Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Twinkletoes]

Just on groin (nttawwt) were his & Snakes suspension related?

Nup

 

[The Warlord]

Nup

Was it Syria v Queensland related?

 

[Val Keating]

Haha.To be fair, her colleague didn't give a s**t either.

It’s more that he just rambled on for so long after being an hour late he made one of his props fall asleep. Why did he insist on having all the police stand behind him? He’s nuts

 

[Twinkletoes]

Was it Syria v Queensland related?

Nyet

 

[Val Keating]

Nyet

Was it related to gender politics?

 

[Val Keating]

Good call Will. Greens party members causally close up shop

 

[Twinkletoes]

Was it related to gender politics?

Nein

 

[Themanbun]

Good call Will. Greens party members causally close up shop

Cannot believe how ridiculously barbaric this policy is.

 

[Val Keating]

Cannot believe how ridiculously barbaric this policy is.

The average working person been putting up with it for a while. It’s in the mines, commercial construction....seems they’re targeting a certain demographic

 

[goalieboy82]

here is an old chestnut:

 

[Val Keating]

One of the most fascinating subjects in this conversation. Ledoux talks about how his studies on fear, anxiety etc. have been misunderstood by the wider science community, leading to pharmaceutical companies development of benzodiazepines. Very very interesting

‎The Joe Rogan Experience on Apple Podcasts

‎Comedy · 2021

podcasts.apple.com

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Ruling class born to rule entitlement right there. He'd happily send thousands to run at German machine guns and sip his pink gin and the casualty reports came in.

He reminds me a great deal of Lord Melchiot in Blackaddder.

In fairness, the left and right politicians in Britain and Australia were more than happy to send our boys against the German machine guns.

Politicians, regardless of their allegiances, don't give a s**t about the common soldier.

 

[giantroo]

 

[goalieboy82]

 

[The Warlord]

It’s more that he just rambled on for so long after being an hour late he made one of his props fall asleep. Why did he insist on having all the police stand behind him? He’s nuts

Because he intends to break the law to push through no-deal Brexit if he can and is trying to send a message.

Cops not wearing it though.

 

[The Warlord]

In fairness, the left and right politicians in Britain and Australia were more than happy to send our boys against the German machine guns.

Politicians, regardless of their allegiances, don't give a s**t about the common soldier.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, bullshit.

The Labor Party split over conscription in 1916, they expelled Billy - THE RAT - Hughes over it. They were firmly against SENDING boys to die on the wire in the mud in France and Belgium. If people CHOSE to, different matter.

Even in World War II, when Labor introduced conscription it was very specifically NOT in Europe, but the immediate locale of Australia.

(And I dispute that politicians don't care ... see the 1945 general election in the UK that brought in a socialist government on a "give our boys the peace they won" platform that built the NHS among other things. It is the ruling class right that don't care, Churchill the drunken blood soaked war criminal the ultimate example)

 

[ferball]

Wrong mate. Labor brought in the policy architecture under which all this stands. In the 90s, in the 00s, it was Labor.

Its is fact.

The Coalition/Murdoch media are "more guilty" than the ALP. They are the ones who ramped up the punitive nature of this process for political gain at every opportunity and framed the entire thing in a way that forced the ALP to act the way it did. Not justifying the ALP's acts with that either, it was shithouse, but be realistic. They had no other option. Surely a "trained political journalist" should be able to recognise the corrosive effects of having having essentially one major media owner in Australia over that period of time.

BTW Mandatory detention is just one of the things wrong with Australia. There is plenty more and its all the responsibility of the coalition.

 

[ferball]

The average working person been putting up with it for a while. It’s in the mines, commercial construction....seems they’re targeting a certain demographic

Yeah anyone who isn't a potential aristocrat.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but its pretty *en obvious there is a massive push to revive the feudal system as Western Liberal Society collapses outside of Europe.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, bulls**t.

The Labor Party split over conscription in 1916, they expelled Billy - THE RAT - Hughes over it. They were firmly against SENDING boys to die on the wire in the mud in France and Belgium. If people CHOSE to, different matter.

Even in World War II, when Labor introduced conscription it was very specifically NOT in Europe, but the immediate locale of Australia.

(And I dispute that politicians don't care ... see the 1945 general election in the UK that brought in a socialist government on a "give our boys the peace they won" platform that built the NHS among other things. It is the ruling class right that don't care, Churchill the drunken blood soaked war criminal the ultimate example)

You've missed the point and false equivalised again.

Conscription isn't even the issue we were talking about. We are talking about happily committing Australian men overseas, to trenches in this context, in search of some assurance of Great Power protection as future recompense.

It was the ALP that effectively invited Australia into the First World War (we would have been asked anyway, but we enthusiastic about the prospects of defending the Empire) in the first place and then kept sending troops to regions outside Australia's primary interests.

The National Service Act and conscription during the Second World War were both primarily related to national militias and not sending them outside Australian territories, which then included New Guinea as a league of nations protectorate under Australian supervision. I'm surprised you didn't mention the Curtin withdrawal from North Africa or him effectively transferring military sovereignty to MacArthur, which effectively made Australian troops restricted to the strategic whims of a foreign general.

My original generalised point was about modern politicians not caring enough at the initial phase of wars and in their aftermath. Not enough social welfare funding is devoted to PTSD and providing other support. Post world wars, all participant states were pretty good with soldier welfare, but even then there were issues.

 

[Themanbun]

Yeah anyone who isn't a potential aristocrat.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but its pretty fu**en obvious there is a massive push to revive the feudal system as Western Liberal Society collapses outside of Europe.

Western liberalism has always pathologised the individual poor rather than admitting its own structural failings.

 

[ferball]

In fairness, the left and right politicians in Britain and Australia were more than happy to send our boys against the German machine guns.

Politicians, regardless of their allegiances, don't give a s**t about the common soldier.

Lots (dunno the numbers but more than 10) of Australian politicians actually volunteered and died in ww1.

Also the radical Australian left opposed any intervention in the war and it was only the left that led any practical resistance to conscription when Hughes tried to introduce it. And (as is typical of authoritarian types) the right leaning Hughes created the feds (AFP) to bust whoever egged him at an anti conscription protest. As the war went on the ALP increasingly opposed it and increasingly moved to end it via negotiation and moved to oppose recruiting more soldiers as well as supporting strikes and resisting more conscription moves by Hughes (probably cos they could see the damage it was doing to the country's future. We never recovered from ww1 economically and population wise - if we hadn't gone to war for the British Australia would have been a stronger country throughout the 20th century imo.)

 

[ferball]

Western liberalism has always pathologised the individual poor rather than admitting its own structural failings.

Well to a point, but to me that's more a hangover of pre enlightenment ruling class attitudes.

 

[Themanbun]

Well to a point, but to me that's more a hangover of pre enlightenment ruling class attitudes.

I personally don't think so. It's an individualist ideology predicated upon a market based system which has individual transactions and the profit motive as its core.

To the point that liberalism is a reflection of pre-enlightenment ideals, sure I don't disagree, but western liberalism's core philosophical underpinnings are individualist. The 'market's' failures are therefore presumed to be the fault of individuals, rather than structural flaws.

That's the underpinning of the poor British Poor Law which was the first manifestation of these ideals of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor which has reared its head as a concept every single time we have become more liberal and less collectivist.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Lots (dunno the numbers but more than 10) of Australian politicians actually volunteered and died in ww1.

Also the radical Australian left opposed any intervention in the war and it was only the left that led any practical resistance to conscription when Hughes tried to introduce it. And (as is typical of authoritarian types) the right leaning Hughes created the feds (AFP) to bust whoever egged him at an anti conscription protest. As the war went on the ALP increasingly opposed it and increasingly moved to end it via negotiation and moved to oppose recruiting more soldiers as well as supporting strikes and resisting more conscription moves by Hughes (probably cos they could see the damage it was doing to the country's future. We never recovered from ww1 economically and population wise - if we hadn't gone to war for the British Australia would have been a stronger country throughout the 20th century imo.)

There were a few MP's and councilors from recollection.

The radical left was like that in most participant countries during that period, especially in Russia. In the USA, it was a little different.

Generally speaking (I should precurse this phrase with everything I write in this thread, as my words often seem to be placed out of context when they are quoted), the ALP was split over the issue, with many on the left of centre supporting the committment of troops overseas. However, as you rightfully point out, there were more against Hughes by 1916. I was also thinking of British and French politicians as well, when I wrote my original point.

My original point was in regards to modern politicians and general history. Across modern history, the wider political base has often been willing to use soldiers and blood to further national/political aims, which was the case in 1914. They also don't always follow through on the support afterwards, which is a more recent modern phenomenon. (Even the Romans did post-war stuff for their soldiers)

I would disagree with the economic side of things just quickly, in particular industry. The war did help us industrialise and our manufacturing capacity was increased as a result, as it also did with the mass industrial mobilisation in early 1942-43 having long-term industrial benefits during the Chifley period. But that's all another argument.

 

[ferball]

You've missed the point and false equivalised again, for the umpteenth time.

There were plenty within the ALP who wanted conscription, regardless of the split or Hughes. Conscription isn't even the issue we were talking about. We are talking about happily committing Australian men overseas, to trenches in this context, in search of some assurance of Great Power protection as future recompense.

It was a minority, mostly British born old campaigners, and they consistently lost support because of it. Those few that wated it ripped the Labor party apart because of it.

It was the ALP that effectively invited Australia into the First World War (we would have been asked anyway, but we enthusiastic about the prospects of defending the Empire) in the first place and then kept sending troops to regions outside Australia's primary interests. That is the point, not some false equivalence garbage you're sprouting about conscription.

Its one thing that they went to war to support an ally - as soon as they began to understand what the war involved they resisted conscription and once they saw what a farce it was the ALP began to oppose recruitment and began supporting the strikers and other anti war measures. Australia had a volunteer army. We chose to go there and fight initially and when we saw what a joke it was we began to turn against the war. The Labor Party reflected this and the other campaigners did what the ruling class always does - work on ways to kill the poor.

My point was about modern politicians, generally speaking, do not care enough. Not enough social welfare funding is devoted to PTSD and providing other support.

True - I've known plenty of vets from Vietnam onwards and this is still the case.

You could put a lot of Australia's historical problems with alcohol and violence (public and domestic) down to PTSD from ww1 and subsequent wars imo.