StonesThrow said:
It might be a bit hard for you to understand, but believe it or not, you arent the arbiter of humour.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
The Little Boris/Chicken Video Thread
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It might be a bit hard for you to understand, but believe it or not, you arent the arbiter of humour.
- Banned
- #27
Is this the biggest media beat up in AFL history?
I mean, really. How ridiculous.
I mean, really. How ridiculous.
He has a right not to find it funny. However the problem with the 'people might find it offensive' theme is that someone, somewhere will always be offended. As soon as you get into that then some people will go to ridiculous lengths to appear to have the moral high ground.
The AFL and the Kangaroos have got this all wrong. It was just a childish prank and should be treated as such.
PHX
Quarterback Style
The full 4 minute video of Adventures of little boris is now on youtube.
There is nothing in it. The hysterics over it are crazy.
There is nothing in it. The hysterics over it are crazy.
PHX
Quarterback Style
Fair enough. I thought think they might as well leave it up since it's not as bad as the media stories make it out to be, imo.
Let the public make up their own mind instead of making a media slanted judgement.
Let the public make up their own mind instead of making a media slanted judgement.
I can't believe people could so spectacularly miss the point. At least the North Melbourne Football Club are treating it the way they should, and kudos to them for that.
What was intended doesn't matter in any way. What matters is how it's perceived. Whether or not they intended to cause offence isn't relevant. What's relevent is that it was offensive to large sections of the community, not to mention sponsors.
People who are taking it literally, as a skit about chickens, are missing the point. There's not doubt the characters were designed to symbolise particular roles, and the music reinforced that. If they hadn't done the whole last bit, I'm sure no-one would give a ****.
Whether it's fair or not, the NMFC will be judged harshly on issues relating to misogyny based on what has happened there in the past. Whatever you think about that, doesn't matter. It's all context.
If you can't see the symbolism, and the underlying themes, then you're either disingenuous or obtuse.
I know I'm going to get hammered for this post, but I don't care.
I think that Adam Simpson has said it best:
"I don't know why, being the eldest player, I didn't knock it on the head straight away. It just didn't register. You look at it now and think, 'What were they thinking?' We're that embarrassed about it."
Personally I'm mostly offended by the "chickengate" moniker. Anything with a "gate" suffix is just lazy and cliched afaic!
What was intended doesn't matter in any way. What matters is how it's perceived. Whether or not they intended to cause offence isn't relevant. What's relevent is that it was offensive to large sections of the community, not to mention sponsors.
People who are taking it literally, as a skit about chickens, are missing the point. There's not doubt the characters were designed to symbolise particular roles, and the music reinforced that. If they hadn't done the whole last bit, I'm sure no-one would give a ****.
Whether it's fair or not, the NMFC will be judged harshly on issues relating to misogyny based on what has happened there in the past. Whatever you think about that, doesn't matter. It's all context.
If you can't see the symbolism, and the underlying themes, then you're either disingenuous or obtuse.
I know I'm going to get hammered for this post, but I don't care.
I think that Adam Simpson has said it best:
"I don't know why, being the eldest player, I didn't knock it on the head straight away. It just didn't register. You look at it now and think, 'What were they thinking?' We're that embarrassed about it."
Personally I'm mostly offended by the "chickengate" moniker. Anything with a "gate" suffix is just lazy and cliched afaic!
A huge beat up. It's a bit of a joke really. The video wasn't even funny, mainly because it was an in-joke, and I didn't get it.
But the fact is, the AFL must come out and criticize the players for making it public. The league is trying to reposition itself as friendly to all facets of society, women being a significant target group. For them not to do it would be negligent.
I'll give it a week until we move on. It's all posturing.
But the fact is, the AFL must come out and criticize the players for making it public. The league is trying to reposition itself as friendly to all facets of society, women being a significant target group. For them not to do it would be negligent.
I'll give it a week until we move on. It's all posturing.
- Banned
- #36
Actually from the comments here and what people I know have said, it dosn't seem to have offended a wider portion of the community.
Sure this isn't an accurate survey or a poll on my part, but I havn't spoken to one person, male, female (even my mum), who has been offended.
I think you have it wrong and are underestimating peoples judgment. My mum realised she could be offended but clearly decided she wasn't. The literal way of taking things is just as important if not more so than the symbolic, because the symbolic is far more subjective.
It is very irritating and condescending, to say that people are not taking it how they should because of certain connotations. Maybe they just don't care and are assessing things on a relative and rational scale.
It's the same thing in effect the media reports are doing and personally the only real furor I have seen seems to be directed at their attempt to not only turn this into a beat up, but convince the public they should be outraged.
- Banned
- #37
Tell me about it, The Channel Nine chopper was at Arden St for the training
, heaps of media there, come on, just a video taken way out of context .
what about female victims of sexual abuse and violence? Do their opinions not count? I would have thought they might even be more important in this context than those of you or I.
Maybe you, I, and your mum haven't been victims of sexual violence and abuse. Does that give us the right to claim they shouldn't be offended?
Let's face it, it's an inflammatory issue, and the response of the NMFC illustrates they understand that.
Should I be able to go around making fun of victims of crime, for example, and pooh-pooh anyone who gets offended?
Let's say someone made a video poking fun at the Bali Bombing victims. Would that be a trivial issue?
No-one's saying you have to take offence. You just have to understand that others might. Particularly if you have past form, as it were.
Offence is in the eyes of the beholder, so to speak. Just because you don't mean to cause offence, doesn't justify doing so
Funny thing is;
Before media: stuff all people would of seen it, particularly those that would've been offended
After Media: Shiteloads of people have seen it in particularly those that would be offended.
Greatest beat-up in AFL history.
Anything can be taken out of context, and while it wasn't PG rated, and shouldn't of been for public consumption; it was an in-joke about what Boris (a Rubber Rooster) would get up to if you let him out of your sight.
The film is more a reflection of Boris's devious ways, not the players
PS: Boris is an inanimate object who doesn't play by societies rules, unlike humans who are supposed to.
Before media: stuff all people would of seen it, particularly those that would've been offended
After Media: Shiteloads of people have seen it in particularly those that would be offended.
Greatest beat-up in AFL history.
Anything can be taken out of context, and while it wasn't PG rated, and shouldn't of been for public consumption; it was an in-joke about what Boris (a Rubber Rooster) would get up to if you let him out of your sight.
The film is more a reflection of Boris's devious ways, not the players
PS: Boris is an inanimate object who doesn't play by societies rules, unlike humans who are supposed to.
- Banned
- #41
See way to over react.
People can take what they want from it. That is my point.
You have no idea about the private lives of myself, family or friends so be careful what examples you use.
These are the connections you make, they are not the ones everyone else has to and to be honest like I said, it seems to be a case of the media telling people they should be offended.
Get some perspective, just because you can apply the most outrageous conclusion possible about the video's intention or interpretation, does not make it news worthy nor worthy of the orchestrated furor the video has generated.
Loved the way the Footy Show audience chuckled last night. Oh yes, really offended lots of people....not. More a case of political correctness gone mad. I'm sure everyone concerned on the Footy Show found it hard to keep a straight face while pretending to be serious or apologising. I'm sure Sam would laugh to and love to talk about it's ridiculousness except he's probably been gagged on anything remotely close women's issues
Offended women? It was chickens FFS. Just shows in this stupid day and age people can rationalise things into whatever they want. Seen worse on late night comedy shows such as Comedy Inc.
Offended women? It was chickens FFS. Just shows in this stupid day and age people can rationalise things into whatever they want. Seen worse on late night comedy shows such as Comedy Inc.
- May 17, 2004
- 10,455
- 3,913
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Good bloke
Here is the video in it's entirety : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
Just watched the video. Thought it was funny, and only the most uptight people could possibly find it degrading.
Really, where is the scandal?
Really, where is the scandal?
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #45
Geez join the thought police Lance
Your cute logic is farcical. It was a plastic chicken and a frozen chook. You can hardly equate that with a spoof on the Bali bombing which is a real event. You may find the skit distasteful but surely people can have some licence to use their own judgement.
Happy for you to say these guys are morons and you prefer to ignore what they say but all this over reaction cannot be warranted. How draconian a world do you want to live in and are you happy to have your own behaviours so severely scrutenised
Yeah, it's a media beat up, and they regularly blow things out of proportion to create stories and sell papers. The idea that players would be suspended over it or anything is ridiculous.
But if you can't see why people would have an issue over a video where an object clearly meant to represent a woman is run over with a van and then ****ed, then you're either wilfully ignorant, or stupid - particularly when the video emerges from a culture (football, not NMFC) that's had such significant problems with violence against women in the past.
But if you can't see why people would have an issue over a video where an object clearly meant to represent a woman is run over with a van and then ****ed, then you're either wilfully ignorant, or stupid - particularly when the video emerges from a culture (football, not NMFC) that's had such significant problems with violence against women in the past.
treefingers
Cancelled
- Jan 20, 2008
- 6,514
- 8,396
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
It's not that bad at all. Hardly front page news like it was on the front page of the Age!
- Banned
- #49
Biggest beat up ever i beleive. Some good point already made by people.
If the media hadnt bought this to the public's attention, basically no-one would have seen it. They bring it to the public's attention and lots of people see it (and a minority get offended.) Same as these papers/tv stations condeming the NM players for making the video and offending people, then they show pictures on the front page, theroetically offending more people. Where is their responsibility?
As you would have seen on the footy show, the crowd were laughing at the fact these players were apologising. Everyone there found it funny and were not offended.
People like Phil Cleary (known w***er when it comes to these issues) commenting on it on behalf of women (why?) when he hadnt even seen the video is rediciulous. Speak for yourself and not others.
To the people who got offended, why would of they have watched it in the first place? What interest do you have in going onto youtuibe and watching a fake rooster have sex with a frozen chicken?
Honestly, the amount of attention this has received is unbeleivable and the Media, AFL and those complaining need to get a reality check and move on. Next 'supposed' story please.............
If the media hadnt bought this to the public's attention, basically no-one would have seen it. They bring it to the public's attention and lots of people see it (and a minority get offended.) Same as these papers/tv stations condeming the NM players for making the video and offending people, then they show pictures on the front page, theroetically offending more people. Where is their responsibility?
As you would have seen on the footy show, the crowd were laughing at the fact these players were apologising. Everyone there found it funny and were not offended.
People like Phil Cleary (known w***er when it comes to these issues) commenting on it on behalf of women (why?) when he hadnt even seen the video is rediciulous. Speak for yourself and not others.
To the people who got offended, why would of they have watched it in the first place? What interest do you have in going onto youtuibe and watching a fake rooster have sex with a frozen chicken?
Honestly, the amount of attention this has received is unbeleivable and the Media, AFL and those complaining need to get a reality check and move on. Next 'supposed' story please.............
- Banned
- #50
What if they had? Not relevant at all.
