The Australian Greens party

[rederob]

My comments are in blue.

Pointing out color as a problem in representing the community. So it began as "racism", then was "derogatory", and now is just "a problem"?
The need to include "white" as a point of difference in an otherwise rational speech. Except that white men numerically dominate each house of Parliament. Stating a fact, and aspiring to change the representation through greater diversity was the context of his commentary. You missed that, apparently.
Being "white" was included, instead of using "we need greater representation". Again, you clearly missed the context of Jordan's speech, viz "We must end a situation in which we are governed by people which bear no life experience to us." Prior to that sentence he clearly made the point that "...until we see a parliament as diverse and as vibrant as the community in which it is sent to represent, it will never be able to do its job."
Including "white" in the line of attack that being one color or another means you are less able to serve the community. A statement of fact is definitely nothing close to a "line of attack". And again I point out that the context was about the need for Parliament to reflect the diversity of the community if it is to be able to do its job properly - we supposedly have a House of Representatives!.
I agree with needing greater representation so long as it is indeed made to serve the community and not niche groups. Who are these so-called "niche groups"?
I also agree that politicians are out of step on many levels. Which was what Jordan was saying, except that he expressed it in terms of people whose life experience and diversity were lacking.
But there is no need to include "white" in the way it was used in the argument. Jordan needed to point out what was necessary to be changed if his aspirations of a diverse and properly representative Parliament was to be met. It's a bit hard to leave out the part that is not performing in the representative role it was elected to fulfil
It would have been perfectly fine and got the message across without setting a division. Except that it is you who has created a false narrative through utterly failing to appreciate the context of Jordan's speech in order to create " a division".
As an observation; attacking whites is the current flavor. I suspect that your eyes would find a reason to believe that whenever it suited you.
The above aside, it seems that aside from your opinion, there was nothing racist you could point to, nor derogatory. But there definitely was a problem, and that was your inability to incorporate "context" in your reply.
That said, I respect what you did, and thank you.

 

[SirRumpole]

We must end a situation in which we are governed by people which bear no life experience to us.

That cuts both ways wouldn't you agree ?

Just how does Mr St John expect to achieve this aim ?

 

[rederob]

That cuts both ways wouldn't you agree ?
Just how does Mr St John expect to achieve this aim ?

I don't know what you mean, so please elaborate.

 

[SirRumpole]

If Mr St John is planning on a takeover of Parliament by people with a disability I don't think he's thinking clearly.

 

[moXJO]

So it began as "racism", then was "derogatory", and now is just "a problem"?

Color was used in a derogatory fashion which is why it was racist.

Except that white men numerically dominate each house of Parliament. Stating a fact, and aspiring to change the representation through greater diversity was the context of his commentary. You missed that, apparently.
Ummm no, I didn't miss jack. "White men" make up the majority of the country as well. And its reflected in parliament. He clearly used "white" in the context that being that color some how diminishes the role they were voted in to do by the people.
Again, you clearly missed the context of Jordan's speech, viz "We must end a situation in which we are governed by people which bear no life experience to us." Prior to that sentence he clearly made the point that "...until we see a parliament as diverse and as vibrant as the community in which it is sent to represent, it will never be able to do its job."
That was not the part I had a problem with.

A statement of fact is definitely nothing close to a "line of attack". And again I point out that the context was about the need for Parliament to reflect the diversity of the community if it is to be able to do its job properly - we supposedly have a House of Representatives!.

Using being white as a problem in representing the wider community is worse imo.

Who are these so-called "niche groups"?

Any group that represents just the interests of their identity groups rather then the wider community.

Which was what Jordan was saying, except that he expressed it in terms of people whose life experience and diversity were lacking.
Jordan needed to point out what was necessary to be changed if his aspirations of a diverse and properly representative Parliament was to be met. It's a bit hard to leave out the part that is not performing in the representative role it was elected to fulfil
Except that it is you who has created a false narrative through utterly failing to appreciate the context of Jordan's speech in order to create " a division".I suspect that your eyes would find a reason to believe that whenever it suited you.
The above aside, it seems that aside from your opinion, there was nothing racist you could point to, nor derogatory. But there definitely was a problem, and that was your inability to incorporate "context" in your reply.
That said, I respect what you did, and thank you.
The rest of your stuff is what I'd expect.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Pointing out color as a problem in representing the community. So it began as "racism", then was "derogatory", and now is just "a problem"?
The need to include "white" as a point of difference in an otherwise rational speech. Except that white men numerically dominate each house of Parliament. Stating a fact, and aspiring to change the representation through greater diversity was the context of his commentary. You missed that, apparently.
Being "white" was included, instead of using "we need greater representation". Again, you clearly missed the context of Jordan's speech, viz "We must end a situation in which we are governed by people which bear no life experience to us." Prior to that sentence he clearly made the point that "...until we see a parliament as diverse and as vibrant as the community in which it is sent to represent, it will never be able to do its job."
Including "white" in the line of attack that being one color or another means you are less able to serve the community. A statement of fact is definitely nothing close to a "line of attack". And again I point out that the context was about the need for Parliament to reflect the diversity of the community if it is to be able to do its job properly - we supposedly have a House of Representatives!.
I agree with needing greater representation so long as it is indeed made to serve the community and not niche groups. Who are these so-called "niche groups"?
I also agree that politicians are out of step on many levels. Which was what Jordan was saying, except that he expressed it in terms of people whose life experience and diversity were lacking.
But there is no need to include "white" in the way it was used in the argument. Jordan needed to point out what was necessary to be changed if his aspirations of a diverse and properly representative Parliament was to be met. It's a bit hard to leave out the part that is not performing in the representative role it was elected to fulfil
It would have been perfectly fine and got the message across without setting a division. Except that it is you who has created a false narrative through utterly failing to appreciate the context of Jordan's speech in order to create " a division".
As an observation; attacking whites is the current flavor. I suspect that your eyes would find a reason to believe that whenever it suited you.
The above aside, it seems that aside from your opinion, there was nothing racist you could point to, nor derogatory. But there definitely was a problem, and that was your inability to incorporate "context" in your reply.
That said, I respect what you did, and thank you.

I do wish you would cease posting polemics in blue, longer, brighter and in bold, than the original authors'.

It makes no sense, it is distracting and not in the spirit of rational argument.

gg

 

[cynic]

I do wish you would cease posting polemics in blue, longer, brighter and in bold, than the original authors'.

It makes no sense, it is distracting and not in the spirit of rational argument.

gg

What bold colouring might one prefer? Surely bolded blue is preferable to the proliferation of watermelon green!

 

[explod]

Anyway back here on earth things of concern are being measured by the Greens, the only party who really cares about all of humankind equally:-

"

Activists for a Fossil Free Africa on World Water Day. Photo: 350 Africa

Dear James,

In the last edition of Fossil Free News I wondered whether we’d reach 1 million people taking part in school strikes. The answer was a resounding YES, with over 1.6 million young people leaving school to demand climate action on March 15. It was the largest ever global day of climate mobilization – so far.

We have been so inspired by the Climate Strike this past week, but also filled with deep sorrow as we learned that Cyclone Idai had hit Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe with deadly force. As the flood waters start to recede in southern Africa, the struggle for life only intensifies for the hundreds of thousands of families displaced and left without access to water, food or shelter.

We explore how you can help below, and reflect on how the fight for a safe climate future is intimately connected with the fight for justice and against racism and hatred in all its forms. It's why the school strikers’ pleas for action are so urgent -- the climate crisis hits those who’ve done the least to cause it the hardest.

Onwards, to more action, together,

Nicole "
My first name happens to be James

 

[moXJO]

Anyway back here on earth

As a greens voter, you gave up the right to say that plod...

 

[explod]

As a greens voter, you gave up the right to say that plod...

As a greens voter I am free to think, feel and say as I like.

And you are free to go back to your closed cave ole Pal. Though a bit of real life experience could be a big help.

 

[moXJO]

As a greens voter I am free to think, feel and say as I like.

Just busting your chops plod.


But bring that above statement up in the city nsw branches. They seem to have forgotten.

 

[explod]

There are parts of all parties all over the place, just look at Nat Libs the last few years and dear Pauline's party just this last week.

Yep, you are in Fairy Land alright.

 

[moXJO]

Yep, you are in Fairy Land alright.

Not to the point I'd vote for the Greens though.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

As a greens voter I am free to think, feel and say as I like.

And you are free to go back to your closed cave ole Pal. Though a bit of real life experience could be a big help.

I must admit explod that the Greens are passionate about their policies.

Probably more so than the mainstream parties.

Unfortunately many I have met, and I do not include you, are as mad as, overly focussed on one or two ideas each and unable to work as a party for change. This leads to a grab bag of policies which remain on the agenda "but are not being taken to this election" as Larissa Waters managed to snow the ABC reporter with earlier this week.

I mean let's be fair dinkum.

I'd never join the Greens as a result.

gg

 

[SirRumpole]

I'd never join the Greens as a result.

Unlike the Libs whose factionalism has toppled 2 Prime Ministers.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Unlike the Libs whose factionalism has toppled 2 Prime Ministers.

This thread is about the Greens.

Start one on the Libs lest you go off topic.

gg

 

[explod]

I must admit explod that the Greens are passionate about their policies.

Probably more so than the mainstream parties.

Unfortunately many I have met, and I do not include you, are as mad as, overly focussed on one or two ideas each and unable to work as a party for change. This leads to a grab bag of policies which remain on the agenda "but are not being taken to this election" as Larissa Waters managed to snow the ABC reporter with earlier this week.

I mean let's be fair dinkum.

I'd never join the Greens as a result.

gg

Good points GG however the Greens hold only a small number of seats and in many respects are only still forming, so disparity across the country is a big issue and I'm the first to admit we may never make it to the front line.

However as we do focus on important new topics they are now more often taken up by the major parties which is giving some value to our existence.

 

[qldfrog]

Maybe the watermelon party could split between a relabelled communist party and a real green focussed on the environment
That could allow both parties to have sensible policies
The red one encouraging immigrants, playing the anti white male platform without giving a dam about the environment and being consistent
And a real green caring about GW, starting protest against Chinese embassies, stopping migration, acting for world population control and free of prejudice on race and sex
The green would gather a fair amount of votes in my opinion and would be able to influence policies
From both majors by being ready to form coalition with either
Just my 2c
Real greens would get my vote

 

[explod]

 

[wayneL]

Great, can you get SHY to detail how they would additionally punish productive members of society, so then the policy would be complete.