Sulphur on 28/6/2019 at 17:26
Well, we can't really have a conversation if one party's going to stick their thumbs in their ears and sing 'la la la la la' instead of a cogent response. And so reasonable discourse fades.
Starker on 28/6/2019 at 18:09
Quote Posted by heywood
I didn't see anything in the news that spelled out what specific code of conduct rule (if any) that he violated. If there was something in his contract that could be reasonably interpreted as preventing him from publicly airing his religious views, then fine. It wouldn't surprise me, because for some strange reason I've never understood, society wants to hold up athletes as role models more than any other profession.
There likely was nothing that prevented him from publicly airing his religious views, and if that was all he did there would have been no problem. But he did more than that, didn't he? He took a nasty politically motivated swipe at a marginal and heavily discriminated group of people. Bigotry coated in religious language is still bigotry.
Quote Posted by heywood
The one that concerns me more is the GoFundMe takedown. That to me is blatant discrimination against someone because of their religious views.
Again, they didn't ban him because he had religious views, they stopped his campaign because he breached their TOS. Gofundme is a site set up for people to help other people, not a site to help people discriminate against others.
Quote Posted by heywood
Of course not. Most Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that sinners will go to hell. Everybody knows that and nobody feels threatened by that except the believers, who are afraid of God's judgment, not some rugby player. If he actually threatened to
do something in the name of his religion, that would be a threat.
That's like saying that calling Jews Christ killers isn't a threat to anyone, because nobody actually threatens to do anything. That's like saying that white supremacists calling black people subhuman isn't a threat to anyone, etc. Calling gay people sinners and saying that they are evil is a threat to gay people, because this viewpoint is grounds for larger systematic discrimination. And instilling fear in people of going to hell for what they can't help is a related, but not any less fucked up issue that can lead to a host of problems up to and including suicide.
Quote Posted by heywood
Whataboutism
As far as I can tell, he didn't discriminate against anybody or subject anybody to conversion therapy.
This is not whataboutism. Gay people have demonstrably suffered under religiously motivated discrimination. While he personally hasn't subjected anybody to conversion therapy, as far as we know, christians have and still do, based on the exact views that he is propagating.
Quote Posted by heywood
Essentially, you guys are asking Christians to stay in the closet. They can have their religious views, but only express them in private. If they air them publicly, then it's fair game to ostracize them, attempt to censor them, and discriminate against them, including denying them employment opportunities and access to services that are available to everyone else. It's ironic that ~40 years ago, society did the same thing to gay people. Now it's flipped around. It wasn't right then and it isn't now.
Nobody is asking christians to stay in the closet. They have the right to say anything they want. But religion cannot be a shield for bigotry and discrimination. What, should we suddenly embrace Westboro Baptists, because they are religious?
And once again, he is not facing backlash because he is a christian. If he was an atheist, the reaction would have been the same.
Renzatic on 28/6/2019 at 18:54
Quote Posted by icemann
Freedom of speech for me.
To enshrine the freedom of speech as an absolute, we have to lay aside the right to choose to associate with on a business or personal level. The position your taking is less a "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" situation, more a "I don't agree with what you say, and I have no choice but to tolerate it, even if it's actively damaging me."
For example, say you're running a big business, and you hire some guy to act as your social media presence. He is a public face of Icemann Inc., and whatever he says is directly associated with you. He does a pretty good job, but then one day, entirely out of the blue, he responds to some guy with "...Biderman? That's a kike name, isn't it? I can't stand you fuckers!" It's right there, for all the world to see. Your reputation is now on the line due to his actions. What can you do?
Currently, you have the right to choose who you associate with. He's your employee using your name to further your business. You have every right to fire him to avoid the drama. Disassociate yourself from him.
But what if we consider freedom of speech paramount, overriding our freedom of association? Can you fire him? Well, maybe. Thing is, he has the right to voice his opinion. It's sacred. Firing him for potentially harming your brand would be tantamount to punishing him for his speech, wouldn't it? That's not something you want to do, is it? I mean, he could turn around and sue you for oppressing his right to openly speak his mind.
...guess that means you have to tolerate his occasional antisemitic outbursts using your name. Rumors spread. People start turning around, and rant against him on Twitter whenever he does. Your business social media account has become a free speech free for all, tarring you with controversy, and distracting from the whole reason you started the goddamn thing in the first place. You end up losing customers.
...but hey, that's the price you pay for freedom, right?
Or what if you run a coffee shop? It's open to the public. It's a popular place. People come and go all the time. One day, some local ultra-hardline feminists decide to use it as THE place to hand out pamphlets, and perform loud soapbox speeches right there next to the counter. They like the vibe. It's very wymminist.
Thing is, they're a distraction. They're annoying. They ruin the atmosphere. No one particularly likes them.
But what can you do? Though it's your property, it's a venue open to the public. They have the absolute right to free speech. Who are you to suppress their fervently held beliefs? Next thing you know, a bunch of MGTOW people start showing up to counter them. Your place ends up becoming a hotbed of discourse for extremist gender politics. You don't want to have anything to do with any of that. All you wanted to do was sell some goddamn coffee. No drama. When all is said and done, you end up losing all your usual customers, and these new people are a tightfisted, miserly bunch, they're there primarily to make a scene a few times a week. To put all those fuckers they don't agree with in their place.
...but hey, that's the price you pay for freedom, right? The right for them to speak their mind wherever, whenever trumps your right to choose who you associate with.
Tony_Tarantula on 28/6/2019 at 19:36
“Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble - and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb, too. The imagination and spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Ideology—that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations.... Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 1918-1956
Renzatic on 28/6/2019 at 19:38
A quote snazzy enough to post on a forum, vague enough to apply to every side of the debate.
Tony_Tarantula on 28/6/2019 at 19:39
Quote Posted by Renzatic
A quote snazzy enough to post on a forum, vague enough to apply to every side of the debate.
That's kind of the point.
I recommend reading the whole book though.
Renzatic on 28/6/2019 at 19:45
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
That's kind of the point.
I recommend reading the whole book though.
I dunno. I'm on a pretty big ghost story kick right now.
Renzatic on 28/6/2019 at 20:21
Quote Posted by icemann
On the other, I feel that one has the right to defend themselves on free speech grounds. It's a very slippery slope, and I initially on doing the first post on this topic, was concerned more of Folou's attempts to defend himself were being silenced by the left.
It's a situation with no truly easy answer, and any legal conclusion represents a potential minefield, where enshrining one right could have a chilling effect on any number of other rights. Folou had every right to say what he said, Rugby Australia had every right to say "we don't want to deal with none of that, and fire him, and Folou now has every right to sue them for what he sees as wrongful termination. It's a bunch of individual rights clashing against other individual rights, and the question is who's individual right is more a right than the others?
I look at it kinda like this: Folou is fairly famous, apparently. Has lots of followers on social media, goes to lots of public events, gets recognized out on the street regularly. Everyone knows who he is, what he does, and who he plays for. You could say that even in his personal life, posting things on his own personal account, he's always acting as a representative of Rugby Australia, whether he means to or not. Anything he says says or does will eventually be reflected upon that organization. In a way, they're as liable for his actions off the field as he is.
So if he says some controversial thing that ends up getting a bunch of people riled up, they'll probably go to Rugby Australia, screaming "WHY IS HE STILL PLAYING! HE'S A BIGOT, AND A TERRIBLE PERSON!" There will be a media storm. Things will be said. Reputations will be harmed. That's drama no one wants to deal with. They're ultimately left with two choices in the matter: to ignore it, and hope it all boils over, or deal with it directly. Either way, they're going to get some backlash, but they've been put into this situation by their employee. They decided to take the more direct approach.
Now is this entirely fair to Folou? Not completely, no. He's been put into a situation where his fame means he can't openly express his beliefs. He's always in the public eye, and must always be mindful of what he says. Thing is, he's put himself into this position. He wanted to play Rugby. Knew he was good enough to become famous for it. He should be expected to know the price and the pitfalls of his fame. As long as he plays rugby, he's acting more as an institution than a private citizen. Nothing he does harms only himself.
So, when Folou went on his little religiously inspired anti-gay rant on Twitter, it wasn't just his reputation he was harming, but Rugby Australia's by proxy. Both parties knew the consequences. Rugby Australia didn't want the drama, warned Folou they didn't want the drama. Folou decided not to heed this warning, apparently thinking that voicing his opinions in public took higher priority over his rugby career. He exercised his freedom of speech, and Rugby Australia exercised their freedom of association.
It was, quite simply, "Fuck you! You can't tell me what I can say or do" vs. "I don't want to have to deal with your screwball shit!" Both sides had a choice. Both sides made a choice. All freedoms were maintained.
Renzatic on 28/6/2019 at 20:28
Quote Posted by icemann
Or watch the cartoon Gargoyles, as that had a semi-more accurate version of him than the Shakespear one. Well until he became immortal and alive right up to and beyond present day. An interesting "other" version of him nonetheless.
Gargoyle's was one of those shows I always wanted to watch when I was a kid. Problem was, it came on at a weird time, usually when I wasn't watching TV, and on one of those weird channels way up the dial I rarely ever watched. I only got to catch it occasionally.
froghawk on 28/6/2019 at 21:09
Icemann, I think it's disingenuous to blame 'the far left' when, for the most part, the cases you're bringing up are about corporations trying to cover their butts. It isn't the left or the right that's ultimately silencing people - it's largely employers, social media, etc. 'Free speech' is a term that only applies to avoiding government persecution, but it isn't the government running all of these public platforms. Therefore, people who are primarily concerned with their bottom lines and have no obligation to uphold free speech on their own platforms remain the arbiters. I don't think it's fair to say these things are entirely incontestable, either - just look what happened to James Gunn. He got his job back.