Weirdness Abounds (or the Idrissa Gana Gueye Thread)

[Wall Writer]

Interesting point of view...The following situation springs to mind.

If your employer implemented a Red T-Shite Friday at work*, where you had to come in jeans and a red Liverpool t-shite, you'd say no, right?

Why? Well, for similar reasons as the guy stated above; that it would go against your beliefs - everyone knows that Royal Blue is the best colour of t-shirt.

* probably for some charitable reason like supporting people who have made terrible decisions in their lives.

 

On a more serious note, and way off topic, I feel this whole issue of equality creates more division that it aims to solve. I don't see how separating people into groups solves the problem of equality for the individual. As long as we divide ourselves into groups, it will always be us against them. I think, more fundamentally, people, and we as a society, need to be more accepting of the fact that everyone is different, has different beliefs, opinions and ways of expressing themselves, and that is ok.

This is also, btw, why I think this forum is the best on the planet, as its members constantly show these qualities and are a true beacon for humanity. 

 

[Hafnia]

Maybe Gana will refuse to sign because we are sponsored by a gambling company. 
 

He needs to be careful to what he objects to because some things may contradict his previous stances. 
 

im prepared to sign him because he will improve us as a player. And before people ask why…..  I would ask then why they would allow players to play for us who had been caught drink driving which I consider far worse than having different opinions/beliefs. 

[Formby]

49 minutes ago, RPG said:

That might be your opinion but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. They have quietly maintained their neutrality on the issue for many years until their club made the grave error of trying to force them to publicly support something that violated their deeply held religious beliefs.

Personally, I would question the deeply-held religious beliefs if they were not promoting equality. 

[RuffRob]

I would much rather us move forward with a different player, but if nothing else doing for a defensive midfielder due to finances etc - then I would happily seen IGG in the squad for the coming season. Knows the club and areas etc, so should hit the ground running with regard to settling in. 

Any player who would help if we are bottom end of the table is welcome while this squad develops. We are not going to 100% get everything we would real like in this transfer window.  So some sticking plasters will still be needed. 

 

[Sibdane]

The problem(to me) with people like Gana is that they want to pretend people with different beliefs or lifestyles don’t exist or shouldn’t exist, and if they do acknowledge them it’s usually to do so in a negative way. No one is expecting anybody to go suck a dick after wearing a rainbow shirt. It’s simply accepting a persecuted group into a society which already should be accepting them. 

Also, when Liverpool(the team) gets persecuted like homosexuals have been for well… forever, then I’ll gladly wear a red shirt to work to show my solidarity with them. 

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/lampard-everton-transfers-mcneil-gueye-27598503

[Sibdane]

6 minutes ago, RPG said:

That would put you at odds with many mainstream religions today.

One example from a country that advertises itself as ‘the abode of peace.’

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47769964.amp

 I am not and have not expressed an opinion on the matter but this is really happening.

Yeah, this fucking sucks, and people like Gana agree with the folks making these laws that it’s an unnatural lifestyle. He may not agree to the punishment, but he probably “understands” why they are punished. 

[Formby]

2 minutes ago, RPG said:

That would put you at odds with many mainstream religions today.

I am happy to take that position!

There are also many Christians, Muslims and Jews who question their othodox teaching and are happy not to preach division and hate. 

[Sibdane]

Before my head explodes, let me just say I hope we don't sign Gana. 

[Sibdane]

Just now, RPG said:

I hope we do. He’s the best we will be able to attract I think - even if it is just for one season.

Unfortunately, I think you're probably right. I'd rather our club be principle-based and NOT sign him though. 

[Sibdane]

Just now, RPG said:

I think principles (with some exceptions) left pro soccer many years ago. It is no longer a game but a business. Time was when fans talked only about a player’s ability on the field. Now its as much about fees, salary, length of contract, sell on fee potential etc. If we want to be successful we are going to have to be a lot more pragmatic unless we want to be the most principled team in the Championship - or worse.

I get what you're saying, but you're not swaying my opinion on this one. 

[Formby]

38 minutes ago, RPG said:

The Islamic faith, in particular, treats the sexes very differently. I am sure I need not give details but there is total inequality. 

On behalf of all the Muslims I know, friends and family, they see it very differently!  

[milesey05]

Would love him back in a blue shirt. 

He can still do a job and at 32 would still cover more ground than Davies or Allan. 

sign him up 

[StevO]

3 hours ago, RPG said:

That might be your opinion but there is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion. They have quietly maintained their neutrality on the issue for many years until their club made the grave error of trying to force them to publicly support something that violated their deeply held religious beliefs.

Then they do have an issue with it don’t they? It’s not an opinion, it’s an observation. The words from these people show they have an issue with it, if they didn’t we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. Surely that’s obvious? Even if it’s a religious belief, they clearly have an issue with it. 
 

edit. 
just seen all of the other replies and think this is pretty much done with anyway. I’m sure we all agree on the fundamentals of it all anyway. 

[Matt]

You can't force equality. That only creates division and resistance to change. Wearing the rainbow colours shouldn't be seen as an obligation, it should be a choice of the individual. Otherwise it loses meaning. If those individuals don't want to, then understand why and engage in the discussion. Education and engagement is how progress is made. I'm surprised employers have been allowed to fire employers based on the employees beliefs - that must be close to constituting unfair dismissal and discrimination (fired for different views) and is only going to create further division.

Not wanting to wear it doesn't mean they  necessarily disagree with supporting the campaign. Maybe they think that approach is pointless, maybe they're just indifferent and don't want to get involved, maybe they have family and friends that would react negatively to that and they can't openly support, maybe they live in a part of society that will threaten their safety if they openly support. 

Personally I think treating people as equal is more powerful and important than a brand so I don't buy the merchandise/use online themes etc. because I don't believe that helps. Then again marketing is a powerful thing so why wouldnt it I guess, just raises the question of marketing for what (its not as simple an answer as you think). That said I have bought rainbow hat and gloves, travel mugs etc because my daughter likes rainbows, knowing what it could be perceived as and hopeful that it does make a difference even if I don’t really believe it will. If that inspires people to support then great, if it causes conflict then I'll challenge and educate the aggressor that equality is important and to re-evaluate their stance.

The exception to this rule is when those people/beliefs threaten peoples lives (yes, I'm aware that the rainbow movement is to promote protection as much as equality. I dont see a sticker helping protection). Then I very much get involved where I can.

Personally I'd like to know why these people don't support it. If it's because of a religious stance, there's not much you can do other than explain why it's contrary to their fundamental beliefs (pretty much all religions preach the same message of love and equality, its the interpretations of the message that cause issues). But good luck arguing with a devout follower and knowing in the ins and outs of dozens of religions. If it's because the individual thinks they're superior, I remind those people of history and make direct comparisons to them and Hitler et Al. (Yes, I've been swung at for this approach, no I won't stop it).

I'm actively for equality and I actively promote and teach it in how I live my life. I get in people's faces when I see dickheads or dangerous people and I put myself in harms way to defend equality. I believe that's a much more active and effective method of furthering the message than slapping a pride sticker in my LinkedIn profile and thinking I support the cause now. 

I'm an extremely tolerant person with two exceptions. The actively intolerant and the dangerously willfully ignorant.

[SpartyBlue]

19 minutes ago, Matt said:

You can't force equality. That only creates division and resistance to change. Wearing the rainbow colours shouldn't be seen as an obligation, it should be a choice of the individual. Otherwise it loses meaning. If those individuals do want to, then understand why and engage in the discussion. Education and engagement is how progress is made. I'm surprised employers have been allowed to fire employers based on the employees beliefs - that must be close to constituting unfair dismissal and discrimination (fired for different views) and is only going to create further division.

Not wanting to wear it doesn't mean they  necessarily disagree with supporting the campaign. Maybe they think that approach is pointless, maybe they're just indifferent and don't want to get involved, maybe they have family and friends that would react negatively to that and they can't openly support, maybe they live in a part of society that will threaten their safety if they openly support. 

Personally I think treating people as equal is more powerful and important than a brand so I don't buy the merchandise/use online themes etc. because I don't believe that helps. Then again marketing is a powerful thing so why wouldnt it I guess, just raises the question of marketing for what (its not as simple an answer as you think). That said I have bought rainbow hat and gloves, travel mugs etc because my daughter likes rainbows, knowing what it could be perceived as and hopeful that it does make a difference even if I don’t really believe it will. If that inspires people to support then great, if it causes conflict then I'll challenge and educate the aggressor that equality is important and to re-evaluate their stance.

The exception to this rule is when those people/beliefs threaten peoples lives (yes, I'm aware that the rainbow movement is to promote protection as much as equality. I dont see a sticker helping protection). Then I very much get involved where I can.

Personally I'd like to know why these people don't support it. If it's because of a religious stance, there's not much you can do other than explain why it's contrary to their fundamental beliefs (pretty much all religions preach the same message of love and equality, its the interpretations of the message that cause issues). But good luck arguing with a devout follower and knowing in the ins and outs of dozens of religions. If it's because the individual thinks they're superior, I remind those people of history and make direct comparisons to them and Hitler et Al. (Yes, I've been swung at for this approach, no I won't stop it).

I'm actively for equality and I actively promote and teach it in how I live my life. I get in people's faces when I see dickheads or dangerous people and I put myself in harms way to defend equality. I believe that's a much more active and effective method of furthering the message than slapping a pride sticker in my LinkedIn profile and thinking I support the cause now. 

I'm an extremely tolerant person with two exceptions. The actively intolerant and the dangerously willfully ignorant.

I think if he’s making a point to not wear the shirt we can surmise he isn’t indifferent.

I would disagree that promoting equality in a public way through various campaigns has no effect. Normalizing support does help in my opinion. I’d strongly disagree that all religions preach equality, particularly in this area. A lot of religious objections to these people are coming straight from the text. There are places in this world where homosexuality and the like may be a death sentence and that is fueled in most cases by religious fervor.

In any case this is a deeper discussion. I don’t like Gana’s stance personally but I expect I’d feel similarly with other players of ours if I knew all their political/religious leanings. I would not object to his return if he can do a job for the club

[Hafnia]

1 hour ago, Sibdane said:

Unfortunately, I think you're probably right. I'd rather our club be principle-based and NOT sign him though. 

Well good luck with that, we’ve already spent millions of Russian money, been sponsored by gambling and alcohol companies, employed players who have broken the law, and our chairman tells porkie pies like it’s an Olympic event. 

[Sibdane]

1 minute ago, SpartyBlue said:

I think if he’s making a point to not wear the shirt we can surmise he isn’t indifferent.

I would disagree that promoting equality in a public way through various campaigns has no effect. Normalizing support does help in my opinion. I’d strongly disagree that all religions preach equality, particularly in this area. A lot of religious objections to these people are coming straight from the text. There are places in this world where homosexuality and the like may be a death sentence and that is fueled in most cases by religious fervor.

In any case this is a deeper discussion. I don’t like Gana’s stance personally but I expect I’d feel similarly with other players of ours if I knew all their political/religious leanings. I would not object to his return if he can do a job for the club

It's a strange one for me. If he comes back I'll hope he does very well for us, but I'm not excited about the thought of signing him. You're right about the other players too. 

[Sibdane]

2 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

Well good luck with that, we’ve already spent millions of Russian money, been sponsored by gambling and alcohol companies, employed players who have broken the law, and our chairman tells porkie pies like it’s an Olympic event. 

I'm not ignorant to the fact that we aren't run completely clean. I can still want that though.

 

[Matt]

1 minute ago, SpartyBlue said:

I think if he’s making a point to not wear the shirt we can surmise he isn’t indifferent.

I would disagree that promoting equality in a public way through various campaigns has no effect. Normalizing support does help in my opinion. I’d strongly disagree that all religions preach equality, particularly in this area. A lot of religious objections to these people are coming straight from the text. There are places in this world where homosexuality and the like may be a death sentence and that is fueled in most cases by religious fervor.

In any case this is a deeper discussion. I don’t like Gana’s stance personally but I expect I’d feel similarly with other players of ours if I knew all their political/religious leanings. I would not object to his return if he can do a job for the club

Really? If my employer forced me to wear something I didn't want to, I'd be pissed off too and would refuse to wear it just because I'd been told to. If I'd been asked and had an explanation as to why, then I'd be more open to it but I shouldn't feel compelled to. It's just hypocritical. 

I didn't say marketing campaigns didn't have an effect. Actually made a clear statement that marketing works. I just don't agree with it for promoting ethical issues, I see education and engagement as much more powerful and effective tools so thats what I go with. 

[SpartyBlue]

9 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

It's a strange one for me. If he comes back I'll hope he does very well for us, but I'm not excited about the thought of signing him. You're right about the other players too. 

Yea I mean, for me, it would be silly to expect all the players to feel the same way I do about these sorts of issues. There are certainly moral lines that would make me against signing a player but not wearing a patch because of your religious beliefs (however misguided I think they are) doesn’t rise to that level.

[Sibdane]

9 minutes ago, Matt said:

Really? If my employer forced me to wear something I didn't want to, I'd be pissed off too and would refuse to wear it just because I'd been told to. If I'd been asked and had an explanation as to why, then I'd be more open to it but I shouldn't feel compelled to. It's just hypocritical. 

I didn't say marketing campaigns didn't have an effect. Actually made a clear statement that marketing works. I just don't agree with it for promoting ethical issues, I see education and engagement as much more powerful and effective tools so thats what I go with. 

Gana wasn't forced to wear it though, was he? He made a choice to not wear it, and because of that choice his character is being questioned -- what else would/should he expect as the outcome? 

[Hafnia]

The amount of virtue signalling now is actually becoming a joke.
 

“oooh let’s take the knee to support Black Lives Matter”……  referee blows a whistle to instigate it. what does it solve? Black players miss penalties and get abuse.  English players get abused on the pitch but are expected to play on? The governing body give a slap on the wrist. 

EE do an advert showing womens football and then getting abuse with needless footage of a woman having a period on the pitch. I wonder what percentage of their senior workforce are female?  I wonder if they do anything to prevent teenage kids ending up in psychiatric wards due to online bullying…. Most often girls at the hands of other girls. 
 

Abuse of any type should not be tolerated, mysandry is on the increase as a biproduct of the fight against misogyny, girls abusing girls in only the way they know best. But yeah let’s focus on blokes saying womens football isn’t very good.

[SpartyBlue]

2 minutes ago, RPG said:

well said Matt, We have to do things because we believe in them, otherwise there is no point. Just as Wilfrid Zaha for example, refuses to take a knee before the start of each game. Of course he believes that black lives matter but the politics behind the issue is about marxism not racial equality and Zaha isn’t having it. I quite agree with him. As soon as you need to insert a colour ahead of ‘lives matter’ then you are a part of the problem, not the solution but this is losr on many well intentioned do gooders.

Said as someone who has married outside both his race and religion btw.

Most people who are supporting rainbow lives, black lives etc.. aren’t saying that only those lives matter. They are drawing attention to historically persecuted groups and they have specific grievances. You don’t need to draw specific attention to groups that have not experienced that.
 

Here in America in particular this idea that these movements and protests are to be discouraged because “All Lives Matter” is a common right wing talking point and an effort to deflect from the issues presented.

[SpartyBlue]

2 minutes ago, RPG said:

It was just ‘assumed’ that he would wear it and that is very poor management by the club. It forced Gueye into a corner where neutrality was no longer an option so he quite rightly came out on the side of his convictions. If PSG had handled things better Gueye could have preserved his public neutrality and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It was never a topic of discussion until PSG made it one.

I’m curious how you think PSG should have handled it other than just to never have a patch dealing with anything that is potentially political or touches on religion.
 

I do think Gana should have been able to play without the patch. Overall I don’t think it’s a big deal. If he has an objection than that’s up to him. It is his right. If people think differently about him because of his views then that’s just life. 

[Romey 1878]

Still don't think he's the right player for what we need. We'd still need to bring a proper DM in to make a proper difference.

[Matt]

5 minutes ago, Sibdane said:

Gana wasn't forced to wear it though, was he? He made a choice to not wear it, and because of that choice his character is being questioned -- what else would/should he expect as the outcome? 

I was replying to the Aussie sports situation, but the same applies to Gana. He was told it was going to happen, he said no. He's left out and now the focus, because he didn't want to wear a symbol of something he doesn't feel comfortable with. I think he's an idiot for not believing in equality for that cause and find it baffling a black man wouldn’t be a champion of equal rights, but making him the outcast because he isn't is contradictory to the equality message. We don't all have to agree and have the same ideals. We do need to argue against intolerance without forcing a result. That is not equality.

[Matt]

5 minutes ago, RPG said:

It is not Right Wing at all to say that all lives matter. It is a humanitarian thing to say and to try to politicize it is really low class from those that try to do so. 

I think the point is its become a right wing motto in the US, because mottos and catchphrases are catchy. Its more about emphasis on a subject, not one or the other. It's also a great example of how forcing equality is creating division as people are more defensive about the phrase rather than thinking about the cause. 

[SpartyBlue]

1 minute ago, RPG said:

It is not Right Wing at all to say that all lives matter. It is a humanitarian thing to say and to try to politicize it is really low class from those that try to do so. 

It is a right wing talking point, at least where I live. It’s also dumb. Most everyone agrees “All lives matter”. I can only speak for how it’s used in my country but the intent is often for it to dismiss the grievances of the group in question. Police disproportionately arresting/shooting black people? Oh hey man all lives matter, this shouldn’t be a race thing. LGBTQ rights under assault? Why are we focusing on them? All lives matter! 
 

I understand the intent of saying hey we are all the same etc.. but when you use that reasoning to justify ignoring groups that have legitimate issues I find it ugly.

[SpartyBlue]

3 minutes ago, Matt said:

I think the point is its become a right wing motto in the US, because mottos and catchphrases are catchy. Its more about emphasis on a subject, not one or the other. It's also a great example of how forcing equality is creating division as people are more defensive about the phrase rather than thinking about the cause. 

Nuance is dying in general. As if you can’t think “all lives matter” and still support a specific cause.