Vic Lidia Thorpe: Not the subject for every thread!

[Gethelred]

Seeing as Lidia discussion is cropping up across multiple threads, let's have us a thread for people who want to discuss her contribution to Australian politics.

It should go without saying but seeing as she's a bit of a beacon for controversy - for a variety of reasons - let's just remind ourselves what the board rules are around racism and sexism, shall we?

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which:

• is dangerous to health, anti-vax, Covid denial etc,
• is hateful, including sympathetic discussion of far-right/neo-Nazi tropes,
• misinformation or disinformation,
• defamatory,
• threatening,
• abusive,
• bigotry,
• likely to offend,
• is spam or spam-like,
• contains adult or objectionable content,
• risks copyright infringement,
• encourages unlawful activity (including illegal drug use, buying, selling etc),
• or otherwise violates any laws,
• or contains personal information of others.

Standard board rules apply, but let's make this abundantly clear: let's play nicely in here.

Go nuts.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Could say the same for Jacinta Price...

she deserves being pilloried due to her inane takes

 

[Crankyhawk]

So what do people think of Lidia's idea that instead of a voice we have indigenous seats like the NZ model. Indigenous people choose to vote for their seat or the general seats and seats change each election based on percentage of the population who choose to vote for the indigenous seats. So if all indigenous choose to vote for their seats, it would be 4 in the reps and 2 in the senate.

Members can be non indigenous, independent or party aligned but voters must be indigenous and choose to move off the general poll.


On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

nope

 

[Better Loosen Up]

she deserves being pilloried due to her inane takes

Because she sits on the other side of politics?

 

[Gralin]

Could say the same for Jacinta Price...

and you'd be right but I doubt you'd use the reverse example of this was a Jacinta Price thread

I think you'd also be hard pressed to find the same examples of media attacks on Price given she's generally supporting the status quo

 

[Better Loosen Up]

and you'd be right but I doubt you'd use the reverse example of this was a Jacinta Price thread

I think you'd also be hard pressed to find the same examples of media attacks on Price given she's generally supporting the status quo

Maybe not so much in the media but there's some pretty terrible things said towards her in this forum. Things that the same people would never say about Thorpe or pretty much any other indigenous person for that matter.

 

[Gralin]

Maybe not so much in the media but there's some pretty terrible things said towards her in this forum. Things that the same people would never say about Thorpe or pretty much any other indigenous person for that matter.

don't think you read much about Thorpe on here if that's your argument

I agree that racism in progressives often comes out when talking about Price the same as misogyny comes out when talking about her or any other conservative woman in politics

There's a lot of hypocrisy in the progressive camp in regards to thinking being progressive on something is defense against being shithouse on other topics

the hypcrosiy on the right tends to come from only being worried about the above behavior when its the other side

you know like how you came in here to bring up Price instead of just pointing out the s**t being said about Thorpe

 

[Gralin]

no, outside mainstream also means

• agitating for treaty ahead of voice = going against what many others in her community want
• using a political party machine to get elected then leaving the party (not a Thorpe specific criticism but its still not behaviour that I condone - actually hers was at least more principled than most who are done for breach of party rules)

Pauline would not see herself as a racist, but someone who is supporting maintenance of existing privilege.

this is just centrist rationalization

that the majority is morally right or correct on anything

that anyone not part of the majority is comparable based on not being part of the majority

 

[Crankyhawk]

this is just centrist rationalization

that the majority is morally right or correct on anything

that anyone not part of the majority is comparable based on not being part of the majority

and that is extremist self justifying
"oh the majority aren't always right = I can tell majority opinion to get stuffed whenever I want"

 

[Crankyhawk]

Because she sits on the other side of politics?

no, because her opinions are rooted in absence of fact, or are fabricated completely, or are because of the money she is getting from corporates (well, to be fair, no different to many politicians)

eg belief that banning alcohol (which isn't even enforceable) will help the situation in the NT

'We don't need a voice, we need ears': Jacinta Price to push for further alcohol bans, argues against Voice

Northern Territory Coalition senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price will proceed with a federal alcohol ban bill, saying the NT Government "can't be trusted" to manage new alcohol bans in Central Australia.

www.abc.net.au

edit: at least THorpe shows awareness that her opinions are just her opinions; while Price seems to be that sort of smug insufferable convinced that only she is right

 

[Gralin]

and that is extremist self justifying
"oh the majority aren't always right = I can tell majority opinion to get stuffed whenever I want"

anyone can tell the majority opinion to get stuffed whenever they want

whether it changes anything or not is a separate question

but see you go from majority to extremist

which again, is suggesting not having a majority view makes you an extremist

which like by definition on a lot of medical or health topics would make you an extremist if your view wasn't the same as the majority of people

pretty stupid way to look at it I would think

 

[Crankyhawk]

anyone can tell the majority opinion to get stuffed whenever they want

whether it changes anything or not is a separate question

but see you go from majority to extremist

which again, is suggesting not having a majority view makes you an extremist

which like by definition on a lot of medical or health topics would make you an extremist if your view wasn't the same as the majority of people

pretty stupid way to look at it I would think

no, its more calling your view extremist (everything through a racism lens)

and yes I call (if you want to go with health topics) antivaccination views extremist. As well as based on a stinking pile of lies (wakefield is a ******* campaigner who should only be redeemable if he suicide bombs the Kremlin - in my opinion)

 

[Gralin]

no, its more calling your view extremist (everything through a racism lens)

I don't view everything through the lens of racism

I don't think you can discuss Thorpe's treatment in the media or on social media without discussing racism though.

I don't think you can discuss a topic like the voice without discussing racism.

I don't think you can talk about Pauline Hanson without discussing racism

If you think that's an extreme view then that's fine, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

and yes I call (if you want to go with health topics) antivaccination views extremist.

so do I, but that wasn't my point

though if you want to talk conspiracists, in their world we're the extremists, that's there perspective

As well as based on a stinking pile of lies (wakefield is a ******* campaigner who should only be redeemable if he suicide bombs the Kremlin - in my opinion)

bombing the kremlin wouldn't undo any of the damage he's done over the past 40 years with his bullshit

he'd up his body count though

but my point was if for example anti vaccination became mainstream, would they suddenly be right?

would the fringe pro vaccination extremists now be dismissed by you because they aren't main stream

or would you move away from framing things like that?

 

[Crankyhawk]

I don't view everything through the lens of racism

I don't think you can discuss Thorpe's treatment in the media or on social media without discussing racism though.

I don't think you can discuss a topic like the voice without discussing racism.

I don't think you can talk about Pauline Hanson without discussing racism

If you think that's an extreme view then that's fine, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.




so do I, but that wasn't my point

though if you want to talk conspiracists, in their world we're the extremists, that's there perspective

bombing the kremlin wouldn't undo any of the damage he's done over the past 40 years with his bullshit

he'd up his body count though

but my point was if for example anti vaccination became mainstream, would they suddenly be right?

would the fringe pro vaccination extremists now be dismissed by you because they aren't main stream

or would you move away from framing things like that?

On the last I would use data to back up my arguments.
Instead of what that campaigner wakefiled did which was to fabricate the data and drive antivaccination sentiment
but yes we are now going off topic.

So if you can bring data to back up your views, I will listen.
Examples of good data (IMO) are how currently we are only on track to meet 4 of the 19 closing the gap targets, therefore clearly we are doing badly in these measures
and why I am willing to go with what a majority of indigenous groups want which is the voice
i can understand thrope's opposition but it does put her into an extreme group (which is wanting treaty before voice)

 

[Chief]

So what do people think of Lidia's idea that instead of a voice we have indigenous seats like the NZ model. Indigenous people choose to vote for their seat or the general seats and seats change each election based on percentage of the population who choose to vote for the indigenous seats. So if all indigenous choose to vote for their seats, it would be 4 in the reps and 2 in the senate.

Members can be non indigenous, independent or party aligned but voters must be indigenous and choose to move off the general poll.


On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Sounds good on its face.

 

[Chief]

there's some pretty terrible things said towards her in this forum. Things that the same people would never say about Thorpe

Because they are different people. You know that, yeah?

 

[Gralin]

On the last I would use data to back up my arguments.
Instead of what that campaigner wakefiled did which was to fabricate the data and drive antivaccination sentiment
but yes we are now going off topic.

but your point is you wouldnt accept the majority view as correct if you didn't agree with it

they won't believe your data by the way

if data was the issue we wouldn't have antivaxxers

So if you can bring data to back up your views, I will listen.
Examples of good data (IMO) are how currently we are only on track to meet 4 of the 19 closing the gap targets, therefore clearly we are doing badly in these measures

I was talking about racism, are you saying I need to provide data for you to think racism and the voice discussion are linked?

and why I am willing to go with what a majority of indigenous groups want which is the voice

and going with the majority wishes of the people being impacted isn't a bad starting point
there is a lot of talk about it being the majority position, usually based on rather small sample size polling

the polling could be correct the problem is a yes/no question has no room for why yes or why no

there is more than one reason to vote yes or no but the reason matters less than the result

i can understand thrope's opposition but it does put her into an extreme group (which is wanting treaty before voice)

again it doesn't put her in an extreme group, treaty negotiations are happening around the country now, they have been happening for years

wanting treaty is not an extreme view, wanting treaty before voice is not an extreme view

not being part of the majority and being an extremist are not the same thing

centrist rationalization labels everything not in the middle as extreme as a way to invalidate it and not have to engage on the reasons

Thorpe is constantly labels as an extremist, a liar, crazy, whatever, its all labels that are used to invalidate her position on a topic based on her character, not an argument against her view

not the majority view isn't an argument about the correctness of a position, the chance of it winning a vote sure, but popular and right are not the same thing

 

[Saint]

I also remember a time as a child when I heard this song and thought: Listen to these extremists, we should put them on a watch-list.

Treaty has been an indigenous issue for over 100 years, it's not a new or extreme position at all, nor would I say most indigenous people don't want it. I think the majority of indigenous people (reflected by the Uluru Statement and other publications) is that Voice is a good step forward towards a treaty, Thorpe diverges and, a bit like Greens are doing on housing, wants it all, or nothing. That the Voice would be placating and set Treaty back. It's a legitimate and understandable position (which I think is wrong).

 

[Crankyhawk]

but your point is you wouldnt accept the majority view as correct if you didn't agree with it

they won't believe your data by the way

if data was the issue we wouldn't have antivaxxers


I was talking about racism, are you saying I need to provide data for you to think racism and the voice discussion are linked?



and going with the majority wishes of the people being impacted isn't a bad starting point
there is a lot of talk about it being the majority position, usually based on rather small sample size polling

the polling could be correct the problem is a yes/no question has no room for why yes or why no

there is more than one reason to vote yes or no but the reason matters less than the result



again it doesn't put her in an extreme group, treaty negotiations are happening around the country now, they have been happening for years

wanting treaty is not an extreme view, wanting treaty before voice is not an extreme view

not being part of the majority and being an extremist are not the same thing

centrist rationalization labels everything not in the middle as extreme as a way to invalidate it and not have to engage on the reasons

Thorpe is constantly labels as an extremist, a liar, crazy, whatever, its all labels that are used to invalidate her position on a topic based on her character, not an argument against her view

not the majority view isn't an argument about the correctness of a position, the chance of it winning a vote sure, but popular and right are not the same thing

Data is objective. It may be flawed and that component can be argued. But it is objective. As opposed to subjective “feels” which is all the antivax side have. And because of Wakefield they are tarred by negative credibility (due to his data falsification)

 

[Gralin]

Data is objective. It may be flawed and that component can be argued. But it is objective. As opposed to subjective “feels” which is all the antivax side have. And because of Wakefield they are tarred by negative credibility (due to his data falsification)

man I wish I'd never bought it up because you're so deep in the weeds on the wrong part of the conversation right now

 

[Crankyhawk]

man I wish I'd never bought it up because you're so deep in the weeds on the wrong part of the conversation right now

More that I don’t like pandering to extreme opinions, and the value of opinion is supported by data. Feels by themselves are of little value.

 

[Gralin]

More that I don’t like pandering to extreme opinions, and the value of opinion is supported by data. Feels by themselves are of little value.

Feels are what people go on though.
It's why we have an antivax movement.

It's why when I even mentioned them you put the blinkers on, got angry and just went off yelling about antivaxers.

You can call for data all you want on any topic but if you don't like it you're unlikely to be receptive to it.

It also acts like everything can be in a peer reviewed scientific journal or report and that what actually happens in the real world is irrelevant unless you have data.

This thread is a great example people saying Lidia is a proven liar but unable to come up with the data and that doesn't stop them from feeling like she is so they will keep doing it.

But my original point was that labelling something as extremism doesn't make it so.

The greens get labelled as left wing extremists when they are anything but.

Saying Thorpe is an extremist because her view isn't a majority view is basing it purely on popularity.

 

[Rob R]

Sounds good on its face.

It sounds like an interesting option (to her credit, she has provided an option unlike others) but I suspect it will just be ignored given the media chases highlights rather than actually analyse what people say

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Crankyhawk]

Feels are what people go on though.
It's why we have an antivax movement.

It's why when I even mentioned them you put the blinkers on, got angry and just went off yelling about antivaxers.

You can call for data all you want on any topic but if you don't like it you're unlikely to be receptive to it.

It also acts like everything can be in a peer reviewed scientific journal or report and that what actually happens in the real world is irrelevant unless you have data.

This thread is a great example people saying Lidia is a proven liar but unable to come up with the data and that doesn't stop them from feeling like she is so they will keep doing it.

But my original point was that labelling something as extremism doesn't make it so.

The greens get labelled as left wing extremists when they are anything but.

Saying Thorpe is an extremist because her view isn't a majority view is basing it purely on popularity.

If the majority see it as extreme then it is extreme. Now extreme does not equal incorrect; but when we are debating an issue which is largely feels on one side vs data on the other of course I will be angry that data is seen as equivalent to feels.
On the voice question more specifically there is more an absence of data - more specifically that the data available is what is currently done isn’t working, not that there is data that a voice will work; but y is still reasonable to try a change given current settings are not working.

And just because you call something not extreme doesn’t make it not extreme. Perhaps this is what frustrates me about you in that you post like you have a monopoly on what is right/ correct (this is likely to be an unfair thing/ feel on my end)

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Jesus this thread is a minefield to read through. Are people seriously suggesting that:

A) Lidia Thorpe hasn't got a history of lying.

Unsure how you can make that claim when she lied about the Mardi Gras, and then lied about the incident regarding the strip club. If you want, you can read through how she blatantly lied here:

The Greens

Oh well there you go then. Of course there was not the slightest implication in your post of it being anything more than a neutral, dispassionate observation. I never said it was neutral. If you really care that little abota topic why spend so much time posting about it? Hey Gralin, could you...

www.bigfooty.com

Short version is she did some puff piece interview where she addressed the issues, and her claims were completely incongruent with the video evidence and other eyewitness accounts, and were demonstrably false. If that's not lying I'm not sure what is

B) Isn't a racist.

She's on video saying (and i quote) "Any black man that stands with a ******* white little c**t like that, yous can all get ****ed to".

Keen to hear this racism get explained away.

You can support some of her positions on issues while still acknowledging she's a flog human. Anyone that associates with bikies and threatens people with hit jobs ("you're marked") generally isn't a good person.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Jesus this thread is a minefield to read through. Are people seriously suggesting that:

A) Lydia Thorpe hasn't got a history of lying.

Unsure how you can make that claim when she lied about the Mardi Gras, and then lied about the incident regarding the strip club. If you want, you can read through how she blatantly lied here:

The Greens

Oh well there you go then. Of course there was not the slightest implication in your post of it being anything more than a neutral, dispassionate observation. I never said it was neutral. If you really care that little abota topic why spend so much time posting about it? Hey Gralin, could you...

www.bigfooty.com

Short version is she did some puff piece interview where she addressed the issues, and her claims were completely incongruent with the video evidence and other eyewitness accounts. If that's not lying I'm not sure what is

B) Isn't a racist.

She's on video saying (and i quote) "Any black man that stands with a ******* white little campaigner like that, yous can all get ****ed to".

Keen to hear this racism get explained away.

You can support some of her positions on issueswhile still acknowledging she's a flog human. Anyone that associates with bikies and threatens people with hit jobs ("you're marked") generally isn't a good person.

That second statement doesn’t sound like racism to me; more anger at any individual (who happened to be black) supporting the individual (who happens to be white) who was arguing with her.

Apparently though I do not see racism as easily as many others