Current Affairs LGBTQ Good Religion Bad - discuss

[Efcjake]

Yeah, and the incident that prompted it was George Floyd.

P. S. I made no reference to him being a criminal, i merely pointed out that they continued to take the knee for well over a year after, maybe 2. And it was all politically motivated.

These things may start out as gestures to raise awareness, but a lot of the time, they end up creating more division and aggro. And to be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that that isn't at least part of the intention behind it in the 1st place.

If you find it offensive that's on you mate.

Isn't that what you were just claiming about the "I love Jesus" message?

So it's divisive and offensive only when you don't agree with it?

 

[Kever10]

Politically motivated?? creating more division and aggro?? part of the intention behind it in the 1st place.??

Straight from the play book I am afraid. If this was a campaign about white people being murdered by police, taking the knee to raise awareness of the issue - there'd be silence from the right.

Ok, I'll use the religious thing again. Do you not think that at least part of the intention of the Orange marches is to antagonise?

It's not that far fetched to think that some protests are designed to raise awareness and some are at least partially designed to stick it to people who disagree. In these instances, if they didn't want to "test" people, they would open it up to a general overarching gesture, rather than coerce people of different beliefs to play along or face fear of public backlash.

As for politically motivated, are we saying Back Lives Matter isn't politically motivated? I'd suggest whether or not you agree with what they stand for, or their means if doing, it is very much a politically motivated organisation.

The Premier League isn't, or shouldn't be. Instead, they promote inclusivity in the most natural and influential way possible. Genuine, organic, societal, grass roots acceptance and inclusivity through sport, which by its nature, should be inclusive and welcoming to people of all backgrounds, countries, races, religions, beliefs, through a common goal.

Unfortunately, society is full of people with very different views. Many of these people will not be reached by rainbow laces. And giving them any excuse to rebel or revolt is only going to do 1 thing. Antagonise.

You don't create unity by constantly ramming differences that most people dont care about on a day to day basis down everyones throats.

 

[Kever10]

If you find it offensive that's on you mate.

Isn't that what you were just claiming about the "I love Jesus" message?

So it's divisive and offensive only when you don't agree with it?

Where did i say i took offence to anything?

 

[Lanolin]

He couldn't only have done it to cause offence.

It's the most likely explanation given the context of him never advertising this profession of love for Christ on any non-rainbow affiliated gear.

Let's not play stupid or devils advocate for the sake of it. It was done to provoke this exact reaction.

He's had a lot of opportunity to clear the air and state his true intentions if it was intended to be a message of support. I'll draw another conclusion from the fact he isn't attempting to correct the developing narrative that his intent was to offend.

Well no, thats a total misunderstanding of what I said, either wilfully or otherwise. I'm not saying the rainbow armband is coincidental, quite the opposite. I'm saying he may have genuinely believed that writing a message on the armband would be sufficiently supportive to the campaign, but also show some form of respect or understanding of his beliefs/the beliefs of those closest to him. I think it's a massive leap to say that he must have been deliberately aiming to cause offence and cause this reaction, that wouldn't make any sense at all really, why would he want to risk FA action and be vilified in the press? It's possible that he's just a nasty bigot who did it to be offensive and it's possible that he made an ill judged decision which blew up a lot more than he expected it to. I have no idea either way, but then neither do you.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Ok, I'll use the religious thing again. Do you not think that at least part of the intention of the Orange marches is to antagonise?

It's not that far fetched to think that some protests are designed to raise awareness and some are at least partially designed to stick it to people who disagree. In these instances, if they didn't want to "test" people, they would open it up to a general overarching gesture, rather than coerce people of different beliefs to play along or face fear of public backlash.

As for politically motivated, are we saying Back Lives Matter isn't politically motivated? I'd suggest whether or not you agree with what they stand for, or their means if doing, it is very much a politically motivated organisation.

The Premier League isn't, or shouldn't be. Instead, they promote inclusivity in the most natural and influential way possible. Genuine, organic, societal, grass roots acceptance and inclusivity through sport, which by its nature, should be inclusive and welcoming to people of all backgrounds, countries, races, religions, beliefs, through a common goal.

Unfortunately, society is full of people with very different views. Many of these people will not be reached by rainbow laces. And giving them any excuse to rebel or revolt is only going to do 1 thing. Antagonise.

You don't create unity by constantly ramming differences that most people dont care about on a day to day basis down everyones throats.

No one is ramming anything down anyone’s throat - another right wing trope that I keep hearing.

Again, if it were white lives in question you, and many others would be much less offended!

I’ve no idea where you’ve hit the idea it’s about antagonising, it’s about discrimination

 

[Kever10]

The sentiment of this post is fair.

However, I don't agree with the comparison to religious 'armbands' though. For me religion is a choice, yes you can be forced into it but it is still a choice. Being part of the LGBTQ+ community is not a choice, it is who you are. I know that a lot of people will see their religion as defining who they are but for me it just isn't the same.

I would also disagree massively with LGBTQ+ and inclusivity being a political issue, it is a humanity issue.

I take your point, and I'm not saying it's exactly the same, it was more to make a point of something that has different points of view across society. Some strongly agree 1 way or the other, some dont care 1 way or the other. And there are so many variable views across the spectrum that there is no binary choice. Many LGB are not as supportive of the TQ+ as you would believe, and many people who are neither are very supportive of both.

As for it being political, i would agree in part, but argue that while sexuality and gender are not specifically political, the organisations and programs that support them can be.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Do you think if they had a Catholic arm band at Easter, or a Protestant armband in July, or a Jewish armband at Passover, or a Muslim armband during Ramadan, etc, that that would be welcomed by 1 and all?

Please excuse my ignorance but what did the Protestants do in July?

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

Well no, thats a total misunderstanding of what I said, either wilfully or otherwise. I'm not saying the rainbow armband is coincidental, quite the opposite. I'm saying he may have genuinely believed that writing a message on the armband would be sufficiently supportive to the campaign, but also show some form of respect or understanding of his beliefs/the beliefs of those closest to him. I think it's a massive leap to say that he must have been deliberately aiming to cause offence and cause this reaction, that wouldn't make any sense at all really, why would he want to risk FA action and be vilified in the press? It's possible that he's just a nasty bigot who did it to be offensive and it's possible that he made an ill judged decision which blew up a lot more than he expected it to. I have no idea either way, but then neither do you.

While anything is possible, I guess, most people would think, based on historical context, that it's not a massive leap at all.

The most likely conclusion to me and many others is writing what he did on the armband was to pick a fight - and it was not to show support for the campaign. Given his silence on the matter, he's done nothing to change my opinion

 

[Kever10]

Please excuse my ignorance but what did the Protestants do in July?

Please excuse my ignorance, but i thought that was when the Orange marches happen. I may be wrong, its not something i have a great deal of knowledge on.

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

Please excuse my ignorance, but i thought that was when the Orange marches happen. I may be wrong, its not something i have a great deal of knowledge on.

How have you got to Orange marches from BLM and rainbow armbands?

 

[Lanolin]

While anything is possible, I guess, most people would think, based on historical context, that it's not a massive leap at all.

The most likely conclusion to me and many others is writing what he did on the armband was to pick a fight - and it was not to show support for the campaign. Given his silence on the matter, he's done nothing to change my opinion

Again though, that isn’t what I’m saying. It isn’t a massive leap to say he might have been aiming to cause offence, it’s a massive leap to say he must have been looking to cause offence. The difference is a big one.

As I said, I’m not sticking up for him, he could be an absolute wrong un for all I know, I’m just saying it seems a bit much to be saying he deliberately defaced it and was definitely looking to cause a fight. I believe his dad is a pastor, it seems plausible that he’s thought ‘I don’t want to refuse to wear the armband but I also don’t want to offend my religious fanatic dad and the way he brought me up, so I’ll wear it but give a little nod to him too, problem solved’. That would be weak, disappointing, ill judged etc, but not deliberately offensive. Jumping to the conclusion that the only logical explanation is that he wanted to cause maximum offence is a massive leap, it might well be the truth, but it’s still a massive leap.

 

[Efcjake]

Where did i say i took offence to anything?

You didn't I took it as an insinuation that the act of taking a knee offended you since you labelled it politically motivated and suggested "they end up creating more division and aggro. And to be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that that isn't at least part of the intention behind it in the 1st place."

To me that insinuates not only do you disagree with it but the very act offends you.

If it doesn't offend you then why are you taking any notice of it? You brought it up for a reason.

 

[Efcjake]

Well no, thats a total misunderstanding of what I said, either wilfully or otherwise. I'm not saying the rainbow armband is coincidental, quite the opposite. I'm saying he may have genuinely believed that writing a message on the armband would be sufficiently supportive to the campaign, but also show some form of respect or understanding of his beliefs/the beliefs of those closest to him. I think it's a massive leap to say that he must have been deliberately aiming to cause offence and cause this reaction, that wouldn't make any sense at all really, why would he want to risk FA action and be vilified in the press? It's possible that he's just a nasty bigot who did it to be offensive and it's possible that he made an ill judged decision which blew up a lot more than he expected it to. I have no idea either way, but then neither do you.

You've chosen to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I completely disagree "it's a massive leap to say he must have been deliberately aiming to cause offence and cause this reaction"

It's not a leap at all. It's very simple inductive reasoning.

He's only ever written this message once.
He chose to do it on a rainbow armband.
It's widely assumed by most reasonable people that choosing to advertise your love for Christ in the context and moment of LGBTQ rights support is an act of disagreement and showing you do not support that community because of your religious beliefs taking precedence.

It's a completely reasonable conclusion to assume it was done intentionally for this exact effect. To prove that he was distancing himself from supporting that community.

He's escaped without any punishment so why would he have been afraid of punishment at the time?

In the bin with your "he just loves his religion" bollocks. He has a million different opportunities and avenues to disclose that message that don't include writing over a rainbow armband.

He could wear an undershirt.

He could scream it at the camera when celebrating a goal.

He can tweet it.

He can say it in a post match interview.


No, he put it on a rainbow armband.

So why did he do that?

Get some sense ffs. Playing devil's advocate for their dog whistles is exactly what keeps the LGBTQ community from making real inroads and progress to breaking down those barriers of discrimination.

 

[Lanolin]

You've chosen to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I completely disagree "it's a massive leap to say he must have been deliberately aiming to cause offence and cause this reaction"

It's not a leap at all. It's very simple inductive reasoning.

He's only ever written this message once.
He chose to do it on a rainbow armband.
It's widely assumed by most reasonable people that choosing to advertise your love for Christ in the context and moment of LGBTQ rights support is an act of disagreement and showing you do not support that community because of your religious beliefs taking precedence.

It's a completely reasonable conclusion to assume it was done intentionally for this exact effect. To prove that he was distancing himself from supporting that community.

He's escaped without any punishment so why would he have been afraid of punishment at the time?

In the bin with your "he just loves his religion" bollocks. He has a million different opportunities and avenues to disclose that message that don't include writing over a rainbow armband.

He could wear an undershirt.

He could scream it at the camera when celebrating a goal.

He can tweet it.

He can say it in a post match interview.


No, he put it on a rainbow armband.

So why did he do that?

Get some sense ffs. Playing devil's advocate for their dog whistles is exactly what keeps the LGBTQ community from making real inroads and progress to breaking down those barriers of discrimination.

I feel like you’re not reading my posts at all here mate, seeing as both of them are specifically about why he would write it on his armband and you just keep coming back asking why I’m ignoring that he wrote on an armband.

I also haven’t given any ‘he just loves his religion’ bollocks. Apart from that though, good post.

 

[Efcjake]

If it was a "End the Palestinian genocide" armband and he'd drawn a star of David on it you wouldn't be sat there debating what the intention behind it was would we?

When religious beliefs have been used to persecute and provoke violence against a specific community then advertising your religious beliefs on a symbol meant to end that mentality and violence is incredibly disrespectful to that.

Unreal the cognitive dissonance some are willing to have to come up with justifications and excuses for this.

There's no good reason THAT message had to be in THAT armband. That's all it comes down to. Unless someone can tell me why it was necessary for him to write on the rainbow armband then I'm going to choose to assume he's a nob head.

It's blatantly disrespectful to the cause it's intended to support and he's a bad bell end for doing that.