That's part of the psychology. You're either with the herd or in some instances attempting to be recognized as being against it. This is broadly applicable when you have people from different countries and cultures arguing on social media.
Mason Greenwood | Officially a Marseille player
- Thread starter keithsingleton
- Start date
- Status
That's part of the psychology. You're either with the herd or in some instances attempting to be recognized as being against it. This is broadly applicable when you have people from different countries and cultures arguing on social media.
You think she'd be okay with people wishing ill on her husband?
The one's wanting him to do well are also the ones who want his family to be happy, from what I've seen. Let's not revise history now, too soon.
Are you one who can manage it?
I think this is a point that deserves more attention. If its not about Greenwood or his girlfriend, then surely its about highlighting the cause of DV in general, which is completely warranted.
Let's see what happens when disruptive posters emerge that require being managed.
Those not wanting him to do well don't want him back at United, which makes sense. If he starts knocking in a lot goals in Spain, the calls for United (who have 7 goals in 6 league fixtures) will begin to get louder, which is of course not good for anyone who never wants him to play at United again.
Some people might have personal reasons for not wanting him back, perhaps a past experience, to which I find understandable. But it's the not wanting him to do well part that I don't understand, because it absoltuely affects the victim. No one ever stops and wonders if she might want to see him doing well, and back at United. Perhaps because it's an uncomfortable scenario to consider.
Of course.
The very idea is utterly ridiculous given the context.
But it refuses to go away, it seems.
Because it's irrelevant and has no bearing on someone who doesn't want "alleged" domestic abusers / rapists playing for their team.
The issue is the way the dynamics of DV tend to play out.
As per anti-DV orgs, it takes an average of 7 attempts for someone to leave their abuser for good. And throughout that extended process of trying to separate from their abuser, they will often defend their partner, support their partner, express love for their partner, downplay their partner's actions, blame themselves for their partner's actions, plan for a future with their partner, etc.
Which makes "well, she wants him to do well, she's forgiven him, she wants the relationship to continue and she wants his career to flourish and she'll be worse off if her boyfriend suffers" a problematic point if you suspect someone may be in an abusive relationship. Because that will typically be the face value position for the majority of the abusive relationship's duration, and you would in turn spend the majority of the relationship supporting and hoping for the best for the abuser.
We don't want to rob victims of agency, but equally we have to understand that the outward position of someone who may be in an abusive relationship can't just be taken at face value. Nor would it be appropriate to justify supporting an abuser in the belief that this will have knock-on positive benefits for the person still trapped in a relationship with them.
Last edited:
I think that's correct. Its never really been about her or what she wants (which based on her actions is quite clearly a life and family with Mason Greenwood), but rather about highlighting the legitimacy of a cause (here DV). Absolutely nothing wrong with any of that, although as you say, its increasingly harder to make an anti Greenwood argument on her behalf, when she herself is clearly 100% publicly behind him and continues to reinforce this through a public image of an ordinary young couple starting a life and family together.
Well, they do.
Whatever Greenwood himself, his family and the family of the alleged victim told them is not in the public domain.
The problem with the statement is that it explicitly acknowledges that United had limited access to the evidence and relied on third party sources for information. That in itself makes the conclusion ("we are satisfied that he didn't do what he was initially charged with") highly problematic. How can you be satisfied with that if you haven't seen all the evidence and/or talked to all the principal parties involved?
I would say the nature of those 3rd party sources and the info provided is being undervalued here, but I don't know what they are (other than the CPS investigation) so to what degree? I can't say...
Well, the idea must be that Mason Greenwood is an exceptionally decent guy who has done significant damage to his career in order to protect his girlfriend.
To be brutally blunt, I don't think anyone actually believes this. But it's a possible angle to play for someone with an agenda, let's say.
This thread is full of people saying that the case being dropped is enough for them. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. At the same time, often the same people say that United's statement means that they must know something. There is no criminal case, and Greenwood has denied the charges, why wouldn't that be enough for Richard Arnold? There is absolutely nothing in the statement that indicades United having anything.
The only actually interesting/relevant source is his girlfriend's mother, apparently.
As in: her mother has provided an explanation for the audio that was satisfactory to United's "investigator".
Make of that what you will. But I repeat that it seems incredibly flimsy to be "satisfied" based on that alone whilst simultaneously admitting plainly that you do not have access to all the evidence in the case.
I don't think she would, which was my point about not caring about her. On the second point, I would say many who want him to do well primarily want him to play for the club again. Again, I don't think anything is wrong with that either, but it's not about her.
Agreed.
this needs to be read by people who believe that now she gets back with him then it should not be a problem.
Yes, good question.
There are people who seem to think that the media/social media reaction to United simply reinstating him is the deciding factor here. Meaning (one must assume): In spite of the fact that United have sufficient evidence that Greenwood is not guilty of any crime, they have decided not to reinstate him (but rather ship him out on loan) because they're worried about the media/social media reaction.
I guess we have to ask ourselves how likely this is.
To me, it's not likely at all.
(And you can include the scenario in which Greenwood is heroically protecting the mother of his child here - I'm sorry, but no, I don't buy that either. The timeline, what we know about his bail violations, the entire context...just no.)
Fair points. It’s a hard act to balance the agency of the victim with the likelihood of further abuse perpetrated by the again-partner.
I’ve seen the seven attempts number quoted multiple times. I understand that the position is that a toxic or abusive relationship is likely to still be toxic and abusive, but are there any statistics showing how many relationships actually turn out better (non-abusive) after an incident (or more) of domestic violence or any form of abuse? What I’m asking is that once DV is established in a relationship, is there any way out for a couple after that, or are they statistically doomed to that dynamic until the relationship ends?
Everything else notwithstanding, we have seen time and again in this thread (and elsewhere on here) that this is something people believe, or at least pretend to believe: it is an argument people actually use.
Which is - yes, what? Deplorably ignorant at the very best.
Thank you.
I do mean it. I don't want to fall out with people or make them feel belittled. I will however defend myself against personal attacks and if I came across as condescending in doing so then its absolutely unintentional.You abosultely, 100% don't "honestly mean that":
And the rest of your post is still the same shite. If you were so concerned about the noble stuff you disingenuously mention, you would have read the MG threads, as all your incredibly insightful points have been already discussed to death, by myself and many others.
I've argued with too many just-asking-questions freethinkers both in real life and on the internet over the years to recognise one immediately and infallibly.
With the greatest respect the thread is nearly 200 pages long. I think it's rather disingenuous to suggest I'm not "concerned" about the individuals on the basis of not reading 200 pages before posting. Has everyone else who has commented read every individual post before doing so?
Why does the word freethinker keep getting thrown around in a deragotry way too.
Freethinker - a person who thinks freely or independently : one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority
Is it a bad trait to analyse the information and make your own judgement based on both what evidence is and isn't available? No verdict has been delivered by the authorities on the case, so aren't we all freethinkers in this situation? Why is it just those who hold a different opinion from yourself that are "freethinkers"?
As for what you quoted. Its a quote attributed to a famous Greek *********** which I felt was appropriate. I didn't mean it in a condescending way and I wasn't implying you're not educated either. What I meant by it was:
What is a clear explanation of the quote "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" -Aristotle?
To understand the quote, it is important to recognize two key elements: entertaining a thought and not accepting it.
"Entertaining a thought" refers to the ability to consider an idea or perspective, even if it contradicts or challenges one's existing beliefs or knowledge. It involves actively engaging with different viewpoints, theories, or arguments and giving them fair consideration. This open-mindedness and willingness to explore diverse ideas are crucial for intellectual development and expanding one's understanding of the world.
On the other hand, "not accepting" means that although one may entertain a thought, they do not immediately adopt it as true or incorporate it into their belief system without careful evaluation. It signifies the ability to maintain a level of skepticism or critical distance when encountering new ideas. This does not imply rejecting every thought outright, but rather subjecting them to scrutiny, questioning, and analysis.
According to Aristotle, this ability to entertain thoughts without immediately accepting them is a distinguishing characteristic of an educated mind. It demonstrates intellectual maturity and a capacity for independent thinking. It implies that one has developed the skill of evaluating ideas objectively, weighing their merits, and assessing their compatibility with existing knowledge and evidence.
In essence, this quote emphasizes the importance of intellectual flexibility, open-mindedness, and critical thinking. It encourages individuals to engage with different perspectives and ideas, even if they initially appear contrary to their own beliefs. By doing so, one can gain deeper insights, refine their understanding, and foster intellectual growth.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-cle...tain-a-thought-without-accepting-it-Aristotle
To understand the quote, it is important to recognize two key elements: entertaining a thought and not accepting it.
"Entertaining a thought" refers to the ability to consider an idea or perspective, even if it contradicts or challenges one's existing beliefs or knowledge. It involves actively engaging with different viewpoints, theories, or arguments and giving them fair consideration. This open-mindedness and willingness to explore diverse ideas are crucial for intellectual development and expanding one's understanding of the world.
On the other hand, "not accepting" means that although one may entertain a thought, they do not immediately adopt it as true or incorporate it into their belief system without careful evaluation. It signifies the ability to maintain a level of skepticism or critical distance when encountering new ideas. This does not imply rejecting every thought outright, but rather subjecting them to scrutiny, questioning, and analysis.
According to Aristotle, this ability to entertain thoughts without immediately accepting them is a distinguishing characteristic of an educated mind. It demonstrates intellectual maturity and a capacity for independent thinking. It implies that one has developed the skill of evaluating ideas objectively, weighing their merits, and assessing their compatibility with existing knowledge and evidence.
In essence, this quote emphasizes the importance of intellectual flexibility, open-mindedness, and critical thinking. It encourages individuals to engage with different perspectives and ideas, even if they initially appear contrary to their own beliefs. By doing so, one can gain deeper insights, refine their understanding, and foster intellectual growth.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-cle...tain-a-thought-without-accepting-it-Aristotle
One of the key foundations for someone to victim blame is for them to be absolutely certain there is a victim. There is a difference between suggesting a victim was "asking for it" and scrutinising the allegations someone has made through social media. Again very dangerous language and accusations to throw around in my opinion.
In terms of my post being liked. Does that necessarily mean that he liked my opinion? I read the newbies guide post and it says that in order to obtain likes:
"But in short: write posts that respect other posters, have proper grammar and formatting, add to the discussion, and have some thinking behind them (which does not mean that we are looking for essays; there can be thoughtful, new content in a single sentence), and you will see the likes come in quickly."
Whether you agree with my view or not, you must be able to recognise that my post did meet most of the above criteria and I personally found the like encouraging and a sign that my contributions are appreciated and have thought behind them. Surely the role of staff is to promote people who take the time and effort to make thought provoking posts rather than just like posts from those whom they agree with?
I just find it disheartening to have multiple labels directed towards me for simply having a different opinion and keeping an open mind. And personally, I don't see the same labels or derogatory comments and insults being thrown towards those who are adamant without doubt that he's done everything he was accused of.
I liked the post because it was well thought out with a comprehensive summary of several different discussion points that have been ongoing in this thread. Doesn't mean I agree with every line of it but I certainly don't agree that anything there constitutes 'victim blaming'.
As I said already, picking out a few lines from a lengthy response is pointless.
I can only assume you and others didn't read past the points you disagreed with to properly digest the general opinion and conclusions being made.
Thankfully I have no experience of domestic violence whatsoever so I'm open to learning more about facts and norms, but I will point out that this is far from a textbook case due to the high profile and media scrutiny.
Can you quote some of these posts?
Interesting. Just to clarify, are you saying it's impossible that they end up in a happy, normal relationship? And anyone suggesting so is deplorable?
You keep using the word argument as if trying to win points. Maybe don't see it as a battle. I'm sure there are many DV cases where the victim is under duress, but I have seen no such evidence in this particular case. So until you have something of substance to prove otherwise, constantly bringing up other cases is disingenuous at best.
You are making your dishonesty too obvious.
When freethinker is used the way it is, you know that it doesn't mean "a person who thinks freely or independently : one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority". You are pretending to not understand, as a rhetorical device because you think it will give you a leg up. However, when you're so extremely transparent, when everyone can see what you're doing, it's having the opposite effect.
You're also repeatedly doing a very old and very bad trick. You're being called out for specific things, but when addressing it you're describing it as just "different opinions". All of the people in this thread that have called you out have also encountered others with different opinions than them, without saying the things they're saying to you, because the catalyst isn't "different opinions", it's some specific opinions that you hold. You're doing the cowardly Internet thing where you abstract from your real views in an attempt to hide.
Your whole act is extremely embarrassing. If you have to pretend, then at least pretend better.
I have only just started reading in this discussion again.
I think that this is a complex situation that deserves longer thought and discussion. The sort that you are attempting to produce. They are appreciated, but unfortunately there is some people here who are not prepared to listen to a considered approach that attempts to analyse various aspects of this situation.
I always felt that United needed to do a thorough investigation to establish the complete facts as to why what was recorded and what was the complete context. Once the investigation was completed it needed a decisive decision and a full explanation to why they came to that conclusion.
Unfortunately, they were swayed by the leaks, social media x/twitter element and the frenzy that ensued. The process of the internal investigation and the legal process ended by being an afterthought.
I don't think I need to, I've already quoted some and only have a set number of posts I can make.
I'd rather not get into a tit for tat of name calling.
Edit: @cafecillos I have no posts left so editing. I don't usually go out of my way stating multiple times how I "despise" someone accused of doing something unless I was adamant that they did something worth despising them for.
So you're own post history is a perfect example of someone who is adamant greenwood's guilty. Unless of course you don't believe he's guilty in which case I'd ask - Do you usually publicise that you despise someone for doing something you don't believe they're guilty of? What exactly do you despise them for then?
There is nothing dishonest with my opinions I've posted in this thread. What is there to achieve from that?
What is your opinion on the Mason Greenwood saga? Do you think he is guilty of what he's accused?
Freethinker is being used in a derogatory fashion, in the same manner people use "woke" in an insulting manner. When woke simply means to be aware of social and racial injustice.
I'm calling this derogatory "freethinker" comment out because I feel its unfair in its usage and I also find it quite ironic that its used as an insult given the definition. Just like I feel the same for when people label others woke as they'd rather label them than debate and reason with them. A common recurring theme in todays society from all sides of the political divide.
Dishonest, pretending to not understand, transparent, doing a very old and very bad trick, cowardly, embarrassing, pretending. Am I deserving of this? Really?
If you disagree with my views then I'm happy to debate them and I respect that you may feel otherwise and we can agree to disagree. And we can do that through talking through different points and challenging eachothers views.
If your intentions are just to patronise and insult me then I'll pass.
And as for "all the people in this thread have called you out" - this simply isn't true and you've followed the last few pages you'll find I'm not alone with my views and many posters also agree with elements of my posts.
Maybe the difference between me and others is that I'm standing up for myself and calling out abusive behaviour in this thread which has made me more of a target. Which in itself is quite ironic considering those who potray themselves as being the most concerned about domestic abuse appear to engage in abusive comments the most.
Thank you for your very reasonable reply. I think some of the responses I've received have been quite personal and its got me questioning if what I said was that bad or warranting of the abuse.
I'm not sure if it's maybe due to the way I'm programmed or process information and maybe my arguments come across differently to how they're intended.
I'm just scrutinising the information which has been made available to us which I feel is a very rationale and balanced way to look at things. What was the motives behind this and that? Why did they say that? Why did he say that? Why did nobody say more? What do United mean with this carefully phrased quote? What else could have been on that recording? Why did they not report it to the police or conduct them? What was their relationship like in the build up? What is masons character like? What do his peers and family think? What do her peers and families think? Who do they assosciate with? Have they been involved in previous poor behaviour? Why was he charged? Why didn't he speak out himself? What advice would their lawyers have given? Why have neither elaborated more in the media since? Are they not talking because they know whatever they say that people will just draw their own conclusions from anyway and it will bring the case back in the public eye again?
There are many many unanswered questions that nobody in this thread knows the answers too. But challenging the unknown and asking the above does not make them a bad person. Like you said I'm just trying to have a more in depth conversation beneath the surface.
The one bit I don't fully agree with you on is the part about Man Utd giving a full explanation on why they came to any decision, especially if he was due to return. I think an explanation was certainly needed but I think we also need to respect the privacy and the wishes of Mason and his partner too. And thus I feel any release of information would have to also be on their terms because its them who'd be speculated about.
Last edited:
Yes. And not for "having a different opinion", it's just you and a couple others.
The problem is, not so much whether I feel the club need to give a full explanation. It is more that people will demand it. This is the issue. It has to an extent been played out in the public sphere and as I have said previously, if Mason Greenwood wants to play in the Premier League (which I hope he does as young ambitious footballer) he is going to have to participate in some form of PR.
It appeared as though United were preparing a PR campaign to bring him back before the last minute u-turn. That would definitely need to happen if they attempt it again.
Absolute nonsense from start to finish - how about actually sticking to the thread topic and responding to the valid points being made rather than attacking the poster ?
I actually have absolutely no idea what this 'freethinker' crap is either - first time I ever see it used as a negative in my life
This is a question that has not come up too often as the priority has been the wellbeing of the complainant, the staff at Old Trafford, the online and affect on the brand.
But I feel it may be a question that becomes more prevalent as time goes by provided these 3 things happen (Greenwood rediscovers some form, Greenwood and partner become more confident as a family unit after a season in Spain and perhaps a change of ownership leading to a more positive vibe around the club,)
That question is what if Greenwood and family want to come back play for United and in the Premier League? The club say he is not guilty of the charges if was accused of and if Greenwood feels mentally strong enough to be able to play in England and he is confident that his presence will not be a distraction to the club.
What if he and his partner say "we want to come home now".
Right
If a PL club wants to buy him then by all means.
Agreed. There are 19 other clubs he could choose to 'come home' to.
I was thinking about why the club took so ridiculously long to announce anything, I doubt the internal investigation took 6 months. I think the conclusion that Greenwood was not guilty, was reached by the club months ago and they were just waiting for the birth of child. There was then a timing conflict with the Women's World Cup which seemed to further delay any announcement.
Possibly they believed that once everyone saw the couple were back together with a baby that they would accept Greenwood's return. They even had a happy families Instagram reveal
Clearly they misjudged this completely as things didnt go that way at all. Hardly anyone really cared about the news about the couple or child, all the focus is still on the original audio and pics.
I agree that they will need to do something again if they are considering bringing him back. Many will not accept it until they get an explanation for that audio.
You are the guy that was explicitly mentioning the partner's social media activity and friendship group in order to re-frame the situation a few posts back. You can't be serious.
Utterly terrible.
You’ll never, ever, get him to admit that his ‘just asking questions’ schtick is a poorly disguised way of him trying to get the thing he wants whilst ignoring the moral collateral.
- Status