Something for every taste !
Good one here, but I think we should stop after this.
Ok did any bloke actually look at the WEATHER forecast, 28c and snowing I think it said
The West has lost its freedom of speech
- Thread starter dutchie
- Start date
Ok did any bloke actually look at the WEATHER forecast, 28c and snowing I think it said
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
According to the sin optics it was "hot."
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,658
- Reactions
- 11,959
There were two high pressure systems and a warm front I believe.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,581
- Reactions
- 12,707
It is interesting how some things can bring us all into broad agreement.
Perhaps we are not so different from each other after all
Perhaps we are not so different from each other after all
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
It is really interesting, I usually stop and have a chat with a group of elderly mainly widowed women on my morning walk.
They were talking about the extreme PC world this morning, they would be seen as extremely right wing on here, I didnt say anything just smiled to myself.
I think we are going to have to wait untill the next set of elections, to see where the majority fall.
They were talking about the extreme PC world this morning, they would be seen as extremely right wing on here, I didnt say anything just smiled to myself.
I think we are going to have to wait untill the next set of elections, to see where the majority fall.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,099
- Reactions
- 16,885
I'll write something more thoughtful tomorrow but for now some music......
Everyone should listen carefully to the lyrics.
Now realise it was written in 1988, about 7 years before most had ever heard the term "internet" and well before Google, YouTube or Facebook were a thing. Or ASF for that matter.
Media control over information is not a new thing. All that's changed is who runs it.
Everyone should listen carefully to the lyrics.
Now realise it was written in 1988, about 7 years before most had ever heard the term "internet" and well before Google, YouTube or Facebook were a thing. Or ASF for that matter.
Media control over information is not a new thing. All that's changed is who runs it.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,099
- Reactions
- 16,885
A few random thoughts in response to Joe's posts and others recently in this thread.
Note that this is just my thoughts really and in no way am I aiming to put myself or anyone else on a pedestal here. Bit hard to express some of it without sounding like that, but that isn't the intent.
Freedom of speech:
Undeniably on private property you have the freedom to do only what the owner allows you do do. Just because the law doesn't ban it doesn't mean the owner can't.
My observation however is that there's a generational difference in that the Baby Boomers and Gen X broadly see any encroachment onto someone else's expression of their views as a drastic step to be used only in extreme circumstances. It's in the same category as making a citizen's arrest or pointing a real loaded gun at someone, it's drastic stuff.
In contrast Gen Y and especially Gen Z seem far more willing to abandon the concept, to the point that some will take the view that by default it doesn't exist unless someone specifically informs them that it does, in which case they take that to be a one-off. There's a definite generational gap there I think.
Bubble:
I commented on another thread about three state bull markets and other technical patterns showing up in all sorts of things unrelated to investing. Pop music is a classic example of that, so is the popularity of many TV shows and even things like home decorating trends.
Now I'll throw the stone and suggest that the same applies to many of these contentious issues. Climate change, race, religion or whatever - plot it on a chart and if you've got all the data you usually do find that three stages ending in a blowoff and collapse of the whole thing.
A collapse in the political movement that is, not a collapse in the underlying issue. We're still trashing the planet and there's still racial discrimination, that a political movement based on it implodes doesn't make the underlying problem go away.
Angry people:
A practical life observation is that those who take themselves too seriously usually pay a huge price for doing so. It wrecks careers, it wrecks marriages, it wrecks friendships and so on. It also causes heart disease and is suspected of causing cancer.
If you can't see the funny side of even the most drastic situation then you'd be wise to lighten up a bit. Seriously. Just because the traffic's gridlocked or the dam really is about run dry doesn't warrant sitting there fuming about it, indeed doing so isn't going to help in the slightest. You're better off doing a rain dance - probably won't make it rain but at least it'll cheer everyone up a bit.
Seriously, well there's a lot to be angry about at the moment indeed I don't know anyone who hasn't lost something with this wretched virus. Money, their job, the ability to travel, recreational activities, whatever. Everyone's lost something but getting angry really isn't going to help anyone there.
The harsh reality is that life does throw some crap and few get through without some major drama along the way. Serious illness, being involved in a serious accident, divorce, witnessing a crime or being a victim of one, being sued, becoming unemployed, going bankrupt either as such in a legal sense or near enough in practice, etc. Very few get by without some sort of major drama - the key is focusing on the best way forward from whatever situation you're in.
Easy for me you say? Well I've been at both ends of the spectrum financially, I've been out of work in the past yes and so on. I've had my share of crap as has just about everyone. I'm not special and neither are most.
If you're living anywhere in Australia, have a roof over your head and are in reasonable health well then things could be worse so focus on the positives. You're better off getting some daily exercise, doing a TAFE course or getting any work you can find no matter what it is than to be sitting around stewing about it. If you can't earn money well then you may as well learn something or get fit - doing something useful sure beats getting angry and going nowhere.
Rules:
Reality is pretty much nobody gets to do what they want in life.
Workers - well you've got someone known as a supervisor, foreman, team leader etc who calls the shots.
If you are the team leader - well you've got a manager to report to.
If you are the manager - you've got senior management to report to.
If you're senior management - you've got shareholders and/or government demanding you perform.
OK, what about sole traders then? Plumbers, electricians and so on? They don't have a boss, right? Yeah but they do have customers who are the real boss, added problem that some of them try to avoid paying.
What about Police then? Can't get much better than that surely, you are the law after all.
Well no actually, you only get to enforce the laws that are made by others, you get no say in them whatsoever, and you have to enforce the ones you don't agree with too. No real choice at all.
What about politicians then? They make the laws after all.
Well no, they don't get to do everything they want either. They've still got to retain the confidence of the party if they're going to be leader of it. They've still got to convince the public to re-elect them every 3 or 4 years and so on. Apart from actual dictators in communist countries, being in government doesn't give you absolute control even if you really are the Prime Minister or President.
What about celebrities then? All that money and fame gives them the ability to do whatever they like surely?
Nope, wrong again.
Pick any long lasting singer or band, anyone who's been around since the 1980's or at least 1990's and is still around today, and they've all got the same problem.
Despite having perhaps a dozen studio albums, the reality is that the general public most associates them with one particular song and there's a few others that everyone knows whilst the other 95% of their music is known only to fans. Usually that song is one of the earlier ones so it'll be 80's or 90's not something recent.
And so in 2019 (or 2020 if not for the pandemic.....) they're still on stage singing something that was the last track recorded for the album back in 1986 that they never liked anyway. Reality though is the record company insisted on releasing it as a single, the public sent it to number 1, and now they're forever stuck with it and simply can't escape it. That they don't personally like it is completely irrelevant - they're singing it live that's a given, no real choice at all there unless they're wanting to kill all future tours and festival bookings.
OK then, so if anything from being a cop to a singer doesn't do it, what about actual Royalty then?
Again not really. Queen's in lockdown too you see, she didn't escape that one. She can't really get out of all those ceremonial things and hand waving and all that either. So cross being a member of the Royal family off the list of ways to avoid doing things you'd rather not do.
So basically nobody gets to do everything they want and we all have to do things we'd rather not be doing. Such is life, no point arguing about it really. Get on with it then......
Business approach:
If the aim is to make a profit then ultimately you're running a business and need a businesslike approach to it.
Share trading is a business.
Plumbers and painters are first and foremost running a business. The actual plumbing or painting is just what they're selling but they're businesspeople.
Same with anything from the legal profession to sex work. Business is business and if the aim is to maximise profit, or even simply survive, then you need to do what works not what you personally like.
Now if you're running a business then in order to do what works you need to be open to all possibilities. Being "rusted on" to one way of doing things, because that's what you've always done, is a sure way to fail since even if it's working now a point will almost certainly come where it's obsolete.
Go back to 1995 and you couldn't be in a much more powerful position than to be the Editor of a major newspaper. Controlling what the public reads is a hugely powerful position. 25 years later and such people still exist but they no longer wield anywhere near as much power indeed the entire business model is slowly but surely failing.
Also in 1995 broadcast TV and renting video tapes were "can't lose" businesses since between them they controlled 99.9%+ of what anyone watched at home, the other 0.1% being tapes bought outright. Well today one business is outright gone and the other one's in serious decline.
Then of course there's fashion and music. Simply looking at the clothes or listening to the music will immediately give you a pretty good idea of its age since all styles and sounds become outdated and usually rather quickly. Those of a certain age will no doubt remember a certain trio of songwriters and producers by the name of Stock, Aitken and Waterman circa 1986-89. Everywhere at one point, famous in their own right, then it all imploded as such things always do when the public's taste changes but those involved fail to move with the times. Their success fell in a heap pretty quickly after their "one style fits all" production line approach to pop music fell out of favour rather dramatically.
No matter how lucrative something is, it ends up obsolete at some point. Those who survive are the ones who not only identify that what they're doing now is coming to an end but they identify what's next and successfully make the transition. Those who fail to do that are doomed with the only question being the pace of decline which depending on the industry can be anything from weeks to decades.
Being rusted onto an ideology or a thought that something is the best way is never a good idea. Even if it actually is the best way now, you need to be ready to abandon it if that changes which sooner or later it most likely will.
As I said, there's no attempt at putting anyone on pedestals here. Just my random thoughts before Joe closes the thread (and noting that I've kept right off the contentious subject as such which is intentional).
Note that this is just my thoughts really and in no way am I aiming to put myself or anyone else on a pedestal here. Bit hard to express some of it without sounding like that, but that isn't the intent.
Freedom of speech:
Undeniably on private property you have the freedom to do only what the owner allows you do do. Just because the law doesn't ban it doesn't mean the owner can't.
My observation however is that there's a generational difference in that the Baby Boomers and Gen X broadly see any encroachment onto someone else's expression of their views as a drastic step to be used only in extreme circumstances. It's in the same category as making a citizen's arrest or pointing a real loaded gun at someone, it's drastic stuff.
In contrast Gen Y and especially Gen Z seem far more willing to abandon the concept, to the point that some will take the view that by default it doesn't exist unless someone specifically informs them that it does, in which case they take that to be a one-off. There's a definite generational gap there I think.
Bubble:
I commented on another thread about three state bull markets and other technical patterns showing up in all sorts of things unrelated to investing. Pop music is a classic example of that, so is the popularity of many TV shows and even things like home decorating trends.
Now I'll throw the stone and suggest that the same applies to many of these contentious issues. Climate change, race, religion or whatever - plot it on a chart and if you've got all the data you usually do find that three stages ending in a blowoff and collapse of the whole thing.
A collapse in the political movement that is, not a collapse in the underlying issue. We're still trashing the planet and there's still racial discrimination, that a political movement based on it implodes doesn't make the underlying problem go away.
Angry people:
A practical life observation is that those who take themselves too seriously usually pay a huge price for doing so. It wrecks careers, it wrecks marriages, it wrecks friendships and so on. It also causes heart disease and is suspected of causing cancer.
If you can't see the funny side of even the most drastic situation then you'd be wise to lighten up a bit. Seriously. Just because the traffic's gridlocked or the dam really is about run dry doesn't warrant sitting there fuming about it, indeed doing so isn't going to help in the slightest. You're better off doing a rain dance - probably won't make it rain but at least it'll cheer everyone up a bit.
Seriously, well there's a lot to be angry about at the moment indeed I don't know anyone who hasn't lost something with this wretched virus. Money, their job, the ability to travel, recreational activities, whatever. Everyone's lost something but getting angry really isn't going to help anyone there.
The harsh reality is that life does throw some crap and few get through without some major drama along the way. Serious illness, being involved in a serious accident, divorce, witnessing a crime or being a victim of one, being sued, becoming unemployed, going bankrupt either as such in a legal sense or near enough in practice, etc. Very few get by without some sort of major drama - the key is focusing on the best way forward from whatever situation you're in.
Easy for me you say? Well I've been at both ends of the spectrum financially, I've been out of work in the past yes and so on. I've had my share of crap as has just about everyone. I'm not special and neither are most.
If you're living anywhere in Australia, have a roof over your head and are in reasonable health well then things could be worse so focus on the positives. You're better off getting some daily exercise, doing a TAFE course or getting any work you can find no matter what it is than to be sitting around stewing about it. If you can't earn money well then you may as well learn something or get fit - doing something useful sure beats getting angry and going nowhere.
Rules:
Reality is pretty much nobody gets to do what they want in life.
Workers - well you've got someone known as a supervisor, foreman, team leader etc who calls the shots.
If you are the team leader - well you've got a manager to report to.
If you are the manager - you've got senior management to report to.
If you're senior management - you've got shareholders and/or government demanding you perform.
OK, what about sole traders then? Plumbers, electricians and so on? They don't have a boss, right? Yeah but they do have customers who are the real boss, added problem that some of them try to avoid paying.
What about Police then? Can't get much better than that surely, you are the law after all.
Well no actually, you only get to enforce the laws that are made by others, you get no say in them whatsoever, and you have to enforce the ones you don't agree with too. No real choice at all.
What about politicians then? They make the laws after all.
Well no, they don't get to do everything they want either. They've still got to retain the confidence of the party if they're going to be leader of it. They've still got to convince the public to re-elect them every 3 or 4 years and so on. Apart from actual dictators in communist countries, being in government doesn't give you absolute control even if you really are the Prime Minister or President.
What about celebrities then? All that money and fame gives them the ability to do whatever they like surely?
Nope, wrong again.
Pick any long lasting singer or band, anyone who's been around since the 1980's or at least 1990's and is still around today, and they've all got the same problem.
Despite having perhaps a dozen studio albums, the reality is that the general public most associates them with one particular song and there's a few others that everyone knows whilst the other 95% of their music is known only to fans. Usually that song is one of the earlier ones so it'll be 80's or 90's not something recent.
And so in 2019 (or 2020 if not for the pandemic.....) they're still on stage singing something that was the last track recorded for the album back in 1986 that they never liked anyway. Reality though is the record company insisted on releasing it as a single, the public sent it to number 1, and now they're forever stuck with it and simply can't escape it. That they don't personally like it is completely irrelevant - they're singing it live that's a given, no real choice at all there unless they're wanting to kill all future tours and festival bookings.
OK then, so if anything from being a cop to a singer doesn't do it, what about actual Royalty then?
Again not really. Queen's in lockdown too you see, she didn't escape that one. She can't really get out of all those ceremonial things and hand waving and all that either. So cross being a member of the Royal family off the list of ways to avoid doing things you'd rather not do.
So basically nobody gets to do everything they want and we all have to do things we'd rather not be doing. Such is life, no point arguing about it really. Get on with it then......
Business approach:
If the aim is to make a profit then ultimately you're running a business and need a businesslike approach to it.
Share trading is a business.
Plumbers and painters are first and foremost running a business. The actual plumbing or painting is just what they're selling but they're businesspeople.
Same with anything from the legal profession to sex work. Business is business and if the aim is to maximise profit, or even simply survive, then you need to do what works not what you personally like.
Now if you're running a business then in order to do what works you need to be open to all possibilities. Being "rusted on" to one way of doing things, because that's what you've always done, is a sure way to fail since even if it's working now a point will almost certainly come where it's obsolete.
Go back to 1995 and you couldn't be in a much more powerful position than to be the Editor of a major newspaper. Controlling what the public reads is a hugely powerful position. 25 years later and such people still exist but they no longer wield anywhere near as much power indeed the entire business model is slowly but surely failing.
Also in 1995 broadcast TV and renting video tapes were "can't lose" businesses since between them they controlled 99.9%+ of what anyone watched at home, the other 0.1% being tapes bought outright. Well today one business is outright gone and the other one's in serious decline.
Then of course there's fashion and music. Simply looking at the clothes or listening to the music will immediately give you a pretty good idea of its age since all styles and sounds become outdated and usually rather quickly. Those of a certain age will no doubt remember a certain trio of songwriters and producers by the name of Stock, Aitken and Waterman circa 1986-89. Everywhere at one point, famous in their own right, then it all imploded as such things always do when the public's taste changes but those involved fail to move with the times. Their success fell in a heap pretty quickly after their "one style fits all" production line approach to pop music fell out of favour rather dramatically.
No matter how lucrative something is, it ends up obsolete at some point. Those who survive are the ones who not only identify that what they're doing now is coming to an end but they identify what's next and successfully make the transition. Those who fail to do that are doomed with the only question being the pace of decline which depending on the industry can be anything from weeks to decades.
Being rusted onto an ideology or a thought that something is the best way is never a good idea. Even if it actually is the best way now, you need to be ready to abandon it if that changes which sooner or later it most likely will.
As I said, there's no attempt at putting anyone on pedestals here. Just my random thoughts before Joe closes the thread (and noting that I've kept right off the contentious subject as such which is intentional).
Last edited:
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,658
- Reactions
- 11,959
Thanks for that Smurf.
I definitely agree about taking things too seriously and mourn the passing of some great satire shows throughout the years like Mavis Bramstone, Max Gillies and so on. Many of the things they said would would be shut down by the PC brigade today, and have been. Just look at Fawlty Towers which was actually satirising the white English upper class but the outrage brigade shut it down because they couldn't see the joke.
I wish some could come along and satirise political correctness but no tv station would show it because its not you know...
So can we profit from all this. Making black armbands and protest banners would be a good start, as would making docos of all the injustices of white middle class society , but the ABC has probably got there first. (satire).
So yes the world has moved on, but we can still ask the question do we like the way things are today, if not why not and how do we change ?. Is the world a better place or a worse place not than say 20 years ago ?. The answer is pretty obvious, better in some ways , worse in others. As always, the way forward is to maximise the positives and minimise the negatives. Sorry if that sounds like management speak but its getting late and I'm not sure if I'm thinking straight.
I definitely agree about taking things too seriously and mourn the passing of some great satire shows throughout the years like Mavis Bramstone, Max Gillies and so on. Many of the things they said would would be shut down by the PC brigade today, and have been. Just look at Fawlty Towers which was actually satirising the white English upper class but the outrage brigade shut it down because they couldn't see the joke.
I wish some could come along and satirise political correctness but no tv station would show it because its not you know...
So can we profit from all this. Making black armbands and protest banners would be a good start, as would making docos of all the injustices of white middle class society , but the ABC has probably got there first.
(satire).So yes the world has moved on, but we can still ask the question do we like the way things are today, if not why not and how do we change ?. Is the world a better place or a worse place not than say 20 years ago ?. The answer is pretty obvious, better in some ways , worse in others. As always, the way forward is to maximise the positives and minimise the negatives. Sorry if that sounds like management speak but its getting late and I'm not sure if I'm thinking straight.
- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 850
Wow – I can’t believe how short sighted the sheep can be.
This will be my final post on this thread (thank god for that they all baaaaa’d)
The freedom of speech is the most important value the West has developed. Whether it is in your home, out on the street, in the Town Square or on a Stock Forum. Any attack or concession on that value is detrimental to the Society that lives under it and ultimately will see its downfall.
(Sorry Joe but if you are making money from the Society then the Society owns you or at least you have an obligation to that Society.)
The downfall is where we are headed now and if we stay quiet about it and keep making concessions then eventually our freedom is gone and apart from other major losses there will be no Forum allowed.
Before you place your next trade read “1984”, by George Orwell (which can easily be found in PDF form).
This will be my final post on this thread (thank god for that they all baaaaa’d)
The freedom of speech is the most important value the West has developed. Whether it is in your home, out on the street, in the Town Square or on a Stock Forum. Any attack or concession on that value is detrimental to the Society that lives under it and ultimately will see its downfall.
(Sorry Joe but if you are making money from the Society then the Society owns you or at least you have an obligation to that Society.)
The downfall is where we are headed now and if we stay quiet about it and keep making concessions then eventually our freedom is gone and apart from other major losses there will be no Forum allowed.
Before you place your next trade read “1984”, by George Orwell (which can easily be found in PDF form).
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE TIME AND TIME AGAIN HERE THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH FREEDOMS.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,581
- Reactions
- 12,707
Who can speak?
What can I say?
What can't I say?
Can one person say something that I cannot?
Can I say something another person cannot?
WHO DECIDES?
Wanna breed extremists? Stop people speaking.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
All nations have LAWS.
If you don't understand how they affect your rights then you might be better off not testing them.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,658
- Reactions
- 11,959
Laws don't take precedence over rights. That's why we have a Court system that can tell politicians to get st*ffed if necessary.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,581
- Reactions
- 12,707
Ohh.... You mean like the recording of (purported) *non crime hate speech", such as happens in the UK?
Or trumped up "disturbing the peace" charges like here?
Pulleeeeze. It's almost all subjective, according to whichever big knob is bringing the coppers.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
Courts uphold the laws - it's their job.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,658
- Reactions
- 11,959
Not always. You have demonstrated your ignorance of the principle of Separation of Powers.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
Your opinion is incorrect, and has nothing to do with the fact that Courts uphold laws.
If you believe otherwise, then show why.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,658
- Reactions
- 11,959
Certainly. I showed you this once before in another thread, and it proves you don't learn from your mistakes.
Courts uphold the Constitution and if laws interfere with that, the Court strikes the law down, thus:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-18/bob-brown-wins-high-court-challenge-to-protest-laws/9060834
Apology ?
Last edited:
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
You keep forgetting that it's still the COURTS upholding the law.
In any case, which "rights" which are unlawful, able to be freely exercised?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,658
- Reactions
- 11,959
Waste of time replying Robbie, I gave you a case where Courts overruled the law but you just can't understand the concept of Separation if Powers so I suggest you do some research on our Constitution.
Similar threads
