Sledging

[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.

[Ludwig]

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!!

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.

- - - Updated - - -

Longmire was on the On The Couch show and said KJ will miss several games to get his hip working better and find form.

[0918330512]

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Sandridge]

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.

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?