Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?
Options
Comments
-
The crucial thing is that he just asked people to repent, no more, no less.
Its not homophobic, if you think it is then you are being ridiculous.
Comparing him to people who hate on and wish to do harm to gay people is ridiculous too.
As I've made clear I don't share his views, I'm not religious either. I do believe in people having the right to air their views so long as it's not hate speech or inciting violence.
Falou believes God created the human race.
Some of the human race were 'created' homosexual.
Falou says those people should repent.
And if you think anyone with his platform spouting God Hates Fags nonsense doesn't incite violence than it's you who are being either ridiculous or are in no danger of that hate message ever affecting you personally so cannot understand it's power to spread discrimination which can and does lead to violence.
Rugby Australia understand that which is why they do not want to be associated with his call for other people to repent.
NO-ONE has called for Falou to be silenced.
NO-ONE has said he cannot tweet what he wishes.
HIS EMPLOYER has said that they do not wish to be associated with his opinion having already warned him that he is bound by a code of conduct.
Israel Falou made a choice. Now he has to live by that choice.0 -
I'm not sure how he'd take it, are you?smacl wrote:A need to repent implies you did something wrong. As an atheist how do you think he'd take it if I told him to repent for being a Christian or alternatively suffer for all eternity for the affront his religious belief has caused?
Yes and it's from the Bible where it also talks about fornicators, drunks etc. who he says also need to repent.Bannasidhe wrote:Falou believes God created the human race. Some of the human race were 'created' homosexual. Falou says those people should repent.
He is asking all these people to repent in line with a quote from the Bible.
He never said God hates fags or anything like that. He quoted from the Bible and asked these people to repent.Bannasidhe wrote:And if you think anyone with his platform spouting God Hates Fags nonsense doesn't incite violence than it's you who are being either ridiculous or are in no danger of that hate message ever affecting you personally so cannot understand it's power to spread discrimination which can and does lead to violence.
Rugby Australia is facing a backlash from a lot of Pacific Islanders who are not happy about this.Bannasidhe wrote:Rugby Australia understand that which is why they do not want to be associated with his call for other people to repent. NO-ONE has called for Falou to be silenced. NO-ONE has said he cannot tweet what he wishes. HIS EMPLOYER has said that they do not wish to be associated with his opinion having already warned him that he is bound by a code of conduct.
The team he played for had a disastrous season after Folau was banished. Some of the players have been kneeling and saying prayers before games in support of Folau.
They are going to get embarrassed at the World Cup because it's split the dressing room.
What happens then? Are people willing to have a crap rugby team? I don't think so, heads will roll at RA and you'll see changes to their opinions.
Yes and a lot of people are backing him too. I'm sure there are many haters backing him but there is a hell of a lot of people who just believe in free speech that are backing him too. We are backing his right to unpunished free speech, nit agreeing with his beliefs.Bannasidhe wrote:Israel Falou made a choice. Now he has to live by that choice.0 -
I'm not sure how he'd take it, are you?
Not well, clearly. If he was happy with other people holding opposing religious beliefs, he'd hardly be trying to force his beliefs down our collective throats. On that basis, I would imagine he would be even less tolerant of someone trying to force their beliefs down his throat.0 -
Is Folau, in expressing his belief in public, attempting to "force it down the throats" of other people? Or is he doing something more than that?Not well, clearly. If he was happy with other people holding opposing religious beliefs, he'd hardly be trying to force his beliefs down our collective throats. On that basis, I would imagine he would be even less tolerant of someone trying to force their beliefs down his throat.
And, if he is, are people who do no more than express in public beliefs which differ from Folau's attempting to force their beliefs down Folau's throat?
And has has Folau objected to that? Or do you imagine that he would?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Is Folau, in expressing his belief in public, attempting to "force it down the throats" of other people?
Repent is an imperative, so yes. REPENT! in the large red bold letters he uses, rather more so. Repent or go to hell is actually following it with a threat, albeit a hollow one in my worldview.And, if he is, are people who do no more than express in public beliefs which differ from Folau's attempting to force their beliefs down Folau's throat?
I don't think so no. The instructions been given by others are simply to desist in his own attempts to push his religious beliefs on others. They are not attempting to remove or replace his beliefs with alternates.And has has Folau objected to that? Or do you imagine that he would?
While it hasn't happened, yes, I'd imagine he would strongly object on the basis of how deeply entrenched he is within his own belief system.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not sure how he'd take it, are you?
Yes and it's from the Bible where it also talks about fornicators, drunks etc. who he says also need to repent.
He is asking all these people to repent in line with a quote from the Bible.
He never said God hates fags or anything like that. He quoted from the Bible and asked these people to repent.
Rugby Australia is facing a backlash from a lot of Pacific Islanders who are not happy about this.
The team he played for had a disastrous season after Folau was banished. Some of the players have been kneeling and saying prayers before games in support of Folau.
They are going to get embarrassed at the World Cup because it's split the dressing room.
What happens then? Are people willing to have a crap rugby team? I don't think so, heads will roll at RA and you'll see changes to their opinions.
Yes and a lot of people are backing him too. I'm sure there are many haters backing him but there is a hell of a lot of people who just believe in free speech that are backing him too. We are backing his right to unpunished free speech, nit agreeing with his beliefs.
As has been pointed out many many times - everyone else on Falou's "repent" list are people who chose a course of action with the exception of homosexuals. He literally wants people to repent for the way they were made by his all powerful God (in his opinion).
We should throw LGB people under the ok to discriminate bus because Pacific Islander's are upset? Seriously?
We should throw LGB people under the it's ok to discriminate bus because there is this big sportzing event and Australia cannot win without this one man? If Australia cannot win without the services of one particular player then praying Pacific Islanders are the least of their worries. What if he got injured? Who would win this team event for them then?
The dressing room is already split, Israel Falou split it. Not RA. The solution is not to say "well, in this instance the rules don't apply to this one player".
As for Falou's adherence to 'lines in the Bible' -that book also instructs it's followers to not have tattoos and observe the Sabbath. But those don't apply to Falou apparently.
Now - for the last time NO-ONE is denying Falou the right to say what he likes. As a private citizen he is free to tweet his opinion far and wide.
His EMPLOYER's have said they do not wish to pay him millions of dollars a year only to have him publicly flaunt the code of conduct all their employees are bound by.
You know what, if a person finds themselves on the same side as 'a lot of haters' then maybe, just maybe, they need to re-evaluate which 'side' they are on.0 -
"Shut up!" is also an imperative. And "Shut up or we'll fire you!" is an imperative followed by a threat which, presumably, you would think rather less hollow than the threat of hellfire. I don't see how you can maintain that Folau is forcing his views about how other people should behave down their throats, while simultaneously maintaining that others are not forcing their views about how Folau should behave down Folau's throat.Repent is an imperative, so yes. REPENT! in the large red bold letters he uses, rather more so. Repent or go to hell is actually following it with a threat, albeit a hollow one in my worldview.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't stack up. Folau wants others to change their behaviour. He doesn't threaten anyone with Hell for their beleifs, but for their actions, and it's explicitly their actions that he wants them to repent of. Just as others want Folau to repent of his actions in expressing these views.I don't think so no. The instructions been given by others are simply to desist in his own attempts to push his religious beliefs on others. They are not attempting to remove or replace his beliefs with alternates.
We can't possibly pass any kind of judgment on Folau on the basis of what you imagine about him. (Though we could possibly pass some judgement about you on the basis of what you imagine about him, if we were the judging kind. Which, of course, we're not.)While it hasn't happened, yes, I'd imagine he would strongly object on the basis of how deeply entrenched he is within his own belief system.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »
I'm sorry, but this doesn't stack up. Folau wants others to change their behaviour. He doesn't threaten anyone with Hell for their beleifs, but for their actions, and it's explicitly their actions that he wants them to repent of. Just as others want Folau to repent of his actions in expressing these views.
Not quite.
His tweet said "homosexuals" should repent. Being homosexual is not a behavior.
He wants LGB people to change what they are, not what they are doing.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »"Shut up!" is also an imperative. And "Shut up or we'll fire you!" is an imperative followed by a threat which, presumably, you would think rather less hollow than the threat of hellfire. I don't see how you can maintain that Folau is forcing his views about how other people should behave down their throats, while simultaneously maintaining that others are not forcing their views about how Folau should behave down Folau's throat.
Nope, Falou was told to abide by the code of conduct he signed up to in the terms of his employment. He was also given fair warning for initial breaches which he chose to ignore and lost his job on that basis.I'm sorry, but this doesn't stack up. Folau wants others to change their behaviour. He doesn't threaten anyone with Hell for their beleifs, but for their actions, and it's explicitly their actions that he wants them to repent of. Just as others want Folau to repent of his actions in expressing these views.
Rubbish. Homosexuality is not an action it is a natural state. Atheism is a protected human right. Alcoholism is a disease that might well be out of the individuals control to change.
Edit:Beaten to the punch!We can't possibly pass any kind of judgment on Folau on the basis of what you imagine about him. (Though we could possibly pass some judgement about you on the basis of what you imagine about him, if we were the judging kind. Which, of course, we're not.)
I didn't pass judgement on that basis though, I merely responded to your question as to what I imagined. The RA passed judgment for their reasons and I am of the opinion that hey were right to do so.0 -
I take your point, though I think Folau would say that homosexuality is a behaviour, not an identity, and what he wants people to change is what they do, not what they are. You and I might disagree with him about that, of course, (and about much else), but what he meant is fairly clear. He tweeted (on the first occasion) that homosexuals would go to hell "unless they repent of their sins", which in his theology definitely means homosexual acts, and (on the second occasion, the one that got him fired) his tweet listed homosexuals along with adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, etc. So he's definitely talking about what people do here.Bannasidhe wrote: »Not quite.
His tweet said "homosexuals" should repent. Being homosexual is not a behavior.
He wants LGB people to change what they are, not what they are doing.
But I think this may be a distinction without a difference, though, since what people do emerges from and reflects who they are, and when Folau calls on someone to "repent", he's not just asking them to stop doing this stuff, but to make a radical change in how they see the world and their own place it it, and so a radical reappraisal of how they should be living.
But equally, in demanding of Folau that he should live, act, speak in a more tolerant way, aren't we inviting him in fact to become a more tolerant person? So I don't buy this notion that Folau, who makes demands of people that I disagree with, is "forcing his views down people's throats" but that people who say to Folau things I agree with are not "forcing their views down Folau's throat". It looks too much like a double standard at work there.
Folau, in tweeting his thoughts, is not forcing his views down anybody's throat. You don't have to read his tweets and, if you do read them, you are free to disregard them, dismiss them, disagree with them or condemn them.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Peregrinus wrote: »I take your point, though I think Folau would say that homosexuality is a behaviour, not an identity, and what he wants people to change is what they do, not what they are. You and I might disagree with him about that, of course, (and about much else), but what he meant is fairly clear. He tweeted (on the first occasion) that homosexuals would go to hell "unless they repent of their sins", which in his theology definitely means homosexual acts, and (on the second occasion, the one that got him fired) his tweet listed homosexuals along with adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, etc. So he's definitely talking about what people do here.
But I think this may be a distinction without a difference, though, since what people do emerges from and reflects who they are, and when Folau calls on someone to "repent", he's not just asking them to stop doing this stuff, but to make a radical change in how they see the world and their own place it it, and so a radical reappraisal of how they should be living.
But equally, in demanding of Folau that he should live, act, speak in a more tolerant way, aren't we inviting him in fact to become a more tolerant person? So I don't buy this notion that Folau, who makes demands of people that I disagree with, is "forcing his views down people's throats" but that people who say to Folau things I agree with are not "forcing their views down Folau's throat". It looks too much like a double standard at work there.
Folau, in tweeting his thoughts, is not forcing his views down anybody's throat. You don't have to read his tweets and, if you do read them, you are free to disregard them, dismiss them, disagree with them or condemn them.
Personally, I am of the opinion that Falou the private individual is free to tweet what he likes regardless of how I feel about his beliefs.
However, that is not what happened here.
What happened here is Falou as the clearly identified employee of a national sporting body tweeted (for the second time despite warnings) something that is clearly in contravention of his employer's code of conduct. He used the massive international social media platform he has due to his employment to spread a message of intolerance.
His employer's took issue with that. And that is their right.
Falou wants to have his cake and eat it.
He wants the freedom to express his private opinion by using the platform afforded him by his public position.
He wants the right for his intolerance to be tolerated by his employer over the rights of LGB employees and members to be allowed to work/participate in an safe and welcoming environment.
He wants the right to point at others and quote Biblical passages of condemnation he believes they should adhere to while at the same time ignoring Biblical instructions that don't suit him to follow.
He sought funding from members of the public to fund a legal campaign despite being a multi-millionaire where he is looking for millions more in compensation - not his job back - while at the same time tweeting that the end of days are coming are we should all be focused on Judgement Day- one assumes that the Biblical quote about rich men/eye of needles/camels is one that also doesn't apply to the owner of a property portfolio estimated to be worth over A$20 million.
His current fund raiser being run by The Australian Christian Lobby has pledges of over A$1 million...
He had no issue getting his face on LGBT magazines promoting the Bingham Cup -a tournament based on celebrating the life of a Gay man who stove for inclusivity in Rugby and then tweeting messages condemning homosexuals.0 -
Wouildn't disagree with much of that, Bannasidhe. Plus I'd add the concern that the sum he is looking for - $3 million - is several times larger than what might be required, on the most extravagant estimates, to fund the legal action for which he is fundraising. I cannot avoid the suspicion that Folau is being used as a fundraiser for a Broader Agenda.Bannasidhe wrote: »Personally, I am of the opinion that Falou the private individual is free to tweet what he likes regardless of how I feel about his beliefs.
However, that is not what happened here.
What happened here is Falou as the clearly identified employee of a national sporting body tweeted (for the second time despite warnings) something that is clearly in contravention of his employer's code of conduct. He used the massive international social media platform he has due to his employment to spread a message of intolerance.
His employer's took issue with that. And that is their right.
Falou wants to have his cake and eat it.
He wants the freedom to express his private opinion by using the platform afforded him by his public position.
He wants the right for his intolerance to be tolerated by his employer over the rights of LGB employees and members to be allowed to work/participate in an safe and welcoming environment.
He wants the right to point at others and quote Biblical passages of condemnation he believes they should adhere to while at the same time ignoring Biblical instructions that don't suit him to follow.
He sought funding from members of the public to fund a legal campaign despite being a multi-millionaire where he is looking for millions more in compensation - not his job back - while at the same time tweeting that the end of days are coming are we should all be focused on Judgement Day- one assumes that the Biblical quote about rich men/eye of needles/camels is one that also doesn't apply to the owner of a property portfolio estimated to be worth over A$20 million.
His current fund raiser being run by The Australian Christian Lobby has pledges of over A$1 million...
He had no issue getting his face on LGBT magazines promoting the Bingham Cup -a tournament based on celebrating the life of a Gay man who stove for inclusivity in Rugby and then tweeting messages condemning homosexuals.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Wouildn't disagree with much of that, Bannasidhe. Plus I'd add the concern that the sum he is looking for - $3 million - is several times larger than what might be required, on the most extravagant estimates, to fund the legal action for which he is fundraising. I cannot avoid the suspicion that Folau is being used as a fundraiser for a Broader Agenda.
Agree completely.
Battle lines have been drawn.
It is being presented by one side as a Battle for Free Speech and by the other as a Battle against Intolerance.
In reality it is a battle between an employer and an employee over terms and conditions of employment.0 -
Aussie comedienne Jordan Raskopoulos expands on this:Bannasidhe wrote: »Israel Falou made a choice. Now he has to live by that choice.
0 -
Just to update:Peregrinus wrote: »Wouildn't disagree with much of that, Bannasidhe. Plus I'd add the concern that the sum he is looking for - $3 million - is several times larger than what might be required, on the most extravagant estimates, to fund the legal action for which he is fundraising. I cannot avoid the suspicion that Folau is being used as a fundraiser for a Broader Agenda.
After GoFundMe took down Folau's appeal for funds for his legal action against Rgby Australia, the appeal was instead hosted on the website of the Australian Christian Lobby, a fairly high-profile Christian Right lobby group in Australia.
The Australian edition of the Guardian has a story this morning saying that $2 million has now been raised and fundraising is being suspended. Anyone now landing on the appeal webpage is being told "we are hitting the pause button" but "if the case drags on and Israel [Israel Folau, not Israel the middle eastern state] needs more support, we will reopen this campaign."
In the meantime, questions have been raised about whether fundraising for Folau's proceedings against Rugby Australia falls within the ACL's own stated objective of "“advancement of the Christian religion and advocating for changes in law and public policy”. The The Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission, which is the regulator for charities, has acknowledged that it has received complaints about this, but won't say how many and says it won't be commenting while it investigates the complaints.0 -
Do have 2fm on at work, Jennifer zamperelli had this one on explaining what lgbtq-a1 or something was.
Painful listening, gotta be close to the peak i reckon!0 -
Do have 2fm on at work, Jennifer zamperelli had this one on explaining what lgbtq-a1 or something was.
Painful listening, gotta be close to the peak i reckon!
What exactly was your issue?
That you don't want to understand or that you don't agree?
With mod hat on may I just say that in this forum we require a certain standard of discussion and your post has fallen far short of that standard or something.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »What exactly was your issue?
That you don't want to understand or that you don't agree?
With mod hat on may I just say that in this forum we require a certain standard of discussion and your post has fallen far short of that standard or something.
I think the point is it's total nonsense, if you want to start adding a character for every single identity out there it will just keep going .... LGBTQAIGDFHGODFGJDFGJGSDFJGODFJGODFJGEOJGOERJRTOH#JOJO#$OJFGJWERGOQEWJGOERWGJEOJFOERJG@#$OJG#OGO@JGQW!!!XDEWRF@
How about just treating all people with respect.0 -
Yeah, but getting to the point where you treat all people with respect may require identifying the people who are not being treated with respect, exploring why this is so, what can be done about it, etc, etc. Hence naming oppressed or victimised groups is necessary and important.Hector Savage wrote: »I think the point is it's total nonsense, if you want to start adding a character for every single identity out there it will just keep going .... LGBTQAIGDFHGODFGJDFGJGSDFJGODFJGODFJGEOJGOERJRTOH#JOJO#$OJFGJWERGOQEWJGOERWGJEOJFOERJG@#$OJG#OGO@JGQW!!!XDEWRF@
How about just treating all people with respect.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hector Savage wrote: »
How about just treating all people with respect.
Indeed.
However the issue is not with the people who's 'letter' is included not treating other's with respect. It is that they are not treated with respect due to having that identity that is indicated by a letter.
So perhaps it's the H majority you should be spreading this message of treating all people with respect to and not the LGBTQI+ minorities who feel the need to join together and work to demand being treated with respect.
But thank you for answering on behalf of the poster who I actually asked what their issue was.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Indeed.
However the issue is not with the people who's 'letter' is included not treating other's with respect. It is that they are not treated with respect due to having that identity that is indicated by a letter.
So perhaps it's the H majority you should be spreading this message of treating all people with respect to and not the LGBTQI+ minorities who feel the need to join together and work to demand being treated with respect.
But thank you for answering on behalf of the poster who I actually asked what their issue was.
ha ha some standard of discussion there. they do not deserve respect solely on their sexuality ... just that it suits them for attention. don't see the same drama about minority religious or racial groups banding together for respect.0 -
ha ha some standard of discussion there. they do not deserve respect solely on their sexuality ... just that it suits them for attention. don't see the same drama about minority religious or racial groups banding together for respect.
Mod warning: Welcome to the A&A forum. Please raise the standard of your own discussion before posting here again. Thank you.0 -
Some person named Ben Shapiro (who has the look of a petulant over privileged white boy brat about him imho so I'm not going to bother finding out any more about him but I am sure he'd be ok with me judging him based only on his looks) claims that Megan Rapinoe only got to run around in shorts in France, kiss a sportzing World Cup, and speechify on the liberal media because she is an outspoken lesbian. https://god.dailydot.com/ben-shapiro-megan-rapinoe/?utm_content=buffer3b8a6&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=thegoodlordabove&utm_campaign=bloomjoy&fbclid=IwAR1fnViW40-yx0XCG_1VKvW6dDkM2QYB9P1-N9m7BNrCNaEjIcCVqmt8jxc
Sadly, this does even come near to the peak of Heterosexual (or HS+ as I like to call it) nonsense.
However, I am confident my contract to engage in International sportzing is in the post. Which is nice.0 -
partyguinness wrote: »He will be punished not for expressing his religious 'beliefs' as such but rather for violating (again) a Code of Conduct that he has signed up for which basically tells him to keep all that nonsense to himself.
Back around 1960 an atheist student in U.C.C. was called in by the chaplain and told to keep his opinions to himself or get off the premises.0 -
Back around 1960 an atheist student in U.C.C. was called in by the chaplain and told to keep his opinions to himself or get off the premises.
I'm not sure what the relevance of an event that, allegedly (not saying it didn't just you have provided no proof), happened nearly 60 years ago has to this topic tbh.
A lot worse things were done in 1960s Holy Catholic Ireland to silence people than a UCC student being told to keep his opinions to himself but what does that have to do with a highly paid individual using the public platform they have gained due to their job to contravene their employer's code of conduct in 2019?0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »I'm not sure what the relevance of an event that, allegedly (not saying it didn't just you have provided no proof), happened nearly 60 years ago has to this topic tbh.
A lot worse things were done in 1960s Holy Catholic Ireland to silence people than a UCC student being told to keep his opinions to himself but what does that have to do with a highly paid individual using the public platform they have gained due to their job to contravene their employer's code of conduct in 2019?
Before I answer, can I ask if your moderation powers and responsibilities extend to this thread or are you confined to moderating elsewhere?0 -
Before I answer, can I ask if your moderation powers and responsibilities extend to this thread or are you confined to moderating elsewhere?
I am a mod in this forum.
Which has nothing to do with my asking you what events in UCC in 1960 have to do with an Australian rugby player breaking the code of conduct of his employers by issuing a statement they consider homophobic in 2019.
It's relevant or it isn't. You posted it so I assume you consider it relevant, as a fellow poster I am asking why you consider it relevant.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »I am a mod in this forum.
Which has nothing to do with my asking you
It has this much to do with it. I am not enthusiastic about arguing with mods because discourse is pointless if it is not on a level playing field. I never cease to wonder at some mods who think they can appropriately play the game and referee it at the same time. No doubt there are many who can do that in a fairminded way, but I have witnessed a few instances of mods pulling rank in that situation, and while I was about to say that I don't know your form I see that you had a problem a few posts back with somebody whose views you clearly don't share. I am open to correction, but I can find no case of your taking to task a poster with whom you are in broad agreement.Bannasidhe wrote: »(not saying it didn't just you have provided no proof)
Do you doubt that it happened? Or that it would happen at that time? It was publicly written about and was not contradicted by the college authorities. It happened. Even if it were apocryphal, the point stands. And you are being vexatious in attempting to derail it.
Incidentally you seem to demand higher standards of proof from others than from yourself, as follows:Bannasidhe wrote: »Some person named Ben Shapiro (who has the look of a petulant over privileged white boy brat about him imho so I'm not going to bother finding out any more about him but I am sure he'd be ok with me judging him based only on his looks)Bannasidhe wrote: »what events in UCC in 1960 have to do with an Australian rugby player breaking the code of conduct of his employers by issuing a statement they consider homophobic in 2019.
It's relevant or it isn't. You posted it so I assume you consider it relevant, as a fellow poster I am asking why you consider it relevant.
I would have thought it would be obvious that the relevance of U.C.C. related to freedom of expression, a concept which has been around at least since ancient Athens but seems to be increasingly coming under attack from pseudo-liberals who want it for themselves but not for those who do not follow what Mao Zedong called "the correct line." Intolerance of a minority view in 1960 v. intolerance of a minority view today: the same animal wearing a brand new suit of clothes. Once you go down that road you can unexpectedly find yourself in a place you don't want to be with no way back. There is nothing liberal about tolerating views you agree with. The true test of a liberal is tolerance of views which are anathema to them. The oft misattributed quote: "I disapprove of what you say, and I willl defend your right to say it" appears to be beyond the comprehension of a great many people who are under the illusion that they are liberal.Bannasidhe wrote: »their employer's code of conduct in 2019?
You are more comfortable with the idea of corporate ownership of a person's soul than I could ever be. Yes, exercising free speech can get one fired. It happened to Emil Zatopek and Lech Walesa, and to many of those blacklisted in 1950s Hollywood whose sole crime was to speak out against the hounding of others.Bannasidhe wrote: »what does that have to do with a highly paid individual using the public platform they have gained due to their job to contravene their employer's code of conduct in 2019?
You are unhappy about " highly paid" people using their "public platform" to express their views. Did you ever object to Sinéad O'Connor or Tommy Tierney doing it, or do you find it unacceptable only when the views expressed are not yours? Politicians, journalists, sportspeople and stars of stage and screen do it all the time.
Israel Folau is an idiot. To put things in perspective he hasn't advocated burning anyone at the stake. His arranging accomodation in hell for people shouldn't trouble those who don't believe in hell. Ignore him or contradict him. Don't make a martyr of him.0 -
Advertisement
-
It has this much to do with it. I am not enthusiastic about arguing with mods because discourse is pointless if it is not on a level playing field. I never cease to wonder at some mods who think they can appropriately play the game and referee it at the same time. No doubt there are many who can do that in a fairminded way, but I have witnessed a few instances of mods pulling rank in that situation, and while I was about to say that I don't know your form I see that you had a problem a few posts back with somebody whose views you clearly don't share. I am open to correction, but I can find no case of your taking to task a poster with whom you are in broad agreement.
I would have thought it would be obvious that the relevance of U.C.C. related to freedom of expression, a concept which has been around at least since ancient Athens but seems to be increasingly coming under attack from pseudo-liberals who want it for themselves but not for those who do not follow what Mao Zedong called "the correct line." Intolerance of a minority view in 1960 v. intolerance of a minority view today: the same animal wearing a brand new suit of clothes. Once you go down that road you can unexpectedly find yourself in a place you don't want to be with no way back. There is nothing liberal about tolerating views you agree with. The true test of a liberal is tolerance of views which are anathema to them. The oft misattributed quote: "I disapprove of what you say, and I willl defend your right to say it" appears to be beyond the comprehension of a great many people who are under the illusion that they are liberal.
You are more comfortable with the idea of corporate ownership of a person's soul than I could ever be. Yes, exercising free speech can get one fired. It happened to Emil Zatopek and Lech Walesa, and to many of those blacklisted in 1950s Hollywood whose sole crime was to speak out against the hounding of others.
You are unhappy about " highly paid" people using their "public platform" to express their views. Did you ever object to Sinéad O'Connor or Tommy Tierney doing it, or do you find it unacceptable only when the views expressed are not yours?
Ok. So we know where we stand.
You stand on the side of pre-judging a person because they happen to be a mod. There does not appear to be any particular criteria for how you make your judgments nor right of appeal should the mod thus judged feel they have been the victim of an injustice.
I stand on the side that is tasked with making sure a particular charter is adhered to and any who believe I am biased or acting outside my remit are free to seek redress in either DRP or Helpdesk.
Glad we cleared that up.
I also hope my response above is in keeping with your big wordy random stream of consciousness post but for the meat of your longwinded reply -perhaps you get paid each time you use the word 'liberal' - I shall be brief.
I am in favour of people abiding by the terms and conditions of the contracts they sign. I know, that's a conservative view held by conservative people who wish to conserve such notions as keeping one's word but there you have it.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX1b_bU7lwI
Advertisement