Game Day AFLW R3: Crows v Dogs @ Norwood

[Sanders]

Pathetically dishonest.

Rather than 'it doesnt effect me at all, so I side with the homophobes because free speech', why not the real version: 'I don't want to live in the world where I can't bully based upon sexuality'.

There's no credible alternative to that being your purpose here.

Let's have a run sheet of events so far:

1. Long history of homophobic culture in football.

2. Rainbow crows attend games together with flags in order to create visibility, aimed at letting others in their position know that they do have a place in football culture, that it's safe to attend games, and that they can do so together.

3. Posters on bigfooty decide to attack that in vile terms, comparing them to 'horse ******s'. They claim that they shouldnt be allowed to identify as a different sexuality or gender at the football (ban their flag), and then post a whole range of bizarre attempts to deny the experience of others by claiming that vilification never occurs at the football, a view so absurdly disingenuous that no one could take it seriously.

4. Other posters criticise that view.

5. Our brave freedom of speech warriors supposedly decide that the need to battle oppression places them on the side of the persons who want LGBTI persons to feel less safe, less included. We're to believe though that this is a purely academic exercise, and that this has nothing to do with their desire to perpetrate that ongoing feeling of insecurity and exclusion.

Bollocks. Your agenda is as obvious as could be. And we won't have a bar of it.

Maybe a touch strong in a couple of places, but not exactly wrong either

 

[Sanders]

Are you referring to the Worpel Effect ?

Think everyone knows

 

[WaynesWorld19]

What’s the audacity of posting about AFLW in this thread ?

 

[GreyCrow]

What’s the audacity of posting about AFLW in this thread ?

Imagine. I probably should post it in the main thread as it pertains to the season and not this game. Just interesting how 1 game can zoom Phillips to the top

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Imagine. I probably should post it in the main thread as it pertains to the season and not this game. Just interesting how 1 game can zoom Phillips to the top

Probably shows we can’t win without Phillips ..... we lose that game without her 4 goals

 

[Roovolution]

Pathetically dishonest.

Rather than 'it doesnt effect me at all, so I side with the homophobes because free speech', why not the real version: 'I don't want to live in the world where I can't bully based upon sexuality'.

There's no credible alternative to that being your purpose here.

Let's have a run sheet of events so far:

1. Long history of homophobic culture in football.

2. Rainbow crows attend games together with flags in order to create visibility, aimed at letting others in their position know that they do have a place in football culture, that it's safe to attend games, and that they can do so together.

3. Posters on bigfooty decide to attack that in vile terms, comparing them to 'horse ******s'. They claim that they shouldnt be allowed to identify as a different sexuality or gender at the football (ban their flag), and then post a whole range of bizarre attempts to deny the experience of others by claiming that vilification never occurs at the football, a view so absurdly disingenuous that no one could take it seriously.

4. Other posters criticise that view.

5. Our brave freedom of speech warriors supposedly decide that the need to battle oppression places them on the side of the persons who want LGBTI persons to feel less safe, less included. We're to believe though that this is a purely academic exercise, and that this has nothing to do with their desire to perpetrate that ongoing feeling of insecurity and exclusion.

Bollocks. Your agenda is as obvious as could be. And we won't have a bar of it.

Again, where have i said anything against gay people? 'We won't have a bar of it?' who is we? you speak for the board do you? Your outrage is hilarious and everything thats wrong with the left. I say that everyone has the right to an opinion (tolerance) and you TRY AND BROWBEAT ME AND INSULT ME into falling into line with your point of view (intolerance). It amazes me that those who call for 'tolerance' are the most intolerant of all. I haven't disagreed with equality, or diagreed with gay people and I supported gay marriage. BUT, I don't believe that people who wanted to preserve marriage for just a man and a woman should be forced to accept gay marriage. It's their choice to think and feel as they wish.

 

[Roovolution]

This is pretty disingenuous.

"All you've done" is say that people should feel free to continue to discriminate against other people on account of their sexuality and gender identity without anyone saying anything about it. And hell, while we're at it, I guess people should be able to discriminate against or exclude other minority or disadvantaged groups without having to worry about "the left" speaking out against it, too!

Can't you see the twofold problem here? First, if nobody speaks up against it, it's left to the very groups who have already been marginalised to speak up against a much larger and more established group. And second, the very thing you're complaining about, that leftist groups are being mean and overbearing, only causes a tiny fraction of the discomfort and confrontation that these disadvantaged groups face on a regular basis.

There is a very apt analogy of someone complaining that they can't water their lawn today because the fire department has used their hose to put out a fire in someone else's house. If you find it a bit of a nuisance that you can't freely ignore the suffering and systemic discrimination of a whole group of people anymore, then bad luck. People are literally committing suicide or winding up on the streets because they are made to feel unwelcome at home, at work, at school, and yes, at public events such as football matches. If you can't see that the merit of publicly stating that there is an inclusive space at a football match outweighs the impediment on other people having their own bigotry affronted, and the even smaller impediment on other people simply having to see that such a thing exists, then you're not trying hard enough.

No i haven't. Show me where I said that? You're reading into it what you want to read into it. You want me to conform to your opinion. I don't abuse gay people, I don't discrimante against gay people either. You're making all these made up claims. Someone questioned the LGBTI flags at the game and they were immediately jumped on and called a bigot. Hlarious that no one can even question anything about the left. Must conform to the lefts opinions or the insults fly. hilarious.

 

[WetCrow1991]

Again, where have i said anything against gay people? 'We won't have a bar of it?' who is we? you speak for the board do you? Your outrage is hilarious and everything thats wrong with the left. I say that everyone has the right to an opinion (tolerance) and you TRY AND BROWBEAT ME AND INSULT ME into falling into line with your point of view (intolerance). It amazes me that those who call for 'tolerance' are the most intolerant of all. I haven't disagreed with equality, or diagreed with gay people and I supported gay marriage. BUT, I don't believe that people who wanted to preserve marriage for just a man and a woman should be forced to accept gay marriage. It's their choice to think and feel as they wish.

Bigots are free to be bigots, they are also free to be called bigots for their bigotry. Opinions aren't being taken away, they are being challenged and people like you aren't used to having their opinions challenged so you don't like it and cry freedom of speech.

 

[cmndstab]

I didn't say that you abused gay people or discriminated against them. I said that you cried foul when people spoke up against that discrimination.

The person didn't "question" the LGBTI flags, they made a post directly equating it to having sex with a horse. That is an objectively bigoted view.

Rather than focusing on how "hilarious" all this is, perhaps you should stop and reflect on how your own indifference to the discrimination of others actually contributes in some small way to it continuing. You might not directly abuse or discriminate against gay people yourself, but your approach to the issue enables others to do so.

 

[Roovolution]

I didn't say that you abused gay people or discriminated against them. I said that you cried foul when people spoke up against that discrimination.

The person didn't "question" the LGBTI flags, they made a post directly equating it to having sex with a horse. That is an objectively bigoted view.

Rather than focusing on how "hilarious" all this is, perhaps you should stop and reflect on how your own indifference to the discrimination of others actually contributes in some small way to it continuing. You might not directly abuse or discriminate against gay people yourself, but your approach to the issue enables others to do so.

Where have I showed that I support discrimination? You write some absolute garbage. You don't know me at all and yet you're making broad sweeping statements about me. Where did I show support for them making a remark about sex with horses? I wrote about how the left will try and browbeeat their views onto other people and the way I've been attacked for stating that just proves my point. Your lectruing of me, someone you have never met, and your broad sweeping agenda driven generalisations about me reek of the same crap that you're supposedly so triggered by.

 

[Roovolution]

Bigots are free to be bigots, they are also free to be called bigots for their bigotry. Opinions aren't being taken away, they are being challenged and people like you aren't used to having their opinions challenged so you don't like it and cry freedom of speech.

And you're just making crap up. Get off your soap box no one is impressed. "I'm not used to having my opinions challenged"???? riiiiight. Please go on and describe me and my life seeing as though you know so much about me.

 

[John Who]

Yes, thanks for that brilliant contribution.

MORE TOLERANCE FOR THE INTOLERANT!

**** the marginalised though.

This might be a little confusing, but bear with me...
By letting you have your say, the "Intolerant" is being tolerant to your intolerance to the "Intolerant".

 

[Redleg Crow]

Erin Phillips sets AFLW alight amidst shadow of AFLX
The AFL’s soulless experiment took the limelight off a dramatic and skilful round

This part especially I thought spot on:
"Phillips embodies many of the competing emotions aroused by a league long overdue. On the one hand, her brilliance is the best advertisement for bringing the league forward from 2020: who can imagine this competition without her finesse and spark? On the other, it is a sad reminder of what might have been: how can she be this good when she was forced to quit the sport as a teenager? Just how good would she have been with the pathways in place to support her to play at the highest level, and to become professional in her chosen sport rather than basketball? Just how many more Erin Phillipses have we missed?"

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...alight-amidst-shadow-of-aflx?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[cmndstab]

Where have I showed that I support discrimination? You write some absolute garbage. You don't know me at all and yet you're making broad sweeping statements about me. Where did I show support for them making a remark about sex with horses? I wrote about how the left will try and browbeeat their views onto other people and the way I've been attacked for stating that just proves my point. Your lectruing of me, someone you have never met, and your broad sweeping agenda driven generalisations about me reek of the same crap that you're supposedly so triggered by.

Come on mate, context is obviously important here. You wrote about the left "browbeating" people immediately following posters commenting on somebody else's post, and the sole content of that post was a picture equating non-heterosexual people to horse*ers. What did you think people would take out of your post?

 

[cmndstab]

This might be a little confusing, but bear with me...
By letting you have your say, the "Intolerant" is being tolerant to your intolerance to the "Intolerant".

I'm sorry, but this argument is just plain foolish.

The "intolerance" you are accusing STO of takes the form of strong words and debate against actions which are harmful and, often, illegal.

The intolerance of your so-called "Intolerant" people takes the form of discrimination and abuse against people who have done nothing wrong.

It is ridiculous to try to argue that they can be compared apples-to-apples style. Doing so in such a sarcastic way makes you look ignorant at best.

 

[FAITH]

Is Erin going back to basketball after aflw finishes?

 

[Next Gen Rookie]

Is Erin going back to basketball after aflw finishes?

She's a coach at Dallas Wings, but she retired from playing.

 

[Ramify]

Where have I showed that I support discrimination? You write some absolute garbage. You don't know me at all and yet you're making broad sweeping statements about me. Where did I show support for them making a remark about sex with horses? I wrote about how the left will try and browbeeat their views onto other people and the way I've been attacked for stating that just proves my point. Your lectruing of me, someone you have never met, and your broad sweeping agenda driven generalisations about me reek of the same crap that you're supposedly so triggered by.

Get with it mate. If you arent 100% militant with them then you are 100% whatever bogeyman they can dream up as justification to be so militant. Rationale, freedom of expression,tollerance,context and point of view all go out the window when it doesnt fit the aganda. This is the world we live in today and whilst it isnt quite at the tipping point, it isnt far off.

Not hard to read what you have written with an open mind if you have an open mind devoid of preconceived notion. Im expecting to be labeled a homophobe for writting this as it comes with the turf.

I find it hilariously ironic that some of this boards biggest bullys are the one attempting to champion such causes.

Im sure Ill get wacked for derailing the thread so Ill stop now. More than willing to pick it up again in the appropriate forum though.

 

[Bicks]

http://www.afc.com.au/news/2018-02-19/aflw-cox-charged-twice

Dayna Cox has been charged with two separate offences from Adelaide’s AFLW win over the Western Bulldogs on Saturday.
Cox was reported for striking Bulldogs star Ellie Blackburn late in the first quarter at Norwood Oval. The incident was assessed by the Match Review as intentional conduct with low impact to the body. Cox can accept a reprimand for the incident with an early guilty plea, or risk a one-game suspension by challenging the charge at the AFL Tribunal. Cox was booked again for striking moments later after remonstrating with Blackburn’s teammate Emma Kearney. The second incident was assessed as intentional conduct with low impact to the head. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction, but Cox can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea. The in-form defender risks a two-match ban for an unsuccessful tribunal challenge.
Crows forward Jenna McCormick was also charged by the Match Review. McCormick can accept a reprimand for rough conduct for Dogs defender Hannah Scott in the last quarter. The incident was assessed as careless conduct with low impact to the head. The incident was classified as a one-match sanction. Adelaide has until late-Tuesday morning to decide whether to challenge the Match Review's findings.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Sounds a bit weird. You normally hear of Achilles injury, ankle sprains/tears or fracture. Tex recently with plantar fasciitis. Don't normally hear ankle dislocation. If that was the case, one would likely get sprains/tears or fracture as well, for an ankle to be dislocated.

She played a lot of last season with that ankle injured. I wonder if they didn't get the stability right again, or that caused an underlying issue still there with the ankle. Such a pity as she is such an incredibly talented player.

 

[John Who]

I'm sorry, but this argument is just plain foolish.

The "intolerance" you are accusing STO of takes the form of strong words and debate against actions which are harmful and, often, illegal.

The intolerance of your so-called "Intolerant" people takes the form of discrimination and abuse against people who have done nothing wrong.

It is ridiculous to try to argue that they can be compared apples-to-apples style. Doing so in such a sarcastic way makes you look ignorant at best.

There are 2 separate arguments merged within the 1 debate.
1. Can you be a bigot and allowed to make excuses to keep being a bigot? The answer coming out of my mind is a "no".
2. Can you have the right to ask a question, make a stupid comment/joke, and can be forgiven and not be solely judged on with a paragraph? The answer is a "yes". That's what the forum is for, is it not? To throw around opinions and discuss what the general mood and thoughts of the forum?

I didn't see the picture of the flags, so I'm not going to say more about that. However, what I'm merely saying and a few others are pointing out, is that we're allowed to have freedom of speech. You can attack something they say is wrong if it genuinely seems wrong, but you shouldn't attack them as an entire whole for whatever else they say, on the assumption everything else they say is wrong, or whoever else defends them is wrong. It's a blind argument and gets you nowhere in discussions.
So basically, bigotry is wrong but it doesn't make you right in everything else you say.

 

[John Who]

http://www.afc.com.au/news/2018-02-19/aflw-cox-charged-twice

Cox and Randall are our 2 in form small-mid defenders. Losing Cox would be big blow for next week, hopefully Cramey would be back by then. Anyone hear any injury updates on Cramey?

 

[NikkiNoo]

There are 2 separate arguments merged within the 1 debate.
1. Can you be a bigot and allowed to make excuses to keep being a bigot? The answer coming out of my mind is a "no".
2. Can you have the right to ask a question, make a stupid comment/joke, and can be forgiven and not be solely judged on with a paragraph? The answer is a "yes". That's what the forum is for, is it not? To throw around opinions and discuss what the general mood and thoughts of the forum?

I didn't see the picture of the flags, so I'm not going to say more about that. However, what I'm merely saying and a few others are pointing out, is that we're allowed to have freedom of speech. You can attack something they say is wrong if it genuinely seems wrong, but you shouldn't attack them as an entire whole for whatever else they say, on the assumption everything else they say is wrong, or whoever else defends them is wrong. It's a blind argument and gets you nowhere in discussions.
So basically, bigotry is wrong but it doesn't make you right in everything else you say.

Well Actually in Australia, no, you do not have Freedom of Speech. We don't have it. We don't have a Bill of Rights. We have a constitution that does not implicitly allow it nor do we have a Bill of Rights aligned with our Constitution. We do have ability of freedom of expression in respect to an implied freedom of political speech that the High Court has stated is implied in our Constitution. This general idea of Freedom of Speech is easily disproved in Australia as we have laws that already curtail it in respect to hate speech, sex discrimination, defamation, and laws against threatening people etc. Anyone claiming it lacks a basic understanding of our rights as Australian citizens.

Also the picture of the flags was not a "joke", it was a horrible display of bigotry and the poster has doubled down on the 'it's just a joke, get over it' numerous times.

 

[radiojake]

Roovolution, don't think it's possible to cry about 'the left' anymore than what you have in this thread

you are the true victim - #lefthandsoutforRoovolution

 

[BRL121]

There are 2 separate arguments merged within the 1 debate.
1. Can you be a bigot and allowed to make excuses to keep being a bigot? The answer coming out of my mind is a "no".
2. Can you have the right to ask a question, make a stupid comment/joke, and can be forgiven and not be solely judged on with a paragraph? The answer is a "yes". That's what the forum is for, is it not? To throw around opinions and discuss what the general mood and thoughts of the forum?

I didn't see the picture of the flags, so I'm not going to say more about that. However, what I'm merely saying and a few others are pointing out, is that we're allowed to have freedom of speech. You can attack something they say is wrong if it genuinely seems wrong, but you shouldn't attack them as an entire whole for whatever else they say, on the assumption everything else they say is wrong, or whoever else defends them is wrong. It's a blind argument and gets you nowhere in discussions.
So basically, bigotry is wrong but it doesn't make you right in everything else you say.

I don't really want to comment on the specifics of this saga, and I think it should be offloaded to another thread.
However, I'd like to appeal for more gentle discussions, which seem to have been carried on here only by the Colonel!

My particular academic beef is the use of the word "bigot" (in a pejorative sense). This means " a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions", i.e., most of us here on BF. It's particularly ironic that SJW side of the "debate" throws this word around willy-nilly, while simultaneously demonstrating that it applies to them, e.g., in one case labelling the enemy as old white men, simultaneously ageist and sexist! Let's face it: we're all bigots, and there's nothing wrong with that, it just means holding a fixed opinion, impervious to the views of the other side.