Jump to content

leicsmac

Member
  • Post count

    13,150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by leicsmac

  1. TBF they should have included that as him hedging his bets and winning either way, as it would have added to their argument.
  2. *sigh* The last time I checked, authoritarianism and such repercussions weren't uniquely a left-wing thing. Pinochet and his helicopters, Rhee and his death squads, to name but two, come to mind. This is what I meant on the pol thread about nuance, btw. Authoritarianism isn't a good thing no matter what ideology is behind it, barring a few sensational exceptions where not imposing it means far worse consequences.
  3. Then thank you for the clarification. There's something in the idea of if you've already represented your country of birth then you're probably OK with the idea of being a citizen of that country and that then switching does seem a bit hypocritical...at the time of you doing so, anyway. Of course, matters can change and nations can do things that perhaps might not make an individual proud of them/want to be associated with them any more and under those circumstances I don't think I could be judgemental of someone then looking to seek a different flag. IMO it is possible to grow over time to have as much pride and feeling in an adopted country as one of birth and as such I'm happy for the rules to accommodate such possible changes. Perhaps staying to try to rectify things as best you can is the more noble option, but not everyone has that kind of power.
  4. Fair enough too - I like the idea of someone being able to change the hand they were dealt (viz. place of birth/parentage) because it allows you freedom to change something that was totally beyond your control, but I can see why folks might think that would cause a mess-up.
  5. No, not really. There should definitely be citizenship requirements, as there are right now to be a citizen of a nation and to represent them in sport - otherwise the whole national sporting system is a joke and countries going head to head in a sporting context is a much better method of competition than...the other thing. Once you've satisfied those requirements, however, that should be the end of the matter IMO, which is why I don't really like the digs based on where someone has been born and the idea that such things are totally immutable. NB. I'm actually ok with the idea of the nation state (as much as it seems otherwise) as it acts as a good unifying factor, I just don't like it when people take it so seriously that it gets in the way of decisions that affect everyone and need to be made globally.
  6. Fair enough, I simply don't get the idea of nationality being fixed and immutable based on one of two decisions you had zero control over (birth and parentage), especially in a sporting context, but then I find the whole idea of nationality outside a sporting context something that would be amusing if it wasn't taken seriously to the point of "lots of folks getting killed" by other people, so I guess we're looking at this from different angles.
  7. This is the second time I've seen you make a crack about naturalised English athletes in the last couple of days Izzy. Bee in your bonnet? As for the game itself, this will be good for Englands NRR - that might well be important.
  8. Roy celebrates his ton by cleaning up the umpire
  9. Fair enough, I don't actually have a horse in this race bit I did take a look at the exchanges last night and saw IMO rather more absolutism than was necessary.
  10. Unless everyone in the Labour party is an antisemite then "some" or perhaps "most" is correct, thank you very much. I was extremely careful in my use of language in the above post to put it that way for a reason, viz. accuracy, and I'm sticking by it. I'm not saying there isn't a problem either way but the lack of nuance does all arguments no favours.
  11. leicsmac

    WW2

    If this flies a little too close to the Sun for peoples tastes on this thread I'll remove it, but I think it's an important message that often gets lost.
  12. Well, at least we now know where the current US administration stands on this with zero ambiguity. Especially that last sentence.
  13. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48560874 Next stage in space tourism!
  14. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48564480 This is why Pride Month exists, and why Straight Pride celebrations - whatever that means - don't need to.
  15. Wow, it appears Friday night is alright for mudslinging. Is it possible to suggest that while Labour isn't antisemitic itself it contains some antisemites, possibly at high levels, and while the Brexit Party isn't full-on racist itself it contains some people who have a problem with brown people because of the colour of their skin and nothing more...possibly at high levels? Can that be argued here or is nuance totally dead?
  16. Sickening. This is the thing some people don't get: straight people are the victims of violence in the UK for many reasons, but never simply because they are straight.
  17. leicsmac

    WW2

    To me it shows how different the Eastern Front was compared to the Western one. The Western Front was brutal, but broadly speaking when it came to the German, French, British and American forces the rules of war were largely followed. The Eastern Front had no such niceties; the Nazis stipulated from the start that their intent was the extermination of the Slavic populace and as such the Russians gave no quarter because they knew they would be shown none. The end result of that kind of ideological absolutism on both sides? Slaughterhouse.
  18. leicsmac

    WW2

    If you look at what it cost each nation proportionally, both economically and in terms of lost people, then the Russians paid more in terms of money and lives than either the US or the UK. The UK paid massively economically and significantly in terms of manpower, and the US paid proportionally less in terms of both. Of course, the US contributed the most economically to the war effort, but that was because they had the money available to create and spend.
  19. Just be glad they didn't grow to twice the size rather than merely a little bit - quantum mechanics stipulates that's possible...if unlikely.
  20. True, guess you have to include sponsorship into the revenue model too, but the TV rights money is the biggest part of pretty much any football tournament income-wise, I'd wager. You're right in that looking at it purely from viewer figures is too hard-and-fast too as other factors are a thing when it comes to overall revenue, but I really wouldn't mind seeing what the teams in the Womens World Cup do get paid as a proportion of overall revenue compared to the blokes. Actually, doing some digging there... WC2018 for the blokes - $6.1 billion overall revenue, roughly $450 million prize money, so that's about 7.5%. ....but I can't find any projected figures for the Women's World Cup for this year - at least any accurate, nonspeculative projections (there's a couple of news sites with those) anyway. If anyone else can Google-fu where I failed it might be interesting reading.
  21. If this is true: Then they have. Ideally anyone working in an entertainment industry - be it art, sport, music, whatever - should be paid relative to the revenue they generate and that should be equal across all demographics. I'm guessing that isn't the case, though.
  22. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48346344 It has been worse this winter and spring than I have remembered in previous times.
  23. I think that's also an extreme probability, and glad you agree it's an explanation rather than an excuse.
  24. That's quite plausible, but if it is the case then it isn't good enough. The US is the most powerful economic and miltary force in the world by some distance, and the way it does things does shape events around the world. As such, any leader of a nation that powerful really ought to understand the effect the decisions they make and the things they say have in other places as well as a purely domestic sphere.
×
×
  • Create New...