Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 117 118 [119] 120 121 ... 163

Author Topic: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!  (Read 226431 times)

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1770 on: July 16, 2016, 09:46:10 am »

Well no, it's more cut and dried than that.

Google "news.com.au blogs". Which should be a pretty impartial google search. It gives you 4 names: Piers Ackerman, Miranda Devine, Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair. Now, all four of these are political commentators and every one of them is far to the right, they all slam the left-wing party constantly and exalt the right-wing party constantly - barring times when they bemoan how the right-wing party aren't right-wing enough. That's pretty much the entire extent of editorial / opinion content on news.com.au.

there's also non-politicized "opinion" section at http://www.news.com.au/opinion, but there are exactly two posts that have ever been made in that section, and both of them seem to have been merely incorrectly tagged, since they are not opinion pieces at all. So basically, there is no opinion section other than the right-wing political stuff.

Having all your paper's blogs/opinion be both political and hardcore right-wing is ... not the usual state of affairs at a mainstream paper's website. e.g. New York Times has opinion pieces on many topics and spanning a range of opinions. Hell ... even the goddamn daily mail has opinion pieces on more diverse topics. news.com.au editorial line is therefore the spitting image of FOX News.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2016, 11:46:13 am by Reelya »
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1771 on: July 16, 2016, 04:14:26 pm »

Well no, it's more cut and dried than that.

Google "news.com.au blogs". Which should be a pretty impartial google search. It gives you 4 names: Piers Ackerman, Miranda Devine, Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair. Now, all four of these are political commentators and every one of them is far to the right, they all slam the left-wing party constantly and exalt the right-wing party constantly - barring times when they bemoan how the right-wing party aren't right-wing enough. That's pretty much the entire extent of editorial / opinion content on news.com.au.

there's also non-politicized "opinion" section at http://www.news.com.au/opinion, but there are exactly two posts that have ever been made in that section, and both of them seem to have been merely incorrectly tagged, since they are not opinion pieces at all. So basically, there is no opinion section other than the right-wing political stuff.

Having all your paper's blogs/opinion be both political and hardcore right-wing is ... not the usual state of affairs at a mainstream paper's website. e.g. New York Times has opinion pieces on many topics and spanning a range of opinions. Hell ... even the goddamn daily mail has opinion pieces on more diverse topics. news.com.au editorial line is therefore the spitting image of FOX News.
Yeah nah
Aussie right and American right are not the same, and having partisan websites is not uncommon for newspapers unless you're going to say the Guardian and MSNBC are both the splitting image of each other because their paper's blogs/opinion are both political and hardcore left-wing - the Guardian and MSNBC are both the reporting on the left from two different sides of the world and have their own styles, ethos, and general philosophy

Edmus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Powerful toasting since 1893!
    • View Profile
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1772 on: July 16, 2016, 06:29:40 pm »

If it proves effective, it's bloody well condonable
It's not that people don't use concentration camps because they aren't effective.

Logged

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1773 on: July 16, 2016, 06:42:38 pm »

If the Australian right finishes adopting religious conservatism then the division between them and the American right will have almost closed, at least in my view. The only major difference is in the support of the existing welfare state, but that's true everywhere. Even the most dyed in the wool Republican doesn't try to touch Medicare and Social Security directly. That Australia's existing welfare is more comprehensive doesn't show a substantial ideological divide.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1774 on: July 16, 2016, 06:51:22 pm »

If it proves effective, it's bloody well condonable
It's not that people don't use concentration camps because they aren't effective.
You should look at Germany, they reopened their concentration camps to house refugees because they're effective

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1775 on: July 17, 2016, 02:48:00 am »

Well, yeah, they're pretty good at accomodating a lot of people. In and of themselves, if you have a good reason to incarcerate the people and treat them humanely, concentration camps aren't bad.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1776 on: July 17, 2016, 02:55:52 am »

The Guardian comparison to Newscorp is quite invalid.

Newscorp = "right wing party not right-wing enough. Left-wing party should be exterminated".

Guardian = "right wing party should court the centrist vote. Left wing party should court the centrist vote". Basically they have very similar articles picking apart both sides of politics, whereas the Newscorp stuff is totally partisan and hostile. For example this Guardian opinion piece "Labour has the stench of death" because they went too far to the left:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/16/corbynism-sounds-death-knell-for-labour
Is an exact parallel of this Guardian piece which advises that Malcolm Turnbull should court the centrist vote and not be swayed by the far right:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/15/as-turnbull-knuckles-down-for-big-fight-coalition-needs-to-rediscover-its-true-purpose

There's just no comparision. NewsCorp's political coverage can only be described a venomous, and they proudly wear their bias on their sleeve. It's just not good journalism (at all). Whereas the Guardian opinion section makes an effort to cover both parties using basically the same language and rules of engagement. It's the clear difference between muck raking and actual journalism.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 03:09:13 am by Reelya »
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1777 on: July 17, 2016, 01:19:30 pm »

The Guardian comparison to Newscorp is quite invalid.
Newscorp = "right wing party not right-wing enough. Left-wing party should be exterminated".
Guardian = "right wing party should court the centrist vote. Left wing party should court the centrist vote".
Reelya, at least try to understand how those you oppose think; GMG is not an infallible impartial bastion of centrism whilst Newscorp is a monolithic right wing extermination hive mind. One thing to note well is that the left-right dichotomy has not been holding up well at all in the UK or USA

Basically they have very similar articles picking apart both sides of politics, whereas the Newscorp stuff is totally partisan and hostile. For example this Guardian opinion piece "Labour has the stench of death" because they went too far to the left:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/16/corbynism-sounds-death-knell-for-labour
Is an exact parallel of this Guardian piece which advises that Malcolm Turnbull should court the centrist vote and not be swayed by the far right:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/15/as-turnbull-knuckles-down-for-big-fight-coalition-needs-to-rediscover-its-true-purpose

There's just no comparision. NewsCorp's political coverage can only be described a venomous, and they proudly wear their bias on their sleeve. It's just not good journalism (at all). Whereas the Guardian opinion section makes an effort to cover both parties using basically the same language and rules of engagement. It's the clear difference between muck raking and actual journalism.
When the Times broke the story of the rape gang coverups, they were accused of being venomous racists, yet fittingly, in time were proven to have been the only ones willing to do actual journalism where apparent reasonable journalists were complicit in the coverup. Then Sweden and Germany got their own taste of coverups, but frankly I don't care what they do as their news isn't in English so they get little brand recognition here. They (Times) are owned by NewsCorp, are centre-right and had their own style apart from say, the Sun, and indeed, Fox News. Distinctions are important. Not all act the same, and if you find Newscorp to be a monolithic right wing viper, you would do better to notice the viper is in fact a hydra, even if you only take note of its differences to better neutralize it. To boot, the guardian is left-wing neoliberalism in direct opposition to the communists who have taken over our most powerful left wing party. It is altogether quite unbelievable that you think the Guardian are centrists when even in your article its wearing its bias on its sleeve, if you wanted a truly centrist paper where Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage could share the same page you'd have picked up the Independent before their takeover and Buzzfeedization, upon which they've now become biased in favour of being clickb8. As it is, a left wing paper complaining about communists ruining their leftism or the centre-right ruining their leftism is very much their own unique diaspora.
Right wing, left wing bias, much more important to see where they stand on liberalism, conservatism, progressivism, marxism and so on.
The Guardian and MSNBC are not the same, but if you really want some hilarity, hit up the Off Guardian to see what it looks like for disillusioned journalists to come together in being salty that the Guardian no longer caters to their particular leftism. Confusingly enough the OffGuardian accuses the Guardian of abandoning centre-leftism, but the OffGuardian seems to tend more leftwards than the Guardian.
Quote
OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages. We followed with dismay and disappointment the increasingly distorted and tendentious news reporting on Libya, the proxy-war in Syria, and the Ukraine Crisis.  Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.
Ha, I've only known one Guardian journalist in my life and based off his words, I don't think it's as bad as the Off Guardian suggests (though the pay is horrendous, you truly only would ever do it because you love your job and believe what you say). One does wonder if they're considering social or economic leftism to be the most important issue to be centrist on. Every media outlet is a bastion of impartiality and truth, except of course they're not. To Russians, Russia Today is true, to centrists the BBC is true/biased as fuck e.t.c.
To that end it doesn't matter where you stand or who you support or who your newspaper broadly supports, each paper can rarely boast ideological uniformity and the great corporate families cannot at all. Moreover there is a surprising level of cross pollination, with executives, journalists and columnists swapping between media branches and families you would not expect at all, such as from the Guardian to the Telegraph, from the Daily Mail to Independent and so on. Daily Mail ones are quite notable in that because it is written as its style (one of the pioneers in doom bait), well educated urban workers assume the writers are idiots pandering to idiots. Whether this prejudice is justified or not, the writers themselves know exactly what they are doing, and often are the same who write for their favoured prints - which further highlights how curious it is that cross pollination so to speak, does not result in all papers hovering in the centre. Not too unsurprising that they remain in their own general (and they are general) spheres, as in order to capture separate demographics they end up tailored to their readership - if you did the Guardian survey a while back on how often you bought their papers or viewed their website, it included such questions as age, gender, self-described political affiliations, trust and perception of bias in the Guardian (on the left-right political axis) in order to research their audience.
That's not even including where the ground level journalists are sourced from, so WSJ is speaking from New York and the Times from London (except of course where they're not, but I don't mean literally speaking out of NY/L)

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1778 on: July 17, 2016, 06:13:25 pm »

Quote
Not all act the same, and if you find Newscorp to be a monolithic right wing viper, you would do better to notice the viper is in fact a hydra,

But none of that was a point I made. I said news.com.au was the local FOX-style news outlet in Australia. And that as such, the source for my article about asylum seekers in Australia was not drawn from the liberal end of the media, but the conservative end of the media. The entire point of doing so was to nip in the bud any "liberal media bullshit" style rejection of the source. I showed via evidence that news.com.au is indeed very similar to how FOX News operates - all their editorial content is extremely political and highly polarized in the exact same way.

Since this is the Australian Politics thread, then how they operate here is the main point.

Quote
They (Times) are owned by NewsCorp, are centre-right and had their own style apart from say, the Sun, and indeed, Fox News. Distinctions are important.

"style" clearly means the tone of general content, which is not the same thing as editorial content. Distinctions are important, after all. "Front-page" style varies across all the Newscorp papers, and is driven by the market segment they are aimed at. But their editorial spin is pretty consistent across them all. If you could bring up even a single example of a NewsCorp paper which lacks the massively pro-Tory/anti-Labor frothing-at-the-mouth editorials, you might have a point. Until then ... I can fairly surmise that all NewsCorp papers are the same as the ones I have access to. I'd check out The Times opinion pages for reference, but it's behind a paywall and I don't care enough to pay to read it.

Quote
OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages. We followed with dismay and disappointment the increasingly distorted and tendentious news reporting on Libya, the proxy-war in Syria, and the Ukraine Crisis.  Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.

I'm not sure you are comprehending this properly. OffGuardian is saying that the paper was "once" left of center, but that it isn't any more. So what does that make it now? Not left of center, i.e. centrist or center-right. So in other words, these people are saying that The Guardian filters out comment that's too left-wing. I'm not sure how that can be used to show that Guardian is some sort of left-wing version of FOX News.

As for The Times getting it right ... there are relevant sayings here "a broken clock is right twice a day", "the boy who cried wolf". Cry that often enough, and eventually you'll do it when there is a wolf. "they were right, once" isn't really rocket science. You want to look at batting averages.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 09:12:07 pm by Reelya »
Logged

Insanegame27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Now versio- I mean, age 18. Honestly not an AI.
    • View Profile
    • Steam ID
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1779 on: July 19, 2016, 08:57:56 am »

I ended up seeing Q&A live (In the audience) and, looking back, would not have preferred to spend the time watching anything else.
Pauline-bloody hansen. I also talked with 2 of the muslim people who asked the questions.


Pauling is Trump version 1.0.Aus
Logged
Power/metagaming RL since Birth/Born to do it.
Quote from: Second Amendment
A militia cannot function properly without arms, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The military cannot function without tanks and warplanes, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear tanks and warplanes, shall not be infringed.
The military cannot function without ICBMs, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear ICBMs, shall not be infringed.

DG

  • Bay Watcher
  • Pull the Lever
    • View Profile
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1780 on: July 20, 2016, 03:51:05 am »

As soon as I saw that Pauline was on Q&A I changed the channel. But I hear it was one of their highest rating episodes.
Logged

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1781 on: July 20, 2016, 04:13:57 am »

As a good Christian Muslim, I approve of Pauline Hanson. For those unfamiliar with our nations Great Thinker, I present some actual quotes:

"There are Christian Muslims - there is no problems about that,"

Malaysia had been "taken over by Muslims, despite a long history of Islam in that country".

"I think I'm a little bit older, wiser, a lot more mature, and my knowledge of politics is a lot broader"

All these came ten years after she got into federal politics. God help us if I pulled up some of her earlier, uninformed quotes.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 04:17:27 am by Reelya »
Logged

martinuzz

  • Bay Watcher
  • High dwarf
    • View Profile
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1782 on: July 20, 2016, 04:30:35 am »

Holy shit that woman is worse than retarded. Why is she in politics instead of in daycare for the mentally disabled?
Logged
Friendly and polite reminder for optimists: Hope is a finite resource

We can ­disagree and still love each other, ­unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist - James Baldwin

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=73719.msg1830479#msg1830479

Insanegame27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Now versio- I mean, age 18. Honestly not an AI.
    • View Profile
    • Steam ID
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1783 on: July 20, 2016, 04:38:11 am »

And to top it off, she doesn't even look that good...
Logged
Power/metagaming RL since Birth/Born to do it.
Quote from: Second Amendment
A militia cannot function properly without arms, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The military cannot function without tanks and warplanes, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear tanks and warplanes, shall not be infringed.
The military cannot function without ICBMs, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear ICBMs, shall not be infringed.

MarcAFK

  • Bay Watcher
  • [INSANITY INTENSIFIES]
    • View Profile
Re: Reudh's Hilarious Australasian politics thread!
« Reply #1784 on: July 20, 2016, 04:42:30 am »

As a polytheistic Christian atheist who believes in socialist capitalist anarchy I do believe she's crazy!
Logged
They're nearly as bad as badgers. Build a couple of anti-buzzard SAM sites marksdwarf towers and your fortress will look like Baghdad in 2003 from all the aerial bolt spam. You waste a lot of ammo and everything is covered in unslightly exploded buzzard bits and broken bolts.
Pages: 1 ... 117 118 [119] 120 121 ... 163