An extremely poor defence of Gillian Triggs by Sarah Russel.

Of course, Sarah did not have much to work with. Triggs got caught red handed using the publically funded Human Rights organisation to push a political line and aid the Labor opposition. Triggs did this because Labor shares her vision that the best way to solve third world poverty is to have the entire third world jump into boats and head for Australia. Triggs's actions were so blatant and politically partisan that Sarah was going to have to get creative to defend her. So Sarah needed to break a few of the trendy lefties moral absolute boundaries to try and put together a half way credible defence.

Sarah started with a red herring. Lead the readers away from the real issue, which is of course Gillian Triggs's screamingly obvious politically partisan behaviour. Sarah did this by indulging in a little stereotyping, prejudging and labelling.

Please note, normally trendy lefties get apoplectic when "racists" stereotype, prejudge and label minority groups who the trendy lefties champion. But when it comes to the groups of people that trendy lefties don't, like, suddenly these supposed evil vices are fair and reasonable tactics.

So what did Sarah do? She identified a group of males by first labelling them with an offensive name, and then prejudging them with a long list of negative traits to categorise them with a negative stereotype.

My own stereotype of country shopping asylum seekers is that they are just economic migrants desperately trying to escape the poverty caused by their own people's cultural values, and their stubborn resistance to getting their birth rates under control. And my stereotype of Sarah Russel and Gillian trigs is that they are part of a new caste of people who despise their own people and culture, and they will always work against the interests of their own people. This they think makes them morally and intellectually superior.

Personally, I think that my negative stereotypes of country shopping asylum seekers and trendy lefties is far more accurate than Sarah's negative stereotype.

Dear LEGO,

May I address to you the same question as I addressed Sarah in my first post:

Obviously Sarah hates TATs and you hate SRTs (or GTTs), then why are you still living together as the same "nation"?

Had you and Sarah been in a domestic situation, surely you would have gone through the family-court decades ago. Surely the land is big enough to divide, so that nobody is forced to live under people they so hate!

Hi Yuyutsu.

I read your post and could not understand what in the name of God you are trying to say.

Who or what is a TAT?

1. Begin with a clear premise.
2. Support your premise with a reasoned argument.
3. Respond to your opponents premises and arguments using logic.

Dear LEGO,

1. "TAT" was defined by the author as "Tony Abbott Types". I extended that to "SRT" (Sarah Russel Types) and "GTT" (Gillian Triggs Types).

2. Opponent? I don't see you as an opponent, I only asked you a question. I even declared at the start that I won't take sides in this ever-stupid class-wars.

3. Clearly you hate Sarah and Triggs to the core (as they hate you just the same, as expressed by this article).

My question for you (as I earlier questioned Sarah but received no reply), is:

Given this hate, what if anything still makes you want, perhaps even insist, to share and belong to the same "nation" as they, where you keep fighting bitterly and endlessly, rather than split the land and live peacefully each according to their beliefs and preferences?

Yuyutsu,

You are poisoning the well. Which opens you up to a claim that you only want to stymie the debate.

Freedom of speech is what is being exercised here. That is despite this noxious regulation that endeavors to prevent it,

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

OTB, Yuyutsu is not by any means "poisoning the well", he is simply asking a question that has part of its basis in the original article.

If LEGO doesn't identify as a "TAT", then all he has to do is say so, but whether he does or he doesn't, Yuyutsu's question remains valid.

It's also interesting, so far from stifling discussion, he is encouraging it. There is no issue of freedom of speech involved, except perhaps that some here might prefer that Dr Russell not exercise hers.