Generic small time football blather thread FOREVER

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3953]

4 hours ago, GrahamTaylor5 said:

I think it is double standards. 

 

I 100% agree that religion should not be shown in sport as it is not the place. 

 

I don't think players should be wearing a poppy or a rainbow either. 

 

I am all for both causes but both are political and shouldn't be forced on people.

Isn’t that the motto of the premier league?

[GrahamTaylor5 944]

2 hours ago, Gemmill said:

Re Guehi, @GrahamTaylor5 it seems overwhelmingly likely to me that his "I love Jesus" carried the subtext "so I'm not down with this rainbow shit". 

From what I have look into, he has not said anything single thing against LGBT. 

[Gemmill 45832]

Well there's a lot of speculation that what he did was homophobic and he hasn't made a peep to put anyone right on that front. 

[Howmanheyman 33709]

17 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Well there's a lot of speculation that what he did was homophobic and he hasn't made a peep to put anyone right on that front. 

 

Maybe the Christian CB doth protest too much?

[Gemmill 45832]

Antonio has had surgery on a broken leg. At 34, that's probably him retired by that, I would have thought. Could have been a lot worse tbf. 

[spongebob toonpants 4110]

Guehi can fuck right off for me, the god bothering bigoted prick

 

Right up until he signs when  I will appreciate  his brave principled stance

[Dazzler 10293]

3 hours ago, Howmanheyman said:

 

Maybe the Christian CB doth protest too much?

[Chaser 1252]

I personally do not care whether someone is gay or not, people should be left alone to do whatever they want as consenting adults, but if I'm given a choice, I'm not wearing a rainbow armband. I don't wish to promote sexuality in my job because I don't see it relevant in the industry I'm in (yet they push it), same as I don't see how sport should be virtue signalling certain sectors of society and not others. I get that the incessant campaign by Stonewall has improved the acceptance of others, but then I think we've gone far beyond just loving men or women to acquiescing with mental health and trying to see that as normal just because they link it with sexuality. Guehi for me is hiding behind religion but then I don't think any employed footballer would dare say anything different because they'd be cancelled by their club and by the loud vocal minority on social media. I don't think anyone should be forced to promote something else against their will, otherwise all we are doing is shutting down the right to  and individual opinion.

[Andrew 4844]

If anyone IS wondering, Guehis father decided to make the subtext into just regular text this week. 
 

Quote

Did he offend anyone? He did the right thing by wearing the rainbow armband but people are having a go at him for what he wrote. He was just trying to balance the message. He was saying 'You gave me the armband, as a Christian I don't believe in your cause, but I'll put it on'.

Nailed on. Really hope we don't go back in for him. 

[wykikitoon 20618]

I don't think we will.  That sort of shit wont impress Howe.

[Meenzer 15690]

Might impress the Saudis though

[ewerk 31121]

1 hour ago, Chaser said:

I don’t mind the poofs, as long as they don’t do it in front of me

 

Shortened YP

[Monkeys Fist 42944]

56 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

Might impress the Saudis though

[Monkeys Fist 42944]

17 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

Shortened YP

Quite partial to doing it behind him, though, aye? 

[NJS 4405]

1 hour ago, Andrew said:

If anyone IS wondering, Guehis father decided to make the subtext into just regular text this week. 
 

Nailed on. Really hope we don't go back in for him. 

"Balance the message" because JC had a lot to say about it (not). 

 

Fucking religion (or more correctly how cunts use it).

[Chaser 1252]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

 

Shortened YP

Total bollocks but if you want to make light of it, then crack on. 

[Alex 35534]

2 hours ago, Chaser said:

I personally do not care whether someone is gay or not, people should be left alone to do whatever they want as consenting adults, but if I'm given a choice, I'm not wearing a rainbow armband. I don't wish to promote sexuality in my job because I don't see it relevant in the industry I'm in (yet they push it), same as I don't see how sport should be virtue signalling certain sectors of society and not others. I get that the incessant campaign by Stonewall has improved the acceptance of others, but then I think we've gone far beyond just loving men or women to acquiescing with mental health and trying to see that as normal just because they link it with sexuality. Guehi for me is hiding behind religion but then I don't think any employed footballer would dare say anything different because they'd be cancelled by their club and by the loud vocal minority on social media. I don't think anyone should be forced to promote something else against their will, otherwise all we are doing is shutting down the right to  and individual opinion.

Promoting sexuality  

[Andrew 4844]

27 minutes ago, Alex said:

Promoting sexuality  

Aye that's what the armbands are for obviously.

 

An ad for the Gay agenda. 

[Rayvin 5273]

It's better viewed as promoting freedom.

[Chaser 1252]

46 minutes ago, Alex said:

Promoting sexuality  

Of course it is. It supports a cause, the definition of promotion, in this case LGBTQ+ rights. This country has made huge steps in having gay rights recognised and rightly so, especially given the historic treatment of those persecuted for it, but I think within the last few years, we've gone beyond the equilibrium to a point where some institutions just seem to have lost sight of what the original message sought to achieve and now it's just something that has to be front and centre first and foremost and actually running a company 2nd. We've become obsessed with sexuality, obsessed with pronouns, and creating division by identity. What was originally fought for is now open to abuse. People are afraid of saying what is a scientific fact. The whole idea of choice and freedom to be whoever you wish to be is suddenly reversed if someone decides that they don't want to wear the armbands/rainbows for whatever reason they choose but are forced to.  

Edited December 8 by Chaser

[spongebob toonpants 4110]

19 minutes ago, Chaser said:

People are afraid of saying what is a scientific fact.

 

Uh oh

[Andrew 4844]

The implication of that post while having the name "Chaser" is so fucking funny

 

 

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3953]

30 minutes ago, spongebob toonpants said:

 

Uh oh

@Chaser yeah we’re wondering what this scientific fact is.

[Alex 35534]

57 minutes ago, Chaser said:

Of course it is. It supports a cause, the definition of promotion, in this case LGBTQ+ rights. This country has made huge steps in having gay rights recognised and rightly so, especially given the historic treatment of those persecuted for it, but I think within the last few years, we've gone beyond the equilibrium to a point where some institutions just seem to have lost sight of what the original message sought to achieve and now it's just something that has to be front and centre first and foremost and actually running a company 2nd. We've become obsessed with sexuality, obsessed with pronouns, and creating division by identity. What was originally fought for is now open to abuse. People are afraid of saying what is a scientific fact. The whole idea of choice and freedom to be whoever you wish to be is suddenly reversed if someone decides that they don't want to wear the armbands/rainbows for whatever reason they choose but are forced to.  

Sexuality isn’t a cause 

[toonotl 3070]

I may regret this post. But, everyone, I'm not trying to stir up shit here. This is mostly about my position on these matters.

 

I think these types of public statements quickly lose their impetus because they come to be viewed as a mandatory gesture. They become performative and perfunctory occasions that have very little bearing on the core issue: morality and freedom.

 

And that's my central problem with these sorts of initiatives is that they become less about caring for the freedoms of everyone, i.e., the basis of morality, and more about the potential to use a worthy cause, i.e., anti-homophobia campaigns, as a prop to express one's own sense of moral superiority over others. But, which others? Idiots? Octogenarians? Morons from another age? Big whoop.

 

Personally, I have a problem with the sense of tokenism associated with these sorts of initiatives where an individual is reduced or at least diminished toward a simple association with the minority group to which they happen to belong. And then support for their freedom is apparently offered, at least in part, on that basis. I don't support the freedoms of gay people or black people or women or whoever. I support the freedoms of everyone with whom I interact on a daily basis. And this isn't a right-wing "all lives matter" piece of bullshit either. That is a nonsensical dogwhistle masquerading as a moral position. It is a simple fact for me that a gay person is a person, first and foremost. I think wearing an armband to express support for what should be the default position is kinda stupid and unnecessary. I don't need to know a person is gay to respect their freedoms as a person. And I don't need people in a crowd who I don't know to know what I think about issue x, y, or z. This isn't because I am aloof or otherwise "don't want that type of person around me" or whatever nonsense. I'm perfectly happy with everyone in my company so long as they're an interesting and well-intentioned person. I find the notion that I should support a person because of x to be potentially demeaning for both of us.

 

Really. What do gay people give a shit if I support them? Who the fuck am I? I'm just some idiot. I view taking a public stance on anything as really just an expression of my vanity. And I cringe at even making this post because I try to keep out of this stuff for that exact reason. But I can hopefully justify making this post in the hopes of being corrected. But, for me, my opinion doesn't validate anybody except (maybe) the people I know and love.  

 

Anyway, on everyone's sharing of an opinion, it seems that that's the way of the world has gone when most are oriented massively towards individuality and materialism. A default moral position has become just another trinket to attach to your person and carry around like it's a token of your "personality". A lot of people seem to think that everyone else thinks about them all day and that a failure to acknowledge a person whom you don't know anything about has become comparable to bigotry.

 

I support people's right to not wear an armband or kneel or any other compelled perfunctory action because, in accordance with Kant (you may laugh but I happen to deal with his work quite a lot), a moral stance is not possible without freedom. If I'm compelled to be a "moral person" then my capacity to actually be a moral person is stolen from me and my freedom is gifted to those attempting to enforce "moral actions" upon me through compulsion. That doesn't mean I don't support the impetus behind wearing an armband or anything else. However, I don't believe wearing one can represent the essence of its original purpose in the setting of a public ritual that people did not choose to take part in. Not to get all philosophical but philosophy is something I deal with on a day-to-day basis. For me, one's moral actions, if they are to be deemed to be good moral actions, must be separated from motivations situated in expediency or social or bodily self-preservation. For me, everyone ought to allow other people's freedom to motivate their own behavior and a refusal to entertain other people's right to self-expression is a violation of that principle even if those other people happen to be wrong-headed idiots.

 

Of course, we could compare wearing an armband to a ritual in which actions are compelled. And that is perfectly acceptable. Rituals have an important place for us so why not accept wearing an armband as a ritual? For me, the fundamental point with a ritual is that they ought to be done in a private setting so as to avoid the problem of social compulsion intruding (as much as possible) on people's moral agency in choosing to take part. I mean "private" here in the sense that everyone is there by choice to engage in the ritual and not there for some other reason with the ritual tacked on as an ancillary act. Put simply with a private ritual everyone is there to take part. So, we can see that the public event of wearing an armband, is not offered as an invitation to a private ritual. It is not the purpose of people attending a football match to be a part of a public ritual foisted upon them by people who want to pronounce loudly "I'm a good person" then scowl around the crowd in hopes of finding an outlier to direct their sense of superiority against. This is why things like Mardi Gras and any other cultural event celebrating our diverse landscape of individuals are so wonderful. We need them. They are fun. There should be more of them, especially for young people, to educate and broadening out people's perspectives. But coopting another event for the task is not something that I particularly like because I don't want to be complicit in tokenizing the lives of real people for the benefit of narcissists. I also don't want to celebrate something at the expense of someone's else freedom. Even if I think that other person is a twit.

 

All that said, fuck homophobes. Geuhi seems like a complete plonker. He hasn't expressed the position above. He has seemingly expressed that he's a bigot who doesn't like gay people. That's truly sad. In any case, I was never convinced about his signing in the first place. So further vindication for the "No" votes in the poll thread.

 

P.S. I'm not accusing anyone here of engaging with this cause to tokenize others or make themselves look like a good person for its own sake or whatever. I think the vast vast majority of people on here are great people. Genuinely. My main concern is my own hangup. I want to be a good person and in order to have some control over that I need to do my best to make sure my "good" actions are motivated by good moral causes which turns "moral" actions into moral actions, if that makes any sense. At least I hope so.

Edited December 9 by toonotl