Scandal Lance Collard facing lengthy suspenion for homophobic slurs

[Toump Ass]

...

Your claim that using the words "Jesus Christ" is as bad as calling someone a f***** is total bullshit.

And as an aside, religious discrimination is actually outlawed in the AFL?

 

[Toump Ass]

An example of people being offended by blasphemy is a stupid analogy of people being offended by blasphemy.

You don't really understand nuance do you.

Clearly saying the word jesus is different to publishing an image of a religious diety screwing an animal.

 

[Bostonian]

You don't really understand nuance do you.

Clearly saying the word jesus is different to publishing an image of a religious diety screwing an animal.

But I do.

The nuance is that a religious person can be just as offended as a gay person by words they deem offensive to them when used in a certain way.

Not that hard.

 

[Toump Ass]

But I do.

You're either stupid or being deliberately obtuse.

You cannot make a sledge against someone in the AFL based on their religion, nor can you use a homophobic slur.

I'm not sure if you have a point, but if you do, you are not making it well, and to be honest I don't really care anyway.

 

[JackOutback]

But I do.

The nuance is that a religious person can be just as offended as a gay person by words they deem offensive to them when used in a certain way.

Not that hard.

The nuance is that you can't change your sexual orientation, you can't change your skin colour, but religion is a belief, a choice, like astrology. People are entitled to it and no one will stop them but they are not entitled to expect reverence or special treatment from me for their choice.

 

[Bostonian]

The nuance is that you can't change your sexual orientation, you can't change your skin colour, but religion is a belief, a choice, like astrology. People are entitled to it and no one will stop them but they are not entitled to expect reverence or special treatment from me for their choice.

What has that got to do with someone being offended by something they found offensive?

In the end they are still offended. The level of offence taken will come down to the individual.

 

[JackOutback]

What has that got to do with someone being offended by something they found offensive?

In the end they are still offended. The level of offence taken will come down to the individual.

Jesus Christ, if you'll pardon my offence. The reason we have laws against sexism, racism, homophobia etc is because these are not up to individual choice and not able to be changed. It's unfair on a human level to diminish people for things they have no control over. Other things in life are a choice, you can embrace it, others don't have to, you can be offended by it, but you don't get to demand intervention to deal with your personal offence.

For mine, a religious person can be as offended as a Dungeons & Dragons player for being called a nerd... you can respond in whatever way you choose within the law, ignore the person, express your dissatisfaction, but you don't get to conflate your personal offence with sexism, racism or homophobia. As it is, religious people already get more protection than other people's life choices anyway.

 

[Sainter3and7]

I am more of a free-speech person (with regard to 'hate speech') than I once was. I do think that words can be crimes (e.g. screaming fire in a theatre), and I do think that words like the ones we are discussing can also be evidence of a crime. For instance, if someone leaves home intent to commit a crime against anyone with a particular identity (in this discussion, choose either sexuality or religion)... if they don't know the person, it's more evidence of a bias-motivated crime. There are various laws that regulate 'hate speech' (which is defined differently within different jurisdictions). But I also think that complicates the discussion of hate speech. I can see why, as a professional body, the AFL wants to prohibit offensive speech - the players are role models and to stoop that low is to diminish the standing of the game in the eyes of many people. But I think context is always important. I do think Lance Collard deserved a hefty penalty... in any job I've worked in, I would have been fired if I said that word. But I think there shouldn't be a hierarchy of offensive words. I do think context is important, and also that people have to use their common sense in working out what was the intention and context of the slur.

 

[Consolaçao]

Jesus Christ, if you'll pardon my offence. The reason we have laws against sexism, racism, homophobia etc is because these are not up to individual choice and not able to be changed. It's unfair on a human level to diminish people for things they have no control over. Other things in life are a choice, you can embrace it, others don't have to, you can be offended by it, but you don't get to demand intervention to deal with your personal offence.

For mine, a religious person can be as offended as a Dungeons & Dragons player for being called a nerd... you can respond in whatever way you choose within the law, ignore the person, express your dissatisfaction, but you don't get to conflate your personal offence with sexism, racism or homophobia. As it is, religious people already get more protection than other people's life choices anyway.

Good on you for engaging in the right spirit.
The idea that tolerance for insulting language hinges on whether the abuse relates to an inherent characteristic or a ‘choice’ is something i haven’t heard, but its interesting.
My first issue with it is that i’m not sure whether it’s accurate to refer to religion is a choice. Children of Muslim parents invariably grow up Muslim, and same with other religions. Not much evidence of free will from what i see. I also think most religious people would totally reject the idea they’ve ‘chosen’ their religion.. i’m sure they’d regard their beliefs as being an intrinsic aspect of who they are.
Secondly, the formulation you’ve outlined would justify action to outlaw slurs about redheads, people with buck teeth, etc. I’m also Australian - i can’t help it. Should slurs about Australians be forbidden? Obviously not.
Establishing the precise location of ‘the line’ is not as straightforward as you make out.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Good on you for engaging in the right spirit.
The idea that tolerance for insulting language hinges on whether the abuse relates to an inherent characteristic or a ‘choice’ is something i haven’t heard, but its interesting.
My first issue with it is that i’m not sure whether it’s accurate to refer to religion is a choice. Children of Muslim parents invariably grow up Muslim, and same with other religions. Not much evidence of free will from what i see. I also think most religious people would totally reject the idea they’ve ‘chosen’ their religion.. i’m sure they’d regard their beliefs as being an intrinsic aspect of who they are.
Secondly, the formulation you’ve outlined would justify action to outlaw slurs about redheads, people with buck teeth, etc. I’m also Australian - i can’t help it. Should slurs about Australians be forbidden? Obviously not.
Establishing the precise location of ‘the line’ is not as straightforward as you make out.

May be worth considering how much intimidation or discrimination some of these groups might face. In the news lately, I see that even in some first world countries, riots against minority races and religions are taking place, and minority sexual orientations are not allowed to be discussed in schools. I think there's a need to prevent our society falling into such ugly behaviours, and perhaps that starts with the low levels of disdain such as the use of slurs.

In any case, the AFL as an organisation is allowed to set its own standards.