LEGO, you may (though I doubt it) know what trendy lefties think, but certainly don't know what I think. I've never been trendy! I don't have a trendy lefty peer group, and nor have I ever sought one.

Humans do make assumptions when thinking, but for an assumption to count as a stereotype it has to be widely held, fixed and oversimplified. It's usually also negative, but that's not a defining feature.

Reliance on stereotypes is wrong not because of anything I unthinkingly accepted, but because it prevents you from giving people a fair go.

And your reliance on stereotypes is literally preventing you from thinking! You use stereotypes as a substitute for evidence even when the evidence is available. Hence you firstly assumed I was lying when I revealed some of the ways I did not fit the stereotype. When I explained some of the similarities and differences between myself and your stereotype, you took the view that the similarities proved your point and the differences didn't matter – even when you'd previously deduced from your stereotype that the chance of those differences were one in several billion.

So again I say to you: drop your groupthink (regarding ABC bias) and forget your silly stereotypes (which have blinded you to what should be obvious). Start looking at the evidence and thinking!

To Aiden.

If you have the capacity to ignore self evident reality and claim that the ABC is not biased, then that in itself is a defining characteristic of a trendy lefty. The most laughable trendy lefty at the moment is the Greek Prime Minister, who unsurprisingly has been described as a "40 year old student activist", who just can't get it through his head that nobody is going to lend his country billions of euros anymore, just so that his socialist party can buy the votes of the Greek electorate and stay in power forever.

It just goes to show that a university education can not teach people common sense.

Human beings stereotype to think. The stereotype can be accurate, near accurate, or inaccurate. You can criticise the accuracy or inaccuracy of a stereotype, but you can not criticise stereotyping itself. And yes, you can positively stereotype. Nobody is going to whine if you say that the Italians have a flair for design, the Africans make exceptional athletes, or the Chinese work hard. But say that the Italians have a strong commitment to family, religion and graft, or that the Africans are not real bright and appear to be genetically prone to violent behaviour, or that the Chinese are greedy, and every trendy lefty for miles around will come out from under their rocks and scream "racism" at you.

You see trendies think it is alright to make positive stereotypes, but not negative ones. The reason why, is that their humanitarian worldview forbids them from ever criticising anybody who is not a white, western Caucasian. As an educated person, the idea that anyone or anything should be above criticism should be anathema to you.

So I say again, drop your groupthink, switch on your critical analysis circuit, and look at the ABC objectively. What is on the ABC this morning? Aboriginal "recognition" for a start. Every quoted person on that topic saying only good things about the idea of fighting racism by making aborigines a special race. Transgender people in Malaysia. "Traumatised" Gaza children. Oh gawd.

To LEGO,

Calling something "self evident" tends to coincide with a lack of actual evidence. It seems to be a favourite tactic of racists – Robert Mugabe famously claimed it to be a self evident evil to deny a child a pure racial ancestry!

Greece is in trouble whatever it does, but continuing to implement austerity policies is the dumbest option of all, as it shrinks the Greek economy so they'd just end up in the same situation a few months later. An exit from the Euro is the least bad option left.

I can criticise stereotyping itself, as it is quite an ineffective way of thinking. Especially when you cling on to the stereotype in the face of the evidence!

Negative stereotypes are worse than positive ones because the latter don't prevent you from giving people a fair go.

"The reason why, is that their humanitarian worldview forbids them from ever criticising anybody who is not a white, western Caucasian"
I understand that view was still quite common thirty years ago, but I doubt any of the trendy lefties would still hold it now.

So I say again, drop your groupthink, switch on your critical analysis circuit, and look at the ABC objectively. Aboriginal recognition is certainly an issue worth discussing, as there's likely to be a referendum on it in the near future, and it's something Tony Abbott's spoken about today. But did anyone on the ABC claim that recognition alone would solve the problems? I don't recall hearing anyone expressing that view, though plenty on the ABC have expressed the opposite view.

Do you think support for Israel justifies ignoring the issue of traumatised Gaza children? I don't.

I haven't heard anything about transgender Malaysians for years. What's more newsworthy now is Abbott's ordering Barnaby Joyce not to appear on Q&A today.

To Aiden.

Please read your first sentence again.. You just stereotyped "racists" by claiming that racists use the term "self evident" as a favourite tactic. Hahaha. Well, you just learned something Aiden, everybody stereotypes, because it is the way that all human beings think. Even you.

I doubt if you are going to invite the Hell's Angels over to your next party, because you have a negative stereotype about outlaw bikers. Aiden, human beings judge other groups of human beings every day as a survival imperative. And they classify them as a group, as good or bad, violent or non violent, trustworthy or non trustworthy, threateneing or non threatening, productive or lazy, smart or dumb. I am sure you have a negative stereotype of Nazis, ISIS, Bogans, and Ku Klux Klansmen, but according to your own reasoning, it is wrong to think negative thoughts about these groups of people, because you are not giving them a "fair go."

The reason why you think that stereotyping is wrong, is because it is a value that has been inculcated into your consciousness by the peer group that you admired. It was never something that you ever tested in your own mind because you did not think you needed to examine the premise objectively.

Back to the ABC. Regardles of whether you think that aboriginal recognition in the Australian constitution is a worthy cause or not, it is the ABC's duty to report both sides of the question, instead of putting one side only.

And if you want to know the real reason for "recognition", it is because government money for aborigines was being channelled by self appointed aboriginal leaders with very sticky fingers. That was why ATSIC was disbanded. it was unreformably corrupt. The Howard government, with the backing of the Labor opposition bypassed the corrupt aboriginal leaders and took over the responsibility of handing out benefits to dysfunctional aboriginal communities themselves.

The self appointed aboriginal leaders want a veto over any government actions directed at aborigines to make certain that they never have the money taken from their sticky fingers again.

Aiden, I am not a researcher, but even I, amongst other questions, would have asked the little creep, knowing his background, as a criminal, if and where he posted tweets.
He requested to be included in the audience, so the onus was on the ABC to exercise care, even with someone who was not a convicted criminal. If the ABC staff were too incompetent to question him, they should have someone, with a bit of sense, prepare a pro forma questionnaire for use with applicants in the future. Knowing that he was a gaol bird, convicted of threats to government employees, does not seem to have alerted the ABC to the need for extreme caution.

Aiden, you are trying to shift the goal posts. The climate fraud is the assertion that humans are causing global warming. Are you able to refer us to science which shows that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate? If not, you are a fraud-backer. We only have to establish whether the basis is ignorance or dishonesty.

To LEGO,
"You just stereotyped 'racists' by claiming that racists use the term 'self evident' as a favourite tactic. Hahaha. Well, you just learned something Aiden, everybody stereotypes, because it is the way that all human beings think. Even you."

Nice try, but it's merely an observation, and I specified that it SEEMS TO be a favourite tactic of racists – I never claimed it was a characteristic of all racists. And more importantly, it was a RESULT of thinking. I'm not resorting to the second rate thinking process of using stereotypes as a substitute for the information I don't have. And I would certainly never resort to the third rate thinking process of using stereotypes as a substitute for the information I do have, yet that is exactly what you've done.

My negative view of the Hell's Angels isn't a stereotype, but rather a conclusion based on their involvement in serious crime. Similarly with ISIS,; not a stereotype but a conclusion based on their attempt to literally wage war on those who don't share their evil ideology. Similarly with nazis; they systematically murdered millions of innocent people for something as trivial and uncontrollable as ethnicity. Similarly with Klansmen – members of a terrorist organization. I'd add the mafia to the list too – my animosity to all those organizations is based on their actions, not stereotypes.

But I'm surprised to see bogans on your list, as they're not an organization but rather a group of people loosely defined as being white, Australian born and culturally unsophisticated. The stereotype is that they like cars (particularly big V8s) and don't have much money (unless they work in mining). Is that really negative? I've got nothing against bogans, and I certainly don't think they should be denied a fair go.

Why, when you have the correct information, do you keep rejecting it in favour of a stereotype that time and time again has been proven wrong?

As for the ABC, they have reported both sides, but not the particular view you've put. But is your opinion based on fact? Or just stereotypes?