keep politics out of the game

Status
Not open for further replies.
Feast yer eyes ..
Actually @Woodsie (and this might surprise a few people), I believe that the concept of wearing a t-shirt one day a year would be incredibly tokenistic and ultimately useless if it's not paired with other practical actions.

you are doing better than me ... I'm still trying to grasp the notion that people demand, or have an expectation, that I will wear something supporting their sexual preferences .... or being proud of it.

I wouldn't even wear a t-shirt saying I was proud of my own ... I must be the most un-phobic person in the world ... I just don't give a shiite what someone else's sexual orientation is ... I would probably take a very different approach if we still had laws making same sex illegal, or marriage was banned .

Pss ... I just read today that Japan has legislated against same sex marriage ... so we can add them to the list of countries we can protest at sporting events ...
 
Enthusiastic Amateur
Thanks @Red Pill Self-limiting is definitely a term we could run with here. Many other terms/labels would also have some utility to this specific discussion. I find it incredibly difficult to imagine actively discriminating against anyone because of their sexuality. I understand that others will have a completely different perspective on this. Each to their own, I guess, but I have always found that active discrimination generally leads to vilification. Vilification on any grounds, whether it's according to race, gender, sexuality, religion etc., is completely unacceptable to me.

Actually @Woodsie (and this might surprise a few people), I believe that the concept of wearing a t-shirt one day a year would be incredibly tokenistic and ultimately useless if it's not paired with other practical actions.
Agree each to their own. I have seen no evidence of vilification on TC’s part… btw….
the definition of vilification being: “ the act of saying or writing unpleasant things about someone or something, in order to cause other people to have a bad opinion of them“
 
Bencher
Premium Member
Agree each to their own. I have seen no evidence of vilification on TC’s part… btw….
the definition of vilification being: “ the act of saying or writing unpleasant things about someone or something, in order to cause other people to have a bad opinion of them“
Thanks, @Red Pill Neither have I........
 
Bencher
Premium Member
Agree each to their own. I have seen no evidence of vilification on TC’s part… btw….
the definition of vilification being: “ the act of saying or writing unpleasant things about someone or something, in order to cause other people to have a bad opinion of them“
An alternative definition @Red Pill would be "behaviour that incites hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule” for a person or group of people because of their race, sexuality, gender or religion.
Behaviours of course, can be both implicit (unconscious) and explicit (conscious)
 
Bencher
Premium Member
What is the point of your post, we have already established and i have never shied away from others defining me as such and if i am a homophobe so be it, it is not against the law in thinking in such ways. I certainly have no fear around gay or bisexual men, just choose not to make friends with such males, i just treat all with respect in public, private and the workplace and that is as far as i wish to go.

I don't attend Rugby League to be dictated to on sexuality, politics or any agenda, along with anyone who enters the workplace should not be subjected to such topics, this is the reason why i support the sevens actions.

Now lets move on to my supposed Racist and Anti Feminism comments, good luck with that.

Also where is your effort in trying to find a compromise, everyone talks like they are the compromise type but offer nothing other than the word "compromise".
Fair enough @Technical Coach I respect that you are suggesting we find a mutually acceptable compromise. Arguably that would seem to be extremely difficult. We will agree to disagree on some key points in this discussion. I am also sure that there will be many other things we disagree on in the future, and potentially some other things we will agree on as well. Merry Christmas.
Agree To Disagree Merry Christmas GIF by Lifetime
 
Enthusiastic Amateur
An alternative definition @Red Pill would be "behaviour that incites hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule” for a person or group of people because of their race, sexuality, gender or religion.
Behaviours of course, can be both implicit (unconscious) and explicit (conscious)
The unconscious stuff is interesting. This is in part pseudo science in my opinion…theories like CRT ect are divisive more than helpful…. Anything implicit needs to manifest into something explicit to be real… it gets really silly when people try to tell you that you are unconsciously racist or an action is unconsciously racist or biased etc. kind of reminds me of the religious dogma used against non Christian women in the Middle Ages i.e. women accused of being witches etc…
 
Enthusiastic Amateur
The unconscious mind certainly exists but some emerging theories are using it to prejudge behaviour before the fact etc it is the predictive element I am against…
 
Bencher
Premium Member
I'm not all that sold on Freud.



Thanks @Brookie Bob He is definitely a polarising figure in contemporary times. Some of his concepts haven't stood the test of time, but his influence in some areas is still undeniable. His ideas revolutionized the understanding and treatment of mental disorders. Freud's theory of unconscious dynamics is still widely accepted today (Myers, 1998). Arguably, Freud's concept of the unconscious is embedded in almost every model of human behaviour and in every profession, from psychiatry to marketing, from coaching to teaching (Stevenson, 2004).
Myers, David G. Psychology. Holland: Worth Publishers, 1998.
"Sigmund Freud" <http://oldsci.eiu.edu/psychology/Spensor/Freud.html> (31 March 1998).
Stevenson, David B. "Sigmund Freud: The Father of Psychoanalysis." (February 2004)
 
Enthusiastic Amateur
Freud himself is not responsible for how some in more recent times have used aspects of the theory to make it somehow a determinate of socially related outcomes e.g. how ones so called implicit bias can supposedly be somewhat racist etc. this is in my mind a manipulation to meet a desired ends.
In short I call it bullish!t…
 
"I come back to you now at the turn of the tide"
Melancholia = aggression turned inwards - yeah, Freud may have been right about that. Other things - not so much.

However - if all human beings are created equal in manifesting the unconscious mind ascribed by Freud, then wouldn't it follow that all 'unconscious minds' are equally predisposed to the modern-day 'no-go' areas that are under discussion - predispositions to racial discrimination, homophobia, vilification of others - regardless of their own racial background, economic circumstance, or gender identification?

Implicit bias - if it can be shown to indeed exist - isn't everyone, regardless of who they are, immersed in it?

Or - have we now arrived in a virtuous Brave New World where we have started to more than square-up the injustices of the past, and put the previously vilified on pedestals which celebrate identity (and 'personal-brand' )? Are we swapping one set of implicit bias for another?
 
Reserve Grader
Agree each to their own. I have seen no evidence of vilification on TC’s part… btw….
the definition of vilification being: “ the act of saying or writing unpleasant things about someone or something, in order to cause other people to have a bad opinion of them“
and if you do this with wilful intent ............ it's wilification.
 
Reserve Grader
Fair enough @Technical Coach I respect that you are suggesting we find a mutually acceptable compromise. Arguably that would seem to be extremely difficult. We will agree to disagree on some key points in this discussion. I am also sure that there will be many other things we disagree on in the future, and potentially some other things we will agree on as well. Merry Christmas.
Agree To Disagree Merry Christmas GIF by Lifetime
You mean Festivas!
 
Reserve Grader
Melancholia = aggression turned inwards - yeah, Freud may have been right about that. Other things - not so much.

However - if all human beings are created equal in manifesting the unconscious mind ascribed by Freud, then wouldn't it follow that all 'unconscious minds' are equally predisposed to the modern-day 'no-go' areas that are under discussion - predispositions to racial discrimination, homophobia, vilification of others - regardless of their own racial background, economic circumstance, or gender identification?

Implicit bias - if it can be shown to indeed exist - isn't everyone, regardless of who they are, immersed in it?

Or - have we now arrived in a virtuous Brave New World where we have started to more than square-up the injustices of the past, and put the previously vilified on pedestals which celebrate identity (and 'personal-brand' )? Are we swapping one set of implicit bias for another?
All I can say about that is that I've spent the arvo in my fav Mexican restaurant in Santa Monica drinking THE best margaritas and my semi unconscious mind has had a great time with my Mexican, African American (gay and straight) and even those bloody white folks. Freud schmeud!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Top Bottom