Acceptable Behaviour for an elected politician ?

[Falconista]

A few weeks ago now, Thorpe was outraged that the NO campaign used her image in adds opposing the referendum. She went on to say that she had not made up her mind if she was going to support or not support the Voice to Parliament yet even though she is the head of the curiously named "Progressive NO".

She seems to lie repeatedly and is very aggressive.

It was after her stunt at the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras that a few colleagues and I started to question whether she is suffering from some type of mental illness given her erratic and aggressive behaviour.

The incident at the Melbourne strip club where she was accosting people all night inside the club and "..was very animated and argumentative..." (David Ross, general manager of Maxine's Gentlemen's Club) and "...she was going up to white men in the crowd and telling them that they'd stolen her land.", just adds further doubts as to her state of mind.

We have speculated that she may well indeed suffer from a delusional disorder specifically GD (grandiose delusions) which could well be a symptom of some wider psychiatric problem. If that is the case, then I retract everything that I have written about her over the preceding months because mental illness is a very serious matter and should not be used to attack nor condemn people whose actions are as a consequence of mental illness.

I will continue to refrain from commenting on Lidia Thorpe until such time as it becomes obvious that she has is not suffering from psychiatric problems.

This post is not an attempt to undermine nor denigrate her in any way. Mental illness is a real and very serious problem and is not to be referred to in a flippant way.

I'd agree. Reminding me a little of Mary Jo Fisher.
Hope she is ok.

 

[Home Alone]

Point 2. The weekend issue didn't change opinions. She'd been a loon for a long time.

Point 1. She wasn't the only proof of division. You brought this up by the way.

Out of interest, could you make a list our elected officials who haven"t, to use your phrase, been a loon for a long time and oppose the Voice? And after that our media commentators and BigFooty posters.

Thanks in advance

 

[Johnny Bananas]

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

Is my opinion that important to you? Very well then...

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

I just told you what I think it means in that context in the part you quoted. Do you believe she was legitimately threatening to have him assassinated?

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.

When I Google the verb "mark", this is one of the definitions.


She could have easily been using it in that context.

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

Yes. If you are arguing in good faith, then it's clear you haven't spent a lot of time listening to visibly non-white people talking about how they're viewed and treated by a largely white society. Perhaps that's something you could look into, because informed opinions are better than uninformed assumptions about race relations.

Nowhere in your post did you answer any of my questions.

Many of your questions seem banal and don't deserve a considered response. And I'm not obligated to answer them. You're demanding significant emotional labour from one person to educate you on the nature of race relations. I'm choosing to answer some of them, but it's not my duty to ensure you learn. Do you have non-white friends? Ask each of them a couple of questions if you want to find out more. Asking several people who have lived experienced or are informed is more likely to give you a broader picture than asking one person, also.

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.

No, I'm saying that speaking against members of the dominant, hegemonic racial group isn't racism, because it simply doesn't have the same impact when the power structures of society favour that group. For similar reasons, having a quota for women in certain industries or workplaces isn't sexism, and heterophobia isn't a thing.

- 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?

As I've already told you, I think First Nations people have legitimate grievances against all settlers regardless of their race. Do you disagree that white people are the dominant racial group in Australian society, when it comes to cultural power, financial power and political power? Do you believe any other racial groups are equally powerful?

Let me ask you a question, you don't have to give me an answer but I'd like you to think about it at least: how many times has your Australianness been called into question by someone?

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?

No. I don't think you grasp what social structures mean in the context of race. Wealthy white people have fewer barriers in their way to acceptance and legitimacy in our society than wealthy non-white people, and homeless white people have fewer barriers in their way than homeless non-white people. I think non-white people are certainly capable of being classist against poor white people, but not racist, because there is little to no history in this country of non-white people oppressing white people on a societal scale.

- 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?

It would be a little funny given I'm not white, but let's look past that. Physically attacking others is wrong, but I wouldn't view it as racial oppression, just the result of a lot of trauma and bitterness stretching back many generations. And the history of racial oppression is a key factor in what constitutes 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.

No. The existence of ethnic neighbourhoods doesn't change the position of various racial groups in our collective society. A suburb is not a self-contained society that can be treated in isolation to the whole city around it, and our society as a whole still grants white people more legitimacy to exist anywhere. Do you think someone is more likely to be viewed with suspicion and asked what they're doing there if they're a white person in Lakemba, or a brown person in Vaucluse?

Based on experiences I have heard from white people, I would suggest that if you went to Taiwan (for example), racism against white people is possible there, because the power structures of the society and its history favour ethnically Chinese people, and it is an entirely separate society to the West, with little history or legacy of European colonialism.

Something to factor in when discussing post-colonial societies is that the inherited legacy of colonialism, the dominance of popular culture that reflects Western standards of beauty and the existence of relatively wealthy tourists and expatriates all mean that there is still a level of privilege given to white people or to lighter skin in many places. For example, many societies across Asia and the Middle East associate lighter skin with beauty and wealth and darker skin with ugliness and poverty, which has led to the widespreas use of skin-lightening creams and cosmetics.

A poster was trying to state how her conduct wasn't racist because of power hierarchies or some other rubbish (worth mentioning that said poster has headed for the Hills when pressed on his position).

You might have the time to post here around the clock, but I have a job, a family and a social life that all demand my attention, so I can't always give you a response precisely when you want it. You may not want to harass, but I think it's equally poor form to belittle others for not responding to you quickly enough.

 

[Captivating]

Out of interest, could you make a list our elected officials who haven"t, to use your phrase, been a loon for a long time and oppose the Voice? And after that our media commentators and BigFooty posters.

Thanks in advance

more whataboutism.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Is my opinion that important to you? Very well then...


I just told you what I think it means in that context in the part you quoted. Do you believe she was legitimately threatening to have him assassinated?

Do I think she would legitimately have him assassinated? No. Do I think she was using the term "you're marked" as a threat with implications of assassination/bashing? Yes

When I Google the verb "mark", this is one of the definitions.

View attachment 1667220
She could have easily been using it in that context.

Unfortunately she didn't say that though did she? She said "you're marked", which as I've already demonstrated has extremely well known connotations in Australian lingo. I'm honestly not sure why you're trying to obfuscate this issue, it's pretty clear cut to any reasonable person as to what she meant.

Yes. If you are arguing in good faith, then it's clear you haven't spent a lot of time listening to visibly non-white people talking about how they're viewed and treated by a largely white society. Perhaps that's something you could look into, because informed opinions are better than uninformed assumptions about race relations.

My partner is second generation Chinese and her parents speak barely a word of English. I've had to learn a second language to enable me to communicate with them. The majority of my social circle (through sport) is either Greek/Mediterranean or Middle Eastern. Please get off your high horse.

Also what assumptions about race have I made? Please quote/name one. You however have made many. Your entire argument is based on the fact that interactions/disargeements between people of different races is underpinned/caused by historical grievances. That's a hell of a big assumption.

Many of your questions seem banal and don't deserve a considered response. And I'm not obligated to answer them. You're demanding significant emotional labour from one person to educate you on the nature of race relations. I'm choosing to answer some of them, but it's not my duty to ensure you learn. Do you have non-white friends? Ask each of them a couple of questions if you want to find out more. Asking several people who have lived experienced or are informed is more likely to give you a broader picture than asking one person, also.

No, I'm asking you to justify your position. If you're going to stick your neck out and say racist behaviour is acceptable, expect to be called out as to why.

As for the bolded, please see above. And again, get off your perch you absolute snob.

No, I'm saying that speaking against members of the dominant, hegemonic racial group isn't racism, because it simply doesn't have the same impact when the power structures of society favour that group. For similar reasons, having a quota for women in certain industries or workplaces isn't sexism, and heterophobia isn't a thing.

Speaking against =/= using racial slurs. I have no idea how you've tried to draw some false equivalence between that and workplace quotas. One is designed to introduce equality in the workplace and breakdown historical power structures based on gender, the other is using offensive language that will only serve to entrench racial division. That you've tried to equate the two is absurd.

As I've already told you, I think First Nations people have legitimate grievances against all settlers regardless of their race. Do you disagree that white people are the dominant racial group in Australian society, when it comes to cultural power, financial power and political power? Do you believe any other racial groups are equally powerful?

No I don't disagree, but in what way does that justify racist behaviour? Are these power structures something that should be looked at and managed to improve outcomes for all? Yes. Do imbalances justify racist behaviour? No. Particularly when the parties in question (aka Lydia Thorpe) hold a position of power within our society.

Let me ask you a question, you don't have to give me an answer but I'd like you to think about it at least: how many times has your Australianness been called into question by someone?


No. I don't think you grasp what social structures mean in the context of race. Wealthy white people have fewer barriers in their way to acceptance and legitimacy in our society than wealthy non-white people, and homeless white people have fewer barriers in their way than homeless non-white people. I think non-white people are certainly capable of being classist against poor white people, but not racist, because there is little to no history in this country of non-white people oppressing white people on a societal scale.

You seem to think any interaction can be framed against and justified on race, which I find really problematic. You claim that certain groups can't be racist due to power imbalances, yet when I give you an example of two individuals interacting (where the individual in the disadvantaged racial group clearly holds social/economic power), it's not racism....because of history? Again I ask, does this framework hold in perpetuity? Is there a point in time where the scales shift so it is possible to be racist against white people in Australia? If so, who makes that call? Or are white people forever bound to the sins of the father and unable to receive racism because of "little to no history in this country of non-white people oppressing white people on a societal scale."

I also noticed that you completely dodge the question relating to interracial societal relations that don't involve white people.

Who holds the higher place in your Australian racial hierarchy between East Asians (for example people from a Chinese background) and sub-continental Asians (for example people of an Indian background)? If one group is lower (let's assume Indian based on demographic data regarding income levels, positions in government etc), are they able to use racist slurs without being deemed racist? If not, why not? To be logically consistent, you'd need to say that they are able to. Keen to get your thoughts on this.

It would be a little funny given I'm not white, but let's look past that. Physically attacking others is wrong, but I wouldn't view it as racial oppression, just the result of a lot of trauma and bitterness stretching back many generations. And the history of racial oppression is a key factor in what constitutes racism.

What constitutes racism is discriminating against someone based on their race. It is frankly terrifying that you're willing to jump through hoops and justify abusive conduct/violence based on some notion of racial hierarchy.

No. The existence of ethnic neighbourhoods doesn't change the position of various racial groups in our collective society. A suburb is not a self-contained society that can be treated in isolation to the whole city around it, and our society as a whole still grants white people more legitimacy to exist anywhere. Do you think someone is more likely to be viewed with suspicion and asked what they're doing there if they're a white person in Lakemba, or a brown person in Vaucluse?

But our experiences/views are shaped by our interactions, and 99% of that kids interactions would be those that I described in the hypothetical. The wider context is irrelevant to him, as he doesn't observe/experience it. If all he's experienced is discrimination as a minority group in his social context, by your logic he should be justified/excused in lashing out with racial hatred. Unless you're trying to frame racial relations purely at a national scale as some arbitrary grouping, which to me seems questionable at best. People's experiences in one part of Sydney are wildly different to those from a different part, let alone different states etc.

And I have no clue, I've never been near Vaucluse.

Based on experiences I have heard from white people, I would suggest that if you went to Taiwan (for example), racism against white people is possible there, because the power structures of the society and its history favour ethnically Chinese people, and it is an entirely separate society to the West, with little history or legacy of European colonialism.

So I can go to Taiwan and call Taiwanese people racial slurs as I'm not in the racial group that dominates the top of power structures? If that sounds absurd to you, it's because it is. Yet somehow you're arguing it is reasonable to do so in Australia.

Something to factor in when discussing post-colonial societies is that the inherited legacy of colonialism, the dominance of popular culture that reflects Western standards of beauty and the existence of relatively wealthy tourists and expatriates all mean that there is still a level of privilege given to white people or to lighter skin in many places. For example, many societies across Asia and the Middle East associate lighter skin with beauty and wealth and darker skin with ugliness and poverty, which has led to the widespreas use of skin-lightening creams and cosmetics.

Relevance/citation?

You might have the time to post here around the clock, but I have a job, a family and a social life that all demand my attention, so I can't always give you a response precisely when you want it. You may not want to harass, but I think it's equally poor form to belittle others for not responding to you quickly enough.

I was only asking as I had noticed you posting in other threads so figured you were dodging the issue. Otherwise fair call, I apologise. I expect not to hear from you again.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I was only asking as I had noticed you posting in other threads so figured you were dodging the issue.

I feel like long posts usually deserve long or at least considered responses. I can give you a dismissive line or offer some platitude in a matter of minutes if that's preferable, but proper responses need time and mental energy.

 

[NSWCROW]

surprised no one's posted this yet..............................

Well, not that surprised

 

[Big Papa Ted]

surprised no one's posted this yet..............................

Well, not that surprised

When is her recent racist outburst discussed? The video is an hour long...

 

[NSWCROW]

When is her recent racist outburst discussed? The video is an hour long...

They probably don't lol

Haven't watched it yet personally

 

[dumb]

You need higher standards.

i've thought about this comment quite a bit in between you posting it and now. how would you define your own standards?

i don't necessarily disagree, she should behave herself. i can't say that she shouldn't do better.
ultimately though, until it becomes time to vote my standards are as low and irrelevant as pretty much anyone else. at which time i'm happy to contribute in a way that might have her leaving parliament. but that is because of her ideas and policies. you could argue i don't respect the sanctity of parliament, but you'll never be able to argue i want to push aside a politician based on potentially flimsy moral grounds. she should still do better and be nice to people but it will not influence how i vote.

i doubt my standards are really all that different to anyone else's. i asked myself... would i be happy to vote for someone that had something that needed to be heard, but perhaps behaves incorrectly, either separately or as part of delivering that message? yes, but it depends on the behaviour. would i vote for someone who behaved incorrectly that may dethrone a political opposite? again yes, but it would depend on their behaviour. are there really that many people that think differently to myself?
as i alluded to in my original post, i fall back to what is legal and illegal. because a politician may be advocating for something i believe in, and which i feel is just, the legality of any of their actions is a standard i'm comfortable holding a politician to when it comes time to vote.