Well Poirot, I read carefully the link and posts before and after but the evidence of you supplying one of those ANSWERS is sadly missing ....

Please try responding to the questions posed in one of my latest posts largely in response to one of your previous:

"When Goodes realised the offender was a mere child, and no way he could have mistaken, why didn't he drop the big carry-on and make a statement after the game about hurt or offence he took from his interpretation of the insult? All he had to do was drop the finger. He stood on the sideline pointing and mouthing until Security turned up. Wasn't like he "couldn't pull out of the tackle" ... "

It's quite simple really. Give a factual convincing answer as to why Adam Goodes failed to act like a mature and reasonable man in his response and dealing with a pre-pubescent child.
(If you wish to reiterate that Goodes had 'no control' over process & security at the match, first revisit footage to see how long he had to point out his heckler for officials to arrive.)

You may also like to share what you believe is so especially "Racist" about the taunt of "APE" in light of it's commonality in being used to taunt males of all racial backgrounds - particulaly those of hairy and/or bulky countenance?
Example of an ANSWER - You could possibly believe when the term is directed at persons of indigenous heritage the inference is they are sub-human, when directed at Europeans/others the inference is they look indigenous?

Show me you can ...

Nice try, divine_msn.

However, I'm not obliged to "answer" every question or provide a rebuttal for every instance of conveniently contorted logic tossed in my direction.

I've posted enough on this subject recently on this forum.

If you're that interested - look it up.

Poirot:"How so?"

As I explained in my post. When someone like Goodes makes a public display, it is disseminated widely within the Aboriginal community. The effect of that is to entrench the cultural prejudice within that community toward the wider community and therefore reinforce the insularity and disadvantage.

It also entrenches the role of those who intermediate between Aboriginal communities and the wider one.

You can see the same effect in the interactions of some parts of the Muslim community which are culturally isolated from the rest of us. The intermediaries get more powerful every time an "insult to Islam" is reported and the communities get more convinced they must stand together at all costs.

If someone like Goodes was to laugh it off conspicuously, it would show it for what it is, silly.

Offence can only be taken, never given. If you refuse to be offended, I can't make you.

Racism implies a power imbalance between the two parties, with the one with the advantage being defined as the offender. If an Aboriginal person uses a racial insult toward me, I am expected to ignore it, because I am a white person, who is in the dominant cultural group and they are not. In the Goodes matter, they one using the "racist" term was a child, while he is a man and a well-respected part of the shared culture of Aborigines and whites. In other words, he is definitively more powerful, making a racist insult something he should not respond to.

I am offended that you have tried to imply some racist motive on my part. I'm simply interested in the way that ill-defined offence is used to manipulate outcomes that are actually not in the interests of the group that is supposedly being offended.

Feminism is another example of intermediaries benefitting be creating offence to reinforce resentment and drive outcomes that are bad for the supposed victim, but good for the ones who claim to speak for them.

I can see you are an intelligent man, Antiseptic. You think the same way that I do.

_Poirot-"conveniently contorted logic". Great expression, Poirot. That one goes into my "metaphor book."

If racial segregation is "inherently unequal" why not sex segregation?
Why are there still girls' and boy's schools?
Why are there mens and womens toilets?
Aren't someone's "rights" being violated?

Brown v Board was started after a girl couldn't attend her closest school and had to take a bus a mile away from home.

The irony of the outcome is that forced busing of children outside their local neighbourhoods become commonplace afterwards, to get "balance".
ROFL!

Segregation, de jure and de facto, enabled Blacks to gestate their own culture.
Without that genuine community, there'd be no jazz, no gospel choirs, no breakdancing.

This is why multiculturalism is unlikely to ever produce any great art or achievements.
There's no real community, no shared experience or identity.

And "racism" cuts both ways.
Imagine how welcome a white person would have been in a Black establishment back then.
If looks could kill.

LEGO, my talent, or burden, is in recognising contradictions and discontinuities. Once recognised, they stimulate me to try to fit them into a pattern or matrix, which I can compare with other patterns to look for similarities and eventually come to some explanation for them.

I think that a lot of people are understandably interested in the detail of their lives and the things that they hold to be important, but they don't have the tools or interest to see larger patterns.
When they are pointed out, a common response is to ignore them and to focus on a specific detail, or either embrace or dismiss the existence of the pattern depending on their personal prejudices.

I am not immune, because my interest in any contradiction is stimulated by my prejudices and how the contradictory data fits them. We all hold certain things to be accepted truth, it's how we deal with observations that don't fit which is important.

I'm a logical empiricist - everything is knowable and understandable with the right data. Being wrong is just as valuable as being right, because it defines the right data more precisely. I have a strong positivist streak as might be observed.

In my experience such an epistemiological approach is rare. Most people have a framework of beliefs that they have never tested, but which they use to define themselves. Any contradiction between their belief and empirical observation is an assault on them, personally.

It makes communicating ideas hard.