Toast Tigers to boycott Triple M this week end.

[SumTingWong]

Yeah the difference was that she was offended by one and not the other, that's it, they're both still practically the same comment.

Wrong. The difference is why she was offended.

 

[SumTingWong]

Yes, one was said by McGuire and the other by Shaw.

If that's the only difference you see then you have no business commenting on the matter.

 

[Speedie41]

Wrong. The difference is why she was offended.

Because she was in the room with Shaw and could see he was joking.

 

[VsvldGarshin]

Not too long at all.
Thank you.

well said, it takes a certain amount of courage for people to challenge their own entrenched beliefs and experiences, even if for the sake of an argument. If more people did it, the world would be a much better place.

 

[SumTingWong]

Because she was in the room with Shaw and could see he was joking.

That's part of it. Shaw picked his target wisely. He knew based on their relationship and with her being present what he could say that would be seen in good faith. Eddie chose poorly. If I call my best mate a c*** he'll think nothing of it as I'm probably a little pissed off at something he did. If I call my mum a c***............ Get it?

 

[Speedie41]

That's part of it. Shaw picked his target wisely. He knew based on their relationship and with her being present what he could say that would be seen in good faith. Eddie chose poorly. If I call my best mate a c*** he'll think nothing of it as I'm probably a little pissed off at something he did. If I call my mum a c***............ Get it?

Somewhat, calling your best mate a campaigner in private is perfectly fine do what you please, do it in a public forum however and your mate still won't give a shit but others might.

 

[I Rock]

If that's the only difference you see then you have no business commenting on the matter.

Ok, two Men make the same comment directed at the same individual. But only one insights Violence against all Women, because that's the one she got insulted by. There is a difference on how Wilson took each comment, however the extent to each then being a comment against all Women is the same. If you can't see the difference then you have no business commenting on the matter.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Taking what was said out of it, I honestly just saw/see it as a jibe at a media person that he has history with. Not at a female. Not saying it isn't something Caroline Wilson should take umbrage with, I just don't have the connect with it being a comment of violence against (all) Women. I may very well be wrong as what I think and others do are very often poles apart. Proof is in the fact I get a stern telling off by the Mods on this site nearly every second week.

I get it and I used to see it that way. I'm not having a go at you but I've been educated on this issue very recently and it's completely changed my perspective.

When it comes down to it, it's a shit thing to say, was inappropriate and the person it was said to took offence to it - and I can see why. At the end of the day the way I see it is to trivialise it is to accept it. I no longer accept it.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-...ustin-martin-over-restaurant-incident/7049212

"Regrettably, I was intoxicated and that in itself is completely unacceptable," Martin said in a statement at the time.

"I do however take responsibility for my behaviour and I am deeply embarrassed.

"If anything I have said or done has caused anyone to feel threatened then that is totally inappropriate."

Read into that as you would like, he is not the first to intimidate a woman under the influence and won't be the last. Any woman or man that has felt intimidated by a similar incident will tell you that it is quite confronting

He was not charged because the act in itself was not deemed serious enough as witnesses could not hear what was said, so it was pretty much her word against his and we know who wins those cases. But staff at the premises asked him to leave because of his behaviour and you could see on one video someone valiantly trying repeatedly to drag him away as he was standing over the woman. Who knows what was said...


Again my point is not about Dusty, but why the need for JR and co to make a stand when its obvious their interests/concerns should lie in winning games of footy. There is enough shit happening out there regarding the Maguire incident that there is no need to involve ourselves and get distracted.
It's simple

no your idiotic point was the club ignored this incident. they didn't. they referred it to the police

how is sending it to the cops ignoring it???

 

[SumTingWong]

Somewhat, calling your best mate a campaigner in private is perfectly fine do what you please, do it in a public forum however and your mate still won't give a shit but others might.

Nope. The point is you can't call whoever you want whatever you want and be surprised if they are offended. Eddie's comments were vindictive and hateful and he didn't have the balls to say them to her face. He's dumb and gutless.

 

[Helen Wheels]

Get back to your quiz show, Eddie. All the questions are scripted. Safer that way.

 

[VsvldGarshin]

Apologies for the dissection of your post, and I hope I don't misrepresent the context.

I completely agree. I am a white Australian man. I don't get to say what constitutes sexism or racism. I accept that.

What if instead of women generally saying this incident is sexism, it's just Wilson? For me, that's the case.

The women in my life that I have talked to about this do not feel this issue is about gender discrimination. And they are usually pretty strong in articulating what they feel constitutes gender discrimination.

One of the women in my life made the excellent point that no-one should make casual threats of violence against any man, woman or child, especially on the radio. I think that is the story here.

Correct, no one should make the threat. No one should abuse their power and use a group of people to bully someone personally just when they don't like something, and no one should try and excuse their behaviour as humour (it offends both humanity and good comics). I've linked to it before but stewart lee basically describes what is wrong with this exact situation (By way of comparison the clip also shows how, in the hands of the skilled, comedy can be edgy and controversial but also cerebral and meaningful as satire.)

However, all of these points aren't mutually exclusive to not accepting violence against women, and the terrible image that Eddie's hateful comments (and what is probably worse in terms of moral courage, the supportive giggles from a group of men - one of whom with a prior for sexual assault) in the context of the AFL's attempts not to condone this behaviour through the white ribbon round. Whether or not Eddie was intentionally evoking a violence against women angle is beside the point, he decided to pursue a line of hate and bullying through this imagery and he alone is responsible for its outcome.

I support the ban on Triple M, and actually extending it until they remove these tired old bogans from the station and bring back 'get this'.

 

[Speedie41]

Nope. The point is you can't call whoever you want whatever you want and be surprised if they are offended. Eddie's comments were vindictive and hateful and he didn't have the balls to say them to her face. He's dumb and gutless.

Wasn't commenting on what Eddie said, was just referring to Shaw's comments.

 

[I Rock]

I get it and I used to see it that way. I'm not having a go at you but I've been educated on this issue very recently and it's completely changed my perspective.

When it comes down to it, it's a shit thing to say, was inappropriate and the person it was said to took offence to it - and I can see why. At the end of the day the way I see it is to trivialise it is to accept it. I no longer accept it.

I'm not saying I accept it. It's just to me, it's a matter between the two parties. Shit comment that caused offence to the person it was directed at. They sort it out or don't. End of discussion. However, as I have stated before. It seems I am (way)out of touch with the New World Order of Society of what is said and what it actually means.

 

[RunningBounce]

I've linked to it before but stewart lee basically describes what is wrong with this exact situation (By way of comparison the clip also shows how, in the hands of the skilled, comedy can be edgy and controversial but also cerebral and meaningful as satire.)

I’ve heard that Stewart Lee routine before, and found it very funny. And very pointed. Nice one Completely appropriate to this situation, IMO.

 

[Helen Wheels]

Eddie, Brayshaw and Frawley are the ones on trial here. They put themselves in this position and the shit hit the fan.
They all got splattered. Covered in their own shit. It's a great look.

 

[Sir_Loin]

I'm not saying I accept it. It's just to me, it's a matter between the two parties. Shit comment that caused offence to the person it was directed at. They sort it out or don't. End of discussion. However, as I have stated before. It seems I am (way)out of touch with the New World Order of Society of what is said and what it actually means.

Correct

 

[I Rock]

Correct

Which part?

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

She has already stated she knew of it long before it became a headline. If her defence, she wasn't the one who made this a headline. I also think she has every right to be as upset as she feels she needs to be. My issue is not with her, it's with trying to find the correlation with how the comment promotes anything beyond a (heavy and uncalled for) jibe at Caroline Wilson.

But if she was so upset then knowing her she like any other journo would have made it a headline there and then?

 

[VsvldGarshin]

I'm not saying I accept it. It's just to me, it's a matter between the two parties. Shit comment that caused offence to the person it was directed at. They sort it out or don't. End of discussion. However, as I have stated before. It seems I am out of(way) touch with the New World Order of Society of what is said and what it actually means.

It would be if not for their position as well known social leaders who exert a large degree of influence in society.

Think of it in the context of Eddie's hair-brained scheme to build a new sporting megaplex and destroy 2 stadiums in the process. Do you think that the same scheme would have been promoted on the front page of a newspaper if it came from "John" a well known diabetic from the Frankston area?

This power that he receives as a (once?) respected public voice, opinion maker, and media personality cuts both ways if he gets it wrong... particularly in this context when he deliberately used his ability to project his hatred through a public medium in order to maximise its bullying value (as opposed to contacting someone privately and directly).

 

[I Rock]

But if she was so upset then knowing her she like any other journo would have made it a headline there and then?

Apparently not, as I said it wasn't her that made it a headline.

 

[SumTingWong]

I'm not saying I accept it. It's just to me, it's a matter between the two parties. Shit comment that caused offence to the person it was directed at. They sort it out or don't. End of discussion. However, as I have stated before. It seems I am (way)out of touch with the New World Order of Society of what is said and what it actually means.

For somebody that feels that way you sure have alot to say about it.

 

[I Rock]

It would be if not for their position as well known social leaders who exert a large degree of influence in society.

Think of it in the context of Eddie's hair-brained scheme to build a new sporting megaplex and destroy 2 stadiums in the process. Do you think that the same scheme would have been promoted on the front page of a newspaper if it came from "John" a well known diabetic from the Frankston area?

This power that he receives as a respected public voice, opinion maker, and media personality cuts both ways if he gets it wrong... particularly in this context when he deliberately used his ability to project his hatred through a public medium in order to maximise its bullying value (as opposed to contacting someone privately and directly).

Well again, that's societies issue. I'm not justifying the comment, it was a shit comment and Caroline Wilson has every right to be upset by it. I just don't think it's fair to string the bloke up on it because it may insight grievance amongst the left handed whale watches born north of the western time zones of Tibet.

 

[I Rock]

For somebody that feels that way you sure have alot to say about it.

Hmm, people quote me and I respond. Is that not good mannerisms? I only ask you as you are clearly well more learned in the modern ways of best social practice than I.

 

[Helen Wheels]

My issue is not with her, it's with trying to find the correlation with how the comment promotes anything beyond a (heavy and uncalled for) jibe at Caroline Wilson.

A woman's perception of safety or danger is different from a man's.
Tone of voice also makes a great deal of difference.