I notice there are no comments on this, perhaps it's because nobody cares
Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society - Aristotle
2 ( +5 / -3 )
The original Disney Ariel wasn't simply "white". She was a positive representation of one of the smallest, most underrepresented and ridiculed minorities in the world, redheaded gingers. To take Ariel away from this community is a slap in the face that non-redheads probably won't understand due to their privilege.
0 ( +7 / -7 )
As the US military fails to meet its recruitment targets, they've slowly been lowering the minimum IQ threshold required on the ASVAB enlistment test. These men are a greater danger to their colleagues and host countries than they are to the enemy.
12 ( +13 / -1 )
From an evolutionary perspective, the relatively tiny number of homosexuals necessitates some sort of unique outward signal or display to communicate their sexual preferences to potential partners. If this signal didn't exist or wasn't clear enough, they would be wasting most of their time pursuing incompatible partners. The flamboyance and hyper-sexualization of the gay community is likely an essential characteristic of it, like the peacock's tail. We also see this in the various studies of homosexual behavior which document things like lifetime partners, interactions with strangers, and fidelity. By asking them to tone it down, you're effectively asking them to suppress a unique characteristic that sets them apart from heterosexuals.
4 ( +8 / -4 )
It's going to be an absolute circus.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
This seems completely disproportionate, even by "woke capital" standards. Regardless of what you think of Folau or his specific comments, this clearly wasn't a campaign aimed at justifying what he said or convincing anyone of his worldview. It was simply a campaign to fund employment law litigation which would determine whether or not Folau's employer breached its obligations under the player's contract or some other aspect of NSW employment law. Even if Rugby Australia made a morally justifiable decision in sacking Folau, it doesn't mean that it was legal. Companies like GoFundMe should not be de-platforming people who are seeking to enforce their legal rights.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
What that Obama said that Trump has "rattled" world leaders?
He said considerably more than that. Among other things, he said candidate Trump was ignorant of world affairs, that he was cavalier, and that he was more interested in tweets and getting headlines. I don't think Obama was wrong, but your original claim about some long standing protocol on not making such comments internationally is untrue.
-6 ( +2 / -8 )
Well David Threadgold, maybe Japanese banks just prefer to invest in low risk industries which manufacture things that people actually need. Earning profits by shuffling money around the world in clever financial schemes is not for everyone.
5 ( +6 / -1 )
The populists didn't win this election
Democracy: citizens voting in alignment with the wishes of ruling elites.
Populism: citizens voting against the wishes of ruling elites.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Elected US officials, by protocol and manner, leave the comments at home when they travel abroad.
Demonstrably untrue. Go look up the previous president's unflattering comments about presidential candidates made at the 2016 G7 summit in Japan.
-9 ( +3 / -12 )
Irezumi is a legitimate Japanese art form, like it or not.
The key word being Japanese. There's nothing more cringeworthy than seeing a westerner getting these sorts of asian motif tattoos. I won't even go into the numerous studies showing that people with tattoos have lower average IQs.
-2 ( +3 / -5 )
Such a ridiculous overreach.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
The average woman in many countries now weighs more than the average man did 50 years ago. Good to see that Japan is bucking the trend according to the graph.
I'm about as skinny as they come btw
Merely being overweight rather than morbidly obese will now make you 'as skinny as they come' in many countries, so it's not saying much. Are you objectively skinny or relatively skinny?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Posted in: What is your view on people or groups who use social media to air extremist views, hate speech, incite violence or libel others? Where should the line be drawn, if at all, with regards to freedom of speech? See in context
What is your view on people or groups who use social media to air extremist views
Never forget that it's us in the west who hold the extremist views. We're completely out of step with the rest of the world on most controversial social issue, from homosexuality to abortion to refugees. In the context of a global user base, the social media platforms are the ones promoting an extremist fringe view in their ToS.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Education for the students needs to be free. Without educated people society crumbles.
It all depends on your definition of education. I'd support full taxpayer funding of STEM degrees for the brightest 25% of students, but not for the mass communications, political science, and gender theory graduates who just barely made it through highschool and wouldn't have been accepted at any university just 20-30 years ago. Much of modern higher education has become a useless credential racket.
3 ( +9 / -6 )
Helix, if we’re to get on we all have to tolerate ideas and actions we may find disagreeable, but sometimes people go too far. This is a public figure, he has used his platform to express his bigoted ideas.
But has he really gone too far? I don't think so. If he called for violence or encouraged discrimination against the groups he mentioned, then that would be a very different story. Just imagine if a Muslim player on the team tweeted that people won't go to paradise if they keep eating bacon. Would that also be going too far? Would that be just as bigoted and offensive to people? Because that, in my view, is the functional equivalent of what we're talking about here. (someone dispassionately stating a core tenet of their faith relating to the afterlife)
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Helix... Athiests can't work in Catholic schools. Not can civilly married gays. I'm fine with that. Their rules.
Well, I'll take your word on that but I think the rights of religious institutions to discriminate in this way has yet to be fully resolved. My understanding (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) is that most places limit the enforceability of overly broad employment contracts to only those clauses which have a direct bearing on your ability to performance the actual job. So a contractual requirement to be a Catholic might be enforceable in a priest's employment contract, but would be void against a janitor at a Catholic School. As far as Folau is concerned, none of his statements seem to affect his ability to perform on the field.
How do you define ‘deeply held beliefs’? Are you talking about religious beliefs? I hope you are not falling for the old ‘I don’t dislike homosexuals, god does’ nonsense.
Roughly, I would say it's a belief that is so strongly held and underpins someone's entire worldview that it would cause serious psychological harm to force them to suppress it or deny it. If a secular analogy helps, imagine if you were forced to say that 2+2=5 and that the earth is indeed flat.
I have no problem discriminating against what people think. You choose your beliefs and you’ll be judged on them.
I don't know what to say to that. It's far too judgemental for me. I believe in a degree of tolerance, mutual respect, humility, peaceful co-existence and the golden rule. We should, within reason, treat people how we would like to be treated if we were in their position.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
more importantly b) he broke the rules of his boss/company/contract.
If your view is that employers should have the right to fire workers and terminate contracts for saying that gays and atheists will go to hell unless they accept Jesus (which is the controversial comment Folau made), are you prepared to grant that same right to a religious employer who might wish to fire atheist workers who dare to deny the same claim? Do you realize what a dystopian world you're inviting if you allow the policing of personal speech outside of the workplace? Maybe you're lucky and none of the opinions you hold are socially unpopular, but try to imagine if that wasn't the case. Also, the rules here (the "character test") seems extremely arbitrary and open to any sort of interpretation. If it's upheld, it basically allows the employer to fire you for any unpopular opinion.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
All morality is subjective. That’s why we discuss, come to an agreed standard and implement law that provides punishment befitting the crime committed, if one has indeed been committed.
But we're not talking about crimes are we? We're talking about someone expressing a deeply held opinion about what happens in a theoretical afterlife.
My employer is me and this employer believes people’s lives, opinions and actions are their own business until they harm others, or bring the business into disrepute.
If he modifies his behaviour I’m sure he’ll find another employer.
How far you do think the rights of employers should go? If the clientele of a business is predominantly Jewish, should the owners be allowed to fire any Muslim employee who preaches Islam to people on his own time?
Folau’s comments to the gay and non religious communities were bigoted and intolerant.
Is he actually intolerant though? What is your definition of intolerance? He wasn't calling for gays or atheists to be fired, or arrested, driven out of the country, or shunned in any way. Wasn't the line of real intolerance crossed by the people who couldn't tolerate him playing professional rugby and advocated for him to be fired?
Prove what? That he's bigoted? I don't need to - his words give him away.
Prove that what he's saying about the afterlife is factually incorrect. It's impossible to prove either way.
His views belong in the dark ages.
What if someone decides that your opinions belong in the dark ages and you need to be silenced? Do you recognize the problem this creates in a diverse society? If people are not allowed to hold and express opinions you disagree with, it's a recipe for intolerance and violence.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Helix, popularity does not make a proposition correct.
I never said it did. The problem is how are you going to reach some sort of reasonable accommodation with the majority of people who fundamentally disagree with you? Are you going to live in peace and meet them half way when it comes to tolerance, or are you going to hound them from employer to employer until they agree to never share any opinions which you don't approve of? If it's the latter, it's important to realize that you're outnumbered and there's a risk that the tables could be turned on you someday.
Infinite punishment for a finite “crime” is not moral irrespective of doctrine.
That's an equally subjective opinion on morality. For your sake I hope your employer agrees with it.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Ideally, Folau should have said "I want to warn people about X Y and Z, because my denomination's understanding of Christianity indicates that these acts could lead people to hell. But I could be mistaken. God Bless."
So you don't have a problem with what Folau believes, just how he phrased it?
Christianity indicates that these acts could.... But I could be mistaken.
As people engaging in good faith conversations, shouldn't this be implied after every statement another person makes? Especially in conversations about religion and the afterlife?
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Helix... Does the vast majority of world christianity reject Christmas and Easter? Only the tiny minority of Jehovah's Witnesses do.
You've asked an answered your own question, but you haven't really addressed my point. The majority of the world's population hold just as strongly to religious beliefs which have become deeply unpopular in the western world in the past 30-40 years. How tenable is it to devise a character test which excludes the majority of people on this planet? Tolerance is a two way street. People need to be able to express their inner most deeply held beliefs without having their livelihoods destroyed.
I take his point but he should stop dissing these festivals. You ignore them you miserable sod.
The fans are equally free to ignore Folau's private social media accounts. Nobody is forced to follow them and it's enough to say that the clubs he plays for do not endorse his views, as any reasonable person already knows.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
But Australian Rugby League Commission chairman Peter Beattie said Folau had failed the sport's character test and would not get a contract.
Is Beattie prepared to admit that the vast majority of the world's population would also fail this "character test"? Most parts of the world are still deeply religious (Africa, Middle East, South America, Caribbean, etc) and would agree with many of Folau's beliefs.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
He's supposed to be a role model, not a bigot.
Do you realize that the vast majority of the world agrees with him and you're in the minority? Almost the entire populations of Africa, the Middle East, South America, and the South Pacific believe exactly the same thing. Why do you think your minority view is the "right" or "moral" view for role models? I don't agree with him personally, but I recognize that I'm part of the minority. It's arrogant and foolish to assume that people who disagree with your minority opinion are wrong, especially on matters that you can't possibly prove one way or the other.
but it seems he hates ppl who don't share his beliefs/pov/lifestyle. There's a massive diff between a 'look, i don't particularly approve of ...' & 'you guys will burn in hell unless...'
Your first statement is far more objectionable than the second. The first is an unsolicited personal opinion expressing disapproval. The second statement is just a warning for people to avoid a specific danger which the speaker genuinely believes exists. Folau's post not only warned people of the possible danger, but he told people how they can avoid it. There was no subjective judgement or personal disapproval of homosexuality. He was only restating Christianity's position. Folau's post was really no different than a warning to hold the handrail while riding an escalator. We all have different opinions about how dangerous escalators are, but if someone honestly believes that you risk death if you don't hold the handrail, they shouldn't be condemned for trying to warn others.
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
While the book is based on primary sources, Lockley has had to add quite a lot of "research-based assumptions" in order to complete the narrative.
Is this a fancy way of saying that this book is mostly a work of historical fiction by an English teacher/amateur historian/graduate of the Open University (The UK's premiere adult education distance learning provider)? Or is it a work of serious objective scholarship? Let me guess, I'll have to buy the book to find out.
And what did Geoffrey Girard do?
Wikipedia describes Geoffrey Girard as: "an author of nonfiction, thrillers, historicals, and speculative fiction". I'm guessing Geoffrey helped to "fill in" many of the missing historical details.
8 ( +8 / -0 )
Like women can’t make their own decision to work outside the home or not and just follow orders.
Are women really making their own decisions, or are they being propagandized to and socially conditioned by particular interests? For decades we've had an endless stream of TV dramas, movies, commercials, articles, business awards and so on, all celebrating high powered independent single career women who put off raising a family in favor of climbing the corporate ladder. Where are the movies casting a stay at home mother raising a family as the hero? Hollywood just doesn't make them. Are modern women objectively happier than their grandmothers or great-grandmothers who believed (also through social conditioning) that raising a family and making a home was the ultimate form of self-actualization for women? It's simple to say that women should just decide for themselves, but all of our decisions are overwhelmingly driven by the signals society sends us.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Singapore keeps a tight rein on public speech and the media, especially when it comes to race and religion.
Singapore is an interesting case study in multiculturalism and authoritarianism. These draconian laws exist to prevent racial, cultural and religious tension from boiling over into full scale riots. It's arguable that Singapore couldn't exist peacefully without them. As the west becomes more multicultural we see similar restrictions on personal freedoms being introduced in the name of security and social harmony.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
So Black Nationalism and separatism will still be allowed, Zionism is allowed, Pan-Asian Nationalism is allowed, calls for de-colonization and complete autonomy of Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians is allowed, but only White Nationalism will be banned?
15 ( +26 / -11 )
Posted in: How would you define racism?