A-League 2020/21 Finals Discussion

[wendybr]

7 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

But it’s not debate, there is nothing thought provoking about it 

Totally disagree with that...lol!

I'd much rather engage with someone whose ideas are different to mine...and perhaps even shift my opinion on some issues, than have them silenced.

It's totally unhealthy, and often arrogant, to silence debate on most issues.

 

PS I'm NOT really one to do it in the real world as much as I would do it here... depending on the seriousness of the issue.

[sonar]

Just now, wendybr said:

Totally disagree with that...lol!

I'd much rather engage with someone whose ideas are different to mine...and perhaps even shift my opinion on some issues, than have them silenced.

It's totally unhealthy, and often arrogant, to silence debate on most issues.

 

PS I'm NOT really one to do it in the real world as much as I would do it here... depending on the seriousness of the issue.

There's a difference between debating and trolling. In this instance it's the latter which occurred.

[StringerBellend]

7 minutes ago, wendybr said:

Totally disagree with that...lol!

I'd much rather engage with someone whose ideas are different to mine...and perhaps even shift my opinion on some issues, than have them silenced.

It's totally unhealthy, and often arrogant, to silence debate on most issues.

 

PS I'm NOT really one to do it in the real world as much as I would do it here... depending on the seriousness of the issue.

Yes but they aren’t well thought out ideas nor do they (not all) actually debate. 
 

I’m all for people debating, and presenting a contrary view, but for it it to be debate it needs to have some backing in facts, research and considered thought. Not just posting a stream of memes that are proven false.

I’d rather engage with someone who has a thought out position and perhaps has facts or knowledge that I don’t that is seeking and may change my position, not a child hurling his/her own poo at a wall

Edited June 29, 2021 by StringerBellend

[wendybr]

32 minutes ago, sonar said:

There's a difference between debating and trolling. In this instance it's the latter which occurred.

TBH I don't mind trolling....as long as it's not personal and hurtful.

If it's stirring, and adds a bit of life to a forum. it's fine with me.

[wendybr]

31 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

Yes but they aren’t well thought out ideas nor do they (not all) actually debate. 
 

I’m all for people debating, and presenting a contrary view, but for it it to be debate it needs to have some backing in facts, research and considered thought. Not just posting a stream of memes that are proven false.

I’d rather engage with someone who has a thought out position and perhaps has facts or knowledge that I don’t that is seeking and may change my position, not a child hurling his/her own poo at a wall

Sorry, SB...I used to be like you...but I came to acknowledge the narrowness of many of my views. And also the limitations of my source of my "knowledge"...which was almost exclusively the ABC. I still love the ABC, and almost never watch or listen to anything else, but most of the views and issues explored there are not exactly wide reaching.

I came from a point of being too judgemental, stereotyping too much, and too happy to assert the correctness of my views.

I'm much happier to listen and consider different views now than I was a few years ago.

[Keithie]

Well bellend Wendy has given you a serious uppercut  

[wendybr]

2 minutes ago, Keithie said:

Well bellend Wendy has given you a serious uppercut  

Hahaha...it takes a former one to know one! 

[marron]

1 hour ago, wendybr said:

Sorry, SB...I used to be like you...but I came to acknowledge the narrowness of many of my views. And also the limitations of my source of my "knowledge"...which was almost exclusively the ABC. I still love the ABC, and almost never watch or listen to anything else, but most of the views and issues explored there are not exactly wide reaching.

I came from a point of being too judgemental, stereotyping too much, and too happy to assert the correctness of my views.

I'm much happier to listen and consider different views now than I was a few years ago.

This all sounds reasonable, but as Stringer says, if the other view is flinging poo at a wall, this does NOT need to be given airing, consideration, anything. This idea that balance is required is neat little trick that has been used, particularly by one side of politics, to push views that don't have grounding, or are suitable for a select proportion of the population and their narrow interests. Giving weight to 1% of views when the other 99% is well established, based on research, facts, etc - that's not a good thing. It is directly responsible for world leaders and their followers going down conspiracy rabbit holes, or, at the very least, consistently ignoring the hard evidence presented to them because it is not in line with what they want.

Why doesn't the ABC explore wider reaching views and issues? Well, aside from the fact that a bunch of their appointments are Rupert's mates whose ideological position is that government info should not be controlled by independent non-political forces, but should be controlled by private interests who want certain agendas pushed to enrich the entitled, aside from that, maybe it's because wider reaching views and issues are batshit crazy and they give them the time they deserve. How do they make those decisions? Good journos/editorial teams do their research. Good journos won't sell their souls to the highest bidder, which is much less of a risk when your paymaster is not out for profit.

************************

 

As for the original idea, about football and having a good time, funnily enough old seeker is the one failing to understand the nuance and the other perspectives. Either you have a bad time if you're not winning - therefore winning is the sole reason for following football - or you are wrong in the head. Seems pretty narrow to me. Happy to recognise that this is why many people follow football, to be able to say that they follow X team and X team is the bestest because they won Y. Easy done that. But just because that's not my primary motivation doesn't mean I don't care about the team being shite, or that I don't enjoy winning. ACL was one of the happiest football moments of my life, if not the happiest. But Brisbane was fantastic too, for a huge bunch of reasons. I get that people might not see it, but there's not much acknowledgement that it's worth anything is there. And IMO you are missing out on anything of worth that football has to offer if you can't look at a weekend like that in any other way other than "we lost". (And that goes for Adelaide too, and the Central Coast final, too, which nobody talks much about but is up there with one of my favourite days).

 

 

 

[wendybr]

1 hour ago, marron said:

This all sounds reasonable, but as Stringer says, if the other view is flinging poo at a wall, this does NOT need to be given airing, consideration, anything.

Got a few issues with some of this.

I really can't think of many posters here who consistently have flung "poo at the wall"

Parras for example was actually correct in much he argued. Most of those "Western Sydney til I die...win or lose...we will always follow you ...our beloved West" posters,  who were rude, aggressive and really hostile towards Parras, might be Western Sydney til they die somewhere else, but they are long gone from here.

Parras was here having fun, but actually said a lot that was 100% reasonable.

The former posters on the Politics Thread sometimes 100% were "**** stirring" but were usually very sincere in their beliefs, and actually astutely predicted Brexit and Trump and other social phenomenon quite accurately.

The only person totally flinging "poo at the wall" was the kid in Perth who pretended to be an Argentinian with poor English... who variously claimed he'd been beaten up by an indigenous man in Sydney...who had... a shattered love life...a dying father in South America...and who, before he got the boot, also had been diagnosed with Cancer (as I recall).

All totally "poo" flung at a wall.

The seeker is nothing like that.

 

Quote

This idea that balance is required is neat little trick that has been used, particularly by one side of politics, to push views that don't have grounding, or are suitable for a select proportion of the population and their narrow interests. Giving weight to 1% of views when the other 99% is well established, based on research, facts, etc - that's not a good thing. It is directly responsible for world leaders and their followers going down conspiracy rabbit holes, or, at the very least, consistently ignoring the hard evidence presented to them because it is not in line with what they want.

Lol... as for this...

Dismissing some views we perceive as those of the 1%...or the 10%....or the batshit crazy....or the conspiracy theorists....is the way we ended up with another term of this govt, 4 years of Trump, Brexit and more.

World leaders and their followers head down conspiracy theory rabbit holes when their opinions and genuine concerns are ridiculed and ignored. When dialogue and debate doesn't occur, and they are pushed further into each others' arms.

IMO.

[marron]

 

Coming in and insulting people for having a different perspective without offering any criticism at all is poo, and that is what theseeker generally does, when talking football, or anything else. Nothing to back it up, no admission of difference, nothing. That's poo.

 

And I'm sorry wendy, World leaders head down conspiracy theories because their views are ignored? That kind of thinking is akin to the "I was cancelled" articles splashed about by media personalities. They can't be ignored with such a platform. How did they get there in the first place, on that platform? Because people did not challenge them, or were not able to adequately because of the media and their quest to "hear both sides", and fear of what focus groups might say. How many lies did Trump tell? How many corruption issues has our government had? It's a lack of challenging this stuff that has led to where we are now.

I get what you are saying - dismissing people's views as unimportant or worthless leads to resentment and a reaction against the establishment or whatever. There is a difference however between challenging those views and dismissing the cause of those views. We shouldn't do that latter. We absolutely should do the former. That is what dialogue and debate actually is, not allowing people to go unchallenged with their idealogically driven nonsense that has absolutely no facts in the name of "we need to have a debate". 

 

 

 

 

 

[wendybr]

7 minutes ago, marron said:

Coming in and insulting people for having a different perspective without offering any criticism at all is poo, and that is what theseeker generally does, when talking football, or anything else. Nothing to back it up, no admission of difference, nothing. That's poo.

I haven't noticed him doing that....but maybe has has. 

[wendybr]

8 minutes ago, marron said:

And I'm sorry wendy, World leaders head down conspiracy theories because their views are ignored? That kind of thinking is akin to the "I was cancelled" articles splashed about by media personalities. They can't be ignored with such a platform. How did they get there in the first place, on that platform? Because people did not challenge them, or were not able to adequately because of the media and their quest to "hear both sides", and fear of what focus groups might say. How many lies did Trump tell? How many corruption issues has our government had? It's a lack of challenging this stuff that has led to where we are 

I'm not saying world leaders don't have a platform - clearly they do. But they can appeal to little people who do not feel heard - eg Trump supporters and One Nation supporters here, for example.

When 40 odd million Americans were told by their likely future President that they were "a basket of deplorables" who could be written off with a wave of an arm and treated as too stupid to appeal to with an argument...well...we all know how smart a strategy that was.

Here,  "they're coming to take your utes/your mining jobs/franking credits..." and God knows what else, was treated as too stupid to debate and was not handled well by Labor.

The media is as divided as the politicians are ....for obvious reasons. Neither side promotes "hearing both sides"- and thus ABC followers never get to hear from 2GB listeners (or now Sky After Dark viewers?)  and vice versa.  Viewers/listeners/readers just stay inside the bubbles that the media fosters, thus keeping people from hearing the other side in an any sort of open manner.

So I don't at all think the media promotes a real "let's hear both sides" ...although the ABC at least briefly acknowledges the other side...but it's more lip service.

Debate/open discussion really doesn't happen, and it's sad.

 

[marron]

The ABC has more sky news style  content now than ever; a host of their political magazine show straight from there, regular guests on there and on q&a etc.

Above that their journos are after factual content and open analysis because they are less likely to have an editorial line foisted on them (unless the minister calls and tells them not to run something). 

So if they aren't reporting trump lies as fact, and are at least attempting to acknowledge government corruption, it's not because it's unbalanced against the people who believe the lies or turn a blind eye to corruption, it is because it IS closer to balance than the alternatives. This is exactly the issue. When batshit crazy or outright corruption gets a seat at the table - or is forced to have one, like in the case of the ABC which constantly gets told it needs to give voice to these issues - actual balance looks unbalanced. 

You cannot debate lies and craziness. You can't. I don't know what the answer is but it is not to accept the reality of things that dont exist, and that doesn't happen by debating, which immediately legitimizes the lies and the corruption. Nornally shouldn't be a problem, except if the other side is simply lying or is simply corrupt. 

 

[wendybr]

6 minutes ago, marron said:

The ABC has more sky news style  content now than ever; a host of their political magazine show straight from there, regular guests on there and on q&a etc.

Above that their journos are after factual content and open analysis because they are less likely to have an editorial line foisted on them (unless the minister calls and tells them not to run something). 

So if they aren't reporting trump lies as fact, and are at least attempting to acknowledge government corruption, it's not because it's unbalanced against the people who believe the lies or turn a blind eye to corruption, it is because it IS closer to balance than the alternatives. This is exactly the issue. When batshit crazy or outright corruption gets a seat at the table - or is forced to have one, like in the case of the ABC which constantly gets told it needs to give voice to these issues - actual balance looks unbalanced. 

You cannot debate lies and craziness. You can't. I don't know what the answer is but it is not to accept the reality of things that dont exist, and that doesn't happen by debating, which immediately legitimizes the lies and the corruption. Nornally shouldn't be a problem, except if the other side is simply lying or is simply corrupt. 

 

Mostly agree here.

But of course you can debate lies and craziness!

Sadly, these days, many believers are soooo deep down the rabbit hole, and have been brainwashed into not believing or trusting ANYTHING presented by mainstream media that NOTHING will cut through their beliefs.

But debating might reach some on the fringes, or might sway others from diving down the rabbit hole.....maybe.

[StringerBellend]

5 hours ago, wendybr said:

Sorry, SB...I used to be like you...but I came to acknowledge the narrowness of many of my views. And also the limitations of my source of my "knowledge"...which was almost exclusively the ABC. I still love the ABC, and almost never watch or listen to anything else, but most of the views and issues explored there are not exactly wide reaching.

I came from a point of being too judgemental, stereotyping too much, and too happy to assert the correctness of my views.

I'm much happier to listen and consider different views now than I was a few years ago.

For someone who isn’t too judgemental, you doing a decent job of judging me and presuming the depth and source of my knowledge.

But again I’m happy to be wrong and change my opinion, if presented with a reasoned argument but a meme, emoji or link to rants of a biased and no. Credible source ain’t it 

Again  happy to listen to an opinion and change mine if it’s wrong.
 

But After trying I’m back to that I’d rather jam my cock in a car door then spend my time having to google every reference to find that it’s either wrong, out of context, from a non-reputable source or all of the above.

Finally you seem to have me down as the unreasonable non moving one, which quite frankly I find offensive and a bit weird.

You mates in their are some sort of fascinating alternate opinion. Has their option moved a mm, other than to flex to score points.

When  I’ve gone through their argument shown flaws has anybody shifted a mm? I get an emoji or another tangent

Finally some of the stuff spouted by your fascinating thinkers (like Miranda Devine with MacBook pro) are  actually dangerous, and the world is far worse for it 

 

 

[StringerBellend]

In short can you take this crap back to the cesspit of a politics thread so I can get back to taking about how rubbish our team is 

memes and co can amuse you in there

Edited June 30, 2021 by StringerBellend

[wendybr]

2 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

In short can you take this crap back to the cesspit of a politics thread so I can get back to taking about how rubbish our team is 

Lol

Sure...probably time for Mack to shut this one down anyway!

[StringerBellend]

1 minute ago, wendybr said:

Lol

Sure...probably time for Mack to shut this one down anyway!

Yep I’ve pulled out the other threads and would like to hang around in the footy ones. I don’t think I’d be the first to bail due to the level of “debate” 

Edited June 30, 2021 by StringerBellend

[marron]

yeah sorry for derailing.

mack maybe can shift to one of the politics threads

[Keithie]

Thats one helluva uppecut reply by Bellend on Wendy   now we can get back to debating what a soccerist is   

Edited June 30, 2021 by Keithie

[marron]

By god we're ****. How **** are we. **** **** ****.

It's a laugh though innit.

[StringerBellend]

17 minutes ago, Keithie said:

Thats one helluva uppecut reply by Bellend on Wendy   now we can get back to debating what a soccerist is   

I don't mean it to be 

Well I don't mean to be rude

[StringerBellend]

On soccerist, I assumed it would be in the Urban Dictionary along with Kopite, but it isn't so yes @Keithie I must have made it up.

I'm running with it after all english is a living language.

 

[sonar]

3 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

On soccerist, I assumed it would be in the Urban Dictionary along with Kopite, but it isn't so yes @Keithie I must have made it up.

I'm running with it after all english is a living language.

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soccerist

It doesn't know either.

[Edinburgh]

1 hour ago, sonar said:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soccerist

It doesn't know either.

I do though. Soccerist = Footballer.

It's one of the very few Stringer things that I understand.