Jump to content
aberdeen-music
TR!ΔNGL€ T€€TH

So, Phil Anselmo

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Doctor Acula said:

I suspect that if he is proven guilty, Sunderland will sack him.

Well he has pled guilty, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a can of worms, especially for fans of American sports. In the NFL and NBA it's pretty difficult to find a single team that doesn't have any player who has been involved in a scandal like this. It's less prolific over here in sports, which I think is partly due to the fact that soccerball has less of a hardcore machismo atmostphere, which typically means less toxic masculinity and associated horrendousness.

It's a really difficult subject, especially when it comes to domestic violence or rape accusations, as these crimes are notoriously incredibly difficult to prove and get convictions for, so even if a player is a "known" offender, there may be no legal precedent to sack them. And there's also the "innocent until PROVEN guilty" side of it. Cosby, for example, has never been PROVEN guilty... so should we cut him some slack? But by cutting him slack since he's not been legally proven guilty, we're spitting in the faces of the 50+ women who say they were violated by him and, by proxy, every victim of these kinds of assaults who stayed quiet because they knew they couldn't PROVE anything, or because they were scared of their attacker.

When did Johnson plead guilty? Like, is it a recent development or did he admit to his crimes months ago and is he still on the team?

xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Stroopy121 said:

That's a can of worms, especially for fans of American sports. In the NFL and NBA it's pretty difficult to find a single team that doesn't have any player who has been involved in a scandal like this. It's less prolific over here in sports, which I think is partly due to the fact that soccerball has less of a hardcore machismo atmostphere, which typically means less toxic masculinity and associated horrendousness.

It's a really difficult subject, especially when it comes to domestic violence or rape accusations, as these crimes are notoriously incredibly difficult to prove and get convictions for, so even if a player is a "known" offender, there may be no legal precedent to sack them. And there's also the "innocent until PROVEN guilty" side of it. Cosby, for example, has never been PROVEN guilty... so should we cut him some slack? But by cutting him slack since he's not been legally proven guilty, we're spitting in the faces of the 50+ women who say they were violated by him and, by proxy, every victim of these kinds of assaults who stayed quiet because they knew they couldn't PROVE anything, or because they were scared of their attacker.

When did Johnson plead guilty? Like, is it a recent development or did he admit to his crimes months ago and is he still on the team?

xx

He pleaded guilty today on two charges, one of grooming a child and one of sexual contact with a child, and he's pleaded not guilty to two other counts of sexual activity with a child. I don't remember hearing about him being arrested but apparently it was in March. Today is the first I've heard of it. He is still in the team at the moment but I imagine he'll have his contract torn up.

Edited by Lemonade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah here:

Quote

To recap, Johnson has pleaded guilty to two charges this morning.

The first involved meeting a child following sexual grooming between 30 December 2014 and 26 February 2015.

The indictment stated on the first count that Johnson had communicated with the 15-year-old girl on two previous occasions before meeting her while not reasonably believing she was 16 or over.

The second count Johnson pleaded guilty to was sexual activity with a child on 30 January 2015, which involved touching the youngster sexually while not reasonably believing she was over the age of 16.

He was forced to sign the sex offenders register
Adam Johnson could face 18 months behind bars after guilty pleas, according to Crown Prosecution Service guidelines
The 28-year-old father denied two further charges, for which a trial will start on Friday
A jury of six men and six women were sworn in
Tomorrow the judge will deal with some more legal arguments between the prosecution and defence.
The jury will return on Friday morning to hear the opening of the case.
 

We're getting a bit away from Phil Anselmo here, can this thread include all cuntish celebrity behaviour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lemonade said:

Ah here:

We're getting a bit away from Phil Anselmo here, can this thread include all cuntish celebrity behaviour?

Perhaps Adam Johnson will release an apology video where he doesn't apologise for the sex offences, but apologises for offending people.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Doctor Acula said:

Perhaps Adam Johnson will release an apology video where he doesn't apologise for the sex offences, but apologises for offending people.

Then Joleon Lescott posts a response video calling bullshit on the apology 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Hugh Abbot's actor from The Thick Of It? I'm pretty sure to this day he's still saying he had those pictures for research. I still laugh at all his jokes in TTOT. Probably cause it's usually a depressed reply to Malcolm Tucker, but still.

also I watched and really enjoyed Rosemary's Baby. Even after knowing what Polanski has gotten up to.

 

films and TV I think are easier to seperate art from artist than music. Music touches us all a little more personally I think. Plus up until recently TV was horribly sexist and racist (still is just not as much) so maybe we're used to watching the worst of people on our TVs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SeaOfEnergy said:

Does anybody else see the inconsistency/irony/hypocrisy though when compared to Beyonce and her 'black panther' routine that the media seems to have absolutely *loved* at the superbowl - they all had their fists raised, all 'black power' like....

I understand they are on the side of the oppressed in the the whole racism situation but shouldn't these displays of 'power' based solely on skin colour be discouraged anyway?

 

I think that you are grossly oversimplifying things and need to consider the history of African American culture from slavery to the present day when you consider shows of "black power". Remember that black power as displayed by our Beyonce is about empowerment and equal representation. Phil Anselmo is coming from a position of privilege (being a white man in America), so a proclamation of white power from him at best suggests a vote for the current status quo, which is hardly equal on the race front.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaOfEnergy said:

I remember reading that other members of Pantera had described Anselmo as having 'the mind of a 13 year old' so this just confirms it really.

Does anybody else see the inconsistency/irony/hypocrisy though when compared to Beyonce and her 'black panther' routine that the media seems to have absolutely *loved* at the superbowl - they all had their fists raised, all 'black power' like....

I understand they are on the side of the oppressed in the the whole racism situation but shouldn't these displays of 'power' based solely on skin colour be discouraged anyway?

Or was it some kind of reaction to what Anselmo did? Just seems quite an elaborate comeback basing her whole routine on it so i feel thats unlikely...

 

GROAN

 

xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot about what 'discussions' on here were like. my mistake.

I would just like to see a more inclusive 'human power' movement in the face of global oppressors who certainly don't distinguish by skin colour, rather than maintaining any kind of differentiation.

At some point humanity will have to get over these barriers we have erected.

America is a fucked place though where racism is still rife so i can see why my initial question is coming from a place of privilege and a lack of having to experience life there.

 

 

Edited by SeaOfEnergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the Black Panther tribute is such a poignant one is that they were founded in the '60s as a form of self defense from police brutality and general racial violence. Given the deaths of so many black people at the hands of cops, including children, and the officers all totally escaping justice, the Black Panther tribute highlighted that even though we SEEM to have moved on from old-time racism, it's still there. It's still killing people every day. You say racism is "SUPPOSEDLY rife"?! Look at Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, Mike Brown.. the list goes on and on and on. 

You say humanity has to get over the barriers we erected... but how do you propose that happens? That if black people stop talking about racism, that white people will stop being racist?! That if women stop calling out misogyny that men will stop being misogynists? 

And are you trying to imply that there's no racism in the UK..? That it's only a problem overseas...?

 

xx

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right of course, and in no way do I think that racism doesn't exist anymore, and I think its probably most evident( in terms of the UK) in London with the abuse of stop and search powers but nothing like on the scale of the US, where its systemic and frankly disgusting.

I didn't say that racism/sexism doesn't exist or any of the other things your trying to pin on me for some reason either. 

Actually I edited that 'supposedly' out before you even replied to say it is rife. I only included the 'supposedly' initially because I have no first hand experience of this so only have what I read in the media to go on but then realised someone will probably jump down my throat about it if I left it in. And here you are.

Really I just wanted to make a face value comparison between the 2 things as they do share unmistakeable similarities which to an alien or completely neutral observer with no previous knowledge of what has went on or what is going at the moment, could seem a bit strange. Young kids for example wouldn't understand the history of it or why its acceptable for black people to proclaim their power as a race but white people not.

I just think its maybe a little dangerous to be proclaiming any kind of 'specific race/gender/religion' power because your just reminding everyone of divisions we are supposed to be trying to erode.

I will accept in my initial question/musings that I was being overly simplistic and reductive, so I probably deserve the reductive reply.

Interestingly this has appeared on the guardians website so there is another side to this I.e some people (admittedly their probably racist crazies who prefer to disregard racial discrimination in their history) see it as celebration of/incitement of violence against cops etc

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/10/anti-beyonce-rally-planned-outside-nfl-headquarters-over-hate-speech

I have no horses in this race, just an idealistic hope that people can be treated equally regardless of skin colour, which is the place where my initial observation came from.

I hope you can understand that! These 'ism' subjects are an absolute minefield and it would really bother me if people thought I was somehow against the empowerment of minorities or the equality of people who are disenfranchised by any of humanities many flaws (i.e mysogeny etc).

 

 

 

Edited by SeaOfEnergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stroopy121 said:

The reason the Black Panther tribute is such a poignant one is that they were founded in the '60s as a form of self defense from police brutality and general racial violence. Given the deaths of so many black people at the hands of cops, including children, and the officers all totally escaping justice, the Black Panther tribute highlighted that even though we SEEM to have moved on from old-time racism, it's still there. It's still killing people every day. You say racism is "SUPPOSEDLY rife"?! Look at Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, Mike Brown.. the list goes on and on and on. 

You say humanity has to get over the barriers we erected... but how do you propose that happens? That if black people stop talking about racism, that white people will stop being racist?! That if women stop calling out misogyny that men will stop being misogynists? 

And are you trying to imply that there's no racism in the UK..? That it's only a problem overseas...?

 

xx

Fair bit of kidnap/rape/torture/misogyny/drug dealing/ bank robbery etc. associated with The Panthers isn't there?

And some good old fashioned Stalinist purging as well... 

Not looking for an argument or anything - just saying that there are better examples of empowerment and Black Power than the Panthers.

Edited by colb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect someone will find ways to poke holes in my last post regardless of what I actually mean so I'm going to abandon this discussion due to the controversial nature of the subject and because I don't want to be unfairly judged for making a face-value observation that admittedly didn't consider the overall context in enough depth.

 

Edited by SeaOfEnergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A movement sparked in reaction to a hugely corrupt police force framing an innocent black guy for the rape and murder of a white girl. The black power movement was initially against racist law enforcement, not white people in general. That's quite appropriate at this point in time.

you can support the cause and not the means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ca_gere said:

A movement sparked in reaction to a hugely corrupt police force framing an innocent black guy for the rape and murder of a white girl. The black power movement was initially against racist law enforcement, not white people in general. That's quite appropriate at this point in time.

you can support the cause and not the means.

You can - but the current Black Panther party is listed as a racist and anti-Semitic hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre (I just found this out, there's not a great deal of writing on the Black Panthers that's not incredibly slanted for/against). In that context I think that there would have been better ways to support the cause than what happened at the Superbowl.

Anyways - totally off the point and it doesn't change the fact the Anselmo's a total fud...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, SeaOfEnergy said:

I didn't say that racism/sexism doesn't exist or any of the other things your trying to pin on me for some reason either. 

 

I'm not trying to pin anything on you. I asked you two questions, because "face value" impressions of a hugely complicated and emotionally charged topic like race relations is completely useless, so I thought I'd try to open a dialogue. You said we need to " get over the barriers we erected" and I'm asking what you propose as a first step on that road? The reason I ask is because the only real way to address the issue is to let the groups of people that straight white men have historically silenced have their say. Even if we don't like what they say. ESPECIALLY if we don't like what they say.

47 minutes ago, SeaOfEnergy said:

Really I just wanted to make a face value comparison between the 2 things as they do share unmistakeable similarities which to an alien or completely neutral observer with no previous knowledge of what has went on or what is going at the moment, could seem a bit strange. Young kids for example wouldn't understand the history of it or why its acceptable for black people to proclaim their power as a race but white people not.

That's why we teach history and historical context for these issues. Young people tend to be much better educated than their elders on these subjects.

47 minutes ago, SeaOfEnergy said:

Really I just wanted to make a face value comparison between the 2 things as they do share unmistakeable similarities which to an alien or completely neutral observer with no previous knowledge of what has went on or what is going at the moment, could seem a bit strange. Young kids for example wouldn't understand the history of it or why its acceptable for black people to proclaim their power as a race but white people not.

I just think its maybe a little dangerous to be proclaiming any kind of 'specific race/gender/religion' power because your just reminding everyone of divisions we are supposed to be trying to erode.

As I said, face value examination of this subject is meaningless. And also... is this you saying that if we stop talking about racism, that racism goes away...? I understand the sentiment behind that statement is well-intentioned but as soon as you scratch the surface of it, you see that it's reductive and problematic.

47 minutes ago, SeaOfEnergy said:

I will accept in my initial question/musings that I was being overly simplistic and reductive, so I probably deserve the reductive reply.

Interestingly this has appeared on the guardians website so there is another side to this I.e some people (admittedly their probably racist crazies who prefer to disregard racial discrimination in their history) see it as celebration of/incitement of violence against cops etc

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/10/anti-beyonce-rally-planned-outside-nfl-headquarters-over-hate-speech

I have no horses in this race, just an idealistic hope that people can be treated equally regardless of skin colour, which is the place where my initial observation came from.

I hope you can understand that! These 'ism' subjects are an absolute minefield and it would really bother me if people thought I was somehow against the empowerment of minorities or the equality of people who are disenfranchised by any of humanities many flaws (i.e mysogeny etc).

Honestly, I totally understand the desire to remove race, gender, etc from these equations, but it just doesn't work that way. By trying to do so, you're actually dismissing the experiences of the people who live with this kind of discrimination every day. I'd love to see the colour of someone's skin stop being an issue, but it IS an issue and the only way to start healing these wounds is for white people to listen when people are saying that race/gender/sexual orientation is an issue. There are many lunatic, nazi, hardcore racists out there but "passive racism" is also a huge, huge problem where people are being racist, or contributing to a white supremacist society without knowing it. The problem isn't that people are talking about race, the problem is that until now, the discussions have all been shut down and anyone who isn't a white/male/cis/straight is silenced.

8 minutes ago, SeaOfEnergy said:

I expect someone will find ways to poke holes in my last post regardless of what I actually mean so I'm going to abandon this discussion due to the controversial nature of the subject and because I don't want to be unfairly judged for making a face-value observation that admittedly didn't consider the overall context in enough depth.

Yeah, there will always be holes poked in posts about these topics. That's important. It's how we learn and progress the dialogue. Even if our delicate white feelings get hurt. Hear what you've done/said wrong and learn.

xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the issue of rehabilitation. It's a tough question but if the likes of Ched Evans and dirty Adam Johnson don't feel remorse then they shouldn't be allowed near a club. It's Sunderland though they will probably make him captain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stroopy - I hear what your saying and I certainly don't think by ignoring it racism will just go away, I also think by the same token if we can't imagine a future where it ISNT an issue, then there wont be a future like that.

The real problem is in who holds the reins of power and how that is abused to systemically disadvantage minorities, and I have as little control over that as you or anybody else in the general population does. I can vote whatever and still end up with the Establishment!

Racism is abhorrent and I support any movement that seeks to empower disenfranchised peoples because we are all effectively the same and have the same requirements for living. I mean that's blatantly obvious.

I just dislike how generalist the race discussion is. The oppression undoubtedly starts at the top, and others follow that lead.

I'm not sure many people of any race had a whole lot of say in what their leaders did with their power over the course of history.

I mean democracy isn't even functioning properly now. If someone ascribed the actions of our Tory government to me because I'm someone from the UK I would have to tell them to fuck off.

 

 

 

 

Edited by SeaOfEnergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is relevant to our discussion and contains information i wasn't aware of so maybe others will find this interesting as well:

 'Black Power adherents believed in Black autonomy, with a variety of tendencies such as black nationalism, and black separatism. Such positions caused friction with leaders of the mainstream Civil Rights Movement, and thus the two movements have sometimes been viewed as inherently antagonistic. However, many groups and individuals - including Rosa Parks,[8] Robert F. Williams, Maya Angelou, Gloria Richardson, and Fay Bellamy Powell - participated in both civil rights and black power activism. A growing number of scholars conceive of the civil rights and black power movements as one interconnected Black Freedom Movement.[9][10][11]

Not all Black Power advocates were in favor of black separatism. While Stokely Carmichael and SNCC were in favor of separatism for a time in the late 1960s, organizations such as the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense were not. Though the Panthers considered themselves to be at war with the prevailing white supremacist power structure, they were not at war with all whites, but rather those (mostly white) individuals empowered by the injustices of the structure and responsible for its reproduction.

'Bobby Seale, Chairman and Co-Founder of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, was outspoken about this. His stand was that the oppression of black people was more of a result of economic exploitation than anything innately racist. In his book Seize the Time, he states that "In our view it is a class struggle between the massive proletarian working class and the small, minority ruling class. Working-class people of all colors must unite against the exploitative, oppressive ruling class. So let me emphasize again—we believe our fight is a class struggle and not a race struggle."[12]'

So some proponents of the panthers believed in equality and some believed in black nationalism or separatism.

The emphasised part is along the lines of what i have been trying to say - its a battle i believe we all need to be a part of, for everyones behalf. 

 

From what it states there it seems Black Power can (as i initially suspected) effectively mean the same, to some people at least, as White Power, a desire to see one particular race as the sole autonomous force in its environment,or a demand for separation between communities of different race, which i would say is racist purely because its based on the idea of race being some kind of distinguishing factor, which is what the equality movement is supposed to be against. 

 

It doesn't always mean this though due to the various ideological positions that existed within the movement, as demonstrated by the part i highlighted, so i can see how it is more of a grey area when compared to white power , which is blatantly abhorrent because its from a position of historical privilege. Which i guess answers my initial questions because in Beyonces case , i expect that it is the anti-corruption,anti-exploitation and class struggle aspects of the movement she was going for. 

 

I should of just looked this shit up first!

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "Black Power" is much more nuanced than the term "White Power". There's a whole underlying theme of oppression to the former, rather than one simply of racism like the latter.

It's exactly the reason the N word is considered way more offensive than the word "Cracker", and the reason why any argument of 'All Lives Matter' is entirely irrelevant.

It seems you have also come to that conclusion through a little bit of research which is cool to see.

Again, though... Anselmo... Fud!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...