Political Cartoons Thread (International & National)

[Maggie5]

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[Ruck Machine]

 

[Ruck Machine]

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

 

[Pessimistic]

Surely someone can do something with

Coal-ition. We love the little black rock

 

[Ruck Machine]

Coal-ition. We love the little black rock

Who doesn't? The little black rock has done more to bring people out of poverty than almost anything else!

 

[Pessimistic]

Who doesn't? The little black rock has done more to bring people out of poverty than almost anything else!

I have some land in fnq if you want to buy it

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Right. But you can't argue that hate speech is different from free speech because you are only using a fraction of its definition. That's obfuscation.

It's not obfuscation. It's specific. It's an old argument to point out that free speech has limitations. We all know that. You can argue over what is hate speech and where the line should be, but it is equally obfuscating to say 'free speech' is 'all expression'. Anyone with a decent bearing on how the world works knows what the argument is about, so let's not waste time being pedantic over it.

Saying "The world would be better off without the gays" isn't a threat. Its an idea that offends many.
Saying "If these gays don't straighten up, I'm going to send them to God" is a threat. No idea was conveyed. It is not free speech.

That is just plain odd. The first is clearly theatening to gay people. You are advocating that the world would be better without them. If you were a gay person you would quite rightly think that the speaker would fascilitate a world without gays. If you had phrased it as 'I don't like gays' then you may have had more of an argument. Even more oddly is your second supposed 'threat' is just weird. It would take a lawyer two seconds to work out 'send them to God' could mean that you want people to go to Church or accept religion. And 'straighten up' is abstract too.

You phrased those things both so oddly that I'm genuinely quizzical about what you're line of thought is here.

The time to punch him is when he starts acting on these opinions

So when he is punching you? Riiiiight.

Why punch him when your ideas are superior? The west is run according to which idea is viewed as superior in an open marketplace. Punching people you don't agree with necessitates them punching you back; and suddenly you have a society which isn't based upon the fittest philosophy; you have one based on whoever has the biggest guns.

Yep, that would be the standard thinking. The question is what to do when someone is advocating both abandoning that idea of an open, democratic marketplace of ideas, and is also advocating the censorship of swathes of other people - in this case, violently.

No its not as insidious as some make out, but only because the radicals are not in the minority. It doesn't make their goals any less insidious though. I'm left wing, but to the libetarian side. Some of the s**t which I see developing in the authoritarian left is pretty damned backwards, to be kind.

And I would rather the Murdoch press belittle me than have these people riot over one of my speeches. Murdoch is dying out simply because they have lost the culture war. Which was fought on the free expression of competing ideas.

Murdoch may be dying out, but the political culture he fostered is as strong as ever. Hence the stupid left v right debates, hence the rise in the authoritarian right and left, hence the acceptance of falsehoods, hence the intense cynicism and distrust over government, etc. I see little issue with a small group of people protesting, as compared to a media conglomerate speaking to millions in a way that ostracises and belittles you. One is far more effectieve. One can be easily managed with a police presence (as has happened many times over far bigger protests, like the anti-WTO protests, or more intense protests - anti-Muslims v antifa). The Berkley thing obviously had an organised antifa attack, and so should have had a greater presence, but it's pretty hard to deny that Nazis and 'alt right trolls' deliberately stoke that sort of action by antagonising and threatening people, while dressing their expression in militancy. Much like how the Jihadis need the west to fight back, the Nazis and the Commies love the idea of fighting the other. It's pretty stupid to treat Milo as a big deal, because that's all he cares about, and it's exactly what he and his shallow ilk want. But facism has a vicious track record. It's stupid to just let it grow again when we know where they want to go.

I agree. there is nothing inherently wrong with a safe space, provided it is in a private forum. However they CAN sometimes be a symptom of a more insidious desire to place oneself in an echo chamber, which is certainly worthy of criticism even if no actual infringement of free speech has occurred. You won't find me placing private safe spaces under the category of 'free speech issue' anyway.

To clarify, you're saying that you don't consider a need for clarity in speech to be a part of 'free speech'? Most people, for example, would see protesters chanting in parliament as stopping the free speech of others...? I think there is a line from that to 'safe spaces' and it's fairly spurious to suggest it's a 'slippery slope' (I'm not saying you have said that, I can just predict what the usual sort might say). Echo chambers are obviously a problem. But I think that you can't force people to not have them...?

 

[kwikfix]

 

[Jimmy_the_Gent]

 

[Maggie5]

Now I understand it.
Snowflake, Snowflake, Snowflake, Snowflake.

 

[Maggie5]

 

[Lebbo73]

It's not obfuscation. It's specific. It's an old argument to point out that free speech has limitations. We all know that. You can argue over what is hate speech and where the line should be, but it is equally obfuscating to say 'free speech' is 'all expression'. Anyone with a decent bearing on how the world works knows what the argument is about, so let's not waste time being pedantic over it.

That is just plain odd. The first is clearly theatening to gay people. You are advocating that the world would be better without them. If you were a gay person you would quite rightly think that the speaker would fascilitate a world without gays. If you had phrased it as 'I don't like gays' then you may have had more of an argument. Even more oddly is your second supposed 'threat' is just weird. It would take a lawyer two seconds to work out 'send them to God' could mean that you want people to go to Church or accept religion. And 'straighten up' is abstract too.

You phrased those things both so oddly that I'm genuinely quizzical about what you're line of thought is here.

So when he is punching you? Riiiiight.

Yep, that would be the standard thinking. The question is what to do when someone is advocating both abandoning that idea of an open, democratic marketplace of ideas, and is also advocating the censorship of swathes of other people - in this case, violently.

Murdoch may be dying out, but the political culture he fostered is as strong as ever. Hence the stupid left v right debates, hence the rise in the authoritarian right and left, hence the acceptance of falsehoods, hence the intense cynicism and distrust over government, etc. I see little issue with a small group of people protesting, as compared to a media conglomerate speaking to millions in a way that ostracises and belittles you. One is far more effectieve. One can be easily managed with a police presence (as has happened many times over far bigger protests, like the anti-WTO protests, or more intense protests - anti-Muslims v antifa). The Berkley thing obviously had an organised antifa attack, and so should have had a greater presence, but it's pretty hard to deny that Nazis and 'alt right trolls' deliberately stoke that sort of action by antagonising and threatening people, while dressing their expression in militancy. Much like how the Jihadis need the west to fight back, the Nazis and the Commies love the idea of fighting the other. It's pretty stupid to treat Milo as a big deal, because that's all he cares about, and it's exactly what he and his shallow ilk want. But facism has a vicious track record. It's stupid to just let it grow again when we know where they want to go.

To clarify, you're saying that you don't consider a need for clarity in speech to be a part of 'free speech'? Most people, for example, would see protesters chanting in parliament as stopping the free speech of others...? I think there is a line from that to 'safe spaces' and it's fairly spurious to suggest it's a 'slippery slope' (I'm not saying you have said that, I can just predict what the usual sort might say). Echo chambers are obviously a problem. But I think that you can't force people to not have them...?

TLDR. Take it elsewhere. This is the political cartoons thread, Rat.

 

[kwikfix]

 

[FredLeDeux]

 

[MWPP]

 

[MWPP]

 

[kwikfix]

 

[kwikfix]

 

[Pessimistic]

Is this the biggest 'strawman' series. even if you think sustainable policies have merit, we can make you hate the latte sipping greenies who support them

 

[Maggie5]

Reads like the LNP here.

 

[Ruck Machine]

 

[kwikfix]

Starting the day off with the BRILLIANT Bill Leak...on Yassmin Abdel-Magied lecturing us all, with a straight face, that Islam is the 'most feminist of all religions'...BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..