Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@rotated said in Aussie Rugby in general:
If the ARU had a well established and well policed policy of preventing players from commenting on political/social issues they might have a point but as NZZP nailed it the policy is "you can say what you like, as long as you agree with us" and that is dangerous, dangerous territory.
Another thing just occurred to me -- the ARU is quite happy for their captain (Pocock) to chain himself to mines in free political expression. So, why allow that political speech (which is offensive to some), and not allow Folau to express himself?
Reminder: I think Pocock's right on climate change, I think Folau's a muppet and I couldn't disagree with him more, but I quite like living in a society that allows everyone to have their own viewpoints and (within reason) express them in a protected way.
-
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
ah cool, thanks
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
Well that's not surprising, the code of conduct clearly states that breaking the law is a breach. If he didn't get arrested then there would have been no warning.
-
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@rotated said in Aussie Rugby in general:
If the ARU had a well established and well policed policy of preventing players from commenting on political/social issues they might have a point but as NZZP nailed it the policy is "you can say what you like, as long as you agree with us" and that is dangerous, dangerous territory.
Another thing just occurred to me -- the ARU is quite happy for their captain (Pocock) to chain himself to mines in free political expression. So, why allow that political speech (which is offensive to some), and not allow Folau to express himself?
Reminder: I think Pocock's right on climate change, I think Folau's a muppet and I couldn't disagree with him more, but I quite like living in a society that allows everyone to have their own viewpoints and (within reason) express them in a protected way.
It's a bit of a tough one.
In one sense I wouldn't have been surprised if Pocock got his contract torn up as well for his antics.....but the outcry from the far left would have been deafening.
Rugby is a business, it's not a good look for people to play by their own rules with their wacky opinions.
-
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
-
@No-Quarter I think it depends. There is nuance to it.
RA hasn't stopped players expressing political or religious views. They have a policy which bans vilification of minority groups, no matter how that happens.
If Izzy came out and advocated for superranuation reform he'd be fine. But if he called for an end to Muslim immigration (which is the stated policy of Fraser Anning) he would presumably fall foul of the RA inclusion policy. Both forms of political communication, but one is OK and the other is not.
Likewise with religion. Plenty of players post about God's glory, or turning to the Lord, or loving Jesus or whatever. That's all good. When you start talking about Gays going to hell though you are in trouble.
-
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
This is the problem with having two issues that people seek to uphold when they become incompatible with each other.
I don't have the answer for it, but when it comes to business I fall firmly into the camp that says he who has the gold makes the rules.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
I guess my point is companies are often reacting to a very loud minority of people that want to ruin anyone that disagrees with them politically. Hence my example about gender, what is offensive can be really subjective. There are also employee rights to consider, companies should have valid reasons for firing their staff that go deeper than "we disagree with what they said".
It's not obvious to me that Folau's comments would hurt RA or Qantas financially either. His beliefs were already well known when they re-signed him. I feel like it's more a reaction to the usual suspects overplaying the importance of his words as they feed their narcissism with over the top statements that demonstrate their morals.
No doubt some beliefs and statements are obviously offensive. But there's also an awful lot of grey area where some are offended and some aren't, and those that do decide to take offense sure do drum up a lot of noise on social media.
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
I guess my point is companies are often reacting to a very loud minority of people that want to ruin anyone that disagrees with them politically. Hence my example about gender, what is offensive can be really subjective. There are also employee rights to consider, companies should have valid reasons for firing their staff that go deeper than "we disagree with what they said".
It's not obvious to me that Folau's comments would hurt RA or Qantas financially either. His beliefs were already well known when they re-signed him. I feel like it's more a reaction to the usual suspects overplaying the importance of his words as they feed their narcissism with over the top statements that demonstrate their morals.
No doubt some beliefs and statements are obviously offensive. But there's also an awful lot of grey area where some are offended and some aren't, and those that do decide to take offense sure do drum up a lot of noise on social media.
But it is black and white in terms of dismissal for me. If someone I employed makes a comment on social media about anything and I lose a load of customers for that comment, that person is gone.
I think that is very clear.
-
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
I guess my point is companies are often reacting to a very loud minority of people that want to ruin anyone that disagrees with them politically. Hence my example about gender, what is offensive can be really subjective. There are also employee rights to consider, companies should have valid reasons for firing their staff that go deeper than "we disagree with what they said".
It's not obvious to me that Folau's comments would hurt RA or Qantas financially either. His beliefs were already well known when they re-signed him. I feel like it's more a reaction to the usual suspects overplaying the importance of his words as they feed their narcissism with over the top statements that demonstrate their morals.
No doubt some beliefs and statements are obviously offensive. But there's also an awful lot of grey area where some are offended and some aren't, and those that do decide to take offense sure do drum up a lot of noise on social media.
But it is black and white in terms of dismissal for me. If someone I employed makes a comment on social media about anything and I lose a load of customers for that comment, that person is gone.
I think that is very clear.
If you can prove you lost a load of customers, then yes I agree. That may not be easy though, and I'm not convinced RA could prove that in this instance.
NB: Just to reiterate to everyone, I've been described as a militant atheist in the past, I am in no way defending or endorsing Folau's views
-
One also needs to keep in mind that there's a world of difference for people earning seven figures and those on the median full time wage. With extraordinary remuneration and opportunities comes extraordinary requirements.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
One also needs to keep in mind that there's a world of difference for people earning seven figures and those on the median full time wage. With extraordinary remuneration and opportunities comes extraordinary requirements.
That's a fair point.
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
I guess my point is companies are often reacting to a very loud minority of people that want to ruin anyone that disagrees with them politically. Hence my example about gender, what is offensive can be really subjective. There are also employee rights to consider, companies should have valid reasons for firing their staff that go deeper than "we disagree with what they said".
It's not obvious to me that Folau's comments would hurt RA or Qantas financially either. His beliefs were already well known when they re-signed him. I feel like it's more a reaction to the usual suspects overplaying the importance of his words as they feed their narcissism with over the top statements that demonstrate their morals.
No doubt some beliefs and statements are obviously offensive. But there's also an awful lot of grey area where some are offended and some aren't, and those that do decide to take offense sure do drum up a lot of noise on social media.
But it is black and white in terms of dismissal for me. If someone I employed makes a comment on social media about anything and I lose a load of customers for that comment, that person is gone.
I think that is very clear.
If you can prove you lost a load of customers, then yes I agree. That may not be easy though, and I'm not convinced RA could prove that in this instance.
NB: Just to reiterate to everyone, I've been described as a militant atheist in the past, I am in no way defending or endorsing Folau's views
Would you have to prove you lost a lot of customers though or just the potential to lose a lot of customers. Let alone your potential loss of future sponsorship should your current major sponsor abandon you.
-
If I pull any shit that are even seen to threaten the financial or reputational status of my company, I'm basically gone.
I got a written warning once over a simple failure to follow protocol. It didn't actually harm anyone or anything. Nobody outside a couple of teams knew about it. AND I advanced the project by about 6 weeks inadvertantly, but those are the rules.
