Opinion Adam Goodes

[Proud SJW]

if you were to boo Goodes at the next game then yes.

There is an element at games that boo Goodes because he is indigenous Australian who doesn't know his place. It is quite clear now that booing him is providing support to those views. You have a choice to reject those views. You may think he's a dirty sniper. You may think he should he booed. Fair enough your choice. But if you do even though it may not be your intention those actions throw you hat in with the rascist element and will be branded as one.

There are many posts of this type, and to single out one by means of reply is purely arbitrary. So I'm not speaking specifically to you here, Moose, but rather you as a representative of an ideological bloc.

It is interesting that the proponents of the racism theory throw words like "groupthink" around without really considering that the word might apply to all aspects of this situation.

Here's an article from the AFL site today:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-07-29/boo-goodes-and-you-show-you-are-a-bigot-says-chris-scott
Chris Scott isn't alone in this line of thought, but he's a fair example of the type of journalism we're becoming quite used to, and now have begun to accept without thought.

In particular:
""Adam has come out and said it is affecting him and he considers it has a racist element to it. On that basis if you go ahead and boo him from now on you're accepting that people are assuming that you are doing it for reasons based on race," Scott said."

And there it is, really. It doesn't matter what you think. The words you use are being co-opted and taken to further a political agenda. I'm not only being told what I'm thinking, but I'm told I should accept it.
Bit of a double whammy, that.
Now, I hope I'm not the only one who finds that just a tad disturbing. But I'm beginning to think, based purely upon the number of likes this line of "thought" is actually getting, that I may be part of a rather distinct minority.

The most philosophically disturbing aspect of this entire situation, to my mind, is that we are being slowly taught not to be human.

Conform.
We Are Borg.




For me, this thread isn't really about Adam Goodes. He's more, at this point in time, merely a focal point.
Furthermore, (and I'm quite aware that this particular point is unprovable and therefore may well be moot) I never actually consciously considered Adam Goodes as an Aboriginal... until I was forced to.
Racism, as an issue, has many aspects, and not of all of them are immediately observable.

The Adam Goodes issue aside, we're being barraged on a daily basis with this kind of "argument": to whit, Your mind is is longer your own. It is what "we" say it is. Disliking Islam is racist. Speaking your mind on immigration issues is "un-Australian". Actually, pretty much whatever you say about anything at all is Un-Australian, recently.

The point of all of this, of course, is to convey the message that any thoughts not in line with current opinion are, in fact, the hallmark of a lesser mind. You are, in fact, being told in no uncertain terms that if you think like this, you are sub-human.

Observe Clogged, in several posts above. His tactic, when condemning those who attempt to portray Adam Goodes as Sub-human, is to employ exactly the same approach.
"I fink his a flog". A deliberate and calculated attempt to portray all of those who do not confirm to the "booing Adam Goodes is Racist" argument to the intellectually sub-human.

I find it somewhat amusing that, in order to reinforce a point regarding the relegation of a man to the subhuman, he confers that exact status upon those he purports to dislike.

Calculated tactic or unthinking abuse, the result is the same. The segregation and ridicule of divergent opinion, rather than rational opposing argument.

I need a beer.

 

[armpit]

Why is this being made into an historical challenge? Rewriting history isn't going to change the present is it.

 

[ImperialPurple]

Acceptance and diversity, however, should never be worshiped purely in the defence of a root ideology.
It can be taken to the point of insanity that everything is to be tolerated for its own sake, due to a love of diversity and an almost pathological love of acceptance.

You see, when one speaks of tolerance, acceptance and diversity, one is usually only speaking of the tolerance and acceptance of those things which one deems to be acceptable.

Be careful not to rely too completely upon an inherently flawed premise.

“To criticize a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous, but to criticize their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticize ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. A law which attempts to say you can criticize and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed.

It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness - and the other represents oppression”
- Rowan Atkinson


And also:
"As hatred is defined as intense dislike, what is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion, if the activities or teachings of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve to be intensely disliked?”
- Rowan Atkinson

Intolerance has always had a clear purpose, with regard to the evolution of humanity.
That purpose is to weed out the intolerable. Once intolerance becomes intolerable, we are, quite frankly, royally screwed.

I agree with you. Tolerance, diversity and acceptance should be afforded to that which people are born with and have no ability to change or control (for example race, sexual orientation, left-handedness); but those things that are chosen ways to live one's life - and then used to discriminate against others (e.g. white priviledge, religion, Corey Bernardi) should be intolerable in order for our society / world to evolve in a positive way.

Sadly I think we are slipping backwards overall at this point in time.

 

[PapaJ]

I believe the people that boo him 'because he's a flog' etc genuinely believe that and don't consider themselves racist in their own minds. This probably makes up 90% of the booers, hence all the backlash. What they fail to understand is by doing so they are asserting their own ignorance, because if it's perceived as racist by the person receiving the boos, it IS in fact racist. They then become racist by association regardless of their intentions. Like the pillock who shouted 'go back to the zoo' genuinely believed it was just banter and didn't understand how he was fuelling the hatred. I could go on and write an essay about this but it comes down to the fact that many footy goers, especially those who boo are simple minded. They go to watch a game of footy, end of discussion - so it's incredibly jarring to them when complex issues are brought to the footy field which Goodes is not afraid to do.

Yeah, that's a fairly accurate way of putting it I think.
People might have booed Goodes for all sorts of reasons in their mind, most likely many had no reason at all and it was quite literally mindless - just going along with the rest of the sheep and hoping it puts him off his game or something.

The issue has evolved to a point now, regardless of intention/circumstance etc., that it is perceived (with some justification I might add) as racist - and it seems certainly so from Goodes himself. So particular individuals may not intend it as racist, but we need to understand that it is received as such. As such, all things being equal, if we want to be thoughtful members of our society, we should respect that and refrain from booing. Learn about the context behind the issue while where at it would be good, but if we're not in that position, at the very least just don't do it.

I liken it to the old golliwog dolls. Another one of the controversial notions where its removal is occasionally defended as being "PC gone mad". They were no doubt played with innocently by children around the world for years without any racist intent, heck I think there was a regular one on Playschool (off vague memory), but it became perceived as perpetuating racist stereotypes etc. and the term was also used pejoratively against anybody who was not Anglo-Saxon in many parts of the world (including Australia where it is understood to have evolved into the term wog, a term used derogatively against many darker skinned immigrants). As such, it became a respected thing to remove such toys from production and circulation. Was everybody who played with them intentionally racist as such, no of course not, but it was a symbol of racism and so insisting on it's circulation takes on a racist bent.

Now if there was a genuine greater moral principle at stake in retaining the golliwog (or continuing to boo Goodes), then you could argue a case for it. But that's not the case AFAICS. In the end of the day, like the golliwog, booing Goodes equates to a racist expression - like language/symbols in general, it is fluid and evolves. In the current context, booing Goodes is racist whether you intend it or not. Further, there is no great moral concern at stake by refraining, so we ought, for the sake of good will and a healthy society, not do it - even if you don't like it, don't agree with it, see other sides to it, that becomes secondary.

Sorry, that did turn into a bit of an essay.

 

[ImperialPurple]

T
Furthermore, (and I'm quite aware that this particular point is unprovable and therefore may well be moot) I never actually consciously considered Adam Goodes as an Aboriginal... until I was forced to.
Racism, as an issue, has many aspects, and not of all of them are immediately observable.
.

See this is an interesting point also. The fact that you never 'considered Adam Goodes as an Aboriginal' is actually quite racist in itself. It comes from a position of white priviledge in that it's saying, 'you don't behave like a blackfella, so i never noticed you were one.' Ergo - you behave enough like a whitefella that I never noticed you weren't one. It stereotypes what the 'expected aboriginal behaviours' are, and when an indigenous person doesn't live up (or down) to the stereotype, then they are 'as good as a white person'.

And you are not alone - so please don't think I am singling you out; I have examined myself and my own thoughts / ideologies around this and done a lot of reading around racism (and sexism and homophobia) to really get this about my own thought patterns.

 

[Hilldog]

I lived on a neighbouring farm to an Aboriginal Catholic mission, growing up in the 1960s. The Aboriginal kids there (the so-called stolen generation) were healthy, well fed, well dressed, well mannered, well educated and safe. Compare that with today. You will notice that "stolen generation" kids - now in their 50 and 60s - are quite eloquent and have decent social and literacy skills - completely unlike today "Stolen generation" kids were taken from dysfunctional, promiscuous, drunken parents who were completely unable and unwilling to look after their children - for their own good. Not a perfect solution but a hell of a lot better than the terrible situation that exists today.

 

[ydraw]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...wans-boss-andrew-pridham-20150727-gilc0n.html

Interesting poll at the end. "Is Booing Adam Goodes Racism"

The yes/no results in the poll lines up almost exactly with the 2PP vote for Labor/Liberal at the last election.

 

[Clems Knee]

There are many posts of this type, and to single out one by means of reply is purely arbitrary. So I'm not speaking specifically to you here, Moose, but rather you as a representative of an ideological bloc.

It is interesting that the proponents of the racism theory throw words like "groupthink" around without really considering that the word might apply to all aspects of this situation.

Here's an article from the AFL site today:
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-07-29/boo-goodes-and-you-show-you-are-a-bigot-says-chris-scott
Chris Scott isn't alone in this line of thought, but he's a fair example of the type of journalism we're becoming quite used to, and now have begun to accept without thought.

In particular:
""Adam has come out and said it is affecting him and he considers it has a racist element to it. On that basis if you go ahead and boo him from now on you're accepting that people are assuming that you are doing it for reasons based on race," Scott said."

And there it is, really. It doesn't matter what you think. The words you use are being co-opted and taken to further a political agenda. I'm not only being told what I'm thinking, but I'm told I should accept it.
Bit of a double whammy, that.
Now, I hope I'm not the only one who finds that just a tad disturbing. But I'm beginning to think, based purely upon the number of likes this line of "thought" is actually getting, that I may be part of a rather distinct minority.

The most philosophically disturbing aspect of this entire situation, to my mind, is that we are being slowly taught not to be human.

Conform.
We Are Borg.




For me, this thread isn't really about Adam Goodes. He's more, at this point in time, merely a focal point.
Furthermore, (and I'm quite aware that this particular point is unprovable and therefore may well be moot) I never actually consciously considered Adam Goodes as an Aboriginal... until I was forced to.
Racism, as an issue, has many aspects, and not of all of them are immediately observable.

The Adam Goodes issue aside, we're being barraged on a daily basis with this kind of "argument": to whit, Your mind is is longer your own. It is what "we" say it is. Disliking Islam is racist. Speaking your mind on immigration issues is "un-Australian". Actually, pretty much whatever you say about anything at all is Un-Australian, recently.

The point of all of this, of course, is to convey the message that any thoughts not in line with current opinion are, in fact, the hallmark of a lesser mind. You are, in fact, being told in no uncertain terms that if you think like this, you are sub-human.

Observe Clogged, in several posts above. His tactic, when condemning those who attempt to portray Adam Goodes as Sub-human, is to employ exactly the same approach.
"I fink his a flog". A deliberate and calculated attempt to portray all of those who do not confirm to the "booing Adam Goodes is Racist" argument to the intellectually sub-human.

I find it somewhat amusing that, in order to reinforce a point regarding the relegation of a man to the subhuman, he confers that exact status upon those he purports to dislike.

Calculated tactic or unthinking abuse, the result is the same. The segregation and ridicule of divergent opinion, rather than rational opposing argument.

I need a beer.

Interesting read. I'm digesting it.
I used the term groupthink, so I guess that reference may be directed at an earlier post I made. I happen to think that groupthink is an alternative to rational thought that is very common.

And yes, groupthink can swing in the opposite direction. If it stops the victimisation of an individual (I view the Goodes booing as bullying) then good, but if it results in people getting disproportionate punishment as a result, then bad. So far there has no evidence of this - the ejected Eagles fans whinging on the front page of the daily rag deserved more approbation than they got.

Regarding Clogged's demonisation of those who think Goodes is a flog: there is a difference: Clogged wasn't labelling an individual as intellectually sub-human, he was generalising and using humour in that generalisation. Those calling Goodes an ape were clearly picking on an individual, and hiding behind the protection of an anonymous mob.

Mmm. Beer.

 

[ydraw]

"Stolen generation" kids were taken from dysfunctional, promiscuous, drunken parents who were completely unable and unwilling to look after their children - for their own good. Not a perfect solution but a hell of a lot better than the terrible situation that exists today.

Not all of them. Like I said earlier, attitudes towards women at the time were pretty horrible. Just being pregnant and unmarried was enough to get someone labeled "promiscuous" and "unfit parent" by the moral majority of the time. And so these kids were taken away in the misguided view that it was "the best thing" for them.

 

[meima]

N

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...wans-boss-andrew-pridham-20150727-gilc0n.html

Interesting poll at the end. "Is Booing Adam Goodes Racism"

The yes/no results in the poll lines up almost exactly with the 2PP vote for Labor/Liberal at the last election.

Not Racism, WA just like to booeing. Just imagine if apeness not injured and take a pack mark vs sydney in subi. That will be a big talking point.

 

[armpit]

I lived on a neighbouring farm to an Aboriginal Catholic mission, growing up in the 1960s. The Aboriginal kids there (the so-called stolen generation) were healthy, well fed, well dressed, well mannered, well educated and safe. Compare that with today. You will notice that "stolen generation" kids - now in their 50 and 60s - are quite eloquent and have decent social and literacy skills - completely unlike today "Stolen generation" kids were taken from dysfunctional, promiscuous, drunken parents who were completely unable and unwilling to look after their children - for their own good. Not a perfect solution but a hell of a lot better than the terrible situation that exists today.

That's out there. Sounds like something a schoolteacher would say.

 

[Proud SJW]

...Back to Adam Goodes and why some fans continue to boo and berate him.

...Maybe they're booing in fear of what Goodes is forcing them to confront and acknowledge and what he is challenging them to re-think their views about, when he articulately and authentically highlights perfectly legitimate, yet under-addressed Aboriginal Australian grievances. Maybe they're booing Goodes because, whether through speeches or symbolic gestures on the footy oval, he has the audacity and temerity to publicly air them. That's exactly what happened — as at least one previous poster correctly alluded to — to Muhammad Ali and African-American Olympic medalists Tommie Smith and John Carlos, who raised black-gloved fists at the 1968 Games in Mexico City, to protest institutional American racism.

It's human nature for people in power or privilege to bristle when another makes them feel uncomfortable and to resist when someone agitates for change, because it's all too easy to keep the status quo and avoid awkward, meaningful dialogue. And God forbid should someone pose a threat to their lofty social and economic status by calling out their views as outdated and fading away.
...

I do enjoy your writing, GilG.

There is another consideration in play here which is probably one you would be less aware of than most - or at least have a good reason to be.
Australia, for all of it's rather short history, is still a nation lacking sophistication. We can be rather childlike as apeople, at times.

To elaborate, you should consider that the booing of Adam Goodes has gone beyond the booing of Adam Goodes, and has little to do with Adam Goodes at all anymore.

You see, as a nation, we not only dislike being told what to do, we take our dislike of being told what to do as a matter of national pride. We celebrate it.
I tend to believe our two nations are not entirely dissimilar, in that regard.

I've already referenced an article above in which we are not only being told what to think, we are being told that what we think is not what we think.
The rebellion is, in my opinion, at least partially due to the fact that we are being coerced into stopping the booing.
Speaking for myself, I am opposed to it. I think it's puerile. But of more dislike to me is the reaction to it on the part of the media, and the "establishment".
On those grounds alone, I'd be inclined to boo him too. Just on principle.
Yes, I know. But it is who we are, as much as that particular attribute is being worn away over time.

This is not a simple issue.

 

[ydraw]

Yeah, I think the booing gets worse the more people are told not to boo.

 

[armpit]

I think common sense dictates that booing is on. The issue is the frequency and duration of the boo. Where it crosses the line into stupid booing. See west coast. We need a device.

 

[stormee]

I lived on a neighbouring farm to an Aboriginal Catholic mission, growing up in the 1960s. The Aboriginal kids there (the so-called stolen generation) were healthy, well fed, well dressed, well mannered, well educated and safe. Compare that with today. You will notice that "stolen generation" kids - now in their 50 and 60s - are quite eloquent and have decent social and literacy skills - completely unlike today "Stolen generation" kids were taken from dysfunctional, promiscuous, drunken parents who were completely unable and unwilling to look after their children - for their own good. Not a perfect solution but a hell of a lot better than the terrible situation that exists today.

I'm sorry mate but none of that can replace the love of a parent in my mind. And in a lot of circumstances the parents were not 'dysfunctional, promiscuous and drunken' but in fact just from a race that at the time was not considered fit for parenting. A dark period in our history and certainly not one to glamourise in any sense.

 

[clogged]

The point of all of this, of course, is to convey the message that any thoughts not in line with current opinion are, in fact, the hallmark of a lesser mind. You are, in fact, being told in no uncertain terms that if you think like this, you are sub-human.

Observe Clogged, in several posts above. His tactic, when condemning those who attempt to portray Adam Goodes as Sub-human, is to employ exactly the same approach.
"I fink his a flog". A deliberate and calculated attempt to portray all of those who do not confirm to the "booing Adam Goodes is Racist" argument to the intellectually sub-human.

Subhuman? No. Just illiterate. None of those who are calling Goodes a flog have any coherent argument as to why he is one, or any greater one than the dozens of dickhead footballers that are venerated in the league.

I read someone say today, with all the misspellings you'd expect, that Goodes deserved booing because he lacked manners. Stupidity is common to the people who hate him.

 

[poshman]

Tough question to answer on the war dance v flipping the bird (which I always crack up at, seeing fans on footy matches flip off umpires and players — very rare over here), because none of us were in Adam Goodes's head and knew what he meant at the time he did it. His explanation afterward that he did the dance to commemorate Indigenous round, I buy.

It's funny, in the off-season, the Freo site even posted video of Stephen Hill, Michael Walters, Danyle Pearce and Michael Johnson being taught a war dance they did as a group. No one raised a fuss about that.

Even if the dance represented war and going into battle, did the Essendon fans he did it in front of think he was going to lead a raiding party there and throw real spears at them after the final siren? Goodes's gesture shouldn't really be taken literally — it was symbolic. The "battle" was the game on the field. I took it as his saying, "I'm a warrior on the field, this is Indigenous round and I'm celebrating it."

In America, an athlete does a dance or physically demonstrates after a good play (read, after EVERY SINGLE ONE he makes, if he plays NFL), he's usually (and very annoyingly) celebrating himself.

Would Goodes's gesture gone over differently if he and the entire Swans team did it before the Indigenous Round in the corridor before the opening bounce, as a show of solidarity, as the All Blacks do with the Haka? Maybe. But Goodes's action was spontaneous.

In my experience, there was an Atlanta Braves relief pitcher, John Rocker, who in '99 and '00 used to always piss us Mets fans off by yelling at our crowd when he walked off the mound and taunting us with physical gestures after he got our batters out. It only inflamed the rivalry. Difference between Rocker and Goodes? Rocker was an idiot who publicly said he likened himself to a World Wrestling Entertainment villain, then made inflammatory statements about New Yorkers — specifically gays and ethnic minorities — that were published in a magazine.

Baytown, Texas, huh? Never been to that part of that state. I'll bet you and your brother-in-law must have some interesting chats. Texas is like another country unto itself. Scary history in those parts.

Yep... That attitude of Texans about Texas is something completely and scarily unique. Definitely some great conversations. I get tired of the sentiment that America everything is the greatest fairly regularly tbh but all in all it's great times! I've never been so warmly welcomed as I was by his 'mama' 'yes ma'am' (so strange to hear a grown man say that yet completely natural too) I called his mum Miss Grace, but the welcome into the household and the ritual and the food my gosh the food... So good and ridiculously carb loaded!

As for the spear thing... If I was to do the throat slitting gesture to the crowd after a goal. Even if it meant I'm a warrior I just defeated your team... I would put money on being fined or suspended. I don't even think if I was to say that was my intention that I would escape discipline. That in itself is interesting... Would I then be being punished for being white in that situation?

Or is it the received meaning of the gesture? As opposed to the intended meaning...

As to those saying they don't like booing because it's effectively bullying... I would assume you won't boo again and you definitely wouldn't boo the umpires. If so you are just perpetuating bullying which as a society we shouldn't tolerate. Or is that again different because it's the umpires? What if the umpire was a girl or Indian or aboriginal. Surely all should be treated equally. And as such if booing one is bullying we should boo none?

 

[ydraw]

Subhuman? No. Just illiterate. None of those who are calling Goodes a flog have any cogent argument as to why he is one, or any greater one than the dozens of dickhead footballers that are venerated in the league.

If other dickhead footballers made dickhead political statements then I would consider them a flog too. I still think Brent Harvey is more of a flog than Goodes for his lying to the tribunal. But I can't really think of any current footballers who have done stupid off-field things to make me dislike them.

I can only think of 2 other footy players who have made any kind of political statement in the media and that is Fyfe and Tom Hawkins, who both made ads and spoke in campaigns supporting the Wool Industry. I don't think either of them are flogs because I happen to agree with them there.

But if a footballer came out on the opposite side of the fence and made an ad for PETA or Animals Australia (who oppose the Australian wool industry and would like to see it banned), then I would consider that player to be a massive, massive flog.

So it's not really a surprise that those who agree with Goodes' political views don't think he's done anything to be considered a flog for. Just like a PETA supporter would not see anything wrong if say Viv Michie did an ad for PETA. But I would.

 

[Proud SJW]

See this is an interesting point also. The fact that you never 'considered Adam Goodes as an Aboriginal' is actually quite racist in itself. It comes from a position of white priviledge in that it's saying, 'you don't behave like a blackfella, so i never noticed you were one.' Ergo - you behave enough like a whitefella that I never noticed you weren't one. It stereotypes what the 'expected aboriginal behaviours' are, and when an indigenous person doesn't live up (or down) to the stereotype, then they are 'as good as a white person'.

And you are not alone - so please don't think I am singling you out; I have examined myself and my own thoughts / ideologies around this and done a lot of reading around racism (and sexism and homophobia) to really get this about my own thought patterns.

So you don't like to think that I thought of a man as simply a man until I was taught to think otherwise?
See, now you're telling me what I think. Sometimes, a thing is what it is.

I'll tell you a little story.
I was confronted with my own racism many years ago. I was... in my early twenties, I think, and worked at Social Security (Centrelink now).
On the front counter. My draw that day was what we called "reception"... long lines out the door, dealing with each one as they came in - filing each piece of paper in little cubbyholes labelled "enquiry", "new claim", complaint" etc. for another officer to deal with in turn. We rotated through positions.
"Morning", stamp. file. "Morning", stamp. file.... barely even noticing individual faces.

I look up.
Standing in front of me at the counter is what appeared to me to be a full blood Aboriginal man. Not unusual, in that area. At all.
Except... he was dressed in tweeds, proper English country clothing. Holding a briefcase.
He placed it carefully and deliberately on the counter, snapped it open, and retrieved his paperwork, placing that in front of me before closing his case again and holding it by his side.
And then, in the most stereotypical plum in the mouth, impeccable English Oxford accent you can imagine, he said "I would like to apply for benefits, please".

So, of course, I stamped, filed, and said "take a seat please, we'll call you up".
Imagine, though, in spite of me doing what I did a thousand times a day, what was going on in my head. This was completely outside my experience.

So, of course being full of curiosity, I checked it out later. Sure enough, he'd been in England for a lot of years, and had actually attended Oxford University. He'd stayed and worked in England after that for a few years more, and then come back to Australia.
I think about that guy every now and then, wondering how he went, back home again after years in an alien environment, to the point where he probably didn't know which environment was the alien one, any more. I doubt it went well for him, knowing the area. But I hope it did.

Assume nothing.

 

[clogged]

You see, as a nation, we not only dislike being told what to do, we take our dislike of being told what to do as a matter of national pride. We celebrate it.
I tend to believe our two nations are not entirely dissimilar, in that regard.

Nonsense. One of the great lies jingoistic Australians tell themselves. This is a country which loves being told what to do.

 

[clogged]

If other dickhead footballers made dickhead political statements then I would consider them a flog too. I still think Brent Harvey is more of a flog than Goodes for his lying to the tribunal. But I can't really think of any current footballers who have done stupid off-field things to make me dislike them.

So bashing a janitor and leaving them brain damaged doesn't reach that threshold?

 

[Proud SJW]

Nonsense. One of the great lies jingoistic Australians tell themselves. This is a country which loves being told what to do.

Until it becomes too obvious.
The line in the sand is where even the least intelligent become aware of just how ineptly they are being herded.

 

[E Shed]

I liken it to the old golliwog dolls. Another one of the controversial notions where its removal is occasionally defended as being "PC gone mad". They were no doubt played with innocently by children around the world for years without any racist intent, heck I think there was a regular one on Playschool (off vague memory), but it became perceived as perpetuating racist stereotypes etc. and the term was also used pejoratively against anybody who was not Anglo-Saxon in many parts of the world (including Australia where it is understood to have evolved into the term wog, a term used derogatively against many darker skinned immigrants). As such, it became a respected thing to remove such toys from production and circulation. Was everybody who played with them intentionally racist as such, no of course not, but it was a symbol of racism and so insisting on it's circulation takes on a racist bent.

Now if there was a genuine greater moral principle at stake in retaining the golliwog (or continuing to boo Goodes), then you could argue a case for it. But that's not the case AFAICS. In the end of the day, like the golliwog, booing Goodes equates to a racist expression - like language/symbols in general, it is fluid and evolves. In the current context, booing Goodes is racist whether you intend it or not. Further, there is no great moral concern at stake by refraining, so we ought, for the sake of good will and a healthy society, not do it - even if you don't like it, don't agree with it, see other sides to it, that becomes secondary.

Beautifully argued. Nailed it in bolded.

 

[clogged]

Until it becomes too obvious.
The line in the sand is where even the least intelligent become aware of just how ineptly they are being herded.

No one was told not to boo Goodes until he'd been booed for over a dozen games.

Why do the defenders of the booing resort to lying so often?

 

[ydraw]

So bashing a janitor and leaving them brain damaged doesn't reach that threshold?

I don't know which player you are talking about, but sounds to me that if he didn't get prison time then it was probably self-defense.

But you did remind me of the Eagles player who bashed a bloke for dancing with his ex missus. He is a massive flog, but I can't remember his name.

There's probably a few melbourne-centric cases I haven't heard about.