Rumour Sledging

[Run n Spread]

I don't understand why, frggr has explained it very clearly. Abuse that vilifies an entire group on the basis of race, religion, or sexuality is not allowed. It is hate speech. Abuse that is personal without vilifying such groups is not vilification, and while tasteless or possibly bringing the game into disrepute, is not specifically barred as vilification.

Ok so your argument is personal vilification is allowed but not group vilification?
So someone who is born with a deformity is fair game? Ok then

 

[Run n Spread]

Because you're lumping "I hear your ex-girlfriend has found someone new" with "I think you're non-human and below me" together.

What? Makes no sense whatsoever.
You have taken the position personal vilification is ok. So again I ask who is fair game and who isn't?

 

[frggr]

Ok so your argument is personal vilification is allowed but not group vilification?
So someone who is born with a deformity is fair game? Ok then

I think you missed this bit:

Abuse that is personal without vilifying such groups is not vilification

So someone who is born with a deformity is fair game? Ok then

People with disability are a protected group, so that has potential to be vilification depending on the 'deformity'.

 

[SAweagle]

Call someone a fat dumb restarted broke inbred ugly c word whose mother services donkeys for a living, no worries cob play on

As if lower socioeconomic/disabled/less than attractive/+ sized groups are not persecuted far and away more than any other 'minority'

3 letter word, BIG NO NO VERY NAUGHTY HAVE 4 WEEKS OFF

Usual AFL bollocks, look at the state and city its run from

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Ok so your argument is personal vilification is allowed but not group vilification?
So someone who is born with a deformity is fair game? Ok then

From the anti-discrimination NSW website
Vilification is a public act that incites hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule against a person or group based on characteristics like race, religion, sexual orientation, or HIV/AIDS status.

It would depend on the nature of the deformity, but severe ridicule or contempt against people on the basis of a disability would also be vilification.

 

[Run n Spread]

I think you missed this bit:






People with disability are a protected group, so that has potential to be vilification depending on the 'deformity'.

So who should be protected and who shouldn't?
Or should personal abuse and vilification just be outlawed all together?

 

[frggr]

What? Makes no sense whatsoever.
You have taken the position personal vilification is ok. So again I ask who is fair game and who isn't?

You keep missing this part of it:

Abuse that is personal without vilifying such (protected) groups is not vilification

 

[frggr]

So who should be protected and who shouldn't?
Or should personal abuse and vilification just be outlawed all together?

The people who should be protected are the ones who are protected by anti-discrimination and anti-vilification laws - it varies by jurisdiction. You can look them up if you like.

In Victoria it's something like:

• race
• religion
• disability
• gender identity
• sex
• sex characteristics
• sexual orientation
• personal association with a person with a protected attribute.

HIV/AIDS status may have been added too.

 

[frggr]

Call someone a fat dumb restarted broke inbred ugly c word whose mother services donkeys for a living, no worries cob play on

As if lower socioeconomic/disabled/less than attractive/+ sized groups are not persecuted far and away more than any other 'minority'

3 letter word, BIG NO NO VERY NAUGHTY HAVE 4 WEEKS OFF

Usual AFL bollocks, look at the state and city its run from

restarted

I don't think I'll comment further on this one

 

[txbyhull]

Call someone a fat dumb restarted

Nope

broke inbred ugly c word whose mother services donkeys for a living, no worries cob play on

Mostly yes.

As if lower socioeconomic/disabled/less than attractive/+ sized groups are not persecuted far and away more than any other 'minority'

They're not, with the exception of the differently abled. They're absolutely a marginalised group that requires stamping out of every day discrimination.

3 letter word, BIG NO NO VERY NAUGHTY HAVE 4 WEEKS OFF

Yes. Unequivocally.

Usual AFL bollocks, look at the state and city its run from

Enlighten us?

 

[frggr]

I think we can all be glad that we're still legally allowed to call Collingwood supporters the most uncouth, toothless campaigners in the world though

 

[SAweagle]

Nope

Mostly yes.

They're not, with the exception of the differently abled. They're absolutely a marginalised group that requires stamping out of every day discrimination.

Yes. Unequivocally.

Enlighten us?

Prictoria, Malbourne, nuff said.

Like Dewey Finn said in school of rock

" Read between the lines Theo, read between the LINES "

 

[txbyhull]

So who should be protected and who shouldn't?
Or should personal abuse and vilification just be outlawed all together?

Is the insult based around something that the person has no control over? Yes / No

Is the insult based around belittling an entire group of people, tying their worth to you to whatever aspect of their existence you are insulting? Yes / No

2 easy prompts for you

 

[Run n Spread]

Is the insult based around something that the person has no control over? Yes / No

Is the insult based around belittling an entire group of people, tying their worth to you to whatever aspect of their existence you are insulting? Yes / No

2 easy prompts for you

So personal insults vilification and targeting are fine as long as they meet your ****ed up criteria?
Good to know

 

[txbyhull]

So personal insults vilification and targeting are fine as long as they meet your ****ed up criteria?
Good to know

What part of not insulting marginalised groups do you find to be ****ed up?

 

[T2B_]

Call someone a fat dumb restarted broke inbred ugly c word whose mother services donkeys for a living, no worries cob play on

As if lower socioeconomic/disabled/less than attractive/+ sized groups are not persecuted far and away more than any other 'minority'

3 letter word, BIG NO NO VERY NAUGHTY HAVE 4 WEEKS OFF

Usual AFL bollocks, look at the state and city its run from

It's not the 1980s anymore mate.

 

[Run n Spread]

What part of not insulting marginalised groups do you find to be ****ed up?

I find insulting and gratuitously abusing anyone totally ****ed up.
Just curious why you think some groups or individuals should be abused and not others?
Strange hill to die on

 

[txbyhull]

I find insulting and gratuitously abusing anyone totally ****ed up.

Great we can agree on that.

The overall sentiment of this thread however points towards the idea that you SHOULD be able to say horrible shit about marginalised groups, because you're allowed to say other similar bad shit about individuals. Do you see the conflicting messages between your statement and what you're actually communicating?

Just curious why you think some groups or individuals should be abused and not others?
Strange hill to die on

Not sure why that is the path you have chosen here mate? No one is saying that anyone SHOULD be abused.

The inevitability of sleding in professional sports does not have to however, cross over with real world issues faced every day by people discriminated for their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender etc. LGBTQ people, the differently abled, women, etc. all face disadvantages that majority of people could never even imagine. Their suicide rates spike, their depression and anxiety rates spike, and yet somehow you think that it's all on equal footing with some old white bloke because his hair is thinning or his wife left him?

You are giving off the impression of the kind of person to say "Yeah but women abuse men too" or "Men get sexually assaulted too". It's not about you, it's not about white people, it's not about straight people, it's not about men, and so on.

 

[SAweagle]

It's not the 1980s anymore mate.

Fascinating insight, thank you for that commentary.

 

[Run n Spread]

Great we can agree on that.

The overall sentiment of this thread however points towards the idea that you SHOULD be able to say horrible shit about marginalised groups, because you're allowed to say other similar bad shit about individuals. Do you see the conflicting messages between your statement and what you're actually communicating?

Not sure why that is the path you have chosen here mate? No one is saying that anyone SHOULD be abused.

The inevitability of sleding in professional sports does not have to however, cross over with real world issues faced every day by people discriminated for their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender etc. LGBTQ people, the differently abled, women, etc. all face disadvantages that majority of people could never even imagine. Their suicide rates spike, their depression and anxiety rates spike, and yet somehow you think that it's all on equal footing with some old white bloke because his hair is thinning or his wife left him?

You are giving off the impression of the kind of person to say "Yeah but women abuse men too" or "Men get sexually assaulted too". It's not about you, it's not about white people, it's not about straight people, it's not about men, and so on.

The op was actually pretty simple.
Do you believe there should be a personal vilification code of conduct which is against personal vilification and abuse? Which outlines clear policy and penalties and prevents the AFL making it up as they go along and removes any grey area.
Or are you arguing certain personal abuse should be allowed?

 

[Cyclops]

Easy to get upset. Best to calm down before posting or you upset yourself more.

Its illegal to abuse someone on the basis of a protected attribute.

If you abuse someone on the basis of a non protected attribute you can still have a cry about it. It might be harassment. If its untrue it might be slander. The abuser might be inciting violence.

Can't believe OP has me agreeing with a sheep molesting flog, and not just any one, but the worst of them.

 

[Gough]

If you've got to resort to school yard level taunts to sledge maybe it's best you don't do it at all and concentrate on your game. If you're stuck playing for St Kilda seconds it's not as if there aren't parts of it in need of work and scintillating repartee like that is not going to get you a senior game.

 

[MisterMarcus]

This thread is one of the lamest examples of sealioning I have ever seen.

"Why?"
Here's the answer
Ignores/dismisses the answer
"But WHY?"
Here's the answer
Ignores/dismisses the answer
"But WHY??!! Nobody has given me an answer yet!!"

 

[frggr]

This thread is one of the lamest examples of sealioning I have ever seen.

"Why?"
Here's the answer
Ignores/dismisses the answer
"But WHY?"
Here's the answer
Ignores/dismisses the answer
"But WHY??!! Nobody has given me an answer yet!!"

Which is usually code for "I don't like the answer"

 

[Cromulent]

Do you believe there should be a personal vilification code of conduct which is against personal vilification and abuse?

Funny, if you actually read the rule book they do have exactly that.

35.1 Prohibited Conduct
No person subject to the AFL Rules and Regulations shall act towards or speak to any other person in a manner, or engage in any other conduct which threatens, disparages, vilifies or insults another person on any basis, including but not limited to, a person's race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Which outlines clear policy and penalties and prevents the AFL making it up as they go along and removes any grey area.
Or are you arguing certain personal abuse should be allowed?

35.2 Lodging Complaint
In the event that it is alleged that a person has contravened Rule 35.1 an Umpire, AFL Official, Club Official, Player or the General Counsel may, within fourteen (14) days of the day on which the contravention is alleged to have occurred, or such longer period as determined by the AFL at its absolute discretion, lodge a complaint in writing with the person appointed from time to time by the General Counsel as the Complaints Officer for the purposes of this Rule. The complaint must outline the circumstances of the allegations made against a person.

In regard to penalties see 35.4 - 35.17.

So if a player or official feels they have been personally vilified they can lodge a complaint or have a complaint lodged on their behalf and it will be investigated.

Interestingly, 35.4 Confidentiality and No Public Comment
Subject to Rule 35.7:
(a) the particulars of a complaint and the conciliation shall at all times remain confidential; and
(b) a person shall not publicly comment on or disseminate to any person information concerning a complaint at any time prior to, during or after the conciliation.

So it's likely that players probably have complained about some of the personal sledges and due to the confidentiality clause it has been resolved behind closed doors.