El Segundo

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I was being incredibly sarcastic. Villa’s fan base is stereotypically known to be more Tory and right wing. It was an ironic comment aimed at your ironic comment 

do I really have to explain this? 

It didn't look sarcastic to me, but if you say so, then apologies.  Does that mean you do think we should accept people are what they claim to be rather than what they say and do?   

And this isn't Villa's fan base, it's a tiny sub-set of them, and there are posts on the Brand thread and the Peterson thread that, to me at least,  suggest some rather extreme left wing views. 

As you say it's a stereotypical view to say the majority of Villa fans come from a couple of posh areas, and that as such they would be right wing or Tories.  It's patently not true - for example what about  Erdington, Kingstanding, Great Barr?  I live in Sutton Coldfield, I've never voted Tory in my life and would never do so.  I regard myself as a moderate, left of centre, a "soft" socialist.  I have dislike and distaste for extreme political views of all hues.  I also disagree quite strongly with a lot of what the so-called progressive left do and say.  Not the principles, which I can see are are based on kindness, inclusivity, equality, supporting the disenfranchised and marginalised, it's more the authoritarian, brook no dissent way some of them go about policing the application of those principles.      

2 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Its easy enough to do one with hard left views, you haven't done that, but you could easily do it. But is it relevant to this thread. There is a Labour thread, where I am sure you will think as we are all left wingers is full of back slapping bonhomie rejoicing the workers. You would be wrong, but thats perhaps a better place for a left wing bingo card.

Well it was in response to a right wing cliche bingo card, so apologies if it is considered off topic. I happen to think it is very relevant to the kind of attitudes seem to be informing a lot of the posts about celebrity scandals.  But point taken.

2 minutes ago, Loxstock92 said:

It’s a meme…..

 

feel free to make your own?

I know,  Just wanted to make a point it works both ways.

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Eh?

I didn't get it exactly right but but on the Peterson thread you said:

"Carl Benjamin classes himself as a ‘Sensible Centrist’ so I really think we shouldn’t be listening to what people class themselves as, and look at their politics instead." 

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

I’m not even sure you know what your own points are anymore. 

I'm sure you aren't

1 minute ago, Wainy316 said:

Ironically you've just managed to produce yet another right wing throbber bingo.

Well since it references the opposite arguments to Loxtocks,  if this is a right wing one then his is a left wing one.  Take your pick.  

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

You’re on a Aston Villa forum, a fan see notoriously famous for their extreme left wing views in the left wing strongholds of *checks notes* Lichfield and Sutton Coldfield. 

Let's not judge them on who they are, let's judge them on their politics - didn't you say something like that?

14 hours ago, Loxstock92 said:

Excellent!  Can you do one now for “Progressive” Left wing politically correct socially aware tolerant of everything except dissent kind to everyone except dissenters and anyone accused of anything anywhere justice warrior virtue signalling Marxist authoritarian you're not extreme left therefore you must be extreme right judge jury and executioner cliché bingo?  Just in the interests of balance of course....oh, silly me I forgot where I was for a second.  

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Common response of the alt-right to post bollocks like this that you can’t substantiate 

A few examples on this thread alone.  Where are your examples?

15 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

You can take it as being as unbiased as your denial of evidence offered to you many many times and ignored whilst you ask again for evidence.

I’m personally not prepared to dance to the tune of time wasters practising a fake form of debate to back up scum people with a hateful agenda.

Why don’t you actually produce something resembling evidence for a change? Or answer a direct question.

If you’ve got a comfy seat on the alt right merry go round you keep spinning. 

First sentence makes no sense.

Second sentence - fake form of debate?  how so? Which scum people with hateful agendas have I backed up.  Who are these people and what are there agendas?

Third sentence - what would you have me produce evidence of?  What direct question do you want me to answer?

Fourth sentence - a common response of the new left - dismiss everything that doesn't agree with your world view as alt-right.

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I guess twitter might have faked taking down the tweets and youtube may have faked taking down hate videos, so yes there’s a chance I’ve been duped by the big pharma matrix.

Hell, for all you know, I might even be matrix, zooming down your WiFi right now to plant evidence against you. It’s in the contrails, man.

It’s tiresome, no, it’s baroque.

I'll take that as a no then.

Just now, chrisp65 said:

I’d never come across the name before. On a quick google it appears to be because he’s a scumbag that has flung around Nazi jibes and deadname’s trans gender people. 

So it looks to me like, yeah, he has a place in the cavalcade.

You have seen examples of him doing those things or are you just taking other people's word for it?

6 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

And suddenly it all makes sense.

OK so why don't you answer the question as well?  Why does Peterson belong in that group?

9 minutes ago, maqroll said:

You've put Jordan Peterson there at the back. You clearly haven't done your "research"!

Probably one for a different thread but I'd be interested to know what it is about Jordan Peterson that makes you think he belongs in that group.

10 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

this is where it’s obvious to me that you’re not posting in good faith. 

the ‘worst they could come up with’ in 4 years is not ‘he hung around in his pants’

it’s ‘he shoved his dick down my throat so far I choked’ (which was also the 16 year old) and that a woman went to a rape treatment centre after an encounter where he texts him saying ‘no means no’ and he apologises. 

Selective quoting - I said "some of the worst", not "the worst".  The worst is obviously the rape claim with evidence.  The rest are not backed by evidence, they are claims and accusations.  If true, some of them are despicable and should be punished.  The choking claim is serious if true but would be so regardless of the age of the alleged victim because it's non-consensual.  I just think including "going out with a 16 year old" and "hanging around in your pants" in the list of Brand's alleged wrongdoings smacks of padding out the list to try and make a more convincing case.     

8 hours ago, maqroll said:

By the way, I'm quite certain nobody on here particularly cares what Brand's political views are or if he even believes what he says, but it's telling that the people who are supporting him on Twatter this weekend are on the political Right. They support him because they view him as one of their own, and when it comes to their own, they'll excuse every bad deed imaginable, while holding their perceived political enemies to a much higher standard. Just look at Trump's cult members.

If no-one cares why did you bring it into the conversation and then keep on bringing it up? 

9 hours ago, KentVillan said:

But that makes no sense because Russell Brand is a political irrelevance. If these accusations were being levelled at some kind of upstart political candidate who was genuinely threatening to upturn the political order, then okay, maybe it would be worth thinking about why the "establishment" might be going after them suddenly.

This is Russell Brand, though. There's no social control consequence of getting Russell Brand cancelled. It's literally just a famous person being accused of doing various things. It means very little in the grand scheme of things, besides him being a nasty piece of work. There's no obvious conspiracy, nobody benefits.

I think you have based this response on the missing "not".  My fault, it was late and I was tired.  I don't think there's an establishment conspiracy against Brand.  The reference to 1984 was the "conviction by accusation" analogy.    

9 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Literally on this same page you said:

Do you understand what Orwellian usually means?

And no, I'm not trying to wind you up, btw, I'm all ears, but I don't think what he was saying took your words out of context ... maybe your intended meaning wasn't what was conveyed, but it reads as if you're saying people are going after Brand in a 1984 (i.e. Orwellian) way.

Ok that's a typo where I missed out the word "not" - which I think is reasonably clear from the context of the whole paragraph..

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I’m absolutely not defending Greenwood, I was posting ironically. 
 

however what I don’t understand is:

Greenwood case, 1 recording, a few pictures, sufficient evidence 

Brand, 4 year investigation, hundreds of witnesses and sources, insufficient evidence 

Why is that? And why do you think that believing Greenwood’s victim based on the evidence is ok, and believing the accusers of Brand is Orwellian?

Your dancing around words is exactly why women don’t press charges. In the court of public opinion, not guilty and innocent are exactly the same thing. 

To be honest im not sure what you even think is Orwellian anymore. Is reading an article of excellently researched investigative journalism and forming an opinion based on that, Orwellian? 

It's tiresome how often you get it wrong, I'm now assuming it's deliberate to try and wind me up.. 

Please point out where I have said that Brand's accusers are Orwellian.   You won't be able to because I haven't. 

Please point out where I said I believe Greenwood's victim.  You won't be able to because I haven't.

And you have yet to refer me to the other items you falsely attributed to me in previous posts. 

Dancing around words?  I'm sorry but if you really believe "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing in any context then there isn't much point in discussing this any further with you.

TIme for bed as I have work tomorrow, and this is going nowhere.

5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

There is actual proof though. Your view is that that proof isn’t sufficient, mine is that it demonstrates some wrongdoing.  Neither viewpoint has any relation to 1984 and it’s stupid to compare it. 
 

your entire argument here seems to be based on that a 4 year investigation is ultimately just ‘some accusations’. This is entirely in bad faith. 

There is evidence which supports one of the accusations.  It is not yet conclusive proof that establishes the case. 

A 4 year investigation and yet they felt it necessary to include "he had an affair with a 16 year old" (not big, not clever but not illegal) and " he hung around in his pants in front of me" in the body of evidence of what a heinous character he is.  He may well be the absolute arsehole he comes across as, it really wouldn't surprise me,  but is that really some of the worst they could come up with in four years?  Anyway the number of years is irrelevant, however long it took they remain accusations, some with supporting evidence, some without..     

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I don't think the audio evidence in Greenwood's case is sufficient personally. It doesn't prove there's no consent. It could be CNC. There's no charges so he's innocent. Not sure why you're calling an innocent man a scumbag tbh. It's like 1984 that he had to leave the country despite not being guilty of anything.

Faulty logic.  No charges do not mean he's innocent.  No charges means he couldn't be found guilty or not guilty.   

I haven't called him a scumbag either, I've said the evidence I've heard suggests he is one. 

Interesting though that you're defending Greenwood now whilst condemning Brand, when Greenwood had to leave the country precisely because of the court of public opinion that you so advocate.  

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

How is this ad hominem?

You asked me how I feel you misunderstand 1984. I answered you.

In 1984, accusations are made and those accused go to the Ministry of Truth for reeducation.

Here, we have a millionaire who will get even richer from this accusation. As he's able to freely post his defence to millions of supporters on a platform. This platform where he can post that defence has millions of members, and is owned by a billionaire who has already come out in support of him.

So I'll ask again. Perhaps even clearer.

How on earth is a piece of investigative independent journalism done by two idealogically differing media outlets investigating the sexual misconduct of a millionaire remotely reminicent of  the world of 1984? 

Well quite simply because it's aimed personally at me, rather than what I'm arguing.

Again you are misconstruing what I have said.  Again I'll try to explain even clearer. I am comparing the investigation into Brand to 1984.  I am saying that the tendency for some to conclude that a person must be guilty based on accusations alone rather than actual proof is not too far removed  to some unsavoury elements of 1984.        

3 minutes ago, 479Villan said:

There's a reason Anne Sullivan was known as "The Miracle Worker," and she was dealing with a student who was not willingly blind and deaf.

There's also a reason why I will now choose to ignore someone who is just posting provocative nonsense to try and get a reaction. 

6 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

So what's your view on Mason Greenwood?

The audio evidence I've heard suggests he is a scumbag that coerced/bullied/forced his girlfriend into doing things against her will.  I think if charges had been pressed he may well have been convicted.   

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

The amusing thing is, the 1984 scholar can't see that it's the other way around.

well that depends if it's sufficient in @El Segundo's view right?

And again we go ad hominem in the absence of anything sensible to say.