• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Arksy

Member
Fredescu said:
Great example of how she had poor instincts as to what would fly with the public. Conceding the "tax" terminology was such a huge mistake. Even she admits that now.
Click to expand...

She was right in that if she didn't concede the terminology, it would've been a huge definition fight. Coalition would have kept calling it a tax. In the same way that the Finance Minister said that the ABC weren't getting cut but were applying a 'efficiency dividend'. Doesn't matter, it's a cut.
 
J

Jintor

Member
Arksy said:
She was right in that if she didn't concede the terminology, it would've been a huge definition fight. Coalition would have kept calling it a tax. In the same way that the Finance Minister said that the ABC weren't getting cut but were applying a 'efficiency dividend'. Doesn't matter, it's a cut.
Click to expand...

Yes, but, as usual, it's much worse to admit to a mistake than to make a mistake and to deny it vociferously.
 
M

mjontrix

Member
ConstructMe said:
New NBN rollout sucks fucking....waste of money deploying this obsolete shit, and were not getting it.
Click to expand...

Hopefully the fttp stuff is done first then hopefully by then the liberals will have imploded.

But I actually wish for more delays. Heck the more the merrier - - then the next government can go back to fttp.
 
F

Fredescu

Member
Arksy said:
She was right in that if she didn't concede the terminology, it would've been a huge definition fight. Coalition would have kept calling it a tax. In the same way that the Finance Minister said that the ABC weren't getting cut but were applying a 'efficiency dividend'. Doesn't matter, it's a cut.
Click to expand...
True, it probably wouldn't have made much difference in the end.
 
D.Lo

D.Lo

Member
hidys said:
That and what they negotiated with Turnbull was a complete waste of time which would have had virtually zero impact on emissions in this country.
Click to expand...
14% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.

Now we'll have 0%.

Yes there's a lot of people at fault.

Anyway the rest I said was true, the Greens are frustrating. They swing wildly between ideologically pure and pragmatic/playing politics. And usually at the worst possible times.

I mean I'm happy they exist to give Labor a kick up the arse from the left. But apart from the outstanding performer Ludlum (and to a lesser extent Bandt and Rihannon) I find none of the current lot particularly impressive public figures. And some, like Sarah fucking Hanson Young, to be as embarrassing as the fucking Libs. Milne is pretty bad for a leader.

Personality cult without a personality indeed.
 
H

hidys

Member
D.Lo said:
14% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.

Now we'll have 0%.

Yes there's a lot of people at fault.

Anyway the rest I said was true, the Greens are frustrating. They swing wildly between ideologically pure and pragmatic/playing politics. And usually at the worst possible times.

I mean I'm happy they exist to give Labor a kick up the arse from the left. But apart from the outstanding performer Ludlum (and to a lesser extent Bandt and Rihannon) I find none of the current lot particularly impressive public figures. And some, like Sarah fucking Hanson Young, to be as embarrassing as the fucking Libs. Milne is pretty bad for a leader.

Personality cult without a personality indeed.
Click to expand...

That might have been what Labor was saying it would do, but there is no fucking way the Rudd/Turnbull ETS would have hit that target.

Mind you I actually think Sarah Hanson Young is one of the most important senators in Australia while Lee Rihannon represents everything wrong with the Greens.

I do think Milne should be replaced as leader, if only for the poor showing at the last federal election.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
hidys said:
That might have been what Labor was saying it would do, but there is no fucking way the Rudd/Turnbull ETS would have hit that target.

Mind you I actually think Sarah Hanson Young is one of the most important senators in Australia while Lee Rihannon represents everything wrong with the Greens.

I do think Milne should be replaced as leader, if only for the poor showing at the last federal election.
Click to expand...


Considering that it was unpopular enough among them to cost Tuenbull the leadership even with all the concessions made. Even if it could hit 14% there's an excellent chance it would have been killed by the Coalition when they came in. In fact the more effective it was the more likely it would be killed. The narrative of the last 2 elections would have remained the same except that the Greens may have taken a bigger hit for abandoning their core principles.
 
D

Dryk

Member
markot said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-...nvironment-group-funding-by-over-80pc/5932278
Click to expand...

"Whether it's air pollution, whether it's ozone depleting substances, what's happening in the world's oceans, the conservation of biodiversity - for a relatively small amount, Australia benefits from leveraging well over $500 million in contributions that other countries make,"
Click to expand...
Leaners

This is consistent with the government's attitude towards the UN though, we don't want to put in our fair share but we do want to reap the benefits
 
W

wonzo

Banned
B3zpZgGCEAA2e5X.jpg:large
 
W

wonzo

Banned
markot said:
If theyre not wrong why shouldn't they be fighting it?
Click to expand...

didnt u kno politicans must always bend over backwards for the tabloid troglodytes?!

e: bernard keane goin ham on nuclear power
noah.png


Nuclear: the power source for innumerates and socialists

Nuclear power is a ludicrously uneconomic industry and now more than ever. But conservatives continue to obsess over it.

According to Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop, “it’s an obvious conclusion that if you want to bring down your greenhouse gas emissions dramatically you have to embrace a form of low or zero-emissions energy, and that’s nuclear”.

Well, it’s an obvious conclusion if you can’t count, or you’re a raving socialist who wants governments to take control of the power industry again. Which one is Bishop? Given she was dumped as shadow treasurer after a series of gaffes, including not knowing the official interest rate in 2009, the answer isn’t that difficult.

In 2009, Crikey looked at the cost of establishing a nuclear power industry in Australia, given the huge capital costs involved, the well-established history of extensive delays in construction of nuclear plants and their tendency to go wildly over-budget. Building nuclear power plants is expensive enough in countries such as the United States and France, where there is a well-established nuclear power industry, let alone in Australia.

One of the country’s chief nuclear spruikers, Ziggy Switkowski, recognised this in 2007 when he undertook a review for the Howard government, which was flirting with nuclear power. His review found that nuclear only became viable compared to coal and gas if there was a carbon price of between $20-$50 a tonne  which is between $25-$65 in current money. And, as he acknowledged, with that level of a carbon price, renewable energy was also viable.

Given the government has just dumped a much lower carbon price than $65 a tonne, that route to nuclear power appears closed. The only alternative is massive subsidies (ruled out by Abbott this morning) and loan guarantees for whoever is building Bishop’s nuclear power station. How much help would the builder need? To give you some idea, note that the new Flamanville nuclear plant in France  Bishop specifically mentioned buying nuclear power from France in her Twitter comments on the subject  was originally budgeted to cost 3.3 billion euros, but by December 2012 the cost had increased to 8.5 billion euros. The completion date has also blown out by five years.

But it’s not just the Flamanville budget that has changed since 2009: the cost of renewables, and especially solar photovoltaic, has dramatically decreased. “Let’s ask the unbiased experts,” Bishop urged. Well, we did: in 2009, we looked at data from financial advisory giant Lazard on energy costs in the United States  a country with a well-established nuclear power industry already  that showed nuclear as far more expensive than fossil fuel energy generation and wind, and about as expensive as solar photovoltaic. What’s changed since then? Lazard’s September 2014 report shows that for capital costs, nuclear costs per kW are around the same levels as five years ago, while rooftop solar PV and utility-scale solar PV  neither of which even made it into the comparison five years ago  are now both cheaper than nuclear and, in the case of utility-scale solar PV, significantly cheaper than coal. Wind, too, has dropped notably in cost.

For operational costs nuclear is still slightly more expensive than coal, but utility-level solar PV is now cheaper than nuclear and only slightly more expensive than coal, while wind is cheapest of all (solar rooftop is more expensive at the commercial and industrial level, and far more expensive at household level). Anti-renewables advocates insist renewables can’t provide baseload power, but that’s a repeatedly discredited myth rejected even by investment analysts.

So according to the “unbiased experts”, in the United States, where a nuclear power industry has existed for decades, nuclear is no longer competitive with renewables and remains far more expensive than coal or gas  or even relatively unproven renewables technology like geothermal.

The economic case against nuclear is open and shut. The question is: why does the Coalition keep returning to it? Why is the party that rails against the “age of entitlement” and has made a virtue of slashing business welfare keen to back a sector that would make the car industry look like rugged individualists? Possibly because conservatives see energy policy through a political prism: the Left loves renewable energy, so the Right is hostile to solar and wind, while the Left hates nuclear power, so the Right is keen to embrace it. There’s no economic sense to it; it’s simply the energy policy equivalent of the culture wars.
Click to expand...
 
J

jgminto

Member
Totally agree with the Greens, when you see how engrained gendered marketing in older generations is, to the point that they won't allow and get angry at the idea of their kid being interested in a toy marketed at a different gender, it's completely ridiculous.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Dryk said:
I have very little faith in the ability of the Australian public to grasp the concepts they're trying to talk about, and they're already spread far too thin on that front.
Click to expand...

I actually disagree with the precept as put forward by the Courier Mail I saw, which is that gender stereotypical toys should be unavailable, I don't see harm in girls having Barbie dolls if that's what they are interested in. But I suspect its taken out of context (because Courier mail) and that the point was more that continued and overwhelming exposure to gender stereotypes is harmful (due to the expectations it sets and its self-reinforcing properties) and that toys shouldn't be as heavily gender encoded as they are.
 
D

Dryk

Member
Elaugaufein said:
But I suspect its taken out of context (because Courier mail) and that the point was more that continued and overwhelming exposure to gender stereotypes is harmful (due to the expectations it sets and its self-reinforcing properties) and that toys shouldn't be as heavily gender encoded as they are.
Click to expand...
This is the Green's press release

No Gender December, a new campaign to raise awareness about the gendered marketing of toys, is launching in time for the festive season.

"At this time of the year, many of us are looking for children's gifts, and it's important that we think about how toys are being marketed to children," Senator Larissa Waters, Australian Greens spokesperson for women, said.

"The starkly separate aisles of pink and blue, catalogues categorising toys as for girls or boys, and advertising showing just girls or boys playing with particular toys, can seem harmless.

"However, setting such strong gender stereotypes at early ages can have long-term impacts, including influencing self-perception and career aspirations.

"Out-dated stereotypes about girls and boys and men and women, perpetuate gender inequality, which feeds into very serious problems such as domestic violence and the gender pay gap.

"While such serious problems seem so far removed from choosing children's toys, it's important that we think about this issue, especially when so many children's toys are being bought.

"Play Unlimited's No Gender December campaign is an important opportunity to raise awareness of the gendered marketing of toys because no child's imagination should be limited by old-fashioned stereotypes," Senator Waters said.

Play Unlimited co-founders Thea Hughes, based in New South Wales, and Julie Huberman, based in Queensland, hope that the campaign will prompt toy companies to become more inclusive in their marketing.

"It's 2014 - women mow lawns and men push prams but while we've moved on, many toy companies haven't," Ms Huberman said.

"We're inviting everyone concerned about overt gendered marketing to sign our No Gender December pledge and we're pleased to have a number of academic researchers and psychologists supporting our campaign.

"We're also inviting parents to hold playdates on Sunday December 14, where they can talk with friends about gendered marketing while kids play, and we're looking forward to joining Senator Waters for a playdate in Brisbane.

"By standing together we can send a strong message to toy companies that that there is no place for toys perpetuating outdated gender stereotypes under our Christmas trees or in our homes," Ms Huberman said.
Click to expand...
 
D.Lo

D.Lo

Member
Dryk said:
I have very little faith in the ability of the Australian public to grasp the concepts they're trying to talk about, and they're already spread far too thin on that front.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the basic point is true, but this is something that will simply enrage blue collar families (and most immigrants) and turn them off the Greens. And it will have absolutely no effect either.
 
O

Omikron

Member
Tone has waded in. As he does.

Tony Abbott says boys should be boys and girls should be girls, in response to a campaign urging parents not to buy gender-specific toys this Christmas.

Greens Senator Larissa Waters is under fire for supporting the No December Gender campaign, aimed at breaking down stereotypes of buying dolls for girls and monster trucks for boys.

Senator Waters says the marketing of toys to boys and girls reinforced a "belief that men and women are somehow very different".

"We know that that ultimately feeds into really serious problems like domestic violence," she told the Nine Network.

But the prime minister has dismissed her concerns as political correctness, and said parents should be allowed to do what is in the best interest of their children.

"Let boys be boys, let girls be girls," he said.

"You wonder why the parliament is difficult when you have people like that with the balance of power in the Senate."
Click to expand...

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...irls-pm-dismisses-gender-neutral-toy-campaign
 
D

Dryk

Member
D.Lo said:
Agreed, the basic point is true, but this is something that will simply enrage blue collar families (and most immigrants) and turn them off the Greens. And it will have absolutely no effect either.
Click to expand...
I've been looking at the articles from all the major outlets and their comments sections. NOBODY is responding well to this, it's been incredibly easy for people to gloss over and twist their points, they didn't make them very well in the first place and they should've seen all of that coming.
 
D.Lo

D.Lo

Member
Dryk said:
I've been looking at the articles from all the major outlets and their comments sections. NOBODY is responding well to this, it's been incredibly easy for people to gloss over and twist their points, they didn't make them very well in the first place and they should've seen all of that coming.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think I was even wrong, it won't have no effect, it will have a negative effect.
It's given an embattled Abbott an opportunity to go on TV and 'fight' for things the entire swinging voter demographic agree with.

The Greens have no discipline and let their Senators have their little pet projects sanctioned as party policy.
 
J

Jintor

Member
Omi said:
Tone has waded in. As he does.



http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...irls-pm-dismisses-gender-neutral-toy-campaign
Click to expand...

Jesus christ! It's one thing to say that there's nothing wrong with marketing and that parents have the good sense to direct their own kid's learning. But to tie attempting to fight gender stereotyping and by implication domestic violence to "political correctness" and then shitting on her for the dsyfunctional parliament? What the fuck Tone.

Obviously it's bad politics by the Greens but at least it's ideologically intentioned. But Tone, man. What the fuck. I guess I shouldn't expect more from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs/Woman who doesn't seem to remember his other two portfolios exist 80% of the time.

Definitely the most bro-y bro-tastic bogan thing he's done all week
 
B

Box of Bunnies

Banned
ConstructMe said:
That is politically correct nonsense though, i mean really, boys have hot wheels and stuff, girls have barbies and that whats the problem.
Click to expand...

And sometimes boys like Barbies and girls like Hot Wheels but entrenched attitudes like your's and Tones' means some drongo father beats his "little poofta son" for wanting a girl's toy.

And all the other stuff about stereotypical gender roles and what have you
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Omi said:
Tone has waded in. As he does.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2...l-toy-campaign
Click to expand...
If you're a typical judgemental internet lefty and don't actually know Tony Abbott you might consider "let boys be boys, let girls be girls," to be a statement that shows him to be ignorant of how societies create gender roles and their potential consequences. However, Tony is actually acutely aware of the fluidity of gender, as evidenced by his participation in an episode of Australian story featuring his friend Lt Col. Cate McGregor, possibly "the most high profile individual in Australia to 'come out' as a transgendered person."

Similarly, Tony is often accused of holding sexist and even misogynistic views, but he is personally married to a woman and has three daughters who are not bad looking, even if he says so himself. Also, some have chosen to interpret his statement that he feels threatened by homosexuality in the worst possible light, ignoring the fact that his sister is gay; who doesn't feel a little threatened by some members of their family? Finally, to criticise any of the Liberal party's policies on Indigenous Australians over the past decade or so one would have to be wilfully blind to Tony's frequent volunteer work in remote Aboriginal communities. There's nothing controversial about repeatedly stating that before European settlement there was almost nothing of note to the Australian continent; that it was some kind of "null land", if you will.
 
C

ConstructMe

Banned
All im saying is the greens should not bow to pressure from wierd campaigns like this, stick to climate change, solar panels and better public transport if they want a chance to become a credible 3rd party, not this.
 
C

ConstructMe

Banned
Box of Bunnies said:
Maybe if ConstructMe had had a Barbie doll instead of Hot Wheels when he was a kid speed cameras wouldn't cause him so much trouble nowadays
Click to expand...

I just dont know how you can place any blame on toys of any sort for domestic violence, people who do stuff like that are fucked in the head, toys have nothing at all to do with it. People are too quick to blame something else for their issues.

Why dampen the fun of toys for 99% of kids who enjoy them as designed- to play with.
 
J

Jintor

Member
By the way, mind control the media may not be, but I do think something like the Tele leading with this bloody Gender Merch story instead of the walkback Abbott pulled yesterday, or the criticism by the arch-chancellor of the education stuff, or the slashing of UN funding, does cause political ripples in voters that does have an effect.

Mind you maybe it's countered by Stefanovic 'ripping into Abbott' or whatever the going line is.

ConstructMe said:
I just dont know how you can place any blame on toys of any sort for domestic violence, people who do stuff like that are fucked in the head, toys have nothing at all to do with it. People are too quick to blame something else for their issues.

Why dampen the fun of toys for 99% of kids who enjoy them as designed- to play with.
Click to expand...

How do you think people get 'fucked in the head'? Are they all people with mental illnesses? Are they all people from bad families or who grew up wrong or who were taught the wrong thing by a single bad person? The idea that Bad People Do Bad Things is a... very simplistic idea
 
F

Fredescu

Member
ConstructMe said:
That is politically correct nonsense though, i mean really, boys have hot wheels and stuff, girls have barbies and that whats the problem.
Click to expand...

You may get a lot of sarcastic replies and shit, like the problem is totally obvious... but it's not... and I don't blame you for thinking this at all. This is some complex stuff.

I'm not going to pretend I'm clever enough to explain why gender is socially constructed in an easy way to understand. I'll just give you some things to think about.

Girls have barbies sure, but along with cars, boys have... action figures! Dolls in other words. They like playing social games too. Thomas and Friends is super popular (popular enough to spawn imitators like Chuggington etc.) because they are basically dolls that are socially acceptable "for boys". They quite often play with them like dolls too, my son loves to make up stories about their interactions and disagreements and such. Because they have faces, they play both roles.

Whoever the franchise holder is recognises this too, as many new trains are "female trains". Like the two newish trains from the King of the Railway movie, you have Connor and Caitlin. This isn't to be politically correct, this is to gain market share! They gain market share, why? Because girls like playing with trains too! So most of the OG Thomas crew are male, but heaps of the newer ones are female (god I could rattle them off, Emily, Molly, Elizabeth, Isobella, Rosie, Belle, Caroline, Miss Jenny, Daisy.. life as a parent).

So girls like trains and trucks and other things. Any relatively open minded parent of a girl will tell you this. In fact most parents will tell you how much kids love playing with the cardboard box the toys come in more than the toy, at least at a certain age. This isn't gender specific.

What's wrong with Barbie and such then? Mostly I think that girls have it drilled into them that being pretty is of the utmost importance. That is their value. It's not just the toys that reinforce this, gender roles in movies and such do this too. Boys don't have anywhere near the pressure from their environment to be "pretty". It's not like boys don't naturally value looks to some degree, my lad *loves* to rock a suit, but they tend not to have it beaten into them either. Boys tend to get practical creative things, or working class things like bricks and cars. Girls get beauty and cooking. Let it be said that my lad loves to help me cook. Every weekend he wants to get involved in cooking pancakes and omelettes and whatever else.

How easy is it to just not buy Barbies or beauty/cooking related toys for your girl? I mean, that's easy, but all the presents you get given are going to be dolls or at least pink colours and who can afford to knock back toys on some kind of principal? Not most people. Then you're probably of the middle class where both parents have to work because that's the presumption these days, so at childcare/playgroup or whatever, all the friends that look like her will be playing with the same toys they get at home which continue to reinforce the importance beauty/domestic duties... it's not like tom boys just don't exist, but it's harder for them to exist. They will feel like they're fighting against the current just to have the identity they want or prefer.

Some people like to think that everything is up to the individual, and everything about your identity was a conscious decision by yourself, heaped upon a blank slate, and only as influenced as you decided it to be. Some people even take comfort in that fact and are threatened by the idea that a lot of our identity is determined by the social structures around us. If you cast aside your discomfort and really look at it for a while, you'll see just how heavily that is all influenced by what is basically social habit.

But shit, I don't have an opinion yet on whether the Greens should be pushing this or what they hope to achieve by bringing up the subject with an ultra conservative prime minister in power.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Graven |OT| A heretic priest killing hexed creatures
4
974
mansoor1980 replied
What actually happened to Warren Ellis?
14
2K
CGNoire replied
NEOGAF - A Data-Driven View Pt. 3: Communities Section
Social Community
10
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
23K
Elysium44 replied
Forza Horizon 5 |OT| Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican't?
|OT| 42 43 44 45 46
2K
211K
MagnetoWasRight replied
Top Bottom