Roast I’m a footballer so people shouldn’t criticise me

[Wosh]

I’m going to start moving posts to SRP threads, I know its a blurry line but this board in an AFL one so keep your posts (somehow) related to footy and players. Sorry if the threads get messed up a bit but it is what it is.

Cheers and thanks


Edit:
Ok I’ve done my best with one eye closed, please use the report button on anything that should be moved to SRP or crosses lines, it helps alot.
There ARE threads over there for Jordan Peterson, transgender, toxic masculinity…whatever your black heart desires.

 

[JyeDye]

Just the main board? What about all the other boards?!!?!

#AllBoardsMatter

Not too big on the political threads on the Belarusian Premier League board, the others are alright I guess.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Not the best look for someone whose long term future at the Crows looks fairly sketchy and especially coming not so long after the Tex Walker racism scandal.

I just think (like Tex) he doesn't set out to be deliberately offensive or bigoted, just ignorant, dumb as a door knob..

Unfortunately for him, ignorance cuts people little slack in today's world/society

 

[RUNVS]

Not the best look for someone whose long term future at the Crows looks fairly sketchy and especially coming not so long after the Tex Walker racism scandal.

I just think (like Tex) he doesn't set out to be deliberately offensive or bigoted, just ignorant, dumb as a door knob..

Unfortunately for him, ignorance cuts people little slack in today's world/society

There are different kinds of ignorance though. I don't mind when someone is ignorant of how a nuclear power station works, that is very specific information that you need to go out of your way to find out about, but someone being ignorant about whether men and women are equal is a choice on that persons part, they are deliberately being ignorant.

 

[Shadow89]

Again, 'semantics' maybe or maybe not, still there's no evidence that ROB is claiming he shouldn't be criticised 'coz I play footy'

The evidence is that he says AFL footballers are unable to express themselves as freely as they'd like to, due to the fear of getting 'shot down.'

Tbh I feel you're being overly pedantic and trying to stop people discussing something because of your opinion that it's a 'pile on' that's not overly relevant. While I understand that this may get frustrating, the subject matter is still important to discuss, given he's not the first footballer to have polarizing views, and he won't be the last.

It's not important though. I was polite, friendly and shared the article and the original IG post (which I searched specifically because you asked and couldn't access it) as requested, and got a pretty blunt post in response saying it was the same article, lol. Let's call it an impasse and leave it there - as you have your position on this and I have mine - and we're probably not going to diverge from those.

 

[Square Peg]

The evidence is that he says AFL footballers are unable to express themselves as freely as they'd like to, due to the fear of getting 'shot down.'

Tbh I feel you're being overly pedantic and trying to stop people discussing something because of your opinion that it's a 'pile on' that's not overly relevant. While I understand that this may get frustrating, the subject matter is still important to discuss, given he's not the first footballer to have polarizing views, and he won't be the last.

It's not important though. I was polite, friendly and shared the article and the original IG post (which I searched specifically because you asked ans couldn't access it) as requested, and got a pretty blunt post in response saying it was the same article, lol. Let's call it an impasse and leave it there - as you have your position on this and I have mine - and we're probably not going to diverge from those.

Genuine question here from someone that doesn't have any social media. If he posts something, and someone responds with a comment he finds abusive/threatening etc, can he just delete the comment off his own page? Because what I saw on your post was a screenshot where all the comments were supportive - if that's the case has he deleted the critical ones, or are the critical ones there and I just am stupid and can't see them.

To know whether O'Brien is being a big sook or has a point really depends on what comments were made on his post. When O'Brien said he was 'shot down' does he mean people were making reasoned criticisms of Peterson and why they disagree with him (in which case O'brien is a sook), or by being 'shot down' does he mean people were abusing him, calling him a transphobe engaging in hate speech and threatening a social media campaign to force Adelaide to sack him (in which case O'Brien has a valid point). For all the people lightly dismissing cancel culture as just speech, IMO the first is acceptable, the second isn't.

 

[BigPond101]

It was pathetic when that ex St Kilda player got busted for drug trafficking all the hand wringing from the AFL community about how tough it is to be an ex player and how they deserve so much support. Like the AFL should appoint a 24/7 carer to each former player to watch over them. "Now Sam it's a bad idea to load drugs into electrical appliances and ship it to WA and remember we have lunch with mum at 1pm"

 

[Bunk Moreland]

This thread is really off topic.

It's become a jorpy thread. Paragraphs and paragraphs in single posts on jorpy bashing, fair enough.

Little in regard to ROB either, just claims of 'if you don't like criticism, then pledge your allegiance to destroy jorpy, otherwise expect the criticism' - ok, fair enough too.

But to the thread title, the article in the op doesn't provide evidence of ROB having a sook about people criticising him.

I've asked Bunk Moreland , the op, and another to link any evidence of salt from ROB - nothin yet.

So has ROB complained about criticism of him because he was attending / in a photo with the anti christ jorpy?

If not, may I suggest a change of thread title.

'ROB in photo with and attended jorpy convention, pile on both, go nuts' < this is what this thread is.

You can re-read the OP if you don't understand it.

Here's what ROB said:

“In society it’s hard to have a point of view without getting shot down, especially with someone like that who doesn’t agree with the mainstream narrative a lot of the time,”

“I think we’d like more opinions, especially from AFL players. AFL players can be a bit vanilla compared to American sports, for example.

“I think there can be a lot more interest can be generated if players can be themselves and express their views."

He's saying "Don't criticise me because I'm a footballer" - coincidentally what I called the thread.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The evidence is that he says AFL footballers are unable to express themselves as freely as they'd like to, due to the fear of getting 'shot down.'

Tbh I feel you're being overly pedantic and trying to stop people discussing something because of your opinion that it's a 'pile on' that's not overly relevant. While I understand that this may get frustrating, the subject matter is still important to discuss, given he's not the first footballer to have polarizing views, and he won't be the last.

It's not important though. I was polite, friendly and shared the article and the original IG post (which I searched specifically because you asked and couldn't access it) as requested, and got a pretty blunt post in response saying it was the same article, lol. Let's call it an impasse and leave it there - as you have your position on this and I have mine - and we're probably not going to diverge from those.

Well I guess we're in agreement then, it's just a pile on thread with a misleading title.

To you that equals semantics / pedantic.

Ok, have a nice day.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You can re-read the OP if you don't understand it.

Here's what ROB said:

“In society it’s hard to have a point of view without getting shot down, especially with someone like that who doesn’t agree with the mainstream narrative a lot of the time,”

“I think we’d like more opinions, especially from AFL players. AFL players can be a bit vanilla compared to American sports, for example.

“I think there can be a lot more interest can be generated if players can be themselves and express their views."

He's saying "Don't criticise me because I'm a footballer" - coincidentally what I called the thread.

And none of that equates to 'I'm a footballer so people shouldn't criticise me' - in fact it's nowhere near it, and you still haven't provided anything that states ROB has said 'I'm a footballer so people shouldn't criticise me'.

All of what he has said here is exactly what he said, nothing about being salty coz someone said he's sooking coz he's a footy player and he should expect it coz he's with a mentally unstable public figure.

It's all in the op, I read the op, no evidence of him saying 'I'm a footballer so people shouldn't criticise me'

And as far as people sooking about him sooking that I can find, is only on BF, unless you can link some other evidence on that.

I'm going to fairly speculate that because he's in a photo with an unstable shrink the right wing crayon eaters drool over, that you're making it a free for all to pile on, and by extension, pile on to jorpy to.

Fair enough, everyone knock yourselves out.

Makes the thread title incorrect, false and misleading though.

 

[Shadow89]

Well I guess we're in agreement then, it's just a pile on thread with a misleading title.

To you that equals semantics / pedantic.

Ok, have a nice day.

God you're rude.

We're not in agreement at all - that's why I said we're at an impasse. It's not a pile on at all. You just have your own interpretation of how the thread should be worded and how people should be behaving. If he's saying that 'footballers can't speak freely' he's including himself and his teammates in that summation...because they are also footballers too. You apparently can't seem to grasp this, so you just go about insulting everyone and acting all holier than thou - when it's been a pretty civil discussion thus far.

Ignored.

 

[Carringbush2010]

God you're rude.

Ignored.

I'd call it your over sensitive.

My post was blunt at worst, no intent to be rude.

Have a nice day.

 

[Shadow89]

I'd call it your over sensitive.

My post was blunt at worst, no intent to be rude.

Have a nice day.

Read the edited post. It's not me being oversensitive, you're just acting like a tool - to someone who shared his IG post and was civil to you up until this point. Maybe don't bother posting on the forum, if you don't like what's being discussed or how it's being discussed. This site is Big Footy which is an open forum - not Caringbush2010's private debate parlour.

 

[My_Username]

People need to understand that every single person in this world has an alternate point of view. You don’t learn anything in life without listening and reading to an array of different people or books.

You then make up your own mind.

He’s a footballer whose job it is to kick or handball a footballer. Outside of football he is learning about the world. People need to stop acting so big and brave on social media thinking their viewpoint is how the world is.

It’s an opinion. Like an a**hole we all have one.

Yep.

Indeed, one of the best ways to grow as a person is to look at and consider opinions you don't agree with.

What are their merits? (few developed opinions don't have ANY).
Why do people think this is a good idea?
What can I learn from this?
What ideas might I benefit from adopting?

For example, I'm an atheist, but that hasn't stopped me reading a number of religious and spiritual texts and attended seminars. How is it a bad thing that from doing so I have discovered that Buddhism (for example) has some good ideas, and that I am better off from incorporating them into my life?

I also find that from looking more broadly, I am (usually) more accepting of those who do follow different paths.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It's not me being oversensitive, you're just acting like a tool

This says otherwise

if you don't like what's being discussed or how it's being discussed.

Now you're misinterpreting my view on a misleading thread title as a dislike.

That is incorrect.

Caringbush2010's private debate parlour.

No such thing exists, I don't view BF this way, you're misinterpreting again.

It is BF as you say, if you don't like my reasonable posts you have the right to ignore me, as I have the right to question the motive of the thread and it's title.

Or you can continue in your current sensitive demeanor and attempt to make it personal, not fussy either way.

I'll leave it there, you do as you please, have a nice day.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

And none of that equates to 'I'm a footballer so people shouldn't criticise me' - in fact it's nowhere near it, and you still haven't provided anything that states ROB has said 'I'm a footballer so people shouldn't criticise me'.

Well that’s nice. I reckon it’s exactly what it equates to.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well that’s nice. I speculate with no evidence it’s exactly what it equates to.

 

[rye]

And none of that equates to 'I'm a footballer so people shouldn't criticise me' - in fact it's nowhere near it, and you still haven't provided anything that states ROB has said 'I'm a footballer so people shouldn't criticise me'.

X: I dont consume animal products
Y: I think X is a vegan because of the above quote
Carringbush2010: how can you say that Y? you haven't provided anything that states X has said 'i am a vegan'

 

[Engimal v3]

O'Brien seems like a bit of a sooky la la

 

[Square Peg]

Well that’s nice. I reckon it’s exactly what it equates to.

No it doesn't. He used the words "shot down", and you have made no attempt to clarify what he meant by that or what the content of posts on his social media were for him to claim he was being shot down.
He might use the term "shot down" to describe mild reasoned criticism of his adoration for Peterson, in which case you have a valid point.
Or he might use the term "shot down" to describe vilification, threats and abuse, in which case your thread title is a load of crap.

 

[Shadow89]

Genuine question here from someone that doesn't have any social media. If he posts something, and someone responds with a comment he finds abusive/threatening etc, can he just delete the comment off his own page? Because what I saw on your post was a screenshot where all the comments were supportive - if that's the case has he deleted the critical ones, or are the critical ones there and I just am stupid and can't see them.

To know whether O'Brien is being a big sook or has a point really depends on what comments were made on his post. When O'Brien said he was 'shot down' does he mean people were making reasoned criticisms of Peterson and why they disagree with him (in which case O'brien is a sook), or by being 'shot down' does he mean people were abusing him, calling him a transphobe engaging in hate speech and threatening a social media campaign to force Adelaide to sack him (in which case O'Brien has a valid point). For all the people lightly dismissing cancel culture as just speech, IMO the first is acceptable, the second isn't.

The critical ones are there, but you do have to expand it. I'd say there's honestly a mix of all of the above factors you've queried - with the most common theme being a mix of incredulity and disbelief - and then mass support for ROB and Peterson. Here's most of the comments screenshotted to give you an idea (more comments are actually supportive of him and Peterson than against upon second viewing):

 

[Engimal v3]

The critical ones are there, but you do have to expand it. I'd say there's honestly a mix of all of the above factors you've queried - with the most common theme being a mix of incredulity and disbelief - and then mass support for ROB and Peterson. Here's most of the comments screenshotted to give you an idea (more comments are actually supportive of him and Peterson than against upon second viewing):

View attachment 1585058View attachment 1585059
View attachment 1585060
View attachment 1585062
View attachment 1585063
View attachment 1585064
View attachment 1585065
View attachment 1585066
View attachment 1585068

Make those screenshots a little bit bigger could you mate? I can't quite make out the text

 

[Square Peg]

The critical ones are there, but you do have to expand it. I'd say there's honestly a mix of all of the above factors you've queried - with the most common theme being a mix of incredulity and disbelief - and then mass support for ROB and Peterson. Here's most of the comments screenshotted to give you an idea (more comments are actually supportive of him and Peterson than against upon second viewing):

View attachment 1585058View attachment 1585059
View attachment 1585060
View attachment 1585062
View attachment 1585063
View attachment 1585064
View attachment 1585065
View attachment 1585066
View attachment 1585068

So on first read, a few of the usual threats about burning my membership card because a player believes something I don't believe, and plenty of criticsm of peterson himself, but nothing that can really be construed as a particularly nasty threat to Mr Reilly.
So yeah, he seems a bit precious if this is the full extent of being "shot down"

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

If you want to pose with a pr0n addicted narccisist, misogynist, benzo-addict, psuedo-intellectual w***er who can't even seem to help himself, then expect some of your teams members to be unhappy about it.
In Riley's defence , Peterson does target gulible dumb males with issues.

 

[Shadow89]

So on first read, a few of the usual threats about burning my membership card because a player believes something I don't believe, and plenty of criticsm of peterson himself, but nothing that can really be construed as a particularly nasty threat to Mr Reilly.
So yeah, he seems a bit precious if this is the full extent of being "shot down"

The bolded was my feeling towards it all too, haha

 

[Shadow89]

Make those screenshots a little bit bigger could you mate? I can't quite make out the text

Sorry mate, unfortunately did it on my phone, so not much I can do. You could either zoom in by zooming in on the BF screen/click the photo and zoom in that way. Otherwise if you're on a comp, just use ctrl + to zoom in. If I get a chance tomorrow I'll see if I can expand it, but see how ya go with above