Status in Question Player removed from Hall of fame?

[Soggy2112]

I don't disagree with you on much of this, but I still don't believe its wise or warranted to remove Sam from the HOF for interviewing two loonies.

If he had have denied the holocaust or condoned Hitler's behaviour himself then fair enough, but thats not what occurred.

He just did a crap job at pushing back on the stuff that they said that he (and 99% of people) disagreed with.

I would say that there’s a pretty big catalogue of reasons for Sam to not be in the Hall of Fame.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

I would say that there’s a pretty big catalogue of reasons for Sam to not be in the Hall of Fame.

Fantastic

 

[sharps24]

Problem with this approach is that there’s the few mentally ill people that will listen, fall down a rabbit hole and decide fire bombing a child care centre is a good idea

Waiting to help real nutters reach the logical end of a political movement that they don’t really understand is privilege only afforded to those not directly in the firing line of their hate

And the problem with your approach is, who gets to decide what information, views, people, is allowed to circulate, be expressed, speak in a society? The media, the government? You? A small subset of Bigfooty posters? There's this thing called the slippery slope. Governments and the power seeking individuals who fill their ranks are not exactly known for being the most benevolent of people, and traditionally ceding ground to these people and shutting down public debate for "the common good" rarely ends well. Sometimes to the tune of 10's to 100's of millions dead.

These white nationalist guys want to live in a society where everyone looks like and thinks like them. That idea will never reach critical mass here, so they are not going to get their way. If you believe that that means one of them is going to blow up a childcare centre, well based on what evidence? How would that help them reach their goals? What history is there of this being a tactic for them to gain political ground? How many terror attacks have there been in Australia in the past 100 years and who were they done by? I almost all cases these type of things are done by the genuinely mentally ill, and not politically motivated individuals.

I am fine with people committing and expressing their own private thought crimes if it means that I and everyone else I know also get to think what I want and have a discussion about what I'm thinking about. Given their presumed opposition to Australian citizens of Israel and as a consequence of that populations significant political clout, for every one of these far right individuals in Australia there are probably and equal number of law enforcement officers monitoring their every move. You've probably got more chance of being struck by lighting while being attacked by a shark than you or anyone you know dying in a right wing terror attack on an Australian childcare centre. If you want to make a costs vs benefits argument around public harms you'd save more lives lobbying to have private vehicles banned.

 

[Gough]

And the problem with your approach is, who gets to decide what information, views, people, is allowed to circulate, be expressed, speak in a society? The media, the government? You? A small subset of Bigfooty posters? There's this thing called the slippery slope. Governments and the power seeking individuals who fill their ranks are not exactly known for being the most benevolent of people, and traditionally ceding ground to these people and shutting down public debate for "the common good" rarely ends well. Sometimes to the tune of 10's to 100's of millions dead.

These white nationalist guys want to live in a society where everyone looks like and thinks like them. That idea will never reach critical mass here, so they are not going to get their way. If you believe that that means one of them is going to blow up a childcare centre, well based on what evidence? How would that help them reach their goals? What history is there of this being a tactic for them to gain political ground? How many terror attacks have there been in Australia in the past 100 years and who were they done by? I almost all cases these type of things are done by the genuinely mentally ill, and not politically motivated individuals.

I am fine with people committing and expressing their own private thought crimes if it means that I and everyone else I know also get to think what I want and have a discussion about what I'm thinking about. Given their presumed opposition to Australian citizens of Israel and as a consequence of that populations significant political clout, for every one of these far right individuals in Australia there are probably and equal number of law enforcement officers monitoring their every move. You've probably got more chance of being struck by lighting while being attacked by a shark than you or anyone you know dying in a right wing terror attack on an Australian childcare centre. If you want to make a costs vs benefits argument around public harms you'd save more lives lobbying to have private vehicles banned.

We know what Nazis want to do, history has shown us their aims. Why should we have to tolerate people that want that to happen again?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Lots of excuses being made for people who want to push replacement theory, but just don’t call them nazis. That’s unhelpful.

Tell that to the families of the Christchurch mosque.

 

[revo333]

I understand why Sam Newman was unsuccessful in business all those years ago. I can't think of too many people who are happy to blow up their careers and reputation as frequently as this bloke does. The AFL decided to allow Garry Snr entry into the Hall of Fame knowing his history. That precedent alone means they can't do anything to Sam Newman. What we can do though is deny the bloke oxygen (not in the literal sense) by ignoring him. Don't listen to the podcast, don't click on articles about him. Just pretend he doesn't exist. We can go back and reflect on his football career once his dead. It's worth reflecting on. He just isn't worth giving the satisfaction of that reflection while he's still walking amongst us

6 pages later lol

 

[Profop]

And the problem with your approach is, who gets to decide what information, views, people, is allowed to circulate, be expressed, speak in a society? The media, the government? You? A small subset of Bigfooty posters? There's this thing called the slippery slope. Governments and the power seeking individuals who fill their ranks are not exactly known for being the most benevolent of people, and traditionally ceding ground to these people and shutting down public debate for "the common good" rarely ends well. Sometimes to the tune of 10's to 100's of millions dead.

These white nationalist guys want to live in a society where everyone looks like and thinks like them. That idea will never reach critical mass here, so they are not going to get their way. If you believe that that means one of them is going to blow up a childcare centre, well based on what evidence? How would that help them reach their goals? What history is there of this being a tactic for them to gain political ground? How many terror attacks have there been in Australia in the past 100 years and who were they done by? I almost all cases these type of things are done by the genuinely mentally ill, and not politically motivated individuals.

I am fine with people committing and expressing their own private thought crimes if it means that I and everyone else I know also get to think what I want and have a discussion about what I'm thinking about. Given their presumed opposition to Australian citizens of Israel and as a consequence of that populations significant political clout, for every one of these far right individuals in Australia there are probably and equal number of law enforcement officers monitoring their every move. You've probably got more chance of being struck by lighting while being attacked by a shark than you or anyone you know dying in a right wing terror attack on an Australian childcare centre. If you want to make a costs vs benefits argument around public harms you'd save more lives lobbying to have private vehicles banned.

Based on the evidence that I was talking about an event that’s already happened in Sydney

The series of antisemitic attacks that have shocked Sydney

Sydney has experienced several antisemitic attacks, mainly in Sydney's eastern suburbs where many Jewish people live, which have been met with widespread community outrage and a heavy police response.

www.abc.net.au

 

[sharps24]

Based on the evidence that I was talking about an event that’s already happened in Sydney

The series of antisemitic attacks that have shocked Sydney

Sydney has experienced several antisemitic attacks, mainly in Sydney's eastern suburbs where many Jewish people live, which have been met with widespread community outrage and a heavy police response.

www.abc.net.au

Oh ok cool. Palestinians are Nazis as well now then, geez now that they have the Middle East block maybe we really do have something to worry about.

 

[sharps24]

We know what Nazis want to do, history has shown us their aims. Why should we have to tolerate people that want that to happen again?

It's illegal in Australia to promote the Nazi regime. I guess I missed the bit where Sam and his guests were arrested as a result of the discussion they had. Or alternatively, nothing that was said was against any law in which case maybe what they were talking about was somewhat different to "people wanting to do that again," whatever you mean by that. Presumably you mean the holocaust. Are you saying Sam's guests were arguing for another holocaust? I didn't listen to it but if that's the case wowee, someone call Vic Police.

They are talking about prescient immigration issues that have decided elections in America and Europe and will inevitably decide future elections here, as it decided elections in the Howard years. The right is sweeping the board and Australia, though it lags behind all of the 5 eyes countries due to the general apathy of its voters, will also fall into line with the zeitgeist and swing far right. Mostly because undecided voters in the middle are going to pivot away from the left because it no longer has any morals whatsoever and can't be engaged sensibly in a debate.

Ethno-nationalism is the baseline concept that lies at one side of the debate with a nationless, borderless utopian race rainbow at the other. Most people are obviously somewherein the middle on policy specifics, and swing voters decide elections. The majority [including me btw] are left of centre on multiculturalism and migration policy, they will vote right of centre [not including me, I'm too disgusted in humanity to vote with either side] due to currently perceiving the left have become unfit to govern.

"Everyone I don't agree with is a Nazi" should just be a bad meme, but it's clearly true enough. You can take the air out of the debate simply by being sensible enough to agree to what positions are being discussed and to refrain from engaging in deceit and slander but that is simply beyond the ability of most when they feel they are in a safe majority. You could just acknowledge that there are pro's and con's to migration strategies and population dynamics and people exist on the furthest reaches of each side of the debate and are free to [and should expect] to have their views heard.

Instead we have to go through a charade of "oh these guys hold the furthest position that exists on migration and demographics, that must mean they are want to have another holocaust and will start blowing up childcare centres if we let them speak in public." That is a deceitful position. Nobody agree's with these guys, or what, 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, but instead of just letting them convince that <1% of people to join their [legally incorporated I'd assume] political party and achieve absolutely nothing in a democratic system, the collective brains trust on the other side of the debate prefers to turn the issue into something that can turn an election: the question of the lefts judgement and tendency to drift toward authoritarianism. Way to go I guess, had the board and orchestrated what is going to be a clean sweep of the board in the West back to conservative right wing populist governments. Oh well we'll always have the 90s and early 2000's to look back on fondly. Thanks a lot for whats coming.

 

[Profop]

Oh ok cool. Palestinians are Nazis as well now then, geez now that they have the Middle East block maybe we really do have something to worry about.

The reality is that these far right groups are using world events to help push their cause. What’s happening currently globally is certainly making their lives and reach a bit easier and larger in that regard

As such you’d think with how society is currently you’d be even less likely to give them any sort of soapbox to preach from

It’s all well and good to say let those one percent of society who live by a mantra of hate have their free will but it’s an easy argument to make with no skin in the game. I’m not from a minority so look it doesn’t affect me personally either but if we’re deciding not to take a proactive approach as a society to stamp this out then it’s on all of us should someone get hurt from it

The signs are clearly there that it could escalate to that and no one should be placing unfettered free speech above a persons right to live in safety

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I did not mention Nazi's in my comment. Other forum members have though. I do agree that their ideology is dangerous and must be challenged and kept in check by public opinion. There is just a difference of opinion as to the best way to achieve this. Some say do not give them any platform/media presence is the best way to dismantle their organisation. I think that giving them more media exposure and putting them under the spotlight will expose their harmful ideologies to a larger public audience and the public will reject them and their beliefs.

Yes the Public in general will reject them, but not everyone will, and more will be radicalised and the evil lingers and grows.

 

[Dreamend]

Sam Newman has increasingly forwarded views that align far more with the people he platformed than not. Given what's occurring in America, this platforming doesn't appear to be a coincidence.

The two Nazi's on his podcast are well aware of what they were doing. The fact this blew up into National news was the plan.

Arguing semantics on if they're Nazi's or not is giving big libertarian vibes.

Most Nazi's won't say they're Nazi's but dance around it with dog whistles.

TLDR; They're Nazi's, don't platform them.

 

[Soggy2112]

Sam Newman has increasingly forwarded views that align far more with the people he platformed than not. Given what's occurring in America, this platforming doesn't appear to be a coincidence.

The two Nazi's on his podcast are well aware of what they were doing. The fact this blew up into National news was the plan.

Arguing semantics on if they're Nazi's or not is giving big libertarian vibes.

Most Nazi's won't say they're Nazi's but dance around it with dog whistles.

TLDR; They're Nazi's, don't platform them.

When Adam Goodes encouraged Australians to educate themselves about the treatment of aboriginal people in our country, Sam scolded him for provoking people and said that an Australian of the year should placate people.

But when it comes to Nazis, we should hear them out and see what they have to say before making judgements.

Says a lot doesn’t it…

 

[Whit3y]

if what newman is doing now is cause to be removed from the hall of fame then surely ablett senior should have got the boot years ago.

Why should he be giving the boot?

 

[Cam Payne]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.Voltaire, (Attributed); originated in "The Friends of Voltaire", 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)

Voltaire did not say this. Evelyn there wrote that line.

 

[ReturningHawk]

"Everyone I don't agree with is a Nazi" should just be a bad meme, but it's clearly true enough. You can take the air out of the debate simply by being sensible enough to agree to what positions are being discussed and to refrain from engaging in deceit and slander but that is simply beyond the ability of most when they feel they are in a safe majority. You could just acknowledge that there are pro's and con's to migration strategies and population dynamics and people exist on the furthest reaches of each side of the debate and are free to [and should expect] to have their views heard.

Instead we have to go through a charade of "oh these guys hold the furthest position that exists on migration and demographics, that must mean they are want to have another holocaust and will start blowing up childcare centres if we let them speak in public." That is a deceitful position. Nobody agree's with these guys, or what, 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, but instead of just letting them convince that <1% of people to join their [legally incorporated I'd assume] political party and achieve absolutely nothing in a democratic system, the collective brains trust on the other side of the debate prefers to turn the issue into something that can turn an election: the question of the lefts judgement and tendency to drift toward authoritarianism. Way to go I guess, had the board and orchestrated what is going to be a clean sweep of the board in the West back to conservative right wing populist governments. Oh well we'll always have the 90s and early 2000's to look back on fondly. Thanks a lot for whats coming.

Did you just call Nazism a "migration strategy"?

You may be so long-winded that many won't bother arguing with you, but I can be succinct: neo-nazism is becoming increasingly overt, and the propagation of these ideas is having grave consequences which go beyond your own indifference.

 

[sharps24]

Did you just call Nazism a "migration strategy"?

You may be so long-winded that many won't bother arguing with you, but I can be succinct: neo-nazism is becoming increasingly overt, and the propagation of these ideas is having grave consequences which go beyond your own indifference.

I can be more succinct. Your comment is an idiotic strawman attack and I'd suggest whatever your attempt at understanding of "these ideas'' best you take a rest before you hurt yourself.

 

[ReturningHawk]

I can be more succinct. Your comment is an idiotic strawman attack and I'd suggest whatever your attempt at understanding of "these ideas'' best you take a rest before you hurt yourself.

I did realise that your post was idiotic, but didn't realise that quoting your own words back to you would constitute a strawman attack. Feel free to get back to your apathy.

 

[Warhorse]

Much much much worse characters in the hall of fame. And lots of them. Would be shocked if he was removed

 

[sharps24]

I did realise that your post was idiotic, but didn't realise that quoting your own words back to you would constitute a strawman attack. Feel free to get back to your apathy.

Cheers cob, I'll continue to do nothing about the Nazi scurge. Wake me up when they retake Europe. In the meantime maybe ask your kindi teacher what a strawman argument is and how adults don't really say "I know you are you said you are but what am I" out on the big boy playground.

 

[Carringbush2010]

One of the interviewees, Thomas Sewell, previously leaving court;
View attachment 2217716

Normally I'd make a joke about how he's waving to Elon Musk,but FFS how can anybody,even an utter buffoon like Newman, give these people a platform or any publicity whatsoever.

To quote Newman from his vid above;
"Why don't you have a look at what they say and what I asked them and you make your mind up".

Call me prejudiced Sam,but I don't really need to listen to your podcast to determine what I think about these blokes.

(As an aside with any suggestion that Newman lose his place in the AFL HOF I'm tipping he and the Andrew Bolt's of this World will soon be complaining about wokeness and cancel culture, because well isn't it important to hear all side of the argument. )

It's more about him giving them any type of platform.

The idea of denying those aholes a platform would equate to hypocrisy. One can't claim freedom of speech for all and then claim no one should give a platform to their worldview.

We all know their worldview is wrong (or 99.999999% of us), but that is denying some of the all freedom to express view, which is hypocritical.

Let them say, THEN oppose

 

[BomberManU]

The idea of denying those aholes a platform would equate to hypocrisy. One can't claim freedom of speech for all and then claim no one should give a platform to their worldview.

We all know their worldview is wrong (or 99.999999% of us), but that is denying some of the all freedom to express view, which is hypocritical.

Let them say, THEN oppose

Who's claiming 'freedom of speech for all'?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Who's claiming 'freedom of speech for all'?

Freedom of speech for all is a democratic principle.

Agreed it enables unsociable views and that is a fault of liberal democracy, I suppose we should maybe go the non democracy route then.

Because not allowing views of those we oppose is not democratic is it. We should allow those views THEN condem, punish, deter. < That is democracy right there.

I don't like it, you don't like but the alternative, not democracy is much worse isn't it.

 

[Outback Footy]

these dudes are definitely nazis. All three of them.

View attachment 2217464

Sam doesnt look well

 

[BomberManU]

Freedom of speech for all is a democratic principle.

Agreed it enables unsociable views and that is a fault of liberal democracy, I suppose we should maybe go the non democracy route then.

Because not allowing views of those we oppose is not democratic is it. We should allow those views THEN condem, punish, deter. < That is democracy right there.

I don't like it, you don't like but the alternative, not democracy is much worse isn't it.

I'd say FOS just means you won't be arrested/detained for something you've said. Not giving someone a platform, to have their say, doesn't go against that. They're 'free' to express their views, no one is obliged to give them a means of expressing them.