1 hour ago, 1964_2 said:

Given your attitude, I would say there is a massive chance she is cheating on you.

watch her closely! 
 

I think you're right. She has been a bit secretive lately.

1 hour ago, Webber said:

More labelling. 

Blame Obama. He called out Progressives & Wokes for their smugness. You can check it out on You Tube.

20 minutes ago, deanox said:

I disagree with this. It's the paradox of tolerance.

If we want to live in a tolerant society, then we absolutely cannot tolerate the intolerate.

This thread is an example of people not tolerating the intolerant. Demonlanders are standing up to say "I want to be anti-racist, and that means holding people to account when their actions enable racism in society, even if their actions aren't actively racist." 

I'm proud of this community.

 

I'm a bit unclear about what you want.  

Surely in a free society people can make comments that others may find offensive.

In a debate about religion, abortion, euthanasia or politics people are bound to say things that offend others.  If you don't allow this then surely we would be like China or North Korea.

2 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

What a trap. You're in it even if you're not in it - the Melbourne Football Club could be a true haven of decency but no Indigenous player could be sure.

 

I had a discussion with a multi-racial friend about this once. She comments on racial issues regularly on her Instagram page and is occasionally mobbed by 'Greek philosopher' and 'anime character' avatars, and accused of being an angry Black woman who is ungrateful to the country she lives in (among other dog whistles and other more blatant stuff).

She has expressed doubts to me about the sincerity of certain 'friends' in that when she is brigaded, many of her non Black 'allies' go missing. There is always a feeling that when the crunch comes, a lot of their protestations are performative. 

And that she has been made to feel this way is absolutely heartbreaking to me. And this is a real impediment in creating the types of inclusiveness and mutual trust we need to help counter this cancer.

As such, we need to diversify the spaces we live in, listen to the lived experiences of others, identify racism (blatant or inadvertent) and comments that enable it, and call up (not call out) those of good intentions who may not be aware of prejudice they are expressing.

As said earlier, flat out bigots can piddle off.

Edited August 11, 20213 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

1 hour ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

I’d add, and this is just my take, for partisan positioning.

Prior to Bob Hawke, the main political fault lines existed along the lines of economics. Multiculturalism, opposition to apartheid, and a non discriminatory migration policy were the consensus. How fast we proceeded towards monetarism was the sticking point (Fraser himself, while introducing the Razor Gang cuts, was never a free marketer at heart).

When the ALP was elected in ‘83 and introduced the wages accord, floated the dollar and scrapped central wage fixing, it was about the same time that the ‘Economic Dries’ were starting to assert themselves in the coalition against a backdrop of ascendant neoliberalism in the UK, USA and New Zealand. That being said, they had to wait until Howard rolled Peacock until they took over.

With Australia now having a bipartisan economic policy, the space for policy difference was negligible. Despite Harold Holt being the de facto dismantler of White Australia, the ALP being a fervent believer in it up until the days of Whitlam and Don Dunstan, and the dominant and formidable presence of the firmly anti racist Malcolm Fraser (a part of me really hopes that in an alternative reality that Trump made his ranting phone call to him or Keating about the refugee swap), there had always been a nativist and ethnocentric side to some conservative voters that could be mined. This stretches back to the New Guard in NSW, the League of Rights and the electoral success of Joh Bjelke Petersen.

Sadly, the issue they split from the national consensus involved discrimination, migration and multiculturalism. And that’s why for me race being political isn’t an issue, it is it being partisan that is. (I get the feeling we are roughly on the same page anyway, it’s just some definitions where we diverge).

P.S. I realize this deviated a bit from the main topic so if @iv'a worn smithwants to discuss this further, we should take it to DMs.

The history of racism is an important part of the education process.

If trying to empathise with someone who has been racially vilified, it is important to imagine ourselves in the situation of discrimination and understand what has been endured. This process obviously makes it easier to understand why behaviour such as Tex’ is so painful to so many, and why as a community we need to get better to prevent un-necessary pain and trauma. 

It is great that there are signs of improvement, but I must admit, I do get frustrated when I hear someone say “well at least it’s better than the 60’s or 70’s”  We need to lift our standards and work towards a near future of zero tolerance. 
 

 

4 hours ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

Why is it that when good people call out racism for what is it is - a blight on our society - people bereft of reasonable debate, use epithets such as "leftists"?  The use of such tags is just lazy and neglects to address the core of endemic racism.

This is not about politics, rather it  is about simply doing what is right.  The number of times I have heard people say; 'I'm not racist, but.....'.  The 'but' shows that such 'emperors' certainly have no clothes.

I remember being at the 'G back in the 90's.  The Cockatoo-Collins boys were playing for us then.  2 female MFC supporters made comments about how they were like the rest of "them" and go 'walkabout'.  I was livid and let them know in no uncertain terms. It would seem not much has improved since then.

As the old saying goes; the standard you walk by, is the standard you accept.  This issue has nothing to do with 'politics', but is has everything to do with doing what is intrinsically the right thing to do.

 

 

It's pretty telling when just treating people decently and with respect is seen as being a value of the "left".

15 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

I'm a bit unclear about what you want.  

Surely in a free society people can make comments that others may find offensive.

In a debate about religion, abortion, euthanasia or politics people are bound to say things that offend others.  If you don't allow this then surely we would be like China or North Korea.

If you think those conversations can't happen with someone being offended, it seems possible that you think you should be able to hold views that are intolerant or offensive or discriminatory against some people.

There is no reason a debate about those topics should offend anyone.

For example, if your position about religion is "my religion says same sex couples can't get married so I choose not to", then no one is offended.

If your position is "my religion says same sex couples can't get married so I think the law should prevent that" then you are intolerant of others.

And as such "the paradox of tolerance" still stands: in a free and tolerant society, we can be tolerant of everything, except for those views which are intolerant, because if we tolerate them in society they will cause society to become more intolerant.

 

 

With your constant politicking, response to comments about Trump, references to supposed communist countries etc. you really seem to confuse "left vs right" with "authoritarian vs anarchism/libertarianism". Clearing up that left does not equal authoritarian might help you understand the positions of other people more easily. 

How has there still not been a comment from WCE about this? Unbelievable 

43 minutes ago, deanox said:

If you think those conversations can't happen with someone being offended, it seems possible that you think you should be able to hold views that are intolerant or offensive or discriminatory against some people.

There is no reason a debate about those topics should offend anyone.

For example, if your position about religion is "my religion says same sex couples can't get married so I choose not to", then no one is offended.

If your position is "my religion says same sex couples can't get married so I think the law should prevent that" then you are intolerant of others.

And as such "the paradox of tolerance" still stands: in a free and tolerant society, we can be tolerant of everything, except for those views which are intolerant, because if we tolerate them in society they will cause society to become more intolerant.

 

 

With your constant politicking, response to comments about Trump, references to supposed communist countries etc. you really seem to confuse "left vs right" with "authoritarian vs anarchism/libertarianism". Clearing up that left does not equal authoritarian might help you understand the positions of other people more easily. 

I've not mentioned Trump & extremes of the left and right are mirror images.

I think your views on tolerance & free speech are naive. Take Christians or muslims quietly telling gays that their holy book says they are an abomination & will burn in hell. Surely most gays would find that highly offensive.

I find anti abortionists holding signs outside health clinics highly offensive. 

Some people have thick skins others are highly sensitive. I maintain that in vigorous open debate someone will be offended but to censor such debate is not acceptable in our society.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Demonstone said:

Sad but true.

A bunch of losers...fittingly Collingwood is also behind on the scoreboard.

 

Racist abusers to be banned from all Premier League grounds

 

3 hours ago, Demonstone said:

Sad but true.

Stop the pies. Go the mosques

5 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

I've not mentioned Trump & extremes of the left and right are mirror images.

I think your views on tolerance & free speech are naive. Take Christians or muslims quietly telling gays that their holy book says they are an abomination & will burn in hell. Surely most gays would find that highly offensive.

I find anti abortionists holding signs outside health clinics highly offensive. 

Some people have thick skins others are highly sensitive. I maintain that in vigorous open debate someone will be offended but to censor such debate is not acceptable in our society.

 

 

 

And herein lies the challenge of Eddie, Koz and mates getting the peace and respect they deserve. 

knowone is trying to prevent open debate - RACISM is very different to open debate / free speech, and simply can’t be tolerated - unfortunately it is too engrained in many, and they won’t be able to be rehabilitated via education. 

Definitely employ a private investigator. The Mrs will have an end date of putting up with your lack of empathy, if she hasn’t already. 
 

https://www.afl.com.au/video/662998/yokayi-footy-racism-begins-behind-closed-doors-look-in-the-mirror-?videoId=662998&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1628661600001

 

This is my point of view on this issue.

This is beautifully put, except for thinking racism only occurs against minorities. That's obviously incorrect.

Otherwise, top notch.

Edited August 11, 20213 yr by faultydet

1 hour ago, Cranky Franky said:

Blame Obama. He called out Progressives & Wokes for their smugness. You can check it out on You Tube.

And why would that alter my opinion on your use of labelling as an identity pejorative? 

1 hour ago, deanox said:

Clearing up that left does not equal authoritarian might help you understand the positions of other people more easily.

That would be the leopard having to change its spots, deanox. 

34 minutes ago, deeTRACted said:

How has there still not been a comment from WCE about this? Unbelievable 

i don't know many details. what was the wce connection?

6 minutes ago, faultydet said:

This is beautifully put, except for thinking racism only occurs against minorities. That's obviously incorrect.

I really don't think you have an understanding of racism in power structures. I don't mean that as a crack at you, but when you're going with 'it happens to everyone' or similar; you're missing the point of why so much is being put into racism against 'minorities'.

 

3 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Jesus Goffy talk about pessimism. 

I'm happily married but I've found out the neighbour's wife was unfaithful so now I have to spy on my wife because there's a chance she'll be unfaithful as well.

 

In a way, that's exactly what I mean. The way racism just keeps rearing up again and again in big or small, obvious or underhanded ways is making Aboriginal people pessimistic. It would make anyone pessimistic in the same circumstance. For every Aboriginal person in Australia it is just that much harder to believe that if you make the effort you'll get the reward.

That's a deep cut.

You could watch Eddie Betts interview on Fox Footy as if it was a short film titled "Typically upbeat man struggles to keep pessimism away."

4 minute video - Link: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-taylor-walker-racism-eddie-betts-video-adelaide-crows-suspension-future/news-story/2df3d11d766ebe3c89b4508a0549c412

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

I really don't think you have an understanding of racism in power structures. I don't mean that as a crack at you, but when you're going with 'it happens to everyone' or similar; you're missing the point of why so much is being put into racism against 'minorities'.

 

Tell that to the South Africans.

1 minute ago, faultydet said:

Tell that to the South Africans.

I'm not interested in your childish trolling arguments, but you've said more than you realize by using this specific example.

 

2 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Tell that to the South Africans.

 

Just now, Lord Nev said:

I'm not interested in your childish trolling arguments, but you've said more than you realize by using this specific example.

 

I'm going to guess that Faulty is referring to the fact that a large majority black population was oppressed and discriminated against by a white minority.

1 minute ago, Little Goffy said:

 

I'm going to guess that Faulty is referring to the fact that a large majority black population was oppressed and discriminated against by a white minority.

Precisely.

I get his Power Structure argument and agree with it. It simply wasn't the point I was making.

9 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

I really don't think you have an understanding of racism in power structures. I don't mean that as a crack at you, but when you're going with 'it happens to everyone' or similar; you're missing the point of why so much is being put into racism against 'minorities'.

Great point Lord Nev. I’m a white Anglo male, none more identifiably privileged as part of a powerful majority. The only ‘racism’ I’ve ever encountered, and I use the word with a certain irony, was in my first week living in London in the 90’s and going into a ‘corner shop’ in the heart of Brixton (where I ultimately ended up living for 5 years). To say I was given the cold shoulder by its Caribbean proprietors - no eye contact, no direct address, and very frosty (there were maybe 6 people in the shop) is an understatement. It was very awkwardly apparent I wasn’t welcome. The odd thing was that my immediate reaction, beyond discomfort, was not to be offended, just chastened. It was the only experience I’ve had of being in minority and made to feel bad about it. And of course I could immediately leave, resume my place in the privileged majority, and nor was I threatened, in danger or belittled, not even a whiff of the offenses that real minorities are consistently subject to. The idea that ‘racism doesn’t just happen to minorities’ and that the majority (who have all the power) can feel or claim any understanding is not them just missing the point, as you say, it’s deliberately obfuscating from the real problem in order to justify their active bigotry. 

19 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

oppressed and discriminated against

And murdered, consistently and systematically.