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

The Australian Greens party

Jump to new

Greens preferences almost always go to Labor, so the COALition are trying to woo back some of the disaffected Greens. I doubt if they have much chance, the Greenies these days are pretty rusted on, although their vote has been declining but the disaffected ones are going to Labor not the Coalition.

The Coalition would be better off trying to get the One Nation vote back which they may have a chance of doing following some of the revelations recently.
 
SirRumpole said:
If someone said "the era of black disabled men is over", would that be termed racism ?
Absolutely it would.
Click to expand...
That just shows the level of ignorance at this forum.
Please learn what racism means, because you clearly have no idea.
 
rederob said:
That just shows the level of ignorance at this forum.
Please learn what racism means, because you clearly have no idea.
Click to expand...

It's simply discrimination against people for their birth characteristics over which they have no control.

It's obviously possible to be a white racist, a black racist or any other colour of racist as long as you dislike a different group for simply being different.

If you have another definition, please let us know because you are becoming obtuse and frankly a bit of a pain.
 
Smurf1976 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Why not read through this thread and you will discover your ideas are nonsense. However, if you are invested in a line of thought which refuses to accept how context qualifies meaning, you might not change your mind.
And while you are at it, learn that racism is conditional, and can freely stand outside of concepts such as prejudice, discrimination.
Taking a leaf from Rumple for a moment:
What does it mean when we say "the days of internal combustion gas guzzlers is over." Using warped logic we infer that a reference to a type of car is pejorative.
Or we say "the days of Asian women at the beach are over." That warped logic again implies that using "Asian" is pejorative.
These transpositional exercises clearly show the irrational nature of your views.
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:
These transpositional exercises clearly show the irrational nature of your views.
Click to expand...
Why not use other racial examples relevant to the discussion?

Perhaps because if someone said "it's over" and referred to "blacks" then that would be deemed totally unacceptable.

We live in a world where race is viewed differently to other things.

I could buy a wig, some cheap makeup and wear a dress in an effort to make myself look vaguely like the queen for some stage performance and nobody would see a problem with that as such.

Colour my skin dark brown in an effort to make myself resemble a black person and look out. Whole different issue then. Can't do that as Channel 9 found out when they tried reviving Hey Hey It's Saturday a few years ago.

Try making any sort of public statement which praises how well "white men" have done the job of putting the fire out, building the road or whatever and see what happens. It might be absolutely correct if indeed the entire task was performed entirely by white men but it wouldn't be wise to say it in those terms. In 1989 you'd have gotten away with it but not in 2019.
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:
If you have another definition, please let us know because you are becoming obtuse and frankly a bit of a pain.
Click to expand...
I will make this very simple to understand:
If you merely mention race in a sentence, without condition or qualification, then it is logically impossible to obtain a pejorative sense. Even your basic definition requires that race is qualified with an act of "discrimination."
 
rederob said:
Even your basic definition requires that race is qualified with an act of "discrimination."
Click to expand...

Lets say I said " I don't like people of XYZ colour ".

Is that racist ? I discriminated against no one, I merely expressed an opinion.

The Lefties would be right up me if I said something like that, so are they going off half cocked ?

I would never say that of course because I don't believe it.
 
In my opinion it cannot be.
You are free to dislike many things.
However, expressing how you choose to act on your dislike may become an expression of racism.
As I have said many times, without putting what you say into context, it is unreasonable to draw a conclusion.
That said, there are others who might disagree. The complexity of racism is briefly explored here.
 
explod said:
Honest people for people and not big business is required
Click to expand...
Agreed with the point but looking at the linked article, well if someone wants to revive the Collinsville power station then I'd let them have it.

Throws a bone to the coal lobby for a tiny power station, at the absolute limit it'll generate well under 1% of Australia's electricity, and it'll only be good for ~10 years technically anyway.

If that sorts out some politics around it and gets rid of some opposition to fixing the CO2 issue more broadly then give them the $10 million or whatever they want. There's much bigger fish to fry than that one.

Noted that's not the only point being made but it's one of them. Too small to worry about really.
 
rederob said:
I will make this very simple to understand:
If you merely mention race in a sentence, without condition or qualification, then it is logically impossible to obtain a pejorative sense.
Click to expand...
You might want to let your side know that.
 
I personally agree with this.

But stand in a crowd, or use social media and say I don't like xyz and the feedback won't be pretty.
 
wayneL said:
You might want to let your side know that.
Click to expand...
Ultimately the double standards are what I'm taking issue with here.

If a Liberal or Labor politician said anything which even hinted at "blacks" being different to the rest of society in a way that needed to be dealt with ("its over") then the Greens would be all over it almost certainly.
 
moXJO said:
But stand in a crowd, or use social media and say I don't like xyz and the feedback won't be pretty.
Click to expand...
You might have worked out that I am pedantic (but a poor proofreader nowadays - sadly).
So it is my opinion that most people have a tendency to have some view on other races. Then, to openly say you do not like a race means you can legitimately be branded as a "racist."
It may well be that the nature of your dislike may be so trivial as to be inconsequential, and your grounds for dislike may even be based on misunderstanding. "There are racists and there are racists."
Racism, however, requires something more substantial. Without an action to guide the nature of a racist tendency we cannot conclude that racism has occurred.
 

So would you agree that racism does not extend to a dislike of certain religions which practise barbaric acts, being that religion is, or should be a voluntary following and that people of that faith who fail to condemn barbarity should be freely criticised without the racism tag being applied ?
 
SirRumpole said:
Not any more sweetheart. I wouldn't even open a door for a woman these days.
Click to expand...
You would sometimes receive at best killing eyes,at worst a whole tirade on how as a female she can open a door herself and you are a chauvinist pig..real life experience at lift doors..but i carry on nevertheless for the not so fairer anymore sex
 
Religions are not "races" so it cannot be racism.
My view is that personal dislikes of anything, that remain personally held, are fine.
Expressing dislikes as mere opinion might be frowned on, but would not of itself constitute hate speech.
The words you associate with your dislike when you express it openly is where we can judge your intent.
I would not hesitate to call out barbarism wherever it occurs, but I would take care to ascribe it to those who authorise it.
The problem I see in threads on religion is that posters tend to tar everyone with the same brush. If you have evidence that all are complicit, without exception, then tarring would be deserved. Without that evidence confine your condemnation to what you can prove.
 
rederob said:
Without that evidence confine your condemnation to what you can prove.
Click to expand...

If followers of a religion fail to condemn barbaric behaviour carried out in the name of their religion, I would take that as evidence of complicity.
 
SirRumpole said:
If followers of a religion fail to condemn barbaric behaviour carried out in the name of their religion, I would take that as evidence of complicity.
Click to expand...
Then don't take that type of evidence to court because it will get thrown out.
Brunei is the latest nation sanctioning the killing if gay people. If you were a gay Muslim in Brunei would you be speaking out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Effects of the US election on the Australian economy and politics
Replies
2
Views
451
SirRumpole
Election 2025 + Preferential Voting
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
JohnDe
Impact of a Labor/Greens/Teal parliament
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
Knobby22
Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
818
moXJO
M
M
Trump/RFK vs Harris
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
So_Cynical
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...