I don't think anybody will be suppressed by not being able to talk about Greenwood on a football forum of a club he doesn't play for. There's plenty of other cesspits where you can knock one out over him knocking a couple past Gauthier Larsonneur if you're desperate to. No reason to spam this forum with "look at this goal, deserves a second chance, such a poor misunderstood boy" followed by "he's a wife beating rapist, feck this shit" x 10,000 forever. Nobody is changing their minds about him now, closing the thread would be a kindness to all concerned.
That isn't what I said. Certainly not what I meant. My point was, that pushing topics or standpoints into the shadows will not make them go away. Whether somebody is suppressed or not is a different thing to that person feeling suppressed or not. And if a person feels suppressed, radical thoughts will be more likely than reasonable ones. I think, some of the "backlash" isn't as much a "Pro Greenwoods actions" stance but rather a "feels like talk is always in extremes around here" stance. And nobody should wonder about hefty reactions when there is no differentiation is made between those groups.
Marginalized is almost as funny as oppressed, for what it's worth. Especially combined with that other poster just bringing up Prohibition as a parallell. We really are dealing with a powerless minority's struggle against the pressing boot of Big Society here!
Just to make sure, that this isn't filed like another record of "I fought another apologist", I didn't compare him or how he is dealt with with Prohibition at all. I brought it up as an example of an attempt to suppress something, in this case cheap alcohol, opened the door to other unwanted phenomena and when a borderline-yellow press conflict like the Greenwood case is already creating such extreme positions, I for one get a bit worried about potential bigger conflicts in the future.
Well, of course it's not only used for reasons I support; dictators do the same when they forbid talk of opposition. And inversely, progressivists beat against the edge of the window when they try to create/widen acceptance for anything 2SLGBTQI+ (Canadian acronym). So I wasn't so much making a moral point as explaining why this happens and why it's persistent - cause that seems to baffle people.
While this overton window theory is undeniably plausible, I think, it isn't a general key that unlocks every situation.
I think, it makes "the masses" look like some passive medium ready to vibe on the grooves of some (leader) figure. I've listened to a lecture a few years ago, think around 2016 or something, pointing out that divisive figures like the one who won the presidency in the US back then, but him being only symbolic because such figures or groups aren't a rare breed these days, aren't the ones who make people think this or that but rather those figures are very good in feeling the grooves of the masses themselves and being able to take some melody from it and make it work in their favor. In short, it didn't need one politician to make "America first" a thing, it was something that has been on peoples minds all the time and just ignited very quickly. Obviously, if we think, that there are "dangerous individuals" with "dangerous messages" out there, then I understand the reflex to shut them down but isn't that an expression of a rather question worthy image of human beings? Especially "all the others who are gullible enough to ran into such traps"?
Btw, great post by
@UnrelatedPsuedo about Greenwood's lack of accountability being the big issue here! (Regardless of whether the Tyson example is right; I have no idea myself.)
btw: I always felt this point to be a bit weird. I mean, I know that I don't know much about the case, so I certainly wouldn't feel suited to demand some sort of excuse. What I certainly agree on is that the status quo of all that doesn't seem to be something that has been the target of a strategy. My feeling is, that the players advisors told him to keep it low to let the next big story take the focus away. Maybe they thought it would happen faster or whatever, personally, I'd rather have this state than some BS emotional music crap infested public apology, heck maybe even some "accompany the family" format.
I’ve been young. I’ve acted like a prick in a pub and gone door to door with friends to apologise for minor indiscretions.
Nobody is asking him to apologise for things he hasn’t done. It’s the lack of acknowledgement of anything that I’m talking to.
What would you do if those photo and audio recordings of you were out in public?
Well going from door to door won't make those go away, would it? Who knows, I think it is safe to say that he will have gotten advice from very different perspectives and maybe he fears repercussions with the legal case, maybe explanation attempts sound too unlikely. I certainly can imagine coming to the conclusion that not adressing it might be the best of multiple bad outcomes.
I know it is a popular theme - the sinner should atone and repent. Ideally publically so everybody can see what an awful being is there in front of them. But for that to really work, it would also need the will to forgive. And I think, it is safe to say, that this certainly isn't a given. Weren't you the one who stated that he is ready to step in after every post to remind people of your opinion about the player? That sort (ir-)rationality and maybe even worse is what the player is up against. I definitely can see why he hasn't acknowledged anything. I personally don't think, it would be fair to hold it against him but also I can see how other people can come to different standpoints in that aspect.
