Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

(Log in to remove this ad.)

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Val Keating

Premiership Player
Dec 27, 2017
4,909
10,915
AFL Club
North Melbourne
One of the most fascinating subjects in this conversation. Ledoux talks about how his studies on fear, anxiety etc. have been misunderstood by the wider science community, leading to pharmaceutical companies development of benzodiazepines. Very very interesting

 

Kangaroos4eva

Hall of Famer
Aug 22, 2012
37,599
63,073
NSW
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
Ruling class born to rule entitlement right there. He'd happily send thousands to run at German machine guns and sip his pink gin and the casualty reports came in.

He reminds me a great deal of Lord Melchiot in Blackaddder.

In fairness, the left and right politicians in Britain and Australia were more than happy to send our boys against the German machine guns.

Politicians, regardless of their allegiances, don't give a s**t about the common soldier.
 
Last edited:

JeanLucGoddard

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2018
7,818
18,145
AFL Club
North Melbourne
It’s more that he just rambled on for so long after being an hour late he made one of his props fall asleep. Why did he insist on having all the police stand behind him? He’s nuts
Because he intends to break the law to push through no-deal Brexit if he can and is trying to send a message.

Cops not wearing it though.
 

JeanLucGoddard

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2018
7,818
18,145
AFL Club
North Melbourne
In fairness, the left and right politicians in Britain and Australia were more than happy to send our boys against the German machine guns.

Politicians, regardless of their allegiances, don't give a s**t about the common soldier.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, bulls**t.

The Labor Party split over conscription in 1916, they expelled Billy - THE RAT - Hughes over it. They were firmly against SENDING boys to die on the wire in the mud in France and Belgium. If people CHOSE to, different matter.

Even in World War II, when Labor introduced conscription it was very specifically NOT in Europe, but the immediate locale of Australia.

(And I dispute that politicians don't care ... see the 1945 general election in the UK that brought in a socialist government on a "give our boys the peace they won" platform that built the NHS among other things. It is the ruling class right that don't care, Churchill the drunken blood soaked war criminal the ultimate example)
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Jul 24, 2015
12,179
22,276
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Wrong mate. Labor brought in the policy architecture under which all this stands. In the 90s, in the 00s, it was Labor.

Its is fact.
The Coalition/Murdoch media are "more guilty" than the ALP. They are the ones who ramped up the punitive nature of this process for political gain at every opportunity and framed the entire thing in a way that forced the ALP to act the way it did. Not justifying the ALP's acts with that either, it was s**thouse, but be realistic. They had no other option. Surely a "trained political journalist" should be able to recognise the corrosive effects of having having essentially one major media owner in Australia over that period of time.

BTW Mandatory detention is just one of the things wrong with Australia. There is plenty more and its all the responsibility of the coalition.
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Jul 24, 2015
12,179
22,276
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The average working person been putting up with it for a while. It’s in the mines, commercial construction....seems they’re targeting a certain demographic
Yeah anyone who isn't a potential aristocrat.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but its pretty fu**en obvious there is a massive push to revive the feudal system as Western Liberal Society collapses outside of Europe.
 

Kangaroos4eva

Hall of Famer
Aug 22, 2012
37,599
63,073
NSW
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
Ahhhhhhhhhhh, bulls**t.

The Labor Party split over conscription in 1916, they expelled Billy - THE RAT - Hughes over it. They were firmly against SENDING boys to die on the wire in the mud in France and Belgium. If people CHOSE to, different matter.

Even in World War II, when Labor introduced conscription it was very specifically NOT in Europe, but the immediate locale of Australia.

(And I dispute that politicians don't care ... see the 1945 general election in the UK that brought in a socialist government on a "give our boys the peace they won" platform that built the NHS among other things. It is the ruling class right that don't care, Churchill the drunken blood soaked war criminal the ultimate example)
You've missed the point and false equivalised again.

Conscription isn't even the issue we were talking about. We are talking about happily committing Australian men overseas, to trenches in this context, in search of some assurance of Great Power protection as future recompense.

It was the ALP that effectively invited Australia into the First World War (we would have been asked anyway, but we enthusiastic about the prospects of defending the Empire) in the first place and then kept sending troops to regions outside Australia's primary interests.

The National Service Act and conscription during the Second World War were both primarily related to national militias and not sending them outside Australian territories, which then included New Guinea as a league of nations protectorate under Australian supervision. I'm surprised you didn't mention the Curtin withdrawal from North Africa or him effectively transferring military sovereignty to MacArthur, which effectively made Australian troops restricted to the strategic whims of a foreign general.

My original generalised point was about modern politicians not caring enough at the initial phase of wars and in their aftermath. Not enough social welfare funding is devoted to PTSD and providing other support. Post world wars, all participant states were pretty good with soldier welfare, but even then there were issues.
 
Last edited:

Themanbun

Club Legend
Apr 19, 2019
1,244
3,463
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Yeah anyone who isn't a potential aristocrat.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but its pretty fu**en obvious there is a massive push to revive the feudal system as Western Liberal Society collapses outside of Europe.
Western liberalism has always pathologised the individual poor rather than admitting its own structural failings.
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Jul 24, 2015
12,179
22,276
AFL Club
North Melbourne
In fairness, the left and right politicians in Britain and Australia were more than happy to send our boys against the German machine guns.

Politicians, regardless of their allegiances, don't give a s**t about the common soldier.
Lots (dunno the numbers but more than 10) of Australian politicians actually volunteered and died in ww1.

Also the radical Australian left opposed any intervention in the war and it was only the left that led any practical resistance to conscription when Hughes tried to introduce it. And (as is typical of authoritarian types) the right leaning Hughes created the feds (AFP) to bust whoever egged him at an anti conscription protest. As the war went on the ALP increasingly opposed it and increasingly moved to end it via negotiation and moved to oppose recruiting more soldiers as well as supporting strikes and resisting more conscription moves by Hughes (probably cos they could see the damage it was doing to the country's future. We never recovered from ww1 economically and population wise - if we hadn't gone to war for the British Australia would have been a stronger country throughout the 20th century imo.)
 

Themanbun

Club Legend
Apr 19, 2019
1,244
3,463
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Well to a point, but to me that's more a hangover of pre enlightenment ruling class attitudes.
I personally don't think so. It's an individualist ideology predicated upon a market based system which has individual transactions and the profit motive as its core.

To the point that liberalism is a reflection of pre-enlightenment ideals, sure I don't disagree, but western liberalism's core philosophical underpinnings are individualist. The 'market's' failures are therefore presumed to be the fault of individuals, rather than structural flaws.

That's the underpinning of the poor British Poor Law which was the first manifestation of these ideals of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor which has reared its head as a concept every single time we have become more liberal and less collectivist.
 

Kangaroos4eva

Hall of Famer
Aug 22, 2012
37,599
63,073
NSW
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
West Ham United
Lots (dunno the numbers but more than 10) of Australian politicians actually volunteered and died in ww1.

Also the radical Australian left opposed any intervention in the war and it was only the left that led any practical resistance to conscription when Hughes tried to introduce it. And (as is typical of authoritarian types) the right leaning Hughes created the feds (AFP) to bust whoever egged him at an anti conscription protest. As the war went on the ALP increasingly opposed it and increasingly moved to end it via negotiation and moved to oppose recruiting more soldiers as well as supporting strikes and resisting more conscription moves by Hughes (probably cos they could see the damage it was doing to the country's future. We never recovered from ww1 economically and population wise - if we hadn't gone to war for the British Australia would have been a stronger country throughout the 20th century imo.)
There were a few MP's and councilors from recollection.

The radical left was like that in most participant countries during that period, especially in Russia. In the USA, it was a little different.

Generally speaking (I should precurse this phrase with everything I write in this thread, as my words often seem to be placed out of context when they are quoted), the ALP was split over the issue, with many on the left of centre supporting the committment of troops overseas. However, as you rightfully point out, there were more against Hughes by 1916. I was also thinking of British and French politicians as well, when I wrote my original point.

My original point was in regards to modern politicians and general history. Across modern history, the wider political base has often been willing to use soldiers and blood to further national/political aims, which was the case in 1914. They also don't always follow through on the support afterwards, which is a more recent modern phenomenon. (Even the Romans did post-war stuff for their soldiers)

I would disagree with the economic side of things just quickly, in particular industry. The war did help us industrialise and our manufacturing capacity was increased as a result, as it also did with the mass industrial mobilisation in early 1942-43 having long-term industrial benefits during the Chifley period. But that's all another argument.
 

Top Bottom