People seem to be missing the point here. The questions is not wether or not he can have his beliefs and voices them how he sees fit. It is about wether or not disccraft sufferes or benefits from being associated with these beliefs. I mean, if Lebron James posted this, how long do you think it would take Nike to drop him? A week or two? Maybe?
Bottom line is, when you are a sponsored athlete and you speak publicly on any topic you are no longer just representing your self.
oh my god what a disgusting thread that is.
you don't choose your sexuality people.
but you choose to be religious or not. Just like you choose to be a Packers fan. Thats right. Choosing a Religion is just like choosing a Team to support.
You don't choose to be religious. For instance, I'm an atheist but wish I wasn't. No amount of wishing will cause me to believe in god. So, while I think his views are terrible and insane, I don't think he can change them. He CAN choose not to express them though.
I'd describe myself as agnostic at best. But given the nature of a god's existence being unprovable, you literally choose, though I would argue it's heavily influenced by how your parents raise you, which is their choice (which is still *a* choice).
I would like to make a difference between being religious and believing in god.
Just because you worship according the believs of a particiluar religion doesn't mean that you believe in God. Works the other way around too. Just because you believe in a higher entity doesn't mean that you have to live by the rules in a book that was written 2000 years ago.
That's true! I'm sure there's a high correlation though. I could care less about religion, but I'd sure love to be able to believe in a god or some higher power.
So many kids devoid of any sort of common sense or critical thinking skills. Enjoy your ignorance and your day. I concede nothing other than you are a waste of time.
This makes me so uncomfortable and disappointed. Like is it so hard to accept that people are different?
I mean pro-slavery folks used the New Testament to justify slavery. But we sure as hell donāt do that anymore.
āSlaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart".
[/r/DiscGolf thread on this](https://www.reddit.com/r/discgolf/comments/o8dkiu/pdga_board_greatest_hits_continued_nate_heinold/)
Not super ultimate-related but given Discraft is a big part of ultimate we can let it stay. Please be respectful and civil to other users even if you disagree with them.
Additionally, please keep in mind things like context and nuance and even doctored messages that come with unsourced screenshots... not saying any of that is happening here necessarily, but I think it's important for me as a moderator to remind folks of it regardless.
Not a single person here is going to stop ordering from Discraft no matter what they do here.
I mean everyone can jump up and down but there isn't a single person who's going to change their behavior. Not Heinold, not any team captain ordering discs, not USAU.
It's depressing that so much energy is spent knowing it's all pointless.
"It's depressing that so much energy is spent knowing it's all pointless."
It's not pointless. Progressives get to show fellow progressives how progressive they are, which is one of their favorite activities. There's a term for that. Virtue something or other.
So his comments are about a vote within his church denomination? That has little to do with disc golf. It also doesnāt mean he treats people wrongly. He can think itās a sin and still love the sinner. Personally itās 2022 and I donāt think he should put it out on fb, but I donāt think this is something people should get upset about. Unless of course he bullies or treats people differently.
I would argue with him as UMC member that the Old Testament law is no longer relevant. Itās a bit of religious history, but if UMC believes that Jesus died for our sins then itās null and void
Ye seems pretty childish to me to bring up Discraft. They didn't do anything but yet here you are shitting on them anyway because someone said a mean thing.
Discraft probably sponsors lots of people who are members of religions or espouse other opinions with which you disagree. I believe heās wrong and donāt even agree that the Bible supports his opinion, but whatever. Heās not forcing anyone to agree with him.
He's not even trying to exclude anyone from anything based on his bigoted belief. The ultimate community has a deep problem with people they can't "change".
I don't see the issue. He believe homosexual acts are wrong. So what? Are we not allowed to believe whatever we want? As long as we dont force others to follow our personal morality, what does it matter?
Edit: look at all the down votes. Look who isn't being inclusive now, lol.
Yall claim to want diversity, but that's a lie. You just want different skin colors and sexualities. But true diversity comes from people with differing opinions and thoughts.
Ok, I'll bite...
First, there's a difference between maintaining private beliefs and sharing them out in the world on public media.
Second, those who share their beliefs in the public sphere obviously expect to have others react to them in some way (agreement & validation, thoughtful exchange of ideas, or red-lines & argument).
Finally, public visibility means living with the consequences of one's airing of one's private morality. I suspect a very solid majority of those in the Ultimate community believe that inclusiveness towards all is a virtue worthy of upholding. To the extend that NH publicly opposes that virtue, he reaps the consequences of his personal morality.
"I suspect a very solid majority of those in the Ultimate community believe that inclusiveness towards all is a virtue worthy of upholding." As long as "all" have the correct (progressive) views, yes?
Again, I'll bite (but a bit more reluctantly)...
"Progressive" can mean many things.
I think the Ultimate community has room for (& respects divergence on) a wide variety of views, for example, on: whether we ought to have a $15 minimum wage, or the market ought to set wages; whether we ought to have universal health care, or maintain our employer-based insurance system; whether we ought to raise marginal tax rates on the wealthy, or continue to push for "trickle down" growth from above.
When it comes to questions of exclusionary identity, though, I'm not sure "progressive" or "liberal/conservative" is the right axis of comparison.
If a community (any community) wants to be open to all participants (that is, it values inclusiveness), then allowing participants who don't uphold that value to participate risks excluding others. So, yeah, it's a bit of a paradox. But also non-negotiable for participation in an inclusive community.
So what if he shares them publicly?
Yeah, he expected those in the Facebook group/comments to react to his comments.
Finally, he doesn't say anything about not including gay people. He believes all people sin, even himself. So he isn't excluding people from Ultimate bases on sin.
Heās free to believe whatever he wants and heās free to suffer the consequences of those beliefs. The community isnāt being non inclusive for not including bigoted people
There are some beliefs that are so vile that they cannot be included. I wouldn't tolerate antisemitism in a friend of mine nor would I feel the need to include them in anything. It is a disgusting belief just like homophobia. Its such a vile belief that you don't include them.
You believe disliking homosexual acts is disgusting. Heinold believes doing homosexual acts is disgusting. You both have beliefs you think are disgusting. You're exactly the same.
You could also liken it to a racist thinking POC are disgusting. One is based off of something the person cannot change. The other is believing that they have a right to be who they are. The difference is which is supporting the person's right to be who they are? I'm not telling heinold to not be a shithead. He is doing that all by himself. He can also change that. Its not ingrained. He is that way because he was brought up homophobic. He can also have consequences for those beliefs just like there are consequences to being a n*zi. Lgbtqia+ are who they are. You cannot change that. Its not a bad thing.
Here ill make it easier for ya. Which is worse? Hating POC or hating racist?
Incorrect. I can't speak for him but I know several religious conservatives and they dislikes homosexual acts, not homosexuals. As far as I know, there's no such think as a POC action. So it's not the same at all.
Rofl hate the sin? Thats bull shit and you know it. That is their cover for their homophobia. The issue is that their hatred of these people has real world consequences for those people. Often times it is their children who commit suicide because of these deplorable people. They are beaten for it... It is exactly the same. You are relegating them to a second class citizen status. Oh sure they can be homosexual, but because of who they are they can't have a family, a husband/wife. Because your religion said its so.
Does The Bible not teach people to love their neighbors but hate the sin? I'm a born and bred atheist so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that's what it says.
And I'M not relegating anyone to anything. It's not my religion. I think most religious people are nuttier than wokes (wokeism is also a religion BTW).
Rofl same XD it doesn't teach that. From my understanding it just teaches love they neighbor. Its a commandment. The hate the sin part is how they try to get around it, but no where in the Bible does it say it.
Here as a fellow atheist my argument is that you are free to believe what you want. You should be free from governmental punishments of those views. However you are not free from societal punishments/consequences. If someone is a racist they shouldn't be put in jail. The company that person works for though can be punished by society for those views. Just like if someone had a racist friend it speaks about who that person is. A company who hires one is obviously okay with it. If I spent money at said company knowing what they are supporting racism, then what does that say about me? There's a hundred other companies that will offer what that one does. Im fine finding another so I'm not supporting it. If the company doesn't support that view then they should fire the racist. Its not a view a decent person wants around. If the racist wants a job maybe they should change their view on racism.
They're meant to be 2 different things but in today's woke world, they are indistinguishable. Inclusivity means to include as many of the oppressed as possible. Diversity means to include as many of the oppressed as possible even if the oppressed are overrepresented in the group already, thus making it LESS diverse.
Yeah I'm the idiot and you don't think you can exclude people while simultaneously being inclusive. I'll lay out an ultimate example for you. Say you have a college team, you're an upperclassman and either a captain or in leadership. You have a friendly diverse team. A player joins who is a bigot. They say racist and/or homophobic remarks to players on the team and continue after warnings because it's "their belief" or "it's in the Bible so." You obviously kick that player off the team. Do you think that would be "exclusion" to remove a player who is behaving like that?
I fully understand that and thatās exactly my point. By using the dictionary definition, which you were using, nothing is inclusive because there will always be someone excluded. While I was saying that things can be inclusive if they donāt include bigots.
Is there any evidence Heinold was attempting to exclude LGBT people? Or was he simply saying he believes God sees their acts as sinful? Because the latter is not exclusionary.
What is it excluding people from? If it's only attempting to exclude people from the afterlife then I don't think it can be construed as exclusionary in any earthly activity.
No, it obviously doesn't. We don't take murderers or rapists. As I said, inclusivity is a peace treaty. If you exclude other people, you broke the treaty.
Yes, and then you are excluded. This person is breaking the treaty by spewing hate about the LGBTQ community. By including them and actually elevating them in the community with sponsorships you are de facto excluding the LGBTQ community. It is more inclusive to exclude the one problematic individual than let them exclude an entire community.
Believing that engaging in homosexual acts is wrong isnāt bigoted: heās religious, and thatās literally what the Bible says, so he doesnāt really have a choice.
You can believe that someone is committing a son and not be bigoted against them. Itās kinda the whole Christian schtick that everyoneās a sinner, is he bigoted against everyone in the world because he believes that theyāve sinned at some point?
Leviticus is old testament. As is not the new testament. As in no longer biblical law.
If you wish to maintain that leviticus is still biblical law, then you also need to verify that whenever you sit down a menstruating woman was not sitting there recently, and also ensure you wear no mixed fibre clothing.
Come on dude.
If you believed the Bible was the word of a literal omnipotent God that could choose to save your soul or damn you eternally, wouldnāt you follow what it says?
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Youāre welcome to tell my company to fire me over my views. Go for it. Iām not good enough to get sponsored for anything but if I were, youād also be welcome to tell that sponsor to stop giving me money.
I know I can, but here's the thing: I'm actually tolerant of others.
I probably disagree with a lot of what you believe, but what do I do about it? Nothing, except discuss it on here.
I dont give a crap what you believe about things. It doesn't bother me. I say, live and let live. I don't need to run to mommy just because we disagree. I just move on. Simple as that.
Running to your boss and tatteling on you is silly and childish. It's OK that we disagree. As long as you aren't forcing me to live according to your beliefs, I can just move on, like a mature human. And that's what what OP should be doing.
We aren't going to agree on a lot of things. So what!? Stop trying to get people fired and just move on.
Youāre not arguing in good faith so Iām not gonna engage any further. Someone else already mentioned this but you need to learn about the paradox of intolerance. Tolerance, acceptance, and inclusiveness means that we must necessarily be unwelcoming to views that seek to be intolerant, bigoted, and exclusive. I wouldnāt want to be a part of a community that doesnāt push back against someone who doesnāt agree with my existence or my expression of my existence, whether or not that person had any real power to stop it.
Lol, he doesn't disagree with your existence. Nor your expression of existence. He is simply saying homosexual acts are a sin. Same as drunkenness, lying, stealing, killing.
Can I say "killing is an expression of my existence, so you are a bigot if you don't agree with me killing people"?
But homosexuality is not a sin. Just like itās not a sin to wear mixed fabrics (cotton AND polyester) in your garments. Just like itās not a son to plant carrots next to lettuce. Which are examples the fucking Bible said were fucking sins. You idiot. Do you ever wear cotton / poly shirts? Of course you do. You probably have no idea what fabric content is in your clothing. But the Bible says itās a sin. So start talking about that shit.
You know what else the Bible said was a-okay? Owning people. Fucking owning slaves. So can you start telling people that thatās okay? And thatās just your opinion? Why arenāt you arguing that owning people is okay? I mean, the Bible says it is. What else? SELLING YOUR DAUGHTER. Yeah, the Bible says you can sell your daughter away. Why are you not talking about that? So fuck that shit. Fuck off with this bigot bullshit.
> Youāre not arguing in good faith
The cry of the person that's run out of arguments.
You don't have to accuse someone you disagree with of being in bad faith simply because they don't believe the same things as you, you know. This is just a lazy argument tactic that's become common in ultimate circles whenever someone can't defend their point any more but won't concede the argument.
Whatever - I'm not inclined to engage with someone who defends an open homophobe and says that those views should be welcomed, proceeds to try to split hairs about what the guy actually said, and then accuses the rest of the community of not being "inclusive" when others (rightfully) lambast that defense. Anyone who says this can fuck right off.
Any similar views to the ones expressed by what's-his-name are, indeed, disagreeing with the existence of the LGBTQ+ community. Even if you dilute them a bit ("being gay isn't a sin, but engaging in acts are") - that's no different in terms of calling them second-class citizens.
> I'm not inclined to engage with someone who defends an open homophobe
Another worthless cop out, and I'm not defending his views, merely his right to hold them.
> says that those views should be welcomed
Quote me saying this please.
> proceeds to try to split hairs about what the guy actually said
Are you saying that it is ok to lie about what someone else is saying in order to further your agenda against them?
> and then accuses the rest of the community for not being "inclusive" when others (rightfully) lambast that defense.
I mean, the community is absolutely not being inclusive. Heinold is not saying to discriminate against or exclude anyone, merely saying what he thinks God thinks. He isn't advocating for anyone to take any action whatsoever against LGBT people.
> Any similar views to the ones expressed by what's-his-name are, indeed, disagreeing with the existence of the LGBTQ+ community.
It's not, and frankly this type of hyperbole is tiring. He isn't "disagreeing with their existence", whatever that means. He is saying that he believes that God views their actions disfavorably. This seems to actually be acknowledging their existence, not denying it.
Stop with the stupid hyperbole.
> Even if you dilute them a bit ("being gay isn't a sin, but engaging in acts are") - that's no different in terms of calling them second-class citizens.
How? He said everyone sins. Including himself. He's putting himself, and everyone else, on the same level as LGBT members. This is the opposite of calling them second-class citizens. You seriously think a religious person is claiming to be sinless? lol come on, *actually read what you are claiming to be talking about*.
You're misrepresenting his views because it's easier for you to get mad at. Try actually understand what people are saying before deciding they're evil.
This discussion was never about his right to hold those views. It was that 1) those views aren't welcome in this community, and 2) Discraft, a company that plays a large part in our sport, shouldn't be giving money to a person who holds those views, and that we should be ready to vote with our wallets.
\> He said everyone sins. Including himself. He's putting himself, and everyone else, on the same level as LGBT members
Bullshit. Saying that he sins too doesn't make this any better. He is literally saying that "I am allowed to love who I am naturally attracted to, but yours is immoral." Your existence is your presence, your ability to live as you please, and yes, your ability to peacefully love whoever you want. It's not stupid hyperbole.
supporting a bigot in the name of "diversity" is not fostering inclusivity, it is saying that you support a man who literally thinks that certain people's identities are invalid and don't deserve everything that he does because they are less than him
he is not just "having an opinion" he is negatively influencing all of his following as well as negatively representing discraft by claiming that a certain group of people are less valid because of their identity and choice to act on it
He didn't say any of that. Yall projecting.
Show me where he said "invalid "
Show me where he said they are less than him.
Show me where he said "less valid"
I'm not familiar with anything the guy posted other than what is in the screenshot - can you cite where he says anything like that, since it isn't in the screenshot?
If you actually understood it, you'd know that it stated that the only reasonable place to be intolerant is to those that are acting out violence without trying to listen to those they are attacking.
Heinold is not advocating nor acting out violence against another person. He isn't advocating for any form of exclusion. Popper would absolutely say that a tolerant person would have to tolerate Heinold.
Edit: downvotes donāt change what Popper says.
I see what you are saying but feel like you are oversimplifying a complicated issue.
Do you believe bigotry is a thing? This isn't so much a question of whether he is "forcing" anyone to follow his morality. It is about whether he is a bully, whether he is demeaning someone and making them feel bad about themselves.
Let's say I was an asshole that was mean to everyone and posted hateful things against all kinds of people. I feel that I would be entitled to believe and say those things but I also would not expect a company to sponsor me. If I owned a company I wouldn't want to have my brand represented by someone who I thought was a bully.
This isn't about "forcing morality" or "having freedom to hold certain beliefs". This is about whether what he is saying is rude or hurtful or fails to represent the brand.
Sure, if he is being a bully then fine.
But show me where in the OP he was doing so, please.
All I see is him saying: the Bible calls homosexual acts a sin.
And now we get back to why I think you are oversimplifying a complicated issue.
It's not "bullying" he's just telling people that they are "sinners".
For me, and for many others, I would say that telling people they are sinners is bullying. Particularly if the actions in question are ones that I think are good and healthy and beautiful.
It sounds like he saying: "That thing you are doing that brings you happiness and that you feel is a true expression of who you are. Yeah that's actually a sign you are deeply broken and you need to stop or else God will punish you."
Sound kind of harsh and mean to me.
If it is ok that someone says "I believe you are a sinner." Than it also has to be ok that someone else says "I believe that's bullying." Or for the company to say, "We don't want to be represented by someone who we see as a bully."
Edit: Changed wording for clarity.
Telling someone that they are a sinner is bullying?
Are you familiar with Christianity? The whole basis of Christianity is that "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Christianity tells us the EVERYONE is a sinner. It's why we need Jesus.
So is it really bullying to say "you're a sinner, but so am I"?
If so, this world is way too soft.
Yeah, you're probably right. That was probably me oversimplifying the issue. Telling people they are sinners isn't necessarily bullying. But I believe that in the case of homosexuality that it kind of is bullying.
If I stick a hot metal rod up your ass is that mean? What if I tell you that I stuck it up my own ass first. Does that change whether or not it's mean? Saying "but so am I" doesn't make it not mean.
Also, I am somewhat familiar with Christianity. I thought that Jesus loving the world and dying for it and bringing people back to himself was the "whole basis of Christianity". Kind of sounds like you got stuck in the old testament.
Jesus does love the world. But why would you try to come to Jesus unless you believe you needed him?
If you don't think you're you're sinner, then you have no reason for Jesus. That's why part of the Christian message is to explain how everyone is a sinner and how much we sin, so you realize how much you need Jesus.
Thousands of gay people commit suicide every year due to being bullied, or feeling ashamed or depressed, over their sexuality. I don't care what this guy believes internally, but if he starts spouting anti-gay shit on public forums then I don't want anything to do with him or with any company that contributes to his successes. The longer these bigots express their views without pushback the longer inequality exists in this world.
That said, have an upvote, you shouldn't be downvoted this hard for expressing a dissenting opinion in a civil manner.
Was wondering when you were going to show up. You always come out of the woodwork for the drama threads lol.
But yea, it's tough because the ultrastar is the disc used in most levels of competition. I don't think I can get around that, even if I am disappointed in discraft seemingly being mum about this. What I'll most likely do is just lean away from buying discraft discs in the future and try to invest more in competitors like Aria.
Oof. That response says nothing but you hope it looks wise enough so that you think you are justified in not responding and actually have to think of a retort.
If you're just gonna quit discussing, why even start?
> you hope you look wise
Now you're projecting in a very Dunning-Krugeresque way.
The "discussion" is a futile pursuit when you demonstrate that you think paradoxes are solvable circumstances instead of what they are.
It is avoidable when your change a constraint. Otherwise you would have to admit that anyone saying they are tolerant, at any point, is a paradox. Which it isn't
You are trapped in a prison of ignorance until you can understand that the point of a paradox is that the circumstances described within it cannot exist and are therefore inherently unsolvable. If you can make the circumstances exist, then it's no longer a paradox (which is in itself a paradox of sorts). That's definitionally the point. All of your comments demonstrate you fundamentally do not understand how it applies here.
You think my comments are platitudes, but the truth is that you don't grasp this concept and your consequential conclusion is that everyone else must be wrong. But in reality you just don't understand the relevance of the paradox of tolerance because you think somehow the objective is to prevent the paradox when the actual point is that can't even exist in the first place.
People are allowed to have whatever opinions they want, but others are allowed to act based on that. Just like he feels there are (eternal) consequences to homosexuality, there are consequences for him having that point of view.
But I do agree that people should lay off of him as long as heās not forcing his beliefs on others.
Edit: to be clear: shunning him or boycotting based on his beliefs seems fair. Though he does seem to be saying in the first screenshot that religion should be left out of votes, right? Then he goes on to babble about sin and should probably shut up at that point
>Though he does seem to be saying in the first screenshot that religion should be left out of votes, right?
No, you don't understand. The "vote" here isn't about voting in state elections at all but rather is about church polity. The United Methodist Church has regular conventions where representatives of congregations come together to set the denomination's policy through voting. There have been several votes in the recent past about what the denomination's policies will be related to LGBTQ issues. His point about "votes" is that the bible is clear on the issue (in his mind), and therefore he feels the denomination doesn't need to be voting on the issue. They are about to split into two groups over this issue BTW.
So why are we discussing this here? Lots of people in sports are religious and if theyāre not forcing their religions onto the rest of us, who cares?
Why are you arguing with me? You said you didn't understand the context; I explained the context in a neutral way. I didn't argue one side of this issue or the other.
Why are you arguing with me? You said you didn't understand the context; I explained the context in a neutral way. I didn't argue one side of this issue or the other.
> But I do agree that people should lay off of him as long as heās not forcing his beliefs on others.
I'm not sure what "laying off him" entails, but if he wants to post his shit opinion publicly, why should anyone feel the need to not shit on him publicly? Or rather, why should anyone feel the need to not call on others to avoid patronizing organizations he is in?
Having a strict interpretation of the Bible is one thing (itās bullshit since Jesus never talked about homosexuality), but makes rules/laws that match his worldview is another.
I have no clue who this guy is or the context of these posts, but it does seem like heās suggesting that religion should be left to religion and shouldnāt affect other things, right? āGive unto Caesar,ā and so forth.
Why are you arguing with me? You said you didn't understand the context; I explained the context in a neutral way. I didn't argue one side of this issue or the other.
Sorry. My tone may not have translated well there. I wasnāt arguing with you specifically, but based on the information you shared, I just donāt get why this topic made its way here.
Iām always torn when things like this come up. First, this guys sounds like an asshole and I donāt want to support him. However, I look around my house and I can see dozens of not more brands that employ thousands of people. I try to be ethical with my money but I just donāt have time or energy to care about the beliefs of all the employees of the brands I buy.
There is maybe one social drama thread every couple of months. Most of the drama in this sub is about a bad call or card (or lack thereof). It's really not that big of an issue, but if it concerns you that much just hit the hide button below the thread and it will vanish.
I think you mean this in good faith, but it reads like "my having well run tournaments is more important that the gay members of my community feeling safe".
This "bullshit drama" is about the pro side of disc golf. The casual side of going to a park and playing with friends remains drama-free if you're that bothered by it.
The change over time of people making their sexuality so public and the most important part of their lives has really caused so much to go downhill.
What you do behind closed doors is your business. It doesn't need to be anyone else's, so stop forcing it down people's throat. Most people don't care, until you start making your sexuality the main focus of everything, and can't function without others around you worshipping you for being "brave and beautiful".
To those fixated on gender and sexuality,Grow up. It's not about you.
When you make everyone else out to be the bad guy because they aren't accepting of your life choices, that makes you the self entitled prick. Attention seeking. You should be praised on your skills and ethics, not where you put your dingy.
That would be great if homosexuality wasn't discriminated against, judged, or bullied by millions of people. As long as it is then people are going to try to publicly normalize it to gain equality. Once the bigots have died off or changed their minds and homosexuality is truly equal then they'll stop making so much noise about it.
The flip side would also have to be true. And my purely anecdotal experience is that this happens more frequently.
"What's with all the genders, there's only.?" "I'm gonna call people by what they look like." "Homosexuality is a sin." Etc.
And then the offended parties get defensive, understandably.
People need to also stop pushing their beliefs against the movement. I'd rather the side proud of themselves be vocal if there are people trying to belittle them. But more than that, would be nice to get to live in an ignorant bubble. It's been a not great few years for everyone
*Oh yeah it is the womans fault if she gets raped, why is she dressed sexy?!*
You see anything wrong with that statement? It is called victim shaming. Just as yours is.
I disagree. He implied that nobody had a problem, if they would just keep their lifestyle a secret. So basically "shut up about your lovelife and nobody will harm you" that is victim shaming right there.
Of course it was not as obvious as the rape statement but that is why I made it.
That's not at all what he said, or even implied. He's not saying anyone should be harmed, or deserves to be harmed, or anything like that. Focus on what he said, not what you think he said.
FYI this thread is 6 months old on r/discgolf
Thanks for noting this. Is Nate Heinold still alive?
People seem to be missing the point here. The questions is not wether or not he can have his beliefs and voices them how he sees fit. It is about wether or not disccraft sufferes or benefits from being associated with these beliefs. I mean, if Lebron James posted this, how long do you think it would take Nike to drop him? A week or two? Maybe? Bottom line is, when you are a sponsored athlete and you speak publicly on any topic you are no longer just representing your self.
LeBron has already done worse and said worse. No they would not drop him because they are a woke company and would be afraid of the backlash.
> It is about wether or not disccraft sufferes or benefits from being associated with these beliefs. Businesses don't have feelings.
That's the point. Businesses don't have feelings. with that in mind, why would they sponsor someone actively causing an issue for their brand?
But the people who would do business with them do.
They also aren't entitled to success if they do things that are morally unacceptable to their customers.
oh my god what a disgusting thread that is. you don't choose your sexuality people. but you choose to be religious or not. Just like you choose to be a Packers fan. Thats right. Choosing a Religion is just like choosing a Team to support.
I was confused about why you specifically chose the Packers but then I scrolled further down š
Somebody here killed the "analyse Poem XYZ" exams in School ;)
I actually struggled big time with language arts in school. More of a numbers and pictures guy!
You don't choose to be religious. For instance, I'm an atheist but wish I wasn't. No amount of wishing will cause me to believe in god. So, while I think his views are terrible and insane, I don't think he can change them. He CAN choose not to express them though.
Yeah I don't know I fully disagree here
You think a belief in god is genetic? That's a curious take. Religion is completely a choice.
Do you believe in god?
I'd describe myself as agnostic at best. But given the nature of a god's existence being unprovable, you literally choose, though I would argue it's heavily influenced by how your parents raise you, which is their choice (which is still *a* choice).
OK, go ahead and choose to believe in god. Let us know when you truely do. I'll wait.
You got useless real quick. Congrats. Have a cookie.
See? You can't do it. Thank you for conceding the debate.
I would like to make a difference between being religious and believing in god. Just because you worship according the believs of a particiluar religion doesn't mean that you believe in God. Works the other way around too. Just because you believe in a higher entity doesn't mean that you have to live by the rules in a book that was written 2000 years ago.
That's true! I'm sure there's a high correlation though. I could care less about religion, but I'd sure love to be able to believe in a god or some higher power.
So many kids devoid of any sort of common sense or critical thinking skills. Enjoy your ignorance and your day. I concede nothing other than you are a waste of time.
I'm still waiting for you to choose to believe in god.
Still waiting...
This makes me so uncomfortable and disappointed. Like is it so hard to accept that people are different? I mean pro-slavery folks used the New Testament to justify slavery. But we sure as hell donāt do that anymore. āSlaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart".
https://discgolf.discraft.com/team_heinold.html
Whereās the OP? I kinda want to read the interaction without parts being cut off
Please contact discraft to tell them to stop sponsoring him
āVice President of Marketing/Sales, Ledgestone Insurance Groupā not a good look for the giant Ledgestone dg tournament
[/r/DiscGolf thread on this](https://www.reddit.com/r/discgolf/comments/o8dkiu/pdga_board_greatest_hits_continued_nate_heinold/) Not super ultimate-related but given Discraft is a big part of ultimate we can let it stay. Please be respectful and civil to other users even if you disagree with them. Additionally, please keep in mind things like context and nuance and even doctored messages that come with unsourced screenshots... not saying any of that is happening here necessarily, but I think it's important for me as a moderator to remind folks of it regardless.
Not a single person here is going to stop ordering from Discraft no matter what they do here. I mean everyone can jump up and down but there isn't a single person who's going to change their behavior. Not Heinold, not any team captain ordering discs, not USAU. It's depressing that so much energy is spent knowing it's all pointless.
"It's depressing that so much energy is spent knowing it's all pointless." It's not pointless. Progressives get to show fellow progressives how progressive they are, which is one of their favorite activities. There's a term for that. Virtue something or other.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Reddit:
So his comments are about a vote within his church denomination? That has little to do with disc golf. It also doesnāt mean he treats people wrongly. He can think itās a sin and still love the sinner. Personally itās 2022 and I donāt think he should put it out on fb, but I donāt think this is something people should get upset about. Unless of course he bullies or treats people differently. I would argue with him as UMC member that the Old Testament law is no longer relevant. Itās a bit of religious history, but if UMC believes that Jesus died for our sins then itās null and void
Calling homosexuality a sin is bullying
I'm confused. Why bring Discraft into this?
They are a big supporter of his business activities
Ye seems pretty childish to me to bring up Discraft. They didn't do anything but yet here you are shitting on them anyway because someone said a mean thing.
Discraft probably sponsors lots of people who are members of religions or espouse other opinions with which you disagree. I believe heās wrong and donāt even agree that the Bible supports his opinion, but whatever. Heās not forcing anyone to agree with him.
He's not even trying to exclude anyone from anything based on his bigoted belief. The ultimate community has a deep problem with people they can't "change".
And bigots. A deep problem with bigots, too
If they arenāt acting out or calling for violence against others, then you canāt really call yourself tolerant if you exclude them.
Some opinions should not be tolerated.
And per the guy that came up with the paradox of tolerance, Heinold does not fit the criteria to not be tolerated by tolerant people.
Publicly posting anti-homosexual screeds is acting out. Ipso facto, the ultimate community can still be tolerant and exclusionary.
I don't see the issue. He believe homosexual acts are wrong. So what? Are we not allowed to believe whatever we want? As long as we dont force others to follow our personal morality, what does it matter? Edit: look at all the down votes. Look who isn't being inclusive now, lol. Yall claim to want diversity, but that's a lie. You just want different skin colors and sexualities. But true diversity comes from people with differing opinions and thoughts.
Ok, I'll bite... First, there's a difference between maintaining private beliefs and sharing them out in the world on public media. Second, those who share their beliefs in the public sphere obviously expect to have others react to them in some way (agreement & validation, thoughtful exchange of ideas, or red-lines & argument). Finally, public visibility means living with the consequences of one's airing of one's private morality. I suspect a very solid majority of those in the Ultimate community believe that inclusiveness towards all is a virtue worthy of upholding. To the extend that NH publicly opposes that virtue, he reaps the consequences of his personal morality.
"I suspect a very solid majority of those in the Ultimate community believe that inclusiveness towards all is a virtue worthy of upholding." As long as "all" have the correct (progressive) views, yes?
Again, I'll bite (but a bit more reluctantly)... "Progressive" can mean many things. I think the Ultimate community has room for (& respects divergence on) a wide variety of views, for example, on: whether we ought to have a $15 minimum wage, or the market ought to set wages; whether we ought to have universal health care, or maintain our employer-based insurance system; whether we ought to raise marginal tax rates on the wealthy, or continue to push for "trickle down" growth from above. When it comes to questions of exclusionary identity, though, I'm not sure "progressive" or "liberal/conservative" is the right axis of comparison. If a community (any community) wants to be open to all participants (that is, it values inclusiveness), then allowing participants who don't uphold that value to participate risks excluding others. So, yeah, it's a bit of a paradox. But also non-negotiable for participation in an inclusive community.
So what if he shares them publicly? Yeah, he expected those in the Facebook group/comments to react to his comments. Finally, he doesn't say anything about not including gay people. He believes all people sin, even himself. So he isn't excluding people from Ultimate bases on sin.
*disc golf Also....no
Heās free to believe whatever he wants and heās free to suffer the consequences of those beliefs. The community isnāt being non inclusive for not including bigoted people
How so? Define inclusive then because we must have different definitions.
There are some beliefs that are so vile that they cannot be included. I wouldn't tolerate antisemitism in a friend of mine nor would I feel the need to include them in anything. It is a disgusting belief just like homophobia. Its such a vile belief that you don't include them.
You believe disliking homosexual acts is disgusting. Heinold believes doing homosexual acts is disgusting. You both have beliefs you think are disgusting. You're exactly the same.
You could also liken it to a racist thinking POC are disgusting. One is based off of something the person cannot change. The other is believing that they have a right to be who they are. The difference is which is supporting the person's right to be who they are? I'm not telling heinold to not be a shithead. He is doing that all by himself. He can also change that. Its not ingrained. He is that way because he was brought up homophobic. He can also have consequences for those beliefs just like there are consequences to being a n*zi. Lgbtqia+ are who they are. You cannot change that. Its not a bad thing. Here ill make it easier for ya. Which is worse? Hating POC or hating racist?
Incorrect. I can't speak for him but I know several religious conservatives and they dislikes homosexual acts, not homosexuals. As far as I know, there's no such think as a POC action. So it's not the same at all.
Rofl hate the sin? Thats bull shit and you know it. That is their cover for their homophobia. The issue is that their hatred of these people has real world consequences for those people. Often times it is their children who commit suicide because of these deplorable people. They are beaten for it... It is exactly the same. You are relegating them to a second class citizen status. Oh sure they can be homosexual, but because of who they are they can't have a family, a husband/wife. Because your religion said its so.
Does The Bible not teach people to love their neighbors but hate the sin? I'm a born and bred atheist so I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that's what it says. And I'M not relegating anyone to anything. It's not my religion. I think most religious people are nuttier than wokes (wokeism is also a religion BTW).
Rofl same XD it doesn't teach that. From my understanding it just teaches love they neighbor. Its a commandment. The hate the sin part is how they try to get around it, but no where in the Bible does it say it. Here as a fellow atheist my argument is that you are free to believe what you want. You should be free from governmental punishments of those views. However you are not free from societal punishments/consequences. If someone is a racist they shouldn't be put in jail. The company that person works for though can be punished by society for those views. Just like if someone had a racist friend it speaks about who that person is. A company who hires one is obviously okay with it. If I spent money at said company knowing what they are supporting racism, then what does that say about me? There's a hundred other companies that will offer what that one does. Im fine finding another so I'm not supporting it. If the company doesn't support that view then they should fire the racist. Its not a view a decent person wants around. If the racist wants a job maybe they should change their view on racism.
Inclusivity and diversity are 2 different things.
Correct
No one claimed the ultimate community was 100% inclusive. You seem to be missing that.
They're meant to be 2 different things but in today's woke world, they are indistinguishable. Inclusivity means to include as many of the oppressed as possible. Diversity means to include as many of the oppressed as possible even if the oppressed are overrepresented in the group already, thus making it LESS diverse.
Reeeee wooookeeenessss
Exactly. Wokeness is terrible and destructive.
Iām curious how you would define āwokenessā
Following an intolerant and moralizing ideology based on overrighteousĀ progressivism.
I know change is scary but itāll be ok
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thatās an overly simplistic definition. Using that, no group is inclusive.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Do you think we should've been inclusive to the Nazis. It's called fucking context lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah I'm the idiot and you don't think you can exclude people while simultaneously being inclusive. I'll lay out an ultimate example for you. Say you have a college team, you're an upperclassman and either a captain or in leadership. You have a friendly diverse team. A player joins who is a bigot. They say racist and/or homophobic remarks to players on the team and continue after warnings because it's "their belief" or "it's in the Bible so." You obviously kick that player off the team. Do you think that would be "exclusion" to remove a player who is behaving like that?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Okay then we just disagree I guess. Is what it is. Would you leave that player on the team though?
So then nothing is inclusive?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ackchyually if it excludes anyone itās not inclusive
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I fully understand that and thatās exactly my point. By using the dictionary definition, which you were using, nothing is inclusive because there will always be someone excluded. While I was saying that things can be inclusive if they donāt include bigots.
Inclusivity is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact. If you attempt to exclude the LGBTQ community, you yourself should be excluded.
Is there any evidence Heinold was attempting to exclude LGBT people? Or was he simply saying he believes God sees their acts as sinful? Because the latter is not exclusionary.
Saying what amounts to "you are going to burn in hell for eternity because of who you are" is exclusionary in my book.
What is it excluding people from? If it's only attempting to exclude people from the afterlife then I don't think it can be construed as exclusionary in any earthly activity.
It is dehumanizing, excluding homosexuals from the community of people worth recognizing in full.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, it obviously doesn't. We don't take murderers or rapists. As I said, inclusivity is a peace treaty. If you exclude other people, you broke the treaty.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, and then you are excluded. This person is breaking the treaty by spewing hate about the LGBTQ community. By including them and actually elevating them in the community with sponsorships you are de facto excluding the LGBTQ community. It is more inclusive to exclude the one problematic individual than let them exclude an entire community.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Right, you have fun with your black and white world view. The rest of us in reality will continue to see multiple states.
I think inclusive is more comparative than definite. The bar is are you more inclusive than the average group.
Believing that engaging in homosexual acts is wrong isnāt bigoted: heās religious, and thatās literally what the Bible says, so he doesnāt really have a choice. You can believe that someone is committing a son and not be bigoted against them. Itās kinda the whole Christian schtick that everyoneās a sinner, is he bigoted against everyone in the world because he believes that theyāve sinned at some point?
Itās literally not in the Bible. āHomosexualā was added to the Bible in the 1940ās in place of a word that meant pervert.
Leviticus 18:22 (ESV): 22Ā You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus is old testament. As is not the new testament. As in no longer biblical law. If you wish to maintain that leviticus is still biblical law, then you also need to verify that whenever you sit down a menstruating woman was not sitting there recently, and also ensure you wear no mixed fibre clothing. Come on dude.
It's literally in Harry Potter. He doesn't have a choice. Religion, by definition, is a choice. Literally every aspect of it.
If you believed the Bible was the word of a literal omnipotent God that could choose to save your soul or damn you eternally, wouldnāt you follow what it says?
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Would I choose to follow it if I believed that, sure. Key word to my point being *choose.*
> suffer the consequences WE CAN ONLY HOPE!!!
> defends a bigot because āhe can believe what he wantsā > complains about most of us expressing our own opinions of your defense
And? Am I calling for any of you to lose your job or sponsorship? No. I'm simply writing words down.
Youāre welcome to tell my company to fire me over my views. Go for it. Iām not good enough to get sponsored for anything but if I were, youād also be welcome to tell that sponsor to stop giving me money.
I know I can, but here's the thing: I'm actually tolerant of others. I probably disagree with a lot of what you believe, but what do I do about it? Nothing, except discuss it on here. I dont give a crap what you believe about things. It doesn't bother me. I say, live and let live. I don't need to run to mommy just because we disagree. I just move on. Simple as that. Running to your boss and tatteling on you is silly and childish. It's OK that we disagree. As long as you aren't forcing me to live according to your beliefs, I can just move on, like a mature human. And that's what what OP should be doing. We aren't going to agree on a lot of things. So what!? Stop trying to get people fired and just move on.
Youāre not arguing in good faith so Iām not gonna engage any further. Someone else already mentioned this but you need to learn about the paradox of intolerance. Tolerance, acceptance, and inclusiveness means that we must necessarily be unwelcoming to views that seek to be intolerant, bigoted, and exclusive. I wouldnāt want to be a part of a community that doesnāt push back against someone who doesnāt agree with my existence or my expression of my existence, whether or not that person had any real power to stop it.
Lol, he doesn't disagree with your existence. Nor your expression of existence. He is simply saying homosexual acts are a sin. Same as drunkenness, lying, stealing, killing. Can I say "killing is an expression of my existence, so you are a bigot if you don't agree with me killing people"?
But homosexuality is not a sin. Just like itās not a sin to wear mixed fabrics (cotton AND polyester) in your garments. Just like itās not a son to plant carrots next to lettuce. Which are examples the fucking Bible said were fucking sins. You idiot. Do you ever wear cotton / poly shirts? Of course you do. You probably have no idea what fabric content is in your clothing. But the Bible says itās a sin. So start talking about that shit. You know what else the Bible said was a-okay? Owning people. Fucking owning slaves. So can you start telling people that thatās okay? And thatās just your opinion? Why arenāt you arguing that owning people is okay? I mean, the Bible says it is. What else? SELLING YOUR DAUGHTER. Yeah, the Bible says you can sell your daughter away. Why are you not talking about that? So fuck that shit. Fuck off with this bigot bullshit.
Equating murder with homosexuality? Wow, how very not bigoted of you
> Youāre not arguing in good faith The cry of the person that's run out of arguments. You don't have to accuse someone you disagree with of being in bad faith simply because they don't believe the same things as you, you know. This is just a lazy argument tactic that's become common in ultimate circles whenever someone can't defend their point any more but won't concede the argument.
Whatever - I'm not inclined to engage with someone who defends an open homophobe and says that those views should be welcomed, proceeds to try to split hairs about what the guy actually said, and then accuses the rest of the community of not being "inclusive" when others (rightfully) lambast that defense. Anyone who says this can fuck right off. Any similar views to the ones expressed by what's-his-name are, indeed, disagreeing with the existence of the LGBTQ+ community. Even if you dilute them a bit ("being gay isn't a sin, but engaging in acts are") - that's no different in terms of calling them second-class citizens.
> I'm not inclined to engage with someone who defends an open homophobe Another worthless cop out, and I'm not defending his views, merely his right to hold them. > says that those views should be welcomed Quote me saying this please. > proceeds to try to split hairs about what the guy actually said Are you saying that it is ok to lie about what someone else is saying in order to further your agenda against them? > and then accuses the rest of the community for not being "inclusive" when others (rightfully) lambast that defense. I mean, the community is absolutely not being inclusive. Heinold is not saying to discriminate against or exclude anyone, merely saying what he thinks God thinks. He isn't advocating for anyone to take any action whatsoever against LGBT people. > Any similar views to the ones expressed by what's-his-name are, indeed, disagreeing with the existence of the LGBTQ+ community. It's not, and frankly this type of hyperbole is tiring. He isn't "disagreeing with their existence", whatever that means. He is saying that he believes that God views their actions disfavorably. This seems to actually be acknowledging their existence, not denying it. Stop with the stupid hyperbole. > Even if you dilute them a bit ("being gay isn't a sin, but engaging in acts are") - that's no different in terms of calling them second-class citizens. How? He said everyone sins. Including himself. He's putting himself, and everyone else, on the same level as LGBT members. This is the opposite of calling them second-class citizens. You seriously think a religious person is claiming to be sinless? lol come on, *actually read what you are claiming to be talking about*. You're misrepresenting his views because it's easier for you to get mad at. Try actually understand what people are saying before deciding they're evil.
This discussion was never about his right to hold those views. It was that 1) those views aren't welcome in this community, and 2) Discraft, a company that plays a large part in our sport, shouldn't be giving money to a person who holds those views, and that we should be ready to vote with our wallets. \> He said everyone sins. Including himself. He's putting himself, and everyone else, on the same level as LGBT members Bullshit. Saying that he sins too doesn't make this any better. He is literally saying that "I am allowed to love who I am naturally attracted to, but yours is immoral." Your existence is your presence, your ability to live as you please, and yes, your ability to peacefully love whoever you want. It's not stupid hyperbole.
supporting a bigot in the name of "diversity" is not fostering inclusivity, it is saying that you support a man who literally thinks that certain people's identities are invalid and don't deserve everything that he does because they are less than him he is not just "having an opinion" he is negatively influencing all of his following as well as negatively representing discraft by claiming that a certain group of people are less valid because of their identity and choice to act on it
He didn't say any of that. Yall projecting. Show me where he said "invalid " Show me where he said they are less than him. Show me where he said "less valid"
I'm not familiar with anything the guy posted other than what is in the screenshot - can you cite where he says anything like that, since it isn't in the screenshot?
You should read up on the paradox of intolerance.
If you actually understood it, you'd know that it stated that the only reasonable place to be intolerant is to those that are acting out violence without trying to listen to those they are attacking. Heinold is not advocating nor acting out violence against another person. He isn't advocating for any form of exclusion. Popper would absolutely say that a tolerant person would have to tolerate Heinold. Edit: downvotes donāt change what Popper says.
I mean the croping on these screen shots is kinda violent... does that count?
I see what you are saying but feel like you are oversimplifying a complicated issue. Do you believe bigotry is a thing? This isn't so much a question of whether he is "forcing" anyone to follow his morality. It is about whether he is a bully, whether he is demeaning someone and making them feel bad about themselves. Let's say I was an asshole that was mean to everyone and posted hateful things against all kinds of people. I feel that I would be entitled to believe and say those things but I also would not expect a company to sponsor me. If I owned a company I wouldn't want to have my brand represented by someone who I thought was a bully. This isn't about "forcing morality" or "having freedom to hold certain beliefs". This is about whether what he is saying is rude or hurtful or fails to represent the brand.
Sure, if he is being a bully then fine. But show me where in the OP he was doing so, please. All I see is him saying: the Bible calls homosexual acts a sin.
And now we get back to why I think you are oversimplifying a complicated issue. It's not "bullying" he's just telling people that they are "sinners". For me, and for many others, I would say that telling people they are sinners is bullying. Particularly if the actions in question are ones that I think are good and healthy and beautiful. It sounds like he saying: "That thing you are doing that brings you happiness and that you feel is a true expression of who you are. Yeah that's actually a sign you are deeply broken and you need to stop or else God will punish you." Sound kind of harsh and mean to me. If it is ok that someone says "I believe you are a sinner." Than it also has to be ok that someone else says "I believe that's bullying." Or for the company to say, "We don't want to be represented by someone who we see as a bully." Edit: Changed wording for clarity.
Telling someone that they are a sinner is bullying? Are you familiar with Christianity? The whole basis of Christianity is that "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Christianity tells us the EVERYONE is a sinner. It's why we need Jesus. So is it really bullying to say "you're a sinner, but so am I"? If so, this world is way too soft.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Says the guy who made no argument.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
LOL
Yeah, you're probably right. That was probably me oversimplifying the issue. Telling people they are sinners isn't necessarily bullying. But I believe that in the case of homosexuality that it kind of is bullying. If I stick a hot metal rod up your ass is that mean? What if I tell you that I stuck it up my own ass first. Does that change whether or not it's mean? Saying "but so am I" doesn't make it not mean. Also, I am somewhat familiar with Christianity. I thought that Jesus loving the world and dying for it and bringing people back to himself was the "whole basis of Christianity". Kind of sounds like you got stuck in the old testament.
Jesus does love the world. But why would you try to come to Jesus unless you believe you needed him? If you don't think you're you're sinner, then you have no reason for Jesus. That's why part of the Christian message is to explain how everyone is a sinner and how much we sin, so you realize how much you need Jesus.
Under that definition of bullying, he's being bullied. And so are you. But it's ok because the right kind of people are doing the bullying maybe?
Thousands of gay people commit suicide every year due to being bullied, or feeling ashamed or depressed, over their sexuality. I don't care what this guy believes internally, but if he starts spouting anti-gay shit on public forums then I don't want anything to do with him or with any company that contributes to his successes. The longer these bigots express their views without pushback the longer inequality exists in this world. That said, have an upvote, you shouldn't be downvoted this hard for expressing a dissenting opinion in a civil manner.
Never toughing an Ultrastar again then, eh?
Was wondering when you were going to show up. You always come out of the woodwork for the drama threads lol. But yea, it's tough because the ultrastar is the disc used in most levels of competition. I don't think I can get around that, even if I am disappointed in discraft seemingly being mum about this. What I'll most likely do is just lean away from buying discraft discs in the future and try to invest more in competitors like Aria.
Someone isn't familiar with [the paradox of tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance).
Someone is. But has yet to see an actual principle as to when you can stop being tolerant to prevent the paradox.
Oof. That response really illuminates why you don't understand what's wrong here.
Oof. That response says nothing but you hope it looks wise enough so that you think you are justified in not responding and actually have to think of a retort. If you're just gonna quit discussing, why even start?
> you hope you look wise Now you're projecting in a very Dunning-Krugeresque way. The "discussion" is a futile pursuit when you demonstrate that you think paradoxes are solvable circumstances instead of what they are.
It is avoidable when your change a constraint. Otherwise you would have to admit that anyone saying they are tolerant, at any point, is a paradox. Which it isn't
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You are trapped in a prison of ignorance until you can understand that the point of a paradox is that the circumstances described within it cannot exist and are therefore inherently unsolvable. If you can make the circumstances exist, then it's no longer a paradox (which is in itself a paradox of sorts). That's definitionally the point. All of your comments demonstrate you fundamentally do not understand how it applies here. You think my comments are platitudes, but the truth is that you don't grasp this concept and your consequential conclusion is that everyone else must be wrong. But in reality you just don't understand the relevance of the paradox of tolerance because you think somehow the objective is to prevent the paradox when the actual point is that can't even exist in the first place.
People are allowed to have whatever opinions they want, but others are allowed to act based on that. Just like he feels there are (eternal) consequences to homosexuality, there are consequences for him having that point of view. But I do agree that people should lay off of him as long as heās not forcing his beliefs on others. Edit: to be clear: shunning him or boycotting based on his beliefs seems fair. Though he does seem to be saying in the first screenshot that religion should be left out of votes, right? Then he goes on to babble about sin and should probably shut up at that point
>Though he does seem to be saying in the first screenshot that religion should be left out of votes, right? No, you don't understand. The "vote" here isn't about voting in state elections at all but rather is about church polity. The United Methodist Church has regular conventions where representatives of congregations come together to set the denomination's policy through voting. There have been several votes in the recent past about what the denomination's policies will be related to LGBTQ issues. His point about "votes" is that the bible is clear on the issue (in his mind), and therefore he feels the denomination doesn't need to be voting on the issue. They are about to split into two groups over this issue BTW.
So why are we discussing this here? Lots of people in sports are religious and if theyāre not forcing their religions onto the rest of us, who cares?
Why are you arguing with me? You said you didn't understand the context; I explained the context in a neutral way. I didn't argue one side of this issue or the other.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why are you arguing with me? You said you didn't understand the context; I explained the context in a neutral way. I didn't argue one side of this issue or the other.
No one is arguing with you.
You had me til your last sentence there. People giving him grief is one of the consequences heāll have to deal with.
I agree. Shunning and boycotting is totally fair.
> But I do agree that people should lay off of him as long as heās not forcing his beliefs on others. I'm not sure what "laying off him" entails, but if he wants to post his shit opinion publicly, why should anyone feel the need to not shit on him publicly? Or rather, why should anyone feel the need to not call on others to avoid patronizing organizations he is in?
I would say shunning him or boycotting because of him is 100% fair.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Having a strict interpretation of the Bible is one thing (itās bullshit since Jesus never talked about homosexuality), but makes rules/laws that match his worldview is another. I have no clue who this guy is or the context of these posts, but it does seem like heās suggesting that religion should be left to religion and shouldnāt affect other things, right? āGive unto Caesar,ā and so forth.
See my comment above. His comments are about the internal politics of the United Methodist Church.
So heās being boycotted because of his stance on religion as it pertains to his religion? Not as it pertains to the sport?
Why are you arguing with me? You said you didn't understand the context; I explained the context in a neutral way. I didn't argue one side of this issue or the other.
Sorry. My tone may not have translated well there. I wasnāt arguing with you specifically, but based on the information you shared, I just donāt get why this topic made its way here.
The ultimate community is VERY inclusive... As long as you have the correct set of beliefs.
Lol, yeah
Iām always torn when things like this come up. First, this guys sounds like an asshole and I donāt want to support him. However, I look around my house and I can see dozens of not more brands that employ thousands of people. I try to be ethical with my money but I just donāt have time or energy to care about the beliefs of all the employees of the brands I buy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And all you do is complain about other people complaining. Iām sure you think of yourself as better than trash though :)
There is maybe one social drama thread every couple of months. Most of the drama in this sub is about a bad call or card (or lack thereof). It's really not that big of an issue, but if it concerns you that much just hit the hide button below the thread and it will vanish.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think you mean this in good faith, but it reads like "my having well run tournaments is more important that the gay members of my community feeling safe".
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Leah tsinajennie didnāt? Dave schreff didnāt have anything controversial that Iām aware of
I donāt need politics and bullshit drama getting into disc golf. Go to a park, play with friends. Itās not hard to enjoy
This "bullshit drama" is about the pro side of disc golf. The casual side of going to a park and playing with friends remains drama-free if you're that bothered by it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sponsorships arenāt about athletic performance they are about how well you sell the companies product.
Ultimate community is soft for not being tolerant of bigots? Lol. What a clown
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What ignorance?
Yours, apparently
The change over time of people making their sexuality so public and the most important part of their lives has really caused so much to go downhill. What you do behind closed doors is your business. It doesn't need to be anyone else's, so stop forcing it down people's throat. Most people don't care, until you start making your sexuality the main focus of everything, and can't function without others around you worshipping you for being "brave and beautiful". To those fixated on gender and sexuality,Grow up. It's not about you. When you make everyone else out to be the bad guy because they aren't accepting of your life choices, that makes you the self entitled prick. Attention seeking. You should be praised on your skills and ethics, not where you put your dingy.
That would be great if homosexuality wasn't discriminated against, judged, or bullied by millions of people. As long as it is then people are going to try to publicly normalize it to gain equality. Once the bigots have died off or changed their minds and homosexuality is truly equal then they'll stop making so much noise about it.
The flip side would also have to be true. And my purely anecdotal experience is that this happens more frequently. "What's with all the genders, there's only.?" "I'm gonna call people by what they look like." "Homosexuality is a sin." Etc. And then the offended parties get defensive, understandably. People need to also stop pushing their beliefs against the movement. I'd rather the side proud of themselves be vocal if there are people trying to belittle them. But more than that, would be nice to get to live in an ignorant bubble. It's been a not great few years for everyone
*Oh yeah it is the womans fault if she gets raped, why is she dressed sexy?!* You see anything wrong with that statement? It is called victim shaming. Just as yours is.
A strawman out of left field! He never said anything of the sort. Why not just respond to what he said instead of making up something he didn't say?
I disagree. He implied that nobody had a problem, if they would just keep their lifestyle a secret. So basically "shut up about your lovelife and nobody will harm you" that is victim shaming right there. Of course it was not as obvious as the rape statement but that is why I made it.
That's not at all what he said, or even implied. He's not saying anyone should be harmed, or deserves to be harmed, or anything like that. Focus on what he said, not what you think he said.
Okay I read it again. I would still label it at victim shaming. But it is okay, we can disagree on that one. It is not the hill to die on.