A place where escape goats go to play
https://notplanetrugby.com/
Torque is in England :PFalseBayFC wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:26 pmGiven the scale of support for the National Front in France, I would say that France has a far greater number of white racists than South Africa does.
Home of Prince Philip, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson. I rest my case. Torq, you have very little room to speak it seems.laurent wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:27 pmTorque is in England :PFalseBayFC wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:26 pmGiven the scale of support for the National Front in France, I would say that France has a far greater number of white racists than South Africa does.
Highly unlikely. Argentina is one of the whitest countries you'll find.
This is why I find it amusing that people always seem to assume that going out into the world/meeting new types of people makes you less prejudiced rather than more. Does probably explain why so many right-thinking types have such patronizing attitudes towards minorities -- without it they'd be card-carrying Klansmen.
Given that less than 10% of SA's population is white, that would hardly be a surprise.FalseBayFC wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 4:26 pm Given the scale of support for the National Front in France, I would say that France has a far greater number of white racists than South Africa does.
In a sense they do already, certainly in Chile where I used to live but I believe the general notion is similar over large parts of South and Central America.Lemoentjie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:20 am Matera is hardly Aryan himself, does he not realise that north European racists would view him the same way that he views South American Indians? It would be very sad if in South America they have an Asian-style competition over whose skin is the whitest. Who gives a fok
It is that complicated though, isn't it?JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:08 am It wasn't that complicated. Before and after the game, both sides and the broadcaster were at pains to explain that it was personal choice and that both sides supported the cause, not kneeling did not mean that, and referenced the south africans directly.
The scumbag paper chose to ignore all that to fan the flames of a culture war because of course they did.
Well, anyone watching the broadcast would've known b). The players received death threats from SA, I believe, where again it was used as a political football having been deliberately stripped of context, so yes c) and d) are specifically comments about South Africa itself.Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:17 pmIt is that complicated though, isn't it?JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:08 am It wasn't that complicated. Before and after the game, both sides and the broadcaster were at pains to explain that it was personal choice and that both sides supported the cause, not kneeling did not mean that, and referenced the south africans directly.
The scumbag paper chose to ignore all that to fan the flames of a culture war because of course they did.
a) That was not the only paper to report it that way.
b) No-one bothered to look deeper: how many can honestly say they knew Lood had a brown baby or bothered to read Yarde's comments on the matter?
c) Apparently some of the players received death threats
d) The SA Sports Minister waded in calling for "action against the players" (maybe c and d should be the other way round in term of cause and effect)
The need to conform is overriding bona fide free choice.
The circulation size of said publications alone means anytime they make a pronouncement, the ripples of complication spread quickly and strongly. Which one is worse than the Mail BTW?JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:42 pm Well, anyone watching the broadcast would've known b). The players received death threats from SA, I believe, where again it was used as a political football having been deliberately stripped of context, so yes c) and d) are specifically comments about South Africa itself.
I'm sure we have worse papers than the Mail, that's a given. None of them actually give a flying fuck about anything except manufacturing outrage and stoking the flames, but that doesn't mean the situation is complicated, it means that bottom-feeding scum will profit no matter what you do.
Worse than the mail? The Express? The Sun, sometimes?Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:12 pmThe circulation size of said publications alone means anytime they make a pronouncement, the ripples of complication spread quickly and strongly. Which one is worse than the Mail BTW?JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:42 pm Well, anyone watching the broadcast would've known b). The players received death threats from SA, I believe, where again it was used as a political football having been deliberately stripped of context, so yes c) and d) are specifically comments about South Africa itself.
I'm sure we have worse papers than the Mail, that's a given. None of them actually give a flying fuck about anything except manufacturing outrage and stoking the flames, but that doesn't mean the situation is complicated, it means that bottom-feeding scum will profit no matter what you do.
With due respect to Quins/Sale and the size of BT's subscriber base, I would not think the nos who watched the game would be a rounding error on the above nos.
And an audience seeking to be enraged or offended.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:32 pmWorse than the mail? The Express? The Sun, sometimes?Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:12 pmThe circulation size of said publications alone means anytime they make a pronouncement, the ripples of complication spread quickly and strongly. Which one is worse than the Mail BTW?JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:42 pm Well, anyone watching the broadcast would've known b). The players received death threats from SA, I believe, where again it was used as a political football having been deliberately stripped of context, so yes c) and d) are specifically comments about South Africa itself.
I'm sure we have worse papers than the Mail, that's a given. None of them actually give a flying fuck about anything except manufacturing outrage and stoking the flames, but that doesn't mean the situation is complicated, it means that bottom-feeding scum will profit no matter what you do.
With due respect to Quins/Sale and the size of BT's subscriber base, I would not think the nos who watched the game would be a rounding error on the above nos.
Everything is "complicated" if the problem is rewritten as "it doesn't matter what you do, certain portions of the media will twist it in order to further their interests and stoke the flames of a culture war". Inaction is the same as action in that case.
Even if it was widely known about Lood de Jager, the Mail's omission would mean a lot of people who don't follow rugby would still be being misled.
Although probably not the audience that so frequently gets accused of this, given the Daily Mail's readership.Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 5:00 pmAnd an audience seeking to be enraged or offended.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:32 pmWorse than the mail? The Express? The Sun, sometimes?Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:12 pm
The circulation size of said publications alone means anytime they make a pronouncement, the ripples of complication spread quickly and strongly. Which one is worse than the Mail BTW?
With due respect to Quins/Sale and the size of BT's subscriber base, I would not think the nos who watched the game would be a rounding error on the above nos.
Everything is "complicated" if the problem is rewritten as "it doesn't matter what you do, certain portions of the media will twist it in order to further their interests and stoke the flames of a culture war". Inaction is the same as action in that case.
Even if it was widely known about Lood de Jager, the Mail's omission would mean a lot of people who don't follow rugby would still be being misled.
Matera, Guido Petti and Santiago Socino were suspended on Tuesday for posts made between 2011 and 2013.
But the Argentine Rugby Union (UAR) now says such measures were "unnecessary".
It said the players' apologies and good behaviour in the years since meant their suspensions could be lifted.
"The preventive measures are unnecessary so we have resolved to lift the suspension of the three players and reinstate the captaincy to Pablo Matera," the UAR said in a statement.
"The disciplinary process continues and the commission will arrive at a final resolution in the next few days."
Flanker Matera, lock Petti and hooker Socino had their social media accounts closed on Tuesday but screenshots of historical posts which disparaged black people and people from other South American nations circulated widely.
The UAR said the posts were "imprudent and immature".
Their discovery had followed criticism of the team for not doing enough to mark the death of Argentina football legend Diego Maradona before their defeat against New Zealand on Saturday.
The trio have not been named in the Pumas' squad this Saturday's Test against Australia to protect them after they received "a lot of hate" since the posts were discovered, said Argentina head coach Mario Ledesma.
"All I can say about these three fine players and great men is that they are great human beings," he said.
"They have been suffering a lot this week, their families have been suffering a lot this week, and it's really sad to see. Obviously they acknowledge what they did and they are really regretful and ashamed of what they did, and we all are."
Matera, 27, who plays his club rugby for Stade Francais, has won 69 caps and led his side to a famous victory over New Zealand on 14 November.
"I can say they are not the same people they were when they were 17, 18 years old," added Ledesma.
"They are great men, family men, Pablo has a kid now, he's a great leader and a great example."
Jerome_Kaino wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:29 pm I think this is the right approach from the AUR,
Those tweets were probably meant to be funny by young ignorant men.
I don't know much about the sense of humour in Argentina but I know that not everywhere it is as politically correct as in UK/USA, especially 10 years ago.
Still the things said were totally unacceptable and they deserve a punishment.
With the public backslash and them missing the last test, I think it's all ok after this apology.
No need to end someone's career over this though.
Hopefully we won't hear anything about this again and everyone can go on with their lives.
To this type of "niggers" he refers
Carfer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 3:03 amTo this type of "niggers" he refers
The tweet is from May 30, 2012, four days before Argentina's first game in the U20 tournament in South Africa, ergo, he was leaving Argentina, not coming back. The " negros " he refers to are immigrants from neighboring countries who surround the more affluent residential areas of Buenos Aires. This is not a racist comment, it is a xenophobic comment, in fact, the UAR uses that word in its statement.
https://uar.com.ar/2020/12/03/comunicado-oficial-4/
Automated translations via webUAR wrote:
Primer comunicado
La Unión Argentina de Rugby repudia enérgicamente los comentarios discriminatorios y xenófobos publicados por integrantes del plantel de Los Pumas en las redes sociales y reunida en carácter de urgencia, la Mesa Directiva resuelve:
En primer lugar, revocar la capitanía de Pablo Matera y solicitar al staff que proponga a la Mesa Directiva un nuevo capitán.
En segundo lugar, suspender a Pablo Matera, a Guido Petti y a Santiago Socino del seleccionado nacional hasta tanto se defina su situación disciplinaria.
En tercer lugar, iniciar un proceso disciplinario a los tres jugadores mencionados, a cargo de la Comisión de Disciplina de la Unión Argentina de Rugby.
Si bien los mensajes fueron expresados entre 2011 y 2013 y no representan la integridad como personas que los tres mostraron durante este tiempo en Los Pumas, desde la Unión Argentina de Rugby condenamos cualquier expresión de odio y consideramos inaceptable que quienes las expresen, representen a nuestro país.
30.11.2020
Segundo comunicado
Como es de público conocimiento, la Unión Argentina de Rugby intervino de urgencia y en plena competencia para tomar medidas relacionadas con la publicación en las redes de distintas expresiones de los jugadores Pablo Nicolás Matera, Guido Petti Pagadizabal y Santiago Gabriel Socino.
De acuerdo con los procedimientos de World Rugby, que contempla el tratamiento urgente ante eventuales circunstancias durante un torneo, la Comisión de Disciplina de la Unión Argentina de Rugby citó a declarar este miércoles a los jugadores Pablo Nicolás Matera, Guido Petti Pagadizabal y Santiago Gabriel Socino, tal como lo había solicitado el Comité Ejecutivo.
La rapidez en esta intervención, el repudio de estas manifestaciones expresadas hace ocho o más años, así como la medida preventiva dispuesta por el Comité Ejecutivo de la UAR, buscan hacer un análisis profundo de los hechos para una mejor y más justa resolución. La UAR repudió terminantemente este tipo de manifestaciones y a la vez entiende que las acusaciones difamatorias que se han vertido a partir de esto dañan a todo el rugby argentino sin excepción y no representan lo que nuestro deporte es.
Durante la declaración, los tres jugadores manifestaron su profundo arrepentimiento, reiteraron el pedido de disculpas, ratificaron que no es lo que piensan y que fue un acto imprudente propio de la inmadurez. Sin embargo, se hacen plenamente cargo y responsables, por lo que se pusieron a disposición de la Comisión para que se investiguen las circunstancias y buscar enmendar el daño causado.
A la hora de expedirse preliminarmente, la Comisión de Disciplina ha considerado y valorado la actitud de los tres jugadores durante este proceso, y entiende que los mismos no han repetido acciones similares durante estos más de ocho años, y que han demostrado durante este tiempo ser personas de valores firmes e íntegros y dignos de integrar nuestro seleccionado.
El proceso disciplinario continúa y la Comisión arribará a una resolución final en los próximos días de acuerdo con los tiempos del procedimiento, en esta primera instancia considera que el sostenimiento de las medidas preventivas resultan innecesarias, por lo cual resuelve levantar la suspensión de los tres jugadores y restituir la capitanía de Pablo Matera.
La Unión Argentina de Rugby y el plantel tienen roles y responsabilidades distintas pero un mismo objetivo: hacer que el rugby siga creciendo como deporte. El camino de una reflexión profunda sobre ciertas prácticas asociadas a nuestro deporte, iniciado a principios de año con el programa Rugby 2030, no tenemos dudas de que demandará tiempo. Y requiere, tanto por parte de la dirigencia como del plantel, dar señales contundentes en el momento justo.
03.12.2020
Funny how the Geo Cronje thing still has legs all these years later.Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 3:06 pm[/Geo Cronje]handyman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:35 pmNo. No, it would not.Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 2:32 pm
Wouldn't his (former) views be welcomed in the Boks?
[/James Small]
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/keohan ... H75L3Q5D4/Blake wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:59 amFunny how the Geo Cronje thing still has legs all these years later.
Just goes to prove that once a lie gets repeated enough it sticks regardless of what the truth is.
