DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 21538--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Quinky
Date: April 11, 2019, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: marlowish link ---
>
> I have to say I agree. I do not agree with one word he said
but there again he does not have to agree with my views.
Liberals are all very liberal as long as everyone agrees with
them and their opinion and world view. As soon as anyone has a
different opinion then liberals say they should not be allowed
to express or even think it. How very liberal of them.
>
> Like you I am equally offended by the PC nonsense and the way
everyone is offended by everything and thinks that the only thin
g that matters is their own point of view.
>
--- End Quote ---
I can see this side of things, and feel much the same generally.
Before anyone takes offence (doubtless they already have), I'm
not tying this in to Folau's comments - I still don't know what
he's said, so can't give an opinion).
Ultimately, people will think what they want to. Sadly there is
a generation of people who think that they can stop this, and
it's frankly dangerous. Those people often seem to have an
agenda which isn't exactly liberal in itself, but they will
often dress it up as liberal. To exacerbate this you have the
horrors of social media, where "truth" is whatever the masses
seem to want it to be. A simple example was the vilification of
the Catholic schoolboys in the US recently, who apparently
taunted a Native American... until the truth came out, by which
time death threats et al had already been issued.
Is it right to hate gays/non-whites/Irish/lepers/anyone? I
believe "hate" is a strong word, and I rarely hate at all; I
strongly dislike some people, but it's never based on any group
that they might be a part of, it's based on them individually,
and I have my reasons. These are my personal rules. Would I
dislike someone for being gay? No, never. I would never think
differently of a person because of their sexuality.
But here's the point of my ramblings, or one of the points - all
too often someone is offended, and instantly they are supported.
The reasons for their taking offence will be twisted, inflated,
and manipulated, until suddenly the supposed offender is
undeniably labelled as
racist/sexist/homophobic/Islamophobic/whatever-phobic is in
vogue at the time. Then you get a situation where people are
scared to voice any concerns because the Twitterati and their
ilk will come after them. In my opinion, it's more dangerous to
shout people down because you don't like their opinions, than to
allow people to be open about what they do or don't like, what
they fear, and what they don't understand.
For the record, I repeat that I don't know what Folau has said.
If he's said that gays should burn in Hell, that's very poor
form in my opinion. Is it enough to sack him? I don't think so.
It sounds very much like trial by social media to me, which is
pretty abhorrent in itself. Folau is/was employed to play rugby;
nobody has to like him, and what he does in his own time is up
to him, as long as it's within the law.
#Post#: 21539--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: never sleep
Date: April 11, 2019, 4:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@Fursty - I agree - but, he has previous form for doing this
(exactly a year ago). He was spoken to then.
#Post#: 21540--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Quinky
Date: April 11, 2019, 4:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Fursty link ---
>
> I'm firmly of the opinion that within reason you should allow
people to spout whatever nonsense they like - you can then show
them up for how ridiculous their views are. e.g Nick Griffin
appearing on question time. Oppressing debate and conversation
is counterproductive leads to people justifying their views on
the grounds that they in turn feel oppressed.
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
I saw that episode of QT. I think that it was a wasted
opportunity. Every time that Griffin tried to speak, the
audience were booing and shouting him down. It's a perfect
example of the non-liberal attitudes that prevail in sectors of
society. I don't agree with a lot of what Griffin has to say,
but if I can't hear any of it I may miss a valid point that he
makes. People decide that they don't want to hear the message
because they dislike the messenger - that's dangerous and
pathetic in equal measures.
#Post#: 21541--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Blucherquin
Date: April 11, 2019, 5:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinky link ---
>
> I can see this side of things, and feel much the same
generally. Before anyone takes offence (doubtless they already
have), I'm not tying this in to Folau's comments - I still don't
know what he's said, so can't give an opinion).
>
> Ultimately, people will think what they want to. Sadly there
is a generation of people who think that they can stop this, and
it's frankly dangerous. Those people often seem to have an
agenda which isn't exactly liberal in itself, but they will
often dress it up as liberal. To exacerbate this you have the
horrors of social media, where "truth" is whatever the masses
seem to want it to be. A simple example was the vilification of
the Catholic schoolboys in the US recently, who apparently
taunted a Native American... until the truth came out, by which
time death threats et al had already been issued.
>
> Is it right to hate gays/non-whites/Irish/lepers/anyone? I
believe "hate" is a strong word, and I rarely hate at all; I
strongly dislike some people, but it's never based on any group
that they might be a part of, it's based on them individually,
and I have my reasons. These are my personal rules. Would I
dislike someone for being gay? No, never. I would never think
differently of a person because of their sexuality.
>
> But here's the point of my ramblings, or one of the points -
all too often someone is offended, and instantly they are
supported. The reasons for their taking offence will be twisted,
inflated, and manipulated, until suddenly the supposed offender
is undeniably labelled as
racist/sexist/homophobic/Islamophobic/whatever-phobic is in
vogue at the time. Then you get a situation where people are
scared to voice any concerns because the Twitterati and their
ilk will come after them. In my opinion, it's more dangerous to
shout people down because you don't like their opinions, than to
allow people to be open about what they do or don't like, what
they fear, and what they don't understand.
>
> For the record, I repeat that I don't know what Folau has
said. If he's said that gays should burn in Hell, that's very
poor form in my opinion. Is it enough to sack him? I don't think
so. It sounds very much like trial by social media to me, which
is pretty abhorrent in itself. Folau is/was employed to play
rugby; nobody has to like him, and what he does in his own time
is up to him, as long as it's within the law.
>
--- End Quote ---
None of which are what has happened in this case.
It has nothing to do with political correctness or a twitter
storm.
He was warned that it's not acceptable to be a professional
rugby player and express his anti-gay views.
He has now been sacked because rugby doesn't believe in
discriminating against gay people for any reason - religious or
otherwise.
We didn't decriminalise homosexuality because of peer pressure
and we didn't pass anti-discrimination laws because of Twitter.
He hasn't been shouted down - he's been sacked by his employer
for breaching its rules.
#Post#: 21543--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: TomBuckQuin
Date: April 11, 2019, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the law needs to change (which I doubt will happen without
a serious case coming to light) for people to see the nuance in
all of this. Because everyone falls back on "as long as it's not
against the law..." The issue is the following (and this is not
an allegation/accusation but a hypothetical)...
It's perfectly plausible that a young person is struggling with
their sexuality + religion at the exact same time as someone
like Folau comes online and posts similar views to what we see
in this particular case. Aforementioned young person has been
mentally fragile on these particular warring subjects for a long
time and has thought about self-harm as a result. Now where does
the buck stop if (at least partially) as a result of that young
person reading the post they decide to inflict self harm? And
what if that initial act of self harm leads to a cycle of
something more dangerous? Or what if that initial act of self
harm is so tragically serious that it's the last act that person
ever takes? And what if that one young person is part of a
bigger group all doing similar things in their own isolation (at
least partially, but in some cases more completely) as a direct
result of reading that post?
Serious questions. Because I really do believe stuff like that
is happening (and to be clear I am not making any accusation
directly in relation to Folau's comments because obviously I
have no idea who has seen it and how much they might or might
not be struggling with whatever demons they face). But these are
the dangers associated with the oversimplification of the
Trumpist "freedom of speech at all costs". I'm not here to wage
war on anyone's freedom of speech if what they're saying does no
direct harm - it's simply the "at all costs" bit I'm worried
about. We'll never know the full scale of that cost, but now
that social media is here to stay, you'd have to imagine that
scale is growing exponentially more vast than it used to be.
The world has changed - our constitutions need updating in
relation to everything else that evolves by human nature.
Absolute freedom of speech might have worked once, but it
certainly doesn't now.
#Post#: 21544--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Blucherquin
Date: April 11, 2019, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinky link ---
>
> I saw that episode of QT. I think that it was a wasted
opportunity. Every time that Griffin tried to speak, the
audience were booing and shouting him down. It's a perfect
example of the non-liberal attitudes that prevail in sectors of
society. I don't agree with a lot of what Griffin has to say,
but if I can't hear any of it I may miss a valid point that he
makes. People decide that they don't want to hear the message
because they dislike the messenger - that's dangerous and
pathetic in equal measures.
>
--- End Quote ---
Again, it's different.
This is not about allowing people to express stupid opinions so
other people can decide they are stupid.
It's illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of
their race, gender or sexuality. It's also illegal to incite
hatred against minorities. We passed those laws because of the
horrors that ensue when there is no law against it.
That is the society in which we all live - unless you choose to
live somewhere which doesn't have those laws, which is up to
you.
Those laws form the backdrop to the way in which people are
expected to behave in society.
Lots of employers therefore insist that their employees do not
act in a way that discriminates against minorities.
Folau was warned by his employer that expressing his views was
not compatible with remaining an employee.
He didn't listen. He was sacked.
#Post#: 21557--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Quinky
Date: April 11, 2019, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Blucherquin link ---
>
> Again, it's different.
>
> This is not about allowing people to express stupid opinions
so other people can decide they are stupid.
>
> It's illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of
their race, gender or sexuality. It's also illegal to incite
hatred against minorities. We passed those laws because of the
horrors that ensue when there is no law against it.
>
> That is the society in which we all live - unless you choose
to live somewhere which doesn't have those laws, which is up to
you.
>
> Those laws form the backdrop to the way in which people are
expected to behave in society.
>
> Lots of employers therefore insist that their employees do not
act in a way that discriminates against minorities.
>
> Folau was warned by his employer that expressing his views was
not compatible with remaining an employee.
>
> He didn't listen. He was sacked.
>
--- End Quote ---
The discussion had moved on from Folau. I was responding to the
point about allowing people to express their views to actually
hear what they say, rather than not allow to speak at all.
#Post#: 21558--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Quinky
Date: April 11, 2019, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Blucherquin link ---
>
> None of which are what has happened in this case.
>
> It has nothing to do with political correctness or a twitter
storm.
>
> He was warned that it's not acceptable to be a professional
rugby player and express his anti-gay views.
>
> He has now been sacked because rugby doesn't believe in
discriminating against gay people for any reason - religious or
otherwise.
>
> We didn't decriminalise homosexuality because of peer pressure
and we didn't pass anti-discrimination laws because of Twitter.
>
> He hasn't been shouted down - he's been sacked by his employer
for breaching its rules.
>
--- End Quote ---
You seem to have missed this earlier point: " I'm not tying this
in to Folau's comments".
There most definitely has been a Twitter storm. How do you think
this came to light? He posted on Twitter. People didn't exactly
warm to it, there was a furore, and the rest is history.
Just one question - and take into context that I haven't read
his comments - has he actually discriminated against gays, or
has he simply stated his hatred for them? There is a difference.
#Post#: 21559--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: April 11, 2019, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote=Quinky]... has he actually discriminated against gays, or
has he simply stated his hatred for them? There is a
difference.[/quote]
Unbelievable.
#Post#: 21560--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Quinky
Date: April 11, 2019, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TomBuckQuin link ---
>
> Maybe the law needs to change (which I doubt will happen
without a serious case coming to light) for people to see the
nuance in all of this. Because everyone falls back on "as long
as it's not against the law..." The issue is the following (and
this is not an allegation/accusation but a hypothetical)...
>
> It's perfectly plausible that a young person is struggling
with their sexuality + religion at the exact same time as
someone like Folau comes online and posts similar views to what
we see in this particular case. Aforementioned young person has
been mentally fragile on these particular warring subjects for a
long time and has thought about self-harm as a result. Now where
does the buck stop if (at least partially) as a result of that
young person reading the post they decide to inflict self harm?
And what if that initial act of self harm leads to a cycle of
something more dangerous? Or what if that initial act of self
harm is so tragically serious that it's the last act that person
ever takes? And what if that one young person is part of a
bigger group all doing similar things in their own isolation (at
least partially, but in some cases more completely) as a direct
result of reading that post?
>
> Serious questions. Because I really do believe stuff like that
is happening (and to be clear I am not making any accusation
directly in relation to Folau's comments because obviously I
have no idea who has seen it and how much they might or might
not be struggling with whatever demons they face). But these are
the dangers associated with the oversimplification of the
Trumpist "freedom of speech at all costs". I'm not here to wage
war on anyone's freedom of speech if what they're saying does no
direct harm - it's simply the "at all costs" bit I'm worried
about. We'll never know the full scale of that cost, but now
that social media is here to stay, you'd have to imagine that
scale is growing exponentially more vast than it used to be.
>
> The world has changed - our constitutions need updating in
relation to everything else that evolves by human nature.
Absolute freedom of speech might have worked once, but it
certainly doesn't now.
>
--- End Quote ---
I believe that we have the opposite to freedom of speech now.
You mention "I'm not here to wage war on anyone's freedom of
speech if what they're saying does no direct harm"; whilst at
first reading that makes sense, you also need to look at what
people deem to be harmful. There have been reports circulating
this week about people being offended by the colour of a
chocolate duck. People in this day and age seem capable of being
offended by pretty much anything, so where do we draw the line?
What you deem acceptable might offend me; what offends you might
be acceptable to me. I've personally seen people try to shut
down others by decrying them as racist, when they are no such
thing. This doesn't lead to a better form of discussion, it
leads to divisiveness and polarisation. The hallowed middle
ground is fast disappearing.
As I mentioned elsewhere, if you don't want people to think a
certain way, you need to first understand why they do feel that
way, then attempt to unravel those reasons. If you are so
determined that you are right in your viewpoint, that is. The
alternative is what you see with the current Brexit opinions -
people from both sides slating each other, and refusing to
listen to alternative views.
Again, for the record, IF Folau says he hates gays, I don't see
that his opinion has any merits at all. But he does, and that's
the crux of it. He clearly has something in his mind that
brought this opinion about. Simply saying "you're wrong" won't
change that. Unless you want to simply shun people who think in
a way that society deems to be wrong, you need to show them why
their thinking should change.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page