Leaving woke culture and God

[DrZoidberg]

People, but not governments. Well, they can. But then the government has abandoned the pretense of being for democratic values. You can't have it both ways.

We were not even talking about the government banning or muzzling speech. We were discussing whether private trophies or arenas could and would be named after certain individuals, given the content of their off-court behavior. So this matter of bringing government into it is irrelevant and a red herring.

Then I don't understand what we are discussing? Wasn't this the government acknowledging an athlete's triumphs with awards. If it's a private organisation handing out the award, they're free to do wtf they want to with their toys. I have no problem with that. I'm for private organisations discriminating on whatever grounds they want. I only get up in arms if it's the government doing it.

 

[Brian63]

The part of the discussion I was participating in was about whether Margaret Court Smith should be honored by various factions of the sport of tennis, and having an arena named after her. Those are private matters. That was where I entered the discussion.

I emphasized also that it is a very separate matter of having the government involved and hypothetically saying she was not allowed to express her views. When people keep saying that she was not "allowed" or did not have the "right" to speak her mind, that terminology conflates the 2 very different concepts.

 

[skepticalbip]

People, but not governments. Well, they can. But then the government has abandoned the pretense of being for democratic values. You can't have it both ways.

We were not even talking about the government banning or muzzling speech. We were discussing whether private trophies or arenas could and would be named after certain individuals, given the content of their off-court behavior. So this matter of bringing government into it is irrelevant and a red herring.

Then I don't understand what we are discussing? Wasn't this the government acknowledging an athlete's triumphs with awards. If it's a private organisation handing out the award, they're free to do wtf they want to with their toys. I have no problem with that. I'm for private organisations discriminating on whatever grounds they want. I only get up in arms if it's the government doing it.

I'm with you. Private organizations can set their own criteria. The only problem I have is with the dishonesty in the criteria for the award. If wokeness is a criteria then the award should be for the outstanding woke athlete. If being white is a criteria then the award is for the outstanding white athlete. If being black is a criteria then the award is for the outstanding black athlete. If being heterosexual is a criteria then the award is for the outstanding heterosexual athlete. etc. etc. However if the award is for an outstanding athlete then other aspects of the contending athletes should be irrelevant in choosing and announcing the winner.

In this case they should announce that they want to name the stadium after a woke athlete, not necessarily the most outstanding athlete.

 

[Brian63]

However if the award is for an outstanding athlete then other aspects of the contending athletes should be irrelevant in choosing and announcing the winner.

With no exception? How about if the person was a child rapist?

No, asking that question does not imply that I think being a child rapist is equivalent to being "woke" at all. I am simply pointing out that there may be exceptions to that universal statement you just made, quoted here. There may be cases where, no matter how outstanding the athlete's performance on the field, there is some potential off the field grotesque behavior which may override it. Which constitutes which, and to which degree each is given priority, is a subjective determination. You are also making a subjective determination at the same time you are criticizing others for doing the same though.

 

[skepticalbip]

However if the award is for an outstanding athlete then other aspects of the contending athletes should be irrelevant in choosing and announcing the winner.

With no exception? How about if the person was a child rapist?

.

Damn dude... you do love your strawmen. In the real world a child rapist should be in prison, not on a public athletic field. I suppose he could compete in some prison league, if there is one, and be recognized as outstanding (better athletically than the murderers and other felons in the league) by that prison league.

In the real world, anyone that is in the arena competing should be in consideration for recognition by the organization that manages the events. If by the organization's rules, someone is ineligible for recognition then they would have been ineligible to compete on the field.

 

[Politesse]

In war we don't give a fuck about what opinions a soldier has, as long as he's shooting the enemy. Succeeding on the job should be what counts.

Then we profoundly disagree, and I think you are more of a danger to a free society than myself, though it should be understood that in either case it is making mountains out of molehills.

Yes, we do. But I don't think it's a minor issue. The way fascism works is that we stack the deck for certain groups, effectively blocking segments of the population from social advancements or awards. We only acknowledge the successes of certain people. Roosevelt didn't acknowledge Jesse Owen winning the 1936 Olympic medal springs to mind. My ex wives family is Jewish and is from Budapest. They're an upper middle class family. It's by putting these kinds of pressures on them that her family has now left Hungary. It's entirely due to political pressures. Worth noting that while given it his best shot, Hitler failed to remove her family from Hungary, back in the day.

This stuff isn't trivial. When governments put pressure on a population to encourage the expression of certain beliefs it kills discussion. Impopular opinions are left to fester in the shadows and it leads to extremism and political instability. I think you are naive not to see the inevitable result of the policy.

I think we also very much disagree about how "safe" pandering German and Italian fascists all through the 20's and 30's turned out to be. No, fluffing the dick of people who want to take freedoms away from others does not make us all more free, just because they define themselves as a minority or as unpopular. It makes them more free at everyone else's expense.

And no one has "banned" anyone from anything. Getting an award is a reward, but not getting an award (or not having a sports arena named after you) is not a punishment. It's just what most people do most of the time. Did you really grow up in such a lap of luxury that you think you are owed special golden stars for every damn thing you do?

No one has suggested taking away the woman's trophies that she won for particular matches and the like. She won those fair and square. At issue is a civil accolade, and one that they don't just give out to anyone who passes by.

 

[Brian63]

In the real world a child rapist should be in prison, not on a public athletic field.

But if he was the greatest ever athlete in the sport, he should still be given honors and awards, and not be removed from the Hall of Fame or have their name removed from the name of the trophy, yes? Even if he was also in prison at the same time? If you would disqualify him, then you are committing the very sin you are arguing against in this thread---considering their off field behavior when it comes to granting honors and awards.

 

[skepticalbip]

In the real world a child rapist should be in prison, not on a public athletic field.

But if he was the greatest ever athlete in the sport, he should still be given honors and awards, and not be removed from the Hall of Fame or have their name removed from the name of the trophy, yes? Even if he was also in prison at the same time? If you would disqualify him, then you are committing the very sin you are arguing against in this thread---considering their off field behavior when it comes to granting honors and awards.

If Hicham El Guerrou is ever found to have been a child rapist then his world record speed for running the mile would remain in the record books because it is a record. He would not be admired for his personal life but the record would stand. Who knows, he could well have some personal beliefs that would disgust you but that doesn't change the fact that the world record that he holds is real. Some angelic runner that doesn't beat his record could be noted as the fasted non-child rapist but not as the fasted miler.

 

[Brian63]

Bingo. Exactly.

In the case of Margaret Court Smith, for instance, she also is being acknowledged as a great tennis player on the court. That is a separate matter of whether awards or arenas should be officially named after her.

 

[Politesse]

If Hicham El Guerrou is ever found to have been a child rapist then his world record speed for running the mile would remain in the record books because it is a record. He would not admired for his personal life but the record would stand. Who knows, he could well have some personal beliefs that would disgust you but that doesn't change the fact that the world record that he holds is real. Some angelic runner that doesn't beat his record could be noted as the fasted non-child rapist but not as the fasted miler.

If that record stands whether or not he is admired or even accepted by society, why do you insist that he also needs to have a stadium named after him? No one has so much as suggested removing Court's sports accomplishments from all of history. The only controversial thing are the special public honors given and named for her, beyond the sport.

 

[skepticalbip]

Bingo. Exactly.

In the case of Margaret Court Smith, for instance, she also is being acknowledged as a great tennis player on the court. That is a separate matter of whether awards or arenas should be officially named after her.

Then sports arenas should never be named after any person because we never know what would be discovered about their personal life in the future?

 

[Brian63]

Holy non sequitur, skepticalbip. No, that is not an implication. Instead, we can grant awards and honors to people as far as we know who performed greatly in the sport and also honorably off the field. If later we do find out that they were domestic abusers, serial killers, cheated at the sport, et al then those awards and honors can be revoked. It does not at all imply they should not be given in the first place though.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^
You are back to saying that a stadium should be named after a woke athlete, not necessarily the best athlete. As I said earlier, the dedication should state that the honor was for wokeness in an athlete not because they were the most exceptional. That would make it clear to the avid fans of Margaret Court Smith why she was snubbed.

 

[jab]

^ ^
You are back to saying that a stadium should be named after a woke athlete, not necessarily the best athlete. As I said earlier, the dedication should state that the honor was for wokeness in an athlete not because they were the most exceptional. That would make it clear to the avid fans of Margaret Court Smith why she was snubbed.

Er, Arthur Ashe stadium at the U S Open--an outstanding player, but not the most successful American tennis player, or most successful American male tennis player. Would you say it was a "woke" mistake to name this stadium after him?

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^
You are back to saying that a stadium should be named after a woke athlete, not necessarily the best athlete. As I said earlier, the dedication should state that the honor was for wokeness in an athlete not because they were the most exceptional. That would make it clear to the avid fans of Margaret Court Smith why she was snubbed.

Er, Arthur Ashe stadium at the U S Open--an outstanding player, but not the most successful American tennis player, or most successful American male tennis player. Would you say it was a "woke" mistake to name this stadium after him?

The difference being that I know of absolutely no better American tennis player who was nominated for the honor but rejected because the PC police objected.

 

[Brian63]

You are back to saying that a stadium should be named after a woke athlete, not necessarily the best athlete.

Which is the same thing you would do. You also would disqualify an athlete from being honored and awarded if you discovered they were engaged in egregious and horrible behavior off the field, as subjectively determined by you.

Others have different subjective values from yours, but the same principle guides both---if they were a great player and appeared to be a great person, they are eligible. If they were later discovered to be morally revolting, they would be disqualified.

Discussing this with you is completely going in circles. You keep criticizing others for engaging in the same behavior you are engaging in yourself. You just call it a different label, like "woke" or "PC," but the principle remains the same.

 

[Politesse]

^ ^
You are back to saying that a stadium should be named after a woke athlete, not necessarily the best athlete. As I said earlier, the dedication should state that the honor was for wokeness in an athlete not because they were the most exceptional. That would make it clear to the avid fans of Margaret Court Smith why she was snubbed.

Er, Arthur Ashe stadium at the U S Open--an outstanding player, but not the most successful American tennis player, or most successful American male tennis player. Would you say it was a "woke" mistake to name this stadium after him?

The difference being that I know of absolutely no better American tennis player who was nominated for the honor but rejected because the PC police objected.

Strictly single-issue voter, are you?

 

[jab]

^ ^
You are back to saying that a stadium should be named after a woke athlete, not necessarily the best athlete. As I said earlier, the dedication should state that the honor was for wokeness in an athlete not because they were the most exceptional. That would make it clear to the avid fans of Margaret Court Smith why she was snubbed.

Er, Arthur Ashe stadium at the U S Open--an outstanding player, but not the most successful American tennis player, or most successful American male tennis player. Would you say it was a "woke" mistake to name this stadium after him?

The difference being that I know of absolutely no better American tennis player who was nominated for the honor but rejected because the PC police objected.

But I thought you objected to "woke" stadium namings when there are more successful athletes in the filed who are being passed over.

 

[skepticalbip]

The difference being that I know of absolutely no better American tennis player who was nominated for the honor but rejected because the PC police objected.

But I thought you objected to "woke" stadium namings when there are more successful athletes in the filed who are being passed over.

Then you didn't read very carefully. What I object to is the way the PC police work at trying to destroy the reputation of and to deny any honor to anyone they don't think is woke enough. It has even evolved into the current hate filled "cancel culture". Honor those who they think agree with them... no problem. Destruction of anyone that doesn't meet their 'standards' is just sick.

Both Margaret Court Smith and Arthur Ashe had large fan basses worldwide that brought their countries' tennis standing a great deal of respect. Both deserve honors.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Then I don't understand what we are discussing? Wasn't this the government acknowledging an athlete's triumphs with awards. If it's a private organisation handing out the award, they're free to do wtf they want to with their toys. I have no problem with that. I'm for private organisations discriminating on whatever grounds they want. I only get up in arms if it's the government doing it.

I'm with you. Private organizations can set their own criteria. The only problem I have is with the dishonesty in the criteria for the award. If wokeness is a criteria then the award should be for the outstanding woke athlete. If being white is a criteria then the award is for the outstanding white athlete. If being black is a criteria then the award is for the outstanding black athlete. If being heterosexual is a criteria then the award is for the outstanding heterosexual athlete. etc. etc. However if the award is for an outstanding athlete then other aspects of the contending athletes should be irrelevant in choosing and announcing the winner.

In this case they should announce that they want to name the stadium after a woke athlete, not necessarily the most outstanding athlete.

It's hard to measure though. If you decide never to attend a stadium who rejected naming itself after the greatest athlete. Since we all agree that at least one stadium should have the name. How would you know which stadium chose to take that choice. Since there's zero cost not to name a stadium after a specific person, then it has zero cost for them to be woke. while they can gain points for being woke. So woke wins. It's the same logic behind trying to prove God doesn't exist.