Hypocrisy of The Left - part 2

[11sjw]

The ALP's Penny Wong circa 2010

"On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."

http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/w...etween-a-man-and-a-woman-20170810-gxt87w.html

Bit of a flip flop there.

 

[Maggie5]

The ALP's Penny Wong circa 2010



http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/w...etween-a-man-and-a-woman-20170810-gxt87w.html

Bit of a flip flop there.

I am sure I just saw this in another thread.

 

[Bradesmaen]

You really need help and so does your chum Gary as you call him constantly, you obviously have some sort of close connection to him, who knows what it is.

Yes, how dare he refer to someone by his name instead of insinuating he's a paedophile with no evidence.

 

[Mofra]

Thanks Mofra, nice to see the old gang sticks fat and always picks the correct political targets

You quoted Maggie - am I so in your head I'm to blame for other people now?

 

[Maggie5]

You quoted Maggie - am I so in your head I'm to blame for other people now?

You may have noticed in my posting history how easily influenced I am.

Think that he didn't like that I pointed out what Pell had stated to parents of molested children: 'People are innocent until proven guilty'.

 

[Mofra]

Think that he didn't like that I pointed out what Pell had stated to parents of molested children: 'People are innocent until proven guilty'.

It's amazing how the church, with proven systematic issues, should get a free pass but people who study the area who have no history or allegation of abuse are automatically guilty.

Of course, guilt by association flies out he window when pollies are sitting down to some lobster and Grange with some "interesting" characters.

 

[FredLeDeux]

It's amazing how the church, with proven systematic issues, should get a free pass but people who study the area who have no history or allegation of abuse are automatically guilty.

Of course, guilt by association flies out he window when pollies are sitting down to some lobster and Grange with some "interesting" characters.

"Colourful Melbourne identities"

 

[Lethality]

What do you make of the intolerance for right-wing voices n certain institutions, such as Hollywood, or universities, or social media now with YouTube cracking down on right-wing videos by de-monetizing or removing them? Personally I am not comfortable with it at all, and I think as a liberal that we should make an effort to include everybody, including people we disagree with. On an emotional level it makes me a bit sick to see one group hold sway over another like this, and I think it's more than time that it was addressed.

When does this become just another form of anti-diversity, such as excluding blacks or Jews?

Tim Allen compared the situation in his industry to 1930s Germany. While that is obviously a joke, and going too far, there is a tendency to persecute people with certain opinions. At the moment it seems to be conservatives who are complaining about this the most, since they are the victims, but I feel that liberals should object to it even more on principle.

 

[Gough]

For the last thirty years the world has been governed by right wing, neo liberal administrations. Take yer victim complex elsewhere.

 

[douglyzia]

For the last thirty years the world has been governed by right wing, neo liberal administrations. Take yer victim complex elsewhere.

Two extremes do not make a centre.

 

[RupieDupie]

What do you make of the intolerance for right-wing voices n certain institutions, such as Hollywood, or universities, or social media now with YouTube cracking down on right-wing videos by de-monetizing or removing them? Personally I am not comfortable with it at all, and I think as a liberal that we should make an effort to include everybody, including people we disagree with. On an emotional level it makes me a bit sick to see one group hold sway over another like this, and I think it's more than time that it was addressed.

When does this become just another form of anti-diversity, such as excluding blacks or Jews?

Tim Allen compared the situation in his industry to 1930s Germany. While that is obviously a joke, and going too far, there is a tendency to persecute people with certain opinions. At the moment it seems to be conservatives who are complaining about this the most, since they are the victims, but I feel that liberals should object to it even more on principle.

I think something has been missed here? Some viewpoints are being taken down for the exact reason you are making this thread, that is, the viewpoints persecute people Q.E.D.

Discussion over.

 

[Lethality]

For the last thirty years the world has been governed by right wing, neo liberal administrations. Take yer victim complex elsewhere.

It's not a victim complex as I am not right wing, but also not talking about governments either.

 

[Lethality]

I think something has been missed here? Some viewpoints are being taken down for the exact reason you are making this thread, that is, the viewpoints persecute people

Some can be, but that can be the case regardless of which side of politics they are on.

 

[RupieDupie]

Some can be, but that can be the case regardless of which side of politics they are on.

Absolutely, but you are stating that these ideologies shouldn't be persecuted because persecution is bad but the ideologies themselves persecute. Therefore, by your argument the universities should also be able to persecute or will be facing persecution.

 

[Lethality]

Absolutely, but you are stating that these ideologies shouldn't be persecuted because persecution is bad but the ideologies themselves persecute. Therefore, by your argument the universities should also be able to persecute or will be facing persecution.

I don't see how that is by my argument. If you're claiming that certain institutions need to maintain hostility against certain groups as a defense mechanism, then I wouldn't mind seeing your explanation for why this is necessary.

 

[RupieDupie]

I don't see how that is by my argument. If you're claiming that certain institutions need to maintain hostility against certain groups as a defense mechanism, then I wouldn't mind seeing your explanation for why this is necessary.

Ah now you're arguing from the certain institutions perspective, thus making their argument.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

What do you make of the intolerance for right-wing voices n certain institutions, such as Hollywood, or universities, or social media now with YouTube cracking down on right-wing videos by de-monetizing or removing them?

You have no argument.

Hollywood? What is Hollywood? If you're talking about entertainment, there is plenty of flag waving waving rubbish that gets made. Most is just commercial fodder set up for advertising.

Universities? To the best of my knowledge, business and commerce depts havent been shut down. Or defunded to the extent of humanities departments. Industry has a massive say in what unis teach. Unis have turned over a chunk of their depts to serve corporate research purposes, not to mention that vocational education they do (along with other sectors) that is essentially decided on by industry. You fall into the dopey trap of assuming 'university' does not extend oiutside the office of the tenured trot who teaches 4 undergrads a year.

Social media? These are private bodies enforcing terms of service to preserve advertising revenue.

Your argument essentially boils down to the guy from Home Improvement.

 

[douglyzia]

Your argument essentially boils down to the guy from Home Improvement.

Oh ok. For a moment I thought some engineer was just fired from Google for posting a balanced and rational memo on gender differences, but I guess I was just imagining things.

 

[Fire]

For the last thirty years the world has been governed by right wing, neo liberal administrations. Take yer victim complex elsewhere.

So two wrongs make a right?

s**t attitude.

 

[Gough]

So two wrongs make a right?

s**t attitude.

Are they being persecuted, or are they finally being forced to justify their positions which they are finding more than a little difficult?

 

[douglyzia]

Are they being persecuted, or are they finally being forced to justify their positions which they are finding more than a little difficult?

They are not given an opportunity in the first place to justify their positions. They are being told to shut up. Much like this board.

 

[Fire]

Its not just vonservatives

Are they being persecuted, or are they finally being forced to justify their positions which they are finding more than a little difficult?

Neither.

For the 'lefts' part, deplatforming and firing people for expressing different political views is not forcing them to justify their positions. Quite the oposite really.

For the 'rights' part, they seem to exaggerate the extent of their position and confuse such intollerance for persecution.

They are both in the wrong. And both have isses they need to address.

 

[douglyzia]

Yeah, I do agree the word "persecution" might be a bit of an embellishment on the right's current predicament.

 

[Gough]

They are not given an opportunity in the first place to justify their positions. They are being told to shut up. Much like this board.

Argue a secular opposition to ssm, or why we have to put up with austerity economics when it was disproved by undergrads, or why we should do f*** all on climate change, these are all really terrible and demonstrably wrong opinions beloved of right wingers. They have been given the opportunity to argue these sort of things, it's just that they can't put up a decent case for the position so resort to playing the victim, or accusing others of virtue signalling.

 

[douglyzia]

Argue a secular opposition to ssm, or why we have to put up with austerity economics when it was disproved by undergrads, or why we should do f*** all on climate change, these are all really terrible and demonstrably wrong opinions beloved of right wingers. They have been given the opportunity to argue these sort of things, it's just that they can't put up a decent case for the position so resort to playing the victim, or accusing others of virtue signalling.

If I made the statement that "A disturbingly high number of Muslims are the result of generations of inbreeding from consanguineous marriages, leading to alarmingly high rates of physical defects, low intelligence and mental illness," would I be given a chance to "justify my position", or would my post be deleted, leading to an infraction, me being thread-banned and Malefice throwing a temper-tantrum?

Do what you need to do and prove my point exactly.