RugbyRebels

Raggs wrote:RFU will be meeting with Billy over his instagram post.

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:RFU will be meeting with Billy over his instagram post.

Because he said he's tried everything on the list at least once?

Tbh I don't care if he's been having sex be it straight, gay and/or with married people, and I don’t care if he's lied or thieved. I would though like to know if he's really been worshipping false idols, or whether he thinks idolatry pertains to idleness?

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:It can lead violence in a, thankfully, small number of cases but I’ll err on the side of defending free speech and containing any issues from that than curtailing free speech in case it causes any issues.

Smaller than it used to be, but gay bashing is still something that happens a lot. And the reason that it has declined at all is the shift in the perception from the general populace from "I've got a boyfriend" being the unacceptable thing to say, towards "Gays will burn in hell."

Free speech is not under any kind of assault. All that's changing is the consequences that occur from different types of free speech.

Puja

Free speech is changing. It’s incremental but it’s changing. Both consciously, eg no platforming, and unconsciously, eg social media allowing silly people to say silly things to the whole world meaning their employers, sponsors etc censor and/or punish them.
I couldn’t be happier that gay, black etc people can now go about their lives in less fear. An ex-colleague of mine is in a mixed race marriage and hearing the things they had to put up with decades ago made my blood boil, but that tolerance has been achieved in an era where free speech has grown.

I can’t wait for Cashead to read this thread. He’ll spontaneously combust.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:RFU will be meeting with Billy over his instagram post.

Because he said he's tried everything on the list at least once?

Tbh I don't care if he's been having sex be it straight, gay and/or with married people, and I don’t care if he's lied or thieved. I would though like to know if he's really been worshipping false idols, or whether he thinks idolatry pertains to idleness?

Probably more to do with the fact that he's saying Izzy is right, and the list is right.

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:
Because he said he's tried everything on the list at least once?

Tbh I don't care if he's been having sex be it straight, gay and/or with married people, and I don’t care if he's lied or thieved. I would though like to know if he's really been worshipping false idols, or whether he thinks idolatry pertains to idleness?

Probably more to do with the fact that he's saying Izzy is right, and the list is right.

Surely nobody is taking life advice from Billy, on just about any subject one could get more sense out of a lemon (I'm not wholly joking when I say he's likely to have confused idleness with idolatry)

God knows how one sets about trying to explain all this to Billy, it's only a few years back he though jellybabies were good for him as they were merely a source of energy, trying now to move him beyond his indoctrination will prove challenging, still more so as he equates his more troubled periods in life as being those when he strayed most from his god/mother

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Probably more to do with the fact that he's saying Izzy is right, and the list is right.

Surely nobody is taking life advice from Billy, on just about any subject one could get more sense out of a lemon (I'm not wholly joking when I say he's likely to have confused idleness with idolatry)

God knows how one sets about trying to explain all this to Billy, it's only a few years back he though jellybabies were good for him as they were merely a source of energy, trying now to move him beyond his indoctrination will prove challenging, still more so as he equates his more troubled periods in life as being those when he strayed most from his god/mother

And again, it's not about changing Billy's mind. It's about making it clear that most people do not agree with him. Social media is a public platform, and public disagreement is essential with high profile cases like these, otherwise it can be seen as silent, tacit agreement.

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:
Surely nobody is taking life advice from Billy, on just about any subject one could get more sense out of a lemon (I'm not wholly joking when I say he's likely to have confused idleness with idolatry)

God knows how one sets about trying to explain all this to Billy, it's only a few years back he though jellybabies were good for him as they were merely a source of energy, trying now to move him beyond his indoctrination will prove challenging, still more so as he equates his more troubled periods in life as being those when he strayed most from his god/mother

And again, it's not about changing Billy's mind. It's about making it clear that most people do not agree with him. Social media is a public platform, and public disagreement is essential with high profile cases like these, otherwise it can be seen as silent, tacit agreement.

If the RFU want a word then surely it's either about changing his mind or at the very least getting him to shut up

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Probably more to do with the fact that he's saying Izzy is right, and the list is right.

Surely nobody is taking life advice from Billy, on just about any subject one could get more sense out of a lemon (I'm not wholly joking when I say he's likely to have confused idleness with idolatry)

God knows how one sets about trying to explain all this to Billy, it's only a few years back he though jellybabies were good for him as they were merely a source of energy, trying now to move him beyond his indoctrination will prove challenging, still more so as he equates his more troubled periods in life as being those when he strayed most from his god/mother

And again, it's not about changing Billy's mind. It's about making it clear that most people do not agree with him. Social media is a public platform, and public disagreement is essential with high profile cases like these, otherwise it can be seen as silent, tacit agreement.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
Smaller than it used to be, but gay bashing is still something that happens a lot. And the reason that it has declined at all is the shift in the perception from the general populace from "I've got a boyfriend" being the unacceptable thing to say, towards "Gays will burn in hell."

Free speech is not under any kind of assault. All that's changing is the consequences that occur from different types of free speech.

Puja

Free speech is changing. It’s incremental but it’s changing. Both consciously, eg no platforming, and unconsciously, eg social media allowing silly people to say silly things to the whole world meaning their employers, sponsors etc censor and/or punish them.
I couldn’t be happier that gay, black etc people can now go about their lives in less fear. An ex-colleague of mine is in a mixed race marriage and hearing the things they had to put up with decades ago made my blood boil, but that tolerance has been achieved in an era where free speech has grown.

I can’t wait for Cashead to read this thread. He’ll spontaneously combust.

It's really not changing. No platforming doesn't mean a person can't speak, it just means that they aren't being given a platform to do so (and also aren't getting the implication that the host approves of the message). And it's just a different name to the fact that venues might previously have refused bookings from LGBT groups. And backlash over saying stupid things on social media is also not impinging on free speech - you can still say whatever the hell you like and take whatever consequences come from it. Again, look back to the 80s and 90s where making public pronouncements in favour of gay rights would get you similar backlash. Free speech isn't changing - it's just that some things that would attract obloquy previously now do not, whereas things that used to be fine now attract obloquy.

Tolerance grows because enough people stand up and say, "It's not okay to say that," to bigotry and hatred.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Free speech is changing. It’s incremental but it’s changing. Both consciously, eg no platforming, and unconsciously, eg social media allowing silly people to say silly things to the whole world meaning their employers, sponsors etc censor and/or punish them.
I couldn’t be happier that gay, black etc people can now go about their lives in less fear. An ex-colleague of mine is in a mixed race marriage and hearing the things they had to put up with decades ago made my blood boil, but that tolerance has been achieved in an era where free speech has grown.

I can’t wait for Cashead to read this thread. He’ll spontaneously combust.

It's really not changing. No platforming doesn't mean a person can't speak, it just means that they aren't being given a platform to do so (and also aren't getting the implication that the host approves of the message). And it's just a different name to the fact that venues might previously have refused bookings from LGBT groups. And backlash over saying stupid things on social media is also not impinging on free speech - you can still say whatever the hell you like and take whatever consequences come from it. Again, look back to the 80s and 90s where making public pronouncements in favour of gay rights would get you similar backlash. Free speech isn't changing - it's just that some things that would attract obloquy previously now do not, whereas things that used to be fine now attract obloquy.

Tolerance grows because enough people stand up and say, "It's not okay to say that," to bigotry and hatred.

Puja

If you don’t think no platforming is a challenge to free speech then we might as well stop the discussion now.
There are numerous studies showing that the UK’s attitude to freedom of speech is worsening. Check out Index on Censorship.
I’m off for Friday afternoon drinks.

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Which brings the most the most anti-gay publicity; Folau's statement or the reaction to it? Why not just ignore the silly sod? Would BV have reacted had he been ignored?

The snag with bigots of any kind, religious or otherwise, is that you can criticise what they say and legislate against some of it but you can't ever stop them thinking what they think.

That new avatar is sending you straight to hell.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Which brings the most the most anti-gay publicity; Folau's statement or the reaction to it? Why not just ignore the silly sod? Would BV have reacted had he been ignored?

The snag with bigots of any kind, religious or otherwise, is that you can criticise what they say and legislate against some of it but you can't ever stop them thinking what they think.

That new avatar is sending you straight to hell.

If you are sending me into Alice Eve's arms that's the sort of hell I could enjoy!!

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Which brings the most the most anti-gay publicity; Folau's statement or the reaction to it? Why not just ignore the silly sod? Would BV have reacted had he been ignored?

The snag with bigots of any kind, religious or otherwise, is that you can criticise what they say and legislate against some of it but you can't ever stop them thinking what they think.

That new avatar is sending you straight to hell.

If you are sending me into Alice Eve's arms that's the sort of hell I could enjoy!!

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:
Surely nobody is taking life advice from Billy, on just about any subject one could get more sense out of a lemon (I'm not wholly joking when I say he's likely to have confused idleness with idolatry)

God knows how one sets about trying to explain all this to Billy, it's only a few years back he though jellybabies were good for him as they were merely a source of energy, trying now to move him beyond his indoctrination will prove challenging, still more so as he equates his more troubled periods in life as being those when he strayed most from his god/mother

And again, it's not about changing Billy's mind. It's about making it clear that most people do not agree with him. Social media is a public platform, and public disagreement is essential with high profile cases like these, otherwise it can be seen as silent, tacit agreement.

Unfortunately there are billions who do agree with him, at least if they are true to their professed religion.

I agree on the platform thing, which is why I find an awful lot of no-platforming counter productive and childish. I think showing people up in public is much more effective- this being a case in point.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
It's really not changing. No platforming doesn't mean a person can't speak, it just means that they aren't being given a platform to do so (and also aren't getting the implication that the host approves of the message). And it's just a different name to the fact that venues might previously have refused bookings from LGBT groups. And backlash over saying stupid things on social media is also not impinging on free speech - you can still say whatever the hell you like and take whatever consequences come from it. Again, look back to the 80s and 90s where making public pronouncements in favour of gay rights would get you similar backlash. Free speech isn't changing - it's just that some things that would attract obloquy previously now do not, whereas things that used to be fine now attract obloquy.

Tolerance grows because enough people stand up and say, "It's not okay to say that," to bigotry and hatred.

Puja

If you don’t think no platforming is a challenge to free speech then we might as well stop the discussion now.
There are numerous studies showing that the UK’s attitude to freedom of speech is worsening. Check out Index on Censorship.
I’m off for Friday afternoon drinks.

It may have not been given a snappy title like no platforming, but unpopular minority groups have always been denied arenas to propagate their ideas by the opprobrium of the majority. People with unpopular ideas have always been shouted down, denied microphones, denied a chance to reach a wider audience. The difference is that it's now people who would previously have considered themselves part of a majority and they don't like it. Plus, I find it amusing that the reason we know of this is because the people complaining that they don't get a platform are widely reported on and their cases taken up in the media.

I'll check out the Index on Censorship, and you can check out Popper's Tolerance Paradox. Enjoy your drinks!

Puja

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:
And again, it's not about changing Billy's mind. It's about making it clear that most people do not agree with him. Social media is a public platform, and public disagreement is essential with high profile cases like these, otherwise it can be seen as silent, tacit agreement.

Unfortunately there are billions who do agree with him, at least if they are true to their professed religion.

I agree on the platform thing, which is why I find an awful lot of no-platforming counter productive and childish. I think showing people up in public is much more effective- this being a case in point.

A sensible post from a sensible man.

Again, Mells, this isn't no platforming...his words are out there. It's everyone showing him that there is a consequence to him getting on that platform.

He's perfectly entitled to do it again, at which point his employers at that time are perfectly entitled to fire him for bringing them into disrepute.

Surely the curtailing of free speech would be if this tweet had been blocked or banned by Twitter. It hasn't and it's his choice to take it down (if he does). So, no, this isn't a free speech problem at all.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
The difference is that you've chosen to be an atheist. You've thought about it, made your decision, and (theoretically) could choose not to be an atheist in the future.

You cannot choose not to be gay. People have tried it, people have wanted it very badly, but it's something you are, just as a black man can't choose to be white or vice versa.

It's pretty crappy behaviour to say that anyone's going to hell but there is a concrete difference between saying, "God and I say you should not have these beliefs" and "God and I say you should not exist."

Puja

It’s not whether you did or didn’t choose to be in a certain demographic. It’s whether you choose to get offended by a nutter who believes there is a unbelievably pompous and judgmental omnipotent body in the sky, who is so vain that even the most evil person can pledge their allegiance on their death bed and gain entry to his (very boring) after life whilst the generally decent people who refuse to believe in him get sent straight to hell whilst he (there is no sexual equality in religion) just sits back and allows natural disaster after natural disaster to strike and all whilst allowing Bedford’s search for a backer to get them into the Prem go unfulfilled. And, whilst you get offended, pretty much all of the rugby world call him out for being the aforementioned monumental prick that he is.

It's not about being offended. You're saying he's not inciting violence, but this kind of casual abuse feeds the culture where violence happens. Yeah, he's not directly saying, "You should go out and hit a gay person with a brick," but he is saying, "God believes these people are worthless and sinful," and that breeds, "If God hates them, maybe I should hit them with a brick." It's encouragement and support for homophobes and bigots and those are the kind of people who do violence.

It's like Trump's approval of white nationalists - he's not saying you should be a facist, but he's saying those who are are "very fine people," and having powerful people say shit like that validates it as something that's okay to say and okay to believe.

It's why I'm so glad that Folau's facing the consequences that he is - the solid. affirmation that it's not okay to say that. Or, as you put it, calling him out for being a monumental prick.

I hate the use of the word "offended" on the internet, because it's become shorthand for some kind of pearls-clutching, hands thrown up, overreaction to delicate feelings being bruised. I'm not offended because someone's upset my feelings, I'm offended because someone's saying shit that fuels the attitudes that get people discriminated against, hurt, and killed.

Puja

CONVEX HULL wrote:Christians know that they are flawed, that is the very essence of Christianity. Those flaws are mitigated by doing our best to follow the gospels. Lord knows that is difficult, nay impossible, both in terms of interpretation and execution, but the Christian intent is to act in Faith.

Christians are required show charity to all persons, and to love all their neighbours. He has responded in a manner that is both considered and charitable, but reaffirms his Faith.

You cannot be a Christian, or indeed follow any of the Abrahamic Faiths, and simply 'blow with the wind' on fundamental theological points, even though those points do have different theological interpretations and may not be congruent with current secular ethics.

He is reaffirming his Faith embodied in the Methodist catechism, which also requires him to love his brothers and sisters unconditionally.

I interpret Bible texts on homosexuality in a different way to Billy, but Christian charity overrides doctrine in all cases and I believe that Billy expresses that charity, both in word and action.

Timbo wrote:I feel that the intricacies of this issue are a little above my pay grade, but I thought Dan Leo made a good point; (paraphrasing) it’s not that long ago that fundamentalist Christianity was brought to places like Tonga by white, English speaking imperialists, usually under pain of torture and/or death.

Now it suits us, and let’s not forget gay rights and equality is a pretty new concept even in British/Western society (Ireland only recently allowed gay marriage for eg), we’re not even willing to open up a proper dialogue about these subjects- it’s straight to ridicule, ‘these guys are bigots’ and let’s sack them asap.

Doesn’t particularly sit right with me.