I agree. But I also, probably a bit optimistically, feel that society will course correct at some point and begin to, at least, mandate some ethical walls or restrictions on what is acceptable in the name of health and well-being. Or due to an event that rationalizes a cultural swing back towards individual privacy and protection of information. Likely not in our lifetime but as P-Stu touched on for a different reason earlier, I think as X-ers and Millenials mostly here, we are raising a couple of generations that will be dealing with massive psychological health issues as a direct result of social media and online habits.
I think your last comment is in response to me?
I wasn’t trying to say that it would inevitably evolve into something harmless and definitely not in an organic way if that is what you meant using the word inevitably.
However, if you agree with the basic premise that SM and bad online habits do cause harm to the individual and further agree that we innately, individually and collectively as a species aim to avoid harm, I think that it is fair to predict that SM will become far more regulated or restricted to lessen the harmful effects. Or that these companies will be required to avoid unethical practices that compound the harmful effects and subject to penalty if they don’t. The beginnings of a swing that way are visible to some degree but it hasn’t yet stuck. As I said above, I think it would take a pretty long time to shift completely - most probably because we are addicted - and likely need to be be based on some sort of triggering incident.
I think our capacity to regulate it lags very far behind the capacity of various state and private groups to weaponize it. You can fine facebook (for example) all you like, but I think the only way to really eliminate the harm it can be put to is to shutter it, and I don't see that happening.
I think it's pretty absurd to consider that you have any kind of position to determine whether people who are complete strangers to you have real mental health problems or not.
It reminds me of the 'sure what do they have to be depressed about' response to somebody with an apparently successful life revealing they suffer from depression.
I just read that Dave Chappelle's stand-up show in Minnesota got cancelled by the booking location due to backlash about his jokes about transgenderism. What do folks think? Are transgender jokes off limits?
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-62249771
My perspective is best summed up by a Ricky Gervais quote...
I see offence as the collateral damage of free speech. I hate the thought of a person's ideas being modified or even hushed because someone somewhere might not like to hear them. Outside actually breaking the law or causing someone physical harm, 'hurting someone's feelings' is almost impossible to objectively quantify.
https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/20...ans-statements
Quidditch changed its name because of Trans comments from JK Rowling,I mean christ almighty…
Irish by birth ,Harps by the grace of god.
That's quite funny, really. I'm picturing the About page on their site:
"The sport of quadball was invented by She Who Must Not Be Named in 1997..."
https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2022/...-pride-jersey/
You can't do anything these days without upsetting someone!
I think that's a fairly inevitable outcome though. The only named objector in the piece (I think) is Haneen Zreika, who's Muslim; Islam is (broadly speaking, cos it's hard to generalise about 1.3bn people) a fairly homophobic culture and although it's not explicitly stated here, I think you can certainly take it that that's the objection here. I think there was a Seventh-Day Adventist player who had a problem with it as well previously? Similar idea.
So where do we draw the line when minority (often imported) cultures and our own disagree like here? Should we be inclusive of homophobic cultures or should we try to re-educate them? It's an issue that's not really discussed (probably because it's easier to ignore it for now), but I think it's only going to become more relevant in the coming years as these cultures become more prominent here (which I don't think is a good idea really, but that's a different thread)
I also think there's no real need for a rugby team to be releasing a one-off pride jersey, but it does seem that's a bandwagon that everyone wants on these days. I'd much rather see them promoting sustainability by not making one-off microfabric jerseys (or changing their kit every year, or needless third-choice kits), but I guess there's no money in that.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 26/07/2022 at 10:27 AM.
Maybe, maybe not. I suppose I was just drawing a parallel between people getting upset about transgender jokes and people getting upset at a pride jersey. Where do you stop ? Should you be able to joke about anything? Should you be able for your jersey make a statement about everything? It seems what's good for goose isn't good for the gander with some people.
I'm not sure Islamic culture is any more or less homophobic than Christian culture? Both are certainly homophobic religions. Should we try and be inclusive of Israel Folau (Christian) who for example thinks gay people are going to burn in hell? I'd be more inclined to let him think whatever he likes - but keep it to yourself etc. Surely that has to be the overriding message.
Haneen Zreika was a different case. The players in this case are Josh Aloiai, Jason Saab, Christian Tuipulotu, Josh Schuster, Haumole Olakau’atu, Tolu Koula and Toafofoa Sipley. We're looking at deeply Christian pacific islanders (or descended from them) for the most part.
Last edited by osarusan; 26/07/2022 at 8:36 PM.
No, it's a fair point. Should you be able to joke about anything? Arguably so. If it's not funny, it's not funny. I'd be wary about things you can't make fun of though. Father Ted was important in that regard for example.
Islamic culture is a lot more homophobic than Christian culture, yep. Certainly now, given the huge fall-off in Christian observance and even relevance. Almost all countries where homosexuality is criminalised are Muslim countries, and almost all Muslim countries still have it criminalised. It's a couple of hundred years since someone was executed for homosexual acts in Europe, but it's still a death penalty in many Muslim countries. Obviously there's different degrees (if that's the right word) of Christianity like there's different degrees of Islam. The Christian fundamentalists tend not to be able to dictate laws as easily as the Islamic ones though. (Which arguably brings us right back on topic!)
I'd be wary of telling Folau (who is the guy I was thinking of alright) to keep his thoughts to himself though. I'd rather he felt free to express them and was criticised for them. Who gets to decide what views are reasonable to express and what views aren't?
Last edited by pineapple stu; 26/07/2022 at 8:42 PM.
Here's an update from a few days ago in American Faith https://americanfaith.com/ca-bill-al...enate-ab-2223/
From a few months ago, rather
Last edited by dahamsta; 14/09/2022 at 8:13 AM.
"Our apologies.
We can't find the page you're looking for."
That's probably for the best given your earlier contributions if I'm quite honest
A cultural thought leader...Founder
Phil Hotsenpiller
Phil Hotsenpiller is the Founder and President of American Faith and the Senior Pastor of Influence Church. He is a Biblical Prophecy Expert, Cultural Thought Leader, and a Passionate Patriot.
Inevitably, the people who rebel against mainstream medis seek their news from the most f**ked up sources.
@mark12345 don't post that garbage on Foot.ie again. You should be ashamed of your inability to separate facts and science from rhetoric and nonsense.
Bookmarks