The Law Freedom of Speech

[blackcat]

Right, so it wasn't an entire stadium doing a monkey chant?

Think it potentially was more folk(s)* jeering

*how many, is *potentially*
*how many is *more*
*how many is *f.o.l.k.*
*how many is f.o.l.k.*s*

No, it definitely was not everyone in bay13, but say, like *merely* booing Adam Goodes, did they get swep up in regrettable delusional crowd behaviour, where one person's true motive again, is NOT the same as the other persons true motive, everyone could have had innocent motive and been booing for diving or this interpretation is indeed specious and even assessing everyone's true motive also specious or interpreting individuals as being caught within crowd behaviour is neither fair,
what about C7 and FoxFooty producers who had one dive from AG on repeat play when everyone dives? Would it have been just as 'problematic' for tv producers to NOT single out a player and enable this brewing bad crowd behaviour, or is this post from pussynoir also 'problematic'?
I think it was potentially mere diving and targeting the opposition as not inside group, like the current St Kevin's brouhaha, but Fairfax need to sell copy when their business is in death throes, they can't explain psychology and organisational(crowd) behaviour in 500 words like they had to present a protection of a Ph.D. they researched and wrote.

 

[Andrew Birch]

The great hate crime HOAX

DOUGLAS MURRAY: Do you feel ten per cent more hateful than you did this time last year? Do you think the British public as a whole are ten per cent more unpleasant in 2019 as compared to 2018?

www.dailymail.co.uk

Excellent analysis by Douglas Murray

InB4 loL MuRd0cH DAilY FaiL

 

[Bradesmaen]

InB4 loL MuRd0cH DAilY FaiL

Why would anyone say that? The Daily Mail isn't owned by NewsCorp...

Also it's a really poor analysis. Basically just takes the top statistic and doesn't delve deep enough. Standard from Douglas Murray as he's eternally outraged at TEH LEFT!!!

 

[Andrew Birch]

 

[Andrew Birch]

Why would anyone say that? The Daily Mail isn't owned by NewsCorp...

Leftists say a lot of silly things.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Leftists say a lot of silly things.

Why do you bother posting this s**t? ARe you just here to troll? If you are it's not really welcome and not adding to the debate. If not then it shows you the level of intelligence of the current debate when people are so damn stupid they split everything into left v "correct" and right v "correct". Not everything is left and right and many people on both sides of the political spectrum dislike the Murdoch press. People can be supportive of some ideas that are considered liberal as well as being free market capitalists. It is possible.. you may not think it/understand it, but it happens.

 

[Andrew Birch]

Why do you bother posting this s**t? ARe you just here to troll? If you are it's not really welcome and not adding to the debate. If not then it shows you the level of intelligence of the current debate when people are so damn stupid they split everything into left v "correct" and right v "correct". Not everything is left and right and many people on both sides of the political spectrum dislike the Murdoch press. People can be supportive of some ideas that are considered liberal as well as being free market capitalists. It is possible.. you may not think it/understand it, but it happens.

What exactly do you add to the conversation other than to shill for your own ideology and post disparaging drivel about opposing views? Posting a Douglas Murray article is s**t? Is trolling? GTFO Not welcome by whom...far-left extremists like yourself?

For someone who claims to have supposedly voted LNP twice, you seem extremely triggered by actual conservatives.

 

[Gough]

What exactly do you add to the conversation other than to shill for your own ideology and post disparaging drivel about opposing views? Posting a Douglas Murray article is s**t? Is trolling? GTFO

For someone who claims to have supposedly voted LNP twice, you seem extremely triggered by actual conservatives.

The Liberal Party as an explicitly conservative party is a relatively recent invention.

 

[Andrew Birch]

The Liberal Party as an explicitly conservative party is a relatively recent invention.

Don't let the name fool you, it's always been conservative. At least in my lifetime.

 

[Bradesmaen]

What exactly do you add to the conversation other than to shill for your own ideology and post disparaging drivel about opposing views? Posting a Douglas Murray article is s**t? Is trolling? GTFO Not welcome by whom...far-left extremists like yourself?

For someone who claims to have supposedly voted LNP twice, you seem extremely triggered by actual conservatives.

Look at the post I quoted. You constantly use the term leftists.

There are actual conservatives and neo-conservatives who are utter morons. He claims to be an atheist but then is proud of christianity. Can't have it both ways. He's a fraud. Also just because I voted for the Liberal Party (There is no LNP in SA, just QLD), does not make me a conservative. Once again you have very little understanding of anything other than a linear system of left and right. It shows in your silly and childish troll posts.

 

[Andrew Birch]

Look at the post I quoted. You constantly use the term leftists.

There are actual conservatives and neo-conservatives who are utter morons. He claims to be an atheist but then is proud of christianity. Can't have it both ways. He's a fraud

There are plenty of people who are proud to live life primarily by the Christian values and moral code they grew up with, yet still be a card carrying atheist at the same time. Geelong_Sicko thoughts?

 

[blackcat]

Right, so it wasn't an entire stadium doing a monkey chant?

no. Potentially, my fault for ambiguity

 

[blackcat]

Why would anyone say that? The Daily Mail isn't owned by NewsCorp...

Also it's a really poor analysis. Basically just takes the top statistic and doesn't delve deep enough. Standard from Douglas Murray as he's eternally outraged at TEH LEFT!!!

Douglas Murray took the opportunity to position himself, as an outlier candidate in the media on the right. Media is overwhelmingly left/progressive/small"l"liberal, hence like Bernadi when he launched his independent ticket, and the politician who was given the OneNation seat yet used the phrase "final solution" in his maiden speech, the public people of standing who seek some benefit, either votes, book sales, an equivalent fungible benefit, they will intentionally move the needle to position themselves in zone where spotlight is on them, more publicity and eyes and views and reads and its with scandal, outrage, posture, controversy.

Marketing101, strategic positioning.

Not because those commentariat or politicians are expressing fealty to autonomous authentic opinion.

Politics is all about triangulating the media and populace, and trying to nudge them to one side, like a tugboat navigating the titanic thru the queenscliff heads.

Murray voted Blair one year. So he would not be far right conservative, nor would he be a sucker taken in by the Bill Clinton Tony Blair third way, nor Alistair Campbell's messaging. Or he coulda just lied that he voted Labor, which is a material chance.

Very intelligent man, what is a likelihood, Milo Murray and Thiel don't give a * about public opprobrium and the other side its aprobation, as they are self-confidently gay* they were always the outsider. So being vociferously anti-Islam not a concern for these two reasons, one being Islam's homophobia.

*Thiel private not public
**Milo Y was not the expressly florid gay until he needed to confect a persona for public consumption.

One should not race to believe everything the papers-of-record will say in this epoch of the 4th Estate in its death throes. Not only standards and subbies(sub editors) new lows, but zero-sum tension in competition for remaining consumers, they are more likely to let wrest control to the confirmation bias of the political economic lens when they don't defer to the algorithm and click-bait.

 

[Chief]

Very intelligent man, what is a likelihood, Milo, Murray and Thiel don't give a fu** about public opprobrium

They don't until their Twitter accounts are cancelled.

 

[Andrew Birch]

.

Douglas Murray took the opportunity to position himself, as an outlier candidate in the media on the right. Media is overwhelmingly left/progressive/small"l"liberal, hence like Bernadi when he launched his independent ticket, and the politician who was given the OneNation seat yet used the phrase "final solution" in his maiden speech, the public people of standing who seek some benefit, either votes, book sales, an equivalent fungible benefit, they will intentionally move the needle to position themselves in zone where spotlight is on them, more publicity and eyes and views and reads and its with scandal, outrage, posture, controversy.

Marketing101, strategic positioning.

Not because those commentariat or politicians are expressing fealty to autonomous authentic opinion.

Politics is all about triangulating the media and populace, and trying to nudge them to one side, like a tugboat navigating the titanic thru the queenscliff heads.

Murray voted Blair one year. So he would not be far right conservative, nor would he be a sucker taken in by the Bill Clinton Tony Blair third way, nor Alistair Campbell's messaging. Or he coulda just lied that he voted Labor, which is a material chance.

Very intelligent man, what is a likelihood, Milo Murray and Thiel don't give a fu** about public opprobrium and the other side its aprobation, as they are self-confidently gay* they were always the outsider. So being vociferously anti-Islam not a concern for these two reasons, one being Islam's homophobia.

*Thiel private not public
**Milo Y was not the expressly florid gay until he needed to confect a persona for public consumption.

One should not race to believe everything the papers-of-record will say in this epoch of the 4th Estate in its death throes. Not only standards and subbies(sub editors) new lows, but zero-sum tension in competition for remaining consumers, they are more likely to let wrest control to the confirmation bias of the political economic lens when they don't defer to the algorithm and click-bait.

That's quite an imagination you have there.

 

[Andrew Birch]

They don't until their Twitter accounts are cancelled.

Why would Murray have his account cancelled?

Douglas Murray's twitter account that he's had since 2011 with over 190k followers isn't even twitter verified, such is the far-left bias and pettiness on that platform.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Why would Murray have his account cancelled?

Douglas Murray's twitter account that he's had since 2011 with over 190k followers isn't even twitter verified, such is the far-left bias and pettiness on that platform.

That's his own fault. Plenty of far-right activists have verified twitter accounts.

 

[Andrew Birch]

That's his own fault. Plenty of far-right activists have verified twitter accounts.

How exactly is it his own fault that he's not twitter verified?

He's neither an activist nor far-right.

 

[Bradesmaen]

How exactly is it his own fault that he's not twitter verified?

He's neither an activist nor far-right.

He isn't far right. My point disproves your theory that it's far-left pandering if a far right activist can be on there still and have a verified twitter account. You have no ground to stand on.

Getting verified on twitter is up to the user, not Twitter.

 

[Chief]

He isn't far right. My point disproves your theory that it's far-left pandering if a far right activist can be on there still and have a verified twitter account. You have no ground to stand on.

Getting verified on twitter is up to the user, not Twitter.

Twitter has people who interact with big media organisations and get their journos verified.

Murray isn't a journalist's bottom. Sky obviously agree.

 

[Andrew Birch]

He isn't far right. My point disproves your theory that it's far-left pandering if a far right activist can be on there still and have a verified twitter account. You have no ground to stand on.

Getting verified on twitter is up to the user, not Twitter.

Not true. A number of conservatives and libertarian accounts with sizable followings on twitter have either been refused verification or had their blue tick removed over the last 3 years purely because Dorsey doesn't agree with their political views. Many have been shadow banned. where as unhinged leftists with less than 1000 followers are verified and never get kicked off the platform no matter how much bile they spew.

Julian Assange's account being the most noteworthy example of having his twitter verification revoked for political reasons as few years back. They ended up issuing him a one-off blue diamond pariah motif to differentiate him from copycat accounts, but stopped short of giving him his verified blue checkmark back.

 

[Andrew Birch]

Twitter has people who interact with big media organisations and get their journos verified.

Murray isn't a journalist's bottom. Sky obviously agree.

lol no leftist bias on BF you say.

 

[blackcat]

.


That's quite an imagination you have there.

NB. the needle may only be a subtle shift, but a change nevertheless.

reread: ^ Andrew Birch

 

[Bradesmaen]

Twitter has people who interact with big media organisations and get their journos verified.

Murray isn't a journalist's bottom. Sky obviously agree.

Lauren Southern is verified, plenty of far right were. Andrew Birch is once again perpetuating myths.

 

[Andrew Birch]

Lauren Southern is verified, plenty of far right were. Andrew Birch is once again perpetuating myths.

And plenty aren't.