2022 Victorian State Election-November 26

[morningbrown]

I have a diverse group of family and friends and yes, quite a few of them could be categorised "ethnic minority".

Not that my personal view matters- I've demonstrated with plebiscite data that the areas DLP got votes are socially conservative. And I've demonstrated using census data that they're less wealthy. Those both fit with DLP policy and philosophy.

But you're white.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

I have a diverse group of family and friends and yes, quite a few of them could be categorised "ethnic minority".

Yeah so? I'm half dutch, technically that makes me an "ethnic minority" in Australia. Hell we're out numbered by First Nations people 2:1

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You're taking a high ground about the argument you're having by attacking people who weren't even involved in it.

“High ground” what a laugh. Absolutely no superiority intended or implied.

The odious Adem Somyurek has just won a seat in the Vic parliament. No-one except our friend PJays dares to ponder what might be the thought processes of someone who went “yeah, that Somyurek guy seems like a good candidate, I’m voting for him” because apparently that might lead to what happened in Wieambilla the other day. FMD.

 

[nobbyiscool]

“High ground” what a laugh. Absolutely no superiority intended or implied.

The odious Adem Somyurek has just won a seat in the Vic parliament. No-one except our friend PJays dares to ponder what might be the thought processes of someone who went “yeah, that Somyurek guy seems like a good candidate, I’m voting for him” because apparently that might lead to what happened in Wieambilla the other day. FMD.

You are so close to getting it.

If you could just lower your outrageous arrogance for a minute or 2 you'd see it

 

[PJays]

No-one except our friend PJays dares to ponder what might be the thought processes of someone who went “yeah, that Somyurek guy seems like a good candidate, I’m voting for him” because apparently that might lead to what happened in Wieambilla the other day. FMD.

Yep. This is what happens when people inhabit echo chambers.

This is natural and happens both in real life and online. Most people associate with those like themselves. The more we associate with those like us, the less we understand others.

Amongst my immediate family and friends there is huge diversity of viewpoint. This isn't necessarily an entirely good thing, because I actually find myself frustrated by what I perceive as unreasonable views on both sides.

But it does give me a certain perspective and insight that many don't have access to.

Of course, there's still some views or ways of thinking that aren't held by anyone in my close circle. That's probably inevitable though and true for almost anyone, such is the immense diversity of modern life.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Like I said, you're not reading their posts properly if you think they're just providing well constructed arguments on views not their own

What's not well-constructed about the excerpts you quoted? Far better expressed than a lot of the dismissive, offhand rubbish that you and others have responded to them with.

Who's to say PJays is not playing devil's advocate? This is an anonymous forum FFS, but it's clear a lot of people invest their own prejudices into the opposing views that they read, and give the distinct impression they think every word written is a manifesto.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You are so close to getting it.

If you could just lower your outrageous arrogance for a minute or 2 you'd see it

There's certainly a case that the height of arrogance is to deliver a diagnosis of arrogance to another anonymous schmoe on the internet.

 

[PJays]

1. What methods/actions/therapies do you think shouldn't be banned that are set to be banned?

Are* banned you mean. This has been law for a while.

A few examples:

- Exploratory therapy by professional psychiatrists or counsellors.

- In fact any therapies by psychiatrists or counsellors (or anybody) that promote a “wait and see” or an “exploratory/analyse” approach to gender identity instead of 100% affirmation.

- Parents attempting to convince their own children not to undergo a gender transition (minors).

The legislation is broad and vague which is why the Law Institute of Victoria criticised it. Eg see here

The Law Institute of Victoria raised concerns on behalf of lawyers that the bill was overly broad and could prevent parents or caregivers from having conversations with their children about gender identity or sexual orientation.

2. Do you think it's right for a person's gender identity to be fought against, just because their parents are churchies?

This has nothing to do with "churchies" per se

Scientists- Colin Wright, Debra Soh, etc.

Feminists- JK Rowling, Kathleen Stock, etc.

Commentators/Comedians- Bill Maher.

None of those people are overly religious except perhaps Rowling. Soh is an atheist. Maher is famous for mocking religion. Wright was a “new atheist” devotee.

Many parents and many people are concerned about the gender theories being taught, and/or the social contagion elements present. Not all of them are “churchies".

Questionable theories are being taught as if they're fact. Science is being ignored or poorly taught. Vulnerable youth are being shoehorned into one approach during their formative years.

Those things should concern everybody.

 

[Gough]

Are* banned you mean. This has been law for a while.

A few examples:

- Exploratory therapy by professional psychiatrists or counsellors.

- In fact any therapies by psychiatrists or counsellors (or anybody) that promote a “wait and see” or an “exploratory/analyse” approach to gender identity instead of 100% affirmation.

- Parents attempting to convince their own children not to undergo a gender transition (minors).

The legislation is broad and vague which is why the Law Institute of Victoria criticised it. Eg see here

The Law Institute of Victoria raised concerns on behalf of lawyers that the bill was overly broad and could prevent parents or caregivers from having conversations with their children about gender identity or sexual orientation.


This has nothing to do with "churchies" per se

Scientists- Colin Wright, Debra Soh, etc.

Feminists- JK Rowling, Kathleen Stock, etc.

Commentators/Comedians- Bill Maher.

None of those people are overly religious. Soh is an atheist. Maher is famous for mocking religion. Wright was a “new atheist” devotee.

Many parents and many people are concerned about the gender theories being taught, and/or the social contagion elements present. Not all of them are “churchies".

Without assuming your sexuality, is there any sort counseling or therapy that could convince you to swap sides?

 

[PJays]

Without assuming your sexuality, is there any sort counseling or therapy that could convince you to swap sides?

No but again, the Change and Suppression bill isn't about sexuality.

It's sexuality and gender identity. Lumped into the same bucket. Despite being very different things.

 

[Sir_Loin]

didn’t this thread jump the shark


Adios

 

[Demonic Ascent]

My gf almost voted for the DLP because she thought they were the ALP. She actually called me at the booth asking which was which

My wife the same - wasn't going to put them first but maybe 3rd and asked me about them when I told her she couldn't believe it. I told her "family First" are really right wing fundie Christians too, anti abortion, anti gay etc - most people would just look at the name and think "family first" "democratic Labor" sound reasonable - better than those animal justice freaks or loony Greens

 

[fs88]

My gf almost voted for the DLP because she thought they were the ALP. She actually called me at the booth asking which was which

haha me too, I was googling all of the candidates I had no idea about and ol mate slimeball Bernie Finn was hidden deep deep inside the DLP website. Instantly went to [8] when I realised (Freedom Party was [9] and Libs [10]).

 

[Brad Goodman]

Those minors certainly do rely in part on the confusion and ignorance of those less engaged voters.

 

[morningbrown]

Are* banned you mean. This has been law for a while.

A few examples:

- Exploratory therapy by professional psychiatrists or counsellors.

- In fact any therapies by psychiatrists or counsellors (or anybody) that promote a “wait and see” or an “exploratory/analyse” approach to gender identity instead of 100% affirmation.

- Parents attempting to convince their own children not to undergo a gender transition (minors).

The legislation is broad and vague which is why the Law Institute of Victoria criticised it. Eg see here

The Law Institute of Victoria raised concerns on behalf of lawyers that the bill was overly broad and could prevent parents or caregivers from having conversations with their children about gender identity or sexual orientation.


This has nothing to do with "churchies" per se

Scientists- Colin Wright, Debra Soh, etc.

Feminists- JK Rowling, Kathleen Stock, etc.

Commentators/Comedians- Bill Maher.

None of those people are overly religious except perhaps Rowling. Soh is an atheist. Maher is famous for mocking religion. Wright was a “new atheist” devotee.

Many parents and many people are concerned about the gender theories being taught, and/or the social contagion elements present. Not all of them are “churchies".

Questionable theories are being taught as if they're fact. Science is being ignored or poorly taught. Vulnerable youth are being shoehorned into one approach during their formative years.

Those things should concern everybody.

Of course you chose two disgusting TERFs lol. Piss off.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Are* banned you mean. This has been law for a while.

A few examples:

- Exploratory therapy by professional psychiatrists or counsellors.

- In fact any therapies by psychiatrists or counsellors (or anybody) that promote a “wait and see” or an “exploratory/analyse” approach to gender identity instead of 100% affirmation.

- Parents attempting to convince their own children not to undergo a gender transition (minors).

The legislation is broad and vague which is why the Law Institute of Victoria criticised it. Eg see here

The Law Institute of Victoria raised concerns on behalf of lawyers that the bill was overly broad and could prevent parents or caregivers from having conversations with their children about gender identity or sexual orientation.


This has nothing to do with "churchies" per se

Scientists- Colin Wright, Debra Soh, etc.

Feminists- JK Rowling, Kathleen Stock, etc.

Commentators/Comedians- Bill Maher.

None of those people are overly religious except perhaps Rowling. Soh is an atheist. Maher is famous for mocking religion. Wright was a “new atheist” devotee.

Many parents and many people are concerned about the gender theories being taught, and/or the social contagion elements present. Not all of them are “churchies".

Questionable theories are being taught as if they're fact. Science is being ignored or poorly taught. Vulnerable youth are being shoehorned into one approach during their formative years.

Those things should concern everybody.

Its a pretty big subject on its own.
I have concerns about irreversible processes that are enabled at a time when Kids can be fairly rebellious and mixed up in their thoughts.

‘I literally lost organs:’ Why detransitioned teens regret changing genders

A look at the alarming rise of teens who are changing genders and then “detransitioning” back.

nypost.com

In some peer groups kids are encouraged to act on their feelings as fast as possible, and you can find out what to say to the shrink from googling.

Alternatively , the most successful gender transformations occur when its pre-puberty.

 

[Gralin]

What's not well-constructed about the excerpts you quoted? Far better expressed than a lot of the dismissive, offhand rubbish that you and others have responded to them with.

Who's to say PJays is not playing devil's advocate? This is an anonymous forum FFS, but it's clear a lot of people invest their own prejudices into the opposing views that they read, and give the distinct impression they think every word written is a manifesto.

ah I see its not just their posts you don't read properly but mine as well.

I never said the words weren't well constructed.

I said they aren't just explaining why other people might have voted for DLP, they're explaining their own views.

 

[PJays]

I said they aren't just explaining why other people might have voted for DLP, they're explaining their own views.

I've done plenty of both in this thread

Over the past few days however, I've probably done more of the former.

With the latter occurring mostly within that context. eg: I referred to people voting for DLP because they're "not woke" and subsequently explained what woke is and why that comment was relevant.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I said they aren't just explaining why other people might have voted for DLP, they're explaining their own views.

You haven't made that case at all. In an anonymous internet forum, someone playing devil's advocate is highly possible and I would have thought, quite common.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

My posting over the years makes it very clear what I think of conservatives, of racism, sexism. Check out the Ask A Christian forum if you want to see what I think of woolly-headed religious thinkers.

But here's the thing I seem to have grasped, which a lot of people on here haven’t, or just prefer to ignore.

In a democracy, these effwits vote.

If we’re discussing the outcome of an election, we can either look dispassionately at these people and ask ourselves what influence their loathsome beliefs had on how they voted. Or we can just take the easy option and stigmatise them.

But if we choose that lazy, puerile option, well next time the conservatives are in the ascendancy (and mark my words, there will be a next time) a lot of people on here will be going "HUH??” "WHAT THE??”. Exactly like what we mock the Libs for doing right now.

 

[PJays]

If we’re discussing the outcome of an election, we can either look dispassionately at these people and ask ourselves what influence their loathsome beliefs had on how they voted. Or we can just take the easy option and stigmatise them.

That's what Federal Labor did after the 2019 election and it helped them regain power in 2022.

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood"

 

[Gough]

That's what Federal Labor did after the 2019 election and it helped them regain power in 2022.

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood"

Describing the government's power policy as Soviet suggests not much understanding is happening.

 

[Jascave]

If you want to pick the turning point of the state election, for me it was the Sky News People's Forum debate.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews looked more in control and had the situation in hand compared to Opposition Matthew Guy who was like a rabbit caught in headlights.

It was obvious from that moment on who would govern Victoria for the next 4 years- and it certainly wasn't Guy.

On 5002X using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Not Important]

If you want to pick the turning point of the state election, for me it was the Sky News People's Forum debate.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews looked more in control and had the situation in hand compared to Opposition Matthew Guy who was like a rabbit caught in headlights.

It was obvious from that moment on who would govern Victoria for the next 4 years- and it certainly wasn't Guy.

On 5002X using BigFooty.com mobile app

1. a premier who had done a pretty good job on the whole.

2. dud opposition more focussed on personal attacks.

3. peeps pissed off at an american citizen telling us how 2 vote.

4. libs getting into bed with 'cookers' - freedumbers, conspiracy theorists etc

 

[kalex6251]

frydenbergs disgusting hissy fit at the fed parliament dispatch box where he went after andrews was a turning point of sorts .... neatly followed by andrews 'not a leader, just a liberal' backhander .... cue mystery stair woman and the most glorious presser intervention ive ever seen or heard (this woman deserves the highest award this state can bestow)



it certainly added weight to rumours fed libs were heavily backgrounding against state govts in order to shield themselves from growing anger at the covid response (vic wasnt the only one to cop it - nsw, wa and qld leaders were also targeted in a coordinated attack by pollies and murdoch press)

[edit] hopefully frydenberg is called before the robodebt royal commission and compelled to account for the suicides that resulted from that illegal govt program