I think that this article has some problems. A really common problem in my opinion when I'm reading people's arguments is that they try to add too many examples of "evidence" to make their case.
If you have one very strong piece of evidence to support your opinion, focus on that. Don't add everything you can think of. The person reading your argument is going to become fatigued, especially if you're trying to convince them to change their views. Maybe worse is that your weakest piece of evidence will give them something to focus on and can derail your argument.
In this article I think this is the weakest link. "According to a biography of the singer written by journalist Johnny Rogan, Morrissey was only a teenager when he stated, “I don’t hate Pakistanis, but I dislike them immensely.”"
To believe this we have to trust Johnny Rogan and his sources. This is hearsay. It wouldn't make it in court. I understand that this is just an article and maybe shouldn't be held to that standard but I think it's a good way an argument.
Members the Morrissey cult will excuse anything he says anyway. For example, I think that to the average reader with no strong opinions about Morrissey either way is going to find the "subspecies" remark to be persuasive.
"Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare? Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies."
The cult will say that "you can't help but feel" modifies "the Chinese are a subspecies" sufficiently to change the meaning. They sometimes say that he was angry at the images, he'd seen, and that's understandable.
But these are excuses. It's reminds me of the way people act in abusive relationships. "I didn't say you were a stupid bitch. I said you were acting like a stupid bitch. Anyway, I was angry at the time."
This doesn't work for me because Morrissey is fairly capable at using language to convey meaning, and "subspecies" like many of his other remarks, I feel, was chosen to get attention. The cult will say that he did want to bring attention to animal cruelty, so he intentionally stepped on this landmine. Okay, but then don't complain when your leg gets blown off.
The other option is that poor old Morrissey just says things accidentally and doesn't really mean them. Do you believe that?
I thought that the most insightful part of the article was about Morrissey playing characters, singing "England for the English" in the character of David, basically, or singing the beliefs of the National Front, but "taking a neutral stance."
I think the song is there to be interpreted as you want to and doesn't really work as evidence, but I get the point that this sort of new version of Morrissey that has emerged isn't really that new. I bet a lot of us have sung along to the words to that song at a Morrissey show. I just think it's interesting but I don't think that section of the article really proves anything.
I do think most fans have interpreted that song as the character David being lost and drawn into this organization, and that it's not really suggesting that he's making good choices. But he is sympathetic to this character, and that's his right as an artist. I think it's a great song. I'm just saying that there is "a lot to unpack" in it.
So I think it's a pretty interesting article that would have benefited from some editing and I do find the timing of it to be maybe a little exploitative, but that's the way it goes. Morrissey has a great understanding of how to time his messages and he did this with his comments on the deaths of the students at the hands of Anders Breivik, the deaths of concert attendees at the Manchester Ariana Grande concert, and he attempted to get a "guaranteed number one" because of the deaths of over a hundred people in the Paris attacks of 2015.
Morrissey should have just let this Simpsons thing go without comment because it's become huge and it's unlikely to go away very quickly. Every bored journalist who needs some content can crank out a story on this and Morrissey has made it very easy for them to do so.