DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 21561--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Quinky
Date: April 11, 2019, 7:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Brown Bottle link ---
>
> Unbelievable.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for that valued contribution. Your legal mind astonishes
me.
#Post#: 21565--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: DOK
Date: April 11, 2019, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, I did wonder the point you're making Quinky. If I write on
social media "All Martians should be gassed to death", and
50,000 people read it, is that somehow better than me going out
in the street, finding a Martian and shouting that at him? If
that's your point I could not disagree with you more.
We see Donald trump pouring poison onto social media all the
time. No, he doesn't go down to the border and beat illegal
immigrants, but it happens and part of the reason it happens is
people think they have a "nod and a wink" from the establishment
to do so. He doesn't dress up in a white sheet and burn crosses,
but his social media meanderings encourage the people who do.
#Post#: 21569--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Quinky
Date: April 11, 2019, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DOK link ---
>
> Well, I did wonder the point you're making Quinky. If I write
on social media "All Martians should be gassed to death", and
50,000 people read it, is that somehow better than me going out
in the street, finding a Martian and shouting that at him? If
that's your point I could not disagree with you more.
>
> We see Donald trump pouring poison onto social media all the
time. No, he doesn't go down to the border and beat illegal
immigrants, but it happens and part of the reason it happens is
people think they have a "nod and a wink" from the establishment
to do so. He doesn't dress up in a white sheet and burn crosses,
but his social media meanderings encourage the people who do.
>
--- End Quote ---
Which point DOK?
I simply asked (not having read the tweet in question) whether
he had actually discriminated, or whether he'd stated a dislike.
People can have a dislike, but if it affects their actions it
becomes a much bigger issue. That's my understanding of the
legal gist of it.
To look at a lesser example: how often do you hear people saying
"I hate the French", or "I don't like Germans"? That's
acceptable. What you can't do is refuse to employ someone
because they're French.
And before people get up in arms, I'm not suggesting there's any
correlation, or it's in any way comparable to homophobia. It's
an example.
#Post#: 21570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: TomBuckQuin
Date: April 11, 2019, 8:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinky link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree with you that people can be easily offended these days
but I'm interested to know what your answer would be to my
question about the genuine harm that social media posts like
these can potentially cause. Because I deem that to be the more
urgent crux of the issue. I couldn't care less what Israel Folau
thinks of my sexuality, just as I very much doubt he cares about
what I think of him. As I stated in a post above, I'm not trying
to change his views - they're his and I'm very aware I'd be
wasting my time anyway. But that's me, a bisexual guy, talking
from the very fortunate position of being/having many things
that either make me more resilient (28 years old, disabled since
birth, a ridiculously supportive family/girlfriend/friends), or
more privileged (white, middle-class, male).
What I really care about is the kids (and vulnerable people
generally) who may be reading Folau's post (and other posts that
whichever way you look at it make judgements about certain
groups of people) who are already in a fragile state of mind
when it comes to a heady concoction of any of the following:
adolescence + mental health + sexuality + religion. Folau's
post, read by even one of those people in a less fortunate
position than me, can potentially have (again, no allegation
here) seriously devastating consequences. This is the end of the
"freedom of speech spectrum" that needs serious sorting out
first - you know, the end where lives are at risk. Once we have
that in check then I agree, we all have a part to play in
protecting freedom of speech when no harm is possible but people
"just don't like what they're hearing".
And that's where poorfour's perfectly worded comment comes in -
I'll keep quoting it until the cows come home:
--- Quote from: poorfour link ---
>
> Not all rights are equal. Your right not to be offended, or to
say whatever you want is less important than someone else's
right to freedom from harassment and discrimination. When two
people's rights come into conflict, humane societies determine
precedence by looking at which option causes the least overall
harm.
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't know how anyone in their right mind could argue this
isn't the natural "hierarchy of rights". And yes, I take your
point that there are grey areas, but not when we're talking
about suicide/self harm. No good human being wants to see anyone
else come to self-inflicted physical/psychological harm - and we
cannot simply imagine that stuff away, pretending it doesn't
happen while continuing to profess "freedom of speech at any and
all costs". The onus must come to the person exercising that
right - what serious harm might your comments cause? Because you
can't seriously expect that responsibility to be passed onto the
mentally unwell/fragile person reading those comments and then
committing suicide/self harm. That's victim blaming at its
worst. And yes, people commit suicide and self harm every day
because of what they see/hear/feel other people think about
them. Which is why responsibility over how you use your freedom
of speech comes back to you when you open your mouth or put
fingers to keyboard. It needs enforcing (constitutional
amendments, whatever) and there needs to be an awareness
campaign that refutes what Trump would have you believe about
freedom of speech being some divine right above all else.
But yes, once that's fixed, people also need to open themselves
up to a two-way dialogue and not seek to shut down opinions that
they don't agree with, but are ultimately harmless. Like, I
assume, the chocolate duck - although I haven't heard that story
so can't actually comment.
#Post#: 21573--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: TomBuckQuin
Date: April 11, 2019, 9:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And for Quinky's benefit:
HTML https://www.instagram.com/p/BwEWt2uHcLI/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet
#Post#: 21574--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Fursty
Date: April 11, 2019, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom whilst agree with a lot of what you say there isn’t a
natural hierarchy of rights, all rights and morals are a
construct of the society in which they exist and such change
with time.
#Post#: 21575--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: TomBuckQuin
Date: April 11, 2019, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Fursty link ---
>
> Tom whilst agree with a lot of what you say there isn’t a
natural hierarchy of rights, all rights and morals are a
construct of the society in which they exist and such change
with time.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yeah, my fault for dipping into the figurative there - although
I did try to " " it to show I was coining rather than referring
to a hierarchy inscribed in school textbooks across the country.
I meant more that it's difficult to argue against the right to
life/good physical and mental health taking precedence over the
right to say what you want.
And I completely agree with you that rights and morals should
shift and evolve over time - unfortunately people like Trump are
doing their best to ensure that the right to freedom of speech
does not evolve and continues to carry no real liability for its
occasionally negative consequences. It's being used as a point
of justification or an excuse much more than it should be.
If you wanted to really oversimplify my basic argument you might
jot it down as:
Right to life > right to say whatever the hell I want without a
care for the consequences
But I'm trying to be a bit more nuanced than that - there are
problems at the other end too with attempts to censor when
there's absolutely no justification for doing so. But that's
less urgent to me than someone's life potentially ending
prematurely.
#Post#: 21576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Quinky
Date: April 11, 2019, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TomBuckQuin link ---
>
> I agree with you that people can be easily offended these days
but I'm interested to know what your answer would be to my
question about the genuine harm that social media posts like
these can potentially cause. Because I deem that to be the more
urgent crux of the issue. I couldn't care less what Israel Folau
thinks of my sexuality, just as I very much doubt he cares about
what I think of him. As I stated in a post above, I'm not trying
to change his views - they're his and I'm very aware I'd be
wasting my time anyway. But that's me, a bisexual guy, talking
from the very fortunate position of being/having many things
that either make me more resilient (28 years old, disabled since
birth, a ridiculously supportive family/girlfriend/friends), or
more privileged (white, middle-class, male).
>
> What I really care about is the kids (and vulnerable people
generally) who may be reading Folau's post (and other posts that
whichever way you look at it make judgements about certain
groups of people) who are already in a fragile state of mind
when it comes to a heady concoction of any of the following:
adolescence + mental health + sexuality + religion. Folau's
post, read by even one of those people in a less fortunate
position than me, can potentially have (again, no allegation
here) seriously devastating consequences. This is the end of the
"freedom of speech spectrum" that needs serious sorting out
first - you know, the end where lives are at risk. Once we have
that in check then I agree, we all have a part to play in
protecting freedom of speech when no harm is possible but people
"just don't like what they're hearing".
>
> And that's where poorfour's perfectly worded comment comes in
- I'll keep quoting it until the cows come home:
>
> I don't know how anyone in their right mind could argue this
isn't the natural "hierarchy of rights". And yes, I take your
point that there are grey areas, but not when we're talking
about suicide/self harm. No good human being wants to see anyone
else come to self-inflicted physical/psychological harm - and we
cannot simply imagine that stuff away, pretending it doesn't
happen while continuing to profess "freedom of speech at any and
all costs". The onus must come to the person exercising that
right - what serious harm might your comments cause? Because you
can't seriously expect that responsibility to be passed onto the
mentally unwell/fragile person reading those comments and then
committing suicide/self harm. That's victim blaming at its
worst. And yes, people commit suicide and self harm every day
because of what they see/hear/feel other people think about
them. Which is why responsibility over how you use your freedom
of speech comes back to you when you open your mouth or put
fingers to keyboard. It needs enforcing (constitutional
amendments, whatever) and there needs to be an awareness
campaign that refutes what Trump would have you believe about
freedom of speech being some divine right above all else.
>
> But yes, once that's fixed, people also need to open
themselves up to a two-way dialogue and not seek to shut down
opinions that they don't agree with, but are ultimately
harmless. Like, I assume, the chocolate duck - although I
haven't heard that story so can't actually comment.
>
--- End Quote ---
I had just typed a lengthy reply but then got thrown out of the
forum, so to speak. Censorship? :)
I'll try to rewrite as best I can. Here goes:
Thanks for your engagement. I appreciate you posting your views
as they are well written and thought out. Much better than the
current trend of labelling and name calling.
I doubt anybody would agree that something causing another
person to self-harm is wrong. But I'd say that simply blocking
out such things is not the best answer, to enable that person to
live a fuller life. You can try to block out everything that
will push a vulnerable person over the edge, but what if
something gets through to them? People are people, and it only
takes someone to make a comment (intentionally or not) which
could be taken the wrong way, and a vulnerable person could
react badly. There is a suggestion that society has become too
soft and needs to toughen up; looking at your last comment, I'd
say you can see that up to a point. Looking at a real-life
example, the recent protests outside schools in Birmingham,
where parents were incensed that their children were being
taught about same-sex relationships - which they absolutely
abhorred - would be hard to shield from anyone. Unless of course
a person stays at home, shuts the curtains, turns of the radio
and TV...
I think the solution is much deeper. It's more important to find
out why someone is so vulnerable, and to help them build
confidence, emotional strength, resilience, or whatever is
lacking. They could then enjoy life a great deal more I believe,
without the real fear that a potentially innocuous comment could
push them over the edge. In simple terms, do you try to protect
someone by wrapping them in cotton wool, or do you try to help
them deal with what might be damaging to them?
We can't fix the world. It's an idealistic dream, but it won't
happen. We also need to be wary of people who seek to shut down
those that they disagree with, simply by calling them offensive.
Otherwise, where is the line to be drawn?
#Post#: 21579--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: TomBuckQuin
Date: April 11, 2019, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good debate - appreciate the way you're expressing yourself too
and there is probably more convergence between our arguments
than there might at first appear to be.
I'm all for helping those more vulnerable to become more
resilient - think that's absolutely crucial too, you're right. I
just really feel there's an opportunity to do something quite
simple but effective within the constitutional concept of
freedom of speech though. I really do feel there has to be some
kind of responsibility taken by the person expressing their view
- I just wish I had a definitive answer to your final question:
"where is the line to be drawn?"
The truth is I'd need to go away and think properly on that
before I came up with any kind of draft policy, but it just
feels to me that the current situation whereby someone can claim
freedom of speech is justification for putting other people in
harm's way is skewed in the wrong direction. So too is the
notion of stopping certain political groups speaking at
universities or censorship for censorship's sake. Feels like
there's a weird pinch at both ends of this argument and if we
could iron out those two inadequacies then we'd have more of an
all-rounder of a policy and people would have a more concrete
understanding of what is and isn't acceptable when expressing
yourself outwardly - especially on social media/in public.
#Post#: 21590--------------------------------------------------
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
DIR By: Quintessentially optimistic
Date: April 11, 2019, 11:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have been quietly reading posts, as a Guest, for months... until
this thread came along. I wanted to join purely to express my
respect for & thanks to all those who have expressed such
eloquent views on this topic. It shows the best rugby spirit (we
really don't care who you are, what you look like, who you love
-we just want to be able to play or watch a great game and chat
about it forever afterwards. Thank you.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page