SpartyBlue

We will deserve it

I can’t imagine a world where we would loan him out or where he would accept a loan. Makes no sense. He’s worth his salary as a leader and mentor for the younger guys. At the least we could use the cover at RB.

I hope at the least the people who thought it was no big deal last year now understand why the league and Everton have to crack down. At the least it makes us look like idiots.

Uh…what the hell was that?

I thought it was that you could only loan 2 English players and the rules were different for an international player. I defer to my brothers across the Atlantic in this though.

As it has us all

I suppose I was assuming that if you’re to the point that you’re critical of another you’ve already thought about your own position. Perhaps that’s giving some people too much credit. Despite all this conversation, I personally don’t think Gana’s action rise to a level where I wouldn’t want him back (for that reason). I just worry about those legs at his age for a player that’s game is so dependent on fitness and energy.

I apologize if you think you’ve been misinterpreted but I’m still struggling to see quite how. It is self evident that someone whose views I’m critical of has a different view than my own.

It’s not inadvertent. You should be more cautious about making assumptions as to what people whom you don’t know understand or don’t. Whether it is right or wrong is the most relevant aspect of this. That his religion prohibits asking questions and challenging its tenets reveals its weakness. In any other area of life this would be obvious.

There is always a choice, even if it’s a difficult one or one with no happy outcomes. Pretending that he can make no decisions for himself because of his religious affiliation is absurd. He’s choosing to be a Muslim. He could choose not to be. No matter how personally difficult that decision would be for him it is his decision to make. He could also choose to be a Muslim and a human being who recognizes that these shows of support are about human rights and not endorsing a particular lifestyle. I’m not sure of Gana’s specific stance but I’m happy to say that if his different way of thinking is that gay people are not deserving of the same rights and protections as any other human being than his views are worse than mine and most people. The idea that you believe he has no faculty to make his own decisions because of his faith reveals the insidious nature of some religions.

Haha. Thanks for that bit of levity. Interesting on the owner. Perhaps he’s allowing the badges for a commercial purpose or so as not to annoy too many ticket holders. Or perhaps he’s enlightened enough to realize that whatever his objections, it’s more about human rights than endorsing a lifestyle. I’d be curious to know if he’s made any statements.

I don’t want to get too much more into the weeds here than we already are but I would speculate that for a lot of people (and perhaps Gana) questioning something you believe as a result of your religion opens up a door that a person may want to keep closed. Much easier to just toe the line than it is to really be introspective about the tenets of your religion and whether or not that agrees with the world you see and your personal sense of right and wrong.

I would ask you to clarify this then. It certainly seems as if you’re saying different views are just lifestyle choices and so why is it OK for a person to disagree with someone else’s choices.

Do we expect our formation today will be more or less how we will want to set up this season?

Possibly but it could also just be that in a pinch Frank is alright playing Gordon, Gray, Dele, whoever you top if it came to that. Backup striker is important but less so then a central defender, midfielders etc.. so maybe it’s just a budget thing and/or down the list of priorities.

We all have our own moral codes. If I encounter someone behaving in a way that disagrees with that code I am free to make a judgement on that person’s character. There is a difference in saying Gana (or anyone) can’t have an opinion and being critical of that opinion. You seem to be suggesting that nobody should ever be critical of a different view or lifestyle choice because of hypocrisy. That’s an absurd position to me as it would effectively end debate on every topic, be the end of law and order etc… I’m happy to judge a person who has a view that the Earth is flat or who lives a lifestyle where it’s acceptable to kick puppies.

I guess it comes down to the contract they sign eh.

Of course he had a choice. He chose to adhere to his religious/personal beliefs in this case. He might have felt he was compelled to make the decision that he did but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have an option to do something else. Even if PSG had told him that he wears the badge or he’s fired he would still have a choice. To suggest he could not have done anything else is silly.

Certainly people on the margins have become more mainstream over the last number of years and that exists on all sides to some degree. Of course ‘disagreeable’ is subjective. The point there is that people are going to be judged based on the things they say and do. That’s the way the world works and it should be. Everyone has the right to an opinion but nobody has the right for that opinion to be respected or free from criticism. Nobody has to accept their actions, with or without supporting evidence (whatever that means in this case). While I don’t believe Gana should have been forced to make a decision between wearing the badge and playing I also don’t think the club has to consult the players on how it wants to represent itself. There might be a player who disagrees with an anti-racism badge. Should they forego displaying one because it causes that one player discomfort? Football players on that level are public figures to some degree. Their personal decisions being on display for public scrutiny comes with the territory. But there is always a choice as it’s not a profession anyone is forcing them to pursue.

Splitting hairs a bit there. I’m sure Gana is interpreting this as being asked to support an LGBT lifestyle. I agree the club’s intentions with this are likely to be as you describe. I’m speaking more generally. Take an example where one was asked to support Ukraine as a Russian player or a particular political party or something. Again, I’m curious how it is contractually. I’m sure they have to wear the promised shirt sponsors. Does that apply to whatever a club wants to stick on there?

Of course he had a choice.

By this logic nobody is allowed to make a moral judgement on another’s actions. If I know a person who is clearly a racist I have no right to judge their decision as a mistake? Sure I do. We get to make those decisions for ourselves based on our own morality.

I agree that in general he should not be forced to promote a cause. Though one might argue his objection is what is intolerant here. As far as it being nobody’s business but Gana’s eh… He’s a public figure making an obscene salary by the grace of the fan’s that support his club. If he personally gets less support because of his views and it effects his career negatively than to some degree that’s just the way the system works. I’d be curious to know how these things work contractually. For instance he wouldn’t be able to say that a gambling advert goes against his beliefs and so he’s not going to wear it on his jersey. I’m not sure if that applies to other badges and such. The “well within my rights” thing isn’t really the point. I’m well within my rights to believe I am the messiah or to be against interracial marriage or any number of other things. That I’m free to believe these things does not absolve me from criticism. Nobody is saying he can’t have an opinion, just that it’s a disagreeable one. “Woke” has been twisted into a dirty word for political purposes (the same way liberal has) but all it’s supposed to mean is someone who strives to be enlightened. I can agree that at times people who would describe themselves that way are overzealous but it’s not the cutting insult some people seem to think it is.

Largely I agree that someone could give this same response for any number of awful viewpoints. However, I agree with the point that a club should not dictate to its players that they have to support whatever cause they are embracing. The club should be free to advocate for whatever it likes and it’s players should be free to abstain without any penalty other than public opinion.

A cleaner analogy is the Ukraine situation. Most would agree that the Ukrainian people deserve our support. Imagine someone saying that they disagree with supporting Ukraine because there are lots of other countries where people could use help. Imagine them saying that support for their people is divisive.