nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Zzippy

All things non-rugby related here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Buer

thomond2006 wrote: »

Fingers crossed Green Bay take part in a London game soon, though the more popular teams generally don't get picked. I was at Miami-NO last Sunday and the atmosphere wasn't great as the stadium was full of neutrals. I think it would be a pro-Packers crowd if they played.

There have been big teams over a number of times and it hasn't made it much better. The Giants, Patriots and 49ers have all visited on more than one occasion and would all have pretty good followings in the UK and Ireland....more than the Packers, I'd say at the very least.

I can't see it improving too much unless London actually gets a team and fans can get on board and develop a genuine support of a side. As it stands, it's a day out for people even if their preferred team is involved.

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

The man is simply the best QB around. Unbelievably efficient in the 4th quarter.

Fingers crossed Green Bay take part in a London game soon, though the more popular teams generally don't get picked. I was at Miami-NO last Sunday and the atmosphere wasn't great as the stadium was full of neutrals. I think it would be a pro-Packers crowd if they played.

thomond2006

Interested Observer wrote: »

#59 would also be on his holidays for a few weeks or more. Was there any disciplinary action against him?

Trevathan got a two game ban, reduced to one on appeal.
The person who upheld the appeal? A former linebacker (same position as Trevathan). :pac:

I do wonder if helmets do more harm than good. Players are more than willing to use them as weapons.

[Deleted User]

#59 would also be on his holidays for a few weeks or more. Was there any disciplinary action against him?

Buer

The man is simply the best QB around. Unbelievably efficient in the 4th quarter.

On a side note, I don't know how Davante Adams was able to play yesterday let alone score two TDs. If that incident from last week was in rugby, we'd be screaming foul about his participation yesterday. He was completely lights out, night in hospital and getting smashed again a week later.

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

I thought you were besotted with that man?

Your misunderstand me Buer. He's my QB on my AF forum team. Ligind. Once again he breaks Cowboys' hearts at the death.

https://twitter.com/packers/status/917171675573084160

https://twitter.com/ESPNNFL/status/917171580383449088

Buer

thomond2006 wrote: »

Aaron Bleepin' Rodgers.

I thought you were besotted with that man?

thomond2006

Aaron Bleepin' Rodgers.

thomond2006

So Big Ben is my NFL fantasy QB this weekend....:(

Erik Shin

It's Quinlan

thomond2006

Please not Quinlan!

CatFromHue

please not Quinlan
please not Quinlan
please not Quinlan
please not Quinlan

thomond2006

Zzippy wrote: »

The ban on all IT journos is just a little bit silly...

https://twitter.com/RossOCK/status/916254949394321408

https://twitter.com/RossOCK/status/916256383493902341

https://twitter.com/RossOCK/status/916257306333020162

What is OTB going to do? No Cummiskey or Thornley on rugby and I imagine they have contributors from IT on soccer and GAA.

Teferi

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There is nothing moderate about wanting the right to be able to say extreme things without being criticised for it.

We certainly agree on that because it's not the argument I am making.

thomond2006

Both "sides" are too entrenched. Teferi makes a great point about an echo chamber on social media.

On that note I'm going to avoid any repeal debate when the referendum approaches. It's going to be unwatchable. Two extremist sides funded by foreign money shouting at each other with no actual debate.

irishbucsfan

Teferi wrote: »

Likewise, this exact argument is used to silence moderates because nobody wants to be associated with racists.

There is nothing moderate about wanting the right to be able to say extreme things without being criticised for it.

CatFromHue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5QJXRbmQ8

It's just a lovely nostalgic watch this

Zzippy

The ban on all IT journos is just a little bit silly...

https://twitter.com/RossOCK/status/916254949394321408

https://twitter.com/RossOCK/status/916256383493902341

https://twitter.com/RossOCK/status/916257306333020162

mfceiling

Teferi wrote: »

Likewise, this exact argument is used to silence moderates because nobody wants to be associated with racists.

It's the curse of social media - create your very own personalised echo chamber where every single ridiculous opinion you hold is constantly reinforced by other eejits and then when you reach outside your bubble you are shocked to learn that the world isn't the same way as your bubble.

This multiplied by a million percent.

Teferi

Bazzo wrote: »

Before I say anything let me just say I'm a million miles away from levelling this accusation at you, or anyone in this thread.

The problem is that this argument along with phrases like "PC Brigade" are frequently used for people with overtly racist or otherwise deplorable opinions to justify themselves.

Likewise, this exact argument is used to silence moderates because nobody wants to be associated with racists.

It's the curse of social media - create your very own personalised echo chamber where every single ridiculous opinion you hold is constantly reinforced by other eejits and then when you reach outside your bubble you are shocked to learn that the world isn't the same way as your bubble.

DGRulz

Bazzo wrote: »

Before I say anything let me just say I'm a million miles away from levelling this accusation at you, or anyone in this thread.

The problem is that this argument along with phrases like "PC Brigade" are frequently used for people with overtly racist or otherwise deplorable opinions to justify themselves.

I'd actually agree with you on that tbh, in the same way SJW and the Pepe the frog meme have been taken over by the far right. But for my comment above I couldn't think of a better term for what I was trying to describe. Mea culpa

DGRulz

Interested Observer wrote: »

I think Hook had an ok-ish point when he was just trying to suggest that people should look out for themselves and be careful.

I should really look up the exact quotes here but when he said (not exactly) "is there no blame on the person for putting themselves in danger" and "should she be surprised when she goes back to a hotel that another man comes and rapes her", I really don't know how to take those comments in any other context than it's at least partly her own fault for getting raped.

Your first paragraph is the point I'm trying to make. In my own opinion, under no circumstances is the victim to blame for getting raped, no absolutely means no and if you're not in a position to say yes, it's also a no but in the case that was being discussed when this all broke out, which seems to have been thrown by the way side for the most part, no one is going to convince me it's not incredibly stupid to get incredibly pissed and then go home with someone you've known maybe less than an hour. Again, not the victims fault.

In the same way, I'd never walk down a dark alley, in town, on my own, at 2 in the morning for fear of being mugged. It's terrible that it is this way. It shouldn't be this way but there's scumbags out there and you need to be a tiny bit proactive so they don't have the opportunity.

On Hook, I think he made his main point and then said too much and used the wrong words to get his point across. If he hadn't said 'blame' when referring to the victim and phrased it as above not as many people would be as outraged.

irishbucsfan

mfceiling wrote: »

That's true enough but you are getting a lot of people who will call you out on anything if you have a different view than theirs regardless if they are right or wrong.

NO, THEY DON'T!

Erik Shin

mfceiling wrote: »

That's true enough but you are getting a lot of people who will call you out on anything if you have a different view than theirs regardless if they are right or wrong.

Welcome to boards.ie !

mfceiling

Bazzo wrote: »

Before I say anything let me just say I'm a million miles away from levelling this accusation at you, or anyone in this thread.

The problem is that this argument along with phrases like "PC Brigade" are frequently used for people with overtly racist or otherwise deplorable opinions to justify themselves.

That's true enough but you are getting a lot of people who will call you out on anything if you have a different view than theirs regardless if they are right or wrong.

Bazzo

mfceiling wrote: »

It really is reaching the stage of "if you don't agree with me then I will be offended by your different opinion".

The old - just because you were offended doesn't always mean you were right.

Before I say anything let me just say I'm a million miles away from levelling this accusation at you, or anyone in this thread.

The problem is that this argument along with phrases like "PC Brigade" are frequently used for people with overtly racist or otherwise deplorable opinions to justify themselves.

mfceiling

It really is reaching the stage of "if you don't agree with me then I will be offended by your different opinion".

The old - just because you were offended doesn't always mean you were right.

[Deleted User]

I think Hook had an ok-ish point when he was just trying to suggest that people should look out for themselves and be careful.

I should really look up the exact quotes here but when he said (not exactly) "is there no blame on the person for putting themselves in danger" and "should she be surprised when she goes back to a hotel that another man comes and rapes her", I really don't know how to take those comments in any other context than it's at least partly her own fault for getting raped.

irishbucsfan

DGRulz wrote: »

In a similar vein, someone in work yesterday pointed out to me that the Hook thing has been taken completely out of context so I went back and found what he actually said.

He absolutely was not taken completely out of context. And his comments were available in the entire original context here at the time.

Also FFS "PC Brigade" is one of the most annoying concepts that just gets repeated. It's a great way to shut up people, particularly minorities, who have been attacked for years. Like to poor old Englishmen that can't call us Paddies or Micks any more in the workplace. It also always reminds me of Stewart Lee's Nan

DGRulz

sydthebeat wrote: »

It's another example of taking offence when none was offered.

Pat didn't make comments about CF being a cause for higher rates of abortion. He asked a question, which is a HUGE difference.... And what he is paid to do.

He at no point suggested that CF should be a reason someone would have an abortion, which is exactly the offence the 'eternally offended' took.

This.

In a similar vein, someone in work yesterday pointed out to me that the Hook thing has been taken completely out of context so I went back and found what he actually said. It's very poorly phrased and much as I hate the man he never actually said what people are going after him for.

He actually has something of a point but because he worded part of it poorly and he has years of talking s**t behind him people are willing to just take a poorly worded sentence as proof of the whole without context.