Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

by **navyblueshorts** Wed 28 Sep - 10:25

First topic message reminder :

Actually Davie, they didn't fit yours (apologies; 'idiocy' is a bit strong). Your earlier comments were all about how he'd actually done something terrible/illegal i.e. told them how to get around 3rd party ownership (he didn't) with the possible implication that he'd been knowingly involved in it (no evidence of this), took £400k for dodgy seminars (he didn't and he said he'd have to clear it with the FA) etc. You wanted him to be a crook from the off.
You also claimed Ben and I said he was 'innocent' - we said no such thing.

You never took S_R's approach re. his position being untenable because he was England manager, the one thing he probably falls foul of. His comments re. Hodgson/Nevile were unfortunate, but this was a private conversation and, actually, big deal. Seriously, the next poor schmuck who takes this on should treat the media as they deserve.

There may well be more to this - we'll see. Until then, the only thing he's 'guilty' of is putting himself in a stupid position cf. the FA's comments re. FIFA etc and forcing the FA to ask him to fall on his sword. S_R's right with this; the FA had little choice really.

by super_realist Thu 16 Feb - 20:02

Just shows how preposterously sensitive society and how dumb the viewing public is if they cannot differentiate "gorilla" from "guerilla" in the context of a description about a style of tennis.

Pete Sampras used to look like a Gorilla, would they have gone off on the fake outrage line if it was him, or are they just trying too hard from the people who construe Williams being black with a racial slang?

Either way, it's very poor of them to sack the guy over an innocent comment and use of a word which means nothing like what they want you to think like they wanted us to think it was.

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 8:54

yay for racists.

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 9:15

Nothing racist in it.

If you can't discern the context of "guerilla" or "gorilla" in a commentary, that's just a failure of your education, not the commentators problem. It would be like making a connection between the N word and "niggardly". Just because something sounds alike, doesn't mean it has the same meaning.

People really are looking for offence here

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 9:20

Would they say it about a white player? No. So race is involved. Whether you're offended by their offence is immaterial and frankly predictable.

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 9:24

Why wouldn't they? Race is NOT involved. People are simply misinterpreting the use of the word and that is the predictable thing. They have said it in the past about Sampras and Agassi.

Why do we have to stop using words simply because they sound like something that someone might get offended by it.

There is NOTHING wrong saying that anyone is employing guerrilla tactics, it is IRRELEVANT if the person is black, because the word guerilla has nothing to do with race and you'd have to be a Corbyn type tosspot looking for offence to even bring it up.

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 9:35

I'm not offended by it but she obviously is.

You seriously think it doesn't have a racist undertone? Naive, but to be expected I guess.

Are you autistic? Your lack of empathy would indicate that you may have a few (all) brain cells missing or defective.

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 9:42

I don't care if she's offended by it, she doesn't get to determine the definition of words and how they are used, but I haven't seen anything about her being "offended" anyway, ESPN just sacked the guy because of few poorly educated people made a ridiculous link between two words that sounds the same but have two completely different meanings. She's misconstrued the meaning of the word, and she should go back to school if she can't understand why it differs from the word Gorilla.

People didn't cry racism in the Guerrilla advert with Agassi and Sampras, it was deemed a fit description then, why not now?

Of course it doesn't have an undertone of racism, you simply need a broad vocabulary, which obviously far too many people don't have. If he'd called her a Gorilla, yes, that would be racist, guerilla tennis is not a racist term and only a crybaby would think so.

This is just an example of people looking for offence where there is none.

by pedro Fri 17 Feb - 10:03

The commentator sued ESPN, so let's see if they're niggards..

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 10:06

If you can't see why a black person may take offence at it being gorilla tennis then fair enough. As he said it as oppose to wrote it then even a simpleton should be able to see how it could be misconstrued, especially when describing a black tennis players style. The fact that in the 21st century, people are still having to put up with this underhanded and pervasive Poopie shows that, yes, you do have to be careful what you say.

by McLaren Fri 17 Feb - 10:14

Super

Is it possible that using a word with ambiguous meaning regarding race should be avoided when describing a black player? I think we can all see that "guerrilla" is a type of tennis but given that in the US especially race relations are still somewhat worrying is it too much to ask that people paid to speak are a little more careful with their words?

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 10:16

It seems it was a type of tennis from 1995 as far as I can tell. So hasn't been used for 22 years. Hardly a well recognised term.

And how can you play tennis like that anyway? Definition: referring to actions or activities performed in an impromptu way, often without authorization. Sounds more like super sneaking out without mummys permission than a tennis style.

by beninho Fri 17 Feb - 10:17

Is Guerilla Tennis a term regularly used in Tennis? Or just as the name of an advert from 1995. Which appears to have been based a play on Guerilla Marketing and therefore Gorilla Tennis.

If it is regularly used to describe all players then its a ridiculous over the top exaggeration, if it has only been used by Nike marketing men in the mid 90's then why did he use the term.

You have to be pretty thick or just plain ignorant to not see the issue in using a word that could be construed as racist. Guerilla / Gorilla both sound remarkably similar.

by pedro Fri 17 Feb - 10:20

MontysMerkin wrote:If you can't see why a black person may take offence at it being gorilla tennis then fair enough. As he said it as oppose to wrote it then even a simpleton should be able to see how it could be misconstrued, especially when describing a black tennis players style. The fact that in the 21st century, people are still having to put up with this underhanded and pervasive Poopie shows that, yes, you do have to be careful what you say.

Are you a racist monty? Or is it just the soft bigotry of low expectations?

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 10:31

I hope not, don't feel antagonism towards or treat anyone differently on the basis of their skin colour.
You?

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 12:25

beninho wrote:Is Guerilla Tennis a term regularly used in Tennis? Or just as the name of an advert from 1995. Which appears to have been based a play on Guerilla Marketing and therefore Gorilla Tennis.

If it is regularly used to describe all players then its a ridiculous over the top exaggeration, if it has only been used by Nike marketing men in the mid 90's then why did he use the term.

You have to be pretty thick or just plain ignorant to not see the issue in using a word that could be construed as racist. Guerilla / Gorilla both sound remarkably similar.

When people talk about Guerilla warfare in African civil wars where are all the Graudian readers up in arms about there?

I really don't see the issue if people are using the term Guerilla to describe the way someone plays tennis, who cares if it's been used or not before, the context is simply meant to mean "irregular tactics" and if people look for racist connotations in that, they're simply stupid or poorly educated. You'd have to be pretty bloody thick to think he was talking about anything other than tactics.

The issue is idiots deliberately misconstruing a perfectly innocent word with an offensive word.

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 12:27

MontysMerkin wrote:If you can't see why a black person may take offence at it being gorilla tennis then fair enough. As he said it as oppose to wrote it then even a simpleton should be able to see how it could be misconstrued, especially when describing a black tennis players style. The fact that in the 21st century, people are still having to put up with this underhanded and pervasive Poopie shows that, yes, you do have to be careful what you say.

No one has said it's "gorilla" tennis. It's not the point it could be misconstrued, it's that only an idiot would misconstrue it.

There's nothing underhand about the use of it, just stupidity that someone would find something racist in a non racist word.

by McLaren Fri 17 Feb - 13:11

Super

You seem to be very sure that you know what Doug Adler's intention were when he made the comment. Could you explain how you have come to be so sure about why he used the term?

And, I must be poorly educated because it is not clear to me that the use of that term would be so obviously innocent.

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 13:13

He did say it was gorilla tennis. 'You see Venus move in and put the gorilla effect on. Charging.'
To come out later and say he meant guerrilla is a bit disingenuous. He could have used another word - as pointed out it's not a common way to discuss tennis. But if you can't see it then fair enough.

by McLaren Fri 17 Feb - 13:17

Super

Here is the audio if you wish to hear it.

Is "charging in" part of guerrilla tennis tactics or someone describing the behaviour of an animal?

by beninho Fri 17 Feb - 13:18

Guerrilla Warfare is a pretty known phrase as is Guerrilla Marketing both widely used for years.

The phrase guerrilla Tennis does not seem to be a used phrase apart from the name of an advert 22 years ago.

So if a commentator says Guerrilla Tennis its basically a phrase which means f&ck all to anyone. And clearly sounds like Gorilla Tennis which could easily be construed as racist.

The whole thing has been massively blown out of proportion but the idiots are not the people that thought it sounded racist the idiots are the ones that deliberately (or not) cannot accept that there could be an issue.

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 13:21

MontysMerkin wrote:He did say it was gorilla tennis. 'You see Venus move in and put the gorilla effect on. Charging.'
To come out later and say he meant guerrilla is a bit disingenuous. He could have used another word - as pointed out it's not a common way to discuss tennis. But if you can't see it then fair enough.

It's irrelevant if it's common. Who cares?
I heard someone refer to a player once as being an ingénue, now that's not a common expression, but it doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Also, it isn't the over-riding characteristic of a gorilla to "charge".

How is it disingenuous to say he meant "guerilla"?, but even if he did mean "gorilla" So what, he wasn't saying she looked like a gorilla, and anyone who thought he was is just a plank.

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 13:22

I think you nailed it when you said you have to be pretty thick or just plain ignorant to not see the issue in using a word that could be construed as racist. I would add that it is ~~probably~~ definitely both.

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 13:23

McLaren wrote:Super

You seem to be very sure that you know what Doug Adler's intention were when he made the comment. Could you explain how you have come to be so sure about why he used the term?

And, I must be poorly educated because it is not clear to me that the use of that term would be so obviously innocent.

I don't claim to know anything, but it's clear that the word "guerilla" describes tactics and the word "gorilla" does not. I know you aren't especially articulate and your grasp of English is demonstrably poor, but even you should be able to work out that context.

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 13:24

super_realist wrote:

I don't claim to know anything

by beninho Fri 17 Feb - 13:31

super_realist wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:He did say it was gorilla tennis. 'You see Venus move in and put the gorilla effect on. Charging.'
To come out later and say he meant guerrilla is a bit disingenuous. He could have used another word - as pointed out it's not a common way to discuss tennis. But if you can't see it then fair enough.

It's irrelevant if it's common. Who cares?
I heard someone refer to a player once as being an ingénue, now that's not a common expression, but it doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Also, it isn't the over-riding characteristic of a gorilla to "charge".

How is it disingenuous to say he meant "guerilla"?, but even if he did mean "gorilla" So what, he wasn't saying she looked like a gorilla, and anyone who thought he was is just a plank.

Hahahahaha, you are so much trying to defend you have now made the most stupid comment.

Gorillas charge, its something they do, and something they are pretty known for. A quick Google search comes up with videos of them, a quick search for Guerrilla charge gets ebike charging.

Also he does not mention Guerrilla Tactics, he mentions charging after the word Gorilla/Guerrilla. He may not have meant it to be racist, but it can easily be construed as racist. Did he say the same about Konta or Boucher or anyone else, I am assuming unlikely.

by pedro Fri 17 Feb - 13:32

Speculation. It could be both.

But if her tactics resembled the behavior of an animal, it is not allowed to be that of a gorilla?

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 13:37

pedro wrote:Speculation. It could be both.

But if her tactics resembled the behavior of an animal, it is not allowed to be that of a gorilla?

Why not bull? Why would a professional commentator use a word that could be easily misconstrued? If he can't do that maybe he should take up a new career - which I think he is doing!

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 13:37

beninho wrote:
super_realist wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:He did say it was gorilla tennis. 'You see Venus move in and put the gorilla effect on. Charging.'
To come out later and say he meant guerrilla is a bit disingenuous. He could have used another word - as pointed out it's not a common way to discuss tennis. But if you can't see it then fair enough.

It's irrelevant if it's common. Who cares?
I heard someone refer to a player once as being an ingénue, now that's not a common expression, but it doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Also, it isn't the over-riding characteristic of a gorilla to "charge".

How is it disingenuous to say he meant "guerilla"?, but even if he did mean "gorilla" So what, he wasn't saying she looked like a gorilla, and anyone who thought he was is just a plank.

Hahahahaha, you are so much trying to defend you have now made the most stupid comment.

Gorillas charge, its something they do, and something they are pretty known for. A quick Google search comes up with videos of them, a quick search for Guerrilla charge gets ebike charging.

Also he does not mention Guerrilla Tactics, he mentions charging after the word Gorilla/Guerrilla. He may not have meant it to be racist, but it can easily be construed as racist. Did he say the same about Konta or Boucher or anyone else, I am assuming unlikely.

Virtually every animal will charge once threatened. A gorilla is no more known for it than a hippo, elephant, dog or snake.
Are you really suggesting that he has some sort of sub-conscious racism that he's reserved for black players? He's been in the job 8 years or something, had he meant to be racist, why wait 8 years?

Why can't people just give him the benefit of the doubt instead of jumping to hysterical conclusions?

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 13:40

MontysMerkin wrote:
pedro wrote:Speculation. It could be both.

But if her tactics resembled the behavior of an animal, it is not allowed to be that of a gorilla?
Why not bull? Why would a professional commentator use a word that could be easily misconstrued? If he can't do that maybe he should take up a new career - which I think he is doing!

Perhaps his mistake was to make the error in thinking that people could differentiate between two very different words and not behave like childish morons looking for the slightest offence?
These people are thinking on the hoof in response to live action, do you really think he's got a list of words in his head and a black (oops) mark next to the ones which thick people too stupid to know the usage of different words in context will misconstrue?

His only mistake is not realising that the public are idiots.

by beninho Fri 17 Feb - 13:43

I honestly dont think he was trying to be racist, I have not said that. I think it is very hard to be involved in most sports and be racist, without it being picked up on. I also think the whole thing is ridiculously over the top....but, and this is my point, you must and most people must be aware of how it could be construed as racist, even if its not meant to be.

It sounds like a commentator is saying a black person is charging like a gorilla, even if he did not mean it like that.

by pedro Fri 17 Feb - 13:45

MontysMerkin wrote:
pedro wrote:Speculation. It could be both.

But if her tactics resembled the behavior of an animal, it is not allowed to be that of a gorilla?
Why not bull? Why would a professional commentator use a word that could be easily misconstrued? If he can't do that maybe he should take up a new career - which I think he is doing!

Our wiki specialist Mac just stated: "Gorillas charge, it's something they do." So why use another animal when gorillas are known for charging (apparently). It's like saying happy holidays, in stead of Merry Christmas.

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 13:46

MontysMerkin wrote:
pedro wrote:Speculation. It could be both.

But if her tactics resembled the behavior of an animal, it is not allowed to be that of a gorilla?
Why not bull? Why would a professional commentator use a word that could be easily misconstrued? If he can't do that maybe he should take up a new career - which I think he is doing!

Why not Bull? Because he wasn't referring to a gorilla or any other animal charging.

by pedro Fri 17 Feb - 13:49

So most people seem to think it was a stupid comment of him, as it could be misinterpreted - but not necessarily deliberately racist.

But do you guys then think the punishment fits the crime? He got fired, no warning no nothing.

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 13:51

He could of said bull tactics charging. He chose gorilla for some reason. It is easy to see how it could be taken as a racist comment. Not hard to work out really.

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 13:53

pedro wrote:So most people seem to think it was a stupid comment of him, as it could be misinterpreted - but not necessarily deliberately racist.

But do you guys then think the punishment fits the crime? He got fired, no warning no nothing.

If I said something that ambiguous in a lecture I would probably go before some sort of disciplinary committee. If a person who has apparently been employed for 8 years as a commentator cannot see how it could be misconstrued I would just sack him for being a thick Kumquat.

by beninho Fri 17 Feb - 13:54

Nope he should not have been sacked, they should have issued a statement at the time clearing up the issue, and this would not be talked about. Its only been mentioned here because he is suing them, it was barely noted at the time.

Badly handled, unless he has come up with this excuse down the line and was making a racist statement. Then he deserves what he gets!

by pedro Fri 17 Feb - 13:57

MontysMerkin wrote:
pedro wrote:So most people seem to think it was a stupid comment of him, as it could be misinterpreted - but not necessarily deliberately racist.

But do you guys then think the punishment fits the crime? He got fired, no warning no nothing.
If I said something that ambiguous in a lecture I would probably go before some sort of disciplinary committee. If a person who has apparently been employed for 8 years as a commentator cannot see how it could be misconstrued I would just sack him for being a thick Kumquat.

So if you had been lecturing for 8 years before saying something ambiguous it would be fair to fire you too?

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 13:58

Not that he said it, but the fact he couldn't see how it could be misconstrued.

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 13:59

pedro wrote:
MontysMerkin wrote:
pedro wrote:So most people seem to think it was a stupid comment of him, as it could be misinterpreted - but not necessarily deliberately racist.

But do you guys then think the punishment fits the crime? He got fired, no warning no nothing.
If I said something that ambiguous in a lecture I would probably go before some sort of disciplinary committee. If a person who has apparently been employed for 8 years as a commentator cannot see how it could be misconstrued I would just sack him for being a thick Kumquat.
So if you had been lecturing for 8 years before saying something ambiguous it would be fair to fire you too?

I spose it depends on what it was, but people with a lot more years under their belt than me have got themselves in deep doo doo through inappropriate vocabulary.

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 14:04

I haven't seen anything quite as contrived as this one, and one in which it's blatantly obvious that people are looking to misconstrue it.

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 14:07

MontysMerkin wrote:He could of said bull tactics charging. He chose gorilla for some reason. It is easy to see how it could be taken as a racist comment. Not hard to work out really.

He's already said he was referring to "GUERILLA". Why can't you understand that? In that case, exchanging the word "guerilla" for "bull" would be a completely different context and be unrelated to his original metaphor. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Furthermore, I'm sure the tosspots who complain about this sort of thing would find the word "bull" in response to Williams as also open to misinterpretation from the Corbynites.

by pedro Fri 17 Feb - 14:09

super_realist wrote:

Furthermore, I'm sure the tosspots who complain about this sort of thing would find the word "bull" in response to Williams as also open to misinterpretation from the Corbynites.

Exactly, maybe her grandfather is hindu.

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 14:09

All right deary, calm down.
You cannot see what the problem is. That's fine. Most can. Says more about you than anyone else.
Yep black people hate being called bulls (although on certain websites it's taken as a compliment)

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 14:23

No, I can see the problem if people insist on being hypersensitive morons who fret about the possible misconstruing of a word and are terrified of potentially offending someone on the off chance they haven't got a proper grasp of English, but a normal person would see this for what it was. Perfectly normal descriptive language with no intention to offend.

by pedro Fri 17 Feb - 14:28

super_realist wrote:terrified of potentially offending someone on the off chance they haven't got a proper grasp of English

Aren't those things correlated...? Run

by MontysMerkin Fri 17 Feb - 14:29

So you can't see the problem then.

by beninho Fri 17 Feb - 14:32

Hypersensitive Morons which could be used as a descriptive term of someone that is hypersensitive about people getting offended about things that it winds them up so much and they are blinkered to rational thinking.

by McLaren Fri 17 Feb - 14:33

Super

I am starting to wonder if you know that it is totally reasonable to point out that Adler's remark could have been unintentionally racist but that like most of these debates you resent people having to be careful with their language. From your perspective it is not reasonable to ask people to be careful with what language they use and only the "really" racist stuff should be picked up on. You are essentially unwilling to compromise on the terms used by yourself and others to help promote equality, or just more inclusive environments. Does it annoy you that other people would like you to have some self control when it comes to the choice of words you use?

This actually demonstrates why political correctness in its proper usage is vital, until we can educate almost everyone about what constitutes abusive language to other groups we need the code of conduct PC provides to control what the less educated/intentionally abusive say.

by pedro Fri 17 Feb - 14:36

Wow. Fascism dressed as inclusion.

by super_realist Fri 17 Feb - 14:40

I can see how an idiot looking for racism where there is none could gerrymander it to make it look like he was being racist, but a rational person would never consider it to be meant in that context.

It's the people who think this is "racist" language that are the ones claiming to know what "proper" usage is. They are the ones who clearly haven't grasped the context in which it was said.

by Sponsored content