Thoughts on Netball Australia and Hancock Situation

Trying2SaveABuck on 23/10/2022 - 14:22
Last edited 24/10/2022 - 12:45

Hancock withdraws 15m sponsorship deal with netball Australia due to player backlash and players refusing to wear the Hancock brand

https://netball.com.au/news/hancock-prospecting-withdraws-pa…

Netball CEO admits to being concerned about the competitions financial future

https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/netball-australia-reas…

Hancock donates 1m dollars of the sponsorship money taken from netball Australia to Telethon7

https://7news.com.au/sport/netball/netball-watches-on-as-gin…

Mike Cannon-Brooks being called out to save Netball Australia - as he only pays less then 10% tax opposed to Gina who pays 30% - yet is a massive socialist is interesting if he will put his money were his woke is

https://www.news.com.au/sport/netball/call-him-out-elites-pu…

Poll Options

  • 649
    Go Woke Go broke
  • 222
    Good on the players
  • 13
    Im not sure
Sports & Outdoors

Comments

      • Rockets84 on 25/10/2022 - 19:28

        The Netball WA / Fever deal was worth $2 million. Netball WA & Fever already have a deal with the WA governments Healthways sports fund which means they don't accept deals from junk food, alcohol or gambling companies so the Roy Hill deal was important to them.

  • Kevinrsteele on 24/10/2022 - 15:33
    +6

    I suggest if the players dont want $15m sponsorship names on their uniform, they accept a pay cut to balance the books.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/10/2022 - 15:45
      +1

      I suggest if the players dont want $15m sponsorship names on their uniform, they accept a pay cut to balance the books.

      even if they got paid Zero it wouldn't make up the difference

  • 82norm on 24/10/2022 - 16:12
    +6

    If NA players keep poking the dragon, they’ll end up nowhere. Their uniforms are probably from some 3rd world sweat shop in Bangladesh, Nike shoes made by underpaid workers. After a game they put their clothes through a Bosch or Miele washing machine that had ties with the Nazis. Not to mention any headaches or pain they encounter using medicine from Bayer…. Absolute hypocrites.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/10/2022 - 15:45

      Their uniforms are probably from some 3rd world sweat shop in Bangladesh

      Their uniforms are from some 3rd world sweat shop in a country like Bangladesh

      Fixed

  • trapper on 24/10/2022 - 16:44
    +2

    Be interesting if they can find another sponsor now…

    Given that the entire history of any new sponsor will now no doubt be thoroughly investigated for any sign of wrongthink.

    So any contenders will have to be confident that they are absolutely squeaky clean, or face a PR disaster.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/10/2022 - 15:47
      -2

      Be interesting if they can find another sponsor now…

      it is pretty common knowledge woke/socialist tend to have load mouths but generally never put their hand in their pocket - it is why they always want the government to fund socialism and use tax payer money opposed to their own - The fact Mike Cannon Brooks the tax dodging socialist was called out to foot a 15m bill to help out and he has 'not answered the call' is testament they will struggle to find an ESG sponsor

      Another would be best Woke lunatic Alan Jocye who has 15m in his change box of his car…

  • Cluster on 24/10/2022 - 17:09
    +1

    Many rich people have said things and held views that we find distasteful to repugnant today.

    Anyone here eat Kellogg's breakfast cereals, or has a team sponsored by the company? Look into the history of the founder. His words are very similar to that of Hancock:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg

    Kellogg dedicated the last 30 years of his life to promoting eugenics. He co-founded the Race Betterment Foundation,[9] co-organized several National Conferences on Race Betterment and attempted to create a 'eugenics registry'. Alongside discouraging 'racial mixing', Kellogg was in favor of sterilizing 'mentally defective persons', promoting a eugenics agenda while working on the Michigan Board of Health[10] and helping to enact authorization to sterilize those deemed 'mentally defective' into state laws during his tenure.[11][12]

    Clearing your pantry of all Kellogg's products? No, I thought not.

    • AustriaBargain on 24/10/2022 - 17:58
      +1

      Kellogg said that before the Holocaust, back when every country in the world thought eugenics was a good idea. It was only relatively recently in Kellogg's time that Charles Darwin gave humanity the theory of natural selection and with it the modern scientific method. Lang Hancock had the benefit of hindsight but still went with it anyway. Even at the time "way back" in the 80s we all knew his views where abhorrent. To some young people today the 80s may seem like a million years ago.

    • dowhatuwant2 on 25/10/2022 - 11:52

      Whats bad about reducing genetic disorders in the world? Wouldn't that just reduce impact to healthcare and be beneficial for society?

      • crentist on 27/10/2022 - 10:20

        Through forced sterilization? You don't see any potential for abuse there?
        Probably wouldn't seem so great if you fit whatever profile a few powerful dudes wanted to genocide out of "their" society. Like say, the Uighurs in China.
        Or how about people with glasses? Those aren't perfect genes, should we get rid of them?

        The simple fact that eugenists seem to always target specific racial groups and see racial mixing as a bad thing should give you some hint how flawed the idea is.
        Not even talking morally. Genetic diversity is a requirement for natural selection, and if they had their way we'd see none of it. There'd probably be enough pseudo-medicine to support the idea too.

        • dowhatuwant2 on 27/10/2022 - 10:35

          Honestly i just don't know that your "simple fact" is true. I think those eugenists simply get more fame/press and that's why you are under that impression.

          I'd argue that every person who's ever done a test to check if their fetus is high risk of down syndrome or other disorders with the intent of getting an abortion if they didn't like the result is a eugenist which makes it far far far more commonly associated with non racial factors.

          • crentist on 28/10/2022 - 01:36

            @dowhatuwant2: Then argue that then. Instead, you replied to a comment specifically about the promotion of sterilisation and racial purity as public policy, to say it's a good thing.

            If you think that's equivalent to individuals making their own reproductive choices, I invite you to justify it.

            If you only wanted to point out that I may have used too broad a label, then fine. Please reread my comment, substituting "eugenists" for "eugenists like John Kellogg, who is the topic of the parent post specifically due to his promotion of sterilisation and racial purity agendas, which you are defending".

            • dowhatuwant2 on 28/10/2022 - 08:23

              @crentist: I replied and said what’s wrong with reducing genetic disorders, learn to read mate.

              • crentist on 28/10/2022 - 10:23

                @dowhatuwant2: Was that a serious question about genetic disorders in general? Then apologies for thinking you meant to defend the racists.
                But the post you replied to wasn't actually about reducing genetic disorders in general, so you'll have to forgive me.

                And given that you read two kinda lengthy posts spelling out eugenics as public policies that have been racist, politically motivated, and/or scientifically outdated attempts at genetic control, and were more concerned with the definition of the word, and still not clued in to why people are wary of it, let me direct you to the Wikipedia page. There you will learn the controversial history of eugenics, and how modern eugenics continues to be a bit of a minefield, even regarding personal genetic selection.
                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

                • dowhatuwant2 on 28/10/2022 - 11:29

                  @crentist: I was saying technically that doesnt apply to all eugenics especially given my argument that all people checking fetus risk are practicing a form of eugenics…. Like i literally said this already, why i got to repeat the same stuff when its in text.

  • Willy Beamish on 24/10/2022 - 19:56
    +3

    Man what a blow to the world's number one netball team that 99.999999999% of the world doesn't know about.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/10/2022 - 15:49
      +1

      Man what a blow to the world's number one netball team

      no one cares about netball….

      • Willy Beamish on 26/10/2022 - 16:59

        That part was a reference to one of the articles.

  • OpenAI on 24/10/2022 - 20:32
    +3

    Play stupid games win stupid prizes

  • p1 ama on 24/10/2022 - 20:40
    +1

    Why does anyone care? How many of you have even watched a game of netball before let alone follow it?

    • gromit on 24/10/2022 - 23:02
      +2

      While most dont care about netball, hence there desperate funding problems, many do care on the knockon consequences for sponsorship for whatever sport they do follow. Just about every company or sponsor will have offended someone sometime.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/10/2022 - 15:50
      +1

      Why does anyone care? How many of you have even watched a game of netball before let alone follow it?

      because they dont want the government to foot the bill when this goes balls up

      • smartazz104 on 25/10/2022 - 17:06

        Exactly, I want my government to give my tax money to its mates instead.

      • p1 ama on 25/10/2022 - 23:03
        +1

        because they dont want the government to foot the bill when this goes balls up

        This just sounds like an excuse to politicise an issue that most people should not / would not care about otherwise.

        At the end of the day, Netball Australia can take money from whomever they want, Hancock can donate to whomever they want. It's not that hard.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/10/2022 - 12:01

          At the end of the day, Netball Australia can take money from whomever they want, Hancock can donate to whomever they want. It's not that hard.

          actually netball Australia like most professional/semi professional sports get tax payer funded support … so it is 100% tax payers business

  • isthisreallife22 on 24/10/2022 - 20:41
    +1

    Has everyone seen this Ted Lasso episode? https://youtu.be/NblFsHS71Cg

    • Wasabi Ninja on 24/10/2022 - 21:00

      Came here to say the same thing. They totally wanted to reenact it. So dumb.

  • baldur on 24/10/2022 - 20:54
    +4

    A worthless issue of the entitled first world.

    In the meantime, 1 billion people have no access to clean drinking water in the world.

    Can woke and cancel culture concern about these real problems?

    • smartazz104 on 25/10/2022 - 17:06
      +2

      Can woke and cancel culture concern about these real problems?

      Too bad the other side doesn't actually care…

  • Cluster on 24/10/2022 - 23:37
    +5

    Now that the conversation has opened to players opposing sponsorship because of what a dead guy said decades ago, I welcome all players (AFL, NRL, etc) speaking up in opposition to sponsorships from problematic companies that cause great harm in society today.

    Let's start with betting companies.

    https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-afl-s-engine-how-gam…

    Hundreds of millions of dollars in sponsorship flowing to the AFL and its teams, from a product that causes misery and losses to countless people, many of whom are addicted to the product.

    Now let's move onto crypto.com and its products. Fortune favours the brave (thanks Matt), but it's the fools who are losing their shirt on this garbage.

    https://www.afl.com.au/news/695585/afl-welcomes-cryptocom-in…

    But too much money is at stake, and everyone is keeping quiet lest the rivers of gold dry up.

    • smartazz104 on 25/10/2022 - 17:07
      +1

      Money talks and bullshit walks.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 27/10/2022 - 09:55

      Now that the conversation has opened to players opposing sponsorship because of what a dead guy said decades ago, I welcome all players (AFL, NRL, etc) speaking up in opposition to sponsorships from problematic companies that cause great harm in society today.

      although i 'dont support' the Netball players i would support banning better and Alcohol from sponsoring sports at the professional level it is clear, gambling is a disease for society

  • Blargman2001 on 25/10/2022 - 00:38
    +1

    Half of the big German corporations that are still operating were complicit in the holocaust of WW2. So too were some Japanese corporations in war crimes involving forced labour and prostitution of POW's ( many of whom were Australian) and conquered people's. Don't see anyone shunning a BMW or Mitsubishi sponsorship? If you want to die on the hill of oppression and racism you need to be consistent otherwise you look like a fool. Nothing wrong with being woke, but you need to understand the context of your wokeness.

  • pogichinoy on 25/10/2022 - 00:56
    +1

    Everything woke goes to shit.

  • jellykingdom on 25/10/2022 - 08:52
    +3

    I thought it was incredibly presumptuous to essentially call out the fella from Atlassian…not in a "we need your help!" way but in a "hey you jerk, give us your money you stupid jerk" kind of way. What a world

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/10/2022 - 15:52
      -4

      presumptuous to essentially call out the fella from Atlassian

      Mike Cannon brooks is the biggest left wing socialist Billionaire Australia has - 15m is literally change to the man, but funny enough for all his socialist mouthing off he has not come to the rescue

      • jellykingdom on 25/10/2022 - 17:43

        …Why should he fund netball? Is netball inherently a socialist cause…?

        You seem to really hate this guy, based on the sudden rush of anti comments

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 27/10/2022 - 09:57
          -1

          …Why should he fund netball? Is netball inherently a socialist cause…?

          not at all but i found it funny he got called out and completely ignored the call - the 'evil' mining Magnate who pays her fair share of tax helped NA and that knocked it back…whilst one of the big ESG heros who tax avoids like it is aids ignores the call

          I personally 'dont like Gina' but i got way more respect for her after this, MCB has mouthed off a lot in the past to call him out and for him to avoid it kind of shows the true nature of the bloke…

  • Infoguard on 25/10/2022 - 09:17
    +3

    Not correct by OP:
    "Mike Cannon-Brooks being called out to save Netball Australia - as he only pays less then 10% tax opposed to Gina who pays 30% - yet is a massive socialist is interesting if he will put his money were his woke is"

    The article refers to the tax rate paid by a company. This is different to the rate paid by the individual.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/10/2022 - 15:53
      -1

      Mike Cannon-Brooks is the biggest fraud and you're stand woke warrior who actually doesnt practice what he moans about and has never 'actually' put his hand in his own pocket.

      The idiot tried to buy AGL at a discounted price and pretend it was for ESG reasons no one gave a single F he had to buy a bunch of shares on market in which since then the SP has tanked.

      • Infoguard on 25/10/2022 - 16:57
        +1

        Full disclaimer: I have no strong opinion either way on this netball saga, or on AGL.

        but

        Again, not correct by OP:
        "he moans about and has never 'actually' put his hand in his own pocket" —>
        https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/atlassian-co-founder…
        https://www.startupdaily.net/topic/people/atlassians-mike-cannon-brookes-scott-farquhar-have-donated-2-million-to-artist-ben-quiltys-campaign-to-help-afghan-refugees/.. a simple google search would prove this wrong.

        A lot to unpack here:
        "The idiot tried to buy AGL at a discounted price and pretend it was for ESG reasons no one gave a single F he had to buy a bunch of shares on market in which since then the SP has tanked."
        - are you saying he tried to buy AGL at a discount to market? —> That's not true
        - he had to buy a bunch of shares on market —> he didn't have to, but he's now also the biggest shareholder - so I'd argue he does "put his hand in his own pocket" as per above
        - since then the SP has tanked —> are you arguing causation here? fyi… most equity markets have come off this year

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/10/2022 - 17:58
          +1

          1.1bn for renewables because he has a LARGE vested interest in renewable energy he is no hero he is full of garbage and that AGL bid was insulting and yes the SP since has took a large stake of shares has tanked

  • THICKnSLOW on 25/10/2022 - 09:19

    All in all a stupid move by everyone involved, no one benefits from this except perhaps the next sponsor, 'saviour' (penis optional?).

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/10/2022 - 15:54
      +1

      Hancock has benefited massively by this….

      • smartazz104 on 25/10/2022 - 17:08
        +1

        How exactly?

        • dowhatuwant2 on 26/10/2022 - 10:29
          +2

          Exposure? mostly positive with the other side looking like whingers.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 27/10/2022 - 09:59
          +1

          How exactly?

          your kidding right?

  • Brianqpr on 25/10/2022 - 10:12

    Being good at sport requires money. Australia was a pioneer of this when the AIS was set up to buy olympic medals. Others have now put similar models in place.

    Professional sport is funded by corporate sponsorship. Betting companies are at the forefront, offering vulnerable people more and more opportunities to lose their money. The sports and teams are generally happy to take the money to remain competitive.

    More of a concern is how one man controls such a huge part of the global media and political discourse.

  • imathew on 25/10/2022 - 12:07
    +2

    I've never heard men talk about netball so much before. Anyone see the final game in the Constellation Cup? It was awesome!

  • Shane034 on 25/10/2022 - 12:30
    +6

    I'm more offended by Reinhardt hoarding billions from resources that belong to the Australian people.

    • tsunamisurfer on 25/10/2022 - 18:12
      +2

      Roy Hill pay mining royalties.

      Roy Hill pay corporate tax.

      Do you?

      • dowhatuwant2 on 26/10/2022 - 11:16

        They do and honestly i dont blame the mines for making money from aus resources, I don't understand why mining isn't something done by the Fed/State government instead though.

        • Maxxjet on 26/10/2022 - 22:10

          State-Owned-Enterprise has been proven time and time again as a surefire way to lose money, no matter what the market conditions are, it could be just a matter of losing more or less. Private capital is best at work in these fields not taxpayers money.

          • dowhatuwant2 on 26/10/2022 - 23:14

            @Maxxjet: How can a mine lose money?

            • BobLim on 27/10/2022 - 01:56

              @dowhatuwant2: Thought it would be pretty obvious - same way as any other enterprise, where the costs of production exceed the revenue generated?

          • Shane034 on 27/10/2022 - 17:29
            +1

            @Maxxjet: Norway shows how it can be done. 22% corporate tax rate, plus an extra 56% special tax for oil and gas. 78% tax rate. And no-one calls them communists.

  • RolandWaites on 25/10/2022 - 12:47
    +3

    A major point of the opposition was to make light of comments made by Hancock. That has been achieved with enormous success. This is an issue that wasn't previously in the public consciousness and is now front and centre. Will it hurt Gina? No. Will it hurt Netball Australia? Probably. But that isn't a concern. NA will survive this, and they will have succeeded in sending the message the players felt needed to be made public.

    • ozhunter on 25/10/2022 - 18:32

      They sure showed her, lol.

      • RolandWaites on 25/10/2022 - 19:21

        That's the thing. They did. Everybody is talking about how Hancock Prospecting is built on a legacy of genocide advocacy. It's penetrated the public discourse so much it's been on the front of every national newspaper, current affairs show, news radio and even made it to a lengthy discussion on an obscure bargain-hunting website. They've achieved exactly what they set out to, and Netball Australia will find a new sponsor.

    • dowhatuwant2 on 26/10/2022 - 11:17
      -1

      You think people were unaware that in the past people were more free to be openly racist? What a silly take.

      • RolandWaites on 26/10/2022 - 12:26

        Do you make a habit of making up arguments for other people and then criticising them for it?

  • Drakesy on 25/10/2022 - 12:48
    +2

    Something Something
    Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
    Or at least have a plan b before calling it.

  • hippyhippy on 25/10/2022 - 13:41
    +1

    Good on the girls for standing up for what they believe in…

    Get woke … go broke.

    • smartazz104 on 25/10/2022 - 17:09
      -3

      Get woke … go broke.

      Catchy slogan for the unwashed masses, and it's 4 words instead of 3, nice.

      • hippyhippy on 25/10/2022 - 18:17
        +3

        2 words
        Let's go Brandon

    • cerealJay on 25/10/2022 - 20:07
      +5

      Their "belief" is to support their indigenous teammate, nothing more. If the indigenous teammate gave no shits about comments made last century, then I promise you, nobody in that team would have given a shit either. This is the viral nature of woke peer pressure. To be outraged about something not because you're actually outraged, but because someone else is.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 25/10/2022 - 15:24
    +1

    Presume the team is happy using the materials that this business has produced over the past decades, including all the iron for construction and coal for power and also taking advantage of the wealth this business has created for the country.

  • DingoBilly on 25/10/2022 - 15:55
    +3

    Eh, (profanity) the big companies. Good on the team for standing up for what they believe in.

  • Dack Smith on 25/10/2022 - 16:16

    So will there finally be a sport levy introduced in todays budget?

    Woke people can’t help themselves and will need help from others.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/10/2022 - 18:09

      So will there finally be a sport levy introduced in todays budget?

      most of these sports are paid for by the government…..

  • amzinguserman on 25/10/2022 - 16:18
    +9

    i cringe every time someone says "woke" . its just become the new pejorative for right wing boomers.

    • Ghost47 on 25/10/2022 - 16:28
      +2

      I have to agree. But then again right wingers are very good at insulting people from what I’ve seen. Very good trolls also.

      • the wiz on 25/10/2022 - 21:18
        +7

        You don't need to be good at constructing insults to offend the woke.

        "Good morning".

        "Good morning? Good morning!? I know what you did there! You deliberately avoided using my preferred pronoun…"

        • Ghost47 on 25/10/2022 - 21:21

          LMAO.

    • smartazz104 on 25/10/2022 - 17:11

      What's the opposite of woke anyway, asleep? Sounds about right.

    • cerealJay on 25/10/2022 - 20:15
      +4

      I cringe when people go woke because of peer pressure. One person in the team cared about comments from last century, so all had to care.

  • amzinguserman on 25/10/2022 - 16:24
    -2

    I forget that sometimes ozbargin is a cesspool of thinly veiled sexism but here we are.

  • amzinguserman on 25/10/2022 - 16:30
    +3

    You could frame this as " Gina/Hancock cancels netball, cancel culture has now attacked our sports ".

    • RolandWaites on 25/10/2022 - 17:45
      +3

      Snowflake Gina pulls offer after valid criticism

    • cerealJay on 25/10/2022 - 20:27

      Cancellation is always about the first negative action, which in this case was refusal to wear the logo of the sponsor.

      Comments from last century by a dead guy had nothing to do with the sponsorship arrangements in place. Woke outrage is cancerous, reactionary, tantrum ideology. It's throwing tomato soup on artwork because of something that has nothing to do with the artwork.

      • amzinguserman on 25/10/2022 - 20:39
        +2

        She literally cancelled a sponsorship.

        Criticism isnt cancellation.

        but good to see we are making up rules as we go.

        • cerealJay on 26/10/2022 - 10:28

          She literally cancelled a sponsorship.

          So? There is no obligation for any sponsor to keep paying.

          The team can simply find a new investor.

          There is no issue other than netball players "fighting for increased wages" at the same time as wanting exemption from wearing the sponsor logo because of "safe spaces" and pandering to over-sensitive perspectives.

          Dredging up the past and using it to criticise your current sponsor is incredibly stupid. It's a symptom of the trend to silence, shame, rewrite history, blame, point fingers… and generally dwell on historical negativity instead of moving forward with positive energy.

          • amzinguserman on 26/10/2022 - 21:52
            -1

            @cerealJay:

            So? There is no obligation for any sponsor to keep paying.

            literally cancel culture.

            Sounds like Gina is the one that needs a safe space.

            Honest to God they have brain washed people so well that they will spend their time defending a tax avoiding billionaire because of reactionary opposition to anything they perceive as "woke" .

            Bloody sheep.

            • cerealJay on 27/10/2022 - 09:43
              -2

              @amzinguserman:

              literally

              Good point. I hadn't considered the literal meaning. But now that you mention it, you've got me re-thinking my whole position in this debate.

  • dogzilla on 25/10/2022 - 19:59
    +4

    There's a saying in the media that "You cant put toothpaste back in the tube" so Hancock / Gina apologising for comments made 40 years ago by another person (albeit her father) is ludicrous. What the media has misrepresented is the work Roy Hill and Hancock does for indigenous folks and quite a bit of philanthropy you never hear about. Either way - the only option when this occurs is to pull back, take away their cake and let them squabble about who's right or wrong. Yes, Gina is a total loon but strategically the netballers didn't give them much option.

    Also, the media has a bit of a role here - they beat up the story and then looked for people willing to take either side - sells newspapers and has conjecture. Meanwhile a whole team now has no funding as a result. Thanks media peeps.

    • cerealJay on 25/10/2022 - 20:28
      +1

      Yep, you've nailed it.

  • 91rs on 25/10/2022 - 20:21
    +10

    Never say sorry, never bring up things that another person (family etc) has said even if racist, crazy, etc. If she were to apologise for or condemn what he had said (nothing to do with her) it would snowball from there as to why did it take her so long?, does the board and rest of the company agree?, who else is left that could have shared those views and do any of their children now reside on boards or high up positions?, we need them to acknowledge their families mistakes! etc.

    Through various news articles it seems her actions are totally against what her father would have wanted, the large amounts of money spent supporting women's sport, indigenous Australians and those in rural WA where council and government have continued to fail or ignore.

    That knowledge is more satisfying than any attempt for the angry crowd (a few here on OZB it seems) to force an apology or statement that ticks all the boxes for people who have probably never watched womens netball would demand she cover.

    It's about outrage and our media is a huge part of the problem.

    I hope that funding if its still to be spent is spread across other communities or sports groups that appreciate the gift rather than try go for point scoring on the person signing the cheques.

    • Heaps for Cheaps on 26/10/2022 - 09:12
      +1

      This is a really thought-out and well spoken commentary. Thanks for sharing.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 27/10/2022 - 10:01
      +1

      This reply is 100% spot on

  • gmatht on 25/10/2022 - 21:11
    +1

    Young people don't remember how different things were in the distant past 40 years ago. Back then we didn't have Netflix. To entertain ourselves we would just go down to the Colosseum and feed some Christians to the lions, or sterilize some brown people. That was like totes normal back then. /s

    • MrFunSocks on 26/10/2022 - 17:20

      Pretending that 40 years ago wasn't a completely different time, and that someone born in 1909 might have had some pretty bad ideas when viewed through the 2022 viewpoint, is very dumb though.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 27/10/2022 - 10:03
      +1

      To entertain ourselves we would just go down to the Colosseum and feed some Christians to the lions, or sterilize some brown people. That was like totes normal back then.

      i know this is 'satire' but i dont think 'young people' understand how different life was before the 'internet and mobile phone' became a main stream part of life

      that is not to 'excuse' and bad comments but the world was a different place in the 90s i can only imagine what it was like in the 80s

      • MrThing on 27/10/2022 - 13:14
        +1

        U cant fairly critique views of yesteryear with todays values

        Sure today we know its wrong, but back then wasnt like today is

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 27/10/2022 - 13:17
          +1

          U cant fairly critique views of yesteryear with todays values

          look 'what was said' was wrong it was said in the 80s not the 800s but you CANNOT blame Gina or her business for something her father said.

          Nor should Gina be made to apologise for something she did not say nor do

          • MrThing on 27/10/2022 - 13:39
            +2

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Ive never been an advocate for other people saying sorry for someone elses actions… its meaningless

            But hey some basic people froth it

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join