[Football] Touching-up v Snowflakes

[SeagullRic]

because the bloke wouldn't of stopped there given half a chance.

So for you, 'dealt with' means nipped in the bud in the moment and no further repercussions further down the line, and no real message for the man/men guilty of sexual abuse that it is wholly unacceptable?

If that's what you're suggesting, we have pretty different ideas around what being 'dealt with' in this instance would look like!

 

[dingodan]

I can't help but wonder how many abhorrent behaviours it takes for you to criticise. Or is it a percentage thing? As it was mostly 'harmless' (I am still waiting for confirmation from the legally gagged waitresses on if they found it harmless) we can overlook the sexual harassment.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I criticized them straight away. Your beef is not that I am not criticizing them, it is that I am not jumping to the levels of condemnation that you are. Most of you responding to my posts are using this tactic. I am not as outraged as you are, and I would question if your level of outrage is really justified - therefore I approve of sexual assault and harassment. F*ck you.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I criticized them straight away. Your beef is not that I am not criticizing them, it is that I am not jumping to the levels of condemnation that you are. Most of you responding to my posts are using this tactic. I am not as outraged as you are, and I would question if your level of outrage is really justified - therefore I approve of sexual assault and harassment. F*ck you.

 

[BadFish]

I criticized them straight away. Your beef is not that I am not criticizing them, it is that I am not jumping to the levels of condemnation that you are. Most of you responding to my posts are using this tactic. I am not as outraged as you are, and I would question if your level of outrage is really justified - therefore I approve of sexual assault and harassment. F*ck you.

From reading your posts when we started conversing you were not jumping to any levels of condemnation. From what I could see you were brushing the whole thing aside as a bit of hand holding and back touching. I took issue with this, as from my perspective the evidence presented suggested that the evening involved a lot more than this. We argued this point to and fro for a while. Since then you have conceded that there was unacceptable behaviour and indeed condemned it. I have no beef with you, as far as I can see we are on the same page with regards to the behaviour of the guests.

I don't really get the point you are making about levels of outrage in this case. I am basing my current opinion on the evidence presented as i see it. I am sure my outrage levels (are they even a thing?) will change if and when the details of that night are revealed. It seems to me that levels of outrage are always going to be different for different people as we have different morals and values. Personally this kind of disrespectful behaviour towards fellow human beings is something that really irks me, especially when there is a huge imbalance of power between the parties involved. You are welcome to be as outranged or not outraged as you see fit as far as I am concerned. Of course in the current climate of social media we are not supposed to be outraged about or offended by anything at all (lest we get called a snowflake, horror of horrors) and we are expected to keep our mouths shut. This is obviously wonderfully enabling for those engaging in outrageous and offensive behaviour.

All that said I apologise for my last post to you, it was out of order.

 

[Brighton Mod]

But,as has been pointed out in this thread already, surely the fact that the club has been disbanded, people hauled before their superiors, gagging orders and all is enough to prove that untoward things were happening?
If the claims were unsubstantiated then its far more likely a statement would be issued denying it and maybe a threat of a lawsuit against the journalist...but it hasn't happened.

As I understand it, it was a once a year bash and probably just too much effort for those attending to want to challenge anything, no individual has been named so who is going to sue, the Presidents Club, run by a couple of people probably thought likewise. The only loser will be the receiving charities

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

From reading your posts when we started conversing you were not jumping to any levels of condemnation. From what i could see you were brushing the whole thing aside as a bit of hand holding and back touching. I took issue with this as from my perspective the evidence resented suggests that the evening involved a lot more than this. we argued this point to and fro for a while. Since then you have conceded that there was unacceptable behaviour and indeed condemned it. I have no beef with you, as far as I can see we are on the same page with regards to the behaviour of the guests.

I don't really get the point you are making about levels of outrage in this case. I am basing my current opinion on the evidence presented as i see it. I am sure my outrage levels (are they even a thing?) will change if and when the details of that night are revealed. It seems to me that levels of outrage are always going to be different for different people as we have different morals and values. Personally this kind of disrespectful behaviour towards fellow human beings is something that really irks me, especially when there is a huge imbalance of power between the parties involved. You are welcome to be as outranged or not outraged as you see fit as far as I am concerned. Of course in the current climate of social media we are not supposed to be outraged about or offended by anything at all (lest we get called a snowflake) and we are expected to keep our mouths shut which is obviously wonderfully enabling for those engaging in outrageous and offensive behaviour.

All that said I apologise for my last post to you, it was out of order.

S0d that. #proudtobeasnowflake

In the Guardian leader (yes #proudtobeaGuardianreadertoo ) about this yesterday, it stated that the Charity Commission is retrospectively looking at this in terms of ethical behaviour - anything in terms of fund-raising needing to be ethical, which this clearly wasn't.

I have a stong wife and two strong daughters. If any of them had ever been subjected to....... or even approached about being involved in....... anything like this, I would be furious on their behalf.

 

[BadFish]

S0d that. #proudtobeasnowflake

In the Guardian leader (yes #proudtobeaGuardianreadertoo ) about this yesterday, it stated that the Charity Commission is retrospectively looking at this in terms of ethical behaviour - anything in terms of fund-raising needing to be ethical, which this clearly wasn't.

I have a stong wife and two strong daughters. If any of them had ever been subjected to....... or even approached about being involved in....... anything like this, I would be furious on their behalf.

I agree with you, if snowflakes didn't stand up for what they believe in then many things would not have changed over the years. The whole Snowflake insult thing is designed to stop people expressing their opinions about stuff and as i said it is enabling for those who want to get away with shit. Add in "virtue Signalling' to this and all the other Brietbart extremist crap that goes along with it.

 

[Wardy's twin]

lets face it , bars and clubs are full of this sort.


Men cocks out ,

is that why they call it Dick's bar

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I agree with you, if snowflakes didn't stand up for what they believe in then many things would not have changed over the years. The whole Snowflake insult thing is designed to stop people expressing their opinions about stuff and as i said it is enabling for those who want to get away with shit. Add in "virtue Signalling' to this and all the other Brietbart extremist crap that goes along with it.

Thanks...... and i think it was pretty clear where you stood.
Snowflakes of the World Unite!

 

[BadFish]

Thanks...... and i think it was pretty clear where you stood.
Snowflakes of the World Unite!

Lets make a blizzard mutherfunkers!!!

 

[Wardy's twin]

Agree that this is depressingly commonplace, but what makes you 'sure it was dealt with'? Without the report from the FT none of this would have come out, the event would have continued next year as it has for decades.

I must live a very sheltered life....

The fact the President's club is disbanded is probably more an admission that it is easier to walk away then fight then just set something else up at a later date if they don't already have other options already on the go.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I get it now. Your feeble attempts at trying to undermine my arguments against the unacceptable treatment of women by distorting and misrepresenting my words as sexist derive from your own underlying resentment of women. You shouldn't allow your feelings of emasculation cloud your judgement on this topic. Objecting to women being sexually assaulted by a group of men isn't about feminism or female empowerment it's about basic human decency.

You've really not taken on board a single point I initially made have you? I'm not undermining your arguments, you were through your poor choice of language. Like I said in one of my previous posts to you, I think it's clear you're trying to say the right things, but the way you phrased those things undermined the very argument you were making. If you choose to not take that point on board, then fair enough.

Have a good day

 

[dingodan]

From reading your posts when we started conversing you were not jumping to any levels of condemnation. From what I could see you were brushing the whole thing aside as a bit of hand holding and back touching. I took issue with this, as from my perspective the evidence presented suggested that the evening involved a lot more than this. We argued this point to and fro for a while. Since then you have conceded that there was unacceptable behaviour and indeed condemned it. I have no beef with you, as far as I can see we are on the same page with regards to the behaviour of the guests.

I don't really get the point you are making about levels of outrage in this case. I am basing my current opinion on the evidence presented as i see it. I am sure my outrage levels (are they even a thing?) will change if and when the details of that night are revealed. It seems to me that levels of outrage are always going to be different for different people as we have different morals and values. Personally this kind of disrespectful behaviour towards fellow human beings is something that really irks me, especially when there is a huge imbalance of power between the parties involved. You are welcome to be as outranged or not outraged as you see fit as far as I am concerned. Of course in the current climate of social media we are not supposed to be outraged about or offended by anything at all (lest we get called a snowflake, horror of horrors) and we are expected to keep our mouths shut. This is obviously wonderfully enabling for those engaging in outrageous and offensive behaviour.

All that said I apologise for my last post to you, it was out of order.

I appreciate your apology but there is a whole lot wrong with your post. I don't use the term "snowflake", I generally don't see the point in calling people names. But I am aware of how the term is used, and it is used to describe people who use the fact that they are offended to try to silence others. You say that we "are not supposed to be outraged".. and ... "we are expected to keep our mouths shut" ... but that is BS, in a lot of cases these days, people should not get as offended and outraged as they are getting, but you are free to, and to say that you are, and other people will probably like to point out why maybe you shouldn't be.

But that is nothing like trying to "silence" you, and it is such a contortion for you to say that the term "snowflake" is to "silence" people, given that those people who are labelled "snowflakes" are the people who use the fact that they have been offended to try to silence others. It has come from the protests used to disrupt speeches so that people can't be heard, it has come from the new phenomenon of "no platforming" speakers at Universities. Calling someone a "Snowflake" does not have a chilling effect like calling someone a racist, or homophobic, or a sexual assault apologist (as I have been called in this thread) does, those are the things which are said to people who simply disagree with your politics and they are said to shut people up and to justify actively and positively silencing them. "Snowflake" is a term which is born out of attacks on free speech due to offense and outrage, so please don't tell me that the outraged and offended are the ones who are subject to attacks on their free speech because that is a massive twisting of reality.

 

[BadFish]

I appreciate your apology but there is a whole lot wrong with your post. I don't use the term "snowflake", I generally don't see the point in calling people names. But I am aware of how the term is used, and it is used to describe people who use the fact that they are offended to try to silence others. You say that we "are not supposed to be outraged".. and ... "we are expected to keep our mouths shut" ... but that is BS, in a lot of cases these days, people should not get as offended and outraged as they are getting, but you are free to, and to say that you are, and other people will probably like to point out why maybe you shouldn't be.

But that is nothing like trying to "silence" you, and it is such a contortion for you to say that the term "snowflake" is to "silence" people, given that those people who are labelled "snowflakes" are the people who use the fact that they have been offended to try to silence others. It has come from the protests used to disrupt speeches so that people can't be heard, it has come from the new phenomenon of "no platforming" speakers at Universities. Calling someone a "Snowflake" does not have a chilling effect like calling someone a racist, or homophobic, or a sexual assault apologist (as I have been called in this thread) does, those are the things which are said to people who simply disagree with your politics and they are said to shut people up and to justify actively and positively silencing them. "Snowflake" is a term which is born out of attacks on free speech due to offense and outrage, so please don't tell me that the outraged and offended are the ones who are subject to attacks on their free speech because that is a massive twisting of reality.

Unfortunate use of words there.

I stand by my post, you may be correct about the origins of the word but it has been hijacked as a means to shut down debate and discussion, happens often on here. It certainly isn't limited to incidents of people trying to shut down free speech. It has morphed into a catch all insult for anyone expressing an opinion that people don't like, especially when said opinion is expressed with passion or dare I say it outrage. You haven't used the word snowflake but you have spent much of this thread criticising my and other people levels of outrage over this incident. We have agreed that that the behaviour of the men in question was unacceptable so why do you think it is appropriate to tell to me how outraged I should be about this?

The underlying message of you criticising my levels of outrage is that I shouldn't be so outraged, my posts are an overreaction and I should stop posting on this subject. Otherwise, how does my level of outrage affect you or the discussion we are having?

 

[brakespear]

I appreciate your apology but there is a whole lot wrong with your post. I don't use the term "snowflake", I generally don't see the point in calling people names. But I am aware of how the term is used, and it is used to describe people who use the fact that they are offended to try to silence others. You say that we "are not supposed to be outraged".. and ... "we are expected to keep our mouths shut" ... but that is BS, in a lot of cases these days, people should not get as offended and outraged as they are getting, but you are free to, and to say that you are, and other people will probably like to point out why maybe you shouldn't be.

But that is nothing like trying to "silence" you, and it is such a contortion for you to say that the term "snowflake" is to "silence" people, given that those people who are labelled "snowflakes" are the people who use the fact that they have been offended to try to silence others. It has come from the protests used to disrupt speeches so that people can't be heard, it has come from the new phenomenon of "no platforming" speakers at Universities. Calling someone a "Snowflake" does not have a chilling effect like calling someone a racist, or homophobic, or a sexual assault apologist (as I have been called in this thread) does, those are the things which are said to people who simply disagree with your politics and they are said to shut people up and to justify actively and positively silencing them. "Snowflake" is a term which is born out of attacks on free speech due to offense and outrage, so please don't tell me that the outraged and offended are the ones who are subject to attacks on their free speech because that is a massive twisting of reality.

but surely the term 'snowflake' is used to denigrate the opinions of others, to imply that whatever is being stated by said 'snowflake' is an overreaction and not to be given serious consideration/ignored? An attempt to make said argument go away?

 

[looney]

Again darling, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Perhaps it made some kind of sense in your head when you thought about it. I'm sure it did and you felt really clever.

But when you tried to express whatever it was that was in your head and transfer it by the medium of typing, as words, on an internet forum, it didn't work. And now you look really stupid.

I know you can do better. Probably by trolling people who don't get the joke. XXX

Saying you dont understand something or that it is just a joke are ways to avoid debate but pretending otherwise, dodges but carry on I am sure some never notice.i

 

[SeagullRic]

I must live a very sheltered life....

The fact the President's club is disbanded is probably more an admission that it is easier to walk away then fight then just set something else up at a later date if they don't already have other options already on the go.

Regrettably, i suspect there's quite a lot of truth in your second point, can't comment on your opening line though!

 

[BLOCK F]

As far as I can see, we all appear to be labelled either snowflakes or dinosaurs.

 

[Diablo]

Could NSC please organize a "Gentlemens" evening, perhaps at the Amex !!

 

[ManOfSussex]

Could NSC please organize a "Gentlemens" evening, perhaps at the Amex !!

Could always have it at Platinum Lace or The Pussycat Club - but there'll be a strict 'no physical contact rule' at both of them though as they're licensed adult entertainment venues.