically every facet of my life for being white.

Myesyats wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

M99 wrote:

Simply put, referring to someone as "black guy" is not okay in a professional setting. Imagine doing that on your office. Or even on the streets or any public place. Efficiency is not an excuse for this. Ridiculously tone deaf from the official.

Yeah that's actually absolutely right. That is just not ok.

At first i thought so too but then I flipped. If there was one white guy among black guys and the ref asked who is that white guy there nobody would be offended.

Yeah but that's just not the same. This equivalency argument never works because the relation is not balanced. It's a valid logic operation only in a vacuum, not in the context of what we're actually talking about. (for the reason, among others, @CBarca just pointed out)
Surely not a heinous act of racism, and I can't imagine the official would or should get sanctioned for that, but it's good to check the routines of language and patterns of description for these kinds of microagressions.

CBarca wrote:

Myesyats wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:


Yeah that's actually absolutely right. That is just not ok.

At first i thought so too but then I flipped. If there was one white guy among black guys and the ref asked who is that white guy there nobody would be offended.

That wouldn't be ok either.

But no, nobody would be offended, cuz I don't get disadvantaged through life constantly in basically every facet of my life for being white.

Are you claiming, or assuming that all black people are constantly disadvantaged in life because of their skin color, and thus people around them should be vary of distinguishing them from others by referring to the color of their skin?

That train of thought reminds me of the pro-trans people or progressives these days, who get hysterically offended when someone steps over their arbitrary standards of offensive behavior. Not everyone assumes the worst possible scenario, and not everyone possesses the ability to assume and always minding what others could possibly be offended by.

The truth is our race simply does not face enough discrimination for us to play any victim. Yes there are areas where there is CLEAR racism and that is in most parts of Africa, I for one experienced serious racism and threats even but that is one continent and not historical. There isn't much distinction in the racism the white race compared to black people as the former is weighed in a different pattern and correlation compared to what the latter face daily.

Yes many play the race card for the sake of it as we know and double standards do exist but in the current climate when the example is to be set more than ever, referring to someone as the black guy just isn't wise for your image or what you educate others upon.

Thimmy wrote:

CBarca wrote:

Myesyats wrote:
At first i thought so too but then I flipped. If there was one white guy among black guys and the ref asked who is that white guy there nobody would be offended.

That wouldn't be ok either.

But no, nobody would be offended, cuz I don't get disadvantaged through life constantly in basically every facet of my life for being white.

Are you claiming, or assuming that all black people are constantly disadvantaged in life because of their skin color, and thus people around them should be vary of distinguishing them from others by referring to the color of their skin?

That train of thought reminds me of the pro-trans people or progressives these days, who get hysterically offended when someone steps over their arbitrary standards of offensive behavior.

I highly disagree with any form of any victim complex in any sphere at all as it is pathetic and just not worth paying attention to but sadly racism towards the exact race outweighs breaks the balance of the fulcrum hence why it is a very delicate debate required here and better to describe even where in the world.

CBarca wrote:

Myesyats wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:


Yeah that's actually absolutely right. That is just not ok.

At first i thought so too but then I flipped. If there was one white guy among black guys and the ref asked who is that white guy there nobody would be offended.

That wouldn't be ok either.

But no, nobody would be offended, cuz I don't get disadvantaged through life constantly in basically every facet of my life for being white.

but he did not get carded for being black lol

He has a great job at a european football club how is he disadvantaged?

just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right.

CBarca wrote:

Myesyats wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:


Yeah that's actually absolutely right. That is just not ok.

At first i thought so too but then I flipped. If there was one white guy among black guys and the ref asked who is that white guy there nobody would be offended.

That wouldn't be ok either.

But no, nobody would be offended, cuz I don't get disadvantaged through life constantly in basically every facet of my life for being white.

This isn't white American vs Black American though. The ref is from Romania, the assistant coach is from Cameroun, both of these countries are fairly monoethnic. Does the white/oppressor-black/oppressed dichotomy really apply here?

I agree, and 'where in the world' is definitely applicable to these debates, which is why I find it a bit silly that CB went through the trouble of specifying his impression of "black peoples' predicament in life" through an indirect suggestion.

You can't expect people to treat others based on assumptions of what their world view or life experience might be like, unless it's already been established. I'm not surprised that there are people who are more than willing to jump to the worst possible conclusion, these days. So, what's GL's verdict? Is the ref a racist? Is he not? If he's not, does he still deserve punishment for acting out of line? Are grey zones always an opportunity for controversy?

I personally don't think the ref is racist per say but by the definition of M99's translation it is considered derogatory in Romania so more accurately he is just ignorant and not used to being confronted for it like "The greatest african striker of all time Pierre Webb" did directly to him.

It's not like I know what I'm talking about but I just think the act doesnt justify this level of outrage.

So will the match be played today or tomorrow? Regardless, PSG and Leipzig are through

And kids, this is the exact reason why Romanians who live in the US don't say "negru" or "negri." They use a different term, which is probably even more derogatory

Black footballers have a history of experiencing monkey chants and bananas thrown at them in a football pitch. In the very competition there is "No To Racism" plastered all over as a response to racism that is prevalent in football. So yes in a football match, racial dichotomy does apply.

I'm not surprised at all by people being triggered by easily offended progressives, the sad state of the modern world and what not and brushing this off as an overblown incident. What the guy did was unprofessional and not okay. No need to bring "what if he was white" into this. As Hans said, equivalency argument does not work in these cases.

Is he a racist pig, no, I don't know anything else about him, not gonna assume. But you don't refer to someone in that way especially in a professional setting. And his response just showed how tone deaf he was.

Arquitecto wrote:I personally don't think the ref is racist per say but by the definition of M99's translation it is considered derogatory in Romania so more accurately he is just ignorant and not used to being confronted for it like "The greatest african striker of all time Pierre Webb" did directly to him.

The ref, and ideally, officials in general, need to undergo training or instructions on how to avoid these situations in the future. The increasing, societal emphasis on political correctness warrants it. Even if the player(s) involved aren't offended, social media now has the influence to blow these things out of proportion, regardless of whether or not there's any substance to the controversy. I think it should be mandatory for refs with backgrounds in the more homogenous regions of Europe, who aren't used to being around people outside of their own race.

M99 wrote:Black footballers have a history of experiencing monkey chants and bananas thrown at them in a football pitch. In the very competition there is "No To Racism" plastered all over as a response to racism that is prevalent in football. So yes in a football match, racial dichotomy does apply.

I'm not surprised at all by people being triggered by easily offended progressives, the sad state of the modern world and what not and brushing this off as an overblown incident. What the guy did was unprofessional and not okay. No need to bring "what if he was white" into this. As Hans said, equivalency argument does not work in these cases.

Is he a racist pig, no, I don't know anything else about him, not gonna assume. But you don't refer to someone in that way especially in a professional setting. And his response just showed how tone deaf he was.

The one time when it is acceptable to point someone's skin color is when you are identifying them, which is what the guy was doing. The first thing the 911 operator (or the police) asks you when you report a crime is the perp's age and the second one is their race. Relax, there's nothing tone deaf about it.

adun101 wrote:

M99 wrote:Black footballers have a history of experiencing monkey chants and bananas thrown at them in a football pitch. In the very competition there is "No To Racism" plastered all over as a response to racism that is prevalent in football. So yes in a football match, racial dichotomy does apply.

I'm not surprised at all by people being triggered by easily offended progressives, the sad state of the modern world and what not and brushing this off as an overblown incident. What the guy did was unprofessional and not okay. No need to bring "what if he was white" into this. As Hans said, equivalency argument does not work in these cases.

Is he a racist pig, no, I don't know anything else about him, not gonna assume. But you don't refer to someone in that way especially in a professional setting. And his response just showed how tone deaf he was.

The one time when it is acceptable to point someone's skin color is when you are identifying them, which is what the guy was doing. The first thing the 911 operator (or the police) asks you when you report a crime is the perp's age and the second one is their race. Relax, there's nothing tone deaf about it.

and then you end up with the wrong black guy on the electric chair, or with Kieran Gibbs sent off instead of Oxlade-Chamberlain..

Society in 100 years:

"How did the bank robber look like?"

"Well, he was black and ..."

"Please try again without being racist. So how did they look like?"

"So, he was ..."

"HE? How do you know they were a "he"? Did they reveal their feelings about their gender while doing the robbery? Try again without sexism."

"They were looking like a clump of cells."

"Thank you for your cooperation."

Fun fact: Obama was half white. He was as "mixed-race" as you can get.

Although it is common for mixed people to identify as Black in the census.

Every time I enter a thread like this, I'm reminded why the US, and the world as a whole, has trouble with racism.

As for "is this overblown"? The whole concept behind say no to racism no racism in football etc is that there is zero tolerance. This is the concept of zero tolerance in action.

They're back playing today. This didn't stop the entire footballing world. It was just a case of saying no.

basically this

You have to be racially discriminated against to understand racism imo... intent is the entire key to me. Someone who has no malicious intent can call me "Arab-looking" and, although clumsy, I don't get offended. More than likely, the one person is just describing a physical attribute so that the other person can pick me out of the crowd... same with someone saying "that Latino dude" to someone. It's not racist.

On the other hand, someone like Donald Trump can say "I've been a great friend to the Middle East" and I know he's a disingenuine racist prick despite the words.

From what I've gathered about this incident (and I may have missed something), the 4th referee's only intent was to help the main referee pick out the right player. It so happens that the player is black. Saying "the black player" in this context isn't racist at all to me.

Even ignoring the racial connotations, referring to some person, in this case, an assistant coach of a football team as 'the black one' is pretty insulting imo. I think context is important here.

I think no one can argue that the assistant ref's choice of words could've been better.