Rumour Multiple GWS players are set to be suspended to start the 2025 season after distasteful costumes and skits from their post-season function

[iameviljez]

If that's what goes on at bucks parties you go to, you need better friends.

Isn’t that weird - at all the buck’s parties I have gone to, not one person has performed improv theatre about rape.

 

[Kennedy84]

Regardless, your comparison to east Germany is ludicrous.

Hardly, voluntary snitching in order to influence people's behaviour....it has more in common than you think.

 

[Romeoh1]

Hardly, voluntary snitching in order to influence people's behaviour....it has more in common than you think.

Haha -some perspective wouldn’t hurt.
What the players did wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t good enough.
Cop your right whack, grow a brain and move on. Pretty simple.

 

[Kennedy84]

I'm asking you. Do you think making a joke out of sexual assault is funny?

It depends, if it mocks the accuser, mocks the act, then I see no harm. If I thought it was distasteful. Remember, they never committed the acts. Do you get offended when these issues are depicted in movies?

Is it best that these issues are never spoken about again, brushed under the rug?

 

[Kennedy84]

Haha -some perspective wouldn’t hurt.
What the players did wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t good enough.
Cop your right whack, grow a brain and move on. Pretty simple.

Why do they need to take, a whack? They didn't physically hurt anyone. If people find it distasteful, criticise them with words, don't associate with those people don't support them. Plenty of ways to show disapproval.

 

[Toump Ass]

We’re on shaky ground if we’re saying depictions of sexual assault are ok IF the level of ‘artistry and sensitivity’ is considered to have a met some sort of arbitrarily defined benchmark.

Surely you can see the issue?

Use whatever benchmark you like, common sense says using sexual assault to get a few laughs in a comedy skit is likely to cause offense.

Edit: nevermind this has been mentioned already.

 

[Romeoh1]

Why do they need to take, a whack? They didn't physically hurt anyone. If people find it distasteful, criticise them with words, don't associate with those people don't support them. Plenty of ways to show disapproval.

Happy for them to take a whack ( sexual assault isn’t funny according to most reasonable people?) but yep, maybe the consequences could have been lighter. But are they that harsh anyway? It’s not that tough to miss a couple of games or get a 5000 fine is it?

 

[bomberclifford]

I'm asking you. Do you think making a joke out of sexual assault is funny?

Sometimes, yes.

 

[Carringbush2010]

If that's what goes on at bucks parties you go to, you need better friends.

I didn't say 'exactly the same', was pointing out that behaviour at bucks and hens parties are going to be offensive, albeit to a very few.

That's the point, only morons would do what gws players did deliberately out in public.

Apologies if not clear.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well the ‘reasonable person’ ( and that is applied to everyone in our society), is the theory underpinning a lot of our legal structures and think you’ll find the vast majority of people do in fact know how to conduct themselves in a reasonable manner. There’s a bit of room for movement but it’s generally not needed because most people get it.
Feel like your reactions here are a bit hysterical really. Just doesn’t seem worthy of making such a big deal.
And again-your concept of privacy might need brushing up. Everything gets out nowadays- naive to think otherwise.

So you admit that 'reasonable person' will vary in definition from one person to another.

So then you'll also concede that this could not possibly have been a 'private' function, because the intent was for it not to be public.

I guess then you don't agree with the below, then I guess you're not a liberal.

What should've happened is

-footy players hire a public venue for private event
-staff at the event should've been informed of what is going to take place
-if staff are uncomfortable, they make a request for it not to go ahead
-being the society that we are now, those costumes and skits don't happen

Or if you value liberal principles

-if staff are uncomfortable, they make a request for it not to go ahead
-being that this venue is being hired by a customer the staff members are given the choice to work the shift or not
-this doesn't go public, the AFL save face and don't have to be hypocritical, no damage done.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I feel for the AFL. They’ve taken the commercially-expedient pathway, which i think is also the ethically questionable one.

But they’re a commercial organisation. When they take a moral stance, it’s only because that stance is also the one that happens to be better for their brand.

If i were running the comp, where i’m judged on commercial KPIs, i’d have done what they did.

The real problem is us and the media (social and traditional) that manipulates us into responding emotionally to absolutely everything.

I don't accept that because if you're going to take a commercial stance over ethics you have to apply it across the board not pick and choose when to do it which us what they've done.

They also won't own it and be honest about why they are applying the penalties. The CEO of the afl who is ex ex lawyer no less is standing there blatantly pretending the afl cares about women's rights or domestic violence etc when the afl couldn't care less about it (their approach to gambling shows it).

If anything I'm most annoyed at the journalists. When he started spouting this they should have interrupted him, pointed out the gambling issue and asked him why the afl is being hypocritical. And when he refused to answer it properly (which is likely) the journalists should have all walked out of the press conference and refused to their editors to cover the story. Sure the afl probably would have put a spin press conference on their website anyway but at least the journalists wouldn't be condoning such lies and spin and they would be forcing the afl to own their own falsehood.

Unfortunately most people don't know how to critically think and base their views on how the media frames stories to them so this matters. As a society we need to demand a hell of a lot better from both our sporting bodies like the afl and the media. It's obvious why society has such a problem dealing with these issues when it doesn't stand up for ethics.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The key difference with this and any other event is that someone needs to be in earshot and upset enough to complain.

Which is impossible to avoid, especially being a high profile bunch of footballers.

Many people have an outrageous and filthy stag do without doing this.

Yet, staff (read the public) will still take offence to things going on at said hens / bucks night.

There's a reason why those players wanted their event 'private', but the dumb asses didn't count on the 'public' (read the staff) being there taking offence. So what's the point of having a 'private' function if it is not permitted to be 'private'?

So wacky Wednesday WILL offend someone in the 'public', so best not have one.

 

[Romeoh1]

So you admit that 'reasonable person' will vary in definition from one person to another.

So then you'll also concede that this could not possibly have been a 'private' function, because the intent was for it not to be public.

I guess then you don't agree with the below, then I guess you're not a liberal.

What should've happened is

-footy players hire a public venue for private event
-staff at the event should've been informed of what is going to take place
-if staff are uncomfortable, they make a request for it not to go ahead
-being the society that we are now, those costumes and skits don't happen

Or if you value liberal principles

-if staff are uncomfortable, they make a request for it not to go ahead
-being that this venue is being hired by a customer the staff members are given the choice to work the shift or not
-this doesn't go public, the AFL save face and don't have to be hypocritical, no damage done.

Nup- don’t think I did say that- I’m saying the law and the vast majority of people in our society, as evidenced by their behaviour, for the great majority of the time, buy into a pretty common and accepted version of what is reasonable. And I’m quite happy with that.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Unfortunately most people don't know how to critically think and base their views on how the media frames stories to them so this matters. As a society we need to demand a hell of a lot better from both our sporting bodies like the afl and the media

This ^

 

[Carringbush2010]

Nup- don’t think I did say that- I’m saying the law and the vast majority of people in our society, as evidenced by their behaviour, for the great majority of the time, buy into a pretty common and accepted version of what is reasonable. And I’m quite happy with that.

Ok then, given I've provided what is a pretty liberal value (the right to do privately that doesn't offend anyone in that intended private setting).

Please explain what the majority view as 'reasonable'. Not what msm tells you what is popular belief.

To be clear.

I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy. So that means if staff member is offended then that should not override the customers right to their privacy.

I think that's fair enough, if the intent is for their edgy wacky Wednesday to be NOT public they should be allowed that.

To oppose that is not at all liberal.

 

[Romeoh1]

Ok then, given I've provided what is a pretty liberal value (the right to do privately that doesn't offend anyone in that intended private setting).

Please explain what the majority view as 'reasonable'. Not what msm tells you what is popular belief.

To be clear.

I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy. So that means if staff member is offended then that should not override the customers right to their privacy.

I think that's fair enough, if the intent is for their edgy wacky Wednesday to be NOT public they should be allowed that.

To oppose that is not at all liberal.

I’d hope and do believe that the majority of people would find jokes about sexual assault unfunny, or offensive, or unacceptable. Whilst context can matter, I’m assuming the afl have investigated and found that in this situation, it didn’t make the skit ‘acceptable.’
You seem focussed on privacy/snitching issues more than certain behaviour. And it’s just naive to say this was a purely private event - there must have been several people working there that night and I’ve no doubt things were shared on social media.
Are you a parent? And whether it was private or not, would you be ok with your son making jokes about sexual assault? Isn’t that the bigger picture here?
And that’ll do me for now-thank you for the chat.

 

[treeebeard]

Lol, you went from

People who want to clamp down on freedom of expression, freedom of speech, disgust me.

To

It depends, if it mocks the accuser, mocks the act, then I see no harm. If I thought it was distasteful. Remember, they never committed the acts. Do you get offended when these issues are depicted in movies?

Is it best that these issues are never spoken about again, brushed under the rug?

In the space of minutes.

 

[StillAtLarge]

83 pages! Christ on a bike

 

[Kennedy84]

Happy for them to take a whack ( sexual assault isn’t funny according to most reasonable people?) but yep, maybe the consequences could have been lighter. But are they that harsh anyway? It’s not that tough to miss a couple of games or get a 50

Lol, you went from


To


In the space of minute.

I was asked if I found sexual assualt jokes funny....my response, it depends. You need to look for nuance, I can find something distasteful, but still defend their right to do it.

 

[iameviljez]

Which is impossible to avoid, especially being a high profile bunch of footballers.

Yet, staff (read the public) will still take offence to things going on at said hens / bucks night.

There's a reason why those players wanted their event 'private', but the dumb asses didn't count on the 'public' (read the staff) being there taking offence. So what's the point of having a 'private' function if it is not permitted to be 'private'?

So wacky Wednesday WILL offend someone in the 'public', so best not have one.

You’re catastrophising.

17 clubs have had Whacky Wednesday this year without issue.

Hundreds of bucks and hens go on every week in Australia without issue.

The point of a private function is that you get to celebrate with your mates and not randos. Normal for every staff end of year party.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I’d hope and do believe that the majority of people would find jokes about sexual assault unfunny, or offensive, or unacceptable.

Of course, that shouldn't equate to a paid employee at that function being allowed to publicize a private function. After all the event was INTENDED to be NOT PUBLIC - for obvious reasons.

You seem focussed on privacy/snitching issues more than certain behaviour.

More focused that if a group pays for a private function they should be allowed that right for it to be private, that's what they paid for but didn't get it.

A paid employee might not like the event but that shouldn't give them right to out them because they don't like it, I don't like everything my employer 'allows', shouldn't give me the right to out the company because I disagree with some of their 'values'

And it’s just naive to say this was a purely private event - there must have been several people working there that night and I’ve no doubt things were shared on social media.

Then you haven't being reading my posts, on several occasions I've conceded that 'private' is impossible, and because of that impossibility that then takes away one's right to privacy.

Not at all liberal.

And whether it was private or not, would you be ok with your son making jokes about sexual assault? Isn’t that the bigger picture here?

Just because those players agreed on what they were going to do, locker room stuff among each other, which seemingly none of the players had an issue with, doesn't equate they're going to make sexual jokes to their kids, or give their kids the impression that it's ok, highly unlikely.

I think you see msm and what it reports or opines and believes that Jan and Joe public agree with what is likely not popular belief.

Thanks for the chat.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You’re catastrophising.

17 clubs have had Whacky Wednesday this year without issue.

Hundreds of bucks and hens go on every week in Australia without issue.

The point of a private function is that you get to celebrate with your mates and not randos. Normal for every staff end of year party.

'Catastrophising' lol.

You're not getting the point.

To be clear.

I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy. So that means if staff member is offended then that should not override the customers right to their privacy.

Because they paid for the event to be PRIVATE and NOT BE PUBLIC.

I'll add, I also agree that the players should've given the establishment knowledge of what they did BEFORE doing what they did.

Then, the staff can request it not go ahead, and then the players would've been told yes or no at the establishments discretion.

If the establishment then allows the group their proposed following actions then the establishment should allow staff member the choice to work the shift or not.

This is what I believe should've happened, couldn't be any fairer and equal.

Instead we've got an embarrassed and hypocritical AFL, with very harsh penalties on players, an employee that is likely very unpopular with their employer, if they're still an employee.

All could've been avoided if.

-The event isn't held at all (which is what should've been IMO)
-The establishment and it's employees accepts that the event is intended to not be public and accept not to make it public given that was the wish of the customer, regardless of how offensive they may find the event.

 

[H00t]

'Catastrophising' lol.

You're not getting the point.

To be clear.

I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy. So that means if staff member is offended then that should not override the customers right to their privacy.

Because they paid for the event to be PRIVATE and NOT BE PUBLIC.

I'll add, I also agree that the players should've given the establishment knowledge of what they did BEFORE doing what they did.

Then, the staff can request it not go ahead, and then the players would've been told yes or no at the establishments discretion.

If the establishment then allows the group their proposed following actions then the establishment should allow staff member the choice to work the shift or not.

This is what I believe should've happened, couldn't be any fairer and equal.

Instead we've got an embarrassed and hypocritical AFL, with very harsh penalties on players, an employee that is likely very unpopular with their employer, if they're still an employee.

All could've been avoided if.

-The event isn't held at all (which is what should've been IMO)
-The establishment and it's employees accepts that the event is intended to not be public and accept not to make it public given that was the wish of the customer, regardless of how offensive they may find the event.

You seriously expect the list of every joke and action given to the establishment before the night. Ignoring that a lot of costumes would have been planned after the event was booked.

Plus you expect AFL footballers to stay on script?

If they did we end back up in the exact same situation that we are in now.

You seem much more concerned about bad behaviour being called out than the bad behaviour itself.

 

[Bluelegs]

83 pages! Christ on a bike

And still no leaked footage or pics to speak of

 

[iameviljez]

I'm not defending their actions, I'm defending their right to privacy. So that means if staff member is offended then that should not override the customers right to their privacy.

Because they paid for the event to be PRIVATE and NOT BE PUBLIC.

I accept that you're not defending their actions, but they paid for a private event, not a secret one. Pubs and restaurants usually only charge a minimum spend for private events, so that the cost of not being able to sell those seats to the general public isn't foregone. It's not NDA level money.

I should point out, the staff didn't make the behaviour public - either GWS or the AFL did. All the staff/venue did was lodge a complaint with the club so far as I know, which is their right.

All could've been avoided if.

-The event isn't held at all (which is what should've been IMO)
-The establishment and it's employees accepts that the event is intended to not be public and accept not to make it public given that was the wish of the customer, regardless of how offensive they may find the event.

I mean, there is a third option (don't have rape skits), but yes, if they had gone for an exclusive location which does handle secrecy and discretion a little more willingly - perhaps a nightclub comes to mind - they would have done a lot better.