-
@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. -
Decent article here: https://www.spectator.com.au/2019/06/our-fury-at-censorship-by-governments-and-corporations-has-burst-with-the-folau-fiasco/
This was linked from a US blog btw, so this thing is going international.
Some quotes:
"Maybe Rugby Australia did have the right to sack Folau as a matter of contract law (or maybe not, but that’s for the courts to decide). The likes of Qantas and ANZ can direct sponsorship money wherever they like, and they wouldn’t be the first big corporates to engage in such asinine virtue-signalling. GoFundMe is a private platform, and may very well have been within its rights under its own terms of service to boot out Folau’s fundraising appeal, hypocritical and selective as that may have been.
But just because those organisations could have done what they did doesn’t mean that they should have. As a matter of public policy, the Folau affair is a dead end, but as a cultural issue, it is troubling. It’s another front in what the left derisively write off as the ‘culture wars’, in a world in which what can and can’t be said (by force of law or otherwise) is becoming increasingly limited.
And here is where Phelps is dead wrong: The media feeding frenzy created by the Folau case is not a ‘rally point’ seized upon by the right. If the left are frustrated by the amount of attention Folau is getting – and no doubt they probably are – then they only have themselves to blame."
-
Thoughts?
"Imagine getting upset at someone for claiming the God you don’t believed in, said in the book you don’t read, that unless you repent of the sin you don’t care about, you will go to a place you don’t think exists."
Apologise if this has already been posted.
Obviously you have to consider vulnerable young Poly kids who are gay or struggling with their sexuality. But would Foolthou's tweets have been new info for them? I'd imagine they'd be painfully aware of this already.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
Thoughts?
"Imagine getting upset at someone for claiming the God you don’t believed in, said in the book you don’t read, that unless you repent of the sin you don’t care about, you will go to a place you don’t think exists."
Apologise if this has already been posted.
Obviously you have to consider vulnerable young Poly kids who are gay or struggling with their sexuality. But would Foolthou's tweets have been new info for them? I'd imagine they'd be painfully aware of this already.
Homophobe!
-
@Bones said in The Folau Factor:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in The Folau Factor:
Thoughts?
"Imagine getting upset at someone for claiming the God you don’t believed in, said in the book you don’t read, that unless you repent of the sin you don’t care about, you will go to a place you don’t think exists."
Apologise if this has already been posted.
Obviously you have to consider vulnerable young Poly kids who are gay or struggling with their sexuality. But would Foolthou's tweets have been new info for them? I'd imagine they'd be painfully aware of this already.
Homophobe!
To clarify. I obviously meant painfully aware of his views or those of the more fundamentalist community.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel yeah plus heard in the church sermon, read in the bible, etc.
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions