Discussion in 'Current Affairs & Debate' started by Ag, Feb 14, 2019.
According to shadow chancellor John McDonald.
I wonder whether GREY will ever come back into fashion
Now if ever there was a time to bring back the Hitler emoji
Hated poor people, felt anyone not born into inherited wealth should effectively be considered to have been born into something only slightly above slavery. Sent in tanks to crush peaceful protest.
Finally something we can all agree on.
I hate him because I had to endure that boring movie about him last year where they pretended that he took the subway and talked to brown people.
I can't believe you lot - he was a GREAT LEADER and WAR HERO.
If it wasn't for him we'd all be speaking GERMAN.
Oh GOOD GRIEF
He was NEITHER
There's been a lot of pointless culture war bullshit to distract from a failed government lately but this is easily the most stupid. Who even gives a fuck?
He was obviously better than Hitler but so is nearly everyone (excluding many posters on this site, of course). The British Empire vs The Nazis is one of the few immediate situations where the simplistic "lesser evil" argument is ok.
The constant mythologising of him as a British icon makes it way harder than necessary to look at his wider record. I definitely think that's deliberate because it calls into question all of the other abuses that the UK has wrought on poorer countries and makes his critics look like unpatriotic moralists.
I'm sure he wouldn't be seen a hero in India, where his policies starved millions of people to death, and the entire existence of Operation Unthinkable makes me feel uncomfortable. It all depends on who's writing the history books and unfortunately that's almost always us.
Also Mr McDonnell wants to distract from a failed opposition.
He was directly asked a question about it at an event, wasn't he? Piers Morgan and some Green MSP were droning on about it a couple of weeks ago. It just seems like another pretty desperate media storm, that's why I haven't paid much attention to it.
At least the story in the D*ily M*il about Corbyn eating cold beans and wearing an army jacket was entertaining, this is just tired old rubbish.
Piers Morgan vs random kid on this subject was pretty rotten a few weeks back.
I dislike both hero idolising to the point where people can't be questioned, but I do also dislike picking a million faults on historical figures when they're not around to defend themselves, or when they were 'of their time' (which in itself is pretty imperfect)
I dislike most things really.
But yes, absolutely this.
I do think the 'of his time' argument is a bit weak though, considering there were lots of people who were pretty critical of him during his life. He lost an election by a landslide after the war that made him a NATIONAL HERO for example because he kept running his mouth. I think like many public figures, he was canonised in death, and that image of him as a Great British Hero has stuck.
It's why I'm glad we collectively pissed on Thatcher's grave when she died. We should all be critical of our leaders, even when they're fresh corpses, because otherwise we end up pretending absolute bastards were something more (see Reagan).
Oh absolutely. Some of his opinions were fair for their day but others very much weren't. It doesn't necessarily mean that he was a villain but he certainly wasn't the greatest Britain ever either.
I think it's weak for many people (hence why I noted it so) even for those who supported slavery in the 17th/18th century for example.
As dmlaw said it's probably applicable for some aspects and not for others.
But yeah, fuck Thatcher.
This kinda binary thinking just isn't sensible.
I think it's understandable for the scale to tip the other way a little. Nobody was too bothered about nuance when he was voted the greatest British person ever.
If anything, the existence of this current debate on Churchill (as pointless and inane as it is) proves there's more nuance today. Twenty years ago you wouldn't have been able to move for very important people clutching their pearls about it. I'm not sure if there would even be a discussion.
Why don’t I know who got us through the First World War?
It was Dame Thora Hird, but I won't tolerate any revisionism on that front.
Oh you know it was on the TIP of my TONGUE
The pass-ag tags being left in topics like this really are SOMETHING ELSE
It's funny, I'd fully expect the people leaving them to be some of the first to slag off other posters for hiding behind tags.
The left-over victim complex after the Neeson debate is honestly ridiculous. Most people in that thread agreed with you guys anyway.
I can't work out if this refers to me or not. My only tags were the traditional tits ones etc.
I don't know who's leaving them, but it's obviously someone with a bee in their bonnet. It seems like the sort of thing that'd be best talked about openly, I think.
I'm steering well clear. I feel referring to long dead prime ministers in compromising positions is pretty safe tag territory these days.
There's 'waiting for bev to tell me what i'm allowed to say' in this topic, as well as 'race hero mugatu to the rescue!' here. I just think it's a bit shitty that those users were both involved in quite contentious debates recently and this is what they're getting rather than something more open that they could directly respond to if they chose; perhaps that's me being oversensitive, I don't know.
The first one wasn't me. The second one was me. The topic went up, just at a point when Mug was in full flow in the Liam Neeson topic and didn't respond to said topic for about a day. To be honest that's all I have to say on it. I don't want my experience on here, to continue being lousy.
Also it's a real shame that tags are being so micro analysed of late. It does feel like the fun is being drawn out of the site, bit by bit.
People are getting too het up about tags at the moment. They're just bloody tags. Feel free to post ones about me raping the queen or something. I don't care.
I posted my comment simultaneously, but yes, exactly.
I didn't reply because you were clearly angry at me and the conversation was going nowhere. I wasn't interested in getting into another slapfight about it because I knew neither of us were going to change each other's opinions, that's why I carried on explaining what I thought to everyone else.
I mentioned it because I thought leaving the tag after talking about how much you wanted to change the day before was hypocritical. I'm not trying to microanalyse or take the fun out of anything, it was a mostly serious debate in the first place. That's why I tried not to bring it up in the "fun" places of the site.
I'm not massively bothered about tags either but if you've got something to say about a conversation that's still going, why not post it in the thread? There's a difference between silly joke tags about raping the queen and stuff that you obviously wanted to tell me.
I was referring to the topic about Jiva losing topics. But yeah I'm not especially interested in engaging with you at the moment either.
I want to change my outlook on race, to make me a better person. That was it. I don't that joke in that tag did anything to change that.
I don't really want to go deeply in to it. Tagging is an option that used to be a easy way to slide in a view without getting into a heated debate. And to be honest I've found the heated debates lately to be an absolute head fuck for me, so why would I want to do that?
That's fine by me, I don't either, but if you don't want to drag out a heated debate with me then don't tag your opinions about me in the other threads. I'm not the type to ignore it, I've got way too much spare time on my hands.
which event was this??