Glazers don't want to sell

comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 30 minutes ago

Its such a strawman argument that it shouldn't need explaining. When voting at a general election, people are taking into consideration a myriad of factors; healthcare, public services, foreign policy, taxes, environmental policies, etc. To suggest that all people should or shouldn't be voting for a particular party based on one issue is daft and has absolutely no correlation to whether United fans should want a particular ownership of their club. It's absolutely staggering logic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And it's a bad faith argument

Sadly to some fans all that matters is bragging rights. They wouldn’t care if Mason Greenwood and Ronaldo shared the goals whilst ripping off their tops in a crazy goal celebration revealing an aggressively marketed sponsorship deal with ‘Spray away the gay’ on behalf of the Qatari state

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
The point is that N2 has zero interest in consumer ethics and historically has been consistently hostile to any kind of politics that seeks to challenge hierarchies of wealth and power. There is no moral foundation, no set of principles, beneath his arguments. It's just the template response of the politics of cynicism: argue that nothing can be perfect and pure, and therefore anyone who suggests making things better is a hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He might not have zero interest just perhaps less than you do to be fair.

As I’m sure has been stated I doubt many, if any, people WANT state ownership.

I think the election vote is perhaps a bad example but I think what he meant to say is that we already have them involved in our country so much investment-wise that perhaps the ship has sailed?

I think we should be careful in making things black & white; it seems to me that the opinions on this are actually much more different shades of grey and I don’t agree with your previous statement that those who oppose BLM type activism are necessarily in favour of Qatari owners and those that are morally virtuous are opposed to Qatari owners. It’s really not that simple and I really don’t like categorising people into two groups when the reality is that there is a lot of crossover.

Plus, I suspect that I may well be right in that the Glazers simply won’t sell. I don’t think anyone will meet their price in the meantime the team is doing well currently and the share price is back in the $20s which will make them very happy.

I have a feeling this entire Qatari conversation will be rendered irrelevant.

SatNav, of course there are shades of grey in this question (and in everything in life), but there are also broad correlations and trends. There's no harm in noting the latter, as long as we don't forget that things get more complex when you examine things closer up. In my previous comment I didn't mean to paint a black-and-white picture, and I believe in my wording I didn't argue that holding one view always and inherently predicates the other - but rather 'if you're more likely to take a moralistic attitude to that question it means you're more likely to take a moralistic attitude to this question'. In my wording I'm explicitly acknowledging that it's not a direct correlation and doesn't apply to everyone.

As to N2, I can only go by his words, which are consistently, across any social or political topic discussed on this forum, express hostility to egalitarianism and indifference to any sort of idealism. His views on a Qatari takeover are exactly what I would have predicted.

And by the way, your reaction to the Qatari story, which is not cynical like N2's, also seems to me consistent with what I know about your way of thinking.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 54 minutes ago
SatNav, of course there are shades of grey in this question (and in everything in life), but there are also broad correlations and trends. There's no harm in noting the latter, as long as we don't forget that things get more complex when you examine things closer up. In my previous comment I didn't mean to paint a black-and-white picture, and I believe in my wording I didn't argue that holding one view always and inherently predicates the other - but rather 'if you're more likely to take a moralistic attitude to that question it means you're more likely to take a moralistic attitude to this question'. In my wording I'm explicitly acknowledging that it's not a direct correlation and doesn't apply to everyone.

As to N2, I can only go by his words, which are consistently, across any social or political topic discussed on this forum, express hostility to egalitarianism and indifference to any sort of idealism. His views on a Qatari takeover are exactly what I would have predicted.

And by the way, your reaction to the Qatari story, which is not cynical like N2's, also seems to me consistent with what I know about your way of thinking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My way of thinking eh? Right I’m on the couch - go!

I jest of course.

I’d much rather have Ineos than Qatar as Jim is local and whilst not exactly squeaky clean to say the least, probably not as questionable as the Qataris. He has more than enough money given our revenue to compete at the highest level, improve the stadium etc. he probably wouldn’t go as far as the Qataris would with improving the local area et cetera but I can certainly live with that if it means having Jim in control.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 30 minutes ago

Its such a strawman argument that it shouldn't need explaining. When voting at a general election, people are taking into consideration a myriad of factors; healthcare, public services, foreign policy, taxes, environmental policies, etc. To suggest that all people should or shouldn't be voting for a particular party based on one issue is daft and has absolutely no correlation to whether United fans should want a particular ownership of their club. It's absolutely staggering logic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And it's a bad faith argument
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It always is with him. It’s a waste of time even bothering.

comment by Ji Sung Park's Cousin - It's Rashers! (U2958)
posted 11 hours, 42 minutes ago
Is that really all they have left??

You can't be against a Qatari take over of your club because you might already support them without knowing, because they have their fingers in many pies.. or because whoever you vote for might make deals with them.

FFS, the art of debate is alive and kicking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, but I never said you can't be against the takeover.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 11 hours, 37 minutes ago
The point is that N2 has zero interest in consumer ethics and historically has been consistently hostile to any kind of politics that seeks to challenge hierarchies of wealth and power. There is no moral foundation, no set of principles, beneath his arguments. It's just the template response of the politics of cynicism: argue that nothing can be perfect and pure, and therefore anyone who suggests making things better is a hypocrite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have no control over the takeover. I would think you'd be better off showing such zeal over something where you have some influence.

comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 11 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 9 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by N2 (U22280)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
N2 is a great example of the category of person I had in mind earlier when describing those with an instinctive hostility to any kind of ethical discourse or critical self-examination. He'll assume that any such views must be hypocritical or self-aggrandising because an altruistic worldview is alien to him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm just pointing to the lack of consistency. You make a big deal of this, but Qatar doesn't need Utd—it makes no real difference. The difference would be made politically, but many of you indirectly support these regimes you claim to oppose.

If you wanted to be truly altruistic, you'd do something that made a change, not something that's just popular.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know he doesn't? Or any of us. It's popular, if that's the right word, because it's the right thing to hope for. That the club we love isn't bought by someone we think immoral, so as to appear better to the world in general.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Its such a strawman argument that it shouldn't need explaining. When voting at a general election, people are taking into consideration a myriad of factors; healthcare, public services, foreign policy, taxes, environmental policies, etc. To suggest that all people should or shouldn't be voting for a particular party based on one issue is daft and has absolutely no correlation to whether United fans should want a particular ownership of their club. It's absolutely staggering logic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell that to Corbyn who lost the election over a single issue.