Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.

Moderator: Flyin'Dutch'

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
By Nomad63
#1688604
JoeC wrote:
Nomad63 wrote:
Yep and its even worse here.



Just what is it you're not allowed to say? What are you're actually complaining about?

Shirley you're not complaining on social media that other people are complaining on social media?


Yes I am and don't call me Shirley :D
By riverrock
#1688608
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:There is no compulsion for organisations to keep on folks who bring the club in disrepute and neither is there a compulsion for social media to allow people to broadcast matters that the social media do not want to be broadcast via their medium.

Standing on speaker's corner - fill your boots as long as it is not incitement.

Is he representing himself or the club? It is a personal account - not a corporate one. Why should speakers corner be any different?

His account is here by the way - https://twitter.com/IzzyFolau - you'd have thought it was pretty clear what he thinks and its likely he had some opposition from it. He doesn't pick out homosexuality for special treatment - it was part of a pretty long list.
Does the club promote / endorse everything else he has posted? If not - why do they care about this? No-one associates what he posts with the club - they only associate it it with him.

The image he posted was a quote from 1st Corinthians Ch 6 vs 9&10
It is something that was written almost 2000 years ago, ironically when people were firing lawsuits at each other.
When read in context, it basically says, others will get their comeuppance at the end of time so don't try to judge them, argue with them, and fire lawsuits at them now. Its actually about NOT judging people yourself - instead let God do that.
It can also be read as a reminder that once you decide to accept Christ, you shouldn't be doing those things, but that isn't what the passage is about.

The next section of that chapter reminds us we shouldn't be driven by sexual desires, but higher things. I suggest in the world we live in - that's probably just as relevant now as ever.

On @Miscellaneous not seeing a religiously inspired view as legitimate - can you note the irony of your own intolerance in that? Everyone is entitled to their views. If you think they are wrong, you can try to change them but dismissing views helps no-one.
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1688617
riverrock wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:There is no compulsion for organisations to keep on folks who bring the club in disrepute and neither is there a compulsion for social media to allow people to broadcast matters that the social media do not want to be broadcast via their medium.

Standing on speaker's corner - fill your boots as long as it is not incitement.

Is he representing himself or the club? It is a personal account - not a corporate one. Why should speakers corner be any different?



Two different issues.

Use of social media vs standing at Speaker's corner.

Social Media ≠ Speaker's corner

With the former you are using someone's platform to spread your views, and the owner of that platform can decide what they want to have published there.

Just as on here some things are, and others not, tolerated.

And just because something has been written in the bible that doesn't mean it is OK to stick it in a message on social media.

The one is a historic script, the other very much not so.
By riverrock
#1688630
You've come at this from the platform angle. I'm coming at this from the person and employer angle.
I suggest from the employer's point of view, if he had stood on a soap box in the corner of Hyde Park, not wearing his team's kit, they would have had the same reaction.
The question isn't the law. Everything he said was entirely legal. The question is whether the employer should have the ability to interfere with a person's personal life and free speech outside of work.

Why isn't it ok to quote the best selling, most widely distributed, most translated, most influential book there has ever been of will be, on social media?
flybymike liked this
By JoeC
#1688636
Harry Potter?

Not being children easily influenced in Sunday school means that we’re probably not confusing a book foisted on generation after generation by a patriachy eager to maintain its position as actually being one of popular choice. It’s has never been a 'best seller'. Especially when hell and damnation awaited those who dared reject it.
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1688637
The Bible is an excellent piece of literature whether or not viewed or used as a believer. Apparently it also runs off +100m copies a year so Harry Potter has a bit of catching up to do yet.

Just treat it like A Midsummer Night's Dream if it seems a bit mind bending.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1688640
JoeC wrote:Especially when hell and damnation awaited those who dared reject it.

Whereas, with the wisdom of the Ages, at least we now only deny a career to the apostate...

People believe many diverse things, rightly or wrongly. Rather than forcing a particular view on them (which likely won't work, deep down), making a case and convincing them is surely a better course of action for society as a whole, as well as the individuals?
eltonioni liked this
By AlanC
#1688642
Is not part of the issue that many people gain their Twitter/Instagram/Facebook etc followers from their name and linked professional status? While I may not espouse his personal views (and therefore do admit that he has the right and privilege to hold personal views...) his Twitter account might get rather fewer viewers if he were not/had not been "the Australian rugby player X". We are all rather used to Person X putting stuff on the internet of varying value, but public persona X is a little different.

Perhaps an unintended consequence of fame, but a consequence nonetheless? There are always pen names for trying the waters...
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By riverrock
#1688646
Dave W wrote:People believe many diverse things, rightly or wrongly. Rather than forcing a particular view on them (which likely won't work, deep down), making a case and convincing them is surely a better course of action for society as a whole, as well as the individuals?

Rather than silencing or sacking someone or banning quoting of something, or not recognising that someone has the right to speak.

The right to freedom of expression should only be curtailed in extremis, especially by employers.

Don't get me wrong, in relation to here a forum needs moderated and if representing an employer, you shouldn't bring your employer into distrupute.
However to me a personal twitter feed represents an individual - not an employer. Standing on a soap box you represent yourself unless you're wearing a uniform.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1688666
RR - freedom of speech relates to the freedom of persecution by the state for speech, not freedom from action by others. And there is plenty of recent evidence that clarifies that both society and the law share that view.

Ask Kim Davis, for some she might be a martyr for going to jail, in the eyes of the law she just broke the law with her actions.

As far as the wisdom of the Bible, what was penned down some time ago might for some be a book with reasonable guidance, the practical implementation of some suggestions is probably not a great idea as we have moved on; unless people think that stoning folks to death is reasonable.

And that is where we are back at this Rugby player.

If the average anorak goes and stands on Speaker's corner and was to state anything like that, a few people will listen, the majority will just ignore it and walk on.

If Falou or Trump were to do it on Twitter idolators would assume that it would be OK to hold those views and a small number might execute the actions espoused.

One man's freedom of speech is another man's incitement of hatred.

And yes, being in the public eye does confer additional responsibilities.
User avatar
By Pete L
#1688670
Where was the incitement in the statement made? He wasn’t proposing hastening divine justice.

I think he’s got a reasonable case for being discriminated against for his religion. And arguably, since the traditional views are dominant among non Europeans, racism.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1688671
Pete L wrote:Where was the incitement in the statement made? He wasn’t proposing hastening divine justice.

I think he’s got a reasonable case for being discriminated against for his religion. And arguably, since the traditional views are dominant among non Europeans, racism.


On FB someone posted part of a Rugby Australia contract of employment and if that is a reflection of Falou's contract then his dismissal will be in line with his contractual obligations.

That doesn't mean he won't go to court and may well get an out of court settlement as that is how these things often go.

That doesn't mean he was right.

I am surprised there is so much support for this chap as to my mind it was crass and in poor taste to write that sort of stuff; especially as a few posters had no problem with someone being blocked expressing their views via a wedding cake……………..
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1688677
This might belong in the Neverendum thread, but it seems more appropriate here to show the bleeding edge of insidious thought crime. Nobody (I hope) will disagree with the distastefulness of the circumstances, but one word leaped out.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/mi ... -1-9713931
Miss Hitler’ contestant ‘sent kill kill kill’ text to boyfriend and ‘discussed gassing synagogues wrote:
Jones also said he posed for a photo with another man, both giving a Nazi-type salute, and with the National Action flag unfurled, while inside the execution room at Buchenwald concentration camp.

The other man in the photograph was group co-founder Alex Davies, Jones told the jury.

Asked why he was making that salute in a concentration camp, Jones replied: "Because it is a controversial statement."

Jones also explained he had taken a photo in the room housing the ovens where Buchenwald's dead victims were burned, as it was "just somewhere to take a selfie".

He added there was "no particular reason" he chose the location.

Mr Jameson then asked: "Mr Jones, you're a Remainer, a vegan, you follow some tenets of Hinduism - what are you doing in the crematorium at Buchenwald, with Alex Davies?"

Jones replied: "We stopped off to look around."

Aside from the stunning lack of knowledge about Hitler's eating habits and the use of swastikas in Hinduism... Nazis don't vote Remain? Really?
User avatar
By kanga
#1688724
eltonioni wrote:... Surely it is much better if an individual or group is handled in a sensitive way that moves the world on a bit?

..do something about it, starting with education.


<drift :oops: >

As often, I am impressed by the latitude available to local prosecutors and judges in US to find novel ways to deal with 'thoughtless' crime, through education:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-47936071

:thumright:

</>
OCB, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By JoeC
#1688730
eltonioni wrote: Apparently it also runs off +100m copies a year so Harry Potter has a bit of catching up to do yet.


Religious organisations paying for millions of copies to be printed and placed in hotel bedside tables and empty churches does not, in anyones, er, book, make the bible a 'bestseller'. Unlike Harry Potter, actively bought, which has all the magic and morality anyone could ever need!
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7