portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,777
So basically he believes Russians are a force for good? Ok Matty, get well soon…
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Matt Le Tissier
- Thread starter Sussex Nomad
- Start date
Cowfold Seagull
Fan of the 17 bus
I hear that he really likes you too!
The thing is, as we believe in free speech in this country, he is very much entitled to his opinion, even if the remaining 99.9% recurring of the population disagree with him.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
I hear that he really likes you too!
The thing is, as we believe in free speech in this country, he is very much entitled to his opinion, even if the remaining 99.9% recurring of the population disagree with him.
It’s only in a plutonic way
- Oct 17, 2008
- 14,505
Bit of a mentalist isn't he
Iggle Piggle
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2010
- 5,953
I hear that he really likes you too!
The thing is, as we believe in free speech in this country, he is very much entitled to his opinion, even if the remaining 99.9% recurring of the population disagree with him.
Whilst this is true, his role with Southampton was as an ambassador. All he had to do was re-tweet anything postive out of Southampton and have a middle of the road opinion on anything else. The fact he doesn't get that suggests he is as thick as a plank. No wonder Venables never picked him.
As it is, it gives an opportunity for one of Francis Benali, Rod Wallace, Glenn Cockerill or Tim Flowers to step into this pointless job.
Free and uncensored access to conspiracy mongers and 'conspiracy support services' on the internet seems to be a mechanism that can unmask certain types of mental illness. The idea of being in possession of 'secret' knowledge appeals to a certain mind set. There is an unlimited amout of 'information' to feed your need, and reinforce your prejudices.
Combine that with a narcissist personality, then there follows a desire to let everyone else know how stupid and inferior they are for falling for all the lies on the BBC (which should be defunded), etc.
Goodness, we are fortunately there is nobody like that posting on NSC!
Edit, he seems to have 'previous':
"In 2020, Le Tissier became an outspoken critic of the reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. He issued several tweets criticising what he deemed to be an "overreaction" by the government and media, among others, opposing lockdowns and mask orders. An image he posted on Twitter which implied a comparison between the Holocaust and having to wear masks during the pandemic was deleted. In 2021, Le Tissier drew widespread criticism again for promoting conspiracy theories, when he suggested that Christian Eriksen's on-pitch cardiac arrest was an adverse reaction to being vaccinated, despite Eriksen not being vaccinated. In November 2021 he faced further criticism, this time by epidemiologists, as one of several former professional footballers "demanding investigations into links" between onfield collapses and COVID vaccinations, after three footballers collapsed in one week."
People have always been "radicalised" by one source or another. In Nazi-Germany people were "radicalised" by underground newspapers and magazines questioning if the Nazi thing was really all that good. In Soviet there was the same thing, underground literature, magazines and radio stations radicalising people into not believing the mainstream narrative. In the modern day there are people getting radicalised into questioning the truths produced by the modern media (owned by banks and investment companies that also owns eg oil companies and weapon manufacturers) through underground websites and individuals on social media. Long may it continue.
...."as thick as a plank. No wonder Venables never picked him." ..........
Just remind us all, will you, who Venables did usually pick as his star man. Thanks bonny lad ......................
sydney
tinky ****in winky
silly bugger , some thoughts are better kept to yourself , i mean he's no Einstien is he.
It's a real shame what seems to be happening with Le Tissier. Despite my total dislike of his club, I always loved Le Tissier as a player, he was a joy to watch. I've also met him quite a few times over the years and he's always a really nice bloke, a genuinely good laugh. My uncle knows him really well and loves him.
As he get older he does seem to be getting more unhinged. He's probably always held controversial opinions but was able to keep them to himself but social media gives him the platform to air them - he does like a drink too which probably doesn't help. He's probably beyond changing his opinions now but hopefully his family can keep him off social media at least.
As he get older he does seem to be getting more unhinged. He's probably always held controversial opinions but was able to keep them to himself but social media gives him the platform to air them - he does like a drink too which probably doesn't help. He's probably beyond changing his opinions now but hopefully his family can keep him off social media at least.
silly bugger , some thoughts are better kept to yourself , i mean he's no Einstien is he.
That rather uncharitable thought had crossed my mind.....
If you can't exercise the judgement to differentiate between an underground that opposed the arrest and murder of jews, and an underground that thinks Covid is a conspiracy, then you are destined, at some point, to find yourself disadvantaged. If you support people's right to campaign against measures to mitigate against Covid, your risk of disadvantage will likely increase. One small disadvantage may well be your being booted off NSC. Not something I favour as I enjoy your football posts and some of your other insights. However.....
The point is not what subjects they were opposing but to show examples that "being radicalised" and "gathering information from the underground" not necessarily equals being wrong or immoral. But alright, I provided you with an easy way to detract from the subject - which is obviously not covid or jews, but information - so let me give you a lighter example: when certain youth culture and music styles started to become popular, the mainstream media and those who percieve it as some kind of truth machine would often consider these music styles as "the work of Satan" or something that will "destroy the morals of the next generation".
Anyone pointing to lets say a underground punk magazine writing about the other side of the coin would most likely be considered gathering information from "bad sources not telling the truth". In modern days (perhaps not as much recently as in the past) it can be compared with the cannabis debate where states and media would habitually describe it as very, very dangerous stuff with no advantages and any science report even remotely pointing in that direction would be blown up out of proportion while those who felt it could be used medically (as an example) were accused of being new age frauds.
Iggle Piggle
Well-known member
- Sep 3, 2010
- 5,953
I suppose the difference is Gazza only dropped a few cans off to a gunman. We've all done that. Matt would question it was happening unless he was asked to talk over it on Sky sports.
sydney
tinky ****in winky
it has to be said there is an awful lot of bullshit printed and spouted on MSM.....i'm not saying that any of that tweet is in any way true but how quickly we forgot the WMD debacle that destabilised the Middle East and North Africa , the repercussions are still being felt although no longer newsworthy with a war raging on Europes doorstep and the nuclear threat lurking in the shadows , to think that some media carriers do not play on fear would be an error.
I understand what you are saying, broadly that an underground can sometimes be important and even essential. I agree. But that does not mean that 'underground' is a virtuous by definition. Clearly underground neo-nazi groups or Islamic terror groups are not virtuous.
So the cause is the key.
Your music example is weak. The only people who think rock and roll is the work of satan are folk who already believe the earth was created by god in 7 days, 6000 years ago. I have been up to my cerebellum in music since the 1960s and I have never met anyone who thinks music is the work of satan. The work of twats, maybe, but never satan. It does not need underground punk magazines (which I read, incidentally, as I was balls-deep into punk rock in the 1970s) to expose the satan conspiracy theorists as cranks. Yes, of course we had the hilarous bout of people theowing bricks through their own TV serts at the Bill Grundy incident, but trust me, when I wandered around Brighton and London with spiked up hair, eye liner and a glare, I enjoyed the looks of horror in the faces of (a few) people. Mostly we were left alone. It was only bone heads and teds who took umbrage. Most people understood that a bit of yoof culture is largely harmless. The headlines in the gutter press were quite amusing, though. Oh and the fanzines were largely rubbish. I still have some.
Your example about cannabis, however, is frankly nonsense. I have personally published research on cannabinoids. I know key people in the field, people who have worked in some cases for decades trying to find some sort of medical use. There have been some successes but there is a great deal of noise among the signals. Meanwhile in many places cannabis for recreational use is virtually if not literally legal. An old friend of mine has created a company to develop cannabis for medical usage. In Vancouver when I visited a few years ago there were cannabis shops springing up all over the place. They were not yet open as the laws had not quite been changed (they have, now). Even so, walking down Granville Street (look it up) midday in the week, the air was thick with the whiff of ganga.
As a scientist I challenge everything. I don't embrace something just because it is underground, left field, novel or controversial. I will explore something (read about it, maybe even do some lab work) if it has, in my opinion (which is the only opinion I own) potential impact. I am engaged in a collaboration right now on effects of designer cannabinoids on certain aspects of human health. There is no conspiracy to stop me. The scientific and medical literature contains all sorts of things that are incorrect but the whole process of molecule to human is well established, with checks and balances, and these days adversity from a novel intervention in humans is rare. Obtaining effective interventions is the bigger challenge. The overwhelming evidence is that the amount of interest and hype around cannabis is not justified by the (mountains of) data. Would I smoke dope if I had MS, though? I expect I would (albeit largely because when I was younger I enjoyed the effect) but that is an entirely different issue.
I have a feeling that you are more inclined to give more credence to underground opinions rather than the mainstream. That's fine, but always test your sources. And also do the 'if this then else' thing - if an idea is correct what are its implications, and is there any evidence to refute as well as support the idea? And what is the provenance of the evidence (I give greater credence to peer reviewed publications, albeit I realise they may not be correct, so I give greatest credence to replicated findings, and findings that predict other outcomes that have been tested and shown to be most likely correct - this is known as the 'scientific method'). If the idea seems unlikely this is normally because it is false, but if it is potentially important it will be tested by others.
thedonkeycentrehalf
Moved back to wear the gloves (again)
- Jul 7, 2003
- 9,341
Is Le Tissier turning into the new David Icke?
Really? OK ..................................
I understand what you are saying, broadly that an underground can sometimes be important and even essential. I agree. But that does not mean that 'underground' is a virtuous by definition. Clearly underground neo-nazi groups or Islamic terror groups are not virtuous.
So the cause is the key.
Your music example is weak. The only people who think rock and roll is the work of satan are folk who already believe the earth was created by god in 7 days, 6000 years ago. I have been up to my cerebellum in music since the 1960s and I have never met anyone who thinks music is the work of satan. The work of twats, maybe, but never satan. It does not need underground punk magazines (which I read, incidentally, as I was balls-deep into punk rock in the 1970s) to expose the satan conspiracy theorists as cranks. Yes, of course we had the hilarous bout of people theowing bricks through their own TV serts at the Bill Grundy incident, but trust me, when I wandered around Brighton and London with spiked up hair, eye liner and a glare, I enjoyed the looks of horror in the faces of (a few) people. Mostly we were left alone. It was only bone heads and teds who took umbrage. Most people understood that a bit of yoof culture is largely harmless. The headlines in the gutter press were quite amusing, though. Oh and the fanzines were largely rubbish. I still have some.
Your example about cannabis, however, is frankly nonsense. I have personally published research on cannabinoids. I know key people in the field, people who have worked in some cases for decades trying to find some sort of medical use. There have been some successes but there is a great deal of noise among the signals. Meanwhile in many places cannabis for recreational use is virtually if not literally legal. An old friend of mine has created a company to develop cannabis for medical usage. In Vancouver when I visited a few years ago there were cannabis shops springing up all over the place. They were not yet open as the laws had not quite been changed (they have, now). Even so, walking down Granville Street (look it up) midday in the week, the air was thick with the whiff of ganga.
As a scientist I challenge everything. I don't embrace something just because it is underground, left field, novel or controversial. I will explore something (read about it, maybe even do some lab work) if it has, in my opinion (which is the only opinion I own) potential impact. I am engaged in a collaboration right now on effects of designer cannabinoids on certain aspects of human health. There is no conspiracy to stop me. The scientific and medical literature contains all sorts of things that are incorrect but the whole process of molecule to human is well established, with checks and balances, and these days adversity from a novel intervention in humans is rare. Obtaining effective interventions is the bigger challenge. The overwhelming evidence is that the amount of interest and hype around cannabis is not justified by the (mountains of) data. Would I smoke dope if I had MS, though? I expect I would (albeit largely because when I was younger I enjoyed the effect) but that is an entirely different issue.
I have a feeling that you are more inclined to give more credence to underground opinions rather than the mainstream. That's fine, but always test your sources. And also do the 'if this then else' thing - if an idea is correct what are its implications, and is there any evidence to refute as well as support the idea? And what is the provenance of the evidence (I give greater credence to peer reviewed publications, albeit I realise they may not be correct, so I give greatest credence to replicated findings, and findings that predict other outcomes that have been tested and shown to be most likely correct - this is known as the 'scientific method'). If the idea seems unlikely this is normally because it is false, but if it is potentially important it will be tested by others.
Top response, but I really don't know why you bother with Swanny.
Some musicians must be the work of the devil, otherwise, how do you explain Chris Martin, Geri Halliwell and Phil Collins?