Matt Le Tissier

Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants said:
JoIn ThE dOtS (or something like that they say…..


Notable mention goes to ex sun page 3 girl Leiliana Dowling (or however you spell it) pushing out Icke conspiracies whilst also being on their payroll.
Click to expand...

He did an interview on Youtube recently, on a show called "Join the Dots" where he spoke about his "enlightenment" aka detachment from reality. I presume the interviewer is of a similar disposition. There's an hour of it if anyone wants to wade through the nonsense to see how deep he has gone.

It's had very few views so I take that as a good sign of how fringe his opinions are.
 
Nano said:
He did an interview on Youtube recently, on a show called "Join the Dots" where he spoke about his "enlightenment" aka detachment from reality. I presume the interviewer is of a similar disposition. There's an hour of it if anyone wants to wade through the nonsense to see how deep he has gone.

It's had very few views so I take that as a good sign of how fringe his opinions are.
Click to expand...
They are fringe, but it seems a growing fringe and a fringe with a vocal platform. There are plenty of people with a lot of reach that have at least one foot in this conspiracy camp be it Farage, Laurence Fox, Haty Kopkins and indeed Trump etc.

Of course two of those are deplatformed from the biggest social platforms, but have already done much damage, and Trump has his own platform and his acolytes spread his nonsense on the mainstream platforms.

This brings up for me, the question of how we police the internet. The only way to spread hate, dangerous lies, and wild conspiracy in the past in any big numbers was via more regulated media channels. Where at least some form of control could be brought to nefarious actors...and of course the immediacy of social media means lies can be half way around the world before someone calls it out.

I'm not huge on censorship, however, I'm becoming more convinced that without some proper policing and control, the internet is a very dangerous media. Not sure the specifics of how to govern it, but I certainly feel the end of anonymity on the web is a start, followed by softer prosecuting people for online lies, abuse, hate, an comments that can generally be dangerous, like with the anti-vaccine stuff and undermining a clear genocide.
 
Andy_W said:
He's a nutter.

I say as much pretty on much everything he posts on Twitter, surprised he's not blocked me yet :LOL:
Click to expand...
For someone who claims to believe in free speech he doesn’t half block a lot of people

I guess it’s paranoia
 
BoroMart said:
This brings up for me, the question of how we police the internet. The only way to spread hate, dangerous lies, and wild conspiracy in the past in any big numbers was via more regulated media channels. Where at least some form of control could be brought to nefarious actors...and of course the immediacy of social media means lies can be half way around the world before someone calls it out.

I'm not huge on censorship, however, I'm becoming more convinced that without some proper policing and control, the internet is a very dangerous media. Not sure the specifics of how to govern it, but I certainly feel the end of anonymity on the web is a start, followed by softer prosecuting people for online lies, abuse, hate, an comments that can generally be dangerous, like with the anti-vaccine stuff and undermining a clear genocide.
Click to expand...
Twitter are fairly good at cutting out the crap, and stopping hate etc, better than the others I suppose, but it's impossible to stop.

The problem with social media is you can have a doctor (with his real name/ photo/ profile) saying one thing and some other guy (Big John12345678, no picture or profile info) with zero qualifications/ experience saying another, and their opinions could get treat equal. In real life this doesn't happen anywhere near as often, as when questioned people can't get away to go and hide behind their keyboard, or run off to google/ YouTube. Most of the time when people are spreading crap, they just won't engage with those who are far more experienced than them.

The key I find to assessing someone or something is in the detail, if there is none, or it's based on some random screenshot from a dodgy source, then it's simple to spot it's crap. The most reliable people tend to post with links, articles and sharing from reliable or at least semi reliable (even if politically biased) sources.
 
Aet290204 said:
For someone who claims to believe in free speech he doesn’t half block a lot of people

I guess it’s paranoia
Click to expand...
Yeah, I reckon he's muted me, or just get so many people telling him he's posting crap, that he just might not see it. Some of his herd reply every now and then mind.

It's mad how he goes on about MSM, but will then effectively be saying the Russian MSM is more reliable than the likes of some quite well respected media. It's literally impossible for the world to be all in one big secret, and that some fool can "crack the code" which the smartest minds in the world can't.

People going down the rabbit hole, will always find themselves very isolated, and then with that there's always going to be paranoia.
 
I hate it when people taint some of the great football memories I have. In Lennies Premier league season I sat in East End seats watching him 'warm up' where all he did was hit balls from outside of the box, hitting the bar with almost monotonous regularity, which we all thought was hilarious. Then he equalised with a free kick from just outside the box which flew into the top corner (probably clipping the bottom of the bar). He was a magnificent striker of a football, up there with the best. Thankfully we got a winner.

He does seem to be still craving attention though and maybe this is why sky moved him out.
 
The problem is that there is some validity at first, it's just that people like Le Tissier that aren't as clever as they think they are run with it and other idiots follow suit and think they are enlightened. We all know the various different media outlets have their own agenda and you can't trust everything that they say. The majority of people will hear something and check it against other sources. If the Daily Mail says something I'd be sceptical but if the Guardian and the BBC are reporting the same thing then I'd assume that it is correct. People like Le Tiss group them all into MSM and assume it's a system wide cabal that won't tell us the truth. They don't seem to understand that the agenda that they have is largely just making money, not new world order control. The reason they cover certain atrocities and not others isn't because they don't care, it's because we the viewers/readers don't. I've seen questions about why don't some of the things in the Middle East get the media attention that Ukraine gets and the sad reality is that we have become desensitised to it so it doesn't get the viewers like something new does. It's not an agenda to cover anything up. It's about money (either from direct sales or to protect owner's business interests/investments etc.)
 
I used to think he was one of the more articulate/sensible ones on Soccer Saturday....then again that's quite a low bar.
 
Rofesleg said:
Rodney wasn't thick. Did you mean Trigger?
Click to expand...
hqdefault.jpg

It's THAT face
 
TheYorkshireTerrier said:
It all started with COVID and now here he is suggesting what’s happening in Ukraine is some sort of hoax.
Click to expand...
It actually started with man made climate change denial, then it was Brexit, then COVID and the vaccine. I feel quite sorry for him. He and many others have been sucked into a black hole and their algorithms won’t let them out of it.
 
newyddion said:
hqdefault.jpg

It's THAT face
Click to expand...
His character was originally extremely dopey. They joked about him being the smart one because he had a couple of GCEs (which of course meant he failed a lot more GCEs than he passed). The joke was that Del being more streetwise was smarter than someone with a piece of paper to prove they are smart.

This then changed later, they made Rodney a little more intelligent but faking it in a middle class world, but not being as well brought up as his wife so making social faux pas all the time. So they played on his lack of street smarts, but also that he wasn't really as smart as someone with a good education. He was more intellectual than Del but they always played the trope of academic intelligence isn't the same as being street smart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top