Inu, 4 week ban

[gingerjon]

57 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

But I don't expect any of today's problems will have gone away by then.

It is tough for boys but it is exponentially tougher for girls - with regards to social media at least.

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I'm glad, my daughter reached maturity before this social media scourge fully developed.

The idea of allowing every Tom Dick and Harry a window (let alone a doorway) into my daughter's life (at any age) seems completely crazy to me.

It seems that in the headlong rush to acquire a social media account, our young people have abandoned the whole concept of privacy, or certainly place very little value on it. They are, of course encouraged down this road by the purveyors of these facilities.

I have no doubt, that exposing your whole life (on a social media platform) undermines a person's (especially a child's) self esteem. Unfortunately, it may not become apparent until much later, when it's too late.

(When the whole world's seen your ar se).

When parents are thinking of making a gift of these things to their children, they should do some ''full scope accounting'' and factor in the total (long term) cost, of any short term benefits that might seem attractive, with these gimmicks.

It's quite likely that Inu's attitude (the subject of this discussion) was honed by and on social media.

If large numbers of children are bullying their class mates into sending explicit photographs of themselves, over the net, we shouldn't be surprised when a lack of respect for the tragic victims of date rape becomes apparent in the kind of comments Inu made public.

It sounds to me, like we could be facing an epidemic in the near future.

I agree with much of what you say.

As with all things in life, social media is a double edged sword.  The idea that my daughter could go to University or work abroad but we can speak over Zoom or WhatsApp video chat is something that parents wouldn't have had just a couple of generations ago.  With that benefit of the advance in technology comes all the negatives you point out.  It seems today that no-one can enjoy themselves without the validation of the number of 'likes' we are getting on social media (unfortunately, I have fallen a little bit down that rabbit hole).

All I can hope is we do a good job as parents and equip her as best we can for what she will face in the years to come. 

[DavidM]

Did you see the girl lying on the railway tracks while on her phone !?  I mean what the actual f.....

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I agree with much of what you say.

As with all things in life, social media is a double edged sword.  The idea that my daughter could go to University or work abroad but we can speak over Zoom or WhatsApp video chat is something that parents wouldn't have had just a couple of generations ago.  With that benefit of the advance in technology comes all the negatives you point out.  It seems today that no-one can enjoy themselves without the validation of the number of 'likes' we are getting on social media (unfortunately, I have fallen a little bit down that rabbit hole).

All I can hope is we do a good job as parents and equip her as best we can for what she will face in the years to come. 

I would say, to take the debate into politics probably, that without social media you wouldn't see the genuine strides being taken against the day to day sexual harassment that, for example, the girls who went to school the same time I did would have just had to put up with *whilst in school itself*.

[fighting irish]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I would say, to take the debate into politics probably, that without social media you wouldn't see the genuine strides being taken against the day to day sexual harassment that, for example, the girls who went to school the same time I did would have just had to put up with *whilst in school itself*.

I think parents (society as a whole) need to teach children to reclaim their privacy, that privacy, (your private life) is a vital and precious thing and not to be squandered like casting your pearls amongst swine. I believe it is a foundation stone of high self esteem. 

Let's not forget, that the right to privacy is a basic human right, because another aspect of this cultural upheaval, is the insidious creeping intrusion into our private lives by the government, here and in the States.

I think they are pushing the boundaries (as always) because they believe that young people just don't care that they listen to (record) our phone calls, emails and text messages. God forbid.

Our lives belong to us, as individuals, not to others, to society, or to the government.

If we lose sight of that, our freedom is gone.

 

[GUBRATS]

8 hours ago, Dave T said:

Speed awareness courses are not about people who make mistakes. They are for people who decide to drive at 80 on the motorway instead of 70. They help you understand the risks and impacts that that extra speed can have. You them go away and hopefully live your life more sagely, you make your own choices (hence you attending twice ).

I expect the training Inu will undertake will be similar, it will look at sexual conduct, social media approach and impact on victims. It will try and make him understand the impact his words can have, but he will then go and live his life how he chooses. 

Almost exactly like normal education, that I assume people normally see as a good thing. 

There must be different speed awareness courses then Dave , both occasions I've attended them ( 14 years apart ) none of the driver's had exceeded 47 mph , they were all 30 or 40 limit infringements , it was made clear from the start that anybody not taking it seriously or argumentive would be asked to leave and would receive the points 

I'm in no way agreeing with Mr Inu's behaviour , just displaying cynicism of compulsory education to change people's opinion 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I think parents (society as a whole) need to teach children to reclaim their privacy, that privacy, (your private life) is a vital and precious thing and not to be squandered like casting your pearls amongst swine. I believe it is a foundation stone of high self esteem. 

Let's not forget, that the right to privacy is a basic human right, because another aspect of this cultural upheaval, is the insidious creeping intrusion into our private lives by the government, here and in the States.

I think they are pushing the boundaries (as always) because they believe that young people just don't care that they listen to (record) our phone calls, emails and text messages. God forbid.

Our lives belong to us, as individuals, not to others, to society, or to the government.

If we lose sight of that, our freedom is gone.

 

On a side note and to be a little more light hearted.

I have never worked out why people would want to be 'rich and famous'. In my view, one of those would be great, the other hell on earth.

Anyway, none of this is relevant to Inu any more!

[RP London]

6 hours ago, dkw said:

Its actually not though is it? Its the actual speed limit, the 10% +2 is only a guideline and you can still be prosecuted if you go even 1mph over the speed limit depending on the circumstances, I think.

Your only allowed to he on the course if you haven't been on it for 3 years and you don't exceed the speedlimit by more than 10% + 2 mph.. or at least that's what it said on the info I got sent by the police. They can, of course, not offer it if they don't want to but they cannot offer it if you don't meet those criteria. 

[fighting irish]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

On a side note and to be a little more light hearted.

I have never worked out why people would want to be 'rich and famous'. In my view, one of those would be great, the other hell on earth.

Anyway, none of this is relevant to Inu any more!

I was just asking, how did we (and Inu) get here?

I was trying to make the point that respect for others, begins with respect for oneself. If we are taught that privacy is of no value, that others should have free access to our innermost being, our self respect is necessarily undermined and regard for others rights (and feelings) will certainly follow suit.

Re-educating Inu, ( I think) is closing the door after the horse has bolted. That approach across the board is not going to fix this problem.

We need to nurture and preserve our children's self esteem first, then we have a chance of raising the standards of social interaction/behaviour in society as a whole.

Abdicating this obligation and raising a generation of worthless souls will wreak havoc in our aspiring would-be ''woke'' society.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Re-educating Inu, ( I think) is closing the door after the horse has bolted. That approach across the board is not going to fix this problem.

It won't fix society's problem but it will address Inu's own misunderstandings and poor actions.

Which is sort of the point.

[Dunbar]

24 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I was just asking, how did we (and Inu) get here?

I was trying to make the point that respect for others, begins with respect for oneself. If we are taught that privacy is of no value, that others should have free access to our innermost being, our self respect is necessarily undermined and regard for others rights (and feelings) will certainly follow suit.

Re-educating Inu, ( I think) is closing the door after the horse has bolted. That approach across the board is not going to fix this problem.

We need to nurture and preserve our children's self esteem first, then we have a chance of raising the standards of social interaction/behaviour in society as a whole.

Abdicating this obligation and raising a generation of worthless souls will wreak havoc in our aspiring would-be ''woke'' society.

What I don't understand about your views in this thread is that you clearly want to see the standards of social interaction and behaviour in society improve and yet you seem so adamantly against showing why denigrating and abusing the victims of rape on social media is a bad thing.  It just seems contradictory to me.

[fighting irish]

45 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

There must be different speed awareness courses then Dave , both occasions I've attended them ( 14 years apart ) none of the driver's had exceeded 47 mph , they were all 30 or 40 limit infringements , it was made clear from the start that anybody not taking it seriously or argumentive would be asked to leave and would receive the points 

I'm in no way agreeing with Mr Inu's behaviour , just displaying cynicism of compulsory education to change people's opinion 

I've got another view on this.

The government (in my opinion) should have undertaken a public awareness campaign to make everyone aware of the greater risks (to the ignorant) of travelling on the new ''intelligent motorways''. I think in a free, benevolent society, if the rules are changed, the government should let people know.

Instead, they are using this ''re-education'' programme to bring poor saps like me, ''up to speed'' one at a time, at our personal expense.

I got clipped for exceeding (what I thought was an ''advisory'') speed limit on a motorway virtually bereft of traffic!

The reason, the speed limit was compulsorily (and temporarily) reduced (I learned on the course) was to reduce air pollution. I was certainly not a danger to other motorists, or pedestrians in the conventional, usual sense.

I had no idea, that the temporary speed limit was compulsory and enforced in this way but I found out, the hard way.

So Gubrats, my cynicism runs deep too. 

 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I've got another view on this.

The government (in my opinion) should have undertaken a public awareness campaign to make everyone aware of the greater risks (to the ignorant) of travelling on the new ''intelligent motorways''. I think in a free, benevolent society, if the rules are changed, the government should let people know.

Instead, they are using this ''re-education'' programme to bring poor saps like me, ''up to speed'' one at a time, at our personal expense.

I got clipped for exceeding (what I thought was an ''advisory'') speed limit on a motorway virtually bereft of traffic!

The reason, the speed limit was compulsorily (and temporarily) reduced (I learned on the course) was to reduce air pollution. I was certainly not a danger to other motorists, or pedestrians in the conventional, usual sense.

I had no idea, that the temporary speed limit was compulsory and enforced in this way but I found out, the hard way.

So Gubrats, my cynicism runs deep too. 

 

They should run campaigns like the campaigns they ran?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smart-motorways-summer-speed-campaign

[fighting irish]

35 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

They should run campaigns like the campaigns they ran?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/smart-motorways-summer-speed-campaign

Thank you for that.

I was suggesting they should have run national adverts, on tv (like clunk, click every trip, or wear something bright at night etc. etc. so that there's a chance that someone might actually see it) and not just created a page on a blo ody website, that no-one in their right mind would visit, unless he'd run out of pins, to stick in his eyes.

[fighting irish]

47 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

What I don't understand about your views in this thread is that you clearly want to see the standards of social interaction and behaviour in society improve and yet you seem so adamantly against showing why denigrating and abusing the victims of rape on social media is a bad thing.  It just seems contradictory to me.

That deserves a proper answer.

Thank you for asking me directly, rather than (like some) taking a vague side-swipe at me.

Give me a little time to think? 

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

Thank you for that.

I was suggesting they should have run national adverts, on tv (like clunk, click every trip, or wear something bright at night etc. etc. so that there's a chance that someone might actually see it) and not just created a page on a blo ody website, that no-one in their right mind would visit, unless he'd run out of pins, to stick in his eyes.

Firstly, there were national adverts. That website is telling you about them. I even heard some of them on the radio. (Should also add: all smart motorways have obvious and legally binding signage that tells you that variable speed limits apply. Anyone who has passed their test should understand them.)

Secondly, and I don't know if this applies to you, if you've voted Tory at any point in the past 11 years then you've voted for a party (and thus a government) that has put in its manifesto and then enacted the cutting back virtually all Public Service Announcement adverts in the name of personal responsibility.

[fighting irish]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

What I don't understand about your views in this thread is that you clearly want to see the standards of social interaction and behaviour in society improve and yet you seem so adamantly against showing why denigrating and abusing the victims of rape on social media is a bad thing.  It just seems contradictory to me.

In general, I would like to see people treat each other better, that's true. How to achieve that? Well it's complicated.

On the spectrum, I'm close to the free speech end of what I think should be allowable public conduct. I like the idea that ''I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death, your right to say it.''

Will some people be upset, yes I suppose so, but they shouldn't be.

Difference's of opinion are the very essence of debate. In a free society, people are free to hold, and express contradictory opinions, if not it's not a free society.

In my experience holding loathsome opinions tends to exact a high price from those who insist on making them public (or not). 

With regard to Mr Inu, I'm not surprised that he believes his friend is not guilty. He grew up with him. I imagine, most criminals have family members or friends who find it difficult to believe that they have committed such heinous crimes.

I had a very interesting conversation one day with a boxing fan in the pub who just ''knew'' Mike Tyson, didn't rape Desiree Washington.

Are Inu's comments likely to cause offence, to the victim, yes undoubtedly if she became aware of them. Was he foolish to express his opinion in so public a way? Yes I think he was, probably motivated by a misguided loyalty to his friend (who no doubt, told him his side of the story) and without the benefit of attending the court case, to hear the other side of it.

Does the world really care, what he thinks? Based on the reaction here, you'd think so, but in reality, I doubt it. In my opinion, in the grand scheme of things, deciding to believe your mate over someone you've never met isn't a grievous sin and I'd suggest a pretty common error of judgement. Was he thoughtless, and inconsiderate, to make his beliefs public, yes of course but I think it might even be possible, we (the media) have done more to bring it to the poor victims attention, than he might ever have achieved on his own.

So what should we do about it? 

Will getting together on a web forum, such as this and organising a collective hissy-fit achieve anything? Not on your Nelly.

Should we organise a posse, and round him up and run him out of town? No, I don't think we should. That's the kind of thing the vigilante Ku Klux Klan are famous for.

Should we force him into some holier than thou' ''re-education'' programme? No we definitely should not. I would bet there's a lobby taking place as we speak, to persuade the government that Nationwide re-education programmes should be introduced to stamp out offensive speech. (That's how fortunes are made, from tax-payers money). Like the war on drugs, which cost a fortune and achieve nothing. Watch this space.

Can Salford (his employers) decide to punish him (by ostracising him, temporarily) yes, it seems so, although I don't know the terms of his contract in this regard.

In general, I'm for the rule of law (unless I believe a particular law is unjust, then I'm agin it), so I think these things are best left to the legal machinery, covering this area of public life.

My personal opinion is that Mr Inu has made an embarrassing error of judgement. Is he a moral degenerate? No I don't think so. Will punishing him severely, achieve anything? Not a lot. Am I a scoundrel? You decide. 

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

In general, I would like to see people treat each other better, that's true. How to achieve that? Well it's complicated.

On the spectrum, I'm close to the free speech end of what I think should be allowable public conduct. I like the idea that ''I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death, your right to say it.''

Will some people be upset, yes I suppose so, but they shouldn't be.

Difference's of opinion are the very essence of debate. In a free society, people are free to hold, and express contradictory opinions, if not it's not a free society.

In my experience holding loathsome opinions tends to exact a high price from those who insist on making them public (or not). 

With regard to Mr Inu, I'm not surprised that he believes his friend is not guilty. He grew up with him. I imagine, most criminals have family members or friends who find it difficult to believe that they have committed such heinous crimes.

I had a very interesting conversation one day with a boxing fan in the pub who just ''knew'' Mike Tyson, didn't rape Desiree Washington.

Are Inu's comments likely to cause offence, to the victim, yes undoubtedly if she became aware of them. Was he foolish to express his opinion in so public a way? Yes I think he was, probably motivated by a misguided loyalty to his friend (who no doubt, told him his side of the story) and without the benefit of attending the court case, to hear the other side of it.

Does the world really care, what he thinks? Based on the reaction here, you'd think so, but in reality, I doubt it. In my opinion, in the grand scheme of things, deciding to believe your mate over someone you've never met isn't a grievous sin and I'd suggest a pretty common error of judgement. Was he thoughtless, and inconsiderate, to make his beliefs public, yes of course but I think it might even be possible, we (the media) have done more to bring it to the poor victims attention, than he might ever have achieved on his own.

So what should we do about it? 

Will getting together on a web forum, such as this and organising a collective hissy-fit achieve anything? Not on your Nelly.

Should we organise a posse, and round him up and run him out of town? No, I don't think we should. That's the kind of thing the vigilante Ku Klux Klan are famous for.

Should we force him into some holier than thou' ''re-education'' programme? No we definitely should not. I would bet there's a lobby taking place as we speak, to persuade the government that Nationwide re-education programmes should be introduced to stamp out offensive speech. (That's how fortunes are made, from tax-payers money). Like the war on drugs, which cost a fortune and achieve nothing. Watch this space.

Can Salford (his employers) decide to punish him (by ostracising him, temporarily) yes, it seems so, although I don't know the terms of his contract in this regard.

In general, I'm for the rule of law (unless I believe a particular law is unjust, then I'm agin it), so I think these things are best left to the legal machinery, covering this area of public life.

My personal opinion is that Mr Inu has made an embarrassing error of judgement. Is he a moral degenerate? No I don't think so. Will punishing him severely, achieve anything? Not a lot. Am I a scoundrel? You decide. 

I will digest and reply tomorrow if that is OK.

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Firstly, there were national adverts. That website is telling you about them. I even heard some of them on the radio. (Should also add: all smart motorways have obvious and legally binding signage that tells you that variable speed limits apply. Anyone who has passed their test should understand them.)

Secondly, and I don't know if this applies to you, if you've voted Tory at any point in the past 11 years then you've voted for a party (and thus a government) that has put in its manifesto and then enacted the cutting back virtually all Public Service Announcement adverts in the name of personal responsibility.

Well Ginge' if there were national adverts, they didn't penetrate my consciousness.

Also, I didn't read more than a couple of words of that website, even after you showed me it. Get a life!

I should add, that not all smart motorways have obvious and (WTF does legally binding signage mean?) legally binding signage. I presume you mean they state that the variable speed limits are compulsory and not advisory? Well they don't say that mate. 

With regard to your second paragraph, you were right. You don't know if it applies to me. I don't understand the point you are trying to make though? Are you saying that if I voted Tory, its my fault they cut the budget for public service announcements? What if I didn't vote Tory?

By the way, they either cut the budget or they didn't. Make your mind up. If they cut the budget, it's not surprising the ''national adverts'' you say they ran, didn't penetrate my consciousness is it?  

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Are you saying that if I voted Tory, its my fault they cut the budget for public service announcements? What if I didn't vote Tory?

Well, yes, because they did a thing they said they were going to do and your vote played a part in helping that. If you didn't and you didn't know about the cut then it explains why there are fewer adverts. Either way, ultimately, there have been information campaigns by the government even if they weren't very good.

As regards legally binding signage - this will be something you'll remember from having paid attention during your test. Advisory signs versus signs you have to obey. Big red circle with a number in it? That's something you have to follow whether it's illuminated on a gantry or fixed in position. It will have been preceded by several information signs telling you that variable speed limits apply and several more showing that speed cameras are (or may be - they're not always switched on, as you know) in use.

[Dunbar]

20 hours ago, fighting irish said:

In general, I would like to see people treat each other better, that's true. How to achieve that? Well it's complicated.

On the spectrum, I'm close to the free speech end of what I think should be allowable public conduct. I like the idea that ''I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death, your right to say it.''

Will some people be upset, yes I suppose so, but they shouldn't be.

Difference's of opinion are the very essence of debate. In a free society, people are free to hold, and express contradictory opinions, if not it's not a free society.

In my experience holding loathsome opinions tends to exact a high price from those who insist on making them public (or not). 

With regard to Mr Inu, I'm not surprised that he believes his friend is not guilty. He grew up with him. I imagine, most criminals have family members or friends who find it difficult to believe that they have committed such heinous crimes.

I had a very interesting conversation one day with a boxing fan in the pub who just ''knew'' Mike Tyson, didn't rape Desiree Washington.

Are Inu's comments likely to cause offence, to the victim, yes undoubtedly if she became aware of them. Was he foolish to express his opinion in so public a way? Yes I think he was, probably motivated by a misguided loyalty to his friend (who no doubt, told him his side of the story) and without the benefit of attending the court case, to hear the other side of it.

Does the world really care, what he thinks? Based on the reaction here, you'd think so, but in reality, I doubt it. In my opinion, in the grand scheme of things, deciding to believe your mate over someone you've never met isn't a grievous sin and I'd suggest a pretty common error of judgement. Was he thoughtless, and inconsiderate, to make his beliefs public, yes of course but I think it might even be possible, we (the media) have done more to bring it to the poor victims attention, than he might ever have achieved on his own.

So what should we do about it? 

Will getting together on a web forum, such as this and organising a collective hissy-fit achieve anything? Not on your Nelly.

Should we organise a posse, and round him up and run him out of town? No, I don't think we should. That's the kind of thing the vigilante Ku Klux Klan are famous for.

Should we force him into some holier than thou' ''re-education'' programme? No we definitely should not. I would bet there's a lobby taking place as we speak, to persuade the government that Nationwide re-education programmes should be introduced to stamp out offensive speech. (That's how fortunes are made, from tax-payers money). Like the war on drugs, which cost a fortune and achieve nothing. Watch this space.

Can Salford (his employers) decide to punish him (by ostracising him, temporarily) yes, it seems so, although I don't know the terms of his contract in this regard.

In general, I'm for the rule of law (unless I believe a particular law is unjust, then I'm agin it), so I think these things are best left to the legal machinery, covering this area of public life.

My personal opinion is that Mr Inu has made an embarrassing error of judgement. Is he a moral degenerate? No I don't think so. Will punishing him severely, achieve anything? Not a lot. Am I a scoundrel? You decide. 

Once again, I don't think we are not a million miles apart on the need for society in general to behave in a more civil way.  I do however disagree with some of the fundamentals that you base your thinking on and therefore the conclusions.

Firstly on the concept of free speech.  I am 100% with you that free speech is a critical freedom that we must preserve.  But here lies a lot of the misconceptions (either deliberate or not).  Free speech has never been greater in this country, not only are people allowed to express themselves freely, there have also never been greater tools for society at large to express their opinions.  If there is one thing that social media has done it has given people an opportunity to voice their opinions - warts and all.  This is why there is a feeling that the country is becoming more divided.  I don't think it is, it is just that the devisive opinions (on all sides of the political spectrum) have a louder voice due to social media and so they are amplified exponentially.

But this freedom of expression will always meet head on with the tolerances of a civilized society.  Whether Inu was a friend of Hayne or not, he has taken to a public platform to denigrate and abuse the victim of a convicted rapist.  That is his free speech.  The civilized society in which he lives has seen that and decided that it is not acceptable.  In this case, his employers.  I would have done exactly the same in Salford's position because as a business and a group of people they have values that they want to project and protect.  That is their prerogative as much as it is Inu's prerogative to post on his social media accounts.  If Inu doesn't believe in or doesn't want to adhere to the values that Salford state then he can simply leave and continue to post whatever he wants.  His freedoms are not being taken away, he is simply being told that the values of the group he belongs to have a higher level of expectations.

The second difference is that of education.  I know that you prefer to use the phrase 're-education' because it has more sinister undertones but it is simply education.  And with very very few exceptions (and this isn't one of them) education is never a bad thing.  In fact, education is the bedrock in which civilized societies grow and evolve.  Otherwise we would still be in the dark ages.

Along with with the statement of values, Salford are looking to support Inu with providing him insight with education, not punishing him.  As with point 1, Inu is not being forced to do anything.  He could simply say no and walk away from Salford.

I guess our difference of opinion is this.  We both would like to see behaviour improve in this world of social media.  I personally feel that, in the case of Inu, Salford publicly stating the values of their club and supporting Inu in this regard is a positive thing and all positive changes (however small) roll up into overall improvements in the world in which we live.  And of course, one less person blaming a victim of rape is always going to be a good thing.

[fighting irish]

On 11/06/2021 at 11:00, Dunbar said:

Once again, I don't think we are not a million miles apart on the need for society in general to behave in a more civil way.  I do however disagree with some of the fundamentals that you base your thinking on and therefore the conclusions.

Firstly on the concept of free speech.  I am 100% with you that free speech is a critical freedom that we must preserve.  But here lies a lot of the misconceptions (either deliberate or not).  Free speech has never been greater in this country, not only are people allowed to express themselves freely, there have also never been greater tools for society at large to express their opinions.  If there is one thing that social media has done it has given people an opportunity to voice their opinions - warts and all.  This is why there is a feeling that the country is becoming more divided.  I don't think it is, it is just that the devisive opinions (on all sides of the political spectrum) have a louder voice due to social media and so they are amplified exponentially.

But this freedom of expression will always meet head on with the tolerances of a civilized society.  Whether Inu was a friend of Hayne or not, he has taken to a public platform to denigrate and abuse the victim of a convicted rapist.  That is his free speech.  The civilized society in which he lives has seen that and decided that it is not acceptable.  In this case, his employers.  I would have done exactly the same in Salford's position because as a business and a group of people they have values that they want to project and protect.  That is their prerogative as much as it is Inu's prerogative to post on his social media accounts.  If Inu doesn't believe in or doesn't want to adhere to the values that Salford state then he can simply leave and continue to post whatever he wants.  His freedoms are not being taken away, he is simply being told that the values of the group he belongs to have a higher level of expectations.

The second difference is that of education.  I know that you prefer to use the phrase 're-education' because it has more sinister undertones but it is simply education.  And with very very few exceptions (and this isn't one of them) education is never a bad thing.  In fact, education is the bedrock in which civilized societies grow and evolve.  Otherwise we would still be in the dark ages.

Along with with the statement of values, Salford are looking to support Inu with providing him insight with education, not punishing him.  As with point 1, Inu is not being forced to do anything.  He could simply say no and walk away from Salford.

I guess our difference of opinion is this.  We both would like to see behaviour improve in this world of social media.  I personally feel that, in the case of Inu, Salford publicly stating the values of their club and supporting Inu in this regard is a positive thing and all positive changes (however small) roll up into overall improvements in the world in which we live.  And of course, one less person blaming a victim of rape is always going to be a good thing.

You state that you disagree, with some of the fundamentals I base my arguments on and hence my conclusions but you didn't specify the fundamentals?

You say rightly, that people now have far more powerful tools to express their views to the world but you then go on to claim that free speech has never been greater. This is simply not true. It's one thing to allow someone to use a megaphone (to extend their reach) but if they are (or could be) monitored by the thought police, the censors, the religious fanatics (or any other, easily offended special interest group) and accused, brought to trial and convicted of a ''hate crime'' then the provision of a megaphone, is merely an illusion of free speech. The rise, of the concept of ''hate crime'' with regard to what people say, rather than what they do, is a (relatively new) constraint on free speech. So it's not true to say that the right of free speech has never been greater.

Incidentally, you make reference to the fact that Inu was a friend of Haynes (because I'd mentioned it) but I want to make it clear, to you that I did not say that that in any way justified his disparaging comments towards Haynes victim. I was merely reminding us both of the context in which Inu formed his opinions.

Salford, adhering to a list of values, is an expression of their freedom and requiring their employees to comply with their value system is their prerogative and I fully support their right to do that. Inu's choice to remain (under these constraints) is a matter for him to ruminate and decide upon, so we are in broad agreement here.

My use of the term re-education as opposed to education is not motivated by any secret agenda. If you want to be pedantic (or want me to be) then education is the appropriate term if someone lacks knowledge, so their existing knowledge base is supplemented, whereas re-education might be applied if someone attended the lessons but didn't learn them, or has clearly and willfully chosen to ignore them.

I've attended a good deal of education myself and almost without exception, enjoyed and benefitted from it immensely. Perhaps Inu will agree, I don't know, nor care much, what he thinks. For the record, my opposition to ''re-education'' is when it is forced, (usually by government backed agencies) or co-erced by threats of physical punishment, ostracism, banishment, or harsh financial penalties, imposed upon the victim or his family, and other loved ones.

Now what's happening to Inu, is not this (above). My earlier comments were an expression of my own concern, that the common use of the term ''re-education'' ( or its subtly disguised, sugary sweet substitute ''education'') and more particularly, the increased use of the imposition of involuntary ''education'' opens the door, to the more extreme examples quoted in the previous paragraph.

Many young people, have no idea that society moves (either towards greater individual freedom, or away) and are insensitive to these shifts. I feel, it's the responsibility of those who have lived in different times, to sound the warning, when the movement away (even subtly) becomes evident.

Now I was hurt by your last paragraph, where you sum up, the difference (you perceive) in our opinions. You state some reasonably ''good'' things and without saying so, imply that I disagree with them. You bug ger! 

Of course, Salford upholding some value system is an admirable pursuit. Of course small improvements are better than none.

If we differ, in this regard I'd say it's about the ''price'' we would have to pay as a society when we attempt to keep a watchful eye on everyone's utterances and by the threat of ostracism, exclusion, re-education, or any other manifestation of the good old fashioned witch hunt, come to believe we can micro-manage everyone's behaviour. 

[The Rocket]

On 11/06/2021 at 00:11, Dunbar said:

I was just talking about this report to my wife this lunchtime.  Our little girl is going to be 8 in two months and she is just wakening up to the world of social media (through comments on YouTube Kids videos and the chat features on games like Minecraft and Roblox).  We were discussing what we should do when she wants a phone or an Instagram account etc.  Should we protect her by not exposing her to social media (and risk her being alienated at school cause all the kids have them) or provide access and help her by supporting her and teaching her what is appropriate or not.

The report is scary in how it details the pressure that young girls are under today. Two things I know for sure.  One is that whatever we decide to do with our daughter there are going to be some bumps and heartaches along the way. And two, having any grown man post on social media to his followers about a 'so called' rape victim is not helping one bit.

Not sure whether this will be of any use to you, but we have three children, 21, 20,and 19 now, my daughters the middle one, and we didn`t allow our children to have phones or facebook or any of those things up to about the age of 16. Rather than being left out, I think their peers actually respected them and understood that their study always came first. Another point was my children then made friends who had perhaps similar values or at least understood the stance they were forced to take. Any children who would judged our kids probably weren`t worth knowing anyway.

I don`t think they were overly left out of social events but certainly probably didn`t go to everything that was on, but they did enough and by and large were just happy normal kids.

I think not having social media from a young age also meant that when it came to the critical years of study, our HSC, ~18 years of age, they were all happy to put their phones aside and concentrate on their study. My youngest two were top 5% in the state and my eldest top 10%. (two chemical Engineering students and a med student, sorry I`m very proud). They pride they got in their results all through school and then getting into the best universities I would think that all of them would say it was worth it now. 

The point I`m trying to make that by not having access to social media and phones has made them stronger, they all have them now, they are away studying, but I think although they have them, they are not in thrall to them and understand the superficiality of much of social media.

 You probably notice I say ' I think " a lot, because one can never be absolutely certain we are doing the right thing, especially when it comes to your children. But seeing the stage that you are now at with your child I just thought I could tell you there are other ways. 

[The Rocket]

On 10/06/2021 at 08:02, andyscoot said:

Statistics show that 100% of people who bring up Orwell and 1984 have never read it.

Doubleplusgood.

I`ve read that book at least a half dozen times since I was 17, the last time a couple of years ago when its` message and observations never seemed more apt.

That book and Aldous Huxley`s, Brave New World,* probably my favourite read, should be compulsory reading, there`s a controversial term on this thread, maybe strongly recommended, for anyone with an interest in the direction the world is heading.

* "Oh brave new world that has such people in it." is a line never far from my mind whenever I have to venture out into public or even watch tv.

[Barley Mow]

4 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Doubleplusgood.

I`ve read that book at least a half dozen times since I was 17, the last time a couple of years ago when its` message and observations never seemed more apt.

That book and Aldous Huxley`s, Brave New World,* probably my favourite read, should be compulsory reading, there`s a controversial term on this thread, maybe strongly recommended, for anyone with an interest in the direction the world is heading.

* "Oh brave new world that has such people in it." is a line never far from my mind whenever I have to venture out into public or even watch tv.

Compulsory reading? That's a bit Orwellian isn't it!?