F1 drivers banned from making ‘political statements’ without permission
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
That being said, it really sucks the hypocrisy of sport business now, world cup, F1, Olympics, they are all claiming that sport help all the world to gather in peace and being good to humanity, when in reality it is like everyone shut up to our dictature to ensure we can make the most possible money by having the smoothest contradiction possible.
If it would help them get more money from advisers, they would not care having someone executing in backstage...
Like, for example, a NDA or contract can't allow you to hire someone as a slave. Even if the contract would say so.
Company to company contracts are different still.
Now that it is trying to expand into the States, such one sided speech becomes an issue. Similar to how nascar had been tolerating the stars and bars until it becomes too controversial. ( then of course there is china, who is not a fan of any political statements neither )
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.
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?
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.
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.
Writing structure set up was a false dichotomic structure coupled with several of the more subtle tactics that play on psychological blind spots which are in common practice by propaganda writers and salespeople alike.
Its not my first rodeo, it is possible to say you are advocating for one thing, while actually advocating for another. Tone, tactics, and time spent can communicate a radically different intention than the words spoken.
The majority of your writing was spent on F1 in a structure that builds agreement (psychological blindspot), followed by the problems those pesky things like freedom of speech cause.
Once you get them to agree, psychological blind spot number 2 comes in, they've agreed to it so will defend that belief to maintain consistency. Same principle to what they did to PoWs in China back in Vietnam, and how they got American prisoners to inform on other prisoners, using forced essay writing.
Its the equivalent of saying I agree (briefly and disingenuously), and then proceeding to line up several simple agreements to obvious yes questions in a row, before the final stick at the opposite while crafted in a way that sounds plausible, just like a used car salesman.
If they don't question it immediately, you get them and they'll behave consistent with the principle and be more receptive to other things you say. Only in this case what are you selling?
Very subtle and clever for anyone that doesn't know about them but its really manipulative and downright evil to use them for something like that.
Those blindspots are very well known, Cialdini released a book which documented the most common ones, and covered other related areas that even people at the CIA have recognized.
If you were blindsided by this response, you should read the book so you can alter your writing style so you don't get blindsided like that again in the future.
Anything using those blindspots that causes or supports an outcome that reduces agency or causing disruption or disunity is going to receive the same kind of condemnation.
They are known hallmarks of subversive propaganda.
You're heavily implying that I have malicious intent and am deliberately deceiving everyone here with rhetorical tricks to convince them that F1 drivers should surrender their free speech in this or similar situations. To what end?
I don't doubt that these techniques you're detailing are an actual thing, but you seem really, really fixated on this and you are reading way too far into my intentions here. Way too far.
I don't think there's going to be any convincing you of my intentions, so this is where I get off from this conversation. Judging by your posting history within the last 9 hours, you've got a big "propaganda/psychological manipulation/evil" hammer and there are a whole lot of "nails" out there in the world that need hammering. By you.
Best of luck in your endeavors. You seem earnest, but misguided.
No, I'm saying the way you communicated implies malicious intent. How you do something is sometimes more important than what you do. I'm giving you the chance to not make the same mistake.
Pay attention, and notice the significant difference in the wording, they don't mean the same thing. What I said is changeable and can be easily discarded as a mistake, what you said is unchangeable, and shuts down a conversation. Who said what and why?
As I said before, if you didn't want that kind of response, you should identify what caused that and change it. It was pretty easy in this case as I told you exactly the characteristics that I took issue with.
Also that is what any reasonable person who was mistaken or didn't know would want, to be told so they could change future outcomes and increase their agency and options in future engagements.
Its pretty obvious so I hate having to say this.. delicately, if you were so certain I was certain of your intentions, why would I give you any information so you could be better, or potentially do worse depending on your perspective. Its pretty clear I'm not a dumb or irrational person. I'm methodical, evidence oriented and hedge my risk.
That pokes a huge hole in that logic of yours.
The only possible reason is I erred on the side that you were being genuine and didn't know. You should lighten up.
As a mature adult, I'm sure you would agree that it is important to call out bad behavior when one sees it especially when it looks intentional and has impact on you. You had 4 strikes in that post going against you. You'll have to read the book to find the other strikes I didn't detail out.
If you don't say something, you can't expect a real change in behavior unless an Anaconda suddenly eats someone near you, which unfortunately happens sometimes in certain places, and living in fear of being eaten is not living.
> nails that need hammering ... by you.
I don't relish being a hammer, there are a whole lot of reasons why it looks that way. If more people were standup honest people, educated at recognizing subversive propaganda and not tolerating it, and less bots pushing subversive narratives and philosophies, and less ignorant people mixed in with the group trying to corrupt and subvert and then start parroting them. I wouldn't have to call out bad behavior as much.
Its not something I enjoy, its compelled by survival instinct because I know more than most what the real stakes are.
Unfortunately, there's an infestation problem on social media, and lack of education has a lot of chatter pushing narratives and philosophy that has historically and provably caused deaths with no aim or understanding of the downsides.
Unlike some people who don't react at all, I take the threat seriously especially when its in my proverbial backyard and I take a measured approach.
Paying attention and having the education and experience to act is the difference between surviving and becoming a victim of circumstance.
As I'm uncertain of your intentions I can't in good conscience wish you luck. I will choose to hope you aren't naive and misguided, or worse.
Those techniques and other active measures are used more than you apparently seem to know, or are willing to admit.
Whichever it may be, I remain terribly uncertain, but I hedge my risks and luckily what I've provided wouldn't provide much of any benefit to someone being malevolent as they would already be familiar with the material, while at the same time it would be quite valuable to someone who doesn't know, as it would aid in developing a discerning eye for classification of material that should be discarded as misinformation and propaganda, and isn't generally covered in school.
Until social media is regulated, disposable accounts pushing the many to one subversion and corruption narratives will be the norm because its cheap means to silence voice, which is intimately linked to agency.
“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.
McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown commented, “These drivers can do this stuff in their own time, so I think it is within Formula 1 and the FIA’s right to say ‘here’s the code of conduct we expect for you to follow during a grand prix weekend. You’re free to do whatever you want to do Monday through to Friday’, so to speak, but obviously it’s at a grand prix weekend the drivers have the most cameras on them."
[1] https://www.planetf1.com/news/zak-brown-backs-fia-political-...
If flags and anthems are offensive to you, I don’t know what to tell you.