A thread on politics- have some balls and post

[Billy Puller]

Lighting for a greener Brisbane is a bullshit ploy to kick the homeless out of areas around kangaroo point cliffs. And other public places deemed too nice for the unworthy homeless. Make the lights too bright to sleep. They were all changed over to more ‘energy efficient’ bulbs only a couple years ago now they’re changing them all again and interesting enough they are even brighter. Palachook is a scum bag and lord quirk is just as bad.

I can’t wait for the election I hope Clive shakes s**t up because the two major parties need a shake up desperately

 

[Jivlain]

I found this article a few years back...

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/gullible-rudd-steps-right-in-it/

You want to be careful there and look precisely where the warm periods and the labels like "medieval warm period", "dark age cooling", "roman warm period" actually are (carefully, because it's bit inconsistent about what direction the graphs are going, and whether it's in calendar years or years BP)

When is the MWP, per these graphs? (approx)
Great Plains: 770-1020
Makassar Strait: 1120-1210
China: 810-990, 1120-1250 (cooler patch in the middle)
Sargasso Sea: 880-1150
Venezuela: 1210-1310
South Africa: 820-970

When you average all the different regional datasets together, the medieval warm period is actually a real thing, but it's not as dramatic as any one region because each period has its peak at a different point. Indeed, according to Jo Nova's graphs, the Great Plains is experiencing the Little Ice Age while Venezuela is having its Medieval Warm Period, while the Makassar Strait is cooling in the Dark Ages while China is having its Medieval Warm Period.

If you average everything out you get a little peak overall for the MWP around 950-1250AD but only a small one, nothing like the current peak, which is based on substantially elevated temperatures globally and all at the same time. Denialists claim the small size of the MWP peak in worldwide reconstructions is the result of a massive globalist conspiracy but it's actually just that they never actually compare the dates on their own graphs.

It's bad history too. Roman armies were really quite pragmatic about adopting local customs, including cold weather gear, when they operated in colder regions.

 

[Football Pope]

Hey Jivian...All good mate .That was a response in relation to Rudd- Murdoch feud Sizey posted #3894...FWIW Joanne Nova was employed by Murdoch originally through Foxtel...

http://joannenova.com.au/tag/murdoch-rupert/

 

[SizeMatters]

Hey Jivian...All good mate .That was a response in relation to Rudd- Murdoch feud Sizey posted #3894...FWIW Joanne Nova was employed by Murdoch originally through Foxtel...

http://joannenova.com.au/tag/murdoch-rupert/

no doubt a victim of the ignore list. such a shame.

 

[Jivlain]

Hey Jivian...All good mate .That was a response in relation to Rudd- Murdoch feud Sizey posted #3894...FWIW Joanne Nova was employed by Murdoch originally through Foxtel...

http://joannenova.com.au/tag/murdoch-rupert/

Ah, fair enough, I didn't make the connection.

no doubt a victim of the ignore list. such a shame.

Nah you're ok right now.

 

[Football Pope]

Ah, fair enough, I didn't make the connection.

All cool..Rudd stated Murdoch’s campaign against his government was at the 2013 election. IMO it started way earlier than that while he was still in office 2008-2009..following this..(https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2009/february/1319602475/kevin-rudd/global-financial-crisis). Alternative thinking journalists at Murdoch's beck and call were given a free (paid) hit...(Joanne Nova article was posted May 2010) Murdoch owned Australian posted this gem https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...n/news-story/1d097495d21f21e16bcabc812463e273

 

[dlanod]

All cool..Rudd stated Murdoch’s campaign against his government was at the 2013 election. IMO it started way earlier than that while he was still in office 2008-2009..following this..(https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2009/february/1319602475/kevin-rudd/global-financial-crisis). Alternative thinking journalists at Murdoch's beck and call were given a free (paid) hit...(Joanne Nova article was posted May 2010) Murdoch owned Australian posted this gem https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...n/news-story/1d097495d21f21e16bcabc812463e273

It was very noticeable. I was a pretty dedicated Australian reader for many years until the targeting of Rudd moved from news coverage to editorialising under the cover of "news". I'd expected that in the CM, DT and so on for many years prior but generally the Australian had been above it.

 

[Hollow Knight]

 

[Caiphus]

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

The most tone deaf part about these activism style commercials, is that everyone with half a brain knows that they don't give a flying fart about the cause, they just wanted the brand exposure. (We know they don't actually care about progressive politics, because their parent company P&G is the biggest user of palm oil in the world.... whoops).

Insult your client base, label them as inherently defective and in need of repair, but end up just coming off disingenuous, fake and deceitful at the same time. I'm not sure what to make of it..

 

[Caiphus]

I actually agree with sentiment of the ad. I have no problems with companies taking social stances. I'm more concerned by everyone who feels like it's calling them a bully or a rapist because it's likely they are problematic on that front and resistant to introspection.

 

[Football Pope]

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

NEW YORK – In response to Gillette’s powerful advertisement about toxic masculinity, Schick has unveiled a misogynistic razor for those angry and bitter men who feel betrayed.
“This product is 400% more likely to slice your face open than a regular razor, but you can take it because you’re not a pussy,” explained the three minute Schick Alpha Male Razor commercial. “It’s a razor for a man who refuses to be told what to do by a woman, whether she’s running for president or a doctor trying to stitch up his bleeding face.”
Special “gay-preventing grips” along the shaft are specially designed to reduce the razor from being dropped in the shower. The hyper-masculine shaving product is four times larger than a typical blade “so no one will * with it,” says the ad.

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

 

[Hollow Knight]

Insult your client base, label them as inherently defective and in need of repair,.

Boy you have to really want to be offended to take it that way. If you genuinely got an "all men..." vibe from that, I am stunned.

I mean, when people say that criticising "masculinity" isn't the same as criticising "men" they aren't trying to get you to subscribe to some radical, left-wing, woke, identity politics way of thinking. It's a pretty clear distinction that can be agreed upon across all political persusations and across many fields... psychology, biology, anthropology, economics, sociology, criminology, medicine...

A man = someone of the male gender.

Masculinity = the socially created expectations of what attributes best define a "man".

Can we at least agree on that? Isn't that easily proven by basic anthropological evidence of how the roles and expectations of genders differ across different societies? There are clearly expectations that society places on people... how to be a good child.... to be a good citizen.... and yeah, what makes a good woman or man.

Once you accept that these things are socially constructed, then surely it's possible that they can be "poorly constructed".

How often do people say "children these days aren't getting enough exercise or socialising properly", "20-35 year olds aren't politically engaged enough", or "society puts enourmous pressure on women regarding their physical attractiveness and body shape".?

Yet someone dares to point out that a lot of the expectations that society puts on men can be both damaging to both men themselves, and others... and a bunch of men lose their ******* minds and claim that "men" themselves are being attacked". It's unbelievable. The term "fragile masculinity" exists for a reason. It's an incredibly apt description of a lot of the reaction.

Let's ignore the stuff for a second about how masculinity effects others, such as domestic violence, lest we fall down a strawman hole of "not all men" or "woman commit domestic violence too" (both these things are correct but they are also completely irrelevent to this actual issue).

So... wanna to know one example where men in the west have objectively dominated women for generations? Suicide. Clearly the social expectations of what it takes for males to measure up as proper "men" is not working for a hell of a lot of guys. Why can't we have a discussion about this?

 

[M Malice]

Yep, I posted this on the SRP board, I didn't take it personally at all. Some posters getting pretty fired up in SRP land.

I'm very cynical and realistic re Gillette's motivations ($$$) but I liked the add, actually made me feel good and I got a bit emotional.

Will it make me more likely to use Gillette products? NO!

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

Boy you have to really want to be offended to take it that way. If you genuinely got an "all men..." vibe from that, I am stunned.

Definitely. The toxicity is implied to be inherently a part of underlying masculinity. This is following on from the American Psychological Association who have shifted to defining it this way.

But the more interesting point is surely about the palm oil. We live in an era of woke capitalism where companies pretend to care about social justice in order to sell products to people who pretend to hate capitalism. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so blatantly disingenuous.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Definitely. The toxicity is implied to be inherently a part of underlying masculinity. This is following on from the American Psychological Association who have shifted to defining it this way.

But the more interesting point is surely about the palm oil. We live in an era of woke capitalism where companies pretend to care about social justice in order to sell products to people who pretend to hate capitalism. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so blatantly disingenuous.

Definitely. The toxicity is implied to be inherently a part of underlying masculinity. This is following on from the American Psychological Association who have shifted to defining it this way.

Yes, but they aren’t defining “men” that way. The difference is massive.

But the more interesting point is surely about the palm oil. We live in an era of woke capitalism where companies pretend to care about social justice in order to sell products to people who pretend to hate capitalism. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so blatantly disingenuous.

I actually find it a profoundly uninteresting point. I don’t doubt that Gillette have marketing motivations. But I also think you are reaching massively with the “they are trying to sell products to people who hate capitalism” comment and even moreso with the palm oil thing.

I don’t think they are chasing the anti-capitalist dollar. They are targeting the social progressive market if anything, many of whom are big consumers.

Regardless, the “palm oil” argument seems weird. It’s like dismissing tin rattlers for the Surf Lifesavers or RSPCA because they aren’t driving an electric car or helping the homeless. When did it suddenly become a rule that if you are trying to address a particular issue that you have to be utterly unimpeachable in every other way and carry the flag for every other social issue as well?

Is Bill Gates a phony because he lives in a mansion and is focusing his philanthropy on third world health and not literacy or renewable energy research?

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

Boy you have to really want to be offended to take it that way. If you genuinely got an "all men..." vibe from that, I am stunned.

I mean, when people say that criticising "masculinity" isn't the same as criticising "men" they aren't trying to get you to subscribe to some radical, left-wing, woke, identity politics way of thinking. It's a pretty clear distinction that can be agreed upon across all political persusations and across many fields... psychology, biology, anthropology, economics, sociology, criminology, medicine...

A man = someone of the male gender.

Masculinity = the socially created expectations of what attributes best define a "man".

Can we at least agree on that? Isn't that easily proven by basic anthropological evidence of how the roles and expectations of genders differ across different societies? There are clearly expectations that society places on people... how to be a good child.... to be a good citizen.... and yeah, what makes a good woman or man.

Once you accept that these things are socially constructed, then surely it's possible that they can be "poorly constructed".

How often do people say "children these days aren't getting enough exercise or socialising properly", "20-35 year olds aren't politically engaged enough", or "society puts enourmous pressure on women regarding their physical attractiveness and body shape".?

Yet someone dares to point out that a lot of the expectations that society puts on men can be both damaging to both men themselves, and others... and a bunch of men lose their ******* minds and claim that "men" themselves are being attacked". It's unbelievable. The term "fragile masculinity" exists for a reason. It's an incredibly apt description of a lot of the reaction.

Let's ignore the stuff for a second about how masculinity effects others, such as domestic violence, lest we fall down a strawman hole of "not all men" or "woman commit domestic violence too" (both these things are correct but they are also completely irrelevent to this actual issue).

So... wanna to know one example where men in the west have objectively dominated women for generations? Suicide. Clearly the social expectations of what it takes for males to measure up as proper "men" is not working for a hell of a lot of guys. Why can't we have a discussion about this?

Differ across different societies? The overwhelming conclusion anyone would draw by analysing different societies from all parts of the world in all time periods, and even our evolutionary cousins, is how unbelievably similar the behaviours and societal expectations are for each sex. Masculinity is certainly not just defined by the societal trends on top of that. Masculinity (and femininity) is deeply entrenched in genetics. To ascertain these things as undeniably socially constructed? What? To say, “can we at least agree on that” and close off the option for further discussion. What?

There’s a fantastic new book by renowned evolutionary psychologist Steve Williams, “The Ape that Understood the Universe”, that addresses these misunderstandings in more detail and more accurately than I can.

There’s multiple causal factors for greater male suicide, many of which are genetically influenced. To ignore these is not great.

Imagine claiming there were aspects of femininity that were inherently toxic and in need of cleansing (as the APA now says of masculinity). There would be mutinity.

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

Yes, but they aren’t defining “men” that way. The difference is massive.




I actually find it a profoundly uninteresting point. I don’t doubt that Gillette have marketing motivations. But I also think you are reaching massively with the “they are trying to sell products to people who hate capitalism” comment and even moreso with the palm oil thing.

I don’t think they are chasing the anti-capitalist dollar. They are targeting the social progressive market if anything, many of whom are big consumers. Regardless, the “palm oil” argument seems weird. It’s like dismissing tin rattlers for the Surf Lifesavers or RSPCA because they aren’t driving an electric car or helping the homeless. When did it suddenly become a rule that if you are trying to address a particular issue that you have to be utterly unimpeachable in every other way and carry the flag for every other social issue as well?

Is Bill Gates a phony because he lives in a mansion and is focusing his philanthropy on third world health and not literacy or renewable energy research?

Bro they aren’t driving a petrol car they are literally burning down the rainforest!!

“Oh well it’s a ridiculous standard to have to be utterly unimpeachable in every single other way..”

they’re burning down rainforests!! Incredible argument.

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

Yes, but they aren’t defining “men” that way. The difference is massive.

They depict the baseline male as inherently bad, and once “cleansed” they become good. Rose coloured glasses to assume “oh well they’re not talking about me, I’m inherently good, they’re only talking about other men.”

 

[Hollow Knight]

Imagine claiming there were aspects of femininity that were inherently toxic and in need of cleansing (as the APA now says of masculinity). There would be mutinity.

I’ll claim it right now. There are aspects of femininity and the expectations that go with it that are incredibly toxic.

They certainly manifest differently, in that the negative effects of the toxicity is generally experienced mainly by women. But s**t yeah, definitely toxic.

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

I actually find it a profoundly uninteresting point. I don’t doubt that Gillette have marketing motivations. But I also think you are reaching massively with the “they are trying to sell products to people who hate capitalism” comment and even moreso with the palm oil thing.

I don’t think they are chasing the anti-capitalist dollar. They are targeting the social progressive market if anything, many of whom are big consumers.

Yes they are big consumers, as I said, they pretend to hate capitalism. They don’t actually. And that’s the point.

I’ll let it slide that you deliberately left out an important word and misquoted me...

 

[SizeMatters]

Men, you need to ask yourselves which side of that line you want to be on. Do you want to be one of the bricks in the wall that adds to the foundation of sexism and misogyny? That helps create the structure to which the worst of men can ascend to the most frightening of levels? Or do you want to be part of the team that's tearing it down?
It's your choice. Pick your side.

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/li...OdSm7xAJfoYdk-EwcbmiPEt4QW3MImFstQdUvZbExe6Nk

 

[Hollow Knight]

They depict the baseline male as inherently bad, and once “cleansed” they become good. Rose coloured glasses to assume “oh well they’re not talking about me, I’m inherently good, they’re only talking about other men.”

All I can say to this is that I completely disagree. This message of being “inherently bad” and needing to be “cleansed” didn’t come through at all to me. The message I got was “boy the expectations and excuses that are often imposed upon/applied to boys/men is resulting in some undesirable s**t. Let’s take control of it”.

I didn’t feel personally insulted or that I was being accused of being inherently evil for being a man. So yeah, if you want to accuse me of rose coloured glasses for not being insulted, then I might have to assume that you being insulted by it was a result of some sort of psychological projection or the content hitting a little too close to home.

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

All I can say to this is that I completely disagree. This message of being “inherently bad” and needing to be “cleansed” didn’t come through at all to me. The message I got was “boy the expectations and excuses that are often imposed upon/applied to boys/men is resulting in some undesirable s**t. Let’s take control of it”.

I didn’t feel personally insulted or that I was being accused of being inherently evil for being a man. So yeah, if you want to accuse me of rose coloured glasses for not being insulted, then I might have to assume that you being insulted by it was a result of some sort of psychological projection or the content hitting a little too close to home.

Instead of going for character assassinations, I'm going to address the actual points.

Firstly, it starts with 30 men (actually an implied infinite line of men) at a barbecue ALL depicted as in need of "re-education". Not some, not 1 in 8, all. Then, thankfully, the journalists and celebrities come in to help. Journalists and celebrities. The unaccountable messiahs of the moral compass.

This is the company that happily suit women up in tight leather costumes at the motor racing with "Gillette" branded across their backside.

This is the company that charge more for female branded razors than male branded ones.

They use a clip of Ana Kasparian. This woman has some incredibly controversial views about the Armenian genocide.

They use a Terry Cruise clip way out of context, he was basically stating men can be harassed as well.

This is P&G who were recently caught exploiting forced child labour.

This is P&G who are responsible for the most destruction of Indonesian rainforest.

Legs to stand on: zero.

This ad is getting one of the highest negative ratings on youtube ever for a reason - people don't like being blamed for the actions of others by blatantly disingenuous bullshitters who are responsible for far more "undesirable s**t" themselves.

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

I’ll claim it right now. There are aspects of femininity and the expectations that go with it that are incredibly toxic.

They certainly manifest differently, in that the negative effects of the toxicity is generally experienced mainly by women. But s**t yeah, definitely toxic.

I look forward to seeing P&G challenging all women to change their attitudes and eliminate their toxic femininity in their next female hygiene product commercial.