Unsure what you're getting at here? Are you saying you are offended by his use of the word, c...? And hence agreeing with my (albeit sarcastic) remark that the utterance of the word c... as an insult, is actually to blame for male to female murders and hence he should apologise for using that word too?Brodders17 said:
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Josh Caddy
- Thread starter Rancey18
- Start date
cross off religion, gender, sexuality, race, minority, disadvantage and family and go from there.BrisTiger24 said:
comparisons with (your own) genitals and bodily functions seems about all we have left.
We all need to adapt in the interests of equality. sporting banter soon to be a lost art.
Panthera Tigris said:I'm actually surprised the offendatrons didn't run the whole "misogynistic language" line on this one and extrapolate it into a whole navel gaze at how such utterances lead to violence against women and can be attributed to such events as the Euridyce Dixon and Jill Maher murders. :
Offendatrons :rofl
Hang on, didn't you just do said extrapolation? You're jumping at shadows PT, which is the outrage-at-outrage brigade's (I just made that up
modus operandi.tigersnake said:Offendatrons :rofl
Hang on, didn't you just do said extrapolation? You're jumping at shadows PT, which is the outrage-at-outrage brigade's (I just made that up
I think that was one of the plot lines from Inception.
^easy said:
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Sick of flog umpires parenting players. If there is a free kick pay it. If there isn't, shut the hell up.
I was able to lip read Caddy's comments when I watched the replay. Microphones make no difference there.
He crossed a line that you don't cross any more. He apologised. He is not a serial offender, he has a bit to say but usually it is within acceptable boundaries. It is over. Move on, nothing to see here.
He crossed a line that you don't cross any more. He apologised. He is not a serial offender, he has a bit to say but usually it is within acceptable boundaries. It is over. Move on, nothing to see here.
I watched the highlights package on the AFL youtube channel and even on those official highlights, you hear clearly Caddy scream F.... dumb c... at the Hawks player. No one has edited that sound out. Pretty funny.TOT70 said:
Depends what religion. It seems Christianity is pretty much fair game. All else is off limits under the mob rule censorship of modern western society. And no I'm not a religious person, simply stating the same double standards that I observe regularly in public discourse and indeed Richard Dawkins has even discussed his observation of and contempt for this double standard on many of occasions.DeathNinthandTaxes said:
seems a fair observation.Panthera Tigris said:
not many catholic priests play afl though, so opportunities are limited.
sorry about that one, my position on this discussion is built on very shaky ground :-X
Before I say this, I want it known that I am upset by senseless violence particularly towards women and children as well as taunting to people who are physically smaller and therefore unwilling to taunt back for fear of violence or unable to effectively taunt back for fear of additional ridicule.
That said.
The biggest issue for all of us is that we all draw the line of what's reasonable in a different place. Some of us don't like kids swearing or people swearing in front of kids. Some of us don't like the use of sexist remarks at all, whereas some of us might think sexist remarks are ok if use as a joke in male company. There's a million examples of things that we get subjected to that may or may not invoke feelings of hurt, anger, embarrassment, disgust and it's different for all of us.
By there not being an easy way to draw a line of reasonability, we are forced to draw the line to match the values of the most easily offended people in each instance. This is not representative of mainstream society, but the most easily offended wins the argument every time, because they draw the line and they are taking the high road.
The resentment from society who, as a whole, would collectively draw the PC line a little lower to allow for some levity and the odd faux pas, is simply, "Why does someone who doesn't represent the values of middle society get to decide what's PC and what's not PC? Who made them the arbitrator of PC? The answer, they did and no one's able to effectively argue against their position.
So what do we do? The only way to combat PC is to either
- manage the court of public opinion (what Cadds did by his conditional apology, which of course contains, "if I offended anyone, I'm sorry". Meaning he's only going to be contrite based on the feelings of others, not whether he thinks what he did is below his own PC line)
- call people out who try to align your moral compass with theirs (probably not possible or advisable for public figures - Trump tries this in a boorish way and is nothing but consistent. It sounds like he doesn't care, but what he's saying most of the time is, "Your opinion on how I should think means about as much to me as my opinion on how you should think means to you. Go away").
I simply decide if I value the person or their opinion and if so, then I usually offer a conditional apology. Yes, I'm sorry I upset someone I respect, but I'm not contrite for what I did or said.
If I dont know or respect them, I simply suggest that I won't be taking life advice from people I don't care about. Go away. (It's usually I little stronger than go away though).
Stopping looking at PC as your problem to solve and start looking at PC as someone's else problem to deal with. If they are offended, that's their issue not yours - unless your reputation is important to you or you care about the person.
That said.
The biggest issue for all of us is that we all draw the line of what's reasonable in a different place. Some of us don't like kids swearing or people swearing in front of kids. Some of us don't like the use of sexist remarks at all, whereas some of us might think sexist remarks are ok if use as a joke in male company. There's a million examples of things that we get subjected to that may or may not invoke feelings of hurt, anger, embarrassment, disgust and it's different for all of us.
By there not being an easy way to draw a line of reasonability, we are forced to draw the line to match the values of the most easily offended people in each instance. This is not representative of mainstream society, but the most easily offended wins the argument every time, because they draw the line and they are taking the high road.
The resentment from society who, as a whole, would collectively draw the PC line a little lower to allow for some levity and the odd faux pas, is simply, "Why does someone who doesn't represent the values of middle society get to decide what's PC and what's not PC? Who made them the arbitrator of PC? The answer, they did and no one's able to effectively argue against their position.
So what do we do? The only way to combat PC is to either
- manage the court of public opinion (what Cadds did by his conditional apology, which of course contains, "if I offended anyone, I'm sorry". Meaning he's only going to be contrite based on the feelings of others, not whether he thinks what he did is below his own PC line)
- call people out who try to align your moral compass with theirs (probably not possible or advisable for public figures - Trump tries this in a boorish way and is nothing but consistent. It sounds like he doesn't care, but what he's saying most of the time is, "Your opinion on how I should think means about as much to me as my opinion on how you should think means to you. Go away").
I simply decide if I value the person or their opinion and if so, then I usually offer a conditional apology. Yes, I'm sorry I upset someone I respect, but I'm not contrite for what I did or said.
If I dont know or respect them, I simply suggest that I won't be taking life advice from people I don't care about. Go away. (It's usually I little stronger than go away though).
Stopping looking at PC as your problem to solve and start looking at PC as someone's else problem to deal with. If they are offended, that's their issue not yours - unless your reputation is important to you or you care about the person.
PBoRSM said:
Yeah I don't agree. Having grown up in Australia in the 70s and 80s and watching a fair bit of World Series Cricket, people from Pakistan we're called Pakis. Made sense, just shorten it like we do everything and no malice intended at all.
If it wasn't for a quick thinking english friend who jumped to stop sh!t happening before it started, I would have gotten a decent beating for calling a group of English Indians "Pakis". I never realised how offensive it was to them. That was my issue, not theirs.
gutfull said:
If a player used derogatory language towards someone who had a disability.... that’s another thing altogether.
Then I’d be pissed off.
Can be tricky sometimes to sift through what can construed as offensive but keep measured against OTT PC outrage. But PC outrage shouldn't be an excuse not to be mindful of being offensive either.
Scenario 1.
"Who's that bloke out there for the swans that took that ripper mark last quarter?"
"Well, there were two if I recall. Which one, the ranga or the black guy?"
"Ranga"
"Gary Rohan. Aliir Aliir took a good grab too."
"Hey, isn't that racist to call him the black guy?"
"Hmmm. Dunno. Maybe. Ok, number 36. Is that better?"
"Yeah, I think so. Isn't it? I don't know. Better to be safe"
"I spose. Fair enough. I mean, I was only trying to distinguish between them. I have nothing against ...er... gentlemen of African appearance...er......um.... I thought the ranga's mark was better anyway."
What's more offensive here. 'Ranga' or 'the black guy'?
(ps - I really dislike the word ranga for redheads. It's derogatory and many a kid has been bullied with this stupid sh!t).
Scenario 2.
"Hey, someone at the swans is stealing gear from the change rooms"
"Bet it's the black guy"
Same term used. First one I'd argue is not intended to be racist. The second one I'd argue is.
Regarding people who are differently able, this is sometimes a hard one to come to grips with. Especially over generations spanning times where a word once had significance because of the way it may have been used in the past. There's a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry is confused by the preference for the word 'disabled' over 'handicapped' and argues on the merit on the meaning of the actual stand alone word, rather than any cultural connotations it may have. But the word handicapped was shunned by sections of the community when fresh appreciation of some people's plight was desired and wanted to break free of the 'spastic' 'retard' days. Handicapped was too close in a time context to these words and had baggage, so disabled was chosen for that new era.
It's also hard to keep on top of all these preference changes when you're not in the thick of it all from day to day. I had the impression the gay community didn't want to be known as the gay community and some groups opted for 'queer', but then not all gay people wanted this either (can I say 'gay people'??). This then stems into LGBTQIA. Heck, I don't know. All I know is I don't care about people's sexual preferences. The use of the word 'gay' was rife when I was at high school, replacing the word poof from primary school ("What? Do you have a girlfriend ya poof?? - obviously not having a go at sexual preference but the word is obviously not designed to be a compliment either. I'm not going to lie - poof was a funny word in primary school - but it's the use of the word to viciously hurt that had to be removed). There was an attempt to keep 'gay' in use by changing it's spelling to 'ghey', based on the argument that people weren't really saying 'gay'' but more 'lame' - but then that's not lame in crippled...I mean... having a leg injury... it's lame as in 'dunderhead'. Bit clunky to spell words out every time you say them. Doomed not to work, that one.
And does it depend on the inflection of your voice?
That shirt is so gay.
Wow! I love that gay shirt!
Ha! That Essendon slogan was so ghey!
To me, intent and context is important.
Caddy's intent was to get at his opponent. I don't believe for one minute he would want to hurt any section of the community (I don't like sledging, but I'm not going to call for a public beheading).
BUT he used words that some will find hurtful and the context is public so of course he had to apologise.
We move on. And agree on the no mic. Apart from the whole pc minefield, you can't tell blokes playing footy not to swear and we don't really need to expose kids to it more than they already are FFS, or they'll become a pack of real sh## c###s.
Scenario 1.
"Who's that bloke out there for the swans that took that ripper mark last quarter?"
"Well, there were two if I recall. Which one, the ranga or the black guy?"
"Ranga"
"Gary Rohan. Aliir Aliir took a good grab too."
"Hey, isn't that racist to call him the black guy?"
"Hmmm. Dunno. Maybe. Ok, number 36. Is that better?"
"Yeah, I think so. Isn't it? I don't know. Better to be safe"
"I spose. Fair enough. I mean, I was only trying to distinguish between them. I have nothing against ...er... gentlemen of African appearance...er......um.... I thought the ranga's mark was better anyway."
What's more offensive here. 'Ranga' or 'the black guy'?
(ps - I really dislike the word ranga for redheads. It's derogatory and many a kid has been bullied with this stupid sh!t).
Scenario 2.
"Hey, someone at the swans is stealing gear from the change rooms"
"Bet it's the black guy"
Same term used. First one I'd argue is not intended to be racist. The second one I'd argue is.
Regarding people who are differently able, this is sometimes a hard one to come to grips with. Especially over generations spanning times where a word once had significance because of the way it may have been used in the past. There's a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry is confused by the preference for the word 'disabled' over 'handicapped' and argues on the merit on the meaning of the actual stand alone word, rather than any cultural connotations it may have. But the word handicapped was shunned by sections of the community when fresh appreciation of some people's plight was desired and wanted to break free of the 'spastic' 'retard' days. Handicapped was too close in a time context to these words and had baggage, so disabled was chosen for that new era.
It's also hard to keep on top of all these preference changes when you're not in the thick of it all from day to day. I had the impression the gay community didn't want to be known as the gay community and some groups opted for 'queer', but then not all gay people wanted this either (can I say 'gay people'??). This then stems into LGBTQIA. Heck, I don't know. All I know is I don't care about people's sexual preferences. The use of the word 'gay' was rife when I was at high school, replacing the word poof from primary school ("What? Do you have a girlfriend ya poof?? - obviously not having a go at sexual preference but the word is obviously not designed to be a compliment either. I'm not going to lie - poof was a funny word in primary school - but it's the use of the word to viciously hurt that had to be removed). There was an attempt to keep 'gay' in use by changing it's spelling to 'ghey', based on the argument that people weren't really saying 'gay'' but more 'lame' - but then that's not lame in crippled...I mean... having a leg injury... it's lame as in 'dunderhead'. Bit clunky to spell words out every time you say them. Doomed not to work, that one.
And does it depend on the inflection of your voice?
That shirt is so gay.
Wow! I love that gay shirt!
Ha! That Essendon slogan was so ghey!
To me, intent and context is important.
Caddy's intent was to get at his opponent. I don't believe for one minute he would want to hurt any section of the community (I don't like sledging, but I'm not going to call for a public beheading).
BUT he used words that some will find hurtful and the context is public so of course he had to apologise.
We move on. And agree on the no mic. Apart from the whole pc minefield, you can't tell blokes playing footy not to swear and we don't really need to expose kids to it more than they already are FFS, or they'll become a pack of real sh## c###s.
PBoRSM said:
I don't believe Caddy's apology contained any such conditions or excuses. Looked pretty unconditional to my reading of it on the AFL site and on 360 last night. I'm prepared to stand corrected if you can point to any verifiable quotes from it.
