Angry? Confused? Feel like a second-class citizen?

HappyCynic says:

08:40am | 06/09/11

The only people who wail and whine and whinge about political correctness are the ones who lack the language skills to make an intelligent point of any sort without resorting to petty insults and bigotted language.  These are also known as the uneducated.

You don’t have to be politically correct in your life, any fool with half a brain, a functioning limbic system (that’s the part of the brain that regulates emotion) and a high school education should know that all it takes to get your opinion across uncensored is a little tact and a decent command of your spoken language of choice.

Sadly everyone’s too busy feeling victimised to bother and so the entire discussion descends into petty insults and cries of victimisation.  Case in point, Erick, who it seems without fail somehow makes himself the victim of everything, whinges and whines about it and fails to realise if he wants something to change in his life he has to do it himself.

andye says:

09:27am | 06/09/11

@Nick

“Leftists support immigration and all this wonderful diversity, which drains billions and billions from our country’s coffers and gives us exactly zero return. “
Let me know how you plan to pay all the boomer pensions without immigration.

“Our net IQ becomes lower”
I suggest you could remedy that by leaving the country.

“and we give them a bunch of free shit like houses.”
oh really? Migrants automatically get free houses? AMAZING.

Erick says:

09:50am | 06/09/11

@HappyCynic - “the ones who lack the language skills to make an intelligent point of any sort without resorting to petty insults and bigotted language.  These are also known as the uneducated.”

So that would explain why all your comments consist entirely of petty insults and bigoted language.

Perhaps you should try to improve your education, so that one day you might be able to argue the point, instead of just tossing out petty insults.

RyaN says:

10:24am | 06/09/11

Well said Nick, I am sick to the back teeth of these lefty types that haven’t the life experience, knowledge nor intelligence to actively engage in an argument from a knowledgeable standpoint but instead insist or regurgitating their vomit worthy leftists dinner conversations as utopian fact.
In Africa we used to get a lot of leftist do-gooders arriving and the difference between them and those who they regularly derided as was less than two weeks in reality. You won’t be so leftist when you see a farmer and his wife murdered and his nine week old baby wrapped in newspaper and set on fire while still alive. Censor away!

Geoff - Brisbane says:

10:38am | 06/09/11

@ HappyCynic -

I fail to see how blackboard, black sheep, manhole cover, white board and policewoman / policeman are petty insults or bigoted language.

Chris_D says:

11:35am | 06/09/11

@HappyCynic, “The only people who wail and whine and whinge about political correctness are the ones who lack the language skills to make an intelligent point of any sort without resorting to petty insults and bigotted language.  These are also known as the uneducated.”

Nice trolling.

I’ve always said the problem with the PC brigade is that they have the need to appear more intellectual than they really are. Why else do they feel the need to create faux-offence with normal, everyday words and then replace them with “non-offensive” alternatives?

HappyCynic says:

11:39am | 06/09/11

@Erick

Really?  I point out that you whine a lot and victimise yourself, those aren’t insults just astute and accurate observations of your behaviour.  Care to point out my bigotted language?  I seem to be missing the section where I slagged off an entire group of people unless pointing out a lack of education is bigotry these days, in which case I suggest you find a dictionary and read it.

@Geoff

I’m not supporting PC language, merely pointing out that English is a lot more fluid than this dichotomous stance people seem to take of supporting PC and not supporting PC.  All sides are uneducated if that’s the limit of their language skills.

St. Michael says:

12:00pm | 06/09/11

“African countries for Africans,”

Not really.  White people have been exploiting the natural resources and food sources in Africa for generations.  Still going on now.

“Asian countries for Asians,”

Go to the beach in Bali, Vietnam, or Thailand.  Tell me if it’s Asian countries for Asians judging on the population you see there.  Or pick up a conversation regarding people’s holidays in the Far East.  Hint: you can find one by listening out for “Everything is dirt cheap over there”.

“White countries for everybody!!!!”

Norway? Sweden? Denmark? Germany, 1939 (ooh, topical)

Markus says:

12:15pm | 06/09/11

“I’m criticising a specific group of people who are championing intolerance.”
That’s exactly it - you aren’t actually speaking out against intolerance, just against the intolerance exhibited by one specific group.

Jade (the other one) says:

12:34pm | 06/09/11

@Nick, many, many Scandinavian countries have exceptionally strict citizenship and immigration laws aimed specifically at keeping the population “pure”. France recently expelled the Romany gypsies, some of whom had been there for generations, to get them out of the country. They also have various language institutes aimed at keeping the language “pure”. Very much white countries for the whites I should think. The main reason you don’t see people immigrating to most African countries is the same reason that people are fleeing them as refugees - noone particularly wants to live in a war-torn wasteland where you are being persecuted. Similarly with a number of Asian countries - white people don’t want to live in poverty in countries like Thailand, Vietnam, or Indonesia. As for countries like Malaysia, Korea, Japan etc, there are large numbers of white people who have emigrated there. Many others don’t want the higher cost of living, or restriction of rights that accompanies migration to those countries.

Australians in general don’t want to leave this country because it has such a high standard of living. However, for various supportable, and insupportable reasons, we jealously guard that standard of living against the incursion of those that we perceive as “undesirable” or who, for various sensible and insensible reasons, we perceive as threatening the continuation of that standard of living.

I personally don’t like the English, New Zealander, and European visa-overstayers and migrant workers. To my mind, there is no reason for them to come here, and take jobs off Australians. There are plenty of Australians fully capable of working the jobs most of them work, and no reason for them to be here. I also find the attitude of many Irish to our titular Head of State (the Queen) appalling.

To suggest that because Tory is singling out one obviously extremist website and referring to any part of the population which holds one or more of these viewpoints is to be rather reactionary and defensive to be honest. Its akin to shrieking about the bigotry directed at say, the Uniting Church, because someone criticises the teachings of the Westboro Baptist Church. Its patently ridiculous.

Zac says:

12:47pm | 06/09/11

Tory,

censorship, please feel free to email me any examples you’re concerned about and I’ll let you know why they were not allowed – shepherdt@thepunch.com.au>>

Good to see some transperancy (democracy) from you on this. I have had some passionate verbal fights - if that is intolerance so be it -  with you on this. Lefties have huge issues with freedom of speech - try them to publish some comments they don’t like on lefty websites - I think it’s basically because lefties only believe in secularism (that should read Marxism, Atheism etc - will of the ideologists) not democracy.

Well, Tory you could lump everything as intolerance but what you are seeing today is a deliberate effort from large part of Australians who would passionately want to defeat anti-western Canberraistan mentality. Even I am part of it and don’t apologise for it.

Have a look at labor today, ofcourse it is about incompetent leaders but largely it is about Marxist policies.

Rick says:

01:03pm | 06/09/11

A negitive movement , a pointless triade that does nothing but engender hate and fails on all fronts to be constructve…....are you talking about the NLP?

n_dude says:

01:25pm | 06/09/11

In which case it should be changed to “Intolerance Is Our Downfall” (IIOD). Doees that mean both sides are equally bad?

n_dude says:

01:28pm | 06/09/11

Who said Australia is a “white” country. Does that mean the aboriginals never belonged here even though they were here well before any “white” folk?

Bruno says:

01:37pm | 06/09/11

For the sake of our country I hope all ends amicably. Not only would you be fighting against the destiny of humanity, but there is no way the west, and the US in particular would allow your victory. They would end up indiscrimately carpet bombing the lot of ya’s. And they would send white pilots to do it.

The hypocritcal thing about your side is that you don’t mind immigration as long they work in our brothels.

RickyB says:

02:41pm | 06/09/11

Nick, take a bow sir.You summed it up beautifully.Well done!

Yetanothertom says:

06:36pm | 06/09/11

@ Nick, I (a white man - if you insist on define folk by the colour of their skin) live in an Asian country. There are heaps of us here from all over. In two years I have felt nothing except welcomed by the local people. I have encountered no racism, no hard feelings, no protesters in the streets wanting me and my kind out. Just warmth and friendship.  When I don’t understand local customs or protocols, folks just laugh and make allowances because they know that my culture is different. Sometimes we like to think of Australia as a tolerant country, but it seems we still have some way to go.

fml says:

10:19am | 06/09/11

Its to make up for the lack of social skills in our society, no society that is 100% PC will work, also no society with no concern for what comes out of the mouths of the loudest will work either.

All deserve to be able to say what is on their mind, and all deserve not to be discriminated against, the problem is we are not smart enough to find the middle ground.

Tina says:

11:22am | 06/09/11

That is probably true. I would even say that we are not really designed to be PC. Same reason why communism is a nice idea but doesnt work: We are designed to be selfish and territorial. And that is nothing bad necessarily. Its survival. Someone who is not a big fan of immigration does not equal a bad person. He just has natural concerns. We all do.

Rick says:

01:13pm | 06/09/11

Tina communisum doesn’t work?  ..........ummm China is now the worlds superpower.

Tina says:

01:39pm | 06/09/11

But is it a happy superpower Rick?

fml says:

01:50pm | 06/09/11

Rick,

Apparently any functioning versions of communism are not “real” communist states.

Max Redlands says:

03:35pm | 06/09/11

@ Rick China is no longer a “communist state”. Ever since the lease on Hong Kong ran out China has slowly been infiltarted by a capitalist ethic (not however a democratic one).

Present day China is better defined as an oligarchy.

Yetanothertom says:

06:17pm | 06/09/11

@ Tina: Agreed, I’m living in a functioning Communist state - but I got to say that on the ground Vietnam is about as communist as Julia Gillard is popular. It is pretty much every man for himself here, no wealfare net, hardly any free education, most infrastructure privately developed etc. The only bit left is that there is only one party.

However I don’t agree that we are not designed to be PC. We have evolved as social creatures and much like gorillas picking the fleas off each other, we are most successful in an evolutionary sense when we all get along and work for the common good. Manners evolved to help social cohesion and PCness is simply a formal extension of manners. Sometimes I reckon folks just like to bash PCness because they can’t justify their argument using sound defensible arguments.

Erick says:

07:22pm | 06/09/11

@Rick & fml - You don’t have any idea of what communism is, do you?

Hint: The successful economic systems of present-day China and Vietnam are capitalist in nature.

Google “communism” to learn more.

Demoman says:

07:46pm | 06/09/11

@Rick

Did you also know North Korea was democratic and for the people?

adrian says:

08:52am | 06/09/11

hear hear !!

fml says:

10:23am | 06/09/11

When alot of people dont understand the concept of inference, then yes, people will think that innocuous comments are being left out. When people claim to take things literally when they are using common underlying contexts, then comments will be left out. The number of times ive read comments with deliberate hidden contexts, then get yelled out for pointing out the context in which they were said, it makes me think whether people have a solid grasp of exactly what they are saying.

Chris_D says:

12:16pm | 06/09/11

@fml, “The number of times ive read comments with deliberate hidden contexts, then get yelled out for pointing out the context in which they were said”

Maybe sometimes people aren’t actually hiding messages, and that is why they don’t like you telling them what you think they aren’t actually thinking…..

fml says:

12:38pm | 06/09/11

Chris_D

Maybe sometimes people are hiding context in messages and just dont want to admit to it. Or they write something, get called on it, and realise it wasnt what they meant. Either way people have to accept if they put forward a comment a discussion on its meaning, alleged or otherwise will be brought up.

There are common writing techniques which exemplify my point, for example, singularly pointing out one group and backing up their statements with points that can be used for any group. No one is stopping people from making general statements about behavior, commenting on behavior irrespective of group, is great and quite often insightful, attributing that behavior to a singular group when the logic can easily be attributed to others can be seen to have underlying context. No one is stopping people from writing what they want, i think they should be aware of the intended/unintended contexts of what they have written, Irrespective of the view they give.

Tim says:

12:48pm | 06/09/11

haha,
fml who spots racism in fried chicken ads complaining about hidden contexts and underlying messages in comments.
Take off the tin foil hat son and realise that perhaps it’s all in your head.

Zac says:

12:54pm | 06/09/11

Keep up the Transperancy (democracy) Tory.  If you keep it for long, may be then I’ll start to believe your faith in democracy. Sadly we don’t find it in North Korea or China.

fml says:

01:13pm | 06/09/11

Tim,

About 300 million Americans.

Who tries to rationalise it by incorrectly saying its not our history, When Minstrel shows toured Australia.

John Smythe says:

01:28pm | 06/09/11

lolz…fml the thought police!

fml I highly recommend you stay AWAY from Michael Sandel stuff, because it would just give you one huge mind f*ck.

Tory, perhaps a very appropriately timed article. Like Ian below, my first thought was the Punch (comments section!)

fml says:

01:42pm | 06/09/11

No John,

Just understand there are concepts in the english language such as inference and tacitly inferring context, which are a part of the language.

Tina says:

07:14am | 06/09/11

It certainly does seem to lack honesty in some cases. I wonder how many people really think and feel PC and how many of us just repeat stuff because it is expected.

Timmy says:

08:12am | 06/09/11

Tina, not just like parrots, I often wonder how many people express PC ideals for fear of being labelled and associated bigotry ....

Tina says:

09:39am | 06/09/11

Hi Timmy

I sometimes do it myself! If I cant be bothered entering a debate I cant win anyway because of PC bashing, then I just dont say anything or nod along. Somehow there is no way to have a positive discussion when some people start being overly PC.

Anyone ever experienced that it is impossible to have a decent innovative conversation with PC people?

fml says:

10:27am | 06/09/11

Claiming that the word racist doesnt exist any more is such a tactic, Even when a person is being racist you cant say it. Whats the point in having language then?

Then the worst is, if you call someone racist, then you are being racist, that is the most absurd logic that has popped up recently. And its only because some people actually make racist claims and hide it behind nationalistic patriotism. Obviously not all people do it, there are of course valid claims on both sides.

Markus says:

10:39am | 06/09/11

“Anyone ever experienced that it is impossible to have a decent innovative conversation with PC people?”

Anyone who has steppted foot in a university has experienced this. The funny part is that they tend to actually be more zealous, bigoted and ignorant than the rednecks and bible bashers they regularly ridicule for being zealous, bigoted and ignorant.

Chris_D says:

11:46am | 06/09/11

Quite simply, the problem is, that the thinking these days is that if you are not with them, you are against them, whoever “them” is.  there is no room for debate, because people just like to throw labels around as soon as they fail to make a reasonable point.

You don’t like someone and they are a Muslim?  Racist!  (Yes, I know Muslim is not a race, don’t tell me, tell “them”!)
You believe women don’t deserve special treatment?  Sexist! 
You believe women do deserve special treatment?  Sexist!
You’re not gay?  Homophobe!
You have an opinion different to mine?  Bigot!

Ad infinitum….

Chris_D says:

11:57am | 06/09/11

@fml, “Then the worst is, if you call someone racist, then you are being racist, that is the most absurd logic that has popped up recently.”

Hmm, probably not as bad as those who seem to think Islam and Musilms are a race.

Tina says:

12:18pm | 06/09/11

So true Chris_D. It is so pointless to have a discussion with “them”. All you can do is let them be, every argument you bring will just make them more upset and turned to support their cause.

fml says:

12:45pm | 06/09/11

Chris_D,

Obivously they are not races, but racism can be applied not only to race but group affiliation.

The UN defines racial discrimination as,
“the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”

The main line being, “any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”, This is exactly my point, people are trying to syntactically trying to change the definition of racism based on symantics, Muslims are not a race, no but they are a cultural group with a belief system.  By using that logic you are nullifying all forms of racial discrimination against australians or anybody who affiliates themselves with any country.

Tim says:

01:12pm | 06/09/11

fml,
can you point me to the part of that definition that mentions religion?
ta thanks.

fml says:

01:39pm | 06/09/11

Tim,

Obviously i cannot put the entire treaty on, but article 2 states
““Article 2. We recognize that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance occur on the grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin and that victims can suffer multiple or aggravated forms of discrimination based on other related grounds such as sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, social origin, property, birth or other status;”“

Thanks for listening.

Markus says:

01:53pm | 06/09/11

@fml, the excerpt you have provided actually has no mention of discrimination/exclusion based on personal values or belief systems.

So while it would be considered discrimination to exclude someone based on them originally being from a particular country, the classification of racial discrimination would not extend to covering exclusion based on any set of values they currently possess and practice.
And given that beliefs and values are a conscious choice by the individual, I do not see why it should.

Chris_D says:

02:02pm | 06/09/11

@fml, “This is exactly my point, people are trying to syntactically trying to change the definition of racism based on symantics”

I think you need to remember most people who have an opinion aren’t thinking about having it sanctioned against the UN treaty, but just have an opinion.  Like I said before, relax a bit and don’t read so much into it.

fml says:

02:22pm | 06/09/11

Markus,

Read article 2.

Chris_D, I am all for people having an opinion i also believe that people have a right to respond, which may include the use of the word racist. The initial post was that racial discrimination by definition does not include religion, which it actually does.

I mean this definition has been around since the 60’s, what gets my goat is that people that post are trying to change the definition of racism to suit their own agenda. I say post, thats your democratic right, but also be aware its someone elses democratic right to judge your opinion and label as such, and redefining words to suit an argument isnt a valid response as justification for an opinion. The opinion is justification enough for either side to be heard.

gra gra says:

02:38pm | 06/09/11

One thing I can’t stand is the intolerance of some people.

Markus says:

04:30pm | 06/09/11

@fml, despite your quotes appearing to just be from some conference as opposed to the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), all Article 2 says is that of the people who do encounter racial discrimination, some may also encounter other forms of discrimination (as a result of aforementioned racial discrimination).

It is not saying that those other forms of discrimination are also classified as racial discrimination.

Chris_D says:

04:31pm | 06/09/11

@gra gra, I’m sorry, but I make no apologies for being that way.

centurion48 says:

08:35am | 06/09/11

@iansand: Exactly what I was thinking. The success of Punch is inextricably linked to ‘intolerance’ and anti-PC.

Mark says:

09:08am | 06/09/11

Exactly. Led daily by the poster boy. I guess you can’t blame the sooks for feeling sorry for themselves. Nobody else is going to.

iansand says:

08:24am | 06/09/11

As opposed to people who repeat the little phrases that Alan Jones and Liberal Central Control (assuming they are different) feed their acolytes?

iansand says:

08:24am | 06/09/11

As opposed to people who repeat the little phrases that Alan Jones and Liberal Central Control (assuming they are different) feed their acolytes?

Chris_D says:

11:54am | 06/09/11

@Joan, agreed. 

For those who would argue, think about the modern office with “manager speak”, and those who want to pretend to have the “gift” will walk around “keeping everything above board”, looking for a “win-win” while “moving forward” and “keeping everyone in the loop”.

Chris L says:

02:37pm | 06/09/11

If only Joan had mentioned something about backstabbing or elephants the post would have been even funnier!

You’re correct about the PC brigade, Joan, and how overboard our society has become about using “correct” terminology regardless of the intention behind it. I just wanted to have a bit of a dig over the regular slogans we hear from the conservative side as well. Sometimes the things I hear repeated ad nasuem even directly contradict official sources.

Erick says:

09:12am | 06/09/11

@Economist - I understand diversity perfectly well. It’s simply your own intellectual arrogance that assumes I’m coming from a point of ignorance.

Maybe if you spent less time pontificating about what you think others are thinking, and more time actually listening to what they say, you would have a better understanding.

Markus says:

10:28am | 06/09/11

Yep, anyone who has a different view to you must just be ignorant, and require re-educating…

“By conforming to being a little more PC your boss is less likely to judge you as a dick.”
Or just more likely to judge you as a spineless Yes-man…

fml says:

10:31am | 06/09/11

Erick, The people who claim that the others dont understand their argument, or that they are not listening, usually say so from a firmly fixed position, and are usually the ones not listening to the other side of the argument.

Just because i disagree with you, doesnt mean i dont understand your point. Its just that i disagree with you.

Erick says:

10:47am | 06/09/11

@fml - You’re being a bit oversensitive. I didn’t say you don’t understand my position. I said that Economist, in claiming that I don’t understand “diversity”, demonstrably fails to understand my position.

Perhaps you should direct your criticism at Economist, since the appeal to failure of understanding is his.

Kassandra says:

12:17pm | 06/09/11

The problem with PC is the implication that there exists a correct way of thinking, a correct attitude, which allows those who adopt it to feel morally superior to those who don’t look at things the same way. It is itself narrow-minded and bigoted.

My first encounter with this was when my younger sister once criticised me for using the term “mankind” which she opined was self-evidently sexist, whereas to my way of thinking this idiotic notion was merely due to ignorance about the meaning of terms in English derived from Latin. As a result of this sort of nonsense we see all kinds of ridiculous outcomes - such as the person conducting the meeting I’m just about to attend calling himself a chair.

Economist says:

12:48pm | 06/09/11

No Erick, I’d still claim you don’t understand diversity and put yourself in the position of others i.e. Understand what they believe and why they believe it. That was the point, perhaps poorly expressed, in that where I referred to being a little more PC, should be substituted for, as @iansands put it, “good manners, politeness and a respect for the feelings of others are virtues that should be encouraged”

You endorsed Marley’s comment, the comment of the blog so far I’d argue, but personally you’ve failed to take on board some of her suggestions i.e. “to actually learn what the facts of a situation are.  And we need to accept that, having understood the facts, two people may still legitimately come to different conclusions about a particular issue.”.

You’re regularly light on facts and when presented with evidence on where your beliefs are mistaken, you ignore them. You have the belief your not listened to (I’d argue you’re regularly read), when what you really seem after is not only validation but the expectation that you are right, that your views reflect the silent majority and that they should be enacted upon.  @Fml has nailed when people disagree with your assessments such as “More likely we will face societal collapse, and our civilisation will be supplanted by a Chinese/Asian one” and this pearl of wisdom, “people who happen to be white, male, heterosexual, Christian, or otherwise a target for hatred”. Where’s your evidence?

@Kassandra, of course the example presented is PC gone mad and there are a myriad of other examples. But to claim a criticism of hatred and intolerance towards minority’s is PC is wrong. Not all points of view are equally valid.  Max Redland quotes Voltaire, but doesn’t seem to grasp that defending your right to say it doesn’t translate as tolerating it when it’s clearly nonsensical.

Economist says:

12:56pm | 06/09/11

Really @Markus, so you’d happily go into your bosses office and state something, like “I can’t work with that gook out there they because the can’t communicate well”, or “I’m going to miss ..... because she has a great arse”. Both these comments have been made by staff I’ve worked with. It’s not spineless but tactless and unnecessary and the views and concerns could been expressed better, rather than “with language that best articulates our thoughts”.

Max Redlands says:

01:29pm | 06/09/11

@ Economist “Max Redland quotes Voltaire, but doesn’t seem to grasp that defending your right to say it doesn’t translate as tolerating it when it’s clearly nonsensical. “

I disagree. It does translate to it. If you are going to defend some-one’s right to put a view (no matter how nonsensical or even abhorrent) you must tolertate it. If you don’t you are suggesting the view should be censored.

As I say you are free to disagree and even dissuade. But to deny the speaker the right to say it is intolerant.

e.g. I will tolerate your phrase “but doesn’t seem to grasp” even ‘tho I find it rather condescending at best and an affectation of intellectual superiority at worst.

Tolerate is not a synonym for “agree with”. It’s prime defintion is more like “to put up with” or “endure”.

Economist says:

01:51pm | 06/09/11

@Max, yes you are right. ‘agree with it” is better than “tolerating it. Thanks for the correction.

Erick says:

05:30pm | 06/09/11

@Economist - No, you are the ignorant one.

Dave says:

07:42pm | 06/09/11

This is what I like:

“Erick says:09:12am | 06/09/11

@Economist - I understand diversity perfectly well. It’s simply your own intellectual arrogance that assumes I’m coming from a point of ignorance.

Maybe if you spent less time pontificating about what you think others are thinking, and more time actually listening to what they say, you would have a better understanding.”

That there is a classic PC comment. It fits all the criteria - you cant say something about me because I wont like it. In this case we cant call Erick ignorant because he wont like that. So he responds with the classic : youre arrogant”. Which is usually switched for something like “youre an elitist”. Which is what some people repeat like a mantra and as an insult in order to annoy the “arrogant” person enough that they’ll shut up, give up, and go away.

And there you have it. Erick engaging in his own little version of PC behaviour. And thats how the world turns, just one pointless point after another in a big, endlessly repeating loop. Why? Because people like Eric arent clever enough - or dont care enough - to work out that they actually do exactly what they complain about in others. In other words, they are lacking in self-awareness and not very inciteful. That will probably get me a label of “elitist” or arrogant but so what. Im robust enough to take it and theres a big differencebetween pointing out that others cant think in a logical manner and simply labelling others “elitist” or “arrogant”. The former is a valid point, the latter is just a whingy whiny debating tactic. So Im happy to wear that sort of crap until dummies like Erick get the message that people like me arent arrogant, we are just smarter than you. Because lets face it, someone has to be - unless you people are saying youre the smartest guys in this particular room. Which of course might be very arrogant if thats actually what you are saying.

Anna C says:

09:30am | 06/09/11

That’s right acotrel. So anyone who doesn’t agree with you and Tory must somehow be a gun totting red-neck.

Tina says:

08:31am | 06/09/11

Wonderfully said Matt. I couldnt agree more. Thank you.

Anna C says:

09:27am | 06/09/11

Being intolerant of other people’s intolerance is a bit of a Catch 22 isn’t it?

James1 says:

11:27am | 06/09/11

It is one thing to not tolerate a person on the basis that they have a different accent or because their skin looks different.

It is another thing entirely to not put up with rude, racist pricks.

One is innate, and as such is not a reason to be intolerant of someone, while the other is something a person chooses, and surely we can discriminate against people on the basis of the choices they make?  Indeed, we do this every day.

Chris_D says:

12:04pm | 06/09/11

@James1

Who gets to make this determination and at what point?

Chris_D says:

12:11pm | 06/09/11

@Tory, “Tolerance of other cultures, ways of life, ways of thinking, of other genders, sexual orientations, etc. = good.
Tolerance of racist bigots = bad.”

So choosing who we are intolerant too, based on our own personal opinion is ok?

First you have to choose who you are going to hate (in your case racist bigots), then you have to label them to make sure you are hating the right people.  What if they are a racist bigot who is gay friendly?  Tough choice there!  Benefit of the doubt?  Or just flip a coin?

And what about “Tolerance of other cultures, ways of life, ways of thinking” even if they believe homosexuality is a crime punishable by death? 

Help guide us Tory, with your black and white guide to finding the safe path through the racist/bigot minefield.

James1 says:

12:22pm | 06/09/11

Chris: me, and at 3.30 this afternoon.

Seriously though, our lawmakers decide this, and indeed have been doing so for a long time.  They do so incrementally, building on past practice.  Its called Westminster democracy, and while it may not be perfect, its been proven to be the best system yet devised. 

I also think it is pretty easy to distinguish between innate things and choices.  Racism is a choice, race is innate, to choose a simple example.  In the interests of discussion though, I would like to know if you have any grey area examples.

Erick says:

12:32pm | 06/09/11

Unfortunately, Tory, all you’ve accomplished is to write an article that’s just as offensive and bigoted as the website it criticises.

Tim says:

12:38pm | 06/09/11

Ah, Of course it all makes sense now.
Because I don’t want to be tolerant of people with different views than my own all I have to do is deem them to be racist, sexist, whateverist and then I can be rude or just ignore their views because we don’t have to be tolerant of people like that do we?

Yes I like this idea.

Mahhrat says:

01:07pm | 06/09/11

@James1, the behaviours around addiction, for one.

Let’s take a sadly not hypothetical example: A boy growing up in a rural setting is sexually abused by his father and his father’s neighbour, while his mother knows of it but takes not action.

This lad is a polydrug user and alcoholic at 16.

As a second example, let’s take the average 19 year old at a bush doof, taking much the same substances but for recreation.  He is able to stop taking those drugs once the party finishes.

Now, if you apply the logic of “tolerance”, both examples “chose” to commence taking drugs.  Let’s take it a step further:  person A, due to his comorbidities, attempts suicide.  Example B gets a bad tablet and poisons himself, nearly dying in the process.

I would suggest that the first fellow deserves any and all support society can provide him.  I would suggest the second fellow is an inconsiderate wastrel who should damn well know better.

Are we to be equally intolerant of both, since they were “choices”?

James1 says:

01:31pm | 06/09/11

Nice grey area example Mahrat.  The only thing I would use to respond is to say there there are degrees of intolerance.  It need not be an absolute thing.  Both have made choices, both sets of choices impact on society in different ways.  Thus, different responses are required.

Chris_D says:

01:54pm | 06/09/11

@James1, “In the interests of discussion though, I would like to know if you have any grey area examples.”  Sure, I’m glad you asked. 

let’s keep it simple and light hearted.

If I don’t like to work with someone because they smell, and they smell because of what they eat, and they eat what they eat because they are a certain race, does that make me racist?  I don’t like to work with a fellow Caucasian who smells either, but if I tell him he stinks, no one calls me racist.

For the record, this is just an example.

A nother and less subtle example might be, you have been the victim of crimes by a certain race.  As a result, you don’t trust that race.  Are you racist?  If a woman has a fear of men due to sexual assualt, for example, no one calls her sexist.

And as I asked Tory, if we are too scared to dislike a race/religion for fear of being labelled bigots, but that race/religion performs acts/rites/laws that are against our personal beliefs, are we being bigoted for voicing opposition to it or are we showing tolerance by letting them force their oppression on others?

James1 says:

02:41pm | 06/09/11

Chris,

Thanks for the good natured discussion - I had you pegged as a reasonable man in my mind, based on previous interactions.

The third example is pretty clear cut.  When a person’s cultural or other choices break Australian laws, there is no reason to be tolerant.  When these cultural choices do not break Australian laws, we may certainly criticise it, but we must by the very nature of our democratic society tolerate it.  People may call us bigots for it, as is their right, but the principle at play here is clear.  No grey area there that I can see.  To relate this to an example, I am not a big fan of how Kosher and Halal butchers slaughter animals - it seems cruel to me.  However, neither method breaks Australian law, and as such I will criticise these methods at the same time as I tolerate their existence.  Happy to hear why you disagree with my assessment though.

For the eating example, a person’s food choices are not racially conditioned, and I don’t see why you have attributed it to that (feel free to convince me though).  They are conditioned by the choices of individuals, in that every individual chooses what they eat, and how they smell.  In your hypothetical example, if you were to calmly tell the person that they smell bad and that this might be linked to their choice in food and/or deoderant and bathing habits, that would be bad manners, but not intolerant.  If you called them a racial name, and said they smell bad because they are Indian or Greek or whatever else, that would be both bad manners and intolerant.  Still no grey in my mind. 

For the second example, they would be unjustified in thinking such things, but they would be thinking them because of mental illness rather than because they are bigots.  Sure, be intolerant of the choices of people that lead them to commit crimes (like drug addiction, unemployment etc), but one cannot reasonably blame the crimes of one individual on an entire race or gender.  That is intolerant and illogical, and speaks more of a mental illness than some choice to be intolerant.  That example is more grey than the others, but only because PTSD and associated mental illness has been brought into it.  Can we really blame the mentally ill for their intolerance?

Chris_D says:

04:28pm | 06/09/11

@James1, thanks for the respect, right back at ya.

The food analogy was meant to demonstrate that it is easy for someone to have the same thinking about 2 different types of people, but one could be seen as a racist comment.  Maybe not a good analogy. 

Change food for attire.  If I’m at the footy, I hate having a bloody turban wearer sitting in front of me.  Spoils my view.  Same for the knob in a cowboy hat.  If I tell the turban wearer to remove his turban, I am racist/bigotted/whatever.  If I tell the other bloke, I am doing us all a favour.  Any better?  I’ll give up now. 

James1 says:

04:44pm | 06/09/11

Don’t get me wrong Chris - I’m sure in many people’s minds you would have been committing a PC offense in those situations.  I was only outlining how I think about choice and tolerance - I’d be surprised if many people share my opinions on these matters, honestly.  In relation to the last example and the food example, I’m am sure that lots of people would leap down your throat for saying such things to an Indian and would say nothing were it a white cowboy.  As such, you have clearly identified the sharp end of the PC stick - that is the part of the PC program we need to do away with as fast as we can.

Zac says:

05:58pm | 06/09/11

At one end is total moral relativism; everything is OK. Which is bullshit.

At the other end is totalitarianism; nothing except what I say is OK. Which is bullshit.>>

Good, can you now be specific and demonstrate the fact that you are not both. It is easy to take the escape route by making general statements. I have read many blog of yours and I am not so sure. So to you and others from the Canberraistan establish the righties are racists, xenophobes, homophobes and anything else you imagine. Now Who are the people who fit the label “totalitarians” and “moral relativists”? When will you write an article on them?

Peter says:

09:30am | 06/09/11

Two thirds?  I’d say more like 90%.  Far worse then it was say a year ago.  And I think Tory and crew have noticed the trend to, and may be trying get some balance back in the dialogue.  If that is the case, good luck Tory.

NSW says:

11:12am | 06/09/11

Ill say. My favourite was yesterday when someone called the ‘boat people’ - “arrogant” branding anyone who thought otherwise a “lefite” - a favourite of these morons to call people as of late.  I’m pretty sure the comment was taken down. Give it another twelve months and they’ll be burning crosses in front of detention centres!

Markus says:

11:16am | 06/09/11

“And I think Tory and crew have noticed the trend to, and may be trying get some balance back in the dialogue.”

They’re the ones driving the trend.
There are only so many articles one can put up with about the same topic, using the same flawed arguments each time (the gender pay gap, for example) before they just start calling out the writers on it.

If they honestly think the solution to a perceived imbalance is to add some articles ridiculing people with a differing view, I wish them all the best of luck. They’ll need it.

Tim says:

12:45pm | 06/09/11

Have a look at the comments sections of most threads.
If you have a set view point then it’s easy to simply pull out the most extreme comments like NSW has done and defeat their arguments.
I notice that most of the reasonable comments get very little replies because they can’t be so simply dismissed.
Don’t want to have to challenge your own views now do we NSW?

Chris_D says:

02:27pm | 06/09/11

it’d be a pretty boring website if we all agreed to disagree! 

LOL, it’d be sub-titled, “Australia’s Most Polite Subjugation”.

TS Sebastien says:

09:55am | 06/09/11

Nice one marley!!
It comes down to having the respect in your political opponent to treat them as a fellow citizen in this great democracy of ours.
The political skill of building consensus and respecting the concerns of your fellow citizens seems to have been lost in a cycle of escalating contempt between both sides of the “chasm”.

Erick says:

09:59am | 06/09/11

Congratulations on a well-thought-out and even-handed comment, marley.

At this point I can only hope that the social split becomes so uncomfortable that some of society’s leaders are forced to take it seriously. I’m not particularly optimistic about that.

More likely we will face societal collapse, and our civilisation will be supplanted by a Chinese/Asian one. Oh well, we had a good run.

Max Redlands says:

10:24am | 06/09/11

@ marley.

“We may not agree with someone who reaches an informed conclusion different to our own, but we should respect his right to do so.”

Well said but I would go one step further in that we should respect people’s right to have views even if they are not informed.

We are free to reject these views and even to attempt to dissuade the holder of them but not to deny their existence or their right to be aired.

For me PC is anathema to a free society. Proponents of it recognize the connection between thought and speech and attempt to change thought by dictating language. I hesitate to resort to the cliche “Orwellian” but am inexorably driven to it. As Tory notes it can produce a lot of frustration. However, it can and does work which is why I try to avoid it (PC language) as much as possible. It is group-think for society in general. It discourages us from using language that best articulates our thoughts and pushes us to mealy mouthed expressions the result of which our true thoughts are covered in a fog of words designed to conform to the arbitrary view of what is “correct”. It’s dangerous.

For the second time in a week I appeal to the wisdom of Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say but would defend to the death your right to say it.”

That’s tolerance and it cuts both ways.

fml says:

10:41am | 06/09/11

Marley,

“If someone has qualms about some aspects of Muslim society that doesn’t make them racist;” I agree, and that is fine, everybody has the right to express themselves if they feel they have concern, conversely everybody has a right to return comment. The problem is people do not understand that they are not judged because they have an opinion, instead they are judged on that opinion.

Let me ask you, if you have an opinion on a particular religious group, and you voice it, should there be no judgement on the opinion at all? Should that opinion be impervious to labels even (albeit figured subjectively) when seen as lefty, righty, racist or what have you?
If comments should not be labelled and addressed as concerns despite content, then labels returned, such as bigot, racist and such are perfectly acceptable and this debate is irrelevant.

fml says:

12:55pm | 06/09/11

Max,

Voltaire also quoted “It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?”

Now how are we to solve the obvious contradiction, of allowing free speech and equality for all men, when ones speech (who you defend to the death) calls for the obvious discrimination and intolerance towards a particular group?

fml says:

12:55pm | 06/09/11

Max,

Voltaire also quoted “It does not require great art, or magnificently trained eloquence, to prove that Christians should tolerate each other. I, however, am going further: I say that we should regard all men as our brothers. What? The Turk my brother? The Chinaman my brother? The Jew? The Siam? Yes, without doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?”

Now how are we to solve the obvious contradiction, of allowing free speech and equality for all men, when ones speech (who you defend to the death) calls for the obvious discrimination and intolerance towards a particular group?

P. Hanson says:

01:11pm | 06/09/11

Neat paraphrase, Eric, but what I actually said was, “I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians.”

Max Redlands says:

01:40pm | 06/09/11

@ fml “Now how are we to solve the obvious contradiction, of allowing free speech and equality for all men, when ones speech (who you defend to the death) calls for the obvious discrimination and intolerance towards a particular group?”

I would say it is more a paradox and life is full of them.

How do we solve it? I don’t pretend to have all the answers, however, if we are going to have a society based on freedom (in particular freedom of speech) we should err to the side of liberty not censorship. It then becomes a battle of ideas not a question of who has the right to be heard and who doesn’t. How’s that for a start?

It

fml says:

02:03pm | 06/09/11

Max,

Fair effort. I understand the right to freedom of speech, and im sure i have argued with about this before. We have freedom of speech in this country but it does not extend to allow for inciting of hatred and vilification of any form.

Freedom of speech is great in theory, but it doesnt take into account human nature, like many in this forum, what happens when two people continually throw insults at each other? Now if all people were trusted enough not to resort to violence and just keep to throwing insults, then it would be perfect, but we do not contain enough restraint. Thats where the law comes in, it tries to curb our violent human instincts to hurt, Now i agree this does not apply to the majority of normal decent people, but imagine the animals that would use this purposefully to denigrate and degrade individuals, now imagine those individuals hurling insults back, how long till it all comes to blows? it would be anarchy and we are supposed to be a civilised society.

Max Redlands says:

03:02pm | 06/09/11

@ fml - well the freedom is not absolute. there are already legal sanctions against defamatory speech, you can’t incite people to violence nor yell “fire!” in a crowded cinema when there isn’t one.

As for the villification laws this is the sort of thing that concerns me as there is a finpoimt where these laws could be used to shut down people expressing certain views (ultimately this would be a matter for the Courts c.f. the Bolt case).

As for people hurling insults at one another to the point of coming to blows this can come down to what iansand has said; there is no need for rudness. However, I for one wouldn’t want good manners to be a matter for legislation and there are already laws against assault.

John Smythe says:

03:03pm | 06/09/11

The tangents you go off on fml…

posted it before, but here is your perfect society…as long as you stay in city walls.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402022/   

As much as I like Equilibrium, I am tolerant of your reliance on rotten tomato for movie reviews.

fml says:

03:34pm | 06/09/11

Max,

Yep, there are laws against assault, my thinking is these laws against rude manners, are not specifically against good manners, but rather to prevent an avalanche of civil law suits.

John,

I am not advocating total removal of thought rather than creating awareness that freedom of speech is a double edged sword.

BTW, rotten tomatoes is quality.

Chris L says:

05:46pm | 06/09/11

@FML - not if they’re giving Equilibrium such a bad rating! You’re treading on my dreams!

iansand says:

10:33am | 06/09/11

On the other hand, good manners, politeness and a respect for the feelings of others are virtues that should be encouraged.

Erick says:

10:51am | 06/09/11

@iansand - “On the other hand, good manners, politeness and a respect for the feelings of others are virtues that should be encouraged. “

Indeed. And that is why Political Correctness should be discarded.

PC encourages bad manners, impoliteness, and disrespect for the feelings of people who happen to be white, male, heterosexual, Christian, or otherwise a target for hatred.

iansand says:

11:14am | 06/09/11

Erick - You mean the scared weird little guys?

Erick says:

11:55am | 06/09/11

@iansand - “You mean the scared weird little guys? “

See, there’s a perfect example of bad manners, impoliteness, and disrespect for the feelings of people who happen to be white, male, heterosexual, Christian, or otherwise a target for hatred.

Thanks for illustrating my point so perfectly. Political correctness has always been a lie - it’s all about hatred based on race, gender and belief.

iansand says:

12:10pm | 06/09/11

Wow Erick.  You should get out more.  Maybe meet some people.

James1 says:

12:25pm | 06/09/11

So are you saying that those things should stop, Erick, or that they should be allowed alongside pronouncements that all Muslims are bad and must not be allowed into Australia, or that black people have lower IQs?

Are you saying that the concept of PC should be expanded to include criticism of white male Christians, or that it should be abandoned in relation to all groups in modern society?

Zac says:

12:26pm | 06/09/11

iansand says:11:14am | 06/09/11

“Erick - You mean the scared weird little guys?”

A great example of how PCism work’s. I crush it when ever I get a chance and one of the ways I work to defeat it is by sending my kids to Christian school. We (my wife - not partner - and I) have instructed their school that our kids shouldn’t be programmed with ideologies - yes to objective learning but not ideology-  like climate change or multi-culturism. By the end of their schooling we want our kids to learn (other than academic learning) and believe- in healthy nationalism, respect for western culture, all the cultures are not the same (including the negative aspect of culture) not all religion are the same, the effects of Communism, Atheism and all the other “ism’s” on society, you don’t have to apologise for being white, racism is not a one way street, you don’t have to hug trees and hate humans, democracy and secularism are not the same, what the Greenies, warmenists, PETA’s and feminists are up to etc.

JohnT says:

01:17pm | 06/09/11

Erick - sorry - I do not agree.  If people had much better manners, there would be no need for PC in any form - that perpetuated by the left or the right - because, you see, it is not the exclusive province of the left.

At the heart of PC is the desire to not offend.  Sure, this goes too far where people are so afraid of offending they do something in the belief it will stop a cultural group from being offended when the latter couldn’t care less.

Going further though it appears that you have some issues.  But simply because you perceive that being male, heterosexual etc makes you a target for hatred (which is a long bow to draw and I think you are being a bit precious) is no excuse for you to lash out and seek to cause offence yourself.  As my Granny said:  “do as you would be done by”, and “two wrongs do not make a right”.

iansand says:

01:42pm | 06/09/11

Oh boy.  Talk about scared weird little guys.  That was special.

By the way, calling people nutters on the basis of empirical evidence is not political correctness.

Chris_D says:

02:18pm | 06/09/11

@John T,” At the heart of PC is the desire to not offend.”  I believe at the heart of PC is the desire to stifle debate.

Basically, it doesn’t change peoples thinking, only what they are prepared to say/share out loud/publicly.  This is not healthy.

Erick says:

07:32pm | 06/09/11

@John T - “At the heart of PC is the desire to not offend.”

Nonsense. Just look at iansand’s offensive comments in this thread.

At the heart of PC is the desire to offend people who happen to be white, male, straight, Christian, conservative, and so on and on and on ....

PC isn’t against discrimination. PC *is* discrimination.

iansand says:

09:21pm | 06/09/11

Erick - I’m not being politically correct.  I am being bluntly honest.  I think you (and Zac) are nutters.  Always have.  I thought you would be applauding my frankness.

If I was being politically correct I would be calling you differently rational.  I’m sorry, but you are just another scared weird little guy.

Erick says:

06:24am | 07/09/11

@James1 - I support freedom of speech. All forms of expression that don’t directly incite violence should be allowed.

In this thread, I’m specifically criticising the hypocrisy of the PC double standard, as ably demonstrated by iansand. However, that is only one of the flaws of PC, and not its worst one.

The censorship of dissenting views that is promoted by political correctness is frankly totalitarian in nature, and has no place in a democratic society.

Mitchell Meek says:

11:46am | 06/09/11

A backlash is expected-and just like frothing-at-the-mouth-far-rightists are quick to jump on any opinion different from their own, so to is Tori. So she should, and so the rightists should too.

The difference is that it’s a difficult pill to swallow when the whingers come from a demographic which is almost universally the most educated, the wealthiest and the (for lack of a better word) free-est.

The website does nothing to helps its cause through its use of hyperbole, either. Encouraging believers in man-made climate change to “walk to your energy provider and arrange to have your electricity cut off… [and] not phone them, send an email, drive there, or even get a bus, train or ferry…” is absurd, and offers nothing constructive to the debate. Neither does asserting that protesters “...have not helped to create the Australia that most of us have worked hard for. In many instances they are students who have never worked and paid taxes or have mortgages to pay; they are lawyers and a few journalists with self-interest; they are welfare recipients who have not any intention of ever working…” is also blindly ignorant and offensive.

To all sides of any political debate - extremism on either side of the fence accomplishes nothing but pushing oppositions further away. Compromise, discourse and identification of common goals are the most effective way of moving forward. If we don’t work towards this end, we may end up with a government blindly chasing votes and an opposition doing nothing but disagreeing… oh wait…

The Boss says:

01:48pm | 06/09/11

that’s from a stand up routine. either you or your neighbours are plagiarists

fml says:

01:18pm | 06/09/11

Your Joking me!

That bloke shoulda known how to take a joke!

Outrageous.

Mark says:

01:17pm | 06/09/11

Good point, gonzo. Those with the appropriate level of intellect will never be able to find them.

RickyB says:

03:28pm | 06/09/11

Agree 100% Gonzo.

gonzo says:

02:57pm | 07/09/11

oh Mark, so naive… I can hear the drumroll.

bemused says:

01:41pm | 06/09/11

The Internet has been around for a while now, this aint new ....  I think the only difference is

that last time we had this much onesidedness it was the Left slaying John Howard for

everything he said and did (2006,2007).  Nothing was good enough, he needed more

compassion, what about the environment, etc This was due to 10 years of having the

same Government without anything real to fear from a Country perspective.  Labor managed to achieve the same

reception but in one term; looks like people only wanted to care about these

ideologies to pat themselves on the back. I suspected as much anyway, as most the

people back then doing the protesting and making the noise were wanna be activist Uni

students with little more ambition than to be part of a movement - whatever that movement may be.

James1 says:

01:54pm | 06/09/11

Alternatively, why not just continue to practice our culture alongside people who practice difference cultures, assuming all these cultures conform to Australian law?

Could you explain to me exactly why you have changed your culture?  My family still practices our Irish culture (although I personally have let the Catholic bit lapse), how has yours changed?

fml says:

02:07pm | 06/09/11

Who are these people asking you to change your culture?

Zac says:

02:35pm | 06/09/11

Sandy,

Can’t agree more. Have a look at the following article. If we are not careful, dire consequences await us…..

“Mass immigration kills Aussie culture, says demographer Bob Birrell

TRADITIONS based on heritage, sporting culture and common language are threatened by mass immigration, a leading demographer has warned.

Monash University population expert Dr Bob Birrell has said the huge influx of people with few or no English skills had created social problems in Melbourne suburbs such as Dandenong, Sunshine and Broadmeadows and most major cities were feeling the population strain, the Herald Sun reported.

“This is not a pretty picture,” he said.  “Social divisions are becoming more obvious and geographically concentrated and certain areas are being overlain by an ethnic identification.”

Dr Birrell made the explosive comments in an article for Policy, a magazine published by the Centre for Independent Studies, a right-wing think tank.

In a plea to the Rudd Government to slash the current immigrant intake of 180,000 a year, Dr Birrell warned that the predicted population of 35 million by 2050 would be a disaster for urban living and the environment.

“One would have to wander deaf, dumb and blind through Australian capital cities to not notice how urban congestion has already reduced the quality of life,” he said.

The intake dominated by people from non-English speaking backgrounds was transforming Australia, Dr Birrell said.  (Click to see the Immigration department’s statistics on migration and where migrants have come from.)

“We are losing core elements of what was once shared. Almost all could once aspire to a house and land ... and sharing a common language, sporting culture and heritage,” he said.

But mass migration was creating ethnic enclaves in suburbs with cheap housing, and planning rules were forcing Australian-born “losers” and non-English speaking background”

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/mass-migration-kills-aussie-culture-says-demographer-bob-birrell/story-e6frfkvr-1225844560248#ixzz1X8xOIz6U

Anna C says:

03:27pm | 06/09/11

Sandy VIncent and Zac, I totally agree with you.

Fml, you asked Sandy Vincent “who are these people asking you to change your culture?” Take a look in the mirror Fml because it is you and your left wing, PC, Sharia Law loving,Muslim apologist crowd who are doing this. You guys want to turn Australia into the same dump that much of Europe has become with unfettered immigration.  You want us to bend over backwards to appease people who do not share the same values, religion or culture as the rest of us and have no intention of making a positive contribution to our society.

fml says:

03:41pm | 06/09/11

Hang on Zac,

Mass immigration has reduced the quality of life??
“We are losing core elements of what was once shared. Almost all could once aspire to a house and land”
I assume housing prices are too high?

Then you go on to say, “But mass migration was creating ethnic enclaves in suburbs with cheap housing,”

So some how Mass immigration is creating unaffordable housing for australians and cheap housing for ethnics? As opposed for a variety of housing options for everyone.

“Dr Birrell made the explosive comments in an article for Policy, a magazine published by the Centre for Independent Studies, a right-wing think tank” Well that explains the contradiction. Carry on.

James1 says:

03:49pm | 06/09/11

Except that, Zac, in an open society, the existence of one thing does not mean that other things cease exist.  Thus, while people may speak languages other than English, this does not mean that English is no longer our official language.  All Prof Birrell does there is say that new things have been added to Australia and its culture, not that old things are not there any more.  Furthermore, the only way your culture and heritage will change is if you let it.  It will not be changed by the existence of Australians with a different culture and heritage to you, again, unless you let it.

James1 says:

03:58pm | 06/09/11

“You want us to bend over backwards to appease people who do not share the same values, religion or culture”

So we should not accommodate people with different views, religions and cultures?  How exactly would that be different from the push towards making everything politically correct?  I submit to you that this is a recipe for a different type of political correctness.  I further submit that you don’t care about opposing PC at all - you just want to impose your own form of it on the rest of us, and are no better than the lefties you so despise.

I am still waiting for an example of a cultural practice you have had to give up, Anna.  Do you have any?

gra gra says:

09:13pm | 06/09/11

And what words would you use to describe ‘our’ culture? Please answer this Sandy as I’d really like to know. Mind you if you don’t have a bloody clue then I’ll understand. When you started your little post did you mean to say that you were “thik”?

Sandy Vincent says:

01:40pm | 07/09/11

I beleive the values of our culture are fairness, honesty, down to earth attitude, no hangups, no pretenses or foibles, teamwork, abhorrence towards violence towards children and women, freedom of speech, emancipation, universal suffrage and having a good sense of humour. If a culture doesn’t beleive in any of those things then why on earth should we accomodate them? I see no reason why I have to justify my views on this.

Tim says:

03:54pm | 06/09/11

Get lost you racist bigot,
take your ideas back to the stone age where they belong.

RyaN says:

04:25pm | 06/09/11

@Dave: wow such a long post and you managed to say absolutely nothing.

gra gra says:

09:36pm | 06/09/11

@Tim. Did they have racists and bigots in the Stone Age? What did they do? Belittle people who were a different color/race/religion than themselves? I didn’t know that. Gosh I’m learning a lot reading these informed comments.
I do know from my deep and meaningful research that they worshipped rock idols, (made of stone), that looked a bit human. Some people still do. Kiss fans, Midnight Oil freaks, you know the ones. Oh and yes! Also catholics. They worship images of stone even though they were told not to by the Big fella.
All up though, I’ve never minded the old cave-dweller. Kept to himself, never forced his childish opinions on others, but they did have one small bad habit. The first bloke to shout loudly in the morning thought he had the right to dictate what the rest should do even though he was invariably wrong. Shouting before his brain had properly woken up.
Hey! I know a bloke like that.