Escaping the Echo Chamber

[elengil]

Oh for goodness sakes, not entirely beside the point I'm making.

But I think it has colored your perception of what took place.

You seem to see his firing as an action done out of anger. I disagree that it necessarily had an angry element to it.

You seem to see his firing as one of punishment for belief, being deemed 'hate speech'. I disagree with that, too. I accept that it is treading very close to some lines, but it still was not about his beliefs - they already knew his beliefs. It was his actions, in how he expressed them, that they decided was something they would not tolerate from their employee.

These don't have to be actions done in anger in one case, or of 'hate' in the other. It is a public image of the company that they wish to maintain, and an employee is presenting an image they do not care to have associated with their company.

[River]

It is a public image of the company that they wish to maintain, and an employee is presenting an image they do not care to have associated with their company.

This.

Now, whether or not employers should be policing employees' social media use is another issue.

[Inanna]

Add to this that it’s not just an employer, it’s a national sport, and the matter becomes even more about what the national team stands for.

These acts matter.

I know. In India know what happens when no one stands up for the gay/atheists/[insert group]. How it grows, how it permeates.

(India’s elections just got done, hence the aside).

[yovargas]

I accept that it is treading very close to some lines, but it still was not about his beliefs - they already knew his beliefs. It was his actions, in how he expressed them, that they decided was something they would not tolerate from their employee.

This is a bit like saying "we didn't fire him because he was gay - we already knew that - we fired him because he openly expressed his sexuality".

That analogy works even better when you consider that the "we are just protecting our public image" line has been used to fire openly gay people too.

[Frelga]

I accept that it is treading very close to some lines, but it still was not about his beliefs - they already knew his beliefs. It was his actions, in how he expressed them, that they decided was something they would not tolerate from their employee.

This is a bit like saying "we didn't fire him because he was gay - we already knew that - we fired him because he openly expressed his sexuality".

That analogy works even better when you consider that the "we are just protecting our public image" line has been used to fire openly gay people too.

Thanks to a large extent to those who openly expressed their "sincere religious beliefs" about gay people.

Hate speech is hate speech, whether it's inspired by Great Bird Whatsit or a long-dead Roman.

[Alatar]

I feel like we haven't heard the end of this. A large portion of the Southern Hemisphere Rugby players come from the Pacific Islands, and Faloa merely expressed publicly what many of his friends and fellow players believe. AFAIK, the Pacific Islanders are quite religious and, while they have absolutely no personal problem with homosexuals, any more than they do with drunks and fornicators (most of them fit into at least one category), they do believe fervently that those things are sins.

I agree with yov to an extent here. When does expressing an opinion become hate speech? If Faloa were to declare that only all drunks are going to hell, would there be a furore? What if subsequently people started going into bars to beat up drunks? Would it then become hate speech?

[Túrin Turambar]

A large portion of the Southern Hemisphere Rugby players come from the Pacific Islands, and Faloa merely expressed publicly what many of his friends and fellow players believe. AFAIK, the Pacific Islanders are quite religious and, while they have absolutely no personal problem with homosexuals, any more than they do with drunks and fornicators (most of them fit into at least one category), they do believe fervently that those things are sins.

Al touches on a significant point I was going to raise. While we can't generalise, Pacific Islanders are more likely to be religious than members of the Australian or New Zealand communities as a whole. And they are hugely over-represented in both Rugby Union and Rugby League (and American football, too). It's note quite clear how this plays out, but it has been commented on and discussed.

[yovargas]

When does expressing an opinion become hate speech?

Per the definition posted earlier, I'd say it would be something that endorses abuse or threats towards a group of people. This man's post did not do that.

[Cerin]

I thought it was precisely the point. The entire defense of the bigoted post was that it was based on the actual Biblical quote and therefore somehow different from regular bigoted speech. So where's the quote?

There are a couple or perhaps three or four passages in scripture that list damnable practices, similar to the quote yov provided. I don't know offhand where the others can be found and I don't know if the tweet is an exact quote, which is why I said: 

It's possible the quote comes directly from scripture, which I guess would make it more clearly a case of freedom of religious expression than it would be otherwise.

I said, 'I guess' that would make it more clearly a case of freedom of religious expression, because I'm not sure that's the case; I don't know if the idea of the tweet being a quote really is significant. But clearly it is a religiously-based tweet, because the concept of hell is a religious concept; the similarity of the list of practices to scriptural admonition would be clear to anyone familiar with the Bible.

Human sacrifice and stoning are not god, sin, and hell are 100% religious/spiritual concepts as they have very non-spiritual effects, unlike the ideas about sin and hell.

yov, I had trouble following this thought of yours. Would you mind reiterating?

How many of your followers routinely murder people born in June? Or cast them out of society? Or force them to undergo Birth Month Conversion Therapy? Do they persecute people having sex in September? Drag them from their beds to stand before an angry mob Barpink-bent on punishing them for the possible conception of a child to be born in June?

We are not talking here about any of those actions. Would anyone be arguing about the tweeter being fired if he had murdered, cast out, forced actions, dragged from beds? No. He didn't do any of those things. He tweeted a doctrinal statement. Are you suggesting he should be held accountable for other people's actions? 


One hears all the time about, ex., teachers being fired after intimate photos have inadvertently turned up on the internet. This seems to be basically that type of thing -- being disqualified from a job because something done privately has impacted the person's public image, which is significant to their association with the entity doing the firing.

The 'hate speech' accusation means that someone's discourse has departed from the elitist norm. This tweeter has backward notions that have embarrassed the soccer league and might alienate the fans, so he had to go. The actual tweet (thanks, Voronwë) shows that he isn't motivated by hate. He is concerned, based on his beliefs, about the eternal fates of others. In fact, he cares so much about people that he was willing to lose his job for the sake of warning them.

Hate speech, then, isn't necessarily about hate on the part of the speaker (which we could never know, anyway, because we can't reliably judge other people's motivations). It's hate on the part of the guardians of enlightenment for any discourse that challenges their vision of society.

[yovargas]

Human sacrifice and stoning are not god, sin, and hell are 100% religious/spiritual concepts as they have very non-spiritual effects, unlike the ideas about sin and hell.

I just meant that throwing a rock at someone isn't a religious concept, even if the motivation for throwing that rock is. Getting hit by stones is physical, not spiritual, unlike the entirely spiritual statement "god condemns sinners to hell".

[Frelga]

When does expressing an opinion become hate speech?

Per the definition posted earlier, I'd say it would be something that endorses abuse or threats towards a group of people. This man's post did not do that.

It may not "endorse" it explicitly but it inspires and provides justification for discrimination and violence.

It gives people an excuse to throw rocks.

[Dave_LF]

I've stumbled on a few articles lately by University of Michigan professor Phil Christman. Each time, somewhere in the middle I start thinking "I'm really enjoying this, who's the author, anyway?" and then scroll up discover it's him again. I like his writing style and his pieces almost always provoke what I think is a healthy mixture of "good point!," "hm; not so sure about that," and "nope, have to disagree there" reactions in me. He appears to be a left-leaning Christian, which is probably enough to explain that.

I'll link to two below; one about the American Midwest, and one describing what it's like to be a man. I am a midwestern man, and was a bit taken aback by how many excellent yet obvious points each article makes. But the thing about these points is that even though they're obvious in retrospect, it would never have occurred to me to make them, because to my experience they are simply ambient truths. But that's probably not the case for everybody.

On being Midwestern
What is it like to be a man? (this one is the main reason I chose this thread)

[yovargas]

I read that Man article and there are simply way, way, way to many points in there that I want to respond to for me to respond to any of them.

[Maria]

I think he could have said what he was saying with a lot fewer words. He seemed to be writing just to see himself write much of the time.

[Frelga]

I haven't read the article, but in general, long pieces in what used to be printed media make me wonder if no one makes outlines anymore. I always want to tell the writers, "you said that three times already," "that should have gone with the point you made three paragraphs ago," and "what does that have to do with anything?" I just want things to be logically arranged. Is that too much to ask?
/rant

[River]

Reading the article about masculinity, I was left wondering how much of what he portrays is purely cultural and how much isn't. The most important models of masculinity in my life have been my father and my husband, with various other men throwing some color into the mix. My father is a American who grew up on a farm in Iowa. My husband is a Serb who grew up in Belgrade. There are some decided differences in how they approach things like expressing emotions and enjoying creature comforts. But this: [quote]We’ve all known families in which the men putter away at Rube Goldberg schemes for “securing” the family’s financial or physical safety while the women actually carry everyone through every day, anticipating every emergency, meeting every contingency.[/quote} This is very much something I've had to deal with. The degree of that behavior is going to vary, of course, but it always seems to crop up in men. In my own home, it got to the point where I was physically breaking down (mysterious dark bruises appeared on my arms and legs this past spring) before my husband realized that whatever he thought he was doing to help us was not actually helping anyone. He re-aligned some things. The mystery bruises faded. I never did find out why they happened. I don't have time to see the doctor.

In short, I think men do need to talk about this sort of stuff more. Otherwise your partners are going to burn out and collapse into nasty heaps of mystery bruises.

[yovargas]

Reading the article about masculinity, I was left wondering how much of what he portrays is purely cultural and how much isn't.

That's kinda the crux of just about everything when it comes to this topic, and in truth I don't think we have just about any idea.

[Dave_LF]

It's an interesting question academically, but practically, does it matter?

[yovargas]

Oh, I think it's absolutely crucial. Culture can be changed, but the things that are a fundamental part of our nature can't be. Or at least not without making ourselves extremely miserable.

[Frelga]

Oh, I think it's absolutely crucial. Culture can be changed, but the things that are a fundamental part of our nature can't be. Or at least not without making ourselves extremely miserable.

If you want to change nature, just ask River to have some fun with CRISPR.

Or if you want to stick to a more ethical line of behavior, consider the wide range of behaviors that even an individual can be capable of. When you are talking about billions of humans, there is practically no possible behavior that does not come naturally to someone.