pɐǝɹɥʇ lɐᴉɔᴉɟɟoun ǝɥʇ - ɐᴉlɐɹʇsn∀

[Com Fox]

Think of the implications of this statement - that so long as you can justify it, racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination is acceptable. But the idea of justification is abstract and unclear, so any bigot can stand up and say what they want whilst defending the action of saying it and expecting the target of their bigotry to simply take it without complaint.

True on that I should've word it better, but for this situation it is clearly a sign of people just not liking Goodes as a person because of his personality and how they find him overrated (kinda like with John Cena in WWE) while other people are calling it racist just because the victim is Black without any extensive knowledge on the situation.

 

[LeMansAid]

So the booing of Adam Goodes seemed to have died down.

Thank you Adam for taking away the Freedom we had just because you are way too insecure and completely use the race card unfairly for your gain . Even though you still failed.

The Booing might have stopped but it still hasn't stopped people from making "negative noises" around Adam Goodes.

And I think we now have a whole heap of people paying lip service to some warped and bastardised version of racial equality.

The flip side to....

Think of the implications of this statement - that so long as you can justify it, racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia or any other form of discrimination is acceptable. But the idea of justification is abstract and unclear, so any bigot can stand up and say what they want whilst defending the action of saying it and expecting the target of their bigotry to simply take it without complaint.

..... is that anyone can call anyone or anything racist, and that assertion cannot be questioned. That's what happened here - Goodes felt it was racist, so it was deemed racist, without regard for realities.

What I haven't stated on here yet is that I think that the spear throwing thing was great. The "lucky country" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country) needs a good shake every now and then, and this was an opportunity to get people talking in a visceral and passionate way. He should be able to do that kind of thing and not give a stuff what the crowd thinks, not give a stuff what the AFL thinks (albeit, while accepting a fine), and let the quite Aussie process of offensive acceptance, over (mere) inoffensive tolerance, take it's course.

The one problem though...... his club. Baiting the opposition, and particularly in an individualised way, goes against the unwritten rules, the ethics, of an AFL team. For his team's sake he should have apologised at least to the Sydney Swans and his teammates - because to not, is to ask that he or all aboriginals be put in a different category to others - that being the antithesis of racial equality.

Side note - @RESHIRAM5.... I know you're young. Good on you for seemingly thinking openly about topics, and becoming your own person. We've disagreed in other sections of this forum, but I respect the way you are throwing yourself into debates like these. Please continue to be opinionated, but also willing to alter those opinions. Well done, and keep at it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No, the problem is the people such as yourself who insisted that they weren't racist, which is fine, but refused to acknowledge that their actions might have inspired actual racists to take part, which is not fine. Rather than actually try to deal with the idea of racism being present in the community on any level, your only concern was to distance yourself from an undesirable public sentiment in the quickest way possible, which was to deny that there was a problem at all and blame the victim.

It doesn't help that you have a history of flip-flopping to hold whatever the contrarian opinion is, either.

 

[LeMansAid]

Hmmm, whom among us is suggesting that people should change their behaviour based on race/ethnicity?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Nobody, but you have completely missed the point. You deny that your behaviour is racist. You claim that booing him is justified for reasons other than race. But you also refuse to acknowledge the potential for your behaviour to inspire the "actual racists" to boo.

 

[Imari]

You deny that your behaviour is racist. You claim that booing him is justified for reasons other than race.

We're not allowed to boo people at all now?

 

[LeMansAid]

Nobody

No, I think that you might be - a very furry, fuzzy, well-intentioned, heartfelt form of racism.

You deny that your behaviour is racist.

What behaviour is that? If you've manufactured the idea that I'm a boo-monger, you're way off. I can count the number of times I've been to a sporting event on one hand, and have never uttered a boo in my life.

 

[Com Fox]

No, the problem is the people such as yourself who insisted that they weren't racist, which is fine, but refused to acknowledge that their actions might have inspired actual racists to take part, which is not fine. Rather than actually try to deal with the idea of racism being present in the community on any level, your only concern was to distance yourself from an undesirable public sentiment in the quickest way possible, which was to deny that there was a problem at all and blame the victim.

It doesn't help that you have a history of flip-flopping to hold whatever the contrarian opinion is, either.

That can be said to anything that involves multiple races though.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

We're not allowed to

No, you're not.

See what I did there? I took your quote out of context, the way you did mine.

 

[Imari]

No, you're not.

See what I did there? I took your quote out of context, the way you did mine.

I thought it was a simple question, but be rude if you want.

You seemed to be implying that booing him for reasons other than race was not justified.

If that's not what you meant, could you please clarify?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If that's not what you meant, could you please clarify?

My point is that people claim booing for reasons other than race is justified, but refuse to acknowledge that this inspires actual racists to boo.

 

[Imari]

My point is that people claim booing for reasons other than race is justified, but refuse to acknowledge that this inspires actual racists to boo.

What if it does? Actual racists can boo with or without provocation.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What if it does? Actual racists can boo with or without provocation.

But the problem is the self-proclaimed "justified boo-ers" washing their hands of it completely. They demand the right to express themselves, but want none of the responsibilities that come with it. So their solution is to blame the victim, which makes them worse than the genuine racists.

 

[Com Fox]

But the problem is the self-proclaimed "justified boo-ers" washing their hands of it completely. They demand the right to express themselves, but want none of the responsibilities that come with it. So their solution is to blame the victim, which makes them worse than the genuine racists.

Even still, the "Victim" pretty much puts himself in this situation by the way he acts. and just immediately uses the race card to get some gain. Whenever something negative comes towards him, he goes "They're booing me, and I am Black. Instead Racism" and then blows everything out of proportion. Which is pretty much dividing people because of something that never needed to be such dramatic.

Either, he is an evil genius playing us all or he is very insecure about himself.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And that is a prime example of victim blaming - "Goodes only has himself to blame because of the way he acts". It's no different to saying that a woman who has been sexually assaulted brought it on herself because she dressed provocatively.

 

[Com Fox]

And that is a prime example of victim blaming - "Goodes only has himself to blame because of the way he acts". It's no different to saying that a woman who has been sexually assaulted brought it on herself because she dressed provocatively.

If somebody keeps on going under fire every single time by repeatedly doing the same thing, there is a problem.

Actually, there is some sort of difference. A Women being assaulted buy the way she dressed is entirely based on looks and pretty much hurts both Women and Freedom of Expression and the attackers are pretty much committing an offense. Booing someone because they think he is a 🤬 or overrated is totally just hating someone on a personal note or they don't think he is deserving, getting rid of that ruins the peoples Freedom of Speech even though their wasn't any offenses and it was just because of someones insecurity.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If somebody keeps on going under fire every single time by repeatedly doing the same thing, there is a problem.

Yes, there is a problem - the people doing the booing.

 

[Com Fox]

Yes, there is a problem - the people doing the booing.

Not really if the victim just keeps running into it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Not really if the victim just keeps running into it.

Again, that's victim blaming. You're not even trying to justify it as "Goodes is an over-rated player" anymore - you're pointing out an indigenous football player who is constantly getting booed for his behaviour in celebrating his indigenous heritage is bringing it on himself.

That is racism. You are a racist.

 

[NW48]

Honestly, can we just move on? Both sides can be supported just as much as the other, so there's very little point in continuing to clash heads over something that's pretty much dead and buried.

In hindsight, had Goodes not reacted to the booing, we wouldn't be where we are arguing about if the booing is racially motivated. It's a simple thing you're taught as a child, if you react, they'll keep giving it to you as they know they'll get a rise out of you, keep quiet, and they will eventually just stop as they aren't geting a rise out of you.

How do I personally see it? Well, I don't watch AFL, so I can't say it's his playing style, but I think it comes down to the crowds realizing they can get a rise out of him if they boo. Whilst the claims that anyone who boos Goodes is a racist are incredibly farfetched, they may be a minority who are booing him in a racially motivated way. But as with any country in the world, they will always be a small minority of racist bigots.

 

[Carbonox]

That is racism. You are a racist.

Which translates to "I can't come up with a coherent argument so I'll just tell you why you're a worse person than me".

All this "controversy" reminds me of one of the biggest disgraces to football in the world, Mario Balotelli, somewhat. When bananas were being thrown in the pitch, other players made fun of the throws, but the hyper-sensitive Mario was unable to do any of this and resorted to death threats instead. That's a great way to fight racism for sure!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Which translates to "I can't come up with a coherent argument so I'll just tell you why you're a worse person than me".

I did come up with a coherent argument - you know, the whole thing about victim blaming. "Goodes brought it on himself" is no excuse for continuing to abuse him. RESHIRAM5 abandoned all pretense of "criticism is okay if you can justify it as something other than racism" and went straight to "if Goodes didn't want to be criticised, then he should have done it", where "it" is celebrate his indigenous heritage. That's a pretty clear-cut example of racism to me.

Your response is harder to quantify, but given your track record of intolerance elsewhere in this forum, it's pretty obvious that you don't want to front up to the idea that someone who expressed an opinion that you agreed with said something racist in a related discussion. I'm sure you don't want to be guilty by association, but I don't know what you're afraid of - you proved your bigotry to everyone months ago.

 

[Imari]

But the problem is the self-proclaimed "justified boo-ers" washing their hands of it completely. They demand the right to express themselves, but want none of the responsibilities that come with it.

What responsibility? Why should it be their problem what someone else, who is wholly unrelated to them, chooses to do?

If I'm a bouncer and I turn away an Asian guy for being drunk, am I then responsible for the racist bouncer next door throwing him out because he's Asian?

In general, people are responsible for their own behaviour and their own behaviour only. There are exceptions, but there are good reasons for them. Why should this be one of them?

Arthur chooses to boo for his own reasons, which for argument's sake are completely legitimate. Bob chooses to boo because he's a racist. Why is Arthur responsible for Bob? Why isn't Bob responsible for Bob?

Why shouldn't people be free to express themselves for legitimate reasons, without being responsible for those who would use the same channels for illegitimate speech? We don't see this with other things, like newspapers or television. What is it about being a footy fan that is unique?

So their solution is to blame the victim, which makes them worse than the genuine racists.

No, that's an entirely different thing altogether. Whether Adam Goode is justified in claiming racism is entirely beside the point of whether someone who is booing for non-racist reasons should be responsible for the racist guy beside him.

While one may have started the other, there is a discussion of generalities here that can be divorced from the specific circumstances that raised it.

 

[Com Fox]

Again, that's victim blaming. You're not even trying to justify it as "Goodes is an over-rated player" anymore - you're pointing out an indigenous football player who is constantly getting booed for his behaviour in celebrating his indigenous heritage is bringing it on himself.

That is racism. You are a racist.

Well, taunting haters no matter what the celebration is going to get you boo'd but because of Goodes insecurity, he keeps using of the race card over and over. Always thinking that anything negative towards him is racist despite other valid reasons (Opposing Team Supporters, Overrated, A 🤬), turning things out or proportion and leading us into what we are doing now.

Quick question, would it still be racist to boo if Adam Goodes was White?

I think @NW48 said it best though:

Honestly, can we just move on? Both sides can be supported just as much as the other, so there's very little point in continuing to clash heads over something that's pretty much dead and buried.

In hindsight, had Goodes not reacted to the booing, we wouldn't be where we are arguing about if the booing is racially motivated. It's a simple thing you're taught as a child, if you react, they'll keep giving it to you as they know they'll get a rise out of you, keep quiet, and they will eventually just stop as they aren't geting a rise out of you.

How do I personally see it? Well, I don't watch AFL, so I can't say it's his playing style, but I think it comes down to the crowds realizing they can get a rise out of him if they boo. Whilst the claims that anyone who boos Goodes is a racist are incredibly farfetched, they may be a minority who are booing him in a racially motivated way. But as with any country in the world, they will always be a small minority of racist

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Quick question, would it still be racist to boo if Adam Goodes was White?

That's called a straw man argument. It's a logical fallacy. The question cannot be answered, and you know that the question cannot be answered, and so you will use that as "proof" that booing Goodes is not racist even though it proves nothing.

 

[Com Fox]

That's called a straw man argument. It's a logical fallacy. The question cannot be answered, and you know that the question cannot be answered, and so you will use that as "proof" that booing Goodes is not racist even though it proves nothing.

Actually, I thought it was genuine question. If Adam Goodes was Whie and was being booed like he is now, would you still consider it racist? I never intend to use it as proof.

 

[Imari]

That's called a straw man argument. It's a logical fallacy. The question cannot be answered, and you know that the question cannot be answered, and so you will use that as "proof" that booing Goodes is not racist even though it proves nothing.

Let's take a comparative example then.

A couple of years back people were booing Sebastian Vettel on the podiums. While the obvious motivation for the booing wasn't race (ignoring the obvious pun), they were big crowds and I rate the odds that there was at least a few anti-Germans booing along with all the rest.

Was that situation different to this one? If so, why?

What about when LeBron James gets booed playing away games? The motivation there is primarily to try and throw off the star player of the opposition, but I doubt you could fill a basketball stadium in the US without getting at least one person who is still racist towards blacks. Is that situation different to the Adam Goodes one? If so, why?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Again, that's incomparable - Vettel, unlike Goodes, wasn't doing anything to celebrate his heritage.

 

[Imari]

Again, that's incomparable - Vettel, unlike Goodes, wasn't doing anything to celebrate his heritage.

Ah, so if the player in question is doing something to celebrate their heritage, booing is racist. Otherwise, OK?

Which answers the question of why booing a white player can't be racist, there's not really any such thing as white heritage. At least, nothing that could be displayed on a footy oval. I mean, it's really hard to have your baby stolen by a dingo while you're chugging a XXXX while on the field.

So I guess all those people who have spent years complaining about the haka are racists too. Certainly all those who complained about the throat-slitting motion, that was a valid expression of New Zealand heritage and to call to suppress it is racist. It couldn't be that they thought that the All Blacks were being far too aggressive over what's supposed to be a sportsmanlike game. Racist.


I think you're missing the point that Goodes can be in the middle of the greatest celebration of his heritage ever, and it's still valid to boo him for being a douche. It's always valid to boo someone for being a douche. Which is why you see Goodes getting booed, and not the other 70 aboriginal players in the league. Because they're not douches*.

*For the most part, I'm sure there's a few more. Only having 1 in 71 seems a bit low compared to the general population of douchebags.

And if I go up to Joe Bloggs and say "mate, you're a dick", it's not my fault if the next bloke walks up and says "way to go mate, you 🤬 boong". Regardless of what Joe Bloggs was doing at the time.

I've seen the war dance. Goodes was having a rough night with the crowd, scored and decided to stick two fingers up to the crowd in the way that was most appropriate to him. Fair enough. The crowd responded the ways opposition crowds do when you stick two fingers up to them.

No harm, no foul, that's sporting events. The players play it up for the crowd, and the crowd responds as they see fit. If Goodes had actually stuck two fingers up to the crowd and said "how do you like them apples, :censored:s?" then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But because he chose an aboriginal war dance, we are.

Why is that? Why does what he used to express himself make such a difference, when the message is the same?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's always valid to boo someone for being a douche.

I have (figuratively) booed people on this thread for being just that, and yet, some of those people have put forward the idea that it's not valid.