Thanks David. The problem isn’t Gary Lineker but thousands of Garys in all our institutions and in public who regurgitate the current thing and get quite sniffy when you don’t. I am a little despairing but if elites start to change I am sure they will too.. after all it will be the new current thing...just maybe not in my lifetime.
I like the term 'midwit' - as Crows2 says - there are thousands of them tripping up our everyday lives - the sort who know what the 'rules' are, but could not tell you why they insist upon them or what the rationale for them is; they enjoy having any kind of miniscule authority conferred by a job or collective hysteria because they have very little brain with which to effect any sort of self-determination, let alone command natural authority in any situation. More government = more midwits pushing us around. This to me is the most infuriating aspect of the socialist normality: having someone more stupid than you, telling you what to to do.
The word "fop" comes to mind, but is too courtly and hardly captures the "slovenly" aspect... But the sycophantic element comes across there, the ego, and the desire to entertain the elites. A 21st century fop? Instead of wigs, powder and bombast-stuffed stockings--tv makeup, a photogenic appearance, a managed brand, and a social-media following. Essentially a superficial representative of the politically correct.
I remember a Top of the Pops presenter once announcing - wide-eyed - that Shakin Stevens was now appearing for the nth time on the show (where n was a record large integer). It was as if TOTP was a meritocratic exercise in musical selection, outside the hands of its production apparatus. Gary Lineker is Shakey. Same 'safe' anodyne 'likeability' and depth, but with a Twitter.
The problem seems to me to be one of class and insecurity. The classic midwit is that person who knows quite a lot about one thing but feels that this means they know a lot, full stop. Knowledge a mile wide and an inch deep on most things is preferable to knowledge a mile deep and silence on everything else. Try being in PR, where everyone in Accounts or on Reception has an opinion.
This rambling comment was just a splurge of annoyance at how people I know irl all consider themselves well informed, while articulating boilerplate opinions based on what - as you point out - they know are the correct views for maintaining status. In my world this really kicked off since Brexit.
Yes, Brexit put it on steriods. Suddenly everybody became an overnight expert on macroeconomics and EU institutions. It's clearly connected to the 'somebody is wrong on the internet' phenomenon, in which we get into heated online debates and go scouring Google for evidence to support our causes. This is one of many reasons why I left social media.
Lineker was a heroic, wonderful footballer for a few yrs in the late 80s. When he started in radio and TV he was utterly useless - completely wooden. His disrespect for all the training and support he got from the BBC is appalling.
I don't know what he's like on MOTD because I, like millions of others stopped watching it yrs ago. But one thing is for sure he is a dimwit of the highest order obsessed with making sure he is embedded with the In Crowd. As far as I'm aware he doesn't debate because he can't. His thoughts are superficial at best. His refusal to tweet on the 7th Oct but a few mths earlier condemn the Home Sec comparing her to a Nazi was very revealing. He's a dunce. I suspect he admired the Brazilian team of the 80s, but no matter how hard he continues to try, he'll never be a Socrates.
I agree with your point about the superficiality of thought. Whenever I engage in a convo with some one who's outraged on social media about The Current Think I find that most collapse at the slightest dose of reality. My friends daughter is at a Russell Group Uni doing a science course and is a big believer in AGW. She thinks fossil fuels need to go. I asked her what she would wear instead of her fossil fuel North Face puffer jacket. Her response "I'm not giving this up" I didn't even get to the iPhone😁
I don't happen to agree with Lineker's politics, but it would appear to be the case that he rose higher in his profession than you have in yours. Despite that, you appear to be claiming that you are not a 'midwit', being some Socratic genius that for some reason the world has not showered with honours.
I personally considered Ronnie Reagan to be a bit of a 'midwit', ditto Dubya, but for some reason they became Republican Presidents of the US of A.
No doubt you would see them both as erudite genii, despite Reagan invading UK sovereign territory in the Caribbean and Dubya being duped by Establishment lies to bomb half a million blameless Iraqis to death in Operation Shock N Awe???
The test of a 'highwit' is whether they are prepared to criticise powerful members of their own political tribes......
I suspect that you have not fully understood the rationale upon which the article is founded. What I took from David’s article is that increasing numbers of humanity are no longer taking the trouble to evaluate the stuff circulating on social media sites like Twitter (X).
Those who feel the need to do nothing more than ‘virtue signal’ by siding with the ‘thought of the day’, as ‘re-tweeted’ by people such as Lineker, have rarely given a moments thought to the veracity of what is being circulated.
As the article makes abundantly clear, Lineker and his ilk have no more ability to analyse and provide a rational opinion on the ‘thought for day’ than those from whom the ‘thought’ originated.
Lineker is a highly paid entertainer and, as such, whilst certainly entitled to voice his opinion, it is his role as an increasingly controversial entertainer which is the only reason why his opinion is of interest to those who ‘follow’ him. That he has only attained that position by dint of being an entertainer, deemed worthy by the BBC of being paid vast amounts of money - for the most part derived from fees, which must be paid, regardless of whether those who pay it are interested in watching BBC output- rubs salt into the wounds.
Your juxtaposition of Lineker with two former US presidents is merely confirmation of the extent to which vast swathes of the human race have lost the ability to properly consider the effect of failing to challenge the ill thought out views of those individuals.
Thanks David. The problem isn’t Gary Lineker but thousands of Garys in all our institutions and in public who regurgitate the current thing and get quite sniffy when you don’t. I am a little despairing but if elites start to change I am sure they will too.. after all it will be the new current thing...just maybe not in my lifetime.
👏🏻 so deliciously accurate
I like the term 'midwit' - as Crows2 says - there are thousands of them tripping up our everyday lives - the sort who know what the 'rules' are, but could not tell you why they insist upon them or what the rationale for them is; they enjoy having any kind of miniscule authority conferred by a job or collective hysteria because they have very little brain with which to effect any sort of self-determination, let alone command natural authority in any situation. More government = more midwits pushing us around. This to me is the most infuriating aspect of the socialist normality: having someone more stupid than you, telling you what to to do.
The word "fop" comes to mind, but is too courtly and hardly captures the "slovenly" aspect... But the sycophantic element comes across there, the ego, and the desire to entertain the elites. A 21st century fop? Instead of wigs, powder and bombast-stuffed stockings--tv makeup, a photogenic appearance, a managed brand, and a social-media following. Essentially a superficial representative of the politically correct.
John Wyndham's Midwich Cuckoos; now we have a plethora of Midwit Cuckoos infesting our establishment.
I remember a Top of the Pops presenter once announcing - wide-eyed - that Shakin Stevens was now appearing for the nth time on the show (where n was a record large integer). It was as if TOTP was a meritocratic exercise in musical selection, outside the hands of its production apparatus. Gary Lineker is Shakey. Same 'safe' anodyne 'likeability' and depth, but with a Twitter.
The problem seems to me to be one of class and insecurity. The classic midwit is that person who knows quite a lot about one thing but feels that this means they know a lot, full stop. Knowledge a mile wide and an inch deep on most things is preferable to knowledge a mile deep and silence on everything else. Try being in PR, where everyone in Accounts or on Reception has an opinion.
This rambling comment was just a splurge of annoyance at how people I know irl all consider themselves well informed, while articulating boilerplate opinions based on what - as you point out - they know are the correct views for maintaining status. In my world this really kicked off since Brexit.
Yes, Brexit put it on steriods. Suddenly everybody became an overnight expert on macroeconomics and EU institutions. It's clearly connected to the 'somebody is wrong on the internet' phenomenon, in which we get into heated online debates and go scouring Google for evidence to support our causes. This is one of many reasons why I left social media.
Same here - I was as bad as anyone for this and I disliked myself for it.
Lineker was a heroic, wonderful footballer for a few yrs in the late 80s. When he started in radio and TV he was utterly useless - completely wooden. His disrespect for all the training and support he got from the BBC is appalling.
I don't know what he's like on MOTD because I, like millions of others stopped watching it yrs ago. But one thing is for sure he is a dimwit of the highest order obsessed with making sure he is embedded with the In Crowd. As far as I'm aware he doesn't debate because he can't. His thoughts are superficial at best. His refusal to tweet on the 7th Oct but a few mths earlier condemn the Home Sec comparing her to a Nazi was very revealing. He's a dunce. I suspect he admired the Brazilian team of the 80s, but no matter how hard he continues to try, he'll never be a Socrates.
I agree with your point about the superficiality of thought. Whenever I engage in a convo with some one who's outraged on social media about The Current Think I find that most collapse at the slightest dose of reality. My friends daughter is at a Russell Group Uni doing a science course and is a big believer in AGW. She thinks fossil fuels need to go. I asked her what she would wear instead of her fossil fuel North Face puffer jacket. Her response "I'm not giving this up" I didn't even get to the iPhone😁
I don't happen to agree with Lineker's politics, but it would appear to be the case that he rose higher in his profession than you have in yours. Despite that, you appear to be claiming that you are not a 'midwit', being some Socratic genius that for some reason the world has not showered with honours.
I personally considered Ronnie Reagan to be a bit of a 'midwit', ditto Dubya, but for some reason they became Republican Presidents of the US of A.
No doubt you would see them both as erudite genii, despite Reagan invading UK sovereign territory in the Caribbean and Dubya being duped by Establishment lies to bomb half a million blameless Iraqis to death in Operation Shock N Awe???
The test of a 'highwit' is whether they are prepared to criticise powerful members of their own political tribes......
I suspect that you have not fully understood the rationale upon which the article is founded. What I took from David’s article is that increasing numbers of humanity are no longer taking the trouble to evaluate the stuff circulating on social media sites like Twitter (X).
Those who feel the need to do nothing more than ‘virtue signal’ by siding with the ‘thought of the day’, as ‘re-tweeted’ by people such as Lineker, have rarely given a moments thought to the veracity of what is being circulated.
As the article makes abundantly clear, Lineker and his ilk have no more ability to analyse and provide a rational opinion on the ‘thought for day’ than those from whom the ‘thought’ originated.
Lineker is a highly paid entertainer and, as such, whilst certainly entitled to voice his opinion, it is his role as an increasingly controversial entertainer which is the only reason why his opinion is of interest to those who ‘follow’ him. That he has only attained that position by dint of being an entertainer, deemed worthy by the BBC of being paid vast amounts of money - for the most part derived from fees, which must be paid, regardless of whether those who pay it are interested in watching BBC output- rubs salt into the wounds.
Your juxtaposition of Lineker with two former US presidents is merely confirmation of the extent to which vast swathes of the human race have lost the ability to properly consider the effect of failing to challenge the ill thought out views of those individuals.
Very well said