Why was it brilliant?

Can you imagine the outrage that would follow if they were to portray Tanya Plibercek or SHY instead of Leylonholm on that van? There's clearly a massive double standard here, one rule of white, heterosexual right wing men, and a completely different rule of women, homosexuals, non whites and left wingers.

It might have been amusing, but it was crass and brought into sharp focus the major double standards and free speech privileges the left enjoy.

Because he made a comment that people that didn't like the vans were "particularly wowserish" and clearly he doesn't like it when the shoes on the other foot.

I could but they wouldn't support the messages on the Leyonhjelm van either. Has nothing to do with being a white "right wing" male.

Only person with double standards is Leyonhjelm.

Is the shoe really on the other foot? Are comparing apples with apples here? Perhaps if the message focussed on libertarians and right wingers that would have been a point well made, but this was a highly personal, derogatory personal attack aimed at an individual, and therefore fails the repudiate the point he made nor expose his supposed double standards. If you properly engage your intellect you'll admit this skit, while amusing, is far from brilliant and fails the intellectual honesty test.



Of course it does. If the person on the van was a woman this would be front page on ABC website and every lefty news outlet on the planet. Because it's a man, a right winger, a heterosexual and white it's open season.



C'mon Mcjules. Just admit the fucking double standards that UNITE the left. One rule for them and another for everybody else. When it's a caricature of woman on a van it's horrendously sexist and turns men into violent rapists but when it's Leyenholm it's "brilliant". :lol:

Good thing it's easy to just categorise a whole group of people.

-PB

I can't believe that you didn't get the point of the skit.

- Those camper vans have gross misogynistic messages on them
- David Leonhjelm says that people complaining are "particularly wowserish"
- They paint a campervan with messages directed against him that are phrased in the exact way those camper vans comment against women

Its just "turnabout is fair play". How is it even left or right wing?

Fair play to him as well - just told them to basically f#ck off. Was actually really funny.

This is not a hypothesis that was proven by the sketch.

If Leyonhjelm had tried to get the slogans scrubbed through legal or influential means you would have a point.

But he didn't. He didn't do anything other than tell them to fuck off.

He could have internally found it hilarious and still told them to fuck off and called the police for harassing him and disturbing his right to quiet enjoyment at his house.



The point was pretty well established. The main problem is that it failed in its goal to expose Leyonhjelm as a hypocrite.

As for rusty misinterpreting the point, I refer you back to the previous page.

It's just not true. :lol:

The messages were an explicit personal attack aimed squarely at the senator. If the target was a left wing female Asian lesbian like Wong, would it also be "actually really funny"? Can you imagine of Wong on her knees trying to give her partner a BJ and then a caption that read "you're doing it wong way". Would this be a marvellous expression of humour and free speech?

Rife double standards everywhere.

It wouldn't make sense to target wong because she isn't saying that people who object to them are wowsers.

So

1) the point was pretty was established
2) it failed in its goal to establish its point
3) rusty points out that it fails in its goal to establish its point
4) therefore not sure if rusty is willfully ignorant or just incidentally
5) what the fuck?

Yeah, let's just forget your dalliance into the completely irrelevant "this was a sketch aimed at a right winged straight white male because he's a right winged straight white male wah wah lefty abc wah" territory.

But if they did target Wong would that be "actually really funny" and "brilliant" or would be it unacceptable?

If she had made the same comment as he did then I'd be fine with it.

Of course it's relevant. If the image was on Wong rather than Leylanjholm what would your reaction be?

If the image was on Wong because she's a wowser, and Wong the Wowser had a Wowsery reaction what exactly would the point of the sketch be?

Talk about not being able to compare apples to apples.

Oh.
So you're saying context justifies personal abuse and sexualised derogatory misandry spray painted on vans?

Wouldn't want to Wing the Wong number.

Why does it need a point? Either rude, sexualised messages that targets individuals on vans are right or wrong, no? Or are we delving into the slippery slope of context?

So you did miss the point after all.



FTR - the point was that they thought they could upset Leyonhjelm by doing something to him that he had previously made a statement on that he thought everyone would find the slogans funny, thereby showing him up as a hypocrite that says one thing but practices another.

They failed because other than him telling them to "fuck off" (something that he gleefully does quite frequently, mind you), there was no indication that Leyonhjelm didn't find the whole thing funny as his original statement stated that everyone would.

Context is always important. It's not like they are following him in the van for weeks on end. It was a one off skit.

That's like saying, "it's not like I call him a black c*nt all the time, it was just a one off , and it was only meant in jest".

It's not like that in the slightest.

What context would justify that? What context would have a meaningful link to calling someone that?

Edited by Azzamarch: 30/6/2016 01:11:29 PM

I understand the point, but the point misfired because it wasn't apples with apples. The wicked campers vans don't mention names or target specific individuals, and that is a big point of difference, and the experiment fails on that alone.

Secondly the point stands that irrespective of context if a female had made the comment, under no circumstances would the skit have been permitted nor the media reaction been so benign.

You're right, no context justifies calling someone a racist remark, and no context justifies portraying a specific individual in such a derogatory way in public and then publishing it through the publicly funded national broadcaster, even if it's to make a point.

If they wanted to attack right wingers, libertarians or ev fair enough, but they chose to target the senator personally completely undermines the point they were trying to establish.

I absolutely guarantee you if Penny Wong or any other female were the target of this skit the media reaction would not be so kind.

Oooooh, now it's about individuals.

Yes it is, if the individual in this case was a women, it would provoke a different reaction from the media.

Double standards galore.

It's been his pathetic point all along. Also that it's because he's a white guy.

The Chaser would never take a diss at a large group of people and target it at a left-wing woman.

Wow, a mock article on Blanchett.

Game, set, match :(

2 days left!

Anyone not pre-voted already?

I like the theatre of voting on the day :lol: