Lineker, morally coshing the nation for decades
The ongoing brouhaha over Gary Lineker in the UK is a good indication of where the moral goalposts are right now, and what can and cannot be argued about in polite society. It's more an Overton pinhole than an Overton Window, however.
To those who haven't heard -- or are reading this months and possibly years later -- Lineker, the highly-paid presenter of the BBC's flagship sports program "Match of the Day", was essentially asked to tone things down a bit when he tweeted that the government's "stop the boats" asylum policy was akin to the policies of the Nazi Third Reich.
Lineker, with widespread support from colleagues, refused, leading to a de facto strike that gutted much of the BBC's football coverage over the weekend.
Lineker, with widespread support from colleagues, refused, leading to a de facto strike that gutted much of the BBC's football coverage over the weekend.
It is not clear how this will end, but it's clear where the "moral high ground" is in the UK, as Lineker appears to be occupying it. If you are a nationalist and want to continue the rear-guard action to defend traditional British demographics, the only point you are allowed to make is that Lineker, as an employee of the so-called "impartial" BBC, shouldn't be involved in political controversies.
In fact, to be even more precise, you're not even allowed to make that point.
The implication underlying much of the online debate is that we all somehow agree with Lineker, whose basic position is that asylum seekers should be allowed "safe routes" to the UK in order to apply for asylum, which they then should, in the vast majority of cases, be granted.
The only thing you can really disagree with him on is how "Nazi" the brown Tory government of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Home Secretary Suella Braverman is, and what degree of defence they can gleam from the charge by being married, in Braverman's case, to a Jew.
In fact, the whole justification for the Conservative Party's "stop the boats" policy is the desire to save migrant lives by removing the incentives for people smugglers to attempt the dangerous Channel crossings. They don't sell it on any other basis -- i.e. cutting costs, keeping Britain White, etc. This really is just weakness waiting to happen.
Simply saying, "fuck the migrants," or "those asylum seekers are fake," are not options on the moral menu right now. Even asking why Britain, of all countries, should have a special moral responsibility to take care of "refugees" from half-way round the world is just not on, either. At least not in polite -- or gainfully employed -- society (you wouldn't want to be deplatformed now, would you?). Yes, it really is -- isn't -- about free speech!
The sliver of accepted opinion is razor thin, and if you really do oppose Britain as "Camp of the Saints" then you have to do it in secret, backhanded ways, saying rather cryptic things like this:
And that tiny sliver of acceptable moral debate generates so much heat, rage, and fury! This is a country trussed up like a turkey, powerless to talk or think about its self.
The implication underlying much of the online debate is that we all somehow agree with Lineker, whose basic position is that asylum seekers should be allowed "safe routes" to the UK in order to apply for asylum, which they then should, in the vast majority of cases, be granted.
The only thing you can really disagree with him on is how "Nazi" the brown Tory government of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Home Secretary Suella Braverman is, and what degree of defence they can gleam from the charge by being married, in Braverman's case, to a Jew.
In fact, the whole justification for the Conservative Party's "stop the boats" policy is the desire to save migrant lives by removing the incentives for people smugglers to attempt the dangerous Channel crossings. They don't sell it on any other basis -- i.e. cutting costs, keeping Britain White, etc. This really is just weakness waiting to happen.
Simply saying, "fuck the migrants," or "those asylum seekers are fake," are not options on the moral menu right now. Even asking why Britain, of all countries, should have a special moral responsibility to take care of "refugees" from half-way round the world is just not on, either. At least not in polite -- or gainfully employed -- society (you wouldn't want to be deplatformed now, would you?). Yes, it really is -- isn't -- about free speech!
The sliver of accepted opinion is razor thin, and if you really do oppose Britain as "Camp of the Saints" then you have to do it in secret, backhanded ways, saying rather cryptic things like this:
"I really hate those nasty people smugglers who profit from the poor migrants. They are the real criminals."
"Channel crossings are so dicey at this time of year -- someone might get drowned, and that's what I really care about."
"People who talk about football on the BBC shouldn't really be tweeting about non-sporting matters and calling everyone Nazis, should they? I mean, we might need that term for real Nazis."
And that tiny sliver of acceptable moral debate generates so much heat, rage, and fury! This is a country trussed up like a turkey, powerless to talk or think about its self.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All Comments MUST include a name (either real or sock). Also don't give us an easy excuse to ignore your brilliant comment by using "shitposty" language.