7 minutes ago, red&blue1982 said:

It's a discussion isn't it? We're all communicating in text on a forum right?

I'm noticing that through merely inquiring about what Tex Walker actually said it's raising suspicion and censor like responses like yours.

Why discuss the story at all if you don't want to go into detail?

 

I've told you that I read in an early article (since redacted) that he used a reasonably well known slur to describe the person. That has differentiated that what he said was a slur in casual speech rather than a diatribe spoken in vitriol to their face, nor was it a wider scope cultural attack. So gives sufficient context. Why does it matter which slur it was? 

If you really want to know, think of the 5 or so common slurs you've heard used for first nations people and imagine it's one of them. It doesn't really matter which one it is.

 

6 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Why do you feel the need to know exactly what was said?  How will that add to the discussion in any constructive way… particularly now that Walker has admitted to it?  

It's poignant. It's information. It reveals more about his character, it reveals more about the story.

Simple.

4 minutes ago, red&blue1982 said:

It's poignant. It's information. It reveals more about his character, it reveals more about the story.

Simple.

doesn't the preceding post to yours answer your question sufficiently?

1 minute ago, red&blue1982 said:

It's poignant. It's information. It reveals more about his character, it reveals more about the story.

Simple.

The fact that he made, and admitted to, racist comments tells us all we need to know about his character. It would add nothing to the story except to satisfy those who derive perverse pleasure from knowing all of the gory details… much like those who go rubbernecking at the scene of an accident.

It’s very apparent that the AFL do not want the comments out there, most likely to protect the victim from going through the experience/trauma again.

5 minutes ago, deanox said:

I've told you that I read in an early article (since redacted) that he used a reasonably well known slur to describe the person. That has differentiated that what he said was a slur in casual speech rather than a diatribe spoken in vitriol to their face, nor was it a wider scope cultural attack. So gives sufficient context. Why does it matter which slur it was? 

If you really want to know, think of the 5 or so common slurs you've heard used for first nations people and imagine it's one of them. It doesn't really matter which one it is.

 

Geez, you're going to a lot of effort to withhold information. Suit yourself.

My curiosity is losing interest. I didn't realise the discussion was going to be so gaurded. 

2 minutes ago, hardtack said:

The fact that he made, and admitted to, racist comments tells us all we need to know about his character. It would add nothing to the story except to satisfy those who derive perverse pleasure from knowing all of the gory details… much like those who go rubbernecking at the scene of an accident.

It’s very apparent that the AFL do not want the comments out there, most likely to protect the victim from going through the experience/trauma again.

Or allow people to argue whatever he said wasn't actually racist, or "wasn't that bad", or something like that.

Putting the slur into the media puts it in front of kids' eyes. We're trying to eradicate this language, not perpetuate it.

There is literally nothing to be gained from publicising it.

1 hour ago, dieter said:

Little Goffy, racism is racism. It always comes from predominant - usually white - culture, as you so eloquently point out. Most of the Asian, African and 'American' world was taken over by white, European, so-called Christian - colonizers. That the races and cultures the colonizers mainly destroyed is not the issue here: it's the ongoing attitude of most European whites. Or, as I heard in a RN broadcast about racism, the notion of white supremacy is basically a British one. Darwin has nothing to do with this. Have you heard about the signs put up in parks in China by the Brits during the so-called Opium Wars - No dogs or Chinese allowed - or the famous Calwell quote: Two wongs don't make a white? 

I rest my case. Go back to your infantile cubby hole in the sand.

Of course all the enslaving and colonising and rape and pillage was done by Europeans except for the Incas, Aztecs, Plains Indians, Japanese, Mongols,  Maoris, Persians, Egyptians, Zulus, Chinese Babylonians, Arabs, Turks & a few others.

You are a historical nincompoop- go back to school.

14 hours ago, rjay said:

There have been huge changes 'faulty'...but you have to wonder how many of these are really just on the surface.

We've shut down a lot of what people say on and off the field but that doesn't stop what are really thinking.

Sometimes by shutting down the voice, which is ugly and needs to be, we are hiding the real thoughts of many people.

We might be kidding ourselves that we have made real advances, I hope not...

Betts thinks things are getting worse.

We have a long, long way to go...

 

Couldn’t have put it better myself. Totally agree. We must be forever vigilant and aware.

14 hours ago, faultydet said:

And people accuse me of being over the top.

 

Seriously Col, try to relax.

See, this is exactly what many of us are talking about. Whenever an excellent piece like the one posted by Colin B. Flaubert, which used sound reasoning and intellectual grunt, the only comeback are accusations of “being over the top”instead of logical rebuttal. Intellectual rigour is clearly not in your bailiwick. 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 20214 yr by Dees2014

9 hours ago, red&blue1982 said:

It's a discussion isn't it? We're all communicating in text on a forum right?

I'm noticing that through merely inquiring about what Tex Walker actually said it's raising suspicion and censor like responses like yours.

Why discuss the story at all if you don't want to go into detail?

 

 

Edited August 8, 20214 yr by Half forward flank

2 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

 

I suspect you want to judge whether in your view it was a racist thing to say.  You cannot accept that a team mate or team mates. Adelaide officials, AFL officials and  indeed Tex Walker himself after taking advice from his Manager and others all agree it was racist. To spell it out for you it would be morally and legally racist for anyone to repeat what was said. Why, because that just reinforced and amplifies the damage to any indigenous people who hear it. Do you get it. Final note, Walker did not try and worm his way out of it like in the old days by saying, all I said and thought that was just like calling the red headed bloke bluey.

2 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

See, this is exactly what many of us are talking about. Whenever an excellent piece like the one posted by Colin B. Flaubert, which used sound reasoning and intellectual grunt, the only comeback are accusations of “being over the top”instead of logical rebuttal. Intellectual rigour is clearly not in your bailiwick. 

 

 

 

It was hysterical.

 

Not many lines needed to express that thought brainiac.

10 hours ago, red&blue1982 said:

Geez, you're going to a lot of effort to withhold information. Suit yourself.

My curiosity is losing interest. I didn't realise the discussion was going to be so gaurded. 

I actually went to a lot of effort to try to describe the comments to you, to provide as much context as possible, without needing to repeat a racist slur.

If your curiousity only piques because of the titillation of reading a slur, then that's a you problem.

11 hours ago, dieter said:

Little Goffy, racism is racism. It always comes from predominant - usually white - culture, as you so eloquently point out. Most of the Asian, African and 'American' world was taken over by white, European, so-called Christian - colonizers. That the races and cultures the colonizers mainly destroyed is not the issue here: it's the ongoing attitude of most European whites. Or, as I heard in a RN broadcast about racism, the notion of white supremacy is basically a British one. Darwin has nothing to do with this. Have you heard about the signs put up in parks in China by the Brits during the so-called Opium Wars - No dogs or Chinese allowed - or the famous Calwell quote: Two wongs don't make a white? 

I rest my case. Go back to your infantile cubby hole in the sand.

Racism is far from being an attitude restricted to only 'white' people. There are very few countries that have less prevalence of racism than is found in Australia.

The urgency of addressing any given racist attitude is determined by the amount of power held by those with the attitude. For example, a crazy person living in a shack on an island off the west coast of Tasmania is not the issue.

The massive accumulation of power by industrialising and coincidentally 'white' countries in the 15th to 20th centuries has led to legacies which must be addressed if those societies are to now be harmonious and just, particularly given their voluntary embrace of highly cosmopolitan culture. The legacy of slavery in the USA is of course a particularly egregious and exceptional case, as are the invasion/defacto genocide impacts upon indigenous peoples in several 'colonised' countries.

But, to reiterate, racism is very much not some kind of 'whites only' phenomenon (if you'll pardon the ironic pun) and it helps nobody and no cause to act like it is, particularly when the 'Western' tradition is at present the only one which has widely embraced self-reflection about being a perpetrator.

Referencing a grab-bag of random offences like the Opium Wars and 'Two Wongs don't make a right' and declaring that to be good enough to rest your case sets back the cause you claim to be articulating.

11 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Of course all the enslaving and colonising and rape and pillage was done by Europeans except for the Incas, Aztecs, Plains Indians, Japanese, Mongols,  Maoris, Persians, Egyptians, Zulus, Chinese Babylonians, Arabs, Turks & a few others.

You are a historical nincompoop- go back to school.

You're right, rape and pillage is a universal trait. As is racism. The simple fact of history is that in the past five hundred years - with very few exceptions - nearly all of the rape and pillage has been an exclusive White Man Christian thing and I know you'll pull out your favourite exceptions to the rule, 'monsters' like Saddam who we simply had to 'replace' cos, hey, we're the good guys and that's our job as Sheriffs and Deputies, and after all he ceased being useful to us when the Iraq/Iran war finished.

So I obviously went to a different school than you. At my school you didn't simply swallow all the codswallop the Victors and Conquerors wanted me to believe. It was a very private school, actually, where my brain and sensibilities ruled, a school where I simply saw beyond the narrative of the superior while man. It's a school which acknowledges the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of the Bengal famine, the Irish famine, the rape and decimation of most Northern American native people, the attempted genocide of our Aboriginal communities, something [censored] white supremist lunatics still maintain didn't happen. I could go on, Cranky FRanky but I am familiar with the futility of attempting to pass urine when a gale is blowing in your face. I also take consolation in the fact that there are still men and women who believe the world is flat, that Trump won, that Covid is a hoax - I don't know anyone that's got Covid, do you? 

45 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

 

But, to reiterate, racism is very much not some kind of 'whites only' phenomenon (if you'll pardon the ironic pun) and it helps nobody and no cause to act like it is, particularly when the 'Western' tradition is at present the only one which has widely embraced self-reflection about being a perpetrator.

Referencing a grab-bag of random offences like the Opium Wars and 'Two Wongs don't make a right' and declaring that to be good enough to rest your case sets back the cause you claim to be articulating.

Oh, so now the Western tradition is the only one which has widely embraced 'self-reflection' about being a perpetrator. Wow. Can you articulate which 'Tradition' you are referring to? Are you referring to Britain's total amnesia about its Colonial crimes? Is it some voices in the wilderness in the USA who point out that the USA has been at war throughout its history bar four  - oh yes, I acknowledge these whispers from the wilderness exist , I've heard them - but if you believe this is widespread you must live in a parallel universe.

4 hours ago, Half forward flank said:

I suspect you want to judge whether in your view it was a racist thing to say.  You cannot accept that a team mate or team mates. Adelaide officials, AFL officials and  indeed Tex Walker himself after taking advice from his Manager and others all agree it was racist. To spell it out for you it would be morally and legally racist for anyone to repeat what was said. Why, because that just reinforced and amplifies the damage to any indigenous people who hear it. Do you get it. Final note, Walker did not try and worm his way out of it like in the old days by saying, all I said and thought that was just like calling the red headed bloke bluey.

I'm not interested in what you 'suspect'. You're quite arrogant to assume authority on the matter, and pre judge.

Asking if anyone knew what was said is called gathering information. Obviously Walker said something racist. I don't need you to state what's plainly obvious, and keep your history lessons to yourself, there boring.

Anyway, he'll get punished.

Respect to Demonland for wanting this to stay on track. However the fact is Walker was reported and suspended for racial abuse of an indigenous player. He acknowledged it and will have to cop the penalty.  Bewildered by how the discussion ever became more than what the  laws of the land and the AFL are in 2021.  Any who disagree with the verdict or feel aggrieved by what they consider their own injustice in the past, well, take it up with your local Club, the AFL or your local Member of Parliament. 

17 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

It’s pretty eady if you live by 3 simple rules:

1. Be nice to each other

2. take care of each other

3. even umpires are human and can get it wrong, have sympathy 

I reckon 1&2 are easier than 3.

Thanks @HarmesWay, two simple and good rules to live by there.  When walking her to school, back before me daughter considered parental proximity a total embarrassment, my last words to her at the gate were "be kind to yourself and others". 

She is an intelligent young girl and intuitively understood that this does NOT extend to umpires.

2 hours ago, dieter said:

Oh, so now the Western tradition is the only one which has widely embraced 'self-reflection' about being a perpetrator. Wow. Can you articulate which 'Tradition' you are referring to? Are you referring to Britain's total amnesia about its Colonial crimes? Is it some voices in the wilderness in the USA who point out that the USA has been at war throughout its history bar four  - oh yes, I acknowledge these whispers from the wilderness exist , I've heard them - but if you believe this is widespread you must live in a parallel universe.

Your rhetorical method is odious and dishonest and it detracts from a crucial cause.

Is this Demonland or Twitter?

6 Matches is not enough, i am of the view that if a player makes a comment like this they should be given a zero strike policy, they should be sacked on the spot. 

AFL players carry a responsibility to be role models and how many feral Adelaide Supporters, and wider supporters (Collingwoods entire base) will now think it's okay to say things like this because Tex did 

53 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Your rhetorical method is odious and dishonest and it detracts from a crucial cause.

What, because I've fired a crucial fusillade across the bow of your imagination?

35 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

6 Matches is not enough, i am of the view that if a player makes a comment like this they should be given a zero strike policy, they should be sacked on the spot. 

AFL players carry a responsibility to be role models and how many feral Adelaide Supporters, and wider supporters (Collingwoods entire base) will now think it's okay to say things like this because Tex did 

Im inclined to agree with you. Case after case of rank and file punters shouting things over the fence at players have resulted in membership cancellations and multi-year bans. The same integrity unit at AFL house then comes out and slaps a former club captain with 6 weeks.

Should the standard for players, especially a former club captain not be the same if not higher than that of the fans? What is this difference in this case?

I would think in this current year we would be moving towards flat out cancelling contracts for this kind of behaviour.

3 minutes ago, Vandenberger With The Lot said:

I would think in this current year we would be moving towards flat out cancelling contracts for this kind of behaviour

Changing sports for a minute, 3 Portsmouth youth players (all aged under 18) were sacked after a racist conversation was leaked online after the Euros.  It's balancing act of punishing the individual/needing to set an example against educating the offender. (An Extension of the retributive vs restorative justice debate if you will)

I don't know the answer or what is appropriate punishment for any of these instances. For Walker you can say 6 weeks isn't enough and you're probably right. Even if the AFL went harder on Walker I sadly don't think that would reduce the amount of racist comments some indigenous players receive online.