Squab

Members
  • Content count

    804
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Squab

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,626 profile views
  1. http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/police-called-as-hundreds-of-protesters-surround-sydney-university-vote-no-rally-20170914-gyhca1.html "Free to speak your opinion... As long as its the same as mine" - 2017
  2. I agree that disagreement on its own is not infringement of free speech and that specific laws can limit free speech (18C and whatever that is in the ACT). What about if your speech is limited by through violence that isn't supported by government? Imagine a Christian or Islamic preacher in the middle of town gets whatever approval they need to annoy anyone walking by with their beliefs but every time they turn up, they get bashed into silence? Is their free speech being infringed?
  3. lol, yeah, I've never seen people on the right justifying opinions nor have they ever actually been bullied or had free speech shut down. And its always the right with spurious bullying claims... I see this morning Joel Fitzgibbon is accusing Turnbull of bullying AGL. I do agree that people on both sides can be rather oversensitive. Look at Ben Laws recently deleted twitter humour. I thought it was funny but some on the right were offended snowflakes and I'm sure had the joke had been directed the other way, the left would have been outraged equally humourously. There would have been legal consequences and it would have been front and centre on the ABC. I don't think its only the left trying to shut down free speech either. Many on the right, especially the religiose, take offense at things needlessly. The recent law regarding vilification based on religion introduced by both sides of politics in the ACT might end up being used throughout the debate on marriage equality, rather than against the ALT-right chasing muslims which I think it was aimed at. That'd be a pretty hilarious own goal.
  4. I think Van uses it as a compliment. I bear you no ill will. No irony. I forgot to ask as its an odd issue. Are you a communist, is that why you're asking?
  5. A term of endearment, the way Van Badham uses it. To address a fellow proletariat while in the struggle against the oppressor.
  6. Painfully Comrade, you have inferred a lot that isn't there or are you using hyperbole to make a point? The quotation marks makes me think you meant "evidence leaning" as a joke, and I'm glad you did. Calling someone comrade does not mean you think they are a communist and I don't think the Murdoch Mantra is that everyone who doesn't support the LNP is a communist. That is absurd. Sure, he is right wing and most of his news broadcast is but there are many left wing commentators, hosts and contributors in the Australian and Sky News who print and air views Murdoch won't agree with. But diversity of opinion doesn't really matter to the modern left...
  7. Glad you put "evidence leaning" in quotation marks, comrade. Points 2 & 3 go together and is why point 1. That's as close as they could get. I think there are liberal and national MPs unsure if the majority of people want SSM or marriage equality and it will take a poll/plebiscite/survey to convince them. And going against the will of the people would be the death of them. Point 4 - agreed, not many politicians stand by pre election promises for long but he is trying to appease an upset base. They took a plebiscite on SSM to the last election. Not a plebiscite on each policy so no, I would not expect a plebiscite where they didn't promise one beforehand but they are politicians so who knows. I am unsure exactly how many things they have tried to make law. I've always thought of that as an example of poor government, increasing the number of laws and thereby reducing freedom.
  8. Next liberal party meeting they would throw him out and either Abbott or Dutton from the conservative side would be PM. It would mirror the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd mess. I think he needs the will of the people to let him do what he wants in the hopes of keeping the party together and stopping more people from going to Cory or Pauline. Something about the mountain you choose to die on. He still has a way of getting it through, hopefully asap. Still might be his mountain if no wins and he crosses the floor anyway. Is it called a caucus on the coalition side? I thought it was something else but maybe I just never hear it.
  9. Flux - Now that's something I could get behind if it wasn't fraught with so many dangers. Also, wasn't a plebiscite taken to the last election as a policy of the party that won government? I am all for it just being sorted but that is obviously not happening easily as politicians suddenly now have integrity? I'm not buying that as the reason but they have a point regardless. They need to at least try to stick to the promises they made before they were elected otherwise they lose what little trust they have with the people that voted for them, probably not you nor anyone else on this left leaning board. If the parliament votes for something shitty that most people support, they are not going to get voted out, its a democracy. Tyranny would be when people don't get a say or vote and the government does whatever it wants. Agreed regarding rights as I would hope these rights apply to all people, not just a select few. I think Turnbull wants it to get up. He has said publicly that he is voting yes and 1. The people will give him a mandate to pull the conservative side of the liberals into line and 2. he wants the fame of bringing it in. He seems somewhat narcissistic to me.
  10. I, for one, am glad for the result. I hate the cost and the fascists but I much prefer to have a say in what affects me rather than let politicians stuff it up again. I just wish it was binding.
  11. I heard a suggestion at lunch that might work, someone needs to tweet (the new method of negotiating internationally apparently) a map of Australia highlighting that Canberra has gone it alone by personally and repeatedly insulting both Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump and is refusing to back down. I do not think it will be hard to find leaders in Canberra publically doing so on the record. We just need to time it with a lawyers conference.
  12. Has anyone seen the wording of the question? I do hope it is not exclusionary of the polyamorous, objectum sexuality and otherkin communities by restricting marriage to just two people. However its worded, I would be surprised if SSM/Marriage equality didn't get up, even if todays youth don't know how to post a letter. I agree with the waste of money, governments don't treat it as someone else's money like they should. In other news about governments and religion working together for great results, keep the synagogues away as someone apparently likes blowing them up so the council and the court now stops them being built. I look forward to the day we can follow in Indonesia's footsteps and really stop anyone being offended for any reason and hence improve safety.
  13. Its almost as if the urban dictionary definition of SJW is true. Really, I mean how is anyone seriously expected to judge the quality of a show without a comprehensive understanding the writers/creators standing in the oppression Olympics? This is 2017 after all.
  14. I think its hilarious. The expected reaction from the usual snowflakes means its got more attention than it would otherwise. Great marketing. I wont watch it unless there are some good reviews across the board. If just one group like it (SJWs, Alt-right or whoever) then its likely to be crap.
  15. Thank you for the concern however misplaced. Your mental health tips may be of use in another thread, or even on a university campus