Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

wahooo said:
I certainly did not intend for my use of the term to be insulting or have the effect of silencing you. I used it to recognise what I believed to be fact. I believe it is a fact that you currently occupy a position of privilege based on your MANY comments about your income and overall financial position.

Saying that you currently occupy a position of privilege does not discount the work you did to get there, I never commented on that. But, I commend you for putting in the hard yards to get to where you are today.

As for the use of the term 'privileged' in wider debate I disagree that it's used with the intent you suggest. We aren't privy to the subjective intention of others.

But I don't see much point in teasing out this issue because ultimately all we have is a difference of opinion here.



To be clear, you haven't engaged with the topic or the argument here because whether you were 'triggered' was never in issue.

I feel like you see words in my posts but don't actually read the post.

I said that my use of the term outcome 'triggered' the same response.

That statement is not capable of being read as implying that you are triggered. It is not capable of being read as saying 'poshman is triggered'.

I used triggered as a verb. I could have used, 'envoked' or some other verb. They all carry the same meaning. They just don't mean what you're suggesting.

It was not an ad hominem attack. Respectfully, I think this is an over reaction to the use of one verb over another.


Outcomes are a good way of measuring inequality. Think of any inequality stat you see - differences in incomes, differences in employment rates, differences in literacy rates etc.

Those are all outcomes. They're useful as indicators of inequality because they're easy to measure.

Opportunities on the other hand are far harder to measure, hence, they're not as useful as indicators of inequality.

When I refer to outcomes, it's merely to display that there's inequality in a certain area. It's not to be read, in the way you seem to understand it, as an argument in favour of having equal outcomes for everyone.

I'm not sure if I'm conveying the idea clearly but it's really quite a simple distinction.
Click to expand...


How is saying someone cannot see something 'racism' because of privilege meant to achieve anything other than dismissing, lessening or silencing that persons point of view?
 
wahooo said:
I certainly did not intend for my use of the term to be insulting or have the effect of silencing you. I used it to recognise what I believed to be fact. I believe it is a fact that you currently occupy a position of privilege based on your MANY comments about your income and overall financial position.

Saying that you currently occupy a position of privilege does not discount the work you did to get there, I never commented on that. But, I commend you for putting in the hard yards to get to where you are today.

As for the use of the term 'privileged' in wider debate I disagree that it's used with the intent you suggest. We aren't privy to the subjective intention of others.

But I don't see much point in teasing out this issue because ultimately all we have is a difference of opinion here.



To be clear, you haven't engaged with the topic or the argument here because whether you were 'triggered' was never in issue.

I feel like you see words in my posts but don't actually read the post.

I said that my use of the term outcome 'triggered' the same response.

That statement is not capable of being read as implying that you are triggered. It is not capable of being read as saying 'poshman is triggered'.

I used triggered as a verb. I could have used, 'envoked' or some other verb. They all carry the same meaning. They just don't mean what you're suggesting.

It was not an ad hominem attack. Respectfully, I think this is an over reaction to the use of one verb over another.


Outcomes are a good way of measuring inequality. Think of any inequality stat you see - differences in incomes, differences in employment rates, differences in literacy rates etc.

Those are all outcomes. They're useful as indicators of inequality because they're easy to measure.

Opportunities on the other hand are far harder to measure, hence, they're not as useful as indicators of inequality.

When I refer to outcomes, it's merely to display that there's inequality in a certain area. It's not to be read, in the way you seem to understand it, as an argument in favour of having equal outcomes for everyone.

I'm not sure if I'm conveying the idea clearly but it's really quite a simple distinction.
Click to expand...

I disagree that they are good indicators of inequality. And when the term is used so often in conjunction with equity and equality there are either word games being played or people are being disingenuous.

They are a bad indication as they tell you nothing of the story or factors behind that outcome. Yet that word is used so often by the left as the unit of measurement.

_________________________

Triggered vs Evoked

The word Triggered has a societal and cultural meaning that is why you used the term. You do this often and then slide around meanings when called out on something.

You literally said: 'The fact that the use of the word 'outcome' has triggered the same response from you on two occassions is funny'.

You even went as far to say it was funny, which is right in line with the cultural meaning and use of the word.

To pretend now that being triggered or not was not an issue when you said it was'FUNNY' that I was is very strange.

'To be clear, you haven't engaged with the topic or the argument here because whether you were 'triggered' was never in issue'

You introduce it and mock it and then when challenged on it, suddenly though, something you thought was 'funny' and brought up is not an issue.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

greatgatsby said:
The fact he's a Victoria Cross winner - one of only 96 Australians - is a bigger issue.
Click to expand...

I struggle with judging anything involved in a war zone.

The pressures these defence force personnel are under, is not able to be gauged by the person in the street. Trained to kill, how do you turn the switch off ?.
 
masai tu said:
I struggle with judging anything involved in a war zone.

The pressures these defence force personnel are under, is not able to be gauged by the person in the street. Trained to kill, how do you turn the switch off ?.
Click to expand...
By not being a psychopath in the first place?
 
poshman said:
I disagree that they are good indicators of inequality. And when the term is used so often in conjunction with equity and equality there are either word games being played or people are being disingenuous.

They are a bad indication as they tell you nothing of the story or factors behind that outcome. Yet that word is used so often by the left as the unit of measurement.

_________________________

Triggered vs Evoked

The word Triggered has a societal and cultural meaning that is why you used the term. You do this often and then slide around meanings when called out on something.

You literally said: 'The fact that the use of the word 'outcome' has triggered the same response from you on two occassions is funny'.

You even went as far to say it was funny, which is right in line with the cultural meaning and use of the word.

To pretend now that being triggered or not was not an issue when you said it was'FUNNY' that I was is very strange.

'To be clear, you haven't engaged with the topic or the argument here because whether you were 'triggered' was never in issue'

You introduce it and mock it and then when challenged on it, suddenly though, something you thought was 'funny' and brought up is not an issue.
Click to expand...
I used 'triggered' as a verb. The verb is commonly used in a way that doesn't convey the idea that someone is upset. For example, the 'smell of lemon triggered memories of my childhood'.

You're trying to impute some subjective intent to me that simply does not exist.

All I'm saying is that I didn't say you were upset nor did I intend to.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sweetback said:
Yeah this was a civil case, but I’m sure it has repercussions now for a war crimes case, and our military relationships with other countries
Click to expand...
I don't think there will be repercussions for our international relations, all nations go through issues with soldiers occasionally acting unprofessionally. But his case is certainly already having an impact on our armed services, particularly the SAS. And as far as I know, we've never had a VC winner implicated in this way.
 
It's a bit trickier. Group one ordered to kill enemy combatant. Group two ordered to kill enemy combatant. Group one drops bomb on his house, kills the target and the family, identity confirmed searching bodies after. Group two raids the house, takes possession of everyone, identifies target and kills them in the yard.

Group two are the ones being accused of being war criminals.
 
At the very least the US has made public noise about re-considering future engagement with us based on these war crime reports.

People are free to draw their own conclusions, but an Australian court has determined that there is sufficient evidence to determine that on the balance of probabilities, BRS did murder a civilian in Afghanistan. It's not just unprofessional, it's criminal.

Old mate has also just paid for the groundwork to be done for his impending criminal charges. Remarkable own goal.
 
wahooo said:
I used 'triggered' as a verb. The verb is commonly used in a way that doesn't convey the idea that someone is upset. For example, the 'smell of lemon triggered memories of my childhood'.

You're trying to impute some subjective intent to me that simply does not exist.

All I'm saying is that I didn't say you were upset nor did I intend to.
Click to expand...

Yeah ok - I will accept your last sentence. :)
 
SupermanCapes said:
At the very least the US has made public noise about re-considering future engagement with us based on these war crime reports.

People are free to draw their own conclusions, but an Australian court has determined that there is sufficient evidence to determine that on the balance of probabilities, BRS did murder a civilian in Afghanistan. It's not just unprofessional, it's criminal.

Old mate has also just paid for the groundwork to be done for his impending criminal charges. Remarkable own goal.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is nonsense. US-Australian security ties are not going to be impacted by Ben R-S.

I agree that by taking the defamation action he has opened himself to serious charges that will impact him and all our service personnel in Afghanistan.
 
dockerfemme said:
I just wanted to weigh in a little bit on the question of being ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ in order to even up the numbers a bit in representation, or indeed in other walks of life. Surely this is normally known as positive discrimination or affirmative action. Personally, I am for it in principle, although I think it can be hard to implement appropriately.

The main point I wanted to make is that when selecting a cabinet or shadow cabinet our political parties use factions (the Labour Party) or party (Libs or Nationals) and state of origin as important factors in appointment, and these factors override merit in most instances, I think it is fair to say. It always seems silly to me that your home state is accepted as a reasonable factor in appointment but gender or race is not.
Click to expand...
Hi dockerfemme

I know you are referring to the political scene which most definitely is not merit based. The system doesn't appear to foster candidates that are competent in running a country.

In the commercial arena I'm a big fan of the meritocracy which has been smashed over the last few years with affirmative action.

Best way I can describe some of my angst against this form of discrimination is to ask you a question if I may.

Can you imagine if you had worked for 15 years in a role working your absolute ring off and a promotion was on the cards to which you were the most suitable candidate by far given your experience, abilities etc .

This promotion is going to make a huge difference to your take home pay and your ability to provide a better life for your family. You absolutely deserve this promotion.

The executive in their wisdom however were big on affirmative action and they leap frogged someone without the competency for the role from 3 rungs down who belonged to a particular gender, skin color etc they deemed needed better representation from up the ladder.

After their promotion, work place performance dropped and you find yourself cleaning up their mistakes multiple times.

How would you feel and would you hang around in that business if they treat their staff like that ?
 
Soldiers will prefer not putting themselves at risk to minimise innocent casualties and just drop a bomb on a house if the politics of the situation here mean that not killing the surrounding innocent people causes legal or otherwise problems for the soldiers back home after.

That's fine, but nobody gets to be upset when the rules of engagement make it acceptable and preferred to flatten the corner of a neighborhood over extracting and killing that valid target.

Because again, if you have a choice between just wiping out everyone at the wedding or just taking the father of the bride who was your legitimate target the objectively right thing to do is to minimise harm and draw out the target, positively identify the target and then complete your mission.

Instead I think the defense force will have to go down the US path of dropping bombs on the entire convoy. Killing bulk innocents in pursuit of a legitimate target is totally fine, killing the legitimate target outside their home is the war crime.

The idea that enemy combatants who don't follow the rules of war when it suits them can hide under the protection of it when it does is a complicated issue and if prisoners weren't going to ever see justice when handed into local authorities that should have been the signal to pull out all the support we were providing.
 
greatgatsby said:
Sorry, but this is nonsense. US-Australian security ties are not going to be impacted by Ben R-S.

I agree that by taking the defamation action he has opened himself to serious charges that will impact him and all our service personnel in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
www.abc.net.au

War crime allegations prompted warnings from US about cooperation with Australia

Defence chief Angus Campbell reveals the United States military warned that allegations of war crimes may affect future cooperation with Australia.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
GingerDocker said:
www.abc.net.au

War crime allegations prompted warnings from US about cooperation with Australia

Defence chief Angus Campbell reveals the United States military warned that allegations of war crimes may affect future cooperation with Australia.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...

This is the same US who will arrange coups in nations with leaders they want replaced over issues we would see as petty. The US military, right up to the highest levels, rates Australia highly. Their political class, or in this case the public relations side are not anything important.

The US drone strikes it's own citizens in foreign countries because the father of the teenager killed angered the administration at the time.

They are no moral guardian here.

And war is far uglier than any romantic idea anyone may have. It's abhorrent. We should avoid it at all costs.
 
BanjoRules said:
Hi dockerfemme

I know you are referring to the political scene which most definitely is not merit based. The system doesn't appear to foster candidates that are competent in running a country.

In the commercial arena I'm a big fan of the meritocracy which has been smashed over the last few years with affirmative action.

Best way I can describe some of my angst against this form of discrimination is to ask you a question if I may.

Can you imagine if you had worked for 15 years in a role working your absolute ring off and a promotion was on the cards to which you were the most suitable candidate by far given your experience, abilities etc .

This promotion is going to make a huge difference to your take home pay and your ability to provide a better life for your family. You absolutely deserve this promotion.

The executive in their wisdom however were big on affirmative action and they leap frogged someone without the competency for the role from 3 rungs down who belonged to a particular gender, skin color etc they deemed needed better representation from up the ladder.

After their promotion, work place performance dropped and you find yourself cleaning up their mistakes multiple times.

How would you feel and would you hang around in that business if they treat their staff like that ?
Click to expand...

There was an ESPN host - female - I will have to try and find the story and it was hilarious. She was having a slot taken by an inexperienced woman of colour. She said something like... 'Oh we need diversity but not at the expense of my role...' one of the funniest lines. To be fair the one making the statement is a very good reporter.

Found the quote:

The broadcaster seems to continue by saying that the company felt like they “need to give her more things to do” because they were “feeling pressure about [their] crappy longtime record on diversity.”

Ms Nichols is heard to add: “Which, by the way, I know personally from the female side of it — like, go for it. Just find it somewhere else. You are not going to find it from me or taking my thing away.”

___________________________

What you are saying is at the core of the debate and most people who are fine with it never imagine it would happen to them. Police are leaving in large numbers around our nation for this very reason. In businesses I actively remove it as a criteria from any business I work with. I also actively ensure all fields are open and everyone is encouraged to apply and that pathways, training and opportunity avenues are made clear to everyone in the company. I think it needs to be both so it doesn't become an old boys club, but, for the benefit of everyone, even the person put in a role they do not have the capacity to fill, it is not kind or beneficial to 'help' by making affirmative action hires.
 
masai tu said:
I struggle with judging anything involved in a war zone.

The pressures these defence force personnel are under, is not able to be gauged by the person in the street. Trained to kill, how do you turn the switch off ?.
Click to expand...
Taylor said:
It's a bit trickier. Group one ordered to kill enemy combatant. Group two ordered to kill enemy combatant. Group one drops bomb on his house, kills the target and the family, identity confirmed searching bodies after. Group two raids the house, takes possession of everyone, identifies target and kills them in the yard.

Group two are the ones being accused of being war criminals.
Click to expand...
There are many soldiers who manage not to commit war crimes in warzones. These types of occupations will always attract psycopaths that get a thrill out of killing.

"He was complicit in the killing of four unarmed Afghans while deployed overseas...

BRS unloaded his machine gun into am Afghan man with a prosthetic leg... this leg was taken back to base by another soldier as a trophy and used as a drinking vessel".

There is no possible justification for this and he is not the only guilty party involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top