ABC, SBS and Australia Post are antiquities of a bygone era, sell them off and their loss making ways

Just saw Eric Abetz & Scott Ludlam on Lateline discussing the issue of ABC & SBS
All I can say is, the intellectual capability is pretty stark - it stands out like dog's balls......:lol:

What is the point of sbs now?

To watch the Grand Tours. :d

I appreciated Scott Ludlam's comment last night "3 white males discussing the need for SBS" :cool:

I wonder if there is a need for NITV?

I'm sorry, no gender-fluid Iranian muslim paraplegics were available for comment on short notice :roll:

An audit conducted by a former left leaning presenter. I sure cant wait for ivan milats review of the prison system

Isn't the important issue not which way a station "leans", but that they do real journalism and fact based reporting, rather than just cheerleading for one side or the other.

Say what you want about the ABC, but (Catalyst aside) they do good reporting, regardless of the position they take.

Really?

Some of their reporting on issues like Coal Seam Gas extraction are almost propaganda like in nature :shock:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4411611.htm

http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1201

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/catalyst-host-maryanne-demasi-in-the-business-of-advocacy-not-journalism-20160222-gn0tkd.html

It's a shame because they used to do such good work.

Well, lefties are more evidenced based in their thinking, so of course right wingers are going to label the ABC left leaning. A right winger's idea of an argument is to shout louder :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ray Martin who hosted A Current Affair for years as well as being a 60 Minutes reporter?
Dear, oh, dear :lol: :lol:

No it's to call the opponent a fraud and then accuse them of not willing to engage in debate when they're called a name like "homophobe" :lol:

Oh c'mon. Not all people of right wing persuasion do this.

It just gets ridiculous when people (yourself and ESPECIALLY murdochrags) buy into this bullshit.

My comment was particularly to take a dig at without a doubt the worst politician in Parliament by using an incident that happened this week. I don't buy into any bullshit :lol:

The left use tactics aimed at suppressing the speech of their opponent by using terms such as racist, homophobe, privilege, transphobe, mansplaining, bigot, cis etc to shut down conversation rather than engage in the debate itself. Its all about labeling and attacking the opponent's character.

They also use narrative over fact. The narrative of an issue is more important that what is actually going on. Recently in the US, a pro-choice organisation tweeted criticism of a light-hearted doritos commercial because it "humanised foetuses."

Think about that for a second. Humanised foetuses.

This is quite Orwellian and results in a subtle form of authoritarianism where people don't even see the suppression.

A perfect example happened a few weeks ago. You may have noticed in the media a shit storm brew over a supposed "pro-rape" advocate coming to these shores to spread his pro-rape message. It turns out his name is Roosh V. I had never heard of the guy before all of this but I smelled a rat instantly. The media would have us believe that this guy was hosting events around the country telling men how to rape women. I read a little more from the man himself and it turns out this all stems from a satirical article he wrote on his website 12 months ago where he effectively criticised the recent trivialisation of rape in the media and how it makes women more likely to be victims or rape and also detracts from the severity of actual incidents of rape. Now I don't necessarily agree with the views of this guy but he is about as controversial as Steve Price would be considered to be and yet he was "banned" from the country. Virtually everything written about him was untrue. It was all a lie.

Again, I don't really care about this guy personally. I'm not an advocate for what he says, but it makes you wonder about all the other bullshit the media sprout and how much it can be trusted especially when it results in censorship.

Do kids even read Orwell at school anymore?

I wish I was surprised that a comment I made (in a meaningful but attempted humourous way) regarding the hypocrisy of Cory Bernardi prompted a lengthy response demonstrating the same hypocrisy.

I guess this is something that you've been itching to post since the news came out. Hope you're satisfied...

It wasn't meant to be a personal attack on you. I was speaking in generalities and yes I did know who you were talking about.

I was speaking to the whole forum not yourself. Don't take things personally.

U44, if you want to start talking about ambiguous language as a political tool then you should give up on your fantasy that it's a tactic used solely by the left.

The dog-whistle politics of the right is just as bad (I'd say it's more problematic, but then that's probably because of my political persuasion). Rather than simply stifling debate (as you suggest those left-wing buzzwords do), dog-whistling helps create and legitimise oppressive policies. Substituting racist slurs for "un-Australian" or "queue jumpers;" defending "states' rights" instead of segregation; using "family values" as code for homophobia and anti-abortion stances - those are all obvious examples of the right using misleading language to manipulate discourse and policy formation. If you want to be hyperbolic about it and say that the left's use of language is Orwellian, then it's easy to respond by suggesting that the right's use of divisive and coded language has fascist connotations.

We don't have to agree about which side's use of language is more nefarious, but surely we can agree that both sides are very much guilty of it?

(As an aside, it's pretty hypocritical of you to complain about the left "labeling and attacking the opponent's character" when your automatic response to discussions of racism and - in particular - feminism is to start complaining about "social justice warriors." )

Edited by JP: 25/2/2016 11:08:40 PM

JP

I seriously doubt that u4486662 believes that the right aren't also culpable of labelling their opponents and exploiting ambiguous language.

He just doesn't buy into the "left-wing = honest, more intellectual, more objective vs right-wing = emotional, misleading, aimed at exploiting the stupid" narrative. In other words, he has a bullshit radar.

The sad thing is that some people do actually believe this crap.

If I've misrepresented your views, u4486662, I do apologise.

Speaking for myself, I'm neither left- nor right-wing. And, indeed, I find many things are incorrectly described as left- or right-wing.

When I'm forced to watch Q&A (left-leaning), I find myself cringing when I read many of the tweets at the bottom of the screen. Half these people don't understand the most basic tenets of economics which are (allegedly) taught in tenth grade. However, I'm equally horrified by Thatcherite politics that people like Tony Abbott push forward. I cannot stand the way our country treats its most vulnerable citizens (and those availing themselves of the protections we, lawfully and morally, should be offering).

I'm just fed up with people taking sides, failing to engage with issues, utterly missing the point. People on both sides of the political fence. A political fence which basically oughtn't to exist.

I'd like to see more people like Nick Xenephon in government, it would do our country no end of good.

Edited by quickflick: 26/2/2016 12:59:13 AM

I buy in. Plenty of peer reviewed research suggests it.
Not my problem if people can't handle the message, because it shatters their worldview.

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 26/2/2016 01:43:45 AM

What like your world view that people whose IQ levels aren't the highest are less likely to be capable of kindness, empathy and compassion than those with higher IQ levels? This all being according to your purportedly peer-reviewed research.

What tripe.

Not aware of such research.
That said though, you may want to educate yourself on how scientific peer review works.

I'm acutely aware of how peer-review works, thank you very much, as you'd hope all current and past university students would be.

You're not aware of such research? Oh do forgive me. To be fair to you, you never did claim the existence of such research.

You merely arrived at such a ludicrous opinion without any proof.

Having a look back at what you've written in the past...



As I said back then, verba ipsissima,...

I can't relate to you finding a link between high IQ and higher levels of empathy. I cannot see any correlation between having a high IQ and being more empathetic.

Hermann Goering had an IQ that was off the charts. Even the way he mounted his defence at Nuremberg attests to that.

What does that tell you? Nothing at all.

I actually find it somewhat insulting to suggest that people with a higher IQ tend to be more empathetic.

http://au.fourfourtwo.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=83167&p=36

Didn't take it personally. We cool :) but what you wrote was hypocritical and JP did a pretty good job of outlining why. I do suspect you knew this but wanted to indulge in the hyperbole that is modus operandi in this particular subforum.

I have a very similar view. Left leaning people seem to think money grows on trees. Moral high ground means nothing if you can't pay for it or have to extort someone else to do so.

Obviously the other end of the spectrum righties seem to think in terms of dollars and cents which makes them look heartless.

The other issue is to ask what even qualifies as right wing or left wing. This differs across different countries, and different times.

To make broad generalisations that "right wingers are like this" or "left wingers are like that" doesn't get you anywhere.

I think there is a certain TYPE of right winger, particularly in the USA to whom you could attribute the claims made by Murdoch Rags - 9/11 truther, Obama 'birther', guns rights extremist etc.

Likewise, the type of left winger who preoccupies their time with Tumblr posts about their SJW causes, doesn't want to debate any points, loves being 'triggered', is just as bad.

The problem is when you ascribe right/left wingers with the above descriptions you are actually arguing against a strawman that only exists on a very small level. The vast majority of people live between those extremes.

The thing I really have a problem with is identity politics - but this is much more of an American phenomenon than an Australian one at this stage.

That is, if you identify as a conservative or progressive, there is a laundry list of topics you "have to" have the same opinion on.

Why does (for example) fiscal conservatism mean you have to be against women's choice when it comes to abortion?

Read the comments on any FB page belonging to the Greens.

So much moral high ground, so little economics :lol:

We all know Murdoch Rags is a troll but people can't help but give him the time of day.

Women's choice when it comes to abortion? What about the kid's choice?
Fiscal is in relation to finance, it has nothing to do with a moral stance.

Australia is very much embroiled in identity politics. You only have to look at this forum as evidence.