And here’s where our freedoms are really being eroded

Mike Stuchbery reports on the crushing of protest in Melbourne:

As I write this, the remaining participants in Occupy Melbourne are involved in a dispute with police over their signs and belongings. They’ve been told they can stay, but that everything needs to go – signs, belongings, anything that could feasibly sustain or indicate a protest action.

Apparently the signs around the encampment – all uniformly anti-corporate – are considered a kind of advertising, and therefore ‘illegal’.

How laughable.

This latest development comes after a violent eviction from City Square, a huge police presence moving them on from Bowen Street at RMIT and another eviction from the State Library of Victoria.

It is obvious that the City of Melbourne, presided over by Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, has declared war on Occupy Melbourne and is using every bylaw, every relevant piece of legislation to whittle away at the group until exhaustion, intimidation and hopelessness crumble the group.

How deeply, deeply undemocratic.

What should bother us more? Potential limits on the powers of the powerful to destroy the powerless? Or squashing the voice of ordinary people just because they’re daring to raise up a voice against the establishment?

The national media are up in arms about the former and couldn’t care less about the latter.

I don’t know if that worries you. It truly disturbs me.

Advertisements

108 responses to “And here’s where our freedoms are really being eroded

  1. Is the sacred fire of Camp Sovereignty still allight?

    There was talk of moving the camp to Dandenong once that fella, Lord Mayor John So had it extinguished down in Kings Domain.

    .

  2. damienisbetterthandamian
  3. And on the lighter side of the issue;
    Triumph the Insult Comic Dog Visits Occupy Wall Street.

    Cheers

  4. Splatterbottom

    More like puerile tripe. This is gold.

  5. 12 hours a day, 301 days a year? That woman’s husband needs a better union, and an employment system that doesn’t enable some corporate board in Texas to exploit him like that. And, what, the dependence of our present system on oil means we must never try to change it?

    Which of Mr Handler’s witty and biting observations did you find “puerile”?

  6. SB, you left off the other side of the sign which … if it was honest … would have continued thus: “and I hope to god that the oil company let’s my husband keep his job during the next round of layoffs when the geniuses on the board decide that it is more profitable to bring in cheap labour from South America and Asia. Surely sucking up to the 1% will help us continue to pay our mortgage, right?”.

    That and apparently she has no idea that most of the other things on the list can be made out of things other than oil. Ink, glasses, and tarps? Seriously? What does she think they made were made out of before the 20th century?

    It is not hypocrisy to want the wealth shared. The Occupy protestors are not against wealth and the products it brings, but against those who are cheating the system to enrich themselves at everyone else’s expense. The bankers who caused the GFC should be in jail for causing massive damage to the world economy, and yet continue to walk free. Holding criminals and cheaters to account is not hypocrisy – it is justice and fairness.

  7. That’s right, SB. Somebody has to defend the ultra-wealthy who are being oppressed by poor people.

  8. Splatterbottom

    1. If you work hard, and become successful, it does not necessarily mean you are successful because you worked hard, just as if you are tall with long hair it doesn’t mean you would be a midget if you were bald.

    And if you make a trite comment pretending to be wise you could be both immature and stupid.

    2. “Fortune” is a word for having a lot of money and for having a lot of luck, but that does not mean the word has two definitions.

    Neither does it exclude that possibility. So what?

    3. Money is like a child—rarely unaccompanied. When it disappears, look to those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on it while you were at the grocery store. You might also look for someone who has a lot of extra children sitting around, with long, suspicious explanations for how they got there.

    The wealth of a society may be generated or lost. Just because someone has some it doesn’t follow that someone else has lost some. Generally the left has no interest in generating wealth only about taking other people’s wealth and pissing it away.

    4. People who say money doesn’t matter are like people who say cake doesn’t matter—it’s probably because they’ve already had a few slices.

    The society that most successfully motivates people to get off their arses and do something productive will always have more than a society that encourages welfare dependency. The latter society will first kill off all productive incentive within and then, like Greece, expect the rest of the world to pay for its excessive welfare.

    5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.

    Better would be to explain to your neighbours how to bake a cake and suggest they stop whining and get on with it. Giving them cake deprives them of self-respect and should only be used as a last resort.

    6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which they’ve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.

    The alternative is to endure some short-term pain and restore the conditions for a prosperous society before everybody strangles in the increasingly unfunded safety net.

    7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. Don’t tell them they aren’t. Sit with them and have a drink.

    Maybe also explain to them that they are being a tad narcissistic and that they should take responsibility for their own lives. Loved the video of the homeless man at Occupy Wall St complaining that he had lived homeless in the park for 3 months and not had fancy tents to live in. The reaction of the protesters was to beat him.

    8. Don’t ask yourself if something is fair. Ask someone else—a stranger in the street, for example.

    Good idea. If they are honest they might tell you that life wasn’t meant to be fair, but if you own your own life you just might find you get what you need.

    9. People gathering in the streets feeling wronged tend to be loud, as it is difficult to make oneself heard on the other side of an impressive edifice.

    Agreed. Noisy and crazy is how they express their self-pity. It is their specialty.

    10. It is not always the job of people shouting outside impressive buildings to solve problems. It is often the job of the people inside, who have paper, pens, desks, and an impressive view.

    Yep. As a rule, people standing round with their ipods defecating in the street and shouting anti-semitic crap are for more useful to society than those actually doing some work.

    11. Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.

    This is an unhappy story, but not for that reason.

    12. If you have a large crowd shouting outside your building, there might not be room for a safety net if you’re the one tumbling down when it collapses.

    Murderous mobs are the way to go. Bring out the guillotines and make the Jews wear yellow patches on their clothes.

    13. 99 percent is a very large percentage. For instance, easily 99 percent of people want a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and the occasional slice of cake for dessert. Surely an arrangement can be made with that niggling 1 percent who disagree.

    99% is about the number of people who think the 1% on the streets are self-absorbed grasping fuckwits.

  9. Splatterbottom

    Unique: “The Occupy protestors are not against wealth and the products it brings.”

    Obviously not. They think they should be given as much as they can carry off.

    “The bankers who caused the GFC should be in jail”

    AS should the idiot politicians like Barney Frank and Chris “waitress sandwich” Dodd who mandated sub-prime lending. Just another fucked-up leftist scam to ‘help’ people.

  10. “The Occupy protestors are not against wealth and the products it brings, but against those who are cheating the system to enrich themselves at everyone else’s expense.”

    Yes, but SB has to pretend he doesn’t understand this in order to maintain tiresome reds under the bed paranoia.

    “The bankers who caused the GFC should be in jail for causing massive damage to the world economy, and yet continue to walk free. Holding criminals and cheaters to account is not hypocrisy – it is justice and fairness.”

    No, justice and fairness is when peaceful protesters are violently put down with pepper spray, batons, rubber bullets and stun grenades.

    What you are talking about is called “socialism” and to be avoided at all costs.

  11. AS should the idiot politicians like Barney Frank and Chris “waitress sandwich” Dodd who mandated sub-prime lending. Just another fucked-up leftist scam to ‘help’ people.

    They “mandated” it, so the banks had no choice but to engage in it.

    If only the boards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren’t overrun with leftists, this whole situation could have been avoided.

  12. Splatterbottom

    Duncan the real cheats are those who expect government handouts or, like the Occupiers in Sydney, free wi-fi and parking spaces. Or the idiot Occupationista in New York who threw an Eftpos machine at a McDonalds employee because they wouldn’t give him free burgers.

    Buns: “They “mandated” it, so the banks had no choice but to engage in it.”

    Yes. They legislated it and then Obama’s favourite standover goons, Acorn, enforced with shakedown tactics. See Community Reinvestment Act. Bush tried to repeal it but the Dimocrats wouldn’t allow it.

    “If only the boards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren’t overrun with leftists, this whole situation could have been avoided.”

    If Fanny and Freddie didn’t give government backing to mortgages the mortgage funds would never have got their absurd ratings.

    As it was Fannies main function was to employ and enrich corrupt democrats like Franklin Raines.

  13. Duncan the real cheats are those who expect government handouts or, like the Occupiers in Sydney, free wi-fi and parking spaces.

    LOL SB.

    So as long as you’ve got random crazies within the protest movement to demonise you’re happy to completely ignore the rapidly increasing wealth gap between the ultra-rich and the rest of the US, the increasing erosion of the economic security of the American middle class, and financial theft/fraud on a global scale.

    Yep – you’ve got your eye on the ball for sure.

  14. Splatterbottom

    Ah Mondo – the random crazies excuse. Funnily enough you don’t hear that one much from critics of all of those dreadful uncivilised carbon tax protesters do you?

    “financial theft/fraud on a global scale”

    You mean like Solyndra? Or the great global warming scam in general?

    I see the US issues as being about the erosion of living standards rather than the wealth gap per se. I don’t see those issues in Australia at present. But we will have them when the resources boom stops and there is nothing left but a welfare state fast disappearing up its own arse.

  15. So two wrongs make a right SB? The carbon tax protesters were treated unfairly and so in your mind you’re entitled mete out equally unfair treatment to a protest movement in the US.

    OK then. You don’t need me to point out the intellectual bankruptcy of this approach.

    I see the US issues as being about the erosion of living standards rather than the wealth gap per se.

    You really don’t see how those two issues are related?

    I don’t know much about Solyndra, but from what I do know it might be a perfect example of the sort of financial theft I’ve referred to. Of course it is only one of many examples of politicians governing for the benefit of their wealthy benefactors instead of the people, and I hope your regular ideological blinkers don’t prevent you from seeing that the same dynamic plays out at least as often on the Right side of politics.

    OWS isn’t a Left/Right fight – it’s an Insider/Outsider fight. I guess you haven’t realised this yet.

  16. They legislated it and then Obama’s favourite standover goons, Acorn, enforced with shakedown tactics. See Community Reinvestment Act. Bush tried to repeal it but the Dimocrats wouldn’t allow it.

    Christ, what a load of shit. “Dimocrats”? You’re in your late 50s and still using words like “Dimocrats”, and apparently expecting people to take you seriously? Grow up.

    Honestly, there’s just no point trying to have a mature discussion of anything with anyone who approaches each and every situation starting with the conclusion that evil leftist scum are the only ones responsible, and works backward from there. You’re the most ideologically myopic person I’ve ever come across. Absolutely pathetic. Nobody here is interested in your tired, regurgitated rightwing talking points.

  17. ” You’re the most ideologically myopic person I’ve ever come across. Absolutely pathetic.”

    Rubbish, he’s a centrist, like his heroes Abbott and Howard.

    “OWS isn’t a Left/Right fight – it’s an Insider/Outsider fight. I guess you haven’t realised this yet.”

    Probably deluded himself into thinking that he’s one of the insiders, one of the 1%, after all anyone who posts like SB and claims to be a centrist is utterly delude.

  18. Splatterbottom

    To be fair Mondo, I haven’t really fallen into the trap of characterising the group by the behaviour of individuals. Mainly I refer to particular incidents. My free wi-fi and parking spaces comment, which you reacted to was a demand made by the leadership on behalf of the group.

    As to those here who held Abbott to account for the actions of a few individuals at the carbon tax protests, I await their similar pronouncements in relation to OWS.

    Buns you are projecting again. You are far more doctrinaire than me. All I did was add balance to your lop-sided account. There were many causes of the GFC, but you refuse to acknowledge those that don’t fit with your ideology, whereas I can see both. Don’t blame me for your tunnel vision.

  19. SB’s not one of the 1%, nor does he believe himself to be.

    He’s just obsessed with attacking the Left – so much so that he’ll regularly jettison consistency and logic to do so.

  20. Splatterbottom

    Bobbyboy: “Rubbish, he’s a centrist, like his heroes Abbott and Howard.”

    Wrong again. I have continually criticised Howard. It is tragic that Abbot is the alternative.

  21. Splatterbottom

    Mondo, all I do is try to add a little balance here.

  22. Buns you are projecting again. You are far more doctrinaire than me. All I did was add balance to your lop-sided account. There were many causes of the GFC, but you refuse to acknowledge those that don’t fit with your ideology, whereas I can see both. Don’t blame me for your tunnel vision.

    I don’t have tunnel vision, so there’s nothing to blame you for.

    Every issue, you have some convoluted tale that you got from national review (or whatever other websites you go to for your rightwing propaganda) that explains so conveniently how leftwing commie scum are 100% responsible for whatever problem we happen to be discussing. I can only conclude you are a troll, as nobody with half a brain could possibly be so totally lacking in resistance to conservative propaganda, much less think regurgitating it at an openly leftwing website would be of any worth. There must be better things you can do with your time.

  23. Mondo, all I do is try to add a little balance here.

    Psst, we know you’re trolling. Time to grow up.

  24. Splatterbottom

    Let’s take the GFC as an example, Buns. I can see the contribution of the banks to this as well as the contribution of leftist government policies. You lack the balance that I bring to the table in any discussion.

  25. “I can see the contribution of the banks to this ”

    But you said:

    ” the real cheats are those who expect government handouts or, like the Occupiers in Sydney, free wi-fi and parking spaces. Or the idiot Occupationista in New York who threw an Eftpos machine at a McDonalds employee because they wouldn’t give him free burgers.”

    No SB, the real cheats are the execs who took millions in bonuses whilst they failed! Not a bit of dole but millions of dollars in ‘bonuses’.

    “I can see the contribution of the banks to this ”

    You’re a riot…

    “Wrong again. I have continually criticised Howard. It is tragic that Abbot is the alternative.”

    Yeah, my bad but you aren’t a centrist even though you’ve often claimed to be. You’re either dishonest or deluded, I don’t care which, either way you are wrong!

  26. Let’s take the GFC as an example, Buns. I can see the contribution of the banks to this as well as the contribution of leftist government policies.

    So the GFC was caused by
    1. banks; and
    2. “leftist government policies” (presumably, not in that order either).

    This is your idea of balance, yeah? No wonder people are laughing at you.

  27. Splatterbottom

    The fact is that I am far more considered and way less doctrinaire than either you or Buns. You two are relentlessly leftist in your approaches, spitting bile and running a mile from any facts or arguments that threaten your ideological pre-conceptions. No one has a monopoly on truth, not even you two. The only issue on which I even approach your bloody-minded fanaticism is freedom of speech.

    Buns it is more balanced to look at all relevant causes rather than just spew leftist cliches as you are wont to do. Nobody here is interested in your tired, regurgitated leftwing talking points.

  28. The fact is that I am far more considered and way less doctrinaire than either you or Buns.

    No, that’s not the fact. Things don’t become the fact by you declaring them to be the fact. Also, things don’t become the fact just because you believe them to be so.

    You two are relentlessly leftist in your approaches, spitting bile and running a mile from any facts or arguments that threaten your ideological pre-conceptions.

    At worst, that makes us merely the opposite of you.

  29. My post completely disappeared?

    “spitting bile and running a mile from any facts”

    Oh you precious petal, and a hypocrite, the bulk of your posts consist of anti-left bile. You don’t like it when I have a pop at your bizarre, fairy-tale basedbelief system SB but as an arch hypocrite you constantly dis mine (take your medicine princess)… As for facts In this very thread you claim a few protesters are the “real cheats”… Facts aren’t things you make up SB..

    You aren’t normally a cry baby, what’s the matter?

    “You’re in your late 50”

    Really? well I never would have picked that.

  30. Well Bugger me it re-appeared, you may all think it’s me fucking up but it isn’t, it’s wordpress, just yesterday I made a one letter post (‘d’) and WordPress put it in the moderation queue. I wish I didn’t like the topics and characters at this blog. FTR – I prefer my 9:05 post to my re-appearing 8.29 post.

  31. It’s just WordPress moderation, Bobby – sometimes it catches a post, sometimes it doesn’t. As long as there’s nothing defamatory in there though, I’ll approve it pretty quickly when I’m next at the computer.

  32. No worries Jeremy, it’s just that wordpress catches all mine. I realise it’s nothing you’re doing…

    An example is a small post i made yesterday in this very thread:
    ________________________________________
    bobbyboyakarobj | 7 November, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    d
    _______________________________________

    It’s still up there.

    Cheers.

  33. Splatterbottom

    Let’s see now, bobbyboy. I have a moderate position on welfare, recognising that it is necessary to have a fall-back, but also recognising the negative effects and advocating that some thought will be put into alternatives. I am against the rise of the servile state.

    I support free markets in general but favour criminalisation of anti-competitive behaviour. I support the abolition of agricultural protectionism so that poor countries can feed themselves and prosper.

    I am committed to personal liberty, democracy and free speech. This means I support marriage equality, the right to protest (but not permanent occupation).

    I support economic progress, but not if it means destroying the environment. I am against nuclear power and mining where it destroys the environment.

    I support honesty in politics and was once a big fan of Bob Brown for that reason. Sadly the Greens have ripened and are beginning to rot. You can’t expect sane people to support a party that offers me an old-school Stalinist as a Senate candidate.

    In many ways I have the most diverse range of opinions here. I do not attack every issue from a relentlessly left wing position, but evaluate issues on their merits against a set of values based on freedom and liberty, tempered with a desire for a measure of social justice.

    I can take anything you dish out. Your arguments are usually specious and your spite is trite and largely unoriginal. Every now and again you hit me with a zinger that makes this fun, or even better, come up with an argument that forces me to re-think my position.

  34. ” Your arguments are usually specious and your spite is trite and largely unoriginal”

    Read my post again, I’m not making an argument SB, I’m pointing out your rank hypocrisy, it doesn’t surprise me that you’ve completely missed this.

    “I can take anything you dish out.”

    Likewise.

  35. Splatterbottom

    Bobbyboy: “it’s just that wordpress catches all mine”

    Obviously WordPress is very discerning!

  36. Splatterbottom

    Just imagine the wailing and whining from the now silent left if a Carbon Tax protest or a Tea Party rally carried on like this:

    Scenes like this — and far worse — have been playing out since the Zuccotti Park “occupation” began on Sept. 17. The parcel is now a sliver of madness, rife with sex attacks, robberies and vigilante justice.

    No. Not a peep from them now.

  37. I suppose the left approves of rape, eh? What other explanation could there be for this silence??

    As everybody except you knows, the New York Post is a trash, agenda-driven publication. Perhaps the silent left is taking it all with a grain of salt for that reason. They planted an employee there so they could do a piece about the freakshow. What were the odds she found exactly what she knew she was already going to write about? The New York Post! Good one, SB.

    Imagine the opposite. Green Left Weekly plants someone at a Carbon Tax rally to get a bit of biased firsthand experience of the rightwing freaks there and writes a hit piece, then I go to an openly rightwing messageboard and link to the GLW article with words to the effect of “OMG have you guys seen this??”. Brilliant.

  38. New York Post? LOL!

    Do you watch Fox News too? And the Bolt report? Tell us which News Limited publications you get your ‘news’ from SB

  39. Criticism
    The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch’s ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review opined that “the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil.”[31]
    Perhaps the most serious allegation against the Post is that it is willing to contort its news coverage to suit Murdoch’s business needs, in particular that the paper has avoided reporting anything that is unflattering to the government of the People’s Republic of China, where Murdoch has invested heavily in satellite television.[32]

    SB, the ‘centrist’ get’s his news from Murdoch rags….

  40. Splatterbottom

    Great argument there bobbyboy – shoot the messenger. Ad hominem will win the day every time.

  41. Splatterbottom

    Buns, ad hominem doesn’t work for you either. If the facts are there to be reported you have to wonder why the lap-dog leftist MSM fails to report them. Fox does a great job reporting those issues the see-no-evil left studiously ignores. That is exactly why we need a free press, not one colonised by leftist groupthink. Most leftists will hate it, which is precisely why they want to regulate it. Everyone who supports the government’s Murdoch Show Trial is a meretricious, dumbfuck, stinking hypocrite. That’s only my opinion but I’m getting out there while I can still have an opinion.

  42. Sure thing, SB. But you might want to make a mental note that if you want to convince people that you’re a “centrist” – and it seems to be important to you that people do, as you spend so much time telling us that you are – then quoting the New York Post (and Fox News) approvingly is only making that all the less likely. As well as referring to things like the “lap-dog leftist MSM”. All of that just places you among the far right.

  43. “Great argument there bobbyboy – shoot the messenger. Ad hominem will win the day every time.”

    Again, I’m not making an argument! I’m laughing at the sources you choose to mount an argument.

    When the ‘messenger’ is a news limited RAG then damn right I’ll shoot the messenger. If I wrote “everything SB writes is wrong because he is a twat”, now that would be an ad-hominem attack.

    “Fox does a great job reporting those issues the see-no-evil left studiously ignores.”

    LOL –

    “Everyone who supports the government’s Murdoch Show Trial is a meretricious, dumbfuck, stinking hypocrite.]”

    Ad-homs don’t work for you either, what if you were a victim of the scandalous actions by news, you know, say, Mary Ellen Field who Murdoch and McPherson ruined?

    “stinking hypocrite”

    You’re the biggest hypocrite here, you accuse others of ‘spitting bile’ when you rarely make a post that doesn’t

  44. Splatterbottom

    Bobbyboy, your quote merely vindicates the notion that it is good to get information from a variety of sources. It certainly doesn’t support your approach of using ad hominem arguments when you here facts you don’t like.

    And I am a little more sceptical of journalism academics and their studies after the lovely Eric Alterman, Distinguished Professor of English and Journalism, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, and Professor of Journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, described some journalists he did not like as “Fucking Nascar retards.” Classy, but that’s the left for you.

    Buns: “if you want to convince people that you’re a “centrist” – and it seems to be important to you that people do, as you spend so much time telling us that you are – then quoting the New York Post (and Fox News) approvingly is only making that all the less likely”

    I take facts where I find them, not just from approved leftist sources. That is why I am better informed. That doesn’t discredit me so much as the leftist barrackers who are not interested in facts unless they are filtered through approved sources.

  45. That doesn’t discredit me so much as the leftist barrackers who are not interested in facts unless they are filtered through approved sources.

    But the New York Post is itself a barracker. That’s my point, hypocrite. You’re quite happy with barrackers, as long as they’re on your side.

  46. Splatterbottom

    Buns you’ve got it wrong again, silly rabbit. I will take facts from all sources. You reject facts presented by the NY Post on the grounds that Murdoch owns it. By willfully depriving yourself of relevant facts you end up reinforcing your own ignorance.

  47. You reject facts presented by the NY Post on the grounds that Murdoch owns it.

    Nope, didn’t do that. How’s your comprehension?

    Anyway, that doesn’t detract from my point, which is that it is obviously hypocritical on your part to object to biased media and “barrackers” while at the same time defending biased barrackers like the New York Post and Fox News. Conservative barrackers – good, leftwing barrackers – bad. See the hypocrisy?

  48. Splatterbottom

    Buns: here is what you said:

    As everybody except you knows, the New York Post is a trash, agenda-driven publication. Perhaps the silent left is taking it all with a grain of salt for that reason. They planted an employee there so they could do a piece about the freakshow. What were the odds she found exactly what she knew she was already going to write about? The New York Post!”

    Now, assuming that it was true that the employee expected to find a certain kind of conduct there, that does not make it untrue and reasonable people would not ignore it. You don’t seem to want to accept those facts or discuss them. You’d rather bash the journalist, shoot the messenger.

    Same thing happened with the carbon tax rally. Unsympathetic media sensationalised an ugly sign. The difference is that I did not deny the fact, but rather accepted it and condemned the sign. That’s the difference between you and me. I don’t deny facts.

    Other idiots used the sign to attack all the protesters. Funnily enough they don’t take the same approach to Occupationistas. Why is that?

  49. Unsympathetic media sensationalised an ugly sign

    By “sensationalised”, do you mean “published”? Maybe it wouldn’t have got so much play if Tony Abbott hadn’t positioned himself in front of it. I don’t think media needed to be “unsympathetic” to report this. We should all know what sort of person Mr Abbott given he is holding himself out as alternative PM.

    Now, assuming that it was true that the employee expected to find a certain kind of conduct there, that does not make it untrue and reasonable people would not ignore it. You don’t seem to want to accept those facts or discuss them. You’d rather bash the journalist, shoot the messenger.

    I’m not sure whether you believe everything you read in the papers. I don’t, especially gutter publications like the New York Post. So perhaps we are working off different definitions of “facts”. You’re not suggesting that something is “fact” by reason solely of having been published in a piece of crap like the New York Post, are you? I think that’s what’s implied by “that does not make it untrue” – some nobody reported it (in one of the trashiest, most biased, unreliable publications in the US), so it’s true.

    Once again, I haven’t denied any “facts”.

  50. Splatterbottom

    buns: “if Tony Abbott hadn’t positioned himself in front of it”

    It was actually the opposite – the guy holding the sign positioned himself behind Tony Abbott. But you never let the truth interfere with your made-up mind do you?

    If i was a complete and utter leftist dropkick, then I wouldn’t believe anything in the Murdoch press either. But don’t worry, there are plenty like you out there. Trouble is there are oodles of reports from Occupationista enclaves detailing similar odious conduct. But you just trot smugly along with your double standard flapping in the breeze, all the while impervious to reality as you spit out your half-arsed invective. I’d be shocked if you did anything else, really.

  51. If i was a complete and utter leftist dropkick,

    Ad hominem doesn’t work for me, but it’s fine for you? Got it.

    then I wouldn’t believe anything in the Murdoch press either.

    Still beating up this strawman?

    Trouble is there are oodles of reports from Occupationista enclaves detailing similar odious conduct.

    Right. So what? I haven’t said they’re all well behaved or anything, to my knowledge. There are a few freaks behaving badly at the Occupy Wall Street protest. What a shock. Unless you can point to where I’ve asserted the contrary or defended their behaviour, what point is it you think you’re making?

  52. Splatterbottom

    Buns: “I haven’t said they’re all well behaved or anything, to my knowledge. “

    I didn’t say you did.

    “what point is it you think you’re making?”

    That your response to a simple question I asked was not to answer it, but to shoot the messenger.

  53. “Bobbyboy, your quote merely vindicates the notion that it is good to get information from a variety of sources.

    Fact of the matter is your ‘source’ is laughable… I wouldn’t regard a homophobe’s view on homosexuality, I would dismiss it.. you on the other hand? You’ll grab any source that supports your wing nut stance.

    “your approach of using ad hominem arguments when you here facts you don’t like.

    More hypocrisy…

    __________________
    SB: If i was a complete and utter leftist dropkick,

    Buns: Ad hominem doesn’t work for me, but it’s fine for you? Got it.
    ___________________

    LOL – SB puts his foot in it every single post, he back pedals and gets himself tangled so frequently, he’s even resorted to quoting the New York post!!!! 😀


    t was actually the opposite – the guy holding the sign positioned himself behind Tony Abbott. But you never let the truth interfere with your made-up mind do you?”

    Truth is that he stood in front of the sign and his minders did nothing about it… It seems you’ll go to any lengths to defend Abbott and still claim to be a centrist. Keep ’em coming SB.

  54. Professor of Journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, described some journalists he did not like as “Fucking Nascar retards.” Classy, but that’s the left for you.”

    Along with your reknowned hypocrisy, regular ad-homs you’re also famous for your pathetic generalisations.. A recent example would be your descriptions of your perceptions of the participants in the recent ‘occupy’ protests. You made exactly the same mistake as the professor you now criticise, do you have no shame? Have you learned fuck all in your almost 60 years? (I can’t get my head around that 😉 )

  55. Splatterbottom

    Bobbyboy there is a great deal of information about the form of the Occupationistas – sexual assault, drugs, theft, beatings, public defecation, and the like.

    My question was simple – where are all the whiners who smeared the whole anti-carbon tax demonstrators for one lousy sign?

    The only response I got from you and Buns was to attack the source of the news report. A more logical response wouldn’t go astray.

    As to my age, I’ve always been young at heart. I’m just trying to add a bit of logic and consistency to the enthusiasm of you young blokes.

  56. Splatterbottom

    Bobbyboy: “You made exactly the same mistake as the professor you now criticise”

    I didn’t call anyone a retard. You have to a journalism professor for that.

  57. “I didn’t call anyone a retard. You have to a journalism professor for that.”

    What, never? never ever???

  58. So to clarify:
    retard – bad
    meretricious, dumbfuck, stinking hypocrite – good

  59. Also:
    using a sign held by one protester to attack all protesters – bad (if it’s an anti-Carbon Tax rally)
    using the comment of one Professor of Journalism to attack the entirety of “the Left” – good (because, obviously, being a journalist, he’s the appointed spokesperson of this nebulous “Left” some rightwingers are obsessed with)

    Why not practise what you preach, SB?

  60. “Why not practise what you preach, SB?”

    Because that would be no fun… 😉

  61. So to clarify:
    retard – bad
    meretricious, dumbfuck, stinking hypocrite – good

    Aww Buns, you just don’t get it, you need to view these things from a centrist viewpoint, which is more like; Slagging off left wingers = good, laughing at right wingers = bad.. Think like SB, think like a centrist!

  62. Splatterbottom

    Buns, you are wrong on all counts. Slighting the mentally ill is in a different category to calling out those who want to limit free speech. And I didn’t attack the “entirety” of the left.

    And you still, after all your evasions and attempts to shoot the messenger, haven’t answered my question – are those who have suddenly gone silent on the misdeeds of the Occupationistas but who were so vociferous about about the Carbon Tax protesters hypocrites?

  63. “. Slighting the mentally ill is in a different category to calling out those who want to limit free speech. ”

    I’m calling you out now, you opposed the right of peaceful protests in public spaces and supported the Police’s violent removal of said protestors, then you bang on about ‘freedom of speech’.

    Have you learned fuck all in your nearly 60 years? Are you really a leftist green stooge? Trying to discredit the conservative side of politics with your ridiculous, hypocritical posts?

    By all means cry about the ‘bile’ you may think I’m posting but first….. Look in the mirror!

  64. Splatterbottom

    Bobbyboy:: “you opposed the right of peaceful protests in public spaces”

    Not true. In fact I supported the right to protest. I opposed the right to permanent occupation of public spaces. If you could only get your facts right you would make much more sense. Protesters shouldn’t violently attack the police when they are doing their job and enforcing the law.

  65. Thanks, SB. I knew there would be an innocent explanation for what at face value appeared to be (yet more) rank hypocrisy on your part.

    And I didn’t attack the “entirety” of the left.

    Actually, you did. Your words are there for us all to read: Classy, but that’s the left for you. You used the words of one person to slag off the group.

    are those who have suddenly gone silent on the misdeeds of the Occupationistas but who were so vociferous about about the Carbon Tax protesters hypocrites?

    As touched as I am that you’re apparently so interested to learn my opinion on this, your mind appears closed on the question so I won’t waste too much time on it. But assuming you’re right, that would make them no worse than you e.g. decrying ad hominems while engaging in them in virtually the same breath. Misery loves company, I guess.

  66. “If you could only get your facts right you would make much more sense.”

    If you weren’t such a back pedaling hypocritical old fart you’d make sense.

    “rotesters shouldn’t violently attack the police when they are doing their job and enforcing the law.”

    They didn’t, there was NO violence until the police turned up to forcibly remove them on the word of a dickhead Lord Mayor. At worst they were committing a civil offence, not a criminal offence. No doubt you support beatings for minor traffic offences? Heh, I always knew you were a facist. I predict that Ken Lay et al will back off with their legal action because they have nothing, it’s always the same, the protests are never how the police describe them. (S11 is a classic example)

    If only you could get your facts right.

  67. I like how he can tell us from Sydney who was responsible for the violence at a protest in Melbourne.

  68. Splatterbottom

    Buns: “Actually, you did. Your words are there for us all to read: Classy, but that’s the left for you. You used the words of one person to slag off the group.”

    You said “the entirety of the left” and you were wrong on that. But prominent leftists do have a habit of making unsavoury comments like Crikey’s “Trig the mongrel” comment about Sarah Palin’s son or the racist attacks on Condi Rice as Aunt Jemima or Colin Powell as Uncle Tom. I’ve searched in vain for condemnation of Alterman’s comment from the left and there was no more of that than there was for Bill Clinton’s and Harry Reid’s racist comments about Obama. If I had meant ‘entirety’ I would have said so.

    Bobbyboy, your comments are getting a little ageist.

    “there was NO violence until the police turned up to forcibly remove them”

    And that’s when the violence started. Trouble is that the obligation of the protesters was to comply with the law. But the narcissistic attention seekers among them preferred to garner a little more attention for themselves. One of them bashed a cop on the head with a flashlight, sending him to hospital. The first cause of the violence was the Occupationistas.

  69. Well when he was banging on about City Square it was obvious to us locals that he didn’t know what he was talking about but that’s the norm, faux outrage at everything left of him..

  70. “Bobbyboy, your comments are getting a little ageist.”

    Yeah sorry, I’m still pissing myself laughing, you post like a 23 year old just out of Uni who thinks he has all the answers.

  71. But prominent leftists do have a habit of making unsavoury comments

    As do prominent conservatives. You seem less concerned about unsavoury comments made by prominent conservatives. I presume that’s because you are a one-eyed hypocrite.

    Being intentionally offensive seems to be something a badge of honour among prominent conservatives, in fact – Rush “Chelse Clinton Whitehouse dog” Limbaugh, Ann “Our Blacks are Better” Coulter, O’Reilly, the insane racist moron Michael Savage, etc and in Australia – Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Tim Blair, Miranda Devine, etc. Nobody on the left can hold a candle to these blowhards.

  72. The first cause of the violence was the Occupationistas.

    Don’t pretend to know what happened if you weren’t there.

  73. Splatterbottom

    Buns, I’ve certainly criticised Coulter before in these pages, and I’m glad you at least impliedly agree that Alterman’s comment was unsavoury.

    Bobbyboy don’t pretend to know what I have written unless you were at my desk watching me type it.

  74. Splatterbottom

    Sorry Bobbyboy that last one was for Buns.

  75. Lame.

  76. Splatterbottom

    Buns, it is truly lame that you haven’t answered the intial question which I repeated about a dozen comments ago, namely:

    And you still, after all your evasions and attempts to shoot the messenger, haven’t answered my question – are those who have suddenly gone silent on the misdeeds of the Occupationistas but who were so vociferous about about the Carbon Tax protesters hypocrites?

    Troll.

  77. narcoticmusing

    SB – I can answer the question if you’d like (I wasn’t silent, merely OS).

    It was the entire group of Carbon Tax protesters who were holding anti-Gillard signs with sexist messages, rather than anti-carbon tax signs. The leader of the Opposition was involved in arranging the ‘protest’ and thus implicitly endorsed those messages, at the very least, his inaction when proudly standing in front of the most offensive sign, should have sent nice alarm bells to anyone who has the slightest respect for women (hence Abbott didn’t realise what the big deal was about).

    The Occupationists do not have a person who organised for them to all be there. The don’t have key note speakers and radio personalities and catering and free transport. They are from all walks of life. Ergo, there are going to be different personalities and some do things I think are inappropriate – but you’d normally lecture me about the sacrosanct nature of free speech while I talk about balance.

    The Australian Constitution provides an implied freedom to political free speech – exactly what the Occupationists are doing. It does not provide for hate speech (Bolt should get that one) – which is what the Carbon Tax protesters did. They did this as a group, not as single individuals. There were individuals at the Carbon tax protests who were legit but the crowd was a fraud. The opposite applies to occupationists (at least those in NYC – can’t comment on the current Australian ones haven’t seen them).

    It (the Constitution) does not provide for assault/battery such as throwing an ETFPOS machine (although one might argue this is a rejection of capitalist regime manipulated by its owners coles/woolworths/et al to screw over small business and true capitalism/competition).

  78. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic I hope you enjoyed your travels. It’s good to have you back.

    “It was the entire group of Carbon Tax protesters who were holding anti-Gillard signs with sexist messages, rather than anti-carbon tax signs.”

    This is clearly wrong. I counted about two offensive signs in Canberra and one in Sydney.

    “The leader of the Opposition was involved in arranging the ‘protest’”

    Got any proof of that?

    “and thus implicitly endorsed those messages”

    This is not a logical argument as it does not follow from the premise.

    “at the very least, his inaction when proudly standing in front of the most offensive sign”

    That assumes he was even aware of the sign. The tactic is generally to get your sign behind the speaker so you can get attention. Abbott’s minders appeared to have been aware of the sign and tried to have it removed.

    “hence Abbott didn’t realise what the big deal was about”

    This is just an ignorant cheap shot which assumes without evidence either that Abbott was aware of the sign or that he hasn’t the slightest respect for women.

    “The Occupationists do not have a person who organised for them to all be there.

    That is not true at all. One of Bandt’s staff was criticised for taking time off work to help organise Occupy Melbourne. Indymedia puts it this way:

    “This group who have worked hard and closely together since the start of OM and are united in this commitment to the protest. They are also united in their opposition to “politics” within OM which is code for their opposition to the organised socialist groupings within OM. Despite OM not having “leaders” officially I beliveve tis group has played a key role in shaping and leading OM so far.”

    And here is a list of working groups and committees for occupy Melbourne. Seems like a whole lot of organising going on there.

    But the point is irrelevant anyway. It doesn’t matter whether you can point to organisation when you are talking about one or two individuals in the rally.

    “The don’t have key note speakers and radio personalities and catering and free transport. They are from all walks of life. Ergo, there are going to be different personalities and some do things I think are inappropriate”

    The Carbon Tax protesters also come from different walks of life, have different personalities and see other demonstrators doing things they think are inappropriate.

    “The Australian Constitution provides an implied freedom to political free speech – exactly what the Occupationists are doing. It does not provide for hate speech (Bolt should get that one) – which is what the Carbon Tax protesters did. They did this as a group, not as single individuals.”

    All of them? That is clearly a malicious lie. Individuals are responsible for their own actions. For group responsibility you need at least evidence of collusion to do the particular act you criticise.

    Here is one of your Wall Street Occupationistas:

    “It (the Constitution) does not provide for assault/battery such as throwing an ETFPOS machine (although one might argue this is a rejection of capitalist regime manipulated by its owners coles/woolworths/et al to screw over small business and true capitalism/competition).”

    Now you’ve really left the building. Do you have a point here? That assault laws ought to be in the constitution? Something more specific than granting parliament the power to make laws for the “peace order and good government of the Commonwealth”? Anyway it is mainly the states that deal with assault laws.

    And how is throwing an ATM an assault? Maybe you are referring to a particular incident I’m not aware of? Or maybe you started to make one point, diverged to add an another point and forgot to add the punchline? I do that sometimes.

  79. narcoticmusing

    Feel free to keep pointing out individuals – I can keep pointing to images of the entire group. Which was my point. Thank you for reinforcing that with more individuals doing bad things and not the group as a whole.

    Do you have a point here? That assault laws ought to be in the constitution? … did you forget to add the punchline?

    Actually I was agreeing with you and conceding that doing that (throwing an EFTPOS machine at someone) was wrong – I thought you would’ve recognised that seeing it was your point that I was agreeing with. I support both the occupationists and carbon tax protesters right to free political speech and I agree that in both groups there were legit and probably fakes. Regardless, I do not support acts like hate speech, overt sexism and throwing EFTPOS machines. I do not know how you could read that I think free speech should trump assault/battery and/or assault be read into the constitution.

    how is throwing an ATM an assault? Maybe you are referring to a particular incident I’m not aware of?
    I was referring to the incident you raised in your previous post.

    All of them? That is clearly a malicious lie.
    Not malicious, nor a lie. To call it a malicious lie is indeed a malicious lie 🙂 It was an observation, nothing more. Possibly flawed, yes, I was not there but just as you knew people there, so did I. I knew people there who disagreed with the carbon tax and felt they had to leave simply because the anti-female sentiment was so high it was intolerable for them.

    Additionally, I never said all of them. I said as a group, acting as a group. I will explain. It appeared to me to be a group, who stood side by side and supported such hate and anti-women sentiments. I agree that not all of them would have agreed with such signs (my friends for example did not – they asked for the ‘gillard the witch’ chant to stop, they asked for signs to be removed and anti-carbon tax signs to be used instead). As they were female, they were berated and insulted with – you guessed it – sexist bull. There is a difference between several people in a group with signs and the group majority chanting anti women chants as part of the group’s overall protest rather than anti-carbon tax chants at a carbon tax rally, and one person who left the protest to go into a store and then committed an offensive act.

  80. Splatterbottom

    “I can keep pointing to images of the entire group.”

    Please do.

    It was an observation, nothing more. Possibly flawed, yes,”

    What you were trying to do was to tar people with actions they didn’t do. Bear in mind you are trying to justify the stinking hypocrisy of people who apply one standard to the Occupationistas and another to the Carbon Tax rally. You are naturally going to have to play the political contortionist. And when you do that you are insulting my family and friends in the same way that idiot leftist mongrel Albanese did.

    “Additionally, I never said all of them. I said as a group, acting as a group. “

    Now you are splitting hairs.

    Also I am launching a campiagn to bring back “bitch” into the vernacular. There is a time and a place for both that word and its male equivalent “bastard”. I am sick of righteous idiots pontificating about “hate speech”, sexism and the bullshit hubris they wear around like a chip on their shoulders. When it comes to real the sexism that pervades the islamic world, I don’t hear them being nearly so shrill, if indeed I hear them at all.

  81. “Also I am launching a campiagn to bring back “bitch” into the vernacular. There is a time and a place for both that word and its male equivalent “bastard”.. I am sick of righteous idiots pontificating about “hate speech”, sexism and the bullshit hubris they wear around like a chip on their shoulders”

    So why did you point out that my comments toward you were ageist, they were, it was obvious yet you chose to point it out?

  82. Also I am launching a campiagn to bring back “bitch” into the vernacular. There is a time and a place for both that word and its male equivalent “bastard”. I am sick of righteous idiots pontificating about “hate speech”, sexism and the bullshit hubris they wear around like a chip on their shoulders. When it comes to real the sexism that pervades the islamic world, I don’t hear them being nearly so shrill, if indeed I hear them at all.

    Sounds like you’ve got a chip or two of your own there. You certainly come across as sexist and hateful in this paragraph.

    Good luck with your quest to legitimise the word “bitch”. I suspect you will need it. When people call you a sexist bully, this will surely be a sign that you are on the right track. It couldn’t be that you actually are one. Anyway, as you say, you can just point out that you are not as bad as Teh Mooslims. That should shut them up.

  83. Splatterbottom

    Bobbyboy: “So why did you point out that my comments toward you were ageist, they were, it was obvious yet you chose to point it out?”

    Just sayin’, that’s all.

    Buns: “You certainly come across as sexist and hateful in this paragraph.”

    I wasn’t being sexist but I am fairly hateful when it comes to pure hypocritical idiocy.

    “When people call you a sexist bully, this will surely be a sign that you are on the right track.”

    It is usually a sign that (a) they don’t know me and (b) they are grandstanding.

    “Anyway, as you say, you can just point out that you are not as bad as Teh Mooslims. That should shut them up.”

    That wasn’t my point. But I didn’t expect you’d get it anyway. My point is that when it comes to certain types of much worse sexism they don’t need me to prompt them. They shut themselves up.

    On a positive note, I was very pleased to see Amnesty International out and about on Sunday collecting signatures in support of women’s rights in Egypt.

  84. I knew what your point was and was being facetious. That should have been apparent to you.

    The difference between us is that I don’t assume that because someone hasn’t vocalised their opposition to something, that means they support it. Or that one has to object publicly to everything objectionable around the world or otherwise be a hypocrite when expressing opposition to one thing in particular.

  85. narcoticmusing

    It is usually a sign that (a) they don’t know me and (b) they are grandstanding.

    Read Matthew 7:16 lately? If a person thinks you are a sexist bully due to your words/actions/behaviour you may want to reflect on yourself and not disregard the observation (note I am not saying you are, merely commenting on your resposne to if someone did think so)

  86. narcoticmusing

    Are you assuming that because I dislike sexist hate speech that I don’t mind sexist behaviour in other cultures? I actively oppose sexist behaviours in other nations and cultures. I am also aware that it is viewed by these nations as hypocritical for us to point out the splinter in their eye while not taking the log out of our own. While I agree the violations in other countries that you’ve mentioned are far more heinous, we know better and still do the same. I don’t see the need to pick on any one religion regarding sexism.

    Nevertheless, you seem to believe that other countries sexism is so great it excuses our own. Domestic violence against women is still the number one preventable admission to hospital for women – so I really think you need to consider the culture of sexism here as being far more substantial than what you may want to believe.

  87. Splatterbottom

    Buns: “The difference between us is that I don’t assume that because someone hasn’t vocalised their opposition to something, that means they support it.”

    I didn’t assume that.

    “one has to object publicly to everything objectionable around the world or otherwise be a hypocrite when expressing opposition to one thing in particular.”

    That is a more difficult issue. Obviously if you spend quite a bit of effort supporting a cause you may be better served focusing on the most egregious examples. But if you are a supporter of one side in a conflict and incessantly prattle on about the other side’s human rights abuses while not mentioning human rights abuses carried out by the side you support then people might conclude you are more partisan than pure in your commitment to human rights.

    Or if, for example, you think free speech is important but decide to stay silent when it is the government uses its powers to attack its critics while not mentioning impropriety in more compliant media then people might start wondering about your real priorities.

  88. Obviously if you spend quite a bit of effort supporting a cause you may be better served focusing on the most egregious examples. But if you are a supporter of one side in a conflict and incessantly prattle on about the other side’s human rights abuses while not mentioning human rights abuses carried out by the side you support then people might conclude you are more partisan than pure in your commitment to human rights.

    I’m sure that the people most likely to conclude that will be ideologues wedded to the other “side” looking to score a cheap point with a strawman. There are other considerations as well. People are naturally inclined to be more interested in human rights abuses comitted by their own nations (or their nations’ allies) because those abuses are effectively being committed in their name(s), and therefore to be more vocal about those abuses. They should be free to do that without being accused of condoning human rights abuses being commited by other countries.

  89. Or if, for example, you think free speech is important but decide to stay silent when it is the government uses its powers to attack its critics while not mentioning impropriety in more compliant media then people might start wondering about your real priorities.

    The only people who would wonder about that are people who think a failure to actively speak out against something is indicative of support for it. I don’t think anyone should care much about the opinion of people stupid enough to think that.

  90. Splatterbottom

    Buns: “People are naturally inclined to be more interested in human rights abuses comitted by their own nations (or their nations’ allies) because those abuses are effectively being committed in their name(s)”

    There is a good argument that they have more hope of achieving something useful by acting locally.

    I’ve heard a lot of people ranting about News Ltd in Australia, but most of them haven’t found the time to mention the two most recent cases of alleged journalistic malpractice, both of which emanate from the Age. Funny that, no?

  91. narcoticmusing

    I’ve heard a lot of people ranting about News Ltd in Australia, but most of them haven’t found the time to mention the two most recent cases of alleged journalistic malpractice, both of which emanate from the Age

    [puts up hand] I did. I don’t care which media organisation it is. I am sick of media product. That being said, I do not want Government control of the media either. Which is why I am cautiously, atm at least, ok with an inquiry – all it will do is inquire. My concern is the objective inquiry by the very esteemed Fink is looking like it is being more and more corrupted by directions from the Minister. It needs to remain separate and advisory/informative, not a witch hunt.

    Political free speech is vital for a democracy, which is why it has been rightly implied into our Constitution – but for it to be truly free speech must not be purchased or at least disclosed when it is; and political speech must not ‘monitored’, filtered or controlled by government. This of course does not extend to all speech, but should be read broadly.

  92. What are they SB, and are they in the same league as hacking the voicemail of murdered children, their lawyers and then paying detectives to follow the lawyer’s kids?

    I mean if they’re in that league tell me about them and I’ll rant on, I’m no fan of the Age, I don’t think it’s a particularly good paper (Vendetta against Richard Pratt comes to mind and I ranted against them in the blogosphere) but it’s a better newspaper than the Herald Sun.

  93. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic, I wrote a considered reply but WordPress ate it. The short version is:

    1. I don’t think what goes on in other countries is an excuse for ignoring problems here.

    2. “Sexism” is thrown around so easily it has lost some force. Sexist ideas are often not harmful or only trivially so.

    3. OTOH there are real problems here. For example, the level of sexual assault in this country is shockingly high. Based on my experience of talking to family and close friends it seems that a large majority of women experience some form of physical sexual assault at some stage in their lives.

    4. I consider the advice of other people depending on what I think of them and their motivations.

    5. I agree with your comments on free speech.

  94. narcoticmusing

    Unfortunately, I agree with your points – (not unfortunate not that I agree with you rather it is unfortunate that these are all too true). I agree that words like sexist are thrown about and lose some meaning (even more so words like misogyny which is used terribly poorly by people who probably mean sexist but that is another rant). Demonisation of men is harmful to resolution of sexism issues, but then, so is demonisation of feminisim and we have plenty of that too.

    I think you will find, however, that ‘trivial’ is very subjective. If you have had to combat sexism (or worse) it is often the ‘trivial’ things that can cause the most harm because they are disregarded, much like the value of the person .

  95. “Narcotic, I wrote a considered reply but WordPress ate it. The short version is:”

    Mine just sit there for ages and sometimes never get published, I have a post sitting up there made at 3:28 pm yesterday. I give up, WordPress doesn’t work (for me at least). Even this post will go into moderation.

    Ciao Playmates.

  96. narcoticmusing

    Bobbyboy – I find if I login at the wordpress.com site then open this site I get better success than if I log in via this blog.

  97. Splatterbottom

    Test.

  98. Splatterbottom

    Bye Bobbyboy – it’s been a blast. Come around if you want a bit of slap and tickle.

  99. Splatterbottom

    Narcortic it isn’t letting me reply to you.

  100. narcoticmusing

    Narcortic it isn’t letting me reply to you.

    Clearly a conspiracy 🙂 Perhaps wordpress just needs a coffee. My god, after being in the US, coffee is so magnificent here.

  101. Splatterbottom

    Here’s some Tweetcrime! And London Occupationistas in league with the coppers!

  102. Well done to the police in heading off what would most likely have ended in a huge riot!

  103. narcoticmusing

    Interesting – I am sure there is more to it. I wonder if the riots have something to do with the odd response?

  104. Splatterbottom

    Counter-demonstrations are often a problem as they lead to violence. I don’t see much of a problem from a free speech point of view if you make the two groups with opposite viewpoints demonstrate on different days, provided they each have a reasonable opportunity to make their point.

    Still arresting 170 or so people seems a bit OTT.

    I’m sure Buns will be right behind the police if they do the same to the (ironically named) Anti-fascists next time they plan to disrupt a rally.

  105. For sure. Then you will denounce the police action as “a bit OTT”.

  106. narcoticmusing

    I giggled at the ironic name too btw. I wonder if they get it?

  107. jordanrastrick

    You’d think wordpress could do a better job with the spam / moderation stuff. It is, like, part of their core business and all.

    I mean, naieve Bayesian methods work ridiculously well for email, and I don’t see why they’re not adaptable to blogs. In particular those of us who comment regularly using verified WordPress accounts are clearly not ever posting spam, and a Bayesian filter should learn that for free, without even having to separately use a white list feature.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s