My daughter works with autistic kids ...
She and her pupils would find the term used by Shaw reprehensible.
Barry Hall did an AFL clinic for them recently.
He seems to have been punted completely from Fox , however my daughter said he was terrific with the autistic kids.
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.
He ate more cheese, than time allowed
University academics must be a very powerful organisation with deep pockets and tentacles into every corner of society... Funny how most scenics I've known are just of blokes with bad haircutsOriginally Posted by S.S. Bleeder
Absolute hogwash.....
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
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.
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).
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)
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
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.
SMH
Nothing else to say.
You won't understand.
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
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.
+100
Use of the R word is unacceptable in any circumstances.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks