Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86
Blackadder wrote:Israel Folau, an Australian international rugby player, has had his contract terminated for preaching homophobic comments.
I’m not sure where I stand on this. I find his comments repugnant. Yet I am uneasy with punishing people for expressing their views. I would rather see such ideas wither and die from exposure and ridicule. Punishing Christians just seems to stoke their sense of martyrdom and makes them worse. Then again, he is a national figure and signed a contract prohibiting him from making such comments on social media.
What do you think?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47932231
Blackadder wrote:I find his comments repugnant. Yet I am uneasy with punishing people for expressing their views. I would rather see such ideas wither and die from exposure and ridicule.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:I think that competitive sports, unlike citizenship is a commercial issue and therefore a club should have every right to ban players as long as they don't do so for illegal reasons, like racism.
WARNING
Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists and Idolaters,
Hell awaits you.
REPENT!
ONLY JESUS SAVES
Blackadder wrote: Yet I am uneasy with punishing people for expressing their views.
The devil has blinded so many people in this world, REPENT and turn away from your evil ways. Turn to Jesus Christ who will set you free.
Spearthrower wrote:WARNING
Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists and Idolaters,
Hell awaits you.
REPENT!
ONLY JESUS SAVESBlackadder wrote: Yet I am uneasy with punishing people for expressing their views.
I struggle to think of any job where you could make such statements and still retain your job.
He's got a national platform precisely because of his status in the sport. As such, if he misuses that status, particularly after having been officially warned and having signed a contract assuring he will not engage in this, then he's only got himself to blame. His freedom of speech is not being infringed on: instead the reality is that he needs to learn that freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from consequences of that speech.
Good riddance: Australia deserves and is better.
Spearthrower wrote:WARNING
Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists and Idolaters,
Hell awaits you.
REPENT!
ONLY JESUS SAVESBlackadder wrote: Yet I am uneasy with punishing people for expressing their views.
I struggle to think of any job where you could make such statements and still retain your job.
He's got a national platform precisely because of his status in the sport. As such, if he misuses that status, particularly after having been officially warned and having signed a contract assuring he will not engage in this, then he's only got himself to blame. His freedom of speech is not being infringed on: instead the reality is that he needs to learn that freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from consequences of that speech.
Good riddance: Australia deserves and is better.
TopCat wrote:
But it's a shame that we now live in an age where saying unpalatable things summarily terminates your career. Personally, I think it would be better if people could roll their eyes, conclude that he's a dick, and move on.
As the OP said, he's now received all the affirmation he needs by being made into a metaphorical martyr.
Blackadder wrote:Spearthrower wrote:WARNING
Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists and Idolaters,
Hell awaits you.
REPENT!
ONLY JESUS SAVESBlackadder wrote: Yet I am uneasy with punishing people for expressing their views.
I struggle to think of any job where you could make such statements and still retain your job.
He's got a national platform precisely because of his status in the sport. As such, if he misuses that status, particularly after having been officially warned and having signed a contract assuring he will not engage in this, then he's only got himself to blame. His freedom of speech is not being infringed on: instead the reality is that he needs to learn that freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from consequences of that speech.
Good riddance: Australia deserves and is better.
I can completely see why the national rugby body censured him. At the very least, he has breached his terms of employment. I guess my slight unease is when I think of how this could be used in the other direction. Thomas made the point that commercial considerations would come into play. Yes they would. But that could be used against atheist employees too in different circumstances.
So I think this goes deeper than commercial expediency or a contractual obligation. Maybe we have passed the point where fundamentalist Christian views are acceptable to utter in public. 50 years ago, such views would have probably not even raised an eyebrow. I suspect we have reached that turning point, at least in the non-Islamic world outside of the US. It’s interesting that social acceptability, which was once closely associated with being a member of a religion, is now heading almost in completely the opposite direction, at least insofar as public proclamations are concerned.
Blackadder wrote:
I can completely see why the national rugby body censured him. At the very least, he has breached his terms of employment. I guess my slight unease is when I think of how this could be used in the other direction. Thomas made the point that commercial considerations would come into play. Yes they would. But that could be used against atheist employees too in different circumstances.
Blackadder wrote:So I think this goes deeper than commercial expediency or a contractual obligation. Maybe we have passed the point where fundamentalist Christian views are acceptable to utter in public. 50 years ago, such views would have probably not even raised an eyebrow.
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Blackadder wrote:Spearthrower wrote:WARNING
Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists and Idolaters,
Hell awaits you.
REPENT!
ONLY JESUS SAVESBlackadder wrote: Yet I am uneasy with punishing people for expressing their views.
I struggle to think of any job where you could make such statements and still retain your job.
He's got a national platform precisely because of his status in the sport. As such, if he misuses that status, particularly after having been officially warned and having signed a contract assuring he will not engage in this, then he's only got himself to blame. His freedom of speech is not being infringed on: instead the reality is that he needs to learn that freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from consequences of that speech.
Good riddance: Australia deserves and is better.
I can completely see why the national rugby body censured him. At the very least, he has breached his terms of employment. I guess my slight unease is when I think of how this could be used in the other direction. Thomas made the point that commercial considerations would come into play. Yes they would. But that could be used against atheist employees too in different circumstances.
So I think this goes deeper than commercial expediency or a contractual obligation. Maybe we have passed the point where fundamentalist Christian views are acceptable to utter in public. 50 years ago, such views would have probably not even raised an eyebrow. I suspect we have reached that turning point, at least in the non-Islamic world outside of the US. It’s interesting that social acceptability, which was once closely associated with being a member of a religion, is now heading almost in completely the opposite direction, at least insofar as public proclamations are concerned.
I can only speak for my own little corner of this world, but around here, you still get disappointed stares or sometimes told you're rude if you make disparaging remarks about religion, especially Christianity if any of it's adherents are around or related to the people you're talking to.
Spearthrower wrote:Blackadder wrote:
I can completely see why the national rugby body censured him. At the very least, he has breached his terms of employment. I guess my slight unease is when I think of how this could be used in the other direction. Thomas made the point that commercial considerations would come into play. Yes they would. But that could be used against atheist employees too in different circumstances.
I'm not sure how.
Anti-theist, perhaps. But if someone wants to write up some sordid fantasy they have of religious people being made to suffer, then I've no problem them reaping the consequences of their words either.Blackadder wrote:So I think this goes deeper than commercial expediency or a contractual obligation. Maybe we have passed the point where fundamentalist Christian views are acceptable to utter in public. 50 years ago, such views would have probably not even raised an eyebrow.
Sure, but 50 years ago homosexuality was illegal in essentially all nations.
70 years ago, it was perfectly normal for African Americans in the USA to be treated as second class citizens in every aspect of life.
If there's a directionality here, it appears to me to be a positive one. A slippery slope upwards, as it were.
aban57 wrote:A right wing nut has been sentenced to 1 year jail in France today, for negationism.
I think we, as a society, fight this stupidity the wrong way. And I think it's even more obvious with negationism. Anti-vax propaganda actually kills people, including children, why is it not punished the same way ?
But the way we're looking at all this is wrong. We're only punishing the expression of the opinions we judge detrimental to other people. And yet, it's mostly pointless, as those opinions spread anyway. It makes people holding those opinions shut up, at least publicly, and sometimes more careful in their actions. But it also creates a resentment, because they feel their right to speak is infringed. And it is. The fact that it's a good thing or not depends on what side you're in. I personally don't mind to prevent idiots from spreading their ignorance, but they'll never see it that way.
We need to focus on education. We need to couple ALL sanctions for discrimination with education about the lies behind it. Every single discrimination is based on a lie. There is no exception. We need to destroy the lies (and mock them if necessary), and the discriminations will disappear by themselves.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest