Grand Final Entertainment (AKA: 'The SSM Debate Thread')

[HoldenV8]

Grand Final entertainment? Well Silvertails, I hope you find this entertaining hehehe

 

[manlyfan76]

Is the sentiment of the song that bad? Or the words?

I struggle to understand how being inclusive can be a bad thing

No conquer without divide.

 

[Real Deal]

Is the sentiment of the song that bad? Or the words?

I struggle to understand how being inclusive can be a bad thing

This is a footy forum, I guess. If we cover too much philosophical ground my tiny brain will meltdown. But...what do folks mean by inclusion? If that means tolerating and respecting views and respecting people who are very different to me without abuse and violence, then I am all for it. More the merrier.

I worry though that inclusion means that very real differences between men and women are not valued. That some of those who hold views that have been normative for millenia are now discouraged or even forbidden from mentioning those views in polite society. Lots of examples, but the girl in Canberra who was sacked from her job for saying she will vote no upset me. No one came to her defence. Not Turnbull or Brandis or anyone. She was 18 y/o and sack by her boss for being a bigot and preaching hate. Not exactly a victory for inclusivity was it? I wasn't really a yes supporter to be honest but I was sympathetic to having it in a secular society to be peaceful. I'm not so sympathetic after the way she was treated. Anyway, he is free to sing his heart out and I hope he does. It is a free society after all. I just hope it remains that way for everyone. Anyway my brain is now exploding, but this thread has some good and friendly debate - thanks.

 

[manly al]

Just seems a blatant example of Greenberg and maybe some of his associates trying to gain some maximum and superficial public kudos and self promotion if last weeks announcement of " the most courageous decision by the N R L yet ' is any indication in engaging this particular singing group . Sits in quite sharp contrast when a similar contentious public issue was being played out with the Tasmanian forestry practices and issue in the early eighties . John Williamson performed " rip , rip , wood chip " at an A. R L . G F game day gig and while the then leading administrators Arko and John Quayle were generally not approving of the timing of singing the pertinent song , at least they were quite detached and impartial and certainly did not try to milk and exploit the public issue like Greenberg and maybe some of the other current N R L administrators again seem to be doing presently . Shame that Greenberg can or does not apply the same supposed non censorship and freedom of expression mentality to some of the recent and understandable statements from certain N R L coaches and officials .

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

You've covered just about everything there, for any debate! All you have to do is copy and paste from now on.

I did, I always use that in response to sentimental twaddle about 'the values and freedoms that once made western democracies great'!

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

by choosing sides, they are doing the exact opposite. They are effectively disenfranchising all their employees, customers etc who have different belief structures

Ah yes the Donald Trump Charlottesville angle. We must at all times defend and protect the right of white supremacists and the Ku Klux klan to voice their hatred, because all opinions are equal, lol

 

[manly al]

This may develop into a Trumpathon and who ever comes up Trumps , may the best SilverTailer win /

 

[Volley]

Usually the most vocal homophobes are gay themselves, trying to hide the fact they're gay themselves thinking there is something wrong with being gay. Most vocal No voters are probably in the closet as well.

 

[jwaa]

Great post. It really irks me how Greenberg (and many other so called corporate leaders) justify siding their entire organizations on one side of the debate under the guise of "inclusiveness", but by choosing sides, they are doing the exact opposite. They are effectively disenfranchising all their employees, customers etc who have different belief structures. How exactly is that "inclusive". If they were true leaders rather than soft spined yes men, they would say as an organization, we exist within a democracy where every one has a right to an opinion, and that we value that right for our employees and customers. As an organization therefore, we must remain impartial. But adopting such a position carries no virtue signaling brownie points, and invites ridicule and bullying from the intolerant left. So they roll over and play nice, and in doing so, do a disservice to the values and freedoms that once made western democracies great.

Why should an organisation be impartial on a social issue that directly aligns with their corporate culture and values?

When denouncing violence against women, should an organisation be concerned about disenfranchising employees that love hitting the Mrs? Or is drawing a line in the sand the whole point? Toe the line or **** off.

If the organisation's stance doesn't align with yours - feel free to find one that does.

Ps: I love you x

 

[lsz]

This is a footy forum, I guess. If we cover too much philosophical ground my tiny brain will meltdown. But...what do folks mean by inclusion? If that means tolerating and respecting views and respecting people who are very different to me without abuse and violence, then I am all for it. More the merrier.

I worry though that inclusion means that very real differences between men and women are not valued. That some of those who hold views that have been normative for millenia are now discouraged or even forbidden from mentioning those views in polite society. Lots of examples, but the girl in Canberra who was sacked from her job for saying she will vote no upset me. No one came to her defence. Not Turnbull or Brandis or anyone. She was 18 y/o and sack by her boss for being a bigot and preaching hate. Not exactly a victory for inclusivity was it? I wasn't really a yes supporter to be honest but I was sympathetic to having it in a secular society to be peaceful. I'm not so sympathetic after the way she was treated. Anyway, he is free to sing his heart out and I hope he does. It is a free society after all. I just hope it remains that way for everyone. Anyway my brain is now exploding, but this thread has some good and friendly debate - thanks.

It is not on to sack someone for having an alternate view....but that really does not stack up against what the other "side" puts up with on a daily basis

 

[lsz]

I think by political you mean democratic.

Then it would not be a non binding plebiscite and it would be an actual vote where the decision is binding

 

[Smokin Joe]

Usually the most vocal homophobes are gay themselves, trying to hide the fact they're gay themselves thinking there is something wrong with being gay. Most vocal No voters are probably in the closet as well.

Interesting side note,some of the most vocal yes supporters are hetero.

 

[lsz]

Yes. And?

And what is the exact issue?

 

[Shoe1]

It is a survey to measure australians' views on the matter. That's why I think it is weird that both sides appear to be running a campaign like it is an election. I don't see how a campaign could change any individual's personal view on the topic.

 

[Smokin Joe]

I don't watch the half time entertainment so I personally don't care what is happening.If they had a giant cage with hungry lions and some Storm and Eels supporters in there and the last one standing gets a meat tray I might watch that....

 

[HappilyManly]

Interesting side note,some of the most vocal yes supporters are hetero.

Exactly, other adults commiting to each other legally has zero impact on us.

Yet it makes the estimated 10% of the poulation happy.

It also provides financial security to their better half should some medical or tragic circumstance arise

 

[Shoe1]

I'm working on the renewal and amendment of some difficult NSW regulations at present. I wonder if Macklemore has spare time next week to assist me with the drafting of the regulatory impact statement that needs to go to the Minister?

 

[jwaa]

A lot of people are of the view this is much more than just about ssm, and are not hoodwinked by simplistic meaningless slogans.

Correct. It's a human rights issue.

Edit: Much love, Terry. Everything will be ok x

 

[Catch_20_2]

I liked it much better when we were fighting over :

• Lewis Brown's best position
• Which Storm player is favourite in the First Chicken Wing market
  
• How many calls the bunker will screw up tomorrow
• Is having an attractive coach a good way to boost female memberships and given the current discussion - male memberships as well
  
• Number of weeks until Bulldogs fans call for Foran's sacking next season
  
• Result of a 40m dash between Brian Kelly and big Georgie Rose
• If you needed a Manly winger to catch a bomb to save your life - which one - J Tafua or A Uate

 

[The '47ers]

I don't watch the half time entertainment so I personally don't care what is happening

Same Joe, I've got idiot in-laws coming over to give their "expert" commentary so I'll start drinking when our game starts and by 1st grade H/T I'll put my schlong anywhere