Louis,
The key here is...
Hold the mirror up to your own face. i find people are very good at seeing fault in others but not themselves.
In a democrazy everyone can and should have their own opinion.
Political correctness is not new it has been around since man first started talking.

Well said. Cobber the Hound's comments are highly amusing, given his attitudes and comments to people he doesn't agree with.

I couldn't agree more with the author.
Cobber the hound says "In a democracy everyone can and should have their own opinion".
I suspect the author very much agrees with this statement too. What he rails against is the belief held mainly by left progressives that not only are their opinions the only ones that are valid, but that alternative opinions should not be allowed to be aired.
Take for example the proposed plebiscite on gay marriage. The left do not want it because they fear that people who disagree with gay marriage might voice their opinions and someone may be offended.

Likewise a recent cartoon by Bill Leak commenting on the northern territory child detention scandal was shouted down as racist. In reality it was making an important point about parental responsibility and its relationship to juvenile criminality. A point that the rest of the media had failed to make in their condemnation of the government and corrections system. If Bill Leak was wrong then why not engage in debate and refute the point he was making? Rather than just call him names.

If there's any red herrings in play here they originate in the abysmal advocacy of the Author along with the appalling historical revision?

And without quoting chapter and verse, applies to much of the document and patently disingenuous claims?

Highlighted at the start by the glaring example of a wages gap myth! There is no such myth, but a very real wages gap and manifest misogyny!

I could go on, but patently this dinosaur doesn't want a debate, just servile servitude on the part of the feminist movement and anybody else confounded by his conjecture and confected conspiracy theories?

Trump would just love you mate and any other fellow traveler, able to take comfort in the fact, they're always right!?

Q: How can you tell when a decidedly demented dribbling dinosaur is on the level?
A: When he dribbles equally from both sides of the mouth.

Deep, deep down he's probably a nice enough bloke? The deeper the better.
Alan B.

Cobber,

Yes, PC has been around forever - it usually has meant the viewpoints of those in power. After all, cultures usually reflect the views, perhaps tarted up and tacit, of those in power, usually the men. So culture has usually been an instrument for male domination, nothing neutral about it.

You suggest: "In a democracy everyone can and should have their own opinion". Would you broaden that to include people's right to EXPRESS their opinions ? I would. Even idiotic opinions need to be aired, so that everybody else can ridicule them. Both - expressing, and ridiculing opinions - are vital for a robust democracy.

After all, as Karl Popper says, the growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement.

And it's spelt: democracy. There's rough attempts at democracy, and there's totalitarianism, and not much in between. But if you know of a better hole, go to it.

As for Bill Leak's courageous and anti-racist cartoon (since the truth must be, by definition, anti-racist), it was a breath of fresh air to get beyond the fogs of racist 'correctness', where nobody ruffles anybody's feathers by mentioning violence and abuse - and which thereby covers up not just abuse and violence but actual death.

I was looking back at research I did on mortality at an Aboriginal mission and was appalled to notice that over a century, 1860-1960, nearly half of all people dying were under the age of five. Nearly 30 % were of babies under one. 12 % more died between the ages of 5 and 20. Three-quarters died before they reached forty. Because women had plenty of kids, the total numbers held up, but at what human cost ?

And I wouldn't be surprised if mortality patterns today in remote 'communities' - apart from the great numbers of babies saved by modern medical and nursing care - now display a huge bulge in the middle years, say from five to thirty, that most people don't reach forty and that a very high proportion of those deaths were violent.

Thanks, Bill.

Joe

Cheers,

Joe

Yeah

And don't worry what we reactionary, middle-aged, men, of the OLO punter-rotty say, Louisa.

Alan B.,

You've somewhat demonstrated my point with your name calling and insults.

The wage gap is not a result of patriarchy nor misogyny but rather the result of a free market society in which men and women make different life choices. It is not truly even a wage gap, but instead an earnings gap in which, due to working longer hours in often more lucrative and dangerous environments, men happen to earn more. This is not surprising though when one considers that we are a sexually dimorphic species.

You said you could go on, well if you are willing to rebut things I've actually written, then please do.

However, if you only wish to insult, or exhibit superficial superiority without substantial claims, then take your business elsewhere.

Allan B.

A shocking outburst from you, old son. The writer is correct: you have just proven every word he wrote. Three cheers for Louis!

Perhaps this is what we need to counter the presumed tyranny of left-wing political correctness!
http://www.torchbearermovie.com
Runner would probably love it!
The people that produced this are now principal media advisers for Donald Trump, along with that other notable completely obnoxious "truth-teller" Roger Ailes.
Ailes was of course the the principal architect of Murdoch's Fox (faux) "news", and as such was a key player in The Republican (dis-information) Noise Machine as described by David Brock.

Hi Daffy,

So ...... are you inferring that one must support political correctness and the suppression of the freedom of expression, because only morons like Trumpf and his myrmidons are opposed to current political correctness ?

A pox on both your houses !

Joe

@ttBn, I'm not claiming sainthood, I'm reminding the author to know thy self.

@Loudmouth I find I can't support complete free speech.
I personally find there are some freedoms are worth compromising for the sake of others. Child porn for instance.
While I understand the purity of the argument, the slipper slope, but I think we can manage it.
However support what you say in broader terms. I thought Bill Leaks second cartoon in that series even more important then the first.

Hi Cobber,

So .... like almost everybody, your boundary would be child porn ? Join the club. Of course it should be banned, but I don't know how it would go under Section 18 (c). Perhaps if perverts pushing it claimed that they were supporting the Unsafe Schools agenda ? Then they could persuade young children to try analingus ? They could probably get tenured positions at La Trobe ?

But you do raise an interesting question: how far does the Unsafe Schools propaganda contravene your interpretation of Section 18 (c) ? How can it dovetail with grooming by perverts ?

Or does such an observation breach PC by relating the two processes: Gramscian propaganda and perverts' sexual gratification ?

Thanks, Cobber.

Joe

Joe, I find you don't even have to express an opinion, simply related verifiable facts, to be called racist.
I have lost count of the number of times I have been labelled that when I drew attention to the fact that contrary to screaming headlines, more white people die in prison, percentage wise, than black. Even when I support that statement with figures from the Justice Department I'm abused.
In discussions about housing for aboriginal people and I state that according to the last census, 36% of aboriginal people either own their own homes or have a mortgage, same result.
Those are just two examples of many and I honestly wonder the purpose of people trying to deny reality. Do they want aboriginal people to not succeed? Does the constant portrayal of aboriginal people as helpless victims with no success stories to inspire them, fill some need to be constantly morally outraged?
The current insistence on PC seems to mask some deeper need to feel morally superior across as many fields as possible, which leads me to think they are trying to cover their own internal deficiencies.

HiYa Cobber

I am claiming sainthood, actually. Evident to all OLO punter-rotts.

And I'm sure Trumpf would agree that Torch Bearer* is a real "White Man" and maybe a Billionaire.

* http://www.torchbearermovie.com

and Biggles.

BTW - here's more details about The Torchbearer:

"The Torchbearer (Czech: Světlonoš) is a 2005 Czech animated short film written and directed by Václav Švankmajer. It is described as an allegorical story about rise to power"

...The Torchbearer is considered to be the best film by Václav Švankmajer. It has won multiple awards"

So there!

I don't think political correctness leads to the demise of debate so much as the demise of inquiry.

And this is often intentional.

Anyone who seriously and objectively looks at the claims made by feminists for example will quickly realise those claims are very circumspect or simply wrong, so feminists have to have a way of stooping people from investigating their claims.

The most likely person to investigate the claims made by a feminist would be a white male.

So feminists will denigrate white males and give them labels such as "angry white male" or "old white male", or "privileged white male", so as to devalue white males and limit their ability to investigate the claims made by a feminist.

Political correctness can envelope a whole country, and it can be used to stop people from thinking about a country.

america is an example.

If you are an american, then you have to say that "america is the greatest country in the world", and this is the most politically correct thing to say, and you can never question this claim.

Few will ever measure the claim also, and will never discover that america has the highest homicide rate, drug use rate and incarceration rate in the world, its political systems are totally corrupt, its population is very unhealthy, its media has no reliability, its entertainment system are filled with violence, its population can be classed as depressive with the highest anti-depressant use in the world, and its economy is bankrupt.

So political correctness and shutting down inquiry can actually affect an entire country, and never allow that country to improve.

Hi Big Nana,

Yes, spot-on. I keep track of Indigenous university numbers and very rarely ever get any enquiry about them, they just don't fit in with the stereotype: forty thousand graduates ? One in every eight adults ? Couldn't be. From Black and white.

I recall hearing an Indigenous woman 'explaining' to someone else that Indigenous people had the highest infant mortality in the world. Well no, I piped up, it's on a par with Italy's or Greece's, and is far, far better than most of Africa's or Asia's. Stony silence.

Many people like to put themselves on the top of the Victim Meter and feel guilty when they can't. Because, maybe, if you're not a total victim, you have opportunities, and should be doing better than you are.

Of course, then people lurch to the opposite: we have the most sophisticated, breath-takingly wonderful culture in the world - again, without much evidence. Our maths was the most advanced in the world: one, two, more than two ..... We had a name for every star, I heard one bloke say. We could levitate. We could go for weeks without water and months without food. We could talk to animals, birds, trees etc. We were and are close to supernatural.

Maybe the two stances go together: We are amazing, and yet we are the most persecuted and down-trodden, while 'others' are just ordinary and yet accrue all sorts of benefits. No, folks, you are both as ordinary - and as extraordinary - as anyone else. Suck it up and do something with it.

Joe

That's so true Joe.
When I'm told about this wonderful culture and try to point out that it is/was absolutely no different to white Stone Age culture I'm either totally stonewalled or abused.
The fact that all cultures passed through exactually the same stages seems to be lost on many people and unfortunately as my late husband frequently said, some aboriginal people retained the worst of aboriginal culture whilst adopting the worst of European culture. Which is a great pity because they have the opportunity to adopt the best of both cultures.
However, those types of conversations get me labelled bigot and racist and frequently blocked on FaceBook, much to my amusement. Reminds me of kids with their hands over their ears trying to block off what they are being told lol.

This is really poorly thought through. What you're essentially doing is arguing for rape in marriage, or for slavery or for being able to give your 'missus' a good slap for not getting the sunday roast on the table. Yes, it is analogous, not comparative, hopefully in order to get the author to think about the poor argument he just made becasue he's using the same tired 'logic'.

Just using the gay marriage argument for one example. Being against gay marriage is like being against holding hands, because it offends thee ! The relationship of others has nothing to do with you, nor does their relationship impact yours and yet you have made a judgment on the nature of their relationship and refused to have it recognised in wider society. What a thing, to tell a fellow citizen they're 'lesser', it makes me feel dirty just to think there are such people, that's why you get called out on it.

Speaking as an old, white, hetro male.

Yes, you can and should have an opinion but yes, people can call you out on your bull$hit and 'hatred'.

I'm arguing for rape in marriage and slavery? Where did you get this idea? And when did I oppose gay marriage? Where did I say or even imply these people are lesser?

I simply said that the institution of marriage has been a means of incentivising heterosexual parenting as it is considered the most fruitful for the child and society alike.

Personally I have no qualms with gay marriage, but also see the legitimacy in retaining the "sanctity" of traditional marriage.

People are free to criticize my ideas but I have no sympathy for you when you misrepresent and slander my ideas

So if somebody is scared of heights, I can call them acrophobic. If they're scared of amphibians, I can call them a batrachophobic. If they're scared of confined spaces, I can call them claustrophobic, etc...

And if somebody is miserly, I can call them a miser. If they're hypocritical, I can call them a hypocrite. If they're known to be dishonest, I can call them a liar, etc...

But if they're bigoted, I shouldn't call them a bigot? And if they're scared of foreigners, ooh no, I mustn't call them xenophobic lest I hurt their poor little feelings? Get stuffed.

I don't throw a tantrum when people point out my acrophobia: I am terrified of heights. What's to get upset about?

Why shouldn't I call a spade a spade, just because a few hyper-sensitive sooks get their noses out of joint when people point out their bigotry? Bugger that, I intend to calling it like I see it, even if a few whingers think they should have free licence to say whatever they like and never have their ugly ideologies criticised. If they can't stand the heat they should stay out of the bloody kitchen.

Dear Louis,

As you are a budding writer I suggest you rework the following phrase: "tenants of Sharia Law".

To Toni Lavis,

The purpose of the ad hominem fallacy is not to shield bigotry and xenophobia, but rather to shield discourse from the subjectivity of such claims.

Your judgements of bigotry or xenophobia may very well be valid, but the conversation will only progress in your substantiation of those claims, insofar as those claims remain relevant to the argument and not the speaker.

And Gumnuts, you are correct, absentmindedness on my part. Tenets was the word intended. Will be updated shortly.

"Why shouldn't I call a spade a spade, just because a few hyper-sensitive sooks get their noses out of joint when people point out their bigotry?"

That all depends doesn't it on whether anyone other than a 'white' male, fills out a hurt report concerning 'that' word you just used. Double the hurt and the compo for using it twice. And then you might not find out until a couple of years hence, or whenever Triggs et al (meaning an array of expensive silks) are set and good and ready to inform you.

Quite ordinary words and expressions are interpreted by the PC thought police who can also tell you with final authority what was on your mind at the time. But regardless of that, someone took offence and it is all your fault and for the claimed sorry lives of generations too.

WATCH: How section 18C is corrupting our legal rights

http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/tag/section-18c/

As West's recent article suggests, criticising any plan for the Chinese to buy our properties, land, farms, water rights, or ports is automatically branded "racist". Or "xenophobic". And so on.
Lazy thinklng.
So there is much to agree with.

PS
Perhaps the author needs to do a spell-check more carefully?

"Louis O'Neill is studing writing at Macquarie University. "

Can anyone see the fault here? I hope he's more careful when he submits his essays.

Political correctness is more about stifling free speech more than anything else.

Why do I say that?

Funny how there was a time when the word was 'educate" we need to educate people on ...xyz.' The fact that eduation has not been used a main means of controlling hate speech indicates that my claim has merit.

Everybody knows that legislation does not stop people thinking, all it does is suppress what people are thinking so hence another indicator.

Funny how no form of education has been used to try and control hate speech, only legislation has been tried. what does this tell us?

They think that by bringing in a law like 18c it can keep control
of the violence that can flair up between ethnic groups and build to
complete anarchy and civil war.

Well fancy that, if we'd had that law across history,it would
have stopped all the wars between ethnic groups.

Who knew it was that simple.

It wouldnt have worked then and it wont work now.

How desperately they try to control the Frankenstien monster of unrelated sections,
of this multiculturalism, they have stitched unseeingly,together,
Especially now it threatens to bite them on the bum in the form of terrorist attacks.

Its just a civil war waiting to happen in a few generations.

Political Correctness is a government tool, desperately used against us, in lieu of admitting that they were totally wrong in enforcing multiculturalism on us. They were stupid enough to actually believe they could force such divisive nonsense on us without us saying boo. They thought that we were stupid: not unusual thinking for Australian politicians about anyone except themselves.

Now, they have to attempt to frighten us into submitting to their stupid social experiments by restricting freedom of speech via legal means and threats. They are also poisoning the minds of pre-school toddlers right through to secondary school and university so that the poor little blighters don't know about other views, and what democracy and freedom to speak was.

I know some people think that Australia is still a democracy but, sorry folks, it is rapidly diminishing. Western politicians are gradually (belatedly) introducing us to "1984". They now expect life-long careers out of politics, and democracy is making it too damn hard for them. It has to go. And it will, unless the 'silent majority' start speaking up despite the threats and PC. Democracy can go far more quickly than it took our antecedents to gain it for us.

18c Hasn't prevented anyone from actually saying what they think, except when used to promote racial hatred or intended racially motivated insult!

Even so some folk will be offended, if you say, it's a nice day, how' it going? In order to be offended the offendee must first take offence!

In some cultures simply remarking to a workmate or colleague, your wife's quite a looker, can get your throat cut.

I remember a time when asking a foreign fisherman, who caught nothing for some days, try bait cobber. Saw him react, by trying to spear me in the eye with a rod, saying as he did so, shut up, deleted expletive English. Whereas, when I assured him that as an Australian of triple distilled Celtic origins, I had little to like the poms for, save our Westminster democracy, justice system, and equality before the law.

He calmed down, then tried to instruct me in the intricacies of fly fishing in broken english, which only confused me even more.

I see, I said, a nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse, being none the wiser, but remained a sighted person for the disingenuous diplomacy.

Those who howl the loudest, I believe, are those who are burnt by satire or caps that fit! Which is the intention of satire or pictorial social commentary as demonstrated in the leaked leak cartoon? And travels well, given the unusually high percentage of African American boys, raised almost exclusively by their mums!
Alan B.

Let's face it, every one of us is a bigot, on some issue or other. Every one of us. I'm probably a bit anti-German, but come to think of it, I love Brahms and Schumann and Mozart and Bach, and still have a lot of affection for Marx, so maybe I'm growing out of it. I don't go much on the Japanese, but the war's been over for seventy years now and no Japanese has ever done anything wrong to me, so that's another habit past its use-by date.

Let's see; I don't mind Yanks, I like Canadians and Kiwis and their sense of humour; I admire the Kurds and Czechs and Poles; Of course, I love the Welsh like everybody does (or should: is that bigotry ?) and Vietnamese and Indonesians and I've fallen in love with every Tamil woman that I've ever met, as well as all those magnificent African women. God, the world is beautiful.

Hell, I don't even mind Victorians all that much, even if they can't drive properly and go on about Melbourne. My kids were born there, so I can't really complain. I love Brisbane and Perth; Sydney, not so much, even though I was born there; it's too bloody big and I always get lost. I don't think much of Alice Springs though. Not their fault. Darwin, of course, is fantastic.

So it's a great pity that there is not much for a bigot to get their teeth into these days :)

Religion ? A bit pointless, but if it's your thing ..... Islam however seems the most backward, ignorant, dangerous and pointless of them all. Put me down as a bigot then :)

And homophobia: I don't care much for or about homosexuals, as is my right, but put me down for that too.

Joe

I better issue a 'trigger warning' for what I'm about to say.

So, I couldn't give a crap about what others think in the greater scheme of things; if I'm going to bother even having an opinion on something and go to the trouble of sharing it, then it will be my own genuine opinion.
I've got no interest in joining some PC crowd just to pander to others for acknowledgement or to act 'holier than thou' so I can be a part of some group hive mind. Stuff that. The idea of it sickens me.

'Attack of the clones' - PC libtards who can't think for themselves and merely repeat others talking points like mindless demented jellyfish.
I'll even go one step further than Toni Lavis in defending my right to express myself freely also includes acting like a bigot.
Sometimes I will come across as a bigot and I reserve my right to do so if I've been roped into an argument with someone with a lower IQ who tries to challenge the reasons for my opinion.
I don't have to explain my reasons for everything like I'm speaking to a 5 year old.
Is it my fault there's a need to tiptoe around their 'feelings' because they were raised ill-prepared to deal with life?
I don't really care if people don't like my opinion or their feelings get hurt.
I don't intentionally wish to upset people, but I'm not here to look after peoples mental health.
Life's tough, suck it up.

I agree with the author on all points.

[cont]
I support free speech, but its more of an 'at your own risk' basis.
That means if you say something stupid, or unintelligent I have the right to call you stupid and unintelligent, and degrade and humiliate you.

(Trigger warnings alert - yes, run to your safe spaces generation snowflake's)

It has a purpose, being subject to said humiliation makes you learn and become smarter as one would reasonably hope to avoid future humiliation.

And its not a one-way street.
By my rules if I say something stupid or unintelligent I also must be prepared to 'take my medicine' and would be deserving of the same treatment.

If people are going to entertain stupid ideas that are removed from reality then arguing back and forth is simply an idiots game.
All you can hope to achieve is to prove yourself an idiot under those circumstances.

Best to call them out and humiliate them straight off than even bother playing their irrational game.
Because after all, the left progressive nutjobs will never let you win anyway, even if your argument is reasonable and based on facts.
Why bother playing if the game is rigged and you can't win?
They will talk over you and call you names to never let your opinion be heard, so why not just stoop to their level and get in first with the insults?

Having fun on the merry go round, morons?

Alan B.
I want to put your 'mangina apologist' ideology to the test.
Show me how I can hire a female at a lower hourly rate than a man and I'll hire her tomorrow. I'll be waiting...
Otherwise please stop being a shill for and helping to enable and empower retarted feminist SJW's, begging for attention is the lowest form of human behavior and what you're doing is only slightly above that.
The feminists don't respect you for it, they hate you so give it up.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8386/feminist-journalist-all-men-are-rapists-and-should-amanda-prestigiacomo

Political correctness,

Illusion and delusion by the brainwashed, that they can control
the human race with niceties.

someone should have tried it on Genghis Khan or the Romans.
maybe it would have worked with the vikings.

The most encouraging aspect of involving oneself in informed debate is th certainty that on some young people at least, you are definitely having an effect.

I first became interested in debate sites after the Port Arthur massacre when I realised that gun owners were being very unfairly treated by the media in respect to who was primarily responsible for encouraging massacre like behaviour. I found I had a knack of expressing myself using the written word.

Twenty years of submitting to debate sites and I have definitely noted one important feature. You get a young trendy lefty who comes on the site with an attitude of total intellectual and moral superiority, who thinks that his opponents are all stupid. He or she then posts articles in which usually displays their woeful lack of understanding of the topic under discussion. It becomes obvious that they have never objectively thought about whatever topic they are espousing, and that they are simply parroting the slogans that their peer group have inculcated into them.

When confronted by opponents who know their stuff and who can easily refute their false assumptions, interesting things start to happen. Many of them become extremely angry and abusive. By effectively countering their arguments you are undermining their own self image of a young person who thinks that they area brilliant and superior. It can actually be quite funny to see them squirm and suddenly go from attacking to the defensive in order to keep some hold on their own positive self image.

But the ones who are really intelligent start to become more respectful of their right wing opponents when they begin to realise that right wingers are not stupid at all, and that their cherished left wing ideology most definitely does not hold all of the answers. The trick is to keep confronting them with their own ideologies historical air brushing, and it's contradictions and double standards, because it is by those means which left wing ideology keeps it's hold on the young and naive.

Hi Lego,

You nail it. Yes, I wish that OLO and the internet had been around when I was young and stupid. I squirmed a bit reading your post, since I had gone through the stages that you sketch, although back in those days, I probably simply withdrew from any discussion and kept my thoughts to myself. So I hope that sites like OLO act to speed up the evolution of the next generation from ignorance into the light.

As Brendan O'Neill notes in his article in today's Australian, encouraging people to express themselves any way they like, from the most ignorant to the most far-sighted, from the most relativist to the most racist, allows us not only to become aware of what opinions are out there, but whether or not they are supported by argument (or merely by assertion).

The world is incredibly complex and it seems to take a lifetime (at least for a slow learner like me) to gain a better understanding of it, a combination of constantly trying to learn, and bitter experience. PC and its corollary - the silencing of alternative views - may not kill off that learning and experience (we all keep on learning inside our own heads), but it certainly slows it down, and allows disastrous mistakes to linger, not to mention its dead hand on policy.

Good on you.

Joe

Hi to all
I have just joined this forum and I am as you would guess left leaning in my political views, and ready to be educated. That said I will call out any view that I disagree with. What I will not do is throw insults around as I dont think it helps support your point of view.

Now to the present discussion, could some one explain why an opinion is labelled "politically correct" if it is from a left perceptive. However an opposing view from a right wing perspective is not.

Chris

@LEGO, Monday, 22 August 2016 4:31:30 AM;

@Loudmouth, Monday, 22 August 2016 9:07:50 AM

Thanks to you both; sums up things pretty well !

Oh, and Big Nana (Friday, 19 August 2016 1:26:59 PM) was IMO a bit too close to the truth when stating: "The current insistence on PC seems to mask some deeper need to feel morally superior across as many fields as possible, which leads me to think they are trying to cover their own internal deficiencies."

Hi Lefty One,

Okay, we'll give you one month free of insults :) You're right, if an argument is valid, it doesn't need to side-track into personal attacks.

Yes, why has the notion of PC been captured by people claiming to be left-wing ? Maybe what gets under some people's skin is the shallowness of many PC stances: the current discussion over free speech and offense etc. is a good example: should people's right or ability to speak their minds be confined by some injunction never to offend anybody else ? What is 'freedom of speech'; if it doesn't include the right to say or write something which somebody else might find confronting, unexpected, upsetting ? And thereby take offense at ?

On the other hand, controversial ideas are bound, by definition, to upset somebody. Every year, or whenever they hold the Festival of Slightly Dangerous Ideas (I think at Sydney Uni ?), there must be quite a few people who are a little upset by the mildest ideas which they find ever so confronting. One is tempted to suggest that what they need is a weak cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie-down, while the rest of us get stuck in. Without disagreement, there is no development. Long live conflicts of the mind, and vigorous discussion. Where are the balls of yesteryear ?

Joe

Don't worry, Lefty One, you came to the right place if you want to be challenged on you socially regressive attitudes.

Why is the term "politically correct" used to define left wing attitudes? The same way that any nationalist or patriotic causes are labelled "right wing." Of course, you don't have to be right wing to be patriotic and nationalistic, Hitler was a socialist, but the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi party) is therefore erroneously considered "right wing". . So too, the Chinese Communist Party is very nationalistic, but by some application of doublethink, they escape the term "right wing." (or Nazi)

The term "politically correct" was coined to describe those left wing causes so beloved by those who consider themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to everybody else. They are the ones who think they know everything. That they are the keepers of the gate of all that uis good and holy, and that they, and only they, know how to create utopia.

This new Brahmin caste is populated by a diverse range of people. They are very prominent within the cloistered halls of academia, where they award each other plum sinecures, award themselves all sorts of honours, and generally behave like paedophile priests who protect each others backs.

They infest every award ceremony you can mention. Remember the Helen Demidenko fiasco where an Aussie girl had to give herself an ethnic name to have any chance of getting literary recognition? The public service is full of them, just look at the ABC. Until recently, they were very prominent within the mass media. But this has changed over the years as people's tolerance for socialist propaganda has eroded so much that blogs, Youtube, and the Murdoch press is now much more trusted by ordinary people. Many of them have become prominent within the legal fraternity, former High Court Judge and homosexual Michael Kirby was the most dissenting judge in Australian history.

The primary politically correct rule of thumb is that all human conflict is caused by Oppressors (meaning white, heterosexual, male Protestant Europeans) who oppress minorities.

Hi Lefty One and LEGO,

As an ex-Utopian, I would suggest that all Utopias quickly become fascist, exterminating all those who don't fit the Magic Blueprint. Furthermore, I suggest that Utopias are never progressive but definitely regressive - attempts to fix the world in place, once and for all, to abolish change beyond the limits of the Blueprint, to abolish uncertainty, doubt, discussion, debate, query as anti-Utopian (which of course they are) - but accused perhaps falsely as reactionary, an attempt to bring back some mythical Golden Age, and about as progressive as the Catholic Inquisition, with which it bears many resemblances, in terms of certitude and intolerance.

Perhaps a more useful schema would be Hayek's, at its simplest a triangle of positions: progressive, conservative and reactionary. On this schema, progressives and conservatives (those who are sceptical of far-reaching change) are as likely to be on the same page, or similar pages, as any other combination. Progressives and reactionaries co-operating, you ask ? Well, yes, the Nazis and Stalin; the Maoists and the Pakistani dictatorship over Bangla Desh in 1971; Mussolini being both the founder of the Socialist Party newspaper, Avanti, AND founder, barely eight years later, of the Fascist Party.

Of course, conservatives and reactionaries often combine, but so do progressives and conservatives, during the Second World War for example. Most of us have, somewhere in our attitudes, elements of progressive AND conservative ideology, usually unexamined. And perhaps some reactionary strands as well.

Another aspect of all this is that reactionaries often are at loggerheads: Hitler invaded many European countries which had manifestly fascist governments; when the Nazis occupied Austria, Mussolini rushed 40,000 troops to the Brenner Pass. Stalin and the Nazis cosied up to each other, then the Nazis invaded. If the Axis powers had won the Second World War, they probably would have turned on each other.

[TBC]

[continued]

Right and Left are frankly useless terms these days. Who is 'Left' in the Syrian war ? Was Saddam 'Left' just because the US invaded Iraq ? How can one describe the fascist Serbian assaults on Bosnia and Kosovo as 'Left', just because the US opposed them (eventually) ? Is Mugabe 'Left' just because he slags the British ? Somehow, is it 'Left' to defend rigid Islam (and implicitly ISIS, because, after all, it is anti-US), probably the most backward religion ever devised ?

Closer to home, in what way is homosexuality 'Left' ? Is it reactionary or 'Left' to criticise aspects of Aboriginal policy ? [Of course, homosexuals should not be thrown off tall buildings, so one wonders how the 'Left' squares that with its tacit sympathy for Islam and ISIS - or 'Left' feminists its misogyny].

It's a complicated world. Pat formulas don't cut it. Every issue has to be weighed on complicated scales.

Cheers,

Joe

I agree that freedom of speech should mean just that, and if some find that offensive then it would be reasonable to engage in conversation to find out why. The main problem with free speech from some is it sometimes leads to violence against a specific minority group member. History is full of pogroms against minorities that started out as simpley one person expressing an opinion. So I believe, we all need to be careful not to incite the simple minds of this world’s with rhetoric that they might turn in to violent action.

I agree the left and right wing labels are attributed to many different groups of people somewhat arbitrarily. My view is that politics is a circle. On one side you have intolerance that goes from denigrating other’s because they are different in some way, to exterminating them methodically , such as the Nazi’s did last century. On the other side we have people who accept differences of others. Using that as a measure, you could put all of your examples on one side of the circle.
As for oppressors in history, there are many who you could accuse of that, from the early caveman days, to the present. As a general rule of thumb I would say the oppressors are the ones with the strongest military force, who use it to expand their territory.

As I don’t live in Australia I am not that familiar with the case you refer too.

Chris

I'm a left-wing radical feminist, but even I am getting to the point that political correctness is driving me nuts.

When you can't have a reasonable debate about immigration, or question the dubious global agenda on multiculturalism, without being automatically accused of being racist and xenophobic.

When you can't criticise the sexualisation of women in the culture, without being accused of being 'cis-gender' or sex negative.

When you can't criticise destructive US-foreign policy, without being accused of being anti-American.

When you can't criticise Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians without being accused of being anti-Semitic.

When you can't question why Muslim women living in Western cultures need to wear the niqab in public, without being accused of being Islamphobic.

The list goes on and on ...

There was a time when recognising the differences of others was mature and sensible. But now, the liberal mainstream has hijacked this to impose an either-or censorship on anyone who criticises accepted dicriminated-minority norms.

To Lefty One.

Incitement to violence is an already accepted limitation on free speech. But Australia's 18C goes far beyond that, as the Andrew Bolt case, and the case against the four Queensland university students attests. If you really are a left wing liberal, then could I remind you that freedom of speech has traditionally been a left wing cause?

Tolerance is not a moral absolute. If you tolerate everything, you stand for nothing. The fact that everybody on planet earth prefers to live among their own kith and kin, people with whom they feel safe, is a cultural universal. Human beings are tribal and territorial. That is in our DNA. You can no more expect human beings to divest themselves of their own ethnic, religious, or cultural identity to create world peace, than you can expect teenagers to refrain from sex to prevent over population.

Tolerance for minorities is a primarily white, Protestant, Christian cultural ideal, the very culture which lefties wish to submerge and destroy through immigration and birth rate differentials. Any cultures acceptance of tolerance towards minorities is primarily a factor of their own cultural conditioning. Muslims are famously intolerant of everyone who is not a Muslim (or even the right sort of Muslim), yet western people are expected to tolerate them.

Every advanced civilisation on this planet (and probably thousands of other planets) has spread itself through armed force. Civilisation advanced at the point of a sword. Most of the time, this was a good thing for the human race. Usually it was because the warlike nomadic people considered the settled and civilised people to be easy meat. Civilisation had to expand into it's borders into barbarian lands to protect their own people, and bringing civilisation to the tribes usually benefitted the tribes anyway. If the expansion of civilisation through force had never happened, the human race today would consist of hundreds of thousands of warring tribes, and we would still be shivering around our campfires

Hi Lefty One,

Everything is complicated.

Your statement that " .... On the other side we have people who accept differences of others .... " could have been - was - applied to the 'differences' between slave-owners and slaves, and to the 'different' rights of both men and women to the vote.

Or of course, the very different rights that Muslim women have from those of men under any system of Shari'a law: that is an abomination that we must be constantly on our guard against, since Muslim Australian women should surely have the same rights as any other Australians.

Perhaps if we added the clause, that despite such differences, all people have equal and inalienable rights ? We would then have:

" .... On the other side we have people who accept differences of others, in the context of equal and inalienable rights .... "

What do you reckon ?

Cheers,

Joe

Yes, a little bit wordy but i would agree with that.
On your point about sharia law, I wonder if you have talked to a devout Muslim regarding their opinion of that law and how it effects them. I am sure if you went and visited your local mosque someone would be only to happy to talk to you.

Chris

Hi Chris,

My perception of the limits of political correctness is that they stop at any suggestion of diminished rights of any group, particularly women, on any grounds whatever, including culture and religion.

I'm happy for anybody to come to Australia on the condition that they recognise equal rights before the law for all, especially for women. Alternative legal systems, even under the guise of religious or cultural practice, should have no place in any country which calls itself a democracy.

And I don't give a toss if that distresses anybody. That's very much their problem.

Cheers,

Joe

To killarney
So welcome to the fray sister. I agree with you entirely. It makes it very difficult to defend some of the more absurd laws and comments that are themselves intolerant. All I can say is, hopefully forums like this will enable tolerant people to exchange views without the dreaded troll’s

Chris

To Lego
I am by definition a left wing liberal, and I strongly believe in free speech. Unfortunately I cant debate Australia’s 18c as I have never heard of it before this forum. However it does sound like complete overkill. I cant agree that everybody is tribal and territorial. I have met many in my life of travelling the world thousands who felt safe and at ease with others, who follow a different religion. If you raise two children from different back grounds to be tolerant of other’s they will be, however I do agree with your point about teenagers.

Christians have been slaughtering each other throughout history for no reason other than they had a few minor differences in their version of the bible. Advancement at the point of the sword is not civilized, and I am sure you would agree with me if you were the one being moved off a patch of dirt you thought of as yours, by someone with a bigger weapon than you had. So the settled are civilized and the nomads barbarians?
Then there is of course the thorny issue of what actually constitutes civilization. Personally I believe a people who have come to accept that the law of nature as the predominant law that must be followed are civilized. On the other hand anyone who wants to expand their border by force of arms is the oppressor as I have said before. As for shivering around camp fires I suggest you have a chat with some homeless people and see what they think of the dominant Australian civilization.

Chris

Hey Killarney,
I watched a video the other day of a feminist who came out saying she was not a feminist anymore.
One of her criticisms was that there was too many rules and regulations within feminism of how you should and should not act etc and if you challenge anything you're attacked for it. She said she's grown out of it and now thinks it's all just about privileged white girls who want to whinge and complain about everything and dictate what others should and should not do.
I can post the link to it if you want but it contains explicit language.

Armchair Critic

Don't bother with providing a link. I've probably seen it already. I may even have posted a rude 'Bye, bye, dear. Glad to see you go.' comment.There are quite a few of these born-again anti-feminist women pouring out their narcissistic angst on YouTube.

For one thing, if your commitment to feminism falls apart at the first (or second or third) barrage of criticism from other feminists, then you weren't much of a feminist to start with. I've had heaps of criticism thrown at me from feminists online. I either brush it off, or take the criticisms on board to see how I can learn from them.

For another thing, if you break with a certain political movement for reasons of your own, then why go all narcissistic-exhibitionist and post all your outrage on YouTube? You are only playing right into the hands of an army of YouTube MRA misogynists who make no secret of wanting to destroy feminism and will use you as their own useful idiot? A bit silly.

LEFTY ONE

Yeah. I get tired of how genuine movements for change get taken on board by the liberal mainstream and then get walled up behind a fortress of centrist gatekeeping. For example, I've been following the Corbyn leadership challenge in the UK with much interest. But the antics of many of the female Labour MPs in attacking Corbyn on the grounds of 'misogyny' and feminism get downright ludicrous. E.g. he had a shadow cabinet with a majority of female MPs, but he's deemed a misogynist because he didn't put a female in the 3 top jobs. Go figure.

To Chris the Lefty.

It may be the current political fashion among western "progressives" to claim that you are a "citizen of the world", and that nationalism means nothing. One previous western left political fashion was based upon the fact that Mahatma Ghandi drank his own urine. All of over the western world, white western lefties like yourself proudly declared that they too, drank their own urine. Drinking one's own urine did not catch on with the "progressive" caste in non western countries, and anti nationalism has not caught on among them either.

You seem to be equating Christianity and Islam as both intrinsically violent. They are not. Christianity was created by a Jewish pacifist. His message was corrupted for 1500 years by a clerical caste who chose to interpret the Jewish man's message to suite their own self interests. Islam was created by a warlord who wanted to make his soldiers invincible in battle, and to justify his military conquests. Christianity and Islam are intrinsically different religions.

If you still believe in the concept that a hand to mouth existence is something to aspire too, then you should wonder why nobody ever wants to return to barbarism? In Australia, we once had a movement of "progressive" people who wanted to live in tune with nature on their little communes. What that meant in reality is that they sat around on the dole being social parasites while any smart kids they had went back to the cities to find a job.

Barbarian societies "in tune with nature" are invariably very violent societies. The survival imperative to find and keep both rich hunting grounds and arable land means that tribal societies are constantly at war with each other. Barbarian life is usually "hard, brutish, and short."

Here in Australia, we have a generous social welfare system. No person needs to sleep out on the streets forever as shelters and free food is available. Those that choose to sleep on the streets refuse to obey the simple rule that they may not consume drugs or alcohol at these shelters.

Too Lego
We seem to be getting off topic, and as we are the only ones still posting, this will be my last post, however I suspect we will meet again on another issue.

Your story about Gandhi is one I had heard before, but I had not read that this particular idea was popular with many in the west.

I actually commented on the violence between Protestants and Catholics that went on for hundreds of years all over Europe. I cant agree peaceful followers of the Christian and Muslim faiths are that different. I have sat and talked to many religious groups which I found educational and enjoyable. All religions have a fringe element who can be convinced that their religion is correct, and all others should be put to the sword.

I am not sure why you think I live a hand to mouth existence, which is the fate of many whom survive on minimum wage jobs. I have owned homes, raised kids, had regular jobs that I changed fairly regularly when I got bored. The most satisfying job was looking after people with disabilities. One guy had a ninety degree bend in his spine, so was always in a wheel chair or his bed. He always seemed to smile at adversity, which I cant say for many winging able bodied people.

I am also a bit confused why you equate being in tune with nature with barbarism. I find people who are in tune with nature are usually, balanced, calm and generous. The barbarians are usually wearing a uniform and will kill anyone they are told to without question. Armies need wars to justify their pay check, which is probably why we a constantly at war with someone.

I am aware there is a welfare system in Australia, as with many other western countries. However the number of citizens around the world who are in need of welfare for food and housing is climbing exponentially, which shows that the economy is in trouble.

So Lego I am happy for you to have the last say
Chris

Hi Lefty,

Your departure could be a bit premature :) There are always issues coming up which concern human rights and the assault on them by political correctness. And some issues are too complex for the dumb-arse PC mob to even comment on. For example, the French controversy about burkinis:

* women should be allowed to wear whatever they like at the beach, if anything with a 'lower' limit unless it's a nudist beach - in which case, non-nude people should be either ordered to strip or ordered away, and certainly not to take photos.

* no women, any more than men, should be required to wear more clothing than they want to. For anybody trying to force them, it should be an offence severely punished under freedom of expression legislation.

* if men have trouble coming to terms with female bodies (one would think that, somewhere, somewhere ! there is a feminist at least thinking this) that is their problem: women should not have to bend and buckle just to please men, they should not have to cop the consequences of male arousal just by being. If anything, any men having such trouble should see a doctor for treatment. If this means a substantial proportion of the Muslim male population, so be it.

* in a genuinely democratic society, men have no more rights than women. If they have problems coming to terms with that, it is not women's responsibility. Any attempt to exercise power over women improperly should be dealt with severely by the law. Wow, that might see a substantial proportion of the Muslim male population in court. So be it. Inshallah. She knows what she is doing.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Loudmouth
Well as you ask so nicely I am happy to answer your post. I did think that this thread was becoming a bit worn out.
So the burkinis issue, and more specifically the fining of a woman for wearing what she thought was appropriate attire for the beach. There is an interesting article from the daily mail that “covered” the story fairly well I thought. I wonder if a white woman had been on the beach with such attire ,would those police officers behaved in the same way.
So to your post. “Woman should be allowed to wear whatever they like at the beach” says to me you are all for equality, as long as you do what I think is right. This is the very definition of PC that you rail against in your posts.
It would be fair to say that any man not seeing enough of the female body in the western world to help them with their arousal issues should get some help, instead of demanding that every woman on a beach “buckle” to their demands.
The law was introduced by a man who said that because of one madman, woman should have to dress in a way that is embarrassing to them, to maintain public order. That woman on the beach was no more responsible for that terrorist act than one else, so please explain why she had to be humiliated.
You do seem to have a view of Muslims that is different to me. So in the hope that you are genuinely trying to understand this mad world that we live in, I suggest you take a leaf out of my book and talk to some people who are outside your subset of the human genome, to validate your present wisdom.

Chris

Hi Lefty,

You suggest that " ..... So to your post. “Woman should be allowed to wear whatever they like at the beach” says to me you are all for equality, as long as you do what I think is right. This is the very definition of PC that you rail against in your posts."

I can't see how you made that brave leap: "Women should be allowed to wear what the hell ever they like" or "It doesn't matter what women wear, any more than men." as PC ? So, what wouldn't be PC ? "Women shouldn't be allowed to wear what they like" ? "Men should dictate what women wear" ? In whose dreams ? Some pervy imam ?

Equality, yes. The right to choose, yes. The right to please oneself, yes. Where is the PC in that ? PC advocates can kiss my hairy arse.

"That woman on the beach was no more responsible for that terrorist act than one else, so please explain why she had to be humiliated." I wasn't aware that she had to be, and of course she shouldn't have been. I'll say that ten times if you like :)

The subset of my human genome is a pretty big crowd, as I'm sure yours is. Maybe not. So who do you mean ? What actually are you trying to say ? Is English a second language ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi loudmouth
Ok I will try to be less obtuse with my terminology, to avoid you needing to check the dictionary so much :). My father was a cockney, and was always playing with words, a habit I appear to have inherited.
So I must have misunderstood the point you were trying to make. You said that woman should not have to wear more clothing than they want to. So do you also believe, that no women should have to wear less clothing than they want to? There are some in Nice who clearly believe that.
The size of one’s Genome subset should always be irrelevant when arguing a point, as to its validity.
Chris

Burkhas are the uniform of radical Islam. Just in case nobody has noticed, France has a problem with radical Islam. 250 French people have been slaughtered over the last 9 months because of radical Islam.

Germany bans the wearing of swasticas because Germany had a problem with radical nationalists who were also socialists. How come the left goes into bat for radical Muslims wearing the uniform of radical Islam, but does not go into bat for nationalistic socialists wearing the uniform of national socialism?

Hi Lefty,

I'm obtuse enough not to know what you are on about, except that perhaps you are trying to sink the boot in somewhere, why I don't know.

As for women wearing as little as they like, given that my grandmother was a nudist, I'm happy if that is their choice, but clearly there are social norms which dictate how little they can wear. All I am suggesting is that women can wear as much as they like, it's up to them. How is that dictating to them, i.e. the conventional definition of PC ?

Actually my granny was married within the sounds of Bow Bells, in West Ham in 1920. Does that make her marriage cockney ?

And if the size of one's genome sub-set is irrelevant, why raise it ?

Hi LEGO,

In my view, the French shouldn't have raised this as an issue: by doing so, they may have politicised something that didn't need to be, and they may have given those neatly-dressed, quietly-spoken imams and sheikhs - the 'good cops to ISIS's 'bad cops' - a grievance and a legitimate human rights cause.

On a slight tangent, the wonderful Daisy Bates was often slagged by ignorant people for wearing ankle-length dresses, gloves, and a large hat. She was Irish, with very fair skin, working for Aboriginal people out in the deserts of Western and South Australia for thirty years. Ignorance springs eternal.

Joe

Still posting, Lefty One?

My story about how white western trendy lefties once drank their own urine was to display to you the lengths that trendies will go to show their social separation from the rest of the population, and their need for Brahmin caste conformity as a means of social identification. In the late 19th century, tertiary educated young people were the most nationalistic and militaristic people around. You were just not cool in Prussia unless you had a sabre scar on your cheek. You will remember from reading "All Quiet on the Western Front" that it was Erich Maria Remarque's teachers who urged their students to enlist and fight for Germany.

You are now pushing the line that peace loving Christians and Muslims are the same thing. Look mate, Germans may be nice people. Japanese may be nice people. Russians may be nice people. But throughout history, the nice people have never counted. People in undemocratic countries will follow their leaders into war if their unelected leaders order them to do it. Islam is entirely different from Christianity. Islam is the only faith which sanctifies through it's holy scriptures, the murder of non Muslims, and the military take over of non Muslim lands through holy war. The nice Muslims will do what their God, dictators, and Imams decree.

You were pushing the old "noble savage" line so beloved of trendy lefties. Stone Age societies are without exception extremely brutal and warlike. They have to be. A hand to mouth existence means that a lot of territory needs to be maintained to ensure the survival of the clan or tribe. Neighbouring stone age tribes are invariably at war with each other. Hunting grounds, grazing grounds, and fertile areas with native fruits and nuts need to be protected from encroachment from rival tribes. These stone age people have lived in peace in their own tribal areas since the day that their tribe collectively expelled the previous owners.

The history of the world
Reveals a simple plan.
He takes who has the power
He holds, who can.

HI LEGO,

Yes, and one could modify that to " .... stone age people have lived in uneasy peace in their own tribal areas since the day that their tribe collectively expelled the previous owners, and until the day when they are expelled and exterminated."

You may not find it in the conventional narrative, but there is a multitude of examples of distrust and fear between groups, of people generally never venturing out at night far from camp, of annual battles between groups, of invasion of groups from hard, resource-hungry country to richer country. One group was exterminated here in SA in about 1872 by neighbouring groups for 'marrying wrong'.

If anybody ever searches for massacre sites, they would need to be ready to suppress any signs that the bones that they are examining show signs of spearing or bludgeoning rather than bullet or sabre wounds, in order to preserve the narrative.

Yes, all pre-civilized societies were brutal and war-oriented. One day Chinese male DNA will be tested and foun to show an overwhelming predominance from a small group (perhaps only one) major ancestry, while the female DNA will show a multitude of ancestries. Again and again, Scottish, Ibero-Celtic, ancient Greek, societies all praised men dying young in battle, and slagged old men dying in bed. Endless legends depict eternal hatred between neighbouring groups. Engels got all that right in his Intro to 'The Origin of the Family .... '

Cheers,

Joe

//But throughout history, the nice people have never counted.//

On the other hand, the meek shall inherit the Earth. So at least we've got that to look forward to. Unless you're calling our man Jesus a liar...

//The history of the world
Reveals a simple plan.
He takes who has the power
He holds, who can.//

How very Khan Noonien Singh.

Some of us are signed up to Starfleet. We don't care for your 'might makes right' philosophy, because whilst it does make for good television we'd prefer to be (metaphorically) on board the Enterprise than living in Westeros.

When all that is important is the amassing and holding of power, Hobbes gives us a good description of what the world would look like:

"No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Bugger that.

Too lego
"The lengths some will go to as a means to social identification”. Some I suppose will drink their own urine, and others will charge around wearing the same clothes waving sabers in the air looking to kill. For some reason you seem to think that one is odd and the other is to be respected.

Your right, that the nice (peaceful) people are ignored when it comes to declaring war. There is always a body of thought that will go to war, without really understanding why. One million in the UK marched to say no to the invasion of Iraq, but still the parliament overrode that and went to war any way. Turns out, that all those deaths and treasure was wasted, for an idea that was a lie. The idea that its only undemocratic countries that lead their nation to war seems to forget a lot of history.

Which “stone age societies” are you referring to. My understanding is that the Stone age ended thousands of years ago. However I would agree that the stone age thinking is still alive today and is the cause of much of the misery that I see around the world.

The problem with using your logic is that our collective ability to make this planet uninhabitable for all. It may be that one day you find a drone flying over some party that you are at which decided you are a terrorist, and wipes half your friends and family of the map. Will you then think that your credo is still a good one? Honestly mate if we just worked within our own borders and looked after the land, we could food the world, with the money we waste on the military.

One last thing I live in a country that had a civil war to throw out the foreigns empire builders. Then another country created a mercenary army to support the foreign invader, and their secret service used bombers to drop one tone of high explosive for every citizen in that country.So who were the barbarians in that conflict
Chris

Hi Toni,

LEGO and I were certainly not praising tribal society and its unavoidable brutality everywhere, but merely noting the fact that it did exist and it did exhibit amazing brutality everywhere, AND that its demise from the Earth is a Good Thing.

Or would be. Its current bursting out, hopefully its last gasp, in the Middle East, is something which I'm sure both LEGO and I deplore, and deplore more loudly and fervently than you may hear from the opportunist 'Left', while we bravely risk the catch-all epithet of 'Islamophobe'. No, neither of us is that, I'm sure, but we do hate brutality, inequality and the calculated terrorising of innocent people.

I look forward to OLO contributors on the opportunist 'Left' condemning terrorism and brutality with equal vigour. No rush.

Cheers,

Joe

Too loudmouth
I apologies if my flowery language makes you think I am extracting the urine, it is not the case.

The people who make laws that say wearing more clothes on the beach than others is against the law are in my mind the ones who are being PC, by not allowing people to decide what they want to wear.

I am afraid you had to be born within the sound of bow bells to be classified as a Cockney. Of course, these days you have to be rich to live where my father was born.

I seem to recall that you believe that the more people who think a certain way, makes the belief more credible.

Chris

Hi Lefty,

Yes, I fear that Cockneys may be an endangered species.

On the burkini: of course, with what one might call a lower limit, people should be allowed to wear whatever they like at a beach. From a melanoma point of view, the more the better. Of course, from the view of an old perve like me, the less the better.

As for " .... the more people who think a certain way, makes the belief more credible. .... ", absolutely not. I don't know where you got that idea from. I don't make a point of disagreeing with people (at least I don't think I do) but I do lose friends faster than I can make them, over contrasting viewpoints. Since I started putting together old documents in Aboriginal affairs here in SA (now on a web-site: www.firstsources.info ) I've lost the friendship of many people, but looking back much further, I can't say that I've ever been good at kissing arse, so I wouldn't have it any other way. But it's finding out who your friends are the hard way.

Did I write something which you may have misinterpreted ?

Cheers,

Joe

Too loudmouth
I apologies if my flowery language makes you think I am extracting the urine, it is not the case.
The people who make laws that say wearing more clothes on the beach than other is against the law are in my mind, the ones who are being PC, by not allowing people to decide what they want to wear.

I am afraid you had to be born within the sound of bow bells to be classified as a Cockney. Of course, these days you have to be rich to live where my father was born.

I seem to recall that you believe that the more people who think a certain way, makes the belief more credible.

Chris

oops a double post
Chris

You managed to get my message all screwed up again, Lefty One.

My point was that the trendy lefty, Chardonnay socialist set has a history of supporting the wrong causes. In the late 19th century/early 20th century, they were all for nationalism and war. That got shot out of them on the western front. Then they went the opposite way and became totally pacifist. Then came the idea of supporting a classless society. Which was pretty funny, really, because trendy lefties are the biggest snobs around. They were "angry young men" anti Imperialists in the 1950's, with the result that much of this world is now reverting to barbarism. There were plenty of university caste traitors around in the 50", Philby, McLean, Blunt, Cairncross, Fuchs, Burgess, the Rosenburgs, etc) but even trendy lefties in those days were smart enough to revile them.

Today, treason against ones own people and civilisation has become the new social fashion. People like John Walker Lindt, David Hicks, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange are trendy lefty superstars.

The point which I am making, is that trendy lefties like yourself support causes which you have never really thought about. Most of you simply parrot whatever shallow arguments which your peers have inculcated into you. You have a deep compulsive need to think that you are very intelligent and morally upright, the sort of people who can solve the world's problems. This makes you easy meat for every charlatan and Elmer Gantry figure with a self serving Trojan Horse agenda to enlist you in their fight.

In Asian and Muslim countries, where being intensely loyal to either the State of to Allah is taken for granted, the sight of the educated left in the West doing their utmost to destroy their own civilisation must be one of complete amazement to them. Not that they mind, of course. Both of these civilisations are waiting for the west to collapse so that they can be the top dogs. Lenin called western lefties like yourself "useful fools."

Joe, some great posts on this thread.

I've been pondering the issue of the range of tolerance within societies in relation to the burkini issue.

How well do societies do at tolerating the full range of approach in almost anything? My impression is generally not well.

Will the adoption of very conservative garb on the beach by some lead to a shift where the freedoms of others to dress far less modestly be undermined and how do western societies combat that.

I don't have enough background to understand the drivers but from what I can see part of the issue was stirred up by a planned Burkini only day at a French water park http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36973212. What I can't tell is if this was the brainchild of "well meaning" non-muslims or by muslims.

Either way it's easy to picture pushes for sections of beaches set aside for covered up attire and other measures designed to make the cover up group more comfortable at the expense of others.

R0bert

Hi RObert,

On 'conservative' garb: if my late mum had gone to the beach, I'm sure she would have worn a cardigan and a hat, as well as long trousers. The wonderful scholar Henry Ergas has suggested, citing Erving Goffmann, that some phenomena don't need to have attention drawn to them, that this quite unnecessarily can exaggerate them into political issues, when they don't need to be.

If bikinis are quite acceptable, as I fervently hope will be the case as long as I live, then what does it matter if people, women, wear more clothing ? Even fully-garbed nuns should have the right to go to the beach, after all.

If misogynist husbands won't allow their wives to go to the beach unless they are fully covered, even with a nikab, that may be the only way for those poor women to be able to get out and see the world, and importantly to see that even scantily-clad young women are free to go to the beach without being harassed: the West is not necessarily the hotbed of depravity, as they may have been incessantly taught by ignorant imams.

And fter all, Islam is not a 'race': there are many fair-skinned Muslims who may need to cover up to avoid getting skin cancer later. And if they can cover up, why not anybody else ?

It shouldn't be an issue. Let's move on.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, I support people being allowed to wear as little or as much as they want to the beach, I do though doubt that many on the conservative dress side of this view things that way (nor some on the other side).

R0bert

Lego
As you think insults add validity to your argument with people who have a different point of view, I will respectfully end our conversation.
The reason I stopped posting before was because I thought that the thread was done. I was wrong so will continue to post as long as we can agree to differ. However this is my last post to you as it is clear you see me as someone you despise and my opinion needs to be changed. I had a look at some earlier posts of yours on this thread. You where talking about young trendy lefties and how good you are at beating them verbally into submission. I have to tell you I still have the same opinion, and the way you change opinion is not by slaging off, or ignoring relevant points that simply don’t fit your point of view.
For the record I think Snowden and Assange have brought to light information that the militarists and intelligence agencies would rather was kept secret from the general population. I believe that tribalism/ is what causes the world to be as violent as it was and is, and the only way to change that is for people to listen to others, and walk a mile in their moccasin’s.

Also for the record I am not a total pacifist, I will fight to protect where I am, I just won’t invade anyone else unlike the empire building nations of the world, who con the working poor that it is there duty to invade others, for the benefit of the military industrial complex that President/General Eisenhower warned us about.

Please feel free to have a last verbal blast at me.
Chris

To Lefty.

My favourite pastime is deprogramming trendy lefties like yourself. The reason why I do it, was because I was myself a trendy lefty in my younger days, and I feel the need to put you on the right track.

I think that leftism is a primarily a fashion statement by young people who wish to appear intelligent and morally upright, against what they have been programmed to see as a iniquitous and corrupt western democratic, free market society. But most young people grow out it, especially when they become parents themselves, and feel the duty to impart pro social values to their offspring. But some lefties remain in a bubble, either within the cloistered halls of academia, or from within leafy suburbs surrounded by an economic fence higher than the Berlin Wall.

The reasons why I rejected leftism, was because even though I am poorly educated, I always had an abiding thirst for knowledge about history. I knew that the leftist narrative of history was simply not true. Then came the so called "anti racism" of the left. Leftist people are obviously very racist towards white people. The absolute hatred which lefties had for their own people and culture disgusted me. Look at the contradiction of leftist feminism. Tony Abbot looks at his watch while Julia Gillard is speaking, and feminists all over the world condemn him as a misogynist. Meanwhile, there is no more misogynist religion than Islam, which get a free pass from leftist feminism.

Everywhere I looked at Leftism, I saw double standards, contradictions, historical air brushing, half truths, and worse. And there was one other thing. Leftists seem to have an abiding love of totalitarianism. They really do think that they (like the aristocrats of old) are something special, that they know how to run the world, and that they think that the peasants should follow their lead, by force if necessary. I would use climatologist Tim Flannery's demand that the Australian government should use the Australian Army to enforce his anti climate change diktats.

Maybe you will in time see what I saw.

To Lego
Ok if you can stop sticking me in your little box of people to be despised , and read my history I am happy to continue this dialogue. First you have not deprogrammed me, I have started two new threads on this blog site.Next I am much like you, my father grew up in the slums of London, and he did not have a regular job until he was 29. The only time I got near a university I failed because I would not believe some of the rigid ideas on economics I was being feed.
To get educated I got took a bus to India from London, 5 weeks, one old Bedford bus, 27 passengers, 9 different nationalities, 7 thousand miles. Fifteen months later I returned to London after having reached as far as Tokyo. To pay my way I taught conversational English in Honk Kong and Japan, and as a front man for a snake oil salesman in Thailand. I watched the black painted B52’s take off from their bases in Thailand headed west for Cambodia in 1973 when we were all told it was not happening, so stop telling me I am uneducated.

I don’t hate white people I am one, It’s just I have been around this planet (26 countries) and have seen the world and how it functions from the inside. I live in a village 12 km north of the Mekong river in a communist state, hardly the place you described.
I agree with you the world is full of totalitarianism, and as many other isam’s as you want to shake a stick at. However it is not reasonable to put all of it in a box labeled the left. I appreciate you have read some information but I am guessing you don’t read anything that challenges your view.

So Lego I am happy to keep talking to you and anyone else about points of view (I am the son of a cockney after all), Just stop slagging me off ok.
Chris

When dealing with trendy lefties, I am not just deprogramming the person I am writing to. I am dealing with the audience as well, and some of them are young trendy lefties. To be effective, I have to use reasoned argument, and I need to keep the audience entertained. The odd insult and heavy sarcasm just happens to be very entertaining,(if you do it right) and if you haven't figured that out yet, then it is something you should dwell upon. The trick is, that if you can make people laugh at your opponents, you have them beat. So no, mate. If you want to cross swords with me, then you had better learn how to deal with criticism.

I have been down this path before with others who think they can muzzle me by refusing to respond to me. That does not stop me responding to their posts with other people. This is, after all, a public discussion board. Eventually, they, take exception to something that I write, and they come back on demanding that I respond to them. In such cases, I laugh first, and then decide whether or not to respond. So if you want to go off in a huff, then be my guest. The audience will interpret that as weakness on your part.

I am an enemy of the left, because they are the enemy of my people and my civilisation. If you class yourself as one of them, then you are my enemy, and the enemy of my people. I know that like myself, young people have this ideology inculcated into them at school. So I will try to be polite, and to use reason and logic first to deprogram you. Failing that, you are an ideologue which no amount of reason can affect. You then become fair game for ridicule. If I can make young trendy lefties laugh at what you are saying, it can cause them to switch on their critical analysis circuits, and question the values and attitudes which have been programmed into them by their leftist teachers and compliant media.

I think the author's point has been well made by the comment thread...

Hi RObert,

Just to get back to your comment:

" .... I support people being allowed to wear as little or as much as they want to the beach, I do though doubt that many on the conservative dress side of this view things that way (nor some on the other side)."

That's right, in a liberal, modern society, there is always a very wide range of behaviours, tastes, opinions etc. which are available, even though their fringes may not be approved by people on the opposite fringes. We vote different. We like different films, foods, drinks, recreations, political parties, life courses. 'Conservatives', as you suggest, can suck it up.

And so can the opportunist 'Left. In a major way, this diversity is a problem for political correctness: there is an approved way (what used to be called a 'respectable' way) of doing pretty much everything, and deviations should be discouraged, and the further away those deviations are from the approved Means (with SDs correspondingy short), the more vehemently they should be 'discouraged'.

But for the sake of an Open Society, as open and productive as possible, we need healthy disagreement and for that we need strong diversity of opinion AND arenas in which to express them, like OLO. There is no movement forward without disagreement, brain-storming, demands for evidence for rival opinions (and as much for our own).

We need to be able to say fearlessly, when someone presents a politically-correct opinion without feeling the need to back it up, prove it or kiss my hairy arse. He who asserts without evidence or rationale - effectively without reason - can be told to piss off without reason, and as rudely as that.

If one wants to persuade someone else of the validity of their point of view, they must present evidence, not just try to steamroll with the force of 'public opinion', 'accepted dogma', 'conventional opinion', or 'the majority view'. It's not the fifties any more :)

[TBC]

[continued]

Not even for the 'Left': come out and play, don't keep your views to yourself and just assume that 'good' people will believe it all chapter and verse, and to some revolutionist hell with the rest on the Day.

Any half-decent opinion, or point of view, or narrative, will have ample backing if one looks hard enough, while a dodgy or half-baked opinion will have either no real evidence or dodgy 'story' to back it up - and, crucially, it will lack some vital factor.

For example: in one supporting commentary for the Hindmarsh Island Secret Women's scam of twenty years ago, the image was highlighted of a peaceful 'meeting of the waters', of the Murray River and the Southern Ocean. But the narrative overlooked two factors: tides and river flow. Currently, with high river flow, the 'meeting of the waters' is somewhere out at sea. In drier times, the barrages hold back the sea water (and the tides), otherwise the 'meeting of the waters' would be fifty miles up the Murray.

Or take the Rabbit Proof Fence story: how come there was never any mention of it in the West Australian newspaper, at the fabled time, a fiercely anti-government, pro-Labor Party, newspaper: they had picked up no hints from rural papers, who in turn had picked up no tid-bits from Rabbit Department (perhaps several hundred) employees, knocking off each night at their local pub ? And nothing in the thousand-page Moseley Royal Commission 'on the Aborigines' held after the 1933 election which brought in a new Labor government (word-for-word on www.firstsources.info ) ?

So, in an Open Society,

(1) a very wide range of views, behaviours and preferences are freely available, or should be; and within that context,

(2) we all need to be on our guard against those who would restrict those precious attributes to an approved handful, or the One True Narrative;

(3) we should expect somebody to provide some evidence, some backing, for a strongly-held opinion, as they should us for ours.

Cheers,

Joe

To Loudmouth

Your points 1,2, and 3 are well made and I ( for what it is worth ) agree with you.

Chris

Very well put Joe.

Our world is going to undergo enormous and rapid change over the next 20-30 years. The one thing we can't risk is entrenched viewpoints and selfish interests preventing proper discussion.

Lego
I think it is time to move on as we look like two prop row forwards scraping on the ground when the ball, ref, and the other 28 players have moved on, so I will close with this comment.

If it helps you feel like you are entertaining others, by tossing in the odd insult and you feel the varsity of your argument is enhanced by sarcasm (the lowest form of whit) then please continue. From my other exchanges on this site, I think most have little interest in your attempts to embellish your point.

I have no interest in muzzling you or any other persons point of view. My departure from this site is like most who have already left, they have simply made their point. If you wish to see this as some kind of empirical victory, I have no problem with that.

You refer to me as an enemy of your people and civilization because I challenge your way of thinking. By that I assume you mean European Christians. What was drummed into me at school was the British Empire had been of benefit to the natives. What I learnt after school was that all the European Christian empires had done around the entire plant over the last 500 years was to destroy and butcher anything that got in the way of plunder. For that reason and that alone I find no pride in being labelled a white Christian.

If you want just one example then check out the exploits of Christopher Columbus, when he landed in the Caribbean. One Island that had an estimated population when he arrived of 3 million was deserted thirty years later.
Chris