-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Anyone seen Gerard Henderson's meltdown? It's ... interesting.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s3987328.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s3987328.htm
I was waiting for him to start screeching 'STOP USING FACTS!!!!1!'
He read the reporting. doncha know.
roosters93
Member
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
At the very least he doesn't seem able to comprehend that even if BOF wasn't intentionally lying, what he said still wasn't true.
"How dare you accuse Barry of not telling the truth! That's a very serious allegation!"
"He resigned because what he said wasn't true."
"GRHRHRHMREMFEMFEMEMORY LAPSE."
"How dare you accuse Barry of not telling the truth! That's a very serious allegation!"
"He resigned because what he said wasn't true."
"GRHRHRHMREMFEMFEMEMORY LAPSE."
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
This lunatic is a dangerous lunatic.
In case there was any doubt, this confirms that when he called Penny Wong a bigot he was in fact equating the opinions of conservative commentators with the race, gender and sexuality of oppressed minorities. If Penny Wong is the high priestess of political correctness gone mad, then surely demanding that unscientific opinion get protected status makes George the Pope.
Box of Bunnies
Banned
Holocaust deniers
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
You'd have to go all the way back to the Catholic Church's persecution of Galileo to find an example that rivals Penny Wong's vicious abuse of authority to crush anti-establishment scientists. Ian Plimer is lucky to be alive.
Elaugaufein
Member
Still pretty sure this is a terrible way to look at things. The necessity for protection of speech is non-existent if you're only going to say popular things. The protection is limited to government suppression because the constitution delineates governmental limits and powers , not because the appropriate response to anyone saying something you disagree with is to intimidate them into silence and then claim you're morally correct because "Free Speech" is only a limit on government powers.
ETA - Which is not to say that you do not have the right to fire (or seek the firing of) someone you disapprove (or refuse to host them) , merely that implication that success at such makes it morally correct , because "Free Speech" protections don't apply, is questionable at best. I suppose there's an argument to be made that the generally public can't render you destitute for making an argument anonymously whereas a government has the ability (and resources) to strip that protection, so public suppression is inherently less dangerous. However in these days of the media championing knee jerk legislative responses to public outrage and the universal reduction of privacy, I'm not sure that argument is as strong as it once was.
I think the comic and comment are more about defending particular speech rather than free speech in general. If the only way you can defend something is to argue that it is not illegal to say it it then it is probably pretty dumb. If you have no other argument in favour of that bit of speech other than 'it's not illegal', I would say it is a reflection of the quality of that speech.
shanshan310
Member
How can we waste a bunch of money and target the most vulnerable today? Oh I know, lets hire independent doctors to reassess everyone on disability pensions.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit.../02/2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit.../02/2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o
Elaugaufein
Member
Free speech in general consists (exclusively) of multiple instances of particular speech. You can't meaningfully argue that its appropriate to suppress any instance of speech while also arguing that free speech should not be suppressed. This is a core problem with arguments of fundamental rights, any suppression whatsoever undermines the granting of the rights because it means that further suppression is possible, but no suppression at all can lead to problematic actions (e.g free speech can lead to incitements to violence).
The argument itself also suffer's from inherent contradiction: the best thing that can be said suppression of speech via non-governmental means is that it's not illegal to do so.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
This ties into the Brandis comments I've been posting in this thread: in order to delineate Free Speech as a right that neither the public nor private sectors can infringe upon, the Government would have to classify opinion as a protected quality alongside race, gender, disability etc... I consider this a much slipperier slope than anything contained within the RDA. Also, I can't think of an example of truly free speech anywhere in the world, so I can't really credit the idea that any suppression of speech will inevitably snowball.
Nobody is talking about suppressing speech if the only redeeming feature is that it is not illegal. It is simply a metric for checking the worth of a particular utterance. It is not a statement about the worth of the right to free speech or what should be protected by that right.
It is analogous to the statement: If the only defence for an action you can muster is that it is not illegal, it is a poor action.
I don't think that is a radical position to hold.
I also think non governmental suppression of speech can have positives in very specific circumstances, so you contradiction doesn't really exist.
Elaugaufein
Member
There's no way that you could practically enforce it, it'd make firing someone essentially impossible, since you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't have at least one opinion that someone higher up the chain than them doesn't agree with.
I'm not actually arguing that opinion should be protected by law, merely that suppression of speech by public oppression is no more moral than government suppression of speech, and it shouldn't be treated like it is inherently more positive. Because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.
Attempts to suppress speech do tend to occur with fair frequency but in most countries with nominally free speech you have a fairly powerful force (the media) who have a vested interest in protecting themselves, and since their power depends on their speech, they tend to defend it viciously.
First they came for the racists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a racist.
Then shit was pretty tight.
Yes, yes. You reject the originals message. Not all of us feel that the ends, however noble, justify the means.
I'm also reasonably sure you don't think its appropriate to make racists "disappear' like your statement implies.
But you are. The argument is essentially a defense of suppression of speech. A statement that such is okay because speech depending on "Free Speech" to be uttered is valueless.
I think its pretty radical. I had a nap today. Not for any particular reason (I didn't really need it) so there's no defence for that action beyond it not being illegal (or because I felt like it/wanted too, but that argument applies equally to pretty much any action taken by a sentient so it can probably be discarded as trivial ). I really can't see any reason it was a poor action.
Sure it can. Governmental suppression of speech can have positives in very specific circumstances too. Almost any suppression can have positives in very specific circumstances. After all there's arguments to be made that the death penalty is appropriate in very specific circumstances (and that's the ultimate suppression), not ones that I find justify its use, but valid arguments none the less.
Are you suggesting you can become a billlllionaire in Australia without being smrt?!
Like there is some kind of magic rock in the ground that can give people magical powers of wealth!?
Going to be blatantly cherry picking, apologies.
Apologies for the cherry picking, but I mainly wanted to correct where I think I have not been clear.
That assumed I think anything needs a justification other than 'it's not illegal' to remain legal. I don't. It is not a judgement on the speech being protected or not, or whether it should be protected. It is not saying that it is only speech with value should be protected. It is a heuristic for judging the worth of speech, not in any way a statement of whether it should be protected. I can disagree with something and think it is worthless and still think it should be protected.
The nap aided you mental state. It has a reason other than 'it's not illegal'. Hell, fun is a justification for a lot of things, that's fine. I'm not talking about great moral justifications, just that if the ONLY reason for doing something, or the only reason someone will present for it, is that it's not illegal then it is a pretty poor action.
Apologies for the cherry picking, but I mainly wanted to correct where I think I have not been clear.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
IDK, Direct Action is pretty much a bunch of spending measures, it's not like they're sneaking changes to the RDA or the Financial Advice regs through. More generally though I don't get the feeling that anyone in the Coalition really gives two hoots about DA, so I don't see them putting any special effort into getting it passed. Then again that could be exactly what they want us to think...
Talk about missing the point.
This isnt about whether the protections exist or not. They do, that's a good thing.
Instead its more about the fact that just because you can say something stupid and wrong doesn't mean it has any merit as an idea. Like theology.
Some details on emissions, carbon tax, etc. worth a read.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...olitics/clean-energy-economy-or-wrecking-ball
Conclusion for those that don't wanna actually read.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...olitics/clean-energy-economy-or-wrecking-ball
Conclusion for those that don't wanna actually read.
bobnowhere
Member
God I love a Clive Palmer press conference. It's like he has 47 separate ideas all at once and he must get them all out in one single enormous run-on sentence. He then bashes every other party and finally he answers questions from the press and in the end everyone is more confused at the end of the conference than at the start.
Elaugaufein
Member
Does anyone genuinely believe that the Coalition actually acknowledges the science of climate change ? As opposed to paying lip service to it, so that they can mitigate any effective measures that could be taken for the benefit of large entrenched and politically connected businesses, without alienating centrist voters ?
A lot of Coalition voters are convinced they do, and that they care more about election promises than Labor does
Elaugaufein
Member
As far as I can tell the Coalition have broken (or are incredibly likely to break at budget from media reports) at least the following: Medicare, Pension, NDIS, School funding reform and NBN (and screwing this up worse than the plan they went to the election with should actually be listed as some kind of achievement) election promises. And almost everything about the RET review suggests that they have no intention of keeping any promises concerning real action on climate change either.
Although in fairness the only two I'm surprised by are Medicare and the Pension, so I guess they only broke two promises that had even the veneer of legitimacy (because things that really annoy pensioners are usually things that the Coalition avoids, so I'm suspecting the bulk billing fee will be waived for pensioners (?) and any changes to the pension won't effect anyone over ~50ish).
As a side note any promises of fiscal responsibility are probably broken as well, given they seem quite happy to give the Reserve Bank a massive amount of money it doesn't need commit to building a really expensive Western Sydney airport, and run politically motivated royal commissions while only applying austerity to things they dislike (climate change, social safety nets and public services).
Not that I have unshakable faith in Labor's policies to keep any promises not made to Unions or business leaders either but I will give them credit for what at least appears to be genuine efforts at reform on the federal level (unlike the Queensland branch which is looking at giving Unions + Party Room 67% vote for similar reforms to the federal party , which will change ~nothing given that Unions run the Party Room via factions anyway and a 33% grass root vote will change nothing). But their record doesn't seem any worse than the Coalition, in terms of keeping election promises.
Edit - Original post suggested harsher views of the ALPs election promise keeping than I actually have.
Add the NBN to that list of questionable finanical practice with things they don't like. Their plan changes a ~1.5% ROI to a ~3% ROI and tanks most of the long-term economic benefits.
See the thing about Labor is that they're bumbling drunks sometimes but at least they stumble in the right direction.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
The Coalition's definition of fiscal responsibility wouldn't even hold true for a private business, let alone a government, let alone a sovereign federal government. When you're running a federal surplus and the IMF (of all things) still deems you fiscally profligate there's got to be something special going on.
Also let's not forget that these are the people who are so morally opposed to government debt that they voluntarily issued a whole bunch of it when they were running a surplus, because as it turns out the private sector actually quite likes those zero-risk guaranteed returns.
No but you see Labor's program X is paid for with "borrowed money", whereas the funds for Liberal program Y were "found" in consolidated revenue. Joe Hockey had to go around on bended knee, cap in hand in order to scrounge up just enough for the former, whereas Christopher Pyne had to strap on a headlamp and risk his life in the Treasury vaults for the latter.
What an utter joke. That shit eating grin while fucking the country utterly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked