Play Nice Eddie McGuire comments on holding Caro Wilson underwater

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Bullying. Please.

Of course it’s a good idea to keep people from treating each other in brutal ways—and to start doing so in elementary school, where we used to condone a Lord of the Flies mentality. But now bullying is everywhere: teacher to student, boss to subordinate, neighbor to neighbor. To say a sour word to someone (and what is life without a few sour words?) is to engage in bullying.

Bullying has moved beyond its range of literal application—the schoolyard where a big kid taunts and tosses a little one—to having become a trope for every instance of perceived pressure applied by one person against another. More and more, we see ourselves in strictly psychological and even therapeutic terms.

We have ceased to educate our children in the ways of courage. Instead of being brave, or commending bravery to our children, we scurry anxiously to overprotect ourselves. In the place of bravery, we cultivate security.

I could go on, but it is an SRP forum topic, if we get down into the weeds.

Surprised you scoured back 10 days to look for things to pull up. You are of course entitled to your opinion as to how to define bullying.

Recognising bullying behaviour is a part of my job so I'm fairly obligated to stick to my own viewpoint but always nice to get another perspective.

 

[deltablues]

This is completely incorrect. Bullying is defined as repeated unreasonable behaviour. It is not one instance of saying a sour word, it is not an instance perceived pressure. It is repeated unreasonable behaviour from one person or group of people towards another.

Sure it is. But who defines it? Who is the decider? What amounts to "unreasonable behavior"? Do those with glass jaws and fragile egos decide? Do the more robust decide? Do the perpetually offended decide?

Do you see the problem here?

 

[DemonTim]

Surprised you scoured back 10 days to look for things to pull up. You are of course entitled to your opinion as to how to define bullying.

Recognising bullying behaviour is a part of my job so I'm fairly obligated to stick to my own viewpoint but always nice to get another perspective.

I can't understand saying it's not bullying. It is. Most you can argue is the bullying has gone both ways

 

[deltablues]

Surprised you scoured back 10 days to look for things to pull up. You are of course entitled to your opinion as to how to define bullying.

Recognising bullying behaviour is a part of my job so I'm fairly obligated to stick to my own viewpoint but always nice to get another perspective.

Sure - I scour the thread for your comments . I check into threads from time to time due to my travel schedule.

I haven't defined anything. I made some comments. And I guess you are looking at job security so an objective, reasoned response to my comments may be too much to expect.

PS as we live in PC times I should add that I do not support bullying. No sir. But I just may have a different view as to the threshold (in legal speak - the fact situation as applied to the legislation on the topic).

 

[Demonic Ascent]

So wait. For the evidence to be in actual existence to the "we" you seem to refer to, it needs to be presented specifically to you.

You're making an assumption, based on your own laziness. it's fine to ask for evidence, but when the evidence has already been provided, in the exact place you're posting, you have no claim that it doesn't exist. All you have is a claim that YOU haven't seen it, and since you refuse to look past direct posts to yourself, the assertion you draw is ridiculous (another hint: there's a fun little search function on the forum)

Your point two is your only argument. You can veil it behind "the evidence doesn't exist" despite being pointed out its been discussed already, but it's pretty simple to see through. (although your point is in direct contrast to your bullying points, shaming would be in the eyes of the person being shamed, not for you to decide. Unless you're now saying its up for us to decide if it was bullying on behalf of Caro)

You're joining a public discussion, without doing the back reading. And then crying that it doesn't structure the way you want. You're dragging the thread in circles from 100 pages ago, because you're too lazy to read the discussion before you shoved your head in.

It's not laziness to ask someone for the evidence of "shaming and slandering" that is the basis of their argument. If it has been raised in this thread then kindly point me to the posts in question. The problem with your view is that you make the assumption that what you or others subjectively consider to be "shaming and slandering" is the case and will hold up to objective scrutiny. I sincerely doubt this is the case and am not going to trawl through hundreds of pages of posts of years of articles to try and find something that may not (and quite likely doesn't) exist.

As I said previously, I was engaged in a particular discussion with a particular poster who raised this as an issue. But that poster either couldn't or wouldn't provide the evidence he based his allegation on. In the absence of it I can only infer that it doesn't exist - I have no doubt there are articles by Wilson relating to Brayshaw and McGuire that exist - but I highly doubt they amount to shaming and slandering. How can I know what elements others may subjectively apportion to one of her articles? The onus is on the person who made the allegation to provide the evidence they are referring to and without it their argument holds no water and their opinion is irrelevant.

My argument is not in contrast to what I have stated re: the bullying of Wilson. Bullying is defined as repeated unreasonable behaviour. This can be objectively identified. Just as shaming can be. It is not up to the person in question to determine it. They can allege it but it doesn't make it so. This does not contradict anything I have said on the topic.

 

[TheHairyGamer]

I can't understand saying it's not bullying. It is. Most you can argue is the bullying has gone both ways

Of course it is bullying, and I don't get how anyone could even suggest it isn't

 

[DemonTim]

It's not laziness to ask someone for the evidence of "shaming and slandering" that is the basis of their argument. If it has been raised in this thread then kindly point me to the posts in question. The problem with your view is that you make the assumption that what you or others subjectively consider to be "shaming and slandering" is the case and will hold up to objective scrutiny. I sincerely doubt this is the case and am not going to trawl through hundreds of pages of posts of years of articles to try and find something that may not (and quite likely doesn't) exist.

As I said previously, I was engaged in a particular discussion with a particular poster who raised this as an issue. But that poster either couldn't or wouldn't provide the evidence he based his allegation on. In the absence of it I can only infer that it doesn't exist - I have no doubt there are articles by Wilson relating to Brayshaw and McGuire that exist - but I highly doubt they amount to shaming and slandering. How can I know what elements others may subjectively apportion to one of her articles? The onus is on the person who made the allegation to provide the evidence they are referring to and without it their argument holds no water and their opinion is irrelevant.

My argument is not in contrast to what I have stated re: the bullying of Wilson. Bullying is defined as repeated unreasonable behaviour. This can be objectively identified. Just as shaming can be. It is not up to the person in question to determine it. They can allege it but it doesn't make it so. This does not contradict anything I have said on the topic.

That's a subjective definition. Unreasonable behaviour is not a standard. It can't be measured. I don't think you understand what objective is...You put out a viewpoint that favours one side without reviewing content, then speak about reviewing said content objectively.

You must be horrible to spend time with "hey guys. I know I just walked into this argument after it's been going on for an hour. But I'm going to need you all to let me know every thing that's been said and all evidence presented, otherwise it means nothing to anyone ever"

 

[deltablues]

Surprised you scoured back 10 days to look for things to pull up. You are of course entitled to your opinion as to how to define bullying.

Recognising bullying behaviour is a part of my job so I'm fairly obligated to stick to my own viewpoint but always nice to get another perspective.

At the risk of gnawing on an old bone - re the bolded - does it mean that as you are employed in the bullying industry you are part of the hive-mind? Or do you still retain some intellectual curiosity and are prepared to test your position by debating it. That is, what constitutes bullying in the context of freedom of speech?

The underlying issue here is the difference between John Stuart Mill's concept of freedom of speech (i.e. you can test opposing ideas, and mock, expose and refute them, but not use the law to asphyxiate debate, because in the silence that follows a dreadful conformism would set in - aka PC speech) and the American legal philosopher Joel Feinburg's "offense principle" - where the law should stop freedom of speech that causes serious offense (the latter now seemingly being part of Australian case law on issues of race).

If this offends you then you have a theological/cultist mindset as opposed to a philosophical one.

 

[DemonTim]

Of course it is bullying, and I don't get how anyone could even suggest it isn't

You just quoted me and the repeated me :s

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Sure - I scour the thread for your comments . I check into threads from time to time due to my travel schedule.

I didn't say my comments. I didn't receive any alerts to say you had quoted anybody else so I deliberately didn't suggest such a thing.

I haven't defined anything. I made some comments. And I guess you are looking at job security so an objective, reasoned response to my comments may be too much to expect.

My job does not depend on a definition of bullying. It is a small part of what I do. Nice that you have gone for the dismissing/discrediting option however.

PS as we live in PC times I should add that I do not support bullying. No sir. But I just may have a different view as to the threshold (in legal speak - the fact situation as applied to the legislation on the topic).

Did you actually give some facts? I may have missed them.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

At the risk of gnawing on an old bone - re the bolded - does it mean that as you are employed in the bullying industry you are part of the hive-mind? Or do you still retain some intellectual curiosity and are prepared to test your position by debating it. That is, what constitutes bullying in the context of freedom of speech?

I'm up for discussing and debating anything generally. No hive mind. I am not my job and my views are my own. I do however come into contact with a lot of situations that may have affected the way I felt as an individual before.

The underlying issue here is the difference between John Stuart Mill's concept of freedom of speech (i.e. you can test opposing ideas, and mock, expose and refute them, but not use the law to asphyxiate debate, because in the silence that follows a dreadful conformism would set in - aka PC speech) and the American legal philosopher Joel Feinburg's "offense principle" - where the law should stop freedom of speech that causes serious offense (the latter now seemingly being part of Australian case law on issues of race).

If this offends you then you have a theological/cultist mindset as opposed to a philosophical one.

No, I am very much practical minded, and experience minded, rather than legislation minded.

 

[guruisatiger]

I want nail eds meet

Eddy as in big head from the holden center.
Not eddy king of adelaide oval

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Sure it is. But who defines it? Who is the decider? What amounts to "unreasonable behavior"? Do those with glass jaws and fragile egos decide? Do the more robust decide? Do the perpetually offended decide?

Do you see the problem here?

I see the problem.

The problem is you are trying to debate from a position of objectivity while declaring the side you have fallen down opposite to have glass jaws, fragile egos and are perpetually offended.

What did you ask me about an objective, reasoned response?

 

[deltablues]

I didn't say my comments. I didn't receive any alerts to say you had quoted anybody else so I deliberately didn't suggest such a thing.

My job does not depend on a definition of bullying. It is a small part of what I do. Nice that you have gone for the dismissing/discrediting option however.

Did you actually give some facts? I may have missed them.

It seems you are making a genuine effort in your response, which I appreciate, but regrettably effort does not equate to quality or relevance.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It seems you are making a genuine effort in your response, which I appreciate, but regrettably effort does not equate to quality or relevance.

I've been doing this a while. I'm less likely to be goaded by hollow rhetoric.

 

[deltablues]

I've been doing this a while. I'm less likely to be goaded by hollow rhetoric.

Heh. I guess I could, uh, trump you by dealing the card labelled meretricious sophistry.

Anyway, as a libertarian I don't like de facto Salem witch hunts.

But I know you get my point.

PS you don't comment on the Mill/Feinburg dichotomy - so I guess you look at the battle and not the war. That would be the culture war.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Heh. I guess I could, uh, trump you by dealing the card labelled meretricious sophistry.

Anyway, as a libertarian I don't like de facto Salem witch hunts.

But I know you get my point.

PS you don't comment on the Mill/Feinburg dichotomy - so I guess you look at the battle and not the war. That would be the culture war.

Oh, you're a philosophy student are you? All the questions but left to your own conclusions.

I don't subscribe to a one size fits all philosophy.

Things like 'Walk a mile in someone else's shoes' fit more with my thinking.

As far as any culture war goes, how do you separate those that defend culture to continue with outdated practices from those that believe that it is is harmless and inoffensive based on their own experiences?

I mean, I don't identify as a feminist at all but I'm no fan of the HTFU culture usually perpetuated by those that have never been on the receiving end of things they label political correctness gone wrong. I probably was part of that culture but I have had experiences professionally and personally and have seen the experiences of others to know that there is a real middle ground here.

I also believe if people want to argue things in black and white, then I'll err on the progressive side rather than the regressive side. I'm a strong believer in equality in my working life and my personal life, and if people want to dismiss things they don't understand in the terms you use, I see no objective discussion to be had.

 

[deltablues]

I'm up for discussing and debating anything generally. No hive mind. I am not my job and my views are my own. I do however come into contact with a lot of situations that may have affected the way I felt as an individual before.

No, I am very much practical minded, and experience minded, rather than legislation minded.

[This is kind of crossing in the post but there you go]:

Bolded - Fine, so am I. But there has to be a template. O/wise I could label you a bully and sue you, because you disagree with me. I mean, your words have hurt me deeply. I feel I have been like so totally bullied. And if I feel I have been bullied then I have been bullied. Res ipsa loquitur.

Who is to say I am wrong?

Joel Feinburg or John Stuart Mill?

You?

 

[deltablues]

Oh, you're a philosophy student are you? All the questions but left to your own conclusions.

I don't subscribe to a one size fits all philosophy.

Things like 'Walk a mile in someone else's shoes' fit more with my thinking.

As far as any culture war goes, how do you separate those that defend culture to continue with outdated practices from those that believe that it is is harmless and inoffensive based on their own experiences?

I mean, I don't identify as a feminist at all but I'm no fan of the HTFU culture usually perpetuated by those that have never been on the receiving end of things they label political correctness gone wrong. I probably was part of that culture but I have had experiences professionally and personally and have seen the experiences of others to know that there is a real middle ground here.

I also believe if people want to argue things in black and white, then I'll err on the progressive side rather than the regressive side. I'm a strong believer in equality in my working life and my personal life, and if people want to dismiss things they don't understand in the terms you use, I see no objective discussion to be had.

I think we may share some common ground.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

[This is kind of crossing in the post but there you go]:

Bolded - Fine, so am I. But there has to be a template. O/wise I could label you a bully and sue you, because you disagree with me. I mean, your words have hurt me deeply. I feel I have been like so totally bullied. And if I feel I have been bullied then I have been bullied. Res ipsa loquitur.

Who is to say I am wrong?

Joel Feinburg or John Stuart Mill?

You?

I support the right of somebody to be offended. Who knows other than them right?

I don't necessarily support the notion that being offended necessitates some kind of action to be taken.

This is where I expect people to discuss their own common sense findings rationally. Shouting down, dismissing, poor paraphrasing, deflecting, poor analogies, and abusing because someone disagrees and a person lacks the tact to articulate themselves better, affects credibility in my opinion.

 

[deltablues]

I support the right of somebody to be offended. Who knows other than them right?

I don't necessarily support the notion that being offended necessitates some kind of action to be taken.

This is where I expect people to discuss their own common sense findings rationally. Shouting down, dismissing, poor paraphrasing, deflecting, poor analogies, and abusing because someone disagrees and a person lacks the tact to articulate themselves better, affects credibility in my opinion.

Agree, especially bolded.

 

[Chief]

We have ceased to educate our children in the ways of courage. Instead of being brave, or commending bravery to our children, we scurry anxiously to overprotect ourselves. In the place of bravery, we cultivate security.

I could go on, but it is an SRP forum topic, if we get down into the weeds.

Who is we?

We've also ceased putting up with someone's shitty kid pushing other kids around.

 

[deltablues]

Who is we?

We've also ceased putting up with someone's shitty kid pushing other kids around.

It's odd, but you have managed to comment on my post without seemingly having read it.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Sure it is. But who defines it? Who is the decider? What amounts to "unreasonable behavior"? Do those with glass jaws and fragile egos decide? Do the more robust decide? Do the perpetually offended decide?

Do you see the problem here?

Generally in the case of workplace bullying/victimisation/vilification, the Fair Work Commission, Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission or WorkSafe will decide.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

That's a subjective definition. Unreasonable behaviour is not a standard. It can't be measured. I don't think you understand what objective is...You put out a viewpoint that favours one side without reviewing content, then speak about reviewing said content objectively.

It is a standard and it can be measured. Prosecutions have occurred for workplace bullying.