Richard has returned from the World Cup and we debrief him, some discussion of our shall we say less than stellar performance against the Reign and a lot of jokes about Budweiser. Available on Soundcloud or wherever you get your podcasts from.
Writer, podcaster, radio DJ at Freeform Portland, co-founder of Modernist Spirits, and juggler of too many projects.Love my Thorns, Timbers and Everton. Resident of the greatest town on earth.
Latest posts by Patrick (see all)
- Episode 35: The End of Chaos - May 7, 2021
- Episode 34: So Now What? - April 4, 2021
- Episode 33: Brave New World - January 11, 2021
I had a very different opinion on the last question (about McDonald’s statement about Hinkle) from Shannon and Richard and didn’t find a good way to express it on the air, so it was cut. I did want to include it, though, so here goes.
It’s that – as Richard mentioned – the big difference between Rapinoe politicizing her sport and Hinkle doing the same was the intent; Rapinoe asks for inclusion, acceptance, and toleration. Hinkle asks for stigmatization and disapproval. But the way I see it the REAL difference is that the logical conclusion from Hinkle’s statement of disapproval is even more dangerous than that.
Because it defines what someone is as something that is cast out, that, worse, is not just cast out but is consigned into the Eternal Fire. It defines people because of who they are as the damned, as the unloved of God.
In the past such sentiments have ended up in very bad places; places like Arnaud Amalric ordering his troops to kill them all because “God will recognize his own”.
Did Hinkle mean that her non-het teammates should meet the fate of the Cathars? I doubt it.
Did she stop to think that others might take her encouragement to do just that? I doubt that, too.
So IMO the thing for McDonald to have done was say “I love my teammate, who is a true believer and whose faith helps her in many ways. But on this issue, she’s wrong, and I don’t agree with her on that.”
Full stop.