Leaving woke culture and God

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
That sounds like the same sort of reasoning that led to stripping Muhamad Ali of his title. "You are the best but your way of thinking will lead the impressionable astray from the 'true path' so you are out of the consideration for honors".

 

[Brian63]

I am not familiar with the details of Muhammad Ali and his title, but there is nothing out of bounds with taking away the recognition of a person's contribution to the sport, when the person has been a disgrace in some other manner. They can still be recognized as a great fighter, while still being a jackass not worthy of being awarded. There is a relevant difference in those 2 characteristics of a person.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Awards like that do not just ignore the person's own life, nor should they. For an exaggerated example---If she was excellent at playing tennis, but also was a serial killer on her downtime, then no, the sport should not be treating her as if she is a role model for future tennis players and should treat her in disgrace. Organizations of the sport and promoters of the sport should not be promoting people who hold morally revolting views, if they care about the future of the sport. It is more than a sport, it is also a culture and a community, and people want to be remembered for it being honorable and cherishing the honorable members in it. If someone runs counter to that theme, they are under no obligation to reward them anyway.

I don't think your position is compatible with democratic values and the embrace of free expression. You want to use public awards to bully the people who don't share your values into silence. You're not the good guy here imho

 

[Brian63]

I don't think your position is compatible with democratic values and the embrace of free expression. You want to use public awards to bully the people who don't share your values into silence. You're not the good guy here imho

Your humble opinion is very misguided. Those people are not being bullied into silence. They are still able and free to express their views. They will just have to take into account that their views may be revolting to others, and those other people also have values and free expressions that they are able to exercise at their own choice. That includes choosing who to name trophies, tournaments, arenas, etc. after.

 

[Politesse]

Awards like that do not just ignore the person's own life, nor should they. For an exaggerated example---If she was excellent at playing tennis, but also was a serial killer on her downtime, then no, the sport should not be treating her as if she is a role model for future tennis players and should treat her in disgrace. Organizations of the sport and promoters of the sport should not be promoting people who hold morally revolting views, if they care about the future of the sport. It is more than a sport, it is also a culture and a community, and people want to be remembered for it being honorable and cherishing the honorable members in it. If someone runs counter to that theme, they are under no obligation to reward them anyway.

I don't think your position is compatible with democratic values and the embrace of free expression. You want to use public awards to bully the people who don't share your values into silence. You're not the good guy here imho

So to protect "free expression", we should force people to say nice things about racists against their will? (Or are you picturing an awards ceremony in which awful people are awarded medals, but instead of the usual fawning speeches, they publically excoriate the honoree for their bad conduct?)

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think your position is compatible with democratic values and the embrace of free expression. You want to use public awards to bully the people who don't share your values into silence. You're not the good guy here imho

Your humble opinion is very misguided. Those people are not being bullied into silence. They are still able and free to express their views. They will just have to take into account that their views may be revolting to others, and those other people also have values and free expressions that they are able to exercise at their own choice. That includes choosing who to name trophies, tournaments, arenas, etc. after.

I think you are dangerous and I hope your opinion is rare. God help democracy if your beliefs spread.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Awards like that do not just ignore the person's own life, nor should they. For an exaggerated example---If she was excellent at playing tennis, but also was a serial killer on her downtime, then no, the sport should not be treating her as if she is a role model for future tennis players and should treat her in disgrace. Organizations of the sport and promoters of the sport should not be promoting people who hold morally revolting views, if they care about the future of the sport. It is more than a sport, it is also a culture and a community, and people want to be remembered for it being honorable and cherishing the honorable members in it. If someone runs counter to that theme, they are under no obligation to reward them anyway.

I don't think your position is compatible with democratic values and the embrace of free expression. You want to use public awards to bully the people who don't share your values into silence. You're not the good guy here imho

So to protect "free expression", we should force people to say nice things about racists against their will? (Or are you picturing an awards ceremony in which awful people are awarded medals, but instead of the usual fawning speeches, they publically excoriate the honoree for their bad conduct?)

People who hand out awards on behalf of governments and organisations are functionaries. They can be expected to be professionally polite when doing their jobs, the same way we expect waiters in a restaurant to be. We can also chose to ignore certain parts of a person and focus on the nice stuff

The same way you might say something nice about someone even though they are fat. It's not an all or nothing proposal.

 

[Politesse]

So to protect "free expression", we should force people to say nice things about racists against their will? (Or are you picturing an awards ceremony in which awful people are awarded medals, but instead of the usual fawning speeches, they publically excoriate the honoree for their bad conduct?)

People who hand out awards on behalf of governments and organisations are functionaries. They can be expected to be professionally polite when doing their jobs, the same way we expect waiters in a restaurant to be. We can also chose to ignore certain parts of a person and focus on the nice stuff

The same way you might say something nice about someone even though they are fat. It's not an all or nothing proposal.

Ah, so people in certain publically visible professions are held to particular standards of speech and behavior, you might say?

 

[Brian63]

I don't think your position is compatible with democratic values and the embrace of free expression. You want to use public awards to bully the people who don't share your values into silence. You're not the good guy here imho

Your humble opinion is very misguided. Those people are not being bullied into silence. They are still able and free to express their views. They will just have to take into account that their views may be revolting to others, and those other people also have values and free expressions that they are able to exercise at their own choice. That includes choosing who to name trophies, tournaments, arenas, etc. after.

I think you are dangerous and I hope your opinion is rare. God help democracy if your beliefs spread.

Yes. How dangerous it would be that people who organize a sport, a tournament, an awards ceremony have a say in who would be eligible to be honored by those events and awards, and want to exercise it in a way that does not bring disgrace to their community.

 

[skepticalbip]

Do you understand the difference between those 2 debates? Here they are:

1. Who was the best at simply playing the sport.

versus

2. Who deserves recognition as contributing to its popularity and was most noble while playing it.


They can overlap in that the same persons earned both. They can also be different. Margaret Court Smith is recognized as being a great tennis player on the court. That does not mean she should be recognized as being an honorable tennis player overall.

You seem to assume that an athlete being woke is necessary for them to be popular and attract people to the sport. I call bullshit. My experience is that the best athletes attract a following and that those who admire their athletic abilities know or care diddly squat about their personal lives. It is the best athletes who contribute the most to the popularity of a sport not the most woke athletes. For example, how much do you know about the old Brazilian soccer star, Pele, that was the toast of the game other than he was a damn talented soccer player who was the idol of kids around the world? Or if you are into American football then how much do you know about Tom Brady's personal views on woke issues? Personally, I think Brady is a damn talented athlete but know absolutely nothing about his personal life... the same for Pele.

How 'bout a compromise? Continue to rain accolades on the best players to attract sports enthusiasts who admire their abilities to the sport. Then begin another woke sports award ceremony to recognize and rain wokeness accolades the most woke athlete that is always careful to use whatever correct pronouns are fashionable each week. It may be interesting to see which awards will attract the most sports enthusiasts. I think it will be that the awards for outstanding ability will attract people interested in the sport and the awards for wokeness will attract social justice warriors that likely know or care little about the sport.

 

[Brian63]

Go ahead and create your own sport, skepticalbip, and run your dream experiment. If the GOAT in your sport is discovered to be a child rapist, try awarding them anyway with all sorts of accolades even after you learn of it. See how much praise versus criticism you receive. It would be fascinating to find out the results.

 

[skepticalbip]

Go ahead and create your own sport, skepticalbip, and run your dream experiment. If the GOAT in your sport is discovered to be a child rapist, try awarding them anyway with all sorts of accolades even after you learn of it. See how much praise versus criticism you receive. It would be fascinating to find out the results.

What the fuck is with you? Do you really equate not being woke with child rape?

 

[Brian63]

No. But I was using exaggerated examples to show the faults in your arguments.

So apparently, FOR YOU EVEN, there is a hypothetical threshold where an athlete's on-field performance should not be the one-and-only determining factor in consideration of whether they should be given special honors, awards, etc. We disagree about what types of off-field behaviors should disqualify them and to what degree they should play a role. But you do not entirely exclude their off-field behaviors from consideration.

 

[skepticalbip]

No. But I was using exaggerated examples to show the faults in your arguments.

So apparently, FOR YOU EVEN, there is a hypothetical threshold where an athlete's on-field performance should not be the one-and-only determining factor in consideration of whether they should be given special honors, awards, etc. We disagree about what types of off-field behaviors should disqualify them and to what degree they should play a role. But you do not entirely exclude their off-field behaviors from consideration.

That threshold certainly isn't them holding an unpopular opinion. Humans have a right disagree with some mob. I have no problem appreciating someone's abilities on the field even if I hold very different opinions on things other than the sport they are in.

 

[Politesse]

No. But I was using exaggerated examples to show the faults in your arguments.

So apparently, FOR YOU EVEN, there is a hypothetical threshold where an athlete's on-field performance should not be the one-and-only determining factor in consideration of whether they should be given special honors, awards, etc. We disagree about what types of off-field behaviors should disqualify them and to what degree they should play a role. But you do not entirely exclude their off-field behaviors from consideration.

That threshold certainly isn't them holding an unpopular opinion. Humans have a right disagree with some mob. I have no problem appreciating someone's abilities on the field even if I hold very different opinions on things other than the sport they are in.

Ah, so you alone decide what is a reasonable professional standard and what is the "opinion of a mob"? Or perhaps right-wing media as a whole? Do explain. Evidently it is not the standards set by the organization who is sponsoring the award, so to whom should they appeal their judgement if they disagree?

 

[DrZoidberg]

So to protect "free expression", we should force people to say nice things about racists against their will? (Or are you picturing an awards ceremony in which awful people are awarded medals, but instead of the usual fawning speeches, they publically excoriate the honoree for their bad conduct?)

People who hand out awards on behalf of governments and organisations are functionaries. They can be expected to be professionally polite when doing their jobs, the same way we expect waiters in a restaurant to be. We can also chose to ignore certain parts of a person and focus on the nice stuff

The same way you might say something nice about someone even though they are fat. It's not an all or nothing proposal.

Ah, so people in certain publically visible professions are held to particular standards of speech and behavior, you might say?

I don't understand your comment?

 

[Politesse]

Ah, so people in certain publically visible professions are held to particular standards of speech and behavior, you might say?

I don't understand your comment?

I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of your position, in which the givers of awards are held to certain professional standards of speech and behavior even if they personally disagree with the action being taken, but sports stars should not be held to normal professional standards of speech and behavior, even in the context of being awarded special public honors.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No. But I was using exaggerated examples to show the faults in your arguments.

So apparently, FOR YOU EVEN, there is a hypothetical threshold where an athlete's on-field performance should not be the one-and-only determining factor in consideration of whether they should be given special honors, awards, etc. We disagree about what types of off-field behaviors should disqualify them and to what degree they should play a role. But you do not entirely exclude their off-field behaviors from consideration.

The difference is that you want to ban expressing a normal belief from eligibility into polite society. It's normal to be a racist. It's normal to want to limit immigration. These people are often well adjusted and function well in society. There are statistical differences that map race or ethnicity with violent or otherwise anti-social behaviour. These statistics don't impress you or me. But they exist and need to be explained. You and I have a different explanation to these than that certain ethnic groups are inherently aggressive. But it's got to be allowed to hold another opinion than ours.

I don't think racists are crazy. We both see the same data and draw different conclusions. That's got to be allowed in a democracy.

Just as much as it's got to be allowed to be an atheist in a society predominantly religious. A price we pay for democracy is that we have to put up with people who don't agree with us, even if their opinion offends us. That includes giving them our countries highest honor if they did something to deserve it, no matter their beliefs.

Giving an outspoken racist a reward like this reflects positively on the tolerance of dissent of the Australian people. And that's the most beautiful and admirable thing I know. Go go Australia.

 

[Brian63]

No. But I was using exaggerated examples to show the faults in your arguments.

So apparently, FOR YOU EVEN, there is a hypothetical threshold where an athlete's on-field performance should not be the one-and-only determining factor in consideration of whether they should be given special honors, awards, etc. We disagree about what types of off-field behaviors should disqualify them and to what degree they should play a role. But you do not entirely exclude their off-field behaviors from consideration.

That threshold certainly isn't them holding an unpopular opinion.

Agreed. If you think the disqualification was *merely* having an unpopular opinion, then you are arguing against a strawman. They are not being disqualified for their opinions on international trade, for instance, regardless of how popular/unpopular those positions are. The disqualification is for much higher deeds, views or behaviors that a significant size of the population finds extremely morally revolting, for instance.

Humans have a right disagree with some mob.

Another strawman. Yes, they have a right to disagree with anyone and everyone. Their right to free speech is not being threatened with removal here. What is under contention is whether the organizers of the event also have a right to say that certain aspects of the person in question are so bad for the sport, bad for P.R., bad for future players and fans, etc. that they want to disassociate themselves from the person with those aspects.

I have no problem appreciating someone's abilities on the field even if I hold very different opinions on things other than the sport they are in.

Go ahead then. Nobody is saying that you are not allowed to. I can likewise think someone is/was a great athlete while simultaneously thinking they are a dipshit off the field. That was never, ever in contention here.

The issue in contention is whether people and organizations should be obligated to ignore those behaviors when they are deciding who to give special recognition to. Perhaps privately and publicly they think John Smith was a great athlete. Also privately and publicly, they acknowledge that John Smith’s immoral conduct was so over-the-top that they are not going to name trophies or tournaments or arenas after him. They have that right as well.

 

[Brian63]

No. But I was using exaggerated examples to show the faults in your arguments.

So apparently, FOR YOU EVEN, there is a hypothetical threshold where an athlete's on-field performance should not be the one-and-only determining factor in consideration of whether they should be given special honors, awards, etc. We disagree about what types of off-field behaviors should disqualify them and to what degree they should play a role. But you do not entirely exclude their off-field behaviors from consideration.

That threshold certainly isn't them holding an unpopular opinion. Humans have a right disagree with some mob. I have no problem appreciating someone's abilities on the field even if I hold very different opinions on things other than the sport they are in.

Ah, so you alone decide what is a reasonable professional standard and what is the "opinion of a mob"? Or perhaps right-wing media as a whole? Do explain. Evidently it is not the standards set by the organization who is sponsoring the award, so to whom should they appeal their judgement if they disagree?

Yup.

What if skepticalbip deems a certain behavior morally repugnant enough to disqualify an athlete from entrance into the Hall of Fame. Another fan of the sport says that skepticalbip is behaving like “a mob” for doing so. How would skepticalbip respond to that? Would you say “oh yeah, I guess my view is akin to behaving like a mob” or would you think your view is merited and analogizing it to mob behavior is stretching it too far?