MOTD thread

[nailsy]

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.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

God I hate getting involved in this stuff, especially when it gets like this thread has been at times but it's been bugging me for a few days now so i'll get it off my chest and take the blows, but because each side of the divide ignores what the other says, because it just gets repetitive, I won't be biting or responding because we're all so entrenched.

So..........

I have absolutely no problem in what Lineker said and I really don't understand anyone saying he shouldn't have made the comparison. You absolutely have to make the comparison (or as he said, he thinks it is reminiscent) , you absolutely have to say it and bring it into the open. And we definitely have to stay vigilant against this type of thing because if you don't, then that's how it starts. So say it, bring it out in the open and take it from there. You don't, you just don't come out with 'it's wrong to say it' or 'it kills the conversation' .Does it fuck. And once you start arguing semantics, well, there's a pointer for you.

So no sweeping it under the carpet (and shamefully i've seen one or two people come close to heading that way on this but maybe that's just my perception), the virtue signalling Lineker has been accused of in here is bollocks. And it leaves a bit of a sour taste when actually, it's the accusers who are probably more guilty of that. Lineker has brought this into the spotlight now and at the very least, has given those it was aimed at a nudge in the ribs and a 'hey, we're watching you, so be careful'. Well done to him I say.

And that's it. I'm out. Feel free to give me a coating

 

[AtoubaToothpaste]

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]

Well, that's where the crux is: I don't think what Lineker said was at all helpful in a sensitive issue. You can't have it both ways. This is the problem with some people on the left: I agree with their sentiment (I consider myself a left-leaning liberal), but they go about in the most inflammatory way possible. You only have to look at the fallout of this to see it hasn't been a useful dialogue. You never win an argument by bringing up the nazis.

You say (and rightly) that language can shape the way people think. I know this as a writer myself. Which is why my argument is that Lineker has failed in his use of language to make his argument. Has policy changed because of his outrage? No. Will it? No. If he were serious about it, he could have worded his responses better to gain even more backing. Instead, he went nuclear with the nazi argument and achieved nothing but more division. Marcus Rashford did a much better job, IMHO, with his campaign to feed kids.

And reading your hidden bit, you're doing a better job than Lineker. Your response doesn't cause division. His did.

Say what you want about the Tories, but they are far from outright fascists like the rhetoric is portraying them as (still a bunch of shit-bags, though). That does a disservice to all the wrongs they have committed. They need to be held responsible for their actions, not let off the hook by resorting to fighting hyperbole with hyperbole.

That's all I say on the topic, as I fear I'm going in circles, and there's little else I can add to the argument without completely derailing the topic of the thread. Thanks to all those who were/are prepared to read and engage with my point of view without immediately dropping a sneering neg rating.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

Well, that's where the crux is: I don't think what Lineker said was at all helpful in a sensitive issue. You can't have it both ways. This is the problem with some people on the left: I agree with their sentiment (I consider myself a left-leaning liberal), but they go about in the most inflammatory way possible. You only have to look at the fallout of this to see it hasn't been a useful dialogue. You never win an argument by bringing up the nazis.

You say (and rightly) that language can shape the way people think. I know this as a writer myself. Which is why my argument is that Lineker has failed in his use of language to make his argument. Has policy changed because of his outrage? No. Will it? No. If he were serious about it, he could have worded his responses better to gain even more backing. Instead, he went nuclear with the nazi argument and achieved nothing but more division. Marcus Rashford did a much better job, IMHO, with his campaign to feed kids.

And reading your hidden bit, you're doing a better job than Lineker. Your response doesn't cause division. His did.

Say what you want about the Tories, but they are far from outright fascists like the rhetoric is portraying them as (still a bunch of shit-bags, though). That does a disservice to all the wrongs they have committed. They need to be held responsible for their actions, not let off the hook by resorting to fighting hyperbole with hyperbole.

That's all I say on the topic, as I fear I'm going in circles, and there's little else I can add to the argument without completely derailing the topic of the thread. Thanks to all those who were/are prepared to read and engage with my point of view without immediately dropping a sneering neg rating.

I don't agree with all of that but I sympathise with your point of view and it does have much merit, even though we will continue to disagree.

And I think this is the real crux of the issue: the government and many of their supporters consistently and enthusiastically employ extreme language that makes proper discussion almost impossible.

How do you respond in a way that people will notice to the use of language that very coarsely vilifies and dehumanises people? (Just the expression "illegals" is abhorrent and no one should use it yet many do.)

Lineker is not a political commentator (as we can't avoid knowing!) and even those who are make very little impact when they discuss the subtleties of complex current issues. Many people, perhaps most, read little beyond the headlines which appear to help form their opinions.. So what is anyone (Lineker included) to do to alert people when they perceive there to be unacknowledged danger in something that's happening?

So whilst I agree with much of what you say, I do believe he was justified in making a very concise statement that he felt to be honest and accurate, and I don't think it's he who should be held responsible for the nature of the fallout.

 

[E17yid]

A mildly interesting unrelated fact that is kind of related to this conversation.

The first example of the phrase “Mainstream Media” was used by Goebbles

Ian Hislop told me that so must be true.

 

[allatsea]

Anyone else think Lineker is looking rather old in the pictures/videos taken during all this mess ? He seems to me to be aging very quickly.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

Anyone else think Lineker is looking rather old in the pictures/videos taken during all this mess ? He seems to me to be aging very quickly.

He’s 62.

 

[aliyid]

Anyone else think Lineker is looking rather old in the pictures/videos taken during all this mess ? He seems to me to be aging very quickly.

One of two things:

• Comparing standard pictures in natural light against how he looks on TV with full hair and make up teams will always look worse
• Press look to demonise by carefully selecting the image to use. Amazing differences between how they show somebody depending on what side they’re taking

 

[whitesocks]

Interesting article below about the BBC/Lineker here, and how extraordinary this situation is.

As it explains, the BBC is right wing to its very core.
For someone like the founder Lord Reith, Braverman would have been the lefty lawyer and not tough enough on immigration by a long long (X10) way.

Since then, aunty beeb has wound in some her extreme opinions, through gritted teeth, but under the close scrutiny of MI5 and establishment appointments, nothing much has changed.
They'll be outraged that one of their star turns could express views like this even outside their realm. How did he escape the vetting procedures?

Their very purpose is to challenge views like this and help destroy the person expressing them.
Lineker may be back, but they'll be brewing up something very nasty for him.

Gary Lineker’s treatment exposes fact that image of warm, fuzzy BBC was always a lie | Jonathan Liew

For the right, the BBC has always been a safe space. Now this space is being contested – and it scares the life out of them

www.theguardian.com

 

[nidge]

A mildly interesting unrelated fact that is kind of related to this conversation.

The first example of the phrase “Mainstream Media” was used by Goebbles

Ian Hislop told me that so must be true.

And it was in the context of the "Mainstream Media" being fake news and to only believe what Goebbels and Nazi's told people.

I assume you listened to the podcast he did with Jon Stewart?

 

[E17yid]

And it was in the context of the "Mainstream Media" being fake news and to only believe what Goebbels and Nazi's told people.

I assume you listened to the podcast he did with Jon Stewart?

Yeah listened to it yesterday. Was a nice little chat.

Stewart listing all Hislops credentials at the start then throwing in “champion prize fighter” at the end set the tone well.

 

[Thenewcat]

And it was in the context of the "Mainstream Media" being fake news and to only believe what Goebbels and Nazi's told people.

I assume you listened to the podcast he did with Jon Stewart?

Joseph Goebbels did a podcast with Jon Stewart? Now that is fake news

 

[nidge]

Joseph Goebbels did a podcast with Jon Stewart? Now that is fake news

That would be a very interesting listen.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

You say (and rightly) that language can shape the way people think. I know this as a writer myself. Which is why my argument is that Lineker has failed in his use of language to make his argument. Has policy changed because of his outrage? No. Will it? No. If he were serious about it, he could have worded his responses better to gain even more backing

Disagree with this.

If Lineker had gone with more benign language - nobody would be talking about it. It’s become an international talking point, and will continue to be an issue because of the tweet - the language he used ensured that people are talking about it.

If you want attention, and you want to bring more people into the discussion- then you often have to push the envelope a bit.

As I said earlier, people are not up in arms about Lineker’s tweet because it’s outrageous. People got angry because it hit close to home.

 

[arnoldlayne]

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

I think there is a bit of a difference between the way the current Tory party have loaded the BBC from top to bottom with sympathisers (Fiona bruce, Laura Kuennsburg, etc) - despite the fact they have the vast majority of the mainstream press (Murdoch, Rothermere, Barclay brothers, etc) actively supporting them along with other media outlets - when comparing to the actions of New Labour.

Blair also had people in his cabinet who disagreed with Imas he said he needed them to test his plans and show flaws.

Unlike the numbskull's incrementally appointed in the current 13 year iteration of the Tory party's race to the bottom of the cesspit - who still believe the media is against them - when they have their moronic decisions and failures pointed out

 

[JamieSpursCommunityUser]

 

[Marty]

One last one, even though I think it's time to leave this in the bin. From a writer and professor at Goldsmith's on Facebook.

Peter Hitchens challenged people (Gary Lineker in particular) to justify why Gary had said that he thought the language being used around asylum seekers/boat people (etc) was 'not dissimilar' (Gary's words) to that of Germany in the 1930s.

Note: Gary said 'not dissimilar' ie he wasn't claiming that it was identical. And he said 1930s, which to be clear is not the 1940s.

I've assembled a short checklist:

Rhetoric around citizenship and taking citizenship away from people eg Shamima Begum and Windrush generation. 'Fremdenrecht' is a pre-Nazi idea but adopted by the Nazis to remove German citizenship from German Jews. Removal of citizenship was called ‘Ausbürgerung’.

By repeatedly declaring people 'illegal' before they've been tried, is 'not dissimilar' to 'Willensstrafrecht' . This was a punishment for criminal intent, not the crime itself. The law was called ‘Täterstrafrecht’.

'Madagaskarplan' - the plan to ship Jews to Madagascar. The idea of shipping 'unwanted' people to other another country 'not dissimilar' to the Rwanda scheme.

As an aside, the press have called shipping people to Rwanda as the 'Rwanda Plan' or the 'Rwanda Asylum Plan', unknowingly imitating 'Madagaskarplan', perhaps? Don't know if Ms SB has expressed it as that. Perhaps not.

Ms Braverman has used the phrase 'cultural Marxism' . This owes its origins to the Nazis' word 'Kulturbolschewismus' though Ms Braverman may only personally know its roots to US politics.

Ms Braverman and her colleagues are engaged in some kind of culture war(s). This is 'not dissimilar' to the 'Kulturkrieg' which started before the Nazis but was very much engaged in by the Nazis.

'60,000RM kostet dieser Erbkranke die Volksgemeinschaft auf Lebenzeit. Volksgenosse das ist auch dein Geld' = "This hereditarily ill person will cost our national community 60,000 Reichmarks over the course of his lifetime. Citizen, this is your money." This is an example of people seen as 'costing us’.

Ms Braverman's persistent labelling of migrants as criminal (and/or the 'traffickers') even though many migrants are granted asylum is 'not dissimilar' to the Nazis' adoption of 'Asoziale' (noun) ('Asocials') which created a category of perpetual criminality in people.

The Nazi word 'Fremdmoral'. 'Fremd' translates roughly as 'alien' . The Nazis believed that lesser, foreign people had worse morals. Suella Braverman says police chiefs have told her "that drug supply... is now connected to people who came here on small boats illegally".

 

[Meercat]

That’s national treasure, Michael Rosen.

 

[Gb160]

A mildly interesting unrelated fact that is kind of related to this conversation.

The first example of the phrase “Mainstream Media” was used by Goebbles

Ian Hislop told me that so must be true.

I just watched that !

 

[Marty]

Superb