-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
the vast majority of rugby ans dont care about that sort of nonsense tweet, they are not that dumb and fragile.
What do you base that on?
The first time he did it there was a fair bit of backlash, and there was more when he did it again. The tweet itself may have been fairly isolated in the grand scheme, but the ensuing media coverage covered a far wider net of people.
I move in different circles of rugby fans in Sydney, and the majority of those people thought he should go. They didn't like the sentiment, and they didn't like the idea that he was becoming a distraction from the team and the game more broadly.
This sentiment was discussed plenty of times in pubs, on sidelines, and online so I'm confident I've got a fairly good grasp of it.
So you can come here and talk in generalities, but my lived experience is that a lot of people actually did care about this in the Sydney rugby community (which is actually fairly small). Certainly enough people for it to be beyond any sort of 'online SJW bubble' that some on here refer to.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
They were not rooted either way. There was an easy out. Just a bland condemnation and drop it. Done months ago.
I disagree this was an 'easy out'. Let's entertain the hypothetical scenario that they did that and he kept playing.
Firstly he would have already lost a considerable amount of support from local fans (plenty of whom were calling for his head when he put the tweet out, before RA acted). There's a chance he gets booed at games, and there is a cloud hanging over his head.
On top of that, the chances of him doing it again would be almost 100%. And then again, and again. At each stage the condemnation and pressure only intensifies, on both Israel and RA.
It would become a constant distraction. If he's picked in the Wallabies, he gets booed (Quade style) in other arenas around the World. It's a talking point for media everywhere, and it's a disclaimer every time he scores a try or does something great. 'Nice try, but remember he hates the gays'.
Just imagine the narrative if Nigel Owens gets appointed to a Wallaby game, for instance.
So not only would RA wear short-term criticism for a 'bland condemnation' (which probably would also have pissed off about 40% of the country golf clap), but the thing would hang like a millstone around their neck for the next four years, intensifying every time he posts similar sentiment.
And yes much of it would be media-driven sensationalism, but there's only so long that you can resist that before it impacts on both the game on a macro level, and the Tahs/Wallabies more specifically.
In short, the only course of action they could have taken was not to re-sign him, as RS said above. Once that die was cast, I think they were rooted either way.
I think you are taking the piss here mate, the vast majority of rugby ans dont care about that sort of nonsense tweet, they are not that dumb and fragile.
I would agree if the game was in better shape and the Wallabies were winning, but the opposite is true. AR's back is broken and they are everyones bitch right now. I guess you can say that was selfinflicted, but the point is that AR has zero bargaining power any more. Other codes making bank and with sponsors knocking down the door don't have that excuse and their descent into wokeness is not only baffling, but will seriously bite them on the arse.
Re Foolnow, the thing is that when you're the rep for a company or organisation and paid stupid money to be that rep, your job is to maintain the existing customer base and hopefully bring more customers in. After all, that's where the stupid money comes from. Upon accepting that position, it's probably not the smartest thing to say that most of those customers are going to hell. Who, in any profession, can get away with that?
-
Fund paused now.
Questions are over how much will be required for a legal defence, an 'expert' has said $300,000.00 is all that will be required and he is being quoted all over the show..clicking on his twitter shows he might be a little biased in his assessment.
Any legal eagles here know? If the importance is to create legal precedent then they are going to want the best representation possible and if they aren't looking to settle then this could go on quite some time. What does the top lawyer in Straya charge?
-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
Fund paused now.
Questions are over how much will be required for a legal defence, an 'expert' has said $300,000.00 is all that will be required and he is being quoted all over the show..clicking on his twitter shows he might be a little biased in his assessment.
Any legal eagles here know? If the importance is to create legal precedent then they are going to want the best representation possible and if they aren't looking to settle then this could go on quite some time. What does the top lawyer in Straya charge?
I reckon it will be a shit load more than that. QCs charge up to $1,000 an hour.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
the vast majority of rugby ans dont care about that sort of nonsense tweet, they are not that dumb and fragile.
What do you base that on?
The first time he did it there was a fair bit of backlash, and there was more when he did it again. The tweet itself may have been fairly isolated in the grand scheme, but the ensuing media coverage covered a far wider net of people.
I move in different circles of rugby fans in Sydney, and the majority of those people thought he should go. They didn't like the sentiment, and they didn't like the idea that he was becoming a distraction from the team and the game more broadly.
This sentiment was discussed plenty of times in pubs, on sidelines, and online so I'm confident I've got a fairly good grasp of it.
So you can come here and talk in generalities, but my lived experience is that a lot of people actually did care about this in the Sydney rugby community (which is actually fairly small). Certainly enough people for it to be beyond any sort of 'online SJW bubble' that some on here refer to.
And soon as you used the phrase 'lived experience' I phased out. Such a lame phrase that means basically that you just dont want to admit that your anecdotal evidence is... anecdotal evidence.
Your anecdotal proof is just not worth alot. No more than my opinion is.
-
Apropos of nothing really:
It's becoming increasingly clear that all of us have 2 different worlds we inhabit
The screen world where we form our "worldliness " from a device
And a real world where we form our worldliness from our senses and lived* experiences.
These are very different things/places
Until the screen world accurately reflects the other one, outrage just ensues
Ps. * just for you baron....🙂
-
@Siam said in The Folau Factor:
Apropos of nothing really:
It's becoming increasingly clear that all of us have 2 different worlds we inhabit
The screen world where we form our "worldliness " from a device
And a real world where we form our worldliness from our senses and lived* experiences.
These are very different things/places
Until the screen world accurately reflects the other one, outrage just ensues
Ps. * just for you baron....🙂
My lived experience is that Barbarian is wrong. My undead experience is that he is still wrong, and my lived inexperience is that he is still wrong. Not sure about my undead inexperience yet.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
And soon as you used the phrase 'lived experience' I phased out. Such a lame phrase that means basically that you just dont want to admit that your anecdotal evidence is... anecdotal evidence.
Your anecdotal proof is just not worth alot. No more than my opinion is.
And your opinion is 'the vast majority of fans' don't care about his tweet, without anything to back it up other than gut.
OK.
Well we may as well leave it here then, as we'll just go in circles. A pleasure, as always.
-
An Australian player is causing problems in Australia effecting Australian Rugby and dividing Australian rugby fans (fair weather and serious)
I suspect an Australian might have a pretty good idea how it’s playing out..Only one person is responsible for this mess.
The guy who posted the tweet. -
Bit of revelation. AR apparently offered Folau money to remove the post.
-
@Rembrandt said in The Folau Factor:
Bit of revelation. AR apparently offered Folau money to remove the post.
Truth will out but I do find it funny how 'fake news' only applies to some things.
That link itself says that RA have denied that the claim is true yet that is a footnote to the headline that is swallowed up by the gullible.
-
@Virgil said in The Folau Factor:
An Australian player is causing problems in Australia effecting Australian Rugby and dividing Australian rugby fans (fair weather and serious)
I suspect an Australian might have a pretty good idea how it’s playing out..Only one person is responsible for this mess.
The guy who posted the tweet.That “tweet” has been a part of western culture for millenia. It’’s biblical scripture. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Blame the person(s) who wrote it. Ban social media. Ban the Bible — heck, try banning all religion if you must. But don’t try to tell us a new “messenger” started it. What he did wrong was blaspheme by straying outside the new secular dogma. It’s one cult penalizing a member of another.
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in The Folau Factor:
@Virgil said in The Folau Factor:
An Australian player is causing problems in Australia effecting Australian Rugby and dividing Australian rugby fans (fair weather and serious)
I suspect an Australian might have a pretty good idea how it’s playing out..Only one person is responsible for this mess.
The guy who posted the tweet.That “tweet” has been a part of western culture for millenia. It’’s biblical scripture. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Blame the person(s) who wrote it. Ban social media. Ban the Bible — heck, try banning all religion if you must. But don’t try to tell us a new “messenger” started it. What he did wrong was blaspheme by straying outside the new secular dogma. It’s one cult penalizing a member of another.
OR ... come down hard on the guy who still lives by this part of the book but ignores others which don’t suit his lifestyle,
Just an option.
-
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
I believe the privilege of free speech comes with responsibilities. I don’t believe Foolau has been responsible in this instance
I agree with your 1st sentence
Your 2nd sentence is subjective
An important Question is whether his punishment is proportionate to his actions.......
Your spelling of FOLAU is idiotic to say the least if it was deliberate
-
@Jaguares4real said in The Folau Factor:
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
I believe the privilege of free speech comes with responsibilities. I don’t believe Foolau has been responsible in this instance
I agree with your 1st sentence
Your 2nd sentence is subjective
An important Question is whether his punishment is proportionate to his actions.......
Your spelling of FOLAU is idiotic to say the least if it was deliberate
Wait... It's subjective when canefan says what he believes? Noooooo
-
@Bones said in The Folau Factor:
@Jaguares4real said in The Folau Factor:
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
I believe the privilege of free speech comes with responsibilities. I don’t believe Foolau has been responsible in this instance
I agree with your 1st sentence
Your 2nd sentence is subjective
An important Question is whether his punishment is proportionate to his actions.......
Your spelling of FOLAU is idiotic to say the least if it was deliberate
Wait... It's subjective when canefan says what he believes? Noooooo
Bones
This may shock you but 2 things can be right at the SAME time
I suggest you try better when constructing strawman arguments
-
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
I believe the privilege of free speech comes with responsibilities. I don’t believe Foolau has been responsible in this instance
I certainly don’t agree with that.
The part of free speech I struggle with is being free of consequence from all corners.
Government / Law. That is free speech.
Employers .... can / worms everywhere -
@Jaguares4real said in The Folau Factor:
@Bones said in The Folau Factor:
@Jaguares4real said in The Folau Factor:
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
I believe the privilege of free speech comes with responsibilities. I don’t believe Foolau has been responsible in this instance
I agree with your 1st sentence
Your 2nd sentence is subjective
An important Question is whether his punishment is proportionate to his actions.......
Your spelling of FOLAU is idiotic to say the least if it was deliberate
Wait... It's subjective when canefan says what he believes? Noooooo
Bones
This may shock you but 2 things can be right at the SAME time
I suggest you try better when constructing strawman arguments
What the fuck are you on about? Why is there a face screaming in fear? What exactly is my strawman argument? I suggest you try better when understanding the meaning of subjective. Oh and sarcasm.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions