Sledging

[Bexl]

Politicians can defend themselves. As was stated in an earlier post, people with intellectual special needs often can't and need others to speak up for them.

Several posters in this thread have explained why the term "retard" is offensive to people with intellectual needs. Yet, you contend that people with intellectual disabilities and the people who love them should just accept hearing the word "retard" because people's rights to free speech are more important. How about we call out people who say disgusting, disrespectful, discriminatory things and make our country a better place that way?

HUGE +1

[Ludwig]

I scrawny man with a Charlie Chaplin moustache in 1930s/40s Germany did some unacceptable stuff. Many people of the day knew that it happened and accepted that it happened. Does not make it right! Now before you jump up & down saying it's not remotely the same, of course I know that and that is why such reasoning is idiotic. Just because people know it happens or accepts that it happens, does not make it acceptable.


Seriously, how on earth does that make it ok?! Ludwig, I don't know you or anything about you but if I was to call you [insert: a homophobic + racist + offensive to intellectually challenged + derogatory to fiscally disadvantaged] obviously not knowing that you were or weren't (or I didn't believe you were) and yelled it loud enough for others to hear (even though they knew you probably weren't any of those offensive terms) ... 1) how would you feel and 2) how could you possibly believe it's acceptable? Sure, I've scaled it up but you clearly accept that Heath Shaw's "tame" version is not unacceptable.


There is freedom of speech and then there is having no understanding of what is just not acceptable. I can tell you, I'd have been happy if someone stuck some duct tape over that German Charlie Chaplin look-alike in the early 1930s before people started listening to him.

I'm watching the episode of the ABC "You can't say that" about Downs syndrome and I've just watched a middle aged woman with DS break down emotionally as she talks about the "R" word. Now I'm angry at this whole topic. Ludwig, please take a moment to watch it, think about your right to freedom of speech and exercise your right not to speak on this topic.

People on RWO know that I am a humanist and a defender of civil liberties.

We all realise that Heath Shaw used a word that is offensive to the intellectually challenged. I have very close friends who have had careers working with people with downs syndrome and I know something about this issue. This is not the point. I am not defending Shaw. I understand that what he said was not acceptable. So, what action was taken? He was publicly criticised and he apologised. Do you think there should have been further punishment for what he said? Does the punishment fit the crime?

I have tried to make the point that there are bigger issues at stake and we need to be careful about limiting freedom of speech, although some limits are certainly warranted. We should ask ourselves:

• Who will decide what words are acceptable and what words are not?
• Who will decide in what circumstances certain words can be used or not used?
• Who will decide when parties are offended and what punishment is to be meted out?
• Who will decide where the lines for free speech are to be drawn?

I don't wish for any disadvantaged group to be offended. But I also don't want people to arbitrarily decide what can and cannot be said. Even if I am personally offended by what someone says, and this does happen, I would never deny others the right to say it. It is better for me to be offended than to deny someone's right to speak freely without fear of retribution.

[CureTheSane]

It was meant to demean a hurt. But we know that kids insult each other all the time. I think this is an important part of our learning experience, finding the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not, learning what hurts us and what hurts others. Most do learn from these experiences and adjust our behaviour in adulthood. Clearly far too many do not.

Childhood and adolescence is a time for learning through a series of positive and negative feedbacks. If too many things are prohibited in this period, then unsociable behaviour is more likely to carry over into adulthood.

Very much disagree with this.
Evolution and maturity as a race breeds greater knowing and understanding of these issues.

In generations to come I forsee that 'gay' will be a word rarely used.
Race will hopefully be used in the context of 'human race' rather than to differentiate between races withing the human race.

I have seen a MASSIVE change in my children's generation (youngest are still in high school) where special needs kids are integrated and supported by the wider community. When I was at school more often than not they were left alone and treated in a taboo way.

As far as slurs go, it continues to be a generational (slow) change.
It will continue to move in a more positive direction as better education is offered.
To me, socio-economics plays a large role in impeding these positive changes, as kids from some specific families are certainly less inclined to adapt based on poor lessons and language from home.

I think lumping slurs in with "part of a child's learning experience when growing up" is a cop out and entirely wrong.

I'm no activist in this area.
Just a different point of view on how society is evolving and learning.
There re many many other areas I label 'nanny state' and 'PC gone mad' but there re also some areas which are clearly progressing and are no longer acceptable.

[0918330512]

People on RWO know that I am a humanist and a defender of civil liberties.

We all realise that Heath Shaw used a word that is offensive to the intellectually challenged. I have very close friends who have had careers working with people with downs syndrome and I know something about this issue. This is not the point. I am not defending Shaw. I understand that what he said was not acceptable. So, what action was taken? He was publicly criticised and he apologised. Do you think there should have been further punishment for what he said? Does the punishment fit the crime?

I have tried to make the point that there are bigger issues at stake and we need to be careful about limiting freedom of speech, although some limits are certainly warranted. We should ask ourselves:

• Who will decide what words are acceptable and what words are not?
• Who will decide in what circumstances certain words can be used or not used?
• Who will decide when parties are offended and what punishment is to be meted out?
• Who will decide where the lines for free speech are to be drawn?

I don't wish for any disadvantaged group to be offended. But I also don't want people to arbitrarily decide what can and cannot be said. Even if I am personally offended by what someone says, and this does happen, I would never deny others the right to say it. It is better for me to be offended than to deny someone's right to speak freely without fear of retribution.

All reasonable points. But does your last point extend to allowing someone to openly express the right to tell others their expression is offensive & they should keep their views & comments to themselves? All very circular

[Ludwig]

All reasonable points. But does your last point extend to allowing someone to openly express the right to tell others their expression is offensive & they should keep their views & comments to themselves? All very circular

Absolutely! And I think this is what happened in the Heath Shaw case. People spoke up. Said they were offended and forced him to apologise. I think it ended in a good result. Our awareness of the offensive nature of Shaw's words was raised in the public's consciousness and hopefully we have all learned from the experience. Perhaps all the efforts in calling out Adam Goodes' racial vilification helped in getting the AFL to act so swiftly in this case. Yes, we should speak out when we think something is not right in our society, but we must also be wary of those wanting to limit free speech, even speech that we may find offensive. In a free and open society we should be able to reach fair and just social norms.

[chammond]

Yes, we should speak out when we think something is not right in our society, but we must also be wary of those wanting to limit free speech, even speech that we may find offensive. In a free and open society we should be able to reach fair and just social norms.

Surely there are a number of more important issues here:
� If you are alone in a forest and shout the word �RETARD�, is it still offensive? Or merely Bohring?
� If you write the word �RETARD� on a piece of paper and place it in a box, is it both offensive and inoffensive at the same time?
� If an intellectually challenged person says the word �RETARD�, is it offensive? Does this apply in the Heath Shaw case?
� If there were no intellectually disabled people in this world, would the word �RETARD� still be offensive?
I think the AFL Commission needs to tackle these really important questions, and stop fussing about football.

[dimelb]

Thank you to the moderator(s) who arranged this thread.

I've just seen your post liz. Thanks.

[royboy42]

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.

Rhyce has enough on his plate coaching our seconds. Far too busy to be sledging anyone while wearing a GWS jumper.

[bloodspirit]

People on RWO know that I am a humanist and a defender of civil liberties.

We all realise that Heath Shaw used a word that is offensive to the intellectually challenged. I have very close friends who have had careers working with people with downs syndrome and I know something about this issue. This is not the point. I am not defending Shaw. I understand that what he said was not acceptable. So, what action was taken? He was publicly criticised and he apologised. Do you think there should have been further punishment for what he said? Does the punishment fit the crime?

I have tried to make the point that there are bigger issues at stake and we need to be careful about limiting freedom of speech, although some limits are certainly warranted. We should ask ourselves:

• Who will decide what words are acceptable and what words are not?
• Who will decide in what circumstances certain words can be used or not used?
• Who will decide when parties are offended and what punishment is to be meted out?
• Who will decide where the lines for free speech are to be drawn?

I don't wish for any disadvantaged group to be offended. But I also don't want people to arbitrarily decide what can and cannot be said. Even if I am personally offended by what someone says, and this does happen, I would never deny others the right to say it. It is better for me to be offended than to deny someone's right to speak freely without fear of retribution.

I've just discovered this thread and forum. What an exciting new world!

Ludwig, I appreciate almost all of what you have to say (even though there's a fair bit I don't agree with) and that includes in this discussion. In this discussion I think you have modified your position subtly as this discussion has proceeded from saying "it was no big deal", "everybody does it" to saying "he shouldn't have said it but it has been resolved ok". Great.

The two bob I would like to add is where you write "we need to be careful about limiting freedom of speech, although some limits are certainly warranted" - what do you mean? The thing you seem to be overlooking is that we DO have freedom of speech. And it has been exercised all round. First by Heater and then by the critical public. Nobody has been arrested or charged. Civil society is continuing in its democratic way. One person said something offensive. And a lot of other people have called it out for what it is. Everyone has been afforded free speech. The only impediment to speaking freely has been public opprobrium - not the law, not the threat or use of violence. Nobody is calling for new legislation to stop people calling other people retards or face gaol sentences; nobody is banding together vigilante groups to bash people using the word retard. As you note, this is a "great result". So why then are you saying "we need to be careful"? All is proceeding exactly as you would have it proceed - no?

My take on the actual incident is that Heater didn't think through what he was saying. As with many other slurs (racist, homophobic etc.), there has been an increase in awareness about the harm they cause that is happily leading to a shift in attitudes in society more generally that is still catching on. Heater got caught out and took responsibility when he realised. I think you and I agree, so far all good (except that Heater shouldn't have used the word retard in the first place). Where we differ is that you are alarmed about the "attack" on free speech. Whereas I think if the only attack is people saying "that's not on! you mustn't say that! it's offensive! it hurts!" - and that's fine too.