Dr. Gonzo

Twitter fans of every club are the worst. But have you seen the window licking comments of Instagram fans?

Tbh no you still haven’t answered questions from me or Spike on this thread

Arteta’s Arsenal has late stage Arsene Wenger vibes

It’s incredibly irritating not being able to clearly make out the numbers on Arsenal’s kit.

Firmino wants out for the Americas. Imagine selling your credibility and reputation and then a few months later realising it was a bad idea

Just saw this, but fucking hell that is awful & I'm also sorry to hear that. Hopefully 2024 is a better year.

They're owned by PIF, which owns that league - so it's a bit different than other clubs offloading their deadwood to Saudi Arabia in that it's the same decision makers on both ends when it's Newcastle to Saudi.

If you've got a twitter/X account, please repost this to protect people who are simply going onto social media to express their will for having basic human rights.

Lol no way this is true

So an occupation that sounds similar to the West Bank, IDF to stay as a security force, multinational foreign coalition to rebuild Gaza. I think it should be the other way around tbh. Multinational foreign coalition to provide security, Israel to rebuild. I just don’t believe there’s a real path to lasting peace if it’s just Israel and Palestine left to continue doing what they’ve always done. I don’t think there’s peace without an international body they both have to answer to if things kick off in Gaza again. And it’s not like the West Bank occupation has been a staggering success. The West Bank is less extremist and more peaceful, but Israel are more directly to blame for the inequity and theft of dignity for Palestinians in the West Bank. The illegal land grabs by settlers, and settler violence towards Palestinians for simply being in their homes, that the IDF & courts turn a blind eye to are another shameful violation of Palestinian human rights in the West Bank. The same sort of thing in Gaza is better than Hamas ruling over Gaza now. But if we see the same thing as the West Bank it’s not really a good solution for anyone except for people who benefit from illegal land grabs.

No worries but that does make a lot more sense

He’s trying to debate, you’re not engaging. It’s not really debate if you don’t address counterpoints the person you debate is making. Political debates by actual politicians done on TV are usually shit debates done for TV, but even politicians are expected to address the counterpoints to their arguments they’ve made. Otherwise it’s just talking over someone, which you can’t really do on the internet lol - because people can call you out on it pretty easily.

I wish to see these films

But why does that bother you if you're not a shareholder? FFS I'm a Disney shareholder and I can't even be arsed about "Disney going woke" - I'm a Disney shareholder and I'm more annoyed that they can't put interesting content with all the IP they own. These live action remakes are lazy and shite, I don't know why they keep putting them out. I don't know many people, if any, that actually want to go take their kids to these films - especially if it'll be streaming on Disney+ (which is honestly a must have subscription if you're a parent, I'm told) in a few months. If they do want to persist with these live action things... they should use their brains and take advantage of the fact they've got the Muppets IP in their portfolio. Do I want to see a live action Beauty and the Beast? Not a bit. Do I want to see a Muppets Beauty and the Beast? Yeah, alright let's see the Muppets take it on. I think Disney needs to be putting out more original stuff... but they don't even have to do that. They own Marvel. There's millions of stories told in Marvel comic books that could be put on a screen and sold to children all around the world... many of those stories are probably a hell of a lot more interesting than their more recent Marvel flops, considering Marvel's been around with a loyal fanbase since well before Disney owned them.

That is interesting. And a bit weird because James Bond's been around for far longer than the 90s. But if a black Bond would make black British people feel weird, that's definitely interesting. Scouse Bond is my new vote then. Black, white, whatever, I don't care as long as they're Scouse.

Just the concept of dwarves was seen as offensive? Fuck me, that's worse than just renaming the film "Snow White & Some Midgets" I thought it'd be some kind of weird cruelty towards very very short people, like what Steven Hawking was up to when he was palling around with Epstein.

Ok that's fair. But if you got seriously wound up by Disney casting a black woman as a mermaid, I think you're more likely to be a racist than not a racist. At the end of the day it's a Disney film, I don't think it's worth anyone thinking about for more than a couple of minutes. Getting legitimately pissed off about it is weird to the point where I assume there's some sort of bigotry. And I do think it's a bit weird they've decided to not hire dwarf (apologies if that's not politically correct, but I don't know what the right term is) actors for a live action Snow White, actually. Unlike recasting a cartoon character to a minority race that's been historically disadvantaged in the US and in the west generally... this is Disney taking jobs away from seven actors who have been historically disadvantaged everywhere & there aren't that many roles for them. Honestly though I've not seen any of the live action Disney remakes and I don't have much interest in seeing them, mostly because I want to preserve my childhood memories of the cartoon films. But I don't remember the outrage over Jasmine from Aladin being played by a non-Middle Eastern actress, and as someone of Middle Eastern descent I also wouldn't be outraged by that either. I genuinely don't care about the race of an actor in a work of fiction. It's like people getting worked up about Edris Ilba being James Bond because he's black. "It's not realistic, James Bond is a WW2 veteran... he wouldn't be black." Yeah and casting Daniel Craig as a WW2 veteran in the 2020s is also not realistic. It's a fictional character in films that are pretty far removed from the original source material. As long as James Bond is still cool and has a UK accent, I don't think it's worth worrying about what race the actor playing him is. Casting an American to play James Bond though and I probably would be pissed off

Lol what have they done with Snow White?

Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom's DC, so I think that's WB actually. But yeah, they're struggling to make as much money as they could be making because they're being very lazy with creating content. Nobody wants to see these live action remakes of classics. People are tired of Marvel movies, especially when the plots seem to get worse and worse. Who asked for a new Indiana Jones film considering how shit the one before the latest one was? People want new and interesting things to watch for entertainment. For a company losing millions... a net income of over $2b is not doing too badly (gross revenue was over $88b). Will it make shareholders angry because they could have had more? Yes probably. But it's also an increase over 2022, so shareholders would be happy about that. Disney will be fine, they're not "going broke because they went woke" - they're not making as many millions as they could be making because they're not putting out as high quality content as they were in previous years.

The Walt Disney Company reported a net income of 2.35 billion U.S. dollars in the fiscal year of 2023. The company’s revenues for the quarter and year grew 5% and 7% compared to the prior-year quarter and prior year, respectively. The diluted earnings per share decreased over 2023, but that's mostly because their latest Marvel films have been dogshit and they have very little original content. It's got fuck all to do with weirdos being pissed off a mermaid in a live action film is black. Long term, Disney will be fine and if you buy Disney stock now it'll probably be a very solid investment. And like I said, I didn't say if you didn't see the film you're a racist. I didn't see the film. So one more time: If you care about the skin colour of a mermaid in a live action remake of a cartoon because of "the political message" you're probably a racist.

I'm sure Alex, London & Joe, Surrey both like football. They're just idiots, like our referees.

I just asked ChatGPT which says that in the original Little Mermaid, there is no mention of her race. She's a white mermaid in the Disney films. The Disney films aren't the original story and the ending is much weirder in the original. It's a fucking mermaid, who gives a shit what race they cast the person as in the live action film? When they do shows on the West End/Broadway/whatever Canada or Peru's equivalent of those is and they cast "traditional' white characters with a black character, is that "reverse-whitewashing" or is that just casting whoever does a good job in the audition without regard for their race? I can understand more with historical fiction casting people that are plainly not looking anything like the person they're trying to portray. But fictional characters? Honestly, who gives a shit what colour the actors are. Ariel's not real, she's a mermaid and mermaids aren't real either.

Being a premier league referee must be great. Sure, you have to have thick enough skin to take abuse every weekend. And people will say mean things about you on the internet. BUT you get £100k+ a year AND you don't even have to attempt to even be somewhat decent at your job. It's literally stealing a living as long as you don't give a shit what people say or think about you.

I don't think it's a red card, but after some of the reds I've seen some people justify as red cards... no way in hell can we say nobody honest in the world can call a red card a red card. They could still be honest, they'd just be idiots. But yeah, that's never a red card. But don't be surprised if people defend it. Look here's some idiots defending it on the BBC's website right now: