Brandis: "People do have a right to be bigots, you know."

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I assume he's "brilliant" because his extensive use of facts maks his arguments almost impossible to refute?

Polemicist because you dont like those facts?

P.s he's also Australias most widely read -ie successful- columnist which may be why he's pulling the $.

He's a narrative writer. He's a got a few narrative crutches (Greens = Nazis, Pinko ABC, taxpayers funding left wing cause, whites are the victims of racism etc etc).

He'll wheel each out from time to time. He'll sprinkle in 1-2 facts, then bring the whole thing together with some out of context stuff, plenty of opinion, selective analysis and purposely inflammatory wording. He's Fox News. You don't read him to be informed. You read him to cheerlead or get enraged.

90% of his readres are either looking to yell attaboy or call him a fascist. I'd venture to argue very people read him to get more informed on a particular issue. Why bother? He doesnt seek to inform.

 

[swingdog]

True of many opinion writers, once I know I can guess what they're going to say I don't bother. Predictability isn't interesting; it's good for people who need that emotional crutch.

 

[Gough]

He's very formulaic in his writing, the opening part of the piece is the issue du jour, followed up by why it's the Greens/ALPs/Warmists/Muslims and then ho then government should act in his opinion. He's the Barbara Cartland of opinion writers, that's how she used to do her work, we're not far away from a computer program that can write that sort of s**t anyway.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

True of many opinion writers, once I know I can guess what they're going to say I don't bother. Predictability isn't interesting; it's good for people who need that emotional crutch.

Yep. I remember 10 or so years ago, I would race to the get the paper on a Tuesday and Thursday to read his column. Not to be informed, but because someone on my side was sticking it up them.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

He's very formulaic in his writing, the opening part of the piece is the issue du jour, followed up by why it's the Greens/ALPs/Warmists/Muslims and the how then government should act in his opinion. He's the Barbara Cartland of opinion writers, that's how she used to do her work, we're not far away from a computer program that can write that sort of s**t anyway.

I dont understand how his fans all the sarcasm and snark he would use. I haven't read any of his stuff for a while, but it was quite overbearing. He sounded like a sneering prick.

 

[Xsess]

Skin color has nothing to do with being an Aboriginal or TSI, and skin color is not a criterion for the .

Was being tongue in cheek when I spoke of "light skinned". I should have made it clear was referring to "aboriginals" with highly dubious ethinicity..

 

[Malifice]

Was being tongue in cheek when I spoke of "light skinned". I should have made it clear was referring to "aboriginals" with highly dubious ethinicity..

Even Bolt agreed all the people he mentioned in his column were Aboriginal.

Which person named do you say has dubious ethnicity?

 

[scon]

Was being tongue in cheek when I spoke of "light skinned". I should have made it clear was referring to "aboriginals" with highly dubious ethinicity..

White fraudsters??

 

[CountryRace]

Does he still have the south africans-slaves?

 

[Gough]

Andrew Bolt reads Roots backwards so he gets a happy ending.

 

[raghav]

Skin color has nothing to do with being an Aboriginal or TSI, and skin color is not a criterion for the award of those scholarships.

Those scholarhsips and things like ABSTUDY are awarded (in part) to combat entrenched social disadvantage faced by ATSI people. They are not awarded because one has 'dark skin'.

How many ATSI people do you know of that have fair skin?

 

[scon]

Nothing abnormal about fair skinned Aboriginals.
I know plenty of Euros darker than Aboriginals.
Plenty of fair skinned Aboriginals.
Don't know any Torres Strait Islanders but can't see why it would be different.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

He's very formulaic in his writing, the opening part of the piece is the issue du jour, followed up by why it's the Greens/ALPs/Warmists/Muslims and then ho then government should act in his opinion. He's the Barbara Cartland of opinion writers, that's how she used to do her work, we're not far away from a computer program that can write that sort of s**t anyway.

Every article you read in a newspaper (either in print or online) follows a basic structure, though.

Even opinion/editorial pieces like what Andrew Bolt writes follow a basic formula - the one you outlined fits the format perfectly.

1 Issue (Loony Leftie touchy-feely subject such as 'social inclusion')

2 Who's at fault (The Loony Left)

3. Possible solution (everyone should wake up to the fact that 'tolerance' is a bad word)

 

[medusala]

Just argue your points separate to whatever a Murdoch employee has said, or whatever an IPA person thinks.

Pathetic coming from resident uber fanboi/ stooge.

The argument is bloody simple. The law is a joke. When you have to rely on "reasonable" "good faith" and other arbitrary notions then you are always going to have a dogs breakfast of a law which anyone on nodding terms with reality knows wont be applied evenly across society. It is abhorrent as being forced to negotiate with unions in good faith.

See the below. How can anyone defend different standards for different communities?

"Whether conduct is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a group of people calls for an objective assessment of the likely reaction of thosepeople. I have concluded that the assessment is to be made by reference to an ordinary and reasonable member of the group of people concerned and the values and circumstances of those people. General community standards are relevant but only to an extent."

What a surprise that you should defend the judgement of a failed alp candidate in a judgement involving ALP legislation

 

[Malifice]

How many ATSI people do you know of that have fair skin?

A fair few. Andrew Walker:

Andrew has Indigenous Australian heritage and his tribal ancestry can be traced to the Yorta Yorta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Walker_(footballer)

 

[Gus Poyet]

How many blue eyed Indigenous Australians were then when Cook arrived? I'm going with 0%.

 

[Malifice]

How many blue eyed Indigenous Australians were then when Cook arrived? I'm going with 0%.

How is that in any way relevant to anything?

Aboriginal (like any racial definition) isnt a biologicaly based scientific classification. Like every other ethnicity, its a social construct.

 

[medusala]

How many blue eyed Indigenous Australians were then when Cook arrived? I'm going with 0%.

Michael Mansell.

A brilliant Boltesque quote courtesy of wiki.

In 2001 Mansell stated that "there were more phoney than real Aborigines in Tasmania and more than half the voters in the 1996 ATSIC election were not Aboriginal".

 

[Malifice]

Michael Mansell

I highly doubt he was kicking around in Cooks time.

 

[medusala]

How is that in any way relevant to anything?

Aboriginal (like any racial definition) isnt a biologicaly based scientific classification. Like every other ethnicity, its a social construct.

Mal stop it with this nonsense. It is well beyond the point of being nauseating

It is scientific fact that geographic isolation has produced genetic differences between different peoples. They may not be big enough to constituted sub species but to argue there are no differences and its entirely a social construct is idiotic and the sort of thing only a first year arts student would be gullible enough to believe.

How about we stick with reality.

I highly doubt he was kicking around in Cooks time.

You seem to have badly missed the point.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Michael Mansell.

A brilliant Boltesque quote courtesy of wiki.

In 2001 Mansell stated that "there were more phoney than real Aborigines in Tasmania and more than half the voters in the 1996 ATSIC election were not Aboriginal".

It's quite amazing really that certain sections of our society moan and bleat about Australia's history being re-written to suit the white mans version over the aboriginals yet at the same time these same people are teaching that the white guy with blue eyes above should be recognised as what aboriginals look like every bit as much as the guy below.

Thus they are trying to wipe out the stereotypical image people have of the strong and instantly recognisable features of Aboriginals so that distinctly European features are now also considered "aboriginal".

Truly warped.

 

[Danny Cullen]

Maybe, maybe not. A stronger argument would be to quote the decision and identify the flaws in the reasoning. It takes a bit more effort than casting aspersions on the integrity of the judge.

The judge felt it correct to 'read between the lines'. Meaning, it wasn't what Bolt wrote, it was what the judge interpreted as. a shocking decision in Aus legal history. Before you ask, you look it up.

 

[Malifice]

Mal stop it with this nonsense. It is well beyond the point of being nauseating

It is scientific fact that geographic isolation has produced genetic differences between different peoples. They may not be big enough to constituted sub species but to argue there are no differences and its entirely a social construct is idiotic and the sort of thing only a first year arts student would be gullible enough to believe.

How on earth is this in any way relevant to whom is or is not Aboriginal for the purpouse of grants etc.

Do we pay ABSTUDY and grant scholarships to offset biological differences?

Oh; and youre wrong. Race is a social construct. Which may contain physical traits, but doesnt have to.

 

[Malifice]

It's quite amazing really that certain sections of our society moan and bleat about Australia's history being re-written to suit the white mans version over the aboriginals yet at the same time these same people are teaching that the white guy with blue eyes above should be recognised as what aboriginals look like every bit as much as the guy below.

Thus they are trying to wipe out the stereotypical image people have of the strong and instantly recognisable features of Aboriginals so that distinctly European features are now also considered "aboriginal".

Truly warped.

Truly warped are people like you who would post rubbish like this clearly implying that Aboriginal people who dont look 'Aboriginal enough' for you, should deny their ancestry and ethnic background and should stop calling themselves Aboriginal.

Tell me, should they deny their European ancestry and background as well if they dont look 'European enough' for you?

A really disgusting post.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

...Thus they are trying to wipe out the stereotypical image people have of the strong and instantly recognisable features of Aboriginals so that distinctly European features are now also considered "aboriginal".

Indigenous ancestry would give a Euro-looking bloke enough 'proof' to consider himself Aboriginal, wouldn't it? He could never call himself 'full-blooded', but Aboriginal? Yes, I think so.