bhops keeps taking L after L after L after L and has come to know and love the taste of defeat. It's familiar and comforting; to win would be scary and unfamiliar. He'll even defend your right to defeat him. "Oh, you're a millionaire celebrity who's against a government clampdown on illegal immigration? I defend your right to say it. After all, I'm a classical liberal. I mean, I'm also a landlord so I know as well as anyone that more immigration drives up rent and housing prices because it creates more competition, so I can appreciate where you're coming from! We're not so different after all. Mask wearing in public though to avoid spreading germs, now that's where I draw the line. Being demographically displaced, paying an arm and a leg for medical care in overcrowded understaffed hospitals, puberty blockers being given to children and so on and so forth -- all that's annoying and all, but over my dead body will I wear a piece of material over my mouth and nose."
bhops keeps taking L after L after L after L and has come to know and love the taste of defeat. It's familiar and comforting; to win would be scary and unfamiliar. He'll even defend your right to defeat him. "Oh, you're a millionaire celebrity who's against a government clampdown on illegal immigration? I defend your right to say it. After all, I'm a classical liberal. I mean, I'm also a landlord so I know as well as anyone that more immigration drives up rent and housing prices because it creates more competition, so I can appreciate where you're coming from! We're not so different after all. Mask wearing in public though to avoid spreading germs, now that's where I draw the line. Being demographically displaced, paying an arm and a leg for medical care in overcrowded understaffed hospitals, puberty blockers being given to children and so on and so forth -- all that's annoying and all, but over my dead body will I wear a piece of material over my mouth and nose."
I have been anti, mass immigration for some time. You know that. Letting a tosser spout off on Twitter isn't really a major concern of mine. Let him go for it, fill your boots Gaz!
How you can link the rest of your rant to me being OK with someone yelling out Nazi on Twitter baffles me, yet here we are.
The days of "defend to my death the right for you to say it" are over for me, if I ever truly believed it. Lineker and co. wouldn't afford you the same respect that you're showing to them so I don't see the sense in speaking up for their freedom of speech since it's so one-sided. You'll champion their right to speak in favour of unlimited immigration and they'd try to get you on a violation of hate speech laws for speaking out against it, if they could -- for "stoking hatred". There's no doubt in my mind that an emboldened Lineker will be back on MotD by next week (unless he personally decides not to return, which seems unlikely) but I'd like to see the suspension continue indefinitely even though he would just end up leaving the BBC to go to ITV or Sky for substantially more money than he's making now. The main reason I'd like to see it continue is just because he thought he was untouchable; his feelings of moral superiority will remain and he's going to have a newfound sense of martyrdom, but the fact that he discovered he's not free to say whatever he wants despite the fact that he supposedly has the "right" opinions will spook some people. Good!
Malarkey said Lineker's tweet was "fine" but it was fairly stupid, as all "this reminds me of 1930s Germany" comments tend to be. I despise the Tories obviously but I'd like to hear Lineker's ideas for what to do about illegal immigration, if he has any. Maybe he'd come out with the usual line about "processing people more quickly" and "opening up more legal routes for people to enter" because yes, that's exactly what a country which already has net migration figures of half a million people per year needs: yet more people -- just do it "legally". The people with these opinions are the kind of people who would advise you against having children for environmental reasons, while at the same time they usher another million people into the country. I know I'm conflating things here and lumping everything together because it's a short post and I don't have time to discuss each point individually and properly, but the main point is that they can all go and f*** themselves and I won't defend their right to say anything. They'll never budge an inch and you'll keep backing up until your back is up against the wall and you have nowhere left to go. In fact, not only do I not defend their right to say what they want, I think they should all keep their f***ing mouths shut, how about that!
And I'll say this: I jumped off the Trump Train in early 2018 when I finally accepted that he was unshakably in thrall to Israel and you stayed on board until the train went off the tracks and burst into flames; but you'd think something you would have learned from 'Cheeto Hitler' during all that time you spent observing him is that you have to fight fire with fire. If Trump had your "defend his right to say it" attitude he would have conceded defeat and dropped out of the presidential race by late 2015.
Read this for an excellent analysis by Robin Wilson on causes and implications of the Lineker vs. BBC incident:
"...Lineker unwittingly turned the screw, unleashing the storm, by standing up for universal norms—the rule of law and human rights—which the far-right faction currently in control of the Conservative Party, as with the Republicans in the US, now ritually trashes as the frothings of ‘lefty lawyers’, to which they have recruited (however improbably) the mildly centrist Labour leader, Keir Starmer. Lineker raised so much ire because he compared this ruling faction’s populist rhetoric to that deployed in Nazi Germany. The legislation the government is seeking to push through could require it to join Russia (expelled last year) and Belarus outwith the Council of Europe—set up in 1949 to say ‘never again’ to Nazism and all that—whose 46 members are all required to be signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, the organisation’s core instrument..."
Read this for an excellent analysis by Robin Wilson on causes and implications of the Lineker vs. BBC incident:
"...Lineker unwittingly turned the screw, unleashing the storm, by standing up for universal norms—the rule of law and human rights—which the far-right faction currently in control of the Conservative Party, as with the Republicans in the US, now ritually trashes as the frothings of ‘lefty lawyers’, to which they have recruited (however improbably) the mildly centrist Labour leader, Keir Starmer. Lineker raised so much ire because he compared this ruling faction’s populist rhetoric to that deployed in Nazi Germany. The legislation the government is seeking to push through could require it to join Russia (expelled last year) and Belarus outwith the Council of Europe—set up in 1949 to say ‘never again’ to Nazism and all that—whose 46 members are all required to be signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, the organisation’s core instrument..."
The days of "defend to my death the right for you to say it" are over for me, if I ever truly believed it. Lineker and co. wouldn't afford you the same respect that you're showing to them so I don't see the sense in speaking up for their freedom of speech since it's so one-sided. You'll champion their right to speak in favour of unlimited immigration and they'd try to get you on a violation of hate speech laws for speaking out against it, if they could -- for "stoking hatred". There's no doubt in my mind that an emboldened Lineker will be back on MotD by next week (unless he personally decides not to return, which seems unlikely) but I'd like to see the suspension continue indefinitely even though he would just end up leaving the BBC to go to ITV or Sky for substantially more money than he's making now. The main reason I'd like to see it continue is just because he thought he was untouchable; his feelings of moral superiority will remain and he's going to have a newfound sense of martyrdom, but the fact that he discovered he's not free to say whatever he wants despite the fact that he supposedly has the "right" opinions will spook some people. Good!
Malarkey said Lineker's tweet was "fine" but it was fairly stupid, as all "this reminds me of 1930s Germany" comments tend to be. I despise the Tories obviously but I'd like to hear Lineker's ideas for what to do about illegal immigration, if he has any. Maybe he'd come out with the usual line about "processing people more quickly" and "opening up more legal routes for people to enter" because yes, that's exactly what a country which already has net migration figures of half a million people per year needs: yet more people -- just do it "legally". The people with these opinions are the kind of people who would advise you against having children for environmental reasons, while at the same time they usher another million people into the country. I know I'm conflating things here and lumping everything together because it's a short post and I don't have time to discuss each point individually and properly, but the main point is that they can all go and f*** themselves and I won't defend their right to say anything. They'll never budge an inch and you'll keep backing up until your back is up against the wall and you have nowhere left to go. In fact, not only do I not defend their right to say what they want, I think they should all keep their f***ing mouths shut, how about that!
And I'll say this: I jumped off the Trump Train in early 2018 when I finally accepted that he was unshakably in thrall to Israel and you stayed on board until the train went off the tracks and burst into flames; but you'd think something you would have learned from 'Cheeto Hitler' during all that time you spent observing him is that you have to fight fire with fire. If Trump had your "defend his right to say it" attitude he would have conceded defeat and dropped out of the presidential race by late 2015.
I am not without sympathy to your point, the notion that 'they'll start it but we'll finish' does hold a certain appeal. The problem with your initial post, as you've kind of admitted yourself is that you conflated a whole range of ideas to me saying I don't care what Lineker says on social media.
Naturally I am against puberty blockers for kids, I've said a multiplicity of times I believe immigration throughout the West is way over cooked. I can still believe in those things without having to care what Gary says on twitter. Besides to some extent as was always going to happen with 'progressive;' ideology the Left has started to eat itself anyways, (see J.K Rowling) why do I need to step in? I've got no doubt that at some point white privileged, cis-male, hetero normative Lineker will say something offensive that sees him being cancelled by his own side.
As to your Trump spoiler, perhaps if Trump had really fought fire with fire and made some type of substantial move to lock Hilary up he wouldn't have the problems he has today?
Fighting fire with fire was an exaggeration because I was only talking about verbally. Having Hillary locked up would have been a bad move for him and would have come back to bite him when his presidency was over. Trump was able to become President thanks in large part to his unwillingness to back down, compromise, or apologise. Everything that happened after he became President was a let down in my book. But just about every other candidate in recent American history would have dropped out of the race if something as serious as the Access Hollywood tape was leaked to the media and they were exposed on it.
I'm not saying it was right or moral in his case to push through it but sometimes it's necessary to adopt that unflinching attitude when faced with adversity, and he proved it. And I think we're learning more and more that what's 'moral' is subjective. He could have done the 'right' (?) thing and apologised and stepped aside and then the Access Hollywood tape would be all that he would be remembered for. Sometimes doing the 'fairest' thing isn't worth the fallout.
I was recommending that attitude when dealing with the Lineker types since their beliefs and their demands will turn our countries into hellholes within our lifetimes. Our countries are governed by middle management types and we see how unsatisfactory that is. I can't remember where I saw it referred to as a "tyranny of the midwits" but that about sums it up for me. Defending the right of the sort of people being discussed to say their piece is to assist them in the destruction of our countries since their expression of their beliefs can influence policy and have consequences. "Defend to the death your right to say it" may have been the appropriate thing to do a century ago or half a century ago but it's a self-inflicted wound now.
Anyone who gives this post a thumb down is a middle management type!
Fighting fire with fire was an exaggeration because I was only talking about verbally. Having Hillary locked up would have been a bad move and would have come back to bite him when his presidency was over. Trump was able to become President thanks in large part to his unwillingness to back down, compromise, or apologise. Everything that happened after he became President was a let down in my book. But just about every other candidate in recent American history would have dropped out of the race if something as serious as the Access Hollywood tape was leaked to the media and they were exposed on it.
I'm not saying it was right or moral in his case to push through it but sometimes it's necessary to adopt that unflinching attitude when faced with adversity, and he proved it. And I think we're learning more and more that what's 'moral' is subjective. He could have done the 'right' (?) thing and apologised and stepped aside and then the Access Hollywood tape would be the only thing that he would be remembered for. Sometimes doing the 'fairest' thing isn't worth the fallout.
I was recommending that attitude when dealing with the Lineker types since their beliefs and their demands will turn our countries into hellholes within our lifetimes. Our countries are governed by middle management types and we see how unsatisfactory that is. I can't remember where I saw it referred to as a "tyranny of the midwits" but that about sums it up for me. Defending the right of the sort of people being discussed to say anything is to assist them in the destruction of our countries since their expression of their beliefs can influence policy and have consequences. "Defend to the death your right to say it" may have been the appropriate thing to do a century ago or half a century ago but it's a self-inflicted wound now.
Anyone who gives this post a thumb down is a middle management type!
I think it's already game over. Right now countries that may resemble third world shitholes, but with a strong centre of God and the nuclear family and don't tie themselves into pretzels trying to identify 57 genders are the future global powerhouses. The West is ded.
I think it's already game over. Right now countries that may resemble third world shitholes, but with a strong centre of God and the nuclear family and don't tie themselves into pretzels trying to identify 57 genders are the future global powerhouses. The West is ded.
but if it's dead, the West is killing itself and its own, after almost dispatching the rest into Kingdom Come.
Re. Lineker, as Nick Ferrari of LBC radio put it, Gary Lineker 1, BBC nil.
Born to Harangue says: "I know I'm conflating things here and lumping everything together because it's a short post and I don't have time to discuss each point individually and properly, but the main point is that they can all go and f*** themselves and I won't defend their right to say anything."
In other words, unsurprisingly, the main point is to verbally abuse others not agreed with. Perhaps it's time to remind yourself of posting guidelines around here - https://www.morrissey-solo.com/general-posting-policy/
but if it's dead, the West is killing itself and its own, after almost dispatching the rest into Kingdom Come.
Re. Lineker, as Nick Ferrari of LBC radio put it, Gary Lineker 1, BBC nil.
Born to Harangue says: "I know I'm conflating things here and lumping everything together because it's a short post and I don't have time to discuss each point individually and properly, but the main point is that they can all go and f*** themselves and I won't defend their right to say anything."
In other words, unsurprisingly, the main point is to verbally abuse others not agreed with. Perhaps it's time to remind yourself of posting guidelines around here - https://www.morrissey-solo.com/general-posting-policy/
My reply's been booted elsewhere, which you've probably seen by now.
To wrap up on the Lineker 9-days'wonder though, Suella Braverman's just travelled to Rwanda finalising arrangements for deportations, which she admits are probably incompatible with international law (like more and more things are these days) while "organisations including the Refugee Council and Amnesty International says there are no [longer] safe and legal routes for most people to seek asylum in the UK." - https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-53734793
Gary Lineker didn't even criticise the process though, just the language being used that cast migrants in a scheming light. Those not holding back criticise the global refugee protection system as colonial and since last year, as blatantly white supremacist. Will awareness force change for the better? Some hope so. As you say, bhops, so many issues are entwined here, and speaking for myself, I'm in the dark about a lot of them, but thanks for the civil discussion
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
