Could the above be the most ignorant thing I have ever seen posted on Demonland?

It's always the [insert skin colour], [insert sexuality], [insert sex] who say things like this?

Astounding it comes from a moderator.

The moderation on this site is excellent.

Unlike other football sites, Demonland at least allows for a balanced discussion.

One mention of the name Andrew Bolt would probably be enough to get you banned on progressive sites like big footy.

We should all be thankful that the moderators around here at least allow for a difference of opinion.

Just my opinion.

Statements like this Dave are so insane it's not funny. You don't speak for me or many other 'white' Australians. Stop these stupid sweeping generalisations.

So who made you the expert on who's racist or not? You're being ignorant or stupid if you don't see at least 50% Australians are racist, how do you think Abbott became PM, he ran with the race card and got in, he demonises minorities on a daily basis and idiots like you love it. People are drowning at sea and you and he don't give a flying #%, children are locked up in jail for no reason apart from trying to get away from countries at war, and wars we started. You've spent bit of time answering everyone you don't agree with because lets face it buddy have a look in the mirror, what you see staring back at you is a racist!! and a douchbag!!

The moderation on this site is excellent.

Unlike other football sites, Demonland at least allows for a balanced discussion.

One mention of the name Andrew Bolt would probably be enough to get you banned on progressive sites like big footy.

We should all be thankful that the moderators around here at least allow for a difference of opinion.

Just my opinion.

Bolt doesn't have an 'opinion' he is a propaganda machine for right wing nutjob politicians, and is full of hate for anything that ain't whitebread!!

If Adam Goodes wants to run up to an opposition player after he kicks a goal and do his war cry or do it to the whole oppposition team before the game or at one of the breaks, all the power to him.

But i don't agree with doing it to opposition supporters. That's called in siting the crowd, which i thought players got fined for? You don't see the All Blacks doing it to the opposition supporters, just the players.

So i have no issue with what Goodes did, just think it should be re-directed.

Could the above be the most ignorant thing I have ever seen posted on Demonland?

It's always the [insert skin colour], [insert sexuality], [insert sex] who say things like this?

Astounding it comes from a moderator.

Always may have been the wrong word. Nonetheless my point stands: it's *often* those least likely to be subject to systematic persecution that dictate how others should react to their own systematic persecution.

Ethan's comment about being teased for having big ears completely trivialises the effects of racism. It showed a complete lack of understanding - far more ignorant than what I said, or at least I thought so. Of course people of other skin colours and sexual persuasions say stupid stuff too, but surely it's beyond dispute that if you're white, male and heterosexual, your position of privilege means you are least likely to understand the position of the persecuted minority.

And yes, I'm a moderator. I have an opinion too. So long as I don't use your opinion against you in an official capacity, I see no harm in expressing it. On the rare occasion that I get in to a blue on here, I ask other moderators to check it over due to the conflict of interest. Yep, I've even had my posts deleted by other mods, though in the 10 years I've moderated this site, it's probably happened twice. The system works pretty well I think.

Actually it's not. We do not have the enshrined right to free speech as they do it the USA for example. Its commonly misunderstood.

You can be sued for saying something that offends somebody else. It's quite sad really. Charlie Hebdo would never be allowed to be published in Australia which makes a mockery of all those people marching in the street in solidarity with the slain journalists.

Gee Charlie Hebdo? what ever happened to that short lived social media phenomena? Moved one elsewhere I suppose Do they still publish?

The word is "argument". It's a bit like truely is actually "truly".

And yes, I'm very serious. Besides, what I quoted was court reported, nong.

Pedant.

No, you reported Andrew Bolts' flat-earther comments and version of court 'reporting'. Time to take your head out of the sand.

The moderation on this site is excellent.

Unlike other football sites, Demonland at least allows for a balanced discussion.

One mention of the name Andrew Bolt would probably be enough to get you banned on progressive sites like big footy.

We should all be thankful that the moderators around here at least allow for a difference of opinion.

Just my opinion.

Pray tell what constitutes a "progressive Site" would love a definition as I dont look at "Big Footy"

My thoughts on this whole trivial BS issue.

The whole booing scenario from last week, imo let the fans boo. Goodes should have risen above and not said anything. Do what you do, and do it ON THE FIELD.

I hated hearing the media saying it was, "against the spirit of the game". These people aren't invested in the sport and teams like fans are. It [censored] me off. I'll boo Goodes if I want.

That said, it's fair game. The dance, it was a, "STUFF YOU!" and I loved it.

THAT'S the spirit of the game. This is a competition. It's survival of the fittest. Power to him.

It doesn't help that he's a hypocrite, that he points out elements of racism and argues that he doesn't deserve the treatment only to then taunt fans with a cultural dance.

But irrespective of that, booing and taunting are fair game.

The fans will boo. The players will respond. Irrespective of how it's done, the dance was just his way of fighting back. It kind of devalues his moral highground, and he should have just done that and nothing else.

Would this be an issue had he stayed silent all week and then did the dance? Probably, but not as much of an issue. It would have just been him making a stand for himself.

I don't think he has grounds to complain about booing anymore. The fans threw a spear, and he threw one back. You can't winge about it anymore. And to be honest, I think that's better for the game. Stand up for yourself. Don't cry about it.

I just find it all so trivial that a mad who is so vocal about the "white man", the oppression his people are under, has managed to rise above and make it in a "white man's world", where he takes advantage of capitalism, earns very good coin, and has the platform to spread his opinions.

Michael Long is a far better ambassador and spokesperson for Indigenous people. I feel that Goodes has a massive chip on his shoulder, and he's far more divisive than anything, especially when he says one thing and does another.

The platform is there for young Indigenous people to make a stand and make something of themselves. He is living proof of that. He should be doing everything in his power to form reconciliation, rather than coming out and attacking the very world that has given him the platform in the first place.

Edited May 31, 201510 yr by praha

Pray tell what constitutes a "progressive Site" would love a definition as I dont look at "Big Footy"

Basically just a site full of social justice warriors, continuously running the narrative of the victim.

You aren't missing much, in fairness, I haven't been there for a long while - but I doubt that site will ever change.

I'd love to see Goodsy give a nod to his father's white European heritage by adding the Irish jig or brief Michael Flatley tribute to his "show"!

Pedant.

No, you reported Andrew Bolts' flat-earther comments and version of court 'reporting'. Time to take your head out of the sand.

You're welcome to explain what part of what I quoted was wrong. Here's an imaginary gold embossed invitation for you.

I find it exceptionally amusing that someone so familiar with Bolt's views would be critical of others for quoting him and court reported commentary.

I get it, it's OK to read him, just not agree with him. Not that you have your own deep seated political bias though. No, not at all.

I'd love to see Goodsy give a nod to his father's white European heritage by adding the Irish jig or brief Michael Flatley tribute to his "show"!

Nah that wouldn't get him the attention he so clearly craves

You're welcome to explain what part of what I quoted was wrong. Here's an imaginary gold embossed invitation for you.

I find it exceptionally amusing that someone so familiar with Bolt's views would be critical of others for quoting him and court reported commentary.

I get it, it's OK to read him, just not agree with him. Not that you have your own deep seated political bias though. No, not at all.

You stated it was a court report when clearly it was not... it was Bolt's take on what occurred in the court was it not? Placing words in between quotation marks does not necessarily mean that is precisely what has been said.

Oh, and I thought you were supposed to be at work... right wing bludger?

The full context:

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

So I guess the sheepshagger example stands. Offensive speech is OK except in relation to race, colour, national or ethnic origin, though I think "because of" opens a gap a lawyer could drive a truck through.

ET, you post your own example of a "sheepshagger" which I didn't raise and make no comment on. You post an example of the "Andrew Bolt" law which I didn't raise and made no comment on. My comment about offending someone was perfectly correct.

This is a fine example of throwing up your own straw man argument and answering it yourself and then further justifying your comments. Well done. Feel free to debate yourself. I think if you keep it up long enough you will convince yourself of your own argument.

So who made you the expert on who's racist or not? You're being ignorant or stupid if you don't see at least 50% Australians are racist, how do you think Abbott became PM, he ran with the race card and got in, he demonises minorities on a daily basis and idiots like you love it. People are drowning at sea and you and he don't give a flying #%, children are locked up in jail for no reason apart from trying to get away from countries at war, and wars we started. You've spent bit of time answering everyone you don't agree with because lets face it buddy have a look in the mirror, what you see staring back at you is a racist!! and a douchbag!!

Keep going Dave Its comedy gold.

1. I would like to know where I claimed to be an expert on racism?

2. I would like you to back up your wild assertion that 50% of Australians are racist? That is the number I was calling you on. Your frankly pathetic reason is that Abbott was voted in by 50% of the population. You can't even get that right. As for calling me ignorant or stupid, your personal attacks show more about your ability to defend your wildly outrageous comments with any semblence of intellect than my questioning of your assertions.

3.As for the people drowing at sea argument which you seem to have pulled from nowhere (I could hazard a guess), I think its pretty safe to say that people were drowning under the ALP policy of letting all and sundry arrive on our shores by boat. I'd like you to defend your claim that Abbott's policy has caused people to drown? I would suggest that he has stopped them from drowning. You may not like how he has done it and frankly I don't care for your views on it but again you make such wild, general and patently wrong assertions it's quite funny. This is what happens when posters can't debate in an intelligent manner. They throw in lots of spurious arguments that (are not only wrong) but have nopthing to do what what is being debated on this site.

4. Call people a racist because they don't agree with your views is a childish cop out Dave. Suggest you go and look at the definition of racism because you clearly don't undertsand it.

5. Making more sweeping assertions that children are locked up and I don't give a &*&^ really show you up for what you are Dave. Living at the bayside with all your guilt. I hope you get some help for that because clearly our free education system hasn't helped you at all.

Cheers.

Over protected Wan Ker

I don't like him.

Simple really.

Edited May 31, 201510 yr by old dee

Over protected Wan Ker

I don't like him.

Simple really.

He speaks well of you OD.

Over protected Wan Ker

I don't like him.

Simple really.

Agreed.Judd when it comes to votes and Aker when it comes to being a [censored]

Nah that wouldn't get him the attention he so clearly craves

Especially considering his father walked away from him, his siblings and his mum when he was a toddler.

Regardless of some of the valid arguments on whether he should have, or shouldn't have it is hard being black in this country.

You drink, take drugs, live off hand-outs and commit crime you are a failure and a drain. Succeed at the highest level in a chosen field and celebrate that empowerment and you get shot down.

Edited June 1, 201510 yr by jabberwocky

Was it seeking unnecessary attention when Mickey O'Loughlin taunted the crowd at Subiaco? No, because he didn't do a tribal dance. Was Nicky Winmar being too precious when he raised his jumper to the crowd and pointed to the colour of his skin to the crowd at that cauldron known as Victoria Park? No, because he didn't use a specific indigenous tribal reference.

The odious comparisons between body characteristics such as hair colour and size of one's ears entirely misses the point of the endemic racism that has existed in this country for generations. Such racism does not rely on perceptions of physical appearance, but a mind set that has perpetuated bigotry for far too long. It has been long overdue that such bigotry be called out.

That said, it is almost certain this topic is heading for a lock down.

No one is proud of the treatment meted out to Aborigines in the past

Not just in the past.

Over protected Wan Ker

I don't like him.

Simple really.

Hes a gifted footballer with tickets on himself. Likes playing the victim card at every opportunity. Has overplayed it. Now sounds like a [censored] and in reality does a great disservice to many. But hey Im a whitefella so cant have an opinion !!

Strangely I dont see Goodes as anything other that a too self important person playing footy. Dont care where youre from, what background what creed what tribe what ship what plane if you carry on like an idiot...you probably are one!!

Still wouldnt mind a few like him playing for us...just for the footy mind you

goodesness gracious, this thread has gone on for 12 pages!

edir: errr 13 pages now, sorry

Edited June 1, 201510 yr by daisycutter