Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
plugger66 wrote:I will state my opinion on this again. Firstly I hardly noticed the booing at the game but those who booed Goodes from the start to the end aree either racist or very ordinary people who don't feel sympathy to others. Those who booed because of incidents in the game whether they saw it right or wrong are just booers and would hopefully do the same to any other player. it isn't that hard to work this out. Surely you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand it.
+1 was also at the game and completely agree. There was noise when Goodes went near the ball, but I definately did not hear anything abusive.
It would be good if this matter was behind us all. Move on. Talk about football.
desertsaint wrote:on an ipad so i cant be bothered quoting and then deleting half a page of discussion. but this from above
"Read my post again and again. Right now if you boo Goodes then you are masking those who do boo him racially. So ask yourself this question, do I want to be associated with a racist, because right now the answer is yes you are/will associated because you are in unison with the racist and no I repeat no we cannot tell the difference"
represents Orwellian thought and it worries me that people are so willingly coerced into a behaviour, let alone try to compell others to also fit into their preferred boundaries.
Are we really so feebleminded as to not be able to differentiate? Here's a clue - if the booing is in response to an action - i.e. kicking for goal, receiving an iffy free kick, rough play, etc - we can assume the vast majority are booing to disrupt or voice their displeasure, not their racial bias. you seriously expect people to stop indulging in a bit of what is the equivalent of mass banter because some amongst them may use the opportunity to indulge in a racial hissyfit? Where does this token repression of behaviour end? Should protesters keep quiet knowing some rare few amongst them are likely to be somewhat more undesirable in their intentions towards their target than we would think civil? surely if those that hate violence and intolerance just kept quiet or simply didn't attend, we could out and arrest the more violent and agitated among us?
Sorry but i find your reasoning somewhat totalitarian and hope by god that type of thinking remains with a minority. History tells us otherwise - it flares up, enters the political arena, causes untold suffering, then waits as the world forgets again.
That is really selling the argument short. If the only booing was from free kicks it would be fine. He gets booed from the start to finish. Not all our fans did that but some did. No one has stopped them or removed them from a stadium so I don't get where the totalitarianism is. The argument you put forward is like saying if you don't allow complete freedom to act how you want the state will control every aspect of your lives. It's the same argument the gun lobby in the US use. What if I don't see a problem with groping women on a train, perhaps I shouldn't be shackled by these mind police stopping me. What if I prefer theft, who's to say who has moral authority over me. Anyone who gets in my way is a totalitarian Orwellian ogre.
Utter lunacy and fallacious conflation of freedom of speech - which is essentially what this boils down to - and physically assaulting someone. The right to offend must be included within the right to free speech, speaking of which (sorry, slightly off topic but relevant recent discussion on this very issue at Oxford:
The rest are on youtube. Interesting discussion.
This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
desertsaint wrote:on an ipad so i cant be bothered quoting and then deleting half a page of discussion. but this from above
"Read my post again and again. Right now if you boo Goodes then you are masking those who do boo him racially. So ask yourself this question, do I want to be associated with a racist, because right now the answer is yes you are/will associated because you are in unison with the racist and no I repeat no we cannot tell the difference"
represents Orwellian thought and it worries me that people are so willingly coerced into a behaviour, let alone try to compell others to also fit into their preferred boundaries.
Are we really so feebleminded as to not be able to differentiate? Here's a clue - if the booing is in response to an action - i.e. kicking for goal, receiving an iffy free kick, rough play, etc - we can assume the vast majority are booing to disrupt or voice their displeasure, not their racial bias. you seriously expect people to stop indulging in a bit of what is the equivalent of mass banter because some amongst them may use the opportunity to indulge in a racial hissyfit? Where does this token repression of behaviour end? Should protesters keep quiet knowing some rare few amongst them are likely to be somewhat more undesirable in their intentions towards their target than we would think civil? surely if those that hate violence and intolerance just kept quiet or simply didn't attend, we could out and arrest the more violent and agitated among us?
Sorry but i find your reasoning somewhat totalitarian and hope by god that type of thinking remains with a minority. History tells us otherwise - it flares up, enters the political arena, causes untold suffering, then waits as the world forgets again.
That is really selling the argument short. If the only booing was from free kicks it would be fine. He gets booed from the start to finish. Not all our fans did that but some did. No one has stopped them or removed them from a stadium so I don't get where the totalitarianism is. The argument you put forward is like saying if you don't allow complete freedom to act how you want the state will control every aspect of your lives. It's the same argument the gun lobby in the US use. What if I don't see a problem with groping women on a train, perhaps I shouldn't be shackled by these mind police stopping me. What if I prefer theft, who's to say who has moral authority over me. Anyone who gets in my way is a totalitarian Orwellian ogre.
He didn't get booed from start to finish you are now making things up. As stated by just about everyone on here, he got booed the first time he went near the ball. The booers were hushed by most of the crowd. He was booed when he got an iffy free kick. He was not booed from start to finish. That is false.
And Dessertsaint I whole heartedly agree with you.
And I don't boo. And I don't think that people who boo are racist.
desertsaint wrote:on an ipad so i cant be bothered quoting and then deleting half a page of discussion. but this from above
"Read my post again and again. Right now if you boo Goodes then you are masking those who do boo him racially. So ask yourself this question, do I want to be associated with a racist, because right now the answer is yes you are/will associated because you are in unison with the racist and no I repeat no we cannot tell the difference"
represents Orwellian thought and it worries me that people are so willingly coerced into a behaviour, let alone try to compell others to also fit into their preferred boundaries.
Are we really so feebleminded as to not be able to differentiate? Here's a clue - if the booing is in response to an action - i.e. kicking for goal, receiving an iffy free kick, rough play, etc - we can assume the vast majority are booing to disrupt or voice their displeasure, not their racial bias. you seriously expect people to stop indulging in a bit of what is the equivalent of mass banter because some amongst them may use the opportunity to indulge in a racial hissyfit? Where does this token repression of behaviour end? Should protesters keep quiet knowing some rare few amongst them are likely to be somewhat more undesirable in their intentions towards their target than we would think civil? surely if those that hate violence and intolerance just kept quiet or simply didn't attend, we could out and arrest the more violent and agitated among us?
Sorry but i find your reasoning somewhat totalitarian and hope by god that type of thinking remains with a minority. History tells us otherwise - it flares up, enters the political arena, causes untold suffering, then waits as the world forgets again.
That is really selling the argument short. If the only booing was from free kicks it would be fine. He gets booed from the start to finish. Not all our fans did that but some did. No one has stopped them or removed them from a stadium so I don't get where the totalitarianism is. The argument you put forward is like saying if you don't allow complete freedom to act how you want the state will control every aspect of your lives. It's the same argument the gun lobby in the US use. What if I don't see a problem with groping women on a train, perhaps I shouldn't be shackled by these mind police stopping me. What if I prefer theft, who's to say who has moral authority over me. Anyone who gets in my way is a totalitarian Orwellian ogre.
Utter lunacy and fallacious conflation of freedom of speech - which is essentially what this boils down to - and physically assaulting someone. The right to offend must be included within the right to free speech, speaking of which (sorry, slightly off topic but relevant recent discussion on this very issue at Oxford:
The rest are on youtube. Interesting discussion.
Nowhere in the Australian Constitution does it say that we have the right to free speech. Countries where those freedoms are spelled out explicitly are only found in contries which had to fight for their own nationhood. It is just generally accepted that as a liberal-democracy we have the freedom to exercise freedom of association etc. But there are plenty of cases where this has been tested, in places like Queensland, and individuals have found themselves on the wrong side of the law.
Utter lunacy and fallacious conflation of freedom of speech - which is essentially what this boils down to - and physically assaulting someone. The right to offend must be included within the right to free speech, speaking of which (sorry, slightly off topic but relevant recent discussion on this very issue at Oxford:
The rest are on youtube. Interesting discussion.
Brendan O'Neill, Peter Hitchens and Kate Brooks?? Couldn't you find and Andrew Bolt videos?
No surprises what that lot think. Or what they are paid very handsomely to think. I need a shower after watching that rot. Those cowards will be fine as long as they never have to be on the losing side of anything.
Just My Opinion
------------------------------------------------
desertsaint wrote:on an ipad so i cant be bothered quoting and then deleting half a page of discussion. but this from above
"Read my post again and again. Right now if you boo Goodes then you are masking those who do boo him racially. So ask yourself this question, do I want to be associated with a racist, because right now the answer is yes you are/will associated because you are in unison with the racist and no I repeat no we cannot tell the difference"
represents Orwellian thought and it worries me that people are so willingly coerced into a behaviour, let alone try to compell others to also fit into their preferred boundaries.
Are we really so feebleminded as to not be able to differentiate? Here's a clue - if the booing is in response to an action - i.e. kicking for goal, receiving an iffy free kick, rough play, etc - we can assume the vast majority are booing to disrupt or voice their displeasure, not their racial bias. you seriously expect people to stop indulging in a bit of what is the equivalent of mass banter because some amongst them may use the opportunity to indulge in a racial hissyfit? Where does this token repression of behaviour end? Should protesters keep quiet knowing some rare few amongst them are likely to be somewhat more undesirable in their intentions towards their target than we would think civil? surely if those that hate violence and intolerance just kept quiet or simply didn't attend, we could out and arrest the more violent and agitated among us?
Sorry but i find your reasoning somewhat totalitarian and hope by god that type of thinking remains with a minority. History tells us otherwise - it flares up, enters the political arena, causes untold suffering, then waits as the world forgets again.
That is really selling the argument short. If the only booing was from free kicks it would be fine. He gets booed from the start to finish. Not all our fans did that but some did. No one has stopped them or removed them from a stadium so I don't get where the totalitarianism is. The argument you put forward is like saying if you don't allow complete freedom to act how you want the state will control every aspect of your lives. It's the same argument the gun lobby in the US use. What if I don't see a problem with groping women on a train, perhaps I shouldn't be shackled by these mind police stopping me. What if I prefer theft, who's to say who has moral authority over me. Anyone who gets in my way is a totalitarian Orwellian ogre.
Utter lunacy and fallacious conflation of freedom of speech - which is essentially what this boils down to - and physically assaulting someone. The right to offend must be included within the right to free speech, speaking of which (sorry, slightly off topic but relevant recent discussion on this very issue at Oxford:
The rest are on youtube. Interesting discussion.
Brendan is an absolute twat. He is a right wing apologist and twists everything back on the victim and tries to claim that Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals because they don't think of their feelings. He is a sick twisted fool. Apparently according to him white anglo males are the most persecuted minority in the world and its quite hard for them to cope with the constant affronts from irritating special interest groups.
Yo, Bunk, just a quick question. When you watch The Wire do turn down the sound on all the scenes which convey themes of the horrors of systemic racism within society? You know, like most of them. I can't imagine you'd be too interesting in giving them the time of day given your sentiments in this thread. Maybe consider a username change, i'm sure Valchek isn't taken.
Booing indicates a form of displeasure. There's multiple reasons why people can be annoyed/upset/angry about another. This can be from actions the player has taken, from past and present, among other things.
Grouping everyone who boos into one big, you're all racist, is an utter joke.
Reminds me of "will someone please think of the children".
Yes, there many be a small minority, but don't f'n group me or others, if we simply voice our displeasure when he gets an iffy 50m penalty - and if you must know, it was aimed at the umpire for a s*** decision, but again, label everyone as racist.
Last edited by lefty on Mon 31 Aug 2015 10:41pm, edited 1 time in total.
Utter lunacy and fallacious conflation of freedom of speech - which is essentially what this boils down to - and physically assaulting someone. The right to offend must be included within the right to free speech, speaking of which (sorry, slightly off topic but relevant recent discussion on this very issue at Oxford:
The rest are on youtube. Interesting discussion.
Brendan O'Neill, Peter Hitchens and Kate Brooks?? Couldn't you find and Andrew Bolt videos?
No surprises what that lot think. Or what they are paid very handsomely to think. I need a shower after watching that rot. Those cowards will be fine as long as they never have to be on the losing side of anything.
Brooks was arguing against the proposition but hey, it's all a venal conspiracy so why even check the arguments.
This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
Where was the concern for the last decade and a half for players like Milne and Riewoldt who got booed (and lot worse) week in week out by supporters of other clubs including Sydney?
Where was the AFL then?
Where were the bleeding hearts hiding then?
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
Austinnn wrote:I did check the arguments. Then I checked your posts in other threads. Now I feel I know where your interest in this issue lies.
I'm sure if you were being racially abused you'd be slightly less enthusiastic about the defence of free speech.
No I wouldn't. I'm an Anglo-Saxon. We have a pretty robust history when it comes to personal liberties. Anyway, when I go to school I hear plenty of group libel against my group. I don't sook, I write an essay and argue my point.
That's all you can do. You're in France right? I suppose you're not a Je Suis Charlie type? No right to offend in France?????
Please.
This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
If spectators are going to abuse indigenous footballers in a racist manner then it is only fair that the racist booing be evenly spread among the approximately 10% of AFL players who claim to indigenous.
Now I know that Jetta and Franklin claim to be indigenous but apparently because I was not in attendance to identify these two players they did not share in the crowd's indigenous booing.
Adam Goodes must have felt singled out as a result.
I therefore propose that all indigenous players wear a multi-coloured ribbon around their waist so that they can be identified.
That should enable the crowd to boo Adam Goodes less because they can save some booing for all the other indigenous players.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
Austinnn wrote:I did check the arguments. Then I checked your posts in other threads. Now I feel I know where your interest in this issue lies.
I'm sure if you were being racially abused you'd be slightly less enthusiastic about the defence of free speech.
No I wouldn't. I'm an Anglo-Saxon. We have a pretty robust history when it comes to personal liberties. Anyway, when I go to school I hear plenty of group libel against my group. I don't sook, I write an essay and argue my point.
That's all you can do. You're in France right? I suppose you're not a Je Suis Charlie type? No right to offend in France?????
Please.
I don't know what a Je suis Charlie 'type' is. But I'm not French and don't proclaim that this country is better or worse than any other, so that line won't wash.
You go to school? Your profile says you're 32, unless my memory is failing. A lifetime in academia?
You're obviously well educated so second nature for you to write an essay I guess. A privilege worth defending.
You hear plenty of group libel against Anglo Saxons? Robust history when it comes to personal liberties? Do me a favour. I'm Anglo Saxon too, mostly. Without doubt we have had an absolute magic carpet ride compared to other ethnicities.
Sorry, no offence but I've been through all this with other posters and I just don't have the patience to go through it again. Something tells me you could debate this subject til the cows come home so let's just say you won and I'm admit defeat because really the whinging is just getting louder and the libertarian backlash keeps rising, eventually you'll get what you want and you poor downtrodden straight white Christian academics will be finally free from the tyranny of decency.
Just My Opinion
------------------------------------------------
Austinnn wrote:I did check the arguments. Then I checked your posts in other threads. Now I feel I know where your interest in this issue lies.
I'm sure if you were being racially abused you'd be slightly less enthusiastic about the defence of free speech.
No I wouldn't. I'm an Anglo-Saxon. We have a pretty robust history when it comes to personal liberties. Anyway, when I go to school I hear plenty of group libel against my group. I don't sook, I write an essay and argue my point.
That's all you can do. You're in France right? I suppose you're not a Je Suis Charlie type? No right to offend in France?????
Please.
I don't know what a Je suis Charlie 'type' is. But I'm not French and don't proclaim that this country is better or worse than any other, so that line won't wash.
You go to school? Your profile says you're 32, unless my memory is failing. A lifetime in academia?
You're obviously well educated so second nature for you to write an essay I guess. A privilege worth defending.
You hear plenty of group libel against Anglo Saxons? Robust history when it comes to personal liberties? Do me a favour. I'm Anglo Saxon too, mostly. Without doubt we have had an absolute magic carpet ride compared to other ethnicities.
Sorry, no offence but I've been through all this with other posters and I just don't have the patience to go through it again. Something tells me you could debate this subject til the cows come home so let's just say you won and I'm admit defeat because really the whinging is just getting louder and the libertarian backlash keeps rising, eventually you'll get what you want and you poor downtrodden straight white Christian academics will be finally free from the tyranny of decency.
Actually I'm a poor idiot that whose only source of education is private charity. Don't confuse this with a class thing. By a 'Je Suis Charlie type' I meant someone that supported that magazines right to offend in relation to the murders.
Also, this isn't about winning or losing. Rigorous debate is important for any issue.
This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
Austinnn wrote:I did check the arguments. Then I checked your posts in other threads. Now I feel I know where your interest in this issue lies.
I'm sure if you were being racially abused you'd be slightly less enthusiastic about the defence of free speech.
No I wouldn't. I'm an Anglo-Saxon. We have a pretty robust history when it comes to personal liberties. Anyway, when I go to school I hear plenty of group libel against my group. I don't sook, I write an essay and argue my point.
That's all you can do. You're in France right? I suppose you're not a Je Suis Charlie type? No right to offend in France?????
Please.
I don't know what a Je suis Charlie 'type' is. But I'm not French and don't proclaim that this country is better or worse than any other, so that line won't wash.
You go to school? Your profile says you're 32, unless my memory is failing. A lifetime in academia?
You're obviously well educated so second nature for you to write an essay I guess. A privilege worth defending.
You hear plenty of group libel against Anglo Saxons? Robust history when it comes to personal liberties? Do me a favour. I'm Anglo Saxon too, mostly. Without doubt we have had an absolute magic carpet ride compared to other ethnicities.
Sorry, no offence but I've been through all this with other posters and I just don't have the patience to go through it again. Something tells me you could debate this subject til the cows come home so let's just say you won and I'm admit defeat because really the whinging is just getting louder and the libertarian backlash keeps rising, eventually you'll get what you want and you poor downtrodden straight white Christian academics will be finally free from the tyranny of decency.
Decency is an important value in civil society, I just reject the notion that you, the government or anyone else has the sole right to define what 'decency' is. Too often the concept is abused to proscribe legitimate expression. That's all.
This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
That's fair enough. I wouldnt know how rich or poor you are, you're clearly no idiot though, let's be honest. I didn't mention class.
Regarding Charlie Hebdo, those guys made themselves martyrs for the right to offend, but the attack was nevertheless disgusting and wrong. It is a tough issue though, and despite the cartoonists knowing full well what they were taking on, I can't blame the victim for the attack.
Well who gets to decide what decency is then? As always, society dictates. These type of debates are part of that. We all have to try and define it together. It seems that wheel has been turning back your way the last decade or so. I'm not happy about that, frankly. We made so much headway in the 80s and 90s.
One thing we agree on probably is that it shouldn't be regulated, but I do think people should be held to account for poor treatment of others, not arrested but certainly not given a free pass to continue.
This is now the 3rd thread about this issue, and I've been trying to excuse myself. I'm done, thanks for being polite though.
Just My Opinion
------------------------------------------------
lefty wrote:Booing does not mean your are a racist.
Booing indicates a form of displeasure. There's multiple reasons why people can be annoyed/upset/angry about another. This can be from actions the player has taken, from past and present, among other things.
Grouping everyone who boos into one big, you're all racist, is an utter joke.
Reminds me of "will someone please think of the children".
Yes, there many be a small minority, but don't f'n group me or others, if we simply voice our displeasure when he gets an iffy 50m penalty - and if you must know, it was aimed at the umpire for a s*** decision, but again, label everyone as racist.
Booing because you were upset with Goodes on Saturday night over a certain decision or some acting doesn't mean you are even slightly racist. Booing from the start to the end of the game for no apparent reason either means you are racist or have no compassion for another human as people were asked not to do it. The thing is I don't see how it helps those booers by doing that. All it does is make that person either racist or have no compassion. Which either of those 2 categories you fall into, it doesn't make you a nice person.
ace wrote:If spectators are going to abuse indigenous footballers in a racist manner then it is only fair that the racist booing be evenly spread among the approximately 10% of AFL players who claim to indigenous.
Now I know that Jetta and Franklin claim to be indigenous but apparently because I was not in attendance to identify these two players they did not share in the crowd's indigenous booing.
Adam Goodes must have felt singled out as a result.
I therefore propose that all indigenous players wear a multi-coloured ribbon around their waist so that they can be identified.
That should enable the crowd to boo Adam Goodes less because they can save some booing for all the other indigenous players.
Just by the very words that you use you give your self away. The dismissive use of the word "claim to" be indigenous. Listen closely they don't have to claim, if they identify as indigenous then they are, simple really. Claim implies that you want to see some sort of proof.
And right there you have a comment that pretty much sums it all up
" A few will never give up on you. When you go back out on the field, those are the people I want in your minds. Those are the people I want in your hearts."
Desert Saint I am not going to quote all the above into this.
So here is a great quote from Louis CK "When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't" . You can quote as many so called protectors of "freedom of speech" as you like. However they generally come from middle class white people who have protections and assets that many of the disenfranchised can only dream.
As I sat watching the game on Sunday, of course they did not boo Goodes at the start (literal start of the game) but there was booing as soon as he was involved in the game. Can we at least clear that point.
I have also said that if you want to boo (if that is your thing) at a poor decision etc that is your decision. However no this at that time me as a spectator is unclear whether you are booing the poor decision or because you are a racist. I am not sure it can be any clearer.
It strikes me you are expending a lot of energy rationalsing questionable behaviour.
" A few will never give up on you. When you go back out on the field, those are the people I want in your minds. Those are the people I want in your hearts."
gringo wrote: Apparently according to him white anglo males are the most persecuted minority in the world and its quite hard for them to cope with the constant affronts from irritating special interest groups.
Austinnn wrote:
Sorry, no offence but I've been through all this with other posters and I just don't have the patience to go through it again. Something tells me you could debate this subject til the cows come home so let's just say you won and I'm admit defeat because really the whinging is just getting louder and the libertarian backlash keeps rising, eventually you'll get what you want and you poor downtrodden straight white Christian academics will be finally free from the tyranny of decency.
terry smith rules wrote:Desert Saint I am not going to quote all the above into this.
So here is a great quote from Louis CK "When a person tells you that you hurt them, you don't get to decide that you didn't" . You can quote as many so called protectors of "freedom of speech" as you like. However they generally come from middle class white people who have protections and assets that many of the disenfranchised can only dream.
As I sat watching the game on Sunday, of course they did not boo Goodes at the start (literal start of the game) but there was booing as soon as he was involved in the game. Can we at least clear that point.
I have also said that if you want to boo (if that is your thing) at a poor decision etc that is your decision. However no this at that time me as a spectator is unclear whether you are booing the poor decision or because you are a racist. I am not sure it can be any clearer.
It strikes me you are expending a lot of energy rationalsing questionable behaviour.
i haven't expended any energy whatsoever - one post not rationalising questionable behaviour but pointing out which behaviour is actually more questionable - the unforseen consequences of changing a relatively normal contextual behaviour in response to what amounts to social bullying by social and political commentators. Worse is to berate others for not following your example. The issue reminds me of feminists accusing female hospitality staff of perpetuating female stereotypes. A thinking person can recognise context.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
