The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Accidents do happen, if you let them > Comments

Accidents do happen, if you let them : Comments

By Graham Young, published 3/2/2015

If Annastacia Palaszczuk becomes premier of Queensland, it will be a colossal accident, but one engineered by the ALP and facilitated by the LNP.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All
Come of it squeers,

'for many high income earners; they are persuaded rather that those on welfare are there by design, constitute a drag on the economy, and need to be punished.'

It's an emotive projection of simple meanness onto people who dare to question the best use of their taxation, which may include macro economic changes they sincerely believe will trickle down to help the less fortunate. It goes well beyond challenging an ideology 'Neoliberalism really is as simple an ideology as I’ve painted.'(debatable in itself), but rather assigns motive to its proponents based on their wealth/class.

How is that any more generous a projection than opining many single mothers are work shy layabouts sponging off the system?

Both statements are mere cliched caricatures used to dismiss people from a different class, or with a different ideological bent.

I enjoy both, as I tend to like that kind of extravagant exaggeration and out-sized characterization whoever it is directed at.

But in real life, of the rich people I know, I have never come to the impression they believe poor people 'need to be punished'. It wouldn't stop me winding them up with such a statement of course. But at least I acknowledge it.

It grates that the well educated and intelligent squeers be so blind to his own prejudices. You even go far as to paint me as some comfortable middle class clock watcher as if that bucket you put me into will somehow disguise the paucity of your argument.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 9 February 2015 9:49:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just for squeers, as he seems a bit down...

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/19/column-change-life-empathy-oliver-burkeman
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 9 February 2015 10:07:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq,
granted, "...and need to be punished" was emotive; indeed it doesn't help my argument, especially in a hostile court like this, as is subject to just such a charge as you make.
I was reacting to rehctub's assertion that
"you would find a lot more high income earners would happily pay more tax if one, the tax wasn't wasted so much..."

In my experience this simply isn't the case. Rather as I've subsequently argued, taxpayers tend to moan and fixate on just the kind of stereotype rehctub nominated, and in a fashion which bears a remarkable resemblance to the dumb logic of a pecking order.

My own father is a good example. He used to be an average wage earner and deplored dole bludgers etc. Around 50 years of age he went on an invalid pension and then saw things in a way that redounded to the credit of his current situation.
We flatter ourselves that our positions are based on reason, but this is too often not the case.
We are utterly preoccupied with status, an unconscious refrain which informs and predisposes all our 'thinking'.
Our infatuation with self is a life's work spent fleshing out an abstraction, ostensibly with a range of political/social/intellectual/spiritual opinions. But a little honest reflection informs us that a conflict of interest invests nearly all these attitudes.
This is the 'beginning' of self-awareness, when one realises, to paraphrase Montaigne, one is nothing but a fool.

Which brings me to:

"It grates that the well educated and intelligent squeers be so blind to his own prejudices...".

I have no wish to blow my own trumpet. I can only say that I'm devoted to critical thinking and subject everything that occurs to me to as much rigour as I'm capable of exerting.

My sketch of you was admittedly cheeky and loose--but very little data.
Your opinions seem kind of adulterated middle-class, conflicted with some radical thinking (uni days?) who's effects are wearing off?
Your generally 9-5 OLO appearances suggest the sinecure...
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 9 February 2015 1:12:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
', taxpayers tend to moan and fixate on just the kind of stereotype rehctub nominated'

My point that you have obscured with so many many words and references to people I am unaware of (as they don't appear in pop culture) is that you have used class in two different arguments to imply anyone who is rich is likely to have a less than empathetic view of the poor, using it as a justification to pay less tax.
You fixate on the likes of one butcher, and extrapolate to indulge your prejudice of that class - Just as butcher does when he goes to the pub at lunch and watches people he assumes are on welfare spend their money.

My point is that you are two peas in a pod.

I am not the only one of the middle class boganity with differing justifications...

My biggest gripe in terms of wasted tax is paying for the bureaucracy to administer the tax and welfare, churn, and the duplication of private and public / federal and state systems. I don't think I'm alone. My second gripe is propping up business (picking winners)

I have no beef with single mothers, the poor, the mentally an chronically ill and disabled. Regardless, reducing their expose-able income hurts the economy, and cutting in these areas is a false economy in terms of future health costs and productivity. One doesn't even have to have empathy to understand it's a bad idea.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 9 February 2015 3:01:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' I'm devoted to critical thinking and subject everything that occurs to me to as much rigour as I'm capable of exerting.'

But it's never occurred to you that you are projecting your relationship with your father onto your arguments with butcher?

'We flatter ourselves that our positions are based on reason, but this is too often not the case. '

Indeed.

'I have no wish to blow my own trumpet.'

It comes off that way when you name-drop people you have 'read'. So as to make our conversations easier on me, you can take it as read from now on that you are indeed better educated, and most references you drop in of great minds will impress me much less than any allegories from pop culture you can come up with.

'We are utterly preoccupied with status'
Perhaps none so much as we as your good self.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 9 February 2015 3:16:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must say "Houellebecq" (a pop-culture reference?), you're rather more shrill than witty today; so rather than offend you further I'll keep the obvious inferences to myself.

I'm in a bit of a quandary replying at all, actually; I mean, should one respond to argument ad hominem?
I suppose at the least I could wonder what all these words and names are I keep dropping in my efforts to impress?
Where I come from one gets into trouble for not giving due credit.
I might also point out that my father and I have never agreed on anything, so no it never occurred to me I was projecting my relationship with my father etc etc. Congratulations though on such a deep train of thought! It never occurred tome...

But no, I'm grateful and chastened and shall reflect deeply on your criticism.

As for actual argument, I hope it's implicit in my posts above that I'm not saying everyone is benighted (oops, sorry, "ignorant") within their respective discursive logic (Malcolm Fraser managed to break out).
I am saying that we're all prone to the formulaic thinking that goes with whatever demographic territory we find ourselves in, just as we're all prone to writing in cliche's when we're not actually thinking.
Do we ever think unaided? That is, without the ideological resources our thoughts are comprised of and which so eagerly assemble themselves.
Follow the White Rabbit!
I don't have the time to deconstruct them, but I'm sure if you "really" think your "gripes" through, you'll find them wanting. You might even be embarrassed, as the sainted Montaigne was by his cocky cogitations (oh dear there I go again!).
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 9 February 2015 5:23:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy