The "delighted Ashley has gone, but uncomfortable with Saudi ownership" thread

[Chris_R]

On 24/09/2023 at 20:09, oldtype said:

If I could choose between winning the CL under the current regime and an alternate universe where we had normal, competent owners who tried the best they could but were limited by financial constraints, I’d take the latter ten times out of ten.

 

Unfortunately that’s not the choice we got. It was either fucking Mike Ashley; or getting to be run by competent, well-meaning people but also becoming a propaganda tool of a violent totalitarian regime. I’ve made temporary peace with the latter, but it sucks that those were the options.

 

You got a choice? I didn't. When the club ownership changed, nobody asked me.

[Gawalls]

2 hours ago, Chris_R said:

 

You got a choice? I didn't. When the club ownership changed, nobody asked me.

Did you check your spam?

[MrRaspberryJam]

4 hours ago, Superior Acuña said:

Saw a guy yesterday at the match with the green away top and MBS 1 on the back

It was @wormy

[wormy]

55 minutes ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

It was @wormy

 

Piss off jambo

[STM]

First Post back after ban. 

 

Would like to apologise to @aa5773for my posts on Sunday afternoon. It was unprovoked and intolerant of me. 

 

As for the accusations of being racist and/or Islamophobic, i certainly refute that, I have a dislike of all religions and their affect on society, however in most cases I manage to separate religion from religious people, of whom I have no general hatred towards. On this occasion I let myself down and made someone feel unwelcome, which isn't right.

 

As far as the person who wanted me to be banned for life for this forum.. I've been on here 19 years and this is the first time I've been in trouble, I'd like think I've contributed way more good than bad. What happened to hearing someone out, giving people second chances, or even asking why I was speaking out of character? No it must be an absolute punishment? how very religious.

 

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 

 

 

[wormy]

16 hours ago, STM said:

 I'd like think I've contributed way more good than bad

 

[STM]

10 minutes ago, wormy said:

 

Not sure what this gif means 

[Abacus]

17 hours ago, STM said:

First Post back after ban. 

 

Would like to apologise to @aa5773for my posts on Sunday afternoon. It was unprovoked and intolerant of me. 

 

As for the accusations of being racist and/or Islamophobic, i certainly refute that, I have a dislike of all religions and their affect on society, however in most cases I manage to separate religion from religious people, of whom I have no general hatred towards. On this occasion I let myself down and made someone feel unwelcome, which isn't right.

 

As far as the person who wanted me to be banned for life for this forum.. I've been on here 19 years and this is the first time I've been in trouble, I'd like think I've contributed way more good than bad. What happened to hearing someone out, giving people second chances, or even asking why I was speaking out of character? No it must be an absolute punishment? how very religious.

 

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 

 

 

This is an awkward thread to be in sometimes, a mix of religion, politics, our ownership, football issues etc, so can bring out high emotions.

 

What do they say? Never talk to your friends about religion, politics or money, to which Mark Twain should added "plus, don't mix it with football either, y'all".

 

Which is not to say that's a bad thing at all on here when discussed in the right way. Anyway, glad you're back.

[TBG]

 

 

[Kid Icarus]

I'm just looking for a closed answer so as to not stir things back up again, but since when has badmouthing religion been a no no on here?

[wormy]

12 minutes ago, STM said:

Not sure what this gif means 

 

I'll let you in to a little secret mate; neither do I. 

[Chris_R]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

I'm just looking for a closed answer so as to not stir things back up again, but since when has badmouthing religion been a no no on here?

It shouldn't be.

 

All religion is nonsense to me, and we should be comfortable saying that if we feel that way. 

 

However attacking specific religions is a bit different. As is mentioning specific nationalities as a whole group, ie Saudis as one people in a negative way.

 

That shouldn't stop people criticising the actions of specific Saudi people though. That should be ok. You're attacking the individual, not the nationality.

 

For me it's just about not discriminating unfairly. 

[TRon]

10 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

I'm just looking for a closed answer so as to not stir things back up again, but since when has badmouthing religion been a no no on here?

 

I was on the boards when all that was going on, and I think it was more the way it was put across. It was along the lines of Fuck your (insert country) and fuck your (insert deity).

 

As I commented at the time, I usually agree with a lot of what STM posts, but there was no need for that.

[TheBrownBottle]

16 hours ago, Abacus said:

This is an awkward thread to be in sometimes, a mix of religion, politics, our ownership, football issues etc, so can bring out high emotions.

 

What do they say? Never talk to your friends about religion, politics or money, to which Mark Twain should added "plus, don't mix it with football either, y'all".

 

Which is not to say that's a bad thing at all on here when discussed in the right way. Anyway, glad you're back.

The problem is of course that when govts buy football clubs - particularly ones which use what is effectively a state religion to oppress the population of that country - then sport and politics can’t be separated.

 

The KSA govt - including the man in ultimate charge of the PIF - are truly awful, one of the most oppressive dictatorships on earth.  People in KSA can be killed, tortured, imprisoned for writing what I just did there.  Anyone who wants to get offended on behalf of that govt needs a shake. 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by TheBrownBottle

[The Prophet]

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, The Prophet said:

Fucking hell

[madras]

2 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Well that's embarrassing.

[Tiresias]

[80]

Losing track of what is and isn't racist here. So we shouldn't express distaste for Saudi Arabians but we can express distaste at people expressing affection for them?

 

Aimed more at the STM situation rather than these revelers for what it's worth...

 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by 80

[Vinny Green Balls]

On 25/10/2023 at 07:09, TRon said:

 

I was on the boards when all that was going on, and I think it was more the way it was put across. It was along the lines of Fuck your (insert country) and fuck your (insert deity).

 

As I commented at the time, I usually agree with a lot of what STM posts, but there was no need for that.

agreed. But at the same time, a sincere apology is enough for me. I believe that STM's apology was a little bit more defiant than needed, as Ronson was reacting in the moment as well. If STM is sorry, which I believe he is, especially given that this was pretty much a one off in his time here, then Ronson should be afforded some benefit of the doubt for reacting the way he did in the moment. 

[STM]

1 minute ago, Vinny Green Balls said:

agreed. But at the same time, a sincere apology is enough for me. I believe that STM's apology was a little bit more defiant than needed, as Ronson was reacting in the moment as well. If STM is sorry, which I believe he is, especially given that this was pretty much a one off in his time here, then Ronson should be afforded some benefit of the doubt for reacting the way he did in the moment. 

 

I recognised wrong doing because I believe its the right thing to do.  I don't know Ronson at all, I hold no ill feeling or ill will toward him and hope he can see a genuine apology and move on. 

 

If we want a wider discussion about WHY I said what I said, I can certainly explain. It wouldn't excuse but it might shed light where I my thought process came from.

[Vinny Green Balls]

4 minutes ago, STM said:

 

I recognised wrong doing because I believe its the right thing to do.  I don't know Ronson at all, I hold no ill feeling or ill will toward him and hope he can see a genuine apology and move on. 

 

If we want a wider discussion about WHY I said what I said, I can certainly explain. It wouldn't excuse but it might shed light where I my thought process came from.

Don't think that's needed. You have a long history of being a top poster, We all say shit that doesn't fully represent what we mean sometimes.

[STM]

It went like this:

 

Saw a discussion on the subject of gambling.

 

Saw what I believed was a Saudi national jump on the subject.

 

My head told me that it was someone from Saudi about to tell us all about how Islam forbids gambling etc (which I was wrong to assume).

 

I allowed my assumption to taint my words and said what I said.

 

I detest religion. I detest the Saudi state but I detest intolerance and more over, a lack of discussion, which is where I made my mistake because I immediately became a hypocrite.

 

I was was also tinged with trying to be funny, i.e look how overtly rude I'm being. It didn't come off that way.

 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, STM said:

It went like this:

 

Saw a discussion on the subject of gambling.

 

Saw what I believed was a Saudi national jump on the subject.

 

My head told me that it was someone from Saudi about to tell us all about how Islam forbids gambling etc (which I was wrong to assume).

 

I allowed my assumption to taint my words and said what I said.

 

I detest religion. I detest the Saudi state but I detest intolerance and more over, a lack of discussion, which is where I made my mistake because I immediately became a hypocrite.

 

I was was also tinged with trying to be funny, i.e look how overtly rude I'm being. It didn't come off that way.

 

From memory, the poster started banging on about how gambling was the devil’s work etc.  It was put in crudely religious terms, and some people then seek offence at being called out on using religion to moralise at others.  I thought your response was to that. 

 

Honestly STM, I think it was one of those posts where the intent was obvious (to me), but the wording was indelicate.  I’m not having a go - every single one of us does this at some point, we make a point which afterwards we think could be worded better - if we were having a conversation in person, I doubt it would have spun off in the direction that it did.
 

The calls for a ban were utterly ridiculous.   

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, 80 said:

Losing track of what is and isn't racist here. So we shouldn't express distaste for Saudi Arabians but we can express distaste at people expressing affection for them?

 

Aimed more at the STM situation rather than these revelers for what it's worth...

 

 

 

‘We love you Saudi’ isn’t aimed at individuals, but at the govt of a nation state.  It isn’t the people of Saudi Arabia funding us - it’s the govt of KSA.  Criticism of the govt is not blanket criticism of an entire nation.  It is Saudi Arabians who are the primary victims of the oppressive Saudi state.