MOTD thread

luRRka said:

As opposed to all of the previous motd episodes that pick and choose which goals to include.

And what kind of fucking weirdo makes their way to the pub at 2245 for one pint at last orders

Click to expand...

Looks like the Whips have been getting the word to Tory MPs to say how wonderful the stripped back MOTD was.

McFlash said:

Yeah, I read the article.
It goes on about the Holocaust a lot but I don't recall Lineker mentioning that at all?
I think he was more referring to the type of nationalistic rhetoric used by the Nazi party early in their reign, used to whip the German population into a frenzy.

And I don't know if Pie is an expert in anything or nothing but he speaks a lot of sense in that video.
More sense than either of the two articles you've posted, both of which seem to rather be missing the point in my view.

Click to expand...

Here's another expert view:


To be honest, it doesn't matter what I say. The fact of the matter is that he's picked a terrible analogy and is now doubling down on his ignorance.

The Nazis in the 30's were actively looking to expel Jewish citizens from the country, not close their borders.

Thenewcat said:

I think people are reading an inference into what he said that isn’t there. Let me try my example again. If an African Anglican bishop said that homosexuality was a western abomination and I said they were using language reminiscent of Vladimir Putin, it doesn’t mean that I am saying they are Vladimir Putin or they agree with his policies on gay rights or anything else. Lineker specially talked about the language used. All the other accusations are just trying to distract from the fact that they are unable to defend themselves from the accusation at hand (which is unsurprising as it’s true)

Click to expand...

This is a really tortuous analogy. If an African (why do they have to be "African" by the way?!) Anglican Bishop said that homosexuality was a western abomination and you told them they are using language reminiscent of Putin you are drawing an exact comparison to both peoples position on gay rights. You are calling both homophobes. Because their positions are explicitly homophobic!

Similarly when Lineker says Govt policy is "language reminiscent of 1930's Germany" he drawing an exact comparison between Govt Policy and 1930's Nazi policy. UNLESS you're saying he meant something other than "Nazis" by "1930's Germany"?

Bizarre.

chas vs dave said:

Here's another expert view:

‘Is There Any Comparison Between Braverman's Migration Bill and Nazi Germany?’ – Byline Times

Brad Blitz looks at the storm of controversy over Gary Lineker's comments on the Illegal Migration Bill, and while he finds no evidence of Nazi policy, does hear echoes of fascist rhetoric

bylinetimes.com

To be honest, it doesn't matter what I say. The fact of the matter is that he's picked a terrible analogy and is now doubling down on his ignorance.

The Nazis in the 30's were actively looking to expel Jewish citizens from the country, not close their borders.

Click to expand...

I agree the analogy is problematic and, likely, offensive to many people whose relatives were murdered by the Nazis. I suspect this is why so many people who agree with Lineker's broad point ( which I do to some extent) are so desperate to pretend he "wasn't saying that".

But he did say that. And so are they. They just can't reconcile themselves to being problematic. Hence the tortuous logic and deluge of disagrees and neg reps

If this issue effects all BBC presenters why is it only the football/sports shows that seem to be effected? I guess it could spread across the BBC in the next few days.

DarwinSpur said:

I agree the analogy is problematic and, likely, offensive to many people whose relatives were murdered by the Nazis. I suspect this is why so many people who agree with Lineker's broad point ( which I do to some extent) are so desperate to pretend he "wasn't saying that".

But he did say that. And so are they. They just can't reconcile themselves to being problematic. Hence the tortuous logic and deluge of disagrees and neg reps

Click to expand...

He compared the language to Germany 1930's, which isn't true.

The fact of the matter is that his ego has blown this out of proportion, and the bbc's policies are not suitable. Both sides haven't come out well from this.

In fact, you could argue its more in line with Britain in 1930. Here's an extract from the daily mail.

Peter Reid having car crash interview on Sky news right now.

DarwinSpur said:

This is a really tortuous analogy. If an African (why do they have to be "African" by the way?!) Anglican Bishop said that homosexuality was a western abomination and you told them they are using language reminiscent of Putin you are drawing an exact comparison to both peoples position on gay rights. You are calling both homophobes. Because their positions are explicitly homophobic!

Similarly when Lineker says Govt policy is "language reminiscent of 1930's Germany" he drawing an exact comparison between Govt Policy and 1930's Nazi policy. UNLESS you're saying he meant something other than "Nazis" by "1930's Germany"?

Bizarre.

Click to expand...

I said African because there is a large split in the Anglican Church and lots of African bishops hold exactly that position. It’s an example, it doesn’t mean all or only African clergy think that, but this is the whole problem, that you don’t seem to understand the nuances of language.

So yes in my analogy they are both explicitly homophobic positions. But that doesn’t mean, for example, that the bishop in question agrees with criminalising homosexuality as Putin has, or with him invading Ukraine, nor does it make the bishop a brutal dictator. Similarly saying that Suella Braverman calling migrants ‘invaders’ is reminiscent of nazi germany is entirely fair because it’s exactly the kind of language they used against what they viewed as undesirable sections of society. It doesn’t mean you are saying she agrees with Nazi policies, is a Nazi or anything else. It means what it says. If you want to engage on these facts, go ahead. If you want to call me bizarre or weird whilst claiming everyone agrees with you when absolutely no one on this thread has done so, please don’t bother as the conversation is going nowhere

Thenewcat said:

I said African because there is a large split in the Anglican Church and lots of African bishops hold exactly that position. It’s an example, it doesn’t mean all or only African clergy think that, but this is the whole problem, that you don’t seem to understand the nuances of language.

Click to expand...

Lots of white bishops hold that position too but you singled out the Africans. That's language reminiscent of 1930's Germany. But it's okay I don't actually think you're a nazi or singled out Africans because you're a nazi or anything like that. I'm more nuanced than that.

Thenewcat said:

So yes in my analogy they are both explicitly homophobic positions. But that doesn’t mean, for example, that the bishop in question agrees with criminalising homosexuality as Putin has, or with him invading Ukraine, nor does it make the bishop a brutal dictator. Similarly saying that Suella Braverman calling migrants ‘invaders’ is reminiscent of nazi germany is entirely fair because it’s exactly the kind of language they used against what they viewed as undesirable sections of society. It doesn’t mean you are saying she agrees with Nazi policies, is a Nazi or anything else. It means what it says. If you want to engage on these facts, go ahead. If you want to call me bizarre or weird whilst claiming everyone agrees with you when absolutely no one on this thread has done so, please don’t bother as the conversation is going nowhere

Click to expand...

Of course it's not going anywhere. Your tortured circular logic is designed to close down discussion even when your position is the very definition of splitting hairs. Enjoy your day.

DarwinSpur said:

Lots of white bishops hold that position too but you singled out the Africans. That's language reminiscent of 1930's Germany. But it's okay I don't actually think you're a nazi or singled out Africans because you're a nazi or anything like that. I'm more nuanced than that.


Of course it's not going anywhere. Your tortured circular logic is designed to close down discussion even when your position is the very definition of splitting hairs. Enjoy your day.

Click to expand...

I’ve reported you for the first half or your post which is both factually ridiculous and outright offensive. The second half is just the same garbled nonsense for the 15th time - every time someone tries to explain something to you, you just accuse them of splitting hairs rather than address the question. Either way, I’m putting you on ignore

Thenewcat said:

I said African because there is a large split in the Anglican Church and lots of African bishops hold exactly that position. It’s an example, it doesn’t mean all or only African clergy think that, but this is the whole problem, that you don’t seem to understand the nuances of language.

So yes in my analogy they are both explicitly homophobic positions. But that doesn’t mean, for example, that the bishop in question agrees with criminalising homosexuality as Putin has, or with him invading Ukraine, nor does it make the bishop a brutal dictator. Similarly saying that Suella Braverman calling migrants ‘invaders’ is reminiscent of nazi germany is entirely fair because it’s exactly the kind of language they used against what they viewed as undesirable sections of society. It doesn’t mean you are saying she agrees with Nazi policies, is a Nazi or anything else. It means what it says. If you want to engage on these facts, go ahead. If you want to call me bizarre or weird whilst claiming everyone agrees with you when absolutely no one on this thread has done so, please don’t bother as the conversation is going nowhere

Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of how quick people throw out certain words and accusations because I believe they what it does is shut down conversation. Before I start I'm going to pre-face by saying that just because I hold this holistic view on the throwing out of words and accusations does not mean I fall on one side or the other regarding the migration policy itself, I'm simply focused on the comparative rhetoric used in general.

So continuing on I think It's akin to when there is a conversation regarding racial issues, if the word racist is thrown out towards 1 side of the debate then immediately a lot of people will go against that person because they fear being associated or being anywhere close related to that word. What this does is it limits the possibility of progression in terms of debate because the goal of debate should never be; this side is right, this side is wrong, the goal should be, how can we find a solution through understanding each other's position. So in regards to Lineker saying this is similar to the rhetoric of the 1930's Germany. I think we should be sensible in acknowledging what he is doing by saying that. Without very clear context, it is fear mongering, now the policy might be so abhorrent that fear mongering is necessary however I think if you're going to throw out that accusation, it needs to be extremely detailed, it needs to come with comparisons, it needs to show why we should fear this rhetoric by showing a road map of cause and effect from the comparative rhetoric used in the 1930's to what later manifested, it needs to show that our nation is on a similar trajectory.

I want to highlight for my own sake consistency in my arguing that I believe the same when for example, Boris Johnson highlights immigrations impact on the roman empire, again fear mongering but again these kind of comparisons must come with extreme detail. We as a society have become the boy who cried nazi/racist/somethingphobic and it's absolutely dangerous because it means we learn to ignore it all. A good example to highlight why it's dangerous is Covid, the media fear mongered; mad cow, swine flu, ebola as if they were all the next bubonic plague. What happened when Covid-19 rolled around, we didn't take it seriously because we had learnt to ignore such rhetoric.

chas vs dave said:

He compared the language to Germany 1930's, which isn't true.

The fact of the matter is that his ego has blown this out of proportion, and the bbc's policies are not suitable. Both sides haven't come out well from this.

In fact, you could argue its more in line with Britain in 1930. Here's an extract from the daily mail.

View attachment 123740

Click to expand...

Probably not the best example to give considering the Mail backed Hitler and his treatment of Jews during the 1930s.

It’s not at all inaccurate to draw parallels between the language being used. People have already posted stuff by historians showing the comparisons are correct. Could have been in the politics thread but someone also posted a link to the board of Jewish deputies site where they also draw parallels. But what would they know?

The government’s policy is immoral, their language and the narrative they‘re seeking to build around asylum seekers is at best irresponsible and at worst wilfully dangerous. They’ve repeatedly sought to construct a narrative that those coming in boats aren’t genuine asylum seekers, that they’re all criminals, dangerous gangs of men from Albania etc etc.

We’ve already had a far right terrorist fire bombing an asylum processing centre and we are seeing increasing numbers of far right protests at other centres and asylum accommodation.

The group organising a lot of these protests are calling for the forced deportation of any non whites. The Tories are pandering to these mouth frothing lunatics. Only last week their vice chairman described these people as “ordinary family people.”

Quite frankly it’s disgusting.

I really wasn't following the run up to the world cup that closely, but was Lineker as vocal about the human rights violations in Qatar?

BuryMeInEngland said:

I really wasn't following the run up to the world cup that closely, but was Lineker as vocal about the human rights violations in Qatar?

Click to expand...

Pretty much. People accusing Lineker of hypocrisy are drawing a very long bow imo. He's consistent.

BuryMeInEngland said:

I really wasn't following the run up to the world cup that closely, but was Lineker as vocal about the human rights violations in Qatar?

Click to expand...

I didn't watch it but the BBC did not show the opening ceremony on BBC1 . only via the iplayer and from what I read all they discussed before the start of opening match was Qatar human rights, so BBC happy to use a sporting occasion as a political protest.

'O Zio said:

Jesus fucking Christ now I know some of you are just intentionally trolling. I was literally responding to your post about politics/government policy.

Fuck me I don't know why I even bother engaging with this shit sometimes. More fool me I guess.

Click to expand...

What you on about? This is the MOTD thread not the fkn politics thread.

Take my advice, chillout and log off the internet for a while. You sound like you're having a coronary.
Probably one of those lads who is being bullied at home by the missus so this is your outlet. But fuck me, you sound like a nutter.

SirHarryHotspur said:

1. Viewing figures for Saturday's show were up by half a million, to more than 2.5m

Get rid of all pundits , MOTD viewing figures up.

Click to expand...

They're only up due to curiousity as to how the final product was.

I doubt those ratings would stick if it was a permanent format.

Wow. This threat really brings the nastiness and pettiness out in people.

Some of you guys need to chill out….

MR_BEN said:

Wow. This threat really brings the nastiness and pettiness out in people.

Some of you guys need to chill out….

Click to expand...

Some simply cannot have a civilised debate about it.

I haven't watched MOTD for years before this, and I didn't watch it last night either.

I personally watch the little 3 min skysports clips on youtube if I want to see the goals from other games. Does the job for me.