Cranky Franky

On 8/16/2021 at 9:45 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

Honestly think some make far too many excuses for certain players...

Agree - he was terrible & has been ordinary all year. Gets good PR from his podcasts & is a nice guy which seems to mitigate the criticism he receives but has been a failure as a wing

11 hours ago, rjay said:

Yep, you really can't make that assumption 'Ethan'...agreed.

...but it was an unusual incident, maybe payback for something earlier in the game.

Well Demonland posters are always making assumptions without any evidence.  Its because they don't understand epistomology and logic.

Hopefully it was just a brain fade by Majak a bit like Paddy McCartin earlier in the year.

22 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

 I am merely playing devil’s advocate here, but judging what happened to Yassmin Abdel-Magied, I’m guessing their reaction would not be so restrained. 

To me, those who make the call to ‘keep PC out of sports’ are happy if values are expressed through sports, so long as it’s their own values.

P.S. That said, there were probably a few other reasons the reactionary media complex and their assorted troglodytes and acolytes went after Yassmin with as much venom as they did. We all know those reasons. Bear that in mind in regards to the treatment Kozzie got on SNS.

 

 

 

Another long winded sermon. 

I never thought I'd see Demonland used to defend the entitled, pompous, windbag Yasmin Abdel Magied.

I recall her on Q& A telling us Sharia Law was great for women & that Islam was actually a Femminist religion.

Abdel

7 hours ago, Dees2014 said:

There is NO connection between racism and the abortion debate. The abortion debate is simply that, a debate where people have different views quite legitimately and both can walk away from it with their dignity in tact.

Racism is where one section of society seeks to belittle another simply on the basis of their skin colour or ethnicity. No-one’s dignity is left in tact, least of all the victim’s. Ridicule, disparaging and yes discrimination on the basis of one’s skin is an injustice which should not be in any civilised society. To equate it to the abortion debate is absurd. 

 

Maybe you spend too much time in la la land.

You do realise that in Australia abortion facilities have been attacked and people working there killed. Women attending have been abused and called murderers. It got so bad that exclusion zones have now been set up outside abortion facilities.

In the US of course its much worse and many health workers have been killed and abortion facilities bombed & been set on fire.

9 hours ago, Youngwilliam said:

But you're not giving solutions. How do you fix this?

Mate they are not interested in fixing stuff.

This forum provides platform where they can show they are smarter & more virtuous than the rest of us.

And it allows them to deliver a long winded sermon.

There's about half a dozen on here all furiously agreeing with each other in an echo chamber.

And you find that they hardly ever actually address any difficult questions put to them.

I would also wager that very few actually have any Indigenous friends which while its not a crime is certainly interesting in view of this conversation

Reading some of the absurd historical revisionism by some of the posters here is probably enough to push moderate readers into becoming conservatives.

Especially those trying to impose 2020 morals & standards on previous generations and historical events.

I always thought that part of Trump's appeal was a reaction to the more bats$h!t crazy views of the extreme left. Plenty are alive & well on Demonland.

1 hour ago, deanox said:

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? 

You've previously demonstrated you don't understand logical reasoning so I'm not wasting my time with your selective, garbled nonsense.

Just like Flaubert has cancelled me I'm cancelling you. Maybe cancel culture can be a positive.. 

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Putting a percentage on it is fraught with danger however I will say that there is a clear undercurrent of racism that is embedded in our culture.

Racism is a universal human condition found in every country. It probably started when we were cave men & learnt to only trust people from our extended family group. (this is pure speculation on my part)

It seems more prevalent where societies are more homogeneous & haven't mixed or experienced peoples from other ethnic or racial types. 

One thing that bugs me is that while you cannot tell your child not to marry someone because they are black or white its quiet ok to oppose a marriage because one is from a different culture or religion.  This is a good reason to ban all religions.

4 hours ago, Brownie said:

Hey @Cranky FrankyI haven't got around to reading this work yet. I've read both Bill Gammage's Greatest Estate on Earth and Dark Emu. They tend to align quite closely in that aboriginal people managed the landscape very sensitively to their advantage. I would call it farming. I guess part of it is your definition of what agriculture or farming is.

I do know that Bruce's heritage and work has been systematically attacked by a small number of influential people.
I know its taken a heavy personal toll on him (via friends I have who know him). 

I wouldn't say his work has been dunked and is full of errors. Not from what I've read and some of the first nations people I've listened to. This seems to be a balance view: https://theconversation.com/book-review-farmers-or-hunter-gatherers-the-dark-emu-debate-rigorously-critiques-bruce-pascoes-argument-161877

I do find it interesting they've written a book about another book, but it I'll probably look to read it to get a balanced view. Everyone has a different truth I guess.

It's why I think truth is so important and some in this country aren't willing to embrace it yet.
It's not about getting over it, its about facing up to it and owning it.

Anyways, Go Dees!

The authors are well acknowledged experts in their field.. The source material for their conclusions is original interviews with traditional Aboriginal people.

Bruce has been supported by many Indigenous leaders but the Tasmanian Aboriginal land Council has been quiet critical of him see link. 

https://www.tasmaniantimes.com/2020/01/bruce-pascoe-is-not-aboriginal/

I like Bruce both as an author and as a person but Dark Emu seems obsessed with proving that Aboriginal people were more farmers than hunter gatherers.

The view these days is that it takes more skill and knowledge to be successful nomadic hunter gatherers than it does to be farmers.

1 hour ago, Brownie said:

Thanks Bobo.

Eddie is right, It is up to us white fellas not to step over this stuff anymore.

For me, it's starts with this nation confronting the truth of the hurt and harm inflicted on First nations people. Also, the truth of what an incredible culture exists here and to truly appreciate and embrace it. There's much for us to learn.

I'd really recommend reading Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu to anyone who wants to learn some more. There's a kids version available too. It's a great read.

Truth, Treaty, Voice 

Sorry to tell you that Bruce's book has been pretty much debunked & shown to be poorly researched & full of errors - see Farmers or Hunter Gatherers- The Dark Emu Debate by Sutton & Walsh.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

43 minutes ago, deanox said:

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'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.

20 minutes ago, deanox said:

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 intolerate.

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.

 

I'm a bit unclear about what you want.  

Surely in a free society people can make comments that others may find offensive.

In a debate about religion, abortion, euthanasia or politics people are bound to say things that offend others.  If you don't allow this then surely we would be like China or North Korea.

1 hour ago, Webber said:

More labelling. 

Blame Obama. He called out Progressives & Wokes for their smugness. You can check it out on You Tube.

1 hour ago, 1964_2 said:

Given your attitude, I would say there is a massive chance she is cheating on you.

watch her closely! 
 

I think you're right. She has been a bit secretive lately.

2 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Firstly, thank you for sticking up for me, Webber. I’m very grateful as so often people are cowed by the most bombastic and obnoxious voices in conversations like this.

Secondly, @Demonland, @Nasher, or @Grapevineyplease do not close down this thread because ‘people cannot play nice’. The vast majority of posters are arguing in good faith, and as a community, we can come out of this more united, inclusive and progressive as a result.

Do not both sides this because there is only one side hurling epithets at others without provocation. Please deal with them.

Thirdly, I’ve put the quoted poster on ignore because their MO, as well as others, is pretty clear. (Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I struggle to think of any time I’ve actually seen the poster in question in a football related thread). Reacting to them gives oxygen to points that are either redundant or disingenuous, and add nothing to the conversation. However, as their content comes up through quotations*, I feel I must respond.

Their strategy is to obfuscate, pettifog, change the goal posts, and then resort to insults or provocation so it becomes an issue of individual grievances, both sidesism, and etiquette.

The thread gets closed, actual discussion is kyboshed and no closure or consensus is attained.

When that happens, they win.

To make this a brawl between myself and them is doing a dishonor to the structural conversation we are having. This is an issue beyond my ego, pride, personal opinions or reputation. Quite frankly (no pun intended), me also reacting to them plays right into their hands. It’s kind of complimentary as well as they wouldn’t be attacking me personally if they didn’t think what I was saying might resonate with some. Ineffective arguments generally just get ignored.

I view posters on this forum like that, who are becoming less and less brazen since the Walker incident, like Hiroo Onoda, the last Japanese soldier active in WW2 who stayed in the Philippine jungle until 1974. The tide has turned against them and they either never got the memo or refuse to admit it has. 

Nice work Col to ignore me. A lot easier than debating the issue. I note that you hardly ever answer any specific criticisms you just launch into a history lesson complete with video clips.

Cancel culture is mainly inflicted by progressives so I'll wear that proudly.

10 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

I just watched Eddie Betts' short video on Fox Footy about how it was affecting him and it really prompted one very clear thought in my head.

Eddie knows Taylor Walker, worked with him for years. Walker was his captain for a time and also a vital person to work with in that Adelaide forward line. Eddie has to digest the idea that all along when people were directing racist abuse at him and others, his former captain and very close colleague had a bit of underground sympathy for all that ####.

Now that Pickett also has been abused it gives us a very close to home analogy. A part of Kozzie's mind has to be considering the idea that any given one of his teammates, his captain, his forward line colleagues, might quietly be all right with it, too.

Then Pickett, a young player in a role which is exposed to bad days no matter how good you are, also has to process the possibility that maybe there's a midfielder who would rather honour someone else's lead or there's a voice on the selection committee that still thinks Aboriginal people lack the discipline to train properly and that's why Pickett's form is up and down.

And if he has the courage to stand up to the little signs and ambiguous comments, he runs the risk of being perceived as 'oversensitive' and going down the Lamumba path, or even getting his own experience of the Goodes disaster.

What a trap. You're in it even if you're not in it - the Melbourne Football Club could be a true haven of decency but no Indigenous player could be sure.

 

Jesus Goffy talk about pessimism. 

I'm happily married but I've found out the neighbour's wife was unfaithful so now I have to spy on my wife because there's a chance she'll be unfaithful as well.

52 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Molly Meldrum copped homophobic jibes and innuendo most weeks as well.

Nice work. Whenever you keep it under 50 words and resist the temptation of giving us a history lesson you make lots of sense.

39 minutes ago, S_T said:

I can't see any public statement out of WCE so far.  If that is the actual case, extremely poor by them.

As long as our society keeps giving platforms to people like Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and Rita Panihi, racists will still think it's ok to speak their hateful thoughts out loud.  I actually feel quite sorry for them.  Imagine being so shallow and disconnected from the rest of humanity that you think it's ok.

If you want to live in a democratic society that has freedom of speech you have to put up with views that you find disagreeable.

1 hour ago, Demonstone said:

No idea what you're trying to prove but, if this is intended to be an attack on my comment, rest assured that science is yet to invent the instrument that could measure my indifference to your remark.  Why you so Cranky, Franky?

The correct answer would have been to put your hand up & admit you couldn't help yourself.

41 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

It can also be argued that with access to technology,  those who used to have to bear the brunt of publicly condoned racial slander without means of public reply now have more platforms to voice their displeasure.

Racist abuse and sentiment in the public square was not and is not encouraged by communication tools that provided anonymity. It allowed opinions that had once been acceptable to be forced underground as those expressing them lacked the guts to own them personally.

For crying out loud, this was happening on one of Australia’s most prominent TV shows and it was considered ‘all good fun’. (Trigger warning: racist content).

 

We’ve explained how the roots of this type of stuff isn’t just about nasty people saying bad things. It’s historical and material and that can’t be emphasized enough.

But we also can’t say that racial abuse was created by trolls on the internet because ‘they were given a chance to do so’. It’s just that the most noxious toxicity that was once considered totally kosher has been rightfully stigmatized and forced underground, and the commentators/‘entertainers’ who might have been totally blatant about this now code their language behind a wall of plausible deniability.

Can't help it can you Colin - every comment has to include a lecture showing us how morally superior  & clever you are.

You are simply stating the obvious - that cultural norms change over time. What was acceptable in the 30's, 50's or 80's is not acceptable now.

And if you watched Kamahl's interview about this matter he stated that Australia was a lot less racist than India or Malaysia where he & his family came from.

 PS - And stop being so blatantly dishonest- nobody has said that racial abuse was started by on line trolls.