4 ms·

I don't know but I suspect that it's both. It can be challenging to distinguish an athlete's personal beliefs and actions from their professional reputation in

I don't know but I suspect that it's both. It can be challenging to distinguish an athlete's personal beliefs and actions from their professional reputation in their sport. Many athletes become famous due to their athletic abilities, and as a result, whatever they say or do may be closely associated with their sport. I believe that sports have the unique ability to unite people from different backgrounds and beliefs, without requiring them to compromise their values. While it may be tempting for athletes to use their platform to advocate for their causes, doing so will mostly divide rather than unite people. In my opinion, the decision to ban political activism in sports makes sense because it promotes unity and avoids creating further divides. Ultimately, if we can't unite on anything, we start to break apart. History tells us that the most common way is through violence. We need to find ways for unity. Sports can be a perfect way to do it but it won't be possible if everyone begins to bring in their political views.

Slow_Hand 4y ago
While I agree with your observation that sports have the ability to unite people, regulating the speech of its athletes seems like the wrong move. It should be on the driver to make a judgement around whether the potential discord and fallout of their statements are worth it. At the same time, I think there is an interesting problem that does need to be addressed if you're in charge of an F1 team. An F1 team is a massive organization consisting of dozens if not hundreds of people who work to support the driver. Because the driver is the focal point for the team it means that any personal actions by the driver (such as bad behavior or acting in a way that causes outsized controversy) has the potential to jeopardize the entire organization that supports them. If the driver scares away sponsors due to their personal politics it can harm the entire operation and therefore the livelihoods of those people who support the driver. In this sense the driver has an outsized responsibility to look out for the well-being of their team. In this way the structure appears to be fragile and susceptible to the whims of the drivers. It feels vulnerable, so I also understand why F1 might try to restrict the speech of their drivers. That said, I don't know a whole lot about F1 teams. If a driver needs to be replaced (say, due to an injury), are F1 teams usually prepared with a second or third-pick driver who can complete the races for the team? Or is it all on the shoulders of the single driver?
- than3 4y ago
  This is a cleverly framed false dichotomy akin to cancel culture only with the added twist of compulsion of speech. There's no debate here, its wrong, you strip voice, and that strips agency. There's nothing good about this, no compromise can be had here, no debate to be won. That philosophy is quite real, has been tried before many times, and is plain evil. It has led to millions of deaths in the past. That is what you are advocating by supporting it or sitting on the sidelines doing nothing. The world has become a worse place because of cancel culture, and now you are advocating for something worse than that... Seriously, that's horrible and wrong, what are you doing? What kind of person does that? This philosophy taken to its logical conclusion ends in only one outcome, collapse, and a lot of collateral damage and death along the way, without any agency to correct the ship. You're basically signing up to be on a runaway train that someone's set up to go over the cliff but you can't see the cliff just yet, and worse its not just you, its your family as well because they followed, learned from, and supported you and are on that train too. Such mindless shortsightedness, its monstrous, or malevolent.
  - Slow_Hand 4y ago
    Whoa. Which position do you think I'm advocating for here? My first paragraph is in support of the free speech of the drivers. I think that they should have it and should not have to limit their opinions in a public space. My second paragraph highlights the potentially fragile structure of building a 100 person enterprise (an F1 team) around a key individual (the driver). If the F1 driver does something that provokes a negative public response then it can have a negative effect on the livelihoods of the team that support them. All I'm doing is thinking out loud here. I get the impression that you have a different impression of my core message or my intent. It feels like you think I'm advocating against the free speech of the drivers. I stand for the free speech of the drivers. On reflection, I could have been more clear about that point. My writing voice probably comes off as amoral. It's not about judgement one way or the other. It's about highlighting the precarious position of power that the driver occupies at the fulcrum of their team. If they mishandle their power it can have unwanted second-order effects. If they anger the sponsors with their political messaging, then the team stands to potentially lose funding and the team cannot continue. I happen to think both things are true: That the drivers should retain their freedom of speech, but that they simultaneously carry a large weight in the form of the team in which they are the key figure. Their actions WILL have large consequences for the team... as long as my conception of how F1 teams operate isn't somehow flawed. I'm still waiting for someone who knows the domain better to correct that assumption for me. It's possible that I'm totally wrong on this point and that the team is more robust than I'm suggesting.
filoeleven 4y ago
> I believe that sports have the unique ability to unite people from different backgrounds and beliefs, without requiring them to compromise their values. While it may be tempting for athletes to use their platform to advocate for their causes, doing so will mostly divide rather than unite people. “You’re being paid to dance, so dance. Nobody wants to hear what else you have to say.” If a person has been put on a pedestal because something they do brings them to the public’s attention, even with the help of some private organization, it’s their pedestal to make use of. If you’re an F1 driver with a megaphone, you get to be heard. That’s how it works right now. F1 is a private organization, so they make the rules which govern the sport, and that’s fine. The rules listed in the article appear to be limited to what drivers can do during races/events. That’s up to them. Any attempt to quash the personal speech of drivers outside of those events should be aggressively struck down. They can always remove the driver by putting out a statement: “what X said will divide rather than unite people.” The driver can choose to put their career on the line by standing up for what they believe in. This has always been the case.

Slow_Hand 4y ago

While I agree with your observation that sports have the ability to unite people, regulating the speech of its athletes seems like the wrong move. It should be on the driver to make a judgement around whether the potential discord and fallout of their statements are worth it. At the same time, I think there is an interesting problem that does need to be addressed if you're in charge of an F1 team. An F1 team is a massive organization consisting of dozens if not hundreds of people who work to support the driver. Because the driver is the focal point for the team it means that any personal actions by the driver (such as bad behavior or acting in a way that causes outsized controversy) has the potential to jeopardize the entire organization that supports them. If the driver scares away sponsors due to their personal politics it can harm the entire operation and therefore the livelihoods of those people who support the driver. In this sense the driver has an outsized responsibility to look out for the well-being of their team. In this way the structure appears to be fragile and susceptible to the whims of the drivers. It feels vulnerable, so I also understand why F1 might try to restrict the speech of their drivers. That said, I don't know a whole lot about F1 teams. If a driver needs to be replaced (say, due to an injury), are F1 teams usually prepared with a second or third-pick driver who can complete the races for the team? Or is it all on the shoulders of the single driver?

than3 4y ago
This is a cleverly framed false dichotomy akin to cancel culture only with the added twist of compulsion of speech. There's no debate here, its wrong, you strip voice, and that strips agency. There's nothing good about this, no compromise can be had here, no debate to be won. That philosophy is quite real, has been tried before many times, and is plain evil. It has led to millions of deaths in the past. That is what you are advocating by supporting it or sitting on the sidelines doing nothing. The world has become a worse place because of cancel culture, and now you are advocating for something worse than that... Seriously, that's horrible and wrong, what are you doing? What kind of person does that? This philosophy taken to its logical conclusion ends in only one outcome, collapse, and a lot of collateral damage and death along the way, without any agency to correct the ship. You're basically signing up to be on a runaway train that someone's set up to go over the cliff but you can't see the cliff just yet, and worse its not just you, its your family as well because they followed, learned from, and supported you and are on that train too. Such mindless shortsightedness, its monstrous, or malevolent.
- Slow_Hand 4y ago
  Whoa. Which position do you think I'm advocating for here? My first paragraph is in support of the free speech of the drivers. I think that they should have it and should not have to limit their opinions in a public space. My second paragraph highlights the potentially fragile structure of building a 100 person enterprise (an F1 team) around a key individual (the driver). If the F1 driver does something that provokes a negative public response then it can have a negative effect on the livelihoods of the team that support them. All I'm doing is thinking out loud here. I get the impression that you have a different impression of my core message or my intent. It feels like you think I'm advocating against the free speech of the drivers. I stand for the free speech of the drivers. On reflection, I could have been more clear about that point. My writing voice probably comes off as amoral. It's not about judgement one way or the other. It's about highlighting the precarious position of power that the driver occupies at the fulcrum of their team. If they mishandle their power it can have unwanted second-order effects. If they anger the sponsors with their political messaging, then the team stands to potentially lose funding and the team cannot continue. I happen to think both things are true: That the drivers should retain their freedom of speech, but that they simultaneously carry a large weight in the form of the team in which they are the key figure. Their actions WILL have large consequences for the team... as long as my conception of how F1 teams operate isn't somehow flawed. I'm still waiting for someone who knows the domain better to correct that assumption for me. It's possible that I'm totally wrong on this point and that the team is more robust than I'm suggesting.

filoeleven 4y ago

> I believe that sports have the unique ability to unite people from different backgrounds and beliefs, without requiring them to compromise their values. While it may be tempting for athletes to use their platform to advocate for their causes, doing so will mostly divide rather than unite people. “You’re being paid to dance, so dance. Nobody wants to hear what else you have to say.” If a person has been put on a pedestal because something they do brings them to the public’s attention, even with the help of some private organization, it’s their pedestal to make use of. If you’re an F1 driver with a megaphone, you get to be heard. That’s how it works right now. F1 is a private organization, so they make the rules which govern the sport, and that’s fine. The rules listed in the article appear to be limited to what drivers can do during races/events. That’s up to them. Any attempt to quash the personal speech of drivers outside of those events should be aggressively struck down. They can always remove the driver by putting out a statement: “what X said will divide rather than unite people.” The driver can choose to put their career on the line by standing up for what they believe in. This has always been the case.