I was going to let this pass through to the keeper because I couldn't be bothered to address such ignorance, but then had second thoughts....

"When protests feature far-right symbols and slogans, don’t be surprised if they’re described as far-right adjacent. The presence of a few ordinary citizens doesn’t erase the extremist banners behind them."

I made a special trip to the big smoke to attend one of these rallies. The notion that it was a "few ordinary citizens" is as profound an error as one person can make and JD has shown us a litany of profound errors. This was a gigantic number of "ordinary citizens" with a few extremists seeking to ride the wave. That the media was more interested in the extremists than the "ordinary citizens" was to expected. That the usual dills would fall for the media's spin is obvious.

What I found most extraordinary from these "ordinary citizens" was that they were very aware of the motives of the media and the extremists in their midst. and were determined to not play into either's hands, and encouraged others around them to do likewise.

My expectation is that when these "few ordinary citizens" saw how the media and their own government distorted the truth of the marches, they will be even more convinced of the righteousness of their cause.

Not that the dills who fell for the media/governmental spin will understand that.

I did say "if", mhaze.

//Debunked? Well lucky I didn't mention it then.//

So your "I didn't say that!" doesn't work here either. Standard mhaze.

//Nor did Price.//

Yes, she did. In her 3AW interview:
http://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/senior-liberal-texts-colleagues-to-clean-up-price-s-indian-migrant-data-claims-20250910-p5mtt2.html

//But when you can't address my views…//

I addressed them directly, using Roy Morgan data and pointing out that your claim of electoral engineering was speculative and evidence-free. Instead of engaging with that, you’ve now shifted to talking about protests - while still avoiding the immigration logic I dismantled.

//Always go along with the zeitgeist…//

No, the issue isn't "being divisive." It’s how one divides.

Price didn’t challenge orthodoxy with facts or nuance - she did it by pointing the finger at a specific ethnic group and suggesting they were being used as electoral pawns. That’s not brave. That’s reckless.

//JD demonstrates… his own utter lack of humanity.//

This sort of melodramatic accusation doesn’t rebut anything. It’s just projection disguised as argument. I criticised Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric - not his existence. You, on the other hand, defended a baseless conspiracy by comparing media framing to government oppression.

Which of us is losing perspective here?

//This was a gigantic number of ‘ordinary citizens’ with a few extremists seeking to ride the wave.//

I don’t dispute that many attendees had genuine concerns. But when those protests prominently feature Australia First Party, white nationalist symbols, or Great Replacement placards, you don’t get to pretend it’s just the media distorting things.

Optics matter - especially if no one on the ground is willing to call that stuff out while it’s happening.

If people want to be taken seriously, they can start by distancing themselves from the extremists - not acting like it’s unfair to be judged by the company they’re too timid to challenge.

ttbn,

I've had a look into your sweeping claims, and when it comes to the question of who "murders their opponents more" in the modern era, winner is overwhelmingly the extreme right.

There was a surge of left-wing terrorism in the US during the 1970s - bombings by groups like the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and Puerto Rican separatists. But those attacks were overwhelmingly aimed at property, often with warnings, and killed comparatively few. From 1975-2025, left-wing extremists were responsible for around 65 deaths in the US.

Now compare that with the far-right. The same data show 391 deaths caused by right-wing extremists in the same period - six times as many. Add to that the long history of KKK terror, lynchings, civil-rights era murders, the Oklahoma City bombing (168 killed), Charleston, Pittsburgh, El Paso, and the January 6th riot. In the last decade alone, around three-quarters of extremist murders in the US have been committed by the far-right, not the far-left.

Calling Labor "a Marxist terrorist organisation" might make for a Facebook meme, but it’s divorced from reality. The Albanese government is many things, but it isn’t Marxist, it hasn’t sponsored political killings, and suggesting otherwise trivialises genuine terrorism.

Criticise policy all you like, but pretending that the left is uniquely violent, or that censorship will inevitably lead to murder, is not supported by either history or the current evidence.

This is just for perspective, of course. I'm not about to commit an association fallacy by pretending that this is in any way a reflection on you personally.

You should try doing the same.

JD

You're not disputing the Indian vote favours the ALP. Just quibbling over the extent.

"No, the issue isn't "being divisive."

Well you said 'divisive'.

"This sort of melodramatic accusation doesn’t rebut anything."

No it wasn't a rebuttal. It was an observation.

"Optics matter "

And you fell for what the media chose to show you. Hardly surprising

mhaze,

I’m not "quibbling" over the extent, I’m correcting a key factual claim. There’s a world of difference between a lean and an overwhelming bloc. You based a conspiratorial implication on a distortion, and I responded with actual data.

That’s not a quibble. That’s what debate should look like.

//Well, you said divisive.//

Yes, I said divisive and false.

You’re treating "divisive" as though it’s automatically noble. It’s not. Some divisions are principled. Others are reckless, baseless, or harmful. That’s the distinction you’re dodging.

//No it wasn't a rebuttal. It was an observation.//

You called me inhumane for criticising Charlie Kirk. That wasn’t an observation - it was a character smear, and a lazy one at that. An observation implies some degree of objectivity or detachment. What you offered was neither: it was subjective, evaluative, and didn’t even reflect what I actually said.

//You fell for what the media chose to show you.//

Or I judged the protests based on what was clearly visible: Australia First Party banners, white nationalist slogans, "Great Replacement" signs. If those elements were truly fringe, where was the public pushback from the "ordinary citizens" around them?

You don’t get to control the narrative and deny the optics. If it looks bad and no one challenges it, that’s not media spin - that’s complacency.

//Hardly surprising//

Actually, it would be very surprising. Your apparent inability to identify sound media literacy skills in others explains... a lot.

"I’m not "quibbling" over the extent, I’m correcting a key factual claim."

You 'corrected' a claim I didn't make. Well done!.

Polling shows Indian-Australians, particularly younger cohorts, favour the ALP at levels much higher than the general population. Quibble with that.

(BTW, the very fact that we talk about Indian-Australians, Chinese-Australians, Sudanese-Australians shows the real problems. We used to have just Australians. Now we have tribes that tear the fabric apart. Highlighting that is why the establishment thinks Price needs to be destroyed. )

"You’re treating "divisive" as though it’s automatically noble."

You used the word as a proof she's wrong. Its the standard thinking by the left - disagreeing with us is divisive.

"you called me inhumane for criticising Charlie Kirk. "

No. I called you inhumane for suggesting he had it coming because he held views you don't like.

"I judged the protests based on what was clearly visible: "

But what was visible, was what the media showed you. Its almost pathetically comedic that you don't understand that.

A sign I saw from the recent London mass-protest... "Why is it when people tell the truth, they are called far right"