I was really looking forward to watching
Q and A last night (4/11/2019). Fran Kelly
hosted a panel highlighting the
the Wheeler Centre's feminist ideas, Broadside
Festival, in Melbourne.

An all-woman panel discussed political uprisings,
ageism, violence against women, and so on.

By the time the episode finished my head was reeling.
I found one woman in particular to be very aggressive,
rude, and confrontational. Also her use of foul-language
was not endearing.

All in all there were some positive moments in the discussion
but the over all impression that I got was that I was not
sure that advocating aggression or violence was a solution
to the problems being discussed.

Watching this particular episode clearly showed me that
whether we read the opinions expressed on this forum, or
on the web in general - we do need more scrutiny of
people's voices and opinions. Some can be extreme to say
the least - and need to be questioned.

Good on you, Foxy ! I watched a few minutes mid-way (after Yo-yo Ma's concert) and was reminded of something that someone might have said (maybe Marx ?), about Minerva's Owl, appearing only at dusk, in relation to arguments which have already been won, and yet like picking at a scab, some of the 'contestants' on Q&A went on and on about what are frankly old issues.

Thank you, Graham, you make OLO a beacon of genuine democratic discussion and exemplify what Talisse is on about:

http://heterodoxacademy.org/episode-71-robert-talisse-overdoing-democracy-why-we-must-put-politics-in-its-place/

I highly recommend it.

Joe

Today more than ever political polarisation has become the norm rather than the exception in Australian politics. Yesterdays politics was confined to everyday bread and butter issues that could be clearly defined, the division of labour etc, issues that clearly divided along party lines. There was no need for any great discussion by the general populace or political parties of social justice issues such as gay marriage, rights of women etc, most from both sides of politics were like minded on these things, or they were not relevant to their everyday existence. Plus the fact minorities and women had no political voice, if they had issues no one was listening. Today social justice is far more of a concern, and with minorities being as vocal as they are, and aware of their rights they have become new political issues for political parties to deal with.

Hi Foxy,

"we do need more scrutiny of
people's voices and opinions. Some can be extreme to say
the least - and need to be questioned."

I believe all those that seek power over, or to influence others, others being us the mob, need to be scrutinised carefully. Sometimes what is perceived as extreme today, is ordinary tomorrow. Then with some issues there is no middle ground, the gay marriage vote for example, the extreme view was a yes vote, the only alternative was a no vote which simply maintained the statuesque, there was no moderate or middle ground of a maybe vote. Sometimes you have to be extreme, which is not always a bad thing.

Dear Paul,

I'm going to try to get a hold of Robert Talisse's book.
I read the transcript that Graham gave. It got me interested
in reading more of what Talisse has to say.

Talisse seems to think of people as intellectual
inquirers - but are we? Do we
question or merely accept what we've been taught?
Do we really only prefer to stay in our comfort zones?

So many questions. But perhaps the book will clarify things
more for me.

I have been away again, GY will listen tomorrow
See even you did not cut the s of so your link will work
Me? deeply concerned voters do not think enough about the issues they push for
EG Melbourne cup protests about horses suffering
IF and they will not, they ended racing, every race track horse training and breeding job would go
And even more [maybe hundreds of thousands?] of horses would go to the nackery
Coal? if we leave the market others never will, and we would see billions lost for zero results in matters climate