Play Nice Random Chat Thread V

[Kangaroos4eva]

You said yourself the other day that CRT was what meant you'd support the Coalition over Labor,/Greens.

Thus you support Dutton and this kind of thing.

One of the reasons why I generally support the party, not certain individual flog members like Dutton, Kelly or ScoMo. I don’t support every one of their members and policies, just like you don’t for the alp/greens.

And no, I don’t support the proposed new bill, as it would be ripe for abuse and promote indefinite/lengthy detention.

 

[rickety]

Women? Irrational?

Ridiculous notion.

I like to call it "Arsenal are playing at home"

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

One of the reasons why I generally support the party, not certain individual flog members like Dutton, Kelly or ScoMo.

I support the party just not two of the most senior members, who are also the Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs.

There's no point going further with this, but the reality is because you prioritise your identity politics via CRT over everything else, the likes of Dutton get to impose sh*t like this.

S

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

It’s almost like you believe the security state is partisan issue..

Labor roll over on.most things agreed. But they aren't in government right now.

 

[Roman Roy]

So what’s the answer? Putting a cap on how much can be inherited? That’d just have the mega rich using offshore bank accounts to protect their money. I know they do that already but I just can’t see how it would work. Maybe an extremely high tax on billionaires, to the point where it’s not worth being a billionaire. Like how much of a psycho do you need to be to want more then $1B? After $1B money almost becomes and it’s just about ego.

Focus group research suggests that the population overwhelmingly supports an inheritance tax, but vehemently rejects a death tax.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I support the party just not the two most senior members, who are also the Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs.

There's no point going further with this, but the reality is because you prioritise your identity politics via CRT over everything else, the likes of Dutton get to impose sh*t like this.

I’ve always stated it was the lesser of two evils. I’m not a cheerleading partisan drone and I don’t like certain senior party members and policies. It’s about balancing the pros/cons and making trade-offs.

I agree that this is pointless. I’ll leave you to your precious bubble and straw manning.

 

[SimpkinByTheDockOfTheBay]

I’ve always stated it was the lesser of two evils. I’m not a cheerleading partisan drone and I don’t like certain senior party members and policies. It’s about balancing the pros/cons and making trade-offs.

Agree, and the key trade off is that you line up with the likes of Dutton when you vote for them.

You seem pretty uncomfortable with this, might be worth reassessing whether the tradeoff is worth it.

 

[AnEmptyChair]

I’ve always stated it was the lesser of two evils. I’m not a cheerleading partisan drone and I don’t like certain senior party members and policies. It’s about balancing the pros/cons and making trade-offs.

I agree that this is pointless. I’ll leave you to your precious bubble and straw manning.

But where's the tipping point? At what point does the continual corruption, rape apology, victim blaming, environmental destruction, human rights abuses, entrenchment of poverty and cronyism from the party overall overwhelm what you perceive -- I would argue incorrectly -- to be the negative effects of CRT and 'wokeism'?

EDIT: I'm genuinely trying to understand this attitude because I see it manifest on a broader scale and I just don't get it. It's like some people, not saying you, just want to stick it to the feminist who might have some compassion for refugees so they overlook widescale, systemic problems. Like I've genuinely seen and heard people say things that effectively amount to "these campaigners changed the name of my favourite cheese so I'm going to vote for the party that do all they can to keep people below the poverty line." I just don't understand.

 

[samoodan]

Morals? You jest.

His office chief of staff has an AVO out against him, and has been subject to numerous complaints.

PM asked Craig Kelly to remove senior aide who was subject of complaints by interns | Craig Kelly | The Guardian

Some of them as young as 16.

He is an unmitigated bastard who pushes acts like his sh*t doesn't stink. He is the very face of many of the underlying problems that the parliament are currently grappling with.

I didn't know that. You can bet if he has any other dirt on him it will come out now.

Remember Peter Slipper?

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

But where's the tipping point? At what point does the continual corruption, rape apology, victim blaming, environmental destruction, human rights abuses, entrenchment of poverty and cronyism from the party overall overwhelm what you perceive -- I would argue incorrectly -- to be the negative effects of CRT and 'wokeism'?

EDIT: I'm genuinely trying to understand this attitude because I see it manifest on a broader scale and I just don't get it. It's like some people, not saying you, just want to stick it to the feminist who might have some compassion for refugees so they overlook widescale, systemic problems. Like I've genuinely seen and heard people say things that effectively amount to "these campaigners changed the name of my favourite cheese so I'm going to vote for the party that do all they can to keep people below the poverty line." I just don't understand.

I will get to your post a little bit later and treat it with the upmost respect that it deserves. Just a bit busy with cricket training atm.

 

[Val Keating]

I will get to your post a little bit later and treat it with the upmost respect that it deserves. Just a bit busy with cricket training atm.

 

[koshari]

I didn't know that. You can bet if he has any other dirt on him it will come out now.

Remember Peter Slipper?

Poor old slippery Pete was a scapegoat. Nothing more nothing less. He ultimately got done for travel expence claim abuse visiting wineries but they were all into it. Not saying he shouldn't have gone. Quite the contrey. Heaps more of em should have been moved on. Can't tell me slippery and bronnie were the only ones with their fingers in the till re travel claims.
Sloppy Joe said the age of entitlement was finished. He just never told anyone that the next age of entitlement was well and truly underway.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

But where's the tipping point? At what point does the continual corruption, rape apology, victim blaming, environmental destruction, human rights abuses, entrenchment of poverty and cronyism from the party overall overwhelm what you perceive -- I would argue incorrectly -- to be the negative effects of CRT and 'wokeism'?

EDIT: I'm genuinely trying to understand this attitude because I see it manifest on a broader scale and I just don't get it. It's like some people, not saying you, just want to stick it to the feminist who might have some compassion for refugees so they overlook widescale, systemic problems. Like I've genuinely seen and heard people say things that effectively amount to "these campaigners changed the name of my favourite cheese so I'm going to vote for the party that do all they can to keep people below the poverty line." I just don't understand.

Sorry about the delay. Ended up missing out on training anyway, due to this damn QLD (Syrian) weather.

Spoiler: For those that don't want to read lengthy paragraphs

A tipping point:
To establish a firm tipping point, I need to establish why I bother voting for a party that I have deep reservations about, including several of its key members/policies that I call the lesser evil. First and foremost, the Liberal Party has remained the closest party to my own political principles. My principles are closely aligned to Liberal Conservatism.

These views are generally centered on:
- Favouring free markets, but remaining an advocate of mixed market economics. My views on economics have drafted further left over the past 18 months, but I remain a firm believer in the growth provided by free markets, albeit with a safety net for those that fall down the proverbial ladder.
- A liberal stance on most social and ethical issues, including an utter rejection of identity politics in favour of promoting equal opportunity for all individuals and individual responsibility.
- For example: I voted yes on the gay marriage plebiscite and I support gay marriage, action on climate change, civil liberty protections (vary on issue-to-issue), justice reform, legalisation of most drugs, indigenous rights, science promotion, technology investments,native land rights and even early abortion rights for women (especially if it is the product of rape). This stance is in complete opposition to full social and national conservatism and detests any form of populism.
- Strongish law and order, but I tend to favor liberal and reformist views on prison and justice reform.
- Environmental conservatism and conservation.
- A balanced, but ultimately slighlty positive-leaning, view of history.
- Support of social institutions to support those in need, whilst also fostering civic loyalty to your community and nation. This includes pride in your own personal heritage and culture.
- Civic nationalism based on all citizens working together for the good of the state and promoting the national interests before international ones. Basically, favouring tempered realism over internationalism.
- Primordially, conservatism is a temperament—a proclivity that favors slow, judicious change for all individuals and looks for guidance to the future from the wisdom of the past.
- (1) Humans are flawed creatures; (2) Reason is powerful but limited and prone to error; (3) Utopian thinking is dangerous, especially when combined with ideologies that promote concentrated political power; (4) Humans should respect tradition and custom; and (5) Intuition is an important guide to social policy.

The Liberals fail on many of these metrics (being more social conservative nowadays), but fit the bill more than the other parties do.


Factor 2:
Because of my liberal-centric principles and views, in particular the focus on a form of liberal colour-blindness, I am entirely distrustful of an ideology (CRT) that is utterly obsessed with skin colour. A set of theories which has philosophical roots in Marxist conflict theory, labels an entire group of people racist for being born with a certain skin colour, is attached to equity of outcome, promotes forms of racial segregation and has prompted some on this board to label me racist for no good reason. But I have repeated these criticisms before with no avail. My views on confronting my biases and promoting anti-racism are closely aligned to Helen Pluckrose, a left-wing intellectual.


Factor 3:
I don't completely agree with your perception of the party.

Corruption:
Not to do a both-sides-ism, but corruption is not unique to the liberal party as the recent stacking and development scandals across both major parties has shown. The corruption would have reach the point of election fraud and deliberate voter suppression for me to reach a tipping point.

Rape Apology and Victim-blaming:
We have discussed this and my disgust at the party. However, as the recent ABC article showed, alongside the Greens scandal with Birmingham, the entire political class needs to be questioned on this one. As for a tipping point, it would have to reach extraordinary high levels by just the Liberals.

Environmental Destruction:
This is something all young liberal conservatives bemoan about the modern conservative parties in the west. It is one of my main gripes with Morrison. The recent inquiries into nuclear fusion, nuclear power and commitment to CC targets offer some hope on this front. The liberals approach is closer to a social conservative approach, which isn't quite liberal enough for me. The ALP is one of the better parties on this, whilst the Greens go a bit too quickly for sustainable and cheap clean energy. A tipping point would be complete non-action on environmental conservation and CC.

Human Rights Abuses:
Probably needed to be a tad more specific here. If we are discussing detention centres, then I am almost entirely opposed to them in their past and current form, which explains my Dutton dislike. Mind you, a hell of a lot more people died on those leaky boats than in detention, but I believe I had this discussion before with others on board. However, I'm not sure what you are after with this one beyond immigration and potentially media freedoms, so I'll leave this one alone.

Poverty:
Well, how long have you got? I would have to go through global economic trends for the past 100 or so years, as well as the entire economic platforms of all major governments since Federation, including the Free Trade Party, Protectionist Party, the Country Party and Joseph Lyons' United Australia Party. I generally support the level of social-democracy we have now, but I support an efficient system with a relatively healthy APS base, rather than private contractors. The tipping point would have to be a massive scaling back of APS personnel and the current social democratic systems that we possess today, including social welfare, Medicare, public health etc.

Cronyism:
Is a problem that plagues many parties. It would have to be beyond rife for me to question my voting patterns on this front. Middle Eastern clientelism levels really.

Overall:
A significant, albeit not a complete, tilt with the points I raised, weighed against my principles, would feature me altering my voting patterns towards the ALP.


As for your edit:
I am not that person, or at least I strive not to be. I don't want to stick it to anyone, including SLF. I cannot genuinely hold a grudge against anyone for longer than a day*. Even when I moan about CRT, I understand why people support it and there are many legitimate grievances to be addressed collaboratively. I just believe there are better alternatives and more pragmatic (non-partisan) solutions to many of the problems that we discuss every day on here.

*essendon supporters don't count as they* aren't human...

I hope that answers your questions in some way. I apologise about the length, but I thought I owed people an explanation for the way I post on this board. All the best.

 

[krakouers85]

After going through the encryption debate, I honestly believe Dutton has no idea what he is talking about.. he just signs things and lookalike a potato..

Hey! That’s not fair!

most potatoes are far more electable

 

[Snake_Baker]

I like to call it "Arsenal are playing at home"

Australian male politicians have little in common with the average Australian male, and I see no reason to believe that Australian female politicians are representative of Australian women.

For some reason the Australian female politicians are granted a significantly higher amount of respect compared to their male colleagues, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. Most of them wouldn't have gotten where they are if they weren't scumbags.

I assume its some mother complex or chivalry thing.

 

[Val Keating]

politicians have little in common with the average human

FTFY

 

[rickety]

Australian male politicians have little in common with the average Australian male, and I see no reason to believe that Australian female politicians are representative of Australian women.

For some reason the Australian female politicians are granted a significantly higher amount of respect compared to their male colleagues, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. Most of them wouldn't have gotten where they are if they weren't scumbags.

I assume its some mother complex or chivalry thing.

Or maybe they just keep quiet about stuff

 

[Snake_Baker]

Male politician opens their mouth = full time bullshit artist.

Female politician opens their mouth = could not even be 1% incorrect.

It's ****ing bizarre.

 

[Themanbun]

Sorry about the delay. Ended up missing out on training anyway, due to this damn QLD (Syrian) weather.

Spoiler: For those that don't want to read lengthy paragraphs

A tipping point:
To establish a firm tipping point, I need to establish why I bother voting for a party that I have deep reservations about, including several of its key members/policies that I call the lesser evil. First and foremost, the Liberal Party has remained the closest party to my own political principles. My principles are closely aligned to Liberal Conservatism.

These views are generally centered on:
- Favouring free markets, but remaining an advocate of mixed market economics. My views on economics have drafted further left over the past 18 months, but I remain a firm believer in the growth provided by free markets, albeit with a safety net for those that fall down the proverbial ladder.
- A liberal stance on most social and ethical issues, including an utter rejection of identity politics in favour of promoting equal opportunity for all individuals and individual responsibility.
- For example: I voted yes on the gay marriage plebiscite and I support gay marriage, action on climate change, civil liberty protections (vary on issue-to-issue), justice reform, legalisation of most drugs, indigenous rights, science promotion, technology investments,native land rights and even early abortion rights for women (especially if it is the product of rape). This stance is in complete opposition to full social and national conservatism and detests any form of populism.
- Strongish law and order, but I tend to favor liberal and reformist views on prison and justice reform.
- Environmental conservatism and conservation.
- A balanced, but ultimately slighlty positive-leaning, view of history.
- Support of social institutions to support those in need, whilst also fostering civic loyalty to your community and nation. This includes pride in your own personal heritage and culture.
- Civic nationalism based on all citizens working together for the good of the state and promoting the national interests before international ones. Basically, favouring tempered realism over internationalism.
- Primordially, conservatism is a temperament—a proclivity that favors slow, judicious change for all individuals and looks for guidance to the future from the wisdom of the past.
- (1) Humans are flawed creatures; (2) Reason is powerful but limited and prone to error; (3) Utopian thinking is dangerous, especially when combined with ideologies that promote concentrated political power; (4) Humans should respect tradition and custom; and (5) Intuition is an important guide to social policy.

The Liberals fail on many of these metrics (being more social conservative nowadays), but fit the bill more than the other parties do.


Factor 2:
Because of my liberal-centric principles and views, in particular the focus on a form of liberal colour-blindness, I am entirely distrustful of an ideology (CRT) that is utterly obsessed with skin colour. A set of theories which has philosophical roots in Marxist conflict theory, labels an entire group of people racist for being born with a certain skin colour, is attached to equity of outcome, promotes forms of racial segregation and has prompted some on this board to label me racist for no good reason. But I have repeated these criticisms before with no avail. My views on confronting my biases and promoting anti-racism are closely aligned to Helen Pluckrose, a left-wing intellectual.


Factor 3:
I don't completely agree with your perception of the party.

Corruption:
Not to do a both-sides-ism, but corruption is not unique to the liberal party as the recent stacking and development scandals across both major parties has shown. The corruption would have reach the point of election fraud and deliberate voter suppression for me to reach a tipping point.

Rape Apology and Victim-blaming:
We have discussed this and my disgust at the party. However, as the recent ABC article showed, alongside the Greens scandal with Birmingham, the entire political class needs to be questioned on this one. As for a tipping point, it would have to reach extraordinary high levels by just the Liberals.

Environmental Destruction:
This is something all young liberal conservatives bemoan about the modern conservative parties in the west. It is one of my main gripes with Morrison. The recent inquiries into nuclear fusion, nuclear power and commitment to CC targets offer some hope on this front. The liberals approach is closer to a social conservative approach, which isn't quite liberal enough for me. The ALP is one of the better parties on this, whilst the Greens go a bit too quickly for sustainable and cheap clean energy. A tipping point would be complete non-action on environmental conservation and CC.

Human Rights Abuses:
Probably needed to be a tad more specific here. If we are discussing detention centres, then I am almost entirely opposed to them in their past and current form, which explains my Dutton dislike. Mind you, a hell of a lot more people died on those leaky boats than in detention, but I believe I had this discussion before with others on board. However, I'm not sure what you are after with this one beyond immigration and potentially media freedoms, so I'll leave this one alone.

Poverty:
Well, how long have you got? I would have to go through global economic trends for the past 100 or so years, as well as the entire economic platforms of all major governments since Federation, including the Free Trade Party, Protectionist Party, the Country Party and Joseph Lyons' United Australia Party. I generally support the level of social-democracy we have now, but I support an efficient system with a relatively healthy APS base, rather than private contractors. The tipping point would have to be a massive scaling back of APS personnel and the current social democratic systems that we possess today, including social welfare, Medicare, public health etc.

Cronyism:
Is a problem that plagues many parties. It would have to be beyond rife for me to question my voting patterns on this front. Middle Eastern clientelism levels really.

Overall:
A significant, albeit not a complete, tilt with the points I raised, weighed against my principles, would feature me altering my voting patterns towards the ALP.


As for your edit:
I am not that person, or at least I strive not to be. I don't want to stick it to anyone, including SLF. I cannot genuinely hold a grudge against anyone for longer than a day*. Even when I moan about CRT, I understand why people support it and there are many legitimate grievances to be addressed collaboratively. I just believe there are better alternatives and more pragmatic (non-partisan) solutions to many of the problems that we discuss every day on here.

*essendon supporters don't count as they* aren't human...

I hope that answers your questions in some way. I apologise about the length, but I thought I owed people an explanation for the way I post on this board. All the best.

Don't want to hijack your discussion mate but the claim that CRT has its origins in Marxist conflict theory is pretty fair stretch.

It dates back to critical legal theory and the post structural turn (post structural being in contrast to Marxism's structuralism), and somewhat
dates back to critical theorists who were somewhat influenced by Marx's writings. Marx definitely did not and does not have a monopoly on 'conflict theory'. That goes further back to Hegel. But it's not as scary to say "it has its origins in critical theory, post structuralism and Hegelian writings on duality," so a lot of conservative scholars and writers just try to throw Marx into it because who doesn't love a good red scare.

Marx's iteration of 'conflict theory' is an adaptation of Hegel's views on the transformative power of duality and conflict, and that iteration/interpretation was framed solely in relation to the economic base, being the relationship to the means of production.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Don't want to hijack your discussion mate but the claim that CRT has its origins in Marxist conflict theory is pretty fair stretch.

It dates back to critical legal theory and the post structural turn (post structural being in contrast to Marxism's structuralism), and somewhat
dates back to critical theorists who were somewhat influenced by Marx's writings. Marx definitely did not and does not have a monopoly on 'conflict theory'. That goes further back to Hegel. But it's not as scary to say "it has its origins in critical theory, post structuralism and Hegelian writings on duality," so a lot of conservative scholars and writers just try to throw Marx into it because who doesn't love a good red scare.

Marx's iteration of 'conflict theory' is an adaptation of Hegel's views on the transformative power of duality and conflict, and that iteration/interpretation was framed solely in relation to the economic base, being the relationship to the means of production.

It doesn't matter where it originates, 20kgs of steel is 20kgs of steel, no matter how anyone "feels" about it.

 

[Themanbun]

It doesn't matter where it originates, 20kgs of steel is 20kgs of steel, no matter how anyone "feels" about it.

It does matter to me and has real effects on people's political decisions, because people are using this dialogue of misperceptions on both sides to make sure they hammer a nail in the coffin of their economic enemy from decades ago. As someone who interprets the world through an economic lens, I think education on this stuff matters.

The end result for the general public (not you fine people here, who seem to be able to discuss intelligently) is that you see things like unemployed Americans living in a trailer park, with no health insurance, obsessed with their conservative cultural war flavour of the day, screeching about being offered health care by a centre right politician because Carl Marks or something.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The end result for the general public (not you fine people here, who seem to be able to discuss intelligently) is that you see things like unemployed Americans living in a trailer park, with no health insurance, obsessed with their conservative cultural war flavour of the day, screeching about being offered health care by a centre right politician because Carl Marks or something.

You must be engaging some very low brow "conservatism".

 

[Themanbun]

You must be engaging some very low brow "conservatism".

The vast majority of the population is 'low brow'. And their vote is worth as much as anyone else's. Average people don't care much for the theoretical underpinnings of various philosophies.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Don't want to hijack your discussion mate but the claim that CRT has its origins in Marxist conflict theory is pretty fair stretch.

It dates back to critical legal theory and the post structural turn (post structural being in contrast to Marxism's structuralism), and somewhat
Dates back to critical theorists who were somewhat influenced by Marx's writings. Marx definitely did not and does not have a monopoly on 'conflict theory'. That goes further back to Hegel. But it's not as scary to say "it has its origins in critical theory, post structuralism and Hegelian writings on duality," so a lot of conservative scholars and writers just try to throw Marx into it because who doesn't love a good red scare.

It was my bad as I was being a bit too general.

Spoiler: Boring Dialectics

I wasn't going for the big red scare. More so about current CRT adapting some aspects of Marxist conflict theory, as well as other theoretical aspects. I didn't assert that Marx did have a monolopy and I have read a little of Hegel's works.

The Frankfurt school did expand on the original Marxist variation of conflict theory (who heavily altered it from Hegel as we both know):
The inevitable progress of History is achieved, for Hegel, by an alchemical process by means of the dialectic: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This allows the Absolute to actualize itself, which ends History (i.e., an anti-Christian eschaton).

Marx took up this idea as "dialectical materialism," which is quite famously the (not very Christian) process of History becoming communist, a realized global Volk. The Frankfurt School arose to push the dialectical process beyond where Marx originally took it. It is this dialectical process that is presented in Kritische, as in Kritische Theorie, which gave rise to Kritische Rassentheorie, i.e., Critical Race Theory. Even the split between "Traditional Theory" and "Critical Theory" perfectly mirrors Hegel's "Understanding" and "Reason".

But I appreciate the fact that I do not fully comprehend the complete philosophical roots and associated literature. Still a work in progress. It is very complicated and time-consuming stuff.

 

[AnEmptyChair]

Sorry about the delay. Ended up missing out on training anyway, due to this damn QLD (Syrian) weather.

Spoiler: For those that don't want to read lengthy paragraphs

A tipping point:
To establish a firm tipping point, I need to establish why I bother voting for a party that I have deep reservations about, including several of its key members/policies that I call the lesser evil. First and foremost, the Liberal Party has remained the closest party to my own political principles. My principles are closely aligned to Liberal Conservatism.

These views are generally centered on:
- Favouring free markets, but remaining an advocate of mixed market economics. My views on economics have drafted further left over the past 18 months, but I remain a firm believer in the growth provided by free markets, albeit with a safety net for those that fall down the proverbial ladder.
- A liberal stance on most social and ethical issues, including an utter rejection of identity politics in favour of promoting equal opportunity for all individuals and individual responsibility.
- For example: I voted yes on the gay marriage plebiscite and I support gay marriage, action on climate change, civil liberty protections (vary on issue-to-issue), justice reform, legalisation of most drugs, indigenous rights, science promotion, technology investments,native land rights and even early abortion rights for women (especially if it is the product of rape). This stance is in complete opposition to full social and national conservatism and detests any form of populism.
- Strongish law and order, but I tend to favor liberal and reformist views on prison and justice reform.
- Environmental conservatism and conservation.
- A balanced, but ultimately slighlty positive-leaning, view of history.
- Support of social institutions to support those in need, whilst also fostering civic loyalty to your community and nation. This includes pride in your own personal heritage and culture.
- Civic nationalism based on all citizens working together for the good of the state and promoting the national interests before international ones. Basically, favouring tempered realism over internationalism.
- Primordially, conservatism is a temperament—a proclivity that favors slow, judicious change for all individuals and looks for guidance to the future from the wisdom of the past.
- (1) Humans are flawed creatures; (2) Reason is powerful but limited and prone to error; (3) Utopian thinking is dangerous, especially when combined with ideologies that promote concentrated political power; (4) Humans should respect tradition and custom; and (5) Intuition is an important guide to social policy.

The Liberals fail on many of these metrics (being more social conservative nowadays), but fit the bill more than the other parties do.


Factor 2:
Because of my liberal-centric principles and views, in particular the focus on a form of liberal colour-blindness, I am entirely distrustful of an ideology (CRT) that is utterly obsessed with skin colour. A set of theories which has philosophical roots in Marxist conflict theory, labels an entire group of people racist for being born with a certain skin colour, is attached to equity of outcome, promotes forms of racial segregation and has prompted some on this board to label me racist for no good reason. But I have repeated these criticisms before with no avail. My views on confronting my biases and promoting anti-racism are closely aligned to Helen Pluckrose, a left-wing intellectual.


Factor 3:
I don't completely agree with your perception of the party.

Corruption:
Not to do a both-sides-ism, but corruption is not unique to the liberal party as the recent stacking and development scandals across both major parties has shown. The corruption would have reach the point of election fraud and deliberate voter suppression for me to reach a tipping point.

Rape Apology and Victim-blaming:
We have discussed this and my disgust at the party. However, as the recent ABC article showed, alongside the Greens scandal with Birmingham, the entire political class needs to be questioned on this one. As for a tipping point, it would have to reach extraordinary high levels by just the Liberals.

Environmental Destruction:
This is something all young liberal conservatives bemoan about the modern conservative parties in the west. It is one of my main gripes with Morrison. The recent inquiries into nuclear fusion, nuclear power and commitment to CC targets offer some hope on this front. The liberals approach is closer to a social conservative approach, which isn't quite liberal enough for me. The ALP is one of the better parties on this, whilst the Greens go a bit too quickly for sustainable and cheap clean energy. A tipping point would be complete non-action on environmental conservation and CC.

Human Rights Abuses:
Probably needed to be a tad more specific here. If we are discussing detention centres, then I am almost entirely opposed to them in their past and current form, which explains my Dutton dislike. Mind you, a hell of a lot more people died on those leaky boats than in detention, but I believe I had this discussion before with others on board. However, I'm not sure what you are after with this one beyond immigration and potentially media freedoms, so I'll leave this one alone.

Poverty:
Well, how long have you got? I would have to go through global economic trends for the past 100 or so years, as well as the entire economic platforms of all major governments since Federation, including the Free Trade Party, Protectionist Party, the Country Party and Joseph Lyons' United Australia Party. I generally support the level of social-democracy we have now, but I support an efficient system with a relatively healthy APS base, rather than private contractors. The tipping point would have to be a massive scaling back of APS personnel and the current social democratic systems that we possess today, including social welfare, Medicare, public health etc.

Cronyism:
Is a problem that plagues many parties. It would have to be beyond rife for me to question my voting patterns on this front. Middle Eastern clientelism levels really.

Overall:
A significant, albeit not a complete, tilt with the points I raised, weighed against my principles, would feature me altering my voting patterns towards the ALP.


As for your edit:
I am not that person, or at least I strive not to be. I don't want to stick it to anyone, including SLF. I cannot genuinely hold a grudge against anyone for longer than a day*. Even when I moan about CRT, I understand why people support it and there are many legitimate grievances to be addressed collaboratively. I just believe there are better alternatives and more pragmatic (non-partisan) solutions to many of the problems that we discuss every day on here.

*essendon supporters don't count as they* aren't human...

I hope that answers your questions in some way. I apologise about the length, but I thought I owed people an explanation for the way I post on this board. All the best.

This is an incredibly detailed post mate and I respect your candour. I know political perspectives and social attitudes can be an intensely personal experience for some so I hope you didn't feel compelled to post that and that doing so in a way that is so forthright and honest hasn't resulted in any feelings of anxiety or uncertainty. If so, don't hesitate to reach out via PM, mate.

As for the post's content, as you would probably expect I disagree with your assessment of identity politics and a few other things. I think your admission that the LNP "fail on many of these metrics but fit the bill more than the other parties do" is a ginormous, size of Ryan Clarke's forehead understatement but at least you recognise that to some extent.

I also think this notion that liberalism results in this colourblind, free society no matter your identity to be naive idealism. It still takes, and it has taken on any major social progress over the last 100 years or so, identity groups (and allies) coming together despite their oppression or disadvantage, recognising the oppression, and fighting against it or advocating on behalf of their identity group.

As for CRT, I find your statement that "I am entirely distrustful of an ideology that is utterly obsessed with skin colour" to be curious. I've said this before, but it only exists because it's needed. It exists because of policies and institutions and attitudes that perpetuate disadvantage based on identity. Likewise this idea of equality of outcome. It exists because in modern liberal societies equality of opportunity has never really existed (and this applied as much to socioeconomic background as anything else). Like, you can't tell me that the indigenous kid from rural South Australia has the same opportunity as the private school kid from Melbourne -- in education opportunity, job prospects, not to mention associated socioeconomic risks like violence and so on. That equality doesn't exist. Disadvantage, like privilege, is intergenerational. A kid in so many ways is only as good as their parents allow them to be, especially in early childhood. Sure the very select few might pull themselves up by their bootlaces and sheer luck, and liberals will point to that as evidence that anyone can make it, but they're the exception. It's already too late for most kids because they didn't have those same opportunities. Now, if you have a focus on outcome and prioritise not just representation but inclusion and leadership from indigenous kids, for example, there's a chance to break that cycle. Not only in one family's life, but by having people that actually understand disadvantage make changes to a system that perpetuates it.

As for your 'racist just for being born with a skin colour,' I think that's mostly nonsense, mate, and it manifests on a larger scale than on a personal one. I think maybe you're letting a personal experience colour (no pun intended) your perception of that. And honestly, if anyone actually did say to me that I was racist because I'm white then I'd say they're an idiot. However, as a white person (actually, that's too vague. let's say white Australian) I do think about how white history in this country and systems and institutions built by white people lead to those disadvantages that I spoke about, and why non-white people would have grievances because of that. Eh, I don't think I expressed this last para as well as I could have, but i think maybe you get my drift.

edit: Also just want to make clear that while I did some study in political theory, I absolutely do not have the theoretical or academic background of you or the TMB. Most of this is just based on things I see, my own experiences, how I interpret them, as well as stuff I've read from admittedly progressive social commentators. As such, I acknowledge the bias there. Edit 2: Damn, i sure use 'exist' a lot in this. that will teach me for being a terrible proof-reader.