Vic Lidia Thorpe: Not the subject for every thread!

[Gethelred]

Seeing as Lidia discussion is cropping up across multiple threads, let's have us a thread for people who want to discuss her contribution to Australian politics.

It should go without saying but seeing as she's a bit of a beacon for controversy - for a variety of reasons - let's just remind ourselves what the board rules are around racism and sexism, shall we?

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which:

• is dangerous to health, anti-vax, Covid denial etc,
• is hateful, including sympathetic discussion of far-right/neo-Nazi tropes,
• misinformation or disinformation,
• defamatory,
• threatening,
• abusive,
• bigotry,
• likely to offend,
• is spam or spam-like,
• contains adult or objectionable content,
• risks copyright infringement,
• encourages unlawful activity (including illegal drug use, buying, selling etc),
• or otherwise violates any laws,
• or contains personal information of others.

Standard board rules apply, but let's make this abundantly clear: let's play nicely in here.

Go nuts.

 

[Gralin]

And there is a very obvious reason why she and others in parliament may not have gone to the police.

Beyond the Higgins situation, they have an appalling history of dealing with things like sexual assault, abuse etc.

The people that say go to the cops for this sort of thing clearly don't know anyone who has tried

 

[Gralin]

Like maybe instead if asking why Lidia didn't go to the cops

Start asking the cops why over 80% or assault victims don't go to them.

 

[blueboy25]

Like maybe instead if asking why Lidia didn't go to the cops

Start asking the cops why over 80% or assault victims don't go to them.

Especially in Canberra

 

[Toump Ass]

Why would she got to the Police? She hates them.
And with connections with underworld criminals, motorcycle gangs, why would she bother?

 

[Chief]

If you're looking for evidence of her lying in other instances, there's ample historical evidence on record.

Name them.

When you get off your ban.

 

[QuietB]

Name them.

When you get off your ban.

This is the thing, sure Thorpe behaves a bit crazy at times, maybe lacks discipline in a party situation, and yes Thorpe riles people up, but I cannot think of any instance to question her integrity or honesty.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

This is the thing, sure Thorpe behaves a bit crazy at times, maybe lacks discipline in a party situation, and yes Thorpe riles people up, but I cannot think of any instance to question her integrity or honesty.

You can't be serious....

Also this Van bloke sounds like an utter grub. As always I'll await any investigation, but on the face of it he needs to be moved on.

 

[Gethelred]

You can't be serious....

Also this Van bloke sounds like an utter grub. As always I'll await any investigation, but on the face of it he needs to be moved on.

I think there's a bit of a disconnect at play here.

When you look at the newspaper and talkback portrayals of Adam Goodes, you receive quite a different version of his opinions and activism than if you sought out his contributions yourself. Goodes didn't point out racism from a face in the crowd, called her and followed up on why what she said was bad and supported her when she came under attack; he saw it was from a 13 year old girl, and deliberately chose to single her out, wresting attention from the game to pander to his need for attention. He didn't create a goal celebration with a group of indigenous schoolkids, and upon kicking a goal use it to show solidarity with them; he threw a spear at the Carlton cheer squad to antagonise them.

He didn't deliver a speech about healing, about moving forwards when he became Australian of the Year; he delivered invective designed to splinter Australian society and blame all white people for the deeds of other people's ancestors.

And if the media can do all that to a person whose contribution to public life has been nothing more than positive, what can they do to someone a little more acrimonius and less considered, more activist, and more confrontational?

When you look for yourself at what she wants, how she wants to get there, what she believes, she's much more nuanced than her portrayal would dictate. I am bothered rather by the implication that she's a liar, because - when you examine the supposed cases of her being or behaving dishonestly - the reporting of them is frequently rather jaundiced, coloured as it is by a desire to paint her with hysterical, shrill, seeking attention, lying.

I suppose my question to you is this: when there's ideological purpose behind how a person is portrayed by media, how comfortable are you in sharing or further perpetuating that portrayal?

 

[Big Papa Ted]

I think there's a bit of a disconnect at play here.

When you look at the newspaper and talkback portrayals of Adam Goodes, you receive quite a different version of his opinions and activism than if you sought out his contributions yourself. Goodes didn't point out racism from a face in the crowd, called her and followed up on why what she said was bad and supported her when she came under attack; he saw it was from a 13 year old girl, and deliberately chose to single her out, wresting attention from the game to pander to his need for attention. He didn't create a goal celebration with a group of indigenous schoolkids, and upon kicking a goal use it to show solidarity with them; he threw a spear at the Carlton cheer squad to antagonise them.

He didn't deliver a speech about healing, about moving forwards when he became Australian of the Year; he delivered invective designed to splinter Australian society and blame all white people for the deeds of other people's ancestors.

And if the media can do all that to a person whose contribution to public life has been nothing more than positive, what can they do to someone a little more acrimonius and less considered, more activist, and more confrontational?

When you look for yourself at what she wants, how she wants to get there, what she believes, she's much more nuanced than her portrayal would dictate. I am bothered rather by the implication that she's a liar, because - when you examine the supposed cases of her being or behaving dishonestly - the reporting of them is frequently rather jaundiced, coloured as it is by a desire to paint her with hysterical, shrill, seeking attention, lying.

I suppose my question to you is this: when there's ideological purpose behind how a person is portrayed by media, how comfortable are you in sharing or further perpetuating that portrayal?

I'm not relying on media contributions to determine that Lidia has a history of lying. You can look at what she said about the Mardi gras incident vs. the footage of what happened to see she was lying through her teeth about that incident. Same same regarding the strip club incident. If you compare what she said vs. what other witnesses/the footage says, it's clear that she's happy to lie in order to further her own agenda/protect her image.

I do appreciate where you're coming from, but please don't assume what information feeds I've used to base my position.

Thanks,

 

[Gough]

As disingenuous as Stoker was during her political career I haven't heard a single person question her claims.

 

[Gethelred]

I'm not relying on media contributions to determine that Lidia has a history of lying. You can look at what she said about the Mardi gras incident vs. the footage of what happened to see she was lying through her teeth about that incident. Same same regarding the strip club incident. If you compare what she said vs. what other witnesses/the footage says, it's clear that she's happy to lie in order to further her own agenda/protect her image.

More or less than any other politician does?

I do appreciate where you're coming from, but please don't assume what information feeds I've used to base my position.

This is a bit defensive, BPT. I don't recall accusing you of anything.

 

[Gralin]

I'm not relying on media contributions to determine that Lidia has a history of lying. You can look at what she said about the Mardi gras incident vs. the footage of what happened to see she was lying through her teeth about that incident.

what she said or what the media said she said?

because last I checked what she said wasn't what was being reported as having happened and it wasn't her saying she was protesting cops at pride by lying down in front of the police float

Same same regarding the strip club incident. If you compare what she said vs. what other witnesses/the footage says, it's clear that she's happy to lie in order to further her own agenda/protect her image.

again your interpretation of the footage and what the media covered results in you saying she was lying

that doesn't mean she was lying but people sure do like to look for any excuse to not believe her

wonder why that is

 

[Not Important]

Sometimes, yes. In this case, nobody was maliciously defamed. Justice was aided, not abridged.

the problem with legitimising this behaviour cos it’s worked out this time is it also gives the crackpots sustenance of which there are many in the parliament.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

More or less than any other politician does?

Agreed no more, but this thread is about Lydia isn't it.

This is a bit defensive, BPT. I don't recall accusing you of anything.

Yeah fair point, reading back it does come across that way. My bad, wasn't what I intended.

Wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, moreso just asking you question how I've formed my opinion/where i got my info from, instead of perhaps assuming these things.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

what she said or what the media said she said?

because last I checked what she said wasn't what was being reported as having happened and it wasn't her saying she was protesting cops at pride by lying down in front of the police float

Purely off what she said and the footage that was shown of what happened. I try to avoid media coverage if I have primary sources to go off.

again your interpretation of the footage and what the media covered results in you saying she was lying

that doesn't mean she was lying but people sure do like to look for any excuse to not believe her

wonder why that is

No, I simply balanced what she said against what the evidence shows.

Shall I just assume your position is based off biased info feeds to discredit your position? Or can we treat each other with some intellectual honesty here.

 

[geoffjennings79]

Stoker has more credibility with the public than Thorpe, and it has nothing to do with race.

Bahahaha.
I was speaking to friends from Qld last night. She's considered a RWNJ up there even by some right of centre voters!

 

[geoffjennings79]

As disingenuous as Stoker was during her political career I haven't heard a single person question her claims.

Maybe because no one was surprised?
(Apologies if that's what you're already inferring.)

But even if many knew, or had an inkling, about Van (which I think.is the case), they couldn't bring themselves to accept Thorpe's claim. Because she's a "liar"... and not a white Liberal female senator.

 

[Gough]

Maybe because no one was surprised?
(Apologies if that's what you're already inferring.)

But even if many knew, or had an inkling, about Van (which I think.is the case), they couldn't bring themselves to accept Thorpe's claim. Because she's a "liar"... and not a white Liberal female senator.

Everything changed when Stoker spoke up and was instantly believed.

 

[evolved2]

Bahahaha.
I was speaking to friends from Qld last night. She's considered a RWNJ up there even by some right of centre voters!

Is there a historical record of LNP women lying about their personal experience; more specifically, Stoker.

 

[evolved2]

Everything changed when Stoker spoke up and was instantly believed.

Known bullshitter speaks and the public are sceptical. Surely that's a reasonable response.

Supporting evidence from a credible source adds weight to Thorpes story, which is why her story became believeable to many.

Ever read 'the boy who cried wolf?' Lidia is the perennial victim of every story Lidia tells. On the one occasion the 'boy who cried wolf' was being honest, nobody believed them.

 

[evolved2]

Name them.

When you get off your ban.

Evidence was provided by FireKrakouer on the first page.

Like most SRP lefties, you ignore evidence when it doesn't fit the victim narrative of any minority group you're placating.

 

[geoffjennings79]

Is there a historical record of LNP women lying about their personal experience; more specifically, Stoker.

My point was Stoker does not have more credibility than Stoker. Unless of course you're only measuring that credibility inside the Qld LNP.

 

[evolved2]

My point was Stoker does not have more credibility than Stoker.

I'm lost. Uhh, yes.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I bet Van regrets standing up to say anything that day in the senate. What an implosion.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Is there a historical record of LNP women lying about their personal experience; more specifically, Stoker.

Yes. Yes there is.