DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Everything not rugby related!
*****************************************************
#Post#: 109365--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: Account_109
Date: May 26, 2023, 6:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Carbonm link ---
>
> I agree with a lot of what you say and debate should be
encouraged. You rightly point out that there are some limits are
needed. I don't agree that I was arguing that ALL restrictions
are acceptable (unless you are referring to someone else). I was
referring specifically to the Folau incident. I believe
different views and beliefs make for a healthy society.
>
> As consequences for speech, well there are consequences I'm
afraid, as the Folau incident shows, whether you think it's
right or not. That's not to say you can't have a exchange of
different views. Unfortunately social media is not the best
forum for this.
>
--- End Quote ---
For the record, I'm not accusing you (or anyone else) of making
the particular arguments I referenced. People generally don't
make obviously ridiculous arguments, so the purpose of my post
was essentially to "steelman" (as in, to make someone else's
argument stronger and more defensible) both sides and to try and
get people to engage with what the actual point of contention is
- what consequences are acceptable and when should they be
applied?
For what it's worth, my opinion is that, since we're talking
about the overall societal effects of speech, this is exactly
the type of situation where we should defer to societal
consensus (or if not consensus, at least majority). If most
people's experience of speech which is on the border of
acceptability is that it's harmful, then it's probably good to
tighten the restrictions somewhat to mitigate that harm. If,
however, most people's experience of that sort of speech is that
it brings a different view that forces them to challenge their
beliefs (which "controversial" speech can often do), then it's
probably good to loosen the restrictions to encourage more of
that kind of speech.
Obviously social media is (as always) a major complicating
factor with this, though I think that the general principle
still holds.
With regards to the Folau incident in particular, I think that
the original incident is pretty boring in terms of controversy.
Folau was knowingly in breach of the contract which he willingly
signed, and so the contract was terminated. There really isn't
anything to argue about there - this pretty obviously falls into
the category of "things that any reasonable person would agree
is an acceptable restriction on speech". His selection for the
World XV is more interesting - obviously he's within his rights
to make himself available for selection, and they would be
within their rights to either select or to not select him. So,
at least to me, the argument comes down to whether you think
it's good for rugby that people like Folau are able to continue
competing at the highest levels of the sport. Personally, I
think that if he'd made more of an effort to rehabilitate
himself and show that he'd changed then I wouldn't have any
issues with it. However, since he's never shown any remorse (at
least as far as I'm aware), I probably wouldn't select him. But
as I said before, opinions on that will differ, and that's okay.
#Post#: 109367--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: Quinky
Date: May 27, 2023, 12:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Account_109 link ---
>
> For the record, I'm not accusing you (or anyone else) of
making the particular arguments I referenced. People generally
don't make obviously ridiculous arguments, so the purpose of my
post was essentially to "steelman" (as in, to make someone
else's argument stronger and more defensible) both sides and to
try and get people to engage with what the actual point of
contention is - what consequences are acceptable and when should
they be applied?
>
> For what it's worth, my opinion is that, since we're talking
about the overall societal effects of speech, this is exactly
the type of situation where we should defer to societal
consensus (or if not consensus, at least majority). If most
people's experience of speech which is on the border of
acceptability is that it's harmful, then it's probably good to
tighten the restrictions somewhat to mitigate that harm. If,
however, most people's experience of that sort of speech is that
it brings a different view that forces them to challenge their
beliefs (which "controversial" speech can often do), then it's
probably good to loosen the restrictions to encourage more of
that kind of speech.
>
> Obviously social media is (as always) a major complicating
factor with this, though I think that the general principle
still holds.
>
> With regards to the Folau incident in particular, I think that
the original incident is pretty boring in terms of controversy.
Folau was knowingly in breach of the contract which he willingly
signed, and so the contract was terminated. There really isn't
anything to argue about there - this pretty obviously falls into
the category of "things that any reasonable person would agree
is an acceptable restriction on speech". His selection for the
World XV is more interesting - obviously he's within his rights
to make himself available for selection, and they would be
within their rights to either select or to not select him. So,
at least to me, the argument comes down to whether you think
it's good for rugby that people like Folau are able to continue
competing at the highest levels of the sport. Personally, I
think that if he'd made more of an effort to rehabilitate
himself and show that he'd changed then I wouldn't have any
issues with it. However, since he's never shown any remorse (at
least as far as I'm aware), I probably wouldn't select him. But
as I said before, opinions on that will differ, and that's okay.
>
--- End Quote ---
Well said. Although I disagree with your conclusion, you make
good points.
In my view, he's picked for his rugby abilities, not for his
views.
It's been said that people will boo every time he touches the
ball; the same people might feel differently if that happened to
Quins players who've transgressed in the past.
#Post#: 109370--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: BaaBass v World XV
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: May 27, 2023, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is it safe to come out yet?
(Pun intended)
*****************************************************
Page 12 of 12
DIR Previous Page