Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 4

[Geelong_Sicko]

I don't even pretend that I could properly empathise with the women in this position, so I don't bang on about pro-life or pro-abortion.....unlike just about everything else, I know when to shut up...

I will only ever ask one question though, because the answer is there - when is the exact point a "fertile transaction" becomes a human being? When do they officially "run through the banner"...?

Not being a supporter of late-term abortion except in the most dire of emergencies I'm going to say when the potential life can survive outside the womb.

 

[adammania9]

But truly, what has been affected? Are you religious? Are you coming at this from that particular angle, that all life is sacred no matter where it starts?

It’s not hard to grasp that it’s not a religious issue. I’m very pro choice but it is a clear and obvious moral dilemma for lots of people, religious or not. I believe allowing abortions is the lesser of two evils as opposed to forcing every woman to carry through with a pregnancy.

There are plenty of fantastic reasons to support abortions. “My body, my choice” is the dumbest, most slack reason that the women could have come up with.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

It’s not hard to grasp that it’s not a religious issue. I’m very pro choice but it is a clear and obvious moral dilemma for lots of people, religious or not. I believe allowing abortions is the lesser of two evils as opposed to forcing every woman to carry through with a pregnancy.

There are plenty of fantastic reasons to support abortions. “My body, my choice” is the dumbest, most slack reason that the women could have come up with.

I'm actually going to agree with you here. I tend to like the "Get your rosaries off my ovaries!" but that strictly against the religionists and Catholics in particular.

 

[Father Jack]

I don't even pretend that I could properly empathise with the women in this position, so I don't bang on about pro-life or pro-abortion.....unlike just about everything else, I know when to shut up...

I will only ever ask one question though, because the answer is there - when is the exact point a "fertile transaction" becomes a human being? When do they officially "run through the banner"...?

The problem is that some people define that point via religion and then try to force that religious belief on everyone else.

 

[Coopers]

I don't even pretend that I could properly empathise with the women in this position, so I don't bang on about pro-life or pro-abortion.....unlike just about everything else, I know when to shut up...

I will only ever ask one question though, because the answer is there - when is the exact point a "fertile transaction" becomes a human being? When do they officially "run through the banner"...?

If you get all catholic from the 15th century, then it's even before conception.

 

[burge13]

Just catching up on this. This is what I’ve discovered. Hanson says ‘Piss off back to Pakistan’ to a member of parliament. Hanson is found guilty of racism. Hanson has a $900,000 legal bill. Andrew Bolt urges support for her legal bill and also for her. Bolt is employed by Sky News.

What have I missed?

Bloody hell, money well spent /s

How do you even rack up such a bill on a case like that?!

 

[Chief]

I don't even pretend that I could properly empathise with the women in this position, so I don't bang on about pro-life or pro-abortion.....unlike just about everything else, I know when to shut up...

I will only ever ask one question though, because the answer is there - when is the exact point a "fertile transaction" becomes a human being? When do they officially "run through the banner"...?

It's difficult to even define "life".

 

[Markfs]

I'm not an expert in this topic but i saw the thread name....and I was thinking about how people in the US who are fervent anti-abortionists are passionate to ensure that IVF continues. Isn't there an element of hypocrisy there? Not that these people are Left....or even pseudo Left in the US tradition. They're typically christian by brandname....right-wing. It's seems a lot of the socalled "prolifers" are happy with the state-based decisions on abortion when they have the money to fly interstate to have their own issues dealt with. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

 

[Feerits Elf]

This is different to a miscarried or stillborn child. That potential was assigned value beforehand by the prospective parents. That potential life was being planned for and maybe even had a name ready to go.

Potentially. Many millions of embryos miscarry without the prospective parents being aware of their existence.

 

[Gethelred]

Bloody hell, money well spent /s

How do you even rack up such a bill on a case like that?!

Silks and hours billed.

 

[AvantGardener]

The attached screenshot some on the left were arguing only the Aborignals statement is racist and the other 3 comments weren't racist. This was due to a country being named not a minority race of a country.



No doubt the poster and the two people who liked it are jumping up and down to save Pauline Hanson as she used the name of a country in what she said and did not name a minority race.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Potentially. Many millions of embryos miscarry without the prospective parents being aware of their existence.

True.

 

[RedStarUncle]

The attached screenshot some on the left were arguing only the Aborignals statement is racist and the other 3 comments weren't racist. This was due to a country being named not a minority race of a country.

View attachment 2160219

No doubt the poster and the two people who liked it are jumping up and down to save Pauline Hanson as she used the name of a country in what she said and did not name a minority race.

The last 3 things you said in your original are all racist (as well as pretty weird things to say and telling of where your viewpoint starts). The last two are racist because, while they are referencing a country, they are making implications about the people of those countries having certain attributes purely based on being of the race of people that come from that country.

The first comment is different because it is making a comment about either Australia as a political entity or Australia as a society. So it's a representative view of the collective... not an aspersion on all individuals.

 

[AvantGardener]

The last 3 things you said in your original are all racist (as well as pretty weird things to say and telling of where your viewpoint starts). The last two are racist because, while they are referencing a country, they are making implications about the people of those countries having certain attributes purely based on being of the race of people that come from that country.

The first comment is different because it is making a comment about either Australia as a political entity or Australia as a society. So it's a representative view of the collective... not an aspersion on all individuals.

No need for the bracketed part - I was using them as examples of what I think are racists things to say. I believe all 4 are racists things to say.

Also nice contribution to this thread re hypocrisy of the left.

"Its a representative of the collective (eg all individuals) ...not an aspersion on all individuals." the mental gymnastics to not label that comment racist is insane.

 

[Gethelred]

The attached screenshot some on the left were arguing only the Aborignals statement is racist and the other 3 comments weren't racist. This was due to a country being named not a minority race of a country.

View attachment 2160219

No doubt the poster and the two people who liked it are jumping up and down to save Pauline Hanson as she used the name of a country in what she said and did not name a minority race.

By an academic definition of racism - "Discrimination by the dominant culture over a racial minority, after a history of racial discrimination" - this is entirely accurate. It's the difference between being a bigot and being racist; in all four circumstances, those statements are bigoted but only one of them is racist.

This isn't hypocritical in the slightest; hypocrisy requires inconsistency. It's also arguable that it isn't even left wing; it's a progressive worldview to be sure, but progressiveness does not equal left wing.

 

[Gibbke]

Had this conversation with my wife only last night, after our son-in-law said he was going to keep his Ned Kelly beard but shave his head and she said "you'll look like a Muslim!"...he said "that's racist", and then of course the usual M-in-law v S-in-law battle that's gone on since cavemen times started in earnest...!

Racism and all forms of discrimination come from generalisation...indeed, most of our interactions and attitudes are fuelled by an incomplete picture and resultant mental gap filling. Backing all of this is intention, so you really need to understand where the person is coming from to know if it's a racist comment or not. Context - if you're not looking for that, you'll never know what you're talking about...

If Mrs G had said "you'll look like a terrorist" or you'll look like a f###ing Muslim", then me and her will have a marital-defining issue we need to discuss! Hers though actually comes from the same place as the young guy who painted blackface and went to a school dress up as Nic Nat...a straight up representation of a stereotypical image based upon what really is a predominant characteristic you can see anywhere, a Muslim guy with a decent beard who's given up on the top bit and gotten rid of it...can empathise! S-in-law though...he's a bit younger and he's got the energy to push the issue plus some clearly defined morals which still need some roadtesting...whenever he's heard the word Muslim, it's always been in a negative context because that's the news. So if you say that, the ears prick up, and he's ready...he savaged the receptionist at his workplace last week when she made racist comments after a customer left (and they were pretty shit, no examination needed)...proud of him for standing up (Katter country...I facepalm at the rednecks who live around me and I'm from frigging Tasmania!). We're about to experience a new wave of that, now that f###head is back in the White House and his conservative f###head mates worldwide will be sucking his member even if they're in opposition, so be ready...

Generalisation is a human characteristic, everyone does it, but it is used to fuel right wing idealogy. Left wing idealogy tends to react to it. A right winger will dissect and compartmentalise different groups based upon race, religion, s-eco, age, whatever you like...a left winger will attack the bigot! Neither necessarily comes from a place of strong information...

 

[Gibbke]

Not being a supporter of late-term abortion except in the most dire of emergencies I'm going to say when the potential life can survive outside the womb.

How does that stack up in the 21st century, when we can actually dig a child from the womb and artificially support it from a point significantly before that? Tellingly, you've used the word "can"...child mortality is a thing, obviously, and our medical knowledge is designed to save life in a manner no less artificial...we can, so we do....so if we can keep a foetus alive to the point it's born, then should that apply if they haven't, using a phrase totally appropriate to this site, "run through the banner"...?

 

[Gethelred]

Had this conversation with my wife only last night, after our son-in-law said he was going to keep his Ned Kelly beard but shave his head and she said "you'll look like a Muslim!"...he said "that's racist", and then of course the usual M-in-law v S-in-law battle that's gone on since cavemen times started in earnest...!

Racism and all forms of discrimination come from generalisation...indeed, most of our interactions and attitudes are fuelled by an incomplete picture and resultant mental gap filling. Backing all of this is intention, so you really need to understand where the person is coming from to know if it's a racist comment or not. Context - if you're not looking for that, you'll never know what you're talking about...

If Mrs G had said "you'll look like a terrorist" or you'll look like a f###ing Muslim", then me and her will have a marital-defining issue we need to discuss! Hers though actually comes from the same place as the young guy who painted blackface and went to a school dress up as Nic Nat...a straight up representation of a stereotypical image based upon what really is a predominant characteristic you can see anywhere, a Muslim guy with a decent beard who's given up on the top bit and gotten rid of it...can empathise! S-in-law though...he's a bit younger and he's got the energy to push the issue plus some clearly defined morals which still need some roadtesting...whenever he's heard the word Muslim, it's always been in a negative context because that's the news. So if you say that, the ears prick up, and he's ready...he savaged the receptionist at his workplace last week when she made racist comments after a customer left (and they were pretty shit, no examination needed)...proud of him for standing up (Katter country...I facepalm at the rednecks who live around me and I'm from frigging Tasmania!). We're about to experience a new wave of that, now that f###head is back in the White House and his conservative f###head mates worldwide will be sucking his member even if they're in opposition, so be ready...

Generalisation is a human characteristic, everyone does it, but it is used to fuel right wing idealogy. Left wing idealogy tends to react to it. A right winger will dissect and compartmentalise different groups based upon race, religion, s-eco, age, whatever you like...a left winger will attack the bigot! Neither necessarily comes from a place of strong information...

This is interesting, but a little surface.

The problem with racism isn't that it generalises, but it replicates the unjust hierarchies of power built from racialised societies. Those generalisations then become the only thing that is known about a person before that person's even been encountered. Read Edward Said's Orientalism for more on this; it's how the entire world east of Istanbul has, from the time of Marco Polo, has had the same stories replicated and the same negative tropes used concerning all cultures despite it being bigger than Europe and more diverse.

I do agree that context matters and the individual matters, but that's largely because a real racist - as opposed to someone who says bigoted shit - believes that those hierarchies of power are both just and right. The problem there is that there is precious little difference in that person's interactions with the modern world and someone who just says bigoted shit: how do you tell the person who believes the awful stuff from the person who just says it when they both sound and act the same?

 

[Kram]

Imo calling Australia a racist country is just an ignorant and or self serving political statement.

 

[Gibbke]

...progressiveness does not equal left wing.

Hmmm...there are exceptions, but it kinda does, actually...! The "right" comes from the original French Court definition, where the King's most trusted men would stand on his right and back him rigidly...the left more likely to disagree. So the right backs the establishment, therefore "the way it already is", and the left become the agitators...progress necessarily involves change and an intention of improvement...

 

[Gethelred]

Hmmm...there are exceptions, but it kinda does, actually...! The "right" comes from the original French Court definition, where the King's most trusted men would stand on his right and back him rigidly...the left more likely to disagree. So the right backs the establishment, therefore "the way it already is", and the left become the agitators...progress necessarily involves change and an intention of improvement...

Not in a modern context, it's not.

Society and organisation are a good deal more complex than they used to be, and this is reflected in how much stronger the pulls in different directions are. The left wing and right wing diametry is a position on the ideal roles of hierarchies and how economies should be structured; progressive-conservative a person's comfort with change; liberal-illiberal a person's position on freedom.

You can have conservative lefties (your unionists who are church goers and staunch biblical literalist) and liberal, progressive right wingers (Malcolm Turnbull, everyone).

Treating terms as though they aren't in flux or haven't changed since 1789 means that terminology fails to adequately depict the thing it was invented for.

 

[Gibbke]

Imo calling Australia a racist country is just an ignorant and or self serving political statement.

Can be, certainly gets a headline from those who want it to push an agenda. However, it's also a statement of fact if you also consider that this discrimination is a hard-wired human characteristic coming from the most basic survival instinct, a distrust of those outside the tribe...every country is racist, because every human needs to cognitively fight it if they don't want that label...

This then becomes a necessary statement, because just like an AA meeting, if you have a problem then you need to own it first to fix it! So are we a racist country if that means do we engage in racially negative behaviour (without itemizing that, it's obviously an essay length definition)...? Yup...and now we go and do something about it...that's a healthy discourse...

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

How does that stack up in the 21st century, when we can actually dig a child from the womb and artificially support it from a point significantly before that? Tellingly, you've used the word "can"...child mortality is a thing, obviously, and our medical knowledge is designed to save life in a manner no less artificial...we can, so we do....so if we can keep a foetus alive to the point it's born, then should that apply if they haven't, using a phrase totally appropriate to this site, "run through the banner"...?

I think that, as artificial wombs come along and become widespread, their use in saving pre-birth lives in this manner will become an increased factor.

Are pre-birth lives sacrosanct from the moment of conception? No, I don't think they are.
Am I pro-choice? Absolutely.
At what point should mothers (and fathers, but it is mothers who physically carry a pregnancy) who 100% do not want lives carrying their DNA to be born have this option taken away? Tough question, but I'll stick to viability outside the womb. Before that time it is an intrinsic part of the mother's body and as the carrier it is especially hers to do as she pleases.

I'll ask you as I've asked others - are you approaching the abortion issue from a religious standpoint?

 

[AvantGardener]

Had this conversation with my wife only last night, after our son-in-law said he was going to keep his Ned Kelly beard but shave his head and she said "you'll look like a Muslim!"...he said "that's racist", and then of course the usual M-in-law v S-in-law battle that's gone on since cavemen times started in earnest...!

Racism and all forms of discrimination come from generalisation...indeed, most of our interactions and attitudes are fuelled by an incomplete picture and resultant mental gap filling. Backing all of this is intention, so you really need to understand where the person is coming from to know if it's a racist comment or not. Context - if you're not looking for that, you'll never know what you're talking about...

If Mrs G had said "you'll look like a terrorist" or you'll look like a f###ing Muslim", then me and her will have a marital-defining issue we need to discuss! Hers though actually comes from the same place as the young guy who painted blackface and went to a school dress up as Nic Nat...a straight up representation of a stereotypical image based upon what really is a predominant characteristic you can see anywhere, a Muslim guy with a decent beard who's given up on the top bit and gotten rid of it...can empathise! S-in-law though...he's a bit younger and he's got the energy to push the issue plus some clearly defined morals which still need some roadtesting...whenever he's heard the word Muslim, it's always been in a negative context because that's the news. So if you say that, the ears prick up, and he's ready...he savaged the receptionist at his workplace last week when she made racist comments after a customer left (and they were pretty shit, no examination needed)...proud of him for standing up (Katter country...I facepalm at the rednecks who live around me and I'm from frigging Tasmania!). We're about to experience a new wave of that, now that f###head is back in the White House and his conservative f###head mates worldwide will be sucking his member even if they're in opposition, so be ready...

Generalisation is a human characteristic, everyone does it, but it is used to fuel right wing idealogy. Left wing idealogy tends to react to it. A right winger will dissect and compartmentalise different groups based upon race, religion, s-eco, age, whatever you like...a left winger will attack the bigot! Neither necessarily comes from a place of strong information...

Nice contribution to the thread hypocrisy of the left.

Left 'racism is bad'
Left 'uses term rednecks'

 

[AvantGardener]

You can have conservative lefties (your unionists who are church goers and staunch biblical literalist) and liberal, progressive right wingers (Malcolm Turnbull, everyone).

A few hours ago you couldn't fathom my opinion some on the left could be self interested and others could be altruistic and now this. LOL