Opinion Jeremy Finlayson verdict broader discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

K

Kdogg1337

Debutant
Oct 21, 2015
64
87
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Willsy10 said:
So Answerth from Brisbane has opened up old wounds taunting Petty about an incident from 2 years ago, with a cry baby gesture. An incident that cut him so deep he was in tears and had to be consoled. It was a taunt from Zorko who sledged him about a family member.

But obviously nothing to see on these occasions, family members are fair game as long as it’s not racism or homophobia.
Click to expand...
If a whole bunch of family members get together and decide that collectively they deserve an acronym then that will change everything.
 
How we use to respond to being insulted…

Colman Domingo GIF by NETFLIX


And today…

Sad Will Ferrell GIF
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So I guess it’s been wrapped up in a nice little bow for us by our mighty overlords the afl.
So I can tell my kids it’s ok for a senior Afl coach to call an opposition player a CS
But if a player calls another player a F it’s bad. Really bad
Because apparently the coach was provoked & the CS word isn’t as bad as the F word
Thank you Afl for clarifying this to us plebs
 
sobrave said:
Shut up you moron
Click to expand...
Apologies if I offended. Was not my intention. Perhaps I should clarify:

Stance towards any form of discrimination: 100% disagree with any type of discrimination to the point where I would interject if I witnessed this in public.

Stance towards AFL 3 game suspension: Agree, was not an easy call after they let Clarkson off. But I also think it's as good a time as any to take a stance on the matter. Should it be more in future.. not sure. Would be a boring game if our favourite players are never their.

Stance towards Media attention on the matter and society's views:
This is where I have a problem. We are people first, and yes our identities are important but to what level should we make others accountable to the their transgressions towards our identities? This serves only to slip us apart. That's the real issue here.

Example: Red and Blue USA.

I can see this being a a point of contention so let me further elaborate on what I mean by identity:

Gender, Race, Religion, or any other category of living or dead thing you believe you belong to.

Apologies if I have offended anyone else. Again not my intention.
 
It’s sports day at school today & my daughter is captain of one of the teams.
So if provoked it’s ok for her to call her opponents CS, but not the F word. According to our great moral arbiters the Afl.
Thank you for clearing up this moral dilemma, us plebs who didn’t go to some poncy Melbourne grammar school need enlightenment from our betters.
 
Handyandy said:
The other aspect of this which I find humorous is that when I played footy I heard horrible things, things that would make a sailor blush. I played with one guy who would give opposition players nicknames & would make them cry by the end of the game.
....
Click to expand...
This was in the under nines?
 
Handyandy said:
It’s sports day at school today & my daughter is captain of one of the teams.
So if provoked it’s ok for her to call her opponents CS, but not the F word. According to our great moral arbiters the Afl.
Thank you for clearing up this moral dilemma, us plebs who didn’t go to some poncy Melbourne grammar school need enlightenment from our betters.
Click to expand...

If she can afford the $20k fine then she can go her hardest.
 
Kdogg1337 said:
Apologies if I offended. Was not my intention. Perhaps I should clarify:

Stance towards any form of discrimination: 100% disagree with any type of discrimination to the point where I would interject if I witnessed this in public.

Stance towards AFL 3 game suspension: Agree, was not an easy call after they let Clarkson off. But I also think it's as good a time as any to take a stance on the matter. Should it be more in future.. not sure. Would be a boring game if our favourite players are never their.

Stance towards Media attention on the matter and society's views:
This is where I have a problem. We are people first, and yes our identities are important but to what level should we make others accountable to the their transgressions towards our identities? This serves only to slip us apart. That's the real issue here.

Example: Red and Blue USA.

I can see this being a a point of contention so let me further elaborate on what I mean by identity:

Gender, Race, Religion, or any other category of living or dead thing you believe you belong to.

Apologies if I have offended anyone else. Again not my intention.
Click to expand...

I get what you're trying to say, I think, but the missing piece of the puzzle is that generally we are talking groups/identities that have suffered from marginalisation and oppression up until very recently. So the "let's treat everyone the same" argument only works if everyone is equal to begin with.

The purpose of these "identities" becoming more visual is to try to normalise it, so that those people are uplifted and feel they can be themselves in society.

Calling someone a slur thats racist, homophobic, transphobic, whatever.. is different to just calling them a dickhead or whatever.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DAVID PENBERTHY ARTICLE

Apparently none of Jeremy Finlayson’s critics have ever done something wrong .

There is clearly one set of rules for lesser-known non-Victorian players and another for high-powered veteran coaches with mates inside AFL House, writes David Penberthy.

Who would have thought Gather Round would have the added benefit of enabling a mass parade by the pious and pure in the context of the Jeremy Finlayson case.

The common feature of the critics of Finlayson over his use of a homophobic slur – none of them can have done anything wrong in their entire life.

It is only on this basis that they can demand unprecedented and exemplary penalties for a person with no history of being unpleasant or offensive, and who displayed real-time remorse on recognising the hurtful nature of his remark.

We’ve learnt two things in the past two days.

First, it is now impossible to write off any error off as “a learning experience”; second, the once-innocent assertion that a good person’s misconduct is “out of character” is apparently a moral cop-out which gives a green light to bigots everywhere.

Despite having no priors and having issued an immediate, sincere apology over his terrible comment during the Essendon game, Finlayson has found himself on the end of sustained denunciation.

That denunciation has continued even after the three-week penalty was handed down for his homophobic remark, with many people saying it’s not enough.

People who defended the guy have been denounced too.

Chief among them is Port president David Koch, who I have seen labelled among other things “disgusting” in headlines this week for offering a qualified defence of his player.

Quite a strong term that, “disgusting”, best reserved for criminals or perverts, but here we are.

It’s interesting to note that Koch’s comments weren’t a world away from those of our Premier, who said on radio this week that he felt Finlayson had owned his error, that we needed to recognise that people could do the wrong thing, but that what mattered most was how they responded to their errors.

Far too reasonable a position for those who believe the only solution is to have people fined and rubbed out from playing, even if they’re already wracked with shame and remorse.

It feels like incidents such as Finlayson’s are less notable for their capacity to cause hurt, and serve more as an exciting chance for some to show how virtuous they are.

Adelaide being Adelaide, our moronic capacity for turning everything into a Showdown has been on full display, with many Crows supporters saying that Tex Walker’s racism penalty should be the benchmark for Finlayson’s gay slur.

I have heard a lot of grassy knoll stuff about how the Indigenous player Tex referred to wasn’t even within ear shot of what Walker thought was a private conversation; whereas an Essendon player was actually abused to his face by Finlayson.

Conversely, others have argued Tex’s conduct was worse because he didn’t admit to it straight away, whereas Finlayson did with his apology both on the ground and by video on the day that it occurred.
All this circular partisan chatter is a massive waste of intellectual energy.

It makes you wonder if these people are approaching these issues out of genuine dismay at the existence of homophobia and racism, or from the dopey vantage point of fandom, merely hoping that someone from a team they despise gets the book thrown at them.

A more level-headed takeout from both the Walker and Finlayson cases is that they will both have emerged as more thoughtful and informed blokes on account of mistakes they made.

I fully admit that I might feel differently about this if I was a gay person.

Particularly in male sport, where men still feel pressure to remain silent about their lifestyle and have endured years of marginalisation through constant homophobic sledging.

I am just not sure how any of that is altered by making Finlayson even more of a whipping boy than he has already become.

People should be judged in their totality.

In the case of Jeremy Finlayson, aside from his lack of previous bad behaviour and immediate remorse, I can think of one pretty obvious reason why the bloke might not be at his sparkling best at his moment.

Tending to your wife as she deals with a grave cancer diagnosis would probably take it out of you.

I say that not as some sob-story to let him off the hook, but as a simple statement of human reality, that people cannot always cope with the hardest pressures of life.

I was talking the other day to a cop about that appalling driving case involving that Christopher Bennett reprobate.

Bennett you will recall is the bloke who killed father of five Brad Thompson driving without due care, driving unlicensed and under the influence of meth. Bennett had lost his licence for driving disqualified on a staggering 11 occasions.

Despite this abysmal record, and with no indications of remorse or reflection on his part, Bennett received a partially suspended sentence for killing Mr Thompson and will be out of jail in three months.

All that generosity, after having been given 11 second chances at driving again.

Nothing to do with footy of course. But it does seem that the one sphere of life where you will get the toughest possible penalty for your first offence, even if that offence is completely out of character, is for calling someone a bad names on the footy field.

It has of course been a great opportunity for all the posturing journos with Twitter accounts to post links to their own opinion pieces about how “enough’s enough” and to retweet statements of solidarity from other right-on, like-minded souls.

As for the AFL and its flawed quest for the creation of a perfect world, two issues remain. There is clearly one set of rules for lesser-known players from non-Victorian clubs and another for high-powered veteran coaches with mates inside AFL House.

And if only Finlayson hadn’t said a rude word, but just had a massive cocaine habit, under the AFL’s own rules, no-one would ever find out about it.

He could have saved himself all this scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
sobrave said:
I get what you're trying to say, I think, but the missing piece of the puzzle is that generally we are talking groups/identities that have suffered from marginalisation and oppression up until very recently. So the "let's treat everyone the same" argument only works if everyone is equal to begin with.

The purpose of these "identities" becoming more visual is to try to normalise it, so that those people are uplifted and feel they can be themselves in society.

Calling someone a slur thats racist, homophobic, transphobic, whatever.. is different to just calling them a dickhead or whatever.
Click to expand...

Yes but ultimately the macro idea of what you're describing is don't be a campaigner that makes other people feel bad. Judging the extent of this is a grey area.

What would the penalty be if an opposition player said to Finlayson that they hope his wife dies of cancer? Is that better or worse than racism, homophobia, etc?

There are 100 different opinions in this thread alone that range from he's a total campaigner of a human to he did nothing wrong toughen up. It's impossible to reflect a community standard that simply doesn't exist beyond a general agreeance from most people that you shouldn't say stuff like that. I am in the group of people who think you shouldn't say stuff like that but that the public shaming and punitive measures are well over the top (certainly for a one off incident). And whilst the extremes of the debate clash, I think I'm in the silent majority.
 
bringbackbucky said:
Apparently none of Jeremy Finlayson’s critics have ever done something wrong .

There is clearly one set of rules for lesser-known non-Victorian players and another for high-powered veteran coaches with mates inside AFL House, writes David Penberthy.

Who would have thought Gather Round would have the added benefit of enabling a mass parade by the pious and pure in the context of the Jeremy Finlayson case.

The common feature of the critics of Finlayson over his use of a homophobic slur – none of them can have done anything wrong in their entire life.

It is only on this basis that they can demand unprecedented and exemplary penalties for a person with no history of being unpleasant or offensive, and who displayed real-time remorse on recognising the hurtful nature of his remark.

We’ve learnt two things in the past two days.

First, it is now impossible to write off any error off as “a learning experience”; second, the once-innocent assertion that a good person’s misconduct is “out of character” is apparently a moral cop-out which gives a green light to bigots everywhere.

Despite having no priors and having issued an immediate, sincere apology over his terrible comment during the Essendon game, Finlayson has found himself on the end of sustained denunciation.

That denunciation has continued even after the three-week penalty was handed down for his homophobic remark, with many people saying it’s not enough.

People who defended the guy have been denounced too.

Chief among them is Port president David Koch, who I have seen labelled among other things “disgusting” in headlines this week for offering a qualified defence of his player.

Quite a strong term that, “disgusting”, best reserved for criminals or perverts, but here we are.

It’s interesting to note that Koch’s comments weren’t a world away from those of our Premier, who said on radio this week that he felt Finlayson had owned his error, that we needed to recognise that people could do the wrong thing, but that what mattered most was how they responded to their errors.

Far too reasonable a position for those who believe the only solution is to have people fined and rubbed out from playing, even if they’re already wracked with shame and remorse.

It feels like incidents such as Finlayson’s are less notable for their capacity to cause hurt, and serve more as an exciting chance for some to show how virtuous they are.

Adelaide being Adelaide, our moronic capacity for turning everything into a Showdown has been on full display, with many Crows supporters saying that Tex Walker’s racism penalty should be the benchmark for Finlayson’s gay slur.

I have heard a lot of grassy knoll stuff about how the Indigenous player Tex referred to wasn’t even within ear shot of what Walker thought was a private conversation; whereas an Essendon player was actually abused to his face by Finlayson.

Conversely, others have argued Tex’s conduct was worse because he didn’t admit to it straight away, whereas Finlayson did with his apology both on the ground and by video on the day that it occurred.
All this circular partisan chatter is a massive waste of intellectual energy.

It makes you wonder if these people are approaching these issues out of genuine dismay at the existence of homophobia and racism, or from the dopey vantage point of fandom, merely hoping that someone from a team they despise gets the book thrown at them.

A more level-headed takeout from both the Walker and Finlayson cases is that they will both have emerged as more thoughtful and informed blokes on account of mistakes they made.

I fully admit that I might feel differently about this if I was a gay person.

Particularly in male sport, where men still feel pressure to remain silent about their lifestyle and have endured years of marginalisation through constant homophobic sledging.

I am just not sure how any of that is altered by making Finlayson even more of a whipping boy than he has already become.

People should be judged in their totality.

In the case of Jeremy Finlayson, aside from his lack of previous bad behaviour and immediate remorse, I can think of one pretty obvious reason why the bloke might not be at his sparkling best at his moment.

Tending to your wife as she deals with a grave cancer diagnosis would probably take it out of you.

I say that not as some sob-story to let him off the hook, but as a simple statement of human reality, that people cannot always cope with the hardest pressures of life.

I was talking the other day to a cop about that appalling driving case involving that Christopher Bennett reprobate.

Bennett you will recall is the bloke who killed father of five Brad Thompson driving without due care, driving unlicensed and under the influence of meth. Bennett had lost his licence for driving disqualified on a staggering 11 occasions.

Despite this abysmal record, and with no indications of remorse or reflection on his part, Bennett received a partially suspended sentence for killing Mr Thompson and will be out of jail in three months.

All that generosity, after having been given 11 second chances at driving again.

Nothing to do with footy of course. But it does seem that the one sphere of life where you will get the toughest possible penalty for your first offence, even if that offence is completely out of character, is for calling someone a bad names on the footy field.

It has of course been a great opportunity for all the posturing journos with Twitter accounts to post links to their own opinion pieces about how “enough’s enough” and to retweet statements of solidarity from other right-on, like-minded souls.

As for the AFL and its flawed quest for the creation of a perfect world, two issues remain. There is clearly one set of rules for lesser-known players from non-Victorian clubs and another for high-powered veteran coaches with mates inside AFL House.

And if only Finlayson hadn’t said a rude word, but just had a massive cocaine habit, under the AFL’s own rules, no-one would ever find out about it.

He could have saved himself all this scrutiny.
Click to expand...
So you're David Penberthy?
 
Handyandy said:
It’s sports day at school today & my daughter is captain of one of the teams.
So if provoked it’s ok for her to call her opponents CS, but not the F word. According to our great moral arbiters the Afl.
Thank you for clearing up this moral dilemma, us plebs who didn’t go to some poncy Melbourne grammar school need enlightenment from our betters.
Click to expand...
She can say to one of her opponents ï hope your mother dies" make her cry and then bully her about it for the next 2 years and it won't even be a fine.

and i think poncy private schools are probably the worst places for encountering slurs.
 
TeeKray said:
Yes but ultimately the macro idea of what you're describing is don't be a campaigner that makes other people feel bad. Judging the extent of this is a grey area.

What would the penalty be if an opposition player said to Finlayson that they hope his wife dies of cancer? Is that better or worse than racism, homophobia, etc?

There are 100 different opinions in this thread alone that range from he's a total campaigner of a human to he did nothing wrong toughen up. It's impossible to reflect a community standard that simply doesn't exist beyond a general agreeance from most people that you shouldn't say stuff like that. I am in the group of people who think you shouldn't say stuff like that but that the public shaming and punitive measures are well over the top (certainly for a one off incident). And whilst the extremes of the debate clash, I think I'm in the silent majority.
Click to expand...

What was your opinion on Tex being given 6 weeks?
 
Sewer de Lance said:
How we use to respond to being insulted…

Colman Domingo GIF by NETFLIX


And today…

Sad Will Ferrell GIF
Click to expand...

This is the biggest lie of the lot 😂.

There used to be fights and cheap shots galore for even the mildest of insults.
 
sobrave said:
What was your opinion on Tex being given 6 weeks?
Click to expand...

I think the Tex situation was far worse - but I also recognise that is a subjective judgement.

To be clear, I can live with Tex getting 6 and Finlayson getting 3 - I just don't think it achieves much and don't think the answer to this type of thing is punishment and public shaming.

I think if you want people to be kinder and more compassionate you should start by showing that to them when they make a mistake. Eddie Betts is fantastic at this and a real leader. You learn a lot by listening to him talk about how it makes him feel and you are struck by his want to forgive and educate. I personally just roll my eyes when some privileged white guy at AFL House suspends another privileged white guy for saying something naughty. But that's just me.
 
Handyandy said:
They are both offensive
Splitting hairs as to which is worse
Click to expand...

Not they aren’t the same imo.
One is about a sex act that straight people do as well.

The other is effectively saying that a certain type of person should be set on fire for their sexuality.
 
sobrave said:
I get what you're trying to say, I think, but the missing piece of the puzzle is that generally we are talking groups/identities that have suffered from marginalisation and oppression up until very recently. So the "let's treat everyone the same" argument only works if everyone is equal to begin with.

The purpose of these "identities" becoming more visual is to try to normalise it, so that those people are uplifted and feel they can be themselves in society.

Calling someone a slur thats racist, homophobic, transphobic, whatever.. is different to just calling them a dickhead or whatever.
Click to expand...
Agree with everything you said. Especially if, as you said, there is a history of marginalisation and oppression. That is the key difference.

My issue is with the media's reaction and the potential for sanctions to become so bad that they limit free speech and impinge on human rights.

It's a slippery slope because the changes they make to legislation about the words we use and the applicable sanctions are happening now and it's scary.

Horse Shoe model.
 
chiwigi said:
Not they aren’t the same imo.
One is about a sex act that straight people do as well.

The other is effectively saying that a certain type of person should be set on fire for their sexuality.
Click to expand...
I don't think your average punter considers the etymology of the insults they dish out. I had no idea what a F ****** was, outside of its well known meaning as an insult to gay men. If we are going to get technical, maybe MOFO is the worst insult there is (idk, is it your own mother or someone else's mother).

Are you an English major by any chance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top