Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Gary Neville to Robbie & Beckham - Virtue Signalling Celebs' World Cup of Hypocrisy in Qatar" video.

  1. Not sure "virtue signalling" is the right vocabulary here. They are not, on my interpretation, playing a role in a Jane Auston novel "I was taught right principles but left to follow them in pride and conceit". No indeed this a monstrous suturing of body parts from a grave yard that has residents who've been their for 6 centuries, and was built on a ancient cemetery at that. So they have taken John Austin's command theory of law, run it though Steve Austin's body signal modulator, and feed it back to us mediated by J. L. Austin's Performative Utterance. Its definitely not Aristotle. If it is "virtue signalling" its not as we know it. i don't know the context or the people so at risk of a lack of resources for a wise vision i might just add the footballers aren't the mad scientists that bolted and stitched this lot together. But like in the seventies even this lumbering carbuncle might allow the disquieted of a voice. Come on guys if i was putting together a football team from history, Camus is the only philosopher who would get on the list. For me he wisdom of appropriate standards of judgement looks in the opposite direction here. P.S. I wrote the above after only listening to the first 5 minutes. the last point about the migrant workers deaths just drives a big tank though the whole presentation. i revise my judgement it is hypocritical but in many ways. i leave the first bit up though for a glimpse of my prima facie view that have now corrected. P.p.s. The left's apparatus of strict rules will continue like an autonomous machine now. The people and arguments that constructed it can be rejected or forgotten. But, it carries on with a kind of zombie authority. As it does so it will keep generating these kinds of hypocrisies and contradictions as it collides with the complex and contingent world of events. My example is like in Apocalypse Now a cow being delivered to an army out post that is under siege desperate for the basics. the oddness of this intuition, its disquieting, points us to look for an explanation and i think it is that like 6 weeks earlier they ordered a cow from headquarters for a meal. Now things have changed and they cannot get supplies of water and weapons, but the cow they forgot about arrives on time. the sublime nature of reality will always be brutal to single rules and laws. Aristotle said neither virtue nor political judgement are, in the end, about just the following of any number of rules. Maybe we should not get too caught up in following our critical rules of foregrounding the rule anomic events as they will necessarily occur. A tactic but not a strategy. Then of course context and person also determines to an extent the policy possibility. Nixon could go to China. do we just say it was hypocrisy self contradiction or self serving. Politics has to be situation orientated bringing together many complex demands and affordances and rules and commitments to varying degrees depending on the situation, Policy implementation is often situation based and rule expressed, but the action following a synthetic comitology is always an instituional rule or set of rules applied as a repetition, which will over time become more and more incongruent to the situation especially when a new rule from a new situation arises. then the rule situation hypocrisy becomes a conflict between two rules. We then get debate about the rules and the situations used only in service for one of the rules in the conflict. In real life we are better than this so long as the only discussions and debates we have are not moving within the narrow thin closed logic of representation and law as politics in the end must. In the political world there is this narrow limited freedom of discourse since its rooted in representational logico/linguistic structures about instituional ordinances and balances, We want to remember in real life no such constraining ordinance limits bind our discursivities degrees of freedom. One problem in political discussion is political types argue from within the filed of policy possibility and non political move in a higher degree of freedom. In a way the footballer is asked to do both. its a trick and a trap on him. as if he has to do a pincer movement on him self. that 'll be Hislop. I've not been a fan since the 80s his mag did a cheap swipe at Peter Tatchell I just didn't like. Sources: Aristotle "Ethics". Moore and Pritchard on Intuition Wittgenstein "Philosophical Investigations" S Toulmin on natural law: The Abuses of Casuistry. Kissinger "Diplomacy". Kant's Third Critique The Critique of Judgement.
    1