St Kilda condemns Frawley's joke about Caroline Wilson

[Con Gorozidis]

Remember this little 'ripper' from Alan McAlistair after the Nicky Winmar game at Vic Park.

''As long as they conduct themselves like white people, well, off the field, everyone will admire and respect … As long as they conduct themselves like human beings, they will be all right. That's the key.''

[saynta]

Remember this little 'ripper' from Alan McAlistair after the Nicky Winmar game at Vic Park.

''As long as they conduct themselves like white people, well, off the field, everyone will admire and respect … As long as they conduct themselves like human beings, they will be all right. That's the key.''

Yeah, I remember. Was about the time I recall calling them the filth.

[felix]

I think it's hilarious how many self appointed moral guardians have been shown up on this issue. So many have been so appalled at the "violence" of a joke implying that a disliked "woman" (not a person note, a woman) being drowned. The overwrought reactions because it is a woman reveal your lies - you care not for equality, you see it as a special "crime" because it's a woman, and thus deserving of a special new level of faux outrage. I just about guarantee that had the comment been aimed at Damian Barrett, most have you would have joined in on the "gag". If you were genuinely engaged in the pursuit of equality, as opposed to virtue signalling, the gender of the "victim" would be irrelevant.

For all the references to misogyny, sexism and "blokeness" etc, the majority of the outraged add up to little more than puffed up social justice warriors making sure that your friends notice your high moral fibre. The fact that you unquestioningly gobble up all of the myths and propaganda spewed out by third wave feminist militants without a word of question, and ask for more, makes me sick.

The facts are that in the western world there has never been a more privileged group than the modern middle-class female, they are ahead of males on every key measure you can name:
Homelessness - 80% males
Suicide - 80% males
Violence - 80% male victims
Murder - 70% male victims
Education - 60% of university entrants are female
Health - spending on females is 3 times that on males - more males die of gender specific illness than females
Industrial Accident deaths - 96% males

If any of the outraged bothered to do any of their own research and reading rather than hopping on the latest trendy social media bandwagon, then you might be able to have a proper discussion, rather than regurgitate media driven slogans....

You make a valid point, several in fact.

No he doesn't. Most of it's crap.

Men murder men 70% Fact ...men are violent .I don't get your point ..which is the whole point....men are violent women usually not your stats show that men are involved in violence ..let's try to stop it.

[desertsaint]

You're being a bit selective, desertsaint - that article also says:

" Exposure to disparagement humor does, however, have a negative social consequence: It increases tolerance of discriminatory events for people high in prejudice toward the disparaged group ... Our theory delineates the processes by which disparagement humor creates a normative climate of tolerance of discrimination - the social conditions that encourage the expression of prejudice."

It's not really something you want to encourage, eh?

no, the authors postulate that as a possibility - despite no evidence. have a read. read their conclusion. they admit it.
"We have proposed in this article,however,that exposure to disparagement humor does have a negative social consequence."

that's what a 'thang' is. you want to believe it, are sure of it, but can't find evidence of it. hence you postulate.
reminds me of my own research for my diploma - on video games and youth violence. i went in sure of the link, but none was definitive. i was so sure in spite of it i began to postulate reasons. then reason took me and i realised i cannot claim something based on a belief or a hope. my report caused a stir with some and they questioned why i would conclude there is no firm evidence. i replied - because there is none. i believe it is down to a hope we can find an easy fix, an answer - ban violent video games and decrease violence - how easy is that. but it isn't that easy.
you suggesting my stating evidence supports the expression of predjudice is basically wanting the feeling of the 'thang' to overrule reason - hoping it'll be an easy fix. it is also quite offensive. but hey, i can deal with that. it happens in robust debate as well as toilet humour.

[Dis Believer]

I think it's hilarious how many self appointed moral guardians have been shown up on this issue. So many have been so appalled at the "violence" of a joke implying that a disliked "woman" (not a person note, a woman) being drowned. The overwrought reactions because it is a woman reveal your lies - you care not for equality, you see it as a special "crime" because it's a woman, and thus deserving of a special new level of faux outrage. I just about guarantee that had the comment been aimed at Damian Barrett, most have you would have joined in on the "gag". If you were genuinely engaged in the pursuit of equality, as opposed to virtue signalling, the gender of the "victim" would be irrelevant.

For all the references to misogyny, sexism and "blokeness" etc, the majority of the outraged add up to little more than puffed up social justice warriors making sure that your friends notice your high moral fibre. The fact that you unquestioningly gobble up all of the myths and propaganda spewed out by third wave feminist militants without a word of question, and ask for more, makes me sick.

The facts are that in the western world there has never been a more privileged group than the modern middle-class female, they are ahead of males on every key measure you can name:
Homelessness - 80% males
Suicide - 80% males
Violence - 80% male victims
Murder - 70% male victims
Education - 60% of university entrants are female
Health - spending on females is 3 times that on males - more males die of gender specific illness than females
Industrial Accident deaths - 96% males

If any of the outraged bothered to do any of their own research and reading rather than hopping on the latest trendy social media bandwagon, then you might be able to have a proper discussion, rather than regurgitate media driven slogans....

You make a valid point, several in fact.

No he doesn't. Most of it's crap.

Men murder men 70% Fact ...men are violent .I don't get your point ..which is the whole point....men are violent women usually not your stats show that men are involved in violence ..let's try to stop it.

Actually most of those stats have nothing to do with violence - they have to do with life outcomes. And no, women not usually violent is another furphy. The most recent statistics within Australia put at least 35% of victims of domestic abuse as male, and studies in Western Europe and the USA put that number anywhere between 35% and 50%. Their partners, and abusers, are female.

[HitTheBoundary]

I think it's hilarious how many self appointed moral guardians have been shown up on this issue. So many have been so appalled at the "violence" of a joke implying that a disliked "woman" (not a person note, a woman) being drowned. The overwrought reactions because it is a woman reveal your lies - you care not for equality, you see it as a special "crime" because it's a woman, and thus deserving of a special new level of faux outrage. I just about guarantee that had the comment been aimed at Damian Barrett, most have you would have joined in on the "gag". If you were genuinely engaged in the pursuit of equality, as opposed to virtue signalling, the gender of the "victim" would be irrelevant.

For all the references to misogyny, sexism and "blokeness" etc, the majority of the outraged add up to little more than puffed up social justice warriors making sure that your friends notice your high moral fibre. The fact that you unquestioningly gobble up all of the myths and propaganda spewed out by third wave feminist militants without a word of question, and ask for more, makes me sick.

The facts are that in the western world there has never been a more privileged group than the modern middle-class female, they are ahead of males on every key measure you can name:
Homelessness - 80% males
Suicide - 80% males
Violence - 80% male victims
Murder - 70% male victims
Education - 60% of university entrants are female
Health - spending on females is 3 times that on males - more males die of gender specific illness than females
Industrial Accident deaths - 96% males

If any of the outraged bothered to do any of their own research and reading rather than hopping on the latest trendy social media bandwagon, then you might be able to have a proper discussion, rather than regurgitate media driven slogans....

You make a valid point, several in fact.

No he doesn't. Most of it's crap.

Men murder men 70% Fact ...men are violent .I don't get your point ..which is the whole point....men are violent women usually not your stats show that men are involved in violence ..let's try to stop it.

Actually most of those stats have nothing to do with violence - they have to do with life outcomes. And no, women not usually violent is another furphy. The most recent statistics within Australia put at least 35% of victims of domestic abuse as male, and studies in Western Europe and the USA put that number anywhere between 35% and 50%. Their partners, and abusers, are female.

And some studies have found that lesbian relationships have higher levels of violence, rape and stalking than all other relationship groupings.
http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/09/0 ... lgbt-issue

[The Fireman]

I think we can make this as big as the essendope thread.

[Johnny Member]

I love that people are outraged, at the fact that other people are outraged.

In a time when everyone with access to a phone or a computer is invited to form a strong opinion on every single topic or issue every single day, and share it publicly - I find it legitimately bizarre that people take a 'nothing to see here, just move on' attitude towards things like this.

I find it bemusing that these very people use the exact same forums to publicly offer their opinion that this is no big deal and that people are stupid for offer their opinions on it.


Rita Panahi writing an article about the fact that someone else shouldn't have written an article about something?


What a strange time we live in.


We live in times where very few people actually understand the social environment we live in. Living things adapt to their environment. But when the environment changes so quickly, these living things can't adapt quick enough and can't cope.


That's clearly where humanity is at right now.

[markp]

Agree with most of that, JM.

I don't get the 'outrage' at the view that it would've been best not broadcast.

But I think these things provide an opportunity for discussion and an exchange of views which may even lead to better understanding and progress. Attempting to shut it down or dismiss it disparagingly as 'PC gone mad' is just lazy and unhelpful.

Some people like to try and redirect the discussion to what it is all 'really about', and I'm not always a huge fan of that but it's miles better than the total shutdown nothing to see here attitude.

We've come along way on issues like this, we needed to, we still need to.

[Con Gorozidis]

Off topic but why isnt Jack Riewoldt Richmond Captain? Has more heart than 'Cotch'.
Really annoyed me when the footy media closed ranks around 'Cotch' and told us we were all wrong and how great he was and told us what to think. Really annoyed me.
Criticism of Cotch (a Captain probably on 800k a year) is well and truly legitimate.

[Bluthy]

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2016-06-2 ... ny-frawley

[BigMart]

Because Cotchin is a better leader

He was voted in by his peers, and that's ultimately what counts

Not what the media or unknowing supporters think.

To say Cotchin doesn't give his all week in week out is folly... He puts his nose over the ball and constantly generates the play.

He would be leading Richmonds B&F easily despite missing games with a broken jaw (which he played almost 4 quarters with)

He's averaging 30.5 possessions 13.5 contested, 5 tackles

A poor skipper
I think not

[Johnny Member]

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2016-06-2 ... ny-frawley

Loved Spud as a player, but I reckon as a TV/radio 'personality' and footy coach, he's as close to a genuine d**khead as you'll find.

[freely]

You're being a bit selective, desertsaint - that article also says:

" Exposure to disparagement humor does, however, have a negative social consequence: It increases tolerance of discriminatory events for people high in prejudice toward the disparaged group ... Our theory delineates the processes by which disparagement humor creates a normative climate of tolerance of discrimination - the social conditions that encourage the expression of prejudice."

It's not really something you want to encourage, eh?

no, the authors postulate that as a possibility - despite no evidence. have a read. read their conclusion. they admit it.
"We have proposed in this article,however,that exposure to disparagement humor does have a negative social consequence."

that's what a 'thang' is. you want to believe it, are sure of it, but can't find evidence of it. hence you postulate.
reminds me of my own research for my diploma - on video games and youth violence. i went in sure of the link, but none was definitive. i was so sure in spite of it i began to postulate reasons. then reason took me and i realised i cannot claim something based on a belief or a hope. my report caused a stir with some and they questioned why i would conclude there is no firm evidence. i replied - because there is none. i believe it is down to a hope we can find an easy fix, an answer - ban violent video games and decrease violence - how easy is that. but it isn't that easy.
you suggesting my stating evidence supports the expression of predjudice is basically wanting the feeling of the 'thang' to overrule reason - hoping it'll be an easy fix. it is also quite offensive. but hey, i can deal with that. it happens in robust debate as well as toilet humour.

DS - you seem to have completely misunderstood this paper. Or maybe you just disagree with it - although in that case I'm not sure why you directed us to look at it. They aren't saying there's no evidence. Their contribution is precisely to provide evidence that disparagement humour increases tolerance of discrimination in a way that non-humorous disparagement does not. In particular, they find that the more prejudiced you are, the more accepting you are of disparagement humour and the more impact it has on your behaviour. Their experimental results showed:

"Upon exposure to sexist humor, men high in hostile sexism (but not men low in hostile sexism) adopted a nonserious mindset for interpreting disparagement and thus perceived a norm of tolerance of sexism in the immediate social context. They then used the perceived norm to regulate their own evaluations of a sexist event. Therefore, for people high in prejudice, the adoption of a nonserious mindset and the perception of a prejudiced norm both mediate the effect of exposure to disparagement humor on personal tolerance of discrimination." (p.87)

The reason they set out their conclusion in that way is because they're proposing a theory. And the reason they cite the material that you quoted - from previous studies - is to show how their results contradict those findings. That's just how academia works. Also, given that this was published in a peer reviewed journal I think they might be a bit disappointed to hear you describe their entire contribution as 'a thang'! Just to say, I'm not an apologist for these guys or their theory - I'd never heard of them before or it - and I certainly didn't mean to be offensive - but you seemed to be citing them in support of your pov which I thought was misleading cos what they actually say is the exact opposite.

[saynta]

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2016-06-2 ... ny-frawley

Loved Spud as a player, but I reckon as a TV/radio 'personality' and footy coach, he's as close to a genuine d**khead as you'll find.

Why did the saints then make him their youngest captain ever?

[Enrico_Misso]

Richmond boycotting MMM!

Isn't this the club with links to bikies and their best player's father was extradited because of his links to organised crime?

[The Fireman]

Richmond boycotting MMM!

Isn't this the club with links to bikies and their best player's father was extradited because of his links to organised crime?

hypocrisy in football..who would of thought

I can still remember Sydney Swan fans wanting Plugger dead...and when he moved a magic wand turned them into disciples.

[Johnny Member]

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2016-06-2 ... ny-frawley

Loved Spud as a player, but I reckon as a TV/radio 'personality' and footy coach, he's as close to a genuine d**khead as you'll find.

Why did the saints then make him their youngest captain ever?

?

[desertsaint]

You're being a bit selective, desertsaint - that article also says:

" Exposure to disparagement humor does, however, have a negative social consequence: It increases tolerance of discriminatory events for people high in prejudice toward the disparaged group ... Our theory delineates the processes by which disparagement humor creates a normative climate of tolerance of discrimination - the social conditions that encourage the expression of prejudice."

It's not really something you want to encourage, eh?

no, the authors postulate that as a possibility - despite no evidence. have a read. read their conclusion. they admit it.
"We have proposed in this article,however,that exposure to disparagement humor does have a negative social consequence."

that's what a 'thang' is. you want to believe it, are sure of it, but can't find evidence of it. hence you postulate.
reminds me of my own research for my diploma - on video games and youth violence. i went in sure of the link, but none was definitive. i was so sure in spite of it i began to postulate reasons. then reason took me and i realised i cannot claim something based on a belief or a hope. my report caused a stir with some and they questioned why i would conclude there is no firm evidence. i replied - because there is none. i believe it is down to a hope we can find an easy fix, an answer - ban violent video games and decrease violence - how easy is that. but it isn't that easy.
you suggesting my stating evidence supports the expression of predjudice is basically wanting the feeling of the 'thang' to overrule reason - hoping it'll be an easy fix. it is also quite offensive. but hey, i can deal with that. it happens in robust debate as well as toilet humour.

DS - you seem to have completely misunderstood this paper. Or maybe you just disagree with it - although in that case I'm not sure why you directed us to look at it. They aren't saying there's no evidence. Their contribution is precisely to provide evidence that disparagement humour increases tolerance of discrimination in a way that non-humorous disparagement does not. In particular, they find that the more prejudiced you are, the more accepting you are of disparagement humour and the more impact it has on your behaviour. Their experimental results showed:

"Upon exposure to sexist humor, men high in hostile sexism (but not men low in hostile sexism) adopted a nonserious mindset for interpreting disparagement and thus perceived a norm of tolerance of sexism in the immediate social context. They then used the perceived norm to regulate their own evaluations of a sexist event. Therefore, for people high in prejudice, the adoption of a nonserious mindset and the perception of a prejudiced norm both mediate the effect of exposure to disparagement humor on personal tolerance of discrimination." (p.87)

The reason they set out their conclusion in that way is because they're proposing a theory. And the reason they cite the material that you quoted - from previous studies - is to show how their results contradict those findings. That's just how academia works. Also, given that this was published in a peer reviewed journal I think they might be a bit disappointed to hear you describe their entire contribution as 'a thang'! Just to say, I'm not an apologist for these guys or their theory - I'd never heard of them before or it - and I certainly didn't mean to be offensive - but you seemed to be citing them in support of your pov which I thought was misleading cos what they actually say is the exact opposite.

you weren't offensive freely - i was making a joke. no of course i deliberately chose that paper, and good on your for actually reading it. i chose it because i almost did the same thing. went ahead despite the evidence and found correlative evidence to support my 'thang'. as you say, exactly how academia works. their proposal includes exactly what i stated - for those predisposed. it is a bit like saying for alcohol addicts exposure to readily available alcohol justifies the social normality of their addiction - whoopie do - do we then ban alcohol for all?
You probably guessed by now i much side on liberal freedoms over social control - because time and time again social control is manipulated for temporal ideals and the ideals of a minority. it restricts people from growing into decision-making, independent adults. now some social controls are necessary, but i am especially against social control based on subjectives. the 'feel' of right and wrong behaviour can change rapidly in a society. as i've stated offensive behaviour that doesn't directly harm must be tolerated to ensure freedoms. the freedom for a gay man to marry another, a black man to eat at a restaurant, the freedom of a woman to vote, the freedom of eddie to tell a crude joke. And all of this debate from a joke that in no way to most reasonable people could be classed as sexist. to suggest an attack on one person is an attack on all who bear some similarity is pure guesswork, based on their own stereotypes of 'blokes' like eddie. they are deciding intent based on their own personality and emotion. when it comes to judgement i prefer reason to rule the day.

[The_President]

No one cared about what was said until nearly A WEEK after the incident.

Only got dragged back up after it was blogged about and then put in a podcast that's hosted by a wife of a media person who calls footy for another radio station.

[stonecold]

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2016-06-2 ... ny-frawley

Loved Spud as a player, but I reckon as a TV/radio 'personality' and footy coach, he's as close to a genuine d**khead as you'll find.

Hard to argue with someone with your experience!!!!!

[HitTheBoundary]

Richmond boycotting MMM!

Now they've extended the boycott.
http://www.thegreenfieldpost.com.au/spo ... efinitely/

[Moods]

Richmond boycotting MMM!

Now they've extended the boycott.
http://www.thegreenfieldpost.com.au/spo ... efinitely/

[Johnny Member]

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2016-06-2 ... ny-frawley

Loved Spud as a player, but I reckon as a TV/radio 'personality' and footy coach, he's as close to a genuine d**khead as you'll find.

Hard to argue with someone with your experience!!!!!

Terrible coach at Richmond.

Utterly moronic persona acted out on TV.

Zero offered as an 'expert' in commentary.

His lap dog impersonation to Eddie in this particular situation was completely pathetic.

[degruch]

No one cared about what was said until nearly A WEEK after the incident.

Only got dragged back up after it was blogged about and then put in a podcast that's hosted by a wife of a media person who calls footy for another radio station.

Phew, that's a relief...great to hear it happened a week earlier and therefore is completely irrelevant. As you were.