Universal Love Not Boo-ing Goodes

[Sanders]

Booing Tippett is actively encouraged.

but what about HIS feelings?

 

[Sanders]

There is a difference between standard booing in the theatre of sport, and the vicious hate-filled crap that's been directed at Goodes in recnt times.

Trying to draw a parallel between booing Tippett because he left the Crows, and the stuff that's been thrown Goodes way is missing the mark entirely.

Nobody is trying to remove booing from AFL. What they're trying to remove is the targeted, ongoing campaign of hatred that goes well beyond anything seen in our sport in recent memory.

how exactly does a boo possess those characteristics? how will you judge it? can you sensibly and reasonably define this difference? or how you will tell?

it has no verbal qualities, it doesn't deny him human or legal rights, it does not threaten him. or have you gotten so confused about the desire to hold a certain opinion, that you've lost your bearings in the conversation.

vicious hate filled crap becomes actionable the moment in spills into words and actions, not a non-verbal sound.

 

[Sanders]

what really gets on my goat, other than the facile under-developed arguments of the right on police is this:

don't boo him, because some people will be doing it for racial reasons. this is undoubtedly true, but its asinine in the extreme in terms of motivation.

lots of legitimate debate coincides with, or is hijacked by subversive minorities, leading to dim witted reactionaries going just as hard the other way; but does that mean all legitimate debate should be stymied?

should there be no debate on immigration, because some people hold racist views?
should there be no debate on religious extremism because some people hold extreme views?
should there be no debate on feminism because some people hold sexist views?

on that last point, should no one criticise Bronwyn Bishop because some people doing so, do so with sexist intent?

this is all so insultingly stupid.

 

[ManInTheArena]

he's a douchebag, but booing with hatred? c'mon, what about this forces people to fill in their gaps with fallacious silly putty?

What are people "booing with" then? We can rule out fun and banter, so what?

besides its booing, he's not ghandi, mandela or even Winmar. they're not burning crosses in his yard, denying him a mortgage or a job, threatening or inflicting violence, denying a promotion or any form of legal rights. they're not shouting anything personal, or hateful (that is criminal) they're just booing him like thousands of players before. lousy booing. he's just being booed whilst playing national sport. big ******* deal. that's nothing for a revolutionary commited to a cause. I mean c'mon, get a sense of perspective.

I'm not suggesting he's a revolutionist. I don't agree with the methods he's chosen to get his points across and I don't agree with some of his points. I think that's irrelevant. What's relevant is the appropriateness of the booing in the circumstances.

It's not like thousands of players before, this is a bunch of people persistently vilifying through booing in a way that we haven't seen before. You don't have to call it hatred for you personally if that's too strong of a word for you but I wouldn't rule that out for others who are booing, because I think it is hatred if you read social media comments and assume they're some of the same people booing. Regardless it is something deeper than general booing at the football. I think to argue any different would be difficult.

when he was inciting the opposition recently, doing war dances, and throwing imaginary spears, in the name of the cause no doubt, was he worried about the booing, the hurt feelings? what's changed? I speculate as his career is virtually over, he's started thinking about legacy.

I think he could have done the imaginary spear much better and I think some of the ways he's gone about his cause has unessissarily polarised society which isn't the best way forward, hence saying that I don't think his methods have been well selected.

I think he's used his Australian of the Year status as a platform for a cause but delivered his message poorly.

anyway its just barracking and its an irrelevancy.

My point is it's not just barracking and I think you'd be intellectually dishonest if you said it were.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Look for those who are longterm on this board know i never post about anything other than the next footy game .....i come here to talk footy, not politics, not weather, not Phil Walshes murder

However what is being discussed re Adam Goodes is what's so wrong about current society by the politically correct who take the moral high ground ........it gives me the irits

So when i read this today ......it echo's my thoughts to a tee ....so have a read

Put simply "i go to the football to watch a game NOT to have the game hijacked for ANY POLITICAL STATEMENT ON ANY SUBJECT BY ANY INDIVIDUAL ......where does that stop .....

http://www.news.com.au/national/the-goodes-the-bad-and-the-ugly/story-e6frfkp9-1227460762592

The Goodes, the bad and the ugly

• 16 minutes ago July 29, 2015 5:59AM

Some commentators believe that if you disagree with Adam Goodes’ methods in advancing race relations ‘then you are racist.

THE reaction to the booing of Adam Goodes has been nothing short of histrionic and breathtakingly dense.

It takes a special brand of weapons-grade stupidity to condemn footy crowds as racist for jeering a player who happens to be Aboriginal.

But that is precisely what has happened, with some media commentators displaying a level of imbecility that leaves you wondering how they dress themselves in the morning.

There are 71 Aboriginal players in the AFL; only one is routinely booed and it has nothing to do with the colour of his skin.
Turns out football supporters don’t appreciate being falsely labelled racists.
Eager to portray any criticism of Goodes as racist, some have ignored the reality of why Goodes polarises and antagonises, and it’s not just about staging for free kicks or being a “sook”.

It would be wonderful if the dual Brownlow medallist could retire to a standing ovation and thunderous applause on Grand Final day, whether he is playing or doing a lap of honour. It’s certainly what Goodes deserves after an outstanding playing career.

 

[Dandy_GO]

Gee sorry we're trying to limit your freedom to boo whoever you like whenever you like in a specific instance where there are racial issues arising that are upsetting a large number (and it IS a large number) of a specific group of people who have been persecuted along racial lines for hundreds of years and are still hugely disadvantaged by whatever metric you choose to look at. What a ******* traumatic episode this must be for you. How the hell can we claim to have freedom of speech when we can't even boo an aboriginal man who has mysteriously become a "w***er" at the exact time his campaigning against the persecution of his people became very public (but supposedly for reasons not related to this that are definitely not racist!)

It's so much more important to you that your life, and the lives of those like you, aren't affected in any way, than actually attempting to understand (let alone engage with) the larger issues present in society. Fingers in ears, megaphone ready. You can't even bring yourself to think about the issue in its wider context because you're too busy worrying about your own backyard.

It's pathetic, antiquated thinking.

 

[STrAng3C1oUdZ]

Would it be considered racist if the crowd chanted "Goodes is a W+Anchor" instead of booing him?

 

[Cap]

Gee sorry we're trying to limit your freedom to boo whoever you like whenever you like in a specific instance where there are racial issues arising that are upsetting a large number (and it IS a large number) of a specific group of people who have been persecuted along racial lines for hundreds of years and are still hugely disadvantaged by whatever metric you choose to look at. What a ******* traumatic episode this must be for you. How the hell can we claim to have freedom of speech when we can't even boo an aboriginal man who has mysteriously become a "******" at the exact time his campaigning against the persecution of his people became very public (but supposedly for reasons not related to this that are definitely not racist!)

It's so much more important to you that your life, and the lives of those like you, aren't affected in any way, than actually attempting to understand (let alone engage with) the larger issues present in society. Fingers in ears, megaphone ready. You can't even bring yourself to think about the issue in its wider context because you're too busy worrying about your own backyard.

It's pathetic, antiquated thinking.

you should be concerned with any attempt to limit free speech.

Even if you don't agree with whats being said.

 

[Mego Red]

The AFL didn't vilify him. No matter how its spun the AFL did nothing wrong. They also go to great lengths to ban racists from the crowd. Plus its an opinion it was racist of nature and their actually no matter how many experts say its racist proves the crowd had racist intentions. Did they call him derogatory names associated with said race? One guy did and he got asked to leave the game. I think its a real stretch to suggest he can sue the game over this.

If he succeeds in any action the AFL will have no choice but to ban all banter from games full stop. So crowds can come to games but no talking. Golf claps as not to disturb the players. How much abuse do umpires get and Adam Goodes is worried about a few boos. The Umpires must be thinking Adams a little soft. Especially since I have heard and read death threats for umpires, derogatory memes on facebook etc. Seriously people. Get a grip.

I think you misunderstand the law.

If I work for coca cola and I'm sexually harassed in my workplace, the action I take against Coke is not because THEY were the ones that sexually harassed me. It would because of an unsafe work environment or an unwillingness/inability to take swift action against those who have done the harassment.

And both posters said - there is zero chance a racial vilification case WOULD happen. But the question was whether it COULD.

 

[Mego Red]

what really gets on my goat, other than the facile under-developed arguments of the right on police is this:

don't boo him, because some people will be doing it for racial reasons. this is undoubtedly true, but its asinine in the extreme in terms of motivation.

lots of legitimate debate coincides with, or is hijacked by subversive minorities, leading to dim witted reactionaries going just as hard the other way; but does that mean all legitimate debate should be stymied?

should there be no debate on immigration, because some people hold racist views?
should there be no debate on religious extremism because some people hold extreme views?
should there be no debate on feminism because some people hold sexist views?

on that last point, should no one criticise Bronwyn Bishop because some people doing so, do so with sexist intent?

this is all so insultingly stupid.

I think that's a very reasonable view, and one I share.

But to discuss things, you need to stand on some kind of common ground.

No one has ever changed their mind by being shouted at.

I think people's difficulty around truly discussing questions of race and their own prejudices has been illuminated by Goodes. The overwhelming hostility shown him because he used the phrase Invasion Day, or pointed out that racism begins with how we raise our children - that hostility shows that this is a difficult issue for many to approach with an open mind.

Personally, I wish he had discussed some issues differently because he would have had a wider positive impact. But I'm not going to boo the man for his statements and beliefs, FFS.

 

[Mego Red]

you should be concerned with any attempt to limit free speech.

Even if you don't agree with whats being said.

No.

Free speech is not a place to hide hate and harassment and prejudice.

Booing is not free speech.

 

[Dandy_GO]

you should be concerned with any attempt to limit free speech.

Even if you don't agree with whats being said.

See this gets said a lot, and it's uniformly by people who don't understand what free speech is, and the actually damaging limits that have been/could be placed on it.

Some of the measures within the Trans-Pacific Partnership that have leaked, for instance, represent a potentially huge hit to your freedom of expression. Far, far, FAR more than anything that will EVER arise from the Goodes issue.

There's a pretty ******* obvious difference between societal pressure against booing Adam Goodes that may result in you feeling embarrassed that someone called you racist, and corporations gaining the right to sue you if you speak negatively (even if you're 100% correct) online about their product or governments being able to use executive powers to detain you for protesting certain policies.

 

[noddy]

what really gets on my goat, other than the facile under-developed arguments of the right on police is this:

don't boo him, because some people will be doing it for racial reasons. this is undoubtedly true, but its asinine in the extreme in terms of motivation.

lots of legitimate debate coincides with, or is hijacked by subversive minorities, leading to dim witted reactionaries going just as hard the other way; but does that mean all legitimate debate should be stymied?

should there be no debate on immigration, because some people hold racist views?
should there be no debate on religious extremism because some people hold extreme views?
should there be no debate on feminism because some people hold sexist views?

on that last point, should no one criticise Bronwyn Bishop because some people doing so, do so with sexist intent?

this is all so insultingly stupid.

He is a man playing footy with the constant booing going through his head every time he goes near the ball game after game, htf would you expect him to feel.

Your examples up above are childish & do you no favours what so ever.

 

[Cap]

See this gets said a lot, and it's uniformly by people who don't understand what free speech is, and the actually damaging limits that have been/could be placed on it.

Some of the measures within the Trans-Pacific Partnership that have leaked, for instance, represent a potentially huge hit to your freedom of expression. Far, far, FAR more than anything that will EVER arise from the Goodes issue.

There's a pretty ******* obvious difference between societal pressure against booing Adam Goodes that may result in you feeling embarrassed that someone called you racist, and corporations gaining the right to sue you if you speak negatively (even if you're 100% correct) online about their product or governments being able to use executive powers to detain you for protesting certain policies.

I understand what free speech is.

You just appear to patronising to be able to engage in it.

 

[jenny61_99]

In their mind they aren't booing him for a race related reason. It's for a being a douchebag reason.

Seems to me the people booing him are the douchebags. The man is not a douchebag. Would you boo him to his face? Would anyone? No, because that is not acceptable behaviour in anyone's language. Neither is doing it as part of a herd of sheep - anonymous in the crowd. Booing someone for a dirty act on field is very very different to what is happening to Goodes at the moment.

 

[jenny61_99]

That's what I'm saying.

Getting vocal on social issues isn't the reason. He's done that all along admirably and has never been booed for it. He played what, 12 years of football without anything near the level of criticism he's copped since the Collingwood girl.

So calling out a girl for a clearly racist comment aimed at him was the wrong thing to do?

 

[Simmo28]

I personally hate the idea of controlling what people do, but we need to do this for the betterment of our game. Mustn't boo a 2-time brownlow medallist and champion of our game, clearly he is being affected by it.

But I can boo a first year white rookie having played 3 games though, right? I believe the AFL will introduce rules around who you can and cannot boo soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lincsPJ]

I'm out of the loop on swans games. How many weeks has the goodes boo-ing been going for?

 

[choppychester]

Re the first bolded bit, you must be joking. That comment sums up your hypocritical once sided view on the whole situation. In your view racism is a one way street and all roads point to the White man.

Then the second bolded bit, again confirmation from you that it is not possible to offend a White man, again racism is a one way street pointing to the White man....gee what a surprise!!

And if that wasn't enough you then followed the rest of your dribble up with one of your finest pieces on this subject, the third bolded bit, I quote it's implausible for a white person in Australia to genuinely claim racial vilification"

That's the biggest load or garbage Ive heard on this matter.

Its people like you that make me vomit with comments like this. Its people like you that hijack the debate and hide behind the racist card.

I wouldn't be advertising that you would work in legal matters, your comments are truly embarrassing.

Mate I wasn't even giving opinion... that was legal fact. You just don't agree with it, that's fine but you are 100% incorrect.

I can't keep arguing with you as it's pointless if you can't comprehend an answer.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I would plead with anyone attending the game in Sydney this weekend to not boo Goodes. Even if you think he is the biggest ****** in the history of sport, do not boo.

But I'm not going to boo the man for his statements and beliefs, FFS.

I won't boo Goodes. I haven't booed him for any of his 16-year career. I've never been a fan of booing champions of the game.

I didn't even like it when our own fans booed Bernie Vince. I thought it was low-brow and in terrible taste.

But there's a world of difference between bad taste, and racism.

A world of difference.

And Goodes, Goddard or anybody in the AFL doesn't get to be the arbiter of that.

This issue is officially out of control. It's far bigger than your own freedom of speech. Goodes, and the Aboriginal community as a whole are interpreting the booing as 'racism'. It doesn't matter whether it actually is racism or not.

Ridiculous. Of course it matters.

Right there, you've just said that it doesn't matter if somebody is falsely accused of being racist.

Why are you, and some others, so comfortable with this definition of racism? You're saying that there is no accepted definition, it's all up to how the victim interprets it.

What if Goodes starts interpreting bad umpiring as racism? Do we go along with that as well?

I don't understand why you're happy to let one individual control the entire narrative for a nation in which this so called "racist" act (booing) has never, ever, not ONCE, had a historical racist precedent.

 

[choppychester]

The AFL didn't vilify him. No matter how its spun the AFL did nothing wrong. They also go to great lengths to ban racists from the crowd. Plus its an opinion it was racist of nature and their actually no matter how many experts say its racist proves the crowd had racist intentions. Did they call him derogatory names associated with said race? One guy did and he got asked to leave the game. I think its a real stretch to suggest he can sue the game over this.

If he succeeds in any action the AFL will have no choice but to ban all banter from games full stop. So crowds can come to games but no talking. Golf claps as not to disturb the players. How much abuse do umpires get and Adam Goodes is worried about a few boos. The Umpires must be thinking Adams a little soft. Especially since I have heard and read death threats for umpires, derogatory memes on facebook etc. Seriously people. Get a grip.

People seem to have basic comprehension issues. I said I didn't think he would but he could. I don't he'd do it to the game but I can certainly see a legitimate legal option if he chose to pursue.

 

[adelaidecrows]

I think you misunderstand the law.

If I work for coca cola and I'm sexually harassed in my workplace, the action I take against Coke is not because THEY were the ones that sexually harassed me. It would because of an unsafe work environment or an unwillingness/inability to take swift action against those who have done the harassment.

And both posters said - there is zero chance a racial vilification case WOULD happen. But the question was whether it COULD.

So what you are saying is every umpire can sue the game to its knees? It wont happen because although law is black and white their is also an element of expectation applied to certain things and in this case as a professional sportsman in a contact sport you can expect some sort of negativity directed your way.

 

[choppychester]

Cant be. Not allowed to boo Goodes cant boo Tippett. Whats good for one player is good for every player. Its equality after all.

The difference about 50% seem to understand and the other 50% can't grasp is one is being booed for racial reasons which makes it unacceptable.

 

[Drakescoffeecake]

What are people "booing with" then? We can rule out fun and banter, so what?

I'm not suggesting he's a revolutionist. I don't agree with the methods he's chosen to get his points across and I don't agree with some of his points.

You just answered your own question.

 

[adelaidecrows]

The difference about 50% seem to understand and the other 50% can't grasp is one is being booed for racial reasons which makes it unacceptable.

No they aren't. You are claiming he is because he is Indigenous which in turn actually makes you racist.