Commentators deliver a heartfelt message on racism after Quinton de Kock's withdrawal from WC match

One of my pet hates is when people don't understand how to appropriately use the term strawman, but chuck it in anyway as a mic drop moment when they've really nothing substantive left to say.

I think your recap is what’s typically called a straw man argument. In any event, the tide of popular opinion is turning in favor of QdK - here in SA and abroad. CSA Boss was interviewed on radio yesterday and was presented with my very points as I sent them to the presenter beforehand. He simply couldn’t answer them and it became an embarrassment for him… so if he can’t make the argument and he made the call, I can’t expect you to either.

What? So you just don’t like facts? I don’t think you understand the discussion.

Whataboutism, straw-man argument and gaslighting - all in the one comment… *golf clap*

Yes we just saw the Boks side play 4 tests here in Aus and not once do I recall a "Bended Knee" or any discussion around it.

So to recap, you haven't effectively argued against or addressed any of my original objections directly and are now continuing to argue things I never challenged. So effectively arguing with yourself. And I did have to explain your false equivalence. Thank heavens for my right to express my opinion indeed Brett. But as originally suspected, seems I've wasted both our times.

Jacko, I appreciate this is a popular argument for some, but it really is just a useless truism. The empty gesture has always been with us. So what? Gestures are an integral part in the formation of societies. Would you call for an end to opening a door for a lady in case a misogynist were to do it? Would you frown on the practice of offering your seat to the elderly or infirm simply because someone who is fundamentally selfish at heart might do it as a meaningless public exhibition. Similarly would you dismiss a person pushing into a queue as a temporary lapse? Or would you prefer a society that promotes acts of kindness, consideration or equality and values them? And do you not accept that promoting positive gestures over negative or neutral ones shapes societies into better ones over time, the globe over, even if the intent behind some of them is less than honest? Btw, it it's not obvious, nowhere am I suggesting de Kock or anyone else is a racist by not expressing such gestures. I'm fundamentally querying why anyone in his position wouldn't consistently do such a simple thing. And if they choose not to, why shy away from explaining why.

Maybe he is a man of principle who believes in personal freedoms and the right to choose. Maybe he doesn’t see any racism. I frankly don’t. Could someone point some out to me.

Why would you want to live in a place you don’t like.

Pfft. What a crock. Read some history. Tyranny, exploitation and slavery are equal opportunity. Slavery in the US may be the most recent example and because it was codified it is the easiest to identify but there has been slavery forever and it still exists on a grand scale today. Most of it isn’t against black people. Where’s your outrage? Why aren’t you outraged that a white kid in South Africa is being excluded from a team because of his skin colour. It’s the worst type of hypocrisy.

It is interesting taking a look around and discovering their rugby & soccer teams don't do it but the cricket team has to. I know nothing about the bosses of the other sports but could the poor administration of SA cricket be trying to divert attention by making a big fuss about taking the knee?

No not all different. At no stage was QdK ever contractually or morally expected to take a knee as for his employer's instructions. The football team doesn't do it and neither does our rugby team yet somehow our cricket administrators have made the instruction which they deem so necessary yet completely tone deaf. Im still yet to receive a convincing argument as to how cricket South Africa's instruction is not a violation of s15 or s23 for that matter. Nelson Mandela didn't go to jail for 27 years so that we have to make political gestures when we start are working day and our grandfathers certainly didn't leave their families to fight facists so that we bent a knee after clocking. In any event, thank heavens for your right to express your opinion Neil.

It is mostly the same people who were up in arms with the Adam Goodes situation. The very notion of being told to stand against racism, even a symbolic gesture like this sends them into a rage. Or there are the highly politicized right wing types who are against any thing they think is "woke". If I was his team mate I would be super peed off that he left the team in a world cup just because he doesnt want to kneel and hasn't articulated anywhere publicly why.

No Brett. You're over thinking it. And in the process, knowingly or otherwise, using the playbook of objections and distractions. It remains, fundamentally, a very simple gesture against racism. And yes, I apparently do need to explain why a high profile celebrity and role model, appearing in front of the worlds media, representing a country who's modern history contains some of the most inhuman examples of racism, sharing a field with representatives of a slavery hub, is very different from Kayleigh logging on for her afternoon contact centre shift.

Disagree Jacko re not posting anymore. It is an emotive topic, but I think it's a worthwhile exercise trying to find common ground through engagement. I don't like the extreme position of either "side". Like most things, there's a lot of nuance and unknown background to this topic.

Yeah. The Roar has posted plenty of articles concurrently on this. Perhaps they are trying to focus the discussion into a couple of articles?

Im assuming that yours is from a South African point of view where discrimination comes from a widely more nuanced perspective than the myopic BLM. I have heard a host of reasons why taking a knee is found to be galling from its apparent ignorance of abuses against other segments of society, the shameful neglect of Afghanistan's women team to apartheid practices int the host country- which I can testify to. Politicisation of workspaces is specifically prohibited and forcing someone to make a political stand is 100% relevant as it is prohibited by our Bill of Rights. Put simply, it is unconstitutional and the concept of 'false equivalence' you speak of is accordingly ridiculous.

Niel the gesture is useless. I can kneel and then be the biggest racist on the planet or I can not kneel and work hard against the issue rather than a "Gesture". If you knew DK you would know he has made the gesture many times and he has put a lot of effort into promoting cricket to underpriveledged. DK is no racist by his actions yet this is trying to turn his actions to that of one.

There's a lot to dislike in your reasoning Brett. It is indeed a simple gesture against racism. Claiming it has been politicised is a vacuous argument to discredit it. Name any popular movement or cause that hasn't been politicised. It's irrelevant. It remains at it's heart a simple gesture against racism. Similarly, arguing there to be no contractual obligation to display such a simple gesture is also a vacuous argument against the act. So what? Then turning the argument back onto those who question why this simple gesture is shunned, is an absolute doozey. Why assume doing so means that person is calling de Kock out as a racist in asking the question? The fact that de Kock has apparently declined to explain his reasoning is also missed by you, as you blame others for not listening to him. Your final concluding sentence is a classic false equivalence. If I have to explain that to you, I've wasted my time and yours. The rest of it was fine.

absolutely right, but I thought he handled himself with a lot of class. I could imagine other captains, including ours, getting all defensive/aggressive when asked about this issue. I seem to recall a bloke named Smith doing exactly that not so long ago at a media conference to do with ball tampering. The problem from our perspective is, we have no idea why de Kock did what he did. Until that's better understood, it's tough to know what action Bavuma and the Sth African Board can take that's reasonable. Imagine if they did nothing because de Kock gave them a perfectly acceptable reason for his actions but this was kept under wraps.?