I'm sorry, mhaze. Did you only mean 84%?

//You 'corrected' a claim I didn't make.//

Or perhaps, by “overwhelmingly,” you meant the ~57% on a two-party preferred basis?

Don’t be ridiculous. You may not have used the 85% figure explicitly, but you repeated the exact implication it’s meant to serve: that Labor is shaping immigration policy based on voting blocs. I addressed the data behind that idea - and you're now admitting the lean exists, just arguing over framing.

So no, I didn’t correct a “claim you didn’t make.” I corrected the claim you were relying on.

//The fact we talk about Indian-Australians... shows the real problems.//

No, what we have is diversity within the category “Australian.” You’re conflating cultural identity with political fragmentation. That’s a classic slippery slope fallacy. A hyphen in someone’s identity doesn’t tear the fabric apart - conspiracies about those identities being electoral pawns do.

//You used [‘divisive’] as proof she’s wrong.//

False.

I said she was both divisive and wrong - wrong in substance (her claim was baseless), and divisive in effect (it alienated a specific community). The two aren’t interchangeable.

“Yes, and the worst part is that the quiet part was false and divisive.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23646#400147

//You suggested Kirk had it coming.//

I explicitly said he didn’t deserve to die. I also said he contributed to a toxic political atmosphere - which is not “having it coming,” it’s recognising a tragic symmetry. You’re rewriting my words to suit your outrage.

I hope you appreciate the irony of this coming from someone whose most common defence is: “I didn’t say that.”

//But what was visible, was what the media showed you.//

This is your fallback every time facts are inconvenient. The banners, signs, and slogans I referenced were documented across outlets and by protest-goers themselves.

If you’re citing a protest sign from London to make your point, then you’ve already conceded that visibility does matter.

"Or perhaps, by “overwhelmingly,” you meant the ~57% on a two-party preferred basis?"

Actually I was more thinking of the polls showing over 60/40 pro-ALP and in some cohorts of the Indian tribe, 70/30.

"Did you only mean 84%?"

Can't give up on your failed orig9nal assertion, eh, JD?

"I corrected the claim you were relying on."

Which is rather difficult when you didn't understand what that claim was. But making stuff up has never been an impediment before, so why start now?

"I explicitly said he didn’t deserve to die."

And I didn't say you did!! honestly its exhausting having to correct all your false assertions over and over.

But you did say that "He died in the toxic atmosphere he helped create.". That what he said outraged the anxiously outrageable doesn't explain his death.

I'd also point out that just as you've fallen for the media's claims about the protest marches, you've also fallen for their claims about what Kirk said.

As to the marches, I was there at the media claimed was full of extremists - claims you've absorbed without thought. But its false. Just plain false. It was overwhelmingly attended by "ordinary citizens" who were concerned about their country and they were joined by a few people who had other agendas but utterly failed to get the "ordinary citizens" to join in.

But you don't want that to be true but will deny it ad infinitum.

You’re just sliding the goalposts until one lands, mhaze.

//Actually I was more thinking of the polls showing over 60/40 pro-ALP and in some cohorts... 70/30.//

So… you weren’t thinking of 85%, but you also weren’t thinking of 57%? You’ve gone from "overwhelmingly" to "some cohorts," and still haven’t cited a source.

//Can't give up on your failed original assertion, eh JD?//

I didn’t invent the 85% figure, Price did.

I corrected it because you repeated the implication it supports: that Labor is gaming immigration to build a voting bloc. If you're walking that back now, that’s fine, but at least own the shift.

//Which is rather difficult when you didn't understand what that claim was.//
Then maybe next time define it clearly. You can’t accuse people of misrepresenting you while leaving your own position vague enough to wriggle in and out of.

//That what he said outraged the anxiously outrageable doesn't explain his death.//

No, and I didn’t say it did.

What I did say is that Kirk amplified tribal rage and outrage politics for years - and that he died in a political climate shaped by those dynamics. That’s not excusing violence. It’s noting contributing conditions. Misrepresenting that as "he had it coming" is dishonest.

//As to the marches, I was there… overwhelmingly attended by ordinary citizens.//

I never said otherwise.

I said that extremist symbols were visible, and they were. You keep dodging that fact by appealing to your physical presence. Being in the crowd doesn’t give you veto power over what was photographed, filmed, and shared.

//You’ll deny it ad infinitum.//

Really? Despite no signs of ever having done so before? Like, no double-standards:

"Overwhelmingly is one of those weaselly words that can mean all sorts of things." (23/07/2025)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10628#371108

"That Indian immigrants overwhelming vote ALP is established." (13/09/2025)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23646#400136

No contradictions:

"Personally I try to never evaluate the message based upon the messenger. I prefer to look at the actual data." (27/07/2024)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10452#362839

"So to try to back up his idiocy he links to Planned Parenthood claiming that the footage was edited."(18/09/2024)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10473#364386

Ri-i-i-i-ight.

I don't think it's Jacinta Price that's irrelevant but Susan Ley and the Liberal Party they don't talk about things that are relevant to the electorate. .

So I never used the 85% figure. JD tried to tie it to me anyway.

Then when I insist that I never used or believed it, he says I'm moving the goalposts.

Struth!!.

As to Kirk, he was a unique bred who recognised political difference and tried to argue it through rather than fight it through... and he was killed for it. And then those whose only form of counter-argument is violence or supporting violence, tried to silence him. They think they've won but, as usual, they're wrong

mhaze,

Do you think if you wait long enough, your audience will forget what happened?

//So I never used the 85% figure. JD tried to tie it to me anyway.//

You keep acting like typing “85%” is the only thing that counts - as though you didn’t echo its implication loud and clear:

“That Indian immigrants overwhelmingly vote ALP is established.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23646#400136

That’s what I challenged - the underlying narrative, not just a number. Disproving that isn’t “moving goalposts,” it’s addressing the goal you yourself aimed at.

As for Charlie Kirk, no one here said he deserved what happened. What I said - and still stand by - is that he amplified outrage, tribalism, and bad-faith framing for years. That you now want to cast him as a gentle unifier who was “killed for civil debate” is historical fan fiction.

We can condemn violence without rewriting reality.

If your side has to invent martyrdoms to feel righteous, maybe it’s time to reconsider the storyline.