-
@Kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
I hope everyone is enjoying this thread, because I see Comrade Jacinda is about to crack down on social media.
Might not be legal to have this discussion in a few years.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback
Great post.
Funny how the consequences argument always comes after the fact. Shouldve known better. What are the free speech rules going forward?
Can you quote song lyrics without being convicted of a crime? Is all scripture quoting offensive? Who decides, and on what basis?Oh, you just wait to see what the institutions decide huh?
Nobody knows the rules until someone transgresses and then they're "obvious".
Slippery slope getting steeper
-
@Kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
I hope everyone is enjoying this thread, because I see Comrade Jacinda is about to crack down on social media.
Might not be legal to have this discussion in a few years.
Got any links on this?
All I see is related to the livestream of the chch incident. Don’t see anything about discussions being illegal?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I would like that 5 times if I could. The consequences argument is piss weak and I'm tired of hearing it. If the consequences are disproportionate then free speech as a value is eroded. This is a continuing trend recently that is making me very uncomfortable - anti-free speech SJWs creating petitions and pressuring companies to fire people because they said something wrong at some point in time, and people standing by justifying it to themselves with the "consequences" argument.
If we value our freedom in the west, and we bloody well should given how many people died to secure it, then we need to stop sitting by while fringe radicals dictate what happens to people accused of "wrongthink".
-
@MajorRage said in The Folau Factor:
@Kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
I hope everyone is enjoying this thread, because I see Comrade Jacinda is about to crack down on social media.
Might not be legal to have this discussion in a few years.
Got any links on this?
All I see is related to the livestream of the chch incident. Don’t see anything about discussions being illegal?
The devil will be in the details there, but it clearly goes way beyond just the live stream and well into the realm of banning the undefinable "hate speech". Governments cannot be trusted with too much power, especially when it comes to speech.
-
@MajorRage look for the stories about a crack down on Social Media and he meeting with Macron.
As said above, government defines hate speech then forums/Facebook/etc are on the hook.
A reasonable example would be the transgender controversy in sport, something we discuss a lot here obviously. Would we get fined for calling the weight lifter a man?
If so that’s the Fern gone.
-
I think Folau is clearly wrong, and it’s not a question I’d ordinarily give anybody the time of day, but I don’t want to be seen as close-minded, and in the spirit of tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness, which is contemp society’s new holy trinity, I’ll ask it anyway: What if Folau’s right?? (Oops, sorry, thought-crime.)
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in The Folau Factor:
I think Folau is clearly wrong, and it’s not a question I’d ordinarily give anybody the time of day, but I don’t want to be seen as close-minded, and in the spirit of tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness, which is contemp society’s new holy trinity, I’ll ask it anyway: What if Folau’s right?? (Oops, sorry, thought-crime.)
We all get to find out if he’s right one day .
-
@Crucial said in The Folau Factor:
He is free to believe what he wants and is free to say what he wants but actions have consequences and IF those consequences have been clearly put to him AND he chose to ignore them then he rides on his choices.
Why should his freedom of verbal religious expression which is not an incitement to violence in the slightest have any consequences at all?
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in The Folau Factor:
I think Folau is clearly wrong, and it’s not a question I’d ordinarily give anybody the time of day, but I don’t want to be seen as close-minded, and in the spirit of tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness, which is contemp society’s new holy trinity, I’ll ask it anyway: What if Folau’s right?? (Oops, sorry, thought-crime.)
I'll take my chances.
-
To me @Crucial 's post regarding consequences was in regard to his contract issues rather than the more wider view of consequences of the actual words? These are two different issues that have been conflated IMO.
The whole incident has brought up different concerns: Stone Age beliefs, overreaction on behalf of gays whilst us drunken fornicators are happily thrown to the devil, contract law and reneging on an agreement, moral oversight from hypocritical corporates, SJW bandwagon jumpers, virtue signallers.
It is quite possible (and morally right IMO) to disagree with someone's viewpoint but uphold their right to express it as @Baron-Silas-Greenback said, but it is also quite possible to suggest that Folau broke his agreement with RA and in doing so he should not be too surprised and at the ensuing consequences.
The there is the way RA have handled the whole affair...
-
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
To me @Crucial 's post regarding consequences was in regard to his contract issues rather than the more wider view of consequences of the actual words? These are two different issues that have been conflated IMO.
They are not 2 issues at all. He should not be having contract issues.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
To me @Crucial 's post regarding consequences was in regard to his contract issues rather than the more wider view of consequences of the actual words? These are two different issues that have been conflated IMO.
They are not 2 issues at all.
I think I get what you mean but in the context of what I feel @Crucial was saying I feel they were two separate things.
-
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
To me @Crucial 's post regarding consequences was in regard to his contract issues rather than the more wider view of consequences of the actual words? These are two different issues that have been conflated IMO.
They are not 2 issues at all.
I think I get what you mean but in the context of what I feel @Crucial was saying I feel they were two separate things.
I dont think you know what i mean at all. If you think "contractual issues"" have any relevance to my critique of Crucials anti free speech stance.
If there a clause in all Aussie players conteacts to not utter quotes from religous texts...that is a disgusting attack on free speech.
If there is a "bring game into disrepute" clause and that is being used... equally bad. A complete and abuse of power to attack free speech.
Both scenarios match my critique on empowering powerful institutions to bully individuals. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
To me @Crucial 's post regarding consequences was in regard to his contract issues rather than the more wider view of consequences of the actual words? These are two different issues that have been conflated IMO.
They are not 2 issues at all.
I think I get what you mean but in the context of what I feel @Crucial was saying I feel they were two separate things.
I dont think you know what i mean at all. If you think "contractual issues"" have any relevance to my critique of Crucials anti free speech stance.
If there a clause in all Aussie players conteacts to not utter quotes from religous texts...that is a disgusting attack on free speech.
If there is a "bring game into disrepute" clause and that is being used... equally bad. A complete and abuse of power to attack free speech.
Both scenarios match my critique on empowering powerful institutions to bully individuals.Any chance we can have a discussion rather than a jump down your throat argument this time?
I think I do get your point in that the sort of contractual constraints you’ve illustrated trample all over free speech and I don’t entirely disagree with you. Crucial’s post to me, said that Folau had this contract, agreement, whatever with RA and decided to flout it. Accordingly he shouldn’t be surprised if those actions had consequences. He did not intimate that this was a good thing, just that it was foreseesable.
-
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
To me @Crucial 's post regarding consequences was in regard to his contract issues rather than the more wider view of consequences of the actual words? These are two different issues that have been conflated IMO.
They are not 2 issues at all.
I think I get what you mean but in the context of what I feel @Crucial was saying I feel they were two separate things.
I dont think you know what i mean at all. If you think "contractual issues"" have any relevance to my critique of Crucials anti free speech stance.
If there a clause in all Aussie players conteacts to not utter quotes from religous texts...that is a disgusting attack on free speech.
If there is a "bring game into disrepute" clause and that is being used... equally bad. A complete and abuse of power to attack free speech.
Both scenarios match my critique on empowering powerful institutions to bully individuals.Any chance we can have a discussion rather than a jump down your throat argument this time?
I think I do get your point in that the sort of contractual constraints you’ve illustrated trample all over free speech and I don’t entirely disagree with
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
@Catogrande said in The Folau Factor:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in [The Folau Factor
Any chance we can have a discussion rather than a jump down your throat argument this t
I think I do get your point in that the sort of contractual constraints you’ve illustrated trample all over free speech and I don’t entirely disagree with you. Crucial’s post to me, said that Folau had this contract, agreement, whatever with RA and decided to flout it. Accordingly he shouldn’t be surprised if those actions had consequences. He did not intimate that this was a good thing, just that it was foreseesable.
Any chance you could actually address the point?
Your post just misses my point completely. I will say again, supporting this sort of interpretation supports my post and reinforces my critique pf Crucials anti free speech stance.
He states Falou can say what he wants but the rest of his post shows he just doesnt believe that....because consequences. -
Apparently I now have an 'anti free speech' stance because @Baron-Silas-Greenback declares it so.
If he took time to actually read what I wrote instead of using it as a platform for a speech maybe the last few posts wouldn't be necessary.
I've been up since 3 and now have meetings to attend but when I get a chance I will reply properly -
@Crucial said in The Folau Factor:
Apparently I now have an 'anti free speech' stance because @Baron-Silas-Greenback declares it so.
If he took time to actually read what I wrote instead of using it as a platform for a speech maybe the last few posts wouldn't be necessary.
I've been up since 3 and now have meetings to attend but when I get a chance I will reply properlyCool i look forward to you ckearly stating that Falou has been treated badly anf that Qantas and Aus rugby have trampled all over free speech with no justification. Then iwill accept you are not anti free speech.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in The Folau Factor:
@Crucial said in The Folau Factor:
Apparently I now have an 'anti free speech' stance because @Baron-Silas-Greenback declares it so.
If he took time to actually read what I wrote instead of using it as a platform for a speech maybe the last few posts wouldn't be necessary.
I've been up since 3 and now have meetings to attend but when I get a chance I will reply properlyCool i look forward to you ckearly stating that Falou has been treated badly anf that Qantas and Aus rugby have trampled all over free speech with no justification. Then iwill accept you are not anti free speech.
If I can only discuss or debate on your terms then I won't waste the energy.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions