Manly pride shirt

[Mike]

fictional character in the sky 

Mmmmm. Unbelievable considering your comments..This screams hypocrisy!

I will not comment further and leave you with your own thoughts!

Surely you should tolerate that statement?

"Mindless compliance" - apparently that used to be a good thing for those "over 40" when you could "call a spade a spade" and no-one would bat an eyelid (blimey that's the first time the 90s have been the world's golden age when all was right and true - I thought it was the 50s). The only thing to have changed since then is now most people disagree with you, when they used to agree. Nothing else.

The only constant is change, I struggle to understand why people get so het up about it.

[Wigan_forever1985]

If only the alphabet ideology was as inclusive as is professed, this forcing of what comes across as mindless compliance is damaging society to a similar extent as the other mentioned vices. If x, y, z is not agreed then it is deemed as bigotry, hate speech (another biased by design tool) e.c.t. with the irony being missed in most cases.

perhaps ideology should be separate from events that are open to everybody, narrative removed and keep the melting pot simply as it is.

otherwise it would seem that this would be a slippery slope, next could be something more sinister (arguably), such as supporting terrorist organisations such as black lives matter...

There's a lot to unpack here but im genuinely interested in this post and im asking these questions with an open mind to try and better understand this viewpoint

on paragraph 1
"the alphabet ideology" and it being damaging to our society - so what is it you believe that pride stands for? and i don't mean the letters i mean to you what is the ideology you are saying is damaging

for reference my understanding and view is that pride is something that has gone from a human rights movement protesting the against criminalisation of homosexuality etc to now more a celebration and a reminder that there are still issues that face the communities represented by pride.

In terms of disagreeing being hate speech or bigotry - well i suppose that depends on your interpretation of the first part - if for example you took my understanding to disagree with that would be to say that you disagree with gay rights in which case considering the definition of hate speech is "writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation." it would qualify under that

on paragraph 2
I do understand this view point however there are still issue out there to raise awareness on so any platform which draws attention is always going to be an obvious target. I think keeping ideology out of events open to everyone is great for the largest dominant demographic but it doesn't help other demographics and just pushes them further into marginalisation again.

[PoppaG]

My tuppence on this (And that's about all its worth..... )

The Manly lads have the right to their own opinions. They also have the right to wear and do business with whatever/whoever they choose.

Technical questions about what they have to wear, etc would need to be looked at in their contract as to what's contractually obliged against what's not.

The main argument is around not wanting to wear a top supporting pride. This whilst playing in a kit/stadium sponsored (Therefore funded.......) by gambling, etc. All are sins, and therefore equal in the eyes of God. So if they have an issue with one, logically they should have an issue with the others.

The crux (Again, in my opinion), is that the latter have for decades been socially acceptable. They have become the norm. They have been partaken in by swathes of the empowered socially elite and therefore not received any real levels of pushback against them, despite the consequences they can have on and in society (What's the biggest killer of males under 45?). The Pride movement has been pushing for identifying as anything other than "straight" to reach a similar level of social acceptability.

Do I think the Manley lads are right? I don't agree with them, but that doesn't make them wrong. That's between them and whatever higher power they believe they will answer to.

A question - if they truly, deep down in their gut, believe with sufficient conviction in what they are standing up for, will/should we see them looking to move clubs?


This is all from a parent who has recently had a child come out as gay - we've had some 'lively' debates and I don't necessarily stand behind what I've put above, just being devils advocate! She doesnt like it when I identify as a table and find hardwood floors attractive

For what its worth, in my opinion, live and let live. People should be able to make their own decisions and live their own life. This should apply to sexuality, religion, etc etc etc. Any movement that supports this is OK in my book until they start pushing it further. Pride? Fine. If they start denigrating people who arent? At that point I'd stand against. Being Christian? Grand. KKK? Not so much. Muslim? No problem. Bin Laden? Nah.

[Wigan_forever1985]

My tuppence on this (And that's about all its worth..... )

The Manly lads have the right to their own opinions. They also have the right to wear and do business with whatever/whoever they choose.

Technical questions about what they have to wear, etc would need to be looked at in their contract as to what's contractually obliged against what's not.

The main argument is around not wanting to wear a top supporting pride. This whilst playing in a kit/stadium sponsored (Therefore funded.......) by gambling, etc. All are sins, and therefore equal in the eyes of God. So if they have an issue with one, logically they should have an issue with the others.

The crux (Again, in my opinion), is that the latter have for decades been socially acceptable. They have become the norm. They have been partaken in by swathes of the empowered socially elite and therefore not received any real levels of pushback against them, despite the consequences they can have on and in society (What's the biggest killer of males under 45?). The Pride movement has been pushing for identifying as anything other than "straight" to reach a similar level of social acceptability.

Do I think the Manley lads are right? I don't agree with them, but that doesn't make them wrong. That's between them and whatever higher power they believe they will answer to.

A question - if they truly, deep down in their gut, believe with sufficient conviction in what they are standing up for, will/should we see them looking to move clubs?


This is all from a parent who has recently had a child come out as gay - we've had some 'lively' debates and I don't necessarily stand behind what I've put above, just being devils advocate! She doesnt like it when I identify as a table and find hardwood floors attractive

For what its worth, in my opinion, live and let live. People should be able to make their own decisions and live their own life. This should apply to sexuality, religion, etc etc etc. Any movement that supports this is OK in my book until they start pushing it further. Pride? Fine. If they start denigrating people who arent? At that point I'd stand against. Being Christian? Grand. KKK? Not so much. Muslim? No problem. Bin Laden? Nah.

I think this is a very good post and i agree with a lot of it.

I think my only observation and it comes back to the Live and let Live - which i know here is we intentioned but i think some people use that to hush minority groups back into marginalisation. Its the same group of people who when something effects them directly usually suddenly become very vocal and demand to be heard and action to be taken

what's that old quote

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

[PoppaG]

My tuppence on this (And that's about all its worth..... )

The Manly lads have the right to their own opinions. They also have the right to wear and do business with whatever/whoever they choose.

Technical questions about what they have to wear, etc would need to be looked at in their contract as to what's contractually obliged against what's not.

The main argument is around not wanting to wear a top supporting pride. This whilst playing in a kit/stadium sponsored (Therefore funded.......) by gambling, etc. All are sins, and therefore equal in the eyes of God. So if they have an issue with one, logically they should have an issue with the others.

The crux (Again, in my opinion), is that the latter have for decades been socially acceptable. They have become the norm. They have been partaken in by swathes of the empowered socially elite and therefore not received any real levels of pushback against them, despite the consequences they can have on and in society (What's the biggest killer of males under 45?). The Pride movement has been pushing for identifying as anything other than "straight" to reach a similar level of social acceptability.

Do I think the Manley lads are right? I don't agree with them, but that doesn't make them wrong. That's between them and whatever higher power they believe they will answer to.

A question - if they truly, deep down in their gut, believe with sufficient conviction in what they are standing up for, will/should we see them looking to move clubs?


This is all from a parent who has recently had a child come out as gay - we've had some 'lively' debates and I don't necessarily stand behind what I've put above, just being devils advocate! She doesnt like it when I identify as a table and find hardwood floors attractive

For what its worth, in my opinion, live and let live. People should be able to make their own decisions and live their own life. This should apply to sexuality, religion, etc etc etc. Any movement that supports this is OK in my book until they start pushing it further. Pride? Fine. If they start denigrating people who arent? At that point I'd stand against. Being Christian? Grand. KKK? Not so much. Muslim? No problem. Bin Laden? Nah.

I think this is a very good post and i agree with a lot of it.

I think my only observation and it comes back to the Live and let Live - which i know here is we intentioned but i think some people use that to hush minority groups back into marginalisation. Its the same group of people who when something effects them directly usually suddenly become very vocal and demand to be heard and action to be taken

what's that old quote

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

Live and let live freely then
It works until people dont. But needs to be applied equally by all, to all. Regardless of your own opinions/beliefs as they shouldnt restrict others

[The booze hound]

Two people could read the same book and get completely different conclusions from it. Who's right and who's wrong goes down to opinion. Tolerance, in my opinion, is the key.

[mickali1]

Two people could read the same book and get completely different conclusions from it. Who's right and who's wrong goes down to opinion. Tolerance, in my opinion, is the key.

The problems arise when the books we are allowed to read are dictated to us. We may not want to read a book at all.

We are back to freedom of choice or in other words live and let live.