Kid Icarus

He had an anti-capitalism one with an England match alongside just the lyrics from Dead Flag Blues by Godspeed You Black Emperor It's still one of my favourites of his and even though I disagree with him putting the ethical onus on our fans in that last frame, the overall theme isn't out of keeping with his work at all.

I'd get used to it.

Yes they have. Name them I mean you can try and gaslight us all with whatever definition you're working with, but to me and I think a lot of others, responding to legitimate criticisms of a regime by pointing out the sins of other regimes, claiming hypocrisy, bias against Newcastle, jealousy, or any other reason to deflect away from addressing the actual substance of the criticisms is very transparently sticking up for them. There is definitely hypocrisy from specific journalists, they weren't going all in on Man U at the time. Aren't the Saudi's Man U's longest commerical partner too? I understand where some people are coming from but I think journalists need to be calling out everyone including the UK government if they are going down that route. Not just fans who probably don't understand what all of the fuss is about. I don't doubt that there'll be some hypocritical journalists like, I just don't think it's relevant at all or changes anything about the legitimacy of what they're highlighting. Imo the question should be 'is what they're saying true?' not 'is this person telling the truth also a hypocrite?' And that's before getting onto the claims of hypocrisy, double standards etc being levelled at those journalists who've actually consistently spoken out about the Saudis.

Each to their own. I view that as sticking up for them, you don't.

Areet mate. Think the difference is it feels like, although this may be paranoia, that fans are being criticised for this stance by certain parts of the media. Although there was a lot of internal arguing over whether it was right or wrong to go to matches under Ashley, fans were never criticised nationally for taking either stance. Its only natural that folk will get defensive when they're being openly criticised for doing little more than supporting a football team. Obviously this shouldn't then go as far as to start actively defending a horrific regime and the two aren't the same. I defended fans time and time again for attending matches under Ashley, despite hating Ashley with a passion. This again is similar, albeit the crimes of Saudi Arabia are significantly worse than Mike Ashley of course....... That makes sense and I agree that as usual it's the fans that are wrongly getting it in the neck. We have absolutely no control over this whatsoever and aren't in a position to make any meaningful decision on this in the way that our government and the Premier League are. I suppose I just wish that was the argument being put forward with full acknowledgement of who these people are, rather than an argument that tries to deflect from who these people are.

Yes they have. Name them I mean you can try and gaslight us all with whatever definition you're working with, but to me and I think a lot of others, responding to legitimate criticisms of a regime by pointing out the sins of other regimes, claiming hypocrisy, bias against Newcastle, jealousy, or any other reason to deflect away from addressing the actual substance of the criticisms is very transparently sticking up for them.

Foluwashola[/member] Areet! Long time, no see. Surely your stance is just the same as it was under Ashley, that you support the team not the regime? Why do you think folk are suddenly feeling the need to go out of their way to deflect all this shit rather than just maintain the same stance?

Yes they have.

And so all newcastle fans should raise up as one and reject the takeover.......oh please. If the government won't do anything about the Saudi regime, then don't try and guilt trip the newcastle fans. If some want to boycott then that is their choice but don't try to press gang us. Funny when we where boycotting Ashley, the media basically shrugged its shoulders, told us to know our place and treated us as an irritation. Well why should I now pay attention to the same media asking for my support. My reactions, shrug of the shoulder and I know my place......what can I do about it..... I'm not saying that Newcastle fans should do that, I'm saying you putting forward the idea that this was published specifically because it's Newcastle, and not because it's one of the most famously evil people in the world, is absolutely ridiculous. Squires has consistently backed Newcastle fans in boycotting and trying to oust Ashley for years, so your point about the media as a whole doesn't hold weight, particularly as Squires has highlighted Ashley's human rights record many times and no one took issue with it, presumably because Ashley wasn't buying footballer players, which is objectively worse than bombing children's hospitals.

Don't talk about the people bombing childrens hospitals unless you don't support any football clubs, is essentially the road you're heading down because there's no team in Europe that won't fear us blowing them out of the water by that line of reasoning. By all means talk about people bombing childrens hospitals if that is what you are passionate about, more power to you. But if you are a mackem who has suddenly grown a conscience and decided to give me a lecture about this newly discovered abomination, then I reserve the right to be sceptical. But I'm not though, I'm quite literally one of your own who has the same concerns as these journalists. The things being highlighted don't hold any less merit because of who's saying it if it can be verified as true. Shooting the messenger and ignoring the substance is how dafties in America have ended up automatically defending war criminals and a corrupt media, solely because Trump's one of the people pointing it out. # I wasn't literally talking about you, I was using the mackem example to make a point. I'm sure you get the point I'm making though. Out of curiosity, are you going to stop following the team all together if this proposed takeover goes through? The more I think about this takeover, the harder it is to acquiesce with. Yet at the same time, it seems like any such takeover in the modern game was destined to be from a source as unpalatable as this. My stance on it at the moment is that I'll continue doing what I'm doing at the moment, not give the club any money and I'll watch us on Telly. I'll see what happens from there, but none of this sits right with me and my concern is that so many of us are so desperate to get rid of Ashley that our fans and the city have done a deal with the devil. I dunno if I'm being hyperbolic, but when I was thinking about it last night I was more worried about what the impact of having someone like that associated with and in and amongst our city could be tbh. Before we even know what the full extent of that'll be, overnight we have a significant amount of people sticking up for war criminals who wouldn't have dreamed of doing so yesterday calling other people hypocrites for pointing out. I'm laughing, but it's shit tbh.

Why is that relevant?

Yeah, it'll be specifically because it's Newcastle, not because the world's most notorious Bond villain is buying a premier league club.

Are you honestly comfortably being in a position where you're trying to point out the supposed hypocrisy of Amnesty International?

Don't talk about the people bombing childrens hospitals unless you don't support any football clubs, is essentially the road you're heading down because there's no team in Europe that won't fear us blowing them out of the water by that line of reasoning. By all means talk about people bombing childrens hospitals if that is what you are passionate about, more power to you. But if you are a mackem who has suddenly grown a conscience and decided to give me a lecture about this newly discovered abomination, then I reserve the right to be sceptical. But I'm not though, I'm quite literally one of your own who has the same concerns as these journalists. The things being highlighted don't hold any less merit because of who's saying it if it can be verified as true. Shooting the messenger and ignoring the substance is how dafties in America have ended up automatically defending war criminals and a corrupt media, solely because Trump's one of the people pointing it out. # I wasn't literally talking about you, I was using the mackem example to make a point. I'm sure you get the point I'm making though.

And who sets the budget on how taxes and benefits are allocated? Doesnt matter dont mix up the governing party with the State I imagine everyone except you knew exactly the point I was making.

What I still don't get and I haven't seen a single answer for, is why the 'support the team not the regime' argument that's been used for the last 13 years has disappeared. If people felt they could support the club whilst not defending or excusing Mike Ashley, why do folk suddenly feel the need to excuse war criminals?

And who sets the budget on how taxes and benefits are allocated?

Whilst accepting wages through their Saudi funded newspapers. Again, I think this argument is irrelevant to the things being highlighted, but even by that logic, I work for a university that over time has been funded more and more by the Saudis and the Chinese, do we all need to go on the dole in order for our opinions and criticisms to have merit? If your beliefs are so stringent against a regime that you feel was necessary to print publications, then I would be certainly be looking at other positions within another media not funded by that regime. Everyone has the right to their views and I would respect anyone who is unable to facilitate anything that goes against their view, but to accept money from the same regime you're putting publications against, seems a bit hypocritical to me. My opinion anyway, obviously others will disagree. The meaning of hypocrisy in this context has broadened to the point of parody. Being critical of your employers and wanting things to improve used to be something unions worked to change, now anyone being critical of anything is an individual hypocrite unless they quit. Presumably I should emigrate because I hate the Tories. That would be your right and choice, if you want to emigrate go for it. The point being, my right to criticise the Tories isn't dependant upon whether I'm a hypocrite (by your definition) for still paying them taxes or taking their benefits. Same as my right to criticise my employer isn't dependant upon whether I take their wages.

Whilst accepting wages through their Saudi funded newspapers. Again, I think this argument is irrelevant to the things being highlighted, but even by that logic, I work for a university that over time has been funded more and more by the Saudis and the Chinese, do we all need to go on the dole in order for our opinions and criticisms to have merit? If your beliefs are so stringent against a regime that you feel was necessary to print publications, then I would be certainly be looking at other positions within another media not funded by that regime. Everyone has the right to their views and I would respect anyone who is unable to facilitate anything that goes against their view, but to accept money from the same regime you're putting publications against, seems a bit hypocritical to me. My opinion anyway, obviously others will disagree. The meaning of hypocrisy in this context has broadened to the point of parody. Being critical of your employers and wanting things to improve used to be something unions worked to change, now anyone being critical of anything is an individual hypocrite unless they quit. Presumably I should emigrate because I hate the Tories.

Don't talk about the people bombing childrens hospitals unless you don't support any football clubs, is essentially the road you're heading down because there's no team in Europe that won't fear us blowing them out of the water by that line of reasoning. By all means talk about people bombing childrens hospitals if that is what you are passionate about, more power to you. But if you are a mackem who has suddenly grown a conscience and decided to give me a lecture about this newly discovered abomination, then I reserve the right to be sceptical. But I'm not though, I'm quite literally one of your own who has the same concerns as these journalists. The things being highlighted don't hold any less merit because of who's saying it if it can be verified as true. Shooting the messenger and ignoring the substance is how dafties in America have ended up automatically defending war criminals and a corrupt media, solely because Trump's one of the people pointing it out.

Whilst accepting wages through their Saudi funded newspapers. Do they have a choice who owns their employer? These people still need to provide a living to their families. If your so adamantly against the regime then get another job/move to another publication not funded by the Saudis. Genuine question, are you a Tory?

Don't talk about the people bombing childrens hospitals unless you don't support any football clubs, is essentially the road you're heading down because there's no team in Europe that won't fear us blowing them out of the water by that line of reasoning.

Whilst accepting wages through their Saudi funded newspapers. Again, I think this argument is irrelevant to the things being highlighted, but even by that logic, I work for a university that over time has been funded more and more by the Saudis and the Chinese, do we all need to go on the dole in order for our opinions and criticisms to have merit?

I'd be the first to twist the knife where the media's bullshit's converned, but the idea that sports journalists are only highlighting human rights abusers buying their way into football specifically because they have a bias against the random football club they've chosen to buy is frankly so embarrassing and conceited that I had to check I wasn't reading 4chan. Even if such a ridiculous claim was true it's irrelevant and presents a distinction without a difference. Bias or no bias, the things they're highlighting are true.

That took a really long time. Senna's probably the only real dip in quality imo and even then he was a very good player. Neuer Godin Baresi Van Dijk Senna Socrates De Bruyne Gascoigne C. Ronaldo Messi Mbappe