Hey Giz,
I think Suffer is falling for one of the Left's favourite tricks - appropriating an entire section of society to themselves, so that they and they alone can represent them and further their emancipation - which strangely always involves the 500th attempt to build a communist utopia from the corpses of everybody.
Our lords and masters have been trying to brute-force that particular password since the climate scare stuff of the 1980s, have they not? Maybe even earlier, given the soft responses groups like the Weather Underground got...
I don't imagine they're thinking about this any further than a desire to decolonise England ... which, given that it's not been colonised since about 1066, seems to merely be a code phrase for removing those horrible English from the place.
They do seem to hold the view that they have some kind of natural right to anything that's ever been a part of the EU ... see how hard they've pushed to claim UK territories or territorial waters. A valuable lesson for anybody else seeking to deal with the EU. What they want is your country as their own private possession.
As far as I know Trump's whole thing there was about giving you the option. Which, provided the data to hand is as accurate as it reasonably can be, is difficult to fault because that then means you, the citizen, are the one taking responsibility.
I don't usually talk about this kind of thing - religion is a private thing, generally - but which type of atheism?
The "muh science"-type atheism that seems to have lead directly to this odd worship not of the scientific method (which would also be wrong, it's a tool, not holy scripture) but as science as a shibboleth of My Side and of scientists as the priests of this new religion is as utterly repellent to me as any preacher quoting scripture to justify some act of rank immorality.
The point about being an atheist, at least as I understand it, is to make your own decisions not to be shackled to someone else's irrationalities and biases. All the Internet Atheism crown achieved when it morphed into the "I Fucking Love Science" crowd, apparently, is to change the letterhead on the fucking page.
It'd be interesting, I guess, to see the basis on which BRCC have made that decision.
On the face of it, I would have assumed they would be in favour of a US citizen under attack having the capability to defend themselves.
I wonder if they're simply in the mass media's walled garden and just not realised it. It is designed for that precise purpose, after all.
There's also the point of: Southgate deciding not to use his subs until the very last minute, helping guarantee penalties.
That's a truly shitty tactical decision, imo. Penalties are always a lottery, the only thing that would make this a wise decision is if you're subbing in some kind of penalty specialist with a long and storied career of making the penalty count, each time, every time (and even then - great, you've now secured one out of five penalties). Even disregarding how badly England historically does at penalties, he'd have done much better with those same players by giving them a chance to make a difference on the pitch and take the load off the players who'd played a whole 90 minutes already.
But I guess virtue signalling is such a strong call that merely winning an international cup simply isn't a good enough substitute.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with establishing the principle that "significant emotional damage" is sufficient basis to make something illegal. That seems to lead to anybody who isn't a communist facing charges within a few short years.
I'm fairly sure that "Why shouldn't we make X illegal?" is the antithesis of US jurisprudence. US legal theory, in contrast to European, is that US citizens can do whatever the hell they like until they run up against the law, rather than being property of the state, graciously granted some small permissions if they promise to be good.
You know why.
They're terrible writers, and anyway, it's not about the film, it's about the message.
They can't get mass circulation for the new stuff they write because they can't write compelling characters. They only know how to write NPCs like themselves.
The message is: You have already lost. This is us stamping everything you even like into the ground simply because you like it.
Just because that message is asserted vehemently it does not make it true. Personally, I think they've played their hand too early, but then "zealot" and "patience" rarely fit in the same sentence.