Acceptable Behaviour for an elected politician ?

[Home Alone]

I don't particularly like this kind of behaviour from our elected officials either.

But when I am in troubled times like this, I find solace in the book of Tony Abbott quotes. I think this one is appropriate for this situation
"We don't elect out Parliamentarians to be saints"
When defending Barnaby Joyce in the lead up to the 'bonk ban'. It helped me through my troubled times at the indifference to Christian Porter alleged indiscretions and numerous other appointments.

I encourage everyone who is disappointed by Lidia to join me in reading Tony Abbotts wisdom and find peace.

 

[QuietB]

Unless Tom Elliott has said specifically that, it's not a criticism you can levy at him here.

My point is a white male politician did say that - and Tom Elliott probably cheered

 

[royale with cheese]

It isn't racism either. The way power relations in our society works, it is easier to be white than black, and calling someone a white c*** does not have the same impact as calling someone a black c***. Whiteness is not something that has been degraded and belittled by society for centuries.

She’s a senator, she has far more power than some yob in the street.

 

[Gethelred]

My point is a white male politician did say that

... in America. Tom Elliott might be an entitled son of a former Carlton president - with all that entails - but to my knowledge he's not said or done anything sexist in a like manner to Donald Trump.

... and Tom Elliott probably cheered

Find me evidence that he cheered that specific statement, then. Shouldn't be real hard, if you're looking to draw the line.

This - what you've done here - irritates me on several levels. You've conflated Australian conservatism with American conservatism, you've put both Tom Elliott and Donald ****ing Trump in a box to ignore what either would say, and I don't like Tom Elliott and you're forcing me to defend him.

Let's keep our criticisms honest, shall we? We're not them, not yet.

 

[royale with cheese]

And the mental hoops you must jump through to come to that view of racism must be incredible. Out of curiosity what's the racial hierarchy in your mind? Do indigenous Australians get to make racial slurs to every group? Who's higher in the hierarchy, east Asians or Indians? Does this hierarchy change over time? Who decides it and is it influenced by by an individuals socio-economic status? I'm honestly fascinated.

I was once on Hindley Street in Adelaide and saw an indigenous woman yelling all kinds of slurs at Sudanese bouncers who’d removed her from a nightclub.

Given the hierarchical nature of racism, it occurred to me that she wasn’t being racist because they had removed her from the club, thereby exercising power over her.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Well, certainly nut up to the standard you'd like from an elected official. Wouldn't make the top 100 shitty things said or done by a federal parliamentarian in the last few years though.

 

[QuietB]

... in America. Tom Elliott might be an entitled son of a former Carlton president - with all that entails - but to my knowledge he's not said or done anything sexist in a like manner to Donald Trump.

Find me evidence that he cheered that specific statement, then. Shouldn't be real hard, if you're looking to draw the line.

This - what you've done here - irritates me on several levels. You've conflated Australian conservatism with American conservatism, you've put both Tom Elliott and Donald ******* Trump in a box to ignore what either would say, and I don't like Tom Elliott and you're forcing me to defend him.

Let's keep our criticisms honest, shall we? We're not them, not yet.

My point is the duplicity of the conservative media.

Their entire schtick to wait for something like this to happen and then to work it within an inch of its life.

Simultaneously they will overlook every single indiscretion by conservative politicians. Grab em by the pussy was just an example where the conservative media let it slide because he is one of their boys. It could have equally been Barnaby Joyce "you can almost smell the burning flesh from here" (barely reported) or the reporting of Pell or the reporting of Brittany Higgins or the reporting of Grace Tame or the reporting of Greta Thunberg or the reporting of Christian Porter - all of this stuff is covered on entirely partisan grounds.

I have no time for Lidia Thorpe and find her behaviour on the weekend disgusting but the conservative media can get ****ed taking the moral high ground on it.

And posting a tweet trying to make "male politician(s)' the victim is pathetic.

You can defend him all you want - I won't be.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Well, certainly nut up to the standard you'd like from an elected official. Wouldn't make the top 100 shitty things said or done by a federal parliamentarian in the last few years though.

Blatant racism and threatening someone with a hit job? Gotta be top 5 at least mate.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Blatant racism and threatening someone with a hit job? Gotta be top 5 at least mate.

lol

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Out of curiosity, what do you think "you're marked" means?

It can mean something as innocuous as "I've taken note of who you are and won't deal with your nonsense in future". Interesting your first thought is assassination though.

And the mental hoops you must jump through to come to that view of racism must be incredible.

Why?

Out of curiosity what's the racial hierarchy in your mind? Do indigenous Australians get to make racial slurs to every group? Who's higher in the hierarchy, east Asians or Indians? Does this hierarchy change over time? Who decides it and is it influenced by by an individuals socio-economic status? I'm honestly fascinated.

Do you live in Australia? Have you looked around at our society at any point in terms of how it values people of different skin colours? Have you spoken much with non-white people and asked them if they think our society informally favours white people over others? I'm guessing you haven't, or you'd already know the answer to a lot of these questions (the ones you've posed in good faith, anyway, which I'm unconvinced is all of them).

Anyone gets to do whatever is within the law and doesn't get to do whatever isn't within the law. If you mean to ask whether I think there's a group of settlers that Indigenous people don't have any right to be angry at, the answer is no. If an Indigenous person made remarks about my race, rather than get offended or upset, I'd take a moment to ask myself about what amount of societal alienation and cultural loss that person had experienced for them to react in such a way. (I am not white).

I think it's very clear that First Nations people are looked down on and treated as lesser than by a lot of mainstream Australian society. As for the finer points of the hierarchy, why don't you tell me? You have eyes and ears and a sense of social perception, don't you?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

She’s a senator, she has far more power than some yob in the street.

Do you think she had a lot of power when the police were shoving her into the ground at Kellie Jay Kean's Nazi Jamboree recently?

 

[CakeEater]

She was elected on the Greens ticket though.

Personally I think if you're elected on a parties senate ticket and you leave the party you lose your seat but that's not the rules.

No doubt.

Id have that rule in the Lh as well.

 

[burge13]

I was once on Hindley Street in Adelaide and saw an indigenous woman yelling all kinds of slurs at Sudanese bouncers who’d removed her from a nightclub.

Given the hierarchical nature of racism, it occurred to me that she wasn’t being racist because they had removed her from the club, thereby exercising power over her.

Lydia Thorpe would benefit from walking up Hindley Street and North Terrace. The abuse thrown every day at people walking to work is nothing short of disgraceful. If I were to hurl abuse at people daily the outcome would definitely be different...

 

[burge13]

It can mean something as innocuous as "I've taken note of who you are and won't deal with your nonsense in future". Interesting your first thought is assassination though.


Why?


Do you live in Australia? Have you looked around at our society at any point in terms of how it values people of different skin colours? Have you spoken much with non-white people and asked them if they think our society informally favours white people over others? I'm guessing you haven't, or you'd already know the answer to a lot of these questions (the ones you've posed in good faith, anyway, which I'm unconvinced is all of them).

Anyone gets to do whatever is within the law and doesn't get to do whatever isn't within the law. If you mean to ask whether I think there's a group of settlers that Indigenous people don't have any right to be angry at, the answer is no. If an Indigenous person made remarks about my race, rather than get offended or upset, I'd take a moment to ask myself about what amount of societal alienation and cultural loss that person had experienced for them to react in such a way. (I am not white).

I think it's very clear that First Nations people are looked down on and treated as lesser than by a lot of mainstream Australian society. As for the finer points of the hierarchy, why don't you tell me? You have eyes and ears and a sense of social perception, don't you?

Good grief, lol

 

[Toump Ass]

I think it's very clear that First Nations people are looked down on and treated as lesser than by a lot of mainstream Australian society.

Sure.
Is Lidia’s brand of activism actually helping, or is it hindering?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Sure.
Is Lidia’s brand of activism actually helping, or is it hindering?

Good question. I actually think the results can only be accurately determined years down the track. A lot of people were utterly despised by some at the time and looked upon more kindly later on. I would suggest that different types of voices are needed at different times. Perhaps friendly and unthreatening Indigenous people have done well sometimes, but how much have they actually progressed Indigenous rights and self-determination, when they couldn't stop effective organisations like ATSIC from being dismantled? Perhaps more vocal and less comforting voices can achieve things too.

 

[Toump Ass]

Good question. I actually think the results can only be accurately determined years down the track. A lot of people were utterly despised by some at the time and looked upon more kindly later on. I would suggest that different types of voices are needed at different times. Perhaps friendly and unthreatening Indigenous people have done well sometimes, but how much have they actually progressed Indigenous rights and self-determination, when they couldn't stop effective organisations like ATSIC from being dismantled? Perhaps more vocal and less comforting voices can achieve things too.

Fair enough. I agree you need people to challenge established thinking, conventions, norms etc, push the envelope as it were. Without radical voices we'd be stuck where we are forever. That said, I think these voices are more likely to be heard if they're being delivered in a slightly more polished fashion.

Don't really know much about ATSIC, but I suspect it would still be around if they'd picked someone else as the chair of it...

 

[Big Papa Ted]

It can mean something as innocuous as "I've taken note of who you are and won't deal with your nonsense in future". Interesting your first thought is assassination though.

I'd love to hear what you think she intended it to mean in that context

And yes I did think of violence, because that's the commonly accepted understanding of the term. Go to urban dictionary, google etc. The term 'marked man' or 'you're marked' all come back with the same key definition.

And honestly you question if I'm arguing in good faith?

Why?


Do you live in Australia? Have you looked around at our society at any point in terms of how it values people of different skin colours? Have you spoken much with non-white people and asked them if they think our society informally favours white people over others? I'm guessing you haven't, or you'd already know the answer to a lot of these questions (the ones you've posed in good faith, anyway, which I'm unconvinced is all of them).

Anyone gets to do whatever is within the law and doesn't get to do whatever isn't within the law. If you mean to ask whether I think there's a group of settlers that Indigenous people don't have any right to be angry at, the answer is no. If an Indigenous person made remarks about my race, rather than get offended or upset, I'd take a moment to ask myself about what amount of societal alienation and cultural loss that person had experienced for them to react in such a way. (I am not white).

I think it's very clear that First Nations people are looked down on and treated as lesser than by a lot of mainstream Australian society. As for the finer points of the hierarchy, why don't you tell me? You have eyes and ears and a sense of social perception, don't you?

Nowhere in your post did you answer any of my questions. Your original comment made it quite clear that the impact that racism has on one group is different from another, and therefore that racism can be excused/understood. I'll ask again (in bullet points this time):

- What's the hierarchy for excusable/understandable racism? From your most recent comment I can only interpret that as whites at the top, everyone else below. Is there more structure to it? Like do Indigenous Australians have full poetic licence against everyone? Or just whites? What's the hierarchy amongst other racial groups? Or is it just "whites are fair game" and that's it? If a rich Asian from the North Shore in Sydney calls a white homeless guy a "dumb cracker", is that now racist due to differences in power within our social/economic structures?

- What are the parameters for this accepted/excused racism? You mentioned that an Indigenous Australian being racist towards you would cause you to take pause and consider their perspectives/feelings. What if they physically attacked you while calling you a 'white dog'? Is that simply another opportunity for you to reflect? Or does that meet that threshold of unacceptable racism? Where do you draw the line for racist conduct?

I am asking these in good faith. I'm simply asking you to expand and justify your position, as from my perspective it's, to be blunt, blatant paternal racism.

I'll finish with one scenario I'd like you to discuss (if that's ok). A white kid goes to school in Lakemba (extremely 1st/2nd generation migrant heavy area, mainly Middle Eastern and Bangledeshi), where he is relentless bullied for being white and a minority at the school? Given his upbringing and context, do you consider it excusable/understandable for him to make racist comments towards the middle eastern/Bangladeshi students (whether they've targeted him previously or not). I certainly don't, but given your previous points I'm keen to know where you stand on the issue.

 

[burge13]

I'd love to hear what you think she intended it to mean in that context

And yes I did think of violence, because that's the commonly accepted understanding of the term. Go to urban dictionary, google etc. The term 'marked man' or 'you're marked' all come back with the same key definition.

And honestly you question if I'm arguing in good faith?

Nowhere in your post did you answer any of my questions. Your original comment made it quite clear that the impact that racism has on one group is different from another, and therefore that racism can be excused/understood. I'll ask again (in bullet points this time):

- What's the hierarchy for excusable/understandable racism? From your most recent comment I can only interpret that as whites at the top, everyone else below. Is there more structure to it? Like do Indigenous Australians have full poetic licence against everyone? Or just whites? What's the hierarchy amongst other racial groups? Or is it just "whites are fair game" and that's it? If a rich Asian from the North Shore in Sydney calls a white homeless guy a "dumb cracker", is that now racist due to differences in power within our social/economic structures?

- What are the parameters for this accepted/excused racism? You mentioned that an Indigenous Australian being racist towards you would cause you to take pause and consider their perspectives/feelings. What if they physically attacked you while calling you a 'white dog'? Is that simply another opportunity for you to reflect? Or does that meet that threshold of unacceptable racism? Where do you draw the line for racist conduct?

I am asking these in good faith. I'm simply asking you to expand and justify your position, as from my perspective it's, to be blunt, blatant paternal racism.

I'll finish with one scenario I'd like you to discuss (if that's ok). A white kid goes to school in Lakemba (extremely 1st/2nd generation migrant heavy area, mainly Middle Eastern and Bangledeshi), where he is relentless bullied for being white and a minority at the school? Given his upbringing and context, do you consider it excusable/understandable for him to make racist comments towards the middle eastern/Bangladeshi students (whether they've targeted him previously or not). I certainly don't, but given your previous points I'm keen to know where you stand on the issue.

Please do not expect a thoughtful answer. It is not your right to question the virtue signal, the signaller, or their motivation for the signalling. They've signalled their virtue, therefore they are better than you. Thats how it works. My favourite but was the bold though, genuinely hilarious stuff.

 

[royale with cheese]

Don't really know much about ATSIC, but I suspect it would still be around if they'd picked someone else as the chair of it...

No, the whole thing was riven with corruption even without Geoff Clark's involvement. Other indigenous orgs have been wound up for the same reason (though nothing as bad as Clark)

Do you think she had a lot of power when the police were shoving her into the ground at Kellie Jay Kean's Nazi Jamboree recently?

Were they yelling racial epithets at her when they did so?

 

[RandB]

The standout in this latest incident is the gutter trash language, nothing more, nothing less. Thorpe will be judged for it and rightly so. It's almost on the level of some of the bile Mark Latham has spewed.

Thorpe also has form in encroaching in people's personal space to mouth off at them. Not a sensible thing to do in confrontations regardless of the situation. She knows what she's doing though and where the cameras are so on the whole, this sort of thing will continue.

On this latest occasion she really showed us the 'full Lidia'. Whilst some of us believe in basic standards of conduct, no less for a Federal Senator, she doesn't subscribe. In true form, she has backed it up with more hyperbole.

Thorpe's problem is that whilst she's being heard, she's not being listened to and it's turning into a downward spiral.

 

[Engimal v3]

What a deadset pelican. Is there anything less surprising in 2023 than Lidia Thorpe spewing racist abuse and threatening people? Seems pretty on the money for her downward trajectory.

 

[Kram]

David Ross, general manager of the strip club Maxine’s, told news.com.au that he planned to ban the Victorian senator “for life” from the establishment.

“I’ve looked at the security footage and spoken to bouncers and the bar manager,’’ he said.

“She came in with three other people. And she was just Lidia Thorpe. She was argumentative. I am told she was going up to some of our European punters and saying they had ‘stolen her land’. It started before she got out the front and when she got out the front that’s when it took off.”


The strip club, Maxines, is located in Brunswick, Melbourne. Picture: Maxines Gentleman's Club/Facebook
Mr Ross said she was not intoxicated and was never asked to leave the strip club but she would now be banned from the strip club.

“I am writing a letter at the moment to her office informing her she’s no longer welcome,’’ he said.

“We are a multicultural area. It’s just unacceptable. It’s a friendly venue. A lot of our people are regulars.

“She’s banned. She’s barred. That’s it.”

 

[Mofra]

Good question. I actually think the results can only be accurately determined years down the track. A lot of people were utterly despised by some at the time and looked upon more kindly later on. I would suggest that different types of voices are needed at different times. Perhaps friendly and unthreatening Indigenous people have done well sometimes, but how much have they actually progressed Indigenous rights and self-determination, when they couldn't stop effective organisations like ATSIC from being dismantled? Perhaps more vocal and less comforting voices can achieve things too.

To be fair - Mabo, Lingiari, Yunupingu et al weren't threatening to 'end' people when they were in far more perilous situations (for themselves and their respective mobs)
Vocal is fine - abusive is not.

 

[Gethelred]

Please do not expect a thoughtful answer. It is not your right to question the virtue signal, the signaller, or their motivation for the signalling. They've signalled their virtue, therefore they are better than you. Thats how it works. My favourite but was the bold though, genuinely hilarious stuff.

Yeah. Bye now.