Opinion Jeremy Finlayson verdict broader discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

chiwigi said:
Not they aren’t the same imo.
One is about a sex act that straight people do as well.

The other is effectively saying that a certain type of person should be set on fire for their sexuality.
Click to expand...
Carn, if you call a bloke a coc*suc*** it's putting him in the same category as a f****.

But really it's just pathetic on every level giving 3 games for a naughty name where he could have punched the fella a in the guts to receive 1 week and zero whoa haaa.
 
bringbackbucky said:
The common feature of the critics of Finlayson over his use of a homophobic slur – none of them can have done anything wrong in their entire life.
Click to expand...
In a thread of dumb takes this is probably the dumbest take I've seen from a poster who would usually know better.

If I have ever once done anything wrong in my entire life, say jaywalked or taken a grape from the supermarket without paying for it, I'm not allowed to criticise someone for using slurs?
 
bringbackbucky said:
Apparently none of Jeremy Finlayson’s critics have ever done something wrong .

There is clearly one set of rules for lesser-known non-Victorian players and another for high-powered veteran coaches with mates inside AFL House, writes David Penberthy.

Who would have thought Gather Round would have the added benefit of enabling a mass parade by the pious and pure in the context of the Jeremy Finlayson case.

The common feature of the critics of Finlayson over his use of a homophobic slur – none of them can have done anything wrong in their entire life.

It is only on this basis that they can demand unprecedented and exemplary penalties for a person with no history of being unpleasant or offensive, and who displayed real-time remorse on recognising the hurtful nature of his remark.

We’ve learnt two things in the past two days.

First, it is now impossible to write off any error off as “a learning experience”; second, the once-innocent assertion that a good person’s misconduct is “out of character” is apparently a moral cop-out which gives a green light to bigots everywhere.

Despite having no priors and having issued an immediate, sincere apology over his terrible comment during the Essendon game, Finlayson has found himself on the end of sustained denunciation.

That denunciation has continued even after the three-week penalty was handed down for his homophobic remark, with many people saying it’s not enough.

People who defended the guy have been denounced too.

Chief among them is Port president David Koch, who I have seen labelled among other things “disgusting” in headlines this week for offering a qualified defence of his player.

Quite a strong term that, “disgusting”, best reserved for criminals or perverts, but here we are.

It’s interesting to note that Koch’s comments weren’t a world away from those of our Premier, who said on radio this week that he felt Finlayson had owned his error, that we needed to recognise that people could do the wrong thing, but that what mattered most was how they responded to their errors.

Far too reasonable a position for those who believe the only solution is to have people fined and rubbed out from playing, even if they’re already wracked with shame and remorse.

It feels like incidents such as Finlayson’s are less notable for their capacity to cause hurt, and serve more as an exciting chance for some to show how virtuous they are.

Adelaide being Adelaide, our moronic capacity for turning everything into a Showdown has been on full display, with many Crows supporters saying that Tex Walker’s racism penalty should be the benchmark for Finlayson’s gay slur.

I have heard a lot of grassy knoll stuff about how the Indigenous player Tex referred to wasn’t even within ear shot of what Walker thought was a private conversation; whereas an Essendon player was actually abused to his face by Finlayson.

Conversely, others have argued Tex’s conduct was worse because he didn’t admit to it straight away, whereas Finlayson did with his apology both on the ground and by video on the day that it occurred.
All this circular partisan chatter is a massive waste of intellectual energy.

It makes you wonder if these people are approaching these issues out of genuine dismay at the existence of homophobia and racism, or from the dopey vantage point of fandom, merely hoping that someone from a team they despise gets the book thrown at them.

A more level-headed takeout from both the Walker and Finlayson cases is that they will both have emerged as more thoughtful and informed blokes on account of mistakes they made.

I fully admit that I might feel differently about this if I was a gay person.

Particularly in male sport, where men still feel pressure to remain silent about their lifestyle and have endured years of marginalisation through constant homophobic sledging.

I am just not sure how any of that is altered by making Finlayson even more of a whipping boy than he has already become.

People should be judged in their totality.

In the case of Jeremy Finlayson, aside from his lack of previous bad behaviour and immediate remorse, I can think of one pretty obvious reason why the bloke might not be at his sparkling best at his moment.

Tending to your wife as she deals with a grave cancer diagnosis would probably take it out of you.

I say that not as some sob-story to let him off the hook, but as a simple statement of human reality, that people cannot always cope with the hardest pressures of life.

I was talking the other day to a cop about that appalling driving case involving that Christopher Bennett reprobate.

Bennett you will recall is the bloke who killed father of five Brad Thompson driving without due care, driving unlicensed and under the influence of meth. Bennett had lost his licence for driving disqualified on a staggering 11 occasions.

Despite this abysmal record, and with no indications of remorse or reflection on his part, Bennett received a partially suspended sentence for killing Mr Thompson and will be out of jail in three months.

All that generosity, after having been given 11 second chances at driving again.

Nothing to do with footy of course. But it does seem that the one sphere of life where you will get the toughest possible penalty for your first offence, even if that offence is completely out of character, is for calling someone a bad names on the footy field.

It has of course been a great opportunity for all the posturing journos with Twitter accounts to post links to their own opinion pieces about how “enough’s enough” and to retweet statements of solidarity from other right-on, like-minded souls.

As for the AFL and its flawed quest for the creation of a perfect world, two issues remain. There is clearly one set of rules for lesser-known players from non-Victorian clubs and another for high-powered veteran coaches with mates inside AFL House.

And if only Finlayson hadn’t said a rude word, but just had a massive cocaine habit, under the AFL’s own rules, no-one would ever find out about it.

He could have saved himself all this scrutiny.
Click to expand...
yep we are on a slippery slope where today what we are pushing seems reasonable cos the minority is worthy so we need to watch what we say, but the activists are never happy with those current limits to our freedoms because sooner or later they will be coming down harder on another change to what seems normal, and then those happy to see these penalties may find that they are now offenders because the new rules say the new normal affects more people and tyranny becomes the signature of our society. Freedom is hard won but easily lost and we need to be careful we don't end up finding ourselves in a speech prison where the mildest comment is worthy of massive fines and court appearances with the baying mob enjoying the hunt.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The fagert word can be a traditional english delicacy or a bunch of sticks. The word is included in the Oxford Dictionary and has those meanings as well as a derogatory term used against queer people. We will see if this makes it past the censor.

1712885118280.png

I do not know for sure but I suspect that ******s were being served up on the English dinner table well before the American homophobes started to bandy it about. It was also probably being used to describe the household firewood well before it was used as as a put down. Had Jeremy Finlayson been aware of the traditional use of word his defence could have been. 'I called him a meat ball Your Honor.' How would the powers that be know?

I guess when BigFooty is controlled with AI it will be able to put the term ****** in the context it is used and it will not be ****** ed out.

https://www.thespruceeats.com/classic-british-******s-recipe-435283

Wot's for tea tonight Mum? Oh we are having your favourite dear, freshly roasted ******s. I will need some firewood though, can you go and collect me a ****** of firewood?
 
Last edited:
portforever said:
yep we are on a slippery slope where today what we are pushing seems reasonable cos the minority is worthy so we need to watch what we say, but the activists are never happy with those current limits to our freedoms because sooner or later they will be coming down harder on another change to what seems normal, and then those happy to see these penalties may find that they are now offenders because the new rules say the new normal affects more people and tyranny becomes the signature of our society. Freedom is hard won but easily lost and we need to be careful we don't end up finding ourselves in a speech prison where the mildest comment is worthy of massive fines and court appearances with the baying mob enjoying the hunt.
Click to expand...
Barack Obama Applause GIF by Obama
 
chiwigi said:
Not they aren’t the same imo.
One is about a sex act that straight people do as well.

The other is effectively saying that a certain type of person should be set on fire for their sexuality.
Click to expand...

I have never heard a man call a woman a csucker as an insult.
 
Schulzenfest said:
In a thread of dumb takes this is probably the dumbest take I've seen from a poster who would usually know better.

If I have ever once done anything wrong in my entire life, say jaywalked or taken a grape from the supermarket without paying for it, I'm not allowed to criticise someone for using slurs?
Click to expand...

I think it depends on how many grapes you took.
 
raptalia said:
The fagert word can be a traditional english delicacy or a bunch of sticks. The word is included in the Oxford Dictionary and has those meanings as well as a derogatory term used against queer people. We will see if this makes it past the censor.

View attachment 1956910

I do not know for sure but I suspect that ******s were being served up on the English dinner table well before the American homophobes started to bandy it about. It was also probably being used to describe the household firewood well before it was used as as a put down. Had Jeremy Finlayson been aware of the traditional use of word his defence could have been. 'I called him a meat ball Your Honor.' How would the powers that be know?

I guess when BigFooty is controlled with AI it will be able to put the term ****** in the context it is used and it will not be ****** ed out.

Click to expand...
Yes mum late great mum you to make me ******s and peas which was a standard food in Wales.
If I tell somebody online I get an interweb warning that it cannot be posted.
 
And dissecting it further, what did you do with the grape(s)?

Did you eat them?
Put it in your pocket?
Peg it at an old lady in the deli section?

I feel like there’s lots to unpack with your hypothetical Schultzy
 

Log in to remove this ad.

portforever said:
yep we are on a slippery slope where today what we are pushing seems reasonable cos the minority is worthy so we need to watch what we say, but the activists are never happy with those current limits to our freedoms because sooner or later they will be coming down harder on another change to what seems normal, and then those happy to see these penalties may find that they are now offenders because the new rules say the new normal affects more people and tyranny becomes the signature of our society. Freedom is hard won but easily lost and we need to be careful we don't end up finding ourselves in a speech prison where the mildest comment is worthy of massive fines and court appearances with the baying mob enjoying the hunt.
Click to expand...
It's up to the moderator(s) to decide but my view this 'slippery slope' discussion fits in the politics or society thread rather than the Jeremy Finlayson player thread.

Because the simple fact is that Jezz has apologised for the term he used both to the player he directed it at and to those at our club, the AFL and the queer community in general who most definitely did find the word offensive. So sparking up a debate on the offensiveness of the word in current society or its etymology is all a bit feckin' pointless.

So imho how about we show a bit of respect to Jezza and move on eh or take it to another thread. Otherwise this thread will slip down its own 'slippery thread' of BS culture wars.
 
Schulzenfest said:
In a thread of dumb takes this is probably the dumbest take I've seen from a poster who would usually know better.

If I have ever once done anything wrong in my entire life, say jaywalked or taken a grape from the supermarket without paying for it, I'm not allowed to criticise someone for using slurs?
Click to expand...
Wasn't my take... re-posting a paywalled David Penberthy article i referenced earlier as some people asked to read it.

MODS: Assume i broke some rules in reposting it. Feel free to delete if that is the case.
 
bringbackbucky said:
And if only Finlayson hadn’t said a rude word, but just had a massive cocaine habit, under the AFL’s own rules, no-one would ever find out about it.
Click to expand...

climbing the AFL corporate ladder is mostly centered around how many people you've bashed and how many "nose beers" you've done
 
El Zorro said:
I don't think your average punter considers the etymology of the insults they dish out. I had no idea what a F ****** was, outside of its well known meaning as an insult to gay men. If we are going to get technical, maybe MOFO is the worst insult there is (idk, is it your own mother or someone else's mother).

Are you an English major by any chance?
Click to expand...

El Zorro said:
I don't think your average punter considers the etymology of the insults they dish out. I had no idea what a F ****** was, outside of its well known meaning as an insult to gay men. If we are going to get technical, maybe MOFO is the worst insult there is (idk, is it your own mother or someone else's mother).

Are you an English major by any chance?
Click to expand...

Mofo is an interesting one, like many insults or derogatory language, it bothers people it actually applies to a lot more. 😂.
 

Opinion Jeremy Finlayson verdict broader discussion


Write your reply...
Back
Top