+- +-

+-Newcomers Start Here

+-Harlequins/Rugby Links


+-Articles


Author Topic: Joe Marler - Hero  (Read 2158 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #30 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 10:53* »
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. 

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.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

never sleep

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 2997
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #31 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 10:56* »
@Fursty - I agree - but, he has previous form for doing this (exactly a year ago).  He was spoken to then. 

Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #32 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 10:56* »
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.



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.

Gone

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1708
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #33 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 11:12* »
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.

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.

TomBuckQuin

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1407
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #34 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 11:22* »
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.

Gone

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1708
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #35 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 11:22* »
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.

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.
Like Like x 1 View List

Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #36 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 13:30* »
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.

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.

Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #37 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 13:34* »
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.

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.

Brown Bottle

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3244
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #38 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 13:44* »
Quote from: Quinky
... has he actually discriminated against gays, or has he simply stated his hatred for them? There is a difference.

Unbelievable.

Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #39 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 13:46* »
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.

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.

Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #40 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 13:47* »
Unbelievable.

Thanks for that valued contribution. Your legal mind astonishes me.

DOK

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3725
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #41 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 13:59* »
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.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Quinky

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #42 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 14:05* »
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.

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.

TomBuckQuin

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1407
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #43 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 14:23* »
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.

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:

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.

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.
« Last Edit: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 14:30* by TomBuckQuin »

TomBuckQuin

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1407
Re: Joe Marler - Hero
« Reply #44 on: Thursday 11-Apr-2019, 15:16* »
And for Quinky's benefit:


 

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Site Statistics

Members
Total Members: 1162
Latest: Marsi1e
New This Month: 2
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 119483
Total Topics: 6383
Most Online Today: 394
Most Online Ever: 4089
(Sunday 10-Oct-2021, 12:56*)
Users Online
Members: 20
Guests: 370
Total: 390