Tampa Bay Rays players opt to not wear the "Pride Night " logo on shirts

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

There was a good article from Breitbart that spoke of confusing tolerance with acceptance.  It was in response to Maryland public school teachers being bullied into putting a gay pride flag up in their classrooms.  Look I'm sorry for your struggles and I don't hate "gay" people.  I just don't want them teaching my kids to make the same choices they did.  And when society starts forcing people or private businesses to wear pride pins or lose their job, etc. that's way over line and in my opinion a violation of my civil rights and freedom of religion.  

 

Oh. Ok. I get it.  You think a teacher could talk a 3rd grader into being gay if they dare mention that gay people exist. LOL

When I was growing up the Church did everything to talk me into being straight to the extent that they promised me in the name of God that if I just married a woman I would become straight.   That obviously did not work for me and thousands of other gay men that received that counsel   After countless failed marriages breaking up families they acknowledged that God didn’t make that promise and no longer believe that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Awesome. Two in favor of “it’s only compelled speech when they do it. That’s what I thought but just wanted to confirm. 
 “When my team does it, it’s long standing tradition and part of the gig.”

There’s a term for what you’re doing here, deliberately mischaracterizing someone’s stated position and then railing against the bogus version instead of the real argument. It’s called straw-man argumentation. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Chum]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what this means, either.  You sharing your emotions does not illuminate your prior statement

I keep referencing Christ's examples of looking-out for people who are weaker and more vulnerable. eg: His intervention to protect a sinner from punishment junkies is one way He shows us who to be.

Also that Christ teaches us with concise messaging.  That's awesome too.

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I think it's odd that you would take exception to me criticizing the sexualization and abuse of children.  

I would push against false assumptions that nurtures the following expectations: That trans people sexualize and abuse children, by merely existing or by not being invisible at all times or by being in kids presence or whatever. Wherever those expectations find root, I will take exception to them.

epilogue:
If 27 years of my parent-presence in FL schools (and youth progs, etc) made anything clear, it's that being in the presence of straight adults doesn't make gay kids straight; it doesn't make trans kids normy. Likewise, the presence of gay and cisgender adults resulted in zero straight children being converted. [1]  However, I often observed a lack of kid hostility toward non binary adults. Perhaps that is the threat that Don't-Say-Gay agendas think they can do something about.

[1] I was an agendized hard right conservative for most of those years. If evidence existed of sexual transference, I'd of been pretty freaking noisy about it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s a term for what you’re doing here, deliberately mischaracterizing someone’s stated position and then railing against the bogus version instead of the real argument. It’s called straw-man argumentation. 

I’m sorry but if you’re upset at op-eds calling out Tampa Bay players for not wearing a small rainbow patch, but weren’t upset about tweets from POTUS like the following, then the only word that comes to my mind is “hypocrite”. 
 

Quote

"If a player wants the privilege of making millions of dollars in the NFL,or other leagues, he or she should not be allowed to disrespect our Great American Flag (or Country) and should stand for the National Anthem," Tr*mp wrote over two tweets in late September. "If not, YOU’RE FIRED. Find something else to do!”

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SteveO]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m sorry but if you’re upset at op-eds calling out Tampa Bay players for not wearing a small rainbow patch, but weren’t upset about tweets from POTUS like the following, then the only word that comes to my mind is “hypocrite”. 
 

 

Ah yes, the “Trump did it first” new standard of decency for people like you.  Proof 2016 irreparably broke your brain

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m sorry but if you’re upset at op-eds calling out Tampa Bay players for not wearing a small rainbow patch, but weren’t upset about tweets from POTUS like the following, then the only word that comes to my mind is “hypocrite”. 
 

 

I’m not a spokesman or apologist for Trump, but I question whether he or anyone else would have had anything to say about it if the players had merely done what I suggest: remain in the locker room during the playing of the anthem if they could not in good conscience stand up for it. As it was, they engaged in a blatantly disrespectful and divisive gesture obviously calculated to offend some, unlike what the Tampa Bay players did in simply declining to add an embellishment to their uniforms. 
 

Again, 🍎 🍎 to 🍊 🍊. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Ah yes, the “Trump did it first” new standard of decency for people like you.  Proof 2016 irreparably broke your brain

So we are in agreement the two instances here are similar. 👍

Edited June 8, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[JustAnAustralian]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- "queerify"ing children movies- have you considered the possibility that having queer characters is actually more reflective of society and real life?

So what exactly would  a "new-style" queer character look like? They can't just be talking about princesses doing action-manly-hero thing, because we already have that happening in Disney movies (Moana, Brave, Mulan, etc). Would a Disney Princess slip the words "my girlfriend Tracey" into every second sentence? Would it be a princess rescuing a different princess because of a "true love" curse? Would it be a same-sex kiss at the end?

They'd have to make it obvious. Because despite the fact that for most LGBT+ people you probably couldn't tell if they just walked past you (and you didn't know them personally), if Disney just made a character gay, or trans, or whatever, but didn't make it obvious, they'd just get criticised for hiding it, or not making it out there enough[1].  And if they did make it obvious (using LGBT stereotypes), they'd be criticised for stereotyping [2].

 

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2017/03/20/beauty-and-the-beast-gay-moment-audience-reaction/99407168/

[2] https://collider.com/why-disney-queer-representation-is-failing/

Edited June 8, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, Chum said:

I was an agendized hard right conservative for most of those years. If evidence existed of sexual transference, I'd of been pretty freaking noisy about it.

I’d have, or I would have, or I would’ve, not “I’d of”.

To quote Kenngo, “have =\= of.”

Edited June 8, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[SteveO]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So we are in agreement the two instances here are similar. 👍

I agree that you aren’t any better than the people you look down your nose at

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

blatantly disrespectful and divisive gesture

You realize this is exactly how some people view the removing of a rainbow patch right? I get that it’s hard to wrap your head around that fact but it’s true. If we are only worried about speech when it’s speech we agree with, that’s a problem. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I agree that you aren’t any better than the people you look down your nose at

Good thing I think I’m worse then!

[SteveO]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Good thing I think I’m worse then!

If only

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You realize this is exactly how some people view the removing of a rainbow patch right? 

If so, they are just as wrong as you are. 
 

Doesn’t matter how you slice it, declining to participate in compelled speech is not the functional equivalent of engaging in strident speech of one’s own initiation. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Quote

I don't know what this means, either.  You sharing your emotions does not illuminate your prior statement.

I keep referencing Christ's examples of looking-out for people who are weaker and more vulnerable. eg: His intervention to protect a sinner from punishment junkies is one way He shows us who to be.

Right.  It comes across as passive-aggressive hectoring, though.  You don't know me, but you are imputing motives.

I have not attacked or disparaged or said anything untoward about any "weaker and more vulnerable" person.  I have, instead, A) critiqued commoditized/corporatized "pride" posturing and regalia B) spoken against the sexual exploitation of children, C) spoken against compelled speech (as to the baseball players), and D) critiqued absurd characterizations of those baseball players (calling them "anti-gay," "hate{ful}," "not loving your neighbor," "homophob{ic}," "bigot{ed}," "oppressi{ve}," "misrepresenting" faith in Jesus, and so on.

You responded by saying my remarks don't "well reflect the tone or tenor of Christ's ministry," and that I was "pummeling" . . . someone.  You have since continued to play coy and passive-aggressive, rather than just say whatever it is you have in mind.

I have no qualms with condemning the sexual exploitation of children.  And your offputting "What Would Jesus Do" routine in response doesn't really work, since He too condemned such behavior.

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I would push against false assumptions that nurtures the following expectations: That trans people sexualize and abuse children, by merely existing or by not being invisible at all times or by being in kids presence or whatever. Wherever those expectations find root, I will take exception to them.

I have said nothing like this.  At all.  You are making false statements about me.  This "by merely existing" and "not being invisible" are fabrications of your own making.

I have, instead, spoken about the sexual exploitation of children by some few persons.  Such abuse is terrible, no matter who does it. 

1 hour ago, Chum said:

epilogue:
If 27 years of my parent-presence in FL schools (and youth progs, etc) made anything clear, it's that being in the presence of straight adults doesn't make gay kids straight; it doesn't make trans kids normy.

Utterly irrelevant to my post.

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Likewise, the presence of gay and cisgender adults resulted in zero straight children being converted. [1]  However, I often observed a lack of kid hostility toward non binary adults. Perhaps that is the threat that Don't-Say-Gay agendas think they can do something about.

[1] I was an agendized hard right conservative for most of those years. If evidence existed of sexual transference, I'd of been pretty freaking noisy about it.

Also utterly irrelevant to my post.

I am condemning sexual exploitation of children.  See, e.g., here:

From the :24 mark (a woman protesting the event) : "I live in this community.  I have for several years.  I don't believe that I should be seeing signs advertising for children to be dancing on stage with men in thongs and in inappropriate clothing and makeup."

See also here:  Children to experience sexual content at "Drag the kids to pride" (video included) Not for children!

From the 2:07 mark: "You guys have seen this video right here, and it is absolutely, utterly disgusting.  When have we come to a point in our time right now when we think dancing sexually in front of some little kids is a good thing? ... You went up there, and these little kids are being groomed to think that if you dance in this type of manner, and in this type of way, with this type of clothing on,that means you can be given money for it.  ... I don't care if it's a woman or a man.  With those types of clothing and dancing in a sexual manner in front of some children is absolutely disgusting. ... They're trying to hypersexualize children."

Yep.

And this one:

From the :27 mark: "Let's think about how we got to this point.  First was 'We're not teaching kids gender theory and sexuality, and we're certainly not sexualizing them.'  Then it was 'We are teaching kids gender theory and sexuality, but we're not sexualizing them, guys, I promise.  I know you're getting images of pornography that we're showing your kids in schools, but we're not sexualizing them.'  And now we have parents taking their children to drag shows while drag queens dance around like strippers and children hand them money.  'But we're not sexualizing kids, right?'  The sign {inside the venue} literally says 'It's not going to lick itself,' and they're going to lie and say that they're not sexualizing children?  When it's right in front of your face?"

And this one: 

And this one:

From the :44 mark (one of the dancers) : "I don't think that there is any kind of issue with exposing children to this because . . . especially if your child is in the community, or you may think they are.  I just think that drag is educational."

From the :59 mark (some spectators being asked whether exposing children to drag will lead them to do drag in the future) :

"Not if they don't want to do drag.  I'm a gay man, and I don't want to do drag."

"It's not grooming, it's not ... you will be what you are.  We're not going to turn you into something else because you come and see this event."

From the 1:25 mark (the same dancer as above, also being asked the above question) : 

"So do you think exposing children to drag will result in more kids doing drag, eventually?"

"I think so.  And I hope so, because like I said, it's the biggest confidence booster.  Yes, it can be negative at times, but I think that drag builds confidence."

From the 1:45 mark (another dancer being asked the same question) :

"Do you think exposing kids to drag will make more children go into drag, eventually?"

"I feel like yes, because I feel drag is such an art form.  There's so much dancing, there's hair, there's wigs, there's makeup.  There are so many things that kids will love to experience, so I feel like a lot of kids will want to dabble in everything that's going on in drag."

From the 2:08 mark (apparently a spectator or employee at the venue, being asked the same question) :

"Do you think exposing children to drag will lead them to do drag in the future themselves?"

"Potentially.  If someone's really into fashion, or they see themselves up there with those queens.  And I think that could be amazing."

 Again:

The sexual exploitation of children is terrible, no matter who does it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 8, 2022 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If so, they are just as wrong as you are. 
 

Doesn’t matter how you slice it, declining to participate in compelled speech is not the functional equivalent of engaging in strident speech of one’s own initiation. 

As I said it comes down to a disagreement. When you define the action as “strident” “disrespectful” or “divisive” then compelled speech is fine (stand or be fired). But when it’s speech you disagree with (like a rainbow patch) then compelled speech is bad. 

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As I said it comes down to a disagreement. When you define the action as “strident” “disrespectful” or “divisive” then compelled speech is fine (stand or be fired). But when it’s speech you disagree with (like a rainbow patch) then compelled speech is bad. 

 Evidence, please, that any NFL player's employment was imperiled as you as you are claiming here ("Stand or be fired").

 I'm not necessarily disputing what you are saying, only that what you are saying is a new take that I have not previously encountered.

Edited June 9, 2022 by smac97

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 Evidence, please, that any NFL player's employment was imperiled as you as you are claiming here ("Stand or be fired").

 I'm not necessarily disputing what you are saying, only that what you are saying is a new take that I have not previously encountered.

Ever heard of Colin Kaepernick?

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Ever heard of Colin Kaepernick?

The 49er’s least valuable offensive player in 2014?  Whose mediocre performance since then wasn’t worth the controversy his grift caused the team?

 

[ttribe]

30 minutes ago, SteveO said:

The 49er’s least valuable offensive player in 2014?  Whose mediocre performance since then wasn’t worth the controversy his grift caused the team?

 

Certainly more serviceable than many a QB who has been in the league since 2016.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/K/KaepCo00.htm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As I said it comes down to a disagreement. When you define the action as “strident” “disrespectful” or “divisive” then compelled speech is fine (stand or be fired). But when it’s speech you disagree with (like a rainbow patch) then compelled speech is bad. 

I would not have objected to players remaining in the locker room while the anthem was played if they objected to standing during it — just as I don’t find it objectionable for a player to refuse to wear an ideological emblem on his uniform if it conflicts with his values. 
 

You are reaching quite strenuously to find some functional equivalency here — and “hypocrisy” where there is none. 

[SteveO]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Certainly more serviceable than many a QB who has been in the league since 2016.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/K/KaepCo00.htm

Being “as good” isn’t worth the controversy. They’ve had  players beat their wives and girlfriends, and weather those storms with a mild suspension if their stats were good enough.  You can get away with most things in professional sports if your stats are good enough.  Colin wasn’t worth the effort to put up with the grift.  Simple.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 Evidence, please, that any NFL player's employment was imperiled as you as you are claiming here ("Stand or be fired").

 I'm not necessarily disputing what you are saying, only that what you are saying is a new take that I have not previously encountered.

I’m merely quoting POTUS (see response above for full quote). No one can directly tie their firing back to this although Colin supporters do. Just like no Tampa Bay players have actually been fired. 
 

Two tweets from former POTUS:

Quote

"If a player wants the privilege of making millions of dollars in the NFL,or other leagues, he or she should not be allowed to disrespect our Great American Flag (or Country) and should stand for the National Anthem," [Tr*mp] wrote over two tweets in late September. "If not, YOU’RE FIRED. Find something else to do!”

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would not have objected to players remaining in the locker room while the anthem was played if they objected to standing during it — just as I don’t find it objectionable for a player to refuse to wear an ideological emblem on his uniform if it conflicts with his values. 
 

You are reaching quite strenuously to find some functional equivalency here — and “hypocrisy” where there is none. 

Forcing a player to stay in the locker room is compelled speech. Forcing them to stand at parade rest facing the flag is compelled speech. Forcing someone to wear a patch is compelled speech. It’s all the same 🤷‍♂️.

 

All much ado about nothing. The players (despite your characterization) in both cases were respectful as they expressed disagreement with the status quo. In both places their employers (with exceptions) where respectful of their employees disagreement. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[mbh26]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I want more revelation on the matter. I have no idea what it will be. The current approach on the church end is largely soul-crushing to those dealing with it. It basically says just keep the commandments and it will all work out. How? No idea.

Isn't that what we're all told to an extent?  What about yourself?  You're heterosexual and you're not married.  Most marriages are either unhappy or end in divorce.  We all have to live by faith.