Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It's a bullshit article. It's that classic lie that politicians use: 'you spend ALL your time talking about X, but neglect Y which is FAR more important'.
They had one meeting with Izzy. Hardly taking up all of their time. And there has been huge public outcry about the issue, so I think a meeting was definitely warranted.
And then he just goes into the usual 'get off my lawn' patter, where the solution to everything is to get in a time machine and go back 25 years. Get rid of the NRC, bring back Bob Dwyer and Ealesy and the boys because things were simpler then and you could call winger a fag and an Islander a coconut and everyone would just have a beer and a laugh and go out there and beat the bloody All Blacks without the PC brigade whinging because we're Aussie blokes and that's just what we do.
Huge public outcry? That's simply not true.
What I'm interested in is the blatant hypocrisy between a sponsor being concerned about their image because a player said something homophobic but having no problem entering into a multimillion (billion?) dollar partnership with the flagship carrier of a nation where homosexuality is illegal. You also have sporting bodies cracking down mercilessly on players who might say something in the heat of the moment on the field, but who also have no problems taking millions in sponsorship and naming rights from companies representing nations where you are imprisoned if you are homosexual.
If these companies can take this coin then they would be monumental hypocrites if they are willing to drop their sponsorship for what one player (albeit a very good one) wrote on instagram.
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
It's a bullshit article. It's that classic lie that politicians use: 'you spend ALL your time talking about X, but neglect Y which is FAR more important'.
They had one meeting with Izzy. Hardly taking up all of their time. And there has been huge public outcry about the issue, so I think a meeting was definitely warranted.
And then he just goes into the usual 'get off my lawn' patter, where the solution to everything is to get in a time machine and go back 25 years. Get rid of the NRC, bring back Bob Dwyer and Ealesy and the boys because things were simpler then and you could call winger a fag and an Islander a coconut and everyone would just have a beer and a laugh and go out there and beat the bloody All Blacks without the PC brigade whinging because we're Aussie blokes and that's just what we do.
Huge public outcry? That's simply not true.
What I'm interested in is the blatant hypocrisy between a sponsor being concerned about their image because a player said something homophobic but having no problem entering into a multimillion (billion?) dollar partnership with the flagship carrier of a nation where homosexuality is illegal. You also have sporting bodies cracking down mercilessly on players who might say something in the heat of the moment on the field, but who also have no problems taking millions in sponsorship and naming rights from companies representing nations where you are imprisoned if you are homosexual.
If these companies can take this coin then they would be monumental hypocrites if they are willing to drop their sponsorship for what one player (albeit a very good one) wrote on instagram.
That's the problem with corporate virtue signalling. They claim to "care" about particular issues but if there is $$ on the line for their stakeholders...
They really should just not be political. We have laws around freedom of speech, leave it at that and stop trying to shove ideologically driven ideas down everyone's throats.
I blame it on HR departments. They are just a complete waste of time and money, if I had my way I'd get rid of pretty much the whole department at my work and just hold people leaders accountable for doing their job.
-
Firstly, if anyone has read the Politics forum you'll now how critical I am of Islam, but I really hate the "if he was a Muslim then X, Y, Z" argument. He's not a Muslim, this has nothing to do with Islam, so fuck off with that shit.
As @barbarian says it's a pretty tricky time to be an organisation like the ARU. If anyone associated with them says something the lynch mob feels is out of line, then the media picks it up and plasters it all over the headlines for clicks/revenue, and the idiots on social media work themselves into a lather.
@antipodean also makes a good point that those idiots on social media are rarely representative of the wider population, who generally have better things to do then get worked up over things like this.
So it's a pretty fine balance and I don't know that there is an obvious "right" way to handle the outrage mob. Personally I'd look to push the line that we are not a political organisation, our employees views do not represent ours, but we believe in their rights to freedom of speech and expression as per the law.
Then I'd try and say nothing more on the issue and let it blow over. The outrage mob will soon find something else to complain about as they have very short attention spans, and this will all be a distant memory. The worst thing you can do is continue to comment which effectively just pours fuel on the fire.
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
and the idiots on social media work themselves into a lather.
We have met the enemy and he is us!
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Huge public outcry? That's simply not true.
It's been solid back page content for the past week. I suppose we don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but I'd call that a fair outcry.
If these companies can take this coin then they would be monumental hypocrites if they are willing to drop their sponsorship for what one player (albeit a very good one) wrote on instagram.
I agree totally. We're following a pretty familiar outrage cycle here. It will all blow over soon.
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Huge public outcry? That's simply not true.
It's been solid back page content for the past week. I suppose we don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but I'd call that a fair outcry.
If these companies can take this coin then they would be monumental hypocrites if they are willing to drop their sponsorship for what one player (albeit a very good one) wrote on instagram.
I agree totally. We're following a pretty familiar outrage cycle here. It will all blow over soon.
I hardly think that can be used to adequately gauge the level of public outrage. Nor can social media for that matter.
-
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
and the idiots on social media work themselves into a lather.
We have met the enemy and he is us!
@chris-b said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
and the idiots on social media work themselves into a lather.
We have met the enemy and he is us!
The Fern is different!! Just don't mention the Cookie Monster...
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Huge public outcry? That's simply not true.
It's been solid back page content for the past week. I suppose we don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but I'd call that a fair outcry.
If these companies can take this coin then they would be monumental hypocrites if they are willing to drop their sponsorship for what one player (albeit a very good one) wrote on instagram.
I agree totally. We're following a pretty familiar outrage cycle here. It will all blow over soon.
I hardly think that can be used to adequately gauge the level of public outrage. Nor can social media for that matter.
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I hardly think that can be used to adequately gauge the level of public outrage. Nor can social media for that matter.
OK. Well let's go a different metric - I've had more than a few conversations at work about it. My girlfriend (not a huge rugby head but understands the game thankfully) has wanted to chat about it. My mum brought it with me yesterday.
Now this may not constitute 'outrage' but I certainly think there has been a very high interest.
-
@chris-b said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
and the idiots on social media work themselves into a lather.
We have met the enemy and he is us!
The Fern is different!! Just don't mention the Cookie Monster...
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@chris-b said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@no-quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
and the idiots on social media work themselves into a lather.
We have met the enemy and he is us!
The Fern is different!! Just don't mention the Cookie Monster...
I'm afraid not. We are all now "Internet Personalities".
We should be fucking ashamed!
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I hardly think that can be used to adequately gauge the level of public outrage. Nor can social media for that matter.
OK. Well let's go a different metric - I've had more than a few conversations at work about it. My girlfriend (not a huge rugby head but understands the game thankfully) has wanted to chat about it. My mum brought it with me yesterday.
Now this may not constitute 'outrage' but I certainly think there has been a very high interest.
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I hardly think that can be used to adequately gauge the level of public outrage. Nor can social media for that matter.
OK. Well let's go a different metric - I've had more than a few conversations at work about it. My girlfriend (not a huge rugby head but understands the game thankfully) has wanted to chat about it. My mum brought it with me yesterday.
Now this may not constitute 'outrage' but I certainly think there has been a very high interest.
I just had my kid at a 3 day rugby camp and nobody even mentioned it. There is only "high" interest because the media keeps fanning the flames.
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I hardly think that can be used to adequately gauge the level of public outrage. Nor can social media for that matter.
OK. Well let's go a different metric - I've had more than a few conversations at work about it. My girlfriend (not a huge rugby head but understands the game thankfully) has wanted to chat about it. My mum brought it with me yesterday.
Now this may not constitute 'outrage' but I certainly think there has been a very high interest.
I just had my kid at a 3 day rugby camp and nobody even mentioned it. There is only "high" interest because the media keeps fanning the flames.
@rancid-schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I just had my kid at a 3 day rugby camp and nobody even mentioned it. There is only "high" interest because the media keeps fanning the flames.
Of course. But it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Rugby journos are on it because it's broken beyond the sport, and it's probably getting good clicks/comments online.
But I've forgotten what we're even arguing about now, so I'll tap out here.
-
I thought actually a fair article from Jones - as an opinion piece anyway. It's not written as fact, and presents one side of things.
Rugby has taken some decent strides over the years in ensuring acceptance for people who bat for the other team. It's most high profile ref is open, a lions captain is open & then you have well recognised and supported gay rugby competitions and teams. This didn't happen overnight.
Folau posting things like this could be read as taking some backward steps and in a public forum, does need to be dealt with. Yes, there are contradictions all over the show, but the ARU almost has an obligation to World Rugby to condemn.
-
I thought actually a fair article from Jones - as an opinion piece anyway. It's not written as fact, and presents one side of things.
Rugby has taken some decent strides over the years in ensuring acceptance for people who bat for the other team. It's most high profile ref is open, a lions captain is open & then you have well recognised and supported gay rugby competitions and teams. This didn't happen overnight.
Folau posting things like this could be read as taking some backward steps and in a public forum, does need to be dealt with. Yes, there are contradictions all over the show, but the ARU almost has an obligation to World Rugby to condemn.
@majorrage said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I thought actually a fair article from Jones - as an opinion piece anyway. It's not written as fact, and presents one side of things.
Rugby has taken some decent strides over the years in ensuring acceptance for people who bat for the other team. It's most high profile ref is open, a lions captain is open & then you have well recognised and supported gay rugby competitions and teams. This didn't happen overnight.
Folau posting things like this could be read as taking some backward steps and in a public forum, does need to be dealt with. Yes, there are contradictions all over the show, but the ARU almost has an obligation to World Rugby to condemn.
Correct me if I'm wrong - and I say that 'cos I know you bastards will, but didn't Folau simply answer a question that was put to him rather than trumpet his views? That's my recollection anyway and if true then I would want to know who posed the question and why?
-
@majorrage said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I thought actually a fair article from Jones - as an opinion piece anyway. It's not written as fact, and presents one side of things.
Rugby has taken some decent strides over the years in ensuring acceptance for people who bat for the other team. It's most high profile ref is open, a lions captain is open & then you have well recognised and supported gay rugby competitions and teams. This didn't happen overnight.
Folau posting things like this could be read as taking some backward steps and in a public forum, does need to be dealt with. Yes, there are contradictions all over the show, but the ARU almost has an obligation to World Rugby to condemn.
Correct me if I'm wrong - and I say that 'cos I know you bastards will, but didn't Folau simply answer a question that was put to him rather than trumpet his views? That's my recollection anyway and if true then I would want to know who posed the question and why?
@catogrande said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Correct me if I'm wrong - and I say that 'cos I know you bastards will, but didn't Folau simply answer a question that was put to him rather than trumpet his views? That's my recollection anyway and if true then I would want to know who posed the question and why?
Correct ... but it was online and he chose to answer it. Between twitter, instagram etc he gets loads of questions but doesn't answer them all ...
-
@catogrande said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Correct me if I'm wrong - and I say that 'cos I know you bastards will, but didn't Folau simply answer a question that was put to him rather than trumpet his views? That's my recollection anyway and if true then I would want to know who posed the question and why?
Correct ... but it was online and he chose to answer it. Between twitter, instagram etc he gets loads of questions but doesn't answer them all ...
-
alan jones wanking on (and on) since - well - forever.
The whole freedom of speech argument is a non sequitar.
-
@majorrage Fair enough, he has some culpability then.
@catogrande said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@majorrage Fair enough, he has some culpability then.
I get your point though - this happens all the time in interview, especially with Steve Hansen, Michael Chieka, Eddie Jones.
They'll hold a press conference as required by their employers, world rugby, broadcasters etc. and then a reporter will say ask one of them a direct question which will be answered diplomatically with an opinion on it ... then the headline on the opposite side of the equator will read "Hansen Slams 6 Nations After Dismal England Performance" ... then every Harby-Jones, Tarquin, and Griffith-Joyner will go nuts acting like Hansen called it to explicityly have a go.
-
@majorrage said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I thought actually a fair article from Jones - as an opinion piece anyway. It's not written as fact, and presents one side of things.
Rugby has taken some decent strides over the years in ensuring acceptance for people who bat for the other team. It's most high profile ref is open, a lions captain is open & then you have well recognised and supported gay rugby competitions and teams. This didn't happen overnight.
Folau posting things like this could be read as taking some backward steps and in a public forum, does need to be dealt with. Yes, there are contradictions all over the show, but the ARU almost has an obligation to World Rugby to condemn.
Correct me if I'm wrong - and I say that 'cos I know you bastards will, but didn't Folau simply answer a question that was put to him rather than trumpet his views? That's my recollection anyway and if true then I would want to know who posed the question and why?
@catogrande said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@majorrage said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I thought actually a fair article from Jones - as an opinion piece anyway. It's not written as fact, and presents one side of things.
Rugby has taken some decent strides over the years in ensuring acceptance for people who bat for the other team. It's most high profile ref is open, a lions captain is open & then you have well recognised and supported gay rugby competitions and teams. This didn't happen overnight.
Folau posting things like this could be read as taking some backward steps and in a public forum, does need to be dealt with. Yes, there are contradictions all over the show, but the ARU almost has an obligation to World Rugby to condemn.
Correct me if I'm wrong - and I say that 'cos I know you bastards will, but didn't Folau simply answer a question that was put to him rather than trumpet his views? That's my recollection anyway and if true then I would want to know who posed the question and why?
Correct me if I'm wrong - and I say that 'cos I know you bastards will, but didn't Folau simply answer a question that was put to him rather than trumpet his views? That's my recollection anyway and if true then I would want to know who posed the question and why?
Can I just slide a wee opinion in here ... and again correct me if I am wrong ... and forgive me (like any Christian would or should do) ... as I forgive the weasel words of those who twitter against us ... but Folau never suggested that homosexuals should go to hell, or that he wants them to (that would be very un-Christian of him).
Hardly "hate speech", more expressing an opinion derived from the Bible that they WILL go to Hell. Not "I hate you and I hope you burn".
You'd hope a Christian would express something more akin to "I hope you are redeemed and don't go to Hell".
WANTING someone to go to Hell is (or should be) anathema to a Christian.
Remember that billboard that "God loves Osama bin Ladin"? In Christianity everyone is loved, including those we'd kind of like, on normal circumstances, to see suffer for eternity.
... geez listen to me ... who am I? Billy Graham?
-
OK what the fuck... Rebels get a penalty and don't tell the ref their decision for like 2-3 mins. He just waits.
-
@bones said in Aussie Rugby in general:
OK what the fuck... Rebels get a penalty and don't tell the ref their decision for like 2-3 mins. He just waits.
Yep, that was a joke. And karma kicks in and the Rebels fuck it up completely
@donsteppa after the ref swallow his whistle again. Nicely done Berry, nicely done.
