[Siderite]

Will this please end?

Auschwitz is a joke to these people. It's beyond cruel and shows that behind Steve's wacky shtick there's a vile human being. pic.twitter.com/YdE8jpYr2f

— (((Milk Media New York))) (@milkmedianewyor) March 19, 2023

I wish these people would stop trivialising genocide for cheap and horrible gags. I never thought much about Steve Bray, but this makes me think less of him than I already did.

[Siderite]

We aren’t going to wallow in our own misery, like you do, Rene.

[Siderite]

A typical good piece from Kenan Malik:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/19/gary-lineker-stop-the-boats-does-echo-language-of-30s-but-in-britain

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Heath wrote:

And our old friend Bucks is happy to join the pack of hyenas. Whatever happened to his politics of envy arguments and free market economics?

If the issue of mishandling of money, concerns over extortionate money from mates to do up Boris Johnson’s home, complaints about how a rich capitalist runs a football club and borrowing money to give tax breaks for the rich it has to be because of the politics of envy. If it’s a member of the ‘metropolitan North London* liberal elite’ attacks on wealth are ok. This is because the former come from libs, who are inherently duplicitous and nasty buggers who always try to attack right wingers, while the latter comes from right wingers, so is more acceptable.

*An interesting phrase used by Bucks, which has some dodgy connotations. Now, before a Bucks tirade occurs, I am not accusing him of thinking this way. However, it’s code language used by some dodgy characters and I am wary in legitimising such.

[Siderite]

I believe I am an Ashby kid too.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Siderite]

Deerey, any disagreement with Bucks is inherently disingenuous and belittling, because it means you think he is wrong on some aspect. Which is just not on.

[Siderite]

Also, I am really fed up of being made out to be disingenuous and some streotype all the time. I know I am not perfect and make many mistakes in personal judgement. I do not think of myself as above anyone in morality, yet I hold the right to think negatively of moral decisions I agree with. I realise they might be better elsewhere, ignorant or whatever. Everyone has people they dislike and see as immoral, you too. Yet me doing it for some makes me some self-righteous stereotype who cannot hold an opinion in earnest. While, you make self-righteous judgements against others’ character and that’s ok, seemingly. It’s ok for the right to look negatively on people, but not the centre or the left is the message I get from you. All it does is make me think you’re projecting your own character traits onto me. I am not superior to anyone, but you come across as if you think you are, and before you start making claims of you aren’t, unfortunately your own actions and how you have interacted with me and others makes me think otherwise. So, I don’t think that’s my fault; I can make as many civil arguments as I like, but I will still be disingenuous and judgemental. And, no, this doesn’t mean I think others have not crossed the line with you.

[Siderite]

The amount of money Linker earns is irrelevant to his right to speak his mind as Sugar, Portillo and Meaden does. Yet before this no-one cared about it, and we’re supposed to see you and others as being offended by principle? Unfortunately this has just shot that in the foot for me. And before you start whining about personal attacks, you see fit to judge others like this, but moan when others do it to mr perrfect,

Bucks, stop trying to speak for me. I couldn’t give a damn if Lineker spoke in favour of the government on twitter. I’d have disagreed, but not disagreed with his right to free speech. I brought up Sugar’s strike comments in part because I want to demonstrate I am not being hypocritical in my stance. Yet you continue to do so because you have pigeon holed anyone who disagrees as being disingenuous, and it makes it come across as if no-one else can have at least somewhat a principled position besides yourself.

You have done it yet again with your fourth comment. I have not praised people traffickers, I agree they aren’t good, yet I am self-righteous for criticising Tories, while you seemingly aren’t for trying to guilt me and others with this comment. You’re only interested in attacking anyone to the left of Reagan, not actually discussing the topic at hand. You bemoan anyone else for pigeon holing Tories, yet will do so with others. To you we’re just some lefty hive mind, seemingly. Yet I don’t particularly like the further left, speaking as a generalism (I know some principled ones exist), and have expressed my ire on other threads. I am aware some of them are self-righteous, and have abhorrent opinions. I am aware many Tories aren’t abhorrent. Fat load of good that will do me. Having negative opinions of many other Tories makes me self-righteous and judgemental. While you deriding others as middle class left wing elitists is the height of balance, apparently. For some reason the majority of Brits disagreed with booting Lineker. They can be discounted though, because the only people who matter are the salt of the Earth common men who all think as you do. The rest of us are liberal elitists. Yawn. It’s ok for the right to demonise others, but the left doing it shows how nasty they are.

Who’s said there aren’t people exploiting the system? However, last year 76% of people claiming asylum from boat arrivals were successful, meaning 24% are not. Many of these will be the people exploiting. However, the Tory system will be to deport everyone straight away, so the 76% of successful applicants would go regardless. I find this horrible, yet saying such makes me self-righteous because it hurts poor Tory feelings. Boo hoo. It’s no more self-righteous than me or you holding negative opinions of Corbyn for his disgusting views on Jews and Ukraine. Yet one is acceptable for you, and the other makes me a pious hypocrite. Yet, I would argue it’s not me being hypocritical here. I have said several times I am not judging all Tories, but still the same crud characterisations come. It only makes me think of you as highly biased and lacking in any kind of balance. Yet you frequently come on here to bash others for such.

I do laugh at the Tories who think they represent the ordinary working man. Labour has cocked up with this, for sure, but the idea that the anti-woke and ranty Lee Anderson types are resonating at the moment is hilarious. Also

[Siderite]

I still wouldn’t call him that myself, though.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

With that and the angry bees/wasps (I forget which) that stung your face that time, I get the impression the garden has always had it in for you. Maybe it’s one of the usual suspects. :-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

BobbyGmeister

[Siderite]

I would also think your point might land better if your argument against Linekar being able to speak his mind on twitter wasn’t full of what sounds like personal resentment.

[Siderite]

So when we people critiqued Swann it was because they were jealous of his wealth, but constant prattling about Linekar’s wages is not jealousy? I am not saying you are, but the evidence for what constitutes as jealousy seems to rely on being someone you disagree with when concerning a rich person. It all depends on which side you find yourself on as to whether it’s jealousy or a pampered prima donna.

I certainly think Linekar is paid too much, as so are so many stars. The argument seems to be when a left wing argument is made against wealth it’s politics of envy, but when a lefty has a lot of wealth attacks on it are valid. Such double standards are tiring, when anyone who disagrees with you is reminded how disingenuous they are for having the tenacity to criticise the Tories (some of it reasoned, some of it not) in harsh tones.

This pitiful story has done nothing but distract from a hideous policy which will see many who are deserving of asylum treated appallingly.

[Siderite]

Lineker, the BBC, and all that. pic.twitter.com/ufBwpIELW0

— (((David Bennun))) (@DavidBennun) March 12, 2023

I can’t find much to argue with here. I am maybe more wary of the comparison, but I accept others think differently.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

People being able to air their view in a democracy? Whatever next.

Of course the BBC has impartiality, and conduct in our social media can affect any job. If other BBC staff can’t make their opinion known, I can see where friction may lie, but Linekar isn’t the only one. And I don’t see how Portillo getting paid for airing them makes it any different. If the BBC is worried about impartiality that won’t make any difference, and frankly recent news of the actions made by the BBC top brass is more worrying for this than anything Linekar has said.

If this provokes an honest assessment of how BBC staff and freelancers are expected to work with their social media accounts, then great, but it has to be consistent. I would hope the BBC sides with an ability for free speech. Of course limitations would be something permissible, but it’s not one in favour of free speech, and it’s egregious for anyone to claim that the BBC would be acting in the principles of such when stopping anyone from airing their views.

[Siderite]

Oh, so it does exist when it suits you. When I was trying to argue for it, it was nonsense and didn’t make any sense. Now it’s seemingly valid when it suits you. The difference in me from you is that I wasn’t using it to deflect. I didn’t say that what they had said means Linekar can get away with it. I was pointing out the BBC are being selective in their impartiality. Moreover, I stressed Linekar was wrong, debated against others in saying so, and didn’t just say “whatabout x” and move on as is standard whenever you just point to Labour.

I have not cast doubt on Neil’s ferocious interviewing style.. I wasn’t denying Sugar’s Labour links. However, he did make comments against the strikes supporting Tory arguments on twitter, so if that is fine it seems hypocritical for the BBC to call Linekar out. I also included Meaden, who is an ardent remainer, and airs such while being a freelance BBC worker on Dragon’s Den. I wonder why you left her out in your recent tirade to make out I am some hypocritical and disingenuous lefty guttersnipe? My point was never about political persuasion, as such, but it’s easier for you to pretend it is to make out I am some straw man lefty. Yawn.

“As for BBC staff being very unhappy, I know quite a few senior people at the BBC, including one journalist currently on a flagship news programme.”

Forgive me for a joke, but I didn’t see that Bucksism coming. :-)

Linekar did call Qatar out though. You could say it was weak, and I am not disagreeing, but calling out this government on twitter is hardly some strong action. I don’t see how this makes Linekar a hypocrite any more than those who moan about left wing intolerance for free speech (and not entirely unfounded either) coming up with every excuse in the book to not care about Gary’s free speech.

So, yes, please keep looking for more ‘hypocrisies’. I am aware I am not perfect, unlike mr perfect Bucksiron.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Siderite]

I would add that the death toll of Leopold’s atrocities in the Congo was less certain and ranges from 1.5 to 11 million. Also, the direct planning, industrial and continent spanning nature of the Holocaust is what makes it stand out. I can’t think of any other genocide where several nations and groups separate from Germany, but working under them, came together for a planned extermination.

[Siderite]

I was only being tongue in cheek. ;-)

[Siderite]

What I mean is that the Nazis were displaying calls for eradication of Jews right from their foundation. It’s probably the most obvious thought when anyone thinks of Nazi rhetoric, along with their anti-disabled, anti-Ziganist and homophobic propaganda. I don’t know what else he could have been referring to.

[Siderite]

You could say it shows a general lack of knowledge of a wide scope of history.

[Siderite]

I thought Jon Stewart and especially Ian Hislop would be too neoliberal for your taste, 64? :-)

[Siderite]

A break from the gurus pod. A great podcast on the Tavistock scandal on trans care for children:

https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/episode-155-hannah-barnes-on-the#details

[Siderite]

The BBC staff who walked out in solidarity seemed very cheesed off with Linekar didn’t they?

Bucks always comes on as some sort of grandiose know-it-all who wants to counterbalance us guttersnipes. Yet it is evident to me that he has an agenda and is not a ‘very sensible’ person out to press for reasoned argument. Anything which goes against his view is disingenuous, only his agenda is acceptable.

We all have opinions, which is fine, but it is impossible for me or anyone to be considered to have a valid position against Bucks when disagreeing. Bucks claimed Dom Cummings would be seen as a great doting dad for driving miles to see family, who he never saw, and went eyetest driving and any who disagreed were made out to be out of touch and bitter. The public consistently thought Cummings was in the wrong. When the silly Corbyn is a Czech spy story came out, Bucks proclaimed it a real worry and anyone who disagreed, pointing out why it was rubbish was apologising for Corbyn. It never led to anything, and some of us arguing against this story here and elsewhere dislike Corbyn.

This is not to say Bucks is always wrong, he isn’t. His views on problems with the left are true for some, but he is too broad brush and applies it to anyone critical of Tory policy. It’s that any view to the contrary is just dismissed, anyone who argues against him has to be disingenuous, and it’s always critics with an agenda.

Now, I know I am not perfect, have been wrong, made unfair comments on others, so I am not saying this to say I am better. However, I try not to be blind to it.

On this, I will say that it may be written into Linekar’s contract not to air views of his own. However, many other BBC staff have aired their own views and would have breached BBC confidentiality rules if Linekar has. It sticks in the craw that Linekar has been singled out, while others haven’t. I don’t think any should, because I don’t care about Linekar, Sugar, Portillo or whoever airing their own view on social media so long as it’s not criminal or put BBC in disrepute (e.g. they used racist language). I don’t even agree with what Linekar had said.

I am against undue silencing of others, from JK Rowling to the Dahl being edited unfairly. This applies for many on the right too. I didn’t think Jordan Peterson should have been suspended from Twitter when he was.

Yet, I am still sure I am saying this because I am a bitter lefty guttersnipe with hypocritical and disingenuous tendencies wanting to back up an ideological ally.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66, Heath

[Siderite]

Bucksiron wrote:

The furore from the left would have been extreme had Lineker tweeted in support of Tory policy.

Alan Sugar made his political views quite clear on strikes in favour of Tory stances. Where was the same BBC response to that? Oh, yes, hypocrisy only matters when it’s from the left. Yawn.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Siderite]

Nobody wants to deny Linekar free speech, but he can’t have free speech.

This really has exposed those who have genuine principles on such and those who just use it to stick it to the left and don’t really care about free speech. As was ever evident really, given that those whining about Linekar never whined about Alan Sugar, Andrew Neil, Michael Portillo and others expressing their impartial views. That is no problem with me, they are free to.

The agenda is clear though from you. Most don’t agree with Linekar being silenced, so the idea of a BBC civil war is maybe overplayed here.

Now for the personal attacks upon me for having a different view.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, Heath, Deereyme66

[Siderite]

Wright gets a wage from the BBC. Le Tissier is hardly a measured source.

[Siderite]

How do we not let them in? Erect a forcefield around the UK?

[Siderite]

Awaywego wrote:

The BBC could have decided at this time to freshen it up and get rid of lineker, shearer and wright instead of leaving them looking like right twats.The same as sky did with le tissier Thompson and Nicholas but when they got sacked wright didn’t show solidarity,le tissiers calling him out now over it.

Wright doesn’t work for Sky. What was he supposed to do? Walk out of a job he didn’t have? That wasn’t due to issues over free speech either, so not really analogous.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Deereyme66

[Siderite]

If the BBC was left wing in its bias, as alleged, I’d expect there to be more focus on Braverman’s plans instead.

[Siderite]

It was so frustrating at a time when I was trying to argue against Corbyn as someone who leans to the centre. It was hard to get taken seriously, because online people would assume I meant I was like Rubin. If he is going to hold such beliefs fine, but presenting himself as a centrist and a true liberal, when it was clear he wasn’t, and arguing against such would have his fans calling me a ‘regressive leftist’ was dishonest. He has guru tendencies in that his fans treat critique as a personal attack and respond with character judgements.

He was too dumb, boring and uncharismatic to climb to larger fame in the manner of Peterson, Brand or Neil Oliver. I remember him arguing against government intervention on environmental issues because we don’t need that; individuals can shame polluters into good behaviour by posting pictures on snapchat of pollution by big industry.

That’s the infuriating thing. He clearly isn’t an old school centrist, he is a conservative, and such pretending to be otherwise is dishonest and that grates. His opinions are poorly thought; the snapchat solution he presented was mind boggling in its idiocy from failing to understand how pictures cannot get an idea of pollution really (a lot of it is hidden, it says nothing of concentrations) and won’t stop businesses with bad practice. And his fans treated measured criticism of these stupid ideas as angry tantrum throwing of lefties who couldn’t take another opinion. No, I just think is ideas are dumb and harmful, but he’s welcome to his dumb ideas. The ‘very sensible’ people who treated critique of him and claims as him not being a liberal as some hard left smears are silent now he’s openly supporting Trump and DeSantis, making Russian apologism and anti-vaxx woo. On top of this he is so cringeworthy. Check out his stand up routine!

[Siderite]

*sighs*

[Author]

Posts