A thread on politics- have some balls and post

[Hollow Knight]

Youtube is a cesspool. If we are using YouTube comments and like ratios as a social barometer, we may as well just shut down this little experiment called humanity.

Angry people are always exponentially more vocal than the pleased, and even if it was the other way round, popularity isn’t a proxy for right.

Anyway, you seem to be more interested in Gillette, the specific choices they made in the ad, and their motivations. I am more interested in the actual issues lying underneath that existed long before the commercial, and will continue to exist long after the commercial is forgotten. I couldn’t give a rats toss about corporations like Gillette and their hypocrisy. Corporations are gonna try and make money. It is the reaction to the ad that is far more disturbing and worthy of concern and discussion. It has been a real honey pot for some troubled people to raise red flags about themselves.

Regardless, ironically commercial will provide a useful lightning rod of rage and distraction for a while for those who want to blame “culture wars” pretend that the issues it taps into don’t exist more widely.

Meanwhile, Australian men will continue to kill themselves at a rate three times that of women. They will also be three times more likely to commit domestic violence than women. We should be willing to ask the tough questions about our culture to figure out why.

 

[Football Pope]

“Man serves the interests of no creature except himself.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm

 

[Caiphus]

Real men don't do nuance or quality textual analysis it seems.

 

[Skoob]

Most would be unaware of Gillette & P&G's other failings. I wasn't even aware of Gillette 'grid girls', so let's not pretend people being negative about this ad, are so because of social conscience and reaction to hypocrisy.
People don't like being lectured to, but those most averse to lectures are those who have traits often being lectured about. They don't like being told you can't make aboriginal or Chinese jokes anymore, or blame gender for bad driving, or that the 'man of the house' should no longer be in charge. Those people hate 'political correctness'.
They do like strawmen, and as soon as misogyny is raised, they feel a need to strongly point out "not all men...". They do like exaggerate and claim that any progression will lead to the extreme, like banning Xmas or gay orgies in school.

Is Gillette being hypocritical? Point to a corporate giant who isn't.
That doesn't change the message, nor is it why most (of those who are)are upset by it. The ad essentially says men can be better. All of the undesirable traits of 'masculinity' can be changed, if 'we' change how we behave or react to behaviour.
What the ad doesn't say, is "all men".
What it doesn't say, is "YOU" unless you recognise yourself being portrayed in the ad. The dozen blokes at the BBQ saying "Boys will be boys" is a very real representation. It might not seem like they are bad blokes, and no-one is saying they are. That could be you or me. What the ad says, is maybe that's not the best attitude or approach. And I agree. Surely we as a species can evolve, beyond mindless physical intimidation.

Anyhoo, the objections to the message (not Gillette) are exactly the problem the message addresses. Attitudes that feed bullying, sexism, violence.

And palm oil? Pffft.
Even environmental vandals can object to violence against women. It doesn't make them less of a vandal, but nor does the vandalism weaken their message about violence. They have to get some credit for the message. It won't influence my purchase decisions, but I'm glad someone made the message. It could have been a ad for milk for all I care.

 

[Football Pope]

Most would be unaware of Gillette & P&G's other failings. I wasn't even aware of Gillette 'grid girls', so let's not pretend people being negative about this ad, are so because of social conscience and reaction to hypocrisy.//
And I agree. Surely we as a species can evolve, beyond mindless physical intimidation.

Anyhoo, the objections to the message (not Gillette) are exactly the problem the message addresses. Attitudes that feed bullying, sexism, violence.

And palm oil? Pffft.
Even environmental vandals can object to violence against women. It doesn't make them less of a vandal, but nor does the vandalism weaken their message about violence. They have to get some credit for the message. It won't influence my purchase decisions, but I'm glad someone made the message. It could have been a ad for milk for all I care.

FWIW Amnesty International report highlights a discriminatory pattern of hiring women as casual daily labourers, denying them permanent employment and social security benefits such as health insurance and pensions.. Unilever and Procter & Gamble confirmed that they source from Wilmar’s Indonesian operations.. Wilmar’s subsidiaries and suppliers employ some harvesters as casual daily labourers but most harvesters – who are always men – are employed on permanent employment contracts.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/th...IN6JEUn1bWHpFdvTEiKEG66LJcS2uFTzNVnXjWa15d_go

 

[Jivlain]

All Schick had to do was say theirs was "The Schickest of Schicks"...instead we have this




https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/0...tes-metoo-ad-by-releasing-misogynistic-razor/

The punchline is that this razor is no more likely to knick your face than any other, it's just that all its users have nanometre-thick skin.

 

[3KZ is Football]

“I use this one to pick my nose.”

 

[briztoon]

Maybe Tom will let you borrow his MAGA hat.

Copy and pasting from another thread.

I rarely venture here because I'm not well versed in politics, local or international, and definitely don't have a clear grasp of local politics (ours or any other countries) impact on international politics.

That said...

My wife and I had an interesting discussion last night about MAGA. If you remove Trump from the equation, the general policies are about improving the lot of the American worker and making America great again.

I'll make note that my wife is not Australian, so doesn't always have western view on many things.

Australia has made many political concessions and/or donations to foreign countries that clearly aren't returned in kind. Maybe our politicians could take more of an interest in protecting local industries. As my wife has said, companies and countries will still want to do business if there is profit for them to make.

 

[Hollow Knight]

My wife and I had an interesting discussion last night about MAGA. If you remove Trump from the equation, the general policies are about improving the lot of the American worker and making America great again.

You can't remove Trump from the equation - the movement doesn't exist without him and his backers. And "MAGA" is symbolic of so much more than that. If you think the majority of people wearing that hat think it is exclusively about tariffs and trying to salvage American manufacturing, then I don't know where to begin.

And the death of Australian manufacturing and protectionism is far, far, far more complex than you are giving it credit for. It's really got nothing to do with "politicians showing an interest in protecting local industries". It's simply the economic transformation that arises from globalisation and free trade. You inevitably have to play the game of competitive advantage and ride out the process of creative destruction that goes with that. Unless you either:

(a) want children sewing soccer balls and sneakers for 50 cents an hour and continually wasting tax money bailing out Australian car manufacturers who make cars no one wants to buy

or

(b) start a trade war that we can't possibly win, destroying our agricultural and resources sector in the process.

 

[briztoon]

You can't remove Trump from the equation - the movement doesn't exist without him and his backers. And "MAGA" is symbolic of so much more than that. If you think the majority of people wearing that hat think it is exclusively about tariffs and trying to salvage American manufacturing, then I don't know where to begin.

And the death of Australian manufacturing and protectionism is far, far, far more complex than you are giving it credit for. It's really got nothing to do with "politicians showing an interest in protecting local industries". It's simply the economic transformation that arises from globalisation and free trade. You inevitably have to play the game of competitive advantage and ride out the process of creative destruction that goes with that. Unless you either:

(a) want children sewing soccer balls and sneakers for 50 cents an hour and continually wasting tax money bailing out Australian car manufacturers who make cars no one wants to buy

or

(b) start a trade war that we can't possibly win, destroying our agricultural and resources sector in the process.

Our discussion did remove Trump from it, as we weren't focussed on the symbolic nature of MAGA for white America, but rather the business/economic side of it compared to other countries around the world.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Our discussion did remove Trump from it, as we weren't focussed on the symbolic nature of MAGA for white America, but rather the business/economic side of it compared to other countries around the world.

Seems very reductionist, even as an assessment of the business/economic side. Tax cuts for the wealthiest, massive cuts to health and scientific research, weakened anti-trust laws, withdrawing from the Paris agreement at a time where renewable energy is the next big market to explore, propping up a dying coal industry with no real future, trade wars, adding trillions to the debt... all threaten to have a long term negative effect on the U.S. economy. There is a good case to be made that there is a bit of a bait and switch going on. Getting some quick short term wins at the expense of the future.

There are also pretty compelling statistics that show that U.S. manufacturing was on quite an upswing already during the Obama administration (and that the Trump Bump is a myth), and all without trade wars.

 

[briztoon]

Seems very reductionist, even as an assessment of the business/economic side. Tax cuts for the wealthiest, massive cuts to health and scientific research, weakened anti-trust laws, withdrawing from the Paris agreement at a time where renewable energy is the next big market to explore, propping up a dying coal industry with no real future, trade wars... all threaten to have a long term negative effect on the U.S. economy. There is a good case to be made that there is a bit of a bait and switch going on. Getting some quick short term wins at the expense of the future.

There are also pretty compelling statistics that show that U.S. manufacturing was on quite an upswing already during the Obama administration (and that the Trump Bump is a myth), and all without trade wars.

Yup, our discussion wasn't all positive towards his policies. Certainly not trying to paint the policies as all positive. Our discussion was focussed on the tariffs and America withdrawing from agreements that weren't deemed putting America's interests first.

Our discussion did go beyond America and look at a world view, and talk about other major countries, namely China, who's policies do disregard a world view, both economic, social and environmental. As I mentioned my wife is not Australian, so their are other world views that don't share a free market globalisation point of view, or look at it differently.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Yup, our discussion wasn't all positive towards his policies. Certainly not trying to paint the policies as all positive. Our discussion was focussed on the tariffs and America withdrawing from agreements that weren't deemed putting America's interests first.

That determination is entirely subjective though. No country willingly embraces globalisation and free trade out of some sort of altruistic concession to the rest of the world. It is done out of a belief that it is the right path to take for the country. The Trump people no doubt belief their approach is also in "America's interest".

Time will tell on how it plays out, but I'm seeing no compelling indicators at this point that Trump's trade policies are going to be a long term positive.

 

[POBT]

There was an article a couple of years ago comparing China and US foreign aid commitments. China was behind but not by a huge amount. China gives a lot of aid to African countries, where it has significant investment. Given the US has been a first world economy for over a century and China has only recently emerged, that’s pretty interesting.

No country gives aid for purely altruistic purposes. They do it because it makes sense. Whilst somewhat in dispute, the ultimate foreign aid program in the Marshall Plan led to desired outcomes which included more prosperous markets for US companies, rock solid alliances that continue today and a barrier to prevent the spread of communism. As long as the aid has ties or implications which benefit Australia, we’ll continue to give it.

 

[Football Pope]

There was an article a couple of years ago comparing China and US foreign aid commitments. China was behind but not by a huge amount. China gives a lot of aid to African countries, where it has significant investment. Given the US has been a first world economy for over a century and China has only recently emerged, that’s pretty interesting.

No country gives aid for purely altruistic purposes. They do it because it makes sense. Whilst somewhat in dispute, the ultimate foreign aid program in the Marshall Plan led to desired outcomes which included more prosperous markets for US companies, rock solid alliances that continue today and a barrier to prevent the spread of communism. As long as the aid has ties or implications which benefit Australia, we’ll continue to give it.

Yep.. and have been focussing on getting a "significant investment" in the South Pacific..And with a population of 18.41% of the total world population. The South Pacific offers the world’s last rich fisheries and holds the promise of deep-sea mining for minerals.....When New Zealand and Australia imposed embargoes on Fiji, due to several military coups in 2006 China stepped in and under an aid program gave Fiji US$360 million between 2006 and 2015.....China’s biggest play in the Pacific has been in Papua New Guinea — a mineral, timber and fisheries-rich nation. Much of its investment is not aid it is copper, gold and fuel extraction..... In 2015, Australia’s Northern Territory announced the Port of Darwin was to be leased in a $506 million deal to Chinese-owned Landbridge Corp for 99 years. (Port of Darwin is vital cog in the Australia-United States military alliance.)

 

[pulpdriver]

There was an article a couple of years ago comparing China and US foreign aid commitments. China was behind but not by a huge amount. China gives a lot of aid to African countries, where it has significant investment. Given the US has been a first world economy for over a century and China has only recently emerged, that’s pretty interesting.

No country gives aid for purely altruistic purposes. They do it because it makes sense. Whilst somewhat in dispute, the ultimate foreign aid program in the Marshall Plan led to desired outcomes which included more prosperous markets for US companies, rock solid alliances that continue today and a barrier to prevent the spread of communism. As long as the aid has ties or implications which benefit Australia, we’ll continue to give it.

China has the exact same intentions with their aid as the US with the Marshall Plan and has made a habit of giving aid to countries in the form of loans in exchange for it to be spent on the Chinese developing infrastructural, mining, naval and other assorted benefits. These often have little to no immediate benefit to the country in question and the countries have no means of paying back the loan, in which case China just assumes control of whatever they've erected. They've been doing it steadily in many South Pacific islands in recent time to consolidate their control on the area.

edit: I should have scrolled down, Football Pope said as much but had more info and detailed sources.

 

[pulpdriver]

Seems very reductionist, even as an assessment of the business/economic side. Tax cuts for the wealthiest, massive cuts to health and scientific research, weakened anti-trust laws, withdrawing from the Paris agreement at a time where renewable energy is the next big market to explore, propping up a dying coal industry with no real future, trade wars, adding trillions to the debt... all threaten to have a long term negative effect on the U.S. economy. There is a good case to be made that there is a bit of a bait and switch going on. Getting some quick short term wins at the expense of the future.

There are also pretty compelling statistics that show that U.S. manufacturing was on quite an upswing already during the Obama administration (and that the Trump Bump is a myth), and all without trade wars.

I think it's hard to argue these things don't have plenty of economic benefits for Americans and some of the things you mentioned you misrepresented or were simply wrong about.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest

It's tax cuts for everyone except those earning between $200k and $416k who will now be paying 3% more tax. Every other American will be better off.

massive cuts to health and scientific research

What do you mean? In March last year Trump authorised a $1.3 trillion dollar spending package which is the largest spending increase in research in over a decade. Some agencies will have their budgets cut but at the same time others are having their budgets increased exponentially.

weakened anti-trust laws

Weakened in what way? The general consensus as far as I was aware that the Trump administration had been even more aggressive in pursuing anti-trust enforcement than the previous admin. And there's been continued talk from Trump in increasing anti-trust inquires and potential violations into America's three mega corporations.

withdrawing from the Paris agreement

The Paris Agreement was arguably detrimental to America's long term economic outlook, with some estimates being as high as $2.5 trillion hit to their GDP by 2035, not to mention a range of other potential negative impacts that would passed onto Americans without any promise of reducing global emissions more than America could achieve on its own accord without severely impacting its economy and the lives of its citizens.

Climate change can't be ignored, but the Paris Agreement and its ability to impact global emissions is questionable and if I were an American citizen I wouldn't be too pleased at having to fit the bill whilst China continues to be the major issue and doing sfa to rectify their impact.

at a time where renewable energy is the next big market to explore

Some have taken a hit like solar with imported solar panels getting a 30% increase in tariffs, others like hyrdo have been given massive billion multi-billion dollar investments.

propping up a dying coal industry with no real future

You're right that coal has no real future but at the same time he's not propping up coal, despite some old comments. I think he made some past pledges to the industry so that some workers wouldn't feel neglected or ignored but by 2017 America's omissions had already dropped to more than half what the Obama administration had predicted and it's due to America's continued reduction of coal energy and increased investment in and subsequent production of gas.
Gas now accounts for 31.8% of American's energy production with coal dropping to 17.8% (Renewables are at 12.7%).
If anything, the coal industry and its workers potentially have reason to be irate with Trump in that he is ignoring their industry so much in favour of gas, thoughts reiterated just today by Trump in the SOTUA. Gas is not only cleaner but makes renewables far easier to integrate down the line and with America now being the number one producer of gas in the world and predicted for production exceed exports by 2020 it potentially creates a raft of new jobs for which coal workers can transition.

trade wars

Potentially saving trillions for the US. Some countries will be impacted by it, like China, others like Australia, Brazil, Indian, Phillipines, Vietnam and of course, America stand to benefit.

adding trillions to the debt

How so specifically?

There are also pretty compelling statistics that show that U.S. manufacturing was on quite an upswing already during the Obama administration (and that the Trump Bump is a myth), and all without trade wars.

Did you have a link for these?

 

[Hollow Knight]

About to go to bed so can’t do an exhaustive response right now, but I can answer a couple really quickly.

As a candidate he pledged to reduce the debt. Instead it has gone from just under 20 trillion to just under 22 trillion. His own budget documents predict an increase of approximately 8 trillion over his 4 year term. 8 trillion in one term.

That is the same as what Obama added in two terms. And Barry at least had the excuse of fighting a recession and a global financial crisis.

As for manufacturing jobs... (AKA wtf was G W Bush doing)

 

[dlanod]

It's tax cuts for everyone except those earning between $200k and $416k who will now be paying 3% more tax. Every other American will be better off.

Just jumping on this one because it's one of the bigger misleading examples, and we see it in Australia too. In that example just about everyone is getting a tax cut, because even someone on $200k-$418k is benefiting from the tax rates being lowered on all earnings up to $200k. Similarly, people call it tax cuts for the wealthy because someone on $1m just got a tax cut of more than $16,000 whereas those earning the median income gets a tax cut of $1600. The majority of the benefit of the tax cuts goes to those earning more.

Doing the actual maths shows people right around the $400k mark are worse off (by $600 pa or less) because the increase in tax rate for $200k-$400k overtakes the cuts below that mark.

Your graphic is out of date BTW - the actual passed rates and thresholds were lower again.

 

[Football Pope]

There was an article a couple of years ago comparing China and US foreign aid commitments. China was behind but not by a huge amount. China gives a lot of aid to African countries, where it has significant investment. Given the US has been a first world economy for over a century and China has only recently emerged, that’s pretty interesting.

No country gives aid for purely altruistic purposes. They do it because it makes sense. Whilst somewhat in dispute, the ultimate foreign aid program in the Marshall Plan led to desired outcomes which included more prosperous markets for US companies, rock solid alliances that continue today and a barrier to prevent the spread of communism. As long as the aid has ties or implications which benefit Australia, we’ll continue to give it.

The Significant investment and the payback for China on those African countries that receive aid or significant contribution in mining minerals would also be a vote with China or abstaining at the UN... (friendly, mutually beneficial cooperation)
All part of The "Belt and Road infrastructure" ...having already invested in Yemen...China has been investing in Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Eritrea...that would give China the balance of power in the Horn of Africa.. the old major artery of maritime trade between Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia... Upgrading/improving infrastructure that connects China to Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Liberals and Nationals just got handed their arses in the House of Representatives over Medivac Bill. First time a Government has been defeated in the House in such a manner since Stanley Melbourne Bruce was schooled in 1929. He called an election the next day. Go on Morrison. I dare you!

 

[briztoon]

Liberals and Nationals just got handed their arses in the House of Representatives over Medivac Bill. First time a Government has been defeated in the House in such a manner since Stanley Melbourne Bruce was schooled in 1929. He called an election the next day. Go on Morrison. I dare you!

I don't believe he will.

I'm fully expecting Morrison to ruin my birthday by calling the election to held on it.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Yeah Morrison and the LNP are going to hang on to the Australian body politic like a leech. Need to be burned off.

 

[SizeMatters]

Interesting times ahead for government

Renewable energy will be a major focus in INO

 

[Billy Puller]

Bill shortperson