Analysis Is it acceptable for AFL clubs to be politically biased?

[Ron The Bear]

What do you mean by “anti-family“ views in BLM? I don’t recall seeing that anywhere.

"What We Believe"

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and 'villages' that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Note the absence of "fathers"...

 

[CM9000]

"What We Believe"

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and 'villages' that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Note the absence of "fathers"...

I assume that is from the BLM website? Interesting, I didn’t see that. I always thought BLM was too completely decentralised to be considered as having a cohesive view/belief that everyone adopts.

What do you think are the convictions that cause the leaders of BLM to advocate such a thing?

 

[sr36]

No, you'd only be guessing at the stance.

True but regardless of our interpretation of it, the club would have discussed it and chosen a position to take on a political matter, or in other words, they would have taken a political stance.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I assume that is from the BLM website? Interesting, I didn’t see that. I always thought BLM was too completely decentralised to be considered as having a cohesive view/belief that everyone adopts.

What do you think is the source of this statement?

It was on a page at blacklivesmatter.com until removed late last year after critics began to focus on it. Its intent is clearly to facilitate male negro hypersexuality while "villages" of some description raise the resulting children. As if blacks don't have enough issues with the consequences of single-parent families!

Can't expect better from an anarchist group.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I agree. AFL clubs have far more to lose by not getting into line with what they perceive as the prevailing winds of society than keeping quiet on issues and focusing on winning games, for the subtext reason you mentioned.

If you say nothing, you're labelled right wing.

Make no mistake though, if the clubs thought that the opposite idea was the prevailing view - they'd be supporting that publicly too.
The goal isn't to champion social causes, it's the bandwagon on them so they don't stand out.

They are using the issues like almost everyone else in a political position. Using being the key word.

So there lies the real question, are the clubs actually sincere or do they do it because there's money in it? I have no doubt the AFL itself would be more about the money.

 

[sr36]

I assume that is from the BLM website? Interesting, I didn’t see that. I always thought BLM was too completely decentralised to be considered as having a cohesive view/belief that everyone adopts.

What do you think are the convictions that cause the leaders of BLM to advocate such a thing?

It's a badly written and thus misinterpreted line. It's important to note that the noun that they're looking to disrupt is 'requirement' - nuclear family is the adjective.

As a group who speaks for a community with large numbers who aren't raised in a nuclear family, they are trying to make it easier for those who aren't raised in a nuclear family to succeed. Stats in the US, currently suggest that coming from a nuclear is boardering on being a requirement for success in a large number of areas of life. They want this to change.

 

[Ron The Bear]

As a group who speaks for a community with large numbers who aren't raised in a nuclear family, they are trying to make it easier for those who aren't raised in a nuclear family to succeed. Stats in the US, currently suggest that coming from a nuclear is boardering on being a requirement for success in a large number of areas of life. They want this to change.

Ah bullshit! The website is well-constructed and the language considered. When you have to tie yourself in knots to try to justify it, it should set off alarm bells.

Did you ever apply for a job where the employer asked if you had two parents? Some children of single-parent families succeed, but the general outcomes are what they are.

Welcome to Marxism.

 

[CM9000]

It was on a page at blacklivesmatter.com until removed late last year after critics began to focus on it. Its intent is clearly to facilitate male negro hypersexuality while "villages" of some description raise the resulting children. As if blacks don't have enough issues with the consequences of single-parent families!

Can't expect better from an anarchist group.

Hmm, I’m a bit confused. Do you feel that “hypersexuality” among the African American population in America is an inherent thing, or something that BLM advocates for? Additionally, what makes them explicitly anarchist?

It's a badly written and thus misinterpreted line. It's important to note that the noun that they're looking to disrupt is 'requirement' - nuclear family is the adjective.

As a group who speaks for a community with large numbers who aren't raised in a nuclear family, they are trying to make it easier for those who aren't raised in a nuclear family to succeed. Stats in the US, currently suggest that coming from a nuclear is boardering on being a requirement for success in a large number of areas of life. They want this to change.

That’s the impression I got from it, which is why I’m confused that Ron The Bear explicitly describes it as “anti family”.

 

[NaturalDisaster]

"Jammed down your throat"? In what way?

Jammed down their throat is just another way of saying “I am facing ideas i do not like and it makes me uncomfortable”

 

[sr36]

Ah bullshit! The website is well-constructed and the language considered. When you have to tie yourself in knots to try to justify it, it should set off alarm bells.

Did you ever apply for a job where the employer asked if you had two parents? Some children of single-parent families succeed, but the general outcomes are what they are.

Welcome to Marxism.

Read it again, noting that requirement is the noun.

They're not aiming to disrupt nuclear families, which is how I suspect that you're misreading it - their aiming "to disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement" They're looking to disrupt a requirement.

 

[Ron The Bear]

That’s the impression I got from it, which is why I’m confused that Ron The Bear explicitly describes it as “anti family”.

The two founders of BLM describe themselves as "trained Marxists" and Marx's Communist Manifesto expressly cites "abolition of the family" as one of its goals, even if it is necessary collateral damage in destroying capitalism.

I'm not going to discuss this further on a topic about club politics. A dupe can be excused, but not a willing dupe.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

An obvious step would be if / when Australia becomes a republic - and it probably will happen once the Queen is gone - that they do it some time in mid-late January and move the national holiday there.

Yep, I posted the same in the HUN today. Once the Queen has passed, if we become a republic then the day that happens replaces the current date.

If all of the above takes place, just watch the politicians of the day **** it up and pick some other date that causes problems.

 

[The 747]

"What We Believe"

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and 'villages' that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Note the absence of "fathers"...

Is your contention that anyone supporting the general BLM cause - that the lives of black people especially in America are not valued the same as others lives - supports whatever is written on the BLM website? I doubt many if any of the people who marched, or the AFL clubs who took actions were in considered support of what is written on their website.

In other words, it was the 'vibe".

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

In the 70s & 80s Aboriginal players were part of the fabric of the game, major contributors to the spectacle of the sport, and were literally being abused on-field.

Except for Hawthorn.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Is your contention that anyone supporting the general BLM cause - that the lives of black people especially in America are not valued the same as others lives - supports whatever is written on the BLM website? I doubt many if any of the people who marched, or the AFL clubs who took actions were in considered support of what is written on their website.

In other words, it was the 'vibe".

No. I think a lot of people would drop it like a hot potato if they knew what it was about.

Football clubs either didn't take the time to understand it or (more likely) used its "vibe" to endorse an otherwise commendable stand against racism.

BLM is just a Trojan horse for Marxism in the same way that "climate change" is a screen for the UN goal of global financial parity.

 

[Xtreme]

I’ve noticed a recent trend of AFL clubs making comment on political issues, such as Australia Day etc.

Is it fair for them to make comment on issues that over 50% of their members disagree with?

Who decides to post on behalf of the club on this stuff?

Discuss.

Keep politics out of sport!

 

[sr36]

That’s the impression I got from it, which is why I’m confused that Ron The Bear explicitly describes it as “anti family”.

That line was a massive talking point and focus of anger on various websites when BLM was the front page story, Ron the Bear's misinterpretation was all the rage in various groups. Basically, the writers of the BLM website pitched too high in terms of reading comprehension.

 

[The 747]

No. I think a lot of people would drop it like a hot potato if they knew what it was about.

Football clubs either didn't take the time to understand it or (more likely) used its "vibe" to endorse an otherwise commendable stand against racism.

BLM is just a Trojan horse for Marxism in the same way that "climate change" is a screen for the UN goal of global financial parity.

OK, thanks for the answer but really why bring up the bolded? Is the Illuminati behind it all?

 

[Forward Press]

Ron has some...controversial...views on social issues.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Further to this, I'll give you an example.

If the AFL was the progressive beast it would like to present itself as, why are there currently no openly gay AFL football players? There absolutely are gay AFL players at the moment but their social progressive talk is just that, talk. Their culture is totally different on the inside.

Just see it all for what it is, posturing and self promotion. It's hot air that changes nothing.

An interesting point. The AFL likes to project itself as progressive while the NRL are a bunch of Neanderthals. Yet, Ian Roberts who was one of the toughest players around, came out during his playing career. It caused barely a ripple. This was back in 1995. 26 years later and we're still waiting. As you suggest, it's a certainty that there are gay players.

 

[CM9000]

The two founders of BLM describe themselves as "trained Marxists" and Marx's Communist Manifesto expressly cites "abolition of the family" as one of its goals, even if it is necessary collateral damage in destroying capitalism.

I'm not going to discuss this further on a topic about club politics. A dupe can be excused, but not a willing dupe.

That comment is only a reply, I’ve never actually seen that paragraph before; I was just stating that my first impression of what you showed me was contrary to how you labeled it.

 

[swingdog]

Keep politics out of sport!

Keep sport out of politics!

 

[Rad Roo]

So it's not okay to politicize sport but its of course okay to politicize anything to do with china (re: article = should olympics be allowed in a country that allows genocide). Media = zero credibility, western media = less than zero...

 

[ams4crows]

Yep, I posted the same in the HUN today. Once the Queen has passed, if we become a republic then the day that happens replaces the current date.

If all of the above takes place, just watch the politicians of the day fu** it up and pick some other date that causes problems.

Is there a reason there isn't open communication with the Government and indigenous leaders about if there was a date change for Australia day, what would be an acceptable date?
Do they still keep the 26th of Jan a public holiday but call it indigenous recognition day, a day of mourning, a day of education of indigenous history?

What exactly do people want? Nobody is on the same page at all.

 

[ApplecrossWC]

Ron has some...controversial...views on social issues.

He's in every thread like this spouting his outdated bollocks