The Australian Greens party

[moXJO]

What a fanciful claim.
You seem to live in a world filled with your own delusions as this idea is wholly owned by you and those who simply failed to understand what Jordan spoke about.
You have not yet grasped the concept of diversity and how it needs to be better reflected amongst those being elected into office. This is a through a democratic process and has zero to do with phasing out anyone.
You would have to be blessed with ignorance to assume that.
In fact because you cannot work out the context of Jordan's speech, it is saying nothing of the sort.
Stop creating false narratives based on what you want to believe and deal with the very simple idea that those presently in Parliament do not come close to being representative of the broader community. Smurf named the predominant group in Parliament based on occupation, by simple transposition of words.
To suggest identifying the group is pejorative is a step that is very creative and requires a lot more than contained in the single sentence. The reality here is that one has to step out of rational thought into the brave world of delusion to create the ideas you have.

You played the man the whole post and actually said nothing.

 

[rederob]

Identity politics.

Why not try to match that with what it really means.
I would call it the Wayne response.

 

[moXJO]

I would call it the Wayne response.

Whoop, there it is...

 

[moXJO]

This is through a democratic process.

Wait was jordy voted in?
Serious question.

 

[SirRumpole]

Why not try to match that with what it really means.

Well, it's voting for someone because they are a member of a societal group not because of their abilities to represent ALL the voters.

eg If a was a Muslim I may be tempted to vote for a Muslim because they are the same societal group as me and that they would therefore promote the perceived needs of that societal group and not necessarily because I think they can represent all their electorate.

 

[explod]

This budget is an unmitigated failure when it comes to fixing our biggest problems. The Liberals simply don’t have a plan to fund real action on climate change or reduce the gap between the rich and the rest of us, but we do. Tune in to hear the Greens vision of a future for all of us, not just the wealthy few.

Hi James
Every budget week, Australians want to hear two things from politicians: how they’re responding to the biggest challenges we’re facing right now, and how they’re preparing for the future.

What we heard last night is that this government, on its last legs before calling the election, is failing on both counts. This budget isn’t a roadmap, it’s a dead-end.

The climate emergency we’re all experiencing demands governments urgently invest in renewables and transition away from coal. But this budget commits more money on substandard medical treatment and needless transfers of sick refugees to Christmas Island than funding the fight against climate change.

Growing inequality demands proper funding of essential services. But instead, Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg have stuck their heads in the sand and delivered a few election bribes.

What this budget boils down to is a cynical attempt to buy votes instead of planning for the nation’s looming challenges. It isn’t going to fix our biggest problems; it will make them worse.

The Greens have a plan to solve the problems we’re facing now, like economic inequality, increasing cost of living, environmental destruction and climate change. And tonight, I’ll be unveiling this vision in parliament. Will you tune in to hear how we’ll build a future for all of us?

WATCH OUR BUDGET REPLY SPEECH

The great tragedy of the Liberals’ cruel prioritisation of the interests of their big corporate donors over the rest of us is that Australia does not lack the financial resources to solve the problems we face as a nation. We just lack the political vision.

The tax cuts & surplus in this budget are enough to fully fund TAFE and free uni for all Australians, increase Newstart, build 500,000 new affordable homes, provide Medicare-funded dental care, invest $10 billion to fight climate change and still have billions spare.

That’s why I’m excited by the opportunity to spell out our plan for Australia’s future -- one where we phase out coal, deliver 100% renewable energy and build a world-leading renewable energy export industry. We’ll be premiering the video of my speech to Facebook tomorrow morning. I hope you’ll take a look.

For a future for all of us,

Richard



PS: if the Liberals budget, which contained more mentions of John Howard than climate change, made you mad, help us kick them out next month.

 

[wayneL]

I find it disturbing to agree with the Greens on this point, the current iteration of the Libs are a tragic parody of their former selves (as are Labor).

Where I realise that their is still some sort of order in the Matrix, is that their alternative is as loopy s it always has been.

No. Thank. You. Mr Plod.

 

[Smurf1976]

It's a bit of a stretch suggesting occupation is a reasonable proxy for life experience as it does not reflect the wage disparity between men and women doing the same job

How much someone is paid to do a job makes no difference to their experiences gained whilst doing it. A Police Officer, for example, will be exposed to the same range of situations whether they're paid $10 or $10 million.

Same with most jobs unless the workplace and individual are highly militant such that someone being paid 10% less than their colleague ensures they do exactly 10% less work and so on. There are few such places around these days.

On the question of pay rates, agreed there are issues but it's not universal. Eg anything in government and most routine operational jobs in big business are set rates and absolutely non-negotiable. Agreed that in situations where pay is negotiable the opportunity for discrimination does exist and that some employers probably do it.

You again confuse racism with discrimination.

Here is the dictionary definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Note that racial prejudice or discrimination is one meaning of racism.

You additionally suggest the ability to be a decision maker (as in an MP) is merely an intellectual endeavour when Jordan has outlined the need for diversity to condition how leaders get there.

Indeed it is an intellectual task.

Our MP's perform no physical work in parliament. No carrying heavy loads, no building anything, no plumbing or electrical, they don't even clean the place themselves. It's a white collar job which does not require physical strength, mobility etc to do it. As such there is no reason to discriminate based on physical abilities.

More likely it is due to ignorance on the part of people who are not good with the meaning of words, do not appreciate context, and are unable to respond to questions which otherwise show they are creating arguments which never existed.

It's a political speech and one of the basics of public speaking is "speak to your audience".

Go and ask random people in the street to explain racism and you'll get examples of discrimination, you won't get some academic definition that requires a degree in English to be aware of.

Same in any context. A doctor, lawyer, engineer, pilot or anyone else speaking to the general public won't use more than the absolute minimum of medical, legal, engineering or aviation terms and will instead use common words with their normally understood meaning. Failing to do so is a failure of the speaker not the audience.

All that said, the man is a politician and has generated plenty of discussion and attention over all this which wouldn't have occurred if not for those words being included. All publicity is good publicity as they say.

 

[Smurf1976]

My view on all of this could be summarised by saying:

*I support equal opportunity as a concept.

*The notion that opportunity is equal precludes consideration of race, gender, sexual preferences, weight, height, religion, hairstyle or any other aspect of the individual not directly relevant to their ability to do something.

*The past cannot be undone. That does not mean it was right, but it cannot be undone. The best we can do is to do things better now and in the future but we cannot rewind or rewrite history.

 

[explod]

Australian Young Greens
8 hrs ·

 

[rederob]

How much someone is paid to do a job makes no difference to their experiences gained whilst doing it. A Police Officer, for example, will be exposed to the same range of situations whether they're paid $10 or $10 million.

Women know they are not treated equally in the workplace and it definitely affects their outlook and life experience. It's equivalent to you saying their fight for gender equality is groundless.

Note that racial prejudice or discrimination is one meaning of racism.

They are completely different concepts, and you want to continue to blur them. One might not like a different race merely because they look funny to them or eat unusual foods or are associated with greater wealth. These are aspects of prejudice which may be quite different to believing they are superior/inferior which are the conditional propositions to racism.

It's a political speech and one of the basics of public speaking is "speak to your audience".

False.
It was his acceptance speech at the University of Melbourne upon receiving the non-partisan and independent award that recognises outstanding Australians for leadership in politics. Party politics were never under discussion.

Go and ask random people in the street to explain racism and you'll get examples of discrimination, you won't get some academic definition that requires a degree in English to be aware of.

Why would I want to do that. My point was that ignorance has dominated this very issue. People on the street are not being involved in this forum, yet a level of ignorance has persisted despite the ability of posters to be much better informed.
I have taken a lot of time to put lots of questions to you and others, and they are largely ignored while you run off a new and separate arguments to the pivotal question of how what Jordan said could be construed as "racism."
None of conditions of racism were satisfied unless posters developed a narrative which had nothing to do with the context of Jordan's speech.
Perhaps realising that failure (and full marks to moXJO on that score), the next pejorative was suggesting he had "dog whistled." Again, posters should have known that a dog whistle which specifically identifies the group to be targeted cannot, by definition, be a dog whistle.
Now we get "discrimination" tossed into the mix.
This has been a moving feast of ignorance.
Leadership, however, is about rising to challenges. It calls out those who want to remain invested in ignorance and believe things which are not reasonably supported.
Showing bipartisan leadership today, Mathias Cormann and Penny Wong today jointly brought on a successful censure motion against Fraser Anning, who actually doubled down on his hate towards Islamists. Pauline Hanson's speech (she was absent and her deputy read it out) on the motion is in object lesson in vitriol and deserved condemnation. One Nation was too gutless to vote on the motion, such is their strength in the Senate.

 

[Ann]

Women know they are not treated equally in the workplace and it definitely affects their outlook and life experience. It's equivalent to you saying their fight for gender equality is groundless.

I am so thankful in my era women were not treated equally. My first job came about as a result of a very hard working and pleasant young man getting the sack because he turned 18 and they were going to have to increase his wages. Me being a female was paid less then a bloke, I came in on his pre-18yo wages. I did negotiate my wage up a bit, I had a lovely smile and beautiful blue eyes. He got the push, I got his job. I also knew being a female even if the bus/train/tram was packed I would always get a seat because blokes were gentlemen in those days and gave up their seats to females, bless them. Discrimination rocks!

 

[Smurf1976]

If you are an MP then anything you say in public will be taken as an “on duty” statement in practice.

Same goes for any public figure. Say it anywhere and now it’s everywhere.

As for the rest, why would anyone mention race if not to infer some sort of prejudice, discrimination or superiority, all of which are listed in the dictionary definition of racism?

 

[SirRumpole]

I have taken a lot of time to put lots of questions to you and others, and they are largely ignored while you run off a new and separate arguments to the pivotal question of how what Jordan said could be construed as "racism."

I think Smurf made a valid point some time ago about this. Invert the argument.

If someone said "the era of black disabled men is over", would that be termed racism ?

Absolutely it would.

 

[SirRumpole]

I also knew being a female even if the bus/train/tram was packed I would always get a seat because blokes were gentlemen in those days and gave up their seats to females, bless them. Discrimination rocks!

Not any more sweetheart. I wouldn't even open a door for a woman these days.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

The Greens are the left wing version of Francis Anning.

Despicable and self-centred.

They will garner the same percentage of votes from their loopy left and knitting supporters as will Anning from his loopy right and racist ones.

I do not like the Greens.

I do not like Anning.

gg

 

[Ann]

Not any more sweetheart. I wouldn't even open a door for a woman these days.

...and that is what women never fully understood when they campaigned for 'equal rights'. Get into the scrum bitch and fight like the rest of us!

 

[moXJO]

Women know they are not treated equally in the workplace and it definitely affects their outlook and life experience. It's equivalent to you saying their fight for gender equality is groundless.
They are completely different concepts, and you want to continue to blur them. One might not like a different race merely because they look funny to them or eat unusual foods or are associated with greater wealth. These are aspects of prejudice which may be quite different to believing they are superior/inferior which are the conditional propositions to racism.
False.
It was his acceptance speech at the University of Melbourne upon receiving the non-partisan and independent award that recognises outstanding Australians for leadership in politics. Party politics were never under discussion.
Why would I want to do that. My point was that ignorance has dominated this very issue. People on the street are not being involved in this forum, yet a level of ignorance has persisted despite the ability of posters to be much better informed.
I have taken a lot of time to put lots of questions to you and others, and they are largely ignored while you run off a new and separate arguments to the pivotal question of how what Jordan said could be construed as "racism."
None of conditions of racism were satisfied unless posters developed a narrative which had nothing to do with the context of Jordan's speech.
Perhaps realising that failure (and full marks to moXJO on that score), the next pejorative was suggesting he had "dog whistled." Again, posters should have known that a dog whistle which specifically identifies the group to be targeted cannot, by definition, be a dog whistle.
Now we get "discrimination" tossed into the mix.
This has been a moving feast of ignorance.
Leadership, however, is about rising to challenges. It calls out those who want to remain invested in ignorance and believe things which are not reasonably supported.
Showing bipartisan leadership today, Mathias Cormann and Penny Wong today jointly brought on a successful censure motion against Fraser Anning, who actually doubled down on his hate towards Islamists. Pauline Hanson's speech (she was absent and her deputy read it out) on the motion is in object lesson in vitriol and deserved condemnation. One Nation was too gutless to vote on the motion, such is their strength in the Senate.

Kind of all over the place there rob. With some long stretches and delusions of your own.

 

[explod]

What's going on with the demonisation of the Greens by the Libs, Nationals and right wing journalists? Will Labor join them? Or is it all about disparaging the importance of the things the Greens are strong on in favour of business as usual and the 'sensible' people currently in charge?
https://www.theguardian.com/…/comparing-the-greens-with-one…

About this website

THEGUARDIAN.COM

Comparing the Greens with One Nation is ludicrous, but it’s a political strategy | Marc Stears

 

[Smurf1976]

What's going on with the demonisation of the Greens by the Libs, Nationals and right wing journalists?

If you've concluded that your ship really is sinking, and you have no life boats, well then I suppose you'll try anything and everything that might have even the slimmest chance of improving the situation.

That's essentially the situation the Liberals and Nationals are in at the moment.