Rumour Jeremy Finlayson under investigation - 3 game suspension

[Engimal v3]

It's not illegal now. We should stop slurring/insulting everyone, bald men included.

Be fair dinkum lol

I can't help but notice how "it's both sides", "stop insulting anyone", etc. is only ever brought up to defend ****ed up conservative opinions.

How about "don't use language that vilifies homosexuals in the workplace"? Can we agree on that?

 

[caveman72]

Wouldn't be a problem if he called a ginger a Ranga

 

[iameviljez]

You also can't tackle someone in the workplace though can you. Plus the workers comp legislation doesn't apply in elite sport, a lot of differences, but I appreciate the dramatisation.

It's not exactly the same, but all the same the comparison is illustrative and worth bearing in mind.

Obviously tackling is an intrinsic part of the game, in the same way that different workplaces have different levels of acceptable risk.

 

[420]

Be fair dinkum lol

I can't help but notice how "it's both sides", "stop insulting anyone", etc. is only ever brought up to defend ****ed up conservative opinions.

How about "don't use language that vilifies homosexuals in the workplace"? Can we agree on that?

How about don't use language that vilifies ANYBODY in the workplace? Offence isn't a buffet where you can pick and choose what is acceptable and what isn't

 

[Slackjaw]

Be fair dinkum lol

I can't help but notice how "it's both sides", "stop insulting anyone", etc. is only ever brought up to defend ****ed up conservative opinions.

How about "don't use language that vilifies homosexuals in the workplace"? Can we agree on that?

What is conservative about believing we shouldn't insult anyone?

I agree with no vilification to any persons which includes homosexuals.

 

[Royal Chode]

Anything less than 12 weeks and I will be offended.

 

[Engimal v3]

How about don't use language that vilifies ANYBODY in the workplace? Offence isn't a buffet where you can pick and choose what is acceptable and what isn't

What is conservative about believing we shouldn't insult anyone?

I agree with no vilification to any persons which includes homosexuals.

It's the equivalent of responding "ALL lives matter" to "Black Lives Matter". It does nothing more than illustrate that you're fundamentally missing the point.

 

[The Hobo]

understanding reality and how things work in the real word is hard concept i know.

if the AFL was the real world Finlayson would be sacked on the spot. Like anyone else who did it in a workplace.

This sort of language happens all the time in the AFL, the only difference is that an umpire caught this one and on the mic.

Was talked about on footy classified and it was said that these words had likely been used multiple times this season.

Is it ok to do so? no. But you cannot sack someone for getting caught doing something that is well known others do often.

 

[420]

It's the equivalent of responding "ALL lives matter" to "Black Lives Matter". It does nothing more than illustrate that you're fundamentally missing the point.

This is a thread on homosexual vilification, we are not discussing indigenous vilification as it is not relevant. Please stay on topic

 

[Underarm]

Is it ok to do so? no. But you cannot sack someone for getting caught doing something that is well known others do often.

Why not?

Plenty of people commit crimes and don't get caught, should the ones that get caught get off as well?

 

[iameviljez]

This is a thread on homosexual vilification, we are not discussing indigenous vilification as it is not relevant. Please stay on topic

It's an analogy, therefore it has a place in this thread.

 

[Slackjaw]

It's the equivalent of responding "ALL lives matter" to "Black Lives Matter". It does nothing more than illustrate that you're fundamentally missing the point.

I feel that you are fundamentally missing the point also. I doubt we will agree. Thank you for a civil discussion that didn't turn to insults. Cheers

 

[Engimal v3]

This is a thread on homosexual vilification, we are not discussing indigenous vilification as it is not relevant. Please stay on topic

I feel that you are fundamentally missing the point also. I doubt we will agree. Thank you for a civil discussion that didn't turn to insults. Cheers

Oh dear. Let me leave you two with a quote from French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre to reflect on:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

 

[tiger_tough]

Wouldn't be a problem if he called a ginger a Ranga

Yeah but they don't have souls.

 

[tropicaltiger]

Can you still say “ chewy on ya boot”?
Asking for a friend.

your mum wears army boots also a good one

 

[Slackjaw]

Oh dear. Let me leave you two with a quote from French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre to reflect on:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

No, you didn't press me too closely and I didn't fall silent. When you mentioned the 'All Lives Matter' argument, I knew there was no reasoning with you.

 

[kickazz]

Oh dear. Let me leave you two with a quote from French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre to reflect on:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

Yep. Whenever someone says "End of Story" you know this is what is really going on.

 

[Slackjaw]

Yep. Whenever someone says "End of Story" you know this is what is really going on.

What is really going on?

 

[SplintWhisky]

Be fair dinkum lol

I can't help but notice how "it's both sides", "stop insulting anyone", etc. is only ever brought up to defend ****ed up conservative opinions.

How about "don't use language that vilifies homosexuals in the workplace"? Can we agree on that?

The reason this occurs is because there is an opinion by a very vocal minority that believe that one side can be insulted or vilified but the other side can not. Those people are bat shit insane but they are so god damn loud that it gets amplified. Then as true as Issac was with his third law, the other side gets up and says that all slurs should be stopped.

Because the idea that all slurs should stop is an easy optics win, one side of the political isle will adopt it to try and appeal to broader society. So then the other side comes back and accuses anyone who has that "no slur" opinion as being phobic of something and then the whole bullshit just ends up escalating between the two extremes.

No slurs ever should be a given but I think that sledging through other means that are not sexuality or race related should be ok on the football field.

Edit: To address the comment on the "Black Live Matters" and "All lives matter" issue, you are correct that the all lives matter people were mostly missing the point but that was a media driven problem as well. If people just said that BLM is about the disproportionate deaths of African American people at the hands of police and how the police are more heavy handed instead of media just shouting "THEY THINK ONLY BLACK LIVES MATTER WHAT ABOUT [Insert race, colour or other identifier] LIVES!!??" the whole situation would of been a lot better.

 

[brutus76]

JF will be led to the gallows for hanging a la the Peter Wright bump and whatever ensues will be the measuring stick for a player vilifying on the field moving forward

2 weeks

 

[kickazz]

What is really going on?

Them being "pressed too closely for sound arguments"

 

[kickazz]

This sort of language happens all the time in the AFL, the only difference is that an umpire caught this one and on the mic.

Was talked about on footy classified and it was said that these words had likely been used multiple times this season.

and we wonder why no AFL player has come out yet.

 

[tropicaltiger]

what are people's thoughts about the sledging and calling another player a pencil Richard

 

[HirdsTheWord]

This sort of language happens all the time in the AFL, the only difference is that an umpire caught this one and on the mic.

Was talked about on footy classified and it was said that these words had likely been used multiple times this season.

Is it ok to do so? no. But you cannot sack someone for getting caught doing something that is well known others do often.

I dont think that is correct. An umpire didn't pick it up.

It was voluntarily admitted by Finlayson at the break to officials. Finlayson said from his own mouth he knew it was wrong the second he did it and owned up to it.

This stuff doesn't happen all the time on the field - that is an assumption in the highest order by you.

I'm also not suggesting Finlayson should be sacked. I'm merely saying if he did this in another workplace he likely would be. he should be suspended though. Similar to what the NRL does for homophobic slurs.

 

[blurst]

You also can't tackle someone in the workplace though can you. Plus the workers comp legislation doesn't apply in elite sport, a lot of differences, but I appreciate the dramatisation.

I didn’t realise calling someone a ****** was a fundamental part of the sport