N f l

[redebreck]

In the week when Tom Brady, a legendary QB, has announced his retirement at the age of 46?, a black NFL coach is sueing most of the NFL for what he perceives as racism.

[CCTV]

In the week when Tom Brady, a legendary QB, has announced his retirement at the age of 46?, a black NFL coach is sueing most of the NFL for what he perceives as racism.

Whats the racism allegation ?

Not enough black managers ?

Too many black players ?

Nfl owners supporting the Canadian Trucker Convoy ?

Too many owners having white skin ?

[ianlfc]

I seen a price list for areas in the stadium for the superbowl. Fucking hell, definitely a sport for the working class.

[CCTV]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/01/brian-flores-sues-nfl-dolphins-broncos-giants-racism-black-head-coaches

From the guardian on the matter:

"The NFL has long been criticised for a lack of diversity in its coaching ranks. There is currently only one Black head coach in the NFL – the Pittsburgh Steelers’ Mike Tomlin – despite more than two-thirds of its players being Black.
The lawsuit also highlights the fact that only 12% of offensive coordinators are Black, 34% of defensive coordinators and 19% of general managers"

By racial Marxist theory, the black players are mostly overrepresented in these high paying NfL gigs (player contracts).
13% share of the us population, a little more globally.

Getting 66% say of the player positions.
Under the Marxist race theory for every 5 black players - 4 need to be replaced with other races.

12% offensive coordinators is most appropriate under a racial Marxism lens against the nations demography.

In terms of head coaches/managers, 3 need to be replaced with black head coaches. Currently only 3.1% are black (1 guy)

However the guardian in their presentation, signal the highest powered and most overrepresented sector of high profile/paid nfl gigs and sets this as the base for blacks.

The line despite 66% of the players being black is actually the polar opposite case made, when looking at other areas of society.

In those circumstances it's, blacks make up 13% of the population, but less than 13% of whatever valued position.

Same with feminists, you rarely here demands for 50% of plumbers to be women as you do with politicians. Plumbers aren't deemed as powerful positions in academia, whereas politicians are deemed powerful positions.

It really shows how so much of social justice, is nothing more than power grabs in one direction for the cohort in question.
And less about the principles projected into these arguments.

Do 50% of the prison population need to be women ? No.
Do blacks being overrepresented need to be fixed ? Yes.

So you don't need to rectify male over- representation, but you need to fix black over-representation. Principles where it suits.

The prison system, under the marxist lens of disparity equals inequality, is far more misandrist against men than it is racist against blacks.

Back to the guardian piece

“In certain critical ways, the NFL is racially segregated and is managed much like a plantation,’’ the lawsuit says. “Its 32 owners – none of whom are Black – profit substantially from the labor of NFL players, 70% of whom are Black. The owners watch the games from atop NFL stadiums in their luxury boxes, while their majority-Black workforce put their bodies on the line every Sunday, taking vicious hits and suffering debilitating injuries to their bodies and their brains while the NFL and its owners reap billions of dollars.”

Maybe prominent and affluent black Americans could purchase some of these teams.
Then they could enjoy the privilege of owning a club/franchise and get all the love and cash that white owners get from their fans.

Black American wealth, were it a nation itself, I believe would be around the 13th largest economy in the world. So there should be enough wealth within the racial group to purchase a few teams.

This line that top athletes being paid well above the minimum wage are akin to plantation dwellers is not unique to this case.
It has also been projected by Kapernick.

One might think getting millions of dollars having freely entered a sport is not comparable to being forced to work on a plantation for tuppence.
But under a postmodernism theory that is simply their truth.

The problem for people in this area is that most people are average under the normally distributed qualities.
Yet the extremes of the distribution curves is where excellence is concerned and the opposite of excellence also occurs at the tails.

Lfc should either have a team representative of the nations demography. Not enough white British players.
Or it should have a global demography. Not enough indian/chinese etc

The reason lfc doesn't have more white players is down to the rules which permit the club to select the very best players it can sign from around the world.
And the reason it doesn't have half its team originating from Asia is due to the same reasons. They can sign the best available players and those are not Asians presently.

It's funny imo how team England and the pl have a blm signal taking the knee.

But no English players have called for an end to the homegrown rule.

Nor have they called for a racially representative team compared with the nations demographics.

Nor have they decided to take a stand against the pending wc where lots of people have died working in tough and dangerous conditions. These people typically are from Africa/black, or say Indian labourers. Non-whites.

[CCTV]

In trying to instill fairness into the system the us draft system rewards teams who fail most. They get the best picks.

This coach whilst successful failed to meet his employers goals of failing to get the best draft pick.
He can have little complaint of getting sacked for not delivering what the teams owner wanted.

In the pl, the division of prize money has also been presented as a way of making the league fairer.
But by overly rewarding failure, we've seen how this has led to the need for parachute payments for clubs.

We're the bottom tier pl teams getting a "fairer" share of the money. They'd get a lot less money than they do now and they'd not need parachute payments, we're the top tier teams in the championship getting the same money from their league as the bottom tier/relegated teams in the PL.

[redebreck]

Another "issue" that surprises me, in the NFL, is the disparity in the ethnic origins of the Quarter Backs. The QB is recognised as the hub of the team, the decision maker.
From what I can recall there are only perhaps two non-white QBs in the whole of the NFL. Is this down to (possible) racism, or simply talent?
There are, as has been pointed out, many anomalies in the sport in the USA.

[CCTV]

Another "issue" that surprises me, in the NFL, is the disparity in the ethnic origins of the Quarter Backs. The QB is recognised as the hub of the team, the decision maker.
From what I can recall there are only perhaps two non-white QBs in the whole of the NFL. Is this down to (possible) racism, or simply talent?
There are, as has been pointed out, many anomalies in the sport in the USA.

Why does it surprise you ?

Most of the players are black as, in this sport they produce the best players for various positions.
Blacks don't dominate football (soccer to the yanks) to the same extent as the skillsets and qualities demanded are different.

Whites produce the the best qb's.

Some people think this is racist to say, they are dumb imo, as its just another "jock" position. They get the most acclaim as goalscorers do in soccer.
In soccer I'd suggest the qb equivalent is largely Latino. Steveo might argue for the slick midfielder.

The QB is typically the guy who'll get sacked. Often to their surprise. It would seem odd that the racist white owners would set up a game where most of the guys are black and the guy who unexpected gets creamed is largely a white guy.

People these days are in a hysteria about inequalities and racism and all the other smears.

You should eat an apple and be surprised it tastes different than a spud. Or you shouldn't have any expectations between a red and green apple.

In sports natural abilities are not evenly distributed between peoples/races.
Ireland produces the best hurlers in the world because we only play hurling. So access is important. I think the East Asians (formally Orientals) would be quite good at hurling technically.

But in middle to long distance running there's the rift valley that disproportionately produces stars of the track. Global competition and yet the genetics coupled with the environment (high altitude) produces the best athletes per capita in this field of sport.

In the olympics the track is black and the pool white. Mo Farah holds numerous middle-long distance UK records and golden olympian. His country of origin is one you'd fancy to be decent at this sport. I'm guessing some black guy holds the 100m and 200m, maybe a white guy at 400 or 800m.
Same in the pool tall, big barrel chested white guy is the best. Phelps.

It doesn't preclude the possibility of another peoples/nations/races person from winning gold. Just that it would be unexpected.

Where the unexpected racial winner occurs, you'd expect them to look like the typical winners and have similar innate abilities.

So
100m - black looking like mbappe frame, big legs.
800m taller and slender - see wr holders
5000m+ gaunt, anorexic looking

Power sports big people

Pool - Phelps

Table tennis - Chinese & Korean

When "diversity is our strength" is politically correct and Marxism "inequality equals oppression" intersect, you have the bizarre scenario where diversity meaning people are naturally different and produce a diverse set of outcomes well that's problematic. It means natural diversity is oppression, but oppression must be seated within human minds and actions and not nature itself.

You need diversity to be a strength, where diversity produces a uniform set of outcomes - meaning no diversity. You also can't acknowledge the downside of diversity as it is politically incorrect whilst factually true.

Essentially you need diversity to mean only looking different, but no actual differences of substance.
If a 5 foot 2 slim woman wants to fight tyson fury or aj who are you to prejudice against the woman. She could ko both after all.

As we see from the natural world that is an unholy set of demands.
The world has produced different peoples, with different qualities and different cultures.

When you raise a child in modern Western culture you will be cautious about that child. You'll want to protect the child from the Savilles of this world.
As the child ages you will relax these concerns.
With boys and girls growing up you do differentiate between the two and for example will have greater concerns for younger women being victims of rape and domestic violence.
You would be protecting your daughter from those horrible experiences. You'd be protecting your boy from commiting those horrible offences.
Of course reality is a big problem for idealists.

26% of domestic abusers are women. I'd wager the number of prison inmates for domestic abuse doesn't reflect that reality. As these nasty women, when push comes to shove aren't able to hospitalise their partners in the same manner as abusive men. Looking at sex based bullying women are more mental torturers whereas men are physical tortures and physical damage is easier to document than mental.

When China had its commended (by the un) one child policy, girls were disproportionately aborted as men are stronger and better able to complete physical tasks. These were gender based discriminations. Much like the disappearance of down syndrome babies in some western cultures is a discrimination against them.
China's one child policy has had an almost opposite eugenics effect on procreation compared with wester policies.
In China only successful couples could have more than one child. This policy would in theory promote iq increases. Iq correlates with financial success.
Whereas in the west procreation policy has seen the rise of single mums, impoverished childhoods emotionally and sometimes/often financially. Whilst having children willy nilly with no stable father on the scene is not exactly supporting an increase in iq across the society through procreation
.
Sex has bee liberated in the west and abortion very much accepted as a moral good. It affords higher iq women the chance of a career and the indulgence of sex as pleasure more than a life cycle process.
Essentially the west has become so indulgent that it is no longer able to produce children to meet its societal needs and outsources reproduction to the worlds poorer regions.
You can even look at Britain's immigration numbers and abortion numbers and there's some symmetry.
You can look at taxation policy and welfare allowances and see how the state has penalised 2 parent working families with more than 2 kids and how the welfare state doesn't incentivise fathers to hang around. Single dads are economically better off abandoning their children. So it's just the remnants of toxic masculinity and what it means to be a man that leads single/separated dad's to hang around.

These deeper level and dirty discussions are troubling, so most just prefer to ignore reality and stick with an impossible idealism that cannot be achieved.

[redebreck]

CCTV, really enjoyed reading your last post on here. I'm still in the process of getting through it, tbh, but it's good to see that not everyone on this planet agrees with all the equality that we are being smothered with!
I've just read, on the BBC sport website, that the USA women's soccer team have negotiated equal pay with the men's team. Can't wait for that to happen with the England teams

[Nineteenx]

CCTV, really enjoyed reading your last post on here. I'm still in the process of getting through it, tbh, but it's good to see that not everyone on this planet agrees with all the equality that we are being smothered with!
I've just read, on the BBC sport website, that the USA women's soccer team have negotiated equal pay with the men's team. Can't wait for that to happen with the England teams

Wokeness and unequal inequality annoy me, in most sports, the success of men's sport and the infrastructures that has created have subsidised women being able to have professional teams in numerous sports, and without the success of the mens sport and the money it generates they would never have professional teams with an audience painstakingly created for them at all

Tennis is a bit different, Murray was perfectly correct about the equal pay claims in tennis, when women play 5 set games as the men have to, which restricts the earnings of the top male players through making them unable to compete and participate in as many competitions in the same tournament, then fair enough, asking for the same prize money for 3 set matches was an absolute piss take

[Nineteenx]

As a very experienced motorway driver, if I very honestly said who in my considerable experience who the most problematic drivers were for poor use of their mirrors and judgement of speed and distance when using them almost causing accidents, the woke crowd would accuse me of sexism and racism

They fell out with me over the Prince Andrew business, because I disagreed with them, now I have no love whatsoever for Prince Andrew or any of the Royal Family, but to me, with my experience of how predatory and persistent young girls from pretty much 14 upwards are in aggressively pursuing band and even crew members, I'm was never ever having that the woman accusing him was in any way trafficked or coerced against here will to travel to London to meet and have a date with a Prince even the woke fuckers surely don't believe that, I mean come the fuck on

For me, Andrew met her had consensual sex with her, perfectly legally in the UK, went to the US, met her again when the pair again had consensual sex, probably not realising the age of consent in the US is 18 and then made a series of daft excuses and lies up instead of coming clean about what happened

Then they're all trying to lump him in with Epstein's pederass activities, the old guilty by association, without any evidence of any such activity, whereas with Saville, who the establishment worked very hard to ensure never stood trial because of the plethora of establishment figures it would bring considerable embarrassment on and raise very awkward questions about, there were 1000.s of people who absolutely were involved, who knew, who had very serious fucking questions to answer they let of the hook

Not sure why they went after Andrew, I think maybe he is the scapegoat and misdirection figure for everyone to look at and vent at to save them looking at other establishment figures more important ot the establishment who were involved with EPstein and his pedderassment