Skip to main content
Topic: General Discussions (Read 114580 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1050
The angry mob reaction is highlighted for comedic purposes, but over here in the real world, the messaging is pretty clear. If you refuse to wear the indigenous jumper, it means at some level you have an issue with Indigenous rights. If you refuse to wear the Carlton Respects jumper, it means at some level you have an issue with gender equality. If you refuse to wear the pride jumper, it means at some level you have an issue with gay rights. These aren't fashion choices.

Objectors should take ownership of their biases, grow a pair and stop trying to get themselves off the hook, by demanding their right to an an opinion without consequence, or by hiding behind religious or cultural beliefs.

This is art immitating life.

The ribbon in this case was a cause that everyone can get behind right?

But, the point is, that this could be anything including causes that not everyone can or wants to get behind.  Why is personal.  The whole point is that you dont have to be in complete 100% solidarity with any cause, you just shouldnt be in opposition to it, and that should be enough.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1051
This is art immitating life.

The ribbon in this case was a cause that everyone can get behind right?

But, the point is, that this could be anything including causes that not everyone can or wants to get behind.  Why is personal.  The whole point is that you dont have to be in complete 100% solidarity with any cause, you just shouldnt be in opposition to it, and that should be enough.

It's called casual or nuanced bigotry. It operates at levels that some outside the affected groups will never notice. You can read anything Chad Wingard has written recently about his experiences with subtle racism. He's not gay, but the principle is exactly the same.

Sitting on the fence and absolving yourself from taking a position, or taking a weak, tokenistic position, is not good enough IMO.

The biggest problem with white male privilege is not cold hardheartedness, it's not lack of intelligence, it's blindness.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1052
It's called casual or nuanced bigotry. It operates at levels that some outside the affected groups will never notice. You can read anything Chad Wingard has written recently about his experiences with subtle racism. He's not gay, but the principle is exactly the same.

Sitting on the fence and absolving yourself from taking a position, or taking a weak, tokenistic position, is not good enough IMO.

The biggest problem with white male privilege is not cold hardheartedness, it's not lack of intelligence, it's blindness.

NO the biggest problem is insisting that everyone who isnt like minded has a problem because thats your world view and everyone should see the world as you do.

ERGO, that makes you just as bad as the people you criticise.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

 

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1053
Oh and for the discussion on slavery:

https://restavekfreedom.org/2018/09/11/the-history-of-slavery/#:~:text=Slavery%20Throughout%20the%20Ancient%20World&text=Sumer%20or%20Sumeria%20is%20still,Qin%20Dynasty%20in%20221%20BC.

Slavery's origins predate a lot of the religious argument that has been bandied about on here too.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1054
NO the biggest problem is insisting that everyone who isnt like minded has a problem because thats your world view and everyone should see the world as you do.

ERGO, that makes you just as bad as the people you criticise.

No, the biggest problem is putting your ego above all else. It has nothing to do with people sharing or not sharing my world view. It has to do with tiny gestures to show support for groups that are still experiencing victimization and discrimination.

Demanding your right to hold an opinion without consequence or responsibility is just ego tripping. Every time you say no to showing some sign of support for groups that need it, it makes their fight for justice and equality just that little bit harder. Slave owners in the antebellum south also thought they were nice guys.

Like I said, blindness.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1055
I don't know Paul.

I think it's a case of black and white vs a hundred shades of grey.

I like to think I'm fairly sympathetic to groups who are disadvantaged or prejudiced against through historical traditions.
Do I get excited about indigenous rounds or pride rounds....not really.
I'm just interested in the football.
But discuss with me the need for groups to be accepted and respected and you'll have me a hundred percent on board.

But to tell another person  the level of support 'they' should give to similar causes, and how they should think is above my pay grade.

In the 'real' world that you talk about, shaming and denigrating the opinions and beliefs of others is the most counterproductive way of changing hearts and minds.
The response you get is not to change those opinions...you harden them and drive them underground.
Folks dont engage, they disengage.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1056
Where did you hear they dropped their opposition?
I understand they stayed home.
Yes, it's reported today as a depleted Manly side lost to the Roosters.
The Force Awakens!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1057
And yet the Manly players who boycotted the game last night have apparently agreed they’ll wear the jumper next season. Maybe the backlash produced engagement? Remember that this is team sport. The players play for a club and both the club and the NRL have the right to obtain sponsorships and promote the game to as large an audience as they want. An individual player can’t object to wearing a guernsey with Points Bet on it on moral or religious grounds and they presumably can’t refuse to wear the one Manly played in last night. I’m assuming the NRL made sure players’ contracts made this clear after the Izzy Folau saga but Manly chose to placate the 7 players rather than sack them as they form such a large part of the team. If Manly wants to signal acceptance to gays, players will just have to comfort themselves with their 700,000 pieces of silver for selling out Christ.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1058
ERGO, that makes you just as bad as the people you criticise.
Yes, to me looking at this externally and dispassionately it is for all the world like the old two wrongs at play.

There are a whole host of extreme behaviours on both side of many debates that cannot be justified, I've never understood the concept of bad or good versions of same wrong, often dressed up as virtue signalling.

From my perspective there is very little about this debate that is subtle or nuanced, it's more bludgeoning by the various mobs, ironically mobs that continually claim minority status and persecution!
The Force Awakens!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1059
I don't know Paul.

I think it's a case of black and white vs a hundred shades of grey.

I like to think I'm fairly sympathetic to groups who are disadvantaged or prejudiced against through historical traditions.
Do I get excited about indigenous rounds or pride rounds....not really.
I'm just interested in the football.
But discuss with me the need for groups to be accepted and respected and you'll have me a hundred percent on board.

But to tell another person  the level of support 'they' should give to similar causes, and how they should think is above my pay grade.

In the 'real' world that you talk about, shaming and denigrating the opinions and beliefs of others is the most counterproductive way of changing hearts and minds.
The response you get is not to change those opinions...you harden them and drive them underground.
Folks dont engage, they disengage.


I agree that some folks who place their ego above all else react badly to being told their opinions directly or indirectly hurt others. I don't know if softly softly is better than direct statements. To be honest, I'm not fussed. They are welcome to think my opinions are black and white, or that they suck etc.

How do you think we got to the point of having Indigenous round ? Do you think us white guys woke up one morning, realized off our own bat that the blackfellas have faced significant and systemic hurdles for 200 years, and we should work to change it ? Or do you think it was a bottom up, long concerted effort by First Nations people mainly, putting in long hours over decades, raising money, raising awareness, raising profile etc. I'd say the latter.

How do you think we got to the point of having Carlton Respects ? Do you think us white guys woke up one morning, realized off our own bat that ladies have been and continue to be badly treated by men, and we should work to change it ? Or do you think it was a bottom up, long concerted effort by women mainly, putting in long hours over decades, raising money, raising awareness, raising profile etc. I'd say the latter.

Like I said, not evil (at least not all time), not lack of intelligence, just blindness.

You don't need to be passionate about the pride jumper - you just need to understand why it exists, and embrace the values it is trying to advocate.


Re: General Discussions

Reply #1060
Too many good people remain silent, having sold their soul to radicals as an excuse for making some progress.

The Force Awakens!

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1061
Oh and for the discussion on slavery:

https://restavekfreedom.org/2018/09/11/the-history-of-slavery/#:~:text=Slavery%20Throughout%20the%20Ancient%20World&text=Sumer%20or%20Sumeria%20is%20still,Qin%20Dynasty%20in%20221%20BC.

Slavery's origins predate a lot of the religious argument that has been bandied about on here too.
I’m glad you did a bit of research. The link you provided stresses that slavery remains a problem today and needs to be confronted. In fact, the history of slavery leads the reader towards the article’s main purpose: “Join Us to Help Enslaved Haitian Children”. I assume you realise this and you’re walking away from the assertion you previously made:

The world is a very different place today.  No one gets forced to do anything they don't want to, and this discussion about slavery is about as relevant as gay bashing is.

The only slaves I see are slaves to the wage.
By the way, I’m struggling to understand why you point out that slavery predates the “religious argument” (I’m assuming you mean the observation that the Bible doesn’t condemn slavery but instead attempts to make it ethical by setting out the obligations of slave owners). As you know, I noted that in doing so the Bible took the pragmatic course of allowing a practice that was widespread in those days to continue. In other words, it predated the Bible. So why are you suggesting the article undermines my point when I made that point myself?

Here’s a question for you. Is slavery always morally wrong or does it depend on circumstances?

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1062
Or do you think it was a bottom up, long concerted effort by First Nations people mainly, putting in long hours over decades, raising money, raising awareness, raising profile etc. I'd say the latter.

Or do you think it was a bottom up, long concerted effort by women mainly, putting in long hours over decades, raising money, raising awareness, raising profile etc. I'd say the latter.


Yep
Definitely the latter
I've probably had more contact with indigenous people over the last forty years than most on this site.
I've had discussions with Teachers, teacher's aides, students, parents and elders.

The argument is not so much on the rights of equality, respect and acceptance as the best method to achieve that.
That varies considerably from a semi-militant approach to a discussion and education.

Do you change minds by shaming, threatening, belittling or by educating.
And the task of educating is often best handled by those directly affected with the experience to tell their stories.


Re: General Discussions

Reply #1063
Yep
Definitely the latter
I've probably had more contact with indigenous people over the last forty years than most on this site.
I've had discussions with Teachers, teacher's aides, students, parents and elders.

The argument is not so much on the rights of equality, respect and acceptance as the best method to achieve that.
That varies considerably from a semi-militant approach to a discussion and education.

Do you change minds by shaming, threatening, belittling or by educating.
And the task of educating is often best handled by those directly affected with the experience to tell their stories.

I agree with pretty much all that. But I'm not sure that a site like this has any educational value. I would say that irrespective of whether I or others take a softly softly approach, or a tougher approach, the chances of changing a mind with either are basically zero. By the time people get to this site, opinions and values, beliefs etc. are pretty much set. I don't think anyone on here has any capacity to influence folks. But those Sea Eagles players do absolutely have that power.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1064
How would excluding discussion in various forums add value to the debate?
The Force Awakens!