Moved Thread AFL changes headquarter logo to read "Yes"

[freofc1994]

By vote you surely all mean non binding survey??

 

[Topkent]

Are they all civil liberties afforded to one section of the community and not another?

No one in here disagrees mate. But once they open the door to telling us how to vote then where does it stop on trying to influence the public regardless on how correct the stance may feel to the majority

 

[projectv]

Love it. More please.

Stay salty, 'no' voters.

 

[Ochre]

No one in here disagrees mate. But once they open the door to telling us how to vote then where does it stop on trying to influence the public regardless on how correct the stance may feel to the majority

Anyone with half a brain can see the difference between the AFL taking a stance on this issue and the AFL taking a stance on negative gearing.

 

[_Mike_]

Given this is not about footy and more of a social issue aligning to a political view, we can move it to the SRP board and discuss there.

 

[Ochre]

By vote you surely all mean non binding survey??

Only non binding if it's a yes result.

 

[PowerForGood]

Good to see that Optus is taking over AFL streaming rights from Telstra.

 

[Toump Ass]

You are a dick head if you think sporting bodies should be a political measure. So you would be OK with the AFL siding with one side of the government before an election and being vocal about it?

For the sake of the argument, if the Labour party said they were no longer going to invest in sporting infrastructure and bulldoze all sporting stadiums on public land and invest in ballet as opposed to football grounds, yes I'd expect the AFL to side with the Liberal party and I would be ok with them being vocal about this.

 

[Toump Ass]

Given this is not about footy and more of a social issue aligning to a political view, we can move it to the SRP board and discuss there.

The SRP already has a billion threads on marriage equality. This is about the AFL's stance. Surely there's a difference?

Also the SRP board sucks ass: I'd get way more likes on the mainboard.

This is an outrage. See ya.

 

[Scotland]

'Yes' to marriage equality, 'maybe we should have a non-compulsory, non-binding vote' to clash jumpers.

 

[Farm Boy]

As if Gillon and his crownies up in the AFL house give two shits about these issues. All that is important to them is lining their pockets with money.

That's it. The AFL is essentially Gil's business now.

 

[_Mike_]

The SRP already has a billion threads on marriage equality. This is about the AFL's stance. Surely there's a difference?

To which the SRP board mods can merge accordingly (you cant merge threads to those on other boards you're not moderating)

 

[JackOutback]

I hope the yes vote passes in a landslide but this is utterly dangerous territory for the AFL. What else should they be informing the public to vote on? Euthanasia? Abortion? Tax Hikes? Jail sentences?

It's very wrong.

Civil liberties are not a contentious moral or political issue, no matter how much some people try to pretend they. The AFL is on the right side of history, as is every organisation that supported women's rights or Aboriginal rights. In 50 years, most no campaigners (in both senses of the word) will be pretending they were right alongside the AFL on this one.

 

[spinynorman]

I wasn't prepared for the relief I felt upon hearing this. That "vote no" sky writing was so utterly dehumanising that I've been deflated all week. If you think this won't make a difference to thousands of struggling Australians you're kidding yourselves. If you think it is the wrong platform then consider what it will mean to the young footballers who might now give footy a chance.

It's like that. I'm generally pretty laid back, see the funny side and brush the dirt off my shoulder. But this thing is pretty wearying, and the uncertainty over the vote for me is doubly upsetting. I try to recognise that the homophobes etc are the people with the issue, not me, and while that helps it's not always enough. The messages of support, even from something innocuous as a sporting organisation, do help and are appreciated, as precious as all that may sound.

I get there are AFL fans who are "No" voters and will probably be pissed off about this. But they'll eventually get over it, especially as their view comes to be more and more recognised as an anachronistic form of bigotry.

 

[Ozil]

You are a dick head if you think sporting bodies should be a political measure. So you would be OK with the AFL siding with one side of the government before an election and being vocal about it?

False equivalence.

Any organisation that preaches inclusion, diversity and equality as the AFL does should be speaking out for marriage equality, whether or not it falls in the political domain.

Comparing a politicised issue such as marriage equality to a general election is just disingenuous, as logical as you must believe it to be.

Already know you're going to attack me over semantics so I'll give you a heads up - you're wasting your time

 

[Topkent]

False equivalence.

Any organisation that preaches inclusion, diversity and equality as the AFL does should be speaking out for marriage equality, whether or not it falls in the political domain.

Comparing a politicised issue such as marriage equality to a general election is just disingenuous, as logical as you must believe it to be.

Already know you're going to attack me over semantics so I'll give you a heads up - you're wasting your time

Attack you? You already labeled people dick heads mate so don't play the victim card. Im voting yes but I don't need the AFL to tell me what to do

 

[The Edukator]

You're a massive dickhead if you reckon a business with the reach of the AFL should stay out of politics.

good to see this post has received so many likes in comparison to opposing view point posts. oh wait...

 

[Randall Stevens]

This move is straight out of the standard AFL populist play book.
The AFL portrays itself as a leader in social issues, but in reality it is a follower of already popular and (for the league) safe causes.
No doubt the AFL has done some good work on social issues, most particularly around racism.
However, they never take a public stance until they 'sniff the wind' of public opinion, and then never take a position which will attract widespread criticism, especially from the media.
I'm not suggesting that the AFL should be taking the opposite position on any of it's social causes.
I just think that they get falsely credited by a compliant media with being community leaders, when in reality they always play safety politics.

 

[King Brown]

Surprised to see those at AFL House in favour of marriage

 

[mr bagcroft]

This move is straight out of the standard AFL populist play book.
The AFL portrays itself as a leader in social issues, but in reality it is a follower of already popular and (for the league) safe causes.
No doubt the AFL has done some good work on social issues, most particularly around racism.
However, they never take a public stance until they 'sniff the wind' of public opinion, and then never take a position which will attract widespread criticism, especially from the media.
I'm not suggesting that the AFL should be taking the opposite position on any of it's social causes.
I just think that they get falsely credited by a compliant media with being community leaders, when in reality they always play safety politics.

You should have seen Gil on 360 last night. Eventually said they are "ÿes" at HQ, but danced around it like he wanted to tell us the holocost didnt happen.

 

[Contra Mundum]

You're a massive dickhead if you reckon a business with the reach of the AFL should stay out of politics.

It comes from a conveniently impoverished conception of what "politics" is - good on 'em I say! The bullshit conservative talking point that they should stay out of "politics" is laughable - that was the justification for going to South Africa during apartheid

 

[Contra Mundum]

You are a dick head if you think sporting bodies should be a political measure. So you would be OK with the AFL siding with one side of the government before an election and being vocal about it?

FFS we are not talking about monetary policy or workplace relations we are talking about the extension of the civil right to marry

 

[King Brown]

It comes from a conveniently impoverished conception of what "politics" is - good on 'em I say! The bullshit conservative talking point that they should stay out of "politics" is laughable - that was the justification for going to South Africa during apartheid

Is gay marriage the same as anti-apartheid?

I'd suggest that the conflation of the issue to be the same as apartheid demonstrates how impoverished modern left politics is.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Is gay marriage the same as anti-apartheid?

I'd suggest that the conflation of the issue to be the same as apartheid demonstrates how impoverished modern left politics is.

The argument was the same:"stay out of politics - there was no politics in deciding to a play sport in a country divided by race and play against a segregated team. That was a "sport" decision. If a decision is made to allocate resources it is a political decision.


This is an issue that transcends party politics which has been rendered political by the religious nutbags in the Coalition - you can even see that because there are liberals campaigning on both sides. Also, there are openly gay women in the AFLW - its a branding exercise

 

[tandino]

The AFL cares about two things, money and metrics. Their social conscious is self serving.

For all the pats on the back that the AFL seeks and gets for "tackling social issues", they only pick the lowest of the low hanging fruit. They are social change followers, not social change leaders.