Essential out today. 2pp has come back a point to 51/49.
Awesome, thanks. Putting it on the budget.
-
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
Awesome, thanks. Putting it on the budget.
Elaugaufein
Member
Since I'm of the school of thought that does believe free speech (or rather the free dissemination of ideas) is essential to social progress (which incidentally aligns to what is currently progressive politics) , I'll try and explain my thinking. The key idea is that many ideas that we've accepted as good things for society have historically been subject to oppression,
They've succeeded only because of the limits on the ability to perform that suppression, as technology advances its much more difficult to avoid suppression (facial recognition camera systems stretching over the nation, automatic retention of your internet metadata (or data), tracking your network of friends, warrantless access to great deal of things that really shouldn't have it because the people making these decisions fail to understand just how private some "public" data is (your text messages, voice mail, phone call data, virtually all your webmail more than a couple of years old, etc)).
If these ideas are immediately suppressed then their acceptance will never happen and social progress stalls. Until things go to hell to such an extent you end up with a revolution, and the difference in power between states and individuals is now so great that the revolution is going to be a martyrs revolution not armed conflict.
The ideas need to be preserved so they can potentially be adopted in the future even if they fill you with the deepest disgust right now. A rich man in the 1700s would have been horrified by the concept of a poor female voting after all (and the logic would have been that they didn't have the mental capacity to vote appropriately, a position that would have had wide societal and academic acceptance at the time).
Where does non-governmental suppression come in ? For many historical cases you probably can't even cleanly tell what was societal and what was governmental suppression. These things feed back into each other , the government sets a tone for what is socially acceptable and social acceptance feeds back into government perception. A great deal of religious based suppression was technically societal in that its origin was in the power of the church to control social belief , but it was no less effective for that.
The ability of social media to get people fired for things that don't warrant it is truly terrifying. In what case if I understand it right there was one incident in which 3 people lost their jobs: 2 men made an off-color remark between themselves at a convention, a woman overheard and raised it on social media. All 3 of them ended up losing their jobs following the ensuing outrage. It's not really questionable the woman shouldn't have been and I don't think the men should have been either. The concept of your employer having constant veto over your every action because it may reflect badly on them is the thing of dystopian corporate nightmares (a business should only be able to do that in cases where people are projecting publicly and preferably only when they are actually representing the business).
This is a different justification than liberals tend to use, who see it as being about the personal liberty of the individual to speak and it's probably one of the reasons why we part ways on money =/= speech. To a liberal you have the personal right to express your ideas and the personal right to use your money as you wish. If the key thing is the societal good of the expression and preservation of ideas, then the use of money is a negative: Your money megaphone prevents the expression and preservation of ideas by drowning them out with sheer volume and is thus a negative, since you're effectively preventing the free dissemination of ideas.
They've succeeded only because of the limits on the ability to perform that suppression, as technology advances its much more difficult to avoid suppression (facial recognition camera systems stretching over the nation, automatic retention of your internet metadata (or data), tracking your network of friends, warrantless access to great deal of things that really shouldn't have it because the people making these decisions fail to understand just how private some "public" data is (your text messages, voice mail, phone call data, virtually all your webmail more than a couple of years old, etc)).
If these ideas are immediately suppressed then their acceptance will never happen and social progress stalls. Until things go to hell to such an extent you end up with a revolution, and the difference in power between states and individuals is now so great that the revolution is going to be a martyrs revolution not armed conflict.
The ideas need to be preserved so they can potentially be adopted in the future even if they fill you with the deepest disgust right now. A rich man in the 1700s would have been horrified by the concept of a poor female voting after all (and the logic would have been that they didn't have the mental capacity to vote appropriately, a position that would have had wide societal and academic acceptance at the time).
Where does non-governmental suppression come in ? For many historical cases you probably can't even cleanly tell what was societal and what was governmental suppression. These things feed back into each other , the government sets a tone for what is socially acceptable and social acceptance feeds back into government perception. A great deal of religious based suppression was technically societal in that its origin was in the power of the church to control social belief , but it was no less effective for that.
The ability of social media to get people fired for things that don't warrant it is truly terrifying. In what case if I understand it right there was one incident in which 3 people lost their jobs: 2 men made an off-color remark between themselves at a convention, a woman overheard and raised it on social media. All 3 of them ended up losing their jobs following the ensuing outrage. It's not really questionable the woman shouldn't have been and I don't think the men should have been either. The concept of your employer having constant veto over your every action because it may reflect badly on them is the thing of dystopian corporate nightmares (a business should only be able to do that in cases where people are projecting publicly and preferably only when they are actually representing the business).
This is a different justification than liberals tend to use, who see it as being about the personal liberty of the individual to speak and it's probably one of the reasons why we part ways on money =/= speech. To a liberal you have the personal right to express your ideas and the personal right to use your money as you wish. If the key thing is the societal good of the expression and preservation of ideas, then the use of money is a negative: Your money megaphone prevents the expression and preservation of ideas by drowning them out with sheer volume and is thus a negative, since you're effectively preventing the free dissemination of ideas.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-polic...ticides-because-of-ttip-and-pressure-from-us/
:T
(I know this isn't the TPP but still its pretty gross, and might be a future insight)
Also nice summary of IP impact of the TPP, ever though its very gamer-centric
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DIJVetzaHs
:T
(I know this isn't the TPP but still its pretty gross, and might be a future insight)
Also nice summary of IP impact of the TPP, ever though its very gamer-centric
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DIJVetzaHs
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/10/tpp-ip-chapter-a-disaster-for-global-health/
And here's one on the impacts for health, which also paints a fairly bleak picture.
Not that anything will change. From Crikey: Other findings show remarkably little opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has 49% approval and 16% disapproval.
Elaugaufein
Member
That can't possibly be accurate since that implies that 65% of the population actually have some idea of what it is , which is almost certainly too high by about 30%. Which means that people are probably judging it as a random trade agreement which people believe are good by default.
Yeah, this is a good way of putting it. I agree that free speech is very important, but the liberal interpretation of "free" is probably the issue. A diversity of speech is more important, and guys like Newman who already have privilege and a platform aren't really harmed by some small amounts of suppression here and there. The main thing I don't like is the precedent. If we accept small things like this, does it lead to say Gina Rinehart buying out large book chain or publishers and imposing her ideology on them. I guess that's why I think Gay's suggestion at the end of her article would have been a better course of action by the store.
Elaugaufein
Member
I have to ask, was the colorist intending to make her look like a zombie by giving her the impression of a gaping head wound ?
Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy!
it's a horn a la MGS V
Not surprised people are already jumping on this. Very lazy effort by Labor :/
Edit: Holy fuck as if this isn't the best politician photo ever:
New data retention laws begin today, this is what you need to know
Edit: Holy fuck as if this isn't the best politician photo ever:
New data retention laws begin today, this is what you need to know
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Whilst this may be an accurate assessment of the quality of Labor's tactics, this writer, and any who raise the "class warfare/politics of envy" boogeyman so lazily, can go stuff themselves. Howard wasn't engaged in class warfare because he appealed to aspirational voters? It's crap on the "those who are always talking about race are the real racists," order.
I hadn't actually read the article, was more focused on the core of it (focusing on Turnbulls reliability/perspective).
WHAT IN THE FLYING FUCK.
Don't know if any of you know this but the Australian Republican Movement is less than 20 members away from being financially viable to run their campaign.
You should consider signing up for membership.
https://ouridentity.org.au/
You should consider signing up for membership.
https://ouridentity.org.au/
done
Done as well. How did you know it was so close?
Peter FitzSimons (the national chairperson of ARM) said so on twitter.
It was 14 according to last count but I would imagine that will meet the goal by the end of the day.
Shorten needs a kick up the ass. You're 100% right people who actually give a flying fuck that he's rich are probably not the ones who would ever vote liberal anyway, the rest of the population want to hear why the ALP might be better.
Elaugaufein
Member
It's not like he can do anything about being rich either so it's a silly attack unless he got rich by doing something shady.
Heck even most of us crazy lefties don't dislike individual rich people because they are rich people. It's the use of the wealth to rig the system in their favour while screwing other people over as a (I'm usually charitable enough to assume unintended) consequence that annoys us.
Heck even most of us crazy lefties don't dislike individual rich people because they are rich people. It's the use of the wealth to rig the system in their favour while screwing other people over as a (I'm usually charitable enough to assume unintended) consequence that annoys us.
Well I'd argue its useful of a symbol of the types of tax evasion needed to be cracked down on in any kind of root and branch tax review.
Of course this kind of evasion I'd expect from most politicians no matter what side.
It does remind me though Turnbull was Packers banker, and we all know how old Kerry felt about tax.
roosters93
Member
I can't place my finger on it, but I have a funny feeling about having such an inordinately wealthy individual as the PM. I always knew Turnbull was rich, but hearing yesterday that his net worth is anywhere from one hundred to two hundred mill put it in perspective just how rich...
I don't think Turnbull personally is out of touch with "ordinary people" or has any more conflicts of interest in particular than any other politician or will abuse his power in any which way.. but still.. just kinda feels odd.
I don't think Turnbull personally is out of touch with "ordinary people" or has any more conflicts of interest in particular than any other politician or will abuse his power in any which way.. but still.. just kinda feels odd.
Totally unsurprised an evil fuck like Dutton would do this.
I can't find the words.
Oh, these bastards.
Excuse me for a moment, I'm just going to go and punch an inanimate object.
I can, I pretty much have only made refugee threads in offtopic
It's funny (not joke funny, just completely contradictory) how Turnbull comes in and starts professing his support for victims of domestic violence.
Then he and his government treat a rape victim like a political football, in order to be seen as being tough on asylum seekers, or as they call them, illegal immigrants.
We have genuinely voted in a set of sociopaths in this parliament, on both sides of the chamber.
Morally bankrupt, victim-blaming, misogynist, racist, human-rights abusing, domestic violence supporting FUCKWITS.
Indigenous woman fined $500 for $6.75 tampon theft in WA's Goldfields
Absolutely ridiculous. A crowdfunding campaign was started soon afterwards (by a group that supplies sanitary products to victims of domestic violence, asylum seekers and homeless women) to raise the money for her: http://www.theguardian.com/australi...-1000-to-pay-womans-fine-for-stealing-tampons
Absolutely ridiculous. A crowdfunding campaign was started soon afterwards (by a group that supplies sanitary products to victims of domestic violence, asylum seekers and homeless women) to raise the money for her: http://www.theguardian.com/australi...-1000-to-pay-womans-fine-for-stealing-tampons
roosters93
Member
not as egregious as that story but how do you guys feel about this
police be cracking down on jaywalkers in sydney
"More than 10,000 pedestrians have been fined for illegally crossing city streets since a crackdown was launched against the practice in Sydney's CBD, new figures have revealed"
police be cracking down on jaywalkers in sydney
"More than 10,000 pedestrians have been fined for illegally crossing city streets since a crackdown was launched against the practice in Sydney's CBD, new figures have revealed"
Crackdowns like this are ridiculous. If things have reached a point where it is so bad, it's a sign there wasn't consistent punishment or warnings issued to offenders in the first place.
Enforcement of the law is rarely black and white. A lot of people are sensible enough to only cross when they are sure it's safe, though many others aren't and cause problems for the rest (like with many other minor laws). You can give a gentle warning to someone who does it safely and a fine to the one who could've died or caused an accident.
Coming down hard on everyone for something like this just gives people a reason to dislike the police. Had the situation not reached a point where such a low tolerance was deemed necessary, I doubt it would've made the papers. Warnings both inform the offender and make the police look reasonable (as I've found them to be). Someone getting busted and issued a fine for being irresponsible isn't going to bother anyone other than the idiotic offender.
As an anecdotal example, I had my feet on the seat when on the train once and was chatting to my friend opposite me. Unbeknownst to me a police officer was ascending the stairs behind me. He came up to us and said to my friend, "What kind of mate are you? You didn't even bother to tell your mate to take his feet off the seats because a cop was coming". I took my feet off the seat, we had a bit of a laugh and the officer walked away.
Lastly, where did the "new" 10,000 fines figure come from? They mention a more specific "new" figure of 8,021 in the same article.
lets play, herald sun or MX?
Spotted this yesterday, gone straight to the top of my all time favourite letters to the editor
MX doesn't exist anymore. Easy!
All I know now is I'm scared and want to know if my lunch was Halal.
Islamofacsism is the puzzle piece I was missing. I kinda don't want to Google it. What is it?
I'm fairly sure Christopher Hitchens came up with it during his clash of civilisations/neo con phase.
Hitch said:
Have you had any Islamic thoughts since lunch? Halal gives you Islamic thoughts, dontcha know, it's part of the brainwashing.
You could quite easily substitute "Islam" for "USA" in that quote, apart from modernity maybe.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked