Joey Barton

Phil1 said:
There will never be enough threads calling this government cunts.
Not while it’s err, being run by absolute cunts anyway.
Click to expand...

Hard to avoid it when mentioning what Lineker is complaining/"virtue signalling" about, isn't it...
 
mattcity5 said:
We can get back to topic quickly if you tell me what you class as "virtue signalling"...

For some reason you're avoiding that. Maybe you can't explain?
Click to expand...

This isn't a debate focusing on what you consider to be virtue signalling and what I consider to be virtue signalling is it? Or is it the way that you consider it to be given the definition you choose.

What has the government got to do with this?

GLIAC and I don't need a doctors note to prove it.
 
Phil1 said:
There will never be enough threads calling this government cunts.
Not while it’s err, being run by absolute cunts anyway.
Click to expand...

That might very well be true but it has no bearing on this thread. If someone stated that they don't like cheese and someone else stated but you should hate jam too it would be absurd.
 
mexico1970 said:
This isn't a debate focusing on what you consider to be virtue signalling and what I consider to be virtue signalling is it? Or is it the way that you consider it to be given the definition you choose.

What has the government got to do with this?

GLIAC and I don't need a doctors note to prove it.
Click to expand...
You haven’t done anything to prove it.

He basically says things you don’t like on a platform you don’t like.
 
mexico1970 said:
This isn't a debate focusing on what you consider to be virtue signalling and what I consider to be virtue signalling is it? Or is it the way that you consider it to be given the definition you choose.

What has the government got to do with this?

GLIAC and I don't need a doctors note to prove it.
Click to expand...
Gary is alright, his brother is the **** of the family.
Ironically my own life mirrors Wayne’s more than Gary’s so let that tell it’s own story.. haha!
 
mexico1970 said:
This isn't a debate focusing on what you consider to be virtue signalling and what I consider to be virtue signalling is it? Or is it the way that you consider it to be given the definition you choose.

What has the government got to do with this?

GLIAC and I don't need a doctors note to prove it.
Click to expand...

Consistently avoiding answering a deflecting could be considered whatabouterism, but as I want to get to the end of this...

Oxford dictionary defines "virtue signalling" as "an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media... indicating that one has virtue merely by expressing disgust or favour for certain political ideas or cultural happenings". The expression is often used to imply by the user that the virtue being signalled is exaggerated or insincere".

A virtue is a good thing. I'm guessing you think Lineker is being good for show. A few points.

- How can someone prove they're being good because they just want to be good, rather than doing it to "virtue signal"?
- Should people with virtue stay silent? That would just result in the cunts of this world having louder voices.
- what phrase should we have for Barton, considering he's basically signalling he has no virtue?
 
Phil1 said:
Gary is alright, his brother is the **** of the family.
Ironically my own life mirrors Wayne’s more than Gary’s so let that tell it’s own story.. haha!
Click to expand...

Something about the bar in Spain rings a bell mate, either way you're not that big of a **** that it's noticeable ;)

Either way people put to much store into frothing over people who can't/wont/don't affect their lives (Politicians excluded because they do and can) , people love to be upset.
 
mattcity5 said:
Consistently avoiding answering a deflecting could be considered whatabouterism, but as I want to get to the end of this...

Oxford dictionary defines "virtue signalling" as "an attempt to show other people that you are a good person, for example by expressing opinions that will be acceptable to them, especially on social media... indicating that one has virtue merely by expressing disgust or favour for certain political ideas or cultural happenings". The expression is often used to imply by the user that the virtue being signalled is exaggerated or insincere".

A virtue is a good thing. I'm guessing you think Lineker is being good for show. A few points.

- How can someone prove they're being good because they just want to be good, rather than doing it to "virtue signal"?
- Should people with virtue stay silent? That would just result in the cunts of this world having louder voices.
- what phrase should we have for Barton, considering he's basically signalling he has no virtue?
Click to expand...


Yeah that's what I said, what next?

I can't stand Barton or Lineker, looks like one has a bigger fan club is all.
 
mexico1970 said:
Something about the bar in Spain rings a bell mate, either way you're not that big of a **** that it's noticeable ;)

Either way people put to much store into frothing over people who can't/wont/don't affect their lives (Politicians excluded because they do and can) , people love to be upset.
Click to expand...
You do seem to froth about Lineker tbf.
 
Kippaxpete said:
Lazy perhaps but, if the cap fits...
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but as long as the cap can fit the other way too. There's a certain type that absolutely despise labels, especially ones that are aptly descriptive and hit the nail on the head, they get very irate ("gammon" I believe) and start citing dictionary meanings, yet delight in generalising and labeling others.
 
Barcon said:
Am I right in thinking that virtue signalling is new talk for bragging/boasting?
Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to find out. It's not a phrase I use so not sure why/when others do. You could be right. It just seems to me though used when someone is being a decent person, so not sure why they should be called out for it.
 
mattcity5 said:
That's what I was trying to find out. It's not a phrase I use so not sure why/when others do. You could be right. It just seems to me though used when someone is being a decent person, so not sure why they should be called out for it.
Click to expand...
It's very confusing these days mate.
P.S, apparently a take is an opinion now.
 
GaudinoMotors said:
Fair enough, but as long as the cap can fit the other way too. There's a certain type that absolutely despise labels, especially ones that are aptly descriptive and hit the nail on the head, they get very irate ("gammon" I believe) and start citing dictionary meanings, yet delight in generalising and labeling others.
Click to expand...

Not sure if that's directed at me, I guess it must be seeing as I'm the only one who quoted the dictionary...?

However I've not been irate and not called anyone gammon, so I'm not sure. You'd probably call me more of a "snowflake", but whatever, it's a bit irrelevant.

Biggest difference between Lineker and Barton is that Lineker mostly calls out people in power, while Barton just punches downwards. Shouldn't be surprised though, it's how he's always been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top