Hammer89 wrote: » Can you imagine Lineker making puns about the clitoris in that scenario? No, because he'd be strung up by his ears and rightly so, but it's okay if a man's genitals are destroyed by a woman with a kitchen knife, isn't it?
OnDraught wrote: » His ears were created for a good stringing up. Also, shat on pitch.
The Backwards Man wrote: » But can you imagine that face contorted in the throes of sexual ecstasy?
vicwatson wrote: » Ah stop, I like me breakfast where it is thanky you sir
Richard Hillman wrote: » Typically hypocritical from virtue signaller extraordinaire
Samaris wrote: » What does that even mean? Please explain, because I keep seeing what looks like a hodge-podge of terms of dismissal rammed together to appear as an an argument, generally when someone doesn't actually have an argument, but wants to be a bit obnoxious. Are you saying that the OP doesn't believe that chopping someone's penis off is vicious? Are you saying that it's right that people with a wide following should encourage people to have a go at an injured man and it's funny? Are you saying that the OP finds it funny and is saying he doesn't for Reasons? What, in short, are you even on about?
Hammer89 wrote: » So, a wife in South Korea has chopped off her husband's penis and flushed it down the toilet because he was spending so much time on the golf course. Gary Lineker saw the funny side, Tweeting: "FORE....skin gone" and a lot of his followers also got in on the act. His followers responded with a plethora of golf-related puns - including some women - and you could be forgiven for thinking that it's not such a horrific story. Except for the fact it is a horrific story and can you imagine the outrage if a man mutilated his wife's genitals? Can you imagine Lineker making puns about the clitoris in that scenario? No, because he'd be strung up by his ears and rightly so, but it's okay if a man's genitals are destroyed by a woman with a kitchen knife, isn't it? Not only is it okay, but it's a source of humour and I'm sickened by the whole thing. I honestly am. Perhaps I'm wrong to be annoyed because this is simply the world we live in and there are great examples of hypocrisy out there, but that doesn't mean the lesser examples should be ignored.
Samaris wrote: » I get that explanation (more or less, mostly because I see such comments being woefully misapplied to "anything I don't specifically agree with MUST be virtue signalling"), but I do not see how it can possibly apply to Lineker. He wasn't signalling any virtue, he was having a laugh at the expense of a seriously injured man and encouraging his followers to do the same. The comment makes no sense in that context, unless the poster has dramatically redefined his definition of virtue. No, it looks like a dig at the OP with no back-up, no evidence and no actual argument. It is just lazy insult that in this case, means less than nothing.
Spider Web wrote: » I think it's definitely only a dig at Lineker - why would it be at the OP? I think the virtue signalling reference is regarding Lineker's tweets regarding other issues, which this then contradicts.
vicwatson wrote: » Lineker is, and always has been, a twat
Deleted User wrote: » Know a fellow who knew him when he was at Spurs and said he was just a vile nasty person. He knew a load of sporting celebs in football, snooker etc. back in the 90s and always said Linekar stood out as someone you didn't want to be around, and everyone knew it.
_Dara_ wrote: » Exactly. How is this news?
Hammer89 wrote: » It's not. It's a thread?