Lumumba sues AFL and Filth

[BoBo 2,031]

8 hours ago, McQueen said:

What ideologies are you referring to?

This is getting really boring.

For the third time:

How is Lumumba an extremist?

 

[Hopeful Demon 1,249]

2 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Are you trying for "woke of the year" or a PhD

A Bible length melange of half baked assertions & crackpot theories.

Are you Colin Flaubert posting under another name ?

Seriously, that's a very childish comment. If you disagree with his post, you should make an effort to actually explain where he's wrong. You're not doing yourself any favours resorting to deragatory labels such as "woke."

[Cranky Franky 1,476]

1 hour ago, Demonstone said:

You only have to look at the overwhelming positive response to deejammin's excellent post to realise that you are part of a very small minority here, Franky.

Like some others, you seem to confuse "woke" with common human decency and respect for others.

Yes but fortunately the number of people that support or believe something has no impact on whether something is true or not.

And I don't think decent people secretly tape a private conversation and then without consent leak selected parts to the public.

 

[Sir Why You Little 34,418]

3 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Are you trying for "woke of the year" or a PhD

A Bible length melange of half baked assertions & crackpot theories.

Are you Colin Flaubert posting under another name ?

Can't believe how much sympathy this entitled prat is receiving.  We dodged a bullet when he left the Dees early.

Oh dear Cranky has missed the mark again

[zeldacat 46]

When HL says on radio "he has taped all dealings with the AFL in the past 10 yrs" does that mean he has recordings with our team members too? Concerning. Also naming Gary Pert.

[layzie 28,518]

12 minutes ago, zeldacat said:

When HL says on radio "he has taped all dealings with the AFL in the past 10 yrs" does that mean he has recordings with our team members too? Concerning. Also naming Gary Pert.

Certainly taken things to a new level..

[BoBo 2,031]

3 hours ago, layzie said:

Unrelated but what is the difference between an extremist and a radicalist? 

As far as I know, an extremist is someone that holds beliefs on a kind of ‘fundamentalist’ level and is strictly opposed to evidence/opinions that goes against their beliefs. The views are way outside the social and moral norms of a society.

A radical is someone that wants to create extreme changes to society.

One could be a ‘radical extremist’ for example. Someone that holds extreme views and wants to enact extreme change to society.

Use of the word Extremist though, has solely negative connotations.

Radical is more neutral in and of itself for the most part.

Their usage can be interchangeable depending on someone’s underlying moral/political framework too:

If you agree with the ideas of an extremist then you might call them a radical and vice versa if you disagree.

So depending on a persons own beliefs, who and which positions they choose to call extremist can be reflective of inner extreme positions of their own.

Abolishing slavery in the US at the time was probably seen as radical or extreme depending on who you asked…
 

There are going to be grey areas in all of this as the context of what is radical and extreme will change throughout history etc. and again, it depends on your own moral/political positions as to what is extreme or radical. So it’s complicated.

Hope that helps?

[Nasher 33,047]

1 hour ago, Cranky Franky said:

Yes but fortunately the number of people that support or believe something has no impact on whether something is true or not.

And I don't think decent people secretly tape a private conversation and then without consent leak selected parts to the public.

 

You remind me of the kid in primary school who would call you a dobber (my kids would say “snitch”) if you told the teacher that the kid was giving you grief. As if exposing the behaviour of others is a greater crime than the initial behaviour itself.

Lumumba would have recorded that conversation as a result of his belief that he was being consistently mistreated. He wouldn’t have just randomly started doing it out of the blue. He would have thought nobody would ever believe him if they didn’t hear it for themselves, and he was absolutely correct. I agree that recording private conversations is extremely unpalatable and I’d be horrified if I learned someone was doing that to me. But put yourself in his shoes. What other choice did he have?

[Guest]

20 hours ago, deejammin' said:

Hi, I think what has happened is that initially when H came out with these claims publicly in 2017 the club, Bucks, Eddy etc tried to play it down, said it wasn’t a big deal and denied several of his claims. The only footage of the first press conference with Bucks is here excuse the inflammatory title it’s the only version I could find:

As you can see in the video Buck’s denies knowledge of the nickname, which he later admitted he had heard but thought H was ok with, smirks and consistently implies that H isn’t ok by saying he hopes he’s ok, attempting to play down H claim as implying he’s not well. He doesn’t engage on the “threw him under the bus” comment in this conference but in a subsequent one the same month of the year of this video he denied ever saying it/played down what it was even if he had said it.

The point is clearly H showed the club that he had proof of the nickname, the conversation and other incidents including as part of the do better report. The issue is that every time the CFC has denied, then attempted to paint Lumumba as an antagonist, then admitted it but said it wasn’t a big deal, then said it was a big deal and apologised, then been upset that Lumumba didn’t see it as a genuine apology given they only did it when he dragged them to it through proof. The reason he’s leaking it now is because the do better process fell apart with him, Krakeour and Davis and the only way to make CFC admit what they need to get better is to once again prove he’s not lying. 
Theres a pattern here.

Step one, deny racism:

”what that 13 yo girl said to Adam Goodes isn’t racist” “ they’re not booing him because of racism” “ the nickname wasn’t racist, he was cool with it” “Eddy was joking about a musical, not being racist” “Kennett wasn’t being racist he was making fun of her pants” “everyone’s mean on the internet it’s not unique to racism” 

Step two, admit racism but minimise it:

”yeah what the girl said was racist but he she’s 13 what does she know” “ some people are but not all of them are booing him cause they’re racist” “ yeah it was a racist nickname but they didn’t mean it like that”  “it was a bad joke but Eddy’s not racist he made a mistake” “ it was a bad joke from Kennett buts it’s been blown out of all proportion” “I mean it’s gross but there’s far worse insults and language on the internet”

Step 3 assassinate the victims character:

”yeah it was bad but what kind of man points out a 13 year old girl, Adam Goodes is arrogant” “ he did a war dance when they wouldn’t stop booing him, what did he expect, he should be grateful to the AFL” “ Lumumba is a lunatic on a crusade, he’s a terrible bloke and makes grandiose speeches, he’s just an attention seeker and probably just wants money, he should be grateful to CFC” “Cyril is clearly having a hard time, he’s on the outs with his family, he’s in a bad place and just lashing out” “Eddie’s an attention seeker, he does media and DJing, you put yourself in the spotlight you gotta take it”

Step 4 paint the perpetrator as the victim:

”Adam Goodes ruined this girls life!” “Adam Goodes and Lumumba ruined Bucks and Eddie’s careers! They made mistakes but overall they’re good blokes, they didn’t deserve this” “Cyril is trying to bring down strong successful leaders of a great football club” “Eddie’s trying to guilt the fans for being passionate”

Step 5 apologise, then immediately expect the victim to be cool with it, if they refuse or seek change, say they will never be happy with anything and are totally unreasonable then….

Step 6 restore the status quo until next time.

You watch, the next indigenous player to have a hard time will go through this again. It happens every time and this is the exact culture and cycle that needs to be broken. 

Absolutely magnificent post, @deejammin': a much more detailed and articulated version of what I posted earlier about the gaslighting that has happened everytime Heritier Lumumba has been in the public eye.

Also know that when certain posters on this board come for you pejoratively (though thankfully, it's a noisy minority these days), it's usually because they realise that your message has resonance and that someone without an agenda may move towards the direction of greater pluralism, equity and compassion because of it.

They will try their best to talk about semantics, your motivations, your disingenuousness (in their eyes), writing style and anything besides a calm, considered and polite debunking of what you have to say. 

That means you are doing your job.☝️

Ignore them. Speak your mind. You clearly have a lot to say that is worthwhile. 👏

Edited May 12, 2022 by Colin B. Flaubert

[deejammin' 2,065]

7 hours ago, faultydet said:

Lamumba is not indigenous

Heritier believes he has a case against Collingwood for racist behavior. Racism is not limited to being committed against our indigenous community.

 

 

Yes, thank you, I wanted to go back and add next racist incident or Indigenous, black and POC as I realised I had made that mistake but you are absolutely right and I apologise for leaving that out.

Edit: You might be able to help me, at what point can you no longer edit posts? I had assumed I could go back and fix this after your comment but the edit button is gone on the post. Sorry not very good with tech.

Edited May 12, 2022 by deejammin'

[bing181 8,149]

Whether Lumumba is or isn't an "extremist", mentally ill, a shot-stirrer, an attention-seeker or whatever else is irrelevant. Racist abuse is racist abuse whether or not the recipient is a nice bloke.

[McQueen 17,862]

6 hours ago, BoBo said:

This is getting really boring.

 

Jog along then.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, BoBo said:

As far as I know, an extremist is someone that holds beliefs on a kind of ‘fundamentalist’ level and is strictly opposed to evidence/opinions that goes against their beliefs. The views are way outside the social and moral norms of a society.

A radical is someone that wants to create extreme changes to society.

One could be a ‘radical extremist’ for example. Someone that holds extreme views and wants to enact extreme change to society.

Use of the word Extremist though, has solely negative connotations.

Radical is more neutral in and of itself for the most part.

Their usage can be interchangeable depending on someone’s underlying moral/political framework too:

If you agree with the ideas of an extremist then you might call them a radical and vice versa if you disagree.

So depending on a persons own beliefs, who and which positions they choose to call extremist can be reflective of inner extreme positions of their own.

Abolishing slavery in the US at the time was probably seen as radical or extreme depending on who you asked…
 

There are going to be grey areas in all of this as the context of what is radical and extreme will change throughout history etc. and again, it depends on your own moral/political positions as to what is extreme or radical. So it’s complicated.

Hope that helps?

I'd also add it can come down to ends and means. Though in many cases, those who advocate extreme means often advocate extreme ends.

For example, the Beer Hall Putsch was an event that erupted into violence through an attempted coup d'etat: an extremist set of means. That the man leading it wanted to create an expansionist German ethnostate that deprived chosen undesirables of their human rights had an extremist end in mind goes without saying.

I'd add that the tactics of those participating in the Battle of Cable street in 1936 where members of the community which included communists, anarchists, and organized criminal physically confronted Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts to stop them holding an intimidatory parade through the East End of London (an area which housed a substantial Jewish population) could be considered extreme by post WW2 liberal standards (although the ends were to be commended).

I guess it ultimately comes down to the historical, geographical or ideological epoch one lives in. 😏

[Guest]

Just now, Colin B. Flaubert said:

I'd also add it can come down to ends and means. Though in many cases, those who advocate extreme means often advocate extreme ends.

For example, the Beer Hall Putsch was an event that erupted into violence through an attempted coup d'etat: an extremist set of means. That the man leading it wanted to create an expansionist German ethnostate that deprived chosen undesirables of their human rights had an extremist end in mind goes without saying.

I'd add that the tactics of those participating in the Battle of Cable street in 1936 where members of the community which included communists, anarchists, and organized criminal physically confronted Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts to stop them holding an intimidatory parade through the East End of London (an area which housed a substantial Jewish population) could be considered extreme by post WW2 liberal standards (although the ends were to be commended).

I guess it ultimately comes down to the historical, geographical or ideological epoch one lives in. 😏

Holy [censored]. This thread is next level. Ethnostates and the 1936 Battle of Cable street?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Holy [censored]. This thread is next level. Ethnostates and the 1936 Battle of Cable street?

Just trying to not violate Godwin's Law when mentioning the Beer Hall Putsch example by going into a literal description of what the person instigating that actually wanted. 😎

Edited May 12, 2022 by Colin B. Flaubert

[BoBo 2,031]

1 hour ago, McQueen said:

Jog along then.

Right ok, we’re gonna be like this.

I can only infer from this that you don’t know what the words you use actually mean and can’t admit it, or even worse, you don’t want to substantiate what it is about him you find to be extremist to you, as it belies personal prejudice or ignorance. 

If you did have a good reason for calling him an extremist then you would have answered it the first/second/third time I directly asked, or you could just answer it now and prove me wrong?

If not, it’s either childish behaviour or cowardly behaviour. Maybe both.

You called an ex-player of this club an extremist in the context of this thread which it has been established as fact that he was racially vilified. I’d expect that a Melbourne supporter would be keen to explain what they mean when they potentially character assassinate a bloke and an ex-player, especially considering I answered how he’s NOT an extremist to your question the first time you asked it, but you refused 3 times to justify your claim that he’s an extremist and instead tried to deflect. 

That’s incredibly weak behaviour.

[BoBo 2,031]

1 hour ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

I'd also add it can come down to ends and means. Though in many cases, those who advocate extreme means often advocate extreme ends.

For example, the Beer Hall Putsch was an event that erupted into violence through an attempted coup d'etat: an extremist set of means. That the man leading it wanted to create an expansionist German ethnostate that deprived chosen undesirables of their human rights had an extremist end in mind goes without saying.

I'd add that the tactics of those participating in the Battle of Cable street in 1936 where members of the community which included communists, anarchists, and organized criminal physically confronted Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts to stop them holding an intimidatory parade through the East End of London (an area which housed a substantial Jewish population) could be considered extreme by post WW2 liberal standards (although the ends were to be commended).

I guess it ultimately comes down to the historical, geographical or ideological epoch one lives in. 😏

Great points and I’m going to nerd out a bit….

Extremism is a strange word in a way. It’s understood as being focused on the subject that it’s descriptive of, but what it is functionally doing, is establishing the users social/moral/political stances in opposition to the subject and asserting that the subject is immoral. So really, it’s as much, if not more, about the user as it is about the subject. 

Anyway, footy. Haha

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,636]

19 hours ago, KingDingAling said:

Yeah. He sees things in black and white. Like most borderlines do. Anyone trying to understand Harry O will soon learn that he cannot understand himself. Bloke is mentally ill and needs proper therapy and help. I say that as someone who doesn’t particular like Eddie, and who believes Buckley is a micro manager. I do hope Harry O stuffs up enough to be held accountable by the law, as it’s tne only tool provided by society where he may need to curb his behaviour. Social media is a borderlines paradise, gives them the perfect platform to gratify their need for attention, and penchant for chaos, but, given enough rope, and they soon hang themselves, 

The fact you keep referring to him as HarryO, says so much about you and says to everyone else, that your opinion means nothing

[dazzledavey36 48,646]

8 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Oh dear Cranky has missed the mark again

Dead set, when has he ever hit the mark.

Some seriously ordinary comments in this thread.

Never change demonland..

[McQueen 17,862]

1 hour ago, BoBo said:

Right ok, we’re gonna be like this.

I can only infer from this that you don’t know what the words you use actually mean and can’t admit it, or even worse, you don’t want to substantiate what it is about him you find to be extremist to you, as it belies personal prejudice or ignorance. 

If you did have a good reason for calling him an extremist then you would have answered it the first/second/third time I directly asked, or you could just answer it now and prove me wrong?

If not, it’s either childish behaviour or cowardly behaviour. Maybe both.

You called an ex-player of this club an extremist in the context of this thread which it has been established as fact that he was racially vilified. I’d expect that a Melbourne supporter would be keen to explain what they mean when they potentially character assassinate a bloke and an ex-player, especially considering I answered how he’s NOT an extremist to your question the first time you asked it, but you refused 3 times to justify your claim that he’s an extremist and instead tried to deflect. 

That’s incredibly weak behaviour.

Wow. You have been all pent up hey precious?

Lumumba in my opinion has taken this to extremes. It’s my opinion that he’s a self indulgent [censored] that loves the spot light. It’s also my opinion that you would love to goad me enough to label ME a racist. 
ICGAF about your opinion mate but thanks for taking such an interest in mine. 

[Cranky Franky 1,476]

4 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Dead set, when has he ever hit the mark.

Some seriously ordinary comments in this thread.

Never change demonland..

Poor old HL made more in 10 years at the Pies than I earned in my working life but I hear lattes are very expensive in the US so  maybe you & the Demonland woke brigade could set up a GoFundMe page to help him out.

 

[Cranky Franky 1,476]

1 hour ago, BoBo said:

Great points and I’m going to nerd out a bit….

Extremism is a strange word in a way. It’s understood as being focused on the subject that it’s descriptive of, but what it is functionally doing, is establishing the users social/moral/political stances in opposition to the subject and asserting that the subject is immoral. So really, it’s as much, if not more, about the user as it is about the subject. 

Anyway, footy. Haha

Ahem - I think you & Flaubert should maybe get a room.

[McQueen 17,862]

2 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Poor old HL made more in 10 years at the Pies than I earned in my working life but I hear lattes are very expensive in the US so  maybe you & the Demonland woke brigade could set up a GoFundMe page to help him out.

 

Just spat my beer. 😂😂

[BoBo 2,031]

17 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Wow. You have been all pent up hey precious?

Lumumba in my opinion has taken this to extremes. It’s my opinion that he’s a self indulgent [censored] that loves the spot light. It’s also my opinion that you would love to goad me enough to label ME a racist. 
ICGAF about your opinion mate but thanks for taking such an interest in mine. 

Thanks for this reply McQueen, it’s answered a lot of questions. 
 

‘Wow. You have been all pent up hey precious’

I have Daddy and now you’re here to set me straight.

’Lumumba has taken this to extremes’

Thank you for confirming that you didn’t know what the word ‘extremist’ meant, you misused it and you’ve now changed your argument to ‘Lumumba has taken this to extremes’. Now the above statement makes sense and your initial statement was clearly a mistake as characterising Lumumba as an ‘extremist’ was obviously a ludicrous thing to say. So now… You, I and everyone reading this thread, will obviously be able to see, that was a very very dumb thing to have stated in your first post.

But it’s clear now that it was a mistake so it’s all good.

’It’s also my opinion that you would love to goad me enough to label ME a racist’

Hmmmm that’s interesting, I know your incapable of answering a straight question, but I would LOVE it if you could quote where I called YOU racist? 
 

And goad? If me asking you 3 times to clarify what you mean is goading, then I suggest you stay off the internet. Or are you one of those snowflakes that is too scared to substantiate the insane things you say and start crying at the first sign that someone is asking you to clarify? 
 

‘ICGAF about your opinion mate but thanks for taking such an interest in mine’

You’re very welcome, I will absolutely love to continue my interest in your opinions on mis-characterising people that have been the victims of racial vilification as extremists and then backing away from that out of ignorance or cowardice. 
 

I’ll even have tissues ready for you. 

[BoBo 2,031]

47 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Ahem - I think you & Flaubert should maybe get a room.

True. We would probably have very productive conversations.