Really...now racism has to be meaningful. Racism is wrong no matter what. I do not care what group is being discriminated against, the ROOT of the problem is racism.
No it doesn’t have to be meaningful.
What racism actually is, is highly complex and requires the ability to comprehend more than one or two things at the same time.
“The problem is racism.”
Wow! Insightful oversimplification. Why not just say...
“The problem is bad people.”
Oh wait, you can’t, because the problem is more nuanced that simplistic rhetoric.
Everyone has lightness & darkness to who they are. However, unless you can acknowledge or bring light to the darkness of a problem, you can’t diagnose it.
Until you properly diagnose a problem you can’t properly minimize it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Boreal For This Useful Post:
Yes, I hear after the war people were pretty nasty towards the Nazis as well, terrible it is, people should be ashamed
This is a bit insensitive. Nazis invaded my mothers county when she was but a 14 your old teenager and forced her to work for them. No high school, no wages, no rights. This type of flippant trivialization is disrespectful to those that lost their lives and those that were repressed and had to sacrifice at the time.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Redlan For This Useful Post:
Not only that, Apartheid ended about three decades ago meaning there is a whole new generation who had nothing to do with it getting discriminated.
And the worst is that you think it's acceptable. You're the one who should be ashamed.
Its an utterly appropriate comparison, South Africa was a repugnant country that stole enslaved and murdered millions of Black Africans, it takes a bit longer than thirty years for that horrific act of barbarity to be washed clean
Were these people discriminated against for being white? No. And that’s an extremely big difference. “White people” have never faced systemic discrimination in our culture. “Black people” have. There are also other groups that have faced discrimination based on their religion, or their nationality, but being “white” in our culture has never been a source for meaningful discrimination. Ever.
We don't need to look to history for discrimination of whites. We only need to look at what is happening to white farmers in South Africa in the present. Some of whom are being murdered for their land. And just to be clear, I was against Apartheid, too.
Or are they just a minority group in South Africa and thus don't meet your definition of "whites" much like the Irish, Italians, Jews and Mormons who fled westward?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
This historical context should help you properly evaluate the ACLC’s opinion on the matter, as these are facts, not opinions, unlike your misinterpretation of the topic.
You seem to be confused. You're welcome to your confused opinion.
This is true. And FWIW I suspect that contractually, the Flames are on the hook. I don't think a court would say that a morals clause includes stuff that happened years before unless there were representations made about no bad past conduct made at the time of hiring (and I doubt there were). Morals clauses are tricky to begin with, but I've never seen one that applies retroactively like that.
That said, Peters has an interest in ending this as quickly and quietly as possible too, and may be trying to avoid a permanent ban by the NHL (which would affect affiliate minor league jobs as well). So he'd be well advised to accept a settlement that the NHL buys into.
We don't know what Peters contract looks like. It might have something about maintaining certain professional conducts that does not hurt the team publicly. Even though this incident happened a decade ago, there is a valid argument that his reputation, if he remained with the Flames, does hurt the Flames reputation publicly, and hence there is ground for termination with cause. Most likely there will be a settlement, and the Flames won't pay the full salary; especially with the League stepping in to negotiate. This is entirely my speculation.
This is a bit insensitive. Nazis invaded my mothers county when she was but a 14 your old teenager and forced her to work for them. No high school, no wages, no rights. This type of flippant trivialization is disrespectful to those that lost their lives and those that were repressed and had to sacrifice at the time.
Yes, that's what South Africa did to the black population, invaded, stole, forced to work, killed.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
It's hard to take Akim seriously tho with allegations. His history is riddled with personal issues but Peter's has admitted he was in the wrong in his choice of words . Top 5 pick prospect that has his demons if you do some background work. He missed echl time due to his demons. Controversy seems to follow him around.
Victim blaming?
Doesn’t really matter if Aliu was an angel or not. We’re talking about what Bill Peters did. What Bill Peters did was unacceptable.
So no, it’s not hard at all to take Aliu seriously when his story is corroborated by teammates. Embarrassing post by you.
i completely concur, i'm just talking about this specific idea that certain individuals cannot be the victims of racism simply because they belong to a certain race. power is power. all the systemic privilege and power structures in the world wont save you if you are in a dark alley with a bunch of people who hate you for the colour of your skin
Could someone please explain to me why it matters how or why or who Peters used the n word? it's all repugnant and racist and should result in your instant termination, walking into a room with or without a black team member and saying 'turn that 'n' music off' should get you fired, it makes no difference who put the music on or whether the word was specifically directed at anyone.
I can't answer why people are hung up on how the word was used, but I'm not so sure I agree that someone should immediately be fired from a current job for saying something racist at a former job irrespective of how much time has gone by.
Does this only apply to racism? If someone said something sexist 10 years ago, should they be fired from their current job? This seems like a very impractical approach.
I fully agree that firing him with cause from that job at the time should have been an option for the Blackhawks organization, but 10 years and multiple organizations later?
Last edited by Savvy27; 11-28-2019 at 10:50 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Savvy27 For This Useful Post:
Except that it would make the opposite of his point... that's why this narrative makes no sense (and therefore seems highly unlikely).
Yes, I think a number of people do think that.
So you have gained respect for Bill Peters as a result of this incident?
If so, and it was references to homosexuality that Peters (or "Bill") found offensive, can you please explain again why Bill would refer to it as n##### music? I'm lost.
I guess we have to disagree here. Referring to a thing as a thing, to me, appropriate. In this case, the thing was ‘######’ use in a song. I can’t imagine ever quoting a piece of art and changing the word because I’m uncomfortable with it.
Likely people do (again, I personally have had it said to me). But this is in no way what is at question here. I don’t believe whether ###### was actually being said in the songs is even at debate here
No, I was not there or do I know the facts for it to have any effect on my opinion of Peters. Allowing a word, in and of itself, to be forbidden regardless of context or the issue at hand is asinine.
He never called it ‘###### music’. The difference is, to me, quite clear. ‘###### ####’ when referring to music that’s full of ‘######’ is pretty clearly directed at the lyrical content. If he did refer to it as ‘###### music’, that’s something all together different.
Again, I think this distinction is much more than trivial. The nuance of the use in this case is incredibly important to consider.
Sure, be outraged that someone said the word. But ignore context? That’s whack.
__________________
No, no…I’m not sloppy, or lazy. This is a sign of the boredom.
We don't need to look to history for discrimination of whites. We only need to look at what is happening to white farmers in South Africa in the present. Some of whom are being murdered for their land. And just to be clear, I was against Apartheid, too.
Or are they just a minority group in South Africa and thus don't meet your definition of "whites" much like the Irish, Italians, Jews and Mormons who fled westward?
You seem to be confused. You're welcome to your confused opinion.
You might consider whether or not it says something about your posting history when you feel the need to explicitly confirm that "I was against apartheid".
[is joke, relax]
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Its an utterly appropriate comparison, South Africa was a repugnant country that stole enslaved and murdered millions of Black Africans, it takes a bit longer than thirty years for that horrific act of barbarity to be washed clean
My father is a white man from South Africa who moved here because he fell in love with a black woman from South Africa. Your comparison is essentially telling me and everyone else that it's okay for people to threaten to murder my father, just because other white folks were terrible people. Thanks for that.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Crown Royal For This Useful Post:
I think that if you see Peters resign (or a statement to the effect of "both the Calgary Flames and Bill Peters have decided to part ways) and Aliu suddenly becomes silent it's because they all went shopping at settlement city.
I doubt we see it blow up or remain status quo. Not only would that be a GIGANTIC distraction; it would likely cost more money financially, and the Flames would also suffer an organizational reputation cost.
My money is on the thing ending as quietly as possible.
We don't know what Peters contract looks like. It might have something about maintaining certain professional conducts that does not hurt the team publicly. Even though this incident happened a decade ago, there is a valid argument that his reputation, if he remained with the Flames, does hurt the Flames reputation publicly, and hence there is ground for termination with cause. Most likely there will be a settlement, and the Flames won't pay the full salary; especially with the League stepping in to negotiate. This is entirely my speculation.
I don't know exactly what it looks like. But I've seen plenty of executive contracts, including in this context. There's a good argument that his past actions hurt the Flames. But that's not really the contractual question. Morals clauses are read very restrictively to begin with. I've never seen one that would allow for a ten year old event to constitute the type of bad behavior which would void a contract like this. So IMO it's not impossible, just really really unlikely.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
