Are you intolerant if you won't promote something?
Perhaps you are if that something you refuse to promote is tolerance.
Although one can fairly argue inaction is not the same as action, the counter to which I guess is a boycott by definition isn't inaction.
Well it does. We tolerate many things that we (most of us) consider to be wrong, if they are legal. Examples include lies, infidelity, greed, arrogance, etc. Most people would say those things aren't right. But we tolerate them. I wouldn't think anyone would try to force others to celebrate them.
I know this is basically the line being pushed as the predominate argument in support of the decision taken by the seven, particularly by those whose thoughts lean towards religious conservatism, but I really think it's obfuscation of what's going on. It relies on the precondition that in wearing the jersey is by wrote celebrating certain lifestyles that one may disagree with. however that is not necessarily the case. Symbolism is funny like that, it can mean different things to different people, and it's easily misrepresented as definitive as you do here.
There is a very clear and defined difference between say the promotion of a particular lifestyle, and the promotion of the idea that that those who choose that lifestyle should be accepted and valued as much as those who do not, and there's a further very clear difference between that, and merely believing that those who choose such lifestyles shouldn't be discriminated against. These ( including the definition you are arguing ) are all ways in which this same symbolism can be interpreted. Where it becomes a misrepresentation is when you assign it a definitive meaning along your own ideological grounds, and present that as the definitive meaning. Plainly this is an ill considered stance, and is demonstrably false.
So they aren’t free to their religious beliefs??? Isn’t that the definition of bigotry???
Of course they are, but no it's not. Are you literally going to conflate criticism of those that hold intolerant beliefs with beliefs that are by definition intolerant? They are of course free to hold these opinions or beliefs, if indeed they do. But equally others are free to criticise those very same opinions or beliefs.
In the end here the ultimate logical conclusion of this line of argument is that if your belief system is bigoted, provided that belief system is religious in it's nature, then criticism of that bigotry is also bigoted.
Or in other words "because religion" isn't a free pass.
Can someone please explain exactly what the rainbow represents? It seems to have many different meanings to many different people. Some say it's inclusive, inclusive of what exactly? A new colour seems to be added every month meaning they found someone else to include that wasn't included before. Some people view the rainbow as a promotion of a sexual lifestyle. Does it surprise anyone really that some people who hold conservative views on sex aren't really keen on promoting a lifestyle 'they' don't wish to live. Some say the rainbow means acceptance, some say the rainbow means celebration.
Is there a clear meaning?
As per above, it's symbolism, and that's gonna mean different things to different people. It doesn't have to have a singular and clearly defined meaning, it just needs to represent a general concept or idea, the details of which could be, and indeed are, many faceted and nuanced.
But they were tolerating others. Demanding that they celebrate something they don't support is intolerance.
Again the same, what is this something that is being demanded they celebrate, if indeed there is a demand at all?
It occurs to me that if as is the case, they were allowed to sit out and not wear the jersey, then the "demand" was rather weakly put, to the point that it doesn't really seem like a demand at all.
Isn't the Manly 7's issue that they don't want to be seen 'endorsing' (for want of a better term) publicly homosexuality. Not necessarily that they wouldn't include such a player in their team or the NRL in general, but more the point that they don't want to be seen as a billboard promoting that persuasion???
This is certainly ( one of ) the argument(s) being put, but again I think it relies upon assumptions that are far from definitively true, and ignores any nuance of the broader conversation. If indeed it is the case that the seven saw or see this an endorsement, I dare say that they are ignoring that broader conversation, and that it needn't be seen as a personal endorsement of homosexuality at all, and that would indicate that there is very much a problem with the way in which the club handled the entire situation.
In many quarters it is very much celebrating so the players have every right to refuse.
Lot's of people agree, so it's ok?
But then lots of people disagree, so it's not ok?
That provides quite the conundrum doesn't it. Indicative perhaps that logical fallacies aren't the most well reasoned of arguments after all.
Pretty much this. These players I can bet 100% are ok with anyone living how they wish, if a gay person were in the team, they'd high 5 them and pack a scrum with them. They'd hug them after a try and dance with them in the dressing room after a win. These players probably have a view on sex that they wish to live up to and probably never told anyone about their own sex lives and wished to live how they wanted to quietly. I bet they never said anything to any player screwing hot chicks after games and they probably went home on their merry way and kept it all to themselves. To them they probably view the rainbow as celebrating a sexual lifestyle that they don't wish to participate in. Homosexuality has now become the very essence of who a person is now, it's their identity and people think these 7 players have something against them as human beings. I can assure you, they are happy to let anyone go and live how they wish.
This is literally a whole mess of unsupported assumptions. Except the bit on homosexuality, which to be fair, is just an application of a generalisation.
Key point in bold. It's disingenuous to conflate endorsement with tolerance. There is a clear difference between the two. Tolerance means you put up with something you find objectionable.
Agree on the conflation, there is very clearly a difference there.....
I'd add though that's a very thin definition of the word which ignores how the word is used in the context of this discussion, and in language in general. I would suggest that the appropriate definition here would be that it is the opposite of intolerance, and all connotations that implies.
wwos.nine.com.au
