would you give it a fucking rest.
not defending it and never said i agreed with it. I called out that the headline was clickbait and didn't reflect the article.
you're kind of proving that you're angry with this response.
Let me say it clearly for you, you're all getting bothered over nothing, the article didn't campaign against the badge, it was just his opinion on it's history. That's it. Wasn't anti-City. No woke consipiracy to remove or ban it.
That isn't really entirely true.
Sure, it isn't a woke conspiracy, it isn't even remotely woke in fact, I agree.
But while it doesn't exactly campaign for the ship to be removed, it suggests it fairly openly in a number of ways. The first two words in the headline, reference to an individual's campaign to remove it from both badges, his own personal changed 'tainted' view of what the ship now is. Reference to what an unnamed someone (other than the person who wrote in that triggered this) thinks of it, and the suggestion that the bee would be a better symbol. So yes, it is a half mooted call to remove the ship from the badge.
The article is for me mostly pointless bullshit. It makes an insignificant point, which starts with some severely flawed logic, then finds examples that don't actually work to make that point, and then tries to lose them through column length (a bit like this post incidentally).
It is all predicated on a personal 'realisation' that the ship doesn't represent what we thought it represented, because it is similar to a ship used 50 years earlier (but incidentally over 30 years After slavery was abolished), and therefore must be able to be associated with slavery. Because as we all know motifs can only ever represent one thing. Which is bollocks, all of it. The swastika, star of david, a cross, crescent, skull, eagle, continent outlines on a gridded circle, and a whole never ending list of symbols that have been used to mean completely different things makes his arguement pretty useless. That's before you take into account that his timeline is way off, because the original crest doesn't coincide with slavery and the club badge does coincide with the canal being open. And also before he accidentally shits on basic artistic perception rights to see design elements in individual ways.
Yet his article has managed to make a handful of people here (who in fairness seem to have that habbit anyway) almost replace everything they may have ever read with the most recent think they have read and shout it at others. It also has made many instantly jump to the culture war stance they see as needing defending. Stimulating debate my arse, pointless divisive waste of time.
Agree though that it isn't an anti-City piece. However, given the amount of time he talks about the club, through recounting his own personal memories and associations that supposedly now take on a whole new meaning following his eureka moment, it is slightly weighted towards City and I can see why people could be drawn to see it as partly a City piece. Unlike the subsequent articles elsewhere that paraphrase it, which leave that part out because it is so obviously his own.
