MOTD thread

[JamieSpursCommunityUser]

I don't disagree with any of that.

All I ever said noted was that when Lineker (or anyone for that matter) says "language reminiscent of 1930's Germany" what they mean is "Nazi's" and it's preposterous to suggest otherwise. It is being inferred because it is implicit.

Personally I think the ludicrous response to his tweet by Tories has helped amplify his message.

But I also do wish people would lay off Nazi anologies. It is quite offensive to some people and there are perfectly good alternatives - not least Enoch Powell whose language probably better describes what the Tories are doing.

Put this way.

All Nazi's are Fascists and all Nazi's are Authoritarians.

Not all Authoritarians and Fascists are Nazis.

So yes you can talk about the language and be talking about the Fascists Authoritarian aspect to it.

Neither of us have an insight to Lineker's mind, but he seemed to choose his words carefully.

The Nazi term is of course overused, but that's not to say there are no circumstances it can be used at all.

The problem we have in this country is that because freeing Europe of the Nazi's is so ingrained in our national identity, we've come to see our democracy as somehow immune from the pitfalls of Fascism, Populism, and Authoritarianism.

The USA fought the Nazi's too and they are still repairing the damage of a populist government inciting an insurrection and attempting to illegally overthrow a democratic election.

A terrible time in American history which all began with Trump demonising Mexican immigrants and those from "shit hole countries" with language reminiscent of 1930s Germany.

EDIT: TO be clear, Sunk isn't Trump and we're some way off of that, but calling it out is fair game imo.

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

I would suggest labelling minorities as criminals, enemies of the state and stating that it's an invasion of this country is pretty similar to such hyperbole that was used early in the Nazi party reign.
I'm not going to go to the effort of finding individual quotes because that's an unnecessary waste of time.
We were all taught about it at school.

Well, some of the boat migrants are criminals. As for the other wording, it's excessive, for sure, but to conflate it with a Nazi regime that ended up in genociding multiple cultures is both inaccurate and insulting, IMHO. And it takes away from the real argument. As soon as the Nazis are invoked, it instantly kills the debate and seeks to divide people further, which IMHO undermines and harms the debate.

 

[Wick3d]

Blair/Labour did exactly the same with Sir John Birt. It's pretty much par for the course to appoint someone sympathetic to your cause to lead the "impartial BBC" imo.

Birt's Labour past revealed as fight for succession hots up

A final bout of campaigning before the appointment of the next director-general of the BBC saw the incumbent, Sir John Birt, revealed yesterday as a former member of the Labour party.

www.theguardian.com

People always forget that the BBC panders to the government at the time, as they effectively control all their funding!

 

[Thenewcat]

By making these comparisons are you suggesting that you honestly foresee the Tories going on to commit genocide in the order of millions because they want to stop illegal boat crossings? (FWIW, I hate the Tories, but these arguments seem crazy to me).

No but that’s the false equivalence that the tories would like you to draw. Describing asylum seekers and refugees (who are not illegal immigrants by the way) as invaders is deliberate language to foster a sense of grievance against a group they consider undesirable. The Nazi’s did the same. It doesn’t mean they will then go on to do what the nazis did and no one has suggested it has. But it ought to be a wake up call not to use that kind of disgusting language to throw red meat to your supporters

 

[Thenewcat]

Blair/Labour did exactly the same with Sir John Birt. It's pretty much par for the course to appoint someone sympathetic to your cause to lead the "impartial BBC" imo.

Birt's Labour past revealed as fight for succession hots up

A final bout of campaigning before the appointment of the next director-general of the BBC saw the incumbent, Sir John Birt, revealed yesterday as a former member of the Labour party.

www.theguardian.com

Totally agree with the bit in bold, but there’s a difference between ‘sympathetic to’ and ‘compromised by your relationship by’, and there’s also then a requirement to show at least a basic level of fairness, for instance by treating tweets by celebrities equally regardless of whether they are supportive of the government or not.

 

[McFlash]

Well, some of the boat migrants are criminals. As for the other wording, it's excessive, for sure, but to conflate it with a Nazi regime that ended up in genociding multiple cultures is both inaccurate and insulting, IMHO. And it takes away from the real argument. As soon as the Nazi's are invoked, it instantly kills the debate and seeks to divide people further, which IMHO undermines and harms the debate.

So the government should be using terminology that tars them all with the same brush?
And as I said before, the reason the Nazis leap to the forefront of people's minds in situations ike this is because they were a massive moment in recent history, one that is still being taught about in schools today.
It's quite easy to understand why people reach for that as the first example of dangerous, far right thinking.

It's the whole "them versus us" narrative that is dangerous and in my opinion, pretty disgraceful.

 

[McFlash]

Its super easy to sit and say the new policy is ‘abhorrent’ ‘disgraceful’ ‘evil’ etc. Good way to be virtuous without providing a solution to the problem.

There are numerous examples across Europe of poor and open policies that have meant the citizens of those countries have suffered as a result.

So how do you find the balance there? Keep taking in new people, 80% are probably fine but what about the 20% that wish to cause others harm, have views that don’t align with western thinking. We’re a progressive country but people coming from certain places in the world actually have a ‘far right’ political ideology but that seems to slip under the radar because that term is only associated with the Nazis and white English speakers.

Of course the conversation just gets shut down because as I said, it’s easier to just sit on the side of being virtuous and earning points with everyone else who doesn’t want to think about the problem at hand.

It's not our job to provide solutions, however, it should be everyone's responsibility to speak out against archaic and dangerous rhetoric from our government.
This is a football forum, what exactly are you expecting from people in here?

 

[Thenewcat]

Its super easy to sit and say the new policy is ‘abhorrent’ ‘disgraceful’ ‘evil’ etc. Good way to be virtuous without providing a solution to the problem.

There are numerous examples across Europe of poor and open policies that have meant the citizens of those countries have suffered as a result.

So how do you find the balance there? Keep taking in new people, 80% are probably fine but what about the 20% that wish to cause others harm, have views that don’t align with western thinking. We’re a progressive country but people coming from certain places in the world actually have a ‘far right’ political ideology but that seems to slip under the radar because that term is only associated with the Nazis and white English speakers.

Of course the conversation just gets shut down because as I said, it’s easier to just sit on the side of being virtuous and earning points with everyone else who doesn’t want to think about the problem at hand.

I think that’s an unfair generalisation - there are plenty of ideas out there and even if there weren’t nothing forced the government to use hateful rhetoric.

Personally I would allow more immigration and your 80/20 figures above are way off - every study concludes migrants offer significant net benefits and are generally harder working, more likely to be employed and pay tax and less likely to claim benefits than native populations. But again even if you don’t agree on a number most of our problems are self inflicted.

Brexit and the fact that we make it almost impossible to legally claim asylum help drive small boat numbers (and lead us to paying the French large amounts for jobs they used to do anyway). The complete administrative failure of our system leaves migrants in hotels for months or years, costing the taxpayer money both in costs and lost revenue as they are unable to work. Oddly large segments of the population seem to blame the migrants for this latter issue, as if they want to be in hotels in legal limbo, unable to get on with their lives and earn a living (either here or elsewhere depending on the outcome of their case). Our entire immigration system is a total mess regardless of how many you think should be let in. When you’ve been running the country for 13 years and the problem has been consistently getting worse with every hare brained scheme you can’t really pin the blame anywhere else or get away with saying it’s a complex issue

 

[Thenewcat]

One other thing about immigration is that the people’s concern about it is generally inversely proportional to their exposure to it, so people in big cities (with lots of migrants) are much more positive than people in the countryside (with hardly any). The most helpful thing we could do would be to have a more balanced conversation about the moral, cultural and financial pros and cons of immigration which is very hard to do when the government are framing the debate as an invasion and them against us. Anyway this is the MOTD thread so will leave it there, but I think the latter half of my post is what lineker was trying to point out

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Lineker and pundits back for MOTD , not sure that is good news , have to do my usual don't watch live , record it and skip through all the pointless chatter.
On the boat migrants what the current right wing Tory government never admit to is that when we were in the EU many of these migrants could be returned to their first point of entry into the EU to make a claim for asylum as that was EU policy. If a migrant was turned down for asylum in say Greece then they couldn't apply in any other EU country but we are no longer in EU , so if they get turned down in Germany or elswhere they might as well come and try for asylum in the UK.

 

[Nine while nine]

Its super easy to sit and say the new policy is ‘abhorrent’ ‘disgraceful’ ‘evil’ etc. Good way to be virtuous without providing a solution to the problem.

There are numerous examples across Europe of poor and open policies that have meant the citizens of those countries have suffered as a result.

So how do you find the balance there? Keep taking in new people, 80% are probably fine but what about the 20% that wish to cause others harm, have views that don’t align with western thinking. We’re a progressive country but people coming from certain places in the world actually have a ‘far right’ political ideology but that seems to slip under the radar because that term is only associated with the Nazis and white English speakers.

Of course the conversation just gets shut down because as I said, it’s easier to just sit on the side of being virtuous and earning points with everyone else who doesn’t want to think about the problem at hand.

20% of people coming into this country wish to cause others harm?

Really?

Who knew?

At first, I thought you might have, you know, just plucked that figure out of thin air to try to justify your point.

But, thinking about it, when my great grandfather came to this country, there were four siblings with him and the family always said Uncle Giovanni had a bit of a temper on him, so, who knows, you could be right.

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

So the government should be using terminology that tars them all with the same brush?
And as I said before, the reason the Nazis leap to the forefront of people's minds in situations ike this is because they were a massive moment in recent history, one that is still being taught about in schools today.
It's quite easy to understand why people reach for that as the first example of dangerous, far right thinking.

It's the whole "them versus us" narrative that is dangerous and in my opinion, pretty disgraceful.

IMHO, it's dangerous and divisive to take today's policies and immediately go to the Nazi regime. It only serves to divide further and reduces the ability to discuss things without stretching into the realms of hyperbole and offence. But each to their own.

 

[Thenewcat]

IMHO, it's dangerous and divisive to take today's policies and immediately go to the Nazi regime. It only serves to divide further and reduces the ability to discuss things without stretching into the realms of hyperbole and offence. But each to their own.

You could also argue it’s dangerous and divisive to use language that even gives people the opportunity to be able to make the comparison.

Re the bit in bold, do you agree that describing people as ‘invaders’ does exactly that? That’s our home secretary’s words, not some guy on Twitter.

saw you disagreed with my previous response by the way. Be interested to know what you disagreed with. I think you’re still conflating language and policy - Lineker never equated the policy to the Nazis, he specifically talked about the language used. It’s a very important distinction

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

You could also argue it’s dangerous and divisive to use language that even gives people the opportunity to be able to make the comparison.

Re the bit in bold, do you agree that describing people as ‘invaders’ does exactly that? That’s our home secretary’s words, not some guy on Twitter.

saw you disagreed with my previous response by the way. Be interested to know what you disagreed with. I think you’re still conflating language and policy - Lineker never equated the policy to the Nazis, he specifically talked about the language used. It’s a very important distinction

I don't think it's helpful at all to say they are invaders, but equally, I don't think it's at all sensible or appropriate to claim she's using the language of the Nazis. There's a whole spectrum of rhetoric to go through before you get to the ultimate evil. Using hyperbole against hyperbole is just making the whole situation worse. It's totally right to criticize the language, but I think it could have been done without invoking Hitler's lot. I'm not conflating policy with language. I made my point about language clear in other responses.

 

[slartibartfast]

I don't think it's helpful at all to say they are invaders, but equally, I don't think it's at all sensible or appropriate to claim she's using the language of the Nazis. There's a whole spectrum of rhetoric to go through before you get to the ultimate evil. Using hyperbole against hyperbole is just making the whole situation worse. It's totally right to criticize the language, but I think it could have been done without invoking Hitler's lot. I'm not conflating policy with language. I made my point about language clear in other responses.

I feel the media outrage on this is so OTT and its all aimed at changing Government policy.
I mean, this is just something a football pundit has said right?

 

[Thenewcat]

I feel the media outrage on this is so OTT and its all aimed at changing Government policy.
I mean, this is just something a football pundit has said right?

Of course it’s aimed at changing government policy that’s the whole point. The policy is ludicrous from any perspective - I think it’s cruel and inhumane as lineker said but even if you don’t it’s a massive waste of money and self harming purely from a self interest perspective. What do you think media attention should be focused on?

 

[IfiHadTheWings]

20% of people coming into this country wish to cause others harm?

Really?

Who knew?

At first, I thought you might have, you know, just plucked that figure out of thin air to try to justify your point.

But, thinking about it, when my great grandfather came to this country, there were four siblings with him and the family always said Uncle Giovanni had a bit of a temper on him, so, who knows, you could be right.

Always knew you was a part of La Cosa Nostra... you absolute wrongun

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

By making these comparisons are you suggesting that you honestly foresee the Tories going on to commit genocide in the order of millions because they want to stop illegal boat crossings? (FWIW, I hate the Tories, but these arguments seem crazy to me).

I agree, but is wanting to secure one's borders and protect its population fascistic? You would surely think that of all the other countries that have stringent immigration policy too, no? What exactly do you find about the boat ban fascistic?

I understand the argument, but words matter. Words can change context. Are we going to apply the same rules to everything a politician says? You do understand, surely, how changing a vague word to one with history can completely change the context, right? I'm not saying that the change is 'complete' in this way, but there are always going to be commonalities in speech regarding something like migration. It's what and how it is applied that makes the difference. You could do the same thing with Australia's stringent policy -- change a few words and then claim it's like 1930's Germany. I'm sure that could be done across many aspects of government. I personally prefer more accuracy and specificity in language, otherwise it's too easy (dare I say fascistic) to claim someone is saying something they're not and castigate them for it.

Broadly, I believe the point Lineker and many others have been trying to make, is not that the Tories are Nazis, but in adopting language reminiscent of the 1930s Germany (ie dehumanising people : we could have a very long conversation about how that has been happening ) the ground becomes fertile for those who, like facscists, subsequently seek to capitalise on people’s fears in ways a civilised and humane society would not inflict on other people. That's not helpful when dealing with an important and sensitive issue, is it?

.

Spoiler: more...

[
So when the government not only deliberately doubles down on the use of that language when the risks are pointed out to them, but simultaneously enacts legislation to reduce people’s right to protest, I think it’s legitimate to draw parallels with the language and approach to public life that made it easier for the far right to take power in Germany before the war.

When talking about language, I think we need to be aware that it can shape the way people think.

If people in places of public trust and influence repeatedly call me an alien or “an illegal” ) and others deliberately terms that make me appear less of a person and more of an abstract problem or threat, it doesn’t make you or them nazis, but it makes it easier for someone else to start believing that treating me (and, crucially, anyone who fits their description of “undesirable”) as though I’m something a bit less than a normal person…and over years of this process, the political landscape can change radically.

I believe that is the sort of thing that happened in early 30s Germany, and it helped paved the way for what followed.

It would be perfectly possible to construct legislation without stirring fear and division between people. Wouldn’t that be preferable to the current approach of always taking every opportunity divide people into us and them? Good and evil? Left and right?

it might sound a bit hippy dippy, but not everyone we disagree with or don’t like is a less-than-human ****, but the current use of language is certainly divisive and often dehumanising, and I believe GL was making a valid comparison with trends we’ve seen before
/SPOILER]

 

[nailsy]

Is anyone else eagerly waiting to hear what Martin Keown thinks about all this?

 

[Thenewcat]

I don't think it's helpful at all to say they are invaders, but equally, I don't think it's at all sensible or appropriate to claim she's using the language of the Nazis. There's a whole spectrum of rhetoric to go through before you get to the ultimate evil. Using hyperbole against hyperbole is just making the whole situation worse. It's totally right to criticize the language, but I think it could have been done without invoking Hitler's lot. I'm not conflating policy with language. I made my point about language clear in other responses.

Thanks for the reply. Personally I don’t have a problem with invoking Hitler’s
lot as I think it has legitimate shock value “do you realise who you sound like???” and a singular comparison isn’t the same as a broad one ie the language you are using is reminiscent of the Nazis is not the same as saying you are a Nazi or will behave like them, but it is certainly emotive and you could argue it’s allowed the right to play the man and not the ball - ie feign outrage rather than answer the question of whether our Home Secretary should be referring to immigrants of any kind as ‘invaders’