No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[Yardie]

how about we allow individuals to determine the standard of behaviour they find appropriate rather than being told what they should find acceptable

I've heard king hits are appropriate behaviour for some.........

 

[The Spirit of Cricket]

Here we go. We got the geniuses chiming in with anarchy and rule of law. What law was broken?

If you don’t like people behaving in an uncouth manner that’s a you problem. Walk the other way. Oh but no. I shouldn’t have to do that my feelings and rights are far more important.

how about we allow individuals to determine the standard of behaviour they find appropriate rather than being told what they should find acceptable

if people are afforded the freedom to say demeaning shit then why aren't others afforded the freedom to be mad at them and tell them to shut the **** up?

 

[Rushed_Behind]

I've heard king hits are appropriate behaviour for some.........

Again so predictable.

These players in a private setting decided to act like neanderthals according to some. No laws were broken.

Move on.

You have the morality police trying to dictate to 25-30 million people across Australia what is acceptable.

How about you all mind your own business and concern yourselves with your own family and friends.

But KiNg HiTs BlaH bLaH

 

[Rushed_Behind]

if people are afforded the freedom to say demeaning shit then why aren't others afforded the freedom to be mad at them and tell them to shut the **** up?

Tell them to shut the F up. Don’t tell them they need to change that behaviour because YOU find it inappropriate.

 

[rei154]

I find this to be a throwaway line that constantly gets used, but I don't believe it to actually be true.

These young men still know the difference between right and wrong.

I don't recall Tarryn Thomas or Elijah Taylor being caught up in similar Mad Monday shenanigans which caused them to commit gender based violence.

I'm a huge fan of True Crime podcasts and documentaries, but it doesn't mean I'm suddenly ready to commit my own murderous rampage because it feels 'normalised'.

This is a false equivalency that doesn't actually counter anything that I've written.

Normalisation doesn't occur with fringe/edge cases. TT and Elijah Taylor were called out/removed because what they did was straight up illegal and was unequivocally evil.
Saying that you're allowed to be racist/homophobic/sexist/ablist in some contexts and not others, particularly group settings where other people might have differing opinions/views on the matters is a way of creating an environment that accepts these behaviours.
The reason I used comedy/standups as the example is because typically comedians are known for a brand/type of humour, which typically leads to people who find that kind of humour acceptable going to their shows. People who don't find that stuff funny or acceptable do not attend, simple.
Another really classic example that occurs super often in Australian schools is casualised racism. Where I work we have significant issues with race-related violence, often perpetrated by the majority ethnic group at the school (I won't say because after reading the posts relating to this I can see people using it to validate their own racist bullshit) towards a minor one. Kids don't typically come to school with an acceptance of physical or verbal violence based on race, but it occurs because over time there is a build up of acceptance/normalisation through casual racial remarks regarding a certain group, because there is always an element of "toughen up it's just words" (Rushed Behind really proving my point here with his bullshit).

Bringing it back to what occurred with the GWS players; they thought that they were in a place where those jokes/skits would be acceptable. The problem is, it leaked and people became aware of what occurred. Meaning the "comedy club" environment changed to a public arena.
Because of that, there are consequences.
In the same way that Chapelle's stand up career changed massively when he made the transphobic jokes, which may have been acceptable in smaller clubs that he frequented, on a multi-million viewer platform.

True crime, violent, illegal assaults and other extremes don't help your case, because we aren't talking about crimes, we are talking about a subversion of social norms that wouldn't be deemed acceptable anywhere in society apart from fringe locations where they occur.

Another great example of this is Andrew Tate and his rise to fame. He is objectively, a terrible, disgusting human. But due to how his language and rhetoric have been normalised, people will make excuses for what he has done (human trafficking, rape, blackmail etc).
If he came to fame because of his exploitative content first, he wouldn't have become such a blight on society and a generation of men. He normalised the misogyny and normalised the hate.

I'm sorry you don't believe it's true, but objectively, anecdotally, and societally you are wrong.

 

[Yardie]

Again so predictable.

These players in a private setting decided to act like neanderthals according to some. No laws were broken.

Move on.

You have the morality police trying to dictate to 25-30 million people across Australia what is acceptable.

How about you all mind your own business and concern yourselves with your own family and friends.

But KiNg HiTs BlaH bLaH

You're the one that made the blanket statement about appropriate behaviour. I just gave you one example on where it fails.

Suggest you read Leather Poisoning post. Very insightful.

 

[rei154]

how about we allow individuals to determine the standard of behaviour they find appropriate rather than being told what they should find acceptable

Have you seen the film, "The Purge"?
This is the ultimate outcome of what you're talking to here.

Your outrage is the same pathetic claptrap that has lead to generations of Aussie men taking their own lives because they don't think they can speak up about bullying.

Get in the bin.

 

[Slaatybaadfaast]

Gonna be hilarious watching Richmond pick a half dozen Tamblings

 

[Ashman23]

how about we allow individuals to determine the standard of behaviour they find appropriate rather than being told what they should find acceptable

I'm not sure if you're taking the opposing view to be edgy or something.

We're living in a society of rules, expectations and laws. The standard of what's acceptable changes as we as a society change. Being a member of society is accepting that some behaviours are not acceptable and acting accordingly.

 

[TONYC3163]

This

 

[rei154]

Gonna be hilarious watching Richmond pick a half dozen Tamblings

My dream is that this sets them up the same as GCS when they had their first draft.

 

[Billyc]

There we go. All no name players from the least supported club suspended. Not a single recognisable name. No wonder the AFL has chosen to go hard on this one

 

[cryptor]

Giving a delisted kid a 2 week AFL suspension is funnier than the concept of any of those skits.

 

[cryptor]

The Giants players should have negotiated serving their suspensions over the off-season like the Essendon drug cheats.

 

[Blackhawk42]

But this isn't how normalisation works unless you're a particulalry susceptible individual.

Nobody watches a single thing (e.g a movie showing domestic violence) and then turns around and starts committing the next day. This would be classical conditioning or operant conditioning.

Normalisation is a society wide thing.

At any given time in a society there's a bunch of people who are right on the edge of beginning a behaviour. Maybe that behavior is drug taking, maybe it's donating to charity, maybe is road rage. It is these people at the fringe that, after something becomes more normalised, cross the line into a new behaviour.
This is called observational learning, or social learning. It's the foundation of a society and social behaviours.

Then - the feedback they get after the first time will either reinforce or punish the behaviour. This is where we go back to operant conditioning. So if a guy is at the footy, his team just lost, an opposition supporter is cheering next to him and he screams abuse the guy (eg SHUT THE **** UP YOU campaigner) and nobody does anything, his behaviour has been reinforced. Maybe next time he becomes violent. If this happens in 20 different locations at the same game - you get a general shift towards violence at the footy.
So you can't say "oh I know how to control myself and not be influenced by TV therefore it's not part of the problem".

Conservatives discredit observational and social learning (and therefore cultural influences on behavior) because they promote individual agency above all. (just decide not to do the thing! I can do that, surely everyone else can!) Even though there is so much evidence for normalisation of behaviour and social/cultural influences on how people act.

Firstly, I'm absolutely not conservative.

Secondly, maybe a bunch of elite athletes finally had a chance to let loose and have a laugh, and despite the subject matter, aren't an example of some greater societal learning.

I'm always quite aware of these concepts considering I have children.
However, there's a huge difference between what children are being shown as 'normal' and consenting adults having a laugh in a private setting.

 

[brad sue well]

But this isn't how normalisation works unless you're a particulalry susceptible individual.

Nobody watches a single thing (e.g a movie showing domestic violence) and then turns around and starts committing the next day. This would be classical conditioning or operant conditioning.

Normalisation is a society wide thing.

At any given time in a society there's a bunch of people who are right on the edge of beginning a behaviour. Maybe that behavior is drug taking, maybe it's donating to charity, maybe is road rage. It is these people at the fringe that, after something becomes more normalised, cross the line into a new behaviour.
This is called observational learning, or social learning. It's the foundation of a society and social behaviours.

Then - the feedback they get after the first time will either reinforce or punish the behaviour. This is where we go back to operant conditioning. So if a guy is at the footy, his team just lost, an opposition supporter is cheering next to him and he screams abuse the guy (eg SHUT THE **** UP YOU campaigner) and nobody does anything, his behaviour has been reinforced. Maybe next time he becomes violent. If this happens in 20 different locations at the same game - you get a general shift towards violence at the footy. And then we're back to social learning as everyone who looks on and sees this starts to accept the crowd at the game is aggressive and violent and that's just the way it is".
So you can't say "oh I know how to control myself and not be influenced by TV therefore it's not part of the problem".

Conservatives discredit observational and social learning (and therefore cultural influences on behavior) because they promote individual agency above all. (just decide not to do the thing! I can do that, surely everyone else can!) Even though there is so much evidence for normalisation of behaviour and social/cultural influences on how people act.

Not sure if it lines up but reminds me of:

What is the banality of evil in everyday life?


Saying that evil is banal does not imply that some evil actions are ordinary and unremarkable, but that some evil actions come from ordinary motives, and are performed by people who are not radical outliers in terms of human psychology.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Bringing it back to what occurred with the GWS players; they thought that they were in a place where those jokes/skits would be acceptable. The problem is, it leaked and people became aware of what occurred. Meaning the "comedy club" environment changed to a public arena.
Because of that, there are consequences.
In the same way that Chapelle's stand up career changed massively when he made the transphobic jokes, which may have been acceptable in smaller clubs that he frequented, on a multi-million viewer platform.

True crime, violent, illegal assaults and other extremes don't help your case, because we aren't talking about crimes, we are talking about a subversion of social norms that wouldn't be deemed acceptable anywhere in society apart from fringe locations where they occur.


I'm sorry you don't believe it's true, but objectively, anecdotally, and societally you are wrong.

The way you've explained that puts fault on the person who leaked it. In the same way somebody who leaks a comedians material for the same reasons at a private comedy club. Generally we don't look favourably on the person doing the leaking in the latter example. Why is it any different for the first?

Also, are we remembering the fallout from the Chappelle situation differently? I remember him receiving a LOT of support from people worldwide who argued for artistic integrity of what comedy should be, and admittedly some who used it to confirm negative biases. But it wasn't some career killer?

The GWS players performing skits involving sexual assault or racism are as guilty of those things in the real world as Leonardo Dicaprio is for his scripted behaviour in Wolf of Wall Street and Django Unchained.

And no, I'm not wrong. Because an incredibly large portion of the population will find no fault in what the players did, because they'll view the situation for what it was. A Mad Monday stunt by some drink footballers.
Occam's Razor.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Firstly, I'm absolutely not conservative.

Secondly, maybe a bunch of elite athletes finally had a chance to let loose and have a laugh, and despite the subject matter, aren't an example of some greater societal learning.

I'm always quite aware of these concepts considering I have children.
However, there's a huge difference between what children are being shown as 'normal' and consenting adults having a laugh in a private setting.

Yeh ok so your argument isn't about role modelling etc.
It sounds like it' smore about "you can do whatever the hell you want in private as long as nobody is around to be offended or hurt by it."

 

[Blackhawk42]

Yeh ok so your argument isn't about role modelling etc.
It sounds like it' smore about "you can do whatever the hell you want in private as long as nobody is around to be offended or hurt by it."

I mean, without diving into too deeply, yes.

Your last part is interesting.

Would you agree that people are free to do or say whatever they please in a private, controlled setting? As long as no laws are being broken, of course.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

I mean, without diving into too deeply, yes.

Your last part is interesting.

Would you agree that people are free to do or say whatever they please in a private, controlled setting? As long as no laws are being broken, of course.

Well - I don't care much for the law a lot of the time if I don't think a law is serving it's purpose all that well.

I've got some very liberal views on illicit drugs for example. So I'm genuinely exploring this topic rather than coming at you with judgement. And so yes - I really wouldn't have any issue if all those GWS players were doing cocaine despite it being illegal. But I dunno - there's something about making fun of DV and sexual abuse that is completely outside my sense of being ok - regardless of how private the context is.

 

[unitedhawk]

Firstly, I'm absolutely not conservative.

Secondly, maybe a bunch of elite athletes finally had a chance to let loose and have a laugh, and despite the subject matter, aren't an example of some greater societal learning.

I'm always quite aware of these concepts considering I have children.
However, there's a huge difference between what children are being shown as 'normal' and consenting adults having a laugh in a private setting.

I seriously doubt any of the (female) partners of the players involved are having a laugh at the antics they got up to.

A simple rule that folk might like to consider: If you think whatever you're doing in a private setting might embarrass you or your loved ones were it to become public, the likelihood is that you're doing something that's not quite right.

 

[brad sue well]

Is this the body with exemplary practice?

 

[rei154]

The way you've explained that puts fault on the person who leaked it. In the same way somebody who leaks a comedians material for the same reasons at a private comedy club. Generally we don't look favourably on the person doing the leaking in the latter example. Why is it any different for the first?

Also, are we remembering the fallout from the Chappelle situation differently? I remember him receiving a LOT of support from people worldwide who argued for artistic integrity of what comedy should be, and admittedly some who used it to confirm negative biases. But it wasn't some career killer?

The GWS players performing skits involving sexual assault or racism are as guilty of those things in the real world as Leonardo Dicaprio is for his scripted behaviour in Wolf of Wall Street and Django Unchained.

And no, I'm not wrong. Because an incredibly large portion of the population will find no fault in what the players did, because they'll view the situation for what it was. A Mad Monday stunt by some drink footballers.
Occam's Razor.

I definitely didn't mean to place blame at the hands of the person who leaked it- my take was more the fact that someone observed it placed a moral factor on it that wasn't considered by the players beforehand.
Instead of viewing it as an occams razor, I think a Schrodinger's joke makes more sense.

I think the Chappelle fallout was viewed very differently on very different medias; there was massive fallout online and in mainstream media. Iirc there has actually been a significant shift in his popularity and he has voiced complaints over being "cancelled" ruining his financial situation, before tripling down on "cancel culture" and making that his whole schtick- which is widely supported by a vocal minority.

To compare their acts to theatre is a little unhinged and again makes me think you're missing the point of the issue. Actors and actresses are PORTRAYING characters, that are contextualised, explained, and critically analyzed. No one will associate the actor with the role outside of the context of the actor in the role. The only time that changes is if they have a personal record of it, too.
Footballers don't typically discuss their views on sex, religion, or politics, meaning that when something comes out that is portrayed as sexist, violent, or anti-anything, it has more of an impact due to players personal lives not being so public.
Do I think that Will Powell is a massive homophobe who should be ostracised from society, just because he said a slur? No.
Do I agree with the AFL coming out and declaring that as an organisation they don't want their staff to be shown to be accepting of hate and discrimination? Absolutely

That "incredibly large portion" is mostly men aged 20+, and people who have previously experienced mad mondays with other inappropriate actions. If most of your life is surrounded by footballers, past, present, and local, you're going to have a skewed view on the issue. The reason why this is being turned into a bigger issue than it previously would have is because the emerging cohort/collective of AFL fans have a different set of sensibilities to your generation. Realistically, you're not their target demographic because you're already hooked on their product.
In 30 years time, the kids of today are going to be influenced by events such as these in one way or another. The AFL doesn't want events like these becoming issues that detract from their program, which they do.

 

[Nugett]

Exactly the point.

You take your hat off as a show of respect.

We’ve get people in here arguing that people don't deserve respect, that you are perfectly ok to act in a way that offends others, it’s there problem.

You make a very valid point, about respect. Most of which I agree with. Respect works both ways though.

The problem is the lack of actual information that has been realised. We don’t know what was actually said or done, other than allegations of what occurred, which is mostly sick jokes and skits, mainly performed on a blow up doll.

We also don’t know what steps the Bar Person took either. Did the person try to stop the behaviour which was causing them distress, did they report it to their manager/supervisor. Was security informed (if present) of misbehaviour? Was responsible service of alcohol being adhered to? Or did the person, only complain after the fact?

The onus is just not on the players involved, it should also be on the Bar staff and the venue.

 

[SJT76]

All players who enter the system are educated, and given lots of reminders about how their behavior is important.

Good. As long as they get this first, then go hard