Acceptable Behaviour for an elected politician ?

[Magnum27]

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.

And that for me is the problem, not one politician gets held to account for bad behaviours. Just another reason for me to dislike them all.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

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.

You're misquoting Thorpe there.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I'm sure there will those who defend this behaviour, but no way should any elected representative of politics be allowed to stay in politics behaving like this, and threatening someone in public. A smart politician would walk away, no way Albo or anyone else would get involved in this sort of crap

though the way the footage is cut suggests provocation from the group of men, whose behaviour (calling her a racist dog) also is very poor. And in terms of what her agenda is, getting stuff like this prominent (and her likely factual statement that the man had a small penis) doesn't hurt her for those who vote for her.

I do tend to excuse retailation (as long as she doesn't do the first escalation ie throw a punch) more than the average though

 

[Crankyhawk]

You need higher standards.

been habituated to expect poor behaviour from our elected representatives after the last few years
I mean its nothing on Lamings upskirting.

 

[Crankyhawk]

... 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.

look, I know your thrust is that it is unfair to put Tom Elliott in a box, but I think it is reasonable now to put Trump in a box. After all, one can only expend so much energy critically appraising the substance of someones argument before cutting to the heuristic that "well you were full of crap the last 10 times in a row, I am nt going to afford the benefit of the doubt"

 

[Crankyhawk]

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

again, its retaliation (was called racist dog first) . So if you dish, you gotta cop it.

 

[Gethelred]

look, I know your thrust is that it is unfair to put Tom Elliott in a box, but I think it is reasonable now to put Trump in a box. After all, one can only expend so much energy critically appraising the substance of someones argument before cutting to the heuristic that "well you were full of crap the last 10 times in a row, I am nt going to afford the benefit of the doubt"

The issue here, QuietB extrapolated Trump's sexism and sexual assault of women to Tom Elliott with that comment. While there are considerable issues one could bring up concerning Elliott, I am unaware of him cheerleading Trump's assault of women or assault of women in general and am thus unwilling to make that extrapolation as it would not be fair.

I do not think all people with mustaches are contract killers because Chopper was, nor do I think all people with beards are good footballers because Zak Tuohy is. I do not think Stalin and Hitler are the same despite both killing massive amounts of people with government apparatus, and I don't think Nietzsche is identical to Rand because both liked the idea of the individual.

I also don't think smoke emitting from a volcano is the same as smoke emitting from a chimney; there's a matter of proportion involved here, too.

Let's be frank: this isn't about giving Elliott the benefit of the doubt. This is about ensuring that we are intellectually honest when we criticize the 'other mob'; do we hold ourselves to their standards, or ours?

Is a petty propaganda win or the search for a pithy retort a worthwhile reason to dispense with one of the things that separate us from them?

 

[Theseventhhamster]

And that for me is the problem, not one politician gets held to account for bad behaviours. Just another reason for me to dislike them all.

Not sure it's fair to dislike much more than 80ish% of them.

 

[sataris]

Not sure it's fair to dislike much more than 80ish% of them.

it's incredibly fair, There are no 'good uns'

 

[Theseventhhamster]

it's incredibly fair, There are no 'good uns'

I guess I don't know any well so you could be right. Reckon there's at least a few, met a couple of decent state level ones.

 

[Crankyhawk]

The issue here, QuietB extrapolated Trump's sexism and sexual assault of women to Tom Elliott with that comment. While there are considerable issues one could bring up concerning Elliott, I am unaware of him cheerleading Trump's assault of women or assault of women in general and am thus unwilling to make that extrapolation as it would not be fair.

I do not think all people with mustaches are contract killers because Chopper was, nor do I think all people with beards are good footballers because Zak Tuohy is. I do not think Stalin and Hitler are the same despite both killing massive amounts of people with government apparatus, and I don't think Nietzsche is identical to Rand because both liked the idea of the individual.

I also don't think smoke emitting from a volcano is the same as smoke emitting from a chimney; there's a matter of proportion involved here, too.

Let's be frank: this isn't about giving Elliott the benefit of the doubt. This is about ensuring that we are intellectually honest when we criticize the 'other mob'; do we hold ourselves to their standards, or ours?

Is a petty propaganda win or the search for a pithy retort a worthwhile reason to dispense with one of the things that separate us from them?

We hold ourselves to our standards when we talk amongst ourselves

We hold ourselves to their standards when fighting them, otherwise we cannot win by going the "high road"

Like I said, I agree with not necessarily putting Tom in a box (though as an example of conservative media not being fair and balanced, with was QuietB's subsequent point was it would be appropriate IF he can find an example)

However I still contend that Trump deserves to be in a box (which is the point I was primarily making) which you haven't specifically answered in your response.

 

[eddiesmith]

again, its retaliation (was called racist dog first) . So if you dish, you gotta cop it.

The nightclub owner disputes this and says she started it by verbally attacking patrons.

 

[eddiesmith]

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?

She’s definitely treated with kid gloves due to her always bringing a camera person with her.

Would a person without their personal camera person and high profile been treated as softly as she was at Mardi Gras?

 

[Crankyhawk]

The nightclub owner disputes this and says she started it by verbally attacking patrons.

fair, I was just going by what I was seeing from the news footage (I did say the footage looks like it is retailation)
unknown if those in the news are the same people as inside the club (a reasonable presumption, though I don't know why you'd follow Lidia out when you have strippers inside...)

 

[Gethelred]

We hold ourselves to our standards when we talk amongst ourselves

We hold ourselves to their standards when fighting them, otherwise we cannot win by going the "high road"

You only lose to people on the low road if you allow them to define what going low means. Having principles and sticking to them does not mean you allow your opponents to lock you into inaction.

Like I said, I agree with not necessarily putting Tom in a box (though as an example of conservative media not being fair and balanced, with was QuietB's subsequent point was it would be appropriate IF he can find an example)

However I still contend that Trump deserves to be in a box (which is the point I was primarily making) which you haven't specifically answered in your response.

Largely because Trump being placed 'in a box' is not something I disagree with. He was described to me in another thread as a kayfebe fascist; someone who affects the pretense and trappings of fascism because they get him what he wants. It remains the best description of his presidency that I've seen.

If he's going to behave as though he's a caricature, he should be treated as one.

 

[tandino]

I'm sure there will those who defend this behaviour, but no way should any elected representative of politics be allowed to stay in politics

This behaviour falls a long way short of warranting getting kicked out of politics by some other power other than the electorate. There's no behaviour test. People are entitled to vote in campaigners.

People need to make better choices.

 

[adogsfan5]

She’s cooked. Feral human.

 

[kickazz]

Um shes out of the greens.

But the Greens got her in, that's the point. The party have recently had some vetting issues no doubt.

 

[kickazz]

Put it this way, if she was on BigFooty, straight to the ignore list.

I might agree with her on some things, I might disagree on others.

But I'm not going to waste any time or energy on nutjobs that have no self respect or respect of the office of being a Senator.

 

[Alberto_Magnifico]

Remember when she tried boarding a flight with overweight luggage and when she was held accountable it was due to "racism", she is full blown moron, a dangerous moron that is thankfully becoming less relevant.

 

[kickazz]

Now she has had a go at Albo. Something something racism something misogyny.

Has bought in to the extreme side of critical theory's hierarchy of oppression and totally lost any ability to understand logic and reality in the process

 

[Kram]

"Saying I need mental help is a continuation of the old racist and misogynistic narrative used to discredit and silence outspoken and strong women, particularly Blak women," she said.

"I am disappointed by the opportunism of politicians in Canberra, including the PM, using this to drag me down.

"While the Prime Minister and others have used this to try and undermine my progress, I have been busy out in community talking to First Nations leaders about solutions to the problems our people face everyday."

SBS News has contacted Mr Albanese's office for comment.

 

[#23 Hill]

People are amazed that Thorpe is in the parliament after Donald Trump was the President of the USA.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

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.

Johnny Bananas just wondering if you were going to respond to this? Don't want to harass so will only tag once.

 

[royale with cheese]

Like a drunk at a train station.