bmck

just because i beleive i'm the king of england doesn't justify me going around asking peasants to kiss my ring. i'm not one for the if-they-believe-in-their-hearts-they're-doing-good-its-not-right-to-contradict school. same thinking justifies the twin towers, and takings for PIRA in pubs in maryhill. i guess so, but it doesn't seem seem we disagree on that much to be honest. the only difference is you entertain the delusions of rangers supporters in a way you don't celtic supporters, and i think if we take that approach that opens us all up to charges of hypocrisy. i don't like this trend - i think if we start buying bullshit justifications, or entertaining delusions, we'll become just like them. who knows, maybe death threats to nacho novo is a legitimate act of war in defiance of unjust oppressors? so long as they believed it.... as ever where there's difference of opinion, worth pointing out that it's all just opinions. not stuff that really matters in the grand scale of things.

of course you can. you get at motivation from context. people interested in righting social wrongs don't sing songs at football games. people who say they are doing this are either liars or deluded. there's no other options. singing it isn't getting back at any injustice, no matter what people feel in their hearts, so it leaves only a few options. they're singing it because it's fun (my preferred reason, the one i think best gets at the nature of football crowds, not sacrificing honesty to grab an imaginary moral high ground), or because they think they are addressing social injustice (in which case they're deluded, or they're giving a reason that isn't truthful). i dont believe it when celtic fans say they sing 'fuck the pope and davie cooper' as a decleration of autonomy from britain, and i dont believe it when rangers fan say they sing bjk to redress social ills. i cant make myself believe it, because it's not true.

i do because it's nonsense. people who think you get back at unfair treatment by singing songs at football games are, if not liars, deluded. the reason for this song isn't unfair treatment, and it doesn't going any way towards addressing any unfair treatment; anyone who entertains that argument are deluding themselves, imho.

i think if the celtic fans just had a bit thicker skin they could've gotten past all this sanitising of the support. now that it's started though, 'hun' has to go, if ****** and other words like it are now the worst thing in the world.

to me it's all just excuse making; trying to have your cake and eat it. ireland have been treated pretty shittily; does it justify the ira bombing innocent civilians? no. all this 'oh i think it's bad personally but i can understand it' is, to me, just opting out of taking a stance. everyone who sings this, or finds it regretable but can understand it, better opt out of compaints about songs about the ibrox disaster. unless those who sing it admit they just like singing it to wind up celtic fans, or justify it on those grounds, they're just bullshitters, and not worth listening to regardless of their injustice stories. just because we're always getting the shitty end of the stick doesn't justify anything. just because you can sympathise with people annoyed that we continually get it doesn't translate into giving this implicit approval by refusing to take a stand against it. not saying whether you agree with it or not is the same as agreeing with it. it's already happening. all this 'but we're so hard done by, can you really blame us for a few dodgy digs?' is the exact same reasoning we condemn in celtic fans. not for this bear. people can sing away, i think football should have thick enough skin to deal with jibes of this sort. i wouldnt want it banned. but i wont sing it, unless i feel like it at any given time, but if anyone tells me they're doing it because a) they feel they've been getting the crappy end of the stick and this is their rebellion, or b) they want to raise the issue to bring some sense of justice, then i'll consider that person either a liar or just deluded. that's my own view, but there's got to be standards. either admit its just another who shagged or the boys, and enjoy it, or dont sing it - just dnot furnish it with faux-injustice justification. i wish bjk singers would just have the balls to be cuntish, and acknowledge its for cuntishness, and cuntishness is often fun - masking cuntishness with social injustice stories is timmy techniques, though, and shouldn't happen.

aye, ignoring my little rant - the justification by timmy in the article is clearly hole-ridden. i do think BJK, the evidence points there, but it was a different time, and is now long past. if anyone wants to take it up it should be those who were affected by it. until, of course, you know singing it will be the one thing that'll drive the tims wherever you are that slabbery insane way they do so well. then its justified

bullshit. the people singing it love that celtic boys club shagged all the boys; they have no interest in social justice, no care for the victims, and no morally legitimate position to offer their pathetic critique from - they are willing to trample over corpses, the will of the victims, so that they can enjoy their little GIRUYs. so long as they're willing to admit that, we're fine, but i'm not going for anything more noble than this. sorry mate, i'm not partial to nonsense bifurcation. i'm not going to to get trapped in either/ors that don't exist in order to justify enjoying that your rivals were involved in paedophelia. 'paedophelia or naughty singing - what is worse?' is a bullshit dinstinction. one doesn't justify the other; each is judged (and incidentally has been judged) on its own terms. INVADE IRAQ - DO YOU SUPPORT FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY OR A DICTATORSHIP? not going to be hoodwinked by this mate. just because we are wrongly lambasted, and they hold the role of good guys, doesn't make people at a football match abusing a dead person's memory, associating it with paedophelia, for no purpose other than their own amusement, some sort of social good. it's petty, pointless and i dont trust the judgement of anyone led by the nose by such trivial rhetoric. if you admit that you like that children were abused by celtic because it gives you something to sing about, and annoys them, and is a laugh, then sing away, i may even join you if i'm drunk or have enough devilment in me at that moment; you start sticking more noble intentions around it and i'm going to call it for the bullshit it is undeniably is. i'm not sure there's much i find more scummy than that; distasteful doesn't cover it. and 'lashing out' happens in an instant, not in pathetic posters and banners sung for years with a bullshit, hypocritcal, sense of righteous indignation and articles and justification. no compromise for me on this; the bjk thing is fucking shameful, timmy behaviour. the hypocrisy in a bill struth and a bjk banner in the same space and time would surely cause a hole to be ripped in reality.

the bjk 'campaign' is shameful. it's as bad as anything timmy have done and seems taken right out of their school of self-indulgent kid-on social justice bullshit stance taking. its disgusting.

to be fair he never called mendes a cheat or anything like it: ''I felt as though I got the ball.... these things happen".

classy!

heard ferguson might be for the off... dont know how reliable the source is.

I was thinking about it, and I'm not sure it's possible to take the moral posturings of the media seriously at all anymore; they've just given up on even pretending to protect public interests any more and just descended into pure theatrics. They're light entertainment at best; you eat your morning roll and get worked up over the papers. They're like Jeremy Kyle. Wherever I agree with their analysis I can't shake the feeling that they're just saying it for show anyway; they didn't give a fuck, they just wanted to provide entertainment. All their little dilemmas and heroes and villains are just part of an ongoing show for our amusement, and nothing more. You think back to old London town and public hangings. The guy getting his head chopped off looking one last time at the crowd and seeing people on a day out; eating food from vendors, laughing and joking, boo-ing and cheering, before justice parts him from his head. While he might be rightly punished, it would be hard for him to see genuine moral outrage in all people he was looking out at. So, while I might think it might be right for someone to goto the gallows, or be arrested for sectarian chanting, or chastised for being an idiot when representing their country, it's not suprising that things like that happen. It's when you turn around and see all the 'good' people working up self-indulgent rage, paying so that they can read about it, getting all worked up and phoning phone ins, at the bidding of journalists who're more circus ringmasters directing easily-pleased punters than protectors of the public interest, that you're puzzled. - Oscar Wilde If a community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime, then it's infinitely more triviliased by the habitual employment of a panto press, not by the occasional idiocy of politically incorrect fans or childish footballers. If you pay them money, you give them hits, reference their articles, it's your fault.

its easy to play into that idealised image of a football supporter when you aren't so explicitly positioned at every turn as a consumer. i imagine it's easier when you aren't financing luxury for a whole industry of people to see it purely in these terms.

^ i think it does. those who stick with it through the hard times are better positioned to share in the good times.

i actually agree that it's illogical, but i think our dealings in the transfer market have always tended this way. even announcing that our players are for sale at all (as has happpened a lot recently) devalues them. i honestly think that players have to go, and that having a Very Good Reason for having these players go, rather than calling it downsizing, would be too much to miss for those who are in control of the purse strings. i dont think the events of the past week will vastly change the fee; no-one bought in at the higher prices at christmas. the only thing that's changed is that the club now have a reason and the backing of the press. this is true; it's money wasted, but i have the suspicion that barry wants to go (why was he acting like that in the first place if all was well?), walter wants him gone, sdm wants everyone gone, and now there's a narrative spun round it that everyone can believe in. who'd pay them in the first place? i think the decision's already been made that the higher wage players have to go regardless of fee. we've not been knocking back initial offers; we've been taking anything, without haggling. i think they'd ideally like the most money, but will be happy to take what they can get and stop paying the wages. that's all just projection. for me personally, ferguson and the sticking up the vicky thing really just excludes himself for ever captaining anything. not as any form of just punishment for badness, it's just not captain, first-among-equals, material. "ah, so it turns out you're not a men among boys, and so really shouldn't be a captain". all the punishments are over the top, and i dont think many people are acting for the reasons they say they are, even if i agree with the reasons. it's a shambles.

honestly, the sticking the vicky up thing is the most cringeworthily embaressing episode ever. drinking thing is out of proportion. but the only reason bf and am are transfer listed is because we need money.

lucky man. there was nothing more disappointing than getting a small coke, but not much more exciting than getting a sundae

interesting point. that not one the media seem to have argued this perspective really does show how agenda-driven it is.

the more talented the person, the easier they are to forgive though. i could forgive 9iar people anything, but the current crop haven't won that sort affection from me. i can't be irked about the drinking, obviously, it'd be hypocritical of me, but there seems like a gap there.

the only scratch cards worth getting were the ones they dished out years ago in mcdonalds. the ones you could win another packet of chips or a sundae. i loved those things.

bf is better than most of the other players, even on poor form. most teams, as annoying as he can be, are better off with him in it.

i was from the hood first mate - stealing cars or reading dostoevsky are always going to be equally fun for me seriously, though, i wish i had entered this competition.

not fucking funny.

not only that, the conditions for any form of nationalism have been largely crippled in the west by capitalism. we are loyal to our tastes. i made the choice to support rangers; they matter to me. i am scottish, but i am ambivalent towards it. there's some of it i like, some of it i don't like. just like everything else. whatever moral authority people twist to try and bind your conscience in that way is built on sand; a power-play, and nothing more.

no split conscience for this bear. easiest question i've ever been asked. moan the gers.