Toast Sorry Adam

[loki04]

Perhaps you’re right. It was never really free speech. The thought police are definitely more strict these days though.

Yeah its a blurry line free speech in Aus, it applies sometimes and not others.

Here is our version of the free speech and expression act.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-...ms/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression
General Comment 34 emphasises that freedom of expression and opinion are the foundation stone for a free and democratic society and a necessary condition for the promotion and protection of human rights. This General Comment addresses in detail:

• freedom of opinion
• freedom of expression
• freedom of expression and the media
• the right to access to information
• the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society
• the application of Article 19.3 on permissible limitations on freedom of information and expression
• the scope for limitations on freedom of expression in certain areas
• the relationship between articles 19 and 20.

 

[loki04]

Yes, this is what I don't get. People say that Folau is entitled to his free speech but if I then say, I thought his comments (or others like him) are hurtful, discriminatory or whatever, I am then accused of restricting free speech. Where is my right of reply?

Seems a bit like double standards to me.

You have a right to not follow him on twitter. You also have a right to say his comments were bigoted should you wish.

There is your freedom.

 

[Maggie5]

You have a right to not follow him on twitter.

Apart from BF, no social media for me.

You also have a right to say his comments were bigoted should you wish.

Not without being accused of stifling free speech sadly.

 

[TKiL]

Free speech is dead. Anything that contradicts mainstream seems to be labelled as hate speech and the person is muzzled/shamed/disemployed.
I’m an atheist and personally believe Folau’s comments are rubbish but he ought to be free to say/post what he likes. Just as people should be free to watch or not, like or not, this Goodes documentary.

It would have been a lot simpler if people had recognised Folau's comments as almost drivel - who really believes that some people will burn forever and others sit on a cloud listening to harp music? - just ignore it even if you are in a group targetted by the superstitious drivel

 

[Dependlebury]

The gift of free speech is that it satisfies the law of large numbers. The more people who are permitted to speak their mind without being intimidated, the more we can be confident that everyone’s views are being considered and their needs are represented in policy. Listen to too few, or those having their views magnified in an echo chamber like social media, and you get a distorted sense of what people really value.

Well said. The virtue signalling going on by businesses protecting their brands is sickening.
Need only look at how despite the media degrading Trump, and making it virtually taboo for one to approve of him openly, he still won the election.
The polls had Hillary Clinton home and hosed. Clearly the safe opinion didn’t correlate to how the public truly felt when give the anonymity of the polling booth.
Same could be said for Brexit and Scomo.

 

[domus]

At what point in our entire history has a person been able to say anything they like?

As long as you are not inciting violence I think Americans have been able to speak freely up until a few years ago when social justice warriors became the fascists of the 21st century.

 

[loki04]

Apart from BF, no social media for me.


Not without being accused of stifling free speech sadly.

I think they are saying he should be allowed to express his views that align with his beliefs in his own space without losing his job and being hounded by half of Australia.

But you are also within your own space allowed to disagree with those views and have an opinion on it.


There are many instances of people using racist and bigot tag to shut down discussion. It happens often. Goodes is an example of it. We have many people telling a large group of the population that if you booed you did it for racists reasons and your real motives and reasons are invalidated by their opinion of you.

Typically if someone goes against the grain of agenda even if only posting counter facts or articles they shine some light on flawed theory. People have lumped all dissenting voices in with the one extreme racism label.

Because if you aren't with them on all topics then have to be racist couldn't just be you differ on some stuff and agree on others. They act as if you feel one way on some things you couldn't feel differently on other things with regards to racial issues or religion or other.

People feel if you aren't fully on board with their world view or agenda then you are just a racist. They forget people are maliable not always extremely hard core or wedded. What the left forget is they scream the loudest and hardest whilst also trying their best to shut down others even when presented with facts. Easy out is just claim racist and bigotry that way they dont need to counter the claims with real proof, just use that and some anecdotal evidence usually with an agenda behind why someone would want it that way *cough 'reparations' cough* and there you go 1 sided commentary with no balance or thought in discussions.

 

[loki04]

As long as you are not inciting violence I think Americans have been able to speak freely up until a few years ago when social justice warriors became the fascists of the 21st century.

Yep they are the only country who have a true free speech act in their constitution. We have a quasi free speech and expression act.

 

[loki04]

The best line is when you get 40 year old white males telling the rest of white Australia they are all born racists...but not them of course. Blinded by their own sense of self righteousness.

 

[sr36]

Yes, this is what I don't get. People say that Folau is entitled to his free speech but if I then say, I thought his comments (or others like him) are hurtful, discriminatory or whatever, I am then accused of restricting free speech. Where is my right of reply?

Seems a bit like double standards to me.

The people who complain that Folau is entitled to his free speech don't really understand what free speech is and are unable to understand that whilst something may and should be legally without consequence, it can, does and should still have a social consequence. If you say something obnoxious in any social setting be it real or virtual there is a consequence, as there should be. Your free to do it, as long as it doesn't impinge on slander or racial vilification laws, but everything you do has a consequence - sometimes positive, sometimes negative.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

For those struggling with the idea that the booing of Goodes was race-based, here is a clue: it isn’t what you think. It is what it caused others to feel. Not just Goodes but any and every indigenous person who was hurt by the booing. Once this hurt was apparent anyone who kept up with the booing was either ignorant to the effects or just another racist jerk.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

So when a white player is booed it is akin to booing the entire white race and we should all feel hurt and offended e.g when Pendlebury was booed. What a lot of hyper sensitive nonsense.

 

[Markfs]

The interesting thing about the Goodes film is how it relates to three groups in society:
1. Those who passionately want to see indigenous people do well. They already embrace everything said in the film and will probably see it multiple times.
2. Those who are generally concerned about themselves but generally believe in a fair go for everyone. They will see the film because it's a hot topic and will probably learn a few things and change a few attitudes
3. Those have disliked Goodes for a long time ago for a whole range of reasons many of which are racially based. They wont see the film and will shout that fact from the rooftop.

 

[Dependlebury]

The best line is when you get 40 year old white males telling the rest of white Australia they are all racists...but not them of course. Blinded by their own sense of self righteousness.

I like it when the condescension gets to the stage where the ‘progressive’ types tell us that we are racist and don’t even know it ourselves.
Please, tell me how to think and feel!

 

[loki04]

I like it when the condescension gets to the stage where the ‘progressive’ types tell us that we are racist and don’t even know it ourselves.
Please, tell me how to think and feel!

Yup they created a term just for it to keep the "catch em all in one net" we have the term *casual racism*. Where by the ignorant racist do something ingrained and racist without knowing. While undoubtedly there are moments this happens there are also times it doesnt but the term still gets applied.
This term was created when general society stopped being racist as a whole (note this is not saying all people stopped but general rule of thumb is most people arent racist or hate another due to skin colour contrary to the myth permeating society right now).

Same with people throwing bigot and racist around like confetti, firstly it devalues the word and secondly it is often a sign of their own bigotry as they use the terms to halt discussion and thought that doesn't align with their hard line beliefs.

Bigotry : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

 

[Baltimore Jack]

As long as you are not inciting violence I think Americans have been able to speak freely up until a few years ago when social justice warriors became the fascists of the 21st century.

Was that when Adam was playing for the New York Giants?

 

[sideswipe]

So when a white player is booed it is akin to booing the entire white race and we should all feel hurt and offended e.g when Pendlebury was booed. What a lot of hyper sensitive nonsense.

We are talking about a minority group, one which has suffered a terrible history of persecution and discrimination. It is what that boo made them feel, not the intent of the "booers". Extending that to white males is ridiculous, as you intended.

Maybe consider the use of the r word that rhymes with petard. Two mates on a tram exchanging good-natured banter. That word is used. Neither of the mates intended nor felt hurt by the use of the word. Some other person on the tram has a relative with special needs. That word reminds them that their relative is going to face challenges and exclusion throughout their life. It causes them hurt. Do you think that is hyper-sensitive?

Those boos made a great many indigenous people feel reminded of their history of exclusion and, yes, persecution. It isn't about the boos being intended to be racist, it was that they were received that way by members of a minority group. You really can't see that?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

We are talking about a minority group, one which has suffered a terrible history of persecution and discrimination. It is what that boo made them feel, not the intent of the "booers". Extending that to white males is ridiculous, as you intended.

Maybe consider the use of the r word that rhymes with petard. Two mates on a tram exchanging good-natured banter. That word is used. Neither of the mates intended nor felt hurt by the use of the word. Some other person on the tram has a relative with special needs. That word reminds them that their relative is going to face challenges and exclusion throughout their life. It causes them hurt. Do you think that is hyper-sensitive?

Those boos made a great many indigenous people feel reminded of their history of exclusion and, yes, persecution. It isn't about the boos being intended to be racist, it was that they were received that way by members of a minority group. You really can't see that?

you are dead right but I suspect the bulk of the posters in this thread couldn't give two shits how they felt.

 

[augie]

I have given my view on the main board, but wanted to check out this thread to see whether Collingwood supporters are any different to the general population. Sadly, and given the history of our supporters and some of our leaders, the answer is we are slightly different, but not in a good way. We have a pretty ordinary history as a football club when it comes to racism, and reading the views of many posters in this thread confirms why that is.

 

[Dependlebury]

I have given my view on the main board, but wanted to check out this thread to see whether Collingwood supporters are any different to the general population. Sadly, and given the history of our supporters and some of our leaders, the answer is we are slightly different, but not in a good way. We have a pretty ordinary history as a football club when it comes to racism, and reading the views of many posters in this thread confirms why that is.

I don’t see any overtly racist comments in this thread tbh. You’re making assumptions about the motivations of some who may have booed Goodes and clearly racism is only one of the possible motivations. He is a divisive character who at best was trying to ‘educate’ all the ‘unwashed’ as to white/aboriginal relations, and at worst a racist himself.
Add his being a dirty player and a champion and you have plenty of avenues for people to boo.
Booing itself is on the cusp of becoming illegal given the trajectory and sanitation of the crowd. Better not rock the boat by having an non afl approved opinion!

 

[morax]

The gift of free speech is that it satisfies the law of large numbers. The more people who are permitted to speak their mind without being intimidated, the more we can be confident that everyone’s views are being considered and their needs are represented in policy. Listen to too few, or those having their views magnified in an echo chamber like social media, and you get a distorted sense of what people really value.

I understand that. But you can't run into a cinema and shout 'Fire" and you don't get to shout vile racist, homophobic slurs without consequences and you can't threaten violence. Some seem to think the can rant all they like without some impact on themselves for their speech.

 

[sr36]

We are talking about a minority group, one which has suffered a terrible history of persecution and discrimination. It is what that boo made them feel, not the intent of the "booers". Extending that to white males is ridiculous, as you intended.

Maybe consider the use of the r word that rhymes with petard. Two mates on a tram exchanging good-natured banter. That word is used. Neither of the mates intended nor felt hurt by the use of the word. Some other person on the tram has a relative with special needs. That word reminds them that their relative is going to face challenges and exclusion throughout their life. It causes them hurt. Do you think that is hyper-sensitive?

Those boos made a great many indigenous people feel reminded of their history of exclusion and, yes, persecution. It isn't about the boos being intended to be racist, it was that they were received that way by members of a minority group. You really can't see that?

I think what you are describing - the continued booing if you knew the feelings it was causing and the generations of pain being remembered, is revolting behaviour, but I don't agree with the claim that it is necessarily racist behaviour.

If we view racism, the way you are describing it, as not being about thoughts and actions, but instead being about the receivers response, it muddy's the water enormously in a very negative way, particulalry if you flip the equation around. The flip side is that some horrendous thoughts and actions would no longer be considered racist if the receiver didn't think they were.

In terms of all abusive power imbalances in the history of society, from the abused spouse, through the second class citizen (or non-citizen) based on race to the vast majority of monarchys, there has generally been beliefs of natural order and or justice. The nature of these abusive relationships is that these beliefs often become held by both the downtrodden and those in power. Thus the receiver of abuse is often in no better position to view justice and will not necessarily have a negative response to appalling behaviour towards them.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

We are talking about a minority group, one which has suffered a terrible history of persecution and discrimination. It is what that boo made them feel, not the intent of the "booers". Extending that to white males is ridiculous, as you intended.

Maybe consider the use of the r word that rhymes with petard. Two mates on a tram exchanging good-natured banter. That word is used. Neither of the mates intended nor felt hurt by the use of the word. Some other person on the tram has a relative with special needs. That word reminds them that their relative is going to face challenges and exclusion throughout their life. It causes them hurt. Do you think that is hyper-sensitive?

Those boos made a great many indigenous people feel reminded of their history of exclusion and, yes, persecution. It isn't about the boos being intended to be racist, it was that they were received that way by members of a minority group. You really can't see that?

if it were not for the fact that Goodes is the only indigenous player of whom I recall to be booed, I might see some merit in your argument. However, given that the reaction he received from the crowds was specific to him and several white players were also singled out for booing, I do not understand why indigenous people would see it as directed against native Australians in general. The booing probably persisted much longer than it should have, but Goodes had qualities which were not appreciated by many football fans. Players like Nicky Winmar and Michael Long were highly respected for their stance on racism and their efforts to generate support for attitudinal change. I don't believe the general dislike of Goodes was due to racial intolerance. If indigenous people felt personally slighted by the negative reaction to Goode's actions and behaviour, then I think they misread the motives behind the booing.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I understand that. But you can't run into a cinema and shout 'Fire" and you don't get to shout vile racist, homophobic slurs without consequences and you can't threaten violence. Some seem to think the can rant all they like without some impact on themselves for their speech.

Well, yelling “fire” as you run through a crowded cinema is more an action than a willingness to express an idea which holds a place close to your heart. It’s the same as threatening to detonate a bomb while boarding a plane. You’re not being gagged for offending people with values they don’t share, you are in a very tangible way threatening their safety.

As far as genuine expression of ideas goes, you should be able to say what you like without fear of being threatened or assaulted, providing you are doing so in the appropriate forum. Stand up at a wedding and start proclaiming that religion is the root of all evil, and people will rightly give you a clip over the ear... but not because of your subject matter per se, rather because it’s a violation of respect and decency.

In the right forum, people should be able to express themselves, and they should anticipate that their arguments will be judged on merit, and if they are ridiculous you can expect to have that pointed out in no uncertain terms. If they are blackballed in public, then their views can never be challenged, discussion gets pushed underground and because there is no shortage of gullible individuals out there desperate to be told what they already believe, people can become radicalised.

 

[Black_White]

Bored now.
Close thread.

 

[sideswipe]

If indigenous people felt personally slighted by the negative reaction to Goode's actions and behaviour, then I think they misread the motives behind the booing.

Fair enough- acknowledge your point of view. Of course an alternate possibility to the above is that you misread the motives behind the booing.

At least a portion (I say substantial) was race-based.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app