So Dame Edna was on The Project, and there seemed to be a weird passive-aggro vibe happening between the fabulous Aussie gigastar and Waleed Aly. More than a few people have been scratching their heads about what this was all about.
In live theatre shows and appearances on the teev, Dame Edna often singles out an individual to cruelly send up. If the target is a sleb, the gags will usually relate strongly to that person's public persona. If he is just a punter, Barry Humphries' character will mostly focus on his general appearance, and what can be gleaned from this in terms of his social background.
But this little episode was different. Though Edna's jibes did get laughs, you couldn't really see where they were coming from. And Aly did nothing to provoke them, too. So, you gotta wonder what their motivation was.
Now, it's risky to play amateur shrink with a satirist's motivations. If there's any complexity to the characters he creates then there will be a whole mess o' them. This definitely applies to Dame Edna Everage. She's been alive, developing, and moving with the times for decades now. She's probably got more psychological layers than some living, breathing people!
So, there's a good chance I've got this wrong. But here's my guess: It's got much to do with the fact that Barry Humphries is a conservative. He's obviously up to speed with Waleed's many smug utterances on Islam, such as terrorism being an "irritant".
I'll be that he would have loved to mock this stuff through his character. And he's certainly not afraid of controversy. He usually savours it, in fact. But given how hysterically the MSM reacts to anything that could be deemed offensive to Muslims, he just couldn't take the risk. So, prior to his appearance he made an inner choice to just not go there.
Still, sitting just near Aly the antipathy bubbled away, and he couldn't stop himself taking a few shots at him. But strangled by self-censorship, he only had poor, cheap, vague options to choose from. Hence the odd, mediocre performance last night.
What do you reckon? Am I close, or was it something else?
Friday, April 29, 2016
Thursday, April 28, 2016
For SJWs Gamergate is an arm of the Patriarchy
Fascinating how words and phrases can have such hugely different meanings to different kinds of people. Take "Gamergate", for example. For those on the cultural libertarian side it's shorthand for a consumer revolution -- a concerted but non-centralized push for ethics in games journalism. But to the social justice crowd, Gamergate immediately evokes hordes of misogynist trolls hiding in their basements, making poor women's lives hell with their vicious online abuse.
The latter interpretation is clearly bullshit on stilts. If there is a concerted push to harass people online, it seems to be coming from the SOCJUS side more than anything. Yet the demonisation of Gamergate continues, and not just in the, er, twenches of Twitter. It's the prevailing angle in the MSM too.
And you've gotta wonder, why is it so dominant and immovable? Aren't journalists supposed to seek the truth? Surely they would disabuse themselves of their delusions and come to a more balanced, nuanced perspective after a few objective interviews of those involved in these numerous online stoushes. Hell, even a bit of Googling would do that, you would think.
But nup. Gamergate's haters are not for turning, that's for sure ... The reasons are manifold, of course. But I'd say one of the main factors is the toxic influence of the PC Left in higher education. This victim feminist myth about the entire world being stealthily controlled by a bunch of diabolically nasty old white heterosexual males (who are simultaneously knuckle dragging morons, BTW -- work that one out!) is drummed into journalism students right across the western world. They graduate seeing eeevil white males behind every social ill and not surprisingly their reporting reflects this.
It's this deep seated social justice narrative that bonds these people, gives them an identity. Throw in the huge political pressures (often in the form of mountains of moolah) brought to bear on many companies and organizations employing these nascent newshounds and the odds that they will start to think for themselves are remote indeed.
It's not too long a bow to say they're kinda like young priests fresh out of the seminary. Newbie padres have a neatly divided universe: God vs Satan. And in the tiny mind of your typical crusading journo it's the Patriarchy's war on Chickdom.
Reporters like this (and most of them are like this) see the dark, or should I say pale, hand of the Patriarchy at work everywhere they look. For them, Gamergaters are like this faceless cabal's younger henchmen. Just as victim feminists can never actually name which blokes comprise the Patriarchy they're always shrieking about, Gamergate is almost always collectively condemned. Named, individual harassers are almost never included in articles about its appalling antics. Which is odd, because if it were as vast and vicious as it's purported to be, there should be squillions of these cases to choose from.
It really is whacked out conspiracy theory stuff. The wheels are gonna fall off of it. They just have to. But it's gonna take a while, unfortunately.
The latter interpretation is clearly bullshit on stilts. If there is a concerted push to harass people online, it seems to be coming from the SOCJUS side more than anything. Yet the demonisation of Gamergate continues, and not just in the, er, twenches of Twitter. It's the prevailing angle in the MSM too.
And you've gotta wonder, why is it so dominant and immovable? Aren't journalists supposed to seek the truth? Surely they would disabuse themselves of their delusions and come to a more balanced, nuanced perspective after a few objective interviews of those involved in these numerous online stoushes. Hell, even a bit of Googling would do that, you would think.
But nup. Gamergate's haters are not for turning, that's for sure ... The reasons are manifold, of course. But I'd say one of the main factors is the toxic influence of the PC Left in higher education. This victim feminist myth about the entire world being stealthily controlled by a bunch of diabolically nasty old white heterosexual males (who are simultaneously knuckle dragging morons, BTW -- work that one out!) is drummed into journalism students right across the western world. They graduate seeing eeevil white males behind every social ill and not surprisingly their reporting reflects this.
It's this deep seated social justice narrative that bonds these people, gives them an identity. Throw in the huge political pressures (often in the form of mountains of moolah) brought to bear on many companies and organizations employing these nascent newshounds and the odds that they will start to think for themselves are remote indeed.
It's not too long a bow to say they're kinda like young priests fresh out of the seminary. Newbie padres have a neatly divided universe: God vs Satan. And in the tiny mind of your typical crusading journo it's the Patriarchy's war on Chickdom.
Reporters like this (and most of them are like this) see the dark, or should I say pale, hand of the Patriarchy at work everywhere they look. For them, Gamergaters are like this faceless cabal's younger henchmen. Just as victim feminists can never actually name which blokes comprise the Patriarchy they're always shrieking about, Gamergate is almost always collectively condemned. Named, individual harassers are almost never included in articles about its appalling antics. Which is odd, because if it were as vast and vicious as it's purported to be, there should be squillions of these cases to choose from.
It really is whacked out conspiracy theory stuff. The wheels are gonna fall off of it. They just have to. But it's gonna take a while, unfortunately.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
ANZAC Day still going strong despite decades of leftist wailing
Didn't get down to watch the ANZAC Day march in Sydney yesterday. However, while briefly in the CBD I did see lots of old blokes proudly wearing their medals. And I read and heard many reports of the huge turnout. So, seems to be more popular than ever.
Now, I know there's a lot of disagreement about the nature of the commemoration. It's a bit like Easter and Christmas in that regard. These rituals have become too commercialized, the purists say. They've lost all their spiritual meaning.
With ANZAC Day it is not about commercialization. There are various criticisms, including that it's no longer a solemn occasion to honour our fallen and living soldiers and a time for serious reflection on the horrific nature of war and the value of sacrifice. Instead, it's morphing into a vague, nationalistic celebration of Aussie-ness; a fun day out for a bit of flag waving.
There was an interesting discussion last night on 2GB about this. Steve Price said he thought it was a bit silly that descendants of diggers should march and wave to the applauding crowd. "I mean, what have they done?" he asked. (Segment is over an hour in, some time after 9PM.)
Sam Newman put the opposing view, that there was nothing wrong with people glowing with pride over what their ancestors did to build this country.
Well, I'm undecided on this question. But I am glad that the day is still seen as hugely significant. The fact that it makes people reflect on our national history and the value of democracy is a good thing.
Of course the Left just loathes ANZAC Day. They say it's a celebration of violence. They get off on trashing the memory of our beloved diggers and claim they weren't heroes at all. No, they were all rapists and murderers running amok, they reckon!
Such a load of bollocks. Anyhoo, if those blokes hadn't gone off to fight and die in foreign hell-holes then today's whining PC parasites wouldn't even be free to slag 'em off, would they? With totalitarians in charge to this day, any rebel waving a placard would be locked up in some ghastly concentration camp -- if he were even allowed to live, that is.
But it's pointless trying to explain that to your average sneering, sulking socialist. They're incapable of perceiving the truth. (Actually, they can't perceive anything much. They're too busy indulging their precious fee-fees; wallowing in their own spurious victimhood and fake virtue.)
Generally speaking, lefties don't learn anything much as they get older. Emotionally and intellectually they remain spoiled sprogs. But sane, rational, non-doctrinaire types do develop with age, of course.
If you are one of these people, one common tendency is that you become more interested in history as you get older. I believe this is because with a few decades of living under your belt you've seen a lot of changes occur around you. So you are aware of how those events made you who you are. And you start to wonder how a nation's character is shaped, too.
Now that I've cracked the half century myself, I really notice old buildings and monuments much more than I did even a decade ago. Take this war memorial in Annandale.
Now, I know there's a lot of disagreement about the nature of the commemoration. It's a bit like Easter and Christmas in that regard. These rituals have become too commercialized, the purists say. They've lost all their spiritual meaning.
With ANZAC Day it is not about commercialization. There are various criticisms, including that it's no longer a solemn occasion to honour our fallen and living soldiers and a time for serious reflection on the horrific nature of war and the value of sacrifice. Instead, it's morphing into a vague, nationalistic celebration of Aussie-ness; a fun day out for a bit of flag waving.
There was an interesting discussion last night on 2GB about this. Steve Price said he thought it was a bit silly that descendants of diggers should march and wave to the applauding crowd. "I mean, what have they done?" he asked. (Segment is over an hour in, some time after 9PM.)
Sam Newman put the opposing view, that there was nothing wrong with people glowing with pride over what their ancestors did to build this country.
Well, I'm undecided on this question. But I am glad that the day is still seen as hugely significant. The fact that it makes people reflect on our national history and the value of democracy is a good thing.
Of course the Left just loathes ANZAC Day. They say it's a celebration of violence. They get off on trashing the memory of our beloved diggers and claim they weren't heroes at all. No, they were all rapists and murderers running amok, they reckon!
Such a load of bollocks. Anyhoo, if those blokes hadn't gone off to fight and die in foreign hell-holes then today's whining PC parasites wouldn't even be free to slag 'em off, would they? With totalitarians in charge to this day, any rebel waving a placard would be locked up in some ghastly concentration camp -- if he were even allowed to live, that is.
But it's pointless trying to explain that to your average sneering, sulking socialist. They're incapable of perceiving the truth. (Actually, they can't perceive anything much. They're too busy indulging their precious fee-fees; wallowing in their own spurious victimhood and fake virtue.)
Generally speaking, lefties don't learn anything much as they get older. Emotionally and intellectually they remain spoiled sprogs. But sane, rational, non-doctrinaire types do develop with age, of course.
If you are one of these people, one common tendency is that you become more interested in history as you get older. I believe this is because with a few decades of living under your belt you've seen a lot of changes occur around you. So you are aware of how those events made you who you are. And you start to wonder how a nation's character is shaped, too.
Now that I've cracked the half century myself, I really notice old buildings and monuments much more than I did even a decade ago. Take this war memorial in Annandale.
As the plaque at the base solemnly states, all those guys listed above made the supreme sacrifice in World War One.
There aren't all that many people living in Annandale even now. So you can imagine how devastating such a loss would have been a century ago. And there are memorials like this all across Australia ...
As I mentioned I didn't attend the march in the city yesterday. But I did get this little video of a band playing bagpipes in Town Hall station. That music really gets you deep inside every time.
I just snapped it on the fly so it's short and shaky. But behind them you can see the surfing video that's a fixture in Sydney train stations these days. These guys performing against the backdrop of those free, youthful and very contemporary images is a nice metaphor for the value of the past in the present, IMHO.
Lest we forget, eh?
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Gillian Triggs plays martyr role to perfection. Luvvies lap it up!
As we all know, child-brained leftists are all about the feels. They're not interested in facts, reason, or merit. That's why most leftie organizations and movements are led by hugely overrated mediocrities if not outright frauds. A sane, sensible person just looks at any one of these numpties and goes: "You? You gotta be kidding me ... How the hell did you get to that position of influence?"
Well, the answer is usually pretty simple. Leftie movers and shakers are extremely ambitious, often ruthlessly so, and have unshakeable confidence in their own very limited abilities. They are often very good actors, too. They really know how to look the part they're playing.
And when I say they are acting, I don't mean that their doing so is a conscious, calculating choice. If it were they wouldn't be so convincing. They sincerely believe what they are pretending to be ... They're kinda method actors in that sense. But they're still performing a role that has little to do with reality. And their credulous fans lap it up.
Gillian Triggs is surely the best example of this phenomenon locally. She's got that noble martyr look down pat! So when she appears at some hearing or other and haughtily answers her critics she's pressing all the right buttons in the minds -- or should I say hearts -- of her numerous supporters.
The jaw-dropping extent to which she's got these poor little poppets completely and utterly fooled is evidenced by their awed reaction to her recent interview in The Saturday Paper.
Well, the answer is usually pretty simple. Leftie movers and shakers are extremely ambitious, often ruthlessly so, and have unshakeable confidence in their own very limited abilities. They are often very good actors, too. They really know how to look the part they're playing.
And when I say they are acting, I don't mean that their doing so is a conscious, calculating choice. If it were they wouldn't be so convincing. They sincerely believe what they are pretending to be ... They're kinda method actors in that sense. But they're still performing a role that has little to do with reality. And their credulous fans lap it up.
Gillian Triggs is surely the best example of this phenomenon locally. She's got that noble martyr look down pat! So when she appears at some hearing or other and haughtily answers her critics she's pressing all the right buttons in the minds -- or should I say hearts -- of her numerous supporters.
The jaw-dropping extent to which she's got these poor little poppets completely and utterly fooled is evidenced by their awed reaction to her recent interview in The Saturday Paper.
Her fanbois see what they wanna see:Excellent interview. #HRC Gillian Triggs, strong woman, much admired, stands her ground! https://t.co/kmp1QQvgoq pic.twitter.com/80gh3xyEJ7— Girrali (@Girrali) April 24, 2016
But more well informed, sceptical and incisive types see the same interview very differently.That Gillian Triggs interview in TSP is quite something. Amongst other things, utterly destroys what's left of George Brandis' credibility— Ben Eltham (@beneltham) April 23, 2016
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Candace Owens of Social Autopsy vs Zoe Quinn et al
I'm not a gamer myself so I've been a latecomer to all this #Gamergate stuff. But it is absolutely fascinating. It's basically the online frontline of the culture wars between the forces of political correctness (SOCJUS) and the cultural libertarians (#Gamergate).
The characters are compelling, and the battles vicious. There's drama and hilarity in equal measure. It's like watching a satirical soapie unfold before your very eyes.
One of the most intriguing recent developments related to this saga has involved a startup called Social Autopsy. This was a well intentioned though flawed attempt to empower victims of online harassment. It quickly got a reputation as a doxxing platform that was extremely open to abuse (although I think that's probably a bit of an oversimplification).
In any case, the cultural libertarians were dark on it from the get-go. But what totally flummoxed just about everyone was that the heroine of the SOCJUS side Zoe Quinn did her utmost to bring it down, even personally contacting Social Autopsy's founder Candace Owens to try and talk her into dropping the whole project. (Around this time Quinn's fellow "anti-harassment champion" Randi Lee Harper admitted to getting the project nixed on Kickstarter.)
It was clearly high stakes for Quinn because she was emotional in the call. Ms Owens refused her request and was almost immediately hit with floods of racist, sexist online abuse -- all from "dudebros", natch. She quickly concluded that Quinn and Harper were orchestrating this campaign somehow. Owens' claims are very persuasive and there have been other developments that lend weight to her theory.
If they are true they confirm all the worst suspicions that many have long had about "social justice warriors" like Quinn and Harper. It seems they have created a mini-industry out of casting themselves as victims by lying about how much online abuse they receive, and have even been faking it against themselves. Now they could well be inflicting it on others too!
Rather than seeking the truth behind the all too plausible PC narrative pushed by Quinn and her followers most gaming journalists accept it as gospel and even do their utmost to perpetuate it. The MSM then follows suit. The whole thing is just jaw dropping in its scale and cynicism.
Quinn, Harper and their cohorts have hugely underestimated Owens, who comes across as a remarkably strong, principled and articulate young woman. Rather than folding under the pressure she's kept her cool and is standing firm against the bullies.
The story is clearly not over yet. I and many others will be glued to Reddit for updates about it. Regardless of how it all turns out it's certainly already got the makings of a must-see movie.
Speaking of which, Quinn has scored a book and film deal to tell her story. This will portray her as a brave feminist heroine cruelly assailed by the Patriarchy no doubt!
I just hope Ms Owens ultimately ends up scoring one as well. As well as this most recent battle, she also went through some tumultuous experiences almost a decade ago that have clearly done much to shape her character. If she does, there's no doubt in my mind that her account would make the more truthful, compelling, and ultimately entertaining project.
The characters are compelling, and the battles vicious. There's drama and hilarity in equal measure. It's like watching a satirical soapie unfold before your very eyes.
One of the most intriguing recent developments related to this saga has involved a startup called Social Autopsy. This was a well intentioned though flawed attempt to empower victims of online harassment. It quickly got a reputation as a doxxing platform that was extremely open to abuse (although I think that's probably a bit of an oversimplification).
In any case, the cultural libertarians were dark on it from the get-go. But what totally flummoxed just about everyone was that the heroine of the SOCJUS side Zoe Quinn did her utmost to bring it down, even personally contacting Social Autopsy's founder Candace Owens to try and talk her into dropping the whole project. (Around this time Quinn's fellow "anti-harassment champion" Randi Lee Harper admitted to getting the project nixed on Kickstarter.)
It was clearly high stakes for Quinn because she was emotional in the call. Ms Owens refused her request and was almost immediately hit with floods of racist, sexist online abuse -- all from "dudebros", natch. She quickly concluded that Quinn and Harper were orchestrating this campaign somehow. Owens' claims are very persuasive and there have been other developments that lend weight to her theory.
If they are true they confirm all the worst suspicions that many have long had about "social justice warriors" like Quinn and Harper. It seems they have created a mini-industry out of casting themselves as victims by lying about how much online abuse they receive, and have even been faking it against themselves. Now they could well be inflicting it on others too!
Rather than seeking the truth behind the all too plausible PC narrative pushed by Quinn and her followers most gaming journalists accept it as gospel and even do their utmost to perpetuate it. The MSM then follows suit. The whole thing is just jaw dropping in its scale and cynicism.
Quinn, Harper and their cohorts have hugely underestimated Owens, who comes across as a remarkably strong, principled and articulate young woman. Rather than folding under the pressure she's kept her cool and is standing firm against the bullies.
The story is clearly not over yet. I and many others will be glued to Reddit for updates about it. Regardless of how it all turns out it's certainly already got the makings of a must-see movie.
Speaking of which, Quinn has scored a book and film deal to tell her story. This will portray her as a brave feminist heroine cruelly assailed by the Patriarchy no doubt!
I just hope Ms Owens ultimately ends up scoring one as well. As well as this most recent battle, she also went through some tumultuous experiences almost a decade ago that have clearly done much to shape her character. If she does, there's no doubt in my mind that her account would make the more truthful, compelling, and ultimately entertaining project.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Michelle Bridges falsely accused of "fat shaming" by social justice slebs
Every day there's another nasty campaign waged by social justice warriors against some poor individual who has dared to express a politically incorrect point of view. The latest beat up involves fitness expert Michelle Bridges, who has been taken to task (to say the least) for some comments on Australian Story:
"It might be seen that I have this agenda on people who are overweight or people who are deemed fat," Bridges said on the program, during which she also spoke about becoming a mother and her fight against the sugar industry.
"Honestly, if you are happy where you are, more power to you.
"But I can tell you, I'm yet to meet someone who is morbidly obese and happy."
Gawd. You've really gotta have a bloody great chip on your shoulder if you arc up about a comment like that ...
It wasn't a wild generalization crudely expressed such as "all fatties are miserable". She was only talking about her own experience. Also, note the way she prefaced the offending line. Hard to think how she could have been more tactful while still getting her point across.
And she used the specific phrase "morbidly obese". Only a fool would argue that this is not a very bad state to be in health wise. I don't wanna sound insensitive (jeez, now I'm qualifying my comments) but how could you be truly happy knowing what all that extra weight is doing to your body's ability to function normally? It's just common sense.
But as we all know, common sense -- particularly if it is plainly expressed -- makes social justice warriors go howling at the moon mad. It gives them a chance to form a pack, point and shriek. They have to do this at least once a week just to know who they are, it seems ...
Michelle Bridges wasn't "fat shaming" anyone. But the hefty slebs who attacked her on social media were definitely trying to shame her. Some nasty stuff from Chrissie Swan and others. And Ajay Rochester really turned things up a notch, sharing a shot of her "fat happy ass" on social media.
Such malicious, obnoxious, attention seeking behaviour. Just the kind of thing that happy people tend not to engage in. Which kinda validates Bridges point if you think about it ...
Well, I just hope that these chunky chicks don't decide to take their bullying offline. If they're ever all in the same place at the same time (at the Logies, perhaps?) and they spot the fitness expert they might decide to tackle her en masse! (Still, if that does happen I'm sure Bridges will be able to outrun them.)
"It might be seen that I have this agenda on people who are overweight or people who are deemed fat," Bridges said on the program, during which she also spoke about becoming a mother and her fight against the sugar industry.
"Honestly, if you are happy where you are, more power to you.
"But I can tell you, I'm yet to meet someone who is morbidly obese and happy."
Gawd. You've really gotta have a bloody great chip on your shoulder if you arc up about a comment like that ...
It wasn't a wild generalization crudely expressed such as "all fatties are miserable". She was only talking about her own experience. Also, note the way she prefaced the offending line. Hard to think how she could have been more tactful while still getting her point across.
And she used the specific phrase "morbidly obese". Only a fool would argue that this is not a very bad state to be in health wise. I don't wanna sound insensitive (jeez, now I'm qualifying my comments) but how could you be truly happy knowing what all that extra weight is doing to your body's ability to function normally? It's just common sense.
But as we all know, common sense -- particularly if it is plainly expressed -- makes social justice warriors go howling at the moon mad. It gives them a chance to form a pack, point and shriek. They have to do this at least once a week just to know who they are, it seems ...
Michelle Bridges wasn't "fat shaming" anyone. But the hefty slebs who attacked her on social media were definitely trying to shame her. Some nasty stuff from Chrissie Swan and others. And Ajay Rochester really turned things up a notch, sharing a shot of her "fat happy ass" on social media.
Such malicious, obnoxious, attention seeking behaviour. Just the kind of thing that happy people tend not to engage in. Which kinda validates Bridges point if you think about it ...
Well, I just hope that these chunky chicks don't decide to take their bullying offline. If they're ever all in the same place at the same time (at the Logies, perhaps?) and they spot the fitness expert they might decide to tackle her en masse! (Still, if that does happen I'm sure Bridges will be able to outrun them.)
Sunday, April 17, 2016
The term "delcon" requires five levels of severity
About a month or so back our vocabulary was enriched by a new term: del-con, (or delcon). It's a contraction of "delusional conservative" and was coined by Miranda Devine.
I like the label because it's catchy and a bit humorous. You can wear it in a tongue-in-cheek way. As a bonus lefties can use it too -- although I'm sure many think it's redundant because they believe all conservatives are delusional! (It's a bit like righties using "leftard" in that regard.)
Needless to say the term is general and self-explanatory, so it can be applied to many individuals, groups and organizations for various reasons. But the way Miranda Devine uses it specifically is in relation to the fall of Abbott, and the bitter rift now entrenched in the Liberal Party. She believes that Abbott was the author of his own demise, and you're a delcon if you think he could have won if not knifed by Turnbull and intend to punish the present government by voting for Shorten.
Well, I doubt I will vote for Labor. The thought of BS being PM makes me wanna puke, laugh hysterically and burst into tears all at once! But I still believe what Turnbull and his acolytes did to Abbott was vicious, dirty and completely unnecessary. Of course we'll never know what would have transpired had Abbott not been so cruelly betrayed, but I (along with many others, I'm sure) believe he could've pegged back Shorten's lead and ultimately prevailed ... So, I suppose that makes me somewhat, er, delconnish.
Given there are levels of conservative "delusion" I think some sort of official gradation is necessary. That's why I suggest the US Army's similar-sounding DEFCON (defence readiness condition) as a template. In that alert state the least severe is 5, with the most being 1.
So, as a delcon I would place myself at about DELCON 3 -- somewhat "delusional" but not determined to punish the Liberal Party at all costs.
If you are a delcon also, what level would you be?
UPDATE: Check out the comment from "The Nuclear Option" below. All five levels comprehensively described. Worthy of inclusion in Macquarie Dictionary, it is!
I like the label because it's catchy and a bit humorous. You can wear it in a tongue-in-cheek way. As a bonus lefties can use it too -- although I'm sure many think it's redundant because they believe all conservatives are delusional! (It's a bit like righties using "leftard" in that regard.)
Needless to say the term is general and self-explanatory, so it can be applied to many individuals, groups and organizations for various reasons. But the way Miranda Devine uses it specifically is in relation to the fall of Abbott, and the bitter rift now entrenched in the Liberal Party. She believes that Abbott was the author of his own demise, and you're a delcon if you think he could have won if not knifed by Turnbull and intend to punish the present government by voting for Shorten.
Well, I doubt I will vote for Labor. The thought of BS being PM makes me wanna puke, laugh hysterically and burst into tears all at once! But I still believe what Turnbull and his acolytes did to Abbott was vicious, dirty and completely unnecessary. Of course we'll never know what would have transpired had Abbott not been so cruelly betrayed, but I (along with many others, I'm sure) believe he could've pegged back Shorten's lead and ultimately prevailed ... So, I suppose that makes me somewhat, er, delconnish.
Given there are levels of conservative "delusion" I think some sort of official gradation is necessary. That's why I suggest the US Army's similar-sounding DEFCON (defence readiness condition) as a template. In that alert state the least severe is 5, with the most being 1.
So, as a delcon I would place myself at about DELCON 3 -- somewhat "delusional" but not determined to punish the Liberal Party at all costs.
If you are a delcon also, what level would you be?
UPDATE: Check out the comment from "The Nuclear Option" below. All five levels comprehensively described. Worthy of inclusion in Macquarie Dictionary, it is!
Friday, April 15, 2016
Andrew Denton, Bob Hawke push voluntary euthanasia legalisation
I'm showing my age now, but I can vividly recall that stoush in the Northern Territory over voluntary euthanasia back in the nineties. It was very emotional.
It looks like it may well end up on the political front burner again thanks to the efforts of Andrew Denton and Bob Hawke.
I've long found the Left's passion for euthanasia -- along with abortion -- more than a tad creepy. After all, they're forever banging on about how "life affirming" they are. So why be so passionately in favour of ending life both at the very beginning and end of it?
As is so often with socialist crusades, the push from Hawke and Denton seems to be quite a personal one. Lefties, thinking themselves superior to others, believe that whatever conclusions their own life experiences bring them to must be followed by the rest of the population.
If they stop eating meat, well, everyone has to! If they feel oppressed as women then so are all the other chicks out there! Same with this issue, it seems ...
Denton's commitment to the cause stems from his harrowing experience of watching his father die in an agonisingly drawn out way. I sympathise with him for having gone through that. It must have been one hell of an ordeal. And it's a depressingly common occurrence, no doubt.
In the case of Hawke, it's clearly got a lot to do with his fear of "losing his marbles" as he ages. After all, he was PM for years and he did nothing about the issue back then. He may have sympathised privately with legalisation but he certainly didn't act on it. And I suspect that's because death was very far from his mind at the time. Now that he's in his eighties he's much more focused on the issue.
Hawke and Denton are intelligent men with good intentions. But I'm still not convinced that we should go down the route taken by other nations such as the Netherlands. There are too many strong arguments against euthanasia in my opinion.
It looks like it may well end up on the political front burner again thanks to the efforts of Andrew Denton and Bob Hawke.
I've long found the Left's passion for euthanasia -- along with abortion -- more than a tad creepy. After all, they're forever banging on about how "life affirming" they are. So why be so passionately in favour of ending life both at the very beginning and end of it?
As is so often with socialist crusades, the push from Hawke and Denton seems to be quite a personal one. Lefties, thinking themselves superior to others, believe that whatever conclusions their own life experiences bring them to must be followed by the rest of the population.
If they stop eating meat, well, everyone has to! If they feel oppressed as women then so are all the other chicks out there! Same with this issue, it seems ...
Denton's commitment to the cause stems from his harrowing experience of watching his father die in an agonisingly drawn out way. I sympathise with him for having gone through that. It must have been one hell of an ordeal. And it's a depressingly common occurrence, no doubt.
In the case of Hawke, it's clearly got a lot to do with his fear of "losing his marbles" as he ages. After all, he was PM for years and he did nothing about the issue back then. He may have sympathised privately with legalisation but he certainly didn't act on it. And I suspect that's because death was very far from his mind at the time. Now that he's in his eighties he's much more focused on the issue.
Hawke and Denton are intelligent men with good intentions. But I'm still not convinced that we should go down the route taken by other nations such as the Netherlands. There are too many strong arguments against euthanasia in my opinion.
Friday, April 8, 2016
AHRC: Gender identity should be a matter of personal choice
Just when you thought the politically correct Left couldn't get any sillier, they outdo themselves. Now they're pushing for people to be able to legally, officially define their own gender.
Sorry to have to state the bleedin' obvious people, but gender is directly related to sex, no? And there's nothing more real and basic than sex, okay. Ponder that point next time you're shagging, or watching a video of a woman giving birth. I think you'll find it hard to disagree.
So call me old fashioned, but I just can't accept all this "I am what I believe I am" nonsense. If you've got a dick you're a male, even if you have it lopped off.
That doesn't mean you have to be like all the other males out there, mind. Hell, they're all different to each other anyway. You should not be forced to conform to some arbitrary gender role. And if you want to believe you're not male, fine. Go for it. We should all be allowed to indulge a fantasy as long as it doesn't hurt others. I won't say anything to debunk your delusion to your face -- I'll actually be respectful and polite -- but don't expect me or anyone else in the reality based community to genuinely believe and accept it.
I've often heard the phrase "we don't get to choose our parents" -- usually in discussions about family abuse or discord. That's a sobering line because it's true. Your mother and father -- with all their faults and gifts -- are yours for life, like it or not. You didn't have a say in who they were because you weren't friggin' there! If they didn't bring you into this world you wouldn't bloody well exist! Family is a fact. You can't change it. Same with gender (and race for that matter).
So, work with what you're given is my advice. (Hell, think of all the wisdom literature that exhorts us to strive for self acceptance. You can only move forward when you know where you are, right?)
But now, thanks to the right-on fluffy wuffies and their campaign to completely stuff reason by throwing the, er, codger out with the bathwater, such a common sense view is deemed bad, eeevil and wrong. They wanna turn gender into something you can choose on a whim, like you're on a shopping spree or something. FFS!
Yeah, well, they should be careful what they wish for. Their PC insanity could turn out to bite 'em on the arse big time, as it often does.
This is because, as usual, they are spectacularly hypocritical. Notice how those who zealously advocate people choosing their own gender are also often the most likely to abuse you on the grounds of your (non-chosen) gender (and race) if you're an eeevil white male.
If the Australian Human Rights Commission gets its way and it eventually becomes illegal to presume to define a person's gender against "his", "her" or "its" wishes then what's in store for the hateful hipsters who spend all day tweeting abuse at prominent white blokes, eh? What if some of these hate objects become so sick of the misandry aimed at them that they decide to legally redefine their gender and sue anyone who doesn't keep up with the change? The leftie-feminist trollective could be in for the mother (or father, or legal guardian, etc) of all class actions then.
Sure, it's not likely that conservatives will do this. But given that lefties have been eating their own with increasing ferocity and frequency of late, the odds that the odd fellow traveller with a phallus might do this are actually quite high.
Sorry to have to state the bleedin' obvious people, but gender is directly related to sex, no? And there's nothing more real and basic than sex, okay. Ponder that point next time you're shagging, or watching a video of a woman giving birth. I think you'll find it hard to disagree.
So call me old fashioned, but I just can't accept all this "I am what I believe I am" nonsense. If you've got a dick you're a male, even if you have it lopped off.
That doesn't mean you have to be like all the other males out there, mind. Hell, they're all different to each other anyway. You should not be forced to conform to some arbitrary gender role. And if you want to believe you're not male, fine. Go for it. We should all be allowed to indulge a fantasy as long as it doesn't hurt others. I won't say anything to debunk your delusion to your face -- I'll actually be respectful and polite -- but don't expect me or anyone else in the reality based community to genuinely believe and accept it.
I've often heard the phrase "we don't get to choose our parents" -- usually in discussions about family abuse or discord. That's a sobering line because it's true. Your mother and father -- with all their faults and gifts -- are yours for life, like it or not. You didn't have a say in who they were because you weren't friggin' there! If they didn't bring you into this world you wouldn't bloody well exist! Family is a fact. You can't change it. Same with gender (and race for that matter).
So, work with what you're given is my advice. (Hell, think of all the wisdom literature that exhorts us to strive for self acceptance. You can only move forward when you know where you are, right?)
But now, thanks to the right-on fluffy wuffies and their campaign to completely stuff reason by throwing the, er, codger out with the bathwater, such a common sense view is deemed bad, eeevil and wrong. They wanna turn gender into something you can choose on a whim, like you're on a shopping spree or something. FFS!
Yeah, well, they should be careful what they wish for. Their PC insanity could turn out to bite 'em on the arse big time, as it often does.
This is because, as usual, they are spectacularly hypocritical. Notice how those who zealously advocate people choosing their own gender are also often the most likely to abuse you on the grounds of your (non-chosen) gender (and race) if you're an eeevil white male.
If the Australian Human Rights Commission gets its way and it eventually becomes illegal to presume to define a person's gender against "his", "her" or "its" wishes then what's in store for the hateful hipsters who spend all day tweeting abuse at prominent white blokes, eh? What if some of these hate objects become so sick of the misandry aimed at them that they decide to legally redefine their gender and sue anyone who doesn't keep up with the change? The leftie-feminist trollective could be in for the mother (or father, or legal guardian, etc) of all class actions then.
Sure, it's not likely that conservatives will do this. But given that lefties have been eating their own with increasing ferocity and frequency of late, the odds that the odd fellow traveller with a phallus might do this are actually quite high.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)