NRL General Discussion Thread

[Organix]

Tallis on nrl 360 trying to claim that the titans paid market price for Fifita and that the broncos offered him 1 mil lmao

Is that a denial of 1.2Mill? Because if the market price was 1.2Mil and the Broncos offered 1Mill, then he isn't lying.

 

[Battler]

Is that a denial of 1.2Mill? Because if the market price was 1.2Mil and the Broncos offered 1Mill, then he isn't lying.

He was claiming that the dogs and souths offered Fifita “similar money” to what the titans paid, to which the rest of the panel laughed

Edit: I’m highly sceptical that we offered him a million a season, just smells like cope from Tallis.

 

[Organix]

He was claiming that the dogs and souths offered Fifita “similar money” to what the titans paid, to which the rest of the panel laughed

Edit: I’m highly sceptical that we offered him a million a season, just smells like cope from Tallis.

What is "similar money"? So vague from Tallis. So funny when panels laugh at guests making statements of sheer idiocy

 

[BroncsFan]

He was claiming that the dogs and souths offered Fifita “similar money” to what the titans paid, to which the rest of the panel laughed

Edit: I’m highly sceptical that we offered him a million a season, just smells like cope from Tallis.

Probably according to Fifita's manager we offered him a million...

"What?!?!... how about $1.1m??"
"Let me just check... "

...

"Nope broncos have matched $1.1m as well"

"**** it... $1.2m and 3 fucking years!!!"

"I reckon we can work with that"

"Nailed it"

 

[Sproj]

He was claiming that the dogs and souths offered Fifita “similar money” to what the titans paid, to which the rest of the panel laughed

Edit: I’m highly sceptical that we offered him a million a season, just smells like cope from Tallis.

Let's not forget, this was the White years, so it is possible.

Also, Holbrook is dead man walking, he has full confidence of the board.

 

[john1420]

hey mate, I know you've said you aren't airing/promoting either view so I'm not trying to bait you into anything here, but why does this bother you? It's a touchy subject I get it, but I don't really think it's something you can believe in, unless all psychological and mental conditions are a matter of belief, which I think is dangerous ground to tread.

All good mate and cheers for the respectful question :)
Why it bothers me (noting I've only posted once so it really doesn't bother me greatly, I just wanted to make a small contribution to the discussion) is I see a lot of black and white thinking, and a lot of false claims. Probably the biggest, and why I posted, are that the refusal to actively promote LGBTQIA is a result of not agreeing with gay marriage or gay rights etc. LGBTQIA is so much more than that.

As for my comment about 'not believing in it' I just mean I can't agree with it. I think that a man who thinks he needs surgery to become a woman needs less surgery and more counselling. Now, sadly there's people in this world who will call me a bigot, or that I'm impinging on the rights of people by thinking this. This is not true of course. I'm not campaigning against gender reassignment surgery, if you want to do it, go do it. And I won't discriminate against you for it, or treat you any differently. But don't ask me to agree with it, because I don't. The problem with the tolerance movement is they want to tell me I must agree with it. They have confused tolerance and acceptance with active support.

One of my male friends used to be a woman. We knew each other about 2 years and one day he said I've got something difficult to tell you. I used to be a woman and I changed gender 4 years ago. He asked how I felt about that. I said I didn't think any differently about him. He was my mate before I knew and he'd still be my mate after. I said I don't understand, but I accept. He said he couldn't have asked for more.

I'm not going to wear a jersey or fly a flag shouting "hey men, if you think you should have been born a woman, go get surgery" because I simply don't believe that. But I accept that some people will make that choice but I won't treat them any differently, because they are still people and I respect them and their right to choose.

We don't all have to agree on everything, but we do need to be understanding and accepting. Unfortunately the tolerance movement seems to think we all have to agree on these things, and those that don't are therefore racist or sexist or bigots.

Bonus points for anyone who made it to the end of this LOL

 

[Organix]

Ok, I know I said I will stay out of this discussion, but I hope people will read this carefully and with the tolerance it deserves.

All good mate and cheers for the respectful question :)
Why it bothers me (noting I've only posted once so it really doesn't bother me greatly, I just wanted to make a small contribution to the discussion) is I see a lot of black and white thinking, and a lot of false claims. Probably the biggest, and why I posted, are that the refusal to actively promote LGBTQIA is a result of not agreeing with gay marriage or gay rights etc. LGBTQIA is so much more than that.

As for my comment about 'not believing in it' I just mean I can't agree with it. I think that a man who thinks he needs surgery to become a woman needs less surgery and more counselling. Now, sadly there's people in this world who will call me a bigot, or that I'm impinging on the rights of people by thinking this. This is not true of course. I'm not campaigning against gender reassignment surgery, if you want to do it, go do it. And I won't discriminate against you for it, or treat you any differently. But don't ask me to agree with it, because I don't. The problem with the tolerance movement is they want to tell me I must agree with it. They have confused tolerance and acceptance with active support.

One of my male friends used to be a woman. We knew each other about 2 years and one day he said I've got something difficult to tell you. I used to be a woman and I changed gender 4 years ago. He asked how I felt about that. I said I didn't think any differently about him. He was my mate before I knew and he'd still be my mate after. I said I don't understand, but I accept. He said he couldn't have asked for more.

I'm not going to wear a jersey or fly a flag shouting "hey men, if you think you should have been born a woman, go get surgery" because I simply don't believe that. But I accept that some people will make that choice but I won't treat them any differently, because they are still people and I respect them and their right to choose.

We don't all have to agree on everything, but we do need to be understanding and accepting. Unfortunately the tolerance movement seems to think we all have to agree on these things, and those that don't are therefore racist or sexist or bigots.

Bonus points for anyone who made it to the end of this LOL

This was an interesting read. Thanks for the sharing. Did you ever ask your friend why they did the gender swap or have any deeper conversation about it? Flying the flag is really only to symbolise that those people are a diverse, but not well understood subculture of people who have traditionally been forced to hide within society. They have always existed and the flag is to represent the positive message that they are now willing and wanted to add their colours to the greater society. It isn't an advertising campaign, just as the aboriginal flag isn't an advertising campaign to become an aboriginal.

Apropos the gender swap surgery, there are several points that need to be addressed with regards to psychology, because this is poorly understood, obviously. First, any surgery requires a surgeon to deem it a viable option for the patient and agree to perform it. Secondly, the first step for the patient is coming out about their particular sexual orientation. This is made infinitely harder when society makes such displays of abject rejection. Third, typically gender dysphoria patients are recommended for psychotherapy before even hormonal treatment would begin, and in Australia it requires first multiple validated instances for this condition to be assigned to the patient. With more awareness of these issues, better guidelines and practices can evolve.

So, before any person can make surgical changes to their body, there is a lot of hurdles to jump over. The issue is the first step is insanely hard in today's society, and many people who "suffer" or rather experience this often are too afraid and so either commit suicide or attempt to self-medicate hormones or travel to unsafe places for unsafe surgeries.

The flag isn't an advertising campaign, it's an awareness campaign that there are people who are already part of the community and by promoting pride in that community it is showing that those people can feel free to begin to understand themselves, even before we can understand them. These campaigns are to show that we, as a community, respect each individual's right to the same human rights that everyone else has, and that is to basically do whatever they want up until the point that their rights impact on the rights of others.

Now the issue in this case is that the religious belief is to NOT give these people these rights, which directly impacts on their individual rights as human beings.

IF somehow, the LGBTQ+ person or community impacted directly on someone else's rights (i.e., raped them or beat them) the community would also be against that. However, under Karl Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance", we should, "in order to maintain a tolerany society, retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance". Which is entirely the issue being made here.

The intolerance being shown through essentially "freedom of speech" is the intolerance that we should, as a society, be intolerant of.

For example, if this whole issue in today's modern society revolved around the Indigenous Jersey, the intolerance could be seen as racism and we are today, as a society, mostly intolerant of racism, and rail at racist language. The same racist language that comes from the belief that another human doesn't deserve the same rights as other humans. If any player today refused to play indigenous round, they would be immediately identified, and it wasn't even long ago that Religious grounds and religious rhetoric was used to dehumanise people of different races (it still happens). We changed that. We can change this too. The difference is that black fellas or mob in Australia couldn't hide their skin colour, people of the LGBTQ+ community are still hiding today. Both communities have suffered severe hardships throughout history, and it is incredibly brave for someone who can hide to finally stand up and be proud of who they are, when once upon a time that could have meant their death.

And this is why I am actually adamantly against marketing campaigns that coopt these brave messages for purely financial gain. It's a disgusting thing to do.

 

[Jason Simmons]

Tallis on nrl 360 trying to claim that the titans paid market price for Fifita and that the broncos offered him 1 mil lmao

Seem to recall we publicly stated we wouldn’t go beyond $850k?

 

[Fernando]

Did they say Tallis's wife is on the Titans board? I didn't know that

 

[john1420]

Ok, I know I said I will stay out of this discussion, but I hope people will read this carefully and with the tolerance it deserves.

This was an interesting read. Thanks for the sharing. Did you ever ask your friend why they did the gender swap or have any deeper conversation about it? Flying the flag is really only to symbolise that those people are a diverse, but not well understood subculture of people who have traditionally been forced to hide within society. They have always existed and the flag is to represent the positive message that they are now willing and wanted to add their colours to the greater society. It isn't an advertising campaign, just as the aboriginal flag isn't an advertising campaign to become an aboriginal.

Apropos the gender swap surgery, there are several points that need to be addressed with regards to psychology, because this is poorly understood, obviously. First, any surgery requires a surgeon to deem it a viable option for the patient and agree to perform it. Secondly, the first step for the patient is coming out about their particular sexual orientation. This is made infinitely harder when society makes such displays of abject rejection. Third, typically gender dysphoria patients are recommended for psychotherapy before even hormonal treatment would begin, and in Australia it requires first multiple validated instances for this condition to be assigned to the patient. With more awareness of these issues, better guidelines and practices can evolve.

So, before any person can make surgical changes to their body, there is a lot of hurdles to jump over. The issue is the first step is insanely hard in today's society, and many people who "suffer" or rather experience this often are too afraid and so either commit suicide or attempt to self-medicate hormones or travel to unsafe places for unsafe surgeries.

The flag isn't an advertising campaign, it's an awareness campaign that there are people who are already part of the community and by promoting pride in that community it is showing that those people can feel free to begin to understand themselves, even before we can understand them. These campaigns are to show that we, as a community, respect each individual's right to the same human rights that everyone else has, and that is to basically do whatever they want up until the point that their rights impact on the rights of others.

Now the issue in this case is that the religious belief is to NOT give these people these rights, which directly impacts on their individual rights as human beings.

IF somehow, the LGBTQ+ person or community impacted directly on someone else's rights (i.e., raped them or beat them) the community would also be against that. However, under Karl Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance", we should, "in order to maintain a tolerany society, retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance". Which is entirely the issue being made here.

The intolerance being shown through essentially "freedom of speech" is the intolerance that we should, as a society, be intolerant of.

For example, if this whole issue in today's modern society revolved around the Indigenous Jersey, the intolerance could be seen as racism and we are today, as a society, mostly intolerant of racism, and rail at racist language. The same racist language that comes from the belief that another human doesn't deserve the same rights as other humans. If any player today refused to play indigenous round, they would be immediately identified, and it wasn't even long ago that Religious grounds and religious rhetoric was used to dehumanise people of different races (it still happens). We changed that. We can change this too. The difference is that black fellas or mob in Australia couldn't hide their skin colour, people of the LGBTQ+ community are still hiding today. Both communities have suffered severe hardships throughout history, and it is incredibly brave for someone who can hide to finally stand up and be proud of who they are, when once upon a time that could have meant their death.

And this is why I am actually adamantly against marketing campaigns that coopt these brave messages for purely financial gain. It's a disgusting thing to do.

Cheers for a well written and respectful post mate :)

Just want to comment on a couple of things, firstly your closing comment about co-opting these messages for financial gain, I couldn't agree more, it is a disgrace.

Secondly, and concerningly, your comment "Now the issue in this case is that the religious belief is to NOT give these people these rights, which directly impacts on their individual rights as human beings."

I'm really not sure this is true. It could be and I've missed it, but I really hope not. I think what happens is a very small minority of a particular group will make a very loud statement and people think it's representative of the whole group.

For the record, my background is in Christianity, and I have a degree in theology, so I have a good understanding. Whilst it's fair to say that in my personal beliefs I have moved on, I still work for a Christian organisation and am surrounded by Christian folk 5 days a week. These people I work with, not a single one of them thinks the rights of anyone should be taken away. They totally disagree with some of the choices being made, but still accept the person. Most of them will even say hey I don't agree with that choice but someone else will disagree with some of my choices so who am I to judge? Genuine Christianity is actually very tolerant, but it's also very quiet. The folks you hear shouting hatred and intolerance are actually radicals.

Case in point, Israel Folau. A lot of people think what Israel Folau said is an accurate reflection of Christianity. It is not. It is an accurate representation of Israel Folau.

 

[Organix]

Cheers for a well written and respectful post mate :)

Just want to comment on a couple of things, firstly your closing comment about co-opting these messages for financial gain, I couldn't agree more, it is a disgrace.

Secondly, and concerningly, your comment "Now the issue in this case is that the religious belief is to NOT give these people these rights, which directly impacts on their individual rights as human beings."

I'm really not sure this is true. It could be and I've missed it, but I really hope not. I think what happens is a very small minority of a particular group will make a very loud statement and people think it's representative of the whole group.

For the record, my background is in Christianity, and I have a degree in theology, so I have a good understanding. Whilst it's fair to say that in my personal beliefs I have moved on, I still work for a Christian organisation and am surrounded by Christian folk 5 days a week. These people I work with, not a single one of them thinks the rights of anyone should be taken away. They totally disagree with some of the choices being made, but still accept the person. Most of them will even say hey I don't agree with that choice but someone else will disagree with some of my choices so who am I to judge? Genuine Christianity is actually very tolerant, but it's also very quiet. The folks you hear shouting hatred and intolerance are actually radicals.

Case in point, Israel Folau. A lot of people think what Israel Folau said is an accurate reflection of Christianity. It is not. It is an accurate representation of Israel Folau.

I hope it is not too, and perhaps these young men also don't have a full understanding of what the rainbow flag is meant to represent. Maybe they all stood down because they dislike the colours only. However, it doesn't look good when a symbol of inclusivity causes seven individuals who share a faith to refuse to play.

What other message could an outside observer draw from this instance? I am also born and raised Catholic, but have grown apart from the faith, so I also have a decent understanding of scripture, but the one thing that is glaringly obvious that becomes problematic with christianity in particular is that there are so many divisions purely based on interpretation of the scriptures. Each Christian denomination presents itself as the correct interpretation, and each one proclaims the other to be wrong in some way. This really highlights the fundamental flaw in it all to me, and that is the human element at the core of it all.

My interpretation of this whole incident in the case of these (I think Mormon, perhaps Evangelical?) men is that having LGBTQ+ open and an accepted part of society is actually a benefit to them. It lets them know first who to avoid so they do not violate their beliefs (e.g. 1 Cor. 5:11), and as most people are well aware of what Christianity offers, so shall the LGBTQ+ people be allowed to know and understand themselves (Lamentations 3:40) before they can reject the perceived sin and return to christ for salvation (1 John 1:9, Acts 2:38).

In any case, the single major sticking point in this whole issue is that the NRL has an expectation of players to demonstrate respect for all, and this act has publicly been seen as them not demonstrating. Is it right for the Manly club to have forced them into this contemplation? Absolutely not, it is also a highly disrespectful action that hasn't demonstrated respect for the players religion, BUT as I highlighted in my previous post, there is far less community understanding for what the rainbow flag means, than there is for christianity in society. A large number of Australians are raised christian (though I suppose that doesn't imply understanding), and it is a more accepted group in Australia, so one act is seen as punching down, the other as punching up.

If you read back through some of the comments here in this thread, you will see how much hate and vitriol this single act has given rise to. It is an act that divides the community, and that is entirely the issue. There is no claims that the religious group has no right to exist on a human level, but there are claims that LGBTQ+ people have no right.

In any case, I also thank you for your measured response, and really do think that the communication around this issue has been very poor and doesn't do enough to get to the core. It shouldn't really be expected, because we all just want to watch footy, and that is what draws us together. Ironically, the mention of an "Inclusivity round" is exactly the thing that divides us.

 

[Wolfie]

Folau's wife having a pop at Vlandys and the NRL for hypocrisy, and she has a point.

 

[Organix]

Folau's wife having a pop at Vlandys and the NRL for hypocrisy, and she has a point.

The only difference is that these 7 players haven't come out and said "hell awaits you" to anyone that I can see. Is that really a slur? I mean, that's a belief. Was it hurtful? Doesn't that depend on if the person believes in heaven/hell? Or does the phrase itself imply that what a person is doing is implicitly wrong?

The whole situation is a mess, really. But the NRL will handle it. Don't worry.

 

[Browny]

Imagine being so scared to wear a shirt with a bit of rainbow on it

 

[Foordy]

FTR, the Titans were also asked to wear this jersey by their apparel provider, Dynasty sports (also provider to Manly, Cowboys and Tongan rugby league)

they politely rejected the request. here is the reason (probably BS):

This year Titans players will play in home, away, Indigenous, Pasifika, Magic Round and ANZAC jerseys.

For that reason, the club believed adding a pride/rainbow-themed jersey would take away from all the planning they'd done around inclusion.

'As a club, we commit early to the playing jerseys we will wear across the 25-round NRL season,' a Titans official told News Corp.

'Inclusion is a big focus for us as a club and our programs across the community reflect this.'

you'd have to think that if Dyansty sports asked both Manly and the Titans to wear a pride jersey, the the Cowboys also would have been asked (nothing reported though) .... seems Manly are the only club to do this

 

[Sproj]

But the NRL will handle it. Don't worry.

 

[Mustafur]

Folau's wife having a pop at Vlandys and the NRL for hypocrisy, and she has a point.

What point is she making?

That preaching hate on Social media about Gays and not playing with a pride strip without commenting about it is the same thing?

 

[Wolfie]

What point is she making?

That preaching hate on Social media about Gays and not playing with a pride strip without commenting about it is the same thing?

Probably that they are accepting and respecting their religious beliefs but they arent doing the same thing for Izzy.