General Discussions

[DJC]

Here's an interesting analysis of the Manly "pride jersey" issue:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-28/r...ntent=link

I wasn't aware that Pasifika players make up 50% of NRL ranks.  I guess that makes the failure to see the potential fallout an even greater communications fail.

Dr David Lakisa is quoted in the article and one quote caught my eye:

"Interestingly, Pacific queerness is not new. Fa'afafine (Samoan) or fakaleiti (Tongan), translated as 'like a lady', are individuals who identify themselves as having a third gender or non-binary role in Samoan or Tongan diaspora.

This group often thrive, are highly visible and are accepted in Pacific society."

Clearly, there's a conflict between traditional Pasifika values and beliefs arising from missionary teachings but the respect that the  "pride jersey" is intended to build is already entrenched among those who have chosen not to wear the jersey.

Humans are complicated beings.

[PaulP]

Apart from the quotes by Ian Roberts, that ABC article sounds like a bit of PR happy talk. Everybody's very respectful of each other, which is clearly better than starting a war of words, exchanging hostilities etc., but there's nothing in that article that suggests a solution, for a jersey that supposedly wasn't just about LGBT people, but all marginalized groups. The players may not have bad intentions, but consequences matter a whole lot more IMO.

[Mav]

This is the same line of argumentation used by slavery apologists - slavery wasn't that bad because it was really indentured servitude, the slave owners were very nice to the slaves and always greeted them with a smile and a warm hello, invited them into the house to eat etc. All of which is well and good, and better than the alternative, but it has nothing to do with the fact that by any recent standard, the idea of one human owning another, and the owned human being the literal property of the owner is completely wrong.

I love the way those who insist that the Bible is the word of God tie themselves in knots trying to explain away the  way the Bible concentrates on the ethical keeping of slaves rather than declaring slavery is evil. One way of explaining it away would be to recognise that much of the social commentary is necessarily a reflection of the society that existed a couple of Millenia ago. Slavery was commonplace back then and simply banning it wouldn’t have been pragmatic. But that would undermine the notion of an unbending moral code imposed by God. But surely God would not be worried about pragmatism: S/he would just have declared slavery to be evil.

So there’s now an attempt to reinterpret slavery as a positive thing in the Bible. We’re told that the Bible wasn’t dealing with slaves - it was dealing with “bondservants”, those who became slaves voluntarily for a set period to work off a debt to the new Master. Who said PR spin was invented by advertising gurus? Why did an all-knowing and loving God think that debt recovery should include set-term slavery? Surely God could instead have  mandated a form of bankruptcy law in the Bible in which the debtor was required to make some reparations out of his assets or income for a set period while preserving his freedom to live and work as he wished? Maybe modern society is now more moral than in biblical times. We don’t accept the nonsense from human traffickers that they are entitled to enforce the voluntary bond servant agreements that the desperate victims entered into.

[ElwoodBlues1]

I couldnt see Adam Saad wearing that jumper or Matt Kennedy, Saad would have every right if forced to wear it to ask for a muslim pride jumper to affirm the leagues attitude to players of the muslim faith and how far do you go in terms of satisfying everyone with a cause to push and determining its importance.
Liam Jones and Deni Varnhagen might want a no vaccine pride jumper since they are part of a marginalized, minority......how about just wearing the normal jumper and treating everyone decently and using some common sense.

[cookie2]

@EB
Yep. Beware pride and subsequent  falls etc etc.

[Lods]

I couldnt see Adam Saad wearing that jumper or Matt Kennedy, Saad would have every right if forced to wear it to ask for a muslim pride jumper to affirm the leagues attitude to players of the muslim faith and how far do you go in terms of satisfying everyone with a cause to push and determining its importance.
Liam Jones and Deni Varnhagen might want a no vaccine pride jumper since they are part of a marginalized, minority......how about just wearing the normal jumper and treating everyone decently and using some common sense.

Didn't Saad wear the orange trimmed Carlton respects jumper?

[Mav]

Because Jones and gays are in such a similar position? Jones leaned in to a conspiracy theory spread on social media and was unwilling to help protect his fellow players and the competition that was trying to find a way to continue in a pandemic. Maybe gays have just been falling into a conspiracy theory spread online, like a social contagion, which has led them to choose to become gay? Is that the idea? Because from where I sit gays were born that way rather than making a choice. Jones made a stupid choice and he doesn’t get to play the victim. Gays are just who they are and face discrimination for that simple fact. Apples and oranges.

[PaulP]

I love the way those who insist that the Bible is the word of God tie themselves in knots trying to explain away the  way the Bible concentrates on the ethical keeping of slaves rather than declaring slavery is evil. One way of explaining it away would be to recognise that much of the social commentary is necessarily a reflection of the society that existed a couple of Millenia ago. Slavery was commonplace back then and simply banning it wouldn’t have been pragmatic. But that would undermine the notion of an unbending moral code imposed by God. But surely God would not be worried about pragmatism: S/he would just have declared slavery to be evil.

So there’s now an attempt to reinterpret slavery as a positive thing in the Bible. We’re told that the Bible wasn’t dealing with slaves - it was dealing with “bondservants”, those who became slaves voluntarily for a set period to work off a debt to the new Master. ...................................................

I wouldn't claim great knowledge in this area, but that type of slavery (bond servant) is one type, but there are others, e.g chattel slaves. There are various rules and stipulations for Israelites and non Israelitles, wives, offspring etc. that are probably beyond the scope of a football forum.

[PaulP]

Because Jones and gays are in such a similar position? Jones leaned in to a conspiracy theory spread on social media and was unwilling to help protect his fellow players and the competition that was trying to find a way to continue in a pandemic. Maybe gays have just been falling into a conspiracy theory spread online, like a social contagion, which has led them to choose to become gay? Is that the idea? Because from where I sit gays were born that way rather than making a choice. Jones made a stupid choice and he doesn’t get to play the victim. Gays are just who they are and face discrimination for that simple fact. Apples and oranges.

Yes I agree. Some of the reasoning on this topic is bizarre. It's the slippery slope logical fallacy, and it doesn't wash IMO.

[Mav]

I wouldn't claim great knowledge in this area, but that type of slavery (bond servant) is one type, but there are others, e.g chattel slaves. There are various rules and stipulations for Israelites and non Israelitles, wives, offspring etc. that are probably beyond the scope of a football forum.

Yep, there are many twists and turns. But it’s amazing that there’s no point-blank declaration in the Bible that slavery is evil. As you noted, that gave slavers wiggle room in the US and England to continue their trade. Ironically, Texas is now banning any reference to slavery or racism in schools now as they might cause distress to white folk. Textbooks can’t refer to Africans being kidnapped by slavers for sale in the US - apparently, they’ll be referred to as involuntary relocations. I’d love to hear religious folk trying to explain away this peculiar shortcoming in the Bible, but only if I could shut them up after they flail away for a little while.