Reply With QuotePritti Patel in a (brand new) England shirt was one of the most absurd sights of the summer.Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Pritti Patel in a (brand new) England shirt was one of the most absurd sights of the summer.
Agreed, there are quite a few genuine football fans on the Tory backbenches, but it’s hard to imagine there’s many, if any, in the senior posts in the Cabinet.
Why on earth is the Home Secretary wearing an England shirt absurd to you? Do you not view her as English?
That the guardian and David Olusoga don't see themselves as big players in any supposed culture war is one of the most tone deaf things I've come across. Let us not forget this is the publication that finds racism in botanical gardens. https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nked-to-empire
They demand nuance and understanding from what they say, and offer none in return. Honestly, I can barely think of a mainstream publication or an author or stokes the fire more. Perhaps the Daily Express.
This is just such unbelievably one sided stuff, that honestly, nothing is gained without reading something countering it. It's just complete polemical stuff.
With that in mind, here's an alternative viewpoint:
https://unherd.com/2021/06/do-the-cu...-really-exist/
Well offer something to counter it then.
Probably because she was accusing the England team of playing politics at the start of the tournament when she was fighting a culture war.
I did. And heres another.
UnHerd is a very very good website to cut through the nonsense.
https://unherd.com/2021/04/nobody-wi...-culture-wars/
If you are suggesting that you must support a political movement in order to support the England team then I would suggest that you are therein recognising that that in itself is part of a culture war. Otherwise, you would shrug your shoulders and say, well of course she can criticise something, it doesn't mean they dont support the team more widely.
I'm pretty certain I've heard Cardiff City fans slag off the team and then support them when a goal gets scored.
Really? The first one you posted was just a right wing equivalent of what you say the Guardian does and I gave up on the second one because I couldn’t understand it.
From the paper that produced probably the most genuinely racist cartoon in a British newspaper in 50 years too
And still shows it
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...t-pmqs-cartoon
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/74557770.cms
No, I’m suggesting something much simpler than that, she changed her tune when it began to look like England could win the tournament.
Thats my point - Dont read the first hopelessly biased (guardian) one without another, offering an equally biased opinion. That said, note Douglas Murray quotes statistics from social surveys and at least attempts to recognise the alternative position.
The second article is more balanced, and worth a read.
Well thats what all politicians do. But ultimately she grew up in England and supported England in a football tournament. Why make a big deal of it?
Douglas Murray! Have you read 'The Strange Death of Europe' James?. I have. Interested in your views on it if you have.
I have, yes. I didn't enjoy it really. First few chapters made some valid points perhaps but then went on to repeat itself for a hundred or so pages and went too far for me. I think he's a competent debater and makes some interesting points but his book (and thats the only one Ive read) went on a bit..
My argument here is not that he is right, merely that he should be listened to to counter someone like David Olusoga (some of whom's history programmes i really enjoy), as I feel that there is an assumption that his stance on matters like this is the reasoned, liberal, rational approach when it isn't. It's every bit as biased and divisive and dismissive of alternative views as those he professes to dislike.
I absolutely do think that Unherd is a truly fantastic resource mind. If a few more people read a few more articles from websites like that the world would be a more tolerant place.
Thanks. I agree that some of the early stuff is certainly thought-provoking. He should have stopped after the first few chapters. Definitely before the point where he starts trying to present the case for Tommy Robinson.
Bollocks!
Steve Bell pushes satire further than some - but are you really another one (like the Conservative Tamil Association and various Tory ministers) who sees a cartoon of two bulls (a play on the bullying allegations against Patel and her defence by Johnson) and then morphs that in your mind into a 'sacred cow'? It was a feeble and dishonest attack on Bell - one you seem happy to endorse.
However other (more honest) opinions are available!
https://www.theleftberlin.com/the-mu...of-steve-bell/
Because all politicians do not go around deriding the England team for non footballing reasons at the start of a tournament. Most people were able to detect the rank hypocrisy behind accusing the England players and management of “playing politics” one minute and then trying to climb aboard the bandwagon when things started to go well.
It seems however that you do not qualify as “most people” as, despite all of the self proclaimed balanced approach, you yet again show your complete lack of said quality by coming down on one side of the political divide - you always do this. So, to try to make out that your opinion is more valid than mine because I don’t read as widely as you do seems a bit of a leap really because reading what the other side is saying appears to have no effect whatsoever on you, as, like so many of us on here, it’s easy to tell exactly what you’re going to say even before your contribution to a political thread is read.
Bob,
Firstly,I don't think my opinion is more valid than yours at all. Lets clear that up from the start. Countering your narrative doesn't mean I think your opinion is less valid.
Secondly, I will always counter what I view as very left-wing stuff, and on the rare occasions anyone posts something very right wing I will counter that too.
To argue against a left wing position does not make one right wing, it can make someone centrist or someone who wants to restore balance. By definition, you cannot restore balance to a left-wing polemic article by posting more left-wing stuff. Note, I posted two articles; one from the right to counter yours, and one centrist, which is my position.
Believe me, if someone posted a traditional right-wing argument on the welfare state, prison reform, drug laws, capital punishment, taxation, LGBT rights etc then I would present a counter argument - we just never see that, on here at least..what we see is endless, simplistic left-wing stuff that does not seek to present an argument in its full. Anyone who questions it is labelled with a variety of insults that simply are not true.
The guardian really is the chief race-baiting newspaper in the UK. It is at the forefront of the culture war and for it to stir the pot daily and then pretend it has nothing to do with it is disingenuous and IMO should be called out.
As usual, far more tolerance has to be given to your side. We are all aware of various animal idioms and expressions, many of which can be applied to all people perfectly innocently, however, we all know the Home Secretary was raised a hindu and the importance of cows to that religion so it was a grossly clumsy and openly racist cartoon that at the very least is guilty of lacking any awareness of racial sensitivities. If you defend it, you have to apply these things consistently.
Again, stirring the pot like it and papers on the opposite side of the political spectrum like to do for shares on social media.
Again, it should be called out.
You seem to be very confused on this. Was the cartoon 'grossly clumsy', was it 'openly racist' or was it 'at the very least.... guilty of lacking any awareness of racial sensitivities'? It can't be all those things at once as you claim. In fact it is none of those things. It is a crude and funny depiction of a couple of prime bullies on the government front bench!
I am no fan of the Guardian's political agenda but they have (more in the past than now) given a platform to satirists like Steve Bell alongside some excellent journalists and fewer excellent commentators. My problem with the Guardian and Steve Bell is not his cartoons - but the growing (and cowardly) censorship of his work and recently the decision to end his contract. The other Guardian cartoonists are nowhere near his standard.
This is a brilliant line " publication that finds racism in botanical gardens""
Well done happy new year
Fair point. I was trying to suggest that it can be interpreted in different ways and it may just have been clumsily so but in my opinion it is a racist cartoon, . It's considered "okay" because it's in a "liberal" newspaper. Imagine that cartoon in the daily mail about a Labour politician. Twitter would explode. The rage would shake every coffee cup in Pontcanna.
One rule for some I guess ?
Posting Permissions