Don’t pretend you don’t like tacos

74 comments

1. I had tacos for lunch yesterday. I might do it again today. I love tacos

2. Tim – I’m not worried about Ozil, either. He is back in training today, and maybe there is some legitimacy to the back issue. It’s weird that we have taken on this zero sum game idea about the player wages. If we pay player A a lot, then there’s less for player B. As if it’s the fans’ concern that we have to stick to a budget. You are right. Arsenal lots of money and can/should spend to get the players we need. That’s the club’s problem, not ours. Ozil’s wages can be de-stabilizing from a team perspective in that he’s getting paid a ton to play part time, while other guys are contributing every game and getting paid less. That creates some resentment, potentially. But as long as he’s not disruptive, he’s a great player to have, especially against certain teams that sit back, or like Man U, give us room to operate just outside the box. But we have shown we can live without Ozil, and as much as I’d miss him personally, we might be able to get a better fit from another player.

3. Ozil played under Mourinho before and he seems to like Mourinho. I don’t really understand why, but I don’t think he’d lie about that either.

   1. They had a pretty public falling out and Mourinho “motivated him” by calling him a coward.

      Regardless, he’s literally not the player they need. So, it’s a really dumb buy. Which I support fully.

4. PS – I just made Korean-style brisket tacos with the Instant Pot on Sunday, and they were delicious. As to your recent post – I didn’t feel concerned about cultural appropriation, and generally never do. I’m a big fan of the late Jonathan Gold, the Pulitzer Prize winning food writer from LA. He deeply believed that food was a way to create bridges across cultures. If you haven’t seen the documentary about him, it’s really worthwhile. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__2uT1cZWkY
   I think it’s a compliment/honor to appreciate something so much that you want to try it yourself. Of course, that’s my white priveleged viewpoint, but I’ve never gotten the sense from anyone that cooking another culture’s cuisine was anything but the “sincerest form of flattery.” Claiming it as one’s own would, however, be problematic.

5. Özil, the 350K conundrum. Are we missing what he brings to the table, can we live without what he doesn’t bring to the table? Is it enough to be the table setter? You don’t need a 350K waiter to serve you Beluga caviar. I sleep just fine on my Sealey mattress and don’t need a Casper mattress. My teeth get just as clean with an Oral B as oppose to a Quip toothbrush. McDonald’s or Burger King will do me just fine as opposed to a Fleurburger. For Arsenal, Özil is the epitome of extravagance on the pitch and before the season is over, I’m convinced we will need him to be him.

   I would be curious to know what our goals against record is with and without Özil in the lineup in reference to Emery’s assertion that Özil was not suited to play a recent opponent because of their physicality.

6. I still believe Ozil can come good in Emery’s system. His chop and change ways will mean Ozil missing games and could even include marquee matchups. Will he settle for that is the question to ask. As u said the club is rich and I’m not too bothered on what we could get for him in term of transfer amount. However we might choose not to sell from PR point of view in a summer window where we will potentially lose Ramsey, Welbeck, Koscienly, and Cech among others.

7. When Ozil’s on, he’s magic, just like adobada street tacos!

8. Mmm. Good musing but I think that Emery..is a chamelean..and is trying to make his team one. Let me explain.. before teams used to be a “team that play a back 4” or a “team that plays a back 3” or a “team that plays with two stikers” or “4-5-1”. Emery has broken the mould.. I think he constantly changes his Arsenal’s starting 11/formation dependsnt on the opposition..like when he sprung a “three at the back” out of nowhere against spurs to devastating effect. Then 2 up top with Laca and Auba..against Hudders. He is not tied to any formation/11 men but changes it according to the team we play. This where Ozil comes in. I think Emery see him like all players ..his role depende on the opposition.. I would say only Torreira/Xhaka/Bellers/Leno are undroppable .Our strongest 11/preferred formation depends on the team we play .

   1. Think this is a really great take on Emery.

      Our squad might not be as strong as the teams above us but Emery approaches every game as a tactical challenge, and it’s made us slightly more than the sum of our parts.

      Ozil’s a very smart player who gets it and I’m confident he’ll be back to his best soon. He does it every time people count him out. Every single time.

9. Emery is demanding a collective with no untouchables, which it seems to me, is the opposite of what he experienced with Neymar, Rabiot and co. The issue of whether Ozil buys into that is a bigger question than the size of his salary.

   yet, that disparity must be a problem. How can it not, when he earns 4 times as much as Koscielny, the club captain, and more than twice as much as the next highest earner? And I think that cost/benefit surely comes into the reckoning.

   Mesut burned all his bridges with Germany, and all his footballing eggs are in our basket (metaphors galore!). I have a feeling that a reduced role in the collective won’t interest him.

   The Arsenal fan in me wants us to keep all our talents, including Ozil and Ramsey. We coule end up losing both with months.

10. If Monreal and Lichtsteiner play at centerback against Southampton, there are two concerns: 1. They have average pace at best and would struggle in one-on-one situations with Long, Redmond, Obafemi and Armstrong; 2. They are not as good as Holding in the air and would struggle against Austin.

11. I actually think Emery is a modern version of Wenger as a coach (mainly because I wish Wenger evolved a bit and had won the league again before retiring and no slight on Emery).

    As a manager, I think Emery has done wonderfully and dropped Ozil which Wenger probably never would have done. His decision has been vindicated by the results.

12. In regards to Özil. I personally am willing to give him much more “the benefit of the doubt” and believe that he really has/had some injury problems. This is how I can decode Emery’s actions. If he was simply “dropped”/”demoted”, Emery would have left him on the bench – this is the way he has treated Ramsey recently in similar circumstances. Dropping him out of the squad completely would indicate a very serious rift. Which is of course not excluded, but we can easily see if that is the case based on the presence or absence of Mesut from the squad vs Southampton. But I can answer for myself the question if he has been really injured based on tonight’s EL game. If he starts on the bench will mean that he really has been injured. This is how Emery approaches all returns from serious injury (and I call “serious” any injury more than 2 weeks, because it affects your fitness levels) and also not playing him for full 90 minutes would indicate intention to use him on Sunday.

    As for if I will be sorry if it happens so that he leaves the club: Yes, I will. I will not be angry as I am with the Ramsey case (which is a sheer stupidity from our Director of Football), but I will be sorry that we are in a situation where we cannot use and utilize a world class player. Also, I am a bit sad, because Özil “is Arsene Wenger man” and finding out that The Process is incompatible with Arsene-Wenger-style players is a sign that our style is changing. And that the legacy may become history and will remain nothing more than a memory. I am maybe over-sentimental.

    As for the main topic of the article: I am not sure if I like tacos. I am ignorant European and I must admit that I even cannot distinguish between tacos and burritos. But I really like dürüm kebab. Does that count?

13. On Ozil: on the one hand in terms of the team I agree with Tim that alternative solutions would be found so I’m not worried either way if he stays or goes. However, like Ramsey, I love to watch him when he’s on song and would be sad to see him go.

    On Southampton: Yeah, I would have my concerns if we had Licht, Kos and Monreal facing pacy forwards. Southampton are wounded and potentially dangerous now they are rid of Hughes. I have been wrong on a few things though this season so pinch of salt required.

    On the racism / PC thing: I have tangled with other commenters in the past over this view that “PC culture” is driving intolerance or closing down free speech. I like everybody here, so I apologise in the past if these tangles got needlessly personal or antagonistic.

    My problem is I get frustrated when good, smart people who I like say this stuff, because I actually think it’s right wing propaganda. Like all good propaganda it’s got a very small truth at the heart of it (e.g. campus protesters going too far), but this small truth is then inflated by wrapping it up in lies, inaccuracies and misdirection.

    Being disagreed with is not the same as being censored. It just isn’t. People have every right to say dumb racist stuff and other people have every right to tell them they just said something dumb and racist.

    And the propagandists complaining about this imaginary censorship are often charlatans who pose as independent free thinkers going against the tide of liberalism, but who in fact all agree with each other, and they do it on cable and network TV, on nationally syndicated radio shows, in nationally syndicated opinion columns, in hugely popular podcasts, in magazine feature articles, or in editorials in the paper of record. Such brave rebels. Such weak-ass censorship.

    In the UK as an example, five of the seven national daily newspapers are conservative, and every day one of their columnists will complain about how the country’s media is dominated by a liberal agenda. It’s like Spurs rotationally kicking Guendouzi.

    Racism / sexism / homophobia are particularly virulent forms of antisocial behaviour, that take the form of attacks on certain groups’ basic rights, abuse and physical violence against them. The left is the minority that is actively opposed to this. Saying that the left is the problem is like saying that the firefighters ruined your burning house with all that water.

    I do agree that we could all be kinder and more reasoned in our language, and I do agree that this kindness should be extended to allow people to move on from honest mistakes they have made in the past, if they can recognise and own up to them, and if the people who were harmed by those mistakes get at least an apology. I also believe however in individual responsibility, in accountability, and there has to be a balance between this kindness and consequences for people’s actions where it’s warranted.

    I hate social media pile-ons, but those are a function of social psychology and technology, not politics or political correctness. For example look at fandom. Tell the world on twitter that Harry Potter’s rubbish and see what happens to your timeline.

    Final point – I hate bullying, especially group bullying. I don’t want anyone to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in these threads for example, especially not as a result of any comment I have made – and I’m always interested to read other’s views and I WILL change my mind if you persuade me.

    1. Great comment Greg.

       There’s too much grifting going on, and it needs to be called out.

14. Read through some older comments on the contentious topic. A few themes seem to appear.

    People seemingly doubt that Doc and I are arguing for the same thing as the rest of you, but actually we just differ on how to achieve this.

    This doubt is apparently there because of the amount of words spent on the difference rather than the agreement. In how many different ways is someone supposed to condemn the obviously condemnable. To prove your belief you must be sufficiently outraged? Obviously arguing for a nuance to the currently dominant viewpoint will take more words and more energy.

    I brought up Morgan Freeman who Jeremy then character assassinated. Look, no one’s a saint. Yes, he’s obviously got his biases and for all I know he’s a pretty terrible dude like you said and deserves said assassination. It does not make a difference to the argument, which I happen to agree with. Not talking about it doesn’t mean there is no issue. Constantly talking about it makes it worse.

    For me, the key point is does it work? So, does this woke leftism work? I think the increased hold of right wing thought on politics suggests it doesn’t. Maybe I can now go to Stephen Fry (has he done something terrible too?) on Political Correctness where he said sometimes people would rather be right than effective.

    Yes, it’s right that blacks in the US, women across the world, certain religions, castes and classes in certain regions have been subjected to gross discrimination and the problem persists in the institutional and societal setup. And this is wrong and we must change it.

    I mentioned before that people seem to think it’s past due that this ends. And that seems to fuel this ‘outrage’, this insistence that it must end now. I wish it could, but it won’t and it will backfire if it’s all about ‘fighting’. If your focus is to keep finding bias within yourself or society, I guarantee you will find it. Because when you’re thinking ‘don’t be racist’ you’re focusing on race. You’re reinforcing race, reinforcing what divides rather than what unites. Besides, it’s cowardly and selfish (contrary as that appears) to want an end to this NOW. It ignores the progress that has been made and suggests that now it just needs to be smote rather than something we keep moving towards constantly.

    Whereas the left/liberals as I understand the terms would be able to see the institutional problems, identify social groups, and keep pushing and fighting for justice, but not treat each member of the group as a personification of the group/structure itself. I’m not even white, and I really think just using the term ‘white privilege’ is misguided and more than that, is bound to create division where none exists. Like, ‘good sense’ to just listen to someone’s pain and adjust behaviour. Sure, but you know what else is good sense? To not immediately seek to push out the guy who says, ‘hang on a bit, are we sure about this?’ and respond by saying ‘500 years of injustice says yes and you’re responsible for upholding this structure and only afraid of giving up power. Classic racism’.

    One, how is an individual born today responsible for the crimes of his ancestors? Do you know how much wealth the British looted from India and what state they left the (divided) country in and how that does still affect the country in various ways? And of course they were racist. Should I seek reparations/apologies from every British citizen now? It’s only 70 years ago, well within living memory. Two, even if he accepts responsibility (and I think people like Doc would be willing to do this) what is he supposed to do about it? Modify speech? Ok, what else? And based on who’s word? And how many different identity groups can lay claim to this victimhood? Ultimately it will go to the govt to intervene and decide a) what you can and cannot say, and b) who deserves this protection/reparation and who doesn’t, and that is never a good idea. Three, Unfair power structure. Bring it down! Sure. But how? And replace it with what? Bring it down wholescale or piecemeal? And is it not understandable that a guy who feels he has done nothing wrong personally will not want to tear down the ‘structure’ of the life he’s built, even as he’s willing to fight the injustice others face? Such discussions are never even heard/seen in the immediate outrage that follows every time someone steps out of line. And while it’s not really important to a specific incident, the narrative remains dominated by the same outrage, never leaving space for these nuances. Why? Because wokeness dictates everything is about identity and power. And much as I despise the terms SJW and ‘virtue signalling’ it must be noted that there is a societal ‘reward’ for being loud in condemning a person who (allegedly) committed an act of racism to whatever degree and with whatever intention and whatever the chances of reform.

    And once again, what is the result? Does it work? I think it only reinforces the right wing because it pushes out people who otherwise would be allies, or at least bulwarks against the worst tendencies on the right. (I’ve been told I’m a racist sympathiser because of treating the person as an individual the same as anyone else, since ‘colourblindness is an excuse to ignore the injustices against blacks’. What? Also, that I don’t understand racism because ‘I only faced it once in Germany’. So victimhood is a contest and it turns out you CAN disparage someone else’s experience if you’re ahead in this contest)

    ‘You don’t criticise the right, shows your bias’ is another criticism thrown at me and Doc I think. Well yeah, I hold the left to a higher standard than the right. And I of course argue against the depleting ground for the centre left. Politics has moved towards the right while the media portrays what should be the fringe left as the centre left. And this seems to be generally accepted.

    Anyway, rant basically over. I would just like to say that it’s good to be able to at least speak about this here, regardless of the doubt and sometimes abuse that comes from it. And for this Tim deserves a big thank you. It’s a difficult, complicated topic and that’s why it is important we keep talking about it rather than draw battle lines and dig in.

    I leave you with a short video of Stephen Fry mentioned above.
    

    1. “So, does this woke leftism work?”

       HA!

       Yes, it does work. It has worked in the past and will work in the future. Standing up for human rights always works. That doesn’t mean it won’t experience backlash from conservatives, people in the South had dog and firehoses turned on them, people in India had their faces smashed in with rifles, dock workers were murdered when they unionized, gay people were lynched for being gay, etc. etc. The history of human rights is one long, bloody battle. In fact, when the right is riled up and angry you know that you’re on the verge of doing something good for humanity.

       But you also make another strange argument: “I think it only reinforces the right wing because it pushes out people who otherwise would be allies, or at least bulwarks against the worst tendencies on the right.” In other words, the only good answer is for anti-fascists, anti-racists, to become a little more fascist, a little more racist, in order to capture the opinions of those people. The facts here are contraindicated. because of the nature of conservatism and fundamentalism the more you concede to them, the more they will demand. The more you give in to them, the more conservative you will get. And not only that but there is ample evidence that people do NOT change opinions between fundamental beliefs, no matter how well reasoned or impassioned the arguments. But intellectually and morally why should “the left” be the ones who have to compromise? Why do we have to soften our position? Why don’t you? Why not just accept that people are going to ask you not to say certain words? I mean, this seems like such a minor thing to even have a conversation about.

       And that brings me to my last point: all of this stuff about “PC Culture run amok” is literally just there to distract you. It’s the “Live, Love, laugh” of intellectual conversations. It seems like it’s deep and challenging but it actually just serves to obfuscate the larger issue: these “social” wars are literally only there to keep poor people arguing among themselves over trivia while the ruling class robs us blind, poisons the earth, and destroys our future. There is no Labor/Conservative Democrat/Republican split here. They all work toward the same goals, with just slightly different methods. The goal is to keep the rich in power and make them richer.

       The reason we are seeing so many overt examples of working class anger is not because they are being asked to stop calling people bad names it’s because they are being fundamentally disenfranchised by the system which tells them that it’s “the poor Mexicans” (insert other boogeyman) who are the problem. This idea that “PC Culture” is some giant fight about intellectual freedom is such hogwash. There are names you probably don’t want me to call you. You probably have words you would prefer I didn’t use at your dinner table. Ok, well, I have some words I don’t like. It’s called “human decency”.

       Now that I’ve solved that debate….

       1. Also, if your reaction to being asked not to be racist to Polish people (for example) is to be MORE racist, then you were probably never really going to be a bulwark against anything. You just didn’t mind standing up for some things but “now this human right, really crosses the line!” It’s a very strange argument and not one I find particularly convincing from people who tend to draw really bright moral lines.

          Why don’t you just try to be less racist instead? maybe try empathy? listing? self examination? are you really a good person? I mean, really? Things for you to consider.

       2. “… literally just there to distract you. It’s the “Live, Love, laugh” of intellectual conversations. It seems like it’s deep and challenging but it actually just serves to obfuscate the larger issue: these “social” wars are literally only there to keep poor people arguing among themselves o…”

          I COMPLETELY agree with this. Completely.

          I also completely agree with human decency and empathy being the solution. Race, gender, sexuality, religion and all shape the world view, can provide context to why someone holds their views, but they do not and should not define and override the person’s individuality. The issue is not that I would or wouldn’t speak some words or whatever. Many years ago I was online agreeing with some women saying they’d like people to stop using the word rape in the context of football because it can be hurtful. I would still have been against outlawing and punishing the use though, even if the punishment is only a social boycott. The issue is one of conformity where it is demanded that language and by extension thought must be a certain way for you to be deemed a good person and worthy of being heard.

          Btw, I question myself a lot on that. Am I a good person? Am I or will I be a bulwark against the worst of humankind? And the only answer I have is, I don’t know. I hope so.

          But the fact that I don’t agree with the woke identity first left is not a reason for me to think I am not or will not be.

          All those movements, maybe you’re right, maybe at the time I would have deemed them woke. It’s possible. I wonder about that sort of stuff too. Issues across time and how people then would view them. But you are completely wrong in thinking I am asking the left to compromise. I am not. I am asking the left to not fight fire with fire because a)I don’t think it’s working, and b) I don’t believe ends justify the means, even as a reaction to something that is much much worse.

          But, it’s interesting how people who don’t just get with the programme, not in its goals, but in its exact method and means of communication, get asked whether they are ‘worthy’ enough. How keen this demand for purity, to prove the goodness within you, or else you’re shunned. Does it not strike you that in another time and/or another place this would be the position religious dogmatists would have taken towards morality? Something for you to consider maybe?

       3. But Tim, you know that everyone would stop being racist and sexist, if only ‘the left’ would leave them alone.

          It’s worked so well in the past :/

       4. Sorry, Tim, but you misunderstand leftist wokism if you equate its criticism or pushback with support for lynching and the like. Standing up for what’s right has little to do with being “woke,” “on the left,” “on the right,” or using PC language (and denigrating those who don’t). I absolutely support your support of Sterling, and I want more allies, and I don’t even care if being an ally is self-serving (i.e., virtue signaling). We need more people like Tim in this world.

          However, leftist wokism — and, as a discursive artifact, it is separate from voicing support for black athletes — is occupied with a slightly different project, and one expressly designed to demonize people (disingenuously underwritten as a project of education), as the insults aimed at Shard by you and Kaius so aptly demonstrate. Applying the logic of wokism, I might even suggest that your accusations of Shard’s irrationality are based in your own systemic prejudices of orientalism; Shard has freely admitted he is from India: does your experience count or does his? But really, this kind of language encourages entrenchment rather than a change of mind. From the tenor of your comments, I gather neither of you care, since the idea is that anybody who disagrees with your point of view is worthy of scorn and ad hominem, even if you agree in terms of a desired outcome (i.e., a world without r*cism), but disagree about method (i.e., a particular kind of political discourse).

          Personally, I think the discourse of wokism or the far left does a poor job of accomplishing its aims. Aims, I hasten to add, that I support 100%, particularly as someone who has experienced his fair share of r*cist insults and actions throughout his life. I yearn for a day when we can approach difference without screaming, and without assuming that arguments against certain kinds of political action are inherently averse to political action.

          1. Bun, be careful not to contradict yourself. If leftist wokism is disingenuous and designed only to demonize, as you say, then why later claim you support it’s aims?

             Because the aim your little lecture failed to talk about is anti-racism. It might be useful to think about who gets to deride anti-racism as ‘woke leftism’ and whether they have a sincere interest in seeing anti-racism succeed at all.

             Don’t make the mistake of buying into academic critique of discourse without acknowledging that terms like “leftist wokism” are also used to mock even the mildest forms of anti-racism. To use your framing, it’s also a “discursive artifact” designed to silence opposing anti-racist views.

             And you’ve owned yourself with your attempt to smear Tim with that ‘orientalist prejudice’ line about Shard. Because even according to Shard, you Bunburyist are the one making it racial and playing into the hands of the far-right by essentialising his race/ethnicity. Tim did no such thing.

             Anyway, I stand with Raheem Sterling, Ainsley Maitland-Niles and Pierre Emerick-Aubameyang. Glad we had this talk.

             1. By your standards, that was a pretty measured reply. Thanks, Kaius!

                Your response illustrates my point, I think? First, because I haven’t coded my discourse with certain ways of speaking, you are only able to see a critique of suspicion as inimical to pursuing a less r*cist, more civil society. Indeed, for you, any argument against a subculture of suspicion and shame is always and already an argument for far-right ideology and r*cism, rather than an argument that might transcend politics in the hopes of a more humane world (but that would be a generous interpretation, one quite impossible in an orthodoxy of suspicion). Your indignation at my use of orientalism fails (or perhaps succeeds) in capturing its rhetorical purpose, which was to exemplify the strategies of suspicion, rather than own it as my opinion.

                I want the same thing you do: a world in which we can get along and perhaps even love each other, regardless of the color of our skin. Where people don’t throw bananas at players and claim innocence. Where I differ with some of my fellow leftists is strategy (maybe that makes me a centrist?). That is, I see the strategy of hyper-accusatory vigilance as worsening divides rather than healing them, and forcing people to double-down on their beliefs instead of experimenting with new ones. And to be clear, Tim’s response to the events concerning Sterling and Aubameyang is not evidence of a culture of suspicion.

                I think the problem here is that because we share a basic desire or hope, and because I don’t see any far-right supporters in our midst, my arguments are directed at a certain subset of the left, which can be perceived as lopsided in focus. That is, our shared perspective in fundamentals means that it is redundant to craft long essays on why r*cism is bad and white s*premacy a scourge. But I believe both those things. Would you find it an insult to your intelligence for me to explain to you why r*cism is bad? I think you would. But with a different audience, perhaps, I’d do just that.

                There is no contradiction between self-criticism or criticism of strategy and furthering the aims of a civil society.

                Alongside you and Tim, I stand with Sterling, Aubameyang, and AMN.

             2. Ha, cheers Bun.

                My patience has worn thin with reading alt-right adjacent talking points on every single damn post that concerns racism, but please know your critique of my comments is always welcome.

                At least with you, I have no doubt which side you’re on.

             3. Yeah, I get that, Kaius. Want to know how I really feel or want to do when I see someone throwing a banana or hear someone insulting someone based on race? I probably shouldn’t utter it in a public forum (even anonymously!), but let’s just say it has nothing to do with discourse analysis.

                My interests are in different situations, such as how we respond to unintentional missteps (or perhaps mistakes made in good faith), how we communicate feelings of hurt and the need to change behaviors, and the fractious, messy business of systemic r*cism. Sterling’s treatment has been deplorable. My hope is that this focus / exposure prompts journalists to think more carefully (or just think!) about how they report on players of color, and that “well, I never said there was anything wrong with being black, did I?” is a terrible answer. This stuff hurts people, and it perpetuates r*cist beliefs.

                Anyway, we have our disagreements (I disagree with everyone, because I’m a d*ck, basically), but I do appreciate where you’re coming from.

       5. To clarify the first sentence of my comment: Saying that leftist wokism has ameliorated the plight of the marginalized is like saying that noncomformist English puritanism led to a more intolerant Christianity in America (and yet, for example, the opposite has proven true over the centuries). These orthodox discourses often produce outcomes opposed to their aims. Consider that Christian paradigms were adopted by and for the US civil rights movement in the twentieth century, and yet nowadays far left positions would label Christianity complicit with any number of social evils. In other words, there is nothing about leftist language (defined in specific ways) that in and of itself makes the world a better place.

          So…saying that you stand with Sterling has nothing to do with policing speech and nothing to do with being woke, left, or right. It’s just a good thing to do.

          1. OK, so “orthodox discourses often produce outcomes opposed to their aims”. This is good.

             Bun is not accusing the Left of having authoritarian aims, which a lot of the centre / rightist critics of the left spend a lot of time doing (I’ve lost count of the times I’ve read about “neo-Marxism”, “Stalinists” and other complete misreadings of what the Left actually is and wants). He’s saying that by imposing orthodoxy we undermine our own ideals.

             If you push the focus of the critique onto orthodoxy, I think you will actually start to have a more productive conversation, because it turns out that most of us on the Left are ALSO against orthodoxy. But what people on the centre and right perceive as Leftist / PC orthodoxy is IMO better described as solidarity.

             The main idea behind Leftist thought is to make society a place where all of us can thrive. It’s collectivist (it insists that there are a set of problems and solutions that have a social rather than individual nature) and it’s fully inclusive. So when someone brings their truth, shows how they are systematically excluded or unfairly treated, because of their class, race, gender or whatever, no matter who they are the Left takes that seriously and stands by them. Solidarity is the main organising principle.

             I think ultimately this is the difference between the Left and the Middle – the commitment to each others’ causes. If there is any orthodoxy that the Left is trying to impose, it is solidarity – the insistence that we take the problems of those worse off than us at least as seriously as our own. To do that requires something of us, it requires some kind of sacrifice on our part. Taking better care of the language we use is pretty much the smallest sacrifice we can make, but it’s a very superficial thing. The solidarity that lies behind it is much more important.

             1. I’m not dismissing the fact that in the messy world of social interactions, people can be d*cks about anything. Competitive victimhood, conspiracy thinking, virtue signalling are all real things. But they are not the substance. Nor is orthodoxy.

             2. Thanks for those thoughts, Greg. That helps. What’s been strange to me (over the past few years especially) is that the orthodox impulse that we have grown accustomed to identifying (and critiquing) in the right, is now also identifiable in the left. But because the left has historically done such a good job of poking holes in orthodox thinking, it has the vocabulary to deflect accusations of orthodoxy (ironically, by asserting with increasing decibels that they are truly subversive). It is now possible to believe, somehow, that language shaming is an instance of antiauthoritarianism.*

                Your point about solidarity is an important one, and perhaps leads the way in thinking about how to approach intentions (and education) with care.

                *just to avoid misunderstanding, I see differences between the communication of hurt (one that is ideally met with an apology), an appeal for correction, and the communication of shame. I think we should work on making it easier, not harder, for people to admit a mistake and turn even the smallest of corners.

             3. (Greg, I’ve probably misunderstood / misrepresented your comment. Just know, I liked it, and the spirit with which it was made.)

             4. Greg, I aspire to be as articulate as you.

                Agreed on all points.

             5. Thanks guys, no Bun I think you have got it so thanks for reading carefully, it’s easy to misunderstand each other.

                I agree we should work towards better understanding and away from shaming and excluding.

                But here’s my honest question. There are some people – that guy abusing Sterling in the clip for example – who display their racism or hatred proudly and unapologetically. I think that there should be zero tolerance on that kind of behaviour; it should be socially unacceptable, beyond the pale, which means there have to be social consequences including shame. I think publicly shaming behaviour like that is OK, because it sends the right message. Am I wrong? Is there another, better way, that does not involve shaming but that also doesn’t legitimise his racism?

                I guess I would support some way of enabling that guy to go through some kind of dialogue to help understand why he’s wrong, but from a liberal perspective that would look like some kind of PC re-education camp. I think that’s worse, creepier and more authoritarian than just shaming him. Ideas welcome.

             6. . I think that there should be zero tolerance on that kind of behaviour; it should be socially unacceptable, beyond the pale, which means there have to be social consequences including shame

                ===

                Agree 100%

    2. Ainsley Maitland-Niles appeared alongside Emery and spoke out publicly to reveal he’s faced the same situation as Sterling. What both Sterling and Maitland-Niles did took courage.

       What you’re doing Shard, by exploiting their racist abuse to air your grievances, is not very brave. It’s not even debate really – it’s concern trolling.

       It demeans your entire argument. It demeans you as a person.

       It’s almost as dumb as the time Tim posted about Ozil’s DFB letter and retirement and you chose to target some phantom “left” in Germany who you claim didn’t “protect him”.
       What you didn’t realise is that German politicians had already made public statements backing him and condemning the press and the DFB for their handling of the case.

       The common theme running through this – is that quite often you don’t know what you’re talking about. You utterly fail to recognise the true pathology of the right. As Tim says, they will never tack to a more reasonable middle ground.

       Imagine thinking you can “hold the left to a higher standard” when you can’t even explain why people fight for marginalised groups even they themselves are not part of the marginalised.

       I hate to break it to you Shard, but no-one on “the left” owes ill-informed reactionaries an explanation about why they fight or what tactics they use. Maybe you could ask Raheem and Ainsley.

       1. Hang on. You want the conversation to start and stop with Sterling and Niles? (whose abuse happened when he was 12 years old. TWELVE! What kind of sicko does that?)

          So how long do you want me to condemn it? I’d run out of words and it would still remain near as distasteful and disgusting a thing someone can do to a person.

          I thought we had/could move beyond the immediate incident and our shared disgust of it towards a larger conversation about race, But because I don’t exactly agree with you on that, I am exploiting Sterling and Niles?

          On Ozil, I was not the only one who said this. Ozil himself said that people in the DFB didn’t stand by him against racist accusations of him being a traitor. You had comments on this site saying they sympathise with Ozil BUT…he did take a photo with this politician we don’t like now but was ok 2 years ago, so now it’s all a bit up in the air. No one called them out on their lack of adequate concern for the racist abuse Ozil was suffering. Who was concern trolling then? Good on the politicans who supported Ozil, but the general narrative was making it out to be his fault. THAT’s what I called the left out on.

          Once again, not fighting the battle on the right wingers terms is not ceding them ground. They view race as the foremost issue. We must say that’s wrong, but not make it THE identity we make our own politics on. I’m against that.

          It’s easier for you to be holier than thou when it comes to this because the current narrative aligns with yours. It doesn’t make me wrong or bad to say you know what, maybe there’s another, better way. But you fear the far right so much that any deviation from the battle line means ‘danger/enemy’ to you.

          I have a comment in moderation too. But I’m done debating this until people can at least acknowledge that they don’t hold the freaking badge of goodness just because they conform to one, rigid political stance.

          Off to watch the Arsenal. Peace.

          1. Tim wrote a post in support of Raheem Sterling and you used it to attack the only side who fights to protect the Sterlings of this world. My kids and my nephews look like Raheem amd Ainsley. You think this is about a “badge of goodness”?

             What’s funny is you think I owe you decorum or deference because you can reproduce mindless intellectual dark web talking points. I may not agree with Doc but I respect where he’s coming from because I can empathise with him, and I at least try to show that in my discussions with him.

             I have more respect for Arsenal Fan TV (actually I quite like how much they annoy people like you, who look down on working class Londoners who speak “street” and feel that Arsenal belongs more to you because you’re smart and middle-class).

             Before you were even born, working class Londoners were fighting proper hard right characters (whose modern equivalents you appease with your politics and whose talking points you’re so drunk on) to keep our club an inclusive and multi-cultural space. And you come on here asking “but does fighting work” like some spoiled child who has no idea how his parents struggled to give him a comfortable future.

             You’re the worst type of ‘international’ Arsenal fan – arrogant, ignorant, loud and wrong about what the club actually represents.

             If your idea of “moving on past our shared disgust” at Sterling’s treatment “and having a wider conversation about race” is to IMMEDIATELY pivot, launder your personal grievances and attack some crude caricature of “the left”, don’t expect me to indulge you.

             “It’s easy for you to be holier than thou because the current narrative aligns with you”.

             Because footballers who look like me still get bananas thrown at them yeah? You worthless f*cking imbecile.

             1. Bit too much anger and personal abuse, not enough thoughtful argument, for my taste. And class bigotry is just another form of racism. How did this comment get through moderation? FYI, most members of the National Front would consider themselves “working class”.

             2. Jayke,

                I don’t believe in being politically correct with people whose arguments always boil down to attacking the left for being too politically correct.

             3. I understand the reason for your reaction and I don’t hold it against you, even as I think you are wrong. Both about where you place me, and your approach to the issue.

                Best of luck to you and your children. Hope they grow up in a better world.

             4. Yeah I’m not interested in your fake civility.

                Keep it.

          2. “On Ozil, I was not the only one who said this. Ozil himself said that people in the DFB didn’t stand by him against racist accusations of him being a traitor”.
             _______________________

             Hmmm. Bit of sleight of hand there, Shard. You’re the only person who turned a lack of support for Ozil from some quarters into a sweeping conclusion that “the left” offered no support. Which was an absurd reach and an utterly bizarre conclusion, not least of which because it wasn’t true.

    3. Hi Shard.

       I usually agree with a lot of what you say, especially when it came to Arsene Wenger. For a while we were probably the last two people on here not calling for him to stand down after everyone else had lost patience with him.

       On the Morgan Freeman thing.

       I wouldn’t have mentioned it except that you brought him up as someone who spoke out against what he saw as a culture of victimhood.
       All I said was that it’s not surprising that a powerful man, who has had multiple allegations against him, would think that way. And I didn’t make anything up. Those allegations are out there and multiple women have spoken out about his behaviour.

       Here’s a short except from the Irish Times.

       ‘Actor Morgan Freeman is facing allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour. The Oscar-winning actor ( 80) was accused of repeatedly behaving in ways that made women feel uncomfortable on film sets and at his production company, Revelations Entertainment, according to an investigation by CNN. The news outlet spoke to 16 people who described a pattern of behaviour, including a production assistant on 2015 film Going In Style who alleged he repeatedly attempted to lift her skirt.
       He was also accused of making comments about women’s clothing or bodies, with some alleged incidents taking place in front of witnesses and even on camera, the report claims.
       CNN said it had spoken to three entertainment reporters who said Freeman made inappropriate remarks during interviews, including CNN reporter Chloe Melas, who was pregnant at the time and co-wrote the investigation.’

       (Irish Times)

       I don’t see how it’s character assassination to say that he has allegations against him, and if I got a bit angry in my words towards him, it’s only because I’m sick of men like him (and powerful men especially) moaning about ‘victimhood’ barely a year after women on mass finally had enough of their treatment, spoke out, for the first time ever, weren’t just dismissed but believed.

       Is it also character assassination to say that there’s multiple allegations against Trump, and Bill O Reilly, and Harvey Weinstein? Is that character assassination to you?

       1. Thinking about it more, you’re entitled to you opinion for sure, but I’m upset that you’d accuse me of character assassination Shard.

          If you think my comment about Morgan Freeman was ‘malicious and unjustified’, then I guess you can’t have a very good opinion of me.

          1. I guess I just think it’s sad that you’ll cape for someone like Morgan Freeman, who you don’t even know and have never even talked to, and yet you’ll throw me under the bus as someone willing to engage in character assassination, even though we’ve talked multiple times over a period of a few years, and have always got on well.

             Why don’t I get the benefit of doubt you’re willing to extend to him?

15. 1) Torreira has to be instructed to pick up a deliberate yellow next game. It might have some comedic value if he’s running around the pitch nailing Southampton players and the ref, knowing full well what he’s trying to do, doesn’t give him a yellow. But definitely he needs to be told to go foul someone late in the second half.
    2) A couple of years ago they interviewed various Arsenal players and asked them who was Wenger’s biggest pet? It was Ozil, who they said was in his office every other day begging off training. That to me is not a great example for the younger players. He covers a lot of ground in games but you had a post several months ago about stats padding and Ozil is not covering good ground, it’s a lot of running after the fact. The perception that he’s lazy is not entirely off base. He’s a bit of a flat track bully too, he destroys Fulham but disappears against Atletico. I hear Inter may want him and Italy would be perfect for him.

16. woof that was long. Sorry.

    Man, I love Ozil. He’s the sort of player that makes football a joy to watch. Is he flawed? Sure. But he’s special and when he’s on form oh boy. I would be distraught if he left. There’s something about Ozil that just screams Arsenal. But I am now unsure about what this Arsenal is with the way we rescinded Ramsey’s contract offer. So I don’t know. Maybe ManU will offer us stupid money for him and we’ll let him go, but I very much hope not.

    I am concerned about the CB situation. But only because both Kos and Monreal are only just coming back from injury and will likely play tonight too. But you forgot to mention Jenko who did very well there last time. I would think he’d play against Spurs in the League Cup along with Pleguezelo maybe.

    I don’t think I’ve ever had tacos weirdly enough. Except for once at the newly opened Taco Bell here but I didn’t like it and I hear they’re not the best way to judge tacos.

17. The rules regarding cards has been tweaked. Yellow cards accumulated in the league result in the suspension being served in the following league game so Torreira would still be available to play midweek. Only red card suspensions work the old way.

18. And to think that the original subject of the racism debate was the treatment meted out to Raheem Sterling, other black players like our own Aubameyang, and other groups that are not black. I think that Kauis put it best last thread, when he wrote in effect that conflating clear, justified cases of racism with cases of wrong and overzealous policing of expression disrespects both issues.

    It’s an unfortunate tic from the right, particularly those who decided to throw their lot in with Trump… Even the indisputable cases of wrong are lumped together with those they consider to be cases of excessive political correctness. And, as my 2 friends banging this drum show, they can’t seem to see what the problem is in doing that!

    I don’t think people are bad for doing this. I think, one, folks tend to have certain bees in their bonnet and a topic vaguely related to those bees bring them out. That is when measuredness and nuance take flight. Why are we even raising cases of conservatives being hounded out of certain settings because people don’t like their views (something that is wrong)? What on earth has that got to do with Tim’s comments, which reasonable folks should be able to get behind? How did the subject of Raheem Sterling’s pain morph into right wing grievance?

    Ragging Polish players about being labourers isn’t wit. And the line between mild racism and ethically flavoured wit, unfortunately for those dishing it out, doesn’t get to be decided by them. We can disagree on this, but Tim having that view doesn’t make him an overzealous white dude trying to stifle the free speech of whites in general. How on earth did we end up here?

    We should all be able to agree that abuse of Sterling and ethnically flavoured wit have no place in football. That is really all there is to it..

    1. Claude, I apologize for unintentionally hijacking the original purpose of the thread. I think I was looking for some acknowledgment of the arbitrary and fluid use of the word “racist” that was applied to the people singing about Polish builders. I was looking for an acknowledgement that nuance is necessary when we use that word because it it so powerful and yet lacks widely acknowledged bounds and definitions. I am a white person living in a very liberal part of a very liberal state and I acknowledge that my views on this are different from yours as a part of that background but all voices need to be heard if we are to reach any accord, wouldn’t you say?

       I think the positive to take from this is that nobody is debating that Sterling suffered a grievance that should be acknowledged and if appropriate, punished. That we are not having a conversation about the validity of his grievance (at least not here we are not) is a kind of social progress, though it falls far short of the ideals of many, of that I am certain.

19. I enjoyed this Post, Imothyt, thank you.

    Racism sucks.

    I’m looking forward to the game tonight, and even tho it will not include all the Arsenal ‘star’ names it will be interesting, as watching the young stars of the future is always good for the soul.

    I read that Saka, Medley and Ozil will play from the get go and possibly NKetiah will get more minutes than he has recently — so, bring it on!

20. On Ozil. All my political commonsense tells me that there was a rift between him and the coach, and that it got pretty serious. I don’t believe the back injury story. Not saying that he doesn’t have back issues, but the sequence of events tells me otherwise. I take no joy in saying this. But let’s get real.

    After the Bournemouth game for which he was on the bench, I thought that the coach was far too open about the player’s shortcomings. And after the derby, from which ch he was absent altogether, Emery was stunningly dismissive and indifferent in answering questions. A back injury doesn’t stop you showing up in a comfortable hospitality box for your teammates’ biggest game of the season. He was also unusually inactive on social media.

    Why did he train on his own? All parties are crafting a way back that saves face for the club.

    On Ramsey, my fear is that he has already played his last game for Arsenal. The injury against United was not serious, according to Emery. But to the player at the time it must have brought to mind the nightmare scenario of landing a serious injury and being out of contract, as is the case with Welbeck, who will not be offered a new one. He’s surely wrapping himself in cotton wool, and not taking any chances. And that can’t continue. Commitment had got to be full blooded, literally and metaphorically. But all the same, however professional and well intentioned he may be, a player is risking his livelihood and his future by playing without contractual protection. It’s like driving without insurance.

    He’s also been getting a lot of social media love from the club, in a way that feels like a farewell. I could be wrong (indeed this is brain and gut and hard facts) but I think that Ramsey is good as gone.

    1. Interesting that you read the club’s social media love-in for Ramsey as a farewell. Many other read it as signs that we are working a new deal.

       1. I could be wrong. And I’d be happy to be.

21. Man, can’t tell you how great it feels to have our skipper back.

    1. You see the way he was looking at the crowd before kickoff? He looked so damn happy to be out there again.

22. But Tim, you know that everyone would stop being racist and sexist, if only ‘the left’ would leave them alone.

    It’s worked so well in the past :/

23. Good win tonight!

24. Saka and sakamanjie.. do we have a young neymar here?😂

25. Greg, thank you for a tempered, well reasoned comment. It was tough to read some of the follow up. I agree with Shard that we all basically want the same thing, so let’s try to keep that in mind when we talk about particularly contentious issues like who stands for what.

    First (and this is in response primarily to Tim’s comment) “the right” is not synonymous with fascism. Fascism is the most extreme expression of rightist ideology which in my mind boils down to autocracy which really is about power first and foremost. Being conservative doesn’t make one an autocrat just like being liberal doesn’t make one a communist. There are degrees and we would all do well not to presume the worst of each other just because of basic political leanings. Conservatism isn’t a crime and it shouldn’t imply any degree support for social discrimination. It sucks that I even have to type this. In case anyone’s interested, I voted for Obama and then Hilary. I voted for Obama because he’s a gentleman whose heart is in the right place even if he is somewhat justifiably seen as a lousy politician because he oversaw 6.5 years of political inertia. I voted for Hilary because Donald Trump is a flipping idiot, and that has nothing do with liberal or conservative, he’s just a lousy human being who has no business holding public office of any kind. I do not identify as a conservative on most social issues but I do believe vehemently in the democratic process and I do believe very strongly that conservatives do not deserve to be seen as fascist-adjacent merely for their core political beliefs. That leads to mistrust and further division and ultimately a breakdown of democracy.

    Next, I think we need to separate the idea that racism and social discrimination in all forms is bad from the idea that we are going about addressing the problem of racism and social discrimination in the correct way. Again, I think this is a pretty obvious distinction but one that I see conflated in a lot of commentary on this topic. If you want to root something out of society, is it the right approach to go around pointing the finger at the “guilty” and punishing them? That may have worked for obvious cases of human rights crimes like in the Nuremberg Trials but it won’t work on the insidious, baked in, structural social racism that we have been predominantly discussing here. The idea that it’s right to stand with the oppressed and work for social justice should not be conflated with the idea that it’s right to punish people or label them as fascists if they do not agree with your views on how to accomplish social reform. We can’t even completely agree amongst ourselves about the use of the word “racism”: who owns it? Who gets to decide who is guilty of it? Who gets to decide how to punish it? Who holds arbitration in cases of dispute? The Woke Left say they do. And it is that assumption of being the moral compass that rankles, particularly when it becomes directed against individuals not aligned with their thinking. In those cases you have judgment and punishment in the forms of social condemnation without trial and without jury on the basis of what can be boiled down to mob mentality. It is not consistent with democratic principles and it is not consistent with basic human kindness. I hope and pray that we can keep that concept separate from the concept of the moral value of the fight against social inequality quite separate, as they should be.

    The last thought on this addresses the comparative value of the fight against racism weighed against the wrongs done by an overly exuberant fight against racism in the forms of repression of free thought and wrongful social exclusion. I’ve read many comments along the lines of comparing these two and that the importance and historical gravitas of the former far outweighs the latter. I think this comparison is problematic on several levels. First, baked into that commentary is a healthy dose of needing to break some eggs to make an omelette, which becomes an ends justifying means conversation. Accepting collateral damage in a just cause may seem attractive when the end is seen as a blissful world of equality free of racism but is that really where we are headed with our current methods? Are we really breaking some potentially bad eggs on the way to something great or are we actually breaking eggs while marching away from each other and toward political polarization and gridlock? I know what I think based on recent events. Collateral damage in the context of good methods may be acceptable (although many would justifiably debate this). Collateral damage in the setting of bad methods is unequivocally awful. Second, reminding people of historical wrongs when used as a justification for wrongs against others is simply awful politics and a sure path to fostering extremism. In fact, that’s the exact rhetoric taught to terrorists and suicide bombers. Think how far we could take this: we are a nation that disenfranchised native Americans of an entire continent. We cannot ever right that wrong. We are a nation that enslaved Africans and prospered on the back of that human rights violation for centuries. We cannot ever right that wrong. Unspeakable retribution could be claimed on the basis of those two human rights violations alone. But would that be the morally right thing to do? Who can be made to pay for the crimes of their ancestors? AND WHO ARE WE TO DECIDE??

    I will leave you with this last message. Practice humility in all things. Perhaps that sounds rich coming from one like me who has been arrogant toward others at times, but the message is more important than the messenger in this case. As Kendrick Lamar says: Sit down. Be humble.

26. “ I voted for Obama because he’s a gentleman whose heart is in the right place even if he is somewhat justifiably seen as a lousy politician because he oversaw 6.5 years of political inertia.”

    I don’t think he did too badly for a Kenyan born Muslim hardliner, Doc.
    I mean those years of political inertia you speak of wouldn have anything to do with the entire Republicans caucus refusing to work with him on anything wouldn’t?

    I mean it’s not like Republicans in Congress withdrew their own bills after Obama voiced his support for them.
    Has that even happened before in the whole history of American politics?
    A guy introduces a bill, a President gets elected to office and all of a sudden for no particular obvious reason the same guy who wrote the bill and felt passionate about it, no longer likes it that much, Just weird isn’t it.

    Oh, and there was that pesky recession he had to face on day one too.

27. And if you think his signature health care act took too long to introduce into law and fell way short of the mark, well at least thanks to Republicans in Congress and the conservative media like Fox News, the dreaded death panels were eliminated from it. Thank God.

    1. Don’t get me wrong, I am actually very fond of Obama as a man in a way I haven’t been fond of any of our presidents since I have been in this country. I think the ACA was a breath of fresh air. The issue though is that if you are a politician, you have to be able to find some way to work with the other side. Of course the Republican caucus behaved in a ridiculous, childish way and did everything they could to obstruct him. I know this well. But all of our great leaders have faced staunch partisan opposition and found ways to overcome that. That’s where I feel he falls short. That may be too high a bar in today’s political climate but the unfortunate thing is that a lot of the frustration with his administration stirred up enough resentment to get a demagogue elected. There is a lot more to unpack here and I am by no means he was the only or even major determinant in that but it would be tough to argue it didn’t contribute.

28. Doc, you don’t owe me an apology. I disagree with you on much that you have said on this, but I think that I can the progression from your point of view.

    Uncomfortable as this debate has been at times, it has been hugely illuminating and worth having. Greg is owed an immense amount of the credit for that, and I liked the way that Bun and Kaius danced their way to something resembling understanding.

    The one thing I hope we’ll all do is stop the lazy labelling. What is “the left” anyway? A VERY broad church. I’d happily wear the tag lefty/liberal, but I’m nowhere near other people who occupy the broad spectrum (for example the Bernie Sanders in the US and Jeremy Corbyn wing in the UK), and a disagree with them on a lot of things, policy-wise and action wise.

    1. When I hear folks talk about “the left” broadly and without specificity; or “mainstream media” and “political correctness”, my BS antenna goes berserk. They are usually very big tells that s/he hasn’t thought things through, and is broad brush spewing Fox talking points. From the point of view of thoughtful, intelligent discourse, they just ordered McDonalds’. Or Hannity fries.

       We’re better than this.

       Thanks again, Greg and others, for taking the time to break things down. The point about solidarity was particularly well-argued.

       1. Thanks for that claude, and I appreciate that labeling goes both ways and both sides are hyper-acute for particularly practiced tropes that are routinely hurled at them by less than thoughtful elements of the faction across our ever deepening national trench. I will try to be more mindful of that. I think the “woke left” that maybe better applies to the issues that were discussed. But it’s hugely complex and nobody really fits under one easily circumscribed umbrella.

          1. Yes, lefties are guilty of the same broad-brushing. But there are significant differences between alt-right, the Hannity right, and the Bush and Frum right.

    2. You’re right about the broad brush, and I have been guilty of that as you’ve pointed out. I think I should have said the ‘woke left’ or the left as is presented in the media (?) as closer to what I meant. In fact, I don’t consider them true leftists or liberals, and that is what I criticise them for. (The true left is currently out on the streets of France, and the farmers protest in India. And they’re actually making a difference)

       For a guy seen as alt-right because of this, it’s funny that I’m probably left of you politically, because though I am not well versed with all their policies, in terms of their world view, I want Corbyn and Sanders to win.

       And while people here remembering me saying I hope Trump wins, they don’t seem to remember me saying I have changed my mind from Hillary to Trump because Hillary means war (and so far Trump has not extended US wars, and even, against all my expectations, not sought to wreck the Korean peace process.) I also said, that it’s easy for me to say this because I only have a single point agenda, and I don’t actually have a vote. That if I did have a vote, despite my thoughts, I am not sure I’d be able to go through with actually voting for Trump because of how despicable he is.

       Again where I differ from the current media and general narrative is the focus on Trump as the disease rather than a symptom. Now, with such a terrible guy, who is also showing up the US polity for what it is because he’s too dumb to be a smooth operator. Now is the chance to course correct. Instead everyone seems to just think getting rid of Trump is the end goal, and again, everything is fair game just to achieve this. It’s sad to me how little introspection there is compared to blame. I had hoped for better, and still hope for it though it is dwindling.

       Plus, I’d like to apologise for the rancour I caused in the comments through my tone. I lost my cool after reading through a couple of days worth of comments which assumed the worst interpretation of what doc and I had to say. But that’s no excuse. I’m sorry.

       Loved Greg’s comments, Bun is basically saying what I think, despite what people see me as(and that’s my lack of eloquence and equanimity to blame)

       Lastly Kaius. You don’t know me, nor what I have experienced, and you clearly don’t understand where I’m coming from. And I don’t know you. Neither of us owes each other anything nor did I demand it specifically from you. And while my ‘civility’ to you was forced, it wasn’t fake. It wasn’t easy, but I meant what I said. Not accepting it is your choice and nothing to do with me.

29. Drop everything else, suspend all disagreements and watch this, gooners. Koscielny’s road back. It was hard to keep a dry eye.

    1. Doc, this is indisputably in your wheelhouse 🙂

       1. Ah man, top stuff! I’m getting chills. He’s just an outstanding human and we are lucky that he plays for Arsenal.

    2. Outstanding!

30. Thanks everybody for top comments. Who knew tacos would prompt such a serious discussion.

    I haven’t had time for the Kos doc yet, but looking forward to it.

    1. Can’t believe I’ve been talking about solidarity in public. Such an uncool word.

Comments are closed.