Manly Inclusive Pride jersey backlash

[Demps]

Spent their childhoods drawing pictures of stick figures underneath a rainbow
- Now they have a problem with Rainbows...

None of them have a problem with jamming their believes
(post game prayer, Bible quotes, lord and saviour down everyone elses' throats - every opportunity they get) with zero consideration for anyone else's believes.

Haha, made me laugh.

The jersey is pretty subtle, isn't "in your face" in any way.

End of the day, it's a uniform pushed by the employer... sometimes we must do as we're told.

Personally don't think it's a big deal but says a lot about people who do.

 

[Bring back Olaf Prattl]

NRL1: "Looks like we'll have to give the Tigers their 2 points and take it off the Cowboys"
NRL2: " We need a diversion "
Manly: " Coming right up :

 

[jirskyr]

This thread is like Jordan
Peterson Vs Sam Harris,
with a tinge of Hitchens

Can I be Hitchens please, without the terminal illness

 

[Kaito]

Yes you can, my friend @jirskyr

 

[batboy]

Haha, made me laugh.

The jersey is pretty subtle, isn't "in your face" in any way.

End of the day, it's a uniform pushed by the employer... sometimes we must do as we're told.

Personally don't think it's a big deal but says a lot about people who do.

If they didn't tell them - They wouldn't have even known....

It's not like there's a massive picture of an appendage on the back....

The appendage may well end up inside the jersey yet though.

Was like when Hoppa wasn't
"Playing on Sundays"

Soon changed his mind once the $$$'s entered the discussion

 

[Demps]

If they didn't tell them - They wouldn't have even known....

It's not like there's a massive picture of an appendage on the back....

The appendage may well end up inside the jersey yet though.

Was like when Hoppa wasn't
"Playing on Sundays"

Soon changed his mind once the $$$'s entered the discussion

I agree.

Seems a bit childish to me.
"That jersey is gay, I'm not wearing it."

Makes me roll my eyes that it's even a discussion that needs to be had..

 

[jirskyr]

Hahahah oh you went to a Catholic school? That changes everything! I heard they rigorously study the Summa Theological as well as the Catechism of the Council of Trent at those

What a daft argument you are making. You are in fact making my argument for me.

I was born and raised Catholic, received all the sacraments, went to Church weekly for 20 years and educated at 100% Catholic institutions. When I was born Catholics made up 26% of the total population, currently 20%, so there are some 5 million Catholics right now.

I was studious and attentive at school, so I know what they taught in school and in church. I don't think you can find a better representative of a standard young Catholic, than me in the year 2000.

And you are now trying to tell me, because I did not study Catholic Extension studies 101 at university, I am, what, misinformed about how the Catholic Church works? Theologically unarmed to explain the doctrine of the Church?

Because if that is what you are saying, and with me being a typical academically-minded Catholic young adult, you are therefore saying that the majority of Catholics don't truly understand, or are not sufficiently informed about what the Catholic Church preaches.

No according to you, you need advanced theological training to be an authority on what the Catholic Church teaches its adherents.

And there: you have my argument for me, thank you. That even amongst the adherents, according to you, most of them don't truly understand the real teachings, the real doctrine and dogma of the Catholic Church.

And that is why the Catholic Church is dangerous, and all religions really, not only because of current policies and immoral history, but because apparently the majority / standard adherents don't even really understand what the Church is truly about, what the Church truly thinks, what the doctrine truly is.

Thank you for being a supporter of my argument, theology professor.

 

[Tiger-ferret]

He’s not tremendously far off. He just views a conglomeration of denominations from the outside. Christianity is a lived faith and I don’t think it can only be understood intellectually. I also think people like Nietzsche and Jung have influenced his views on it a little too much and they are quite misguided

Thank you for your thoughts. Interesting perspective with the lived vs intellectual. I am very much the opposite of well read.

 

[jirskyr]

Thoughts this morning: since when was making a gesture about inclusivity a "political" thing?

Let's assume it's an opinion, so let's assume the Manly owners (Penn) have an opinion that inclusivity is good, and that they want to make a gesture towards various gender and sexual-orientation groups, typically represented by a rainbow.

Why is that "political", specifically? The definition of politics, per wiki:
Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.

I think people mis-used the word "politics", with phrases like "I don't like politics shoved down my throat". Not only do I think this is naive (that nothing on the planet is truly independent of "politics"), but I propose that rugby league itself is an entirely political apparatus, by the definition.

Rugby League is convened and governed by a set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, and how resources are distributed. The NRL is, by definition, a political body. They may or may not get involved in all potential political considerations, but even the governing of the game and the rule book is inherently political.

So how is offering a gesture to a slice of society a "political" statement? If I'm nice to the old lady down the road, or my immigrant neighbour, am I being political? Or am I just trying to be nice?

 

[dazza65]

Willing to be stoned on this.....

It's all cynical marketing. Whether it is pride week, women's week, indigenous week, whatever. How many jersey's does each club need to have? Home, away, day, night, women's, indigenous, etc etc etc. As someone else mentioned, the manly jersey has already sold out. It's $$.

NRL and club land don't really "care" about these "issues" other than for marketing or for dining out on the perceived "kudos" from the extremely vocal minority that are perceived to run the current world we live in. "Agree with me or get cancelled!"

If the NRL or clubs really cared, each club should have their jersey - you know, the traditional get behind your club jersey (maybe limit to say two - home and away if you want) and when these "special" weeks come up - donate money or services or whatever to the charitable organisations that support these supposed "minority" sections of the RL world. Who gets the revenue from these special edition jersey's?

 

[Alex Seyfarth's #1 Fan]

NRL1: "Looks like we'll have to give the Tigers their 2 points and take it off the Cowboys"
NRL2: " We need a diversion "
Manly: " Coming right up :

Straight up those 7 Manly players have drowned our issue out.

 

[The SHADOW]

fox manly live now des apology

 

[The SHADOW]

Des is delivering the speech the WT deserved from the NRL.
Legandary response

 

[Kelce68]

I thought Peterson has a fairly we’ll read view on the topic? Would love to hear your thoughts on why he doesn’t understand Christianity?

He does. He has dissected the elements of the Bible on a level that not many others have. It's nothing if not interesting, least of all to the archetypal patterns of human nature.

People will often drag his name into arguments as some sort of mis-guided qualifier or pejorative, particularly from a standpoint of a lack of understand of his content or perspective.

 

[The SHADOW]

I just hope some little monkey that supports Manly doesn’t take this to heart and falls out of the trees.
while the apology was great ,
the execution was a disgrace

 

[bptiger 0]

Des rattled on for

 

[bptiger 0]

Sorry hit the wrong button .
Does rattled on for 10 minutes, he apologised to the 7 for about 45 seconds directly for not talking to them , then said the club was in the wrong , then he spent 8 minutes apologising to the rainbow people , no wonder the players feel left out , and the woke claim we are all inclusive, I don’t think so

 

[Kelce68]

I won't go so far as to say I despise organised religion, but I do find some of the pre-tenses hilarious (namely the literal way that some of the stories from the Bible are perceived). I do think, however, that it can form a basis for morality and a sense of purpose/community for some, which is a positive. The flaws in each of these religions however, are so plain to see they virtually go hand in hand.

My issue is with this modern notion that you can force acceptance on people. People have a right to not accept certain groups, minorities, etc. No amount of PR, HR or social media stigma should ever change that. People have a right to exclude. As wrong as that may seem.

It's far from ideal, but who is anyone to tell anyone what is to be objective morality and what isn't? who is the arbiter of who people must and must not accept? Overt exclusive behaviour aside, actions that victimise aside (which are objectively, justifiably punishable), so far as internal beliefs remain just that, internal, people should never have to be forced into compromising on those, however backward, wrong or evil they may seem.

This just brings me right back to my previous point of not entering into this domain in the first place. Sporting organisations, businesses, corporations have been bluffed into thinking they need to outwardly show support to groundswell positive movement, a, b or c. Whereas, in reality, the should have, and should always, remain neutral on these types of issues, simply with a 'no comment, thanks.'

That's my 2 cents that no-one asked for anyway.

 

[innsaneink]

Some fair points here but what’s your opinion on pray circles after the game in full playing kit?

Imagine 99.% of. Players on the field in.prayer and one.poor lost soul. All.on his pat Malone.... Wouldn't be very inclusive 🤣

 

[Tiger-ferret]

The majority of Christians are pick and mix in relation to Biblical views, thus emphasising how interpretation comes into play.

I never said all or even a majority of Christians believe the same things, they don't. Which is why there's 200+ denominations.

Same with every other religion.

For these players to say "their religion forbids this" or words to that effect, it's not entirely accurate unless they quote Old Testament and then we run into all the other laws in the OT that they probably don't worry about.

I went back and reread your responses and I agree with your above post. No doubt interpretation is certainly a huge component to each religion.