Author's Question - "Are we beginning to see unusual numbers of people holding trenchant positions at the poles of public opinion, especially on keystone issues? What does this hold for our collective future?"

Answer - That certainly describes the trenchant, polarised OLO commentariat.

Author Comments "However, too much polarisation results in a shrinking middle ground and the growth of alienation, bitterness and recrimination."

Answer - That certainly describes the polarised OLO commentariat where commenters in the middle are few. Loony Right and Loony Left predominate.

Author Observes "According to one recent survey, two percent of Brits admit to having insulted someone they don't know online within the past year."

Answer - The Brits should get around more. At OLO around eighty percent would have insulted commenter strangers.

Naturally I'm not one of them :)

Spot on plantagenet - I rarely come to OLO these days because of the stridency of the comments and sadly, too often, of the articles.

The truth is that most people don't like to engage with opinions they don't already agree with, and yet how can you grow and learn unless you are prepared to do so?

I would love to issue a challenge to all of OLO's commentors to try to find at least one aspect of the other side's argument that they can agree with and to engage with that.

And it's worth pointing out that this polarisation is not limited to the Western world. I was chatting to an Egyptian army staffer in Spain last year and he was bemoaning how the public discourse today limits to you being either a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, or anti them. There is no middle ground allowed.

Can you give of an example of what we could engage in. Lets take the example of Tony Abbott's leadership.

Or let us find middle ground on the teachings and effects of the Qur'an.

Thanks Cazza

Concerning the stridency of the comments "of the articles." As an article writer I think there is some need for stridency because a totally balanced set of arguments won't be read or commented on as much. Articles need to be punchy - particulary for such esoteric subjects as submarines - http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4452 .

But I also agree. Too many commenters indulge in personal mud-slinging - becoming oblivious to what the article was all about.
--

Hi 579

Yes "Tony Abbott's leadership" is a worthy subject with many sides.

My position is that he's too much of a Uniform Chaser searching for photo oppurtunities with broad-shoulded, uniformed Policemen, military and firies. Photo opportunities are a cheap way to boost one's standing in the polls.

A counter-point is that a national leader should show leadership in times or places of crisis.

A counter-counter point is that a confident and discerning leader should delegate many of his Crisis Photo Opportunities (Uniform Chasing) to his Ministers eg. Defence Minister and Attorney-General (once an adequate one is found). The discerning leader should be confident and stable enough to pull strings, delegate and make things right behind the scenes.

What do you think?

Regards

Pete

I think Abbott is playing the part of a lone leader, not part of the bigger picture. It would be incredibly hard to find middle ground to talk about. His budget stunned a nation, his lies, back-flips, and retracted policy, before any announcement or explanation, I don,t see any middle ground there either.

It does make opinion hard to come up with, without it sounding one eyed. The worshipers of Tony say give the man a chance, supposedly allow bad policy to prevail, I think that is what they are saying. Their coaxing is always vague and not to the point. More like verbal diarrhea.

It does make middle ground hard to find, if any exist. I always try and find something good to say about anybody, but our honorable PM makes it very hard to achieve

Hi Plantagenet

I agree articles can benefit from stridency to avoid their being boring. However if, as an author, you really want to convince someone to change their mind, it is generally helpful to throw in something that they can agree with up front - and something that demonstrates that you are open to the other perspective. It is of course better if it can be perceived as a genuine concession otherwise you risk appearing disingenuous.

579: clearly there aren't many people still supportive of Tony Abbott's leadership - even LNP voters - so there aren't too many pickings here. But at the time of the Martin Place siege he did show excellent judgement in the way he didn't leap on the 'Islamic terrorist bandwagon'.

Is Mise: if you really can't find anything positive to say about a religion that is followed by over 2 billion people in the world, including a country like Indonesia that is extraordinarily peaceful and welcoming given its relative poverty, then you need to get out more. Perhaps you should try to get to know some Australian Muslims. In my experience, friends (and even strangers) I've met from Iraq, Algeria, Syria are some of the most hospitable people you could ever hope to meet - it is intrinsic to their culture.

One good way to lose the gratuitously offensive comments would be to lose the anonymity. Let OLO print articles and all comments on them under one's own name only.

No one is looking for pickings, if you call people becoming more fearful going about their general business because of what we seem to have inherited, if that is called more extreme so be it.

Martin Place; the man was Islamic and a terrorist. What drives these types to respond in such a fashion, can’t they speak the language, why guns and violence. Are we expected to comply with their wishes.
People are invited to this country these days and not forced as was the past. But never before have we seen such acts against our people than now.

I know the percentage is small, but as is said one rotten apple can send the whole barrel bad. We know the trend is not limited to AU, it is where Islam has fled from persecution around the world to be in a safe haven.
The problem seems to be limited to the Islamic belief.
Are we expected to roll over and put a fence between here and there to live in peace to keep the small but dangerous percentage happy.

There is a reluctance to take charge of the problem from their own kind and be Australian.

Cazza

Before your unsolicited advice and tone - you were ahead.

Cheers

Pete

halduell, that topic has been covered many times. Somewhat off topic but I think enough relevancy to be worth addressing. My summary of reasons not to require real identities
- it stops some people from dicussing some topics, eg family law or matters related to employment can both have serious consequences outside of OLO if a poster is identified (and by them being identified family members, employers, associates can also be identified). That can result in significant legal or career related consequences.
- there are some personal safety issues involved. I'm aware of one former poster who had a visitor turn up at the door to sort out a disagreement over views posted on line (thankfully he was big enough to discourage the visitor from taking the apparently intended action), another former poster who chose to reveal enough of their real identity to have someone make some highly inappropriate communications.That same poster also had trouble with a government department she dealt with over her online contributions.
- some years back we had a group of posters on OLO who were in the habit of making threats of legal action against a number of posters. I have little doubt from the tone of many of their communications that they would have been willing to use a variety of unethical tactics to try to hurt in the real world those they disagreed with online. I don't need family, employers etc contacted because someone wants to silence my opinions.
- A few of the grubbiest posters I've seen over the years have been willing to to use ral names.

I've got in my view good reasons to use an alias when I want to discuss controversial topics.

R0bert

wasn't it the warmist who full of pride and arrogance lambasted anyone questioning gw. They even stooped low enough to label questioners denialist. Now they have egg all over their face backed up with a ton of deceit they dig in harder. Yep society is becoming more extreme and secular high priests are among the most extreme.

Hi runner

I agree with you on that. If global warming means all the comparatively cool and wet weather we've been having, along with multi-year "pauses", bring "warming" on.

Cheers

Pete

My beef is the word offensive, I would say defensive. How can the truth be offensive.
We have a right to protect our neighbors, those that want neighbors that is. That is not offensive.

No middle ground will ever be found by saying what is offensive or not.
Suppose you give us some info of what is middle ground.

Cazza,

"Or let us find middle ground on the teachings and effects of the Qur'an."

Well let us find middle ground, by the sound of you that is what you want.
Lead us on; I have Muslim friends and two of them and their family have recently sold their home in Bankstown and moved to the Northern suburbs.

They like Sydney but wanted to get away from Bankstown.
Their daughters were constantly harassed for not wearing headscarves.

Human beings form groups, Mal, they always have and they always will. Birds of a feather just keep flocking together regardless of whether the socialist humanitarians like it or not. And birds of a feather do not like it when birds of a different feather invade their territory and compete for resources.

Social cohesion within groups is achieved by a general consensus as to what constitutes correct behaviour. It may take a long time for almost all members of a particular group to consider that young women wearing skimpy bikinis is suitable apparel on a beach. But once they have made that decision, they become hostile to imported foreigners wandering along Australian beaches insulting Australian women for wearing bikinis.

You seem like a nice humanitarian, Mal. I am sure that you associate with other nice humanitarians who hold exactly the same worldview as you do. If there was an entire subiurb of people like yourself, you would not welcome an influx of Ku Klux Klansmen or Nazis into your community. You and your friends would be hostile to them. It is perfectly normal and natural.

I man who believes in secular democracy, the rule of law, and free speech on social issues. I am hardly going to welcome into my community people who think that secular democracy must be destroyed and replaced by a theocracy where ecclesialstical law replaces common law. I am going to be hostile towaards people who hold up signs saying "behead those who insult the Prophet." I am going to be hostile towards people who treat women like minors, who want to kill homosexuals, who want to kill apostates, and who demand that I submit to their imported values, instead of the other way around.

And that does not make me an "extremist."

If you wanted social cohesion, then importing people in very large numbers who have diametrically opposed values to our own was not the way to achieve it. But it is a great way to bugger up social cohesion, and in that you have no one else to blame except yourself and your peers.

Import millions of third world immigrants from vastly different societies to us and each other and we lose social cohesian.

Gee, who could have predicted that?

I mean, 'diversity' has been a policy goal for about 40 years now, hasn't it?

Shouldn't we be celebrating our 'strength'?

Yep, you can prove your point around here any afternoon LEGO. The lorikeets chase everything away from the bird bath, until they have finished their bathing & feeding.

Wish it was still legal for us to do the same.

Do you really need the whole bowl Hasbeen? surely an intrepid yachtsman of your calibre is better able to work out what he really needs than a flock of gaudy lorikeets?

runner, with last year the hottest on record globally, isn't it the denialists who have egg on their faces?

Haven't you read Aidan, that the bureau have now admitted they are only 35% sure it was the hottest on record.

This when they have reduced the recorded temperature records for the 30s to achieve their headline.

To say they are disgusting is putting it very mildly.

Craig Minns is denigrating and negatively stereotyping lorikeets based upon the colour of their feathers which he claims are "gaudy". That makes him an avist.

The lorries do the same here in Sydney, Hasbeen. I like to feed my friendly cockatoos who shake my screen door every time they get hungry. (they are always hungry after periods of heavy rain) They like having their feathers stroked once they get used to you, and I like to stroke their backs and their crests. But as soon as I start giving them sunflower seeds and macadamia nuts (they LOVE macadamia nuts), in zoom the lorries who carry out ethnic cleansing. It is funny watching the little lorries seeing off great big cockatoos, but every now and then the cockies regroup and I have an avian race riot on my front porch

You've got me all wrong, LEGO, it's not that I'm anti-lorikeet, I just can't imagine a crusty old salt like Hasbeen dressed in the plumage of a Rainbow warrior...

Speaking of warriors, for sheer avian courage it's hard to beat the sight of a tiny little mynah seeing off a couple of crows!

At the other end of the courage scale I rescued a lovely little forest kingfisher that got badly beaten up by a thuggish magpie on the roof of my gazebo a couple of weeks ago. I was watching from my office window and did my best scarecrow impression to startle the maggie off. I thought the poor little kingfisher was dead or soon would be since it lay without moving, a wing cocked in the air where the maggie's last toss had left it and climbed up expecting to collect a corpse but after it spent a few hours in a nice cool, dark box under the house it flew off like nothing had happened.

Result!

Craig,

That makes for a great 'feel good' moment; I once was adopted by a young magpie that wandered into our back yard.
Someone had cut one of its wings.
I decided to keep it till it could fly again.
Needless to say it became a pet and had a real character but it was always an independent bird.
Early on two adult magpies started to regularly visit and I assumed that they were the parents and when they'd fly away he/she would watch them till they were out of sight.
Eventually the feathers grew back and it flew away but used to come back every few days, for about a month, but then magpie things probably became more important.

For me success, tinged with a bit of sadness.

‘morning Mal,

Many might agree that society is becoming polarized around a range of social issues, gay rights, human rights, immigration policy, social engineering, border protection and more prominent recently, the issues of Islam. All of which are divisive and vexatious.

Your article is Euro-centric but to the extent that it points the way to where Australia might end up, it may offer some lessons. Personally I think Europe is goosed in terms of economics, energy security and social problems.

I guess this begs the question what can Australia do to avoid such loss of social cohesion?

Whilst I am as frustrated as many others at the pace, or lack thereof, in confronting some of our social issues, I remain convinced that TA is a strategist and not primarily a populist tactician. All we need to look for is “evidence” of his strategy. A strategy by its very nature is often obscure.

I thought long and hard about TA’s “Team Australia” comments but until recently there was not much evidence to indicate where this is going, now there is. IMHO this comment is designed to “invite” the Muslim community into the tent rather than marginalize them further. By creating this space, those Muslims who recognize the threat from extremists to their own communities, need the opportunity and a means to make real changes from within.

As evidence of this, the Attorney General has now announced the formation of, and funding for, nominee’s from community groups to register for participation in Counter Terror Groups. They will be vetted for track records in fundamentals such as mentoring, education, job support case management and counseling as well as national security clearance.

In an encouraging commentary, Tranveer Ahmed had this to say. “doing nothing can take the shape of stripping away freedom of speech for fear of upsetting Muslims”, and that we risk “breeding further complacency and falling into the same trap as the Left, whose primary response to terrorism is to do nothing, but in a variety of guises”. Tick!

Sounds like TA’s “Team Australia” tent is filling up quite nicely.

spindoc, now you have me intrigued. You attacked me very strongly for posts which in my view fit quite well with

"“invite” the Muslim community into the tent rather than marginalize them further. By creating this space, those Muslims who recognize the threat from extremists to their own communities, need the opportunity and a means to make real changes from within. " and yet you appear to endorse it in that last post.

What's that about?

R0bert

“We have more and more people living in smaller spaces who feel that they have less and less in common with each other.” It’s called Solipsism.

“It's harder for us to feel that we actually belong together in our communities, that we're all part of the same essential narrative, or share a common history.” YEP!

Zadie Smith's London - 37
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Hammurubai/theodore_dalrymple_essays_and_articles__2013/

THEODORE DALRYMPLE
Modernists in Medieval Clothing
Kenan Malik traces Islamic terror to twentieth-century influences.
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0716td.html

“We must do more to tackle anti-semitism and other forms of religious bias, at home as abroad. We must also do more to root out the promoters of violent militancy and boost opportunities for those who are legitimately marginalised.” - Yep, problem solved if we get rid of Islam.

“However, too much polarisation results in a shrinking middle ground and the growth of alienation, bitterness and recrimination.” Thanks to the Marxists/Leftists.

“The vast majority of young people from the same background as the Charlie Hebdo killers have already decided to get on with life, using whatever opportunities come their way, or finding more constructive means to bring about change.” You mean opportunities to undermine the West, don’t you?

‘morning R0bert,

Perhaps you could provide the link to my comments in question, if a mea culpa is required you will get one.

For context, TA can do nothing right, he is picked and poked by a relentless media, ALP, Unions, humanities academia, NGO’s, statutory bodies like the AHRC, human rights activists and global warmers in all their forms. Add to this the hostile obfuscation of Senate independents blocking many of the measures we so readily blame Abbott for.

He cannot beat this, he must go around it. That requires a carefully structured strategy and timely execution. Whilst I am just as frustrated at the lack of progress as many, I see salvation only in such strategies and to feel more reassured, I need to see evidence of a strategy.

We have seen evidence this week with the steps being taken to flesh out the meaning and proposed actions behind Team Australia. It’s an actionable start.

I don’t care much about the actual strategy, I just need to know there is one.

Abbott has to negotiate carefully between the Senate and the left who, as Tranveer Ahmed suggests, will continually push their PC do nothing.

Which way do you think the PC left will jump if Abbott gets serious “buy-in” from Islamic community leaders for “Team Australia”?

Abbott has moved people into the ABC, FWA, AHRC, TURC and no doubt many other bodies. So what is he going to do next? I hope to God he has a strategy

Spindoc http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17006#300150

Given you would not elaborate on just what you disagreed with in my post perhaps it was some other part.

I do hope there is a strategy, I'm not an Abbott fan, I don't trust him but I do largely agree with the points you have made in those recent posts. Navigating the minefield of misrepresentation which seems to be the norm in Australian politics would be a nightmare that would drive me nuts.

I've never understood to my own satisfaction what drives much of the left. To often what they claim to support stands in stark contrast to what they actually do but I don't think they all hae evil intent.

R0bert

‘morning R0bert,

Thanks for the link and yes my response was “belligerent” as Poirot puts it. I apologize to you for being so caustic.

To be fair I did say in my post that you were starting at the bottom rather than the top and I did point you to an example of such processes in Kepner Trego.

My comments were specifically directed at your “big picture” assertion, so let me clarify.

All complex issues need a process for analysis and the starting point must be at the top.

Think of complex issues as a pyramid, at the very top are less than five key entities. As you progress down the layers of the pyramid each layer increases in content exponentially, the further down you go, the greater the number of issues, the more complex each issue becomes and the greater the interrelationship between issues.

Many commentators in trying to understand something, are doing so from the middle of the massive pool of content within the pyramid and that’s all they can ever see, content without context or relevance.

Conversely, if you work upwards until you have boiled everything up to its indivisible parts (lowest common denominators), you will have a starting point and a roadmap by which you can interrogate “relevant” content.

On the issue of Islam there are only three entities, Islam, Western PC and the fearful public.

So when some get passionate about content from the middle, without acknowledging the three main players and their interaction, they end up in mental paralysis or “death by creeping excellence”. Roughly translated, going absolutely nowhere thinking they have an intellectual grasp on the issues, but they don’t.

So if the three key issues in this vexatious debate are “Islam, Western PC and the fearful public”. All we actually need to discuss is what is going to give?

Any guesses

Yes Constance that is true, but the modern world increases the alienation. When people tended their front yard with a push mower, & a spade they actually talked to & me their neighbours, & friendships formed. Today over the noise of the motor mower & the brush cutter they merely wave, if that.

People chatted as they walked or rode pushbikes to work, to day they struggle for car space on the road, with each other.

When I first went sailing, in the 60s, there would be a hundred yachts anchored in Coasters Retreat in Broken Bay at Easter, Christmas & some long weekends. People talked to other yacht crews as they rowed their dinghy to the beach for a swim or a walk. Invitations were offered for a coffee or a drink, & in a few years I had a number of new friends & a host of acquaintances.

You can't talk over an outboard. As they became more common people merely waved. The noise level drove many off to smaller quieter anchorages, & motorboats took over the area. I never saw many of those people again.

Again when there were few yachts in the reef waters, you would anchor near any one you saw, & share your knowledge & experience. Later with fifty or more in the regular anchorages, you would look for somewhere less crowded.

The search for quiet & privacy has overcome the desire to share common interest, & is generating a society of isolated individuals, rather than a community.

spindoc, perhaps "big picture" was the wrong term for what I was trying to do. Not quite sure what I should have called it.

In regards to 3 players, I'm not convinced that Islam is stable enough to be considered a single player. I get the impression that it seems to be at a crisis point where there is something of a battle going on creating opportunity for reformation or for it to go in a far nastier direction. Reformation is a risky business for those within seeking to drive it and it's often a matter of baby steps and cautious tactics.

From what I understand of it persecution tends to make religious bodies stronger as people feeling threatened stick more closely to a group identity. Hence the combative wide spread approach taken by some in my view plays into the hands of the extremists.

Somehow we need to find ways of taking the pressure off the drivers to extremism without surrendering our own values and freedoms.

R0bert

Hasbeen,

That is so true. We are more and more losing any real community (face to face). And people are escaping the noise for more seclusion. People walking around with ear plugs. When I'm looking for directions in the street sometimes, it can be hard enough just trying to find someone to ask directions who hasn't earphones on.

It's funny, lately I've been meeting some young people who are like, technology exhausted and want to escape elsewhere away from it. Like leave their office job and go into something completely different. This young man actually said that he envied me for what he has missed out on, having only grown up with technology. Another one had pretty poor social skills, very quiet and had escaped the city realising all that technology (he hardly did anything else) wasn't healthy for him.

I was told that there have been 6,000 articles written about the detrimental effects of Wi fi. It has been banned in some schools in Germany and the USA.

I'm finding in general, many people are unhappy.

Enigma - Age Of Loneliness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APW_QwzGg2o

‘morning R0bert,

It has nothing to do with stability of Islam, we already know Islam is not stable, if it were we wouldn’t be having this conversation would we?

As an exercise just try this.

At the very highest level there are just three entities interacting in the world on this topic, Islam, the PC left and the electorates, that interaction is difficult enough to analyze without taking on more complexities.

So try taking just ONE of those entities, Islam, down to the next layer of granularity and see what happens. The instant you try to do this you end up with hundreds of different Islamic groups across 56 Islamic nations and all their permutations.

Now try to sort out the relationship all these permutations have with the other two entities, even without breaking them down beyond single entities? You will go nuts trying it.

Like I said, try to work out what has to “give” between just the three entities identified before you even go near even more complex permutations.

I’ll give you a clue. One group contains protagonists, one group contains enablers and the third group contains all the victims and potential victims.

Robert, I've been thinking about your post on use of real names.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17030#300452

To be honest, I simply can't see that most of your arguments have validity.

I haven't seen you discuss anything that might fall under the rubric of the Family Law Act privacy provisions. If you wished to, then perhaps it might be worth using an alias for the specific purpose. On the other hand, if it is merely a vent, then it might be worth reconsidering whether there may be a better way to approach things.

Similarly with work-related matters. If you don't feel you can say at work the things that you might wish to say here then perhaps you're not in the right job or you should reconsider comments here.

Interpersonal violence as a result of saying something on line is covered by the Law and once again, it reflects as much on a commenter as the listener if a comment creates bad feeling to such an extent.

The threats of legal action by that particular group of kooks were stupid on the face of it and you may know that I called their bluff at the time, passing on my personal details and inviting them to do as they had threatened. They didn't. Stand up for what you say or don't say it.

Whether someone who uses a real name is a 'grubby' poster is not exactly relevant, is it?

Bottom line for mine is that the use of aliases should be permissible, but the use of real names should be encouraged.
Anonymity is too much of a 'coward's castle' and although I used to use it myself, I was never comfortable with it.

Craig "To be honest, I simply can't see that most of your arguments have validity. " then we will disagree on this. Perhaps your life is different to mine and the impacts of somethings are less relevant.

R0bert

Oh, I'm sure we have different lives and, as I said in my last paragraph, if you wish to use an alias that should be your choice, but I think there is a significant general case to be made for the use of real names as much as possible.

‘morning Craig,

My anonymity on this forum was blown long ago by a particularly resourceful blogger who found my articles on other forums, under differing aliases and published my full bio.

That personal information was used to abuse and vilify by the PC left, not that it bothered me and I retained all my previous aliases however, given that so many high profile personalities of the left seem to set the trend, its not surprising that the lowlife stoop even lower.

Who can forget the infamous threat from Greenpeace's Gene Hasmi? “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”

But was this a one-off, right? The evidence is suggesting otherwise. The comments thread to a particularly sick Guardian post, was adorned with a photo of a severed head!

Real names are used as both topic distractions and material for abuse.

“Cowards Castle”? You are kidding aren’t you?

No, I'm not kidding, spindoc.

Seriously, you think the risk of being abused by raving nutters is a genuine reason to hide behind a wall of anonymity?

What a great example of the best of Australian values...

‘morning Craig,

Oh dear, what have we here? Scratch a little enamel coating off and all is revealed.

So the fearless Craig is an open book and anyone that does not follow suit is a what? Oh yes, a coward, and hiding behind a wall of anonymity is synonymous with what? Oh of course, lacking Australian values.

I think we all got that Craig.

Just wondering what it was that got you out from under that rock? Was it the reference to “abuse and vilification by the PC left”, or that the published comments from Greenpeace and the Guardian struck a defensive nerve?

Me, to R0bert:" if you wish to use an alias that should be your choice, but I think there is a significant general case to be made for the use of real names as much as possible."

spindoc to me:"So the fearless Craig is an open book and anyone that does not follow suit is a what? Oh yes, a coward, and hiding behind a wall of anonymity is synonymous with what? Oh of course, lacking Australian values"

Thank you for the eloquent demonstration of the art of anonymous nutterism, spindoc.

To be anonymous is necessary if we are to criticize nutters in the community.

An interesting idea, Is Mise, but I wonder if you've fully considered what it might mean.

For example, should politicians be anonymous, or should they simply refrain from expressing things that somebody might object to? Should coppers be unidentifiable? Should priests and other religious people be secret operators? What about car regos: after all some people might choose to criticise the driving ability (or parentage, perhaps) of others on the road, should be able to do so with no possibility of being identified?

Public servants, often with authority to implement immediate decisions that take considerable effort to overturn and can impact people's lives in very serious ways, already seek to remain anonymous. Is that reasonable? Why?

Or is it just internet trolls who want to be unpleasant a**ewipes without risking being flushed who should be able to hide behind anonymity?

Craig
Good point. And what about voters?

Voters aren't anonymous anywhere in the world, to the best of my knowledge. Certainly not here in Australia - I've got two fines for choosing not to vote to prove my point.

"Or is it just internet trolls who want to be unpleasant a**ewipes without risking being flushed who should be able to hide behind anonymity?"

Got it in one, Minus.

I might remind you that arse wipes are very useful, usually hygenic and are associated with people who do not cleanse the leftovers from defecation with the fingers of the left hand.

If you make anonymous posts, you don't need to worry about reprisals in the real world of the various sorts discussed by RObert, but you don't have any credibility either, unless you link to credible sources. It ought to be your choice. I suspect that some of the people who object to anonymity would never dream of saying anything politically incorrect themselves and would like people who do to be subject to reprisals. This can obviously discourage good arguments as well as bad arguments and abuse.

Of course, it is up to the moderator of the site to decide when people should be suspended or banned for abusing anonymity. A site may become very unpopular very fast if it contains disgusting abuse. The moderator also knows your real name and email address, and could be required to give them up under some circumstances.

Divergence, I've not seen too many posters using their real names here. A few who've written articles do, 'tis true, or use aliases that are clearly linked to their real names, but otherwise I'm at a loss, so your point about wanting others to be subject to reprisals is not strong.

So let's think about the next point you make, with respect to self-censorship (make non-PC comments).

As someone who proudly wears my identity, I do my very best not to self-censor and I suspect, based on the responses to some of my comments, that those comments are not well-received by some of those bravely hiding behind anonymity.

Let me ask you: who is a greater threat to the values we take as defining us as Australians? The person who stands up and says "Love me or hate me, this is what I think is important", or the one who hides around the corner, ready to bolt at the first sign of trouble, stirring up those who are strong of arm and short of brain?

"Love me or hate me, this is what I think is important"

That's just what the murdered people at Charlie Hebdo said.
Do you honestly think that there is no risk in having a go at Muslims.

There are nutters among them, one such became a terrorist and murderer in Martin Place just last month.

The people at Charlie Hebdo had names.

skulk in your corner, gutless wonder...

Here I skulk, reasonably secure,
I don't mean to be mean,
But society is becoming extreme,
Of that I am sure.

In fact some posters are resorting to playing the man and not the ball.

Thank you for that quote, Craig Minns. I have cut and pasted that quote in the "clangers" file I have on you.

The next time that you come on OLO pretending that you are the font of all politeness, and begin wagging your finger at your opponents blunt replies, I will hurl that quote back in your face.

Me, polite? I've not often been accused of that...