2 Oxford Players Test Positive

[mooro]

Pretty much sums up a major part of the very complex and delicate situation right there.

At no point in that post was it made as a reference to colour but it could be interpreted as such..... if people are so inclined.

...and therein lies the problem...

So much of what is behind many of the perceived issues of today, is this idea that not only do some people/institutions have very real and heart-felt reasons for believing, thinking or doing something, but that there is another hoard behind them that are 'inclined' to 'assume/adopt/take on' that same stance but for other reasons which are perhaps more selective, more tactical, more goal-driven, more driven by self-interest, more 'political'.

So while there may be no 'reference to colour' in a statement, there will be some for whom their own experience (of the individuals involved, or of identical situations in which they have suffered from actual prejudice) has shown that there may be, or is, an unspoken bias that exists in that particular circumstance.

For others however, there could be a variety of reasons as to why they are 'inclined' to adopt a similar stance - some will have a true belief that the curse remains everywhere and that nothing has changed for the better in 200 years; for others it suits their own ambitions to lead people into believing that that is still the case; for some, it is about selling papers or getting clicks/likes; for some, commenting on that statement in such a way allows them an opportunity/lead-in to air another idea or view on a different issue; for some, it can be a means of promoting themselves by being a 'supporting' the cause or a point-scoring exercise to make them feel good about themselves; for some, it can be a means by which to attack or derail the individual who made the statement and/or their views on another issue; and so many more angles that completely cloud the issue itself.

So keen to make their own capital out of each and every snippet of anything that emerges these individuals/groups have become (be they politicians, TV hosts, newspaper editors, political groups, protest movements, talking heads, influencers, celebrities, etc, etc, etc) it is now almost impossible to make headway through what is actually going on in the world and which renders many people afraid or 'dis-inclined' to actually say anything for risk of it being 'taken' by someone else and run with down another route altogether. Furthermore, the cycle then exponentializes itself as others then act/react as they feel 'inclined' to do so (for all of the same reasons) to the 'spun' reactions to the original statement until all we get is an endless swirl of noise that drowns any and every actual issue out there, coupled with the odd tidal wave/tsunami of 'opinion' or 'feeling' that swells up and swamps the news for a few days, which inevitably leads to a counter wave from some other quarter, which is then countered, etc, etc

Not that it is up to me of course, but if I could wish for one thing to come out of the current #BLM issue (and many many more before and since) is that some sort of focus can return to the actual issue at hand 'that matters', rather than so much of the peripheral noise 'that doesn't', and that we are able - and 'inclined' - to learn to differentiate between the two and treat them as they deserve


NB - this post is written without any comment on any of the posters on this forum/thread in any way - I am purely using the original statement regarding a preference for who the two 'cases' were, and the subsequent suggestion as to how that choice might be interpreted as purely a theoretical example as to how such things can evolve.

 

[androidyellow2]

So big picture, you can see from left to right;
Woodburn, Gorrin, Kelly, Brannagan, Jack Stevens (youth team, going by 44 on shorts), Moore, Browne, Jack Stevens GK in the background.

Second picture from left to right:
Woodburn, Eastwood, Atkinson, Hanson, view blocked, Dickie, Long, Brannagan. Possibly Taylor and Sykes in the distance

Third picture from left to right:
Moore, Hanson, Stevens again? ,Gorrin, Eastwood, view blocked, Spasov possibly?

Henry see on another picture.


So players not pictured today: Ruffels, Mousinho, Thorne, Forde, Napa, Hall, Mackie

Thats a hell of an 11vs11 isnt it? Cant remember the last time we could field two competitive teams and that's even without the others you mentioned not in the pictures.

 

[BotleyOx]

Thats a hell of an 11vs11 isnt it? Cant remember the last time we could field two competitive teams and that's even without the others you mentioned not in the pictures.

Well there's a friendly game right there

 

[ttg17]

...and therein lies the problem...

So much of what is behind many of the perceived issues of today, is this idea that not only do some people/institutions have very real and heart-felt reasons for believing, thinking or doing something, but that there is another hoard behind them that are 'inclined' to 'assume/adopt/take on' that same stance but for other reasons which are perhaps more selective, more tactical, more goal-driven, more driven by self-interest, more 'political'.

So while there may be no 'reference to colour' in a statement, there will be some for whom their own experience (of the individuals involved, or of identical situations in which they have suffered from actual prejudice) has shown that there may be, or is, an unspoken bias that exists in that particular circumstance.

For others however, there could be a variety of reasons as to why they are 'inclined' to adopt a similar stance - some will have a true belief that the curse remains everywhere and that nothing has changed for the better in 200 years; for others it suits their own ambitions to lead people into believing that that is still the case; for some, it is about selling papers or getting clicks/likes; for some, commenting on that statement in such a way allows them an opportunity/lead-in to air another idea or view on a different issue; for some, it can be a means of promoting themselves by being a 'supporting' the cause or a point-scoring exercise to make them feel good about themselves; for some, it can be a means by which to attack or derail the individual who made the statement and/or their views on another issue; and so many more angles that completely cloud the issue itself.

So keen to make their own capital out of each and every snippet of anything that emerges these individuals/groups have become (be they politicians, TV hosts, newspaper editors, political groups, protest movements, talking heads, influencers, celebrities, etc, etc, etc) it is now almost impossible to make headway through what is actually going on in the world and which renders many people afraid or 'dis-inclined' to actually say anything for risk of it being 'taken' by someone else and run with down another route altogether. Furthermore, the cycle then exponentializes itself as others then act/react as they feel 'inclined' to do so (for all of the same reasons) to the 'spun' reactions to the original statement until all we get is an endless swirl of noise that drowns any and every actual issue out there, coupled with the odd tidal wave/tsunami of 'opinion' or 'feeling' that swells up and swamps the news for a few days, which inevitably leads to a counter wave from some other quarter, which is then countered, etc, etc

Not that it is up to me of course, but if I could wish for one thing to come out of the current #BLM issue (and many many more before and since) is that some sort of focus can return to the actual issue at hand 'that matters', rather than so much of the peripheral noise 'that doesn't', and that we are able - and 'inclined' - to learn to differentiate between the two and treat them as they deserve


NB - this post is written without any comment on any of the posters on this forum/thread in any way - I am purely using the original statement regarding a preference for who the two 'cases' were, and the subsequent suggestion as to how that choice might be interpreted as purely a theoretical example as to how such things can evolve.

I don't agree I'm afraid. I know this thread probably isn't the 'correct' space on the forum to get into it, and I assume this post was written in good faith, but it comes across as an unfortunate mix of the whole 'working in an office with women is a bloody MINEFIELD these days! You can't even LOOK at them any more!' attitude and the 'there's bad actors on both sides, neither is in the right' mentality. It's been pretty clear from the outset what BLM's message is and what the purpose of the whole movement has been. There is a huge amount of literature and material online that explains and demonstrates the systemic racism experienced by black people to which they (and others) are rebelling, and the (reasonable, I think) changes that can be made on small (individual person) and large (typically legal or political reform) scales to address this. One of these 'small scale' changes that can be implemented is the moderation and self-policing of language (particularly by white people, such as myself) where small turns of phrases or assumptions can have totally unintentional consequences. The message has been that, while we may say these things with no intention whatsoever of being prejudiced, they can contribute to an already-hostile wider environment and entrench certain stereotypes or ideas of 'other'-ness. I think this has been a very useful endeavour, and it has helped me to recognise and to moderate some of my own behaviours. To simply dismiss some people who call out this behaviour or language in others as 'promoting themselves' or 'point-scoring' is to allow those who have no intention of reflecting upon their own behaviour to dismiss the entire movement, as they can convince themselves that nobody REALLY cares about these things - they're just doing it for some other reason. It is language like THIS that obscures the clarity of the debate - not the highlighting or policing itself, as you suggest. Furthermore, it is the kind of straw man, ad hominem tactic often used by opposers to these movements to deliberately deflect from the core issue.

"... renders many people afraid or 'dis-inclined' to actually say anything for risk of it being 'taken' by someone else and run with down another route altogether." What this small part of the movement is really about, as I understand it, IS making people think twice about what they say before they say it, in case it could be construed as racially prejudiced and contribute, as I say, inadvertently, to the wider problem. For many of us, we don't realise that what we're saying could have certain connotations, and it is helping to educate us and to build an understanding. To bring it back to the case at hand, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that the original poster is some secret Grand Wizard of the Headington arm of the KKK - but his comment was clumsily and insensitively expressed. "You would hope it was one of our already-illegible players, as none of them can play in the playoffs anyway" would get across the exact same point without singling out two of the only BAME players in the squad.

 

[WokinghamYellow]

Pretty obvious to any reasonably intelligent and balanced person that the post is referring to fringe players of the first team and nothing else.

 

[Scotchegg]

Pretty obvious to any reasonably intelligent and balanced person that the post is referring to fringe players of the first team and nothing else.

I'm not sure that it is "intelligent" to hope that any individual tested positive. And a "balanced" person may consider listing Atkinson and Hanson as fringe players.

No one is saying that the comments were racist, but they were clumsy - and that is the point @ttg17 was making that the language used, even if unintentional, is not good.

 

[WokinghamYellow]

I'm not sure that it is "intelligent" to hope that any individual tested positive. And a "balanced" person may consider listing Atkinson and Hanson as fringe players.

No one is saying that the comments were racist, but they were clumsy - and that is the point @ttg17 was making that the language used, even if unintentional, is not good.

I didn't comment on the issue of wishing players had covid.

Also Atkinson and Hanson could reasonably play a part in the playoffs but we know both Hall and Napa would not be involved in these games anyway.

 

[Scotchegg]

I didn't comment on the issue of wishing players had covid.

Also Atkinson and Hanson could reasonably play a part in the playoffs but we know both Hall and Napa would not be involved in these games anyway.

Atkinson has been loaned out and is therefore not eligible like Hall. Napa is back in full training so could well be involved, and would probably have a greater impact than someone like Hanson who is a long way down the pecking order.

 

[WokinghamYellow]

Napa is a long way away from the first team

 

[Scotchegg]

Napa is a long way away from the first team

That maybe so, but the facts are that Napa and Hanson are both fringe players, and Hall and Atkinson are unable to play. So to single out two players of colour over two white players could be seen as clumsy.

 

[Marked Ox]

Atkinson has been loaned out and is therefore not eligible like Hall. Napa is back in full training so could well be involved, and would probably have a greater impact than someone like Hanson who is a long way down the pecking order.

I think we recalled Atkinson who was on a short term loan so is eligible.

 

[Scotchegg]

I think we recalled Atkinson who was on a short term loan so is eligible.

I thought he was on a loan until the end of the season which would rule him out, but happy to be corrected.

 

[Salaghaf]

You’d hope, in a nice way, it was Hall and Napa as neither would feature in the play offs. I’m not Mackies biggest fan but we will need him in the squad, he could be invaluable off the bench in either a winning or losing position. Praying it’s not Eastwood, that would leave us extremely vulnerable going with a rookie keeper in, potentially, three huge games. Hard to say who else as we have so many quality players but the obvious ones, aside of Eastwood, are Dickie, Gorrin, Brannagan, Henry, Taylor and Browne.

Agreed that they are two of our weakest players, but if they have it now they likely will have recovered by the play offs, when it’s highly probable that other players will have contracted it. Whoever gets it now is irrelevant, it’s who catches it in about 2 weeks that matters.

I also have no issue with your post. It’s virtually 100% definite that all young fit footballers will make a full recovery, so their ethnicity is irrelevant in terms of the virus. Coincidentally two of our weakest players are black. If some people want to interpret your comment as something it is not then that’s their prerogative. Most good and decent centrist people are becoming sick and tired of being shamed by self-righteous commentators into feeling compelled to tread on eggshells with their language. So as not to “offend” minority groups (often holding extreme views & opinions) with their innocent comments.
Btw, I fully support the current condemnation of the US Police and their ongoing abhorrent behaviour.

The two players in question aren’t showing symptoms we are told, so it’s highly unlikely they would have been tested or diagnosed if they weren’t footballers at Oxford. Fortunately the positive test now allows them to self-isolate and not spread it to other vulnerable family members or members of the public.
I personally hope that two of our best players have it, so that they are back fit & ready by the play-offs.

 

[androidyellow2]

I thought he was on a loan until the end of the season which would rule him out, but happy to be corrected.

Yeah we recalled him when Mous got injured as Dickie I believe was also one yellow away from suspension ??

 

[brassmonkey]

That maybe so, but the facts are that Napa and Hanson are both fringe players, and Hall and Atkinson are unable to play. So to single out two players of colour over two white players could be seen as clumsy.

black and white are not colours.

 

[SteMerritt]

black and white are not colours.

Black isn't, it's an absence of colour, but white? Isn't that all colour wavelengths, so could be 'all colours'?

 

[Left Wing Cross]

I thought he was on a loan until the end of the season which would rule him out, but happy to be corrected.

If those are the loan conditions, why did we have to extend deals for Taylor, Browne,etc.?

I thought all "end-of-season" loans went to 30th June.

 

[SteMerritt]

If those are the loan conditions, why did we have to extend deals for Taylor, Browne,etc.?

I thought all "end-of-season" loans went to 30th June.

Season long loans can't play for their own clubs again in that season.

 

[Robie]

If those are the loan conditions, why did we have to extend deals for Taylor, Browne,etc.?

I thought all "end-of-season" loans went to 30th June.

Have you checked the date of our fixtures?

 

[Dilla]

Atkinson's loan was different as he went on loan to a non-league club. As per the rules you can recall a non-league loan after a specific time frame which was exercised when Dickie was one yellow away from suspension and Mous was injured. Atkinson can therefore play in the play-offs if required.

Rob Atkinson Recalled From Eastleigh

Oxford United's young defender Rob Atkinson has been recalled from his loan at Eastleigh FC

www.oufc.co.uk