-
@voodoo said in The Folau Factor:
@kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
The goal is to have a chilling effect on thoughts that don’t fit the group think.
If they can do this to one of the superstars, it will be nothing to up and coming players.
In this instance was a banal religious Instagram post that should have been easily ignored. It will be something else next time.
Thought police.
Come on, this is RA you're talking about. They're hardly the thought police. Woke and focussed on sponsors sure, but let's not make them out to be some sinister cult.
For me, like Cato, this was always way more about the promises he made his employer that he broke with no remorse. He lied to them, and went back on his word.
For that, I was fine with him being dismissed.
What I'm not ok with, is any authority banning him from playing. If an individual team doesn't like him personally then that's fine.
That's not what I was saying. RA is just another example of a corporation bending over backwards to accomodate a noisy minority, mostly on social media. Same as the sponsors.
They are shit scared of being on the "wrong" side of Twitter mob. That's how this thought police dynamic works - especially as it's amplified by lazy journalists quoting tweets like it's actually representative of large audience.
If you just ignore the noisy minority on these platforms nothing bad will happen.
-
@kirwan its probably a bit easy to just say "noisy minority", i cant say ive met anyone in real life that sided with him, everyone i talked to down the pub or around the water cooler thinks he was out of line
But i realise thats the circles i roll in and there are those that would say exactly the same the other way
so i would guess its a lot more evenly split than a minority
-
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@kirwan its probably a bit easy to just say "noisy minority", i cant say ive met anyone in real life that sided with him, everyone i talked to down the pub or around the water cooler thinks he was out of line
But i realise thats the circles i roll in and there are those that would say exactly the same the other way
so i would guess its a lot more evenly split than a minority
I don't think the question is whether you agree with him or not. The question is around genuinely held religious beliefs (such as those held by muslims and a bunch of christians) are acceptable to articulate. If not, why not?
For context, I don't see 'causing offence' as a credible threshold to bar speech, or lose your livelihood, no matter how offensive the views are. Liberal societies must be able to tolerate speech we detest; if not, who gets to pull the lever and ban them?
It's really really hard and complex, and I suspect ARU didn't want to test it in court as there was a really credible risk that the freedom of religion in his own time may have trumped ARU's ability to enforce a code of conduct. As well as that, there is a really interesting question about how far your employer can reach into your off-work activities.
Side note, US Supreme court is grappling with this in a school case at the moment, about a cheerleader who posted offensive material to snapchat off-campus.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/30/why-we-all-should-want-suspended-cheerleader-win-her-supreme-court-case/ -
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@kirwan its probably a bit easy to just say "noisy minority", i cant say ive met anyone in real life that sided with him, everyone i talked to down the pub or around the water cooler thinks he was out of line
But i realise thats the circles i roll in and there are those that would say exactly the same the other way
so i would guess its a lot more evenly split than a minority
That's actually impossible to quantify anecdotally.
What is a fact is most people aren't on Twitter, and even if there are more people on Facebook, algorithms show content you generally agree with - much more of an echo chamber.
The reason these morons on Twitter have so much power is that the media reports on Tweets as if they are representative of what most people think.
What is being lost if how much of nothing Folau's post was. Completely standard religous boringness.
-
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief. Everyone should keep their opinions too them selves......*he posts on a forum ironically
@kirwan said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@kirwan its probably a bit easy to just say "noisy minority", i cant say ive met anyone in real life that sided with him, everyone i talked to down the pub or around the water cooler thinks he was out of line
But i realise thats the circles i roll in and there are those that would say exactly the same the other way
so i would guess its a lot more evenly split than a minority
That's actually impossible to quantify anecdotally.
What is a fact is most people aren't on Twitter, and even if there are more people on Facebook, algorithms show content you generally agree with - much more of an echo chamber.
The reason these morons on Twitter have so much power is that the media reports on Tweets as if they are representative of what most people think.
What is being lost if how much of nothing Folau's post was. Completely standard religous boringness.
true, hence why i tried to relate to real life face to face rather than just what facebook etc showed me whilst also admitting that although not controlled by others im still more likely to chat to people with at least some common ground
-
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
-
@antipodean yeah, fair enough, but as i said, most people i talked to in real life felt it was justified so im not sure it was JUST a few loud people on the internet
-
i do want to add, i am more than happy to move past the previous issue, i dont know all the answers
I was really just talking about the current contractual issues, i am happy for him to play if he gets a release from his existing contract, rightly or wrong he has paid for what was done previously, im just not a fan of skipping out on a contract, like i was when SBW skipped out and headed you europe
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
-
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
do you have a link to the statement of claim? Always keen on primary source
-
@nzzp said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
do you have a link to the statement of claim? Always keen on primary source
-
@nzzp said in The Folau Factor:
it is more complex than that though.
Stop talking about your religion in public is hard to enforceYes it is. I just thought that he might have more respect for them and desist. I wasn't talking about the legal side of things.
-
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean yeah, fair enough, but as i said, most people i talked to in real life felt it was justified so im not sure it was JUST a few loud people on the internet
Actions speak louder than words. He garnered vast sums of donations in 2 days! People's money vs their words. Worth noting
-
@nzzp said in The Folau Factor:
@snowy said in The Folau Factor:
I wonder which part of "don't do it again" he didn't understand (from his employer).
it is more complex than that though.
Stop talking about your religion in public is hard to enforce
a little of an over simplification though
if all he said was "im a christian" then i dont think people would have had a problem, what he did was talk about other peoples religion or lack of it
@siam said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean yeah, fair enough, but as i said, most people i talked to in real life felt it was justified so im not sure it was JUST a few loud people on the internet
Actions speak louder than words. He garnered vast sums of donations in 2 days! People's money vs their words. Worth noting
of course, i did say not long ago there are millions that agree with him, but my personal experience was there are also lot of people that dont and so i think it is much more even than one side represents the majority
-
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
I will admit that I haven't read it word for word and nor am I a lawyer but that still reads to me as an employment dispute. RA believed he had breached the Code of Conduct and he believed that he didn't. All of the pages about his beliefs etc are there to justify his position.
At no point is it stated that RA cancelled his contract because of his beliefs. They did so because they had warned him that expressing those beliefs on SM put him in a position of breaching the Code of Conduct (in their opinion).What is more apparent is that RA did not follow procedure 100% correctly which, I understand, was the point at which they realised that the rest of the debate was a waste of time and payed him off.
-
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@crucial said in The Folau Factor:
@antipodean said in The Folau Factor:
@kiwiwomble said in The Folau Factor:
@nzzp I guess for me it came down to what was trying to be achieved with his post, his account was public and i always take that as you want everyone to know what youre posting, the modern equivalent to standing on a soap box
I really think there is a middle ground where he should be allowed to have his beliefs as million of others do in a personal sense
but when you post on Twitter and basically say you dont care if people are unhappy about it...you cant really be too annoyed if other people post on twitter that you should be fired...if that was their genuinely held belief.
That's fine, but there's a world of difference between randoms saying he should be fired (noise on the internet) and his employer sacking him for quoting the bible ffs. It was a mountain out of a molehill and everyone involved came off worse.
As lots of previous arguments have stated. This is a massive simplification of the situation and smacks of using an employer/employee dispute into a poster child for 'free speech'.
You may want to reread the statement of claim and ponder the outcome.
I will admit that I haven't read it word for word and nor am I a lawyer but that still reads to me as an employment dispute. RA believed he had breached the Code of Conduct and he believed that he didn't. All of the pages about his beliefs etc are there to justify his position.
At no point is it stated that RA cancelled his contract because of his beliefs. They did so because they had warned him that expressing those beliefs on SM put him in a position of breaching the Code of Conduct (in their opinion).What is more apparent is that RA did not follow procedure 100% correctly which, I understand, was the point at which they realised that the rest of the debate was a waste of time and payed him off.
Well there was the small matter that the part of the contract he was in breach of was changed/added without his consent. There was a reason they settled...
Sports requiring athletes to support cultural positions