Play Nice Eddie McGuire comments on holding Caro Wilson underwater

[pigeon26]

Thread definitely needs a Team Eddie or Team Caro poll added.

 

[Fire]

Firstly I was being sarcastic. Very sarcastic. Read my recently long post.

Where have I said women should be treated differently to men?

You're pointing your gun in the wrong direction.

I apologies then; it looks like a case of Poe's Law.

 

[Inspector Malceski]

Eddie just needs to keep his racist, sexist and homophobic comments to himself!!

 

[Fire]

Yeah but Fire's frothing so hard he doesn't see it

I live in the US surrounded by the new wave of SJW's; I need to vent occasionally ^^

 

[barmy44]

And let's remember this was a joke we are talking about. Banter across the airways between media figures. There was no real threat of violence whatsoever.

Not all jokes involving a female are sexist, even those about drowning someone.

Q. How do you save <*> from drowning?

A. Take your foot off his/her head.

* insert person's name you don't like.

Making the joke about Nicki Minaj or Hilary Clinton rather than Justin Beiber or Donald Trump doesn't make it a sexist joke.

not many, if any, have said that something merely involving a woman is automatically sexist. this is one overblown claim, amongst many by both sides of this debate.

 

[demondavey]

People out there thought there was a genuine intent to drown Caro in a pool of ice during a charity benefit? Right.

Caro is a player, she knows how the game works. She rattles cages, that's how she's made her career and no doubt a great living.

Get real.

Caro is one of the biggest instigators in the industry. And all this has done has put her high and mighty above the rest of her colleagues. She's not stupid, she knows exactly what this has done for her career and for women. She has used a public incident and turned it into a poor me stunt channelling it through two mightily powerful organisations; the AFL and the WRF.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The only issue I have is that the same message coming from Shaw was ok.. Because he's a friend and sitting next to her.
The same comments coming from Eddie and JB who are not her friends is unacceptable to her and the public opinion.
I understand the difference was tone, the latter two were bullying her behind her back.
Now if the message and lesson to be learnt this week is that language condones violence against women then, Shaws comments however tongue and cheek they were should also be condoned. The overtures to what was said, IE language, is the issue at hand and apparently there is a correlation between that and domestic violence

The other difference is that Shaw and Dwayne joked that "others" may want to see her drowned whereas McGuire, Brayshaw & Frawley joked that "they" would like to see her drowned. It may only seem a minor distinction but creates a completely different context. If Shaw and Dwayne joked that "they" would like to see her drowned it would have been a completely different context.

 

[Fire]

Caro is one of the biggest instigators in the industry. And all this has done has put her high and mighty above the rest of her colleagues. She's not stupid, she knows exactly what this has done for her career and for women. She has used a public incident and turned it into a poor me stunt channelling it through two mightily powerful organisations; the AFL and the WRF.

Professional victimhood pays very well these days. It's a strong marketing tactic.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

The general point was made in context to this scandal.

Bullshit, it's a generic post that doesn't make any mention of this scandal. Here it is again:

Hi, as a white male, who has never experienced racism or sexism, I feel like I'm the perfect person to explain exactly what constitutes these things.

I am on point; you're trying to weasel out of a poor analogy.

I would agree with the spirit of the second sentence. But that's clearly not what they implied within this context.

Obviously there's a big gap between what I believe they implied and what you believe they implied, because it seems very clear to me.

Surprising that you can disagree with my analogy, yet agree with my second sentence, when they're making the exact same point.

 

[Royal Flush]

The other difference is that Shaw and Dwayne joked that "others" may want to see her drowned whereas McGuire, Brayshaw & Frawley joked that "they" would like to see her drowned. It may only seem a minor distinction but creates a completely different context. If Shaw and Dwayne joked that "they" would like to see her drowned it would have been a completely different context.

Really?
What's this world come too?

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[VsvldGarshin]

Statistics say I am more likely to be a victim of violence.

I just posted 4 links to how four teachers were treated differently under the "law".

While its perhaps not all that unsurprising that a lot of us men still don’t get domestic violence, what was surprising to me was the animus towards the actual attempts to address the problem. I actually had no idea that there are people out there attacking the idea of domestic violence as some sought of public policy “trend issue” or one that is some type of distraction from the “bigger problems”.

Of this “trend issue” crowd, the prevailing type of view is something along the lines of “more men attack other men than their partners” and “violence generally is the problem, not just domestic violence”.

Honestly, I’m not quite sure what to make of this group. While acknowledging by and large the primacy of men as the perpetrators of violence these “more men attack other men” guys seem to be saying that women should not feel victimized because if anything they are getting off lightly. It’s the argumentative equivalent of Stalin saying to the artists and intellectuals not to complain during the Great Purge as he is also purging the regional chiefs, Armenians, clergy, military, expats, Mongolians and later the doctors and Jews in far greater numbers – “I mean at least I’m not discriminating”.

As for the “violence generally is the problem, not just domestic violence” this is a fine sentiment, although if it is genuine it naively assumes that all violence can and should be lumped in together as a problem.

The WHO World Report on Violence and Health (2002), provides three broad categories of violence as: (1) self-directed, including suicide and self-harm; (2) interpersonal, including family/partner, child and community violence with both acquaintances or strangers; and (3) collective violence between groups of people along social, political or economic lines both within and between nation states. Whilst all categories are the works of humanity, all are types of violence, and statistically they are generally more likely than not perpetrated by men (possible exception self-harm), it is patently clear that to try and address all these forms of violence simultaneously within a single conceptual framework is absurd – the reason that Rosie Batty would not be invited to attend a meeting with the Purana Taskforce into gangland violence or is at the negotiating table for a Syrian Ceasefire.

The reason therefore I doubt the legitimacy of the “violence is a problem generally” crowd that we never hear this argument in reverse. No one never says during discussions over the Middle-East, “Look this debate is all well and good but I think we need to broaden this geo-political, sectarian and deeply historical feud going on here to include a discussion about domestic violence because all violence in society is a problem”. If you think this example is too much then try applying it to the R U OK campaign to raise awareness and support for those at risk from suicide or self-harm or the Step back, Think – Is one Punch Worth It social violence NGO – Why is it that no one ever uses the same “violence generally is a problem” argument to try and deflect attention from these targeted campaigns? Is it because deep down we intuitively know that as a society that there are many forms of violence with many causes and that each one requires a singular public policy response?

If you can accept this then you can also understand the reason why that the anti-domestic violence campaigns primarily targets societal attitudes and levels of respect towards women - that is, the insurmountable amount of multi-country quantitative evidence that the primary driver of domestic violence is societal patriarchy and perception that a man has the implicit right to assert superiority and dominance over his partner or family.

I must stress that this concept is not based on anecdote, a hunch, or a feminist theoretical conspiracy hatched in a secret Sapphic enclave, but on a massive amount of rigorous statistical data, quantifying the experiences and opinions of both women and men drawn from a multitude of nations all over the world by the World Health Organisation.

It is based on this insurmountable evidence, that a lot of governments are now realising that the best and most appropriate policy tool to prevent domestic violence in the long-term is to try and address the prevailing attitudes towards women in our society, and as a corollary to these ends, addressing the attitudes promulgated in the mass media or by those with high public profiles are particularly important.

I really can't understand why this is so difficult to understand and makes people so anti.

 

[Fire]

You could join one of those men's rights groups, they eat this stuff up.

I dislike MRA's as much as the next person, but just because they use these talking points doesn't make them any less of an issue.

 

[Lester Burnham]

not many, if any, have said that something merely involving a woman is automatically sexist. this is one overblown claim, amongst many by both sides of this debate.

But many have linked this to the issue of domestic violence. It's nonsense.

 

[TheWeapon]

The armchair SJWs out in force from the comfort of their computer chairs. It's a shame we can't force some of these crusaders to try being in a position of power for a few days and see if they don't slip up occasionally. Bunch of anonymous hypocrites

 

[demondavey]

Professional victimhood pays very well these days. It's a strong marketing tactic.

That's right. It's wrong. And we've let it happen by putting her front of centre as a victim. I wonder before James Hird and Essendon were found guilty was there any chance they'd be left alone? I can remember some stinging criticism that Caro made about them before a guilty verdict was written. Again, public execution of a big name celebrity in a small industry. Just like it is here.

 

[Fire]

Bullshit, it's a generic post that doesn't make any mention of this scandal. Here it is again:



Obviously there's a big gap between what I believe they implied and what you believe they implied, because it seems very clear to me.

Surprising that you can disagree with my analogy, yet agree with my second sentence, when they're making the exact same point.

Because you are ignoring context and implications.

You seem to think that a point made in a thread is meant to be taken in isolation? As if its just a thought bubble that happened to land in this topic.

 

[demondavey]

But many have linked this to the issue of domestic violence. It's nonsense.

It's complete nonsense. There is no element of DV here at all? The WRF have just been given complimentary marketing. If they had the balls (pardon the pun) they'd be saying these comments don't have anything to do with DV, just an individual that seriously dislikes another.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Because you are ignoring context and implications.

You seem to think that a point made in a thread is meant to be taken in isolation? As if its just a thought bubble that happened to land in this topic.

Well in that case, McGuire's comment clearly wasn't racist either. What an idiot that Ochre is, implying that McGuire's comment is racist. You sure showed them.

Or perhaps they were making a generic point. Nah surely not

 

[Joey longshadow]

The point is that it isn't censored. It's a mutual agreement that it isn't a healthy way to interact with other humans.

Glad I'm not in your circle
Expect you feel the same way
I doubt we will share any common ground on this ,think we are done here

 

[Fire]

The armchair SJWs out in force from the comfort of their computer chairs. It's a shame we can't force some of these crusaders to try being in a position of power for a few days and see if they don't slip up occasionally. Bunch of anonymous hypocrites

Oh you haven't seen how they act. They flagellate themselves over perceived 'microaggressions' all the time.

 

[Chief]

Oh did I miss a consensus on the issue or something?

No you're just repeating the same stuff.

 

[Fire]

Well in that case, McGuire's comment clearly wasn't racist either. What an idiot that Ochre is, implying that McGuire's comment is racist. You sure showed them.

Or perhaps they were making a generic point. Nah surely not

I don't even know what you are referencing anymore dude.

But its still bizzare that you think a general point needs to be removed from all context to be analyzed.

 

[Lord Rod]

goodes' war cry was over 300. this one still has a ways to go. we're just at the tip of the iceberg (apologies to any relatives of titanic survivors/casualties)

You insensitive b******d

 

[Fire]

No you're just repeating the same stuff.

I'm not surprised; however isn't that what every 100 page thread does?

Actually, isn't that what every conversation in every media does?

People engage in discussions. If we only spoke when we had a unique point to make we'd all be silent. And you wouldn't make any money off this site either.

 

[Joey longshadow]

Essentially the same comment was said with the same end result, which was Caro under water. Yes I understand the whole with friends context. I think it's sadder that both were said on national radio and if it's about changing culture that it can be justified by using context.
Whether with friends or not surely it should be all unacceptable if change is the desired outcome.

But the comment wasn't specifically about Caro under water it was about censoring all conversations among friends deemed touchy by society