-
@Paekakboyz said in The Folau Factor:
@Salacious-Crumb so it's a free for all in your opinion. Each person irrespective of age/whatever is equally adept at dealing with messages like this?
Where did I say or even imply “free-for-all”...? Did you miss the part about the LAW, or do you go straight to the stuff that offends you?
-
@Salacious-Crumb and your message about parental influence isn't just as trite as your call about my "church lady thinking"?
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in The Folau Factor:
Fot goodnes’ sake, don’t you think parents should be bigger role models than a stranger who happens to be talented at sports? What happened to personal responsibility?
that line gets trotted out alot, right or wrong, these sportstars ARE looked at as role models, whether they like it or not
-
@Paekakboyz said in The Folau Factor:
@Salacious-Crumb and your message about parental influence isn't just as trite as your call about my "church lady thinking"?
How so? You don’t believe parents have any responsibility in the upbringing of their children? Or are their rights and duties secondary to the nanny-state?
Exploiting children to stifle free speech is frankly pathetic.
-
@Salacious-Crumb the point is about an individuals capacity to listen (or not) to these sorts of messages and what impact that may have on them. Notwithstanding the influence of other folks in their lives.
-
@Paekakboyz said in The Folau Factor:
@Salacious-Crumb the point is about an individuals capacity to listen (or not) to these sorts of messages and what impact that may have on them. Notwithstanding the influence of other folks in their lives.
That lame excuse can be trotted out every time you’re offended. Well, I’m offended by stupid arguments. Doesn’t mean they should be banned.
-
@Salacious-Crumb lucky that extends to posts (clearly fishing and said in jest btw!)
-
@Paekakboyz said in The Folau Factor:
@Salacious-Crumb lucky that extends to posts (clearly fishing and said in jest btw!)
Absolutely. Can you imagine how badly these forums would suckass if disagreements were impermissible?
-
@Salacious-Crumb on reading back I'm trying to articulate what i see as the nuance in this - I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but don't agree that people are equally equipped to sort the chaff from the crap, from the wheat when it comes to online content - not just posts from prominent sports people. Certainly agree that the influence of parents should outweigh it, but also of the opinion that it's not always the case.
-
@Paekakboyz said in The Folau Factor:
@Salacious-Crumb on reading back I'm trying to articulate what i see as the nuance in this - I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but don't agree that people are equally equipped to sort the chaff from the crap, from the wheat when it comes to online content - not just posts from prominent sports people. Certainly agree that the influence of parents should outweigh it, but also of the opinion that it's not always the case.
Then WTF are we doing with our tax dollars supporting an education system if people are too thick to weigh different ideas and make choices for themselves? Maybe we should ban the internet because Little Jimmy might be offended, for the same reason we should ban all contact sports because Little Jimmy might get a concussion. (Don’t worry, the latter is going to happen soon too. We have to protect the children, after all.)
-
@Paekakboyz said in The Folau Factor:
@Salacious-Crumb on reading back I'm trying to articulate what i see as the nuance in this - I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but don't agree that people are equally equipped to sort the chaff from the crap, from the wheat when it comes to online content - not just posts from prominent sports people. Certainly agree that the influence of parents should outweigh it, but also of the opinion that it's not always the case.
Maybe it is unfair that a sports star is held up to a higher standard in terms of the stuff he says on social media, but it is part of the job. If he wants to live in anonymity and spout his mouth he can always hand his paycheck back.
A few takeaways for me
- The response to the first incident was reasonably proportional
- If you believe reports (I know...) ARU asked him to stop posting those type of posts on social media. I don't think they told him to stop believing what he posted...
- Folau seemed to agree enough to warrant ARU giving him a new contract. He was on the record with saying if he did anything that brought heat on the ARU in future that he would step aside
-
After the second incident reports suggest that Folau considered removing it but didn't on advice from his preacher Dad
-
Folau starts a donation page, asking for 3M dollars to fight his court case, despite estimates of costs being far less
-
Despite calls for both parties to come to some sort of resolution, Folau comes out and demands an apology, something that the ARU are not going to do
It seems to me that Folau set a trap and the ARU stumbled into it when he said he would behave. He doesn't seem to want any part of an out of court settlement now. To me it is looking increasingly like a money grabbing exercise for his Dad's church. Is he going to give any leftover donation money back?
-
@Salacious-Crumb our education system is struggling to handle literacy and numeracy let alone critical analysis/reflection. Not for all of course, but for enough people that it's a genuine worry. I'd also hazard that it's not about little Jimmy getting offended, it's about little Jimmy thinking he's (insert pronoun here if you like) unnatural, or a lesser person,or whatever pejorative you might come up with, that has an impact on their self worth.
I fully agree it'd be awesome if people gave no fucks whatsoever but that ain't the case. Again, not for all people, but for enough that this sort of scenario gets traction etc.
-
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
@Paekakboyz said in The Folau Factor:
@Salacious-Crumb on reading back I'm trying to articulate what i see as the nuance in this - I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but don't agree that people are equally equipped to sort the chaff from the crap, from the wheat when it comes to online content - not just posts from prominent sports people. Certainly agree that the influence of parents should outweigh it, but also of the opinion that it's not always the case.
Maybe it is unfair that a sports star is held up to a higher standard in terms of the stuff he says on social media, but it is part of the job. If he wants to live in anonymity and spout his mouth he can always hand his paycheck back.
A few takeaways for me
- The response to the first incident was reasonably proportional
- If you believe reports (I know...) ARU asked him to stop posting those type of posts on social media. I don't think they told him to stop believing what he posted...
- Folau seemed to agree enough to warrant ARU giving him a new contract. He was on the record with saying if he did anything that brought heat on the ARU in future that he would step aside
-
After the second incident reports suggest that Folau considered removing it but didn't on advice from his preacher Dad
-
Folau starts a donation page, asking for 3M dollars to fight his court case, despite estimates of costs being far less
-
Despite calls for both parties to come to some sort of resolution, Folau comes out and demands an apology, something that the ARU are not going to do
It seems to me that Folau set a trap and the ARU stumbled into it when he said he would behave. He doesn't seem to want any part of an out of court settlement now. To me it is looking increasingly like a money grabbing exercise for his Dad's church. Is he going to give any leftover donation money back?
I think that's a tad unfair. The cost of this case will be absolutely enormous and that 300k quote is bollocks. Anything left may fund a stainglass window, but that's it. I don't think Foolnow or his dad are smart enough to have masterminded all of this. I reckon they just got together, prayed, and then decided to double down for the Holy Ghost. AR unfortunately (and naively) fucked with the wrong God Botherer.
-
@canefan said in The Folau Factor:
@Paekakboyz said in The Folau Factor:
@Salacious-Crumb on reading back I'm trying to articulate what i see as the nuance in this - I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but don't agree that people are equally equipped to sort the chaff from the crap, from the wheat when it comes to online content - not just posts from prominent sports people. Certainly agree that the influence of parents should outweigh it, but also of the opinion that it's not always the case.
Maybe it is unfair that a sports star is held up to a higher standard in terms of the stuff he says on social media, but it is part of the job. If he wants to live in anonymity and spout his mouth he can always hand his paycheck back.
A few takeaways for me
- The response to the first incident was reasonably proportional
- If you believe reports (I know...) ARU asked him to stop posting those type of posts on social media. I don't think they told him to stop believing what he posted...
- Folau seemed to agree enough to warrant ARU giving him a new contract. He was on the record with saying if he did anything that brought heat on the ARU in future that he would step aside
-
After the second incident reports suggest that Folau considered removing it but didn't on advice from his preacher Dad
-
Folau starts a donation page, asking for 3M dollars to fight his court case, despite estimates of costs being far less
-
Despite calls for both parties to come to some sort of resolution, Folau comes out and demands an apology, something that the ARU are not going to do
It seems to me that Folau set a trap and the ARU stumbled into it when he said he would behave. He doesn't seem to want any part of an out of court settlement now. To me it is looking increasingly like a money grabbing exercise for his Dad's church. Is he going to give any leftover donation money back?
- He ducked for cover after the 2nd incident and ignored AR’s attempts to contact him.
Definitely feels like he set up AR knowing how they would react.
-
Litigation is an expensive exercise. QC’s, junior barristers, solicitor and two junior lawyers - those 6 minute increments start to add up very quickly.
I would say the $300K figure quoted early is extremely conservative, especially if this proceeds to the Federal Court.
-
On a more conceptual level, the argument here seems to be the standard we set for offensive comments.
Those on one side of this debate think the yardstick for offence should be themselves - pretty hardy folk who can let these sorts of things wash over them without taking anything away from it.
The other side argue the yardstick should be the hypothetical teenaged disabled indigenous lesbian who is also transitioning - the most vulnerable of vulnerable who are affected if a falling leaf lands in their path. Worth pointing out that nobody here takes a position quite this extreme, but those elsewhere certainly do.
So when it comes to Folau, the yardstick you use for offence obviously affects how seriously you view the matter.
I honestly think the standard is somewhere in between the two, but defining exactly where is the crux of the argument.
I don't buy the argument by some on here that 'I was fine with the comment, therefore everybody else should be too'. And while I acknowledge the presence of vulnerable Polynesian homosexual teenagers, I don't think they should necessarily be the standard either.
In a small way I'm glad this may head for the courts, as that is the logical place to have these quite high-minded theoretical arguments. Well, either that or the Fern.
-
@barbarian well put - that was the nuance I was aiming at.
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
In a small way I'm glad this may head for the courts, as that is the logical place to have these quite high-minded theoretical arguments. Well, either that or the Fern.
Good call.
Will also provide some clarity for what counts as 'offensive' as well - simply being offended is not a high enough bar. I get offended by people getting offended easily - so they should stop being offended so I don't get offended
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
@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.
@barbarian
Oh right.. so yours is a lived experience and mine is a gut feel?riiight
-
@barbarian said in The Folau Factor:
On a more conceptual level, the argument here seems to be the standard we set for offensive comments.
Those on one side of this debate think the yardstick for offence should be themselves - pretty hardy folk who can let these sorts of things wash over them without taking anything away from it.
The other side argue the yardstick should be the hypothetical teenaged disabled indigenous lesbian who is also transitioning - the most vulnerable of vulnerable who are affected if a falling leaf lands in their path. Worth pointing out that nobody here takes a position quite this extreme, but those elsewhere certainly do.
So when it comes to Folau, the yardstick you use for offence obviously affects how seriously you view the matter.
I honestly think the standard is somewhere in between the two, but defining exactly where is the crux of the argument.
I don't buy the argument by some on here that 'I was fine with the comment, therefore everybody else should be too'. And while I acknowledge the presence of vulnerable Polynesian homosexual teenagers, I don't think they should necessarily be the standard either.
In a small way I'm glad this may head for the courts, as that is the logical place to have these quite high-minded theoretical arguments. Well, either that or the Fern.
Offensive should be irrelevant, illegal should be the only yardstick. Trying to put some sort of measure on hurty feelings is a nonsense. And results in situations like this.
I am offended ny QANTAS actions and bullying... tough shit for me really. My hurty feelings are real, just not really relevant to others.
Nobody is denying that some people find things offensive. I have no doubt some people were heavily traumatized by his mean words. But so what? Where exactly does it all end when hurt feeligs are the yardstick and no evidence of impact is required?
I am amazed so many people are buying into this hurty feelings means something must happen bullshit.The world is fucked. The west has had it to easy for to long and has created a bunch of limp wristed pansies. Given how annoyed I am by QANTAS there is a good chance I am included in that.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions