Society/Culture Christchurch Mosque mass shooting

Tayl0r

Moderator
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Posts
35,305
Likes
35,288
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Moderator #1,726
No we don't, we haven't had a single gun-related homicide where 5 or more people died, which is what is classified as a mass shooting

The idiotic notions that more guns stop gun crime is just that, idiotic. Luckily New Zealand is about to change their gun laws at the face of this tragedy, so at least they are more clear headed and sane compare to you
Yes we have...

Margaret River last year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tayl0r

Moderator
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Posts
35,305
Likes
35,288
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Moderator #1,728
One in 22 years as oppose to one every three days in the US, clearly our laws don't work
It was none a moment ago.

It's actually two since 1996.

I'm sure I'm just parroting more right wing talking points though... Facts are facts. You're trying to lecture me and you are parroting false things, you have a valid position because no guns means no shootings and I agree with heavy regulation and restrictions.

The USA also require one less (20% less) death to count as a mass shooting which will influence the figures. This is an important thing to note, it doesn't change your point but we aren't comparing apples with apples.
 

Cooldude

Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Posts
44,236
Likes
21,714
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Bombers/Liverpool FC
It was none a moment ago.

It's actually two since 1996.

I'm sure I'm just parroting more right wing talking points though... Facts are facts. You're trying to lecture me and you are parroting false things, you have a valid position because no guns means no shootings and I agree with heavy regulation and restrictions.
Parroting false things like Australia's gun laws work compare to the US? Damn shoot me
 

Socrates2

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Posts
3,909
Likes
4,660
AFL Club
Richmond
You're a genuinely stupid individual. You have added nothing but mindless cliched drivel throughout this entire discussion.

This is the problem with identity group politics, people like you get to hide in the shadows.
I don't even know what group identity politics is, it's just another right wing grab phrase to me.What's yr point here mate.If you want an eco chamber ,go talk to yr mates.I can't recall using cliches either.My main point is that there is a definate lurch to the right in politics driven by anti -Muslim anti-immigration and using minority groups like Afican Gangs to win votes.You can't argue with that because it's true.Now when these policies are implemented, it can be a catalyst for some nut to use extremist action like in NZ. Things need to be cleaned up ,like internet forums, far right wing media like sky news, herald sun(esp Bolt,Panahi),the Australian ect They are spreading intolerance which can turn to hate.Society deserves better.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,314
Likes
27,197
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Thread starter Moderator #1,733
I'd say Aboriginals living here for 40,000+ years fully justifies them feeling like they are "from" Australia most than most people wouldn't you?

You can go on about us all being made from stardust or having evolved from common ancestors in Africa 100,000 years ago, but none of that is terribly relate-able on anything but a dry academic level, nor can you expect it to have much bearing on the identities we give ourselves. I don't see people lining up at zoos to hold heart-to-heart dialogues with our common ancestors Chimpanzees for instance, instead most people regard them no different from other apes.

Of course as human beings we separate ourselves into groups because doing so gives us a shared identity and helps us feel secure, and also facilitates our greatest hobby of going to war with members of opposing tribes. I agree these are largely social constructs but would also argue biological factors exist, unless you mean to argue that from the point humans spread out of Africa all human evolution immediately stopped, when plainly it did not.

Its funny because these days everyone's horrified at the prospect of humans organizing themselves along racial lines, religious lines, class lines, gender lines..... we really aren't leaving too many possibilities are we?
Dude, I'm not saying race and belonging dont exist.

I'm just saying they're socially constructed.

Objectively speaking no one is really 'from' anywhere. Anglo saxons are french, Celtic viking and Anglo. With some Roman thrown in. Collectively we all came from the indo Europeans (a shared group with the Indians) and before that we all came from a group of black guys that emigrated out of Africa not long before that.

And of course there is the billions of species we belonged to (the first few of which were hominids) before that.

Its easy to say 'I belong to these people and that's my homeland'.

I'm just saying that its objectively false (well... more like objectively socially constructed).
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
5,650
Likes
6,770
AFL Club
Fremantle
There was no such thing as "leftism".

It was a reference to a partition of seating arrangements and only took on any kind of political connotation after the return of the monarchy. Plus it referred to orthodoxy, not any hard and fast brand of politics.

You can't just transpose a modern phrase to a historical period where it makes no sense. Otherwise we should consider the American revolution to have been "far left".
The phrase was coined based on the politics of the Jacobins. I’m not sure how you can disassociate the two, no one else in political science does.
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
5,650
Likes
6,770
AFL Club
Fremantle
Didn’t the terms left and right wing simple emerge for seating arrangements for the French National Assembly in that time. The moderates sat on one side and the more revolutionary on the other. And fair enough too.
Those who sat on the right supported the Ancien Regime, those who sat on the left supported the revolution. The more revolutionary, the further left they sat. As it is today.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Maggie5

Spec Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
35,121
Likes
31,779
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
Moderator #1,737
I don't even know what group identity politics is, it's just another right wing grab phrase to me.What's yr point here mate.If you want an eco chamber ,go talk to yr mates.I can't recall using cliches either.My main point is that there is a definate lurch to the right in politics driven by anti -Muslim anti-immigration and using minority groups like Afican Gangs to win votes.You can't argue with that because it's true.Now when these policies are implemented, it can be a catalyst for some nut to use extremist action like in NZ. Things need to be cleaned up ,like internet forums, far right wing media like sky news, herald sun(esp Bolt,Panahi),the Australian ect They are spreading intolerance which can turn to hate.Society deserves better.
Think you should let it go as we will get another lecture on the French revolution in the Christchurch mass murder thread.
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
5,650
Likes
6,770
AFL Club
Fremantle
Post some evidence to support this claim.
The right are constantly claiming the left are as bad if not worse than they are.
Firstly that is an express admission the right are "bad" even in their own minds.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/unmournable-bodies

Imagine, just imagine, the reaction from the effete liberal left (Socrates2) if some right winger had penned an article in response to the dead in Christchurch titled “Unmournable Bodies”. One of our very own moderators here (Gough) repeatedly celebrates the 3000 dead on September 11 as just deserts.
 

A Cut Above

Every Other Anchor
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Posts
21,188
Likes
66,350
Location
San Diego
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Channel Four News Team
Dude, I'm not saying race and belonging dont exist.

I'm just saying they're socially constructed.

Objectively speaking no one is really 'from' anywhere. Anglo saxons are french, Celtic viking and Anglo. With some Roman thrown in. Collectively we all came from the indo Europeans (a shared group with the Indians) and before that we all came from a group of black guys that emigrated out of Africa not long before that.

And of course there is the billions of species we belonged to (the first few of which were hominids) before that.

Its easy to say 'I belong to these people and that's my homeland'.

I'm just saying that its objectively false (well... more like objectively socially constructed).
Encapsulating a truth inside a larger truth doesn't render the smaller truth false. My very distant ancestors lived in Africa 100,000 years ago, but that does not render many generations of my immediate relations living in Europe a falsehood. You may argue being European is a social construct, but I would suggest the locations of their births & deaths are provable historical facts. Of course you may counter by saying history itself is a social construct.

I'm not sure where debating semantics gets us. Although people shouldn't be encouraged to allow their perceived racial identity to override their ability to think & act for themselves, it is basic human nature to assign value and weight to our cultural heritage, social construct or not.
Though our primitive instinct towards tribalism creates enormous problems the question must be asked - is it possible to live healthy lives without some form of group identity and accompanying sense of belonging? We saw what happened in the 20th century when Communists tried stripping humanity of all forms of group identity except membership to the Communist Party.... catastrophic disaster.
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
5,650
Likes
6,770
AFL Club
Fremantle
He's not correct.

"Far left" has a specific meaning, left in the Jacobin sense had a different meaning. Not all of the "left" of that period were republican Jacobins. It applied to all political independents and non-monarchists.

Marx for example recognised the contribution of bourgeois revolutionaries, but they were by no means proletarian. "Far left" has a specific rooting in class politics.
They have the same meaning you dildo.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Posts
33,314
Likes
27,197
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Thread starter Moderator #1,748
Encapsulating a truth inside a larger truth doesn't render the smaller truth false. My very distant ancestors lived in Africa 100,000 years ago, but that does not render many generations of my immediate relations living in Europe a falsehood. You may argue being European is a social construct, but I would suggest the locations of their births & deaths are provable historical facts. Of course you may counter by saying history itself is a social construct.

I'm not sure where debating semantics gets us. Although people shouldn't be encouraged to allow their perceived racial identity to override their ability to think & act for themselves, it is basic human nature to assign value and weight to our cultural heritage, social construct or not.
Though our primitive instinct towards tribalism creates enormous problems the question must be asked - is it possible to live healthy lives without some form of group identity and accompanying sense of belonging? We saw what happened in the 20th century when Communists tried stripping humanity of all forms of group identity except membership to the Communist Party.... catastrophic disaster.
Dude.

I didn't say it was a falsehood. I said it was a social construct.

Do you understand the difference?

I'm not saying it's not a perception you have or that that perception isnt real. Pardon the double negatives.

I'm just saying its constructed via social agreement.

You come from the sun (in the form of carbon, hydrogen and so forth). You come from a hot spring in the Pacific where those elements combined to form life. You come from wherever the mollusc that formed millions of years after came from.

You deciding to draw the line at a bit of the map called 'Europe' a few thousand years ago when that molluscs descendants started talking to each other and using tools, is arbitrary and socially constructed.
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
5,650
Likes
6,770
AFL Club
Fremantle
No it's not. The accepted science is that 'race' is a social construct and it holds no taxonomic meaning in science.

That might make you sad, but its the accepted science.
It’s not the accepted science. Race is biological. You can trace people’s lineage with DNA markers, what percentage of their ancestry is European, Asian, African etc. the genetic testing for this is getting better all the time.

What that means is another matter.
 

herculez09

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Posts
7,967
Likes
9,536
Location
Essendon
AFL Club
West Coast
I've actually cringed reading your posts in this thread and you're coming across as being unstable. I hope for your sake you've merely had a few too many.

Enjoy.
No offence but I'm still waiting for your concession that Geelong will not finish top 4 in 2018 and that WCE will miss finals.

Scotland
 
Top Bottom