Raiders DE Carl Nassib announces he's gay

[GSUeagles14]

2 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Nah, that doesn’t help anyone.

If you truly don’t care, keep reading, keep discussing, keep absorbing other viewpoints and hopefully we can convince you that not caring isn’t enough.  Tolerance is a start, but acceptance is what’s necessary.  These people can be reached imo.

If you are just using the “I don’t care” as camouflage for bigotry, then yeah, keep it moving.

Yea, this is actually kind of insulting. Are you assuming that I don’t “accept” someone of a different sexual orientation and only tolerate it merely because I or someone said they don’t care if they are gay?

[SkippyX]

Christian Values are not Christian Values if for any reason at all at any time they violate Love One Another.

End of Story.

 

As for guys who are uncomfortable with gay people in the locker room, playing in the NFL requires you to be mentally tough. If that's too tough for them then they can go do something else.

 

[scar988]

1 minute ago, Matts4313 said:

I am discussing words, definitions and having a conversation. I enjoy those things. Additionally, although I do *mostly* subscribe to what I said above, I disagree when people brush other people with broad strokes. So I dont like it when a long standing and respected member of the forum says "if you use the words "dont care" regarding *any subject*, you are a prick". Or another poster that said "If someone is mean to a christian, the christian deserved it". Those are just more forms of bigotry and prejudice hidden in a 'SJW' wrapper. You shouldnt dismiss people for different ideologies or stereotype them. Whether thats because they are gay, straight, black, white, whatever. Its hypocrisy to do so. 

As I have said a million times, I am happy for Carl and think he did a good thing. I think most of us agree with that. It seems like a lot of the back and forth is based on people attempting to spin words. 

And that's where I was misinterpreted by you. I wasn't saying they deserved it. But normally when people are pushing back against "Christians" (and I put that in quotes because I'm talking about the ones that are in your face, continually proselytizing and telling people they're going to hell), it's because they have normally said something that is regressive, hateful or nasty. No one is actively pushing against the Christian religion in this thread. Myself included. I'm pushing back against the people who are complete jerks about it. AKA, I'm pushing back against the jerks.

[Matts4313]

7 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Tolerance is a start, but acceptance is what’s necessary.  These people can be reached imo.

Would yo not agree that "not caring" about someones race/religion/sexual identity/etc is much closer to acceptance than tolerance? 

To tolerate means that you are "putting up with it". To accept it means that it no longer has an effect on how you view an individual. In other words, you dont care about that aspect when judging someone. I dont "tolerate" height/hair color/eye color/etc. I accept it. The ultimate goal is to have other aspects of someone (color/sexuality/etc) to fall in that category. 

"Hes a short, black, gay, Christian, liberal from Alabama. He also likes football, cars, guns and dressing in drag". "Cool, sounds like an interesting person".  <thats the goal right? Not tolerating, but actually not caring about those things when forming an opinion. 

[Matts4313]

5 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

Christian Values are not Christian Values if for any reason at all at any time they violate Love One Another.

End of Story.

Co-signed. 100%. 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

9 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

Yea, this is actually kind of insulting. Are you assuming that I don’t “accept” someone of a different sexual orientation and only tolerate it merely because I or someone said they don’t care if they are gay?

 

5 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Would yo not agree that "not caring" about someones race/religion/sexual identity/etc is much closer to acceptance than tolerance? 

To tolerate means that you are "putting up with it". To accept it means that it no longer has an effect on how you view an individual. In other words, you dont care about that aspect when judging someone. I dont "tolerate" height/hair color/eye color/etc. I accept it. The ultimate goal is to have other aspects of someone (color/sexuality/etc) to fall in that category. 

"Hes a short, black, gay, Christian, liberal from Alabama. He also likes football, cars, guns and dressing in drag". "Cool, sounds like an interesting person".  <thats the goal right? Not tolerating, but actually not caring about those things when forming an opinion. 

I don’t think we need to keep having the same conversation over and over again, do we?
 

Nor do we need to feign to be aggrieved.

[Malfatron]

37 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Matts, we were invited to a gay wedding. You wanna come" - "Sure, I dont care that they are gay"

or how about just "Sure".

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, Malfatron said:

or how about just "Sure".

How about just "wedding"? Because I need to specify a full example to show how you can use the words "I dont care" and not be a jerk.

[MikeT14]

NFL just annouced they are matching Nassib's $100k donation

[Malfatron]

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

How about just "wedding"? Because I need to specify a full example to show how you can use the words "I dont care" and not be a jerk.

1. even better

2. its difficult, isnt it

 

[Matts4313]

Just now, Malfatron said:

1. even better

2. its difficult, isnt it

 

"You want tacos or burgers for dinner" "I dont care, up to you"

 

Nah, its pretty easy when you take the words at face value and not try to spin them with a political agenda. 😍

[MrDrew]

13 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Would yo not agree that "not caring" about someones race/religion/sexual identity/etc is much closer to acceptance than tolerance? 

Not caring is much different than it not changing your opinion about somebody. Phrasing is very important.

[GSUeagles14]

12 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

 

I don’t think we need to keep having the same conversation over and over again, do we?
 

Nor do we need to feign to be aggrieved.

I don’t won’t to derail what’s been a mostly productive thread with a lot of very well thought out posts (those have not been yours). 

you assuming things is not good, period.

 

 

[Adrenaline_Flux]

I think a lot of people here would be well-served researching intent vs impact to understand why rhetoric they may perceive as "neutral" is regressive and harmful toward marginalized people.

[Dr LBC]

32 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Nah, that doesn’t help anyone.

If you truly don’t care, keep reading, keep discussing, keep absorbing other viewpoints and hopefully we can convince you that not caring isn’t enough.  Tolerance is a start, but acceptance is what’s necessary.  These people can be reached.

If you are just using the “I don’t care” as camouflage for bigotry, then yeah, keep it moving.

I think BS' post was more about questioning the genuineness of the "I don't care" statement.  Dialogue shouldn't be discouraged, but if a person truly didn't care they wouldn't feel the need to invest the time into responding - barring them having a higher-than-perhaps-they-should opinion of their own importance - The person clearly cared enough to feel the need to interject their own two cents.  IDC is a proper interjection if someone is trying to pull you into conversation on a topic you have no interest in.  No one is forcing anyone to comment here, thus making commenting here or on any other social media platform with a response of "I don't care," to be disingenuous.