I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
It's all bollix when employers and federations start asking / telling / demanding employees and participants what select opinions they want them to convey that are only marginally related to performing the job they are paid to do.
Scrub the lot of it. Soon as you go down that road you start tying yourself in knots of hypocrisy.
No one has told Morsy (or any other captain) he had to wear the armband.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 3 minutes ago
The whole wearing rainbow armbands and kneeling at football is a load of rubbish for me. The players aren't allowed to wear any religious, political or personal messages.
Why should they then be forced to support a particular movement? Just ban it all and keep things simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion is fake and they cause of arguments, fighting and wars, politics can also lead to arguments, fighting and wars.
The other things are just promoting equality, not sure why anybody would be against that. Surely promoting equality shouldn't cause arguments fights and wars unless somebody doesn't want equality?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It just causes issues for me, such as what we are seeing with Guehi. He is obviously conflicted about wearing the armband due to his religious beliefs. Much easier to just ban it all and avoid this nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ban equality for real people because people believe in something that's fake? That would be going backwards as a society for me, when we've come a long way forwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fundamentally I agree with you, but that isn't actual equality. How can you have equality when you are saying that the right to express your religious views is less equal than your right to raise awareness of LGBTQ?
Just ban the whole lot and avoid all of this nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what you're suggesting isn't equality. Muslim players aren't afraid of telling people they're Muslim. Gay people aren't saying their beliefs ban them from accepting religious people.
Religion is fundamentally against equality, against all other religions, gayness, even gender, if followed to the letter. Some religions have lightened these stances, some still haven't.
Fighting for equality for gay people or any real thing shouldn't be banned because of a fake God and books which are against equality.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 11 minutes ago
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe they all took up diving, figure skating & Badminton?
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
It's all bollix when employers and federations start asking / telling / demanding employees and participants what select opinions they want them to convey that are only marginally related to performing the job they are paid to do.
Scrub the lot of it. Soon as you go down that road you start tying yourself in knots of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most workplaces have policies that impose behavioural standards on employees in order to prevent discrimination or exclusion. Is that wrong? Would you rather work in an organisation that says and does absolutely nothing about an employee who says gay people (or Muslims) have no place in their team?
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 10 minutes ago
It's all bollix when employers and federations start asking / telling / demanding employees and participants what select opinions they want them to convey that are only marginally related to performing the job they are paid to do.
Scrub the lot of it. Soon as you go down that road you start tying yourself in knots of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is called being employed. Every company will have a policy on gender, swxuality, religion and inclusivity that you as an employee are contracted to adhere to leaving your personal beliefs at home.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
It's all bollix when employers and federations start asking / telling / demanding employees and participants what select opinions they want them to convey that are only marginally related to performing the job they are paid to do.
Scrub the lot of it. Soon as you go down that road you start tying yourself in knots of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most workplaces have policies that impose behavioural standards on employees in order to prevent discrimination or exclusion. Is that wrong? Would you rather work in an organisation that says and does absolutely nothing about an employee who says gay people (or Muslims) have no place in their team?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I managed in an organisation that asked managers to score employees for their minority attributes, demanded them to ensure their department had a certain minimum average score and ensured that said minorities were promoted beyond their abilities resulting in enhanced resentment driven underground to watercooler mutterings and, worst of all, poorer corporate results. Same (US) company that gave an ethnic score point for being Irish but not English or Scottish. Fvcked up.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
It's all bollix when employers and federations start asking / telling / demanding employees and participants what select opinions they want them to convey that are only marginally related to performing the job they are paid to do.
Scrub the lot of it. Soon as you go down that road you start tying yourself in knots of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most workplaces have policies that impose behavioural standards on employees in order to prevent discrimination or exclusion. Is that wrong? Would you rather work in an organisation that says and does absolutely nothing about an employee who says gay people (or Muslims) have no place in their team?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I managed in an organisation that asked managers to score employees for their minority attributes, demanded them to ensure their department had a certain minimum average score and ensured that said minorities were promoted beyond their abilities resulting in enhanced resentment driven underground to watercooler mutterings and, worst of all, poorer corporate results. Same (US) company that gave an ethnic score point for being Irish but not English or Scottish. Fvcked up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's positive discrimination isn't it? Some feel needed to get rid of actual discrimination. Not that I agree. It's still big in the US and my wife has the same situation working for a US bank. Females and minorities who are underrepresented at management and leadership level are a higher percentage of those interviewed for roles.
Silver, so you concluded that political correctness has gone mad and you we should do away with the lot of it?
As TOOR has commented, positive discrimination is a different matter, and maybe that's a debate for a separate day. The question I posed, which relates to the issue of gay inclusion/exclusion in football, isn't about positive discrimination for gay footballers: it's about ending a culture in which gay people who like football feel they need to hide their identity (or keep away altogether).
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Silver, so you concluded that political correctness has gone mad and you we should do away with the lot of it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO once it affects corporate performance then it becomes virtue signalling.
The general point stands. Women don't want trans women in their single secks safe places like changing rooms because of suspected conflicts of sexuality - not helped if they still have a massive dong on them like big Leah TBF. Now they seem OK with lesbians in there with them when their sexuality is different so why not the trans? If sexuality is not a consideration why would men have an issue with gay men being in their showers or are men somehow different? What about bi? If a straight man has an issue with it should his minority view be dismissed and he becomes the discriminated? It is all very messy and in trying to do the right thing it becomes the wrong thing.
Anyhow digress, my comments earlier were more thinking about all the knots tied for example:
- UEFA banning Russian teams and encouraging support pre-game for the invaded at the outbreak of war but fine clubs for waving the flags of another country that is being invaded.
- Demanding anthems are played but punishing associations when fans over whom they have no control disrespect some anthems.
- No political gestures allowed unless they are the perceived correct political gestures and we decide what is / isn't. Ditto religion.
- and the biggest laugh, the handling of corruption in the game by the most corrupt organisations imaginable.
Hey ho.
At a fundamental level, I don't get the idea of being forced to participate in any of these public displays of virtue. Kind of lose their meaning if people only wear a poppy/rainbow/whatever if they're being made to.
You seem to be talking about a lot of different things there, Silver, and I think the arguments around them are different, so I would address most of them separately.
I'll just stick to the OP. Do the people of the game have a societal duty and/or a duty of care to players and fans to act against bigotry against people of certain backgrounds? I'm old enough to remember standing in a crowd of United fans as a kid in the 80s where the vast majority around me were making monkey noises when black players on the opposition team got the ball. We have heard more recently what kind of sickening effect that has on black players and supporters. I've heard homophobic insults at stadiums much more recently, and as we've discussed there have still be zero openly gay PL players, nor is it at all common to see overtly gay couples at matches. That suggests to me that we haven't reached a situation where football feels like a place that doesn't care about your sexuality, and I for one applaud clubs who strive to change that.
comment by Drunken Hobo (U7360)
these public displays of virtue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see the rainbow armband as a display of virtue. It's a public demonstration of a shared standard and expectation that bigotry isn't accepted in the sport. Yes, this means that any individual act of wearing the symbol doesn't send a particularly meaningful message. But that's almost the point: people are herd animals far more than we like to admit. Most people tend to conform to norms. Homophobia was a historic norm. As a kid I learnt that pretty quickly and (I'm ashamed to say) used homophobic language in my daily banter and рiss-taking. The point of universal tolerance symbols is to set new norms. Which is why I'm not sure we should be quite so comfortable with providing exemptions to tolerance on the basis of religious conviction. It seems to me that perhaps you need to ask homophobes to stay in the closet.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt there’s a few but without meaning to be stereotypical, most gay men I know or have met have zero interest in football whatsoever so I reckon it is a small, small percentage in the men’s game.
There’s definitely lots of open gay women playing football though which is positive but obviously a different environment.
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt there’s a few but without meaning to be stereotypical, most gay men I know or have met have zero interest in football whatsoever so I reckon it is a small, small percentage in the men’s game.
There’s definitely lots of open gay women playing football though which is positive but obviously a different environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you think the aura of traditional laddishness, laced with homophobia, is the reason why gay men have historically been less keen on football - rather than a general disinterest in the sport, inherited with the gay gene? Kind of like how African Americans don't tend to enjoy the sport of setting fire to crosses while dressed in white robes?
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt there’s a few but without meaning to be stereotypical, most gay men I know or have met have zero interest in football whatsoever so I reckon it is a small, small percentage in the men’s game.
There’s definitely lots of open gay women playing football though which is positive but obviously a different environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you think the aura of traditional laddishness, laced with homophobia, is the reason why gay men have historically been less keen on football - rather than a general disinterest in the sport, inherited with the gay gene? Kind of like how African Americans don't tend to enjoy the sport of setting fire to crosses while dressed in white robes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair point even if the last sentence is a little extreme
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt there’s a few but without meaning to be stereotypical, most gay men I know or have met have zero interest in football whatsoever so I reckon it is a small, small percentage in the men’s game.
There’s definitely lots of open gay women playing football though which is positive but obviously a different environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you think the aura of traditional laddishness, laced with homophobia, is the reason why gay men have historically been less keen on football - rather than a general disinterest in the sport, inherited with the gay gene? Kind of like how African Americans don't tend to enjoy the sport of setting fire to crosses while dressed in white robes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair point even if the last sentence is a little extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where can one play this sport and what are the rules?
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 26 minutes ago
I don't see the rainbow armband as a display of virtue. It's a public demonstration of a shared standard and expectation that bigotry isn't accepted in the sport. Yes, this means that any individual act of wearing the symbol doesn't send a particularly meaningful message. But that's almost the point: people are herd animals far more than we like to admit. Most people tend to conform to norms. Homophobia was a historic norm. As a kid I learnt that pretty quickly and (I'm ashamed to say) used homophobic language in my daily banter and рiss-taking. The point of universal tolerance symbols is to set new norms. Which is why I'm not sure we should be quite so comfortable with providing exemptions to tolerance on the basis of religious conviction. It seems to me that perhaps you need to ask homophobes to stay in the closet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To me it's a totally meaningless gesture. But even if you do view it as a "public demonstration of a shared standard and expectation that bigotry isn't accepted", then surely it's rendered moot if the only option is "wear it or face punishment"?
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt there’s a few but without meaning to be stereotypical, most gay men I know or have met have zero interest in football whatsoever so I reckon it is a small, small percentage in the men’s game.
There’s definitely lots of open gay women playing football though which is positive but obviously a different environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you think the aura of traditional laddishness, laced with homophobia, is the reason why gay men have historically been less keen on football - rather than a general disinterest in the sport, inherited with the gay gene? Kind of like how African Americans don't tend to enjoy the sport of setting fire to crosses while dressed in white robes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair point even if the last sentence is a little extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I expect the usual gang to be all over this.
Unless making jokes about racial bigotry is OK so long as you are right on with LGBT?
It's all so confusing - ask Gregg.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Fred Slot (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Fred Slot (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by Pranky 23/24 LFC Draft Champ (U22336)
posted 11 minutes ago
The guy is a Muslim and it’s against his religion.
What’s the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gods aren'r real. People are real.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a belief, the same as people who believe in God. Only your bigotry stops you from seeing that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not just a belief. It's actual fact. There is no bigotry here, only your stupidity leads you to that notion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't personally believe in God, but those that do say that God exists with the same level of belief as you do in saying that God doesn't exist.
But in classic TOOR fashion, you're completely incapable of seeing the points of views of others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's fine Fred. I accept that and I'm not going treat them any differently, argue with them, abuse them, beat them or discriminate against them for that. However if their religion, which is based on a fake God enters into the territory of doing any of the above to actual real people then I'm going to call it out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t disagree with any of that. I’m also not sure that’s what is happening here…
"I don't personally believe in God, but those that do say that God exists with the same level of belief as you do in saying that God doesn't exist"
I like Ricky Gervais' comment about this. Someone who believes in god believes in one more god than an athiest but also denies the existence of the other 399 (i think) gods not associated to their brand of religion.
I'm paraphrasing and he put it better, worth looking up.
“Basically, you deny one less God than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 gods. And I don’t believe in just one more.”
Also "isn't it funny how you're always born into the right god".
“It's all so confusing - ask Gregg.“
Ah yes, the Gregg who pressed his d-ck against a woman’s bum and said ‘ooh you liked that didn’t you”. Who told multiple women about his favourite s-x acts, told a contestant “I'll munch the living daylights out of your little tart.” and also told his PA to leave parts of his day free to have a-x and then blamed it all on elderly middle class women. Very confusing.
Sign in if you want to comment
Rainbow Laces
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 3/12/24
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
posted on 3/12/24
It's all bollix when employers and federations start asking / telling / demanding employees and participants what select opinions they want them to convey that are only marginally related to performing the job they are paid to do.
Scrub the lot of it. Soon as you go down that road you start tying yourself in knots of hypocrisy.
posted on 3/12/24
No one has told Morsy (or any other captain) he had to wear the armband.
posted on 3/12/24
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 3 minutes ago
The whole wearing rainbow armbands and kneeling at football is a load of rubbish for me. The players aren't allowed to wear any religious, political or personal messages.
Why should they then be forced to support a particular movement? Just ban it all and keep things simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion is fake and they cause of arguments, fighting and wars, politics can also lead to arguments, fighting and wars.
The other things are just promoting equality, not sure why anybody would be against that. Surely promoting equality shouldn't cause arguments fights and wars unless somebody doesn't want equality?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It just causes issues for me, such as what we are seeing with Guehi. He is obviously conflicted about wearing the armband due to his religious beliefs. Much easier to just ban it all and avoid this nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ban equality for real people because people believe in something that's fake? That would be going backwards as a society for me, when we've come a long way forwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fundamentally I agree with you, but that isn't actual equality. How can you have equality when you are saying that the right to express your religious views is less equal than your right to raise awareness of LGBTQ?
Just ban the whole lot and avoid all of this nonsense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what you're suggesting isn't equality. Muslim players aren't afraid of telling people they're Muslim. Gay people aren't saying their beliefs ban them from accepting religious people.
Religion is fundamentally against equality, against all other religions, gayness, even gender, if followed to the letter. Some religions have lightened these stances, some still haven't.
Fighting for equality for gay people or any real thing shouldn't be banned because of a fake God and books which are against equality.
posted on 3/12/24
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 11 minutes ago
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe they all took up diving, figure skating & Badminton?
posted on 3/12/24
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
It's all bollix when employers and federations start asking / telling / demanding employees and participants what select opinions they want them to convey that are only marginally related to performing the job they are paid to do.
Scrub the lot of it. Soon as you go down that road you start tying yourself in knots of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most workplaces have policies that impose behavioural standards on employees in order to prevent discrimination or exclusion. Is that wrong? Would you rather work in an organisation that says and does absolutely nothing about an employee who says gay people (or Muslims) have no place in their team?
posted on 3/12/24
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 10 minutes ago
It's all bollix when employers and federations start asking / telling / demanding employees and participants what select opinions they want them to convey that are only marginally related to performing the job they are paid to do.
Scrub the lot of it. Soon as you go down that road you start tying yourself in knots of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is called being employed. Every company will have a policy on gender, swxuality, religion and inclusivity that you as an employee are contracted to adhere to leaving your personal beliefs at home.
posted on 3/12/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
It's all bollix when employers and federations start asking / telling / demanding employees and participants what select opinions they want them to convey that are only marginally related to performing the job they are paid to do.
Scrub the lot of it. Soon as you go down that road you start tying yourself in knots of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most workplaces have policies that impose behavioural standards on employees in order to prevent discrimination or exclusion. Is that wrong? Would you rather work in an organisation that says and does absolutely nothing about an employee who says gay people (or Muslims) have no place in their team?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I managed in an organisation that asked managers to score employees for their minority attributes, demanded them to ensure their department had a certain minimum average score and ensured that said minorities were promoted beyond their abilities resulting in enhanced resentment driven underground to watercooler mutterings and, worst of all, poorer corporate results. Same (US) company that gave an ethnic score point for being Irish but not English or Scottish. Fvcked up.
posted on 3/12/24
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
It's all bollix when employers and federations start asking / telling / demanding employees and participants what select opinions they want them to convey that are only marginally related to performing the job they are paid to do.
Scrub the lot of it. Soon as you go down that road you start tying yourself in knots of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most workplaces have policies that impose behavioural standards on employees in order to prevent discrimination or exclusion. Is that wrong? Would you rather work in an organisation that says and does absolutely nothing about an employee who says gay people (or Muslims) have no place in their team?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I managed in an organisation that asked managers to score employees for their minority attributes, demanded them to ensure their department had a certain minimum average score and ensured that said minorities were promoted beyond their abilities resulting in enhanced resentment driven underground to watercooler mutterings and, worst of all, poorer corporate results. Same (US) company that gave an ethnic score point for being Irish but not English or Scottish. Fvcked up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's positive discrimination isn't it? Some feel needed to get rid of actual discrimination. Not that I agree. It's still big in the US and my wife has the same situation working for a US bank. Females and minorities who are underrepresented at management and leadership level are a higher percentage of those interviewed for roles.
posted on 3/12/24
Silver, so you concluded that political correctness has gone mad and you we should do away with the lot of it?
As TOOR has commented, positive discrimination is a different matter, and maybe that's a debate for a separate day. The question I posed, which relates to the issue of gay inclusion/exclusion in football, isn't about positive discrimination for gay footballers: it's about ending a culture in which gay people who like football feel they need to hide their identity (or keep away altogether).
posted on 3/12/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Silver, so you concluded that political correctness has gone mad and you we should do away with the lot of it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO once it affects corporate performance then it becomes virtue signalling.
The general point stands. Women don't want trans women in their single secks safe places like changing rooms because of suspected conflicts of sexuality - not helped if they still have a massive dong on them like big Leah TBF. Now they seem OK with lesbians in there with them when their sexuality is different so why not the trans? If sexuality is not a consideration why would men have an issue with gay men being in their showers or are men somehow different? What about bi? If a straight man has an issue with it should his minority view be dismissed and he becomes the discriminated? It is all very messy and in trying to do the right thing it becomes the wrong thing.
Anyhow digress, my comments earlier were more thinking about all the knots tied for example:
- UEFA banning Russian teams and encouraging support pre-game for the invaded at the outbreak of war but fine clubs for waving the flags of another country that is being invaded.
- Demanding anthems are played but punishing associations when fans over whom they have no control disrespect some anthems.
- No political gestures allowed unless they are the perceived correct political gestures and we decide what is / isn't. Ditto religion.
- and the biggest laugh, the handling of corruption in the game by the most corrupt organisations imaginable.
Hey ho.
posted on 3/12/24
At a fundamental level, I don't get the idea of being forced to participate in any of these public displays of virtue. Kind of lose their meaning if people only wear a poppy/rainbow/whatever if they're being made to.
posted on 3/12/24
You seem to be talking about a lot of different things there, Silver, and I think the arguments around them are different, so I would address most of them separately.
I'll just stick to the OP. Do the people of the game have a societal duty and/or a duty of care to players and fans to act against bigotry against people of certain backgrounds? I'm old enough to remember standing in a crowd of United fans as a kid in the 80s where the vast majority around me were making monkey noises when black players on the opposition team got the ball. We have heard more recently what kind of sickening effect that has on black players and supporters. I've heard homophobic insults at stadiums much more recently, and as we've discussed there have still be zero openly gay PL players, nor is it at all common to see overtly gay couples at matches. That suggests to me that we haven't reached a situation where football feels like a place that doesn't care about your sexuality, and I for one applaud clubs who strive to change that.
posted on 3/12/24
comment by Drunken Hobo (U7360)
these public displays of virtue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see the rainbow armband as a display of virtue. It's a public demonstration of a shared standard and expectation that bigotry isn't accepted in the sport. Yes, this means that any individual act of wearing the symbol doesn't send a particularly meaningful message. But that's almost the point: people are herd animals far more than we like to admit. Most people tend to conform to norms. Homophobia was a historic norm. As a kid I learnt that pretty quickly and (I'm ashamed to say) used homophobic language in my daily banter and рiss-taking. The point of universal tolerance symbols is to set new norms. Which is why I'm not sure we should be quite so comfortable with providing exemptions to tolerance on the basis of religious conviction. It seems to me that perhaps you need to ask homophobes to stay in the closet.
posted on 3/12/24
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt there’s a few but without meaning to be stereotypical, most gay men I know or have met have zero interest in football whatsoever so I reckon it is a small, small percentage in the men’s game.
There’s definitely lots of open gay women playing football though which is positive but obviously a different environment.
posted on 3/12/24
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt there’s a few but without meaning to be stereotypical, most gay men I know or have met have zero interest in football whatsoever so I reckon it is a small, small percentage in the men’s game.
There’s definitely lots of open gay women playing football though which is positive but obviously a different environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you think the aura of traditional laddishness, laced with homophobia, is the reason why gay men have historically been less keen on football - rather than a general disinterest in the sport, inherited with the gay gene? Kind of like how African Americans don't tend to enjoy the sport of setting fire to crosses while dressed in white robes?
posted on 3/12/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt there’s a few but without meaning to be stereotypical, most gay men I know or have met have zero interest in football whatsoever so I reckon it is a small, small percentage in the men’s game.
There’s definitely lots of open gay women playing football though which is positive but obviously a different environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you think the aura of traditional laddishness, laced with homophobia, is the reason why gay men have historically been less keen on football - rather than a general disinterest in the sport, inherited with the gay gene? Kind of like how African Americans don't tend to enjoy the sport of setting fire to crosses while dressed in white robes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair point even if the last sentence is a little extreme
posted on 3/12/24
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt there’s a few but without meaning to be stereotypical, most gay men I know or have met have zero interest in football whatsoever so I reckon it is a small, small percentage in the men’s game.
There’s definitely lots of open gay women playing football though which is positive but obviously a different environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you think the aura of traditional laddishness, laced with homophobia, is the reason why gay men have historically been less keen on football - rather than a general disinterest in the sport, inherited with the gay gene? Kind of like how African Americans don't tend to enjoy the sport of setting fire to crosses while dressed in white robes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair point even if the last sentence is a little extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where can one play this sport and what are the rules?
posted on 3/12/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 26 minutes ago
I don't see the rainbow armband as a display of virtue. It's a public demonstration of a shared standard and expectation that bigotry isn't accepted in the sport. Yes, this means that any individual act of wearing the symbol doesn't send a particularly meaningful message. But that's almost the point: people are herd animals far more than we like to admit. Most people tend to conform to norms. Homophobia was a historic norm. As a kid I learnt that pretty quickly and (I'm ashamed to say) used homophobic language in my daily banter and рiss-taking. The point of universal tolerance symbols is to set new norms. Which is why I'm not sure we should be quite so comfortable with providing exemptions to tolerance on the basis of religious conviction. It seems to me that perhaps you need to ask homophobes to stay in the closet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To me it's a totally meaningless gesture. But even if you do view it as a "public demonstration of a shared standard and expectation that bigotry isn't accepted", then surely it's rendered moot if the only option is "wear it or face punishment"?
posted on 3/12/24
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
I mean 3.8% of UK male adults are gay, it's highly likely many footballers in all major leagues around Europe are gay but don't want to be public about it, most likely because of the backlash they will receive which is incredibly sad. No one should have to hide their sexuality because of fear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt there’s a few but without meaning to be stereotypical, most gay men I know or have met have zero interest in football whatsoever so I reckon it is a small, small percentage in the men’s game.
There’s definitely lots of open gay women playing football though which is positive but obviously a different environment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you think the aura of traditional laddishness, laced with homophobia, is the reason why gay men have historically been less keen on football - rather than a general disinterest in the sport, inherited with the gay gene? Kind of like how African Americans don't tend to enjoy the sport of setting fire to crosses while dressed in white robes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair point even if the last sentence is a little extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I expect the usual gang to be all over this.
Unless making jokes about racial bigotry is OK so long as you are right on with LGBT?
It's all so confusing - ask Gregg.
posted on 3/12/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Fred Slot (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Fred Slot (U3979)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by Pranky 23/24 LFC Draft Champ (U22336)
posted 11 minutes ago
The guy is a Muslim and it’s against his religion.
What’s the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gods aren'r real. People are real.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a belief, the same as people who believe in God. Only your bigotry stops you from seeing that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not just a belief. It's actual fact. There is no bigotry here, only your stupidity leads you to that notion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't personally believe in God, but those that do say that God exists with the same level of belief as you do in saying that God doesn't exist.
But in classic TOOR fashion, you're completely incapable of seeing the points of views of others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's fine Fred. I accept that and I'm not going treat them any differently, argue with them, abuse them, beat them or discriminate against them for that. However if their religion, which is based on a fake God enters into the territory of doing any of the above to actual real people then I'm going to call it out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t disagree with any of that. I’m also not sure that’s what is happening here…
posted on 3/12/24
"I don't personally believe in God, but those that do say that God exists with the same level of belief as you do in saying that God doesn't exist"
I like Ricky Gervais' comment about this. Someone who believes in god believes in one more god than an athiest but also denies the existence of the other 399 (i think) gods not associated to their brand of religion.
I'm paraphrasing and he put it better, worth looking up.
posted on 3/12/24
“Basically, you deny one less God than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 gods. And I don’t believe in just one more.”
posted on 3/12/24
Also "isn't it funny how you're always born into the right god".
posted on 3/12/24
“It's all so confusing - ask Gregg.“
Ah yes, the Gregg who pressed his d-ck against a woman’s bum and said ‘ooh you liked that didn’t you”. Who told multiple women about his favourite s-x acts, told a contestant “I'll munch the living daylights out of your little tart.” and also told his PA to leave parts of his day free to have a-x and then blamed it all on elderly middle class women. Very confusing.
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7