Hasbeen: << CJ, I'm a bigot, with good reason, & proud of it. >>

Of course you're a bigot about some things, and you've always been quite forthright about it. It's one of the things I like about you :)

Mind you, you're quite wrong about having good reason. You can't generalise to an entire ethnicity on the basis of your vicarious experience at the hands of a few louts. While your anger is understandable, it doesn't justify your bigotry.

Which is, of course, the kind of stuff we love to argue about all the time at OLO. Graham's quite right that "PC" has never been a particularly silencing discourse at OLO - my argument was that it doesn't seem to me to prevent the expression of all kinds of non "PC" ideas in the wider arena either. Indeed, Gillard's implied suggestion that it is, is what constitutes her dog-whistle.

I also haven't really noticed anybody trying to shut my old mate Belly up on "PC" grounds. Those who have problems with him tend to object to both his politics and his way of expressing them. While he and I disagree on many things, I haven't noticed that he's held back on expressing his views candidly and certainly wouldn't want him to.

I'm currently reading Waleed Aly's book,
"People like Us." In it he sums things
rather well when he tells us:

"Ultimately, when the chatter of the talking
heads finally stops, when the nonsense of
politically motivated and self-serving conversation
is duly ignored, and when the clutter of endless
analyses is cleared away, we are left with this
one indisputable truth: that we are all human.
This is a powerful realisation if we can truly come
to it. It means that for all our variances, we share
the same emotions, the same impulses, and at the
very deepest level, the same motivations. We, are
none of us, simple personifications of ideology.
We are also complex products of our social and
political histories, our socioeconomic conditions,
our life experiences, our social environments, our
educations. We are individually, and even collectively
capable of giving this noble or evil expression,
but it is never true that entire societies are
virtuous or vile. This much we understand of what
is familiar and dear to us. how much more sense we
could make if we were prepared to concede to others
what we expect for ourselves..."

Foxy

Absolutely correct in my mind. What I find hard to take at times is that some are happy proud to be bigots. i.e. wantonly socially/morally/behaviour retarded and more than willing to abuse, insult, bully others into their regressive perspective.

To me the most contemptible are those that know better but but are prepared to make the whole worse off for personal self gratification i.e. leaders politicians etc.

GY

"...does it work?" That all depends on if you are trying maintain status quo or looking for solutions, resolutions improvement. If your objective is the former then the answer is yes.

If your objective is to be positive (better understanding between those who need it the most), then the answer is no.
You and I know that negotiation between interested parties need agendas and moderation and sticking to the topic.
The Laissez Faire approach (to anything) is without recognition of reality in that all "freedoms" including that of speech, need to be overall positive in effect must have both direction/limitations and entered into in good faith. Clearly many posters don't.

In the final analysis OLO is an niche advertising venture and as such makes "political/commercial" decisions that limit its ability to be a positive (neutral) conduit for in-depth understanding and totally meaningful discussion.

Examinator

You found the words I was looking for. I agree completely.

However, that begs the question - if we are not making any progress towards enlightened communication or even understanding with each other, why do we keep coming back?

I know I have learnt a bit. And, there have been times when I thought I had made a breakthrough and I was understood, only to find on subsequent similar topics, that whomever I thought I had reached was repeating the same old, same old.

OLO is based on adversarial tactics - old as human history. At the other extreme PC simply stifles free expression and is false.

There is, surely, a happy medium, where a person can state an opinion without personal abuse. Until then, any claims that homo sapiens as a species is remotely civilised is a load of rubbish. I am sure that this is what Gillard meant by dispensing with PC and not that every discussion be open to the stereotyping that some think is debate.

We in OLO are no different than real life, maybe we think things out more than some.
RObert you are one who has always been high on my list as a good poster.
Examinator too but I am not going to join in the Cronulla was white Aussie racist rubbish.
Both sides contributed,remember an Innocent stabbed and kicked and our flag torn down from the RSL.
Find me any mainstream religion we need to fear.
My non belief in God is not anti God time and again I say truly religious are mostly good people any religion.
That song, what the world needs now, the one big melting pot, love to see it come about but will not happen religion of one minority says it can not.
I truly have concerns todays multi cultural target is nothing like the post war leap towards greatness we took with help from all over the world.
And want to record my view open debate on this issue is much needed, remember I and those who support my views are not saying we do not care about their fate, we are however saying we care about our country's future.

I would really like to connect with the 'silent majority, here.
I'm quite certain these discussions are watched silently by far more than participate; one only has to look at the number of members.
Of the ones who do participate on a regular basis, how many have ever changed their minds in any fundamental way, due to an OLO discussion?
I know the names of the many writers I generally agree with, and those few who I could never agree on most points, and strangely, I'm far more inclined to respond to an email about the agreeable ones than the disagreeables.
My point is all the contributors are strongly opinionated (no mystery) and firm in their attitudes, so I guess we must all be (unconsciously, perhaps) performing for that silent majority.
When I argue economics with Peter Hume I know full well I will never change his mind, so why do I bother?
Graham, have you ever considered setting up polling on every thread, so the silent ones can at least register a vote?