Merlin Joseph

@AthelwulfG @emanonedits That’s why I would, and have defined it as having no English heritage. It adds nothing of value over someone with no parents born here. 2/2

@AthelwulfG @emanonedits No, because I, unlike you, wouldn’t consider having one grandparent born in England to mean you have English heritage that would then qualify you to play for England over a person who has none. It’s a ridiculous definition and close enough to meaningless on its own. 1/2

What would England’s starting XI for the 2026 World Cup look like with an ancestry requirement for national team selection (players with at least one English grandparent)? Would you support this team? 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 • GK: Jordan Pickford • RB: Ben White • CB: John Stones • CB: Harry Maguire • LB: Dan Burn • CM: Declan Rice • CM: Jude Bellingham • AM: Phil Foden • RW: Jack Grealish • ST: Harry Kane • LW: Anthony Gordon

@AthelwulfG @emanonedits So what if they have “no English heritage”! I could have no English heritage and have 1% and still qualify under your rule.

The majority of the black players on the current England team have no English heritage at all. The rule should be that you have to have English heritage to play for the national team. Grandparent seems like a logical cut off for heritage. As it stops someone from claiming to have 1% English DNA and qualifying.

@emanonedits @AthelwulfG Hold on, how can you moan about DEI selections when you’ve inserted a rule so that the team is not too black. Grealish and Foden had terrible seasons. What rule would then be inserted when you have a fully English black team all with one “English” grandparent?

@AthelwulfG Disregarding the racial aspect I don’t understand all these Africans that look the same and run around doing nothing. They do feel like DEI selections. Grealish and Foden are infinitely better players than Eze, Matueke, and Spence.

@WakeUpWales777 @knuamah110768 “British” isn’t an objective metric like genetic distance. The jump to “not just as” requires an extra, unstated definition. Therefore it’s not necessarily true.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ 2/2

@WakeUpWales777 @knuamah110768 If we’re talking pure logic, this statement doesn’t hold up to objective measurement “To pretend as if he’s just as British as someone who has half etc” The premises are fine. But you took those premises and inserted the conclusion without the necessary connecting step. 1/2

🧬 This Jude Bellingham identity crisis seems to have people in a spiral of sorts. Now … I’m not as radical as my compatriots but I am a realist. While it’s true Bellingham has half Celtic DNA through his father. To pretend as if he’s just as British as someone who has half Anglo / half Celtic DNA is obviously not true. Both originate from the British isles whereas African/jamaican does not. African genetics are not the same as European genetics. Hence where the term race mixing comes from. He is mixed race. Something new … Celtic/african. He is not a Celt. He is not English. He is something new entirely.

@dominico_mucci @ricwe123 I've answered every question you've asked. You still haven't addressed a single point I've made about your claim that the Empire's primary motive was altruism. Instead, you've gone from "it didn't happen", to "it happened but...", to arguing over my wording. I’ll wait 2/2

@dominico_mucci @ricwe123 The Anglo-Dutch Wars (17th C), the Seven Years' War (18th C), the Anglo-Mysore and Anglo-Maratha Wars, the Opium Wars (19th C), and numerous East India Company conflicts all involved protecting or expanding Britain's commercial and imperial interests. There you go. Your turn. 1/

Britain built its wealth by plundering its colonies. After renaming Ghana the Gold Coast, British colonial rule spent more than 136 years stripping the country of its gold, filling its own vaults, and looting priceless cultural treasures for display in British museums. Today, despite having no significant gold mines of its own, the United Kingdom sits on roughly 400,000 gold bars worth an estimated $320 billion,a fortune which was built on centuries of colonial exploitation and extraction.

@dominico_mucci @ricwe123 Whether you describe that as "spending centuries" or "fighting repeatedly across centuries" doesn't change the substance. You're arguing over wording instead of addressing whether it's credible to describe the Empire's primary motive as altruistic. 2/2

@dominico_mucci @ricwe123 Fine, let's use your exact wording. You said Britain didn't spend centuries fighting for trade routes. My point remains the same, over several centuries Britain repeatedly fought wars connected to trade, commercial interests and strategic ports. Hong Kong was simply one example.1

@dominico_mucci @ricwe123 Whether you think Britain was justified is a separate debate. My point is that you've abandoned your original claim without acknowledging it. 2/2

@dominico_mucci @ricwe123 You've misunderstood what I wrote. I wasn't talking about whether the war was justified. I was pointing out that you've gone from saying Britain didn't fight over trade or commercial interests to explaining and defending Britain's actions in a war tied to those interests. 1/2

@GuardianQuitter @s87332306 @TateTheTalisman Yep, keep on deflecting 🤣. So predictable!

@MerlinJ21192 @s87332306 @TateTheTalisman Which is exactly what you have done there. Now bore off you brainwashed fool.

A respected member of Reform UK has been brutally murdered in her home. A defenceless elderly lady. And yet we are told that the right wingers are the violent ones by the left wing liberal media. A true symptom of these troubling times.

@GuardianQuitter @s87332306 @TateTheTalisman This is a typical defense mechanism for those experiencing cognitive dissonance. Confronted with rigorous analysis, they realize they cannot defend their beliefs and resort to deflection. They then bash out any old bullshit on their keyboards.

"It’s because they know how easy it is for people like you to get groomed on the internet by people like Tristan Tate." You are either deeply brainwashed by a diet of 'B'BC or a mendacious fool. I think the give away is the 'People Like You'. Now, I think you're due a programming update so back to the 24 hour rolling bullshit with you.

@GuardianQuitter @s87332306 @TateTheTalisman was white then, poof, the story died quickly. Same here. How does Tristan know the suspects political affiliation or if the motive was political? Instead of answering that or critically thinking, you deflected. 2/2

@GuardianQuitter @s87332306 @TateTheTalisman No, it’s not odd. It’s because they know how easy it is for people like you to get groomed on the internet by people like Tristan Tate. Look what happened with the kid in the crocodile pit. When the police said nothing the arrested man was an immigrant. When it was revealed he 1/

@dominico_mucci @ricwe123 If Claim 1 is abandoned, you should acknowledge it and defend Claim 2 or 3 instead. 5/5

@dominico_mucci @ricwe123 You're literally repeating the points I made to refute your own argument. You claimed Britain didn't spend centuries fighting over trade or commercial interests. Now you're explaining that Britain acquired Hong Kong during a war and defending why. That's my point, not yours. 1/

@dominico_mucci @ricwe123 during it. The other issue is that you keep sliding between three different claims: Claim 1: Britain didn't fight over trade. Claim 2: Britain fought, but everyone fought. Claim 3: Britain fought, but the results were beneficial. Those are different arguments. 4/

@dominico_mucci @ricwe123 Therefore it's difficult to argue the Empire's primary motive was altruism. Instead of addressing that, you say, "They acquired it during the war," which is exactly what I said. The disagreement is supposed to be over why the war happened, not whether Hong Kong changed hands 3/

@dominico_mucci @ricwe123 You've gone from "Britain didn't fight for trade" to "Britain did, but it was justified." Those are completely different arguments. My argument was never "Britain is bad because it fought wars." It was: Britain fought wars connected to commercial and strategic interests. 2/