 | Forum
Reply | My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason
at 11:25 6 Dec 2024
Just to clarify, as one of the two people on page 35 who were talking about tolerance, that isn't my position at all. I'm sorry for having sparked a tangential discussion on this thread about what tolerance means, if that has upset anyone. I wanted to push back on the notion that intolerant views, like homophobia and transphobia, had to be met with tolerance in order for us to achieve a tolerant society, but the conversation continued from there to cover other ground.
I want to live in a society where we are intolerant of LGBTQIA+ discrimination whenever and wherever we see it. There is live conflict around the edges of trans discrimination vs. cis women's discrimination, in professional sport or vulnerable spaces, and I haven't wanted to create opportunity for bad-faith actors to derail the substance of this topic or to cause any upset, which is why I've largely written about homophobia in my examples, but I certainly include intolerance towards transphobia in the society in which I want to live (where we don't have the conflicts addressed above, which I have no place adjudicating on).
Where I feel the limit of that intolerance exists, personally, is in what people are allowed to think in their heads, and Morsy's freedom to have done what he did. Viable alternatives to that form of tolerance, in practice, would involve denying that person the right to live alongside us until they publicly disavow their thoughts or beliefs. It would need the imposition of penalties, legal or financial, imprisonment, chemical or surgical intervention, and I think even the lightest examples, altering legal status or freezing assets, would be a misstep for our society. Where criminality kicks in is a different story, and I trust wiser heads to create the framework within which we all must operate there. That doesn't mean inability to criticise in the strongest terms, but it does mean inability to stop Morsy returning to his family and living the life he lives. My last post on this thread as I didn't want to be a dominant voice or to offend, but I really didn't want the summary for my beliefs to be what you wrote either. |
| Forum
Reply | I'd be "extremely disappointed"....
at 01:04 6 Dec 2024
Fair enough, I'll reply to your 'arrogance' point here. You wrote:
"We used to have something called tolerance. The idea is that you don't have to like something, but you do have to respect it."
I replied, arguing that is not the accepted understanding of tolerance. Tolerance does not require respect. You then replied:
"From what you have said I don't think you understand what tolerance means. It is "the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with""
And then you continued to elaborate on the dictionary definitions for respect, and why you believe respect is a necessary component. Since then you have appeared to agree with my alternative view mostly, but you included the sentence which defended your original position, quoted at the top of this post, which made it strike and odd tone. There was a lot of stuff that wasn't strictly relevant to our personal chat which is fine, and then one sentence claiming that your original interpretation is the only correct one. I offer you the floor for a closing comment if you wish and must work on my recent insomnia! |
| Forum
Reply | I'd be "extremely disappointed"....
at 23:44 5 Dec 2024
Much of that post is very random, and it doesn't particularly address my reply. I'm surprised you attempted to continue your argument to be honest; maybe a pile of randomness was the best avenue through which it could be continued.
You began in your previous post with the awkward suggestion that I don't understand the definition of a word that you seemingly do not understand yourself, despite quoting it to me. 'To tolerate' is not synonymous with 'to respect', it just isn't. If you've previously understood it to mean that then I've provided a small service tonight. It is about enduring, suffering, acceding to, allowing the existence of something, even if you dislike or disagree with or are disrespected on account of it.
The only one of us who is apparently attempting to legislate is you, and your conception fails to work for the very reason that we permit intolerance in a tolerant society. We accommodate disrespectful views, providing they do not stray into illegality, and there are tonnes of disrespectful, legal thoughts and beliefs available to you. We allow for others to not respect disrespectful views in return. Incidentally, you do not need to respect me as a person to be tolerant of me.
You've spent a lot of time talking about the right to offend tonight, and you have offended, and you have made disrespectful comments, which is often subjective, to answer your question, and yet you also attempt to dictate that tolerance requires that offensive, disrespectful views be respected. It doesn't.
Your respect of Morsy's right to hold his belief has been echoed dozens of times in this thread, incidentally, and I said as much myself many pages ago. I am very critical of the club's decision to not place the armband in better hands, and I'm critical of Morsy's inability to support inclusion, but I of course respect his right to refuse to wear the rainbow armband. You can't ban someone for looking disparagingly at a gay couple, you are right. Your sentence beginning 'people' is understood by many, I believe, but your train of thought appears quite muddled across the text.
Lastly, a less serious example of tolerance, in which respect of one's view is patently not required: the sincerest deeply held belief by a neighbour that the world is flat. Once you appreciate the importance with which they held their view, civility kicks in and you do not ridicule them for a belief that was understood to be wrong centuries ago, and which hopefully causes nobody harm, and you afford them the right to exist alongside their belief. Tolerance doesn't require you to now respect what is known to be absurd.*
*Just to provide closing thoughts on this conversation (I don't wish to distract from the thread by continuing with it, but naturally Europa is welcome to and I'd be fine to reply by PM if he would like further answers from me), it would also have been tolerant to rebut the neighbour's point of view, or to let them know that you don't personally respect it, but that you accept they're entitled to believe what they do. Lastly lastly, I haven't meant to suggest that tolerance is always the virtuous path. It's very possible for tolerance to be an awful position to take (slavery, suffrage movement, bullying, abuse etc., and what we perceive to be horrible views, which is why we tolerate intolerance in our best attempt at providing a tolerant society, even if that sentence sounds illogical - it is when society shuts down all perceived instances of intolerance that society loses the very thing it attempted to defend). [Post edited 6 Dec 2024 0:43]
|
| Forum
Reply | I'd be "extremely disappointed"....
at 15:04 5 Dec 2024
The key word you perhaps misunderstand in the definition you paste of 'tolerance' is the verb 'tolerate', which doesn't place restriction on one's ability to criticise and doesn't demand that a view be respected. As you demonstrate with your paste of 'respect''s secondary definition, there is a clear difference between respecting a view and respecting a person, and that person's right to hold a view that you may not respect.
I agree I misused 'tenets' in reference to homophobia as it isn't a creed, I should have referred to the religion, but not all wings of Islam believe that homosexuals are sinful beings who warrant persecution. I didn't want to generalise, but I did want to touch on the core issue we're dealing with in this case, that it is religious beliefs that caused Morsy to refuse the inclusivity message. And we know the widely held beliefs and teachings in Islam on homosexuality, as much as we don't know Morsy's own thoughts beyond that his views are instructed by his faith. Islam's teachings on homosexuality are widely available; sometimes the conversation indicates that it is shrouded in secrecy.
It impossible for you to reconcile the core problem with your nostalgic conception of tolerance, that intolerance has to be respected, because intolerance is in its nature the disrespect of something else. I accept that you don't like -phobia categories, so we'll consider examples in practice instead. The view that homosexuals live in sin and shouldn't be included in society, that is disrespectful of the group it is opposed to. Zero respect for gay people exists in that view. The view that white people are inferior and should be treated differently for the colour of their skin, that is the antithesis of respecting that group of people. These views directly, vehemently disrespect others, and yet in a warped version of tolerance they must be respected. No, unpalatable views must be endured in civilised society, providing they operate within the confines of legality, and that is tolerance. |
| Forum
Reply | We owe Burns and all the League one/Champ squad...
at 12:34 5 Dec 2024
This must be the club's approach, so I don't believe your post is too controversial, and it contains an important message for fans, who may not be fully happy when favourites fall foul of this pursuit of progress.
JD's OP contains an important message too though, albeit I'm less convinced than he is on some of the optimistic signs he sees. Even if fans are split on whether they'd be happier to see us relegated with last season's heroes, or to be successful with a clan of journeymen, for most of the season we do battle with what we have. Undermining the confidence of certain players because we're disappointed in their performance, because we don't think they're good enough for the level, is only going to cause harm. I write that not because of any words on this forum, but because frustrations are becoming increasingly audible in the ground. |
| Forum
Reply | I'd be "extremely disappointed"....
at 12:21 5 Dec 2024
I want to avoid replying to most of your points because they've already been addressed in great detail and in various directions, both for and against, but this is poorly considered on two levels. Firstly, your version of tolerance, of what tolerance was in your nostalgic past, is intolerant in its design. 'You do have to respect it', whatever that something is. You have zero tolerance for not respecting something. The difference between allowing the existence or practice of various things, which do not meet the threshold of illegality, and being compelled to respect all these things, is huge.
Secondly, the views held, which you believe should be respected, clearly meet your definition of intolerance. They are views that do not respect something, in this instance LGBTGIA+ inclusion. Racist views do not respect their targets. Homophobic views do not respect their targets. There is no respect for homosexuals in the tenets of homophobia, it is the rejection of them. These 'somethings' were antithetical to your idea of tolerance in their conception, and you then compound the misstep through your intolerant command that they be respected, in order to achieve tolerance ("the idea is that you don't have to like something, but you do have to respect it").
As for not forcing things on others, that is why pretty much everyone accepts, embraces even, Morsy's right in our society to refuse to provide his support to this message of inclusion. Some have been intolerant of the consequential criticism - criticism of Morsy, of the club, or of both - and some have disagreed with that criticism, while tolerating the right of others to make it. |
| Forum
Reply | Both Everton team and fans have turned up with intensity and energy
at 21:01 4 Dec 2024
Some will have brought misgivings into the stadium understandably but I wouldn't want to pinpoint it on that. First cold midweek, no home win yet, toothless against Forest, slow queues to reach our seats, no Tuanzebe, and it was evident from early doors that we may struggle to muster a good attack. I believe in the importance of a home crowd - Forest roared their boys to the tightest of survivals in their first season up - and so I'll aim to deliver a better performance on Sunday lol (as much as it helps when there's something on the pitch to feed on). |
| Forum
Reply | My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason
at 18:25 4 Dec 2024
For sure and I think it's a reminder of how far we still have to travel as a society. Once these debates were commonplace around racism, and probably there were attempts to bridge the divide through respecting all sides ('you hold racist views and I respect them, while you are subject to racism and I respect you too; let's all respect each other please, albeit you don't respect them and albeit you suffer as a result of their beliefs'). Now it's very uncommon to find people who respect racism, or people's sincere racist beliefs, or racist faith, but it is seemingly quite common to find people who respect both homophobia and homosexuals.
If someone were to refuse to wear the 'no room for racism' slogan, doubtless we wouldn't be hitting 30 pages of disagreement on TWTD. We would mostly be outspoken in our criticism, even if we respected anyone's right to decide what they do and don't wear. We wouldn't be respecting that player's beliefs and 'both-sides-ing' the two 'viewpoints'. |
| Forum
Reply | My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason
at 17:26 4 Dec 2024
Rainbow Tractors and Stonewall have been admirable on this, certainly. I'm glad that Morsy's rejection of inclusion has been met with a degree of public rejection, personally, but I also acknowledge it has received fervent support from some groups and respect from others. The Premier League's campaign objectives are clear, I'll link them below.
https://www.premierleague.com/footballandcommunity/RainbowLaces
Maybe it is the third paragraph that he finds himself unable to endorse, on 'positive attitudes'. Hopefully the Kick It Out campaign won't be met with such stumbling blocks later on in the season, with some players unable to endorse 'positive attitudes' towards black and ethnic minority engagement in football. Curiously there's been no criticism of the Premier League's 'no room for racism' slogan, which has been 'foisted' on every player's shirt for every game this season, and yet the expectation on captains to wear the rainbow armband for two games has drawn ire from half the internet, judging from BBC comments. |
| Forum
Reply | My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason
at 15:52 4 Dec 2024
The problem lies, to my mind at least, in that the campaign accommodates the very stance you set out in your opening paragraphs, albeit on a more serious issue. It allows for bigots to believe these communities live in sin, that they disapprove of their being, or their 'lifestyle' if they are even more bigoted, as the campaign message is that these various communities are welcome in football. The campaign isn't more expansive than 'get involved, this is an inclusive space for you'. You may disapprove of the smokers or swearers, on a more trivial level, but you accept their inclusion in life and work. Morsy has declined that message for LGBTQIA+ people.
Of course Morsy's allowed to feel as he does, society rightly protects that, that is tolerance. Distorting tolerance to mean respecting intolerance, 'I respect your racism', 'I respect your misogyny', isn't healthy in my opinion. |
| Forum
Reply | My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason
at 14:15 4 Dec 2024
We disagree in your judgement of the campaign and I think you attach misplaced importance on Morsy's armband, even with new rules limiting ref conversation to just the captain (Morsy's propensity for fouling means he hardly ingratiate himself with referees, let's be honest, and I wonder if his beliefs are respected universally within the camp). Morsy leads on the pitch with his tenacity and his demands of those around him, armband or not, just as there have been many such armband-less examples throughout football.
On your last paragraph, honestly I struggle with your answer that you'd have come to the same viewpoint if Morsy had refused to wear an anti-racism campaign armband, or an anti-violence-against-women campaign armband, as opposed to an anti-exclusion-of-LGBT-people armband, and I think these choices do cause harm, especially when from people as publicly important and influential as PL captains, which is why I don't believe the club should have afforded him the platform to express his defiance. Appreciate we again disagree here and cheers for elaborating on your thoughts. |
| Forum
Reply | My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason
at 13:22 4 Dec 2024
Thanks for your summary. I'd also be interested to clarify your thoughts on whether Morsy's actions caused harm. I think your stance is that he was placed in an invidious position, whereby he would cause harm no matter his actions (either to himself and fellow bigots, or to the people he shunned, in my words), but please correct me if that's a misrepresentation. If it's a fair summary of your thoughts, I struggle with why you believe the club was right not to intervene, not to remove the choice or opportunity from him. Is it that you feel Morsy has earned his platform to publicly refuse this message of inclusion, or is that you feel bigoted views deserve a platform within the very campaigns against said bigotry, or is it something else that makes you feel the club was right in their actions? Or do you agree the club made a poor decision but haven't said so yet? |
| Forum
Reply | My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason
at 12:32 4 Dec 2024
I agree it's highly dangerous thinking; we know Hitler's beliefs were deeply held, apologies for inserting that reference at page 28 or 29. I believe we should respect Morsy's right to hold his belief, but we shouldn't have respected what his belief is and we should have made that known publicly by removing the armband. I don't believe we should create a comfortable bubble around discrimination. |
| Forum
Reply | My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason
at 12:25 4 Dec 2024
I don't profess to supporting those methods, you are right. You can click on my profile to read my contributions to this topic, in which I've made clear that it was of course Morsy's right to refuse the inclusivity message. The club should then have passed the armband on, though. I thought it was interesting that you defended people's rights to just state what's in their heads though, as I believe that is classified as hate speech in society now - speaking publicly about one's racist beliefs for instance, even if not from a platform of preaching them to others. Perhaps it was just your wording that was off, or maybe I misunderstand what is and isn't permitted in current British discourse. |
| Forum
Reply | Fine Margins ...
at 12:18 4 Dec 2024
Delap is still 5th in the league for outperforming his xG as it happens. He 'missed' his glorious chance against Man Utd, scuffed his decent header last night, but overall he's been very clinical for us. Even his two efforts against the post this season, it was outrageous he came so close to scoring. Vardy is some way down the list, marginally ahead of his xG and behind other Leicester players. His game allows Leicester to create chances from so little, though, and Leicester have a couple of these players. They've been more clinical than us overall and they create more than us overall. I wouldn't like to see how many points we'd be on if Delap had started quietly. 😬 |
| Forum
Reply | My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason
at 11:58 4 Dec 2024
You must believe the same is true for racism and misogyny - people should have a right to hold these thoughts in their heads, or to do nothing more than state these thoughts from their heads. If either is built into one's faith, it should be untouchable. To think anything else would be hypocrisy of the highest order. Clamp down on that and you're on a route to 1984esque oppression. If you believe those are objectively wrong but inclusivity here is a subjective view, well you have some soul-searching to do in my opinion. I'd be interested to read your thoughts on why my perspective is wrong or unfair, and why we should separate three common discriminatory beliefs when it comes to tolerance and protection. |
| Forum
Reply | Armband hysterics
at 00:06 4 Dec 2024
Yours is a silly, needy post, regardless of the content, because the topic is mostly being kept to one thread, which is very easy to avoid clicking on. I think there was one spin-off thread created today and that was criticised for not simply being added to the original. Now you've tried to create another and have rightly received downvotes. You can even press the red cross on chicoazul's megathread to hide the conversation altogether from the forum home page.
Sorry Ryorry I've been a parrot. [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 0:07]
|
| Forum
Reply | It’s men against boys.
at 23:08 3 Dec 2024
Summed up my thoughts perfectly. The defensively minded sides have dominated us without possession in the main. I'm almost looking forward to the run of big teams because we may be afforded some space again. I didn't hear much belief around me tonight either to be honest, was a disheartening night. |
| Forum
Reply | My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason
at 17:30 3 Dec 2024
What did Simon Jordan say? Typing 'Simon Jordan Rainbow Laces' into Google returns stories about him fuming over Nike's England flag and rebuking Henderson's move to Saudi Arabia. He has a wealth of experience in the game but he's not an authority on the subject; I guess he'll have used some of his radio programme to put in a staunch defence of his captain, if he was on air today. He'll have more real-world experience than many on both the campaign and attitudes among players, but he's also just one voice and brings his own biases. |
| | Vegtablue
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 995 | | Comment Votes: | 3 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 998 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.