• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Yackity Yack, Let's Talk Zack

In isolation it's fine, but the optics at first glance are your usual tone-deaf, comfy middle-class preaching, just as obsessed with the culture wars as Farage and co. despite being in opposition to that POV.

It's just opening him and his party up to accusations that the obsessions are always overseas and other nation's citizens rather than their own.

Did he balance it out with a concerned video for the many poor, needy and desperate UK citizens at this time of year? Genuine question.
 
Why would that be "balance"?

If the only acceptable time to talk about suffering is when all suffering is addressed at once, then the result is silence, not fairness.
 
The balance of being seen to care and act for those close to you as well as your other fellow human beings around the world.

Same as you could give money to an international charity for Xmas but you'd still make sure your kids got fed and had presents
 
I think we’re talking past each other slightly. This isn’t about choosing who matters more, it’s about whether every expression of concern has to be “balanced” to be acceptable. I don’t think it does.
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
If the only acceptable time to talk about suffering is when all suffering is addressed at once, then the result is silence, not fairness.
Click to expand...

It's very revealing of priorities and how you want to be seen if remote suffering is all you focus on, and it feeds directly into your opponent's narrative about you also.

It's privileged empathy and not very intelligent politics either
 
I think calling this “privileged empathy” misses the point.

You’re arguing about how it might look, not whether it’s actually wrong. That’s a disagreement about tactics, not values.

And focusing on Calais doesn’t mean ignoring problems in the UK. Polanski talks about housing, poverty and cost-of-living issues here all the time. One video doesn’t define what someone cares about?

If the rule is that you can only talk about suffering once you’ve covered all suffering in one go, then nobody ends up talking about anything?

Reform don’t own in the immigration issue, although the lack of challenge to it for well over a decade does mean it can come as a surprise when there is humanising of immigrants.
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
Apparently.
Click to expand...

Only apparent for the hard of reading.

If you were told that the Greens and Polanski were just making one video about suffering this Christmas, you could bet your house on the fact that it wouldn't be about UK citizens, couldn't you?
 
You asked where the “balance” was.
Andy pointed out what that implies.
That’s not misreading, it’s taking the question at face value.
 
To be fair he’s just like one of my teary-eyed virtuous cycling club members who fucks off to the Maldives for a month in the autumn because his missus doesn’t like the noise of the leaf blowers but makes sure he’s back in time for the skiing season.
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
Andy pointed out what that implies.
Click to expand...

Hardly. It was a smart-arse misrepresentation in lieu of actually entering the conversation.

And as for 'face value' I didn't ask where the 'balance' was, incidentally, I asked specifically whether Polanski had also made a video about suffering UK citizens at Christmas. I guess not based on your avoidance of that simple question.
 
If you are looking at that objectively then it fails to address the many questions people will have around why people are there in the first place and why the UK? It's as myopic as anything Reform would do, although obviously not as heartless.
 
PK - That question is a contradiction. You say you didn’t ask for “balance”, while asking whether this needed offsetting by a different video. That is asking for balance.

Treating that video as something that needs offsetting drains it of meaning. It turns a specific act of witnessing into a box-ticking exercise.

You’re effectively saying you’re only allowed to talk about suffering there if you also produce a companion piece about suffering here. That isn’t misrepresenting you, it’s taking your question at face value.

That isn’t fairness. It’s a really transparent way of shutting the conversation down.

And the premise doesn’t really stand up anyway, as I've said, unless you've been living under a rock (or your algorithm looks a different way) Polanski talks about housing, poverty and cost-of-living issues in the UK all the time. One video from Calais doesn’t suddenly define everything he cares about, whether it’s Christmas Day or February the 12th.

What is telling is that Reform’s immigration rhetoric goes unchallenged, and it has for years.
They talk about it constantly, often in dehumanising terms, and nobody asks where the “balance” is then.

Yet when ZP pushes back by humanising migrants, your first response is that it somehow isn’t balanced enough?

So you are shifting the focus from whether the video is right or wrong to whether it passes some vague optics test.
 
The first party to actually bring humanity to the group that other parties are blaming all our woes on and they get a round of fucks for it.
 
AndyWolves said:
The first party to actually bring humanity to the group that other parties are blaming all our woes on and they get a round of fucks for it.
Click to expand...

What a load of pious rubbish and yet more hysterical misrepresentation.

Who's given them a round of fucks on here exactly?

Can the 'right side of the argument' you and EP are on not withstand a simple question?
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
PK - That question is a contradiction. You say you didn’t ask for “balance”, while asking whether this needed offsetting by a different video. That is asking for balance.

Treating that video as something that needs offsetting drains it of meaning. It turns a specific act of witnessing into a box-ticking exercise.

You’re effectively saying you’re only allowed to talk about suffering there if you also produce a companion piece about suffering here. That isn’t misrepresenting you, it’s taking your question at face value.

That isn’t fairness. It’s a really transparent way of shutting the conversation down.

And the premise doesn’t really stand up anyway, as I've said, unless you've been living under a rock (or your algorithm looks a different way) Polanski talks about housing, poverty and cost-of-living issues in the UK all the time. One video from Calais doesn’t suddenly define everything he cares about, whether it’s Christmas Day or February the 12th.

What is telling is that Reform’s immigration rhetoric goes unchallenged, and it has for years.
They talk about it constantly, often in dehumanising terms, and nobody asks where the “balance” is then.

Yet when ZP pushes back by humanising migrants, your first response is that it somehow isn’t balanced enough?

So you are shifting the focus from whether the video is right or wrong to whether it passes some vague optics test.
Click to expand...

'Specific act of witnessing' 😅

Fuck me, he really is the new JC. Messiah complex the priority here rather than improving the lot of the UK, it seems, as per usual.

My point/question is very simple and I'd imagine lots of ordinary voters would think the same thing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top