The Israel Folau saga

[tragic]

Nothing I have seen, heard or read here or anywhere else convinces me this is anything but a storm in a teacup.
Getting offended by something on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shit rather than walk around it

 

[Ignoto]

As for the arguments about ACTUAL hate crimes, yes they took place and still take place, but supressing speech which is not actually inciting any action is a pathway to radicalise the fringes as they seek excuses as to why the "centre" is so corrupt action can be justified to their warped senses.

Gnostic, perhaps the fundamental difference we have is on what suppression of speech is. You appear to have a more liberal take on free-speech and correct me if I'm wrong, but nothing should inhibit it. Whereas, I believe (and I would say that the original Australian law makers agree) that there are limits. For instance, we afford protection to people who's reputations have been harmed due to simply false and derogatory words/statements in defamation.

I again don't see how Folau is being suppressed in his ability to convey the teachings of his faith. His employers said he can keep practicing and informing the world of his views, but the way he frames it needs to be a positive one, not a negative. If Folau was being suppressed, he would not be allowed to say anything about being a Christian. So, if he can convey his message albeit framed in a more pleasant way, no suppression is occurring.

So because of the sensitivities of transgender people we cannot discuss the very likely situation of corrupt individuals taking advantage of a system which allows them to set themselves up for life financially. The risk is virtually nil but the reward great.

This I feel is a bit of different topic and is something I agree with you (and Haidt) on. That we shouldn't limit discussion based on causing offence.

I believe this is similar but different in Folau's situation. A large portion of our society has grown up being told that being Gay means there's something wrong with you. As a result, if you come across a gay person, you need to fix them or let them know they're sick an need help. So, by allowing Folau to continue to tell the world there is something wrong with this class of people it not acceptable.

The issue isn't that Folau caused offence, its that he continues to tell the world that being Gay is not right.

Call him out on any number of doctrinal hypocrisies.

I feel that's what people are trying to do, but because it's such a heated conversation messages are getting lost in translation. It also doesn't help that extremes on both sides stoke the fires making things so much worse.

In any event, why should we protect what someone chooses to believe? Why is someone's faith need to be hands off from society?

Other aspects of our lives call out these types of beliefs. For example, those who don't vaccinate their children in fear of Austim are no longer allowed in child care centres. Their faith in the link between vaccines and austim is about as strong as there being a god in the sky, so why do we accept one and not the other.

 

[wamberal]

Nothing I have seen, heard or read here or anywhere else convinces me this is anything but a storm in a teacup.
Getting offended by something on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shit rather than walk around it

I assume you accept the fact that others (especially those who are feeling vulnerable about their sexuality, or the sexuality of their child, or a friend) might be terribly offended by it?

I do not think the dog shit analogy is particularly helpful. It is possible to step in the shit without intending to, just as it is possible to be exposed to hurtful opinions without wanting to.


It does not bother me one way or the other, but I do listen carefully to people who are closer to the issue, and some of them say that these sorts of opinions can have a very bad effect on the well-being of vulnerable people, some of who are kids.

 

[Adam84]

Nothing I have seen, heard or read here or anywhere else convinces me this is anything but a storm in a teacup.
Getting offended by something on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shit rather than walk around it

conversely, try explaining that to the advertisers who spend $100 of billions on internet advertising each year to try and convince the individuals of 'x'

 

[tragic]

I do not think the dog shit analogy is particularly helpful. It is possible to step in the shit without intending to, just as it is possible to be exposed to hurtful opinions without wanting to.

Yep - and you can hang my around and whine about how your sensibilities have been offended whilst trying to find someone to blame, or you can wipe it off and keep walking.
Society today does to much of the former and not enough of the latter.

 

[Ignoto]

Yep - and you can hang my around and whine about how your sensibilities have been offended

I think this whole conversation has gone over your head if that's your take away.

 

[tragic]

I think this whole conversation has gone over your head if that's your take away.

I sincerely doubt that.
But I respect your right to express a baseless opinion regardless of how misguided it may be

 

[Athilnaur]

Things are going to get very messy indeed if we start making a corollory between religion and anti vaxxer conspiracy theorists who spread proven lies that go against medical science.

And dictating to people that they can only share positive messages of their beliefs, well who is going to sit in judgement? And what punishments will they issue for those they denounce as offensive?

Well it seems we have one answer, Rugby Australia with Qantas sitting behind them watching on closely.

RA should never have allowed themselves to get into this position and it's hard to feel any sympathy for them.

 

[Adam84]

At this rate, by the end next week people will be drawing a correlation between 9/11 conspiracy theories and Folau's comments.

 

[Derpus]

This thread has degenerated. Pretty sure there isn't any meaningful debate left to be had.

 

[Quick Hands]

there is also an Asics logo on the front of the jersey, and Land Rover get plenty of branding and advertisement come match day.

Just seems a little hypocritical to be vilifying one brand, and going after a witch hunt against one of CEO's when they aren't the only sponsor to have spoken out about the issue or taken action on the issue.

If you have an issue with sponsor discussing the issue, and you identify hypocrisy in those sponsors having dealings in countries with poor human rights records, then surely it's the same standard for all the sponsors.

It is the same standard for all sponsors, but as has been discussed previously Qantas is a stand-alone company which makes independent decisions about sponsorships etc, from it's headquarters in Australia by the CEO and board in Australia. Presumably it makes these decisions mostly on a commercial basis, but it's CEO has decided to inject a moral dimension to doing busines with RA. Alas the CEO of Qantas doesn't seem to let an even more egregious breech of the same moral dimension affect its profitable relationship with a state-owned airline, where the state punishes homosexuality as a criminal offence.

Land Rover Australia are a subsiduary of a multi-national company and the people who run Land Rover Australia have no control of or input into what other countries in which Land Rover operate. Land Rover Australia only operates in Australia. So Land Rover Australia decide whether or not to sponsor the Wallabies, but have no control over whether or not the company does business in the Middle East so it's not as simple a situation. Same goes for Asics.

I hope this clarifies your ongoing confusion.

 

[Derpus]

Actually, it's a big gripe female athletes have at the moment, and it's an issue that has some of the same free speech implications as the Israel Folau saga has, so whether or not you think it should be discussed on this thread you can't just dismiss it as an obscure right-wing obsession.

The only way the Israel Folau saga will have any implications is if it instigates legislative change.

Otherwise it doesnt change anything. Bigots are free to be bigots and people are free not to employ bigots.

 

[Sully]

Just read Folau has been terminated. Daily telegraph paywall though

 

[Sully]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/rugby/news-story/e9990a8847d53d6ee7dcbb1fc2457677

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Given refuses to take down his post termination appears only option. Looks like end of his professional rugby career as can’t see him agreeing to social media clauses as part of any new contract based on his position.

 

[Sully]

Actually think it's a bullshit headline.

 

[Adam84]

Verdict not until Wednesday or Thursday

So in typical Rugby Australia fashion, we should know the result by 2022

 

[formerflanker]

If the Tele's story is true, why would Folau's representative from RUPA vote against his own player?

 

[I like to watch]

Give him a stay, let him play until it’s announced....
In November.

 

[Dark Shark]

If the Tele's story is true, why would Folau's representative from RUPA vote against his own player?

Possibly because Folau believes and posts that people like him will be going to hell because of the way they were born.