The Australian Greens party

qldfrog · 1 April 2019

Explod, i am sure you would not expect less from Wayne but i had no knowledge of SHY a year ago but the more i learnt about her lately her speeches her cabale against the luberal democrat guy etc
The more i think she is a despicable human piece of sh.t
She can keep her hate speeches for herself.please save yourself some respect and avoid her quotes
while i disagree often with di Natale or others, she is worse than the Pauline Hanson of the left, and far less sincere

rederob · 1 April 2019

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

The principal composition of Parliament was used and it is a mere statement of fact that it is not representative of the broader Australian community.
You are of the opinion that a mere description of a group is derogatory and therefore racist. In the learned community that concept does not exist.

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

You create a false narrative yet again to please your own warped sense of reality. Jordan notes that the group is not representative. They could have been any colour or gender, but the context of his speech in this case was about being representative of the broader Australian community.

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

So white men are part of your niche - an own goal.

moXJO said:
The rest of your stuff is what I'd expect.

Yes, it dealt in detail with the context of his speech which you might recall was what I had asked that you incorporate in your reply, but you failed completely. Instead you created a false narrative to turn a colour into a problem - without any corroboration as to how it could be so - just to create in your mind what you prefer to believe.

rederob · 1 April 2019

Garpal Gumnut said:
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

Your first wish is granted.
Second, buy a dictionary and learn what words mean.
Finally, there would need to be a rational argument, so when you can point to one I will again oblige.

basilio · 1 April 2019

rederob said:
Finally, there would need to be a rational argument, so when you can point to one I will again oblige.

Really ! Truly ? Wouldn't that be a bit of an oxy moron these days ? I thought rationality and fact based analysis died when Elvis departed.

explod · 1 April 2019

At the next election, the Greens will be championing big, evidence-based solutions to solve the major problems facing our community today, like growing economic inequality, increasing cost of living, environmental destruction and climate change.

We’re right on track to elect more Greens to parliament, to champion our values and realise our vision of a more compassionate, more future-focused Australia.

We can’t wait to tell you more about these plans, and we’d love to share these plans with your friends and family as well.

People power matters in elections. Can you help build our movement and take on the major parties, by forwarding this email to five friends?

Like you, they can sign up to hear more from us this election at www.greens.org.au/election

For a future for all of us,

Richard Di Natale

SirRumpole · 1 April 2019

explod said:
At the next election, the Greens will be championing big, evidence-based solutions to solve the major problems facing our community today, like growing economic inequality, increasing cost of living, environmental destruction and climate change.

The Greens could have had a ets in place for 10 years but they knocked it back. "Do it our way or don't do it at all".

Sorry plod but that's just extremism. They should have taken Rudd's plan as a start, voted it in then argued for more. They put us 10 years behind where we should have been in carbon reduction.

Smurf1976 · 1 April 2019

moXJO said:
As an observation; attacking whites is the current flavor.

To the extent that is true it is racism.

It is not "reverse racism", it is just racism.

A point that I feel many fail to grasp. Racism by its very nature doesn't have a "reverse" mode or position. Either someone or something is racist or it isn't, there's no reverse about it.

Smurf1976 · 1 April 2019

SirRumpole said:
The Greens could have had a ets in place for 10 years but they knocked it back. "Do it our way or don't do it at all"

I can recall that broad situation arising with things concerning the environment for close to the past 40 years and it has never been helpful in my view.

Just because running is out of the question doesn't mean you shouldn't walk. It beats sitting around going nowhere.

moXJO · 2 April 2019

rederob said:
The principal composition of Parliament was used and it is a mere statement of fact that it is not representative of the broader Australian community.
You are of the opinion that a mere description of a group is derogatory and therefore racist. In the learned community that concept does not exist.
You create a false narrative yet again to please your own warped sense of reality. Jordan notes that the group is not representative. They could have been any colour or gender, but the context of his speech in this case was about being representative of the broader Australian community.
So white men are part of your niche - an own goal.
Yes, it dealt in detail with the context of his speech which you might recall was what I had asked that you incorporate in your reply, but you failed completely. Instead you created a false narrative to turn a colour into a problem - without any corroboration as to how it could be so - just to create in your mind what you prefer to believe.

“The era of white able bodied men is over"
That is not being used as a mere statement that parliament is majority white.
I'll go one step further and say not only is it racist, but its inflammatory and self serving as well.
It's an identity politics dog whistle designed as a headline grabber. It feeds into the divisive culture wars and raises his profile. It was intentional and deliberate.

The Guardian Australian senator says 'the era of the dominant, white, able-bodied ... 1 day ago

And I wonder why the Guardian would run with just that part of the speech.
Or the numerous tweets.
Alt news.
Youtube vids.
Greens supporters
They all ran with that line.

I guess I'm not the only one with a "warped sense of reality".
And the truth is that was the talking point of the speech. Its the headliner. If that one line was removed from the speech, no one would have even bothered.

So white men are part of your niche - an own goal.

Are you asking if I am white? or if all white men in parliament serve only white people needs? Care to clear that up.
I'm black by the way.

Yes, it dealt in detail with the context of his speech which you might recall was what I had asked that you incorporate in your reply, but you failed completely.

No you prattled on too much about nothing. If there was something that could be referenced from a previous post then go back and reread it not misread it.

Once again this line: “The era of white able bodied men is over" did not need to be included.

If he left out the above and the below was the headline:
'Australia is in desperate need of a parliament as diverse and as vibrant and as energetic as the community it is sent to represent'
Maybe then it would be run as creating a diverse parliament and breaking the "monopoly".

But he didn't. He used deliberate language. Thats being used as a further wedge across forums. So it is a divise rhetoric dog whistle.
Oh and racist.
Pure politics at play to his base.

you might recall was what I had asked that you incorporate in your reply, but you failed completely.

You can ask what you like. Your minds already made. I'm not trying to convince you of my point.

In the learned community

Now thats value.

TikoMike · 2 April 2019

"The white able-bodied male era is over" says the Greens senator. Would it be false equivalency if I said it sounds similar to Hitler's speech on the Jews?

rederob · 2 April 2019

moXJO said:
“The era of white able bodied men is over"
That is not being used as a mere statement that parliament is majority white.

In fact it is the sole context, but you want to create your own reality which is just delusion.
Can you show that most in Parliament are not white men?

moXJO said:
I'll go one step further and say not only is it racist, but its inflammatory and self serving as well.
It's an identity politics dog whistle designed as a headline grabber. It feeds into the divisive culture wars and raises his profile. It was intentional and deliberate.

Only people who think like you draw conclusions from false narratives.
Never yet have you put the statement into its context, which shows the ineptitude of your commentary.
Worse, because you are not good at parsing, you at no time showed how, definitionally, you had any case at all.

moXJO said:
Are you asking if I am white? or if all white men in parliament serve only white people needs? Care to clear that up.
I'm black by the way.

Yet another of your straw man arguments - you have nothing better to offer.

moXJO said:
Once again this line: “The era of white able bodied men is over" did not need to be included.

You keep saying this, and it cements your inability to appreciate how it was wholly contextual to the speech.

moXJO said:
But he didn't. He used deliberate language.

Indeed he did, because this is the exact group which does not represent the broader community.
It's sad that you lack the ability to work this out.

moXJO said:
You can ask what you like. Your minds already made. I'm not trying to convince you of my point.

To make a point you need to understand what happened. Instead, you recreated in your mind what you wanted to believe, and have consistently worked from your delusions.

rederob · 2 April 2019

TikoMike said:
"The white able-bodied male era is over" says the Greens senator. Would it be false equivalency if I said it sounds similar to Hitler's speech on the Jews?

No, it would show you were unable to understand "meaning" which exists through context.
The mistake that moXJO consistently makes is to assume that it reasonable to take a single sentence in isolation and draw conclusions from it. Except that moXJO is also of the unusual view that referencing a statement of fact can be construed as racist. People of sound mind know that just mentioning a race does not of itself constitute racism. Racism demands that certain qualities entail, in particular the notion that there is a superiority/inferiority divide. Jordan made no comments which were divisive or derogatory. His reference was about what was needed to better represent the broader community.

wayneL · 2 April 2019

basilio said:
Really ! Truly ? Wouldn't that be a bit of an oxy moron these days ? I thought rationality and fact based analysis died when Elvis departed.

Yeah, like arguing that biological gender is a social construct, then discrimination base on gender, like arguing for racial equality, then discriminating based on race, like arguing against labelling in the political continuum, then demonizing "the right"?

wayneL · 2 April 2019

rederob said:
No, it would show you were unable to understand "meaning" which exists through context.
The mistake that moXJO consistently makes is to assume that it reasonable to take a single sentence in isolation and draw conclusions from it. Except that moXJO is also of the unusual view that referencing a statement of fact can be construed as racist. People of sound mind know that just mentioning a race does not of itself constitute racism. Racism demands that certain qualities entail, in particular the notion that there is a superiority/inferiority divide. Jordan made no comments which were divisive or derogatory. His reference was about what was needed to better represent the broader community.

You seem to be making the ludicrous implication in your power spiel that therefore, there cannot be white racism.

Additionally, the actual construction of that particular sentence disagrees with your argument, as someone above pointed out.

The left love to invoke the "dog whistle" cliche. Well that was even audible to the human ear, Rederob. It was overtly racist.

rederob · 2 April 2019

wayneL said:
You seem to be making the ludicrous implication in your power spiel that therefore, there cannot be white racism.

The notion of evidence seems foreign to you, Wayne.
It is also the case that you and moXJO have a habit of creating straw men so you can be seen to win arguments which never existed.

wayneL said:
Additionally, the actual construction of that particular sentence disagrees with your argument, as someone above pointed out.

And you fail on context as badly as moXJO.

wayneL said:
The left love to invoke the "dog whistle" cliche. Well that was even audible to the human ear, Rederob. It was overtly racist.

And again, like moXJO you say this and utterly fail to show how it can be.

moXJO · 2 April 2019

rederob said:
In fact it is the sole context, but you want to create your own reality which is just delusion.
Can you show that most in Parliament are not white men?
Only people who think like you draw conclusions from false narratives.
Never yet have you put the statement into its context, which shows the ineptitude of your commentary.
Worse, because you are not good at parsing, you at no time showed how, definitionally, you had any case at all.
Yet another of your straw man arguments - you have nothing better to offer.
You keep saying this, and it cements your inability to appreciate how it was wholly contextual to the speech.
Indeed he did, because this is the exact group which does not represent the broader community.
It's sad that you lack the ability to work this out.
To make a point you need to understand what happened. Instead, you recreated in your mind what you wanted to believe, and have consistently worked from your delusions.

Oh Rob....
Your argument is one long "no its not".
The comment he made was a dog whistle. And now you're grasping at straws through passive aggressive digs.
As I said the social/media grasped on to the one line. Why was that rob?

Can you show that most in Parliament are not white men?

Now who is strawmaning.
Can you tell me why that voted white representatives need to be removed for diversity. As competent members come through diversity will grow. But one group does not need to be removed for another.

Racism demands that certain qualities entail, in particular the notion that there is a superiority/inferiority divide. Jordan made no comments which were divisive or derogatory. His reference was about what was needed to better represent the broader community.

“The era of white able bodied men is over".
Is a dog whistle, even in the "context" of his speech. And it played out online as such. Its also a profile raiser for shtbag politicians. Why add it, because its clearly a hook.
Color or diversity does not help in "better serving the community" just for the sake of it. The goal is to govern for all regardless of color. Its
“The era of white able bodied men is over"
Is a direct statement to whites to move over. Why? The goal is to represent your community concerns. Not just part of your community.
And in him making that statement he infers that whites in parliament are not able to effectively operate for all and only govern for whites.
And thats putting aside the fact they were voted in.

To make a point you need to understand what happened. Instead, you recreated in your mind what you wanted to believe, and have consistently worked from your delusions.

Oh I understand what happened.
I'm living rent free with wayne.

rederob · 2 April 2019

moXJO said:
The comment he made was a dog whistle.

You keep saying that but have yet to show how it can be so.

moXJO said:
As I said the social/media grasped on to the one line. Why was that rob?

I have no care for what is not germaine.

moXJO said:
Can you tell me why that voted white representatives need to be removed for diversity.

At what point will you realise that Jordan never called for that to happen. You abound in straw man statements.

moXJO said:
Color or diversity does not help in "better serving the community" just for the sake of it. The goal is to govern for all regardless of color.

The issue is of representation alone. But you keep overlooking this fact.

moXJO said:
Is a direct statement to whites to move over.

No, it was clear that Jordan considers this group to not be representative.
If you want to prove that point you must show where this was apparent.

moXJO said:
And in him making that statement he infers that whites in parliament are not able to effectively operate for all and only govern for whites.

Whereas he never makes that point. You keep adding your delusions to your claims and see what is not there.
Please provide a case for your views based on the actual speech and stop arguing points which cannot be reasonably drawn from it.
It is clear you have a limited grasp of the meaning of words and consistently fail to show how your senses can be credible.

wayneL · 2 April 2019

Context has the same meaning whether in normal print or bold, Rederob.

Here's a simplified look at the context - I'm not a racist, in fact all racism should be eviscerated, however all white men are ####s.

I must congratulate you on your inventiveness though Rob, having created a brand new , hitherto unobserved logical fallacy.

The Straw man Straw Man fallacy, the accusation of a straw man fallacy when there is none, thereby creating a brand new straw man fallacy about the accusation of a straw man fallacy.

Nice one

moXJO · 2 April 2019

rederob said:
You keep saying that but have yet to show how it can be so.
I have no care for what is not germaine.
At what point will you realise that Jordan never called for that to happen.

Umm, the fact that media ran with the "white men" in their headlines. Greens supporters tweeted it and offended on social media told him to punch it.
Jordan exactly called for it by framing it the way he did.
He knew exactly the effect it would have. Or he wouldn't have used it. I think the only one delusional in the naivety (but probably just pissed) is you robbie boy.

Hey rob I noticed you can't go one post without an insult now.
Does the red in your name imply anger issues?
Should we talk about something a bit more calming like pacifism?

rederob · 2 April 2019

wayneL said:
Here's a simplified look at the context - I'm not a racist, in fact all racism should be eviscerated, however all white men are ####s.

That may be a statement of fact.
It certainly fails to meet the requirements commonly associated with racism.

wayneL said:
I must congratulate you on your inventiveness though Rob, having created a brand new , hitherto unobserved logical fallacy.

You seldom provide evidence to support your claims. So why not give that one a try.
I found no statements from moXJO using the language from Jordan's speech, and he has never yet offered up any. His claims are wholly based on his delusions.

The Australian Greens party

qldfrog

rederob

rederob

basilio

explod

explod

SirRumpole

Smurf1976

Smurf1976

moXJO

menace to society

TikoMike

rederob

rederob

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

rederob

moXJO

menace to society

rederob

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

moXJO

menace to society

rederob

Similar threads

The Australian Greens party

explod

menace to society

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

menace to society

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

menace to society

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency