Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

[Blind Turn]

Of course 9/11 was real..some of you blokes can’t be serious with this shit.

I hope you can interpret that I don’t think that way, but am intrigued and recognise many inconstancies in the official story. I would’ve thought that’s a sensible angle to take if you’ve had an interest in the story over many years. Or do we just happily accept all the murkiness and shrug it off?

Out of interest, how much have you looked into the non-official story and the background murkiness taking place at that time?

 

[BrunoV]

Of course 9/11 was real..some of you blokes can’t be serious with this shit.

What do you mean by real? I interpret not being real as it didn't happen.

3 massive towers, one of which was not struck by a plane, definitely fell to the ground at freefall speed, as though all structural resistance was removed. And thousands of innocent people died. No doubt.

But the story gets incredibly complicated from that point by a number of objectively provable facts.

James Corbett has produced a number of great documentaries on the subject. One of his best lines is that '9/11 was a crime'. And yet none of the principles that apply to the investigation of a crime were ever really applied. Where was the dogged investigation into 'the money'? Why did a renowned lawyer like Giuliani ship the entire crime scene to China where it was salvaged?

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Of course 9/11 was real..some of you blokes can’t be serious with this shit.

Unfortunately we are stuck in a computer simulation and Essendon being shit is stuck on loop.

Nothing is real.

 

[P Money]

Mixed feelings about the Giants skits and punishments, particularly as we don't actually know the content of the skits or the spirit they were performed in. But the idea that it's an a priori ethical wrong to make jokes about bad things is just way off, and if anyone using that argument challenged their own thinking they'd quickly realise that there's a million jokes / comedic skits about bad things that they don't think are wrong and that they themselves find funny. Ever watched Blackadder? Inglorious Basterds? Pretty much any British comedy from the 60's onwards? Jokes/comedy about the second world war, generally accepted by the Western world to be the most horrific period of modern history and suffering that really just cannot be fully understood by the human imagination has for a long time been a fertile ground for British humour.

Having accepted that, how is it 'wrong' to make a joke about the twin towers? Yes it was horrific. No that doesn't mean there can't be humour attached. Jack Ginnivan dressed up as Jeffrey Dahmer. A serial killer that targeted gay (mostly black) men and ate parts of them. Horrific suffering involved.

Comedy is about the spirit of the joke, always has been. Making a joke about something is not necessarily (or even usually) agreeing with it, endorsing it, or disrespecting the victims.

 

[Runk]

Me reading this thread today....

 

[dank420_]

Regardless on whether it was an inside job etc etc,

Should it be joked about? Up to you. Kinda weird.

Should a company be within their rights to fine/suspend people who do? Yes.

 

[BrunoV]

Regardless on whether it was an inside job etc etc,

Should it be joked about? Up to you. Kinda weird.

Should a company be within their rights to fine/suspend people who do? Yes.

Should it be joked about? I take it that you have not seen the endless stream of amazing 9/11 memes.

 

[dank420_]

Should it be joked about? I take it that you have not seen the endless stream of amazing 9/11 memes.

As I said, up to you.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Should a company be within their rights to fine/suspend people who do? Yes.

This I sort of disagree with. This is Australia, not America, and there will be a ton of people who are not entirely privy to the loss that they feel.

Therefore I think if a company does deem it as unacceptable it should be more of a talking to/an opportunity for the person to learn/apologize rather than an all-out punishment.

I think when we start going into the "you hurt my feelings = you suffer" territory rather than communication/empathy it is a dangerous road to go on freedom-wise.

 

[katana]

Should it be joked about? Up to you. Kinda weird.

 

[dank420_]

This I sort of disagree with. This is Australia, not America, and there will be a ton of people who are not entirely privy to the loss that they feel.

Therefore I think if a company does deem it as unacceptable it should be more of a talking to/an opportunity for the person to learn/apologize rather than an all-out punishment.

I think when we start going into the "you hurt my feelings = you suffer" territory rather than communication/empathy it is a dangerous road to go on freedom-wise.

I'm advocating for a choice.

I also don't understand why so many people are so against fining dumb shit footy players.

 

[P Money]

Regardless on whether it was an inside job etc etc,

Should it be joked about? Up to you. Kinda weird.

Should a company be within their rights to fine/suspend people who do? Yes.

It is not ethically wrong to find humour from suffering. It's been a part of human nature and existence since time immemorial. I'm sure if you're honest with yourself you've made or laughed at countless jokes or comedy shows/movies/stand-ups about war, famine, vikings, Hitler, fraud, theft, or someone stubbing their toe. Human suffering is clearly bad. Finding humour in it is not.

 

[dank420_]

It is not ethically wrong to find humour from suffering. It's been a part of human nature and existence since time immemorial. I'm sure if you're honest with yourself you've made or laughed at countless jokes or comedy shows/movies/stand-ups about war, famine, vikings, Hitler, fraud, theft, or someone stubbing their toe. Human suffering is clearly bad. Finding humour in it is not.

I couldn't give a shit what people laugh at. That's not my point.

Also what you've written is pretty simplistic. Are we laughing at victims? Are we laughing at ourselves as victims? there's a bit of nuance involved here I would think.

 

[boncer34]

I couldn't give a shit what people laugh at. That's not my point.

They have the right to say whatever they want.

You don't have the right to though.

 

[P Money]

I couldn't give a shit what people laugh at. That's not my point.

Well you seem to be saying that a particular historic event is ethically off limits from humour based on the suffering involved. I'm trying to demonstrate that your argument simply doesn't hold, by asking you to critically assess your own humour to realise that you yourself find humour in a myriad of human suffering. I obviously don't know you but (as far as I know) you are human and it's just a part of human nature.

 

[Loonerty]

surely there is another thread or board or hopefully website where people can talk at length about 9/11 conspiracy to someone who cares

 

[boncer34]

Well you seem to be saying that a particular historic event is ethically off limits from humour based on the suffering involved. I'm trying to demonstrate that your argument simply doesn't hold, by asking you to critically assess your own humour to realise that you yourself find humour in a myriad of human suffering. I obviously don't know you but (as far as I know) you are human and it's just a part of human nature.

He isn't saying that at all.

 

[dank420_]

Well you seem to be saying that a particular historic event is ethically off limits from humour based on the suffering involved. I'm trying to demonstrate that your argument simply doesn't hold, by asking you to critically assess your own humour to realise that you yourself find humour in a myriad of human suffering. I obviously don't know you but (as far as I know) you are human and it's just a part of human nature.

I updated my post above if you really want to stick to that topic, which I wasn't.

 

[boncer34]

surely there is another thread or board or hopefully website where people can talk at length about 9/11 conspiracy to someone who cares

Beats rugby league chat

 

[BrunoV]

It is not ethically wrong to find humour from suffering. It's been a part of human nature and existence since time immemorial. I'm sure if you're honest with yourself you've made or laughed at countless jokes or comedy shows/movies/stand-ups about war, famine, vikings, Hitler, fraud, theft, or someone stubbing their toe. Human suffering is clearly bad. Finding humour in it is not.

I agree, nothing is immune from being joked about not at an ethical level, but the funny stuff I am talking about does not touch on the human suffering. It's mockery of the narrative and the criminals who were involved in executive and/or the cover up.

 

[P Money]

I agree, nothing is immune from being joked about not at an ethical level, but the funny stuff I am talking about does not touch on the human suffering. It's mockery of the narrative and the criminals who were involved in executive and/or the cover up.

Can't pretend I'm on the same page as you re 9/11 but I think we agree on the sentiment; there's no subject that is too taboo to find humour in, but the ethics of it depends on the spirit of the joke.

 

[Corleone]

We want personalities and characters in the game. Of course those same personalities and characters need to not ever dip their toes across our ever changing moral code of decency.

I mean if you can't make a joke that doesn't offend a single person ever in the history of the world can you actually even be funny?

The AFL do an amazing job at sweeping little issues under the rug (Clarkson's attempts to save his players on the outrageous costs of DayCare for example) or turning a blind eye on things (like the rampant illicit drug use amongst its own staff and don't even get me started on the player base) or being willfully obtuse (like promoting "men's mental health" while sucking on the teet of gambling companies who are preying on young men all over the world and inflicting immeasurable damage on society as a whole) but there's only so many things the AFL can and will accept. And if you think they are going to let a couple of blokes make inappropriate jokes at a private function then you are dreaming.

 

[P Money]

I couldn't give a shit what people laugh at. That's not my point.

Also what you've written is pretty simplistic. Are we laughing at victims? Are we laughing at ourselves as victims? there's a bit of nuance involved here I would think.

Well yeah that's exactly my point really. The spirit of the joke is what counts (i.e. who/what are we laughing at?) not the subject.

 

[jmoo wan]

we’re reaching a Russel Brand level of using big word salad to try and sound clever now

 

[ant555]

What the **** have I walked into this morning?

Exactly.