Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

[myfreodom]

Birbalsingh describes her views as being small-c conservative and argues such traditional values "which would once have been completely normal have completely disappeared."

What are these "traditional values" that keep getting brought up?

We talking from BC times?

We talking early AC?

We talking Ancient Greece? Romans?

When Jesus started being depicted as a white man?

Perhaps when the conservatism term was first coined in the 1800s?

Or perhaps we are just inventing some time in the past to simultaneously be alarmist that "the world is changing from that time, clearly for the worse" whilst conveniently omitting that the world obviously wasn't always like that - it had "progressed" (evil word).

Have you got a list of these traditional values that are imperative to being a conservative?

 

[Purple_Turtle]

What are these "traditional values" that keep getting brought up?

We talking from BC times?

We talking early AC?

We talking Ancient Greece? Romans?

When Jesus started being depicted as a white man?

Perhaps when the conservatism term was first coined in the 1800s?

Or perhaps we are just inventing some time in the past to simultaneously be alarmist that "the world is changing from that time, clearly for the worse" whilst conveniently omitting that the world obviously wasn't always like that - it had "progressed" (evil word).

Have you got a list of these traditional values that are imperative to being a conservative?

Well, the traditional value of not showing children sexually explicit content in schools for starters...

California school broadcasts sexually explicit books, some covering 'pedophiles,' kink and pornographic images

A California public school library contained books with pornographic content, including titles such as 'Gender Queer, 'This Book is Gay' and 'Beyond Magenta.'

www.foxnews.com

 

[Square Peg]

Judging by the passages in the article above, the biggest crime would appear to be bad writing. That they may depict contentious ideas of six year olds being sexual beings doesn't mean they're meant to be read by six year olds. The article refers to high school libraries. I had to read Sons And Lovers in english lit at high school, basically a book devoted to a boy wanting to bonk his mum. I don't think it corrupted me. It certainly didn't make me want to bonk my mum. I'd have no problem with my three teenagers reading just about anything, in fact I encourage it, read widely and formulate your own ideas.

You guys are falling for a trap, that mad proponents of cancel culture love - to equate cancel culture to just another form of censorship and say 1) it's benign and has been going on forever and 2) see, the other side do it too.
Whilst censoring written works certainly forms part of it, cancel culture is much sinister more than banning books. It's about punishing speech, people and ultimately thought. It's about eliminating your opposition.

 

[Purple_Turtle]

You guys are falling for a trap, that mad proponents of cancel culture love - to equate cancel culture to just another form of censorship and say 1) it's benign and has been going on forever and 2) see, the other side do it too.
Whilst censoring written works certainly forms part of it, cancel culture is much sinister more than banning books. It's about punishing speech, people and ultimately thought. It's about eliminating your opposition.

The difference here is whether R rated media or age-restrictions on pornographic material are examples of cancel culture? Cause I don't think they are.

 

[Taylor]

From what I understand there are cartoon depictions of sex acts in those books, which is why people though they might be inappropriate to be available to children.

 

[myfreodom]

Judging by the passages in the article above, the biggest crime would appear to be bad writing. That they may depict contentious ideas of six year olds being sexual beings doesn't mean they're meant to be read by six year olds. The article refers to high school libraries. I had to read Sons And Lovers in english lit at high school, basically a book devoted to a boy wanting to bonk his mum. I don't think it corrupted me. It certainly didn't make me want to bonk my mum. I'd have no problem with my three teenagers reading just about anything, in fact I encourage it, read widely and formulate your own ideas.

You guys are falling for a trap, that mad proponents of cancel culture love - to equate cancel culture to just another form of censorship and say 1) it's benign and has been going on forever and 2) see, the other side do it too.
Whilst censoring written works certainly forms part of it, cancel culture is much sinister more than banning books. It's about punishing speech, people and ultimately thought. It's about eliminating your opposition.

All true (your first paragraph) but it wasn't a trap. They were the ones who brought up the BS in the first place. Perhaps they fell into their own trap?

"Punishing speech, people and ultimately thought"

Hmmm, that does ring a bell but feels older than something recent. Nah you are probably right... we need to stop holding these privileged white men accountable for their actions. It was only "ok" when we were doing it without cause to women, non-whites, homosexuals and so on.

Any chance someone could post up a list of these cancel culture victims so we can fully explore their suffering?

 

[Square Peg]

All true (your first paragraph) but it wasn't a trap. They were the ones who brought up the BS in the first place. Perhaps they fell into their own trap?

"Punishing speech, people and ultimately thought"

Hmmm, that does ring a bell but feels older than something recent. Nah you are probably right... we need to stop holding these privileged white men accountable for their actions. It was only "ok" when we were doing it without cause to women, non-whites, homosexuals and so on.

Any chance someone could post up a list of these cancel culture victims so we can fully explore their suffering?

Of course, it's all privileged white heterosexual males, unless you're female and/or homosexual and still under threat archive.ph
You'll note this article was published today, you'll barely go a week without finding something similar in the press, you just need to stop pretending you have a balanced view and actually look.
But in reality, I don't even think people famous enough to be in the press are the most important victims. I could name dozens from my workplace alone, where academic enquiry and challenging the orthodoxy is now essentially career suicide. Their names would mean nothing to you, but we're heading into a dark place as a society
Enough victims for you?

 

[myfreodom]

Of course, it's all privileged white heterosexual males, unless your female and/or homosexual and still under threat archive.ph
You'll note this article was published today, you'll barely go a week without finding something similar in the press, you just need to stop pretending you have a balanced view and actually look.
But in reality, I don't even think people famous enough to be in the press are the most important victims. I could name dozens from my workplace alone, where academic enquiry and challenging the orthodoxy is now essentially career suicide. There names would mean nothing to you, but we're heading into a dark place as a society
Enough victims for you?

But none of this is anything new. We've been persecuting other humans since forever. The only thing that has changed is who is doing the persecuting and how they are doing it. Traditionally it was the rich and powerful doing it. And now that most humans are connected that power has shifted much more to collective group think. Do you seriously believe it was any better when rich and powerful people could decide who is shunned and who isn't?

I strongly suspect you and I feel the exact same way about social media. I loathe it. There is a lot of bad and not a lot of good. I'd argue it doesn't necessarily create new issues but more that it amplifies social issues that exist in the real world - like bullying. The often anonymity of it also makes people more brazen to say things they'd unlikely say to someone's face. But I've yet to come across an issue that didn't already exist in some form prior to social media - which is why I think 'cancel culture' is just classic pile on bullying dressed up with a new buzzword. I think in most cases nobody gives enough of a shit about anyone who isn't a celebrity. And I've gone through quite a few celebrities who have claimed they've been cancelled and they are hardly living terrible lives (outside of those caught up with legitimate legal issues).

Directly before social media, traditional media probably held the power over who would be persecuted publicly and they still hold a pretty big sway. Do you think if Mildred was reading the newspaper 40 years ago and came across an article about her favourite author and read that they had raped someone that she might think twice about reading more of their books?

Or say 25 years ago you are around the water cooler with the other lads and one of them pipes up and makes a comment that Jane from Reception is a **** and couldn't get enough of him the other night. Do all the guys there treat Jane differently from that moment? Is she effectively shunned in the workplace?

Or as recently as a decade ago a well known footballer reveals to the football community that she's always been a woman and not a man. How is she subsequently treated?

Ffs, the world is full of people suffering or having suffered, often without any legitimate reason. Are we all of a sudden supposed to give more of a shit because far more privileged people are getting treated a bit harshly but for often valid reasons?

Do I like a pile on? Not particularly.

Do I think it is mindboggling that people can complain about people they call 'woke' speaking about women/black/LGBTIQ+ rights whilst simultaneously being alarmists about "cancel culture" being one of the biggest issues facing society? Yes I ****ing absolutely do.

 

[Square Peg]

But none of this is anything new. We've been persecuting other humans since forever. The only thing that has changed is who is doing the persecuting and how they are doing it. Traditionally it was the rich and powerful doing it. And now that most humans are connected that power has shifted much more to collective group think. Do you seriously believe it was any better when rich and powerful people could decide who is shunned and who isn't?

I strongly suspect you and I feel the exact same way about social media. I loathe it. There is a lot of bad and not a lot of good. I'd argue it doesn't necessarily create new issues but more that it amplifies social issues that exist in the real world - like bullying. The often anonymity of it also makes people more brazen to say things they'd unlikely say to someone's face. But I've yet to come across an issue that didn't already exist in some form prior to social media - which is why I think 'cancel culture' is just classic pile on bullying dressed up with a new buzzword. I think in most cases nobody gives enough of a s**t about anyone who isn't a celebrity. And I've gone through quite a few celebrities who have claimed they've been cancelled and they are hardly living terrible lives (outside of those caught up with legitimate legal issues).

Directly before social media, traditional media probably held the power over who would be persecuted publicly and they still hold a pretty big sway. Do you think if Mildred was reading the newspaper 40 years ago and came across an article about her favourite author and read that they had raped someone that she might think twice about reading more of their books?

Or say 25 years ago you are around the water cooler with the other lads and one of them pipes up and makes a comment that Jane from Reception is a **** and couldn't get enough of him the other night. Do all the guys there treat Jane differently from that moment? Is she effectively shunned in the workplace?

Or as recently as a decade ago a well known footballer reveals to the football community that she's always been a woman and not a man. How is she subsequently treated?

Ffs, the world is full of people suffering or having suffered, often without any legitimate reason. Are we all of a sudden supposed to give more of a s**t because far more privileged people are getting treated a bit harshly but for often valid reasons?

Do I like a pile on? Not particularly.

Do I think it is mindboggling that people can complain about people they call 'woke' speaking about women/black/LGBTIQ+ rights whilst simultaneously being alarmists about "cancel culture" being one of the biggest issues facing society? Yes I ******* absolutely do.

Sorry mate but that's one mighty mish mash of things I agree with, interesting but halfbaked ideas, unconnected threads, and complete irrelevance. Plus I am particularly enjoying a nice cup of Lady Grey tea before I get some sleep. So please forgive me for shuffling off without a serious reply, I don't have the energy.

 

[poshman]

Happy to have a debate about this but perhaps we don't just make s**t up if we do? Like "when your political opponents in turn can't articulate a single restriction they'd place on abortions". There were clear restrictions prior to Roe vs Wade being overturned and nobody I have heard has/is calling for unrestricted abortions.

The 13 US States that now have the most restrictions against abortions (either fully banned (9) or banned after 6 weeks pregnancy (4)) love to tell us about how they are being "pro-life". 10 of those states are in the 15 worst for child welfare. Correct me if I am wrong but I have yet to see/hear any policies/legislation they have subsequently implemented to deal with the extra 160,000+ babies per year that will now be born into poverty in their states. Pretty easy to claim you are "pro-life" but then not take any real responsibility relating to that political position isn't it?

In relation to CRT, the top six books being banned by Republican-controlled schools (also, asking for a friend, is this an example of cancel culture?) are:
1. Gender Queer - a book about gender identity
2. All Boys Aren't Blue - describes the challenges of Black queer boys
3. Lawn Boy - a gay protagonist discovering himself
4. Out of Darkness - story of a Black teenage boy and Mexican-American girl facing racism
5. The Bluest Eye - a Black girl who wants to change her eye colour thinking it would change her life
6. Beyond Magenta - interviews with six transgender/gender-neutral young adults

All six seem to fit your "corrosive racial ideology that undermines American institutions" so well?!? (yes, that was sarcasm) Free speech and against cancel culture except when it doesn't fit your ideology hey?

If you truly think Richard Wilson left the WA State Libs because he's too busy then you clearly only consume one source for your 'news'. I'm a member of the Liberal party. I've been part of the ******* conversations. I assure you it is a toxic environment as evidenced not just by me but pretty much everyone who isn't part of the clan. It has been like bashing our heads up against a wall trying to * off these a-holes that have destroyed the party from the inside. And before you say "but look at Labor", sure they've had to deal with their fair share of bad actors as well but at least in their case they didn't end up taking control of the party. I'm still optimistic we (WA) can eventually have an effective opposition in the next decade but hiding heads in the sand that everything is fine is only delaying that.

And all of this comes back to my point that conservatism has been hijacked imo. You claim that voters are more interested in inflation, economy, crime, etc but when you actually compare the policies of Democrats and Republicans or Labor and Liberal you often find the Dems and Labor are actually more fiscally conservative in their policies than their opponents. To clarify, just doing nothing is NOT being fiscally conservative. Nor is pushing massive scare campaigns instead of presenting feasible alternatives. Both sides of politics are not foreign to using the good 'ol con job but it's gone way too far lately.

Bahaahahahahaahaa there is nothing conservative about you.

How long have you been a member of the liberal party exactly? Direct message me I am happy to confirm if that is true or not. I doubt it.

1. Abortion: Dems are pushing for no restrictions and refused to vote against 'born alive abortions', which is murder. California has next to no restrictions, Stacey Abrams amongst others has refused to say if they would put a limit on abortions, there are others as well. To pretend that isn't the case is either massive ideological head in sand behaviour or dishonesty.

You also need to acknowledge the red states who put laws into place restricting abortion after 14 or 15 weeks, which puts them in line with a lot of Europe.

Are you saying that it is better to kill the babies than have them born into poverty? What is the limiting principle?

You keep claiming conservatism has been hijacked but you have not expressed one opinion that is in line with conservatism. If it has been hijacked, when exactly did you agree with it? 2012? name the policies. 2008 - policies? 2000? And policies please.

I am looking forward to seeing when you were a conservative and when exactly you think conservative values were hijacked.

I have been writing about interest rate increases and inflation on here regularly. When Biden got into power (because the US has such a massive impact here) I started making financial plans and business plans based on inflation above 7% and interest rates increasing here to 5% and staying there for a few years. I hope I am wrong. The question I have for you is this: Why was it so easy to predict that the Dems social policies combined with the international Covid policies would cause inflation the likes of which we haven't seen for almost a generation? Was it a lucky guess?

 

[poshman]

I'm not right of centre. I've always described my alignment as centre. And these days I'm probably slightly left of centre if anything because I think the world needs to actually evolve a fair bit to survive. But really if it comes to my opinion on an issue, it isn't any political alignment that determines my pov. I look at both sides of a debate, weigh it all up and choose a my position on it. The only reason I've disagreed with the supposed 'right' a lot lately (most of the recent Liberal leaders have been) is because most of what comes out of their mouths is absolute BS. The same could possibly be said of the 'left' but the Greens aren't a major party.

Where did you get this crazy idea that all Lib members are all Right wing? Do you also think all Labor members are Left wing? It blows my mind that people semi-interested in politics think like this. Both parties have a mix, as they should have. When the balance of power is too strongly one way it rarely ends well - like the WA State Libs.

Name two conservative positions you agree with.

 

[poshman]

I'm not right of centre. I've always described my alignment as centre. And these days I'm probably slightly left of centre if anything because I think the world needs to actually evolve a fair bit to survive. But really if it comes to my opinion on an issue, it isn't any political alignment that determines my pov. I look at both sides of a debate, weigh it all up and choose a my position on it. The only reason I've disagreed with the supposed 'right' a lot lately (most of the recent Liberal leaders have been) is because most of what comes out of their mouths is absolute BS. The same could possibly be said of the 'left' but the Greens aren't a major party.

Where did you get this crazy idea that all Lib members are all Right wing? Do you also think all Labor members are Left wing? It blows my mind that people semi-interested in politics think like this. Both parties have a mix, as they should have. When the balance of power is too strongly one way it rarely ends well - like the WA State Libs.

So you answer nothing based around your unfounded claims on abortion and the push to no restrictions by the Left.

 

[myfreodom]

Sorry mate but that's one mighty mish mash of things I agree with, interesting but halfbaked ideas, unconnected threads, and complete irrelevance. Plus I am particularly enjoying a nice cup of Lady Grey tea before I get some sleep. So please forgive me for shuffling off without a serious reply, I don't have the energy.

Fair enough. I've perhaps got some simpler questions that might help us join the dots.

Regarding the dozens of people from your workplace that made academic inquiry and challenged the orthodoxy that effectively committed career suicide (in your words).

That's a lot of ultra vague terms so can you give just one example including what they said/did? Who shunned them? Why they lost their job? And why they were subsequently unemployable? And why you classify it as cancel culture?

 

[myfreodom]

So you answer nothing based around your unfounded claims on abortion and the push to no restrictions by the Left.

You drunk mate? Go have a Lady Grey and sleep it off

 

[poshman]

You drunk mate? Go have a Lady Grey and sleep it off

Don't drink. But please come after me instead of answering the question.

I will try again:

There were clear restrictions prior to Roe vs Wade being overturned and nobody I have heard has/is calling for unrestricted abortions.

Are you still claiming that Democrats in office or running for office have not proposed unlimited abortion including born alive abortion?


And to your point of how you were conservative and conservatism has been hijacked.

When was it hijacked and which policies do you agree with or did you agree with?

 

[myfreodom]

Don't drink. But please come after me instead of answering the question.

I will try again:

There were clear restrictions prior to Roe vs Wade being overturned and nobody I have heard has/is calling for unrestricted abortions.

Are you still claiming that Democrats in office or running for office have not proposed unlimited abortion including born alive abortion?


And to your point of how you were conservative and conservatism has been hijacked.

When was it hijacked and which policies do you agree with or did you agree with?

You literally just said it yourself in a post above....

California has next to no restrictions

Next to no means some. It does not mean none like the person I was replying to claimed.

Lol.

 

[Square Peg]

Fair enough. I've perhaps got some simpler questions that might help us join the dots.

Regarding the dozens of people from your workplace that made academic inquiry and challenged the orthodoxy that effectively committed career suicide (in your words).

That's a lot of ultra vague terms so can you give just one example including what they said/did? Who shunned them? Why they lost their job? And why they were subsequently unemployable? And why you classify it as cancel culture?

Jesus weeps, there is nothing that I am going to say to convince you, what on earth are you on about? I posted an article literally written yesterday that hit the press as an illustration of cancel culture that is identical to what goes on in workplaces across the English speaking western world including where I work- the two main tactics beng weaponising codes of conduct to silence opponents, and the selective use of grants/hiring/promotion (depending on the field of work). That's cancel culture. You respond by some ridiculous ****ing story about a woman called Mildred 40 years ago reading about a rapist in a newspaper and not liking him any more, as if freedom of speech and asking difficult questions is equivalent to rape. You don't believe cancel culture exists, all power to you. It's irrelevant to me and I have no interest in trying to make the wilfully blind see, I'll just provide my experiences/perspectives and how frightened I am by this stuff and you can take it or leave it.

 

[myfreodom]

Jesus weeps, there is nothing that I am going to say to convince you, what on earth are you on about? I posted an article literally written yesterday that hit the press as an illustration of cancel culture that is identical to what goes on in workplaces across the English speaking western world including where I work- the two main tactics beng weaponising codes of conduct to silence opponents, and the selective use of grants/hiring/promotion (depending on the field of work). That's cancel culture. You respond by some ridiculous ******* story about a woman called Mildred 40 years ago reading about a rapist in a newspaper and not liking him any more, as if freedom of speech and asking difficult questions is equivalent to rape. You don't believe cancel culture exists, all power to you. It's irrelevant to me and I have no interest in trying to make the wilfully blind see, I'll just provide my experiences/perspectives and how frightened I am by this stuff and you can take it or leave it.

You posted an article? Had a quick skim back and can't find it. Possibly in amongst the propaganda BS posts by other RWers on here so apologise if I missed it. Don't confuse my disdain for others that just like to shout on here when they don't like their ideologies being challenged with actually being interested in why people think cancel culture is suddenly a major threat.

I'm still struggling to understand what the difference between this 'new' cancel culture in the workplace is to bullying, ostracising, discrimination and persecution in the workplace that has been going on for centuries? To be very clear I'm not saying it is ok, I'm just curious why we are now calling it cancel culture and all of a sudden frightened by it?

It's something I've had to and continue to combat in businesses I own, run and have worked in. And if anyone has solutions for it I'm all ears. But I think labelling it as cancel culture for the sake of proving that cancel culture exists is a fair bit of a stretch. The problem hasn't suddenly appeared - people are just labelling it that because it's a popular buzzword atm so it attracts more attention.

What I was attempting to demonstrate in my previous post is how this concept of "cancelling" someone has existed for a long time, it is just who the victim is, and who the perpetrators are, is now far more open.

My personal opinion is that it has only now become 'frightening' because the privileged can now be victims rather than traditionally only being able to be the perpetrators.

 

[Purple_Turtle]

Republicans under DeSantis winning Florida in landslide.



The non-conservative platform of speaking out against CRT and radical gender theory of schools seems to be a winner.

 

[poshman]

You literally just said it yourself in a post above....

California has next to no restrictions

Next to no means some. It does not mean none like the person I was replying to claimed.

Lol.

We will try again:


There were clear restrictions prior to Roe vs Wade being overturned and nobody I have heard has/is calling for unrestricted abortions. (this was a quote from your post)

Are you still claiming that Democrats in office or running for office have not proposed unlimited abortion including born alive abortion?


And to your point of how you were conservative and conservatism has been hijacked.

When was it hijacked and which policies do you agree with or did you agree with?

 

[E Shed]

Republicans under DeSantis winning Florida in landslide.



The non-conservative platform of speaking out against CRT and radical gender theory of schools seems to be a winner.

Or perhaps unlike other states DeSantis assumed a comparatively moderate position on abortion thus negating the substantial backlash against candidates who’ve gone hard on this issue?
He is nothing if not a savvy politician. Hence why Trump is starting to insult him.

 

[stax on the mull]

John Cleese Shamed the BBC Into Reinstating Ousted Fawlty Towers Episode

That's not being cancelled.

That's one episode they they didn't wish to put on their streaming services because of the content. The shows were made in the mid-70's. Of course there's elements that pushed boundaries and maybe not everything in every episode of Fawlty Towers has to be looked on as genious. I've always thought an instance in another of the episodes where Polly, frustrated with not being able to communicate with Manuel, refers to him being a "dago dodo" was nothing more than an unnecessary slur. Perhaps when they were writing it they found the alliteration amusing - but it doesn't generally fit with Polly's character or with Cleese's claim that they're only ever ridiculing people who hold racist views. I can even vaguely remember as a schoolkid listening to to a news report on the way to school about the Spanish newspapers and someone in the Spanish govt. making a complaint to the British about the way Manuel was portrayed in the series.

Much of the humor in it still stands up pretty well today - but I don't know if the episodes with the Germans was the high point. Cleese doing the goosesteps is just a resurrection of silly walks sketch from Monty Python - and the whole "don't mention the war" would just seem bizarre to millenials and gen z's that don't bear the grudges that parents and grandparents of my generation did. (I could probably go off on a tangent here and suggest that the English veneer of politeness - don't mention the war and we'll all get along with the Germans - might in retrospect be viewed as behaviour of a cancel culture type of its time. We all to some extent modify our conversations in public situations depending on who we are with).

Its not like nobody can't see Fawlty Towers anymore. It's still regularly shown on TV here. I saw a bunch of them on a Christmas day on one of the local TV stations a couple of years ago and I know they've been repeated at least twice since then. I think they've alternated between the stations of Ch7 and Ch9 in recent years - but you can buy the DVD's if you want to see them.

Cleese has his TV show in Britain now too, to talk about cancel culture. Hardly cancelled. I saw Eric Idle was recently asked about Cleese and he said:

"But I have known him for 60 years next year … he has, in his life, given me more great laughs than almost anybody else."

"I think when people get older, they sort of turn into different people, you know. They get old and cranky."

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

That's not being cancelled.

That's one episode they they didn't wish to put on their streaming services because of the content. The shows were made in the mid-70's. Of course there's elements that pushed boundaries and maybe not everything in every episode of Fawlty Towers has to be looked on as genious. I've always thought an instance in another of the episodes where Polly, frustrated with not being able to communicate with Manuel, refers to him being a "dago dodo" was nothing more than an unnecessary slur. Perhaps when they were writing it they found the alliteration amusing - but it doesn't generally fit with Polly's character or with Cleese's claim that they're only ever ridiculing people who hold racist views. I can even vaguely remember as a schoolkid listening to to a news report on the way to school about the Spanish newspapers and someone in the Spanish govt. making a complaint to the British about the way Manuel was portrayed in the series.

Much of the humor in it still stands up pretty well today - but I don't know if the episodes with the Germans was the high point. Cleese doing the goosesteps is just a resurrection of silly walks sketch from Monty Python - and the whole "don't mention the war" would just seem bizarre to millenials and gen z's that don't bear the grudges that parents and grandparents of my generation did. (I could probably go off on a tangent here and suggest that the English veneer of politeness - don't mention the war and we'll all get along with the Germans - might in retrospect be viewed as behaviour of a cancel culture type of its time. We all to some extent modify our conversations in public situations depending on who we are with).

Its not like nobody can't see Fawlty Towers anymore. It's still regularly shown on TV here. I saw a bunch of them on a Christmas day on one of the local TV stations a couple of years ago and I know they've been repeated at least twice since then. I think they've alternated between the stations of Ch7 and Ch9 in recent years - but you can buy the DVD's if you want to see them.

Cleese has his TV show in Britain now too, to talk about cancel culture. Hardly cancelled. I saw Eric Idle was recently asked about Cleese and he said:

"But I have known him for 60 years next year … he has, in his life, given me more great laughs than almost anybody else."

"I think when people get older, they sort of turn into different people, you know. They get old and cranky."

There’s a lot in what you say. Every phase of history has seen groups or individuals ostracised or looked down on for various reasons. In my grandparents’ generation a divorced woman was shunned; it was shocking to not go to church, or to buy biscuits instead of making them, just as examples. The worst thing that could happen to you was to be talked about.

The difference in cancel culture these days is the widespread and instant effects of having a “wrong” opinion, and the near-impossibility of redemption, in spite of grovelling apologies. Careers and jobs are lost because of something someone said decades earlier, or daring to express an opinion that doesn’t align with the current narrative. There’s a fetish for trawling history to find the “dirt” that can wreck someone, and the internet has made that far easier to do.

Fawlty Towers was a comedy of the times. Some might tut-tut over what made people laugh in those days but should it be banned? Good on Cleese and Idle; stick up for yourselves, it is what it is. Everyone’s free to laugh or ignore.

Yeah, when you’re young you passionately want to take up causes and “be on the right side of history” , but as you get older you realise the futility and ridiculousness of it all. Time passes and everything changes; everything.

 

[Taylor]

I'm pretty happy with how the US election turned out. I think political systems work best when neither side hold power over the entire machine, forcing moderation and compromise - things don't happen quickly. That's the key to stable nations.

It also drove a knife into Trump backed candidates and I hope that puts Trump 2024 to bed.

I also hope that given the democrats were voting 100% behind sending more and more support to Ukraine that the US might no longer be propping up it's own war economy under the guise of foreign aid while taking the world closer and closer to nuclear war. I appreciate that Ukraine is unlucky in it's position should the US pull back support, the rest of NATO will quickly follow suit, but I think history would sacrifice a dozen Ukraines if it could take back nuclear war spanning the globe.

I'd like to see the US ramp up domestic oil production, run the tap wide open, and flood the market as much as possible - trying to bring the price of oil down. That's how the US can beat Russia without risking nuclear war. Just skim enough cash out of their current two product economy such that they can no longer afford war.

We are already heading for a worldwide famine. India isn't exporting rice anymore. China is chewing up it's domestic strategic reserve of fertaliser and in a drought.

The price of corn is up 50% in a year, wheat between 25-35%. It's going to get worse as fertaliser becomes scarce.

Australia exports roughly a third of total production of our grains, we are ok for food security, unless outside nations can afford to pay more than locally for the scraps of food that are on the market. We hit eight billion in the next few days and could be a hundred million short of it again in six months.

 

[myfreodom]

And to your point of how you were conservative and conservatism has been hijacked.

You keep bringing up that I've claimed I am a conservative. I haven't. I've said more than once that I'm a centrist. I suspect you may still be struggling with the concept that not all members of the Liberal party are conservatives? I'm one of them, a moderate who aligns more with Turnbull and Bishop than with Abbott, Morrison and Dutton. Like a heap of people I'm a member of both major parties. I know people from both Labor Right and Labor Left. I think Labor Left in particular has recruited really well lately but I'm a fan of Chalmers as a future leader. Meanwhile I have more friends in the right faction of WA Labor but still highly rate some in the left as well. The WA Libs had some absolute up and coming stars who are friends of mine but they eventually had enough with the toxic environment and bailed unfortunately.

Happy to provide you my opinion on conservatism being hijacked if someone can give me a list of traditional values I keep hearing about. I could guess myself but I'm not a conservative so I'd rather base my explanation off of what an actual conservative minded person thinks/says.