Rolta

Anyway, the main main point is that the state broadcaster, with its compromised grouping of Tory stooges managing the organisation, shouldn't be shutting down dissent in private social media, particularly when its position is so clearly in thrall to the government and so clearly selectively done in the government's favour. That's stage 1, forgetting any possible bleakness in the future. It's bullshit.

You can probably take that comfortable position in the UK for now—but then look at the USA. Then zoom out and look at Putin's influence on even the most basic of discourses, and then look at China. Imagine some of the rhetoric coming out of the GOP becoming a part of life in the white house. Look at Fox News pandering to their base, telling them what they want to hear. Look at people like Steve Bannon jetting around the globe networking with other hard-right, nigh on fascists. Then look at how easy it is to manipulate people on social media. Read reports from the Young Republican events where they openly talk down (ok paraphrase) democracy. We're not in as good a position as you think. It's the same here in Spain. Democracy is on a knife's edge—maybe it always will be. Remember, they say history repeats.

For the record, I also pretty much agree with this. But it's probably the point of view of most of the average western world really (maybe not the US). But just like the 1930s in every country that succombed to fascistic revolution, there are very influential voices in government and the media who seem to have had enough of paying taxes. Neolliberalism has a lot to answer for. Just like then, the language from the right is becoming hyped up and exaggerated—as Braverman showed this week (and every week). Lineker had a fair comment and shouldn't be getting shut down by the state broadcaster in his own personal social media. Bar social media's existence, and the actual possibility of a revolutionary left (which couldn't be further from having influence) this is the exact creep that began in 1930s in multiple countries—it's identical. The obfuscation of truth, the exaggeration of language. In fact, it's almost comical—there is no risk of a socialist or communist revolution these days like there was back in the 30s, but the government and its media enablers still concoct a villain to justify their undemocratic language—left blobs, illegal immigrants, lefty-lawyers, woke mind worms, trans people. It's hysteria.

First of all imagine if the BBC hadn't cracked down on Lineker, which is what this whole topic is about first and foremost—forget the semantics. The BBC shouldn't be influenced by the government nor from partisan stooges placed within its power structure to do exactly this kind of thing. Also notice how the BBC never uses the 'B' word. It's been cowed into submission. The examples are numerous. Going into semantics of the rhetoric used by the government, there's plenty to unpack. Did you see when Suella Braverman said that 100 million people could want to come to the UK? It's clearly hyped up, exaggerated demagogery. Same with all the talk about lefty lawyers and lefty civil servants and patriotism and traitors (more the newspapers) and the like. Specifically speaking the exaggerated and inflammatory rhetoric about asylum seekers (75% of people crossing on small boats are granted Asylum and half of what's remaining on appeal) is very much like 1930s Germany. Again, it's demagogery at its most blatant—manipulating the issue to gain favour. That alone is atrocious. The evidence is in front of you. If you take issue with 1930s Germany, you could extend the whole thing and look at the language in Italy and Spain in their moments before facism too, and the monologuing coming from the Government and its most egregious supporters in the press (Mail, Telegraph, Sun) is nigh on identical. The angle taken by these influential right wing rags and their terminology, the dehumanisation of not just the foreign people, but anyone left of Amber Rudd is exactly the same. I'm not suggesting we're going to end up with Nazi solutes, but this kind of language and use of language is used by governments and people who ultimately do go on to embrace authoritarian ideas—at the very least it makes a mockery that they're interested in democracy. You're missing more points too—this is all about the state broadcaster, which has been evidently and obviously in the light of day filled with stooges for the government, selectively choosing one voice who opposes them to crack down on while letting their supporters in similar positions do as they wish, and in many cases, actually defending and obfuscating and pandering to them.

Other people have said the same, but nothing you've written is related to the point.

It's like you're not even thinking for a second before posting. If Braverman had said 'I hate migrants' you'd have a point, but she didn't. The whole point of the comment is the rest of the inflammatory language, which clearly sounds like something from 1930s Germany. It's not the only thing the government are doing that has authoritarian precedent either and filling up the top echelons of the BBC with their own stooges is a pretty great example, particularly when then, magically, the BBC starts cracking down on one very specific angle of dissent. This is nigh on undeniable. The examples of Nick Robinson today and Fiona Bruce on question time add fuel to this fire, but there have been plenty of examples from the BBC over the last few years.

I'm out of likes, but I agree. What a bizarre statement.

The only person setting no boundaries here seems to be you tbh. If you use 'The left' and 'the ideology' the way you just did there I'm sure you can confirm whatever you want to think. What a boundless statement. In reality there's no ideology, of course, known as 'the left', or 'left', but just as many different types of people and opinions as you find anywhere. If it makes it easier for you to make sweeping statements go ahead though.

This is bollocks. The BBC aren't between a rock and a hard place. The whole thing is a farce and it's a farce that's only coming from one very obvious direction. You seem inclined to make excuses for them though.

Just for contrast I'm in a hammock in Madrid with my sunglasses on.

I thought it lost its shine the moment the shit version of Boba Fett turned up in season 2. It was awful from that exact moment.

This is a bit of a non-comment made because some people might be amused/interested. I just watched a YouTube video about a mega-scale scammer (the channel—KiraTV—is pretty entertaining). I was pretty shocked when about halfway through Ezri (and Tammy Abramham) show up hanging out with the guy in Dubai. I imagine they innocently got sucked into his orbit like plenty of other people did—so I'm not suggesting anything untoward. There was one interesting comment made: apparently the scammer was trying to con a Premier League club out of £100million at one stage (it could have been any club). Anyway, here it is if anyone is interested:

Also, what is your specific complaint against charities in this context? I’ve worked for a refugee charity in Madrid, and some of my students work with refugees too. In my experience the opinions coming from charities reflect hands on and direct interactions of people in the charities with refugees and their stories. It's the purest information there is. There’s literally nothing sugarcoated or manipulated. For me, I had direct experience with real human beings. Direct information, unlike the utter over-abundance of hysterical bad-faith information out there that has completely skewed this topic into a dark place. Working for the charity was interesting and pretty heat-breaking. The origins of the people seeking asylum in Madrid were pretty broad, and there’s no generalised one-size-fits-all way of summing them up that could ever do justice to the actual human stories. This is a bit of a tangent, but the majority of refugees in Madrid came from South America. I know my experience is very Spanish-centric. I think it offers some insight into why people choose a certain country over others—it’s because they speak the language and are at least feel familiar with a part of the culture, rightly or wrongly. Here, the most common reasons people were seeking asylum (to add detail to the most basic fact they were trying to avoid being actually murdered) was risk of being murdered for their sexuality basically, or, interestingly, because they were journalists whose work had put their lives in danger (an easy comparison would be to look at the journalists around the world who have actually been murdered). Obviously people fleeing Syria or Afganistan etc. have plenty of other reasons beside sexuality and journalism to avoid actually being murdered. Look at the various groups we've already taken into the UK—Somalis from ethnic groups that would have been actually murdered and so on. There's a lot of actual murdering going on around the world and the dehumanisation of asylum seekers is abhorrant imo. If you actually met the people I'm sure you'd agree too. These are people with shattered lives who just want to live and build a life for themselves where they're safe. That is my actual direct experience of every refugee who passed through the charity I was involved with. Listening to those stories is an eyeopener, and I bet if people knew more about them then the conversation would change drastically. Most people aren’t actually heartless arseholes deep down, they just get swept along by the groupthink of bullshit.

What are your sources, specifically? To be fair to KentVillan, the comment you were responding to included two links so you can see exactly where he was coming from.

How confident are you in your sources—and should you be? What sources do you base your opinions on for this complicated topic?

I can't remember specifically but some of the TV shows at least I remember being violent beyond what a Pg would allow for. As I say, I can't remember which ones though...maybe Falcon and the Winter Soldier and Moon Knight?

He's a terrible person.

He's a Belgian international who made the same mistake as three of our other players have made. When he was in the team before Kamara came back he was playing well and was an important part of some good wins.

Maybe I went in a bit harsh, which I do apologise for, but I think in this instance especially you were being silly.

Looks like there was a little video edit there in the middle.

I've said it before but you do chat a lot of bollocks! Your excuse making and mental gymnastics are, as always, a site to behold.

Players give the ball away all the time. I think this kind of comment just comes across as if you'd made your mind up and that you see what you want to see. Today he played well imo.

Judging by your posts after the win it just seems as if your outlet for winning is complaining. He looked good too.

I thought he looked pretty decent myself.

As with all the games under Emery he's a different player. Looking great! I had lost faith but now it's all back. Playing like a captain too.