Possible explanation for the "SJW" mindset

Post Reply New Topic

Context.. there is nothing racial about the phrase "Like a monkey f*****g a football." It's simply an expression to describe people doing really absurdly stupid things.

A few years back, there was a big issue around that term over here, with a child (she had turned 13 a few days earlier) making a comment at a football game about a player there looking like a monkey:

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-25/goodes-gutted-but-places-no-blame/4712772

Unfortunately, due to the way this was handled by Mr Goodes and the officials at the event, an opportunity for both community education and "recconciliation" was lost - If, instead of seeing a highly-paid sportsperson pointing at a child in the crowd with footage of security removing her from the game, he had instead tried to approach her (either at the time - which may have been difficult given she was among supporters of the opposition team - or afterwards) to explain the problem with what she said in a less public forum, with some announcement\public statement\"educational campaign" resulting, the fallout (if any) would have been minimal, rather than what happened with the child being seen as a victim of bullying\harrasment by a large section of the population.

I believe this was probably a "simple" misunderstanding...On one side, you had a child (among a group of supporters for the opposition team), taunting a nearby player. It is likely she had no intention of making a comment regarding his race, but more towards his actions...As was stated earlier:

On the other hand, we had an aboriginal football player who (like any other player) is being constantly taunted by the fans of the opposition team in the crowd, but who has likely been targetted because of his race in the past, misinterpreting the words\intention in the heat of the moment.

So yes, it's probably a good idea to be careful how it is used - particularly given the people in the group that was being discussed (derisively) in the thread does contain members of many races, including those for whom the term is considered a racial slur...

Are you serious or just trying invoke a reaction? Adam Goodes was a professional footballer of colour, He likely has been racially taunted numerous times before and is perfectly entitled to point out anyone attempted to racially vilify him. Infact his conduct was exactly what is expected of a professional sportsperson pointing out where the slur came from (and a rather nasty one). The authorities chose to throw the 13 year old girl out of the ground (Goodes didn't).

Why should Goodes be expected to walk over to this 13 year old and talk to her in the crowd?? They would probably laugh at him. Do you seriously think anyone next to the girl (including her mother) made any attempt to stop her? likely she was egged on by the unruly crowd so why should Goodes risk getting something flung at him by walking toward the girl.

His conduct was perfect, the crowd was not. Your insinuation he didn't handle the incident properly suggests you are throwing your lot with the racist Victorian football crowds (hardly surprising given your track record here on WP defending racists).

Whether it be Australian cricket grounds, European football, American football or US NBA, a lot of coloured players have pointed out racist noises/calls in the crowd and the perpatrators have been thrown out and received bans, This is perfectly acceptable and necessary to stamp out racism in sports,

QFT. Worth repeating.

Lying by omission:

Source: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission

Let's include the remaining section of the quoted post, then address the points made here:


Now to address the content of the individual paragraphs:

Paragraph one:

Did I deny he had been "racially taunted numerous times before"?

Was there no other possible reason for the word being used?

Did I state he threw the child out (or that what happened was solely his responsibility)?


Paragraph two:

Did I state this the sole alternative to what happened was for him to walk over to the child at that time?

As an addendum, given there was Security there who promptly took action, his conversing with her to arrange the suggested later meeting could have been easily facilitated by them at that time, with no requirement for him to go near the crowd, either.

Paragraph three:

Whether his conduct was "perfect" is debatable, given he had no way to know if what had been said was due to his race, or his actions, and based on the results (crowd\public reaction, for example), could easily be considered as hasty and ill-considered.

Again, at no point had I "thrown my lot with the racist Victorian football crowds", and I take it as exceedingly insulting as well as a VERY personal attack that your would insinuate that I had (setting aside the implied assumption here that "Victorian football crowds" as a whole are racist, rather than there being, on occasion, one or more racist individuals among them). Some people like to hear both sides regarding an issue, in order to gain a full(er) understanding of what occurred, whilst others prefer to rush to hasty judgement, particularly when the initial details (or a subset thereof) support their personal biases. I was taught that not jumping to conclusions\taking a pavlovian reponce to events due to specific factors involved, and preferring to have (and\or ensure others also have) as much information as possible in order to make a reasoned decision was the responsible approach to evaluating events...

Paragraph four:

In cases where the motive behind what is stated is purely related to the race, I see no issue with that, nor have I claimed otherwise. In cases where there is (or could be) alternative reasons for what was stated, there should be an investigation, not a snap judgement...in cases involving a minor, I believe greater care needs to be taken\more consideration given to confirming the reason for what was said, and educating them on the impact of what they are doing\did (whether intentional or involuntarily), in order to ensure they are aware of the gravity of their words, rather than what occurred in this situation.

Locked for inspection.