Printable View
No one's head will roll, they've already completely sold out the jersey, and could have sold a tonne more if they wanted. There's talks underway for a pride round next year, with some high profile players already giving their approval. PLUS everyone has now completely forgotten about the tigers game.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Unfortunately, it's been a massive win for the NRL and a big loss for the bigots crawling out from the shadows yet again.
So a bunch of white dudes calling a bunch of dark skinned chaps all types of names is inclusive?
Ian Roberts, the coach and the club all know they cocked this up and understand the folly in spewing more hate in the name of tolerance.
Bigot is a hell of a term to throw around in these circumstances.
The problem is when both sides are saying "but its just a jersey" then y'all might need to rethink all of your positions.
How is it a massive win for the NRL??Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
It's a massive self inflicted gun shot wound to the foot
Also it's quite apt the number 7 is how many players pulled out and how it is a number of God
Settle down the left have a hard time seeing their own bigotry in their delusional world viewQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
Can't expect that much from them
I guess nobody truly understands the clubs motive or aim for the jersey idea.
Was it a PR initiative to be the “NRL’s first team to celebrate inclusivity and support for LGBTQ+ community”.
NRL allowed them to be the scapegoat for the idea, NRL must approve the jerseys and idea before it goes to the old printer. This concept or idea wasn’t made in 6 days followed by a rest day.
Did they just wanna make some money off of a new jersey.
Regardless. It’s a PR nightmare for the club and the game.
Frodo mentioned the plan to have an inclusivity round next year. I feel like when Vlandys was asked would the NRL consider it for next season, he joins the 7 players (rumoured to be 8 that initially complained) in being alienated and publicly perceived as homophobic if he says no. Or he says the NRL will consider it, and buys himself an infinite amount of time to “consider”. Especially if 7 players from each club sit it out in protest.
Rumour has it, 2 other clubs floated the idea with their playing groups who ultimately decided the concept was a bit too controversial and political for the club.
The aim was inclusivity and now they have 7 players on the outer for not being on board with it all.
NRL media constantly dribbling the “this is all about lack of consultation” angle. Which is a good lesson in management 101. But if they can get traction that this is the big issue or talking point from this, they’ll consider it a win.
Why did the players need to be consulted? It's 4 rainbow stripes on a jersey. The NRL always has 10 different kits throughout the season for all sorts of reasons (ranging from women in sport to Marvel tie ins) so it's not likely they have ever been consulted before.
Gambling is against their religion but plastered all over the front all season without any issues. It's not an issue about the NRL not being sensitive towards religion, that needs to be made clear. It's about these 7 blokes using a simple initiative to push their agenda on to the rest of the team. They caused this problem, not Manly.
Which is why Manly are still wearing the kit, fans are happily buying the kit in droves now and why they'll have a full round of it next year. Israel Folau already tried to use his position to push his homophobia and lost, considering none of these guys are as talented as him I can't see this going any better for them.
Can you point out where in the Good Book that gambling is against their religionQuote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
Please draw our attention to this please as no one would want to accuse you of making shit up
Why should the players be consulted?
Because they are being used as the billboards to make others feel good about themselves.
You think its just some stripes on a jersey?
Not even kidding but if the Jets turned up with a blue and yellow strip with palm trees and sauce bottles on it everyone would be like "oh well its just a jersey"?
Like it or not having some low level disposable Chad in marketing trying to tell the highly paid front facing people what to do just isnt the way to go about your business.
Alex Ferguson spoke about this decades ago he understood how these things worked better than anyone.
Again, id wear the jersey i dont give a shit. But until someone sits down with these people and understands their point of view then talking about being inclusive is stupid.
I guarantee that if the ground, the fans, the goalposts and the sky above was covered in rainbows the 7 players involved would be playing (its already happened in a different sport). But they took exception to being forced to choose between their beliefs (however backward they seem) and their employment and to do so in public without consultation was the wrong way to do it.
It does remind me of one of the early indigenous rounds where a club didnt wear their special jersey on the actual round because they wanted to do it the next week at their home ground. Looking back does that make the club racist for not wearing the special kit on the special day?
For 364 days of the year Manly players wont wear rainbows, dressing up for a day doesn't make you any more or less of a bigot.
Its symbolism, and its important, but its not a cure.
Cant wait til someone doesnt wear the beanie next year and gets accused of being pro brain cancer.
The next outrage is just around the corner lets hurry up im bored of this one already.
The only 'Good Book' is Griffs autobiography.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
All 36 volumes of it.
I dont care if you weirdos consult your dungeons and dragons gospel for reference but you can keep it to yourselves.
GRIFF!!!!!!
2 things.
1) players have never been involved in discussions with team colours, kit designs or sponsors. It's got nothing to do with them, they can choose to not wear it if they want but they don't get control of their work uniforms. Just like everyone else in the world.
2) No one should show tolerance to the intolerant. You can explain to them why they can't be intolerant in today's society, but showing tolerance just moves everyone further away from tolerance towards hate.
Again, its not a kit design, its a public show of support for something they are not comfortable supporting. Theres a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
As for tolerance, you do realise that right now, those 7 players are doing as much for gay rights as you, your workmates, your family and your friends. Which is nothing. The fact is for 80 minutes this weekend can determine whether we get to call them bigots or homophobes for eternity is just a tad depressing for me. Considering as of monday morning, you me and them go back to the exact place we were before kickoff.
Personally i dont think thats fair on them.
Also remember the Falou thing was different, he was out there publicly saying hurtful shit to some poeploe who were just minding their own. To my knowledge none of the 7 players have ever said anything public, not shown any actions that were in any rational way harmful to the LGBT community. If they have then ill stand corrected but so far theres been nothing. Does that not count for anything in your book?
If not wearing some rainbow stripes for 80 mins on one day of one year qualifies them as a bigot and a homophobe then we'll just have to disagree on our definition of those terms. Just be mindful of the standards you have all set for yourselves though, dont go slipping up or that shit may just bite you all on the ass.
Also, for the record i still love you Frodo and have no shame saying that as a burley man person. Spread the love I say.
Except for the Member hes a ****ing weirdo.
1 The law is pretty clear in this country about the inability of employers to force employees to violate their religious viewsQuote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
Probably why the Manly club aren't pushing the players to play
Also it might be apt to point out that when the AFL had their rainbow mafia round a female player sat it out and wasn't condemned for her stance but was in fact applauded. Her being Islamic and objecting to not supporting sodomy was ok then.
Can you care to explain why these Christian boys can't refuse to support the same cause that she did or is this just more of your own religious bigotry ??
2 The intolerant would be the woke cult pushing this garbage.
Anyone who rejects their ideology is and vilified and ostracised
Yes you leftists are pretty.tolerant of anyone who doesn't share your cult like views aren't you ??
I'd say i'm personally more chubby than burly, but we can make it work.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
FrodoQuote:
Originally Posted by Frodo
you will find that most if not all clubs have had there indigenous players, help design the indigenous jerseys, for the indigenous round in the NRL and AFL.
Unfortunately a bit too much forced virtue signaling in sport atm - it is just starting to grate a bit.
I watched one of the festival games live last week. In the 10 minutes before kickoff you copped a welcome to country, presentation of first nations flags, rainbow light show, big screen ads on misogyny, and then take the knee.
They didn't say anything about the emissions from fireworks though :wink:
I'd wondered the same thing so googled the phrase "bible passage gambling" here's a few results:Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
https://www.openbible.info/topics/gambling
https://biblereasons.com/gambling/
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topi...ambling-a-sin/
while we are at it "bible passage alcohol"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoho...o%20debauchery.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topi...nking-alcohol/
https://biblereasons.com/drinking-alcohol/
:popcorn:
:roflz:
Can't wait to hear the "interpretations" of those passages...
I dont think Mr Swan actually read them. Hes drawing a really long bow to tie them to gambling and alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bon
They more relate to greed and excess.
But anyway.
Don't need to hear the interpretation of those passagesQuote:
Originally Posted by Bon
I would like old mate to point out where it references gambling as none of them dont
It references the pursuit of money and it being your main focus
It fits in more with Nigerians sending you emails than it does gambling on the horses or pokies
Matter of fact it is a classic example of why Google can't be trusted as a source of information as it makes shit up and isnt accurate
If you also read them it will also state that
What does the Bible say about gambling?
Many people wonder is gambling a sin? Although there might not be a clear cut verse from what we learn in Scripture I strongly believe it is a sin and all Christians should stay away from it. It is terrible to see that some churches are bringing gambling in the house of God. The Lord is not pleased.
So Google is referencing some guys opinion as a fact when it can't even find a legitimate citation from the source document
I'm not a religious person.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
I answered the question regarding where the "good book" pointed out where gambling was against their religion. I read quite a few of them, along with the interpretations provided by the authors of the articles as appropriate. I haven't drawn any bow towards anything. I've merely referred people to interpretations on the two topics being discussed. At no point did I give an opinion on them. However; I agree with your interpretation that the passages refer more to greed (in the case of gambling) and excess (in relation to alcohol).
More broadly, there are many bible passages that are open to interpretation. But that's a whole other road that i'm not about to go down.
But the grift is in the interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by northern_swan
Its why journalists write the articles, and management write the headlines.
Members point is correct, theres no direct line in there to prove your point.
But thats the folly of religion, every sunday morning snake oil selling preacher will tell you 'exactly' what the bible means, and you can use it to hide behind whatever you want.
When no one in this world can agree on interpreting hard data on things like climate and fiscal policy then trying to find meaning in a book written thousands of years ago is pointless.
Didn’t they all get drunk that night when Some guy kissed Jesus.
Knights player "supported" for refusing to come off and abusing training staff - showing passion apparently.
Ricky Stuart stood down for also showing passion, with wording I really can't see as offensive to anyone but the softest snowflake. It was a dog act.....
They have lost the plot.
https://www.theroar.com.au/2023/02/0...rra-nightclub/
And they're back at it.
Yawn. Another dullard trying to use religion to disprove something.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Im not religious but adapt to some concepts most of which just follow the law. There's plenty not to like as well. Its a balanced view.
People choose religion or more accurately to be Christian because they like the teachings. No one needs proof to believe in something. Thats ok for them.
Many worship football because it keeps them whole and entertained. They couldn't careless about anyone else. thats ok for them
Some worship League, buddha, Koran, food, Satan, tech, items, flora, fauna anything.
Would we call all of these people weirdos. Nope because they arent the traditional whitey religion.
Anyway continue the selective outrage. Trump? rangas? white males. All aholes in our society. And rightly so. All should be terminated. Oops, am I in the right group for this view? Pretty sure I am on this last one.
The person lining up for days to get the latest iphone, the person punching on because they wear a different football shirt and the person hating on the gays because their sky god told them so are all the same type of sucker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldy
You said it yourself, the law is the only standard we are really bound to.
The difference is the people that keep all that shit to themselves are cool, the rest are the problem.
Not hard is it?
*also, we can all agree the iphone person is the ****ing worst out of all of them.
For sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
But the real issue there is it's the Far left Woke minority activists, that you are for some reason protecting, that do nearly all of the loud hysterical, obnoxious, protesting and whining. You know, the feminists, gender freaks, LGBTers, climate doomers. They cant keep it to themselves they must tell you that youre bad for ignoring their POV.
btw the church isnt for me although i did like 2 songs.