the political correctness and do gooders have gone too far

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by incisor

surely to hell, we can talk about current affairs without having it descend into party politics and personal attacks because some one dares to differ.

we used to be able too...

---

Personal attacks are not allowed in any topic or forum.
IMO to talk about current affairs without mention a policy which in turn is belongs to a political party it is almost impossible.
How a member is going to express his opinion (in favor or against)about a policy or a political issue without be interpreted that his/her opinion is also against the political party that is behind that policy?
We just have to see the thread "Pension Age may move to 70" to see that it will bring comments about the policy and that a promise have be honored or not.
Please do not take my opinion as I trying to impose my view or find a justification to start talking about politics again, it is that I cannot understand how we can debate or change opinions about important issues or policies that affect our day to day life without be involved in politics that at the end is what create them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chucaro

:confused: please explain how it would be possible to talk about hot political issues as long as politics is left out!
Have to be a side effect from last night :p

---

Easy....

I think you're getting confused about what I mean - we can hotly debate issues such as the boats (or lack of) and the carbon tax - they are current affairs issues that can easily and quickly turn into a political debate because of what they are.

Stick to the issue, not the politics of it - that's all I'm trying to say.:)

No need to close a thread just because someone disagrees. We're all (mostly) grown ups here. Keep to the topic, don't get personal towards others views and opinions and have some fun. Accept that we are all different and just because you don't agree with everything someone says, it doesn't mean you can't be grown up about it, or even friends...

So, get stuck in, keep it inside the rules of the forum - and have fun!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Personal attacks are not allowed in any topic or forum.
IMO to talk about current affairs without mention a policy which in turn is belongs to a political party it is almost impossible.
How a member is going to express his opinion (in favor or against)about a policy or a political issue without be interpreted that his/her opinion is also against the political party that is behind that policy?
We just have to see the thread "Pension Age may move to 70" to see that it will bring comments about the policy and that a promise have be honored or not.
Please do not take my opinion as I trying to impose my view or find a justification to start talking about politics again, it is that I cannot understand how we can debate or change opinions about important issues or policies that affect our day to day life without be involved in politics that at the end is what create them.

---

Got to disagree here. You can voice your opinion on any subject - who cares if someone else interprets that answer as being one way or the other politically? Stick to the topic, and the pros and cons - keep the politics out of it.

I can say that I agree with the pension age being raised to 70, and I can also give you some reasons why I agree with that.

Did I just mention anything about politics while doing that? - Simple.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bacicat

Got to disagree here. You can voice your opinion on any subject - who cares if someone else interprets that answer as being one way or the other politically? Stick to the topic, and the pros and cons - keep the politics out of it.

I can say that I agree with the pension age being raised to 70, and I can also give you some reasons why I agree with that.

Did I just mention anything about politics while doing that? - Simple.:)

---

Yes you mention the policy which is a political issue and is a justification to mention why it is introduce and why should not be introduce outside of any macroeconomic reasons, as an example perhaps a honored or broke promise.
Hoe you like to debate the pension issue, Yes I am in favor or Not I am not in favor?
May as well do not debate it :)

The forum rules said:
5b) NO POLITICAL DEBATE / DISCUSSION IN THE MAIN FORUM AREAS PLEASE

My comment was aimed at the prevalence (and it is prevalent) of a certain tactical approach to insulting others, whereby whole swathes of the community are given a label designed to denigrate their opinion. Things like "bleeding heart lefties" or "politically correct do gooders". This label is then used to attack others while staying inside forum rules - because they aren't attacking an "individual" (apparently). It's utterly transparent and a staple of shock-jocks; in fact I assume that's where the practitioners pick it up. Since they seem to share a certain set of values with aforementioned radio personalities.

I've been branded an inner-city latte sipper and worse (if that's possible) plenty of times on this site - despite the fact I've never lived anywhere that could be called inner-city and prefer flat whites. Oh, the humanity! But the point is the label is used as an insult - but if I respond with a similar insult; say "bigoted redneck wingnut" then I'm the one breaching the rules. Ironic, huh?

Not complaining about it, that's just the game. As you were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zulu Delta 534

That was back in the days before "political correctness"
Regards
Glen

---

That used to be called good manners, but it seems that even bein brung up propper is being classist these days. :(

This thing that gets me on this thread is that people on either side of the debate are free to label and denigrate the individual at the focus of this thread without necessarily considering if Norrie or Norrie's friends and acquaintences are in this thread also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akelly

My comment was aimed at the prevalence (and it is prevalent) of a certain tactical approach to insulting others, whereby whole swathes of the community are given a label designed to denigrate their opinion. Things like "bleeding heart lefties" or "politically correct do gooders". This label is then used to attack others while staying inside forum rules - because they aren't attacking an "individual" (apparently). It's utterly transparent and a staple of shock-jocks; in fact I assume that's where the practitioners pick it up. Since they seem to share a certain set of values with aforementioned radio personalities.

I've been branded an inner-city latte sipper and worse (if that's possible) plenty of times on this site - despite the fact I've never lived anywhere that could be called inner-city and prefer flat whites. Oh, the humanity! But the point is the label is used as an insult - but if I respond with a similar insult; say "bigoted redneck wingnut" then I'm the one breaching the rules. Ironic, huh?

Not complaining about it, that's just the game. As you were.

---

and exactly what i am trying to get rid of

i'm with gav, surely you can discuss a subject or policy's social impact, etc etc with out getting into the us and them crap.

I'm doing my best!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akelly

I'm doing my best!

---

Just wait for the repeal of the Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, it will bring a new definition to what it is political correctness and good behavior. :D
I wonder if that will affect the forum rules :angel: :p
Just joking Inc :D

PS: Then better not, this wog will be in the receiving end

That little promise is dead in the water mate. Brandis blew it big time. Poor old Andrew Blot will just have to live out his days as a convicted racist.