deanox

This is an excerpt from the club statement this week. The majority of posters here are trying to live this. A small minority of you are choosing to attack, argue, defend against, "devil's advocate" or some other obfuscation tactic to prevent this happening. The club is calling you out on your behaviour and saying you are an anachronism.

With Dean Margetts retiring at least obvious crimes on the football field will reduce over there.

I agree that it should get done, but the current mob in charge won't do it unless there is competition down there. If the A League or NRL think about expanding down there, the AFL will swoop in. But currently they don't have any alternative so football in still no. 1. I would have thought that Covid was the perfect time to relocate a team. If the State Government is willing to chip in a higher than usual proportion of money, covid is easy cover for claiming "there isn't enough money to support 10 teams in Vic any more". I just don't know if Gil is up for that culture war.

I'm not sure that Weid has played much, and if there are any doubts about TMac, I would have thought match fitness was important?

Why don't we teach people not to be savage, offensive, [censored], rather than try to teach people to cop it sweet and move on?

Weid in, given we have no TMac? Or stay short given O'Brien is out?

I really feel sorry for you Cranky. Everytime someone demonstrates you are wrong you lose your mind. Your cognitive bias is so strong you can't actually engage in a rational argument. I don't think you are a bad person deep down but even if you don't mean to, you are contributing to the racist narrative in this country. I hope you can find a way to grow past it. Good luck.

Intolerance for the intolerant YW. If the rest of us want to create a tolerant society then intolerant views need to be blocked out and condemned. That's how it works.

But you realise that claiming they weren't farmers (in the European meaning of the word) was the legal basis for displacing the First Nations people? From Jagots address to the NSW Young Lawyers Conference: Cook saw plenty of Aboriginal people but, coming from the dense population of England which had been subject to intensive agricultural techniques for centuries, not evidence of a kind he would recognise as the hallmarks of permanent habitation or cultivation of the land – Australia was thus terra nullius and remained so until 1992. https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/digital-law-library/judges-speeches/justice-jagot/jagot-j-20171020 It is only in this current generations life that we began to recognise that "actually they were here". A nation of people, with their own laws, and rules and customs, just wiped out and a new legal structure - Australia - just placed over the top of them, which ignored them until recently. On the issue of Pascoe's aboriginality or not, who cares? I'm not First Nations, it's not my lane to comment on that, and I'm sure that community will sort it out, or not. But what difference does it make to anything?

Without realising it, you've just demonstrated how partisan you are on this topic. It implies you haven't read these books, or if you have you didn't understand. Pascoe's work is not an academic text to be debunked. It references historic sources that have been omitted from the general conversion deliberately as part of the terra nullis claim. He questions much of the narrative that white Australia teaches itself about our First Nations people (that they were completely nomadic, never built any structures, didn't do any agricultural work). Sutton and Walshe don't "debunk" anything. They argue that First Nations people should be called "hunter gathers plus" rather than Pascoe's suggestion that they deployed a type of farming/agriculture. That seems petty semantics when Pascoe's main thesis was that the modern western academic criteria for farming was Eurocentric, and therefore was too tight and restrictive to consider other cultures' approach to farming. Just as Sutton and Walshe critiqued Pasoce, others have since critiqued Sutton and Walshe for omitting evidence, for relying too heavily on colonial census data (probably skewed) and for sticking to outdated academic concepts. Have they been debunked? People can have conversations and discussions without being offensive to each other. But if you think the work was "debunked" and can therefore be dismissed, this might be why you keep finding that people take offence in discussion.

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.

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?

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.

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.

If you think those conversations can't happen with someone being offended, it seems possible that you think you should be able to hold views that are intolerant or offensive or discriminatory against some people. There is no reason a debate about those topics should offend anyone. For example, if your position about religion is "my religion says same sex couples can't get married so I choose not to", then no one is offended. If your position is "my religion says same sex couples can't get married so I think the law should prevent that" then you are intolerant of others. And as such "the paradox of tolerance" still stands: in a free and tolerant society, we can be tolerant of everything, except for those views which are intolerant, because if we tolerate them in society they will cause society to become more intolerant. With your constant politicking, response to comments about Trump, references to supposed communist countries etc. you really seem to confuse "left vs right" with "authoritarian vs anarchism/libertarianism". Clearing up that left does not equal authoritarian might help you understand the positions of other people more easily.

I disagree with this. It's the paradox of tolerance. If we want to live in a tolerant society, then we absolutely cannot tolerate the intolerant. This thread is an example of people not tolerating the intolerant. Demonlanders are standing up to say "I want to be anti-racist, and that means holding people to account when their actions enable racism in society, even if their actions aren't actively racist." I'm proud of this community.

CDP this is line with my thoughts: Oliver did some amazing work under a hard tag and I thought he often got the ball out in some super improbable situations, but it didn't often start anything or go anywhere. They were mostly contested possessions in close, which probably helped us retain or break even in close. He also didn't really get loose to be damaging by foot like he has at his best this year (although he did in the last play with an exceptional kick to Spargo that may have iced the game for us). Petracca I thought created more space and opportunities around him, and his goal (one of only 10) was particularly good. He also got a bit more outside ball, allowing him space to deliver it. Both are listed as having had 0 turnovers, whatever that means.

My favourite part of it was that a second WCE player ran in and tried to push Petty off after he finally handed the ball back and the umpire blew the whistle to call time off, stopped him taking the kick, turned and said to the WCE player "you're delaying the game by doing that". So good. It was Nicholls, no surprises. Also Petty ate up about 9 seconds, plus the 4 from Nicholls, which probably was enough to allow us to flood back.

My best guess was they were booing umpires for not giving them a 50 against Petty. I thought that was a pretty bad non-decision late in the game, but certainly didn't cost them the game.

And Rivers.

Brown was very good in those conditions and perhaps I've underrated him too. 7 marks, 6 score involvements including 3 goals and an assist, in those weather conditions was outstanding.

I expect ANB and Jackson to get votes, it more about the order of votes I'm interested in. Until the lightning break I would maybe have had my best 6 on ground as Petracca, Oliver, ANB, Jackson, Yeo and Cripps (in no particular order but with an emphasis on the MFC players). The surge after the break could shake things up a bit: we defended well (does Bowey/May come into it) do the Eagles go higher?

I came here to say this. Also interesting to see whether the coaches rate the games of the big names (Oliver, Petracca) ahead of the ANB's and Jackson's.

6 Petracca 5 Neal-Bullen 4 Jackson 3 Oliver 2 Bowey 1 Harmes Apologies to Petty, May, Gawn, Salem and Brown (7 marks and 2 goals in those conditions). (Edit: thought some more and dropped Oliver from 5 to 3. Not that he wasn't good but ANB and Jackson were outstanding tonight so deserved to be bumped).

Absolutely over officiated rubbish tonight.