serious question without bias, are there really any on the left side of politics as dumb as the likes of Craig Kelly and Bernie Finn?
i honestly cannot think of any that could compare.
serious question without bias, are there really any on the left side of politics as dumb as the likes of Craig Kelly and Bernie Finn?
or George Christianson, or Bob Katter, or Pauline Hanson, or Barnaby Joyce, or...serious question without bias, are there really any on the left side of politics as dumb as the likes of Craig Kelly and Bernie Finn?
i honestly cannot think of any that could compare.
Different sort of stupid but the greens have a few. Especially at the lower tiers of government.serious question without bias, are there really any on the left side of politics as dumb as the likes of Craig Kelly and Bernie Finn?
i honestly cannot think of any that could compare.
serious question without bias, are there really any on the left side of politics as dumb as the likes of Craig Kelly and Bernie Finn?
i honestly cannot think of any that could compare.
maybe at lower levels, but i dont think I have seen anything from the Greens at state or federal that matches the likes of Finn or Kelly.Different sort of stupid but the greens have a few. Especially at the lower tiers of government.
I didnt like Latham when he was Labor leader- he is probably in the Abbott category.Dumb, by no means, but severe personality flaws or disorders. Or simply a horribly calibrated moral compass? If being a member of the Labour Party means 'Left', then
Mark Latham was just as mental when he lead labor as he is now.
Graham Richardson becomes more of a *smile* with every passing minute, coming off a pretty solid base
Anna Bligh's moral compass cant ever have been pointing North. Her degeneration from socialist left student to mouthpiece for the big banks is noteworthy also.
Eddie Obeid gets a gig.
Rudd has a fairly solid body of work in the nut job sphere also.
But, no, labour simply cant compete with the LNP in the whack job stakes.
If there was a looney *smile* political team of the century, and only Labour and LNP were eligible for selection,
it would be 80% LNP, and they'de have a mortgage on the midfield.
even if you threw eligibility open to one nation, the greens, shooters and fishers, clive and Fred Nile,
I reckon LNP would still get 11 blokes in the best 22
Pretty *smile* up world when "all lives matters' is racist and "black lives matters" isn't.
Only if you ignore the context (wilfully or not), this explains it pretty well since you seem to need an explanation:
The philosophical flaw in saying "All Lives Matter" - Prospect Magazine
Its effect is to stall conversations about anti-Black racism and instead either pretend that all lives do matter, or talk about everybody’s lives all at once—whether or not particular groups are subject to particular injustices right nowwww.prospectmagazine.co.uk
We aren’t going to get anywhere focussing social analysis on the oppression of arbitrary group identities, especially those that can’t even be objectively defined. The interpretation of the statement “all lives matters” in the article is how a lot of people choose to interpret the statement but it isn’t the only interpretation and people are quick to just assume the worst without seeking to discuss further. Basically you are guilty immediately after uttering the words. There is no method for anyone to discuss this problem rationally it is my way or the highway and it ultimately leads to violence.Only if you ignore the context (wilfully or not), this explains it pretty well since you seem to need an explanation:
The philosophical flaw in saying "All Lives Matter" - Prospect Magazine
Its effect is to stall conversations about anti-Black racism and instead either pretend that all lives do matter, or talk about everybody’s lives all at once—whether or not particular groups are subject to particular injustices right nowwww.prospectmagazine.co.uk
We aren’t going to get anywhere focussing social analysis on the oppression of arbitrary group identities, especially those that can’t even be objectively defined. The interpretation of the statement “all lives matters” in the article is how a lot of people choose to interpret the statement but it isn’t the only interpretation and people are quick to just assume the worst without seeking to discuss further. Basically you are guilty immediately after uttering the words. There is no method for anyone to discuss this problem rationally it is my way or the highway and it ultimately leads to violence.
it really isnt worth 'debating' with someone who doesnt think race is a thing, who doesnt think people get treated differently due to their skin colour, who equate teh BLM movement with those attacking the US parliament, who think Trump is just the same as any other politician, and whos views are all defined through his "libertarian" world view which does not allow anything which doesnt fit that belief to be considered.Thats an excuse if you're ignorant about the context, the acting PM of the country shouldn't be ignorant and I would submit isn't ignorant (blofield probably is though). Like the article states: "Its effect is to stall conversations about anti-Black racism and instead either pretend that all lives do matter, or talk about everybody’s lives all at once, whether or not particular groups are subject to particular, potentially fatal injustices right now. "
We aren’t going to get anywhere focussing social analysis on the oppression of arbitrary group identities, especially those that can’t even be objectively defined. The interpretation of the statement “all lives matters” in the article is how a lot of people choose to interpret the statement but it isn’t the only interpretation and people are quick to just assume the worst without seeking to discuss further. Basically you are guilty immediately after uttering the words. There is no method for anyone to discuss this problem rationally it is my way or the highway and it ultimately leads to violence.
The context you refer to is your interpretation; understand that your interpretation is not an objective fact. Dismissing others as ignorant because they don't share your base assumptions is lazy and not going to help people to resolve differences around this issue.Thats an excuse if you're ignorant about the context, the acting PM of the country shouldn't be ignorant and I would submit isn't ignorant (blofield probably is though). Like the article states: "Its effect is to stall conversations about anti-Black racism and instead either pretend that all lives do matter, or talk about everybody’s lives all at once, whether or not particular groups are subject to particular, potentially fatal injustices right now. "
Is Obama black or white? People do indeed get treated differently for their skin colour (people like you actively call for it), the BLM violent protests and Capitol building violent protests are indeed both violent, Trump is as much a statist as Biden, everyone's views are defined by their own world view (you aren't immune to that) and I'm happy to debate and allow the best ideas to win (it is people like you that actively call for speech to be restricted and cheer US Big tech to shut out certain views).it really isnt worth 'debating' with someone who doesnt think race is a thing, who doesnt think people get treated differently due to their skin colour, who equate teh BLM movement with those attacking the US parliament, who think Trump is just the same as any other politician, and whos views are all defined through his "libertarian" world view which does not allow anything which doesnt fit that belief to be considered.
You just used a few words to waste everyone's time with a vague accusation that can't be proved.you just used a lot of words to describe the practice of dog-whistling. And you still got it wrong.
You just used a few words to waste everyone's time with a vague accusation that can't be proved.
Criticise a claim I made otherwise please leave bs dog-whistling claims out of it.Everyone knows what a dog-whistle is and that's what MM was doing.
I can't prove that to you mathematically, but still, it is what it is.