this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
Main
139 readers
4 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I generally agree with you but just playing devil's advocate, I think Rashford used his voice and position well to make good effective change.
There's definitely positive examples yes. But by golly are they rare and mostly something we can only judge on the surface. Geniunely appreciate Rashys work a lot but I'm saddened he even has to do that level of advocating for such a no brainer
Yeah you'd think starving children = bad is a fairly easy position for all of us to get behind.
But Tories gonna Tory.
Wasn't there a Tory who grew up on free lunches and decided to remove the ladder once he reached the top?
Several.
It's because they're cunts.
That's why university fees exist aswell.
Tories: "We have to leave the EU to take care of our own."
Starving British kids: "So does that mean we'll finally have food?"
Tories: "Eww, no, fuck off."
Mom can I have Brexit?
To provide food for starving children?
Yeeeees
Actually dismantles NHS like a boss
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/7BCA/production/_99609613_8e5e3cfe-4bfe-407a-85d8-4f9526cb0670.jpg
Entire leave campaign should be in prison for treason. It wasn't up for debate whether the country would be worse off economically, it was a fact, one which every credible economist confirmed.
The greatest victory of the populist right wing over the last 20 years has beento equate being told things about certain topics by someone with experience and knowledge in the field with being called a racist/idiot
Just when I think the rage I have over Brexit subsides this image brings it right back. Thank you very much
When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist. - Hélder Câmara
Depends if you think it's the government's job to feed kids or their parents. 13 years of Labour government seemed to think it was the latter. As did Labour and SNP administrations in Wales and Scotland until they saw opportunities to look good.
This is hugely simplistic and you don't understand the issue. It's more about the level of control that a government has over the people and the liberties offered to them
I agree, but I also think their is an astronomical difference between "Saying something" and "Doing something".
Rashford has also stopped doing most of that since he changed his PR agency.
I mean... until pretty recently we'd have said the same about Jordan Henderson....
Rashford has also said absolutely nothing about Mason Greenwood coming back and it would have totally happened were it not for fans and staff revolting. So he's not some paragon of virtue either
I don’t even mean it as banter, but Marcus Rashford excels at Philanthropy as much as he does Football. No devil’s advocate about it.
I’d listen to Peter Cech’s opinion on hockey and drumming. You can be knowledgeable in more than one field.
You can, but you need to prove it by showing your know knowledge in said field. In that case, you listen to someone talking about hockey that happens to be a successful footballer, not because he's a successful footballer
I don't know Cech outside of football, but I'm assuming the reason you and others (in particular, hockey people and drummers) listen to him on those topics and found it to make sense. Yes, without him being a successful footballer you'd never heard about him, but he still needed to prove himself on that
Then you also have the obvious that having certain issues in some issues raises your commercial value to a degree that hockey and drumming don't
Cech is a semi professional hockey player and an accomplished drummer
There you have it, you listen to him on those topics because of that. His famous because of his football merits but his opinions on those topics matter because of what you pointed out
I'd argue there's no devil's advocate about celebs actually putting money towards good causes, compared to people just saying words to please the currently politically approved positon.
Yes but his message was 'feed hungry children' not exactly a complex political or economic argument like the OP mentioned.
That just means you agree with him this time. Doesn’t change the basic principle
There’s a difference between philanthropic work and speaking about topics you shouldn’t. Rashford was philanthropic work while Brad Pitt on climate change is just nonsense.
Rashford is different because he put his money where his mouth is and helped a lot of people in the process. What the fuck did Henderson ever actually do for the LGBTQ+ community?