padprop wrote:Its obvious that Exeter are in a counter-culture echochamber down there with Williams and Hepburn saying similar things in the past, but the telegraph essentially fished for this nugget knowing full well where Slade would likely stand, chose not edit it out or provide any counter-argument, released it to millions of people and escape most of the criticism.
People have had bonkers of opinions for hundreds of years, only difference is it now gets airtime
Fished for it? There's a lot of ways of saying you've not had the vaccine yet, without stating there's not enough research on the vaccine and you don't know if it's safe.
Fishing in the sense that I knew where Slade stood on lockdowns and vaccines before this interview based off his and other exeter players social media, Imagine a journo doing their due diligence would have known beforehand.
And now those ideas have been spread by a factor of 10 with the journalist not seeming to provide much of a counter-narrative. Admittedly I haven’t read the whole article.
morepork wrote:
In the meantime he gets to fly internationally and breathe, sweat, and bleed on other people who do the same. He is a fucking liability, and his statement is an abuse of the privelege he enjoys. He can take as many knocks to the head as he wishes and deal with that how he pleases, but while he is a vector for an infectious pathogen that is rapidly mutating thanks to hosts like himself he really should take a big mug of STFU. Believing in an omniscient immortal space zombie is bonkers. His stating his decision making process on whether or not to participate in containing the biggest global public health disaster of his lifetime is arrogant, ignorant, bullshit with consequences for other people.
Raggs wrote:
Fished for it? There's a lot of ways of saying you've not had the vaccine yet, without stating there's not enough research on the vaccine and you don't know if it's safe.
Fishing in the sense that I knew where Slade stood on lockdowns and vaccines before this interview based off his and other exeter players social media, Imagine a journo doing their due diligence would have known beforehand.
And now those ideas have been spread by a factor of 10 with the journalist not seeming to provide much of a counter-narrative. Admittedly I haven’t read the whole article.
What counternarrative would redeem it?
Puja
Interviewer pushing him on his stance, that him being vaccinated isn’t about his safety but the safety of the general population. To see if he’s actually considered that or just if he doesn’t think thats important. But instead the journo gets their scoop and go homes and everyone argues amongst themselves and they get their clicks
padprop wrote:
Fishing in the sense that I knew where Slade stood on lockdowns and vaccines before this interview based off his and other exeter players social media, Imagine a journo doing their due diligence would have known beforehand.
And now those ideas have been spread by a factor of 10 with the journalist not seeming to provide much of a counter-narrative. Admittedly I haven’t read the whole article.
What counternarrative would redeem it?
Puja
Interviewer pushing him on his stance, that him being vaccinated isn’t about his safety but the safety of the general population. To see if he’s actually considered that or just if he doesn’t think thats important. But instead the journo gets their scoop and go homes and everyone argues amongst themselves and they get their clicks
Is it a journalist's job to push an interviewee to make sure they've thought through all the ramifications of a stupid opinion? Surely their role is not to educate their subjects.
Ah cool. We disagree. I mean like, pile ons on social media and forums are proven to be a contributor to suicide but by all means folks fill her boots. And let’s not pretend that players don’t read forums. Remember Stef Armitage’s dad posting on the old forum?
Especially the medical professionals amongst you. Well done. Don’t engage in conversation with the person. Let’s encourage pile ons. They’re ace! They don’t at all impact mental health. We’ll agree to disagree on this one. You pile on to people. I’ll disagree constructively. Each to their own. It’s emotive, of course it is. But fuck me. Let’s dump on Slade shall we, cause that’ll solve any of this shit.
Puja wrote:
What counternarrative would redeem it?
Puja
Interviewer pushing him on his stance, that him being vaccinated isn’t about his safety but the safety of the general population. To see if he’s actually considered that or just if he doesn’t think thats important. But instead the journo gets their scoop and go homes and everyone argues amongst themselves and they get their clicks
Is it a journalist's job to push an interviewee to make sure they've thought through all the ramifications of a stupid opinion? Surely their role is not to educate their subjects.
Puja
I'd like to think so yes. For me at least it's hard to argue that journalism that gets closer to the truth of the matter of someones opinion and if they have considered other opinions is better journalism for both read and for the public.
Epaminondas Pules wrote:Ah cool. We disagree. I mean like, pile ons on social media and forums are proven to be a contributor to suicide but by all means folks fill her boots. And let’s not pretend that players don’t read forums. Remember Stef Armitage’s dad posting on the old forum?
Especially the medical professionals amongst you. Well done. Don’t engage in conversation with the person. Let’s encourage pile ons. They’re ace! They don’t at all impact mental health. We’ll agree to disagree on this one. You pile on to people. I’ll disagree constructively. Each to their own. It’s emotive, of course it is. But fuck me. Let’s dump on Slade shall we, cause that’ll solve any of this shit.
What's the difference between a large number of people disagreeing constructively and a pile on?
It’s how you disagree. There’s discussion and there is abuse. That’s pretty simple. Saying his should lose his job? His income? That’s not constructive.
And it has nothing to do with profile. Gary Speed, Chris Cornell, Chester Bennington, Robin Williams, Caroline Flack, et al, by all means folks vent to your hearts content. They are all human and you have zero knowledge of their circumstances.
Epaminondas Pules wrote:It’s how you disagree. There’s discussion and there is abuse. That’s pretty simple. Saying his should lose his job? His income? That’s not constructive.
I looked back through the thread to try and see what you're seeing and the first post that sprang out was me calling him a twat - fair enough, not constructive or helpful and I apologise for that. You raise a good point about mental health and I shouldn't've said that.
However, I don't know that I agree that saying he should be dropped for England is just abuse - playing for your country is a privilege, not a right, and there's precedent for saying/doing something stupid off the pitch costing you your international place. Added to this the risk of bringing an unvaccinated person into a training group gathered from around the country, it's not unreasonable discussion.
I'll leave it there also, I love this forum and everything it provides but feel at times when threads discuss anything adjacent to politics we oftentimes just descend into the weeds, even if it is a premise we all do agree on such as this. I'm obviously also part of that problem and will aim to check myself as much as possible.
My main objection would be I feel there can be a lack of understanding of the different lives people like Slade can live, where he's been exposed to a completely different set of facts and is surrounded by a bunch of mates who think exactly the same as him. Yes he's privileged, but he knows nothing else and to expect him to come to the exact same conclusions we all have is a much more complex matter in today's society when you can find any PhD on twitter who has studies to help support your claims or a youtuber with a very captivating ideology. Yes, ideally everyone would see the overwhelming scientific concensus but that goes to a much deeper problem than Slade just being a bad bloke.
If we want to take a Utilitarian approach on how to rationalise people out of bad ideas, I just don't think lambasting them will ever be the answer.
I think there are two separate issue here though. First, which I don't think there's any doubt over that I've read here, is the opinion itself about vaccines.
Now, as much as I am at the opposite end of the spectrum to him on that, I respect his right to have an opinion on something. What I don't respect is spreading that opinion through a national newspaper when he must surely know he's not qualified to weigh in on.
I think when the body of evidence on something is so clearly favouring one side (i.e. they work), the burden of proof falls on those who say otherwise to back their claims up, which clearly he is unable to do. If he came with a thick body of research behind him, he'd have a case to talk about it, but I don't believe any such body of research exists anywhere, let alone with Slade.
I will also let it rest now, but final point is I don't really see where the 'abuse' has been here that some are talking about. A bit heated maybe, but nothing that I would call abuse.
Yep, I don’t think people agreeing that it’s reckless, naive or ignorant to spread this thinking is the same as condoning all hateful abuse or threats he has received.
I don’t know exactly how Chris Cornell or Robin Williams are relevant or comparable examples here. Were social media pile-ons thought to be contributing factors in their suicides? I know they both had very long-term mental health issues. It’s good to be mindful that many public figures may have similar troubles, unknown to us, but given the scale of what’s going on at the moment it seems pretty reasonable to want to call out this sort of disinformation.
Public health does trump someone's right to publicly voice an opinion though. Especially one so easily shown to be wrong. Lets put it down to ignorance and hope it doesn't surface again.
Henry Slade is not a pop star being attacked simply because people don't like their songs, or a reality TV star being called fat even though they have an eating disorder.
He's a rugby player who has waded in on the wrong side of a public health issue with no qualifications or sense. As for blaming the journalist for reporting, come on! If you're having an interview with a sportsman and they suddenly say something other than "at the end of the day" or "insert sporting cliche", of course you're going to report it.
I suppose Henry Slade has a right to an opinion, and to make that opinion public if he wants to, no matter how bone-headedly stupid or ill-founded it may be. But he does seem a bit thick to come out with this at the moment.
I wonder how this kind of thing is covered by his club contract? Presumably he can be dropped from the team as a health risk to his team mates, the opposition, the medics, physios etc. once everyone else has been vaccinated. If so, can the club then stop paying his salary? Then, has some kind of an impasse been reached, so that he cannot play again without his jabs? - Which, in reality, means never, if he won't have them? Same applies to his England slot.
FTR, as a healthcare professional who posts regularly about mental health and who "should feel ashamed" of myself for daring to suggest that a dangerously uninformed opinion is dangerously uninformed... I stand by everything I've said on the matter, and I feel no shame about having said.
As a mental health sufferer for approximately 40 of my 45 years... If you are too psychologically frail to take being told that your dangerously uninformed opinion is dangerously uninformed, maybe you shouldn't go spouting your dangerously uninformed opinion to members of the press. This goes more than double for a professional sportsperson with a history of training in press management and who is generally adept at avoiding answering questions.
When asked for your opinion on something that you know is controversial and dangerous and that you know you have no expertise in, you can always answer something along the lines of "I don't feel I have enough knowledge to answer that question"
EP - you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that someone with known mental health problems (previously talked about on this forum) that specifically relate to feelings of self worth and of being disregarded, should feel ashamed of themselves and that their opinion should be disregarded.
Please note, Henry Slade will only see my opinion of his opinion if he specifically comes looking for it on a random rugby site. You called me out specifically in a thread in which I was commenting - essentially to my face and with knowledge of who I am.
[spoiler]While all the above is true, you've no reason to feel ashamed for stating your opinion on a message board about opinions[/spoiler]
