I've put in italics the weak part of what you're saying.

Can you substantiate?

Why do people want to join extremists? Sometimes because they're psychopaths. To this extent, there are people who would join ISIS and you're right about that.

But we're not talking about a huge proportion of people. We're talking about such a small minority who can do only rather limited damage (touch wood).

Who else joins (or is indoctrinated) by extremists? The weak, vulnerable and marginalised. They mightn't be bad people initially. But they can be cajoled into doing terrible things because their lives have been made so shit by the rest of society.

These terrorist attacks split society. Most people are too thick to be able to understand different shades of grey. Understanding how to manipulate fear and division (although usually on non-terrorist issues) is how Sir Lynton Crosby has made a ton of money in Australia and the UK electioneering. He is alive to this and convinced people like John Howard and David Cameron to use fear and wedge politics to win elections. Well, what do you know, Howard was in government for a long time and Cameron won the general election by a country mile.

ISIS also play on fear and division. They exploit basic human psychology. They want people like you to hate Muslims, en masse. They want Muslims to be marginalised on social, cultural, political and institutional levels. This will drive moderates who are marginalised to be primed for indoctrination to extremism.

If only people weren't so stupid as not to realise it. But maybe people just like to hate.

Edited by quickflick: 3/5/2016 10:11:19 PM

Edited by quickflick: 3/5/2016 10:17:51 PM

I saw that segment when it came out. Basically "Don't criticise these people or else they'll just make it worse!" Fact is, ISIS could think up any reason to recruit people. The idea that a bunch of people on the internet talking shit is going to change that is ludicrous.

I agree with BETHFC on Bolt- he's obviously biased to anybody that isn't a hard-core right winger. Yet even he (recently) praised Charlie Pickering after appearing as a guest on his show, saying it was again proof that you can have a dialogue and get on fine with people even if you disagree with a lot of their ideologies.

I think the basic point is that (as other people have pointed out) Charlie seems to take himself a little less seriously, whereas Waleed, while eloquent and often reasonable enough, can have the attitude that he's beyond reproach. I don't dislike the guy myself, even if I disagree with his slant on a lot of things.

I've never found myself disagreeing w/the guy on anything per se, but I'm no fan of his either. Mainly due to the fact that as a media-whore, millennial-hipster larvae flock to his opinion before that of someone more qualified than him.

Check yo' d1ck for diseases after you're done plunging it up MuscRat's bunghole ay :lol: :lol:

SIEG HEIL :lol:

Not just anyone who disagrees with him. However the vitriol directed towards Waleed, which isn't usually directed towards say Pickering, suggests that there might be racist and/or bigoted overtones on the part of some who disagree with him (but not all).

I generally enjoy reading his work. He's articulate and presents himself well. His views challenge the reader and I like and respect that whether or not I agree with it.

However to say anyone who disagrees with him is racist is fucking nonsense.

Having people called racists for disagreeing with an opinion is akin to the very opinions propagated by Waleed himself that we need to above such ridiculous ideas.

Absolutely. I'm not sure to what extent Waleed agrees with the Australian Labor [sic] Party or the Greens. But I'd imagine the two would cover a large amount of his opinions. If that's incorrect, I'm sorry for misrepresenting Waleed's opinion.

What I'm saying is that I disagree with a lot (but not all) of what the ALP and the Greens promote (or have promoted) in recent times. As such, that would probably put me at odds with a lot of Waleed's opinions.

But I still have a lot of respect for the guy. And I certainly think that with respect to things like the community responses to terrorist atrocities, he is bang on.

I think Waleed is quite smug and thinks he teflon to anything...even being the butt of all jokes.

I'm pretty right wing but even I can't stomach at least 75% of what Bolt comes up with. There is no way in hell he is central in his opinions, he's pure right wing.

It's unfortunate, he can be articulate (5-10% of the time) and he can make good points but some of the nonsense he comes up with (now on Sky News) is out of control.

I agree he has biases but there are people who hold Bolt up as fair and balanced too. People tend to think they're smack bang in the centre when they really aren't so anyone who agrees with their views would look fair and balanced to them.

I don't really see it as something to get worked up about.

[youtube]nxNJLkIkYQM[/youtube]

:lol: :lol:

You must have interesting definitions for "deliberate vagueness" and "complete absence".

He's absolutely unequivocal.

Oh wait. It's much more fun to think all Muslims want to blow you up.

Edited by quickflick: 3/5/2016 09:25:07 AM

Look, I think Waleed is a smart guy and an articulate one as well. I think he should go into politics and I imagine he'd have a reasonable future as a candidate for The Greens. My issue (besides the one I've mentioned) is that there are people who actually hold him up as some sort of fair and balanced voice of reason (which is complete bullshit), not to mention his deliberate vagueness or complete absence from The Project when another Islamic terrorist attack occurs.

All your (and 11.mvfc.11's until he was challenged to come up with something else) posts in this thread have been this exact argument. It's pissweak and for that I guess I am a winner. Now I'm going to leave you to your "can't criticise Waleed circlejerk" because frankly it aint worth my time, have fun.

Ding ding ding we have a winner. He's on a safe bet too, because if anybody dares to criticise him he knows the Left will rush to defend him and dismiss anybody's reasonable disapproval as racism or Islamophobia. It's as stupid as somebody suggesting that disliking Milo Yiannopoulos makes you a homophobe with little regard for anything beyond that.

Edited by Captain Haddock: 3/5/2016 07:55:25 AM

I never watch the show either but people get bothered by it as Waleed's opinion gets decent media penetration beyond the show and they think he's getting a free ride because he's a brown muslim man. Hardly ever do I see these people try and rebut his opinion but instead focus on that. It's really all quite pathetic.

It was and still is a crap show. I dont get why people get so bothered by it , if you dont like it dont watch.

For me it's not about not liking Waleed, it's more about the Project is a shit show lol.

-PB

:lol: wonder why you're getting so defensive 11.mvfc.11? Who said waleed is a comedian? Ch 10 signed him because he isnt charlie pickering and they knew what they were getting.

I find it mind boggling when at some Muslim sermons that segregation of men and women takes place in seating arrangements yet I can hear a pindrop while I am waiting for the furore that would normally come from the Left or the femnazis on these issues?:-k

Yep of course. To be honest it's fun coming in here and reading their absolute tripe thinking they've reached some next level shit. As a "bleeding heart leftie", it's another group I can feel pity for :lol:

"Not all kids on 442 are deadshits that have no idea"

I saw it and it's....


Surely you can come up with something better than that pathetic excuse :lol:

I think strong correlations exist between bigotry and racism. Bigotry is often informed by racism.

Not all bigots are racist. I think Christopher Hitchens was somewhat bigoted (but at least his bigotry was, usually, well-explained and well-justified and was in opposition to religion in general). But Hitchens was no racist.

Others, who tend not to be quite so bright, are often both racist and bigoted.

I've stayed out of this thread because I think you're overanalyzing the segment a bit and I'm really not a fan of Dame Edna at any stretch. However, you did get the usual suspects to spill their usual rubbish and whipped them into a bit of a frenzy so kudos. =d>

I'm also glad you said bigotry because you know "muslim is not a race" etc.

For the reasons that Captain Haddock was, ironically, correct.

Innate racism. Dress it up however they may wish.

And innate bigotry, I might add.

Edited by quickflick: 2/5/2016 11:16:08 PM

Why the hate for waleed? Charlie pickering was the same but people didnt have the same vitriol towards him.

You don't get it do you?

You don't like Waleed Aly because you are a RACIST. People like you are uncomfortable with a brown person or anybody that isn't a white male speaking out against the privileges you enjoy everyday, and it makes your type (privileged, white RACIST bigots uncomfortable when people like him call them out on it.

Waleed is a hero and is one of the only fair and balanced voices of reason in this country, while ignorant, RACIST fuckstains like you probably read Andrew Bolt and agree with something he says at least once a week. If Waleed was a white male with far-right views you'd be hugging his balls. But instead you just see a minority saying things that challenge your ignorant, far-right ideologies and you decide to hate him like the RACIST that you are.

Frankly, anybody who makes fun of Waleed or disagrees with the common sense he endlessly speaks is a RACIST and they might as well get themselves measured up for their white hood and cloak ASAP. Waleed should run for PM- he would be the greatest world leader ever seen aside from Barack Obama. Unfortunately, too many people just can not accept how wonderful these men are (the greatest men to walk the Earth since the peaceful prophet Mohammed himself) because they are RACIST islamophobic bigots.

Waleed for PM!!!

Edited by Captain Haddock: 2/5/2016 10:30:49 PM

There are more Muslims that wish to take us back to the 8th century than there are Muslims that oppose them. What is an acceptable number that we should tolerate?

That's basically right. The only thing I'll add is that, even though Edna may have made fun of the Queen, Humphries likes the Queen (or so I gather). So it would have just been a joke. As far as Waleed is concerned, I'm willing to bet that Humphries dislikes him, perhaps as much as certain others on this thread

The difference between regular Dame Edna and this (and the reason this made headlines) was the vitriol. In other words, he's a different kind of target. That's what stuck out and what Waleed didn't know how to deal with. He should just have kept his cool and gone along with it.



I disagree. I think your every day Aussie is fairly average at banter. You get the odd Aussie who's just sublime at banter, and these do stick out. But not your everyday one.

I base that on having done high school in Australia, having gone to uni here, and spending my holidays in places like Cyprus and Phuket, working as a nightclub promoter and encountering lots of nationalities.

In Cyprus, there were plenty of Brits with appalling banter and just all-round shit blokes. But most had seriously good banter. Phuket is a better example for comparing. I'd speak to maybe 9 groups of Aussie fellas per day and maybe half that for Brits.

Australians (after Russians, Israelis and French) were our least favourite people in the place. Of that 9 groups, 7 had no chat whatsoever and were just boring. The other two groups would be great lads and we'd be joking around for ages. We had a group of half a dozen who went to one of our events and were just a barrel of laughs. So not all Aussies are banterless dickheads, we just seem to produce extremes in either direction. I just tended to find (as did lots of our staff) that there was a far greater amount of consistency for Brits (although some of the biggest dickheads you meet are Brits).

It makes sense when you look at your average cricket team. You'll have one bloke who is an absolute class sledger. Half a dozen who's sledges are really average and then the remainder won't bother sledging.

I just liked Waleed getting called a pinko. The target audience of the show probably had no clue what Dame Edna was on about.

I find a lot of her humour cringe worthy tbh. It is so basic and has such a low level of wit or variation. You can tell Humphries is from a different era of comedy. There is no build up and nothing by awkward punchlines. She is famous for being an annoying cross-dresser and nothing more