Dissolute, but harmless Canberra, Australia
19 followers 11 following 243 posts
view profile on Bluesky
A lot of Stuff That Is Wrong is (perhaps) caused by "people who are more than 1.6 metres in height, in positions of power". If so the relevant property is surely "being in a position of power". Their being white, or being above 1.6 metres tall, is an irrelevant, along-for-the-ride distraction
Oh come off it. You and I both know that when historical figures are gratuitously referred to as "white guys" it's intended with a sneer. (If anyone refers to, say, the classical Viennese composers as "white guys", contempt is clearly intended. The implicature comes from irrelevance)
I'm a little puzzled as to what you're saying. Is it: "Education about history is a good thing—on balance still good even if delivered with a (regrettable) racist jibe"; or are you saying the racist jibe is ITSELF something you're in favour of (and the history lesson would be poorer without it)?
What, more still? The gender lobby subject her every word and deed to more uncharitable "scrutiny" than any sane person would be capable of.
As can be seen in the response, with its reference to "a bunch of white guys" (a not-so-subtle signal to fellow woke people that whatever it is you're referring to is thereby discredited)
What kind of bizarre mindset must one have to consider this a "point of pride"? That's like me being proud that my country has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world. It's not necessarily something to be ashamed of, exactly; but it's surely nothing to celebrate
I don't think anyone is really convinced by this terrible argument, but you and others are acting AS IF you are. Just as I don't think anyone forms their opinions directly from Hamas sources; but it's AS IF they do
And the justification for considering Leak "a nasty racist prick" and "a complete shit" strikes me as ridiculously contrived. It goes like this: 1. Leak is saying something false 2. Therefore he's lying 3. Therefore he's so evil, that any insult is justified
In retrospect I see what you were getting at, yes. And my response: Blaming the anti-Israel hysteria DIRECTLY on Hamas propaganda is not a viable theory, I agree. But blaming Israel is even more ludicrous. The fad began immediately after 7 October, before Israel had time to do or not do anything.
You got to admire her chutzpah. Trash your place of work; and then, when you're fired, protest: "But I did that on my day off!" (I'm not making it up, this was actually her defence: "I hung the flag in my free time, off-duty, as a private citizen")
Whatever it is that makes woke people copy each other so mindlessly, I don't think it's a central bureau (Hamas or anyone else) broadcasting information, or anyone consciously trying to manipulate opinion. The mass psychosis of the anti-Israel brigade is probably... just that
Incidentally, I agree. Yes, the great and good act AS IF they believed Hamas propaganda (parroting nonsense about "genocide", "Zionists" and so on); but I don't think as direct a causal route as the cartoon posits (or perhaps doesn't really posit: Leak may also be saying "It's as if..."
I don't find any of it hard to understand now you've finally made it explicit. I DID find it hard to guess what exactly you were trying to assert before you actually put it into words, because—and it's embarrassing I have to remind you of this a second time—I cannot directly read your mind
Obviously I can parse sentences like "It's a lie". But what exactly "it" refers to was unclear. Indeed, it still is. You expand by saying "the premise of the cartoon"... but what exactly do you think "the premise" is? When communicating, you need to remember: I cannot read your mind
Taxing greed is an Orwellian idea. Taxing income, cigarettes, capital gains, carbon emissions, sales... anything along these lines is at least potentially reasonable. Taxing a certain kind of desire, taxing psychological impropriety, is deeply wrong
I presume you mean "prescribed" not "proscribed"... regardless, I doubt reality matches your fantasy. I don't think the editor of The Australian orders a court cartoonist into his office and outlines the point of view he wants him to illustrate. Do you have any evidence it happens like this?
Not up to the standard of, say, Alan Moir; but leagues ahead of humourless scolds like Cathy Wilcox... And in any case, your accusation of racism is something you've just implicitly admitted you can't substantiate. An honourable person would retract at this point
Political cartoonists need to come up with a new jab every day, day in, day out. Inevitably the results are less than inspired on occasion. Leak is, on my opinion, talented and above average (less so than his father, I admit)...
That wasn't actually an answer, was it? Basically you admitted you can't back up your "racist" smear, so you retreat to "Well these cartoons are unoriginal and don't 'push boundaries' and blah blah blah..." Of course, "pushing boundaries" is of course the very thing you objected to a minute ago
You open with the statement "It's a lie" and it's a complete mystery what this "it" is. What statement are you denying? I have no idea and I rather doubt you do, either
Public figures are fair game for comment of this kind. You think these institutions are not misled by Hamas propaganda; Leak thinks they are, and that's at the very least not an unreasonable thing to think. A cartoonist expressing this point of view is not thereby a "complete shit"
I suppose your comment on deflection is true enough, although its relevance eludes me. Definitely have no idea why you mentioned Donald Trump or Epstein.
It's likely the persecutors were more feared than witches, and in any case, there WERE no witches: such creatures never existed. But if they DID exist, it's not at all obvious you should fear the persecutors more; indeed, "persecutors" would be the wrong word.
The lab is very near the market: it's in the same city. As pointed out, much, much closer than would be expected from chance alone (the outbreak could, theoretically, have occurred anywhere on the planet). Call that poor evidence if you like, but it's not NO evidence.
What's the point of talking to you? You said there was, I quote, NO evidence; and I presented some evidence (not the only piece available, but the easiest to state succinctly). An honest person would respond: "Mea culpa, I exaggerated". That you're sticking to your story shows you can't be trusted
I just presented one piece of evidence: geographical proximity. There's no getting around it, that's evidence. You may not find it persuasive evidence; but if you call it "no evidence" you're either being dishonest, or thick. In neither case can we trust your dogmatic assertions from here on.
It's not LITERALLY next door, but much closer than we'd expect from chance alone. The Earth's circumference is 40,000 km.
Not decisive evidence, of course; and fair enough if it doesn't convince you. But to say there's "no evidence" is an obvious blatant, howling falsehood.
Baloney. Here's one piece of evidence: the outbreak occurred in Wuhan, right next to a lab specialising in studying viruses of just this kind. That's compelling evidence all by itself...
Whether you agree with him or not, calling Leak's point of view "racist" is ridiculous. Par for the course, I'll admit; but still ridiculous.
Did you know him, or are you just being patronising? I see no evidence of him being a "complete shit", certainly not on the basis of that cartoon, which is merely saying that various institutions seem eager to be misled by Hamas propaganda—fair game for a cartoonist, whether you agree or not
I don't remember being "taught to fear witches", probably because I was born in 1973 and not 1573; but setting that aside... no, it's not odd at all. Were witches to exist, it would make perfect sense to fear them more than their opponents, just as we would fear Dracula more than Van Helsing
Oh please. "Her antisemitism"? That's complete nonsense. (Also ironic, seeing how antisemitism has recently become bizarrely fashionable, or is at least deemed excusable, among the very people who bayed for her blood back in 2021)
I defy you to find me ONE instance anywhere of either her antisemitism, or "rabid anti-trans rhetoric". You can't: they don't exist. But I do agree that whatever the proximate cause of Carano being sacked, the ultimate cause is probably her falling foul of the gender mafia.
They are indeed superb. I (also in Canberra) see them only occasionally
I'm fully aware the creators are now making these claims about what the film "means". What I don't understand is why the rest of us have to take their post hoc pontificating as gospel. By all means, go along with this interpretation if it makes sense of the film; but so far as I can see, it doesn't
Reading a quote like that makes me feel pleased with myself for taking an instant dislike to Le Guin the instant I read her
Disney showed spinelessness in sacking Carano in the first place, over completely innocuous social media comments that were in any case none of their business. THAT'S when they "bent the knee"—to woke zealots who for no good reason whatsoever wanted her fired.
That's a source, all right, but does not establish that Carano is a bigot. It's not even featherweight evidence of that. She's clearly not saying the persecution of Jews was a good thing: she clearly thinks the exact opposite.
Sixteen-year-olds are (I'm told) no longer saying that. It's now vintage slang. I know: I'm old, you're old. That was NOT intended as gratuitous abuse, by the way. (In that respect, we're different)
I've heard worse. It's certainly more accurate than the name Corbyn actually went with
Do you know what "etc" means? Obviously I can't list every single undesirable trait: those I didn't mention of the five hundred possible ones I could have mentioned, are not necessarily ones I forgot. "Talking too much" is also a strange complaint from someone who posts more than I do, but whatevs
At best misleading to say that the newspaper "published" these; and definitely misleading to say that they "chose" to. That's like me saying Bluesky "chose to publish" your comment about the Daily Mail, as though it's somehow their fault
Um... what exactly have they published that's so "unimaginably vile"? On reading this, I admit I was curious, and googled, and all I saw was an article reporting that she'd been diagnosed with cancer: nothing disrespectful about it.
I also dispute your assertion that the perfectly reasonable theory that COVID leaked from the Wuhan lab "began as a Chinese bioweapon claim". Can you support that, with any actual evidence?
"The same folks"? Who exactly? Certainly not me. And the two most prominent proponents of the (almost certainly true) lab leak theory, Alina Chan and Matt Ridley, have never pushed that goofy HIV conspiracy theory.
I obviously can't give any weight to that assertion (you've blown your credibility on the earlier claim); yet like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz I'm sent on a wild goose chase through unspecified "research papers" before I'm allowed to "come back" to you.
You said there was "no evidence" that the virus was leaked from a lab: that turned out to be laughably false. You come back with the much harder to check, and arbitrarily circumscribed claim that there is no *genomic* evidence supporting a lab leak theory...
Yes, the city has a food market, like every other town on Earth. It also has a virology lab studying coronaviruses, UNLIKE most other towns. Setting aside the relative strength of the evidence I just mentioned, it clearly IS evidence; so your claim that there's "no evidence" is manifestly false.
Fair enough to say "the left" is ill-defined. But the lab leak theory WAS suppressed; how would you succinctly say who by? (Genuine question.) The claim that there "isn't any evidence" for it is shockingly ignorant. The place of origin (for instance) is compelling evidence, all by itself.
Nope to what exactly? Are you seriously saying that if the left (or rather, the scientific establishment, legacy media, etc.) had been honest and open about the likelihood of a lab leak, this would NOT have made a difference? Or if not that, what? What exactly are you denying?
The inability to evaluate evidence is hardly unique to RFK Jr. You have a huge dose of it also, if you honestly think (and are not merely parroting) the absurd claim that "actual data definitively shows" the lab leak theory is false.
But reflect: WHY would the likelihood of a lab leak give anyone opportunity to scold the left? Because the left so shamelessly, and dishonestly, worked to suppress the theory. If "the left" had been honest there would be no capital to be made from the fact that the lab leak almost certainly occurred
(3) However, some things ARE reasonable grounds for disliking someone else: for instance, if they're bad-tempered, unpleasant, dogmatic, stink abominably, are irredeemably stupid, etc. Some of these may be under the individual's control, some may not be; but either way, they're no more lovable
(1) I wasn't talking about hatred; merely dislike. (2) Yes, hating someone for their race or sexuality is generally AND RIGHTLY considered to be a bad thing. But this has nothing to do with "control". If you could choose to be black or gay, it would STILL be bad to hate you for it.
Why should whether or not it's "something they can control" have anything to do with it? I don't like the taste of pineapple. Can the pineapple HELP tasting like pineapple? Of course not: I fully understand the fruit doesn't taste the way it does to spite me. Nonetheless, I don't like it
It's also worth pointing out that one can GENERALLY dislike musicals, westerns, doughnuts, children, etc. without being dogmatic about it. Someone who says "I don't like" is probably willing to make exceptions in individual cases; but also probably, knows his own tastes well enough.
However varied they may be, one can still quite reasonably be *disinclined* to like musicals, westerns, doughnuts—or children. Musicals may vary, but they surely have something in common, or the word would be meaningless; and one may reasonably dislike that something, whatever it is.
Cheap and weak response. You could say that in response to any "I don't like" statement. Incautiously say "I don't musicals" or "I don't like Westerns" and some aficionado will immediately tell you how much variety there is within each, as though that's relevant...
She'd be appropriate as the unfortunate subject of a medical experiment, certainly; but she's definitely not who you want if, like Adam, you'd prefer someone "attractive and actually fit, and not weirdly fucked up, dehydrated, and miserable"
"Challenging the toxic stereotype" that men need to be... uh, not women
The problem was not that this silly stiff-arm gesture was not "called out" enough; the problem was that it was "called out" entirely too much. The idea that this was some kind of pro-Nazi signal is, forgive my French, batshit crazy. Rolling one's eyes but otherwise ignoring it is the best response
You can get away with saying this stuff because most people's minds glaze over when they hear these phrases. We know you've swallowed them whole, and we think: "HE hasn't thought about what they mean; why should we have to?"
Even granting your feverish left-wing fantasy that one or other of us is "living in an authoritarian oligarchy", that a "ruling class" must be responsible for this.
I very much doubt the minor injury was faked. But grant that it was: the assassination attempt was still real. It's still an assassination attempt even if the bullet misses you altogether. The difference between dead and not dead is still a matter of centimetres
Your last sentence is ludicrous. This is because: 1. There is no "ruling class" 2. If by "ruling class" you simply mean "rich people" or something of that sort, they have no one "desired narrative" 3. Even if they did, that wouldn't explain what the rest of us choose to talk about
I had to google what "stand mixer" meant. THAT level of technology is a bit beyond me. The ones I'm familiar with are cranked by hand (see illustration). The idea of adding electricity to the process strikes me as a bit too newfangled, let alone throwing in one of these "app" things
That "sex and gender are different things" is not a scientific finding: it's a political ruling. Not that I dispute it: I'm not claiming they're the same thing. Rather, I simply have no use for this notion of "gender" at all. As Laplace said, I have no need of that hypothesis.
So essentially: There IS, as you now concede, an ideology here. There is a set of beliefs around this "gender" stuff, which you believe and I don't. You claim this is ideology is backed by Teh Science™. Depends what you mean. Pseudoscientific gobbledygook? Sure. Actual empirical evidence? Pshaw.
What are you talking about? I never blocked you.
"We have both kinds of music here: country AND western"
Or to put it maybe more simply: I find there are people out there who believe that (for instance) "Elliot" Page is a man, or "Rachel" Levine is a woman. I do not believe this. That body of ideas that they believe and I don't, is an ideology. Let's call it "gender ideology".
It's not easy to cut through someone else's determination not to understand something pretty bloody obvious, but I'll give it ago: Gender ideology is the creed according to which whether or not one is a man or a woman depends, at least in part, on one's psychology.
Twitter certainly has more dissent per se: it's more intellectually stimulating to read. Which is why, when I visit this benighted location, I feel obliged to provide the dissent: otherwise you'd have none at all.
Gen-Xer, thank you very much. "Boomer" was always misapplied: it seems to mean "person I whose views I can get away with dismissing because he's older than I am, heh heh, old people, amirite?" Once used to refer to people to old to be actual Boomers, it's now used on people too young
Yes, she "did something": she made a nuisance of herself. Burden of proof is with her. "Racism"? Easy to claim: any nation you support, or condemn, will have some racial composition or other. "Profit"? That one is even more of a head-scratcher
I don't know where you got that idea. I don't post at all (or even look at the site) on a majority of days. What always gobsmacks me when I do look, is what a oppressive monoculture this place is. Nary a dissenting view anywhere. I always feel: "Surely SOMEONE should say something different"
English speakers have a nifty little mnemonic; Spanish speakers have a dull piece of political propaganda. I take no joy in this; or at least, no joy in its being publicised. This seems too easy a victory for anglophones. I'm sure Spanish has more to offer the world than tiresome left-wing hogwash
What is she famous for, anyway? What has she actually accomplished that gets her in the news? Like Kim Kardashian, she's just famous for being famous. The difference is that Kardashian is famous for being famous for being famous. Thunberg's fame for being famous slipped under the radar
Why do people persist in shoving microphones in this cretin's face? Even granted her fantasy, comic-book vision of the Israel-Hamas conflict, her explanation of what motivates foreign governments (racism, short-term economic profit, etc.) is fatuous beyond belief.
I think this is a bad idea, but the important thing to note is that it's a CONCESSION to these trans™ athletes. It gives them more, not less, than they're reasonably entitled to. Of course, that's not enough for the gender crowd: nothing ever is
Biles suggested that, rather than allow these men to compete against women, which is what they want, but clearly ludicrous, a third category ("trans™") be created for their benefit...
All sports involves segregation currently: it segregates men and women. Some men who want to pretend they're women (they use the brand name trans™) want to avoid competing with other men.
It seems anything short of total capitulation to gender ideology is insufficient for some people, it seems. Apologising for her earlier nastiness is surely admirable, whichever party you agree with. And Gaines also showed admirable grace in response both to the earlier offense, and later apology.
I'm calling for it to be changed. And so, surely, would any reasonable person: anyone who values free speech, opposed to tyranny, and all that. Am I "challenging the legal basis for the law"? I don't even know what you mean by that, and I don't care.
If it's broad enough it's also not necessarily a bad thing. For instance, someone who carries a haemophilia gene voluntarily deciding not to have children, is, on a broad amd fair definition, practicing eugenics. It's the killing bit that's bad, surely; not the mere "eugenics" bit.
Clearly you attach some bizarre, idiosyncratic meaning to the word "unjust". Fine, whatever. I'll concede whatever you have in mind; I don't insist upon the word. So let me reframe my question: Do you really think BAD laws are okay, so long as people convicted under them plead guilty?
Looks like the usual piece of tendentious, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, guilt-by-association claptrap a Guardian journalist churns out when he wants to do a hatchet job on someone but doesn't really have any material.
For mirror-image reasons it was in Dutton's political interest for Yes to win, although I believe this would have benefitted him less had it happened. I think the pro-Yes people were on average more vindictive; less inclined to forgive having gotten what they wanted.
One observation I made at the time of the referendum was that it was in Albanese's political interest for Yes NOT to win. Having "lost" the referendum, Albanese gets credit, and no blame, from the Yes camp ("You tried"); and the No camp have nothing to resent, and can let bygones be bygones.
We all know that there are court cases which both sides think they stand a good chance of winning. Does this mean one side or other is incompetent, or deluded? Not necessarily. It could mean, and often does mean, that the law itself is inherently hard to interpret with any certainty.
Laws can be badly formed such that their meaning depends on a judge's interpretation, which no defence lawyer can predict without being clairvoyant.
"Reported for encouraging hate speech" is one of the most ludicrous things I've heard. I'm not even accused of encouraging hatred: I'm accused of encouraging the encouraging of hatred. That you think that is a reportable charge at least confirms my suspicion that you don't value free speech.
People express nasty sentiments on the internet all the time (you've been doing so yourself just now), and riots happen occasionally. Lucy only CAUSED the riot if, but for her words, there would have been no riot. I consider that unlikely to be true, and even if true, impossible to prove.
Glad to hear it. And you'll be glad to hear that there's virtually no chance of the UK becoming "Nazi". Making allowances for hyperbole, I suspect you mean you don't want the country to move slightly in that DIRECTION. In which case, you too should want current restrictions on free speech relaxed
If Hitler's only crime was making people really, really angry, then of course he should not face jail time for that. But we all know that's not all he did. Moreover he was the Fuhrer. You would interpret HIS expressions of sentiment a little differently than some rando on Twitter.
"Incitement" only makes sense as a crime if the thing being incited is itself a crime. Kristallnacht consisted of vandalism, and vandalism is a crime. One can, in principle, reasonably be charged with "inciting" that. Hatred is NOT a crime. No one should be charged with inciting mere hatred.
She said "If that makes me racist" so be it. She didn't say "If I'm inciting racial hatred so be it". And in any case, have people forgotten what the word "if" means? It's as though you (like the judge) are deliberately making yourself bad at comprehension so as to be as uncharitable as possible
Maybe. Who knows? I'm not commenting on her defence lawyer.. The key point is: SHE SHOULD NOT BE IN PRISON. If she's in prison, the law went wrong somewhere. Where EXACTLY it went wrong—her lawyer, the judge, the legislation, all three—is more debatable than THAT it went wrong.