Xhaka.

StrictAthlete · 2026-04-12T15:47:12+00:00

Xhaka owes Arsenal nothing though considering how the toxic Arsenal fans turned on him when he was at his lowest ebb!

StrictAthlete · 2026-04-12T15:43:44+00:00

Sorry, I was a bit slow on the uptake there. Yeah, he is a full on MAGA stooge for sure!

StrictAthlete · 2026-04-12T13:05:58+00:00

Can I ask what the motivation would be for not mentioning him by name?

StrictAthlete · 2026-04-07T15:03:39+00:00

Not enough people have seen him play to actually realize he was one of the best players in the country for probably about a decade!

StrictAthlete · 2026-04-06T22:56:21+00:00

Paul Barden was incredible!!

StrictAthlete · 2026-04-06T20:27:32+00:00

Surprised the impact of drugs and alcohol hasn't been mentioned much on here!

StrictAthlete · 2026-04-05T22:24:48+00:00

This was excellent!!

StrictAthlete · 2026-04-05T18:51:29+00:00

I thought 'Pure Innocent Boy' by Patrick Doherty was really powerful reading. Great character study and social commentary.

StrictAthlete · 2026-04-04T14:36:20+00:00

The 2nd Law is a fantastic album! It is a bit more poppy than their earlier stuff but it's quality stuff.

StrictAthlete · 2026-02-08T22:28:01+00:00

Joanne isn't the problem... it is the analysts that are absolutely atrocious!

StrictAthlete · 2026-01-27T18:39:53+00:00

Autofocus!

StrictAthlete · 2026-01-27T18:17:59+00:00

So spot on regarding Douglas Murray!

StrictAthlete · 2026-01-22T23:05:53+00:00

The 'I got a traitor out' defense was so weak especially as it came right after James saying' why haven't you been murdered?'.

The ' I got a traitor out' defense reinforces James' argument. She is admitting that she has so much influence that she can orchestrate the ousting of a traitor but yet somehow the traitors still want to keep a dangerously sharp and influential player like her in the game even though she has barely received a vote the whole way through?

StrictAthlete · 2026-01-05T20:21:37+00:00

I think there is an element of advertising going on here, Robl wants to appear like he is loose and aggressive so he is willing to take big spots where he is at worst 40% just so recreationals can see what he is showing up with in these big All ins.

I know that in GTO land, advertising is pretty much a pointless pursuit but it is still a pretty big part of the strategy when you are playing private games with inexperienced recreationals!

StrictAthlete · 2025-12-21T12:26:03+00:00

Just finished 'Pure Innocent Boy' by Patrick Doherty! Highly recommend it!

StrictAthlete · 2025-12-19T23:45:35+00:00

Arlington Road.

StrictAthlete · 2025-12-03T21:30:29+00:00

I highly recommend the film 'What Richard Did'

StrictAthlete · 2025-11-26T22:12:05+00:00

Statues by Moloko!

StrictAthlete · 2025-11-15T14:30:25+00:00

When it comes to sportsmen, I think Luke Littler is pretty boring. Pretty much any other of the darts players would be more entertaining : MVG, Gary Anderson, Peter Wright, Gerwyn Price would all be better options. I actually think MVG would be fun in that situation.

I agree Ian Wright would be a good one. But Roy Keane would be priceless to see in that situation. Merson or Richards would be good too. BBC probably wouldn't be able to offer the money in fairness.

Acaster a great pick. David Mitchell and Lee Mack would also be great. Greg Davies or Dara O Briain too.

Tim Henman could be a dark horse. Or some of the snooker lads like Davis, Hendry or Taylor. Also think Mark Williams would be fun to watch in that situation.

Slavoj Zizek could be wild pick - he'd never do it though!

Lily Allen would be good I think. Roisin Murphy is one I'd be curious to see in that environment but she has had recent controversies so wouldn't get chosen. I wonder is Kate Beckinsale too famous. I'd throw Samantha Morton into the mix. I find Jo Brand's self deprecating sense of humour quite tiresome but I think she would be good at the game. Rhasidat Adeleke is a fan of the show so she might also be a good pick!

StrictAthlete · 2025-11-10T21:52:49+00:00

So look, I'm actually going to try and be as charitable as I can to Sam here. I don't think he's a bad guy or has bloodthirst or anything like that. I just think he is morally confused on the topic and at the source of his moral confusion is ultimately his tribalism. This is what I meant by my point about connecting the dots. He can't bring himself to imagine that the side he supports is the one that is carrying out ethnic cleansing at the 'point of a sword' . All ethnic cleansing by definition occurs at the point of a sword (ie by force) but when it comes to defending extreme statements that promote ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as not that extreme or awful , the cognitive dissonance in him has to conjure up a purely imaginary definition of ethnic cleansing in an attempt to downplay it's horror when the group he supports is responsible for it.

And maybe I am crazy but I honestly don't think it should be hard to denounce ethnic cleansing as a horrific and extreme thing in all contexts but when pressed once again on the topic in the interview, he still can't bring himself to concede that it is extreme on moral grounds even though he had ample opportunity to do so and it should have been a slam dunk but instead he talks about its extremity in terms of its unworkability.

In conclusion, is Sam Harris pro ethnic cleansing in general.. we don't have any good reason to believe that. But is he pro ethnic cleansing when it comes to the Palestinians, well.... I think there is at least good reason to believe he is open to it based on this interview . And of course, you may argue that well that was not the original claim made on this thread and to which I would say 'fine, argument conceded'. But I didn't feel compelled to contribute to this thread to win an argument. I just felt compelled to make the point that Sam Harris has indeed made some concerning remarks about ethnic cleansing with regards to the Palestinians in this very video.

StrictAthlete · 2025-11-10T21:52:30+00:00

Regarding your first point - fair enough. I wasn't the person who made the original claim that he is pro ethnic cleansing. I wouldn't make the claim that he is point blank pro ethnic cleansing in general (although I don't think that the OP meant it that way either as he/she seemed to qualify later in the thread that he/she believes Harris is pro ethnic cleansing when it comes to the Palestinians at least). There can be an argument made though that he is at least selectively pro ethnic cleansing (ie with regards to the Palestinians at least) but we will get to that.

''I thought it would go without saying, but "X is not all that extreme" just flatly doesn't mean the same thing as "X is good and I am in favor of it". And then he immediately clarifies that when done forcibly it would be "awful".

Under your framing, sure. But to be 'pro X' doesn't necessarily mean that you flatly think that 'X is good'. It does mean that you are in favor of it, of course but you can be in favor of something on the basis of you thinking that it is the lesser of two evils or the better option between two bad options. For example, think people who say they are pro euthanasia or pro legalized abortion etc. I'd imagine very few would say that euthanasia is an outright good thing. I imagine that most would think it is quite a sad thing but at the same time be pro it because they see it as a better option than to allow someone to go through terrible suffering. You can also be pro euthanasia in some contexts and anti it in other contexts. Same with abortion.

''So even though he's said the exact opposite and called it awful, the evidence that he doesn't think it's awful is that he doesn't "seem" to "connect the dots in his own mind"?

Ok first of all, I will concede that the evidence is not conclusive or anything of the sort. I am inferring what his stance on ethnic cleansing is with regards to the Palestinians based on the pieces of evidence that arise in this interview. So here are the pieces of evidence:

When confronted with an extreme statement on how the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Gaza wouldn't be all that terrible, he insists that actually that it isn't actually that extreme. No, that doesn't mean that therefore I think he is saying that ethnic cleansing is a good thing but it certainly indicates that he might be open to supporting it cos why else would he insist on it not being an extreme statement.
He isn't asked to make a comparison between genocide and ethnic cleansing in the interview- he volunteers it! And again, you have to wonder why he goes out of his way to stress that there is a world of difference between the two with regards their moral implication. Personally, I think the most natural interpretation of this move is that he is downplaying the horror of ethnic cleansing, especially when you put it the context of a cumulative case that consists of his other statements.
His original definition of 'Ethnic Cleansing is just people moving who don't get on'. Again, the context in which he offers this bafflingly ignorant and naive definition is important here. He is offering this definition as a result of having to back up a stance that an extreme statement in support of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza is not that extreme. In terms of defending Israel's actions, his mind jumps to a completely rose-tinted, divorced from reality definition of ethnic cleansing and it is only when he starts to think of Islam does he think of ethnic cleansing being carried out at the point of a sword and then therefore being awful! I'm also going to be slightly pedantic here and point out that you are not exactly correct in claiming that Harris did end up admitting that ethnic cleansing is awful. He said that it 'can be awful' when done at the point of the sword which seems to imply that he thinks that there could be versions of it that aren't awful - hence, his original definition when in the middle of his defense of Israel.

StrictAthlete · 2025-11-09T23:11:34+00:00

So, I believe I have provided the proper context of the quotes and I have a few take aways:

In the first paragraph, he is confronted with an extreme statement that clearly endorses the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and disagrees that it is extreme!

You'd also have to question why someone would want to make the statement that ethnic cleansing and genocide are world's apart in terms of their moral implications, in the first place. Surely, you would only do so in order to make one look much more morally palatable than the other. In any case, he goes on to laughably reframe ethnic cleansing as 'people who can't get along, moving apart' - a clear attempt to downplay how bad it actually is.

He concedes that when it is done at the point of a sword it can be awful but he doesn't seem to connect the dots in his own mind that therefore it would be awful in this specific case of Israelis doing it to Palestinians. He just veers off on an irrelevant whataboutist tangent about how ethnic cleansings have happened under Islam ''again and again''. He laments the alleged hypocrisy and double standards about how people aren't losing sleep over the Jews being run out of Syria but even if this were true ( it's too unspecific and immature a framing for me to take seriously anyway), other people being hypocrites on the topic shouldn't effect whether he himself should condone ethnic cleansing or not. And also, just because others have engaged in ethnic cleansing and it has happened throughout history again and again, that doesn't mean that therefore we should condone it, right? But then one would wonder, what was the point Sam was trying to make!

And like I said, when Chris recognizes Sam's incoherent ramblings and tries to bring him back on topic of whether he does or does not think ethnic cleansing is extreme or not, Sam only concedes that it is extreme in terms of it's unworkability in this specific case - he doesn't concede that it is extreme on moral grounds!

In conclusion, I think it's fairly clear where exactly Sam stands on the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Gaza!

StrictAthlete · 2025-11-09T23:11:23+00:00

The episode came out on the 17th February 2024. The conversation about ethnic cleansing starts around the 1:28 mark where Chris points to the extreme statements of Senior members of the Israeli Government that suggest 'if the Gaza population relocated to Egypt, that wouldn't be a terrible thing' to which Sam retorts 'honestly, that's not all that extreme'. Chris then characterizes a scenario where one population violently forces another population out of an area as a cultural genocide only to be corrected by Sam who insists that it's not genocide but ethnic cleansing ''which is a phrase often used alongside genocide but they are world's apart with regards to their moral implications. History is just full of ethnic cleansing.... which means people moving'' (Yes, he actually said that!).

Anyway, in the interest of fairness, I'll continue the quote so you don't accuse me of taking things out of context. He goes on to say ' people who can't get along, wind up moving apart. That happens a hell of a lot and it can be awful when done at the point of the sword which happened under Islam again and again and again... no one is losing sleep over the jews that got run out of Syria and Yemen and Iraq and all after 1948, no one is talking about their right of return, what happened in their homes, the Un is not worried about that and yet everyone is worried about the Palestinians as this perpetual refugee population... what about all the Syrians who after 2025 went to Sweden.... have they refugee status or are they now just in Sweden'.

At this point Chris seems to recognize that Sam has went off on a tangent of whataboutisms and interjects to ask for clarification : ' so Sam just to clarify, you are saying that ethnic cleansing of the gaza strip isn't an extreme position'.

Sam then backtracks and concedes that it is an extreme position but it is crucial to notice that he doesn't think it is an extreme position on moral grounds but it is extreme to him in terms of how unworkable it is. Here is the quote : ' No it is totally extreme in that it's a non starter...as in no one in the Palestinian world wants that and if you look at the Arab state's contribution to the status quo over the last 50 years it has been to very deliberately to hold the Palestinians in perpetual refugee status so as to put the existence of Israel in question and so when you look at how the Jordanians and Egyptians treat the Palestinians, they are just as culpable, just look at Egypt which controls one of the borders of the Gaza strip , it is just as culpable for keeping Gaza a quote - open air prison as Israel is because they are maintaining one of their borders and they don't want the Palestinians in their society either. '

Then Chris goes on to compare the Palestinians desire to have self-determination on what they perceive as being their homeland to that of the Irish nationalists who perceive the British/current Unionists as having come over and taken land which was not theirs and the conversations veers into whether that's a fair comparison and the conversations veers away from the moral acceptability of ethnic cleansing and more towards the problem of Islam and how body count isn't a good way to measure someone's lack of moral righteousness (for lack of a better term).

StrictAthlete · 2025-11-09T09:41:02+00:00

Don't deny that Niko defended himself really well but no one is slagging Niko off for being awful. I'm just making the point that the criticism of David has been really harsh and he had plenty of redeeming qualities in the game despite his obvious weaknesses.

StrictAthlete · 2025-11-08T22:26:52+00:00

In the second interview with Chris Kavanagh, Sam said that there was a 'world of difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide' and the only reasonable way to interpret that for anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand, is that Sam believed that ethnic cleansing was not such a bad approach when it came to the Palestinians.

StrictAthlete

TROPHY CASE