Sledging

[Ludwig]

We all would agree that someone calling Eddie Betts a monkey is offensive, but would it be offensive if Shaw called Papley a monkey, as this would offensive to a community of which he is not a member of?

Would it be offensive to call a player a pig since this word is offensive to police officers?

[Markwebbos]

We all would agree that someone calling Eddie Betts a monkey is offensive, but would it be offensive if Shaw called Papley a monkey, as this would offensive to a community of which he is not a member of?

Would it be offensive to call a player a pig since this word is offensive to police officers?

Pig not intrinsically offensive. The word Shaw used is.

[Meg]

Pig not intrinsically offensive. The word Shaw used is.

Agree. And calling someone a monkey is usually a term of endearment EXCEPT when used to describe or name a black person when it is one of THE most offensive terms.

But Ludwig you knew this didn't you?

[wolftone57]

flying I have no beef with you so would like to discuss. Maybe you can convince me that I should be offended too.

I'm a massive fan of Goodes so clearly anything that specifically discriminates against the player is not ok. (Ape, camel jockey as you reference)

But I don't see how people can take offence from a term applied to a player that is quite obviously not marginalised or discriminated against (and I would guess not offended in any way themselves) by the term.

For example if Sandilands was called an ape for his long arms and Josh Kennedy called a spastic because he was rubbish at disposing a football. Does either have any real world context or have any racial or discrimanatory element?

From my point of view the answer is no. You don't necessarily need to agree with either statement, you are equally entitled to be offended. But if you look at the context, who has really been harmed?

For me the issue is that the comment was caught by the coverage, no more no less.

it really isn't about the player. You miss the point. The particular insult is insulting a person with a disability. you have missed the point completely. It wasn't offensive because he called Papley a 'Spastic' it was the inferance that Spastic is an insult and in turn insults a person with Cerebral Palsy.

[wolftone57]

The mentally disabled community has been harmed as they have been used as a reference point in a very negative way.
Should Papley be personally offended? No. He appears to have no mental disabilities.
In all likelihood he was standing up either for friends or family who may have mental disabilities or just generally because he has good morals.

But calling him that name, there is an implication that this disability makes a person of less worth, or someone who is so undesirable that labeling someone else the same way is an insult.

If you call me a 'fagot' I won't be offended because I am not gay, but I sure will draw a negative conclusion about your character and defend the gay community by letting you know that it is not ok to use that word as an insult.

Retard is not an insult to a person with mental or psychological problems it is an insult to people with intellectual disability

- - - Updated - - -

Would it be offensive if someone called Toby Greene a retard?

Just asking.

If such a word would be offensive, what PC word would be appropriate?

it would be offensive to call anyone a retard because you are inferring that people with intellectual disability are somehow less than us. Retard is a word used to insult people with intellectual disability.

[Ludwig]

Agree. And calling someone a monkey is usually a term of endearment EXCEPT when used to describe or name a black person when it is one of THE most offensive terms.

But Ludwig you knew this didn't you?

Of course I knew that, and I don't think it should be necessary to sledge players, but we all know it happens all the time. I can sympathize with someone using a term directed at a person which a 3rd party might find offensive. It can be really hard to keep up with who gets offended by what terms. When I was a kid everyone used the word retard as a sledge, but no one thought it was offensive to mentally disabled people. We just didn't think about it. The term mentally retarded was the 'official' term applied to the mentally disabled. I couldn't tell you what the 'correct' term is now. Maybe it's because I've been living out of Australia for 6 years and I just don't get to hear the common vernacular.

I don't think people should be vilified. That's for sure. I took a very strong stand on the Adam Goodes incidents, because it was clearly racial vilification. But I also believe in free speech and we should carefully consider putting limitations on that freedom. I think there are times when we have to let some people be offended in order to protect that freedom.

I think Rhyce Shaw's sledge, and a lot of other things he does, is very poor form, but he didn't use the term 'retard' to vilify the mentally disabled.

Freedom of speech should be cherished. We have to understand that's it's a freedom that permits people to say offensive things. It permits people to blatantly lie. If we want to keep that freedom, it comes with the territory.

[liz]

I think Rhyce Shaw's sledge...

[Ludwig]

I think that one qualifies me as a sports journalist.

[Ludwig]

Please read the update part of wolftone's post #246 again. Explains perfectly why Heath Shaw's sledge was offensive.

I know it was offensive, but imagine the alternative: Living in a country where no one was allowed to say anything offensive.

We could end up with a Ministry of Truth.

[Sandridge]

I know it was offensive, but imagine the alternative: Living in a country where no one was allowed to say anything offensive.

We could end up with a Ministry of Truth.

So all the people who booed and sledged Goodesy were just exercising their democratic right to freedom of speech and we should therefore have accepted it?
What happens when freedom of speech infringes on other people's rights? Does freedom of speech override the rights of others to feel safe, valued, happy and respected?

[wolftone57]

I was out of Australia the past 2 weeks, so missed the game and when i got back i was keen to find out what shaw had said. Rascism?. Homophobia?.. no he called someone a retard. Australia had the worst media over reaction in the world. PC gone made. It's like the north Korea situation. Why is that even news when it's 4000km away. There are 50 countries that are more in danger than us and yet if you read the Aussie newspapers nuclear war is moments away.

No retard is a derogatory comment about someone with an intellectual disability. It isn't about Papley it is about the word and it's connotations toward intellectually disabled people.

- - - Updated - - -

I was commenting on the media overreaction, not whether the word was ok or not.

You did not come across that way.

[wolftone57]

These days the media is mostly left leaning, often because the university academics brainwash them to think that way. It pushes their agenda and sells mouse clicks at the same time. Win/win for them.

How bloody ignorant. I say this as a writer and journalist. Do not open your gob about things you have no knowledge about unless you are going to back your assumptions up with facts. Murdoch owns the most media outlets of all and they are all right wing. Other than that Channel 7,9 & 10 are all owned by very conservative right wing people. FOX, owned by Murdoch, openly taunts and abuses anyone left wing. All his newspapers taunt and lambaste the left. The only left or soft left publication is the SMH. The ABC is now soft right, SBS is still soft left, NITV is soft left if you call Indigenous issues leftist. The Gay press is soft RIGHT (they backed Baird). So I don't see this LEFTIST agenda in the media? WHERE PROVE IT!!!!

[Billericay]

How bloody ignorant. I say this as a writer and journalist. Do not open your gob about things you have no knowledge about unless you are going to back your assumptions up with facts. Murdoch owns the most media outlets of all and they are all right wing. Other than that Channel 7,9 & 10 are all owned by very conservative right wing people. FOX, owned by Murdoch, openly taunts and abuses anyone left wing. All his newspapers taunt and lambaste the left. The only left or soft left publication is the SMH. The ABC is now soft right, SBS is still soft left, NITV is soft left if you call Indigenous issues leftist. The Gay press is soft RIGHT (they backed Baird). So I don't see this LEFTIST agenda in the media? WHERE PROVE IT!!!!

+1 Thanks

[wolftone57]

Of course I knew that, and I don't think it should be necessary to sledge players, but we all know it happens all the time. I can sympathize with someone using a term directed at a person which a 3rd party might find offensive. It can be really hard to keep up with who gets offended by what terms. When I was a kid everyone used the word retard as a sledge, but no one thought it was offensive to mentally disabled people. We just didn't think about it. The term mentally retarded was the 'official' term applied to the mentally disabled. I couldn't tell you what the 'correct' term is now. Maybe it's because I've been living out of Australia for 6 years and I just don't get to hear the common vernacular.

I don't think people should be vilified. That's for sure. I took a very strong stand on the Adam Goodes incidents, because it was clearly racial vilification. But I also believe in free speech and we should carefully consider putting limitations on that freedom. I think there are times when we have to let some people be offended in order to protect that freedom.

I think Rhyce Shaw's sledge, and a lot of other things he does, is very poor form, but he didn't use the term 'retard' to vilify the mentally disabled.

Freedom of speech should be cherished. We have to understand that's it's a freedom that permits people to say offensive things. It permits people to blatantly lie. If we want to keep that freedom, it comes with the territory.

Sorry but using this term is a definite very strong put down meant to hurt the person it is aimed at. It means that the person is intellectually a vegetable. It demeans not only the person it is aimed at but intellectually disabled persons. I remember it used as well when I was a kid and it was meant to really hurt the person it was used against. It was probably the worst insult we used as kids. So don't tell me you used it in any other way other than to demean and hurt!!

[Ludwig]

So all the people who booed and sledged Goodesy were just exercising their democratic right to freedom of speech and we should therefore have accepted it?
What happens when freedom of speech infringes on other people's rights? Does freedom of speech override the rights of others to feel safe, valued, happy and respected?

I made it very clear that this was clearly racial vilification directed at a person who would obviously be offended by such language and believe this is unacceptable. The Shaw case is one of using language which third parties find offensive. It's a very fine line, I know, but if we should make an error on how we deal with such cases I believe it should be one which protects our freedom of speech.

Shaw made a crude remark which some people rightfully felt offended by. Shaw has been heavily criticised for this and has publicly apologised. I think this is the way these things should be handled and hope that Shaw learns from this and improves his behaviour during games.

If you want to live in a country with certain freedoms you have to accept that people will do and say some things that offend you. Australians can say things which are terribly offensive and critical of our political leaders, without retribution. I live in Thailand now, and love living here. In many ways I feel more free here than in Australia, but there are certain things I will never write or say while I live in this country. I don't think Australians should wish to live in a country where they have to be so careful for fear of the consequences. Rather to feel offended sometimes.