Election 2016

[Marty_d]

On that subject, an article in the Australian this morning talks of an audit of Australian universities by the Institute of Public Affairs reckon that 79% of our universities have strong restrictions on free speech.Apparently Murdoch University has a $50 fine for members who use insulting language.

 

UQ list sarcasm as a form of bullying.

 

Pretty poor form for institutions that should embody free speech and open debate.

An audit by the IPA is like a comic book... it may be mildly entertaining but don't mistake it for fact.

 

 

[M61A1]

An audit by the IPA is like a comic book... it may be mildly entertaining but don't mistake it for fact.

An audit by the IPA is like a comic book... it may be mildly entertaining but don't mistake it for fact.

I don't know enough about the IPA to say right or wrong, but the examples that they have quoted, I have heard before, and worse. If there is any truth in it all, it is very concerning.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The Institute of Public Affairs is an extremely right-wing think tank. They're usually the cheerleaders (and pool of candidates) for the Liberal party. It was interesting a few weeks ago because they were very upset with Malcolm Turnbull for his proposal to limit the low/no-tax rorts on high superannuation earnings, which shows who their target demographic is.

 

And yes before you say it, Labor had a crack at that policy too for the retrospective aspect, which I think was a bit stupid of them. But that's the problem with both major parties - when they actually do have a good idea, the other one will jump on one minor aspect of it - even if they agree with the idea on principle - just to provide a point of difference politically.

 

 

[dutchroll]

If you want a comparison, think of this:

 

Audit by the Institute of Public Affairs

 

Audit by the Socialist Alliance

 

Much the same thing in respect of a "balanced viewpoint", but opposite ends of the political spectrum.

 

 

[M61A1]

I get the point, but if the examples quoted are correct, and I have reason to believe they are, how can this be considered supportive of free speech?

 

I have seen/heard quite a bit about the 'dumbing down' of universities. They are supposed to be places where opinions and ideas are debated freely, instead they are becoming places where the students(and teachers) are forced to shut up for fear of reprisal. Essentially being bullied by people claiming to be anti-bullying.

 

On a lighter note....just for Marty, using his very own hallowed ABC's "vote compass", here's where I stand.... (see image)

 

It defies all logic to refer to the Greens as "progressive", regressive would have to be a far more appropriate term.

 

[ATTACH]47908._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[dutchroll]

Sarcasm is actually considered a form of bullying by most employers who have a bullying/harassment policy, which is virtually all of the big ones, Government and private. However it's not all sarcasm. It's sarcasm directed in a particular way.

 

Example (cue sarcastic tone): "What do you mean you're trying? I could get a cabbage to work harder than you! If you reckon you have intelligence, you obviously have no clue what the word means! Hahaha!"

 

In a working environment, that's bullying, not the exercise of free speech. Virtually every major employer would consider it that way.

 

The reports in The Australian where I think you've read about this in the last couple of days are misleading (in my opinion). They seem to imply that all sarcasm is now considered bullying. That's not true. It's just that some sarcasm can be considered a form of bullying. And while The Australian loves nothing better than to take a swipe at Universities like they're the only ones instituting these policies, this is a very common trend in employers across the nation.

 

I have first-hand experience with a verbal bullying claim (not as one of the actual parties involved, but assisting the defendant) which has taken 5 months to resolve. It just got resolved in favour of the defendant, who had no case to answer. It was a malicious and vexatious claim on the part of the accuser, as the evidence now shows, and there's likely to be further action in this respect. However other claims have been genuine and a result of really eye-watering appalling abuse by the accused. So it's a complicated topic. It can't easily be dumbed down to "journalist" level.

 

 

[M61A1]

It's not just the reports in the Australian though, I've been hearing about it in other media for some 12 or so months now. I think it comes down to what I was saying before: someone makes some well intentioned piece of legislation, someone else in an institution somewhere misinterprets (deliberately or not) it and someone else suffers.

 

There's always a lawyer out there trying to set a precedent and make a name for themselves and some dollars.

 

I agree that it's not just universities, but some employers. It's quite hypocritical, their level of intolerance of the 'diversity" they preach.

 

Just wondering (using your example)....what if it's fact and I could actually get a cabbage to work harder?

 

 

[dutchroll]

Yeah well I have seen that example on numerous occasions! But unfortunately you have to ditch the sarcasm and explain that they're being lazy and it's not acceptable, in plain language and in private. Or take the risk of a bullying claim, and believe me, the process of investigating such claims is so tedious and drawn out that it's just easier not to do it.

 

Note that it doesn't prevent you addressing poor work performance. It's just that you have to take a few minutes to think about how you're going to do it. Yeah in the old days it was easier to bawl them out and scream at them (been on the receiving end of that myself when I was younger). But the pendulum has swung to protect those who do genuinely get mercilessly bullied and in the process of doing that there is unfortunately collateral damage in restricting the way you're supposed to address people.

 

Like I said, it does get pretty complicated. There is no easy solution to satisfy everyone.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

On a lighter note....just for Marty, using his very own hallowed ABC's "vote compass", here's where I stand.... (see image)It defies all logic to refer to the Greens as "progressive", regressive would have to be a far more appropriate term.

Imagine living in a country without politicians, no elections, no lame stream media, judges that throw away the key when sentencing, compulsory military service etc, etc

 

 

[M61A1]

Imagine living in a country without politicians, no elections, no lame stream media, judges that throw away the key when sentencing, compulsory military service etc, etc

How about you spell it out for me 'cause I'm not getting what you're getting at.

 

 

[storchy neil]

Here's Assange, an Australian, hiding in the Equadorian embassy in London, in reasonable fear of being tortured in Guantanamo Bay, for revealing trivia that powerful people wanted kept secret, and I'm ashamed of how we fail to protect him and the free speech he exercised.

 

accused rape get to the full story so you left that out neil

 

 

[Bruce]

Yes storchy, that might be true or it might be a fabrication.

 

Very convenient for the people who wanted Assange to be shut down to have him so accused huh?

 

I have the impression that it was not the rape accusation but the extradition to the US that worried him.

 

On the subject of rape in Sweden:

 

Did you know that Sweden is now one of the big rape risk places in the world? Many of the recent refugee immigrants to Sweden are from places where rape is part of their culture, and they have brought their culture with them.

 

But Sweden sees itself as the moral superpower of the world, and they are in denial about this.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

How about you spell it out for me 'cause I'm not getting what you're getting at.

North Korea, Full Communism

 

 

[M61A1]

Yes storchy, that might be true or it might be a fabrication.

Very convenient for the people who wanted Assange to be shut down to have him so accused huh?

 

I have the impression that it was not the rape accusation but the extradition to the US that worried him.

 

On the subject of rape in Sweden:

 

Did you know that Sweden is now one of the big rape risk places in the world? Many of the recent refugee immigrants to Sweden are from places where rape is part of their culture, and they have brought their culture with them.

 

But Sweden sees itself as the moral superpower of the world, and they are in denial about this.

It might also be that Assange knows he crossed some very serious boundaries and doesn't want the consequences.

 

 

[M61A1]

North Korea, Full Communism

Yes, what about it? Is that what you'd like, or are you suggesting that's my ideal?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Think of all the advantages!

 

 

[dutchroll]

On the subject of rape in Sweden:

 

Did you know that Sweden is now one of the big rape risk places in the world? Many of the recent refugee immigrants to Sweden are from places where rape is part of their culture, and they have brought their culture with them.

The Swedish case is not quite as simple as that. Sweden changed its definition of rape over a decade ago and even the smallest reported incident involving the vastly widened definition gets counted in official statistics as a rape, whether there was a conviction or not.

 

Sweden has had the highest reported rape statistics for longer than that though. For twenty years now. Well before the influx of Muslim refugees. In the last 6 years, the number of reported sex crimes is virtually unchanged.

 

Question 1: If, as statistics show, Sweden has consistently had the highest level of reported rape in Europe for long before the Muslim refugee influx in the last few years, how is it that you associate the high rape statistics with something that didn't even start to happen until after these statistics became well established?

 

Question 2: If, as statistics show, the number of sex crimes has not changed in the last 6 years, how do you directly attribute such crime to the recent influx of Muslim refugees?

 

Well the only answer I can think of (quite prepared to listen to those who have a better one), is that as a political group you deliberately distort the picture to make it look as if the Muslim refugee influx is the direct cause, even though it's not actually possible to sensibly conclude that based on the timeline of Swedish rape statistics.

 

However Sweden does have a big refugee problem, mainly because Sweden is very generous in its provision of Government social services like healthcare and other benefits and it simply doesn't have the tax base to be able to afford to let in huge numbers of refugees. It is finding that out to its detriment now.

 

 

[Bruce]

Gosh Dutchroll, there are different statistics out there.

 

One I saw said that rape had increased 1000-fold since the influx of Moslem refugees. Now you have seen statistics which suggest the opposite.

 

I'm confused, but I don't think you are being dishonest.

 

 

[dutchroll]

My statistics are those reported by the BRA, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

 

Though I have read more severe interpretations mostly originating from the Gatestone Institute - an organisation which calls itself "non-partisan" but has rather strange ties to numerous neo-right organisations and individuals. It strangely seems to only have one main topic of conversation - Muslim immigration and "Islamofascism".

 

 

[Marty_d]

On a lighter note....just for Marty, using his very own hallowed ABC's "vote compass", here's where I stand.... (see image)

 

It defies all logic to refer to the Greens as "progressive", regressive would have to be a far more appropriate term.

Not sure of your point. So... you are a little more conservative than the LNP. Yes the Greens are progressive - in case you misunderstood the graph, progressive is the other end of the scale from conservative. Conservative means you want nothing to change in society (or on the extreme of the scale, want things to go backwards to the way they were in whatever decade you consider were "the good old days"). Progressive means you want society to change, generally for the better, because there are inequalities in society that you wish to address.

 

No surprises... here's mine...[ATTACH]47909._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[M61A1]

Not sure of your point. So... you are a little more conservative than the LNP. Yes the Greens are progressive - in case you misunderstood the graph, progressive is the other end of the scale from conservative. Conservative means you want nothing to change in society (or on the extreme of the scale, want things to go backwards to the way they were in whatever decade you consider were "the good old days"). Progressive means you want society to change, generally for the better, because there are inequalities in society that you wish to address.

No surprises... here's mine...[ATTACH=full]43156[/ATTACH]

Might be wrong, but I thought is was you (perhaps in another thread) that suggested that I was extreme right.

 

Yes, I agree, as to your definition of "progressive", which is why I don't think it could possibly be applied to the Greens.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

how can you be on the "right" on economic views and work for a government contractor? Isn't that a contradiction in your beliefs?

 

 

[dutchroll]

how can you be on the "right" on economic views and work for a government contractor? Isn't that a contradiction in your beliefs?

You are surprised by contradictions in political beliefs and ideology?

 

I observe these at work every day. Mostly they involve slagging off at unions and unionism, followed by complaining the company has moved their days off so they're going to get the union onto them (which almost all our pilots are members of). It's quite bizarre to listen to.

 

 

[Marty_d]

What surprises me is the support for the right by working-class folks who have bought into the "trickle-down" theory of economics. You know, give companies tax cuts and they'll employ more people, and while those at the top may get massively more, the wealth will trickle down to those below.

 

Any glance at the growing economic divide will show that this has not worked, that the majority of the wealth goes to the top 1% and damn little of it goes to the broad base of the pyramid.

 

 

[Bruce]

I agree, Marty, but there is a serious problem of how people are priced out of contributing by the high minimum wage, high unemployment benefits and a highly regulated work environment.

 

In a town I know well, there are 300 young people vegetating on Newstart while many old people struggle to operate their farms or businesses. You need more profit than most of these old people can make to afford an employee .

 

You and I can think of ways around this, but notice how it's not really an election issue? I reckon it should be a big one.