Hayne~NFL~RU~Tits~Eels~Dad~Jailed~Mistrial~Jailed~Retrial~Jailed~Appeal~Quashed-Sued~Fat Coach

[Gary Gutful]

Because you started going on about white men, as though generalisations mattered here (or anywhere).

You can always use the 'it doesn't matter to an individual' line to argue against trends. Yes there are outliers and examples of where someone's experience is different. It doesn't stop the trend being what it is.

That is all I was doing when I was discussing 'white males'. You threw me a curveball when you started saying 'race shouldn't matter'. Of course it shouldn't. But I live in a world where more often than not it does.

They aren't flaws, they are points of disagreement

When your comments are as repulsive as I find them then I think they are flaws. I hope you are just playing 'devil's advocate'.

If she thinks the matter of social power dynamics is simple or even settled then she isn't as smart as she makes you say she is.

Nope. No-one thinks it simple or settled. But there are some predominant overall patterns from which we can draw conclusions. That's all I have been doing.

 

[Gary Gutful]

When the other options are worse it's not much of a choice is it?

I think buyin' large men have a choice about whether they go to jail, have a good job etc. For some at the lower end of the socio-economic bracket it is harder but they are benefitting from a world where more doors open for men and therefore have a greater ability to get themselves out of that situation.

You'll argue "tell that to the guy who drives the boat that breaks up the turds in the primary sedimentation pond at the sewerage treatment plant". But again, I am talking macro-level.

Sure they do. Don't f**k abusive men. Don't move in with them. Don't have kids with them. If a man excites you because he can control other men through the threat of violence realise that that's a tool he will eventually use against you.

I think buyin' large they often don't. Clearly in the scenario that you have described they do, but I don't think that is a typical scenario. Men and women are often on their best behaviour during the early stages of a relationship and a lot of the traits you are describing don't manifest themselves until much later.

I would also suggest that it is not as simple as saying that the vast number of men who are violent towards women are also violent towards men. In my experience, the sorts of merkins who bash women or subject them to emotional abuse are often too scared to inflict violence on men.

Some are and some aren't. No different to any other gender. Just because men are the overwhelming instigators of violence doesn't make their male victims any less terrified and emasculated. "Oh gee, I'm getting bullied and terrorised by another man, but at least it makes me feel good to know men are at the top. This guy kicking my arse is really flying the flag."

It's as though you think a weak, impoverished white bloke should feel happy when he looks at other white men dominating politics and business and feel great that white men are doing so well. Why should anyone give a f**k about general trends unless they're using them to promote favourable policies?

You often do this as means of arguing against established patterns. Do I think some dude being beaten up by another dude should feel happy that he's part of a group that is on top? Of course not (well...only when I hand @I'm a loser baby... his weekly thrashing).

I give a f**k about general trends because they are important metrics that can be used to help declutter the issue. Sure, the issue is never as simple the generalisation and I have tried very hard to make that clear during this discussion.

Its actually no different to what you do when you have a league discussion. You'll often take someone's micro-level observation and then tear it apart by examining trends and statistics.

I find it interesting that when we discuss social issues that you are less interested in that macro-level perspective.

 

[hineyrulz]

“Wow”

 

[Gazzamatta]

No. The DA said there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict Hayne of anything, the woman was attempting to lay charges. If there was this would be a legal case and far more serious. This is a civil case.

We can all breathe easy... Jarryd’s mum has told the Telegraph he didnt do it.

I hope she also told BA and Bern.

 

[hindy111]

I think buyin' large men have a choice about whether they go to jail, have a good job etc. For some at the lower end of the socio-economic bracket it is harder but they are benefitting from a world where more doors open for men and therefore have a greater ability to get themselves out of that situation.

You'll argue "tell that to the guy who drives the boat that breaks up the turds in the primary sedimentation pond at the sewerage treatment plant". But again, I am talking macro-level.


I think buyin' large they often don't. Clearly in the scenario that you have described they do, but I don't think that is a typical scenario. Men and women are often on their best behaviour during the early stages of a relationship and a lot of the traits you are describing don't manifest themselves until much later.

I would also suggest that it is not as simple as saying that the vast number of men who are violent towards women are also violent towards men. In my experience, the sorts of merkins who bash women or subject them to emotional abuse are often too scared to inflict violence on men.


You often do this as means of arguing against established patterns. Do I think some dude being beaten up by another dude should feel happy that he's part of a group that is on top? Of course not (well...only when I hand @I'm a loser baby... his weekly thrashing).

I give a f**k about general trends because they are important metrics that can be used to help declutter the issue. Sure, the issue is never as simple the generalisation and I have tried very hard to make that clear during this discussion.

Its actually no different to what you do when you have a league discussion. You'll often take someone's micro-level observation and then tear it apart by examining trends and statistics.

I find it interesting that when we discuss social issues that you are less interested in that macro-level perspective.

What makes you an expert on the situation Gary?
I am not trying to be a smart ass here either. Do you work in a field involving this topic or its just your random opinion?
And what type of people do you know or hang around? I do not know one person who is or has been in a violent relationship. I assumed it was a very rare thing. I have no idea though. I also just assumed the victim are probably weak and had low self esteem. And being taken advantage of by another person who has massive demons that they cant control. Kind of like there drawn to each other.

A normal male doesnt hit a female does he? My guess is he has some sort of emotional problems.

 

[hindy111]

Honeslty I havent put a lot of thought into this. Ive never seen it or come across domestic violence in my life so its all just a guess from my behalf. And chances are I am wrong. We form opinions with what we have seen an experienced and so I am filling in the blanks to why......

 

[hindy111]

“Wow”

You got my christmas card hey..... Just settle down.

 

[hineyrulz]

You got my christmas card hey..... Just settle down.

Its much bigger than I thought.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You can always use the 'it doesn't matter to an individual' line to argue against trends. Yes there are outliers and examples of where someone's experience is different. It doesn't stop the trend being what it is.

That is all I was doing when I was discussing 'white males'. You threw me a curveball when you started saying 'race shouldn't matter'. Of course it shouldn't. But I live in a world where more often than not it does.

But it doesn't. Money is the only thing that matters, and the best predictor of how much money a person has is how much their parents had. So people with wealthy white parents are more likely to be rich themselves, but the children of poor white parents will probably be poor. This is why white people are still generally better off than everyone except East Asians and Indians. But being white doesn't help at all if you're born in the gutter.

When your comments are as repulsive as I find them then I think they are flaws. I hope you are just playing 'devil's advocate'.

I don't even see what's repulsive about them. They are logically sound and that's enough.

Nope. No-one thinks it simple or settled. But there are some predominant overall patterns from which we can draw conclusions. That's all I have been doing.

You should be very careful making sweeping generalisations. When they influence policy they produce winnars and loosers, and the winners tend to be those individuals (women and minorities) who are already in a strong position to benefit (and already wealthy), while the losers are white men who are already marginalised.

 

[El Diablo]

Its much bigger than I thought.

still looks like a freckle

 

[hineyrulz]

still looks like a freckle

Well I was expecting an innie.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I think buyin' large men have a choice about whether they go to jail, have a good job etc. For some at the lower end of the socio-economic bracket it is harder but they are benefitting from a world where more doors open for men and therefore have a greater ability to get themselves out of that situation.

You'll argue "tell that to the guy who drives the boat that breaks up the turds in the primary sedimentation pond at the sewerage treatment plant". But again, I am talking macro-level.

But why even talk about the macro level? What are you hoping to achieve by it? Do you think it will have a positive impact on people's lives (or a negative impact on those who 'deserve' it)?

I think buyin' large they often don't. Clearly in the scenario that you have described they do, but I don't think that is a typical scenario. Men and women are often on their best behaviour during the early stages of a relationship and a lot of the traits you are describing don't manifest themselves until much later.

That is f**king bullshit. Women can identify dominance (or lack thereof) very quickly, and violent, controlling men reveal themselves early on. Usually it is directed at other men though, which makes plenty of women feel safe and 'protected'.

I would also suggest that it is not as simple as saying that the vast number of men who are violent towards women are also violent towards men. In my experience, the sorts of merkins who bash women or subject them to emotional abuse are often too scared to inflict violence on men.

Well in my experience all men know that other men are desperate to take down a bloke who abuses women, and a man who is scared of other men wouldn't dare give them ammunition by hurting a woman. This kind of thing gets out, and every single one of the domestically abusive men I've known have been tough merkins who like to bully other men as much as they like to bully women.

I think the secret domestic abuser is largely a myth and a fabrication. We don't like to ascribe any positive traits to the people we despise, which is why we deem 'cowardly' anyone who threatens a woman, king hits a cop, or crashes an airplane into a building.

You often do this as means of arguing against established patterns. Do I think some dude being beaten up by another dude should feel happy that he's part of a group that is on top? Of course not (well...only when I hand @I'm a loser baby... his weekly thrashing).

I give a f**k about general trends because they are important metrics that can be used to help declutter the issue. Sure, the issue is never as simple the generalisation and I have tried very hard to make that clear during this discussion.

Its actually no different to what you do when you have a league discussion. You'll often take someone's micro-level observation and then tear it apart by examining trends and statistics.

I find it interesting that when we discuss social issues that you are less interested in that macro-level perspective.

Because professional rugby league isn't real life. It is all about outliers and ruthless optimisation. If a talented attacking individual misses out on a career because he doesn't fit into modern defensive structures then he's no worse off than anyone else without an NRL career.

But when arguments are trotted out about why marginalised white individuals would vote for Trump or the Brexit when the stats show that white people are still absolutely killing it, it is a completely disingenuous (and dangerous) use of a generalisation. It reveals how much the social justice engineers don't give a f**k about individuals. White men are already doing well so the ones with nothing need to lose what little opportunity you had. We need to fix the general trends. Sorry, I hope you loosers understand.

 

[Gary Gutful]

But it doesn't. Money is the only thing that matters, and the best predictor of how much money a person has is how much their parents had. So people with wealthy white parents are more likely to be rich themselves, but the children of poor white parents will probably be poor. This is why white people are still generally better off than everyone except East Asians and Indians. But being white doesn't help at all if you're born in the gutter.

I said 'more often than not'. There you go again with the exception that supposedly proves the rule.

I could give you countless examples of people who were born into nothing and now have plenty of money which would offer a similar counter to your money theory.

Once again, I said that more often than I live in a world where race matters. I think it does. If race didn't matter, there wouldn't be 'racism'.

I don't even see what's repulsive about them. They are logically sound and that's enough.

I don't think all of your comments are logically sound.

You should be very careful making sweeping generalisations. When they influence policy they produce winnars and loosers, and the winners tend to be those individuals (women and minorities) who are already in a strong position to benefit (and already wealthy), while the losers are white men who are already marginalised.

Thanks for the tip but they aren't "sweeping generalisations". They are informed assessments based on evidence. There is no one neat description of a complex issue but there are ways and means to categorise issues to understand trends. The alternative is to remain clueless.

You should be very careful focusing only on the micro level as you will lose sight of the bigger picture. The bigger picture being that despite the narrow lense that you applying, I firmly believe that we do in fact live in a patriarchal society. Despite you playing a fairly strong role as 'devils advocate' I am yet to be convinced otherwise.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

 

[Gary Gutful]

But why even talk about the macro level? What are you hoping to achieve by it? Do you think it will have a positive impact on people's lives (or a negative impact on those who 'deserve' it)?

I explained before - If we are going to discuss an issue you need to look at it from all angles.

If you are only taking the viewpoint of one set of people (which happens to change depending on the issue and the argument) then it is not a fully informed discussion.

I didn't realise that in discussing these issues we were meant to be 'crusaders' for a certain group of people. Disinfranchised white males will thank you later on for sticking up for them!

That is f**king bullshit. Women can identify dominance (or lack thereof) very quickly, and violent, controlling men reveal themselves early on. Usually it is directed at other men though, which makes plenty of women feel safe and 'protected'.

Well in my experience all men know that other men are desperate to take down a bloke who abuses women, and a man who is scared of other men wouldn't dare give them ammunition by hurting a woman. This kind of thing gets out, and every single one of the domestically abusive men I've known have been tough merkins who like to bully other men as much as they like to bully women.

I think the secret domestic abuser is largely a myth and a fabrication. We don't like to ascribe any positive traits to the people we despise, which is why we deem 'cowardly' anyone who threatens a woman, king hits a cop, or crashes an airplane into a building.

That's not my experience. I have seen a number of instances where it is a slow progression (...or rather regression).

Also, don't underestimate how hard it is to up and leave when you are scared shitless and completely overpowered. F**k, if you are scared that the bloke will hurt (or even kill) you why would you risk telling someone else?

How many times have you heard a victim say "I was too scared to leave"? I can't possibly blame a woman in that instance. Who am I to say that her fears aren't real or that she should just toughen up and get out of that situation. I'm a big burly bloke!

Because professional rugby league isn't real life. It is all about outliers and ruthless optimisation. If a talented attacking individual misses out on a career because he doesn't fit into modern defensive structures then he's no worse off than anyone else without an NRL career.

But when arguments are trotted out about why marginalised white individuals would vote for Trump or the Brexit when the stats show that white people are still absolutely killing it, it is a completely disingenuous (and dangerous) use of a generalisation. It reveals how much the social justice engineers don't give a f**k about individuals. White men are already doing well so the ones with nothing need to lose what little opportunity you had. We need to fix the general trends. Sorry, I hope you loosers understand.

How can you possibly get across the complexity of an issue if you are only ever arguing it from the position of one group of people? Surely considering all stakeholders and view points and corralling information in an attempt to better understand something is just common sense?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I said 'more often than not'. There you go again with the exception that supposedly proves the rule.

I could give you countless examples of people who were born into nothing and now have plenty of money which would offer a similar counter to your money theory.

My generalisation directly countered your generalisation. Therefore there is only individuals, who shouldn't benefit nor suffer from efforts to 'correct' general trends.

Once again, I said that more often than I live in a world where race matters. I think it does. If race didn't matter, there wouldn't be 'racism'.

It just shows that race only matters to racists.

Where race appears to matter is that our race is almost always the same as that of our parents. That is how 'privilege' is propagated - through family rather than institutionalised racism.

I don't think all of your comments are logically sound.

They are.

Thanks for the tip but they aren't "sweeping generalisations". They are informed assessments based on evidence. There is no one neat description of a complex issue but there are ways and means to categorise issues to understand trends. The alternative is to remain clueless.

There are smart ways to read data and there are lazy, hysterical ways.

You should be very careful focusing only on the micro level as you will lose sight of the bigger picture.

If I focused on the micro I wouldn't have told you that people's life outcomes tend to follow those of their parents (despite exceptions, as you've pointed out). I'm very aware of general trends. I just don't think it's fair to use them as the basis for social justice activity. Instead of helping people because they are women/black/gay/etc, what's wrong with means testing the individual? That's the best way to identify who needs help, even if it takes a bit more work.

The bigger picture being that despite the narrow lense that you are I firmly believe that we do in fact live in a patriarchal society. Despite you playing a fairly strong role as 'devils advocate' I am yet to be convinced otherwise.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

No, I agree we live in a patriarchy, and women are just as responsible for it as men, due to the way women select mates (even if just for one night). But where the dumb and lazy response to the patriarchy is empowering all women, this excludes and marginalises a lot of men. A patriarchy doesn't mean all men are in the top 50% of the population with the bottom 50% comprising women. A patriarchy also excludes many if not most men - often by the women who benefit most from the patriarchy, and always by those lazy enough to conflate 'patriarchy' with 'all men'.

 

[IFR33K]

If no criminal charges were laid and it’s a civil matter, and Hayne pays her some hush money, what would the NRL’s stance be on this? Would they have any issues or power to stand him down?


Gary or Poupou, if you’re going to respond keep it short.

 

[T-Boon]

We can all breathe easy... Jarryd’s mum has told the Telegraph he didnt do it.

I'd like to hear more from her.
I find women, including feminists, make a lot of interesting admissions about the nature of women (that they would never make in any other circumstances) when they are in defence of one of their own men. It is a very enlightening time to ask the extra questions.

 

[T-Boon]

If no criminal charges were laid and it’s a civil matter, and Hayne pays her some hush money, what would the NRL’s stance be on this? Would they have any issues or power to stand him down?

No. This is a civil matter. Which means it is commercial.
If Hayne isn't eventually looking for ways to settle this then he is a lunatic and the civil court will let him and the complainant know this fact at least 4 times (all those pre trial mentions, compulsory mediation dates etc) through the course of the proceedings.
The NRL settle civil legal proceedings all the time without admitting anything so they know this stuff.
The media and outrage groups will flip for a few days but that will only last until the next outrage story.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I explained before - If we are going to discuss an issue you need to look at it from all angles.

If you are only taking the viewpoint of one set of people (which happens to change depending on the issue and the argument) then it is not a fully informed discussion.

I didn't realise that in discussing these issues we were meant to be 'crusaders' for a certain group of people. Disinfranchised white males will thank you later on for sticking up for them!

Because discussion of social issues leads to activism, ultimately at the policy level. There are real consequences to propagating lazy narratives, and history shows that people are happy to invent justifications for why the merkins at the bottom deserve to stay there.

That's not my experience. I have seen a number of instances where it is a slow progression (...or rather regression).

Well I have known a lot of violent people, and in my experience they see violence as a tool to control their little portion of the world. It's never limited to just their wife and kids. Obviously they mightn't get much opportunity to use this tool out in public, but it is a trait that is always evident by the time you know a person (and would begin to cohabit with them).

Also, don't underestimate how hard it is to up and leave when you are scared shitless and completely overpowered. F**k, if you are scared that the bloke will hurt (or even kill) you why would you risk telling someone else?

How many times have you heard a victim say "I was too scared to leave"? I can't possibly blame a woman in that instance. Who am I to say that her fears aren't real or that she should just toughen up and get out of that situation. I'm a big burly bloke!

I have spoken to a few actually, and when they did finally escape they returned for reasons related to missing the 'lifestyle' - a polite way of saying 'money'. Which leads me to my final point, being that people who become romantically/sexually involved with scumbags are invariably scumbags themselves. A good woman doesn't hook up with an abusive man, just like a good man doesn't get involved with an emotionally abusive woman. The exceptions are where they are coerced into a relationship through social pressure (e.g. within a closed ethnic group).

How can you possibly get across the complexity of an issue if you are only ever arguing it from the position of one group of people? Surely considering all stakeholders and view points and corralling information in an attempt to better understand something is just common sense?

Because in my professional and personal experience, more data isn't the same as all data, and in fact more data usually obfuscates an issue when it is not sampled randomly. A loud and vindictive interest group will always guarantee their additional data skews the trend away from the mean.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

If no criminal charges were laid and it’s a civil matter, and Hayne pays her some hush money, what would the NRL’s stance be on this? Would they have any issues or power to stand him down?


Gary or Poupou, if you’re going to respond keep it short.

Dunno mate