Is Novak Djokovic a joke?

[daneoni]

How could he lose to easy a Brit who has been so easy to beat in the semis and quarter finals (Murray's history)? I guess Djokovic wasn't 100% today. I think Novak's last match wore him out. Otherwise he would have easily defeated Murray. Novak is #1 in the World.

I think his victory was a fluke.

Bad day for the tennis world.

I'm not sure if i should laugh at you or just facepalm. Murray is world no. 2 for a reason. Didn't Murray defeat Djokovic in the US Open and Olympics. Also, really? bad day for tennis?

 

[skunk]

Yes geographically, I never denied that however if any Scot calls themselves British or considers themselves to be part of Britain then they're not a true Scot in my opinion, calling yourself British is best left to the English and Welsh.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. How very appropriate.

 

[impulse462]

Djokovic is in his prime yet he is losing a tournaments to other players.

It's not as if he made that many mistakes during the Wimbledon final either..he just got straight outplayed by Murray. He's not a joke, but far from being mentioned as one of the best of all time in my opinion.

 

[mcmul]

Yes geographically, I never denied that however if any Scot calls themselves British or considers themselves to be part of Britain then they're not a true Scot in my opinion, calling yourself British is best left to the English and Welsh.

Don't kid yourself. Scotland will never stand on it's own two feet. Scottish nationalism is absolutely laughable.

 

[einmusiker]

Is this thread a joke?

 

[oscillatewildly]

Yes

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Yes geographically, I never denied that however if any Scot calls themselves British or considers themselves to be part of Britain then they're not a true Scot in my opinion, calling yourself British is best left to the English and Welsh.

Ah, I see. So, if someone self-identifies as "Scottish and British", (as Andy Murray is said to do) they are not in your esteemed view, a 'true' Scot, then, eh?

It is not just that I disagree with your expressed view - for, my view is that it is - or should be - possible for someone to claim to wear multiple identities simultaneously without this in any way detracting from the strength of the connection with any one of those individual identities - it is that the use of the word 'true' in this context bothers me. Quite a bit, in fact.

Historically, or traditionally, those who have used the word 'true' in this sort of context almost always seem to establish a kind of hierarchy of values for each identity; it is not only that some identities are seen as more desirable than others, it is that such an identity, the 'true' identity, is invariably defined in opposition to another (less true) identity, historically frequently, one accorded less worth, and, often, as a consequence, accorded fewer rights as well.

This is an unpleasant way of looking at things; an identity that depends for its strength on the distance and disdain for the proverbial 'other' that it is defined against. An identity based on exclusive values, rather than inclusive ones.

Some years ago, Lech Walesa, (holder of the Nobel Peace Prize, founder of the Solidarity trade union and political movement, and someone who should have known an awful lot better) fought a campaign for the Presidency of Poland by claiming, among other things, that he was 'a true Pole'. At the time, this was correctly interpreted as a not so subtle attack on his opponent, who was Jewish, and therefore, clearly, by inference, not a 'true Pole', as such, but someone with different more ambiguous loyalties. Nasty stuff.

Don't kid yourself. Scotland will never stand on it's own two feet. Scottish nationalism is absolutely laughable.

Here, I think a distinction needs to be made between each of your assertions. Scottish nationalism may be 'absolutely laughable' - (most nationalisms have their gloriously nutty moments, especially when the rhetoric becomes ever more exclusivist - the 'we are special' stuff - and some are downright hilarious along with their invented histories, distinterred cultures and notions of ethnic/tribal/religious superiority based on a common heritage or culture rather than a rights based notion of citizenship) - but that has very little to do with whether Scotland 'can stand on its own two feet'.

For what it is worth, although the excessive rhetoric of identity may well be a bit ludicrous, nevertheless, I think Scotland may be more than capable of standing 'on its own two feet'.

The promised referendum on EU membership may well have an influence on Scottish motivations for independence. If England - especially southern England - decides to negotiate a semi-detached status, or outright departure from the EU - I can see Scotland attempting to stay in Europe; that may well have a profound influence on the form and direction taken by the independence debate in Scotland.

Is this thread a joke?

No, not a joke but a very interesting indicator of how (despite those who say that sport and politics should never mix) sport and politics invariably find a way of finding one another.