Society/Culture Why are young males now more right wing then older males?

[10571z]

The left especially in Melbourne are insufferable

Hating everything especially your country is “cool”

People are over it. The world’s a worse place because of woke lefties.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The left especially in Melbourne are insufferable

Hating everything especially your country is “cool”

People are over it. The world’s a worse place because of woke lefties.

As far as social harmony goes, all us lefties want is a world where everyone is respected regardless. Your skin colour is not an issue. Your beliefs, providing they are not detrimental to others, are not an issue. Your perception of sex and gender are not an issue. How you dress and what music you listen to are not an issue.

Once you stop caring about these current points of division, you will find a great many societal issues will just cease to exist.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The left especially in Melbourne are insufferable

Hating everything especially your country is “cool”

People are over it. The world’s a worse place because of woke lefties.

The fringe left you're talking about are very very minuscule in number.

 

[peetoo]

The left especially in Melbourne are insufferable

Hating everything especially your country is “cool”

People are over it. The world’s a worse place because of woke lefties.

Assuming it’s true, LOL if anyone thinks Dutton and his useless colleagues are the answer

 

[247Tigers]

The fringe left you're talking about are very very minuscule in number.

At the last state election 15% of the population voted for the greens, socialst party and other fringe left parties.

That is before you look at other populations of society that engage in voilence during their protests.

1/6th of the population cannot be considering minuscule.

 

[sr36]

At the last state election 15% of the population voted for the greens, socialst party and other fringe left parties.

That is before you look at other populations of society that engage in voilence during their protests.

1/6th of the population cannot be considering minuscule.

Yes. It's important to understand that every greens voter is a hated filled woke trying to encourage our kids to identify as cats. And every liberal voter is a white supremacist wanting to bring back gay bashing. I can send you a heap of links that proves it.

 

[10571z]

As far as social harmony goes, all us lefties want is a world where everyone is respected regardless. Your skin colour is not an issue. Your beliefs, providing they are not detrimental to others, are not an issue. Your perception of sex and gender are not an issue. How you dress and what music you listen to are not an issue.

Once you stop caring about these current points of division, you will find a great many societal issues will just cease to exist.

Impressive you’ve achieved the opposite.

 

[10571z]

Assuming it’s true, LOL if anyone thinks Dutton and his useless colleagues are the answer

Australian politics are at an all time low. Dutton and Albo are the worst candidates I think we have ever had.

Certainly no Dutton fan.

 

[Gough]

Australian politics are at an all time low. Dutton and Albo are the worst candidates I think we have ever had.

Certainly no Dutton fan.

I can't see why you wouldn't support Dutton tbh, most of your positions align pretty closely to what he's offering.

 

[peetoo]

I can't see why you wouldn't support Dutton tbh, most of your positions align pretty closely to what he's offering.

Maybe even he realises Dutton talks a big game, but his ministerial record is embarrasing

 

[Gethelred]

The left especially in Melbourne are insufferable

Hating everything especially your country is “cool”

People are over it. The world’s a worse place because of woke lefties.

What, specifically, have the woke lefties done to make the world a worse place in an objective sense?

 

[sr36]

What, specifically, have the woke lefties done to make the world a worse place in an objective sense?

Have you tasted soy milk?

Plus there's the huge numbers who identify as cats and crap in kitty litter. I personally know 8,763 kitty litter crappers.

 

[Gethelred]

Have you tasted soy milk?

Plus there's the huge numbers who identify as cats and crap in kitty litter. I personally know 8,763 kitty litter crappers.

I'm not going to tell you to stop it so much as I'm going to ask you to refrain until 10571z answers.

Give them the chance to support their argument with something they consider rational. It's only worthy of dismissal if they can't do it.

The floor's yours, 10571z. In what way have woke lefties made the world a worse place, objectively?

 

[10571z]

I can't see why you wouldn't support Dutton tbh, most of your positions align pretty closely to what he's offering.

He is a puppet with no vision and will say anything to get elected.

 

[10571z]

I'm not going to tell you to stop it so much as I'm going to ask you to refrain until 10571z answers.

Give them the chance to support their argument with something they consider rational. It's only worthy of dismissal if they can't do it.

The floor's yours, 10571z. In what way have woke lefties made the world a worse place, objectively?

Division, over sensitivity and censorship, cancel culture, Identity politics, victim mentality, soft stances on crime..

Why do you think right wing politics are making comebacks around the world?

 

[sr36]

How did you miss "kitty litter shitter"?!

Such incredible prose.

I need to keep in touch with the bigfooty swear filter. I thought shit would have copied a mix of characters.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Division, over sensitivity and censorship, cancel culture, Identity politics, victim mentality, soft stances on crime..

Why do you think right wing politics are making comebacks around the world?

You'll need to link evidence.

 

[247Tigers]

Yes. It's important to understand that every greens voter is a hated filled woke trying to encourage our kids to identify as cats. And every liberal voter is a white supremacist wanting to bring back gay bashing. I can send you a heap of links that proves it.

You are very confused about your politics.

The greens are a far left party that have talked about their policy desires to defund financial institutions unless they they agree uniformly with their policies. In other words no business gets a loan unless the greens party approve you.

Their policy on their website to name one of hundreds of extremist policies is:
Elections of boards of publicly listed companies are to be conducted by an independent statutory body.
The independant statutory body is required to independently audit the company and publicly report their performance against economic, environmental and social criteria on an annual basis.

layman's terms: Any corporation that is publicly listed must appoint directors/executives that align with the greens party's policies or you will be defunded. Ofcourse when your hierarchical structure is appointed aligning with their world views, then no employee would be employed unless they simialarly held those views.

The liberal party in Australia is a centre right party.
A liberal voter in any other country is centre left.
A typical liberal voter in the united states would be: a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.

You should read my post on the page 31 that talks about extremism in both the left and right of politics.
Liberal voters in Australia or around the world (despite their counter views) are not the problem.

The greens parties around the world are a problem because their agenda is nothing to do with climate change and more about ensuring everyone "shares" their world view or be defunded.

 

[peetoo]

He is a puppet with no vision and will say anything to get elected.

Like scomo actually proud to have no vision

 

[Gethelred]

Division

... is a subjective characterisation, that doesn't hold up any real weight when assessed objectively.

over sensitivity and censorship

Are behaviours exhibited by both the left and right, which can be demonstrated factually.

cancel culture

... is an urge old as time, and is not a behaviour isolated to the left, either.

Identity politics

This one's a joke.

The right have eternally been about identity; who you are, where you sit within hierarchies seen as natural. The right created hierarchies of races to justify their treatment of non-whites (and other groups, in non white parts of the world); created hierarchies of class seen as natural, with the king and aristocracy at the apex. The way the right treats the wealthy classes - obsequiously - based entirely on who they are; the way the right treats people seen as lower on the hierarchies - such as how they treat unions - when they seek and achieve political power.

The right have always played identity politics. They're only getting a bit up and angsty about it because progressives are shooing in on their game.

victim mentality

This is a subjective judgement, not an objective characterisation.

soft stances on crime..

This is - again - completely subjective.

Why do you think right wing politics are making comebacks around the world?

Easier marketing, less censors, easier dissemination of information since the internet.

This is pretty easily demonstrable. It takes years for the full effects of a communication medium to truly be felt; before the internet, right wing groups were isolated and their ability to grow and spread ideas was as good as the best propagandist within each individual group. They couldn't publish in the newspapers, use radio or TV to disseminate their views or to recruit, because editors refused to air certain things. Now, the right can see which methods and ideas work and which don't, and this has allowed them to hone in on strategies which allow them to get their views out there. Some of these strategies are argumentative - ways to win arguments with the left, because they lost an awful lot of them over the past 100 or so years after centuries of winning because they were the ones with the swords - and some of these strategies are marketing: use of outrage to garner views and clicks, clever use of algorithms and funding to prop up specific viewpoints, the deliberate coating of their arguments in a veneer of libertarianism to provide plausible deniability and the revamping of conservativism as centrism.

See, the various RW groups seeking to replicate Trump's methods, including our very own Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton. The consistent 'Make (insert whatever) Great Again', as though that slogan was originally Trump's.

So - to summarise - you have a series of claims which are mostly subjective, and those which aren't are incorrect. Indeed, you might have misunderstood what you were being asked to do: to be asked to prove something objectively is to demonstrate that it is true beyond opinion. Something that is subjective - such as how you feel about something - might be shared between multiple people - such as how you feel the left is soft on crime - is something that arises from your own personal experiences, something that is not able to be demonstrated with fact or cannot be proven beyond it being what you think or feel.

Do you see where you might be going wrong now, 10571z?

 

[10571z]

... is a subjective characterisation, that doesn't hold up any real weight when assessed objectively.

Are behaviours exhibited by both the left and right, which can be demonstrated factually.

... is an urge old as time, and is not a behaviour isolated to the left, either.

This one's a joke.

The right have eternally been about identity; who you are, where you sit within hierarchies seen as natural. The right created hierarchies of races to justify their treatment of non-whites (and other groups, in non white parts of the world); created hierarchies of class seen as natural, with the king and aristocracy at the apex. The way the right treats the wealthy classes - obsequiously - based entirely on who they are; the way the right treats people seen as lower on the hierarchies - such as how they treat unions - when they seek and achieve political power.

The right have always played identity politics. They're only getting a bit up and angsty about it because progressives are shooing in on their game.

This is a subjective judgement, not an objective characterisation.

This is - again - completely subjective.

Easier marketing, less censors, easier dissemination of information since the internet.

This is pretty easily demonstrable. It takes years for the full effects of a communication medium to truly be felt; before the internet, right wing groups were isolated and their ability to grow and spread ideas was as good as the best propagandist within each individual group. They couldn't publish in the newspapers, use radio or TV to disseminate their views or to recruit, because editors refused to air certain things. Now, the right can see which methods and ideas work and which don't, and this has allowed them to hone in on strategies which allow them to get their views out there. Some of these strategies are argumentative - ways to win arguments with the left, because they lost an awful lot of them over the past 100 or so years after centuries of winning because they were the ones with the swords - and some of these strategies are marketing: use of outrage to garner views and clicks, clever use of algorithms and funding to prop up specific viewpoints, the deliberate coating of their arguments in a veneer of libertarianism to provide plausible deniability and the revamping of conservativism as centrism.

See, the various RW groups seeking to replicate Trump's methods, including our very own Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton. The consistent 'Make (insert whatever) Great Again', as though that slogan was originally Trump's.

So - to summarise - you have a series of claims which are mostly subjective, and those which aren't are incorrect. Indeed, you might have misunderstood what you were being asked to do: to be asked to prove something objectively is to demonstrate that it is true beyond opinion. Something that is subjective - such as how you feel about something - might be shared between multiple people - such as how you feel the left is soft on crime - is something that arises from your own personal experiences, something that is not able to be demonstrated with fact or cannot be proven beyond it being what you think or feel.

Do you see where you might be going wrong now, 10571z?

Your claims are subjective as well. There is full proof evidence to either argument.

 

[sr36]

Division, over sensitivity and censorship, cancel culture, Identity politics, victim mentality, soft stances on crime..

Why do you think right wing politics are making comebacks around the world?

Do you view your "leftie woke" comments as being divisive? Do you view your posts about percentages of Islam as being identity politics? Do you view people complaining about right wing views being criticised and calling it censorship as being over-sensitive? Do you view calls to boycott supermarkets due to a lack of Aussie kitsch as a form of cancel culture? Or the enormous number of people who've been cancelled over the years for offending conservatives? Or the enormous number of things that have been censored by tconservatives to be a form of censorship? Do you view people complaining that migrants are taking their jobs as identity politics and victimhood?

Or are these concepts and political tactics to shape culture only issues when they come from views that you disagree with?

 

[Gethelred]

Your claims are subjective as well. There is full proof evidence to either argument.

Uno reverse cards do not work in argument, 10571z. You need to demonstrate your claims objectively if you want them assessed as such. Hitchen's razor: that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

You've also replied to a rather lengthy post that supported the claims made in it with evidence - which you clearly didn't view - with two sentences of unsupported claims that are barely relevant to the subject under discussion. What relevance they have is undermined by the fact that in order for them to be relevant at all they need to generalise over every single thing stated, some of which simply doesn't work. "Full proof evidence" is a tautology, and what is referred to by 'either argument'? Mine? Yours? Both?

Are you trying to pen the most reductive deconstructionist argument in history?

 

[247Tigers]

... is a subjective characterisation, that doesn't hold up any real weight when assessed objectively.

Are behaviours exhibited by both the left and right, which can be demonstrated factually.

... is an urge old as time, and is not a behaviour isolated to the left, either.

This one's a joke.

The right have eternally been about identity; who you are, where you sit within hierarchies seen as natural. The right created hierarchies of races to justify their treatment of non-whites (and other groups, in non white parts of the world); created hierarchies of class seen as natural, with the king and aristocracy at the apex. The way the right treats the wealthy classes - obsequiously - based entirely on who they are; the way the right treats people seen as lower on the hierarchies - such as how they treat unions - when they seek and achieve political power.

The right have always played identity politics. They're only getting a bit up and angsty about it because progressives are shooing in on their game.

This is a subjective judgement, not an objective characterisation.

This is - again - completely subjective.

Easier marketing, less censors, easier dissemination of information since the internet.

This is pretty easily demonstrable. It takes years for the full effects of a communication medium to truly be felt; before the internet, right wing groups were isolated and their ability to grow and spread ideas was as good as the best propagandist within each individual group. Now, the right can see which methods and ideas work and which don't.

See, the various RW groups seeking to replicate Trump's methods, including our very own Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton. The consistent 'Make (insert whatever) Great Again', as though that slogan was originally Trump's.

So - to summarise - you have a series of claims which are mostly subjective, and those which aren't are incorrect. Indeed, you might have misunderstood what you were being asked to do: to be asked to prove something objectively is to demonstrate that it is true beyond opinion. Something that is subjective - such as how you feel about something - might be shared between multiple people - such as how you feel the left is soft on crime - is something that arises from your own personal experiences, something that is not able to be demonstrated with fact or cannot be proven beyond it being what you think or feel.

Do you see where you might be going wrong now, 10571z?

So a person that talks about viewing and characterising everything objectively. And yet points to all hierarchical structures and says everything morally wrong associated with a hierarchical structure has been generated by those with views on the right of the political spectrum. Hate to shatter your wildly inaccurate university postmoderist properganda. The left and right political spectrum was a concept created during the french revolution in 1789. Evidence of slavery predates written records 10,000 years ago. Slavery of course being the first racial hierarchal structure not owned by the left of right because it didn't exist. All humans engaged in the slave trade irrespective of tribe or race. It still exists today and is ofter largest in developing countries without democratic structures. Asian, Africa, Arab nations. Hierarchial structures first appeared in the transition from tribes to those of farming communities and agriculture structures. Which required leadership, organisation and the management of resources to fairly distribute the proceeds throughout society. In other words the only reason you are still receiving the food on your plate is because of a hierarchical structure.

But what would I know, lets let the university educated person come up with a fair equitable system with no structures. One where no person is required to listen or obey to any law. Let's see how going to the hospital works out for you when your having a stroke but the person who has a cold is to be treated before you.

In trying to prove something that is based on facts rather than personal opinions you have provided no facts.
You have pushed a postmodernist ideolgy that all hierarcial structures were created after the politial specrum was created which is innaccurate as these structures have exisited (to the best of our knowledge) since 10,000 BCE.

Do you see where you might be going wrong now?

 

[sr36]

You are very confused about your politics.

The greens are a far left party that have talked about their policy desires to defund financial institutions unless they they agree uniformly with their policies. In other words no business gets a loan unless the greens party approve you.

Their policy on their website to name one of hundreds of extremist policies is:
Elections of boards of publicly listed companies are to be conducted by an independent statutory body.
The independant statutory body is required to independently audit the company and publicly report their performance against economic, environmental and social criteria on an annual basis.

layman's terms: Any corporation that is publicly listed must appoint directors/executives that align with the greens party's policies or you will be defunded. Ofcourse when your hierarchical structure is appointed aligning with their world views, then no employee would be employed unless they simialarly held those views.

The liberal party in Australia is a centre right party.
A liberal voter in any other country is centre left.
A typical liberal voter in the united states would be: a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.

You should read my post on the page 31 that talks about extremism in both the left and right of politics.
Liberal voters in Australia or around the world (despite their counter views) are not the problem.

The greens parties around the world are a problem because their agenda is nothing to do with climate change and more about ensuring everyone "shares" their world view or be defunded.

I was responding to your suggestion that voting for one of the furthest left parties makes someone an extremist. I think you're confused about voting and what it means about the voter.

I'm not going to get into a debate about policy as I think it's close to irrelevant in terms of voting as most voters don't read it and/or are unable to predict the ramifications of much of it. Even experts on various policy areas disagree wildly on what the ramifications of various policy will be, made even more complicated and difficult to evaluate by party based propaganda

Voters vote for a party for a variety of reasons:

perceived personality, competence and ethics of the party leader or candidate
what the party is perceived or portrayed as representing

These are the big two. The first says nothing about extremism of the party. The second will only when the voter perceives the party as representing something that you'd categorise as extreme.

The minor parties also attract a fair bit of strategic voting. Many voters aren't viewing them as a potential government - thus their policy doesn't matter - they're voting to try to shift politics in a left or right direction - or towards a particular stance on a single issue that is a big issue for the voter and party - pretty clear to see why many would vote Greens or another minor party for this reason - be the issue the environment, immigration or Gaza or something else.

Even amongst those voters who do analyse policy closely - they will regularly disagree with a fair bit of the policy that they're voting for, but they prefer the overall package, so cherry picking a couple of policies that you think is outrageous doesn't say much about the extremism of voters who are actually voting on policy.

Essentially, you're confusing policy with people and incorrectly think that people are fully aligned with the policies of the party they voted for.