The (comical) British understatement is absolutely dripping off the translations. “Leave whenever you like”, oh my.
- 41 Posts
- 623 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: July 24th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Speaking of McDonalds, I seriously don’t understand those still eating in in this day and age. It’s overpriced pseudo-food. There is no benefit. I’d rather eat a decade-old military ration, or a plain block of tofu.
The only times I’ve even considered it in the past ten years are in a group of inebriated friends leaving a club/party who all want to eat, plus every other shop in walking distance is closed because it’s midnight
2·9 days agoThanks for that. Now this is fascinating, I’d just expect for a commitee like that, and one claiming to be around since 1916 at that, not to overlook (or diverge from) that part of the government protocol.
Have you not yet had the pleasure of seeing our Discount Donald, billionaire Clive ‘charismatic as a carpet’ Palmer?
Joel Jammal, the head of Turning Point Australia and a sponsor for the tour, said he believed it sold 15,000 tickets, which started at $95 and ranged up to $1,500 for VIP tickets, suggesting Rocksman sold at least $1.4m worth of tickets.
Conservatives always lie
The truth is even more damning than the slogan: they lie so blatantly and constantly that no-one can trust when they ever tell a truth.
Not technically, but yes. I believe it’s inherited from US politics (regardless of if the protocol started there or not). Australian government protocols prohibit inverting the flag, even as a signal of distress.
See also, the use of the red ensign by the Australian sovereign citizen cookers - these “freedom”/“patriot” activists are largely derivative of international far-right influences.
To fly a flag upside down is a signal of distress. The Australian National Flag should not, therefore, be displayed with the Union Jack down on any occasion except as a signal of distress.
Please cite claims such as this. It is contradicted by the government.
“Do not fly the flag upside down, even as a signal of distress.”
If we make it a prerequisite to vote that ones need to be able to answer some extremely basic questions about the election they’re voting in, all of those questions being given months ahead of time, along with all the answers, then (barring profound mental conditions) not qualifying to vote is a choice. If you’re informed enough to know where the polling booth is, you’re probably capable of passing that bar. Based on your reply, you’d pass with flying colours.
If someone is so apathetic that they don’t know the absolute basic premise of a given election, what is the benefit of allowing them to vote in it?
Of course, and I didn’t emphasise this enough, the system I’m proposing relies heavily on the ability for the election organisers, through tools such as the government and law, to empower every possible voter to understand the basic premise of the election. And in a sea of corporate-owned media (both traditional and online), this is easier said than done, but far from impossible.
I think everyone deserves to be given the tools they need to have real political power. That’s demo-cracy.
A 3 question civics test before you can vote would destroy whole blocs of voters in Australia. Just get them to identify how a progressive income tax works, which country is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the OECD, and which parts of the Miranda Rights apply to them, boom PHON gets a dozen votes across the whole country.
Having some kind of extremely-low barrier, pre-declared multiple-choice test questions in order to gain ballot access is an idea I’ve played around with. Literally mail out a pamphlet with the questions and answers, drafted by the AEC and approved by as many candidates/parties as possible to prevent it being unneutral or propagandised. Objective things like “Which of these services does the federal government handle?” and “Which of these is the typical income of an average Australian?”. And if, for whatever reason, you can’t answer these simple questions, you aren’t informed enough to help decide who represents us in our democratic system.
Relevant, but not quite the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_democracy
There’s about 40 years of solid examples from them you can listen too, if you want to know the answer.
Some examples from outside their discography:
- One minute interview clip re: censorship of Censored Due To Legal Advice
- Acceptance speech at the 1995 ARIA awards [Accepted by Les Murray, in reference to their song What Nationality is Les Murray?. Translation, from reddit]
- Radio interview with Tony Martin and Mick Molloy
- Wikipedia section on their style. Note the quote about pop songs
TISM flight path tracking:
1·16 days agoGood to see, hopefully this institutional pushback gives some extra mainstream legitimacy to the objection.
Progressive Jewish lobby group, the Jewish Council of Australia, challenged the use of the IHRA definition in the ongoing royal commission last week, arguing that it blurred the line between hate speech and political speech. Several other Jewish groups of much longer standing are solidly in favour of the definition, arguing it is a vital tool to help root out overt and coded antisemitism.
A neat little array. Worth an actual read or at least a skim, it’s not just PHON voters.
It also helps to see this kind of thing so we can notice lines of parallel and work on top of them to bring people away from ON. Many have [I believe sincerely] said “I don’t agree with many of her policies”, so we should build on that and show parties which have the same focus on real working issues but without the nationalist garbage.
Polls for PHON are above 25% nationally, so, sadly, this is below average.
This.
Share it where needed: https://thewhiterosesociety.writeas.com/9-principles-for-journalists-reporting-on-neo-nazis
See also: https://aussie.zone/post/32699745
1·19 days ago“No first home! No second home either!”
How can you possibly ban a “group” under any name they “reform” under?
What’s the issue? The NSN officially disbanded, yet almost all the same members created a ‘new’ organisation (i.e. they reformed), continue to run events through their front group (March for Australia) and continue to show up to various events together as a group. It is clearly a continuation of the same violent organisation in an attempt to circumvent the ban, something Sewer even talked about at the time of their disbandment, referencing what National Action members in the UK did, many getting arrested afterwards for trying the same thing.
Is this a preemptive ban on any groups that could be anti Israel - before they exist?
Very clearly no. Now, if you’re concerned that these anti-hate laws could be abused to censor groups critical of the Zionist Regime, then that’s a valid concern, especially if Libs or ON take government in the future. But no, neo-Nazis are a distinct ideological phenomenon, even distinct from Nazism these days.
The title is incomplete, so for those who didn’t read to the near-end: (and as mentioned more in-depth in the other post)
The Coalition’s home affairs spokesperson, Jonathon Duniam, welcomed the move on Friday, and said the public did not want to see individuals avoid justice “simply by tearing down a banner and re-emerging under a different name”.
The legislation will allow the government to use regulation to capture a group that has phoenixed, rather than having to list it separately. Burke said the principle of using the regulation would be based on “whether or not they’re judged to be a continuation of the organisation”.
The Naarm AFA Telegram made a post on the topic, concerning the related March for Australia group: https://t.me/AFAAlertsNaarm/52
Yep, well said.