Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wendybr

Australian Current Affairs Thread (not a Politics Thread) lol

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, marron said:

If you want to understand the impact of a message, look to the receiver. If the ones lapping it up are from a certain demographic, then it tells you something. Basically, that this isn't universal.  Why is it that it hits a certain demographic? What is it about that group thst makes it receptive? Access to the message is one part, but not the only part. And what is it about the message? It must appeal.

And the message is - Don't lose control..... take it back..... 

If that's of your own life,,yeah, good.

If that's of others people's lives, you know what, **** you.  

 

You guys keep talking in riddles...

You're implying his audience is ...these young white guys?? ...with a tendency towards ….ummm…. white supremacy??

Otherwise...taking back control from whom?
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Join WestSydneyFootball.Com and participate by registering an account.

Taking back control From the SJWs ruining the world with their pronouns and #metoos. Who are stopping them from achieving the dream they had been promised - wealth, women, etc.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wendybr said:

Your loss Stringer.

I assume you mean JP...rather than JR.

 

To a degree both but more JP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mack said:

i dont know anything about the first link but i am not going to click on a cracked article when it comes to politics(or anything really) :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Wendy on this.

I think there's a lot of misinformation about JP, not helped by the fact that people always ask him the same questions. I've watched quite a bit of him, and find him genuinely interested and interesting, especially when the questions are thoughtful. He is often the only person on a show, or one of the only ones, genuinely listening to the other people and growing and learning.

I don't agree with his religious views, or his self-help stuff. Clean your room. **** off dad. But his political commentary I find enthralling, namely because I think that he is genuinely trying to find good answers and not just pushing an agenda. Sure, he's got his views, but he is always expanding them.

I couldn't care less if the alt right likes him, they suffer from as much misinformation as anyone. And anyway, if we dismiss the messenger because of who they are, aren't we falling into the trap of politics. Yeah his "marxist coming to take over the world" stuff is a bit over the top, but that doesn't mean you can't agree with many other things he says.

To clarify some of his views:

  • He believes that society needs a certain level of inequality as that breeds innovation, invention, desire, hard work etc. But he also believes - no, he states as fact - that too much inequality breeds social issues. So he thinks the right and left should agree that some level of inequality is needed, the debate should be about how much.
  • He has never said that women should stay home. In fact, his belief is that the workforce needs more people with a high level of skill and ability and no right-thinking individual would want to deny 50% of the population adding to the level of skill and ability. That is why he is a strong advocate of equality of opportunity, but not of outcomes. He doesn't believe that there should be any quotas because that arbitrarily forces people into certain jobs, and that leads to a drop in quality.  Yes he has said that women should not be told that they will get satisfaction from being successful in their jobs rather than their home life, but he also thinks that for males. He's not pining for something that was the case 30 years ago, he actually thinks everyone should get the same opportunity to choose their occupation (reasonably, I assume he recognises that the inequality he thinks is necessary will impact some opportunity). Of course, he believes that men will choose "traditionally" male jobs, but he also provides research in very equal countries like the Nordic ones to support that belief.
  • When asked about the legalisation of pot in Canada, I thought we were gonna get a conservative answer. Instead, he said "about time". Then he went on to say that if enough people think a law should change, then it should.

Yeah his political messages are like a politician on the campaign trail, in that they never get tested. But as a theorist I like him. Yeah he answers about topics he's not an expert on, and yeah sometimes he goes off a bit, but hey, if you put the greatest minds in history on tape every second day they'd say some stupid stuff too.

On the whole, I usually find myself learning something, or at least thinking about things differently, after watching him. And there are plenty of lefties on his videos saying they think he talks sense. I agree with them. But then again, I think that the left has lost the ability to determine which things are actually discriminatory, and have mixed up "the same" with equality (i.e. equality is good, but that doesn't mean everyone is the same) and so the SJWs do bug me, so maybe I'm a good candidate to drink his kool-aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, btron3000 said:

I'm with Wendy on this.

I think there's a lot of misinformation about JP, not helped by the fact that people always ask him the same questions. I've watched quite a bit of him, and find him genuinely interested and interesting, especially when the questions are thoughtful. He is often the only person on a show, or one of the only ones, genuinely listening to the other people and growing and learning.

I don't agree with his religious views, or his self-help stuff. Clean your room. **** off dad. But his political commentary I find enthralling, namely because I think that he is genuinely trying to find good answers and not just pushing an agenda. Sure, he's got his views, but he is always expanding them.

I couldn't care less if the alt right likes him, they suffer from as much misinformation as anyone. And anyway, if we dismiss the messenger because of who they are, aren't we falling into the trap of politics. Yeah his "marxist coming to take over the world" stuff is a bit over the top, but that doesn't mean you can't agree with many other things he says.

To clarify some of his views:

  • He believes that society needs a certain level of inequality as that breeds innovation, invention, desire, hard work etc. But he also believes - no, he states as fact - that too much inequality breeds social issues. So he thinks the right and left should agree that some level of inequality is needed, the debate should be about how much.
  • He has never said that women should stay home. In fact, his belief is that the workforce needs more people with a high level of skill and ability and no right-thinking individual would want to deny 50% of the population adding to the level of skill and ability. That is why he is a strong advocate of equality of opportunity, but not of outcomes. He doesn't believe that there should be any quotas because that arbitrarily forces people into certain jobs, and that leads to a drop in quality.  Yes he has said that women should not be told that they will get satisfaction from being successful in their jobs rather than their home life, but he also thinks that for males. He's not pining for something that was the case 30 years ago, he actually thinks everyone should get the same opportunity to choose their occupation (reasonably, I assume he recognises that the inequality he thinks is necessary will impact some opportunity). Of course, he believes that men will choose "traditionally" male jobs, but he also provides research in very equal countries like the Nordic ones to support that belief.
  • When asked about the legalisation of pot in Canada, I thought we were gonna get a conservative answer. Instead, he said "about time". Then he went on to say that if enough people think a law should change, then it should.

Yeah his political messages are like a politician on the campaign trail, in that they never get tested. But as a theorist I like him. Yeah he answers about topics he's not an expert on, and yeah sometimes he goes off a bit, but hey, if you put the greatest minds in history on tape every second day they'd say some stupid stuff too.

On the whole, I usually find myself learning something, or at least thinking about things differently, after watching him. And there are plenty of lefties on his videos saying they think he talks sense. I agree with them. But then again, I think that the left has lost the ability to determine which things are actually discriminatory, and have mixed up "the same" with equality (i.e. equality is good, but that doesn't mean everyone is the same) and so the SJWs do bug me, so maybe I'm a good candidate to drink his kool-aid.

A thousand times THANK YOU, Btron!

Thank you for the time and thought you put into articulating your views there!

Goat and I were feeling a bit lonely here! :D

I cannot think of another public figure who has been so publicly vilified....and it's either out of malice, or most likely, ignorance of what he's on about.

You used the word "enthralling" to describe his talks - and I couldn't agree more. And you referred to "thinking about things differently after listening to him" - and that's true too.

I mean it when I say it's peoples' loss if they write him off on the basis of misinformation that has been circulated about him. It's sad, and it solidifies one of the criticisms of what goes on these days- of people refusing to listen to the other side - except that in his case, he's somewhere in the middle politically...and not at all "other side" in ways that he is portrayed.

More and more reasonable people are realising this - and paying attention to someone who does think deeply and intelligently about serious issues, and is brave enough to voice his views - despite really ugly attacks on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, btron3000 said:

I'm with Wendy on this.

I think there's a lot of misinformation about JP, not helped by the fact that people always ask him the same questions. I've watched quite a bit of him, and find him genuinely interested and interesting, especially when the questions are thoughtful. He is often the only person on a show, or one of the only ones, genuinely listening to the other people and growing and learning.

I don't agree with his religious views, or his self-help stuff. Clean your room. **** off dad. But his political commentary I find enthralling, namely because I think that he is genuinely trying to find good answers and not just pushing an agenda. Sure, he's got his views, but he is always expanding them.

I couldn't care less if the alt right likes him, they suffer from as much misinformation as anyone. And anyway, if we dismiss the messenger because of who they are, aren't we falling into the trap of politics. Yeah his "marxist coming to take over the world" stuff is a bit over the top, but that doesn't mean you can't agree with many other things he says.

To clarify some of his views:

  • He believes that society needs a certain level of inequality as that breeds innovation, invention, desire, hard work etc. But he also believes - no, he states as fact - that too much inequality breeds social issues. So he thinks the right and left should agree that some level of inequality is needed, the debate should be about how much.
  • He has never said that women should stay home. In fact, his belief is that the workforce needs more people with a high level of skill and ability and no right-thinking individual would want to deny 50% of the population adding to the level of skill and ability. That is why he is a strong advocate of equality of opportunity, but not of outcomes. He doesn't believe that there should be any quotas because that arbitrarily forces people into certain jobs, and that leads to a drop in quality.  Yes he has said that women should not be told that they will get satisfaction from being successful in their jobs rather than their home life, but he also thinks that for males. He's not pining for something that was the case 30 years ago, he actually thinks everyone should get the same opportunity to choose their occupation (reasonably, I assume he recognises that the inequality he thinks is necessary will impact some opportunity). Of course, he believes that men will choose "traditionally" male jobs, but he also provides research in very equal countries like the Nordic ones to support that belief.
  • When asked about the legalisation of pot in Canada, I thought we were gonna get a conservative answer. Instead, he said "about time". Then he went on to say that if enough people think a law should change, then it should.

Yeah his political messages are like a politician on the campaign trail, in that they never get tested. But as a theorist I like him. Yeah he answers about topics he's not an expert on, and yeah sometimes he goes off a bit, but hey, if you put the greatest minds in history on tape every second day they'd say some stupid stuff too.

On the whole, I usually find myself learning something, or at least thinking about things differently, after watching him. And there are plenty of lefties on his videos saying they think he talks sense. I agree with them. But then again, I think that the left has lost the ability to determine which things are actually discriminatory, and have mixed up "the same" with equality (i.e. equality is good, but that doesn't mean everyone is the same) and so the SJWs do bug me, so maybe I'm a good candidate to drink his kool-aid.

Except he kinda sorta does. Maybe not directly. But through his other statements.  I guess this is part of the problem. He might talk about not denying 50% of the population  anything, but then he says 

- people should get married 

- women should have babies, and all want to eventually 

- you can't have a career and go off an have a baby.

A mischaracterisation no doubt. But a smaller one than saying marxists run the world in order to create a totalitarian thought police state in which we will all be slaves. Or even that the left want equality of outcome more than opportunity. 

And it's the same with the inequality stuff and his denial of privilege. There are all sorts of advantages and disadvantages  people get ftom context and circumstance (in turm affecyed by entrenched privelige) which affect opportunity directly. Denying that is denying equality of opportunity. 

Edited by marron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, btron3000 said:

But then again, I think that the left has lost the ability to determine which things are actually discriminatory, and have mixed up "the same" with equality (i.e. equality is good, but that doesn't mean everyone is the same)

And sadly, this is true - and is driving intelligent people away from traditional positions held by the Left - and it's making it easy for the Right to lure people away, particularly younger people.

There need to be more people on the Left calling out what you refer to...the nonsense coming from the loud fringe elements of the Left.

Like this guy.

Sorry - posted at least once before....but these are  spot on in terms of the idiocy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, marron said:

Except he kinda sorta does. Maybe not directly. But through his other statements.  I guess this is part of the problem. He might talk about not denying 50% of the population  anything, but then he says 

- people should get married 

- women should have babies, and all want to eventually 

- you can't have a career and go off an have a baby.

Really don't think he says all women should have babies and then can't carry on with a career.

But yes - he says (mainly referring to young women lawyers he has worked with) that successful young women who have prioritised a high status career often will feel cheated if they don't have a family. 

How do we know he isn't 100% spot on? 

This has never happened to the extent that it does happen now  - that women will choose careers over family.

I do know a number of women in their thirties who are extremely dissatisfied in being without a family.

One I know well, in a well paid career, has spent a fortune on trying to go it alone with IVF.....sadly so far unsuccessfully.

As with many things, I think his point is that we have gone too far into new territory for the human species...and it's hard to know the future consequences....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, wendybr said:

And sadly, this is true - and is driving intelligent people away from traditional positions held by the Left - and it's making it easy for the Right to lure people away, particularly younger people.

There need to be more people on the Left calling out what you refer to...the nonsense coming from the loud fringe elements of the Left.

Like this guy.

Sorry - posted at least once before....but these are  spot on in terms of the idiocy.

 

I can’t stand this guy either 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I know he doesn't say that they shouldn't have a career - he is saying that society doesnt let them. Fine on its own. But then you couple thst with his assertions that people need to get married and have kids and the implication is there.

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

I can’t stand this guy either 

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Stringer

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, wendybr said:

For Stringer

 

I just don’t find his bite size social

media shareable mock outrage funny 

he’s basically Jeremy Clarkson 

 

 

ok he isn’t he feeds off that stuff and also feeds it 

I know what I mean 

 

I shudder to think what his audience would be like 

Edited by StringerBellend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, StringerBellend said:

I shudder to think what his audience would be like 

Smug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Carns said:

Smug.

Hopefully lefties, who are not too smug to actually listen to what he's saying! ;)

 

PS I think he's calling out "smug".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wendybr said:

Hopefully lefties, who are not too smug to actually listen to what he's saying! ;)

 

PS I think he's calling out "smug".

It will be a bunch of people agreeing with each other 

As for listening to what he saying 

yelling that Trump is a prick is hardly insightful while also doing a line in its political correctness gone mad 

As for his comedy bite sized social media shareable mock anger is ok on twitter but 2 hours of it Christ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, wendybr said:

And sadly, this is true - and is driving intelligent people away from traditional positions held by the Left - and it's making it easy for the Right to lure people away, particularly younger people.

"Those poor people want to improve the lives of everyone who isn't a millionaire or billionaire, this has made it easy for me to become a corporate bootlicker. #AllLivesMatter" If all it takes is a handful of fringe elements that have no real impact on the political process, for someone to completely abandon the ideals of improving the world for the working class at the expensive of the ultra-rich & mega corporations, how much did they really agree with them in the first place?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fastest backflip ever?

I can clearly see why people want to be 'lured away' to vote for such amazing wonderful right-wing politicians.

Can you imagine living in the USA, UK or Australia and thinking "Yeah, what this countries needs is more power for the right-wing, more power to Trump & McConnell, Tony Abbott and Peter Dutton or Theresa May and her merry band of idiots who pushed for Brexit with lie after lie and are now incompetently marching toward a no-deal exit from the EU?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, wendybr said:

That's an interesting post, my friend.

There sort of is a counter revolution going on...well at least, a definite push back.

That's often been the way things go - although I agree we are in dramatically unchartered territory now.

So I agree with much of what you say there...but I really don't understand how JP can be seen as "unable to reflect on" what's happening. If anything, my reading of him is that he is thinking/reflecting on modern issues all the time. Deeply reflecting on them.

To suggest he doesn't understand what's going on around him is odd. To suggest that he is somehow an unknowing pawn is quite wrong imo. He had some very undesirable elements latch onto him for a while - but that was transitory.

How much of his stuff  have you listened to, to base your observations on? 

More than Manny's two minutes on Q&A...plus a few Guardian articles telling readers why he's dangerous?  :D

 

 

 

PS This is unfamiliar territory for me - arguing with you two...three including Marron!  :unsure: :unsure:

Wendy,

There is a difference arguing with someone, and arguing a point. We are doing the latter. 

I am basing my view of JP on what I saw, heard, and noticed watching QandA. I don't think he is dangerous at all. To me he is just someone who wrote another self help book of sorts, that is going to sit there with thousands of other volumes on the same subject, along the line of "think and act yourself happy and well". He's a fad which will be replaced by the next fad sooner or later.

JP has a view, he expresses an opinion. It is seen as an objective truth by many, and that's one of the problems. The question is not "is he right or wrong?" but "where is he coming from?".

He was talking about individuality a lot which is a North American concept that is deeply ingrained in the culture there. That's the soil, the ground he is standing on. Also, he is a psychologist of sorts. Academic psychology in North America, the UK and Australia sees itself as a science among the natural sciences. 100 years ago it copied and adopted the tools and philosophies underpinning physics, chemistry, biology. While these sciences are grappling with the uncertainty that quantum physics has introduced, today's academic psychology is still trotting down the path of Newton and Galilei. As an academic field, it is a dead man walking.

As I said, we are living in a postmodern world. If we see post modernism as a critique of the modern era, it has put all sorts of questions marks behind ideas and "truths" we took for granted. The Earth has been shaking for decades, and we find ourselves smack bang in the middle of the Culture Wars. On the one side of the divide are those who are trying to hold on to some certainty, on the other side are those who try to establish a new one. It seems quite clear to me where JP is.

Psychology, as a field, gets off on function and behavior. That's their bread and butter. It doesn't see itself as a human activity, but a science. If psychology was to use psychology on itself, it would be able to reflect on itself. But the field does not do that. From what I've heard and read so far, neither does JP.

Individuality. Functioning. Behavior. And so we end up with a book which offers 12 "how to" bullet points to come to terms with chaos. 12. Not 10. Not 15. 12. It speaks to a lot of people, which is fair enough. But when yet another psychologist comes up with a list of one-size-fits-all list of bullet points that apparently is universally applicable, then alarm bells should be ringing. It's a view point, nothing else. And a very simplistic one, from my point of view.

It seems to appeal to a lot of people how he argues, which again is fair enough. .He doesn't just argue a point though, he argues with people. If that's what he does when the lectures, or when he sits with people, once again alarm bells should be ringing. But only those who actually experience him at that level would know the answer to that.

I am standing on European soil. Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Gadamer, the French post modern philosophers etc- their thinking has been humming in the background all my life, even though I wasn't aware of it. As a result my thinking is different. It's part of continental European culture, it is in people's bones. North America, UK and Australia are very different in that regard, there are very different undercurrents at work.

To try and answer your question: I don't think he is aware of his blind spots, based on what I saw on QandA. If he was then he'd be arguing his point with more flexibility and less forceful or aggressive. And he'd probably be more relevant as opposed to be popular.

And none of what I just wrote is an objective truth. It is just my opinion. Another opinion: Michael Sandel's book on justice and Jonathan Haidt's "righteous mind" is what I would recommend.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

👍👍Will reply further later! 😊😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Edinburgh said:

A lot of interesting discussion going on here. Pity I understand less than 10% of it.

After btron's post I thought I may have snuck over 10%. After FCB's, I'm closer to 5%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Edinburgh said:

After btron's post I thought I may have snuck over 10%. After FCB's, I'm closer to 5%.

The abridged version: the way we live our lives is applied philosophy. Understand the philosophies that are underpinning Man's existence, and you will understand where he/she is coming from, and perhaps why he/she is thinking the way he/she is, and saying the things he/she says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay .... under 5%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, wendybr said:

 

I do know a number of women in their thirties who are extremely dissatisfied in being without a family.

 

 

Can't believe you just stood idly by whilst a forumer shared his tales of woe in not being able to find a girlfriend and you could have killed 2 birds with one stone.

Outrageous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man I go away for 5 seconds and somebody starts dissing psychology. Well I’m not going to defend it....I don’t need to. I know what a psychologist can offer and  add to peoples lives. (When done well).

Ain’t nobody got time for existential discussions when they are feeling they can’t get through another day. 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Cynth said:

 

Ain’t nobody got time for existential discussions unless they are looking forward to a bout of depression.

:rolleyes:

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×