This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Freedom of speech and protest

Jump to new
I guess it must be more than 95% of news content published is by private businesses trying to make money often by advertisement that drives what's published.

They don't care what any one thinks its driven by the bottom line, read any Murdoch press to confirm.

So I don't understand the claims of restrictions of freedom of speech, this is some thing Joe has also pointed out in a fashion.

If governments force the removal of content like China then that's a restriction IMHO
 
Kicking and creating a stink, every time your rights are getting eroded is important. For the same reason our idiot twitter friend from Waynes post now learnt.

Give an inch they take a mile.
 
Now Democrats want to create Blacklists.

Blacklisting is the action of a group or authority, compiling a blacklist of people, countries or other entities to be avoided or distrusted as being deemed unacceptable to those making the list. If someone is on a blacklist, they are seen by a government or other organization as being one of a number of people who cannot be trusted or who have done something wrong.
 
IFocus said:
So I don't understand the claims of restrictions of freedom of speech, this is some thing Joe has also pointed out in a fashion.
Click to expand...

Referring here to any form of media, including forums and other online as well as traditional forms of media and even an in person debate in a room full of people, an issue which does seem to have arisen is that of simply silencing the opponent rather than engaging in sensible discussion.

As two cases in point, anyone who over the past few years pointed out the dangers of Australia's heavy reliance on trade with China tended to find themselves firmly shut down and accused of racism.

Anyone who points out that the harsh reality of climate change, that the trend in emissions remains firmly upwards, likewise tends to be shut down and labelled as a "denier" simply for pointing out the blunt truth of the situation.

Those are just two of the more contentious examples but certainly not the only ones. Intellectual debate based on facts, however unpleasant they may be, is out and "cancelling" the opponent is in. Pointing out the risks of an arrangement or that something isn't actually occurring in practice results in being labelled with a derogatory term and that's it, end of debate.

The climate issue in particular is one where, and I'm speaking with definite knowledge of what's going on here, rather a lot of those who could make a serious contribution have simply given up on the issue. They've had enough of being accused of this, that or something else simply for pointing out the brutal truth, that apart from COVID-related effects the trend in fossil fuel use remains upwards at the global level which is what counts, and have pretty much written the issue off as a waste of time so far as public debate is concerned.

Witness the shift in approach from government to simply pushing through big transmission and other electrical projects. Even the actual politicians have in many cases had enough of the nonsense debate surrounding it all.

I wouldn't say that freedom of speech has been squashed as such, but the ability to bring the public along with meaningful discussion and debate has been lost due to the constant blah, blah, blah from those who don't want to hear the unpleasant facts on some of those matters. Point out the truth and get shouted down - after years of that the easier option of just doing things without any debate is unsurprisingly coming to the fore.

Elements of that have been quite visible on this forum indeed I'll go as far as saying it's a substantial part of why General Chat has become such a problem.
 
Last edited:

If anyone suggests in the mainstream media that there may be some aspect of personal responsibility for indigenous people to look after themselves and their children, there is an immediate outcry and claims of 'stolen generations' when children are removed from indigenous parents for the child's protection.

Child removal happens in the population at large when required, but if it happens to indigenous people it's racism.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Anyone who points out that the harsh reality of climate change, that the trend in emissions remains firmly upwards, likewise tends to be shut down and labelled as a "denier" simply for pointing out the blunt truth of the situation.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you meant to say it like this Smurf ? Scientists who point out CC at the moment is very real and caused overwhelmingly by our actions are usually labelled as "hysterical" or "alarmists" . It is the CC change deniers who have consistently attempted to destroy confidence in science in their efforts to undermine actions to reduce our emissions.

That aside. Spot on analysis.
 
basilio said:
I don't believe you meant to say it like this Smurf ?
Click to expand...
To clarify, I mean that anyone who points out the reality that, effects of COVID-19 aside, the overall trend in emissions remains upward at the global level tends to not be received at all well by quite a few who prefer to sell a very different narrative that it's all being sorted.

Same goes for many debates and I've mentioned climate only because it's one of the most polarised debates in society at present (let's not debate the issue in this thread, that's not the subject).

Same goes for many things though. People are pigeon holed as being on one side or the other, the idea that anyone's simply sticking to actual facts is anathema to many.

As I see it the facts, however uncomfortable they may be, should always be presented if they're available. There's nothing to be gained by pretending that a situation is something other than what it actually is. If the facts are uncomfortable well then we need to change the situation not fudge the data or shout down those stating it.
 
Ok Smurf. I think the confusion was around the use of the phrase "climate deniers" in the context of acknowledging the reality of CC and the intensifying effects.

The core of your argument is the point. Facts should be agreed on. The challenge today is "whose facts?" . And unfortunately the repeated disrespect of organisations, experts who highlight inconvenient facts undermines concerted action to tackle the issues.

As I see it the facts, however uncomfortable they may be, should always be presented if they're available. There's nothing to be gained by pretending that a situation is something other than what it actually is. If the facts are uncomfortable well then we need to change the situation not fudge the data or shout down those stating it.
 
There are non so blind, as those who do not want to see. I see no ships. What was that, that went through to the keeper.
 
Something I should add is that this also applies directly to investing.

If you’re on track to lose money then the sooner you realise that, the better. Denial can be seriously expensive.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Something I should add is that this also applies directly to investing.

If you’re on track to lose money then the sooner you realise that, the better. Denial can be seriously expensive.
Click to expand...
True dat.

Sometimes the truth may be several layers down and outside of the mainstream narrative.

Macro investors understand that.
 
Some good points made in the above posts.
I see that one of the current problems, with many of the important issues of today, is that you are either on one side or the other.
The only debate is to argue who is the worst person for having their particular view.
I don't think this development is by accident.
 
Having a different viewpoint than the other person has almost disappeared from society it seems.

I have heard it called passive aggression if I have a differing opinion.

The old saying of "lets agree to disagree" seems to no longer be acceptable

It does make any discussion rather boring though, it is now a case of speak first and loud and no one will disagree
 
How many times nowadays, do you find yourself stopping halfway through writing something or saying something and decide no it will just start an argument.
I know I do it all the time, because I like to discuss and thrash something out, to try to separate the chaff from the hay, these days it is nearly impossible because many just take what the media say as fact without questioning, researching or challenging it, but use it as being the gospel because some reported wrote it or said it.
Laziness is permeating through western society and will end up being the reason it collapses, what was it JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", well I think that is laughable these days.
Just my opinion and fortunately I can still give, for how long, who knows.
The media and the fanatics have become the etiquette police and believe their interpretation of the rules is law, when in fact it isn't law it is just their opinion.
A number of recent cases have shown this, Westpac was taken to court for lending money to people who couldn't afford it, yet it wasn't the persons fault who could have given false and misleading statements. it was thrown out.
The Israel Folau case where he made a religious statement that included reference to sectors of society, he was persecuted for it and it didn't get to court. Margaret Court was dragged into the same trail by media.
I wonder how long it will be before you can be jailed for having an opinion.
Interesting times IMO.
 
Last edited:
wayneL said:
True dat.

Sometimes the truth may be several layers down and outside of the mainstream narrative.

Macro investors understand that.
Click to expand...
Yes, you see investors lose all the time who can't see the obvious due to some ideological brainwashing.

For instance, all the people who believed the rubbish about covid having little effect. Remember that Republican senator saying everything was OK while selling nearly half a billion shares?

I made a very healthy 75% return in five months by doing the opposite of what he said. He reportedly made double that but he had inside information.
 
Last edited:
Knobby22 said:
Remember that Republican senator saying everything was OK while selling nearly half a billion shares?
Click to expand...

I do indeed .. I wonder what happened to him ? I'm sure he must have been busted for insider trading (he sold the shares before the official announcements) or abuse of office or something ?

Or did it all just slide away without consequence beyond the millions he made selling before the market collapsed?
 
He didn't break the law. He is OK.
All forgotten now.
 
I thought there was more money involved. Burr did giving public assurances while he sold. Pretty reprehensible. Fox were pretty upset as they were playing it down and he was seen as being an insider.
Reuters article is better. Probably getting a bit of thread drift.

U.S. senators defend selling shares before coronavirus crash | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-congress-idUSKBN2171AL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Freedom Property Investors
Replies
5
Views
614
Dona Ferentes
Planning to retire
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
UMike
FCG - Freedom Care Group Holdings
Replies
1
Views
922
Dona Ferentes
Retirement-Semi Retirement, (Tech/a personal study) implementation and discussion
2 3
Replies
52
Views
6K
tech/a
Financial Security ---- Best strategies learned and shared ---- for Financial Freedom
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
tech/a
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...