Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
copper123

Gary Lineker (moved)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Menger said:

Yup. But here you are using “racism” in its conventional sense.

The whole basis of “racism” in the newfangled sense (which has been adopted by at least the woke left, BLM - and much of the corporate sector in the west - as well as the universities, civil service, military, among others) is that “intent” or “individual belief” (or ideology) is not a relevant. What matters is disparate outcomes (or participation) between racial groups.  That is racist

In this way capitalism, the West, golf and the countryside have each been called “racist”.  

I dare say coin collecting is a little racist too by the same metric.

Which is absurd! and utterly debases the meaning of the word.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

I think if he'd just said that he felt the government lacked compassion on the issue, he'd probably have got away with it, and nothing else would have been said. But the left now have this absurd habit of conflating things the government propose regarding immigration, with nazi Germany. Any - even lightweight - student of history knows there is no comparison, and that to do so is an intensely insulting trivialisation of the events back then, to those affected and their successors.

I agree with you re. "trivialisation of the events back then", but please note that he never used the word 'Nazi' (nor, as Suella Braverman implied, 'Holocaust'). He was talking about the language used by governments, and the early pronouncements against the Jews in 1933 and 34 CAN be compared to some extent with the lack of compassion shown by the Tories.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveG38 said:

I entirely accept that GL's tweet cannot in any way be held to be representative of the BBC's views. The problem, as I see it, is that the implication in his tweet that the government is acting in the same way as Nazi Germany did was clearly going to stir up a controversy. As soon as it did, the BBC had two choices. Either censure him, on the grounds that this post was offensive and reflected badly on them, a reasonable position given that the alternative approach would have been the second choice, which was to ignore it, and then watch the headlines screaming that the BBC supports the idea that the Tories are like the Nazis. The BBC were damned whichever way they went.

If you read his tweet, you will clearly see he was talking about language, not actions.

Which is always the way - to the right, the BBC are a bunch of pinko liberals, to the left, they're a toadying government mouthpiece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

If you read his tweet, you will clearly see he was talking about language, not actions.

Which is always the way - to the right, the BBC are a bunch of pinko liberals, to the left, they're a toadying government mouthpiece.

I don't buy this argument that he only meant language and not actions. He certainly made no such distinction in his tweet. There was nothing else going on in the 1930s that would come close to being recognisable as similar to the government's migration bill, so it is crystal clear that he was equating the Nazi approach to that of the government in order to stir up this kind of 'publicity.' Furthermore, he didn't dispel any misconceptions about what he was talking about, fully intending to leave the impression in people's minds that the government is in some way equivalent to the Nazis of the 1930s. Had he not intended to give this impression, and knowing the interest it would stir up, he would have made this clear.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peckris 2 said:

I agree with you re. "trivialisation of the events back then", but please note that he never used the word 'Nazi' (nor, as Suella Braverman implied, 'Holocaust'). He was talking about the language used by governments, and the early pronouncements against the Jews in 1933 and 34 CAN be compared to some extent with the lack of compassion shown by the Tories.

No, but by natural implication that's what he meant. By 1930's Germany he wasn't referring to the period 1930 to 32 when the old Kaiser was in charge.

I disagree with you that there is the remotest comparison between what has been said by the "tory" government and what was said against the Jews in the period 1933 to 1934. If there is, then give an example comparing two pronouncements, one from then and one from now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldcopper said:

Fair point, but for Gary to even suggest the government "lack compassion" is a strange take when most if not all dinghy travellers are manifestly not refugees, they aren't fleeing war-torn countries, they're paying their way across Europe, then when in a safe country (France) await unauthorised travel across the channel. 

The obvious point to me is that it is nothing to do with Gary or anyone else's "compassion" - the concept has been shoehorned into a political attack on the Tories. But the Tories have been stupid. There was never a problem deporting illegal immigrants before - every government has done it without anyone blinking an eyelid, including Blair and Brown of course. For some reason the Tories have allowed this to get out of control while promoting pantomime policies like Rwanda that would never work on any large scale, even if they could undertake it. 

The only takeaway from this mess that I can come up with, is that the government actually have no problem with mass illegal economic migration. But just talk tough and pretend they do. The globalists want open borders, the globalists lend us finance, so this happens - at least that hypothesis makes sense, nothing else does.

When there are genuine refugees like Ukrainian women and children, you don't see them hitching a lift across the Channel! There are international frameworks to provide for them.

I don't think they do, or at any rate did. But now they realise the public mood they're taking it a lot more seriously, and putting it ahead of the sentiments of their globalist mates. There might be votes in it !

Incidentally, I don't like Sunak and consider him a slimy backstabber, BUT, to his credit, he does appear to be slowly and surely getting on top of the negative situations we find ourselves in. If he carries on in the same vein, there is a possibility that they will begin to look slightly less like the shuffling shambles they were a few months ago. His organisational ability, memory and attention to detail is vastly superior to Johnson's.

Not to mention the fact that he is less likely to alienate and annoy other leaders on the world stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DaveG38 said:

I don't buy this argument that he only meant language and not actions. He certainly made no such distinction in his tweet. There was nothing else going on in the 1930s that would come close to being recognisable as similar to the government's migration bill, so it is crystal clear that he was equating the Nazi approach to that of the government in order to stir up this kind of 'publicity.' Furthermore, he didn't dispel any misconceptions about what he was talking about, fully intending to leave the impression in people's minds that the government is in some way equivalent to the Nazis of the 1930s. Had he not intended to give this impression, and knowing the interest it would stir up, he would have made this clear.

Oh but he did - if you read his tweet, he clearly used the word 'language'. However, he was also criticising the government policy, that I will admit.

Thank you for making my point for me.

4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

No, but by natural implication that's what he meant. By 1930's Germany he wasn't referring to the period 1930 to 32 when the old Kaiser was in charge.

I disagree with you that there is the remotest comparison between what has been said by the "tory" government and what was said against the Jews in the period 1933 to 1934. If there is, then give an example comparing two pronouncements, one from then and one from now

I did say 1933 and 34, which were the first two years of Nazi government - pre-1933 is not relevant.

Two, both by the Home Secretary: one that we were being "invaded" by the migrants in small boats (who are clearly desperate people, as I can't see any other reason for risking the lives of themselves and their families crossing a dangerous stretch of water in overcrowded inflatables); two, that she would be ecstatically happy to see the first plane load of migrants heading for Rwanda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Peckris 2 said:

Oh but he did - if you read his tweet, he clearly used the word 'language'. However, he was also criticising the government policy, that I will admit.

Thank you for making my point for me.

I did say 1933 and 34, which were the first two years of Nazi government - pre-1933 is not relevant.

Two, both by the Home Secretary: one that we were being "invaded" by the migrants in small boats (who are clearly desperate people, as I can't see any other reason for risking the lives of themselves and their families crossing a dangerous stretch of water in overcrowded inflatables); two, that she would be ecstatically happy to see the first plane load of migrants heading for Rwanda.

Still waiting for a 1930's pronouncement from a German official, with which to compare. I also asked this question on a political forum and nobody can answer. Hence I assume they don't have a clue what was actually said or by whom, back then. I wonder if Gary knows? Do you? Have you looked?

Pre 1933 is relevant as Lineker never drew any distinction between the separate parts of the 1930's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

If you read his tweet, you will clearly see he was talking about language, not actions.

Which is always the way - to the right, the BBC are a bunch of pinko liberals, to the left, they're a toadying government mouthpiece.

what is a "PINKO liberal" ?  

 

ok so you are paraphrasing the right...got you now 

Edited by DrLarry
clarity and understanding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I think if he'd just said that he felt the government lacked compassion on the issue, he'd probably have got away with it, and nothing else would have been said. But the left now have this absurd habit of conflating things the government propose regarding immigration, with nazi Germany. Any - even lightweight - student of history knows there is no comparison, and that to do so is an intensely insulting trivialisation of the events back then, to those affected and their successors.

I am not that sure that conflation is a aspect of rhetoric that can be predominantly in the lap of the left! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Still waiting for a 1930's pronouncement from a German official, with which to compare. I also asked this question on a political forum and nobody can answer. Hence I assume they don't have a clue what was actually said or by whom, back then. I wonder if Gary knows? Do you? Have you looked?

Pre 1933 is relevant as Lineker never drew any distinction between the separate parts of the 1930's. 

Do you not think that when claims are  more the idea of the early days of the rise of fascism in Germany  rather than seeking exact words?  The ideology rather than specific statements.   Historical end points dictating the missing specifics.  But  I am sure a scholar of the  politics  could state references of the kind you are seeking  there had been an interesting drama on radio 4 in the last few weeks on the rise of the Nazi party perhaps he had been listening to that and took the reference from the drama which may or may not have been based on hard evidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

I am not that sure that conflation is a aspect of rhetoric that can be predominantly in the lap of the left! 

He's not saying conflation is wrong, he's saying this example of conflation is wrong.

An easy to spot difference I would have thought.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrLarry said:

I am not that sure that conflation is a aspect of rhetoric that can be predominantly in the lap of the left! 

I'm sorry to say it is when it comes to comparisons of such absurdity, they are too farcical to even laugh at.

2 hours ago, DrLarry said:

Do you not think that when claims are  more the idea of the early days of the rise of fascism in Germany  rather than seeking exact words?  The ideology rather than specific statements.   Historical end points dictating the missing specifics.  But  I am sure a scholar of the  politics  could state references of the kind you are seeking  there had been an interesting drama on radio 4 in the last few weeks on the rise of the Nazi party perhaps he had been listening to that and took the reference from the drama which may or may not have been based on hard evidence. 

So then he should say precisely what the comparison is - something he didn't do even when tackled about it. Until that's done, then I don't accept there is any meaningful comparison.

Moreover, let's not forget one overarching point. So many want to come to the UK in the 2020's. So many wanted to leave nazi Germany in the 1930's. That one FACTUAL comparison should tell you all you need to know about comparative nazi rhetoric. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, oldcopper said:

He's not saying conflation is wrong, he's saying this example of conflation is wrong.

An easy to spot difference I would have thought.

 

 

Conflation in terms of rhetoric is usually perceived  with a   somewhat  negative trait usually a person's belief or conviction merged in an idea to attempt to strengthen its meaning.  A belief structure in the idea is usually held strongly in favour of one particular point of view over another and yes all sides on a spectrum of ideas conflate one sides view over another.  It is, as you say  not wrong from one side but less right from the other sides perspective,    

 

it is never easy to assume what is meant by someone, you have decided wrongly for example that my statement is critical   whereas my expectation of the sentence was simply to state that conflation exists for both sides.  It is afterall a pretty new word .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I'm sorry to say it is when it comes to comparisons of such absurdity, they are too farcical to even laugh at.

So then he should say precisely what the comparison is - something he didn't do even when tackled about it. Until that's done, then I don't accept there is any meaningful comparison.

Moreover, let's not forget one overarching point. So many want to come to the UK in the 2020's. So many wanted to leave nazi Germany in the 1930's. That one FACTUAL comparison should tell you all you need to know about comparative nazi rhetoric. 

 

I am a little bewildered as to why anyone would want to risk their lives to come to the UK at all to be honest.  It is not as if our quality of life screams across the world most of the systems and institutions are broken and are less and less likely to offer much to any immigrant......but perhaps stories   of British "greatness" last longer than the reality.  I have lived in many countries around the world where the sense of contentment seems a lot higher than many of the people I live close to in the north east of England 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

Conflation in terms of rhetoric is usually perceived  with a   somewhat  negative trait usually a person's belief or conviction merged in an idea to attempt to strengthen its meaning.  A belief structure in the idea is usually held strongly in favour of one particular point of view over another and yes all sides on a spectrum of ideas conflate one sides view over another.  It is, as you say  not wrong from one side but less right from the other sides perspective,    

 

it is never easy to assume what is meant by someone, you have decided wrongly for example that my statement is critical   whereas my expectation of the sentence was simply to state that conflation exists for both sides.  It is afterall a pretty new word .  

Interesting word salad cut and pasted no doubt. Your comment hasn't got anything to do with being "critical", but it implied that "both sides do it so it's no big deal" Thus rather missing the point.

And of course no one's talking about the concept of conflation per se, they're talking about what has been conflated and whether it is appropriate. That was the whole point of this Lineker story. If you can't see that.....

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oldcopper said:

Interesting word salad cut and pasted no doubt. Your comment hasn't got anything to do with being "critical", but it implied that "both sides do it so it's no big deal" Thus rather missing the point.

And of course no one's talking about the concept of conflation per se, they're talking about what has been conflated and whether it is appropriate. That was the whole point of this Lineker story. If you can't see that.....

 

your process may be to cut and paste , mine to write something as I understood it then went back and edited it , so perhaps it is less coherent than meat and two veg,  as you say more akin to a salad.  Please dont make assumptions about my methodology you have no idea of my process so please dont assume you do 

you seem to be a pretty opinionated member caught up in your own clarity on so many things .  If you wish to shut down a conversation then perhaps you should just elect to do that by contacting the administrator, but for me the point of entering this "domain " to to add to a conversation piece .  Apart from the aspects of collecting I find interest in these discussions outside numismatics are sometimes enjoyable to read but have little interest in many topics.   In most conversations there will always be a degree to which the topic meanders apologies if that bothers you.  I suppose I read too much Plato at school 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

your process may be to cut and paste , mine to write something as I understood it then went back and edited it , so perhaps it is less coherent than meat and two veg,  as you say more akin to a salad.  Please dont make assumptions about my methodology you have no idea of my process so please dont assume you do 

you seem to be a pretty opinionated member caught up in your own clarity on so many things .  If you wish to shut down a conversation then perhaps you should just elect to do that by contacting the administrator, but for me the point of entering this "domain " to to add to a conversation piece .  Apart from the aspects of collecting I find interest in these discussions outside numismatics are sometimes enjoyable to read but have little interest in many topics.   In most conversations there will always be a degree to which the topic meanders apologies if that bothers you.  I suppose I read too much Plato at school 

Meander away - but don't take offense when someone points out that what you are saying is not relevant to the thread. You carry on firing away with your definitions of "conflating" though.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, oldcopper said:

Meander away - but don't take offense when someone points out that what you are saying is not relevant to the thread. You carry on firing away with your definitions of "conflating" though.

likewise dont take offence if someone tells you  assume less and rather make a contribution, I thought that it did have relevance.... obviously you feel it didn't I can live with that.  I think the concept of conflation was key to strongly held points of view as I said on both sides of the discussion on this topic of "the inflammatory  Language used in the debate on migrants" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrLarry said:

I am a little bewildered as to why anyone would want to risk their lives to come to the UK at all to be honest.  It is not as if our quality of life screams across the world most of the systems and institutions are broken and are less and less likely to offer much to any immigrant......but perhaps stories   of British "greatness" last longer than the reality.  I have lived in many countries around the world where the sense of contentment seems a lot higher than many of the people I live close to in the north east of England 

 

Well you say that, but it should be noted that asylum seekers are being fast tracked into housing via a dream offer to private landlords, made by the government, via SERCO. See the link.

This is at the expense of many people already here, who are suffering because of the severe shortage of private rental opportunities these days.

SERCO link    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a very difficult subject for many creating problems from all sides .  There is little shortage of housing  and many empty houses in the North East ....but I am not sure there would be much welcome here it is somewhat closed community towards people of difference 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DrLarry said:

Do you not think that when claims are  more the idea of the early days of the rise of fascism in Germany  rather than seeking exact words?  The ideology rather than specific statements.   Historical end points dictating the missing specifics.  But  I am sure a scholar of the  politics  could state references of the kind you are seeking  there had been an interesting drama on radio 4 in the last few weeks on the rise of the Nazi party perhaps he had been listening to that and took the reference from the drama which may or may not have been based on hard evidence. 

What a fascinating thread. I'm just going to pop this here. Written by the writer Michael Rosen. Which I found interesting.

large.FrPy1oCWAAARUp5.jpg.f899ff4c72563b1831d5ab29014b6a02.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TomGoodheart said:

What a fascinating thread. I'm just going to pop this here. Written by the writer Michael Rosen. Which I found interesting.

large.FrPy1oCWAAARUp5.jpg.f899ff4c72563b1831d5ab29014b6a02.jpg

Michael Rosen has such a marvelous skill with language and words....he can unpick things with clarity...thank you for adding that 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Tom, for the research that I  didn't have the energy to do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skilled though Rosen is, I still don't think there is any realistic comparison between UK 2023 and Germany in the 1930's, and that such comparisons are extremely unfair.

Just to show, this is a picture showing the flight of Jewish people from Germany between 1933 and 1939. The polar opposite to this country, where the argument is about the desperation to get in.

  

escape from Germany 1933 to 39.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×