In response to those saying we should be free to say what we like and too bad if some people will be offended, surely it depends on the nature of the statement and who it is directed at.  IMO there is a clear line - make nasty statements about a person for things over which they have no control (like the race they were born with) and you have clearly crossed the line.  

1 minute ago, sue said:

In response to those saying we should be free to say what we like and too bad if some people will be offended, surely it depends on the nature of the statement and who it is directed at.  IMO there is a clear line - make nasty statements about a person for things over which they have no control (like the race they were born with) and you have clearly crossed the line.  

That's not what Cranky is advocating sue.

I think you know that.

12 minutes ago, Webber said:

. The idea that ‘racism doesn’t just happen to minorities’ and that the majority (who have all the power) can feel or claim any understanding is not them just missing the point, as you say, it’s deliberately obfuscating from the real problem in order to justify their active bigotry. 

 

28 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

 

I'm going to guess that Faulty is referring to the fact that a large majority black population was oppressed and discriminated against by a white minority.

Webber, re-read and retract your obfuscation claim.

Edited August 11, 20214 yr by faultydet

4 minutes ago, faultydet said:

 

Webber, re-read and retract your obfuscation claim.

No need faulty.

Just now, Webber said:

No need faulty.

The reply I expected.

 

1 hour ago, Cranky Franky said:

I've not mentioned Trump & extremes of the left and right are mirror images.

I think your views on tolerance & free speech are naive. Take Christians or muslims quietly telling gays that their holy book says they are an abomination & will burn in hell. Surely most gays would find that highly offensive.

I find anti abortionists holding signs outside health clinics highly offensive. 

Some people have thick skins others are highly sensitive. I maintain that in vigorous open debate someone will be offended but to censor such debate is not acceptable in our society.

Yes, in both the situations you have described someone has tried to impart their personal beliefs on others. And in both those situations that intolerance should not be tolerated.

The only example you have provided of a situation where you think it is unavoidable to offend someone is "vigorous open debate", and you haven't actually explained why that would be offensive. The only reason "vigorous open debate" would be offensive is because it is actually "offensive, emotional attacks masquerading as debate".

This is your claim here. I guarantee you can't provide an example of something offensive in a discussion about religion, abortion, euthanasia or politics that doesn't rely on the statement being intolerant of others in the first place.

22 minutes ago, faultydet said:

That's not what Cranky is advocating sue.

I think you know that.

No mate, it’s not at all what Cranky is advocating.

Cranky brought up the example of abortion, as a topic that will have differing views, with potential for offence - I agree, this is a topic, where people should be free to have their own personal views......there is no right or wrong view. 

But I am really struggling to see the connection between abortion and racism, in terms of allowing free speech......displays the ignorance clearly in my opinion. 
 

10 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

No mate, it’s not at all what Cranky is advocating.

Cranky brought up the example of abortion, as a topic that will have differing views, with potential for offence - I agree, this is a topic, where people should be free to have their own personal views......there is no right or wrong view. 

But I am really struggling to see the connection between abortion and racism, in terms of allowing free speech......displays the ignorance clearly in my opinion. 
 

There are differing views on abortion sure. But expressing those views in discussion does not need to be offensive. 

One side of that debate says "everyone must follow my religious perspective" and wants to demonise and shame those who don't. The other side of that debate says "it's up to the individual to choose in accordance with their own beliefs". 

If that debate gets offensive it's because one side has decided to attack the other or force someone else to act a certain way. It's not because the topic has to be offensive.

2 minutes ago, deanox said:

There are differing views on abortion sure. But expressing those views in discussion does not need to be offensive. 

One side of that debate says "everyone must follow my religious perspective" and wants to demonise and shame those who don't. The other side of that debate says "it's up to the individual to choose in accordance with their own beliefs". 

If that debate gets offensive it's because one side has decided to attack the other or force someone else to act a certain way. It's not because the topic has to be offensive.

Agree with that. You can have a discussion with differing views on abortion, without being  offensive, and instead respectful via tolerance that it is a topic of opinion with no right or wrong answer. 

My point is, how does this have anything to do with RACISM, where we need to get to a point of zero tolerance. This is where I don’t see any relevance or connection between the left/conservative debate, free speech and RACISM. 

 

12 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

Agree with that. You can have a discussion with differing views on abortion, without being  offensive, and instead respectful via tolerance that it is a topic of opinion with no right or wrong answer. 

My point is, how does this have anything to do with RACISM, where we need to get to a point of zero tolerance. This is where I don’t see any relevance or connection between the left/conservative debate, free speech and RACISM. 

 

Oh it doesn't, but CF brought it up as an example of why it was impossible for society to exist without people offended, including racism.

They have spent an awful amount of time trying to deflect from the main issue haven't they?

5 hours ago, sue said:

I completely disagree. Your implicit defintition of politics is far too restrictive. It's more than political parties and the current politicians.  Real politics (not manouevering for votes) is about the human condition and how to better it. 

Just because some right winger thinks anti-rascism is a leftist plot, doesn't make it a non-political issue.   It says more about that person.

That's the point.  We no longer have 'real' politicians.  No leadership, no conviction of principle.  Both sides are more worried about the 24 hour news cycle and reactions on social media.  Politicians mouth platitudes, which deplore racism, yet at the same time, they proffer policies which appease the xenophobes.

Unless, we, as the great 'unwashed', drive change,the politicians and the political machine, will not heed, nor listen.  Change will only come from us - the citizenry.  If we have the will to drive it.  Racism is intrinsic and those who remain silent give it currency.  As CBF said in an earlier post, we no longer have bipartisanship and until such time as we do, the political machine will cause little change, if any, in this area.

At the risk of sounding like an old hippy, it was 'people power' which changed the then popular opinion on the Vietnam war, which killed millions; not the politicians or their apparatchiks.

1 minute ago, deanox said:

Oh it doesn't, but CF brought it up as an example of why it was impossible for society to exist without people offended, including racism.

They have spent an awful amount of time trying to deflect from the main issue haven't they?

Spot on. 

And a view of “people will always get offended, and be sensitive” when it comes to racism is not at all acceptable.....and part of the pain/trauma, when you hear someone who has been racially vilified speak on the topic. 

 

2 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

In a way, that's exactly what I mean. The way racism just keeps rearing up again and again in big or small, obvious or underhanded ways is making Aboriginal people pessimistic. It would make anyone pessimistic in the same circumstance. For every Aboriginal person in Australia it is just that much harder to believe that if you make the effort you'll get the reward.

That's a deep cut.

You could watch Eddie Betts interview on Fox Footy as if it was a short film titled "Typically upbeat man struggles to keep pessimism away."

4 minute video - Link: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-taylor-walker-racism-eddie-betts-video-adelaide-crows-suspension-future/news-story/2df3d11d766ebe3c89b4508a0549c412

The video is a sad watch. Sad as Eddie is one of the most loved players ever.

I read your initial comments as never take a chance because you might be betrayed or let down.

Your friends, your wife, your family all might betray your trust.

Its a pretty bleak way to live. 

13 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

The video is a sad watch. Sad as Eddie is one of the most loved players ever.

I read your initial comments as never take a chance because you might be betrayed or let down.

Your friends, your wife, your family all might betray your trust.

Its a pretty bleak way to live. 

CF, with respect you are talking as if they choose to take a pessimistic view. 

This is not an attitude or choice on their behalf, it’s the effects of trauma from systemic racism. 

It has absolutely ZERO relevance to the comparison of the chances of your wife betraying your trust. 

Please get educated. 
 

Edited August 11, 20214 yr by 1964_2

1 hour ago, 1964_2 said:

Spot on. 

And a view of “people will always get offended, and be sensitive” when it comes to racism is not at all acceptable.....and part of the pain/trauma, when you hear someone who has been racially vilified speak on the 

1 hour ago, deanox said:

Yes, in both the situations you have described someone has tried to impart their personal beliefs on others. And in both those situations that intolerance should not be tolerated.

The only example you have provided of a situation where you think it is unavoidable to offend someone is "vigorous open debate", and you haven't actually explained why that would be offensive. The only reason "vigorous open debate" would be offensive is because it is actually "offensive, emotional attacks masquerading as debate".

This is your claim here. I guarantee you can't provide an example of something offensive in a discussion about religion, abortion, euthanasia or politics that doesn't rely on the statement being intolerant of others in the first place.

 

Deanox I don't know if you are intentionally obfuscating or not.

I'm simply saying that people have different levels of tolerance and sensitivity and how they take offence. What offends one person is water off a ducks back to another and I have given concrete examples of this.

If you do not understand this we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

33 minutes ago, 1964_2 said:

CF, with respect you are talking as if they choose to take a pessimistic view. 

This is not an attitude or choice on their behalf, it’s the effects of trauma from systemic racism. 

It has absolutely ZERO relevance to the comparison of the chances of your wife betraying your trust. 

Please get educated. 
 

With utmost respect nobody actually took a pessimistic view. It was a response to Goffy's comments about trust which were based on pure speculation not on any evidence. 

Let's stop arguing.  Let's try and work together, to STOP racism.  Do we at least agree on that?

4 hours ago, deeTRACted said:

How has there still not been a comment from WCE about this? Unbelievable 

I think on their forum they said if there is a link to the club by the (moderated) they would be binned. I really liked Adam Simpson's take on racism on the Amazon Prime documentary. He was clear about not walking past it and calling it out on the spot. Explained clearly and with passion.

13 minutes ago, DEE fence said:

I think on their forum they said if there is a link to the club by the (moderated) they would be binned. I really liked Adam Simpson's take on racism on the Amazon Prime documentary. He was clear about not walking past it and calling it out on the spot. Explained clearly and with passion.

They can make comment condeming the comments without knowing if the person who made them is linked to the club.  They may never know for sure but because the comments were made about a player WCE had just played against, there is more than enough reason for them to publicly condemn them.

1 hour ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

Let's stop arguing.  Let's try and work together, to STOP racism.  Do we at least agree on that?

Yep great idea.  Things have certainly changed for the better since the Winmar incident however its unlikely we can ever stop on line trolls as long as they are able to hide their identity.

Wow. I had no idea Koz had been given a hard time on Monday night. 
Lockdown makes all the days the same. 
No statement from WC….

Says a lot. 
 

Long way to go, indeed

Quite a thread, all of it. 

2 hours ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

Let's stop arguing.  Let's try and work together, to STOP racism.  Do we at least agree on that?

Yeah, great. How can we stop what we don’t even agree is racism?

Those that do nothing and that wish they weren’t ‘preached’ at by PC thugs - answer the question in your quiet time - what will you do differently? I won’t single you out but you know who you are.

Edited August 11, 20214 yr by rpfc

These weak as [censored] people who engage in this behaviour surely must realise how the rest of us view them

Common character traits of these losers point strait to a [censored] human 

 

37 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Yeah, great. How can we stop what we don’t even agree is racism?

Those that do nothing and that wish they weren’t ‘preached’ at by PC thugs - answer the question in your quiet time - what will you do differently? I won’t single you out but you know who you are.

A bullying and preachy response to a conciliatory post.

People are free to disagree with you but fully support MFC's statement on the racist comments and the need to call out racism.

There has been discussion around what should be done, what works, social media, free speech and right & left wing bullies.

 

3 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Deanox I don't know if you are intentionally obfuscating or not.

I'm simply saying that people have different levels of tolerance and sensitivity and how they take offence. What offends one person is water off a ducks back to another and I have given concrete examples of this.

If you do not understand this we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

Nah, we won't agree to disagree, I'm going to keep holding you to account.

I (and others) are telling you that people can discuss ANY topic without offending if a) you are respectful and b) you are not trying to impose your moral/ethics on someone else.

You say that offending each other in  discussion is unavoidable, but can't explain a reason why or a situation that doesn't fall into a) or b) above.

I've been quite specific, the obfuscation is at your end. Either provide an example where offence is unavoidable (should be easy according to you) or accept that you're wrong.

You may not realise or accept it, but your current line of argument is actually part of the problem that we are all trying to fix.