Rainbow laces

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
renegadetiger said:
Sir Cheshire Ben said:
Choosing not to participate in no way indicates that an individual is not in agreement with the cause.
Click to expand...

"In no way" - that's plainly nonsense. If they are asked to wear the laces, and they say no, why would they do that if they are supportive of the campaign? It costs them nothing, it causes them no harm, and it's a simple thing to do. The only reason anyone would decline is if, for some reason, they are not supportive of the campaign.

That may not mean they are homophobic. It could be that they have misgivings in some way about the way the campaign is orchestrated, or some other objection. But in any case, there is no way you can both support the campaign AND refuse to do the one thing the campaign is asking. It's simply contradictory.
Click to expand...

Have another read & then another go.

Clue: support & agreement have different meanings.
 
renegadetiger said:
"In no way" - that's plainly nonsense. If they are asked to wear the laces, and they say no, why would they do that if they are supportive of the campaign? It costs them nothing, it causes them no harm, and it's a simple thing to do. The only reason anyone would decline is if, for some reason, they are not supportive of the campaign.

That may not mean they are homophobic. It could be that they have misgivings in some way about the way the campaign is orchestrated, or some other objection. But in any case, there is no way you can both support the campaign AND refuse to do the one thing the campaign is asking. That's nothing to do with "assumptions" - it's simply contradictory.
Click to expand...

I wonder if every single member of CTWD bought a scarf and raised it above their head at 19:04?
 
I refuse to support the campaign after seeing the advert in which giroud exclaims " I cant help being gorgeous" throwing in a cheeky wink

everyone's beautiful, stand out against vanity
 
on a serious note, some laces and support won't stop homophobia just like anti racism campaigns wont stop racism

in this day and age, homosexuals are widely accepted, just like different ethnicities are

but as always, the minority ruins it for the majority, there'll always be some who spout hatred
 
allan ben arfa said:
on a serious note, some laces and support won't stop homophobia just like anti racism campaigns wont stop racism

in this day and age, homosexuals are widely accepted, just like different ethnicities are

but as always, the minority ruins it for the majority, there'll always be some who spout hatred
Click to expand...

There's more logic to so called 'homophobia' than to racism though.

Homosexuality is a personal preference for a start, you're not born gay.
 
NorthFerribyTiger said:
Equally does a player being told to wear them & doing so mean that if he is actually homophobic mean suddenly he isn't ? No it means he's doing what he's told to do
Click to expand...

True, but that's a different conversation. I think the laces are meant to inspire debate and discussion, not Damascene conversion.
 
renegadetiger said:
Sir Cheshire Ben said:
Have another read & then another go.

Clue: support & agreement have different meanings.
Click to expand...

So how are they showing their support or agreement by refusing to do the one thing asked of them?

Clue: <Ahh let me explain deary>
Click to expand...

I didn't mention support. I made a simple to understand statement which was quite clear in it's meaning.

If a player choose not to wear the laces his decision does not indicate. in any way, that he is not in agreement with the cause.
 
Just a quick question on a tangent here...

Why is it called Homophobia ?

Surely by definition a phobia is an irrational fear of something

The people I know who I consider homophobic are certainly not fearful of gays, they simply hate them or their lifestyle

Why isn't it called Homoism, in the same way we use sexism or racism ?

If it is a phobia, can I simply tell my wife she is no longer terrified of spiders by wearing laces with a web pattern on them ?
 
Sir Cheshire Ben said:
I didn't mention support. I made a simple to understand statement which was quite clear in it's meaning.

If a player choose not to wear the laces his decision does not indicate. in any way, that he is not in agreement with the cause.
Click to expand...


The problem is that now for example Hull City have "come out" (forgive the pun) in favour of the campaign, it will be assumed that any City player not wearing rainbow laces are either homophobic or do not support the campaign.
 
This thread is a prime example of the weakness of the "no politics, no religion" rule. As I understand it, the rule is supposed to prevent a) threads that have nothing to do with football in the first place and are started for political/religious debates, or b) threads which contain topics that are explicitly football-related but have obvious political and/or religious connotations from being discussed. Point a is fine, but then they're obvious from the start usually. It seems to me that the majority of threads that are shut down on grounds of being infected with talk of politics and/or religion (but which start, like this one, from a point of discussing *football*) happen because, simply put, politics and religion permeate every aspect of life, including those that seemingly have nothing to do with politics and religion. Everything people do is political - and that's not a navel gazing philosophical point, it's simply a reflection on the meaning of the word 'politics'. There's politics in supporting a football club, and there are political issues in society that affect the sport. Ergo, if you want to discuss the sport, occasionally that might involve drawing reference to wider issues surrounding it. In this instance, it's pretty clear people want to talk about the reasons (political and/or religious) that might surround homophobia in football. It's inescapable, and rather than making life more simple for mods and more consistent for the rest of us, ends up infantilising the rest of us and caricaturing the mods as censorial tyrants. Now, if people want to be infantilised that's another issue entirely.

In any case, at least as many threads degenerate due to pointless, petty squabbling between members over some bollocks nobody else cares about.

Maybe I'm being naive, but surely a simple litmus test is in order: if the thread starts out being about football, let it run? If it doesn't, shut it down.
 
Look.

No player will refuse to wear them. I don't understand why you insist on labouring such a ridiculous point.
 
NorthFerribyTiger said:
Sir Cheshire Ben said:
I didn't mention support. I made a simple to understand statement which was quite clear in it's meaning.

If a player choose not to wear the laces his decision does not indicate. in any way, that he is not in agreement with the cause.
Click to expand...


The problem is that now for example Hull City have "come out" (forgive the pun) in favour of the campaign, it will be assumed that any City player not wearing rainbow laces are either homophobic or do not support the campaign.
Click to expand...

Only the narrow minded ones, & as you correctly posted earlier the homoists will probably have the laces in so as not to draw attention to their ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back