I'm sure there are plenty of Australians who'd share her views and post in a similar way - and from a first-hand perspective too and without the lack of detail that bedevills those of us who don't live there.
Like me.
There's a question of perspective here, of course. Whimsical Christian seems to consider ON to be 'centre right' - if I understand them correctly. Please forgive me if I'm wrong.
From what I've seen of them they appear to be pretty firmly on the right with elements stretching into the far right.
I get some stick on these boards at times for espousing 'centrist' positions - although I wouldn't consider myself as 'centre-right'. I'm centre-left on most issues. Less so on others. I don't get 'cancelled' here and enjoy a robust relationship with Shipmates of all manner of persuasions theologically and politically.
I must admit I find myself agreeing with @Mili. At face value, you seem out to get yourself called to Hell or 'closed down' in some way in order to confirm your view that all lefties are out to curb freedom of speech.
I'm no fan of 'no-platforming' and what gets called 'cancel culture.' Far from it.
But that's another issue.
My blood boiled on several occasions reading editorials in my relatives local rag which made out that immigrants and Muslims have effectively taken over everything in the UK and that we're all going to hell in a handcart over here.
Sure, they have right to air their views, as wide of the mark as many of us over here might consider them to be.
Surely @Pomona has a right to air her views on Australian issues in the same way.
There are people on the ship that are centre right? Really? Where are they!
I think a lot of trumps economic and foreign policies are good. Doesn't mean I approve of everything he does or says.
You don't have to be 100% for or against anything. That's not the truth of things. But it is the way people seem to operate these days.
Makes conversation virtually impossible cos you just get cancelled.
Yes there are centre right shipmates, even if they are a minority.
As someone with different political views than most here what attracted you to the ship in the first place? It's a small, aging forum with an even smaller number of Australians. You seem to enjoy making light of issues that make people here highly anxious about the state of the world so I'm not sure if you are looking for genuine engagement or just seeing if you get banned so you have proof left wingers are anti-free speech.
That's a good question. I do sometimes feel like I've made a mistake in signing up.
I started posting a lot on the anti trump hell thread, trying to point out China was actually the bigger threat to western liberal democracies than trump, especially to Australia.
I take war with China very seriously considering their multiple recent threats to us and our trade relations with them but I think it fell on deaf ears cos of the trump derangement syndrome.
And this thread with lots of Australians doesn't seem to care either. I'm not sure why. I find it bizarre.
Even @Sojourner that seems up with a bit didn't reply to my questions to her about China....?
The only explanation I can come up with is the ship is mostly lefties that are too distracted by the culture wars and trump to notice economics and geopolitics.
@WhimsicalChristian every source has bias. That doesn't make it inherently untrustworthy. If a political party has a policy that will damage a particular group, they're not usually going to state on their website that they want to damage that group - even if it's pretty obvious that it will do that. No villain thinks they're a villain.
It's pretty standard practice that if you are going to go against what someone says, you need to find out what they are saying first. Go to the source. Don't get it second hand from a source that is clearly not on your side.
Certainly in academia a secondhand source is never as good as a first hand source.
Same applies to personal relationships.
It's absolutely not the case that secondary sources are less trustworthy or less useful than primary sources - any historian would tell you that. In many cases they are more useful. Also, nobody suggested to not see what ON say about themselves in addition to what others say about them.
I'm not sure how primary and secondary sources would apply to a personal relationship.
Crickey. Not sure which historians you've been reading. Secondary sources can tell you what that person thinks about the primary source. Not what the primary source thinks.
Same applies in relationships. Triangulation is the very devil.
Yes, I kind of guessed Whimsical Christian would say the same! People can google the ON website if they want to read more on their policies, but knowing most of the ship is left leaning or centre right I don't think it will sway anyone's voting choices!
The ON website is pretty polished, but their candidates social media feeds are more enlightening, especially Bernie Finn. He posts a lot of pro Trump and Maga stuff.
There are people on the ship that are centre right? Really? Where are they!
I think a lot of trumps economic and foreign policies are good. Doesn't mean I approve of everything he does or says.
You don't have to be 100% for or against anything. That's not the truth of things. But it is the way people seem to operate these days.
Makes conversation virtually impossible cos you just get cancelled.
What specific Trumpian policies do you approve of? And what does said cancellation look like, in practical terms?
I spent a month of my life outlining all that on a hell thread, to no avail it appears. Fraid I'm not going to do it again here. You can look it up on the Australia China post trump thread.
What does cancellation look like in practical terms? Ghosting. Cos you think differently than others.
It used to be that the left espoused tolerance. I used to be centre left.
But they ditched that to only accept what they considered tolerable. If you can't tolerate what you disagree with you are no longer tolerant.
Hence all the censorship started under the Biden administration and what the far left has become, too authoritiarian.
I also don't see the issue with just stating that Australia has a racism problem. Stating that doesn't mean that other countries don't have a racism problem, nor does it mean that you're (general you) ignoring anti-racism movements within Australia. You can't work to excise racism if you won't admit how deep-seated the problem is.
It's clearly been an issue for a long long time. A friend's (white) brother lived in Australia (in several places) during the 2000s and was shocked at how casually white Australians from all backgrounds would use racial slurs and how normalised racist talk was - and this guy is from Bradford (in the UK) so not exactly a stranger to areas with racial tensions. This isn't to say that the UK doesn't have a problem with racism - extremely far from it - but the "it's just a few bad apples" argument is not believable. Indeed, Australia has a pretty expected level of racism given the fact that it's a mostly-white country established on stolen land in a white supremacist society - and especially given the culture around getting along with people and not making a fuss about experiencing ill-treatment (such as racism).
Are you an Australian?
Doesn't sound like you are.
Why does it matter? What things have I said that are incorrect?
It matter a lot cos you have not personally experienced what goes on here in Australia.
It becomes that strange far left thing that we will defend people as long as they are a minority, to the detriment of facts or history.
As I said in a hell thread, it's a spiritual malaise because white people have lost their cultural and spiritual identity so they do it to make them feel better about themselves.
@WhimsicalChristian every source has bias. That doesn't make it inherently untrustworthy. If a political party has a policy that will damage a particular group, they're not usually going to state on their website that they want to damage that group - even if it's pretty obvious that it will do that. No villain thinks they're a villain.
It's pretty standard practice that if you are going to go against what someone says, you need to find out what they are saying first. Go to the source. Don't get it second hand from a source that is clearly not on your side.
Ah, so when North Korea tells us it's democratic we should believe them rather than the defectors telling us about terrible conditions under a totalitarian dictatorship?
Not the same at all for a totalitarian regime and you know it.
Same principle. You don't take an organisation's propaganda at face value.
Not at all the same principle. Authoritarian regimes have much more vested interest in control with censorship of the press, no freedom of speech, no allowance for protest etc etc.
If North Korea told us it was democratic we would know that's bullshit cos they are communist.
There are people on the ship that are centre right? Really? Where are they!
I think a lot of trumps economic and foreign policies are good. Doesn't mean I approve of everything he does or says.
You don't have to be 100% for or against anything. That's not the truth of things. But it is the way people seem to operate these days.
Makes conversation virtually impossible cos you just get cancelled.
Yes there are centre right shipmates, even if they are a minority.
As someone with different political views than most here what attracted you to the ship in the first place? It's a small, aging forum with an even smaller number of Australians. You seem to enjoy making light of issues that make people here highly anxious about the state of the world so I'm not sure if you are looking for genuine engagement or just seeing if you get banned so you have proof left wingers are anti-free speech.
That's a good question. I do sometimes feel like I've made a mistake in signing up.
I started posting a lot on the anti trump hell thread, trying to point out China was actually the bigger threat to western liberal democracies than trump, especially to Australia.
I take war with China very seriously considering their multiple recent threats to us and our trade relations with them but I think it fell on deaf ears cos of the trump derangement syndrome.
And this thread with lots of Australians doesn't seem to care either. I'm not sure why. I find it bizarre.
Even @Sojourner that seems up with a bit didn't reply to my questions to her about China....?
The only explanation I can come up with is the ship is mostly lefties that are too distracted by the culture wars and trump to notice economics and geopolitics.
.
OK, I’ll bite.
War between Oz and China?
I think not. It is my impression that the Chinese government has bigger fish to fry in keeping its own population under control.
There are people on the ship that are centre right? Really? Where are they!
I think a lot of trumps economic and foreign policies are good. Doesn't mean I approve of everything he does or says.
You don't have to be 100% for or against anything. That's not the truth of things. But it is the way people seem to operate these days.
Makes conversation virtually impossible cos you just get cancelled.
Yes there are centre right shipmates, even if they are a minority.
As someone with different political views than most here what attracted you to the ship in the first place? It's a small, aging forum with an even smaller number of Australians. You seem to enjoy making light of issues that make people here highly anxious about the state of the world so I'm not sure if you are looking for genuine engagement or just seeing if you get banned so you have proof left wingers are anti-free speech.
That's a good question. I do sometimes feel like I've made a mistake in signing up.
I started posting a lot on the anti trump hell thread, trying to point out China was actually the bigger threat to western liberal democracies than trump, especially to Australia.
I take war with China very seriously considering their multiple recent threats to us and our trade relations with them but I think it fell on deaf ears cos of the trump derangement syndrome.
And this thread with lots of Australians doesn't seem to care either. I'm not sure why. I find it bizarre.
Even @Sojourner that seems up with a bit didn't reply to my questions to her about China....?
The only explanation I can come up with is the ship is mostly lefties that are too distracted by the culture wars and trump to notice economics and geopolitics.
.
OK, I’ll bite.
War between Oz and China?
I think not. It is my impression that the Chinese government has bigger fish to fry in keeping its own population under control.
The problem is that left / right is far too simplistic a division to capture the spectra on which people’s views exist.
Economic low regulation to high, protectionist to free market - socially liberal to socially conservative - nationalist to globalist etc etc - climate change concerned to climate change denier - minimise government control to full authoritarianism etc etc
There will be differences in how much you will tolerate of what you disagree with, depending on how important you think the issue is and how much of a moral issue it is for you.
A lot of people on the left are not prepared to ignore civil rights violations and climate change denial, in exchange for economic gain for a minority elite (possibly even economic gain for all). Whether a government says it is left wing, right wing or center, or democratic or facist or communist being less important than what it actually does.
From the point of view of survival of the species and civilisation as we currently understand it - climate change is the biggest threat to humanity as a whole. So if you must do business with an autocratic regime that is bigger and more powerful than you - probably pick the one that recognises the real threat of climate change and acts on it over the one that doesn’t all other things being equal. On the basis that non of these other disputes will matter if we all die.
@WhimsicalChristian every source has bias. That doesn't make it inherently untrustworthy. If a political party has a policy that will damage a particular group, they're not usually going to state on their website that they want to damage that group - even if it's pretty obvious that it will do that. No villain thinks they're a villain.
It's pretty standard practice that if you are going to go against what someone says, you need to find out what they are saying first. Go to the source. Don't get it second hand from a source that is clearly not on your side.
Ah, so when North Korea tells us it's democratic we should believe them rather than the defectors telling us about terrible conditions under a totalitarian dictatorship?
Not the same at all for a totalitarian regime and you know it.
Same principle. You don't take an organisation's propaganda at face value.
Not at all the same principle. Authoritarian regimes have much more vested interest in control with censorship of the press, no freedom of speech, no allowance for protest etc etc.
If North Korea told us it was democratic we would know that's bullshit cos they are communist.
Far right political parties have a vested interest in trying to look respectable.
There are people on the ship that are centre right? Really? Where are they!
I think a lot of trumps economic and foreign policies are good. Doesn't mean I approve of everything he does or says.
You don't have to be 100% for or against anything. That's not the truth of things. But it is the way people seem to operate these days.
Makes conversation virtually impossible cos you just get cancelled.
Yes there are centre right shipmates, even if they are a minority.
As someone with different political views than most here what attracted you to the ship in the first place? It's a small, aging forum with an even smaller number of Australians. You seem to enjoy making light of issues that make people here highly anxious about the state of the world so I'm not sure if you are looking for genuine engagement or just seeing if you get banned so you have proof left wingers are anti-free speech.
That's a good question. I do sometimes feel like I've made a mistake in signing up.
I started posting a lot on the anti trump hell thread, trying to point out China was actually the bigger threat to western liberal democracies than trump, especially to Australia.
I take war with China very seriously considering their multiple recent threats to us and our trade relations with them but I think it fell on deaf ears cos of the trump derangement syndrome.
And this thread with lots of Australians doesn't seem to care either. I'm not sure why. I find it bizarre.
Even @Sojourner that seems up with a bit didn't reply to my questions to her about China....?
The only explanation I can come up with is the ship is mostly lefties that are too distracted by the culture wars and trump to notice economics and geopolitics.
I think you'll find that there are a number of Shipmates who are pretty clued up on both economics and geopolitics.
They may happen to agree with you on some things and disagree with you on others. That's how these things work.
I agree with some of the more left-wing posters here on some issues and disagree with them on others. And vice-versa. That's how these things work.
Rather than blaming other people for not agreeing with you perhaps it might be an idea to ask:
Why they have arrived at different conclusions to you.
What it might be about your own arguments that others might not find persuasive.
FWIW on the China thing, yes, I think Australia has good grounds to be wary of China. Just as Western Europe has good grounds to be suspicious of Putin.
Just as all of us have good grounds to be suspicious of Trump.
Do I think that US parachutists are going to be descending on Whitehall anytime soon. No, of course not.
Do I think Chinese ships will bombard Darwin any time soon. No.
Do I think that China and Australia might clash out in the Pacific islands or if China seizes Taiwan. Quite possibly.
Do I think that Musk and Vance, Rubio and other evil US Republicans would interfere in UK and wider European politics more than they have already if they thought they could get away with it?
Yes. Absolutely.
Do I think China will try to bug everything and interfere with Western interests around the world. Yes, of course.
I've had some time away with family, so I'm late coming back to this conversation. Well, the events of the last few days, goodness!!
I was asked whether I thought a right or left government would solve the problems faced by many at the moment and I don't think it would be either, unless a spirit of bipartisanship could be embraced and working together taken very seriously. I don't think politics necessarily has to be one side versus the other, which is the usual way of things. That's why I'm very glad to see Independents and Teals really working hard in and for their electorates.
I listened to the Guardian podcast last week, it came into my feed and was a discussion between Barrie Cassidy and Tony Barry, I think many would find it interesting, particularly looking at the rise in popularity of One Nation and who might be switching allegiances and why.
I really would never vote for that party, they just roll out the same old ideas to appeal to disgruntled voters and try to find someone new to blame for the most recent problem. It used to be migrants from Asia, now it's those from the Middle East. I would never vote for any of those candidates.
As Senator Jacqui Lambie is not representing in my territory, I don't have to consider whether to vote for her or not. I always enjoy her media appearances and her absolute inability to behave like a politician by just regurgitating party talking points. She at least appears to be a real person!! And I do have some affection for that.
I was both alarmed and amused by the recent change of Liberal Party leader and found Malcolm Turnbull's comments interesting. To me he always came across as though he was in the wrong party, however, I think he would see it as the party he joined as no longer being recognisable. I don't know how many others find the wheeling out of John Howard (or suggesting it's a good idea) to be frustrating. I didn't agree with him on much and I think continuing to refer back to him only confirms the idea that there are no new candidates of quality and that they have to keep looking backwards to their glory days rather than forwards. I think the newly chosen leader is not going to be someone to lead them back to government. At present herding cats seems to be a rather generous assessment of their disarray.
Sorry, I have been busy and tired so haven't replied previously. @WhimsicalChristian I think Shipmates are aware of the situation between China and Taiwan, but am not sure if Australian politicians have a large bearing on whether a war eventuates between the two countries or not. As a country with a small population and limited weaponry we rely on strong allies like the United States, so worry when their support for democracy at home and abroad seems threatened. We also rely on big trading partners like China for economic reasons and have to be diplomatic, regardless of political views. I'm not sure how voting for a fringe right wing party or independent would help the situation, whatever eventuates. However, I would rather have experienced, educated, non-racist politicians in charge if we get drawn into a major war in the future.
Pauline Hanson has been horribly racist this week so I am more opposed to One Nation than ever.
As Senator Jacqui Lambie is not representing in my territory, I don't have to consider whether to vote for her or not. I always enjoy her media appearances and her absolute inability to behave like a politician by just regurgitating party talking points. She at least appears to be a real person!! And I do have some affection for that.
Yeah. I also have an affection for straight talking pollies. N Price comes to mind. Katter too and of course Pauline Hansen.
I think that's what makes Trump endearing too. Terrible politician. Says just what he thinks which is refreshing.
Sorry, I have been busy and tired so haven't replied previously. @WhimsicalChristian I think Shipmates are aware of the situation between China and Taiwan, but am not sure if Australian politicians have a large bearing on whether a war eventuates between the two countries or not. As a country with a small population and limited weaponry we rely on strong allies like the United States, so worry when their support for democracy at home and abroad seems threatened. We also rely on big trading partners like China for economic reasons and have to be diplomatic, regardless of political views. I'm not sure how voting for a fringe right wing party or independent would help the situation, whatever eventuates. However, I would rather have experienced, educated, non-racist politicians in charge if we get drawn into a major war in the future.
Pauline Hanson has been horribly racist this week so I am more opposed to One Nation than ever.
Trump's supposed threat to democracy entirely depends on which media you read. He's only doing what he was elected to do and he is easily muzzled by the government if they want him to be.
But absolutely we need someone up to the task when China invades Taiwan. The government will have to decide whether to go with our allies or go with our biggest trade partner.
Either way we will lose. Australia needs to prepare for either war or significant economic fallout in the not too distant future.
I don't think you can call Pauline Hanson racist based on recent events. She's just anti muslim, which of course, has all sorts of races, including white people, as it's make up.
I think it's good she's cautioning against radical islam. Interestingly she's had muslims come up to her and support her views because they don't want Australia to become like the countries they left.
Does he, or does he say what he thinks helps him in the present moment?
Because he's not a good politician, I'm not sure he has sufficient foresight to perceive what helps him in the present moment. A lot of what he says has certainly backfired on the spot.
If you think Trump will stand up to China you have not being paying attention to his interactions with Putin.. He can be bribed, blackmailed, threatened, and triggered with ridiculous ease - and thereby manipulated by the autocratic leaders of other superpowers.
Does he, or does he say what he thinks helps him in the present moment?
Because he's not a good politician, I'm not sure he has sufficient foresight to perceive what helps him in the present moment.
That doesn't mean he's not saying what he *thinks* will help him a lot of the time. He must know, for example, that ICE are not just rounding up the "worst of the worst", but he says it because admitting he doesn't give a shit who they sweep up so long as it's not him wouldn't play well.
If I'm hearing things right from my relatives in Australia, Hanson hasn't just denounced radical Islamism, she has said that all Muslims are bad without exception.
Perhaps an Australian shipmate can correct me if I'm wrong.
Would you be defending her against charges of racism, @WhimsicalChristian if she'd said that all Jews are Zionists or Islamophobes or that all indigenous peoples are alcoholics or drug addicts?
Speaking one's mind isn't always a good trait in a politician, particularly when one's mind and vocal chords are connected with one's anus, as per Trump.
Forgive me, but you seem attracted by populism at the expense of rational debate. And yes, Inused a populist trope in relation to Trump just now...
Even my Australian aunt, normally a defender of Hanson, has distanced herself from her latest outpourings.
It's possible to be anti-jihadist without being Islamophobic.
It's possible to be against Netanyahu and right-wing Israelis without being anti-semitic.
The problem with populists like Trump and Hanson - and yes, they have their equivalents elsewhere on the political spectrum - is that they polarise everything and reduce them to black and white and unnuanced soundbites.
Trump's supposed threat to democracy entirely depends on which media you read. He's only doing what he was elected to do and he is easily muzzled by the government if they want him to be.
Or to put it another way, the degree to which Trump is supposedly only doing what he was elected to do is entirely dependent on what media you read.
But even if it were true that he is only doing what he's elected to do, that doesn't make what he's doing alright. Liberal democracy is not a pleonasm: the liberal means that there are restrictions on what democratic politicians can do even if they've been voted for. Those restrictions, freedom of assembly, freedom of protest, separation of powers, are important in themselves. Furthermore, without those restrictions it becomes all too easy for politicians in power to rig elections.
If you think Trump will stand up to China you have not being paying attention to his interactions with Putin.. He can be bribed, blackmailed, threatened, and triggered with ridiculous ease - and thereby manipulated by the autocratic leaders of other superpowers.
I said radical islam.
Not sure if you're aware of the recent Bondi shooting in Australia where two muslims, fuelled by a preacher that apparently said all non muslims were scum, killed a bunch of Jews on the beach?
As for Trump and China. If it's in America's national interest, I don't think he'll be bullied.
Does he, or does he say what he thinks helps him in the present moment?
Because he's not a good politician, I'm not sure he has sufficient foresight to perceive what helps him in the present moment.
That doesn't mean he's not saying what he *thinks* will help him a lot of the time. He must know, for example, that ICE are not just rounding up the "worst of the worst", but he says it because admitting he doesn't give a shit who they sweep up so long as it's not him wouldn't play well.
I don't know I'm afraid. I'm only interested in his economics and geopolitics.
But the fact that ICE pulled out of Minnesota and the trump administration backed out of Greenland shows the "facism" title is false.
If I'm hearing things right from my relatives in Australia, Hanson hasn't just denounced radical Islamism, she has said that all Muslims are bad without exception.
Perhaps an Australian shipmate can correct me if I'm wrong.
Would you be defending her against charges of racism, @WhimsicalChristian if she'd said that all Jews are Zionists or Islamophobes or that all indigenous peoples are alcoholics or drug addicts?
Speaking one's mind isn't always a good trait in a politician, particularly when one's mind and vocal chords are connected with one's anus, as per Trump.
Forgive me, but you seem attracted by populism at the expense of rational debate. And yes, Inused a populist trope in relation to Trump just now...
Even my Australian aunt, normally a defender of Hanson, has distanced herself from her latest outpourings.
It's possible to be anti-jihadist without being Islamophobic.
It's possible to be against Netanyahu and right-wing Israelis without being anti-semitic.
The problem with populists like Trump and Hanson - and yes, they have their equivalents elsewhere on the political spectrum - is that they polarise everything and reduce them to black and white and unnuanced soundbites.
People get taken in by them.
As you appear to have been.
I have tried to find the original transcript and video of Pauline Hanson's words on this without much luck. The best I can find is she was asked if there were any good muslims and she said "how can you tell if they are good muslims?".
She has since apologised to all muslims she may have offended who do not believe in Sharia Law, do not believe in multiple wives, and do not support returning ISIS brides to Australia.
If you're a "good muslim", you probably believe in at least the first two because that is your scripture.
If you don't believe in the first two, you would likely be considered a progressive muslim and potentially anathema to the hardcorists.
As far as I can tell, her comments were fair. But even if not, you're right, she's polarising the debate but as I've said before, she will never make prime minister. She is not polished enough and says too much what she thinks.
But can we really give our politicians a hard time about polarisation when most normal people are pretty polarised these days?
Trump's supposed threat to democracy entirely depends on which media you read. He's only doing what he was elected to do and he is easily muzzled by the government if they want him to be.
Or to put it another way, the degree to which Trump is supposedly only doing what he was elected to do is entirely dependent on what media you read.
But even if it were true that he is only doing what he's elected to do, that doesn't make what he's doing alright. Liberal democracy is not a pleonasm: the liberal means that there are restrictions on what democratic politicians can do even if they've been voted for. Those restrictions, freedom of assembly, freedom of protest, separation of powers, are important in themselves. Furthermore, without those restrictions it becomes all too easy for politicians in power to rig elections.
Absolutely. As I've said before, he can be muzzled if the government wants him to be.
Which again, makes the title of "facist" ridiculous.
A fascist who backs down or loses or can be muzzled is still a fascist.
Nah. Not with the US constitution. Too many safeguards in place.
If the rest of the government want to enforce those safeguards that is, which given that the independence of the rest of the government from the President has been slowly eroded, if less of a given. But that's not relevant. The Constitution if enforced might stop a fascist from doing fascist things, but it doesn't stop him from being a fascist.
And certainly Trump has been pushing at the edge of the Constitution and much of the Supreme Court have been abetting him. (I don't think anyone thought that the Constitution granted a President immunity from criminal prosecution in the course of their official duties before the Court decided it.)
Trump backing down from vague military threats to invade Greenland doesn't mean he wasn't a fascist; it means he backed down when people stood up to him.
If you think Trump will stand up to China you have not being paying attention to his interactions with Putin.. He can be bribed, blackmailed, threatened, and triggered with ridiculous ease - and thereby manipulated by the autocratic leaders of other superpowers.
I don't think you can call Pauline Hanson racist based on recent events. She's just anti muslim, which of course, has all sorts of races, including white people, as it's make up.
I think it's good she's cautioning against radical islam. Interestingly she's had muslims come up to her and support her views because they don't want Australia to become like the countries they left.
(My bold.)
I can read.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
@WhimsicalChristian - of course Shipmates are aware of the appalling shootings on Bondi Beach.
I was in Australia at the time and even if I hadn't been it was headline news all over the world. If you remember one of the people shot by the gunmen was actually a Muslim himself and he was wounded trying to disarm them. That doesn't let the gunmen off the hook nor does it 'endorse' Islam over against any other religion either. There are good Samaritans in all faiths and none.
Of course we are aware of radical jihadism and its terrible effects.
As for polarising arguments, I don't see where I've done anything of the kind on this thread.
From where I'm sitting you seem to be the one doing that. You're sounding a lot like my Aussie relatives and although I don't know how old you are they at least have the excuse of being in their '70s.
If you think Trump will stand up to China you have not being paying attention to his interactions with Putin.. He can be bribed, blackmailed, threatened, and triggered with ridiculous ease - and thereby manipulated by the autocratic leaders of other superpowers.
I don't think you can call Pauline Hanson racist based on recent events. She's just anti muslim, which of course, has all sorts of races, including white people, as it's make up.
I think it's good she's cautioning against radical islam. Interestingly she's had muslims come up to her and support her views because they don't want Australia to become like the countries they left.
(My bold.)
I can read.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
I mentioned her cautioning against radical islam further down and explained her apology to Gamaliel.
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
A fascist who backs down or loses or can be muzzled is still a fascist.
Nah. Not with the US constitution. Too many safeguards in place.
If the rest of the government want to enforce those safeguards that is, which given that the independence of the rest of the government from the President has been slowly eroded, if less of a given. But that's not relevant. The Constitution if enforced might stop a fascist from doing fascist things, but it doesn't stop him from being a fascist.
And certainly Trump has been pushing at the edge of the Constitution and much of the Supreme Court have been abetting him. (I don't think anyone thought that the Constitution granted a President immunity from criminal prosecution in the course of their official duties before the Court decided it.)
Trump backing down from vague military threats to invade Greenland doesn't mean he wasn't a fascist; it means he backed down when people stood up to him.
We've been through this discussion in Hell Dafyd. We don't need to do it again.
@WhimsicalChristian - of course Shipmates are aware of the appalling shootings on Bondi Beach.
I was in Australia at the time and even if I hadn't been it was headline news all over the world. If you remember one of the people shot by the gunmen was actually a Muslim himself and he was wounded trying to disarm them. That doesn't let the gunmen off the hook nor does it 'endorse' Islam over against any other religion either. There are good Samaritans in all faiths and none.
Of course we are aware of radical jihadism and its terrible effects.
As for polarising arguments, I don't see where I've done anything of the kind on this thread.
From where I'm sitting you seem to be the one doing that. You're sounding a lot like my Aussie relatives and although I don't know how old you are they at least have the excuse of being in their '70s.
You're remarkably balanced in your posts. I wasn't referring to you being polarising.
If I'm sounding a lot like your relatives it's because a lot of current Australians are thinking the same way if the polls are anything to go by.
And they say gen x and above are the ones swinging to the right. So that makes sense. I'm gen x.
I was very left in my younger years. I just realised the whole "toleration" thing was a farce (because my mostly left church couldn't tolerate the differences within it) and the left has gone too far left (government censorship, curtailment of freedom of speech, cancel culture) so I've become centre right.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I'm not sure it's entirely the case that Generation X is moving to the right.
The young seem to be. Many of the young lads we're getting along to church these days are much further to the right than I was at their age or am now.
One could argue that this some kind of reaction to unfettered liberalism or the left 'going too far' - which is how my relatives would see things - or one of the responses that people make in times of uncertainty and change.
This isn't a purely Australian issue of course, but there will be particular factors and contexts there which shape it in ways that might differ to some extent to the UK, US and Western Europe, Southern Africa or wherever else.
@WhimsicalChristian polygamy isn't specific to Islam of course, many Christians (especially in Africa) also practice it. I don't personally see an intrinsic problem with having multiple spouses - patriarchal systems of polygamy are a problem because of the sexism, not because having multiple spouses is bad.
Sharia law is just religious law akin to church canon law - it doesn't have to be in conflict with civil or criminal law.
I'm not sure it's entirely the case that Generation X is moving to the right.
The young seem to be. Many of the young lads we're getting along to church these days are much further to the right than I was at their age or am now.
They may just be more inclined to express themselves that way, or perhaps being an Orthodox church it attracts people who are RETVRN types. The alleged broader trend has plenty of holes in it (almost as many as the purported revival among the young).
I had to look up RETVRN and yes, I recognise an element of that with some of the enquirers and catechumens we are getting, and to keep this on an Australian track, it seems to be happening there too.
There's definitely an atavistic tone to much of this, although I would agree with you @chrisstiles that the so-called 'quiet revival' is over-egged. That said, I know of several RC and Anglican parishes who are experiencing an influx of young men at the moment.
They certainly aren't all right wing. I had a refreshingly broad and detailed conversation with a young catechumen on Sunday who was very clued up on national and regional politics and had all sorts of interesting questions and observations.
We have had some very ranty and unnuanced enquirers who've frightened people away, including occasional attendees from other churches. We do get people who come along fairly often but remain part of their own churches - which is fine.
Anyhow, that's by the by.
You've provided a link about young men's rejection of the far right. The far right is one thing. What about what we might call the 'centre right' - however that's defined?
@WhimsicalChristian claims to be 'centre-right'. My aunt in Australia distances herself from some of Hanson's comments and crass stunts but feels she's only trying to pull things back from the 'far left' - as she sees it - the 'centre-right.'
That bothers me as it legitimises some of the crap coming from the far right. And so the polarisation conyinues and hardens.
'I don’t like all this liberal stuff, I feel threatened by it. Therefore I am going to come out with outrageously xenophobic and crass comments and stunts in order to balance things out even though that gives fuel to racists and the swivel-eyed far right ...'
When I probed what it was that was drawing my formerly liberal, relatively leftie Australian relatives to the right I rarely heard anything about economics or fiscal issues- although there was an element of that to be fair - it was more about a perceived bias towards minorities such as Aborigines and Muslims.
Sorry, but I certainly detect a xenophobic element in that.
The younger people I spoke to were generally more liberal but from a UK liberal perspective I was shocked at what both my daughters and myself felt to be levels of casual racism.
These were the sons, daughters and grandchildren of Greek and Italian migrants whose families all had stories to tell of mistreatment and racism when they first arrived. They'd done well, integrated, thrived. Their families were all doing very well for themselves thank you very much.
Yet the way they spoke about later arrivals - 'Lebs', Indians, Pakistanis - was very disrespectful indeed. It was also shocking to hear them use the 'w' word 'w*gs' when referring to their own communities, a term they claimed didn't carry the racist connotations it has here.
When pressed they would of course insist that they weren't against Asian and Middle-Eastern migrants per se but only those that 'made a mess' or who didn't appear willing to integrate.
There may very well be problems with integration among some communities and I don’t think we should elide those nor jump to simplistic conclusions either.
But I couldn't help but get the impression that there's a kind of pecking order going on - white Australians with western European heritage are at the top of the evolutionary hierarchy followed by those of Greek and Italian heritage who only just about get in, then Chinese and Vietnamese people 'because they work hard' and with Middle-Eastern, Indian and Pakistani people below that - particularly if they happen to be Muslims - then indigenous people's with a hierarchy descending from Pacific Islanders, Maori and Papua New Guineans to Australian aborigines at the very bottom.
I know some Australian Shipmates will protest that this is a caricature but it's an impression I picked up from conversations with many Australians I met. Not all, of course.
And I'm sure there are plenty of British people with similar views. Or worse.
It becomes that strange far left thing that we will defend people as long as they are a minority, to the detriment of facts or history.
As I said in a hell thread, it's a spiritual malaise because white people have lost their cultural and spiritual identity so they do it to make them feel better about themselves.
It doesn't seem too controversial to suggest that large numbers of people in the modern world have lost or are losing their cultural and spiritual identities, or are feeling those identities coming under threat. Whether that's peculiar to white people is a rather different matter. (Let alone strange far left people.)
One rather important aspect is whether a cultural and spiritual identity itself includes a long-inculcated sense of superiority. If it does, then losing that aspect is no bad thing. (I'm intrigued that the satire of HMS Pinafore, almost 150 years ago, was both widely recognised at the time, and seen as being entertaining.)
But "the detriment of facts or history" is a curious way to put it. It is analysis of facts that continues to reveal the extent of the historic oppression of many people and people groups across the world, including other white people (in our own countries), and the extent to which people in our own generation continue to benefit from this, as well as all those people who continue to suffer from this.
On one level, unless you're a fan of oppression, does it matter what motivates privileged people to change this?
However, it seems pertinent that we are prepared to self-critically examine what motivates us, and be more specific about the outcomes we are seeking to achieve. Privileged people assuaging their guilt through telling off other privileged people may (possibly) help with the guilt, but does very little to directly counter oppression, discrimination and marginalisation.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
@WhimsicalChristian polygamy isn't specific to Islam of course, many Christians (especially in Africa) also practice it. I don't personally see an intrinsic problem with having multiple spouses - patriarchal systems of polygamy are a problem because of the sexism, not because having multiple spouses is bad.
Sharia law is just religious law akin to church canon law - it doesn't have to be in conflict with civil or criminal law.
Many Christians do not practice it. African christian polygamy takes its"scriptural source" from the Old Testament, ignoring the New Testament which is a cause for significant division globally in the Anglican Communion ( my church).
The problem of multiple spouses IS primarily one of patriarchy and sexism as I don't see any countries or religions where it's okay for women to have multiple spouses.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
How you jump from what I said to your comment their is utterly beyond me.
It becomes that strange far left thing that we will defend people as long as they are a minority, to the detriment of facts or history.
As I said in a hell thread, it's a spiritual malaise because white people have lost their cultural and spiritual identity so they do it to make them feel better about themselves.
It doesn't seem too controversial to suggest that large numbers of people in the modern world have lost or are losing their cultural and spiritual identities, or are feeling those identities coming under threat. Whether that's peculiar to white people is a rather different matter. (Let alone strange far left people.)
One rather important aspect is whether a cultural and spiritual identity itself includes a long-inculcated sense of superiority. If it does, then losing that aspect is no bad thing. (I'm intrigued that the satire of HMS Pinafore, almost 150 years ago, was both widely recognised at the time, and seen as being entertaining.)
But "the detriment of facts or history" is a curious way to put it. It is analysis of facts that continues to reveal the extent of the historic oppression of many people and people groups across the world, including other white people (in our own countries), and the extent to which people in our own generation continue to benefit from this, as well as all those people who continue to suffer from this.
On one level, unless you're a fan of oppression, does it matter what motivates privileged people to change this?
However, it seems pertinent that we are prepared to self-critically examine what motivates us, and be more specific about the outcomes we are seeking to achieve. Privileged people assuaging their guilt through telling off other privileged people may (possibly) help with the guilt, but does very little to directly counter oppression, discrimination and marginalisation.
I think that's what's called virtue signalling.
To the detriment of facts or history have a look at Nigel Biggar's book, Colonialism.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
WhimsicalChristian
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
How you jump from what I said to your comment their is utterly beyond me.
Comments
I'm sure there are plenty of Australians who'd share her views and post in a similar way - and from a first-hand perspective too and without the lack of detail that bedevills those of us who don't live there.
Like me.
There's a question of perspective here, of course. Whimsical Christian seems to consider ON to be 'centre right' - if I understand them correctly. Please forgive me if I'm wrong.
From what I've seen of them they appear to be pretty firmly on the right with elements stretching into the far right.
I get some stick on these boards at times for espousing 'centrist' positions - although I wouldn't consider myself as 'centre-right'. I'm centre-left on most issues. Less so on others. I don't get 'cancelled' here and enjoy a robust relationship with Shipmates of all manner of persuasions theologically and politically.
I must admit I find myself agreeing with @Mili. At face value, you seem out to get yourself called to Hell or 'closed down' in some way in order to confirm your view that all lefties are out to curb freedom of speech.
I'm no fan of 'no-platforming' and what gets called 'cancel culture.' Far from it.
But that's another issue.
My blood boiled on several occasions reading editorials in my relatives local rag which made out that immigrants and Muslims have effectively taken over everything in the UK and that we're all going to hell in a handcart over here.
Sure, they have right to air their views, as wide of the mark as many of us over here might consider them to be.
Surely @Pomona has a right to air her views on Australian issues in the same way.
That's a good question. I do sometimes feel like I've made a mistake in signing up.
I started posting a lot on the anti trump hell thread, trying to point out China was actually the bigger threat to western liberal democracies than trump, especially to Australia.
I take war with China very seriously considering their multiple recent threats to us and our trade relations with them but I think it fell on deaf ears cos of the trump derangement syndrome.
And this thread with lots of Australians doesn't seem to care either. I'm not sure why. I find it bizarre.
Even @Sojourner that seems up with a bit didn't reply to my questions to her about China....?
The only explanation I can come up with is the ship is mostly lefties that are too distracted by the culture wars and trump to notice economics and geopolitics.
Crickey. Not sure which historians you've been reading. Secondary sources can tell you what that person thinks about the primary source. Not what the primary source thinks.
Same applies in relationships. Triangulation is the very devil.
I spent a month of my life outlining all that on a hell thread, to no avail it appears. Fraid I'm not going to do it again here. You can look it up on the Australia China post trump thread.
What does cancellation look like in practical terms? Ghosting. Cos you think differently than others.
It used to be that the left espoused tolerance. I used to be centre left.
But they ditched that to only accept what they considered tolerable. If you can't tolerate what you disagree with you are no longer tolerant.
Hence all the censorship started under the Biden administration and what the far left has become, too authoritiarian.
It matter a lot cos you have not personally experienced what goes on here in Australia.
It becomes that strange far left thing that we will defend people as long as they are a minority, to the detriment of facts or history.
As I said in a hell thread, it's a spiritual malaise because white people have lost their cultural and spiritual identity so they do it to make them feel better about themselves.
Not at all the same principle. Authoritarian regimes have much more vested interest in control with censorship of the press, no freedom of speech, no allowance for protest etc etc.
If North Korea told us it was democratic we would know that's bullshit cos they are communist.
I don't know what connotation you have. In search and rescue, triangulation can be life-saving.
OK, I’ll bite.
War between Oz and China?
I think not. It is my impression that the Chinese government has bigger fish to fry in keeping its own population under control.
On what grounds could war be declared?
So no, not concerned.
Now, back to effective opposition.
The connotation was personal relationships.
On what grounds? Taiwan!!!
The issue is how you manage the paradox of tolerance, where you draw the line.
The problem is that left / right is far too simplistic a division to capture the spectra on which people’s views exist.
Economic low regulation to high, protectionist to free market - socially liberal to socially conservative - nationalist to globalist etc etc - climate change concerned to climate change denier - minimise government control to full authoritarianism etc etc
There will be differences in how much you will tolerate of what you disagree with, depending on how important you think the issue is and how much of a moral issue it is for you.
A lot of people on the left are not prepared to ignore civil rights violations and climate change denial, in exchange for economic gain for a minority elite (possibly even economic gain for all). Whether a government says it is left wing, right wing or center, or democratic or facist or communist being less important than what it actually does.
From the point of view of survival of the species and civilisation as we currently understand it - climate change is the biggest threat to humanity as a whole. So if you must do business with an autocratic regime that is bigger and more powerful than you - probably pick the one that recognises the real threat of climate change and acts on it over the one that doesn’t all other things being equal. On the basis that non of these other disputes will matter if we all die.
Far right political parties have a vested interest in trying to look respectable.
Noted.
I think you'll find that there are a number of Shipmates who are pretty clued up on both economics and geopolitics.
They may happen to agree with you on some things and disagree with you on others. That's how these things work.
I agree with some of the more left-wing posters here on some issues and disagree with them on others. And vice-versa. That's how these things work.
Rather than blaming other people for not agreeing with you perhaps it might be an idea to ask:
Why they have arrived at different conclusions to you.
What it might be about your own arguments that others might not find persuasive.
FWIW on the China thing, yes, I think Australia has good grounds to be wary of China. Just as Western Europe has good grounds to be suspicious of Putin.
Just as all of us have good grounds to be suspicious of Trump.
Do I think that US parachutists are going to be descending on Whitehall anytime soon. No, of course not.
Do I think Chinese ships will bombard Darwin any time soon. No.
Do I think that China and Australia might clash out in the Pacific islands or if China seizes Taiwan. Quite possibly.
Do I think that Musk and Vance, Rubio and other evil US Republicans would interfere in UK and wider European politics more than they have already if they thought they could get away with it?
Yes. Absolutely.
Do I think China will try to bug everything and interfere with Western interests around the world. Yes, of course.
Do I think Hanson has any credibility?
No, I don't.
I was asked whether I thought a right or left government would solve the problems faced by many at the moment and I don't think it would be either, unless a spirit of bipartisanship could be embraced and working together taken very seriously. I don't think politics necessarily has to be one side versus the other, which is the usual way of things. That's why I'm very glad to see Independents and Teals really working hard in and for their electorates.
I listened to the Guardian podcast last week, it came into my feed and was a discussion between Barrie Cassidy and Tony Barry, I think many would find it interesting, particularly looking at the rise in popularity of One Nation and who might be switching allegiances and why.
I really would never vote for that party, they just roll out the same old ideas to appeal to disgruntled voters and try to find someone new to blame for the most recent problem. It used to be migrants from Asia, now it's those from the Middle East. I would never vote for any of those candidates.
As Senator Jacqui Lambie is not representing in my territory, I don't have to consider whether to vote for her or not. I always enjoy her media appearances and her absolute inability to behave like a politician by just regurgitating party talking points. She at least appears to be a real person!! And I do have some affection for that.
I was both alarmed and amused by the recent change of Liberal Party leader and found Malcolm Turnbull's comments interesting. To me he always came across as though he was in the wrong party, however, I think he would see it as the party he joined as no longer being recognisable. I don't know how many others find the wheeling out of John Howard (or suggesting it's a good idea) to be frustrating. I didn't agree with him on much and I think continuing to refer back to him only confirms the idea that there are no new candidates of quality and that they have to keep looking backwards to their glory days rather than forwards. I think the newly chosen leader is not going to be someone to lead them back to government. At present herding cats seems to be a rather generous assessment of their disarray.
Pauline Hanson has been horribly racist this week so I am more opposed to One Nation than ever.
Yeah. I also have an affection for straight talking pollies. N Price comes to mind. Katter too and of course Pauline Hansen.
I think that's what makes Trump endearing too. Terrible politician. Says just what he thinks which is refreshing.
Does he, or does he say what he thinks helps him in the present moment?
Trump's supposed threat to democracy entirely depends on which media you read. He's only doing what he was elected to do and he is easily muzzled by the government if they want him to be.
But absolutely we need someone up to the task when China invades Taiwan. The government will have to decide whether to go with our allies or go with our biggest trade partner.
Either way we will lose. Australia needs to prepare for either war or significant economic fallout in the not too distant future.
I don't think you can call Pauline Hanson racist based on recent events. She's just anti muslim, which of course, has all sorts of races, including white people, as it's make up.
I think it's good she's cautioning against radical islam. Interestingly she's had muslims come up to her and support her views because they don't want Australia to become like the countries they left.
Because he's not a good politician, I'm not sure he has sufficient foresight to perceive what helps him in the present moment. A lot of what he says has certainly backfired on the spot.
If you think Trump will stand up to China you have not being paying attention to his interactions with Putin.. He can be bribed, blackmailed, threatened, and triggered with ridiculous ease - and thereby manipulated by the autocratic leaders of other superpowers.
That doesn't mean he's not saying what he *thinks* will help him a lot of the time. He must know, for example, that ICE are not just rounding up the "worst of the worst", but he says it because admitting he doesn't give a shit who they sweep up so long as it's not him wouldn't play well.
Perhaps an Australian shipmate can correct me if I'm wrong.
Would you be defending her against charges of racism, @WhimsicalChristian if she'd said that all Jews are Zionists or Islamophobes or that all indigenous peoples are alcoholics or drug addicts?
Speaking one's mind isn't always a good trait in a politician, particularly when one's mind and vocal chords are connected with one's anus, as per Trump.
Forgive me, but you seem attracted by populism at the expense of rational debate. And yes, Inused a populist trope in relation to Trump just now...
Even my Australian aunt, normally a defender of Hanson, has distanced herself from her latest outpourings.
It's possible to be anti-jihadist without being Islamophobic.
It's possible to be against Netanyahu and right-wing Israelis without being anti-semitic.
The problem with populists like Trump and Hanson - and yes, they have their equivalents elsewhere on the political spectrum - is that they polarise everything and reduce them to black and white and unnuanced soundbites.
People get taken in by them.
As you appear to have been.
But even if it were true that he is only doing what he's elected to do, that doesn't make what he's doing alright. Liberal democracy is not a pleonasm: the liberal means that there are restrictions on what democratic politicians can do even if they've been voted for. Those restrictions, freedom of assembly, freedom of protest, separation of powers, are important in themselves. Furthermore, without those restrictions it becomes all too easy for politicians in power to rig elections.
I said radical islam.
Not sure if you're aware of the recent Bondi shooting in Australia where two muslims, fuelled by a preacher that apparently said all non muslims were scum, killed a bunch of Jews on the beach?
As for Trump and China. If it's in America's national interest, I don't think he'll be bullied.
I don't know I'm afraid. I'm only interested in his economics and geopolitics.
But the fact that ICE pulled out of Minnesota and the trump administration backed out of Greenland shows the "facism" title is false.
I have tried to find the original transcript and video of Pauline Hanson's words on this without much luck. The best I can find is she was asked if there were any good muslims and she said "how can you tell if they are good muslims?".
She has since apologised to all muslims she may have offended who do not believe in Sharia Law, do not believe in multiple wives, and do not support returning ISIS brides to Australia.
If you're a "good muslim", you probably believe in at least the first two because that is your scripture.
If you don't believe in the first two, you would likely be considered a progressive muslim and potentially anathema to the hardcorists.
As far as I can tell, her comments were fair. But even if not, you're right, she's polarising the debate but as I've said before, she will never make prime minister. She is not polished enough and says too much what she thinks.
But can we really give our politicians a hard time about polarisation when most normal people are pretty polarised these days?
This board is a good example.
Absolutely. As I've said before, he can be muzzled if the government wants him to be.
Which again, makes the title of "facist" ridiculous.
Nah. Not with the US constitution. Too many safeguards in place.
If the rest of the government want to enforce those safeguards that is, which given that the independence of the rest of the government from the President has been slowly eroded, if less of a given. But that's not relevant. The Constitution if enforced might stop a fascist from doing fascist things, but it doesn't stop him from being a fascist.
And certainly Trump has been pushing at the edge of the Constitution and much of the Supreme Court have been abetting him. (I don't think anyone thought that the Constitution granted a President immunity from criminal prosecution in the course of their official duties before the Court decided it.)
Trump backing down from vague military threats to invade Greenland doesn't mean he wasn't a fascist; it means he backed down when people stood up to him.
No, you did not.
What you said was:
(My bold.)
I can read.
You also seem to be failing to appreciate why racism is a problem - and therefore why pedantry doesn’t solve that problem.
I was in Australia at the time and even if I hadn't been it was headline news all over the world. If you remember one of the people shot by the gunmen was actually a Muslim himself and he was wounded trying to disarm them. That doesn't let the gunmen off the hook nor does it 'endorse' Islam over against any other religion either. There are good Samaritans in all faiths and none.
Of course we are aware of radical jihadism and its terrible effects.
As for polarising arguments, I don't see where I've done anything of the kind on this thread.
From where I'm sitting you seem to be the one doing that. You're sounding a lot like my Aussie relatives and although I don't know how old you are they at least have the excuse of being in their '70s.
I mentioned her cautioning against radical islam further down and explained her apology to Gamaliel.
I can certainly appreciate why racism is a problem but cautioning against radical islam is not racism because it contains any number of races as I said above.
We've been through this discussion in Hell Dafyd. We don't need to do it again.
You're remarkably balanced in your posts. I wasn't referring to you being polarising.
If I'm sounding a lot like your relatives it's because a lot of current Australians are thinking the same way if the polls are anything to go by.
And they say gen x and above are the ones swinging to the right. So that makes sense. I'm gen x.
I was very left in my younger years. I just realised the whole "toleration" thing was a farce (because my mostly left church couldn't tolerate the differences within it) and the left has gone too far left (government censorship, curtailment of freedom of speech, cancel culture) so I've become centre right.
WhimsicalChristian
Racism is a problem, because it involves judging large number of individuals - usually negatively - on the basis of their sharing one superficial characteristic.
Religion is often used a proxy for race - what is known as a “dog whistle”, I.e. a way of disguising a political message such that those who know, know what you mean. Typically, people who say they are worried about Islam, are not primarily “worried” about white Muslims.
Even where this is not a proxy for race - anti-Muslim prejudice is a problem for the same reason as anti-semetism, sectarianism and other forms of bigotry. It involves judging large numbers of individuals on the basis of a shared superficial characteristic, and often then enables hostile actions and attitudes toward them. There are are over a billion Muslims on the planet, they are not a monolith. They are just like you and me.
I think you need to change the definition of racism in this context to ideology. Because you are changing the definition of racism.
And superficial characteristic is not a fair call if it is known large numbers of whatever group share the same characteristic.
You're basically saying you're not allowed to criticise anyone, for whatever reason if they identify with whatever.
Nonsense. What you can't do is criticise a whole group and especially individual members of it for the perceived characteristics of some of them.
The young seem to be. Many of the young lads we're getting along to church these days are much further to the right than I was at their age or am now.
One could argue that this some kind of reaction to unfettered liberalism or the left 'going too far' - which is how my relatives would see things - or one of the responses that people make in times of uncertainty and change.
This isn't a purely Australian issue of course, but there will be particular factors and contexts there which shape it in ways that might differ to some extent to the UK, US and Western Europe, Southern Africa or wherever else.
Sharia law is just religious law akin to church canon law - it doesn't have to be in conflict with civil or criminal law.
They may just be more inclined to express themselves that way, or perhaps being an Orthodox church it attracts people who are RETVRN types. The alleged broader trend has plenty of holes in it (almost as many as the purported revival among the young).
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/most-british-young-men-reject-the-far-right/
There's definitely an atavistic tone to much of this, although I would agree with you @chrisstiles that the so-called 'quiet revival' is over-egged. That said, I know of several RC and Anglican parishes who are experiencing an influx of young men at the moment.
They certainly aren't all right wing. I had a refreshingly broad and detailed conversation with a young catechumen on Sunday who was very clued up on national and regional politics and had all sorts of interesting questions and observations.
We have had some very ranty and unnuanced enquirers who've frightened people away, including occasional attendees from other churches. We do get people who come along fairly often but remain part of their own churches - which is fine.
Anyhow, that's by the by.
You've provided a link about young men's rejection of the far right. The far right is one thing. What about what we might call the 'centre right' - however that's defined?
@WhimsicalChristian claims to be 'centre-right'. My aunt in Australia distances herself from some of Hanson's comments and crass stunts but feels she's only trying to pull things back from the 'far left' - as she sees it - the 'centre-right.'
That bothers me as it legitimises some of the crap coming from the far right. And so the polarisation conyinues and hardens.
'I don’t like all this liberal stuff, I feel threatened by it. Therefore I am going to come out with outrageously xenophobic and crass comments and stunts in order to balance things out even though that gives fuel to racists and the swivel-eyed far right ...'
When I probed what it was that was drawing my formerly liberal, relatively leftie Australian relatives to the right I rarely heard anything about economics or fiscal issues- although there was an element of that to be fair - it was more about a perceived bias towards minorities such as Aborigines and Muslims.
Sorry, but I certainly detect a xenophobic element in that.
The younger people I spoke to were generally more liberal but from a UK liberal perspective I was shocked at what both my daughters and myself felt to be levels of casual racism.
These were the sons, daughters and grandchildren of Greek and Italian migrants whose families all had stories to tell of mistreatment and racism when they first arrived. They'd done well, integrated, thrived. Their families were all doing very well for themselves thank you very much.
Yet the way they spoke about later arrivals - 'Lebs', Indians, Pakistanis - was very disrespectful indeed. It was also shocking to hear them use the 'w' word 'w*gs' when referring to their own communities, a term they claimed didn't carry the racist connotations it has here.
When pressed they would of course insist that they weren't against Asian and Middle-Eastern migrants per se but only those that 'made a mess' or who didn't appear willing to integrate.
There may very well be problems with integration among some communities and I don’t think we should elide those nor jump to simplistic conclusions either.
But I couldn't help but get the impression that there's a kind of pecking order going on - white Australians with western European heritage are at the top of the evolutionary hierarchy followed by those of Greek and Italian heritage who only just about get in, then Chinese and Vietnamese people 'because they work hard' and with Middle-Eastern, Indian and Pakistani people below that - particularly if they happen to be Muslims - then indigenous people's with a hierarchy descending from Pacific Islanders, Maori and Papua New Guineans to Australian aborigines at the very bottom.
I know some Australian Shipmates will protest that this is a caricature but it's an impression I picked up from conversations with many Australians I met. Not all, of course.
And I'm sure there are plenty of British people with similar views. Or worse.
One rather important aspect is whether a cultural and spiritual identity itself includes a long-inculcated sense of superiority. If it does, then losing that aspect is no bad thing. (I'm intrigued that the satire of HMS Pinafore, almost 150 years ago, was both widely recognised at the time, and seen as being entertaining.)
But "the detriment of facts or history" is a curious way to put it. It is analysis of facts that continues to reveal the extent of the historic oppression of many people and people groups across the world, including other white people (in our own countries), and the extent to which people in our own generation continue to benefit from this, as well as all those people who continue to suffer from this.
On one level, unless you're a fan of oppression, does it matter what motivates privileged people to change this?
However, it seems pertinent that we are prepared to self-critically examine what motivates us, and be more specific about the outcomes we are seeking to achieve. Privileged people assuaging their guilt through telling off other privileged people may (possibly) help with the guilt, but does very little to directly counter oppression, discrimination and marginalisation.
I see. So we are no longer allowed opposition in government?
Many Christians do not practice it. African christian polygamy takes its"scriptural source" from the Old Testament, ignoring the New Testament which is a cause for significant division globally in the Anglican Communion ( my church).
The problem of multiple spouses IS primarily one of patriarchy and sexism as I don't see any countries or religions where it's okay for women to have multiple spouses.
How you jump from what I said to your comment their is utterly beyond me.
I think that's what's called virtue signalling.
To the detriment of facts or history have a look at Nigel Biggar's book, Colonialism.
I'm sorry it's hard to keep up.