Taylor Walker - sanction for racism

[faultydet 7,593]

2 hours ago, dieter said:

Fantastic stuff, Mr Flaubert. I've just breathed a huge wave of contentment that somebody on this site - on any site, for that matter - can shine a light on how inherent and persistent and barely beneath the surface racism is in this country - as it is in most so-called Christian and white societies: it always has been so. Once again, thanks...

That is racist.

[red&blue1982 252]

8 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

Some additional context here. What if our beloved Kozzie was racially abused by a fool like Walker. Cop it on the chin? Compare it to Oliver being called a ranger?  never forget we became for a century or more superior to indigenous people by violence and superior force

I think I get your first statement, double standards yeah? If so, I agreed that hypocrisy is usually noticible in conversations about prejudice.

I don't understand what your second statement means?

[Cranky Franky 1,486]

2 hours ago, deanox said:

It's not enough to be "against racism" is it? You need to be actively anti-racist.

(And bring anti-racist doesn't mean that you don't do, say, think or act in a way that is racist at times. It means calling it out when you see it, and owning it and trying to improve when you get called out.)

Quiet right. I think you should set up an Inquisition and investigate anyone who is not actively anti racist and take them to task.

Maybe you shouldn't  get a job or a passport unless you have demonstrated your anti racist history.

[Half forward flank 1,022]

26 minutes ago, red&blue1982 said:

I think I get your first statement, double standards yeah? If so, I agreed that hypocrisy is usually noticible in conversations about prejudice.

I don't understand what your second statement means?

Second statement is the fact that White aussies from many countries have believed themselves superior to indigenous people since invasion. Racism mostly comes from  a position of feeling superior. Anglo/European superiorty/invasion  came about because of superior military might.  And if you want to go further, indigenous people did not need to invent weapons such as guns because they did not spend their time at war killing people of other nations. Skirmishes, yes, wholesale war, no. 

Edited August 8, 2021 by Half forward flank

[dieter 3,325]

48 minutes ago, faultydet said:

That is racist.

No, dear, it's an historical fact.

[dieter 3,325]

15 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

Second statement is the fact that White aussies from many countries have believed themselves superior to indigenous people since invasion. Racism mostly comes from  a position of feeling superior. Anglo/European superiorty/invasion  came about because of superior military might.  And if you want to go further, indigenous people did not need to invent weapons such as guns because they did not spend their time at war killing people of other nations. Skirmishes, yes, wholesale war, no. 

Great stuff! Or, as they say, Precisely.

[deanox 8,575]

1 hour ago, faultydet said:

That is racist.

How could that possibly be construed as racist?

 

[red&blue1982 252]

42 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

Second statement is the fact that White aussies from many countries have believed themselves superior to indigenous people since invasion. Racism mostly comes from  a position of feeling superior. Anglo/European superiorty/invasion  came about because of superior military might.  And if you want to go further, indigenous people did not need to invent weapons such as guns because they did not spend their time at war killing people of other nations. Skirmishes, yes, wholesale war, no. 

Go further, not sure what your implying?

I agree with some of your points, although your language is confusing me. No intended insult, just explaining myself.

But I don't agree with you assuming you know what 'White aussies' and 'indigenous people' did, or thought so long ago. Yes happenings from the past can be understood to a minimal degree of uncertainty, but writing like you know how and why things were back then is careless.

 

[In Harmes Way 7,492]

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.

[red&blue1982 252]

On 8/7/2021 at 7:24 AM, Bates Mate said:

Any reports of what he actually said?

racists comments are not on but be interested to know if it was an aggressive vindictive racial comment or more a trying to be what would have been thought to be " funny" 40 years ago jokey type comment. Both totally unacceptable

I'm trying to find out as well. No one seems to have quoted his comments.

Has it been publicised?

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,762]

On 8/6/2021 at 7:49 PM, daisycutter said:

not for a second defending him

but fair to say a 6 week game suspension, $20,000 donation, lost game payments, national level public condemnation and probably his career is a fairly decent punishment by most standards.

i appreciate a few a few people would like to see to see him placed in the stocks or given a public caning but let's keep some reasonable perspective

Absolutely. While it's clear he should know better, the education part of this is much more important than the punishment.

Ultimately, we want to see stuff like this eradicated from society and education has always had a far greater influence on behaviour than punishment, which can sometimes act to galvanise behaviours.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

25 minutes ago, red&blue1982 said:

I'm trying to find out as well. No one seems to have quoted his comments.

Has it been publicised?

You want to 'publicise' a racist comment?

[red&blue1982 252]

12 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

You want to 'publicise' a racist comment?

 

13 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

You want to 'publicise' a racist comment?

If you want to illuminate the issue you discuss it.

A journalist usually publicises the information in question.

[Half forward flank 1,022]

1 hour ago, red&blue1982 said:

Go further, not sure what your implying?

I agree with some of your points, although your language is confusing me. No intended insult, just explaining myself.

But I don't agree with you assuming you know what 'White aussies' and 'indigenous people' did, or thought so long ago. Yes happenings from the past can be understood to a minimal degree of uncertainty, but writing like you know how and why things were back then is careless.

 

Try and understand this then

Yirip      Indigenous name for your hometown, Stawell, for ten of thousands of years.  

How would you and your family get on if a superior military power took  over Stawell and australia, banned you from talking English, took your home, stole your children and then told you you were hopeless? So give it a rest understand Walker was in the wrong and deserves every penalty that has been  put his way.

[deanox 8,575]

58 minutes ago, red&blue1982 said:

I'm trying to find out as well. No one seems to have quoted his comments.

Has it been publicised?

I read that he used a slur to describe him. The context of the phrasing wasn't given.

It's a pretty nasty and relatively common slur specific to first nations people, as far as I'm aware. I'm not going to repeat the slur.

[red&blue1982 252]

What a pathetic attempt at righteousness. If you were truely interested in resolution in these issues, you wouldn't try and shut down discussion.

 

[rpfc 27,448]

How Walker can think like this after having so many colleagues over the years who were black… really does illustrate how ingrained it can be. 

And it isn’t like he was caught in the heat of the moment - standing off a huddle in a game he wasn’t playing in.

Who are these people to you, Tex? And anyone who thinks like this in private; do these humans earn your ridicule and hate based on their existence in your world? Do Black Lives Matter?

So sad that we can’t agree on some as fundamental as that.

And the fact that to say those three words above, or to take a knee, is to be ‘political’… just a shame in our time.

[red&blue1982 252]

8 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

Try and understand this then

Yirip      Indigenous name for your hometown, Stawell, for ten of thousands of years.  

How would you and your family get on if a superior military power took  over Stawell and australia, banned you from talking English, took your home, stole your children and then told you you were hopeless? So give it a rest understand Walker was in the wrong and deserves every penalty that has been  put his way.

 

8 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

Try and understand this then

Yirip      Indigenous name for your hometown, Stawell, for ten of thousands of years.  

How would you and your family get on if a superior military power took  over Stawell and australia, banned you from talking English, took your home, stole your children and then told you you were hopeless? So give it a rest understand Walker was in the wrong and deserves every penalty that has been  put his way.

What a pathetic attempt at righteousness. If you were truely interested in resolution in these issues, you wouldn't try and shut down discussion.

[red&blue1982 252]

11 minutes ago, Half forward flank said:

Try and understand this then

Yirip      Indigenous name for your hometown, Stawell, for ten of thousands of years.  

How would you and your family get on if a superior military power took  over Stawell and australia, banned you from talking English, took your home, stole your children and then told you you were hopeless? So give it a rest understand Walker was in the wrong and deserves every penalty that has been  put his way.

Such blatant assuming behaviour you have, and you're claiming the moral high ground?

You have no idea who I am, or where I come from 

[Little Goffy 12,560]

2 hours ago, dieter said:

No, dear, it's an historical fact.

Come on Dieter, look closely at what you just said.

I can only hope, unrealistically, that you were aiming for some kind of biting irony/sarcasm. Even then you need to flesh it out because internet text doesn't pick up nuance so well.

But if you are actually resorting to the rhetorical ploys of the dreariest rationalisations of social darwinism and all manner of racism, then you need to take a few deep breaths and think about what your motivations and goals are in this conversation.

Also, please keep in mind that racism as an attitude is not exclusive to or even more prevalent in 'white' societies than in any other - the catastrophe has always been the combination of racism with a massive preponderance of power.

It's really important to stay on task when combating racism and 'ooh, you filthy white people' comments don't help anything.

[titan_uranus 22,313]

45 minutes ago, red&blue1982 said:

What a pathetic attempt at righteousness. If you were truely interested in resolution in these issues, you wouldn't try and shut down discussion.

What are you arguing here?

We should know what Walker said so that we can debate it?

What do you want to debate about it?

I suspect you want to see what he said so that you can consider whether you think it was "bad" or not.

There is no doubt that what he said was racist. He has accepted that it was.

Once it's racist, nothing else matters. 

[red&blue1982 252]

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?

 

[hardtack 10,126]

2 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?

 

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?  

[titan_uranus 22,313]

2 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?

As I asked above, what do you want to discuss?

[dieter 3,325]

33 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Come on Dieter, look closely at what you just said.

I can only hope, unrealistically, that you were aiming for some kind of biting irony/sarcasm. Even then you need to flesh it out because internet text doesn't pick up nuance so well.

But if you are actually resorting to the rhetorical ploys of the dreariest rationalisations of social darwinism and all manner of racism, then you need to take a few deep breaths and think about what your motivations and goals are in this conversation.

Also, please keep in mind that racism as an attitude is not exclusive to or even more prevalent in 'white' societies than in any other - the catastrophe has always been the combination of racism with a massive preponderance of power.

It's really important to stay on task when combating racism and 'ooh, you filthy white people' comments don't help anything.

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.