#2 Jordan De Goey

[stui magpie]

Yes i do, dealing drugs, hard drugs that nearly killed my son, genius, is far, far more serious offence, and if YOU had walked in my shoes, as parent going thru a nightmare, you would agree.

NO further comment, now i am done.

It was 12 years ago. And stop abusing people.

Stokes wasn't found guilty of "dealing" - he was charged with that but the charge was dropped. He was dealt with for possession and no conviction was recorded. We all know you would be apopleptic if anyone suggested that De Goey committed sexual assault in New York last October, merely because he was charged with it, so do try not to be a complete hypocrite.

Stokes had one tablet of ecstasy if I recall correctly.

Nah, Coke. Caught buying it, not dealing.

[think positive]

Grabbing and uncovering a woman's breasts in public (which is the main problem with the video), on the other hand, is anti-social and misogynistic. It's a power play, combining a sense of possession, power and humiliation (she's mine, i can do what i want to her). Even if the woman decided she wasn't fussed about it, he sure as hell didn't ask before he did it. So it was a close call, and could easily have been assault.

I don't understand why anyone would think that is a reasonable way to treat a woman, even one you are consensually 'flirting' with. The fact it happens a lot is not an excuse, it is just an indictment on young (and not so young) men.

Yep

[Big T]

The victimless crime of recreational drug use that kills 2000 directly in aus a year and God knows how many indirectly? Wow.

[think positive]

Yeah that’s why I didn’t quote that bit!

[slangman]

Recreational drug use is a victimless crime. Should not be illegal.

Grabbing and uncovering a woman's breasts in public (which is the main problem with the video), on the other hand, is anti-social and misogynistic. It's a power play, combining a sense of possession, power and humiliation (she's mine, i can do what i want to her). Even if the woman decided she wasn't fussed about it, he sure as hell didn't ask before he did it. So it was a close call, and could easily have been assault.

I don't understand why anyone would think that is a reasonable way to treat a woman, even one you are consensually 'flirting' with. The fact it happens a lot is not an excuse, it is just an indictment on young (and not so young) men.

Sorry, but this would have to be one of the most stupid posts in NBB history.
It began with your mind boggling opening sentence and then deteriorated from there.

Be better!!

[pietillidie]

I don't understand why anyone would think that is a reasonable way to treat a woman, even one you are consensually 'flirting' with.

Because you're imposing your value system on someone else's consent. I wouldn't do what Jordy did, but it's not about me and not for me to second guess someone else's negotiation. It's not for you or I to tell someone else what their boundaries and negotiations are, nor to overrule a negotiation from afar. Moreover, it barely takes much world experience to know that all kinds of things are negotiated while drinking at night clubs along with whatever misogyny takes place. The huge misstep here is not being aware of misogyny, it's overgeneralising it.

Now, the dumbness was Jordy taking the risk of causing an incident at all, which is of course where the ADHD and then the alcohol comes in, as discussed at length above and which should be giving far greater pause for thought. But that discussion aside, there are entire works devoted to the sociological rituals of nightclubs, fully mindful of misogyny, that deal with this. So sure, misogyny is to be found all over the place, but again it's not for you and I to make the prejudicial and indeed patriarchal assumption that we know better than the woman involved.

It's simply none of our business at that point, regardless of how morally omniscient we might think we are. By many feminist interpretations, as well as simply plain old logic, people going there are now being the misogynist by insisting the woman involved just can't in her right mind choose other than their moral code.

By the same token, I get the anger of many women, but they too are imposing on a situation that they simply don't own, even if for understandable reasons. We know that trauma and exposure cause overgeneralisation and hypervigilance, so I'm not blaming people for reacting based on bad experience, but that still doesn't give anyone a licence to own someone else's negotiation.

Many, many things are not my cup of tea, and I've had women do far more than that to me in pubs and clubs in full view of others. Now, I'm very cautious, so I wouldn't have done that first, but what do you think made those women think they could do that to me? It was negotiation in a certain social context, and it's not for anyone to impose their assumptions on those women. That's my call.

Paternalism is simply misogyny by another name, and the idea that misogyny is always everywhere is an outdated structural leftism that poststructuralist feminism and queer theory left behind three decades ago. (I took postgrad classes in this area with a leading poststructuralist feminist in the 1990s, while this whole field is actually one of David's areas of expertise, so feel free to pick it up in the VPT).

So sorry, by the time you drain unsavoury motives and overgeneralisation from the matter, paternalism is all that's left.

[think positive]

Recreational drug use is a victimless crime. Should not be illegal.

Grabbing and uncovering a woman's breasts in public (which is the main problem with the video), on the other hand, is anti-social and misogynistic. It's a power play, combining a sense of possession, power and humiliation (she's mine, i can do what i want to her). Even if the woman decided she wasn't fussed about it, he sure as hell didn't ask before he did it. So it was a close call, and could easily have been assault.

I don't understand why anyone would think that is a reasonable way to treat a woman, even one you are consensually 'flirting' with. The fact it happens a lot is not an excuse, it is just an indictment on young (and not so young) men.

Sorry, but this would have to be one of the most stupid posts in NBB history.
It began with your mind boggling opening sentence and then deteriorated from there.

Be better!!

So you would be happy for someone to treat your daughter that way? Your wife? Your mother


PTID it is our business regardless of if she was ok with it after the fact, she did indeed prevent him exposing her. By doing so she made it clear the answer is no. None of our business? How many women and indeed men have been saved from assault because someone stepped in? If someone, male or female, had said ‘hey honey are you ok’ when they saw that it would be a perfectly reasonable question. It doesn’t have to get aggressive, but if you see something unseemly often people step in. And they are not out of line.


And just because it’s apparently happened to you, and you see it happen does not make it ok to try and expose a persons tits arse whatever, in public. It’s not ok. Never was, never will be.

[pietillidie]

^You're still imposing on her negotiation, which includes her signalling whatever she wants within her negotiation, and interpreting it however she wants within her negotiation.

Conflating that footage with cases of sexual assault doesn't change that; that's just a further imposition. Worry does not someone else's negotiation make, even if you're right to worry.

[think positive]

Well what a wonderful society that sounds like.

It’s a fact that many many many women are manhandled by men with false bravado, drugs, alcohol, or any other excuse you want to dig up, yes including adhd, and nothing will ever make that ok. You cannot and should not normalise or excuse the behaviour, She signalled it wasn’t ok. Maybe if he had succeeded she would not have ever said it was ok. It us not acceptable behaviour, ever, in a public place. It’s called respect and decency, common sense.

And certainly if your employer is relying on sponsors to pay your wages they may not like the publicity. Especially if it’s not the first whoopsie. Or the third, fourth or fifth, I’ve lost count.

And here we are.

That’s in plain English, not bullshit academic babble.

[think positive]

Dp but I’ll use it now. The previous page you made it sound like ADHD is controlling him so much he should not be allowed out in public without a Hannibal mask and hand trolley. And people lapped it up, and still want to risk 3.2 million dollars on him.

I actually give DeGoey a lot more credit than that. He’s not stupid. But he’s doing very stupid things and enabling him to feel bullet proof is doing him no favours. He has a condition that effects millions, he has brilliant Psychologist care that most can’t afford. Changing managers, downgrading to a yes man shows he is resisting changing his behaviour. I truly hope this is his rock bottom and wake up call, but if he’s as angry with the club as has been reported today I doubt it. Time for some home truths.

[pietillidie]

^I never said ADHD is controlling him, I said at times it interferes with behaviour by at times interfering with signalling, memory and recall and the nexus between thought and action, which indeed is what it does. I also said that undiagnosed adult ADHD brings with it a raft of other challenges because of bullying and self-directed frustration that accompany it for decades prior, while the treatment is more effective when it's picked up early before those other thought and behavioural patterns evolve and the whole thing becomes more ingrained and entangled.

And as WPT said, the experience of the condition varies, which is to say individuals and their lives and consciousness vary, so imposing one individual case of ADHD on another by saying x is like this so y should also be exactly like this is also a mistake within the known cluster of problems inside the boundary of the condition.

Call it whatever English you like, but it will take you more research and experience to understand ADHD in depth; you still don't own that woman's negotiation even if you're right to worry; the club still behaved egregiously and shamefully in full knowledge of the lad's disability; the club is still big enough and ugly enough to deal with these things and indeed needs to become far more resilient in the face of PR challenges; his own coach is still the most mature and insightful leader in the room by miles; and many in the media are still grifting parasites.

[think positive]

i reckon the club has acted and behaved perfectly, with dignity, without outlandish statements, and they have signalled their displeasure by withdrawing the contract, and a fine that is only triggered if he goes of the rails again. the club has more than one player to consider, he is getting help through the club, paid for by the club,

[pietillidie]

^As I said, even worse; they knew about the disability and still set about publically humiliating and distressing someone with a condition prone to far greater levels of Rejection Sensitivity Dysmorphia, anxiety, depression and suicide. That's about as an egregious case of workplace discrimination, harassment and bullying as you will find anywhere.

What next? Pushing people in wheelchairs down flights of stairs? Because again, that's the correct medical analogy here.

[Magpietothemax]

[Pies2016]

Serious question to those who know more about ADHD than I do.
On the back of multiple driving offences, should DeGoey also be afforded an amount of empathy because seemingly his ADHD doesn’t allow him to drive within the road laws ?