Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are we headed for totalitarian rule?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I reckon we are headed for a new world order......government collapse due to huge debts not to mention the huge debts personally people have taken on.
    Last edited by Halo_2; 11-08-2020, 12:16 PM.
    "Some people are like clouds. When they disappear it's a beautiful day"

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by datsikk View Post



      Saying nasty things and getting away with it? Google and Youtube censor people on the right. (Many rightly so) but they don’t seem to have a problem with those on the left. Such as : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...st-enough.html

      The result of which: https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...29-p54xvj.html - I call that a consequence. And she apologised.


      The left are the ones doing the bullying and the oppressing and limiting free speech. Here are some examples.

      James Damore was sacked for writing this internal memo whilst working at google where he challenged gender quotas : https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...ho-Chamber.pdf

      The core arguments run to this tune: Men and women have psychological differences that are a result of their underlying biology. Those differences make them differently suited to and interested in the work that is core to Google. Yet Google as a company is trying to create a technical, engineering, and leadership workforce with greater numbers of women than these differences can sustain, and it’s hurting the company.

      Damore further says that anyone who tries to talk about that paradox gets silenced—which runs counter to Google’s stated goal of valuing and being friendly to difference. And, maybe helping make his point a little, last Monday Google fired him. Damore is now on a media tour, saying he was fired illegally for speaking truth to power. Hashtag Fired4Truth!

      The problem is, the science in Damore’s memo is still very much in play, and his analysis of its implications is at best politically naive and at worst dangerous. The memo is a species of discourse peculiar to politically polarized times: cherry-picking scientific evidence to support a preexisting point of view. It’s an exercise not in rational argument but in rhetorical point scoring. And a careful walk through the science proves it.
      Reasons...


      Lindsay Shepherd lost her job at a University for showing a Jordan Peterson clip. She was also banned from twitter :
      https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-twitter-silences-canadian-free-speech-activist-lindsay-shepherd/

      You are linking an article by the very publication she works for - surely objective then?

      Chanel Seven attacked a film they hadn’t even seen : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvLsslFEv7k

      (Thanks to the lefts protests, the film was not shown in Australia)

      A media organisation chose not to show it due to public backlash (you know, society, not government or law) as commercial decision.

      You could also throw in the doco about the Murdock family not being aired in Aus as a form of media censorship?



      The left tried to get Piers Morgan sacked : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1roM98Dass

      A petition, signed by.... people. You know they were all personally left-wing? Maybe a lot of people think Morgan is a prat? Jim Jefferies thinks so, and he's a real lefty

      How is none of the above, examples of oppression against free speech and thus, heading us towards Totalitarianism?

      None of it is oppression because it's examples of a public backlash or a corporate/employment policy and or commercial decision. No-one was silenced by government law or authority, just random collections of the general public having a voice, you know, democracy?


      Whether it’s the right or the left that takes us there, is not my argument. My argument is that we are heading there and whether it’s the right or left, it will be equally bad.



      This is what I see happening. If people can’t have peaceful discussions and learn to agree to disagree then what else is there? Only violence.
      It seems being the “victim” seems to give people free licence to say whatever one wants and not being held accountable.
      I don't know what you are trying to achieve here - you just hand-waved away REAL world examples of wannabe dictators attempting to manipulate media and laws for draconian purposes. Free speech in some cases is met with police violence, prison, or just plain vanishing; but at the same time you are conflating a handful of examples of people minorly affected by public backlash or corporate policy as some creeping evil. The perspective is all skewed

      Last edited by Skut; 11-08-2020, 02:12 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Crim View Post

        The modus operandi of Fox News in the US & the Murdoch media as a whole is to scare people, create conflict within society, create an "us & them" mindset.
        Originally posted by Crim View Post
        Watch the latest 3 part BBC documentary about Murdoch, it's available on line. I suspect the ABC won't show it because of the Murdoch influence here..
        Divide and conquer is as old as time. Its why I try and avoid group think, whether that’s based on gender, age, demographic, political party etc.
        I shall try and find the doco, hopefully its online somewhere.
        Originally posted by Halo_2 View Post
        I reckon we are headed for a new world order......government collapse due to huge debts not to mention the huge debts personally people have taken on.
        Is it going to end in us waving red flags? A world currency? Maybe an electronic one? Will most of us make it or is it going to begin with a cleansing? How easy would it be for a government to control its population if money was ONLY digital!
        Originally posted by Skut View Post

        I don't know what you are trying to achieve here - you just hand-waved away REAL world examples of wannabe dictators attempting to manipulate media and laws for draconian purposes. Free speech in some cases is met with police violence, prison, or just plain vanishing; but at the same time you are conflating a handful of examples of people minorly affected by public backlash or corporate policy as some creeping evil. The perspective is all skewed
        I know what I am about to say is fallacious (thin end of the wedge) but it’s the best I can do. If the likes of twitter/google/youtube and other companies manipulate what we

        see (for their political idealogy) and people on the extreme right/left confuse being allowed to speak publicly as public acceptance of their views, it will accelerate and

        legitimize their views. You might say losing a job or not being able to perform your job or free speech are “minor” inconviences but I don’t think they are. We are on the

        slippery slope similar to what happened in another beer loving country a century ago.(the vodka loving country is also an example)

        We also almost in a similar financial position.

        Comment


        • #19
          I wouldn't only hold 'Fox News' accountable. They have an agenda, of course. So does every news organization. It's all propaganda, and to think 'Fox' is either more holy than or less holy than any other institution is a bit foolish. And a documentary to convince an audience that one particular news organization is less credible than others - obvious has its own agenda. I could make a documentary on why the Pope is an asshole if I pick and choose who I interview and twist everything they say. But you gotta ask, if such a documentary existed, why did the people involved in making it decide to go down that path? Are they genuinely concerned for what is being 'preached', or are they just as bad and trying to win credibility through discrediting others. For every anti-Fox complaint, there's an anti-some other news station complaint. Which is why I read my news at so many different sites, to see all their propaganda-fueled perspectives, and then ultimately make my own judgement only when I can see the live video / police cam and/or read the court transcripts.

          Comment


          • #20
            the rise of the murdoch dynasty on youtube, well put together doco. heres the link to pt 1 .he has pt 2 as well but you may have to do a search for pt 3 as it keeps getting taken down https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm1stFClmE0

            Comment


            • #21
              Even if you don't agree, this is worth a watch...

              Comment


              • #22
                Quote: "It's all propaganda, and to think 'Fox' is either more holy than or less holy than any other institution is a bit foolish."

                Mr INTJ, if you think Fox is your average MSM you have rocks in your head. Fox news channel turbocharges the divisions that already exist in US society. They are the premier cheer squad for Trump.
                Please don't state that Trump is a great leader & President.

                I would encourage you to watch the BBC documentary on Murdoch, it is not opinionated or editorial in tone, it states facts, describes events, interviews people from both sides but leaves the viewer to form their own opinion.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Skut View Post
                  Even if you don't agree, this is worth a watch...
                  I gave it a go and had to stop about half way, no long after he called Polanski a rapist. From my understanding, the guy has been ACCUSED of rape. Saw a doco about Polanski a few years ago and the reasons he fled from the USA made sense at the time of viewing the doco.

                  The rest of what I heard was a straw man argument. Not many people want to tolerate someone saying. All people from ABC are XYZ. All gender abc are XYZ. (If their argument is half rational, I think people should be able to say whatever, as long as a rebutal is given). Homophobic, sexist racist comments to degree, should not be allowed.
                  Challenging someones opinion, off course it should be allowed.

                  People have lost jobs by challenging some of the BS, others are scared to speak out on the BS coming from the left. Its not a minor inconvinience to lose your job.

                  When people believe feelings are as important as facts, we really are screwed and this can easily lead to exploitation.

                  Imagine a judge saying " there is no evidence against you but I feel you did it, of to the gallows you go!"


                  Originally posted by Crim View Post

                  I would encourage you to watch the BBC documentary on Murdoch, it is not opinionated or editorial in tone, it states facts, describes events, interviews people from both sides but leaves the viewer to form their own opinion.

                  Nah, people don't need to watch docos to have opinions about them. Thats what OLD people do.

                  My eyes opened abit after I saw the negative reviews/hate by people who did not watch the doco "the redpill". I watched that doco, seemed relatively vanilla and backed up by those awful things called statistics and facts.

                  Have downloaded Part 1+2 of the Murdoch documentary. Hopefully watch them this weekend.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by datsikk View Post

                    I gave it a go and had to stop about half way, no long after he called Polanski a rapist. From my understanding, the guy has been ACCUSED of rape. Saw a doco about Polanski a few years ago and the reasons he fled from the USA made sense at the time of viewing the doco.

                    The rest of what I heard was a straw man argument. Not many people want to tolerate someone saying. All people from ABC are XYZ. All gender abc are XYZ. (If their argument is half rational, I think people should be able to say whatever, as long as a rebutal is given). Homophobic, sexist racist comments to degree, should not be allowed.
                    Challenging someones opinion, off course it should be allowed.

                    People have lost jobs by challenging some of the BS, others are scared to speak out on the BS coming from the left. Its not a minor inconvinience to lose your job.

                    When people believe feelings are as important as facts, we really are screwed and this can easily lead to exploitation.

                    Imagine a judge saying " there is no evidence against you but I feel you did it, of to the gallows you go!"


                    .
                    [/SIZE][/FONT]
                    Dude, from your very first post you have been banging on with "The left...the left... the leftists....the left.... the left....the left......."

                    ....and, just a little bit of "THE LEFT!"

                    Yet, as I said, you have hand-waved away examples of right wing wannabe dictators every time to get back on your bizarre and obsessive focus.

                    I seriously have a vision of you screaming about "leftists" (and I'm not sure if you even know what that is other than "stuff I don't agree with", and to suggest any US media to be "left-wing" is almost nonsensical) as your loved ones are being dragged away behind you by jack-booted right-wing government militia after most of your civil liberties have been taken away.

                    Seriously, I had the integrity to go to each of your links and watch your vids in the pursuit of fairness and balance, but you wouldn't even sit through one vid because of one thing you didn't agree with?

                    Oh, and since you're all about "facts"

                    On March 10, 1977, Polanski, then aged 43, faced multiple charges involving drugging and raping 13-year-old Samantha Jane Gailey[10] (now Samantha Geimer).[11] A grand jury charged Polanski with five charges:
                    1. Rape by use of drugs
                    2. Perversion
                    3. Sodomy
                    4. Lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen
                    5. Furnishing a controlled substance to a minor[12]

                    This ultimately led to Polanski's guilty plea to a different charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[13]

                    According to Geimer's testimony to the grand jury, Polanski had asked Geimer's mother (a television actress and model) if he could photograph the girl as part of his work for the French edition of Vogue,[14] which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photoshoot. Geimer testified that she felt uncomfortable during the first session, in which she posed topless at Polanski's request, and initially did not wish to take part in a second but nevertheless agreed to another shoot. This took place on March 10, 1977, at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles.[15] When the crime was committed, Nicholson was on a ski trip in Colorado, and his live-in girlfriend Anjelica Huston who was there had left, but later returned while Polanski and Geimer were there. Geimer was quoted in a later article as saying that Huston became suspicious of what was going on behind the closed bedroom door and began banging on it, but left when Polanski insisted they were finishing up the photoshoot.[16] "We did photos with me drinking champagne," Geimer says. "Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn't quite know how to get myself out of there."[17] In a 2003 interview, she recalled that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and described how she attempted to resist. "I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No!', and then I didn't know what else to do," she stated, adding: "We were alone and I didn't know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I'll get to come home after this".[18]

                    Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,[19] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,[20][21] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.[13][22][23][24]

                    Although Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski has disputed this.[25][26][15]

                    Describing the event in his autobiography, Polanski stated that he did not drug Geimer, that she "wasn't unresponsive", and that she did not respond negatively when he inquired as to whether or not she was enjoying what he was doing.[27] The 28-page probation report submitted to the court by Kenneth Fare (signed by deputy Irwin Gold) concluded by saying that there was evidence "that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing." The officers quoted two psychiatrists' denial of Roman being "a pedophile" or "sexual deviant".[28]

                    Claiming to protect Geimer from a trial, her attorney arranged a plea bargain.[4] Polanski accepted, and, under the terms of the agreement, the five initial charges were dismissed. Instead, Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
                    Because a 43 year old movie director fucking a drunk 13 year old up the butt is just perfectly fine, right? Geez.

                    This isn't a discussion - you are looking for confirmation bias.

                    Oh, and by BTW, this bullshit about "feelings" over facts and evidence? The evidence clearly supports the self-declared side of the political spectrum most guilty of this is conservative or "right-wing" - it's also why many of them are religious. This is the source of "alternative facts" and "fake news". How do "right-wing" fallacious memes and false narratives spread so fast compared to genuine facts and news? Because people of that mind-set don't bother to fact check if it supports their narrative, and even when they have been told it's false they persist in their belief it's true (there have been psych studies on this subject - you know, peer-reviewed science stuff, look it up).

                    But I don't think I'm going to bother any more as you have made up your mind and are just looking for people to agree with you - kinda like a guy after a break-up phoning all their friends seeking the ones who say, "It's all that bitch's fault, man" and hanging up on the ones who say, "Well, you WERE a bit outa line when....."
                    Last edited by Skut; 13-08-2020, 09:10 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      In answer to the OPs question, no I don't believe so. If we leave the USA out of it as being central to the conversation, then no. 70 years ago where you had half of western Europe in totalitarian governments, Japan, that didn't end well, you could go on probably then after that the eastern block, china in communism, it doesn't work and ran its course. So probably theres never been more democracy in THE WORLD than today, the world is not the USA.

                      It doesn't matter to me whether its the social leftist or right wing extremists they are only interested in pushing their views onto the middle majority, for their own power and the outcome is the same. Everybody knows that.

                      Last edited by Heretic; 15-08-2020, 11:01 AM.
                      I cant help it if your perceptions don't match my reality


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Crim View Post

                        The modus operandi of Fox News in the US & the Murdoch media as a whole is to scare people, create conflict within society, create an "us & them" mindset. This is their business model. It gains them access to the corridors of power, in fact they have become king makers here, the UK & in the US. The organisation is truly evil IMHO. Watch the latest 3 part BBC documentary about Murdoch, it's available on line. I suspect the ABC won't show it because of the Murdoch influence here..
                        When they cover up 'pizzagate' shows how evil the media is, brainwashing/control it truly is.

                        "Some people are like clouds. When they disappear it's a beautiful day"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Crim View Post
                          Mr INTJ, if you think Fox is your average MSM you have rocks in your head. Fox news channel turbocharges the divisions that already exist in US society. They are the premier cheer squad for Trump.
                          Please don't state that Trump is a great leader & President.
                          I know this is just some motorbike enthusiasts forum and it's really just a chat between you and me, and really neither of us are too concerned with each others stance, but I'm procrastinating from my actual job and feel like giving a bit of a schpiel in the interest of civil discourse. Given the lockdown of the past 6 months, I'd thoroughly enjoy meeting up in person to have some lighthearted discussion about this, sharing views, were it not for me being in USA at the moment.

                          You misunderstand me. Or maybe you don't(?) because yes, I put all media in the same basket. You imply that I should see Fox as 'less than' MSM, with 'less than' meaning, I assume, credibility, or ethics, but I disagree. Who is more 'honest'? Shit, I don't even bother thinking about that because they're all the same. It's like ranking which can of Coke in a 24 pack is best. The one closest to the fridge cooling element? *shrug*

                          Here's something to stew on. I'm a Libertarian, not a Democrat, not a Republican, not a Green, not Liberal, not Labor, not Alt-Right, not ANTIFA. But last year I bought a MAGA hat - don't stop reading, give me a few minutes to explain. Initially, I bought it for 2 reasons, and none of them included 'to wear it in public'.
                          • First, I bought it as a joke on my wife and her family, to wear it once as a 'laugh about it' prank, because simply saying the word 'Trump' to her or her mother in particular causes a visceral reaction. Unfortunately, as luck would have it, my wife answered the door when Amazon came knocking, and before I even had a chance to play out that joke, she read the packaging label and saw my name and 'MAGA cap' and flew off the rails, questioning our marriage, if she truly knows me, yadda yadda. All that over a fucking hat, even after I tried to explain it was a joke.
                          • Secondly, and similarly to the first, the concept of actually not despising the man seems foreign to people, so I wanted my own little memento or souvenir that I keep tucked away in my closet, homage to this time in history where one man's name evokes more hatred than 'Hitler' or 'ISIS'. It fascinates me that so many stakeholders devote every waking moment to despising him - my family don't hold back, even when he's not even topic of conversation, they find a way to slide him in. My wife's family are the same. Mostly all of the media, mostly all people in my job field (education) - the entire 'system' bands together in their echo chamber to affirm their hate toward Trump. I sit in silence, along with most of the 49% of the country who actually support him. Remembering, technically, the way USA elections work with the electoral college that Democrats AND Republicans exploit to their advantage, Trump won the election with only 49% of the population vote - less than Hillary's 51% (or something like that). But if you watch TV, listen to celebrities, or other people of power and authority, you'd think 99% of the population wanted to see Hillary in power. That alone tells me, and should tell you, something, given the absolute skew of propaganda against him. Where's the 49% praise for him? And why is it this way? A man who can provoke such hate from literally everyone in power must be someone special. Either he can't be corrupted, he can't be forced to follow certain 'rules' or 'traditions' of the Presidency, or maybe he is such a dark, sinister being that the world powers feel compelled to unite against him for the good of humanity. One of those ideas honestly sounds like a joke, but it's the one mainstream media latch onto. The other 2, and the truth, whatever that is, will probably never be known. Unless Ghislaine Maxwell has a tell-all interview (joking, kinda).
                          If Trump is so dumb, and so wrong, and so evil, would it take 24/7 news cycles to 'try' and convince the 49% that he's bad for the world? Why does everyone feel like they need so much evidence, so many 'character witnesses', so many 'experts' interviewed to prove he's a fool? Shouldn't it be 'obvious'? How many times a day are we told that ISIS or Mexican Cartels are evil for cutting up people when they're still alive (ever been to Liveleak?)? Not once this week, that's I've noticed. Have they stopped doing it? How many times a day do we get reminders that pedophilia, murder and/or rape are terrible crimes? Would you say, 'less than' the amount of times in a day we're told Trump is a fuckwit for calling Tim Cook, 'Tim Apple'? Why is that?

                          Seriously, why?

                          I've met idiots, and people have met me and surely thought I was an idiot, it's all subjective, and I'm pretty content to trust my gut and decide for myself, "fuck man, he's an idiot", in much the same way people might think that about me and they have the free will to do so. But I don't feel like I need to sit down and watch people telling me a particular person is an idiot 24/7 until I agree, in much the same way it doesn't seem quite 'fair' if everyone who met me had to wade through hours of people shit-talking me.

                          Just imagine if I were in a room with Trump and 100 other people, and after talking to him for a few minutes I realized he was such a fucking idiot it, evil, and psychopathic, that it made me sick to my stomach, but literally everyone else in the room loved him and didn't see what I saw... If I had a megaphone - should I start mocking him as loudly as I could, cursing him, screaming at the 100 other people who I call 'idiots' because they actually like the guy? Should I do everything in my power to convince the other 100 people in the room that he's a total and complete dick, just because I believe so? Should I bring in Katy Perry and The Queen of England and the Hemsworth brothers and 60 Minutes and anyone else with massive audience to convince those 100 people in the room that Trump is a fool? Why do I need to go to such great lengths?

                          Have you ever met someone who's a complete obnoxious idiot, yet they have a wife/husband that loves them dearly, adoring children who cry if they don't get a goodnight kiss, work colleagues who respect him/her and send flowers if they're unwell, and maybe a healthy circle of friends who call them up if they don't hear from him/her in a few weeks? You saw them as an idiot, like you might see me as one, but that's not what others see... Do you take it upon yourself to bring the wife/husband aside for a stern talking to, where you explain every reason you are convinced their partner is an idiot? Do you try to get the children alone to explain it to them? Do you recruit outside help, maybe get a private investigator to follow them around? Scour their social media for typos or Mel Gibson type Anti-Semitic rants? Do you interview friends they had 30 years ago, back in school? And if you do all of that, and somehow succeed, through brute force and unrelenting persistence, to convince everyone that the person is an idiot, what have you achieved? You broke a marriage, destroyed the bond between child and parent, ruined a career reputation, and burned friendships. But it felt good, maybe?

                          Just imagine for a minute, forget all your bias, if you learned about Trump for the very first time. You know nothing of the massive amount of bias every celebrity, every news channel, and almost every billionaire on earth has tirelessly worked to share with you over the past 6 years (lead up to, and entire duration of, Presidency) in order to sway your opinion/vote. At the very lease, ask yourself if he is in any way 'worse' or 'less corrupted' than Clinton, Obama, Bush, Hanson, Morrison, Howard, Putin, Thatcher...

                          Maybe compile a list of all the wrong-doing's he has done so far as President of USA, from your perspective. It would help me understand where exactly the hate people have for him stems from. All that comes to my mind, in the little I hear, is an opposition to ILLEGAL immigration (he is actually very much 'for' a system like Australia, rather than the 'random chance' lottery of USA and chain-migration), opposition to trade deals that don't put his country first, opposition to political maneuvers that don't put his country first, opposition to the killing of unborn children (this one is touchy for me as one of my daughters was born 6 weeks premature and some states permit unborn children of that age to be murdered), opposition to Government intervention in a lot of industry (I'm a Libertarian, this is my bread and butter), and most vocally and best-known, opposition to media bias.

                          Tens of millions of dollars, doctored evidence, misread transcripts, literal lies under oath and during congressional hearings, all of that still couldn't 'prove' the 'Russia' interference in voting hoax. And even then, when you actually think about the actual implication - that they supposedly used FACEBOOK ADs to sway votes - Jesus Christ have mercy on us all. 'Russian interference' sounds more dangerous than 'lol Facebook ads', and if all it takes is running Facebook ad's to win an election, why isn't Zuckerberg President? Why didn't Hillary win when she used the same advertising platform?

                          So now, you've also got to wonder, who gains the most from continued death and economic destruction of COVID19? I don't think it does Trump much good after he spent the first 2 years of his Presidency reducing unemployment to levels not seen in years, particularly for minorities. The world burning sure as shit makes it easy to point blame at him, to finally topple him from power, since 6 fucking years of mass psychological warfare and sabotage hasn't worked. Would you honestly be surprised if a lab out there already has the cure for COVID? Would you be surprised if they had it all along? Truthfully?

                          Think about it. What benefit does a government obtain through being honest to their people? Compare that to the benefits a government will obtain through lying.

                          The same can be asked of media, which is ultimately the Governments propaganda machine.

                          So this is me stating that yes I believe Trump is a great leader, all things considered, if the measuring stick is the performance of past presidents. And given the immense pressure he is put under each day, with unrelenting mockery and twisted facts from the media, he's an absolutely superb person to watch, admire, and learn from. One punch deaths in Australia have happened because someone looked at someone wrong - or didn't even do anything at all. Yet this man wakes up every day to hateful headlines, threats to himself and family, artist depictions of his death, countless people lining up to give interviews about how much of a dumb fuck he is, yet he goes about his day having a bit of a laugh on Twitter while at the same time pushing forward policies that better the country that so readily mocks him. Honestly, I'd love to meet the guy because I think he's absolutely fascinating.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Skut View Post

                            The problem is, the science in Damore’s memo is still very much in play, and his analysis of its implications is at best politically naive and at worst dangerous. The memo is a species of discourse peculiar to politically polarized times: cherry-picking scientific evidence to support a preexisting point of view. It’s an exercise not in rational argument but in rhetorical point scoring. And a careful walk through the science proves it.
                            Originally posted by Skut View Post
                            There is nothing “dangerous” about what he wrote. It’s a well written opinion piece and definitely not sack worthy. You seem to imply a negative connotation to “supporting a pre existing point of view”.Not everything new is better.

                            Originally posted by Skut View Post

                            You are linking an article by the very publication she works for - surely objective then?


                            If you google her name, you can find the audio of her and her University.

                            Originally posted by Skut View Post

                            A media organisation chose not to show it due to public backlash (you know, society, not government or law) as commercial decision.


                            It was banned in many places due to protests about it. I doubt many protesting had seen it. Channel 7 was never going to show it but they attacked the movie (attacked a movie they had not seen) check it on YT. (BTW…the claims by the hosts of sunrise that they did not have a chance it see the movie before the interview with the maker are BS. A video exists exposing this)
                            Here is a section of an article about the bans….

                            reports that there have been a number of cancellations of The Red Pill movie screenings around Australia, including at Kino Palace Cinemas in Melbourne, Dendy Newtown and Dendy Canberra. This has largely been driven by feminist protests and petitions against the movie's 'misogynistic' agenda.
                            The USU at the University of Sydney has also banned the film from being shown on union premises, and released a statement to explain their reasoning……“The reality of The Red Pill, however, is much more sinister. This documentary is decidedly anti-feminist and anti-woman, focusing not on the ways in which the systemic issues of patriarchy may also adversely affect men, but instead placing the blame on women and feminism specifically for men’s issues.”

                            The USU took issue with the fact that the film is “rooted in an ideology which ultimately dehumanises women, seeing them merely as sex objects who exist primarily to purposefully negatively impact the lives of men”, and suggested that it had the “capacity to intimidate and physically threaten women on campus”.


                            Here is another talking about bans elsewhere.

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es5JeLYN-WY

                            People should have a right to see a doco and make up their own minds and not be dictated to by extremists.

                            Originally posted by Skut View Post

                            You could also throw in the doco about the Murdoch family not being aired in Aus as a form of media censorship?


                            Its not about it airing. Its about a group of people causing the cancelation of a screening that is the issue. As for the Murdoch docos, I have watched parts 1 and 2 and they seem okay. If there was anything in them that was defamatory I am sure Murdoch would sue.


                            Originally posted by Skut View Post
                            A petition, signed by.... people. You know they were all personally left-wing? Maybe a lot of people think Morgan is a prat? Jim Jefferies thinks so, and he's a real lefty


                            It doesn’t matter if they are left or right. What matters is people are trying to silence opinions different from their own.


                            Originally posted by Skut View Post

                            None of it is oppression because it's examples of a public backlash or a corporate/employment policy and or commercial decision. No-one was silenced by government law or authority, just random collections of the general public having a voice, you know, democracy?
                            The likes of google and YT are bigger than most governments. Silencing opposing views is not Democracy. Public backlash is not buying the product. Public backlash is not having fake bomb hoax to stop speakers speaking or things like ……..

                            https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/01/u...ley/index.html


                            Its not Government policy. Not officially…………yet.

                            As for the video you posted about cancel culture not being real (did you read the Sunday times article) I stopped watching because it was a strawman argument. The Polanski bit was the final straw. I cannot refute the evidence you provided against him, I saw a doco which seemed to clear him. Anyways, being charged is not the same as being found guilty.


                            Originally posted by INTJ View Post

                            The same can be asked of media, which is ultimately the Governments propaganda machine.

                            threats to himself and family, artist depictions of his death, countless people lining up to give interviews about how much of a dumb fuck he is, yet he goes about his day having a bit of a laugh on Twitter while at the same time pushing forward policies that better the country that so readily mocks him. Honestly, I'd love to meet the guy because I think he's absolutely fascinating.


                            From my understanding, in the US you have a channel at each end (at least they admit it) and one centralist network? If you know they are one sided, at least you can watch both to try and get some sense of the truth. It is harder when networks don’t disclose their bias.

                            I have changed my mind about Trump. When he won I thought he may do good. He has lost the plot but it would be hard for him, as you point out, he is under immense scrutiny which probably creates some bad decision making.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by datsikk View Post

                              It doesn’t matter if they are left or right. What matters is people are trying to silence opinions different from their own.
                              But you INSIST on calling EVERY opinion you disagree with as "left" and you continue to hand-wave away the actions of genuine totalitarian governments as you OBSESS about feminists - so what is it dude? What freedom has been taken from you by them? You admit you were able to watch the Red Pill doco, and yet the part 3 of the Murdock one is suspiciously hard to get hold of (the part about their Australian operations)

                              Do you SERIOUSLY think YouTube has a leftist agenda when I can't even search out honest film or TV reviews without having to sort through dozens of "red-pill" man-child incel types ranting about the SJWs and feminazis emasculating them as they stroke their neck-beards while sitting in front of their display case of funko-pop figures and gamer toys? The YT algorithms have been PROVEN to favour a lot of the extreme alt-right crap because it's shouty and generates a lot of traffic and comment, which benefits them as a COMMERCIAL operation (you know, making easy money?)

                              The article you posted about violence at a Milo talk - "Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman." Did you read that far, or just enough to convince yourself it's this organised "leftist new world order" or the feminazis? I can just imagine anarchists forming their totalitarian regime to take over the world. I can see why you stopped watching the video I posted as you were just waiting for an excuse to stop and claim "strawman" because that's a word people use on the internet when they don't like "alternative points of view" - the very thing you are complaining vociferously about despite not even taking the effort to verify facts or get to the real story behind an event. Confirmation bias.

                              And back to the Polanski issue - I quoted official court findings, but you dismiss it again because "I saw a doco which seemed to clear him..." He fucking PLEADED GUILTY to unlawful sex with a minor! You don't actually give a shit about facts dude, you just want your narrative reinforced. If you need that so badly then I suggest you head over to the YT channels of Molenoux, Rubin, Crowder, Sargon, or even Lauren Southern before she went quiet (oh, that's right, she's been picked up by Sky News!), or any one of the thousands of far-right commentators out there - loud, spouting blatant lies and exaggerations (and scattered with SOME genuine stuff to lend validity) with complete impunity and lack of accountability. Yes, I have watched some of these channels to get a broad range of views and seen more than enough to form my own opinions and weigh the "evidence" they use to support their own (which is dubious at best, outright, demonstrable fabrication at best) - I can sit through their diatribes in an effort of understanding without rage-quitting and calling "strawman!" at the first hurdle. Another good litmus test of a channel is the frequency of grossly racist and mysogenistic discourse in the comments section that goes unchallenged - be judged by the company one keeps, as they say.

                              As for Trump, openly crippling the US Postal Service to deliberately sway an election result? I can't believe I just read that bizarre cultist love-letter by @INTJ

                              Sorry if I'm coming across as condescending, but I feel you are deliberately ignoring crucial points and demonstrating the very close-mindedness you are railing against and it's becoming frustrating.
                              Last edited by Skut; 18-08-2020, 10:12 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Dear INTJ,

                                I didn't have to rely on media opinion to form an opinion on Donald Trump, he provided it all by himself with his Twitter tweets, most of whom project a poisonous personality that debases the position of POTUS & his track record as a so called businessman which happens to be appalling!

                                Multiple bankruptcies with no recompense for the investors, refusing to disclose his tax returns which likely will be his undoing a-la Al Capone.

                                This guy has done more to destroy US society than anyone since Ronald Reagan. Neoliberalism has failed, look it up, Hayek economics, Laffer curve, Thatcher, Milton Friedman etc. has put us where we are now.

                                You should pay heed to your family's opinion, I believe that they understand the situation.

                                The irony of your post is that the reason that Trump apparently has so much support is exactly because Fox News is the go-to channel for all these under educated, gun toting 'mericans that are looking for a way out of minimum wage, multiple casual jobs that the likes of Trump wants to perpetuate.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X