Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

[iBeng]

he's gold standard at corruption and fooling numpties he's a pure as the driven snow.

So what you're saying is, you dislike journalism that uncovers incomfortable truths.

 

[Not Important]

So what you're saying is, you dislike journalism that uncovers incomfortable truths.

just how you'd arrive at the conclusion is beyond me.

 

[Fadge]

just how you'd arrive at the conclusion is beyond me.

I'm still trying to work out what 'incomfortable' means...

 

[Lethality]

Got some examples?

None spring to mind. I just remember these shows hiding behind the excuse of being about comedy rather than information, while pretending to actually inform people. Comedy was also very effective in Trump's campaign. A lot of nonsense seems to be overlooked if you finish with a zinger for some reason.

 

[iBeng]

None spring to mind. I just remember these shows hiding behind the excuse of being about comedy rather than information, while pretending to actually inform people. Comedy was also very effective in Trump's campaign. A lot of nonsense seems to be overlooked if you finish with a zinger for some reason.

Ive followed the rabbit hole after many of his episodes and found more information on the top that backs up the information presented in the actual episode, so dunno what to say to you, you clearly have decided he isnt to be trusted.

 

[Lethality]

Ive followed the rabbit hole after many of his episodes and found more information on the top that backs up the information presented in the actual episode, so dunno what to say to you, you clearly have decided he isnt to be trusted.

I'm not talking about any particular show. But the real question is whether you could find information on opposing data which is not being presented.

 

[Ants]

I'm not talking about any particular show. But the real question is whether you could find information on opposing data which is not being presented.

That would be fair if it occurred. Can you show some regular examples of it occurring?

 

[Lethality]

That would be fair if it occurred. Can you show some regular examples of it occurring?

How can it not occur, when these are comedy shows, and comedians do exaggerate for effect. The problem is some people probably take it seriously.

One example that comes to mind now is Waleed Aly debunking the supposedly legit reasons why Adam Goodes was being booed. It was just a series of strawmen. He showed clips of Adam Goodes saying non confronting things, and not the clips that people actually had problems with, including that line about Aborignals being here first so just remember whose lands you are on, which is a lot more inflammatory. (Although that line was misidentified as being on Australia Day by his critics) He showed Adam Goodes asking for forgiveness for the 13 year old girl, but not the time when he said racism has a face and today it's a 13 year old girl. Whatever side you're on, that's dishonest. Even the name of the segment was "Something we need to talk about" which is misleading in itself, because it's not a discussion, it's a skewed presentation of facts.

And the Project is a bit more serious than say, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee or John Oliver.

 

[Ants]

How can it not occur, when these are comedy shows, and comedians do exaggerate for effect. The problem is some people probably take it seriously.

One example that comes to mind now is Waleed Aly debunking the supposedly legit reasons why Adam Goodes was being booed. It was just a series of strawmen. He showed clips of Adam Goodes saying non confronting things, and not the clips that people actually had problems with, including that line about Aborignals being here first so just remember whose lands you are on, which is a lot more inflammatory. (Although that line was misidentified as being on Australia Day by his critics) He showed Adam Goodes asking for forgiveness for the 13 year old girl, but not the time when he said racism has a face and today it's a 13 year old girl. Whatever side you're on, that's dishonest. Even the name of the segment was "Something we need to talk about" which is misleading in itself, because it's not a discussion, it's a skewed presentation of facts.

And the Project is a bit more serious than say, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee or John Oliver.

So, you're challenged to back up your assertions against Oliver and your response is that it can't be done because they're comedy, and then switch the discussion to someone else. Which implies that you don't have evidence, you just don't like what he portrays.

And yes, if Waleed's presentation was flawed, then it is fair to criticise him on that. There is significant difference between comedy which isn't meant to be serious (like SNL skits) and those who are making opinion and factual pieces and utilising comedy to make them more interesting. If Oliver is presenting something and is using false information, or Waheed Ali does a spiel on a subject which uses lies or is flawed, then those are absolutely open to criticism.

I don't think if you asked Waleed if his being a "comedy" means his statement is safe from rebuttal or argument, I think he'd say it's totally open to fair criticism. But you then have to do so, rather than you waving it away as comedy.

 

[Father Jack]

John Oliver's show is about taking serious but boring topics and presenting them in as entertaining a way as possible. I mean, he's done shows on things like infrastructure and civil forfeiture, topics you don't often see getting much airtime.

 

[Gethelred]

How can it not occur, when these are comedy shows, and comedians do exaggerate for effect. The problem is some people probably take it seriously.

One example that comes to mind now is Waleed Aly debunking the supposedly legit reasons why Adam Goodes was being booed. It was just a series of strawmen. He showed clips of Adam Goodes saying non confronting things, and not the clips that people actually had problems with, including that line about Aborignals being here first so just remember whose lands you are on, which is a lot more inflammatory. (Although that line was misidentified as being on Australia Day by his critics) He showed Adam Goodes asking for forgiveness for the 13 year old girl, but not the time when he said racism has a face and today it's a 13 year old girl. Whatever side you're on, that's dishonest. Even the name of the segment was "Something we need to talk about" which is misleading in itself, because it's not a discussion, it's a skewed presentation of facts.

And the Project is a bit more serious than say, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee or John Oliver.

I don't like the Project. I think it cherrypicks, precisely the way you're accusing them of doing, to make ideological points. I think they go in with an editor endorsed stance on something - take, for example, their decision to use the fish kills video concerning the water theft in the Murray-Darling as something to be laughed at by Peter Hellier rather than something to be treated as news - and they include just enough information to make their case in as short a timeframe as possible. So, ostensibly, I agree with you somewhat.

But - and this is my caveat - what Aly was trying to do in that segment is too complex for the format the Project uses. For him to adequately cover the Goodes issues, including the parts you cite in this post, he would need more than the 5 allotted minutes to go over it all. So, while they certainly cherrypick to make their cases and that from necessity means ignoring some of the evidence, I do not think it's fair criticism to criticize Aly over this.

The Project is taken more seriously when it shouldn't be. It's essentially a televised editorial.

 

[Lethality]

So, you're challenged to back up your assertions against Oliver and your response is that it can't be done because they're comedy, and then switch the discussion to someone else. Which implies that you don't have evidence, you just don't like what he portrays.

And yes, if Waleed's presentation was flawed, then it is fair to criticise him on that. There is significant difference between comedy which isn't meant to be serious (like SNL skits) and those who are making opinion and factual pieces and utilising comedy to make them more interesting. If Oliver is presenting something and is using false information, or Waheed Ali does a spiel on a subject which uses lies or is flawed, then those are absolutely open to criticism.

I don't think if you asked Waleed if his being a "comedy" means his statement is safe from rebuttal or argument, I think he'd say it's totally open to fair criticism. But you then have to do so, rather than you waving it away as comedy.

My commentary wasnt about any presenter in particular. Yes I suppose Project is less of a comedy show, but they do have Tommy Little and Peter Helliar there to play that role.

 

[kranky al]

As someone who worked in the public sector previously but moved to the private sector, private is much more efficient in my anecdotal experience. That's why it took an Elon Musk to make EVs and batteries trendy. I realise that Tesla is largely made up of gov subsidies, but they have a profit driven culture that actually gets results.

While we get crap like pink batts and chaotic desal plants.

In my experience its the larger the organisation the less efficient it is - look at some of the mining giants billion dollar fkkxups.

Bhp’s 2.4 billion dollar lemon that was demolished

$2.4b Port Hedland BHP plant to be demolished

BHP-Billiton's hot briquetted iron (HBI) plant in Port Hedland, in north-west Western Australia, is being demolished.

www.abc.net.au

Bhp raventhorp plant and modified at a cost 3.6 billion and sold for chicken feed

Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The private sectoris just as big of an expert at losing shitloads of cash and being inefficient as fxxxx - the bigger the company the bigger the bureaucracy and the bigger their f-ups are.

Smaller companies are able to be more dynamic and can change on a dime when they see a better way of doing things - i see another company thats figured out a quicker way of doing stuff - in that instant it becomes my company’s new policy

Try doing that with a bhp or a government outfit.

 

[FireKrakouer]

In my experience its the larger the organisation the less efficient it is - look at some of the mining giants billion dollar fkkxups.

Bhp’s 2.4 billion dollar lemon that was demolished

$2.4b Port Hedland BHP plant to be demolished

BHP-Billiton's hot briquetted iron (HBI) plant in Port Hedland, in north-west Western Australia, is being demolished.

www.abc.net.au

Bhp raventhorp plant and modified at a cost 3.6 billion and sold for chicken feed

Ravensthorpe Nickel Mine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The private sectoris just as big of an expert at losing shitloads of cash and being inefficient as fxxxx - the bigger the company the bigger the bureaucracy and the bigger their f-ups are.

Smaller companies are able to be more dynamic and can change on a dime when they see a better way of doing things - i see another company thats figured out a quicker way of doing stuff - in that instant it becomes my company’s new policy

Try doing that with a bhp or a government outfit.

Were these huge losses offset by huge revenues? I'm not disagreeing btw, it's just that my anecdotal experience has been that private sector workers have the attitude of "s**t, we gotta work to produce revenue or we won't have a job anymore" whereas public funded stuff was more of a "money grows on trees, we have an enormous budget to bludge from whether we work or not".

A private multi nat I worked for had their budgets (and indeed, the structure of the company itself) fragmented into small parts, where we still had to get work done to meet targets. I'm not saying there weren't some middle management types getting paid to do bugger all.

 

[kranky al]

Were these huge losses offset by huge revenues? I'm not disagreeing btw, it's just that my anecdotal experience has been that private sector workers have the attitude of "sh*t, we gotta work to produce revenue or we won't have a job anymore" whereas public funded stuff was more of a "money grows on trees, we have an enormous budget to bludge from whether we work or not".

A private multi nat I worked for had their budgets (and indeed, the structure of the company itself) fragmented into small parts, where we still had to get work done to meet targets. I'm not saying there weren't some middle management types getting paid to do bugger all.

Soooo many companies i deal with have a bunch of incompetent time servers who do the bare minimum they can get away with.

I find the bigger the company - the more of these people are in it - small companies cant survive baggage.

 

[Ants]

Were these huge losses offset by huge revenues? .....

I'm not sure how this would be different than with government, where for every stuff up there were 20 other departments that were running fine.

 

[Verdun]

How can it not occur, when these are comedy shows, and comedians do exaggerate for effect. The problem is some people probably take it seriously.

One example that comes to mind now is Waleed Aly debunking the supposedly legit reasons why Adam Goodes was being booed. It was just a series of strawmen. He showed clips of Adam Goodes saying non confronting things, and not the clips that people actually had problems with, including that line about Aborignals being here first so just remember whose lands you are on, which is a lot more inflammatory. (Although that line was misidentified as being on Australia Day by his critics) He showed Adam Goodes asking for forgiveness for the 13 year old girl, but not the time when he said racism has a face and today it's a 13 year old girl. Whatever side you're on, that's dishonest. Even the name of the segment was "Something we need to talk about" which is misleading in itself, because it's not a discussion, it's a skewed presentation of facts.

And the Project is a bit more serious than say, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee or John Oliver.

S'pose it depends if you are offended when racism is called out or not.

Why is it 'inflammatory' to state that Aboriginals being here first. That is a fact - nothing offensive about it.

 

[MarcMaverick]

Yes. Another virtue signalling lefty celebrity scum bag... Get in line with the others.

Guess for him the Chase is over and when he asked for clemency the judge said "No Deal"

 

[Lethality]

S'pose it depends if you are offended when racism is called out or not.

Why is it 'inflammatory' to state that Aboriginals being here first. That is a fact - nothing offensive about it.

In general, it's not always appropriate to state something just because it's a fact.

 

[Verdun]

In general, it's not always appropriate to state something just because it's a fact.

So you offended by someone stating a fact, bit touchy mate.

 

[Lethality]

So you offended by someone stating a fact, bit touchy mate.

I'm just saying in general, facts can be used inappropriately, and to offend certain people.

 

[CatFan79]

I'm just saying in general, facts can be used inappropriately, and to offend certain people.

Facts hurt feelings, result in thread bans..

 

[Verdun]

I'm just saying in general, facts can be used inappropriately, and to offend certain people.

Ok why are those 'facts' inappropriate and why do they offend 'certain people'?

 

[Lethality]

Ok why are those 'facts' inappropriate and why do they offend 'certain people'?

I guess by what the facts are used to imply. In the trans debate facts are used to delegitimize people's sexuality.

 

[Verdun]

I guess by what the facts are used to imply. In the trans debate facts are used to delegitimize people's sexuality.

Back to your point on Goodes calling out racism, what part of what he said offended you?

Also not sure what facts you are referring to in the so-called 'trans debate'..... you are jumping all over the place!