sh_wulff

Aussies LXV - what choices have we?!

402 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, Stubby said:

The Flux philosophy would lead to nothing ever being achieved.

I agree that the LNP took a plebiscite took to the last election.  There are a number of issues with the remainder of your comment:

  1. The postal survey is not a plebiscite.
  2. The LNP won government by just 1 seat - hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement of their policies.
  3. The election also produced the senate, with all of the senators elected to keep their promises as well.  The very simplistic idea that the LNP promised it so the rest of Australia should tow the line ignores the role of the Senate.
  4. The LNP also promised a bunch of other things, which it has reneged on.  This link contains a list both major parties' policies.  Are we to have plebiscites on all of these things?  Have the LNP made an attempt to make all of these promises law?

In short, the argument that the LNP govt is simply doing as it promised is not well thought out.

As for this being a "left leaning" board, I say that this is an "evidence leaning" board.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yukle said:

Agreed, this is the purpose of representatives: to remove the need to "survey" people.

It's a bullshit effort that Turnbull is crossing his fingers fails because he doesn't have the courage to stand up to the right-wing horrors in his Coalition that he sold his soul to when he became PM.

I actually no longer believe this to be true. I think this article does a pretty good of looking at Turnbull on this issue vs Turnbull on the Republic, an issue where he genuinely believes in one position, and argues that he is actually a majoritarian on the issue. If the Australian people vote against marriage equality, then Turnbull will be convinced that discrimination is right and proper. He's scum and he doesn't deserve the respect he's scammed out of so many of us for so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Squab said:

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.

If they are so unsure, then are they not paying attention. Public opinion has been painfully clear.

1 hour ago, Squab said:

Glad you put "evidence leaning" in quotation marks, comrade.

:rofl:

The first phrase of your sentence implies that we don't do evidence. And then, in a breathtaking example of hypocrisy, you imply that I am a communist by calling me "comrade" - without any evidence at all to support your suggestion. Have you some evidence to support the suggestion that I am a communist?  Or are you just trotting out the Murdoch Mantra that anyone who is not supportive of the LNP is a communist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Stubby said:

If they are so unsure, then are they not paying attention. Public opinion has been painfully clear.

Painfully

26 minutes ago, Stubby said:

The first phrase of your sentence implies that we don't do evidence. And then, in a breathtaking example of hypocrisy, you imply that I am a communist by calling me "comrade" - without any evidence at all to support your suggestion. Have you some evidence to support the suggestion that I am a communist?  Or are you just trotting out the Murdoch Mantra that anyone who is not supportive of the LNP is a communist?

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK then.  Why did you call me "comrade"? What did you intend it to mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stubby said:

OK then.  Why did you call me "comrade"? What did you intend it to mean?

A term of endearment, the way Van Badham uses it. To address a fellow proletariat while in the struggle against the oppressor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you were using it ironically then. How ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Stubby said:

So you were using it ironically then. How ironic.

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?

Edited by Squab
question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it.

59 minutes ago, Squab said:

But diversity of opinion doesn't really matter to the modern left...

I don't agree. But I do say that the modern right doesn't seem to think it has to justify it's opinions. Because the modern right thinks being asked to justify an opinion is bullying and an attempt to shut down free speech.  Which is two F grades for the price of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the poor little snowflake Barnaby has had a whinge about people chanting slogans near him.  Reap what you sow, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 2:58 PM, Stubby said:

Got it.

I don't agree. But I do say that the modern right doesn't seem to think it has to justify it's opinions. Because the modern right thinks being asked to justify an opinion is bullying and an attempt to shut down free speech.  Which is two F grades for the price of one.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless someone is going to gaol for saying something, free speech is not infringed.

Disagreement is not an infringement of free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you know, when a guy is calling in to a public broadcaster in Melbourne to literally praise the way that Hitler put us gays in concentration camps and THE ABC FUCKING AIR THAT CALL ANYWAY I don't think the free speech of homophobes is really being heavily infringed at this point in time. And by at all, I mean not only is it not being infringed as per the very helpful standard Stubby gives us above, but the speech continues to find no shortage of platforms on which to stand and shout from.

Lyle seems like he's complained from a platform about being silenced every fucking day of this campaign. So silenced, wow. Pauline insists she's being silenced while Today interview her constantly after her Burqa stunt. Dick Smith insists he's not a racist, he just has to donate millions to One Nation because he's being silenced - wow Dick, amazing that I'm hearing you say this. It's a consistent thing, time after time the right invents this narrative to then rally the fight against this thing that isn't even happening. Like the bullshit yesterday with Turnbull. No one gave two fucks about him having a beer while holding a baby, but the conservative commentators brew up a storm about imaginary left wing outrage over it.

So if it makes no fucking difference to whether they cry about silencing, how about we at least shut down the fucking Nazi's and not let them praise Hitler on the ABC? Can I ask for that much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stubby said:

Unless someone is going to gaol for saying something, free speech is not infringed.

Disagreement is not an infringement of free speech.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given this last weekend, when I was surrounded by tens of thousands of other queers, was the only time in months I've been in the middle of Sydney and not had a Christian preach at me about sin and not once have they been shut down by being bashed into silence...perhaps that hypothetical is strawman bullshit?

If a group of people are being systematically targeted for assaults, particularly when that group of people are supported by the politicians in power, that will be investigated by the police as assaults. It's not a free speech issue, its a violent crime issue. And you're deliberately twisting the conversation with this bullshit that is so far from reality. The people on this issue that have actually been subject to violence? Gay people. The murders in Sydney that were never seriously investigated and solved? Gay people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feeling a bit depressed about the whole postal survey thing. At least it looks as if Parliament will adopt more stringent restrictions on campaign material than a standard electoral process. How effective they will be in practice remains to be seen.

*sigh*

The wait for the result (end Nov) is going to kill me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paxter said:

Feeling a bit depressed about the whole postal survey thing. At least it looks as if Parliament will adopt more stringent restrictions on campaign material than a standard electoral process. How effective they will be in practice remains to be seen.

*sigh*

The wait for the result (end Nov) is going to kill me.

Hang in there mate.  It will come :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it looks to me like they held their rally. Oh wait, they did. I know because I'm fucking here. Yes, so silenced it stopped me going anywhere near that area when I had lunch because I don't want to be crushed with depression and feel suicidal. Yes, they're so fucking oppressed.

While they're campaigning to RESTRICT MY FUCKING RIGHTS, a vote that they wanted and we fucking fought tooth and nail to stop and now they're crying foul over. Fuck that.

Edited by karaddin
ETA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are you doing Pax? This shit is seriously getting to me, but I'm surviving and I've got Brook helping keep me sane. You said it was getting to you too and its been a bit, so I wanted to check in. Don't make me text you, I understand that text messages are like...horribly intrusive and make people vote no or something :P

 

@Paxter

Edited by karaddin
tagging

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.