Sledging

[mcs]

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.

Absolute hogwash.....

[Flying South]

I dont see the problem with it. The issue lies with the fact the coverage picked it up.

I fail to see how anyone is adversely affected by the exchange, which has now been followed by a predictable and cynical apology to clear it up.

We have no context of what preceded the soundbite that was caught by the mics, so the suggestion that Shaw is the only villain (if we insist on calling him a villain) is a bit naive.

It was an exchange between two able bodied men on a football field. Nothing to see here.

I would love to let this go. But I can't. It's personal for me. If he called him a fa??ot, an ape or a camel jockey would you still be saying nothing to see here or no problem with it? A person is a person and we all hurt the same. I've said my peace.

[dimelb]

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.

Rupert Murdoch has read your post and is extremely disappointed.

I'm not sure how I know this because I never read his rubbish (except occasionally sport in the Hun).

[mattybloods]

I would love to let this go. But I can't. It's personal for me. If he called him a fa??ot, an ape or a camel jockey would you still be saying nothing to see here or no problem with it? A person is a person and we all hurt the same. I've said my peace.

I agree, there is a lot you can say to someone without getting offensive the way Shaw did. No excuse is good enough in my opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S.S. Bleeder]

Rupert Murdoch has read your post and is extremely disappointed.

I'm not sure how I know this because I never read his rubbish (except occasionally sport in the Hun).

I said mostly, not everyone.

Complain all you like about Rupert; at least the Hun have some ethics. I worked for The Age for several years and dealt with many of their reporters for Several years before that. I've never come across a company lacking in ethics to their degree in my professional life. Caro Wilson is one of the few people there that has a conscience. It's not just their reporters and editors, it's their senior management as well.

[CureTheSane]

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

SMH

Nothing else to say.
You won't understand.

[Industrial Fan]

I would love to let this go. But I can't. It's personal for me. If he called him a fa??ot, an ape or a camel jockey would you still be saying nothing to see here or no problem with it? A person is a person and we all hurt the same. I've said my peace.

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.

[Sandridge]

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.

The people who are harmed are the people with intellectual disabilities who are taunted with the term "retard." If you think it's ok for Heath Shaw to call an opponent that, you're helping normalise the use of the word as an insult and a tool for bullying.

[Markwebbos]

The people who are harmed are the people with intellectual disabilities who are taunted with the term "retard." If you think it's ok for Heath Shaw to call an opponent that, you're helping normalise the use of the word as an insult and a tool for bullying.

+100

Use of the R word is unacceptable in any circumstances.

[Dosser]

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.

Wow

[CureTheSane]

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.

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.

[RogueSwan]

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.

Nail->head

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[royboy42]

The people who are harmed are the people with intellectual disabilities who are taunted with the term "retard." If you think it's ok for Heath Shaw to call an opponent that, you're helping normalise the use of the word as an insult and a tool for bullying.

I absolutely agree, and find dismissive posts to the use of the word offensive.

[Sandridge]

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.

Spot on!

[Untamed Snark]

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.

Well said.
Absolutely agree