Israel Folau, Billy Vunipola and the intolerance of tolerance

recedite wrote: »

I'm still waiting for an example that doesn't involve either ignoring the speaker, or else some kind of assault on them.

Call your mother a witch and get written out of her will.

Not entirely bulletproof though.

salmocab wrote: »

Call your mother a witch and get written out of her will.

Nice example

recedite wrote: »

Nice example

Not entirely bulletproof though.

Look this could go on all night, there is just no such thing as a right to consequence free free speech. Free speech is allowed in a lot of places and rightfully so but it can’t be enshrined as consequence free as that’s just not possible.

sydthebeat wrote: »

so outside of work, education and employment???

nice caveats to include

I cant call my friends wife a phat cnut without getting a box in head for it

calling her a phat cnut = free speech
box in the gob = consequences

get it yet??

I'm pretty sure I already mentioned assault and the old...

recedite wrote: »

punch in the face if you said something in the wrong place or at the wrong time.

recedite wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I already mentioned assault and the old...

Why are you ruling out employment?

salmocab wrote: »

Look this could go on all night, there is just no such thing as a right to consequence free free speech. Free speech is allowed in a lot of places and rightfully so but it can’t be enshrined as consequence free as that’s just not possible.

Fair enough. I was just trying to establish when you might actually be justified in imposing nasty consequences on somebody else, just because you don't like what they are saying.
By "justified" I mean you can do it, and not be locked up yourself, or risk suffering similar nasty consequences back.

recedite wrote: »

Fair enough. I was just trying to establish when you might actually be justified in imposing nasty consequences on somebody else, just because you don't like what they are saying.
By "justified" I mean you can do it, and not be locked up yourself, or risk suffering similar nasty consequences back.

Socially excluding someone who repeatedly insults a fellow member of the group?

I mean you can't interfere with someone physically in pretty much any situation and the other big things are generally professional/educational. People have had awards stripped I'd guess. What kind of consequences are you looking for?

sydthebeat

recedite wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I already mentioned assault and the old...

yes..... AFTER i gave my example....

Donnielighto wrote: »

Why are you ruling out employment?

If I phone an insurance company to buy insurance or something, I don't want the guy on the other end of the phone proselytising or trying to convert me to his religion. Neither does the company.

But he is entitled to spend the evening (after work) out on the street handing out leaflets, if that's his thing.

sydthebeat wrote: »

yes..... AFTER i gave my example....

Before, actually.
Bit of a time traveler aren't you.
Between that, and knowing the outcome of a court application 3 months before it happens.

recedite wrote: »

If I phone an insurance company to buy insurance or something, I don't want the guy on the other end of the phone proselytising or trying to convert me to his religion. Neither does the company.

But he is entitled to spend the evening (after work) out on the street handing out leaflets, if that's his thing.

Probably but that's a faceless person the company won't be identified with. Folau was warned about similar behaviour in the past this wasn't some shock to him. The company has image and it's up to them to manage that, they are right to fire him over this for their image and the health of the game in oz. If he was saying racist stuff there wouldn't be half the furore but it amounts to the same. He was publicly insulting people not for their decisions but for their being.

Of course there is consequence just like there is consequence for any company that fires somebody for giving their religious opinion to the public.
I've been shouting for Australia to lose every game I've seen them play since this happened. I always shouted for them against every side outside of Ireland.
I'm never buying Asics again, I'll never buy any Land Rover vehicle and I'll never fly with Qantas as a result of this.
I'm the type that will get along with anybody regardless of religion, skin colour or sexual orientation so long as they don't want to talk about it all the time.
I think these groups who support people in all these areas have an important role to play in society but imo the LGBT+ has too much power now and too many people are afraid of them. It's the case nowadays that people are following and acting in accordance with LGBT+ thinking for fear of losing their business. Imo that's a problem.
How anybody can get upset by the mad ramblings of a religious person is beyond me. As a non-reigious person I pity people who are fully immersed in religion.
I'm not against anybody unless you are in my face about it too much and right now LGBT+ is in my face too much.
Anyways that's me done with this. It's a whole pile of nonsense from top to bottom. Folau should have had more sense but he shouldn't have been sacked either imo. RA should have more cop on, they could have punished by cancelling his contract and offering him a smaller one. That would have hurt his pocket and made the point they wanted to make without it getting as crazy as it has.
All those calling what he said homophobic are way ott imo. You will never convince me that it's homophobic not matter how much you argue.

Donnielighto wrote: »

Socially excluding someone who repeatedly insults a fellow member of the group?
I mean you can't interfere with someone physically in pretty much any situation and the other big things are generally professional/educational. People have had awards stripped I'd guess. What kind of consequences are you looking for?

Maybe ending their career. That kind of thing.

recedite wrote: »

Maybe ending their career. That kind of thing.

Not his career, just his contract. He is free to sign with anyone that will have him isn't he? If he goes to France he'll make bank.

Donnielighto wrote: »

Not his career, just his contract. He is free to sign with anyone that will have him isn't he? If he goes to France he'll make bank.

I doubt it. The gay lobby will watch his every move and utterance.

It will be rinse and repeat, unless he repents from his religious convictions.

recedite wrote: »

I doubt it. The gay lobby will watch his every move and utterance.

It will be rinse and repeat, unless he repents from his religious convictions.

People said much the same about paddy Jackson. He will get work if he wants. He’s no less an athlete for his beliefs. His image is tarnished though so is a lot less likely to get extra sponsorship but he knew that when he tweeted.

recedite wrote: »

I doubt it. The gay lobby will watch his every move and utterance.

It will be rinse and repeat, unless he repents from his religious convictions.

Gay lobby, do you think that's why he lost his contact?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Jackson

salmocab wrote: »

People said much the same about paddy Jackson. He will get work if he wants. He’s no less an athlete for his beliefs. His image is tarnished though so is a lot less likely to get extra sponsorship but he knew that when he tweeted.

Apples and oranges. Although Jackson was acquitted, there were definite named victim(s) in what happened there.

Secondly, he acknowledged that condemnation was "fully justified" and apologised adding "I am also truly sorry for engaging in a WhatsApp group chat which was degrading and offensive and I apologise unreservedly for this."

Thirdly, he has not been able to move on...

Jackson exercised a clause in his contract with Perpignan that allowed him to leave the club when they were relegated from the Top 14. He signed with London Irish, who had been guided back to the English Premiership for the 2019–20 season by former Ireland head coach Declan Kidney.
Before the start of the season, London Irish sponsor, Cash Converters, announced that they were withdrawing sponsorship of the club, and many fans also tweeted that they would boycott the club, using the #IBelieveHer hashtag. This was followed six days later by an announcement by Diageo that they would be withdrawing their Guinness-branded sponsorship from the club as a result of Jackson's signing. They said in a statement "We have met with the club to express our concerns. Their recent decision is not consistent with our values and so we have ended our sponsorship." Diageo and Guinness had sponsored the club for the previous 27 years.

recedite wrote: »

Apples and oranges. Although Jackson was acquitted, there were definite named victim(s) in what happened there.

Secondly, he acknowledged that condemnation was "fully justified" and apologised adding "I am also truly sorry for engaging in a WhatsApp group chat which was degrading and offensive and I apologise unreservedly for this."

Thirdly, he has not been able to move on...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddy_Jackson

It’s not apples and oranges, pJ became a figure of hate by people with issues with his behavior. There were plenty of people out for blood and plenty of he’ll never work again nonsense. He did get work again albeit lower profile than what he had. He did something had his contract ended moved away and got on with his life.

AngryHippie

robinph wrote: »

shut up so that he stops wasting his money.

Its not his money.
The peasants and god-botherers are crowd funding it

AngryHippie

eagle eye wrote: »

It's a whole pile of nonsense from top to bottom. Folau should have had more sense but he shouldn't have been sacked either imo. RA should have more cop on, they could have punished by cancelling his contract and offering him a smaller one. That would have hurt his pocket and made the point they wanted to make without it getting as crazy as it has.

They didn't sack him the first time. He was cautioned and told on no uncertain terms where the line was regarding discriminatory speech. This would have been enough for most people to have picked up on the direction they were going.
What happens once will probably never happen again, what has happened twice will almost certainly happen a third time. If it costs RA sponsors and supporters, then it harms the entire game. Their mandate is to grow, protect and administer their sport. Its a no-brainer.

eagle eye wrote: »

All those calling what he said homophobic are way ott imo. You will never convince me that it's homophobic not matter how much you argue.

It is fundamentally homophobic, if you don't understand that, then you don't understand the issue.

dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

Religious beliefs don't make it okay to broadcast statements that are critical or offensive on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation etc.
They make it even more deplorable as the same hypocrites will turn around and claim they do it out of love, or as a sense of duty when they get called out on it. It's a crock. Particularly surrounding homosexuality, as the few biblical references to it don't come from the gospels :rolleyes:

Donnielighto wrote: »

Gay lobby, do you think that's why he lost his contact?

The power of the LGBT+ had a huge part to play in him getting sacked. The weren't directly responsible but the fear of them coming down hard on you if you didn't take action is why these things are being done.

robinph

eagle eye wrote: »

The power of the LGBT+ people had a huge part to play in him getting sacked. The weren't directly responsible but the fear of them coming down hard on you if you didn't take action is why these things are being done.

Quite right that the employer is concerned about the image their employees portray to their customers, and if the customers don't think that telling homosexuals that they are going to hell is a reasonable thing then those customers will let you know.

It's not an LGBT lobby, it is just reasonable people who don't agree with the hate Folau was broadcasting.

Professor Moriarty

eagle eye wrote: »

The power of the LGBT+ had a huge part to play in him getting sacked. The weren't directly responsible but the fear of them coming down hard on you if you didn't take action is why these things are being done.

Or maybe Folau behaved like a dick and Rugby Australia did the right thing.

robinph wrote: »

Quite right that the employer is concerned about the image their employees portray to their customers, and if the customers don't think that telling homosexuals that they are going to hell is a reasonable thing then those customers will let you know.

It's not an LGBT lobby, it is just reasonable people who don't agree with the hate Folau was broadcasting.

Well imo he wasn't broadcasting hate. You can argue all you want and I'll never see it the same way as you. It is his religious belief and he was asking all those poeople to repent so they don't go to hell. That doesn't in any way should like hate to me.
I don't agree with his beliefs but it's not hate imo .
You think people feel strongly enough about this stuff to want to sack Folau. Well I can tell you that a large majority of my fellow sports fans really don't care, some are annoyed that he got sacked and others are happy he did but most don't care.
These large companies providing sponsorship get more coverage by withdrawing their sponsorship than they do by providing it so it's a win for them. Their decisions are always based on what's best for them financially. They couldn't care less what happens.

eagle eye wrote: »

Well imo he wasn't broadcasting hate. You can argue all you want and I'll never see it the same way as you. It is his religious belief and he was asking all those poeople to repent so they don't go to hell. That doesn't in any way should like hate to me.
I don't agree with his beliefs but it's not hate imo .
You think people feel strongly enough about this stuff to want to sack Folau. Well I can tell you that a large majority of my fellow sports fans really don't care, some are annoyed that he got sacked and others are happy he did but most don't care.
These large companies providing sponsorship get more coverage by withdrawing their sponsorship than they do by providing it so it's a win for them. Their decisions are always based on what's best for them financially. They couldn't care less what happens.

Which large companies got a win by withdrawing sponsorship from Australian rugby?

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

The power of the LGBT+ had a huge part to play in him getting sacked

You make it sound like something from The Exorcist. "The power of the LGBT+ compels you!". What you're referring to as "the power of the LGBT+" most people would simply regard as public intolerance for homophobia.

robinph

eagle eye wrote: »

These large companies providing sponsorship get more coverage by withdrawing their sponsorship than they do by providing it so it's a win for them. Their decisions are always based on what's best for them financially. They couldn't care less what happens.

They might get half a days worth of headlines in the non sports news about withdrawing their name. They lose having their name mentioned multiple times every week in every sports report and plastered all around every stadium, and on the team kits, and worn by the fans and engraved on the end of season trophy, and having a stadium named after them. The coverage it really not comparable in any way whatsoever.

They would get named a lot more in non sports headlines for not withdrawing their sponsorship, but none of that is good for them.

smacl wrote: »

You make it sound like something from The Exorcist. "The power of the LGBT+ compels you!". What you're referring to as "the power of the LGBT+" most people would simply regard as public intolerance for homophobia.

No, that's not what I'm referring to. Remember the gay marriage referendum here? People were genuinely afraid to air their views in public if they were against it.
I was for it but I had many conversations with people who were against it because they knew they could have a conversation with me without being told they were wrong/homophobic/archaic. They told me how they felt about it and how they felt that there was an air of 'you better not dare say you are against it' in the public arena.