deanox

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.

They said 60 minutes but the rule book says 30 minutes. https://twitter.com/DanielCherny/status/1424708488744247296?s=19

Because when they have lock downs they always find a bunch of cases that were infectious in the community. I think they go short so that if it is a good outcome they can open back up again.

I don't think it is about changes to our game plan as such, but about the little tactical things we'll do, like choosing to tag Libba. Those things may get tweaked.

I reckon we would go according to our standard plan we've played all year against Adelaide and backourselves to get it done. And then I'd treat Geelong like the first final and play to win. Win that and we take top spot, probably get a home final against PA and a week off.

Just to clarify: I'm not sure 2nd and 3rd world means what you think it does. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

Fair enough. I understand Shane was on holidays in Bali at the time of the trade. Did he suggest it was us who renegged or that the manager may have had other ideas while he was away.

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.

Spot on. Poor umpiring makes money for their media partners, it creates clicks, sells newspapers, generates video views on social media. It keeps the media cycle going.

I haven't read/heard anything recently; my recollection was that they asked him to take less money, he said no, they organised a trade, then he called up and said "I would have taken less money if you needed!" but they considered it too late. I'd be interested to know the other story?

Watching closely, I reckon Oliver gets a lot of whack's all day long, many in the guts and ribs. In a physical contest he goes in hard. When hit off the ball cheaply and unexpectedly, I'm not concerned if he does go down.

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.

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.