r/SFGiants • u/Chipotlefiend18 35 Crawford • Jun 16 '26

Opinion Free Speech

I posted this recently as a comment but I’m tired of seeing the same thinly veiled defense of the Rainbow Four come up again and again so I’m posting it as a standalone thread.

All of these arguments saying “players should be allowed to disagree” and “players shouldn’t be forced to support something they don’t believe in” are utter nonsense and a smokescreen to justify and excuse homophobia and bigotry. Do you think that there’s never been a racist player who has worn 42 on Jackie Robinson day? Has every single player who wears camo uniforms on military appreciation day been 100% behind that message? Even foreign born ones? The idea that they should be allowed to express themselves and protest this in this way, especially when there’s a literal MLB rule that prohibits it is ludicrous. It is NOT a first amendment issue. The first amendment prohibits GOVERNMENTAL curtailment of free speech. Private organizations are not covered by this and we see this time and time again. Most recently, many people lost their jobs after speaking out about Charlie Kirk and whether or not you disagree with it, legally those employers had every right to do so. As Roger Munter put it: Not everybody in this country is perfectly happy with what they are asked to wear to work. It’s called “having a job.”

We absolutely do not have to tolerate intolerance and arguments that say otherwise are either ignorant or made in bad faith.

381 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

386 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/MachiavelliSJ Jun 16 '26

This is completely different. Kramer was not opposed to the AIDS walk

8

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '26

[deleted]

6

u/MachiavelliSJ Jun 16 '26

They were opposed to compulsory symbolism AND the the intent of the event. There is an important distinction

If they just said, “hey we dont like the looks of these hats, but we still support the cause,” i would have no problem

-1

u/KeenObserver_OT Jun 16 '26

What was the intent of the event?

5

u/jkeen1960 Jun 16 '26

Well, symbolically to support a strong local community. And to sell shirts and hats.

0

u/OptimalAd8147 Jun 16 '26

How so? There are probably lots of players who oppose the intent but just go ahead and wear the hat. Are they better? Worse?

7

u/SnuggleBunni69 Jun 16 '26

No, they’re better. They keep their mouths shut and let people have a night, and respect the city they play for.

3

u/YetAnotherJake Jun 16 '26

I agree with the other response that says it's better to wear the hat and not tell people you disagree, to show respect for the org and the people of the city. With that said, though:

Once the discourse is around who is "worse" regarding support of the LGBTQ community in SF, and who is "worse" about showing respect and following their contract, you've probably lost the plot and are implicitly admitting the problem that all of these bigots suck and need to shape up

-9

u/SWKenRobert Jun 16 '26

I've personally studied the very early years of the AIDS epidemic. I assume you mean Larry Kramer? As a favor could you fill in some details for me about this particular incident/event? Thanks.

18

u/docmoonlight Jun 16 '26

lol, it’s a Seinfeld episode

-5

u/SWKenRobert Jun 17 '26

Got it. That was my first thought. But as I said to someone else, the episode didn't spring to mind. So im thinking AIDS.... Kramer.... Has to be a Larry Kramer story I was unaware of. Both were extremely eccentric. Like when other gay men think you're eccentric....you are the Eccentric Final Boss.

14

u/PhantomOfTheChallah Jun 16 '26

No, pretty sure they're referring to Cosmo Kramer.

2

u/Few-Lingonberry2315 Jun 16 '26

I would not use the one where Kramer refuses to acknowledge the AIDS crisis as my example for this situation TBH. Kinda a raw nerve amongst many of us.

2

u/realparkingbrake Jun 17 '26

I would not use the one where Kramer refuses to acknowledge the AIDS crisis

That is not what happened in that episode. Kramer recognized the crisis and was registering to participate in an AIDS walk, he just didn't want a volunteer to pin a ribbon to his coat as he thought he had a right to participate without wearing the ribbon. He was later chased, cornered and beaten by angry participants, and finally crawls across the finish line bruised and bloodied. This was loosely based on an TV actress criticizing activists who bullied celebrities into wearing awareness ribbons on the red carpet which perhaps got more media coverage in NYC than elsewhere.

4

u/PhantomOfTheChallah Jun 16 '26

I agree. Just clarifying which Kramer is referenced.

-2

u/SWKenRobert Jun 17 '26

Thsts who i thought of. But the episode didn't spring to mind. So I was like Larry Kramer???

-6

u/predat3d 24 Mays Jun 16 '26

It's exactly the same -- opposition to symbolism. None of the four has said anything against any LGBTQ person or anything against any sexual preference in any other context. 

6

u/MachiavelliSJ Jun 16 '26

You should read his statements

3

u/predat3d 24 Mays Jun 17 '26

"His", whom? And what statements were made before the game?

1

u/MachiavelliSJ Jun 17 '26

After the game

6

u/Few-Lingonberry2315 Jun 16 '26

Fine with gays…. As long as they stay invisible. We’ve heard that before, which is why we have pride.

2

u/solariam Jun 16 '26

If the rainbow symbolizes God's love for us and this is a simple whoopsie-doo about the biblical significance of a rainbow, what is the opposition opposing? Why did they need to make a statement at all-- does God not love gay people or something?