Discussion Random Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
When you nationalise assets and resources and severely limit private ownership, mass starvation happen frequently.
Yes there's corruption in all systems but despotism is particularly drawn towards this type of centralised system which is more easily co-opted.
So simplified, true but also true in a general sense.

People who advocate socialism always believe it's going to be different in their form or structure but it is invariably the same result.
Doing the same things and expecting a different result is not a real recipe for success in my view.
There is a book, “Fateful Choices” by Ian Kershaw, that demonstrates your point. It explores the ten key strategic decisions of WWII.
Being in chronological order:
England’s decision to fight on in May 1940.
Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union.
Japan’s decision to join the Axis powers.
Mussolini’s decision to invade Greece and not focus on North Africa.
Roosevelt’s decision to approve LendLease.
Stalin’s decision to ignore warnings of the pending German invasion.
Roosevelt and Churchill’s decision to draw up the Atlantic Charter.
The Japanese decision to strike south not north.
Hitler’ decision to declare war on the US.
The Final Solution.

Apart from the historical drama, the key learning I drew from the narrative was this: there were only three decisions made that arose from a collegiate or cabinet discussion. England’s decision to fight on, Roosevelt’s decision to approve LendLease, and their joint decision to approve the Atlantic Charter.
All the others were made in an autocratic or highly centralised system. The three collegiate decisions were the only ones to fall on the right side of history. Each of the remaining seven were derived in a despotic environment. Hitler’s decisions to invade the Soviet Union and to declare war on the US were logical, and based on sound reasoning, but classical failures. Nazi Germany was the archetypal centralised despotic system as Hitler made all the decisions.

My point being: both Churchill and Roosevelt may have proven to be wrong but at least their decisions were made in the context of the push and shove of lively debate and counter views. They were at least, tested.

The others were not.

PS: brilliant book. Buy it.
 
i think fear has a lot to do with it as well , that fear of if i engage with that person are they going to turn around and attack... the thing is that fear for the most part is irrational i see it all the time on facebook and in the media the fear mongering of the masses every time you see that stupid meme about inverting your pin number at an atm to alert the cops if you are being mugged - never mind its compleatly false and does nothing but the idea that someone mugging you is so common place that banks put in this safe guard keeps spreading that fear ... people dont trust people i once offered to help a person broken down on the side of the road and they locked their car door on me..
for the most part i try to refuse the urge to give in to fear , it drives my wife nuts butim the guy that will pull over to help out , im the guy that will reach that item on the top shelf for the person that cant reach , im the person who will say "nah you were next in line" even though they werent .. maybe that will backfire on me and on day i will help the wrong person but in life helping make you happy and theres enough miserable things in life so if you have the chance to make yourself happy heck why not


It usually doesn't backfire, I'm the same, you open up to people and you realise most are just the same as us. You might get someone off their head on ice or something but even then you can usually rationalise with them even to a degree.

It's like the African gangs thing here in Melbourne. I go out north and west for work and you see groups of Sudanese guys and I have never had any of them hassle me. My daughter keeps in touch with a girl she met through a program from Burundi, they go out in the city together and she is treated differently when with someone from Africa. It's all fear because you wouldn't find a nicer kid with a stronger family background. On the news and in federal parliament it sounds like Africans roam the streets trying to find victims.

I have always been able to talk my way out of trouble and you usually find once you open up so do others.
 
There is a book, “Fateful Choices” by Ian Kershaw, that demonstrates your point. It explores the ten key strategic decisions of WWII.
Being in chronological order:
England’s decision to fight on in May 1940.
Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union.
Japan’s decision to join the Axis powers.
Mussolini’s decision to invade Greece and not focus on North Africa.
Roosevelt’s decision to approve LendLease.
Stalin’s decision to ignore warnings of the pending German invasion.
Roosevelt and Churchill’s decision to draw up the Atlantic Charter.
The Japanese decision to strike south not north.
Hitler’ decision to declare war on the US.
The Final Solution.

Apart from the historical drama, the key learning I drew from the narrative was this: there were only three decisions made that arose from a collegiate or cabinet discussion. England’s decision to fight on, Roosevelt’s decision to approve LendLease, and their joint decision to approve the Atlantic Charter.
All the others were made in an autocratic or highly centralised system. The three collegiate decisions were the only ones to fall on the right side of history. Each of the remaining seven were derived in a despotic environment. Hitler’s decisions to invade the Soviet Union and to declare war on the US were logical, and based on sound reasoning, but classical failures. Nazi Germany was the archetypal centralised despotic system as Hitler made all the decisions.

My point being: both Churchill and Roosevelt may have proven to be wrong but at least their decisions were made in the context of the push and shove of lively debate and counter views. They were at least, tested.

The others were not.

PS: brilliant book. Buy it.


It's a bit of a worry that Trump has brought in John Bolton who is a war mongering yes man. Having a hot headed autocrat with out a voice of reason to temper his bouts of impulsivity might be a bit scary. I though Tillerson was going to be a disaster as he was a corporate power broker and my assumption was that he came from inside a system that wants to use politics for it's own means. He ended up being a very a solid reasoned person in a cabinet of crazy.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It usually doesn't backfire, I'm the same, you open up to people and you realise most are just the same as us. You might get someone off their head on ice or something but even then you can usually rationalise with them even to a degree.

It's like the African gangs thing here in Melbourne. I go out north and west for work and you see groups of Sudanese guys and I have never had any of them hassle me. My daughter keeps in touch with a girl she met through a program from Burundi, they go out in the city together and she is treated differently when with someone from Africa. It's all fear because you wouldn't find a nicer kid with a stronger family background. On the news and in federal parliament it sounds like Africans roam the streets trying to find victims.

I have always been able to talk my way out of trouble and you usually find once you open up so do others.
i reckon most of the time if we just got to know people we wouldnt have any issues ... i had an argument once on facebook (i know why bother) with this lady who was making comment that the indig people in Fremantle were destroying tourism, he basis on this was her daughter and friends were yelled at and chased by a group of drunk aboriginal people .. digging deeper into her story the reason they chased her and got angry at her was because she was taking photos of them to mock them on facebook ... i spend a lot of time in Fremantle and ive never had an issue with this group because im polite to them, a simple good morning difuses most potential situations , fear teands to attract trouble yet kindness tends to attract kindness
 
It's a bit of a worry that Trump has brought in John Bolton who is a war mongering yes man. Having a hot headed autocrat with out a voice of reason to temper his bouts of impulsivity might be a bit scary. I though Tillerson was going to be a disaster as he was a corporate power broker and my assumption was that he came from inside a system that wants to use politics for it's own means. He ended up being a very a solid reasoned person in a cabinet of crazy.
Crazy is as Crazy does.
Trump is just going to get worse.
I have been saying the same thing for three years now.
The only constraint on his behaviour will be through the ballot box come November.
And even then, the Dems are only likely to gain a majority in the House.
Russian interference aside.
The best outcome long term for the States is for the GOP to lose control of Congress in November and for Trump to be restrained until going to the people again in 2020. At that point, the people must reject him, and reject him soundly.
So that his defeat is clearly seen to reflect the will of the people.
Otherwise he will continue with his shtick and continue to cause immense damage.
Of course, this is all predicated on him not blowing up the world in the meantime.
It will be really interesting to see if Bolton even gets confirmed.
He will need 50 votes plus Pence.
The GOP currently has 51, less McCain who is dying, less Rand who has already declared a veto, less Flake who is retiring.

(Hobby/Passion = the soap opera that is US politics. It makes ours look so bland and is nearly as captivating as the OJ Simpson trial. And as someone who lived in LA during that trial, I cannot tell you how much that fascinated!!).
 
i reckon most of the time if we just got to know people we wouldnt have any issues ... i had an argument once on facebook (i know why bother) with this lady who was making comment that the indig people in Fremantle were destroying tourism, he basis on this was her daughter and friends were yelled at and chased by a group of drunk aboriginal people .. digging deeper into her story the reason they chased her and got angry at her was because she was taking photos of them to mock them on facebook ... i spend a lot of time in Fremantle and ive never had an issue with this group because im polite to them, a simple good morning difuses most potential situations , fear teands to attract trouble yet kindness tends to attract kindness


When I was young me and my girl friend at the time went to watch footy in Adelaide, we ended up a bit lost going from Glenelg into the city and had to walk through a huge park at night. We had a huge group of pissed indigenous guys following us and trying to menace us and really being intimidating. I turned around went up in a calm way and started talking to one of them who looked a bit older than the rest. I'd got to know some of local St Kilda guys and name dropped the chief, they were obviously impressed. They ended up wanting me to hang out with them and trying to talk me into coming and sitting with them and having some food and booze. Staying clam and not responding with aggression usually works well with anyone.
 
Agree with all you say here and it is sort of the point I am making regarding Peterson. I think that the fact that a figure like him is obviously gaining such traction shows how out of control things are getting with the culture wars.

I might be wrong and he turns out to be some modern-day nazi Jung but I really don't think so. The truth of it, that he is just a clinical psychologist - with classical liberal views - with a special interest in authoritarian regimes who happened to be smart enough to put content on Youtube and have as a over-ruling principal to always "tell the truth" is fairly banal really. That he has become such a popular and polarizing figure is alarming, but at the same time, encouraging to me. It shows how desperately people feel deep inside that they are being lied to constantly and how much they are yearning for change and wanting to strike back. You simply can't lie forever and not suffer consequences.

Where I probably differ from some is that I see lying coming from all sides of politics for different reasons. The traditional right and far-right are doing the same old stuff with new technology. The traditional left is taking the "we do things for good" and ramping it up to the max and being very, very clever at how they isolate critics in the use of social media. A lot of us are feeling pretty hopeless in the middle looking at both sides like terrified children when their parents are fighting and I think we have good reason to be scared.
Peterson makes a lot of good points about what I like to call the 'looney left'. Headlines like the one below highlight political correctness running amok with very little thought about the implications for future generations and societies. Throwback to earlier points raised here though, most people would occupy a centrist viewpoint, and the looney left is almost a requirement to balancing out the alt-right. It would be nice if we could bring both extremes in a little.

upload_2018-3-24_11-15-6.png
 
Peterson makes a lot of good points about what I like to call the 'looney left'. Headlines like the one below highlight political correctness running amok with very little thought about the implications for future generations and societies. Throwback to earlier points raised here though, most people would occupy a centrist viewpoint, and the looney left is almost a requirement to balancing out the alt-right. It would be nice if we could bring both extremes in a little.

View attachment 474105
Oh the irony that this is a Murdoch publication!
 
Peterson makes a lot of good points about what I like to call the 'looney left'. Headlines like the one below highlight political correctness running amok with very little thought about the implications for future generations and societies. Throwback to earlier points raised here though, most people would occupy a centrist viewpoint, and the looney left is almost a requirement to balancing out the alt-right. It would be nice if we could bring both extremes in a little.

View attachment 474105
I imagine that would like shitting a watermelon...
 
Getting back into wine after mostly drinking beer over the past year or so. Any recommendations in the ~15 dollar price mark? I'm a bit of a cheapskate.
Yep lots of it
 
Getting back into wine after mostly drinking beer over the past year or so. Any recommendations in the ~15 dollar price mark? I'm a bit of a cheapskate.
Pepperjack Shiraz is a really easy drinking and reliable wine. Might be a bit closer to $20 though.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'm drunk on good deeds ATM, I had my wife's membership card with me and saw a guy on his own in the ticket line and asked him if he wanted to come in for free, he was lining up to pick up his ticket but the girl behind said she'd love it if I could get her in because she'd left her membership card at home. I think I cost the club $25 bucks but felt good anyway.
 
Getting back into wine after mostly drinking beer over the past year or so. Any recommendations in the ~15 dollar price mark? I'm a bit of a cheapskate.
Mount langhi Billy Billy Shiraz you can pick it up for around that price sometimes even better at dan murphy.

It's a really good quality cool climate Shiraz tremendous value at that price.
 
Ill admit i usually love the so called "ugly Aussie" aggression that our cricket team can be known for.
The Steve Waugh era being my fav.
But what i dont like at all is our team leaders all plotting together to get a rookie player to do the dirty work.
Thats as weak as piss Smithy.
Now im not gonna rant n rave and say "SACK EVERYBODY" cos most countries teams have been busted for ball tampering of some sorts. It happens.
But its still pretty piss weak by our team.
 
The behavior of our team has been very poor throughout this series, and has been poor for a while. They have been caught tampering with the ball, and you have to think "is this the first time?"
Warner's behavior in the previous test, when the Aussies were sledging the Proteas throughout the game, then he became precious on the way to the dressing rooms and acted like an angry little man. He has been a terrific batsman over the years for us, but I am not a fan because of his behavior. Also I dont believe he is that much better than Finch.
 
Im horrified by these morons wiping their feet on our National teams reputation, history and fair play . I really hope the ACB take off the rubber glove while probing these campaigners about what they have done .
 
The behavior of our team has been very poor throughout this series, and has been poor for a while. They have been caught tampering with the ball, and you have to think "is this the first time?"
Warner's behavior in the previous test, when the Aussies were sledging the Proteas throughout the game, then he became precious on the way to the dressing rooms and acted like an angry little man. He has been a terrific batsman over the years for us, but I am not a fan because of his behavior. Also I dont believe he is that much better than Finch.

Warner can give them all the view on his OLED to see all the times he and the boys screwed that pooch in super duper high def. :thumbsu:

Ill admit i usually love the so called "ugly Aussie" aggression that our cricket team can be known for.
The Steve Waugh era being my fav.
But what i dont like at all is our team leaders all plotting together to get a rookie player to do the dirty work.
Thats as weak as piss Smithy.
Now im not gonna rant n rave and say "SACK EVERYBODY" cos most countries teams have been busted for ball tampering of some sorts. It happens.
But its still pretty piss weak by our team.

I loved that Bancroft turned away from the umpire into several cameras to hide his tampering.

Weak as piss and dead set moronic.
 
In regards to the ball tampering fiasco.
YES be angry.
YES be disappointed.
YES be embarrassed of the team right now.
BUT l hope the media eases up on the SACK EVERYONE INVOLVED talk.
Yeah it was not in the spirit of the game at all and a pretty piss weak think to do.
But try to remember all they did was rub a bit of dirty sticky tape on the ball. LOL.
And that was a pretty bloody stupid idea cos as someone who played cricket for thirty yrs I can tell you it wouldn't have done f*** all.
The attempt was more dishonest and idiotic than it was game changing.
They weren't betting against themselves or throwing the game .
Hit " cricket ball tampering" on Google and you'll find it's wide spread with the South African captain involved pretty recently.
Yes I know that doesn't mean we can do it cos everybody else does but the outrage is getting a little over the top.
Fine and match suspension and a dent in their reputation a fair penalty IMO.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top