In novels of older times, there were drunks, fat people, neurotics, nasty men, grumpy people, bigots, racists, narcissists, philanderers, cruel people with thick fingers. I'm told Dickens was good.

Often a lot of these characteristics were in the same person.

After the great lefty PC revolution has been successful, I wonder what the novels of the future will look like.

Once everyone has been re-educated, to never joke at another's expense, to be nice to animals, to eat a nutritional diet, to share their feelings, to be a good role model, to live humbly; un-'trapped' by 'consumer culture', to have short showers, to recycle, to say no to drugs, to drive safely, to be vegetarian, to worship women, what will the 'characters' of novels be like?

What will they do that is in any way interesting? Human? What kind of petty complaints and 'knowing' cynicism will fill the letters pages of the Herald?

Any tips on the future inhabitants once the do-gooders have re-educated every citizen who was speeding through traffic talking dirty to his mistress while chewing on a grain fed meat fast food product while swearing racist abuse at other drivers as grease dripped onto his beer gut and pornographic magazine on his lap?

And if you don't see my problem, you just don't understand. You don't know how you are enslaved, and how 'growth' is unsustainable and how the big corporations are duping everyone and how the rodent was mean and tricky and how....

if only people could just see!

And be more like me!

They say.

But why would anyone want that. If you're constantly on about wanting to eradicate every little idiosyncrasy that makes people... people, do you not therefore just hate people?

Is the biggest fear that they can actually 'see', they just don't agree? Or they don't care? Or they have different values?

Maybe the guilt you feel for being human needn't be purged by preaching to others.

Maybe they see you quietly at home after your sneaky 2 (and a half!) minute shower, still not clean, still wanting what you haven't got.

Listening to the radio news now or reading the waffle that gets published by the Yahoo!7 news that they force onto us everytime we check our email has become such a comedy act thesedays. Hardly any need to get sloshed and wasted to see the funny side ... but it helps soothe the pain.

The political bias in so many articles' terminology where 'woman arrested for drug-trafficking' is now replaced with 'mother of nn detained by evil foreign customs predators on holiday' and anyone who gets charged with jaywalking gets their full name and photograph published even before the verdict is decided are just a couple of random examples.

Let's hope that fiction never has to become as strange as 'the truth' has. Twain's and Orwell's works will always be around at the book exchange to help us get back to reality at night when we switch off the electronics and head for the bed, hopefully.

Dear Houellie,

What will be "left?"

Stories that are marvellous, humourous, powerful,
disturbing, illuminating, everything one might
want in a good read - will always exist

Will we miss puerile, emotionally challenged ar*e holes .....I doubt it.
Sadly there will be individuals who relish circling the toilet bowl.

What's your point Houlley?

You are doing exactly what you disdain. Giving a point of view. If we all thought the same or delivered our message in a way just to satisfy you how boring and bland would we all be? The very antithesis of your message.

We all preach, we are all opinionated and we are all hypocritical some times. That is being human.

Nothing has changed through the ages - except thankfully kids don't have to plough through five pages of Dickens describing a fire place or a window dressing.

Victimology was worse in the olde times. Think 'Tess of the Dubervilles'. In fact in modern literature there is much more a positive empowerment (another modern term) of people as they demonstrate some independence and strength of character.

I might not like the free trade and unsustainable growth fanatics and I think they are wrong otherwise my opinion would be different. Get the dilemma. You can either voice a contrary opinion or not - it is your choice - but accept that not all people think the same and everyone thinks they are right.

Ideology doesn't matter, Left or Right we are all flawed and imperfect. We are all manipulated even if we don't always see it.

Perhaps these opposing and contrary views help maintain some sort of imperfect muddled balance for the most part that occasionally throughout history might see the pendulum swing slightly more one way or the other depending on current trends.

As for political correctness, give us some credit. We may not have the absurdity of characters as in a Dickens, a Shakespeare or a Chaucer but we do have many a politically incorrect media to choose from - The Chaser, The IT Crowd and Hungry Beast.

Even Dan Brown gave the Catholic Church a politically incorrect run for their money via the Da Vinci Code.

There is plenty of individuality and free speech remaining it just depends what we choose to see. The left think the media is right wing and the right think it left wing - something gives huh?

All this "politically correct" stuff is just manufactured and misguided nonsense.

It's probably a way of imposing social restrictions and self-censorship on society for reasons unknown.

Where did it come from? Who started it and where has it ever been legislated as law?

Show me somebody who has ever been jailed, arrested or even charged for saying something deemed to be Politically Incorrect.

Anybody been scandalised or been sued by any "victims"?

I am entirely free to call a "visually impaired" person blind or refer to somebody in a wheelchair as being crippled. It's a mere statement of fact and not an attack on anybody.

If it's deemed tasteless then it probably says more about me than about them but it's certainly not illegal.

Politely incorrect maybe, but politically incorrect - no.

To give this phoney notion any more credence than it deserves is taking the "politically correct" option.

Howler: << Any tips on the future inhabitants once the do-gooders have re-educated every citizen who was speeding through traffic talking dirty to his mistress while chewing on a grain fed meat fast food product while swearing racist abuse at other drivers as grease dripped onto his beer gut and pornographic magazine on his lap?

[...]

if only people could just see!

And be more like me! >>

Perhaps charitably, I hadn't imagined our Howler as being quite so dysfunctional.

Seriously - I think it very much depends on the kinds of novel you read.

Wobbles; Show me somebody who has ever been jailed, arrested or even charged for saying something deemed to be Politically Incorrect.

There's the guy who was recently charged in Alice for wearing a shirt with a racist statement. It's the same as saying it!

It is known that in some hospitals and uni's that one can't ask for a black coffee, it's either 'with or without milk'.

Or what about the dwarf throwing events held in the pubs back in he early 90's.

The dwarfs had a ball, the participants had a ball, the pubs 'cleaned up' so as to say, but the 'do-godders' put a stop to it because they just had to stick their noses where they didn't belong.

PC'isum is like a religion, they just can't help but ram their crap down our throats whether we like it or not.

Believe what you want, it's a free country, well. 'it was', but before they go changing our world, they should first ask if we are unhappy with the way it is

"It is known that in some hospitals and uni's that one can't ask for a black coffee, it's either 'with or without milk'."

I bet you really believe that don't you?

Did you ever find that left-handed sharpening steel they asked you to get when you were an apprentice?

Kyle Sanderland was suspended for 2 weeks for suggesting that Magda needed a stay in a concentration camp to get to goal weight.

His reference to concentration camps might be offensive to Jews and fat people. This was PC gone mad.

Mostly the people that complained were niether fat nor Jewish, but were outraged on their behalf.

What a bunch of pansies.

examinator,

It's always toilets with you. I haven't heard human excrement for a while though, you're slipping. You're a fine example of what I'm talking about. You really really hate people.

pelican,

'Ideology doesn't matter, Left or Right we are all flawed and imperfect.'

It's more than that. It's an innate hatred of all things human. People's flaws are interesting and are what makes people people. The right embraces human endeavour and self interest and individuality, the left embraces 'make them all stop buying McMansions' 'you're not 'really happy' you cant be I know', 'Stop kids watching tele', 'don't smoke', 'Australians are all racist', 'If you only 'understood' you are a victim of blah blah blah'.

To me the left are the ones wanting to constrain humans and don't like humans very much, patronises people, and doesn't give them credit for making their own choices. The whining about everything, the 'Big Business' is scum. These Big Corporations are made up of people. Some nice, some not so nice. The only people the right seem to have disdain for are dole bludgers. And that's only because they don't want to pay for them. So, granted, the right can be unsympathetic, but the left are the ones who really hate people.

The left by far do the majority of the complaining about how people are choosing to live their lives. Then we have the Earth worship where saving the trees and animals comes first and thinking of humans as a scourge on the Earth, terms like human excrement (Exam).

'There is plenty of individuality and free speech remaining it just depends what we choose to see.'

My point is, if the left were to have what they want, to win, what would be left of genuine humanity? What colour would be left? What would be 'left' to whine about?

wobbles,

'I am entirely free to call a "visually impaired" person blind'
Only if you do it in private. Otherwise you will have to have a press conference and apologise to save your career.

CJ,

'I hadn't imagined our Howler as being quite so dysfunctional.'

That surprises me.

'I think it very much depends on the kinds of novel you read.'

Dirty Havana Trilogy?

Shadow Minister,

Fancy a 'Creole' Biscuit? This is so funny...
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26280538-5007146,00.html

"Warming to his theme, Watson, a one-time Socialist Alternative candidate for the Senate, continued: "This is the same kind of thought that underpinned horrific regimes like the Nazis."

The period to which Watson prefers, when humanity was measured by white blood content, is apparently the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, which also produced a number of other words, such as "black", "white", "gyroscope" and "fish" to name but a few.

Coles tried to argue that the name was attempting to evoke images of the famous Louisiana cuisine rather than, say, ethnic genocide.

This was perhaps because the latter, focus groups had shown, tended to have a dampening effect on sales. "

This race thing really bemuses me. CJ's always calling everyone a racist (except him of course, other people just cant 'see' they are racist).

I'd never eat such a racist cookie myself.

I bet you really believe that don't you?

Unfortunately many hospitals are PC crazy.

There have been sexual harassment casses simply because a guy looked at a nurse while they were in the elivator.

And yes, I do beleive that. There was a case some years back in a uni in sydney were they refussed to serve a 'black coffee' as it was deemed offencive.

As I say, it'a a joke!

wobbles wrote 'Show me somebody who has ever been jailed, arrested or even charged for saying something deemed to be Politically Incorrect.'

Frederick Toben

Ah yes, Austin Powerless - who refers to the Holocaust as the "Holohoax", as I recall.

While Toben's penalty was actually for contempt of court, rather than the execrable garbage he espouses, I think you have a point in this case. I've never agreed with laws that penalise people for saying what they think, even if their publications serve to provide ideological grounds for other idiots to commit hate crimes. I'd much rather the intellectual effluent was exposed like an open sewer, rather than concealed in the ideological cesspits to which they retreat when PC holds sway.

That way everybody is else is confronted with the problem, rather than being able to pretend that it no longer exists.

Uncoincidentally, websites like OLO help in this regard.

"I'd much rather the intellectual effluent was exposed like an open sewer, rather than concealed in the ideological cesspits to which they retreat when PC holds sway." - spot on.

On the broader topic - I suspect that some work places have gone overboard at times to protect themselves. It was brought home recently when the email invite to a staff christmas event was mostly taken up with links to several policies which might apply (sexual harassment, use of alcohol etc). Policies which are readily available on our intranet, policies which there are posters around the building about and which most staff had attended a training session on at some point. The links added little and did much to detract from the appeal of the event. It seemed rather sad that someone though it was a good idea to post the links with the invite.

R0bert

Dear Houellie,

The wonder of this life is that people,
even the worst kind of people, can
surprise you...

What creates human weaknesses, and what prevents us
from improving our choices in life?
When will the roads we choose be paved with
concrete instead of quicksand?
When will we stop feeling guilty for who we are?
The thing about enlightenment is that one can't
go back to the warm safe place that ignorance keeps
so impenetrable for us.

Houlley

You paint a pretty dim picture of the Left. You write about the Left as would Dickens, as an absurd caricature of an anti-human endeavour, bleeding heart, all corporations are baddies figure with little redeeming features.

Yes there are good and bad people in any organisation, whether in business or in social service and it is those people that might give their organisation/group it's essential flavour or reputation.

One cannot forget, though that corporations have to show a profit for the benefit of shareholders and would-be investors and sometimes these profits are got at the expense of other social considerations or other values we might also hold dear (in my view anyway).

There are some corporations that demonstrate a greater duty of care to their employees/customers but there is room for improvement. Do you think service has improved over the last 20 years or got worse?

As I see it, from an essentially middle/slight Left leaning (if we must talk labels) is the Left invite human endeavour, creativity, innovation but not via exploitation or at the expense of other values or social wellbeing.

You cannot lump the left all in one basket equally as one cannot lump the right.

Don't forget the Right can be very negative and dismal about any talk of fairer industrial relations legislation, there are those that call sustainable ideas as being akin to Nazism, that any criticism of free market economics as akin to Communism, or those with environmental or ecological ideas as "dark green" tree dwellers.

These extreme Rightists paint a pretty dim and negative attitude as well as an unwillingness to look outside their perceived perfect square.

Happily, most people do not sit at those extreme ends ideologically. We are usually a blend of sometimes eclectic ideas and views that don't categorize any of us as wholly belonging to one category or another. Most humans are more complex than that which is why generally I don't like the Left/Right divide, it is obstructive to positive change and pragmatic Third Way thinking even though that can be criticised as Nice Capitalism.

Foxy,

Who are the worst kind of people and how have they surprised you? I don't put people into good and bad kind. I firmly believe there's no such thing as a nice person. Or a person with a good sense of humour. Just people you get on with and people you don't. Maybe nice people are people who get on with lots of people. I wouldn't like to spread myself so thin. Maybe I need more depth.

pelican,

Perhaps the left are whining more because the right are winning. What I'm saying is the right are winning because people are humans. And if the left were to somehow win, what would humans have changed too? I gather the left want humans to change to these fluffy little bunnies giving free hugs. But I don't find that kind of human very interesting. It doesn't ring true either, so I think that creates conflict in the average lefty and their good intentioned wants for the world.

Dear Houellie,

What I referred
to as the "worst kind of people," was simply those
people who choose to ignore the knowledge that what
they are doing is wrong, and do it anyway.

How have these people surprised me? Occasionally,
by doing the unexpected

You may have a point Houlley. The pendulum has swung to the Right over the last 20 years, and that might explain some of the discontent. The winners don't need to complain I guess.

I think the Right did the same after Whitlam was elected and it was commonly thought it was the end of the world as they knew it.

There is certainly a growing cynicism for politics and our politicians but I don't think this is confined to the Right or Left.

No matter how discontented one might be the biggest thing is to remain positive in RL. Nothing comes from wallowing or the woe is me and much of it really does not matter - we still have some choices in this country and one can choose not to conform or to buy into what we don't like whether it be rampant consumerism, debt, waste.

The best things often happen at community or local level with little input from pollies.

For example I love the Buy Local campaigns that have sprung up all over the place. Local markets selling local organic produce for those that don't want to buy imported food and the increasing interest in backyard vegetables.

Not everyone's thing I know but my point is that there are still choices even if one might lament the increase in foreign food imports and implications for biosecurity, farmers etc.

Houellebecq

What a good excuse for a rant this thread is. You've outdone yourself.

You've also revealed the deep extent to which your long list of pet hates must gnaw away at you.

<< Maybe the guilt you feel for being human needn't be purged by preaching to others. >>

The Left doesn't have a monopoly on so-called 'preaching'. In fact when we consider the growing influence of Rightwing Christian fundamentalism and the 'preaching' here of the likes of Runner, I don't think many would seriously accuse those on the Left of being the 'preachers'.

The Right has been 'preaching' the promised glories of free markets for decades now. Most have gone quiet of course since the global financial crash. They know their hallowed free-for-all has been revealed as the flimsy deck of cards and illusory creator of real wealth many on the Left argued it was right from the start.

<< ... still wanting what you haven't got. >>

In my experience, it's those on the Right who are the ones most bitten by the urge to acquire. The more they have, the more they want.

<< The left by far do the majority of the complaining about how people are choosing to live their lives. >>

Maybe that's because the Left can see the path of self destruction the Right has set us on. None are so happy, as those who are too blind to see.

<< Maybe I need more depth. >>

Wow, you sure got that one right.

You may be moving into dangerous territory here, Houellebecq.

>>If you're constantly on about wanting to eradicate every little idiosyncrasy that makes people... people, do you not therefore just hate people? Is the biggest fear that they can actually 'see', they just don't agree? Or they don't care? Or they have different values? Maybe the guilt you feel for being human needn't be purged by preaching to others... It's an innate hatred of all things human.<<

I think I can help.

"Transference occurs when a person takes the perceptions and expectations of one person and projects them onto another person. They then interact with the other person as if the other person is that transferred pattern."

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/psychoanalysis/concepts/transference.htm

I have noticed this before in some of your posts. You project this image onto the "you" figure, as in your little diatribes above. You then proceed to demolish them for their follies, with put-downs and sneers.

My suspicion is that you actually hate yourself, for a number of reasons - probably not precisely those traits that you then accuse the "other you" of exhibiting, but in all likelihood close to them. You then experience a form of guilt-expurgation, by setting up this figure whom you dislike so much, and allowing yourself to throw mud at it.

Possibly it is also a form of catharsis, in which by articulating and recognizing those things that you hate yourself for, you undergo a form of ritual purging. Notably, you use any dissent - "no, it's not really that bad" - as a spur to self-flagellate just that much harder - "yes yes, I'm such a naughty boy!"

There will be no charge for the session on this occasion.

Dear Pelly,

You're right - Houellie has raised some
interesting questions.

I'm currently reading Goldie Hawn's biography
where she says:

"As we grow up our lives become so cluttered.
We become shackled with responsibility, and bogged down
with work and kids and the daily rituals and problems
of everday lives. We forget how to play...

When we were children, we lived entirely in the moment.
We knew no greater pleasure than to jump in a pile of
leaves, ride bikes through muddy puddles or make
crazy faces at each other with mouths full of ice cream.
And tomorrow was only tomorrow...

Somewhere along the way, we grow up and suddenly feel
self conscious doing all these things, perhaps
because the adults around us start to tell us,
"Act your age!" But what does that have to do with
play? How can we relate a number to a full-on expression of
abandonment and joy?"

I guess what we need to do instead of wallowing, "Woe
is me," is unleash the child within us from time to
time, and watch how it unleashes the child in those
around us. As Einstein said, "A person starts to live
only when he can live outside himself."

Houllebeqc “But why would anyone want that. If you're constantly on about wanting to eradicate every little idiosyncrasy that makes people... people, do you not therefore just hate people?”

Yes I know it is sad.

I would rather live in an imperfect world full of eccentric misfits than the bland, uniform and sterile planet of the socialist’s politically correct model ( where all the tall poppies have been mown down to uniform height and all is leveled and we run around all in identical Chairman Mao suits). In fact I will end up dying with the following words being uttered from my mouth, as a warning to any one with wit and reason to listen to my passing wisdom of -

Don’t trust do-gooders and those who believe in social equality or government. They represent the worst excesses of hypocrisy and habitual lying.

“Chaos” is the most effective social organisation model (only because it does not pretend to understand the multiplicity of relationships stemming from all those independent and interdependent variables ).

Have faith in yourself and your gut.

Be ever prepared to give the finger to those who tell you that you are wrong and misguided.

Live by libertarian values, you may not always be right but you will, on a % basis, be better advised by relying on yourself than some remote government appointed expert, more interested in the promotion of his own ego and salary package, than you (recalling McBride, the Chook Eggs is bad campaign and Margarine v Butter).

Remember, don’t waste good hate time on those who do not influence your life or lifestyle, save it all the self-opinionated, nanny-state advocates who do.

As for “what will be left” – not sure there is a double meaning intended, although Bronwyn seems to think there is (which probably means there isn’t) there but if there is it will be associated with

Left overs
Left off
Left out
Left behind

So if you really want to be right…

Simply, be right and support others of the right.

Because, you know it makes sense.

Oh it does Col,

I'm a fast reforming leftie. I figure it is a natural maturing process to go from the left to the right. Wisdom.

Foxy,

There is no right and wrong, thinking makes it so. runner would love that one. There are actions and reactions, choices and consequences.

pelican,

Yep, winners are grinners. The rest of your argument, I agree. I've bent many a whinging lefties ear about the fact there are many choices, and many people choosing things because that's what choice is for.

Bronwyn,

How cheap to jump at my self effacing jibe. My depth is unknown to you, and your speculation merely exposes your judgemental nature.

pericles,

How can you notice transference when you don't know the slightest thing about me? As to the rest, you obviously attribute much more depth to my character than Bronwyn does. It's nice to know I've got some of you thinking in Layers. I do try to mangle many themes into my rants, and I try to keep people guessing like you are. I also leave the dots there for people to join.

But it's a game you're unlikely to win. I can change the rules at any time and be whomever I want. Be under no illusion, you are all here purely for my amusement. As I have said before, I am a small child poking at a carcass.

Foxy,

'You're right - Houellie has raised some
interesting questions. '
And that's the name of the game isn't it. I've had yourself and robert more recently expressing how they try not to like me. What's not to like? I create drama and entertainment, with a message in there somewhere for people to find.

'We forget how to play...'
Speak for yourself Goldie. The amount of fun I have playing with you lot I cant tell you. Each time a poster says I'm childish, I beam with pride.

'As Einstein said, "A person starts to live
only when he can live outside himself."'

Very smart. Maybe he was like Newton and into the Mercury.

Dear Houellie,

There must be a limit to how many times
you can tell us how great you are, and
what an inspiration you are, but I guess
you're not there yet.

As for Einstein - yes he was smart.
He said that, "you have to learn
the rules of the game and then you
have to play better than anyone else."

Still not everyone can be as smart
as Einstein. Some are simply hung
like Einstein, and smart as horses!

The examples I was referring to were the ridiculous day-to-day ones that many seem to accept as if they are now part of our legal system.

Those other examples of inciting racial hatred are a bit outside that scope, just like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

You can do it but you should expect there will be consequences.

Not quite the same thing as asking for "black coffee".

What the self righteous right wing fails to realise is that they also practice political correctness to exactly the same degree as the left.

The right sees their own attitudes and social norms as natural behaviour that's not concocted in any way. Whereas they see the left's attitudes as unnatural, concocted behaviour.

And the left sees their own attitudes and social norms as natural behaviour that's not concocted in any way. Whereas they see the right's attitudes as unnatural, concocted behaviour.

Both sides equally practice political correctness. And both sides when given the opportunity enact laws and regulations that conform to their particular version of political correctness.

Which side has the upper hand depends on which historical times you're looking at. In the late 19th century/early 20th century the conservative right had a firm hold on dictating it's version of political correctness. In the 1920's/30s the left had a firm hold. In the late 1940's/1950's the right regained a very firm hold. Since the 1960's the left has had a steady resurgence.

Both sides practice political correctness. Both side do it equally. Both sides don't recognise the opposite side as being correct. Both sides think they have the moral upper hand.

Houellebecq and Col Rouge show by their contributions here that they firmly believe in and practice political correctness. But like the usual assortment of rabid righties and lefties, these two charmers only see the opposite side as political correct. Basically with them it's a case of "I'm right and if you don't agree with me then you're wrong". That's life.

Haha Foxy, but Pericles reckons I hate myself.

smithy,

Please give some examples of right wing political correctness. The left wing is more politically correct as they are in the business of 'protecting' the disadvantaged from ever being offended. Here I was thinking the right were the cold hearted dog eat dog lot, who care about money over the environment, the disabled, who condone racism, are against gays, who are deeply misogynistic. Who do the right wing protect from being offended? What need do they have for political correctness? They just let people be people, where birds of a feather flock together and let people have their irrational hatreds and prejudices. They're law of the jungle that lot, no political correctness at all. If the market decides it's ok, they're happy as Larry.

'Both sides think they have the moral upper hand'
Who said anything about morals? I just said there was no such thing as right and wrong. It's about what is more realistic.

'Houellebecq and Col Rouge show by their contributions here that they firmly believe in and practice political correctness. '

Yep. You wont catch me eating that racist Creole biscuit!

All nonsense. The people who say they are left wing are not. They have no clue what left wing is about and are in the same camp as the religous right with all their extreme moralising. Left wing? Nope. No way Jose. The left was stolen by the fashionistas, the rich, the middle class as the new way of white superiority. They have done nothing but damage to the left wing cause, in fact disenfranchised the working class and broken the collective into hyphenated cultures and labels to reduce their strength and allow capitalism to flourish. The Indigenous have suffered more under it and the migrants treated like accessories..oh I have a Chinese friend. Why not just say I have a friend? Why emphasise the race? Like I am so holy I will let them be my friend ( provided of course they have complied with the religion and that is to be a good capitalist because we really do not the poor to sully our neighbourhoods and reduce possible capital gains).

It is always them speaking on behalf of those they pretend to protect. They never allow them to speak for themselves forever enslaving them to victimhood and second class citizenry.

Left? No. Simply the same old, same old white superiority. Still full of hate for someone as evidenced on these boards. They must hate at all time, must blame someone else but never themslves. High indulgent and highly offensive to the real issue that confront humanity.

Dear Houellie,

"There's no such thing as right or wrong?"

Really?

Therefore messages that are dressed up to
attract us with simple slogans aren't smoke
screens behind which lurk philosophies that
are both difficult to swallow and certain to
cause this country a good deal of harm, should
they be taken seriously?

Messages like, "There are terrorists among boat people!"
"Emissions Trading Scheme will Destroy Australia's
Economy," "Humans do not contribute to Global
Warming," and the list goes on.

Do you really believe that there's nothing wrong
with an ideology of greed, that leaves no room for
social equity, compassion or the idea of an
egalitarian society?
Do you really believe that people should either
sink or swim. And if they sink, well that's too bad.
Because welfare is not good for business?
Do you believe that big business has the right to do
whatever it wants in this country?

Well, I guess the inevitable expansion of capital
with its attendant social inequality and
natural destruction brooks no interference and
allows for no moral judgements.

Well there are terrorists among boat people as Canada can attest. There have been members of the LTTE allowed in western countries as that how the LTTE was funded. Even a high profile billionaire hedge fund manager in New York is being sued for funding terrorism. As soldiers of war cannot claim asylum, as terrorists in Sri Lanka they cannot request a passport it is ony common sense that it could be possible as Tamils fly in and out of Colombo every day in great numbers, freely. So support people movements that will provide direct competition for welfare and jobs for the poorest of our nation. Very right wing, certainly not left that closes borders to those that seek social welfare as it undoes it in short amount of time. Porous migration movements are favoured by caitalistic societies as a source of labour that can be exploited with the cost of health care and social security. You cannot have both in any great numbers.

Climate change. It is more rich against poor. The rich can afford to address the issue as they have done the damage, the poor that have not done any damage get punished for it and prevented from the same oppportunities so become disenfranchised. This happens in Indigenous communities all the time. They keep land prisitine but then get punished because the whites want to save the planet, well the bits they never got their hands on to begin with.

Not left wing. self indulgence.

Humans do not contribute to global warming. This is science, hardly ideology from left or right. If big busness suffers then so does the worker so all embracing.

The two are not mutually exclusive, Houellebecq.

>>Dear Houellie, There must be a limit to how many times
you can tell us how great you are...<<

>>Haha Foxy, but Pericles reckons I hate myself.<<

In fact, they are almost certain to go hand-in-hand.

It would be impossible to continue a campaign of internal self-loathing such as yours, without succumbing to the overwhelming need to tell the world that you are, in fact, a wonderful person, deep down, really.

To do otherwise would lead to total disintegration in a very short space of time.

So, keep up the therapy.

>>I can change the rules at any time and be whomever I want.<<

It may be time to do just that.

Foxy,

'Therefore messages that are dressed up to
attract us '
Do they attract you Foxy? If they attract others, isn't that the business of others? Or are you 'right' and must re-educate them?

'There are terrorists among boat people!'
There may be. I think it's unlikely. What's wrong with saying that though?

'Emissions Trading Scheme will Destroy Australia's
Economy,'
It could be damaging. Just think of all the bureaucrats, and carbon trading speculation. Economics is the dismal science after all. Who's to know the future?

'Humans do not contribute to Global
Warming,'
One day scientists may come to this conclusion. You never know.

'Do you really believe that there's nothing wrong
with an ideology of greed, that leaves no room for
social equity, compassion or the idea of an
egalitarian society?'
It's not an ideology I would subscribe to, but that doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. Besides, I don't think you can achieve equality of outcomes that's for sure.

'Do you really believe that people should either
sink or swim. And if they sink, well that's too bad.
Because welfare is not good for business?'
No. Where did I say that.

'Do you believe that big business has the right to do
whatever it wants in this country?'
It doesn't. There are many regulations.

So passionate Foxy. When and why did you decide I held these views? You know I heard once that the left and right wing are actually after the same goals, just like to get there in a different way. The right think the poor will be advantaged by the rich giving them jobs, and buying stuff the poor can make. The left would rather take all that money off the rich and give it to the poor for free. Evidence has shown a mixture is possibly most effective.

Missus,

'Nope. No way Jose. The left was stolen by the fashionistas, the rich, the middle class as the new way of white superiority.'
There's some truth in that. I love the Chardonnay socialists.

BTW: It really seems you hate white people, or white men at least?

I guess I have distaste for extremes of wealth. I guess in our society that would be mainly white men. Though at the base is hatred of excessive capitalism and the distortion of truth money brings. Money is a drug more addictive than sugar. I do not think people are naturally racist but race is used to promote disharmony. Class is the real issue. Money makes for conformity to a corporate culture. Multiculture for eg does not exist in the higher levels of wealthy society, maybe multi racial but never multicultural. Multicultural is for the poor, an enclave that provides a refuge of acceptance when rejected by the wealthy.

An example.

The dwarf races. Some dwarfs had a laugh and earned some money in some harmless fun. The PC brigade comes out as it is offensive. So dwarf cannot earn a few bob because it offends those that then continue on the stage a "world class event", The Melbourne Cup. This world class event that has morphed over the years to be all about money. World class events are offensive to many of us, does that not count anymore? The crass display of wealth. Where ladies are showing off hats that cost more than the average punters weekly wage? Where entry fee discriminates against the average family? Same as the AFL grand final, an event for the wealthy to mix and mingle, not for the die hard footie fan anymore. This is not offensive? That breakfast on the bridge, 1 million dollars for breakfast? Not offensive to old age pensioners that try to scramble together enough for a packet of cereal? Now more and more the Sydney fireworks are for paying guests only. Not offensive?

Everytime the working class get behind a tradition it is stolen along with our politicl aprty. That is offensive.

I don't know, I think we are offended at all the wrong things. Maybe we should bring into fashion jokes about the silly hat brigade and how shallow it all is. Wonder what PC would have to say about that.

H has been selectively reading my posts again ;-)... from a philosophical perspective there is no such thing as an absolute, universal Right or Wrong. They are determined by societal culture and religious mores.

However, as usual, he confuses the level on which he wants to discuss.
From practical day to day level Foxy is correct. I can't see the point of trying to argue in a court his point as a defence.

His argument labours under the contradictory assumption that absolutes exist in a societal situation i.e. The right (sic) of freedom of speech.

In reality all "rights" are for all practical sense and reason are conditional as being aspirational and logically unattainable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get nearer to an absolute as possible.

To make the point a number of supporting posters throw pejoratively intended left/right, PC labels around like a flower girl on LSD. Asserting an absolute link with these labels with consideration, compassion, common sense, enlightened self interest and just good manners. Which is demonstrably inconsistent, with their own STATED values, none would admit to the antithesis of the above behaviours.

Therefore it boils down to these posters demanding to be the arbiters of societal mores and what constitutes plain ordinary manners, in order to avoid the consequential societal opprobrium for their preferred (race to the bottom) behaviour.

The questions that gives me amusement are "why"? Easier ? Less effort on their part? To claim unwarranted but desired superiority?

To that end it is a sad truism that each successive generation tend to both believe THEY have the ULTIMATE answers rather than building on the positive achievements and avoiding the same mistakes of the past.

BTW H you are what you do, Foxy is more than competent to assess your depth. Simply put, If you murder some one you are a murderer, if you are superficial and boorish then that is you too. It is Your potential that is the undiscovered territory, which I have hope for.

Examinator says "if you murder someone you are a murderer, if you are superficial and boorish then that is you too".

Why are you making judgments and absolute statements examinator?

One man's murderer may be another man's freedom fighter, one man's superficial and boorish nature in your eyes may be considered witty and interesting by someone else.

haha pericles you are giving me a big smile on my face.

'To do otherwise would lead to total disintegration in a very short space of time.'

I'm holding up pretty well.

You do seem quite fascinated with me, I'm loving the attention.

So which is it? Have I transferred my lefty leanings to 'others' so as to put them (myself) down, or have I created a super righty caricature because I just really want to be hated for my right wing leanings? Or do I just assess the political leaning of posters and say anything to get a reaction?

By the way you're not very clever, just paying more attention. I admitted/alluded to some of your theories in the suits thread. I like to have multiple themes, and who could resist but to add in some of one's self, as writers do, but is it a true reflection or just used for effect. Do I use the theme to reveal or do I change to suit the theme, playing a part within my Houellebecq part? It's fun isn't it.

pontificator reckons I'm a narcissist, Fractelle reckons I'm a sociopath, you reckon I'm full of transferrence, CJ reckons I'm dysfunctional. It's amazing the amount of free psychological advice and interest I can generate. You should all have a conference!

pontificator,

'it boils down to these posters demanding to be the arbiters of societal mores and what constitutes plain ordinary manners'
No way would I take away yours and Foxy's job of OLO etiquette police!

'Foxy is more than competent to assess your depth'
I've never met her. Do you think you really know Tom Cruise? John Howard? Really? I thought you were smarter than that.

'It is Your potential that is the undiscovered territory, which I have hope for.'
I have hope for your potential too. Though I doubt it will be discovered until you wipe the veneer of patronising arrogance you carry around as a shield. I honestly really fear for any poor kid who has been counselled by you.

Missus,

I'm starting to really like you.

Smithy456 “What the self righteous right wing”

Actually the "left" have the monopoly on “smug self-righteousness”. We, on the right are more content to paddle our own canoes… and leave the self-righteous left and their acolytes of political correctness back behind, in our wake.

“The right sees their own attitudes and social norms as natural behaviour that's not concocted in any way”

That is because I do not have to consider you in any of them..

Whereas, “the left” needs to form a committee to advise it on the correct way to form a committee (RSI wrist claim).

“Houellebecq and Col Rouge show by their contributions here that they firmly believe in and practice political correctness”

I believe in the rule of law. Maybe your self-righteous insight allows you greater knowledge to me than of that which I know myself… but be advised, “political correctness” does not get a mention on my list of “must-be”

For instance, I still call a chairman “chairman”, not “chair person” and I open doors for ladies (manners do matter) but see no merit in the “affirmative action” twaddle, which seeks to guarantee there are equal numbers of men and women in parliament or on company boards.

“Basically with them it's a case of "I'm right and if you don't agree with me then you're wrong". That's life.”

Again, you are wrong and you are merely projecting your own limited comprehension to matters beyond your experience or understanding, -
It is a trait common among ‘lefties’.

It is not that I am right.. it is that I have faith in my own assessments and bear the consequences of my own errors which improves the probability of my “rightness”.

And regarding examinators “from a philosophical perspective there is no such thing as an absolute, universal Right or Wrong.”

What a load of sanctimonious tosh.

From any perspective, philosophical or otherwise, the grand proctologist must rate as the absolute of pomposity, albeit in a an ever changing universe.

Oh dearie, dearie me Col. You're sooooooooooooo politically correct. Almost your every phrase, every thought, every attitude just exudes political correctness. You're just as self righteously politically correct as the self righteous politically correct left. The difference is you practice right wing political dogma and correctness, whereas the left practices left wing political dogma and correctness.

You're just as much a non-thinking, non-aware, follow the dogma, sanctimonious old fart as any pathetic, politically correct leftie. Col, you're pathetic; almost everything you write here is straight out of the Righteous Right Bible. Learn to think for yourself buddy.

Smithy456 “.You're just as much a non-thinking, non-aware, follow the dogma, sanctimonious old fart as any pathetic, politically correct leftie. Col, you're pathetic; almost everything you write here is straight out of the Righteous Right Bible. Learn to think for yourself buddy.”

You know little more than nothing about me, what I do, my interests or involvements.

Yet, like most leftie scabs, you are immediately subscribe to some amateur, small minded, instantly judgmental analysis of me, my motives, even my reading habits and thought processes.

Obviously, you are being deliberately provocative, in that predictable unimaginative and sanctimonious way so popular with the left wing swill.

You represent the sort of incompetents who could not efficiently give away soup from a free kitchen, let alone fulfill even the most junior of supervisory roles in a commercial organization; yet who think they are entitled to dominate the rest of us with their dull, fetid opinions and self aggrandizing posturing.

However, your perspective is understandable. You have nothing of substance to contribute, no basis of knowledge or experience, no imagination of inventiveness; so you try and tear down the views of those who have do have knowledge, experience and an understanding far beyond you’re limited comprehension.

I will treat you gently, for now. If you want to start to think for yourself.. I suggest you read Maslow, although, even after reading him, I truly doubt someone like you has the intellectual capacity or skill to crawl up from the mass of the uneducated swill and onto even the first step.

Now run away, doubtless there is a public urinal somewhere, just waiting for you to clean.

Houlley - love it that we never know for sure if you are toying with us. I tend to take it at face value and then wonder later if I have been sucked in. Oh well...what the heck.

Foxy
Goldie Hawn's biography sounds interesting and it is true as we get older we forget how to play. I think from tomorrow I am going to play a bit more. :)

The missus has got it right. There is no real Left in Australia any more only the remnant influence of the Left on social democracy such as social welfare and the industrial relations. It is only the extremists on the Right that think there is a Left and it is pretty loosely defined. That is why it is superfluous to talk about Left and Right to some extent.

Ha ha ha, oh dearie me Col your last post was simply hilarious. It's a great insight into how self righteous lefties and self righteous righties are prisoners of their dogmas and can't think for themselves.

So there we have the politically correct, self righteous Col upset because someone sees through him. He self righteously complains, "you know little more than nothing about me, what I do, my interests and involvements" as if to suggest because of this he should not be criticised.

But guess what?

He knows nothing about me, what I do, my interests and involvements.

So what does our politically correct Col then do?

He attempts, in all 6 paragraphs of his self righteous post, to do to me what he complains that I'm doing to him.

IT'S COMPLETELY HILARIOUS. Soooooooooooooooo funny!

That sanctimonious leftie Germaine Greer has nothing on our dear old Col when it comes to political correctness and sanctimonious self righteousness.

You'd make a great comedian Col. I tell ya what, forget about Laurel and Hardy. We've got Wilson Tuckey and Col Rouge. What an act!

Dear Pelly,

There's a bloke who dances on the corner
of a busy inner-city intersection and as
people stop at the lights - this bloke
entertains everyone with his dancing.
People usually smile or honk the horns
of their cars - and most end up smiling
as they drive away.

Anyway, one morning, "To hell with it,"
I cried, and opening my car door, I jumped
out, and joined this man. I started to dance
with him. The two of us danced until the lights
changed. Then I dashed back to my car, laughing,
and waved good-bye and went my separate way.

I still see this man on that street corner from
time to time - and I still wave to him as does
everyone else as they drive past.

Life is short - and it's important to remember how
to play.

Only trying to help, Houellebecq.

>>You do seem quite fascinated with me, I'm loving the attention.<<

Fascinated? In a manner of speaking, I guess I am.

More in the sense of observing the mindless-but-purposeful antics of a dung beetle, though, than shiny-eyed adoration.

And of course you love the attention.

It's your defining characteristic.

Pericles
Amen. The interest for me is why?

Col,
With all due respect I suggest you re read your posts with a objective eye and then tell us we don't know a hell of a lot about you. Perhaps I'm a less reticent with details than you but it applies to us all.

As I said you are as you do....Sanctimonious, anti intellectual, intolerant, superficial, rude the lot...you are other things too but you are as accused. It is a nonsense to claim other wise. One can't be something they don't have in them to start with.
I'm still waiting for an objective reasons for any of your opinions other than 'I say so' and regurgitating the justifiably maligned out of date 'mag the dag' (sheep context)
All.
Right,left is nonsense! All people including me are an amalgam of all things, no theoretical 'side' has the monopoly on right and wrong.

To those who see my humanism (a desire to foster a higher standard) as sanctimonious that is a judgment in YOUR eyes. I refer you to my last post in the topic 'Evil'.

Dear Examinator,

It's an interesting take on Col that
you've given us.

His new wife thought she married
Mr Right, obviously before she knew
his first name was always.

I was reading about the Wild Rivers legislation up here in FNQ and came across this speech by Noel Pearson. Even though he is writing with the Cape in my mind his understanding of politics holds much broader appeal. It sounds like he has written on my behalf, even though he didn't, I wish he would! Sums up left/right nicely in Australian context. Middle class CANNOT be left wing. :)

quote from article
In my view, the middle-class left is, by definition, an oxymoron. There is no true middle-class left. It is within the definition of the tradition, an impossible category.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/foraradio/stories/2009/2686843.htm

I cannot post on Wild Rivers article because I have been chatting too much. Relevant for this discussion though I think.

Also I did that political compass test and I am out there with Ghandi. I am so going to heaven!

pontificator,

'With all due respect '

Hahaha. You have zero respect for Col. You just use such statements as a weak attempt to lord over and judge others, but then fall back on silly little disclaimers. The poster child of passive aggressive behaviour.

Arrogance is ... pontificator. It has nothing to do with humanism, and everything to do with quotes like...

'I bet if pushed I could pick the talkers(it's someone else's job mine is to criticism or find sacrificial lambs) from the doers on OLO'

With numerous references on OLO to your volunteer work, amazing counselling and heroic defending of the down trodden, attempting to paint this picture of the altruistic matryr, 'better' than the other posters. Does it ever occur to you that other people, people without the need to blow trumpets and grandstand, quite possibly do just as much if not more for their community than you like to claim you do.

I know who really is doing a lot of 'talking' with zero proof of any actual doing.

'As I said you are as you do....Sanctimonious, anti intellectual, intolerant, superficial, rude the lot...you are other things too but you are as accused.'

As I said, pity any young person being counselled by the likes of you. People can exhibit all sorts of behaviour, and if that behaviour is disagreeable, it's the behaviour that is 'bad' not the person. Judgemental weed.

If you're going to have a go at people, have the guts not to hide behind this pathetic 'with all due respect' crap.