Mundine.....again.

[yokahontas]

Geez, this escalated quickly.

Bottom line, we can have *conversations* about *racism* until we're blue in the face, but a lot of the issues - for urban indigenous people - are not race-related anyway, they're socio-economic.

And don't think for a second that someone of indigenous heritage can't play the race card for their own gain. I have a relative who does it every time she faces court for bashing some old lady over the head for smack money. And that's someone who grew up in a stable family home, had a private school education and never wanted for anything - but apparently she's disadvantaged?

Does Anthony Mundine hate his mum as much as he hates other white people?

 

[Woodsie]

Lol
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
Socrates

It would only be slanderous if it wasn't true.

And was your way of winning the debate to call all who opposed you sh1t scared rednecks? Socrates would be proud of you.

"Your hypocrisy and selective memory are a testament to the fact that the 2 brain cells you possess rarely communicate with each other."

Woodsie 2016

 

[Woodsie]

So it was a non event in the AFL grand final.

All those fears, all that heated emotion, all that hyperventillating. All that moralisation. All those character attacks on people thinking differently to them.

And then ... nothing. Lol.

Or, the rational way to interpet it is, obviously no one agreed with Mundine other than you.

 

[Woodsie]

Mundine is not politically correct, he's unsophisticated and he's unpopular. That makes him easy to ridicule - but deriding Mundine is also a very convenient way of avoiding the conversation on racism in Australia.

The plight of indigenous communities and institutional and social racism have been topics of debate in Australia since I first took interest in the 60's, and I am certain for decades before. That debate will continue with or without Mundines input.

Disagreeing with a particular persons call for a specific action does not inherently deny the entire cause.

 

[Loaded dog]

As the joker said... "why so serious?"
I have said previously that I see Mundine as a Caring, Understanding, Nineties Type, and nothing that he does makes me back off from that thought. I just cannot take him seriously. He drinks far too much of his own bath-water.
Let us rejoice that we have him to laugh at when team selections at MWSE Ltd make us cry.

 

[Rex]

It would only be slanderous if it wasn't true.

Lol. OK so in your world it is a "fact" that I am stupid . Love it.

And so it follows that your need to obsessively chase those you think are stupid, to argue (lol) with them, makes you even more ... ?

I love that I'd never, ever need to insult your intelligence Woodsie. You're doing a very fine job of rating your intelligence all by yourself.

And was your way of winning the debate to call all who opposed you sh1t scared rednecks?

I'd say well spotted, even though I made no attempt at all to hide it. It has become sport here for the same posters to attack people habitually on the basis of leaning to the left of political centre. So I conducted a simple experiment to see how much of a glass jaw these posters have when the same tactics are applied to them. And guess what? There was an immediate and extreme emotional reaction whinging about an equivalent attack on right wingers. Funny that. Glass jaws abound.

I don't actually believe in any way that being right wing, or conservative, makes anyone a redneck, or even afraid. What I have seen though is that human beings become more conservative, and critical of others, when afraid.

Being conservative at any time doesn't make us more afraid, but being afraid at any time does make us more conservative. Margaret Thatcher started the inane Falklands war to take full advantage of this pattern embedded in human beings. And John Howard's government with the lie of children being thrown overboard. Put simply, fear wins elections.

Look closely at those you consider rednecks, and you'll see they are dominated by fear.

Socrates would be proud of you.

Study logic and there are clear and agreed fallacies of argument. At the very top, the greatest fallacy, is a principle called Ad Hominem. This is when an author attacks his opponent instead of his opponent’s argument.

You appear to be unable to see that this is your prime, some say only, means of debate. Your biggest habit. One possibility is that it is a blind spot. With blind spots, we see the behaviour in others before we can see it in ourselves. Maybe seeing it in others is the opportunity to start seeing it in yourself? Maybe you already see it and are very happy to not use logic?

Or, the rational way to interpet it is, obviously no one agreed with Mundine other than you.

If you stop emotionally reacting, and use your rational mind to coolly observe, you'll see I neither agreed nor disagreed with Mundine. I have no need for people to stand up, or not stand up, when the national anthem is played. I am amused though by other people's (like your) moralistic need to insist on others doing the same as them.

My prime focus in this thread is on studying the emotive intolerance towards others holding a different opinion.

 

[Rex]

I think cattle herd and sheep flock, but I could be wrong.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/flock

Yes. And when discussing the responses to fear in humans (and animals generally) the commonly agreed terms are the 5 "F"s:
Fight
Flight
Freeze
Flop
Flock

 

[wedgetail eagle]

I think cattle herd and sheep flock, but I could be wrong.

Agree. Or in the vernacular,
a mob of sheep or a mob of cattle.

 

[Rex]

I'm just a simplistic fearful redneck, but I've never read such a load of moralising, patronising, condescending, pseudo intellectual psycho-babble in my life (or at least since your last treatise on the flawed human condition, o wise one).

I'm open to learning your wisdom Terry, especially as you consider it superior.

Is there any reason you find it uncomfortable to consider that you (and I) are not 100% rationally driven 100% of the time?

Or if you do accept we can be unconsciously rather than consciously and rationally driven at any time, how do you see this working?

 

[Bearfax]

No, I think the only conclusion we can draw is that as humans we are all biased and prejudiced, except Anthony mundine and Rex, the enlightened ones.

No no you've got it wrong. Rex has a bias. He's biased against bias

 

[Little Grubber Kick]

No no you've got it wrong. Rex has a bias. He's biased as bias

Mmmm, that's Rexist!

 

[Bearfax]

Mmmm, that's Rexist!

Sorry I stuffed that up LGK. Its 'biased against bias' that was intended. I'm getting too old for all this

 

[Little Grubber Kick]

Sorry I stuffed that up LGK. Its 'biased against bias' that was intended. I'm getting too old for all this

No worries. Ha, 'biased against bias' would have to get anyone pretty twisted, so it appears your on the money. Me, I've developed a really isterist outlook (and I suspect I'm in a growing cohort there)!

 

[Rex]

Mundine is not politically correct, he's unsophisticated and he's unpopular. That makes him easy to ridicule - but deriding Mundine is also a very convenient way of avoiding the conversation on racism in Australia.

The false dichotomies abound. The arguments can be summarised as:

1. Mundine says there is racism
2. Mundine lacks credibility
Therefore there is no racism

3. You say there is racism
Therefore you are the same as Mundine

4. Mundine said athletes should not stand to protest racism
5. All athletes stood
Therefore all athletes think there is no racism

6. Buddy Franklin disagrees with Mundine
Therefore there is no racism

etc, etc, etc.

Sometimes I wonder if there is any capacity for critical analysis upstairs?

 

[Woodsie]

Lol. OK so in your world it is a "fact" that I am stupid . Love it.

And so it follows that your need to obsessively chase those you think are stupid, to argue (lol) with them, makes you even more ... ?

I love that I'd never, ever need to insult your intelligence Woodsie. You're doing a very fine job of rating your intelligence all by yourself.


I'd say well spotted, even though I made no attempt at all to hide it. It has become sport here for the same posters to attack people habitually on the basis of leaning to the left of political centre. So I conducted a simple experiment to see how much of a glass jaw these posters have when the same tactics are applied to them. And guess what? There was an immediate and extreme emotional reaction whinging about an equivalent attack on right wingers. Funny that. Glass jaws abound.

I don't actually believe in any way that being right wing, or conservative, makes anyone a redneck, or even afraid. What I have seen though is that human beings become more conservative, and critical of others, when afraid.

Being conservative at any time doesn't make us more afraid, but being afraid at any time does make us more conservative. Margaret Thatcher started the inane Falklands war to take full advantage of this pattern embedded in human beings. And John Howard's government with the lie of children being thrown overboard. Put simply, fear wins elections.

Look closely at those you consider rednecks, and you'll see they are dominated by fear.


Study logic and there are clear and agreed fallacies of argument. At the very top, the greatest fallacy, is a principle called Ad Hominem. This is when an author attacks his opponent instead of his opponent’s argument.

You appear to be unable to see that this is your prime, some say only, means of debate. Your biggest habit. One possibility is that it is a blind spot. With blind spots, we see the behaviour in others before we can see it in ourselves. Maybe seeing it in others is the opportunity to start seeing it in yourself? Maybe you already see it and are very happy to not use logic?


If you stop emotionally reacting, and use your rational mind to coolly observe, you'll see I neither agreed nor disagreed with Mundine. I have no need for people to stand up, or not stand up, when the national anthem is played. I am amused though by other people's (like your) moralistic need to insist on others doing the same as them.

My prime focus in this thread is on studying the emotive intolerance towards others holding a different opinion.

Hard to take anything a grown man says seriously when he starts a post with Lol.

And again, with all that amasing studying you have supposedly done, and the incredible analysis of my emotive intolerance, you have failed to notice the one bit of information that would be relevant to your conclusion .......

I have at no stage offered my view on Mundines opinion, every single thing you have written is the product of your own dysfunctional mind.

To remind you how this began .... What you said was

So what if some people want to express an opinion different to yours by not standing up when the national anthem is played?

It is called freedom of speech.

To which, I replied .....

So is the right to criticise him for his opinion.

How you, even in the depths of your lick your own arse lunacy could interpret this as anything other than a defence of freedom of speech is astounding and again testament to the fact that reality plays a very minor role in your life.

 

[Rex]

Hard to take anything a grown man says seriously when he starts a post with Lol.

And again, with all that amasing studying you have supposedly done, and the incredible analysis of my emotive intolerance, you have failed to notice the one bit of information that would be relevant to your conclusion .......

I have at no stage offered my view on Mundines opinion, every single thing you have written is the product of your own dysfunctional mind.

To remind you how this began .... What you said was



To which, I replied .....



How you, even in the depths of your lick your own arse lunacy could interpret this as anything other than a defence of freedom of speech is astounding and again testament to the fact that reality plays a very minor role in your life.

No need to explain. I am fully aware that you are afraid to express your opinions Woodsie - hoping to take free pot-shots. That became extremely clear in the Steve Mortimer's son thread.

You can try to make yourself a small target, and that only exposes your lack of courage.

 

[Woodsie]

No need to explain. I am fully aware that you are afraid to express your opinions Woodsie. That became extremely clear in the Steve Mortimer's son thread.

You can try to make yourself a small target, and that only exposes your lack of courage.

No, again making assumptions of another persons motives and then drawing a conclusion shows your intellectual fraudulence and only exposes your ignorance.

But for the record, my views on both Gay rights and racism are simply that neither have been factors let alone major influences in my life. My knowledge of both issues is rudimentary and anecdotal at best, and as a result I choose not to inflict my ignorance on other people.

Both my stances against you in these threads have been based on the simple fact that you are lick your own arse looney, whilst you profess tolerance you emotively attack anybody who exercises their right to express a contrary opinion.

 

[Rex]

No, again making assumptions of another persons motives and then drawing a conclusion shows your intellectual fraudulence and only exposes your ignorance.

But for the record, my views on both Gay rights and racism are simply that neither have been factors let alone major influences in my life. My knowledge of both issues is rudimentary and anecdotal at best, and as a result I choose not to inflict my ignorance on other people.

Both my stances against you in these threads have been based on the simple fact that you are lick your own arse looney, whilst you profess tolerance you emotively attack anybody who exercises their right to express a contrary opinion.

Well done Woodsie. Now that wasn't so hard, was it? It has taken many hundreds of angry, heated postings from you, and a fair bit of prodding, but you've finally opened up a little. I do respect that effort.

The admission that gay rights and racism don't affect you personally and that you aren't well qualified to express opinions on them takes some courage. I'm guessing like me you are male, white, middleclass, hetero, etc, etc. And with all those categories, not the subject of prejudice. Or if so, relatively minor and peripheral prejudice.

What I find interesting is that in the Steve Mortimer thread, your comments, your ratings and others' ratings of you were almost exclusively 100% aligned with that quite small group who argued the case that homosexuality was a problem in society, and that prejudice against homosexuals didn't exist. Why do you think that was so? And is that the message you were trying to convey?

Was your message perhaps distorted and misinterpreted by people on both sides because of your need to prove how smart and powerful you are for exposing my claimed stupidity? Do I give that much meaning to your life? Am I that important to you? And if so, do you see how much power that need gives me over you?

I am not expecting anything more than yet another clever (not) personal attack from you. But you surprised me with the last posting, so I will wait and see.

 

[Rex]

Again you are simply deluding yourself.. without having expressed an opinion the only thing that aligned me with your opposition was my opposition to your bigoted intolerance and predilection for branding any person with an opposing view with titles such as homophobes or racists as you have done again in your pathetic response.

You still don't have the courage to step out of your comfort zone then Woodsie?

Too attached to your identity of being the angry little man?
And the moral guardian and protector of all? Quite the keyboard hero?

So be it.

 

[Woodsie]

You still don't have the courage to step out of your comfort zone then Woodsie?

Too attached to your identity of being the angry little man?
And the moral guardian and protector of all? Quite the keyboard hero?

So be it.

No, again your delusions, I simply don't like frauds.

Keep the false accusations coming, it is remarkable to note the depth of name calling you can engage in when somebody advocates the rights of someone to engage in their freedom of speech.

You have not truthfully or honestly responded to one of my posts, what are you afraid of... being exposed as a fraud, admitting you were wrong.

The only fact you can possibly (sorry, let me qualify that) a sane person could conclude from all my posts is my belief in freedom of speech, yet you have written volumes attributing all manner of personal values and social issues I must have.

As usual don't let the facts get in the way of your psychosis.

What is it about opposing opinions that scares you so, why do you attack anyone who dissents from your idea of the perfect world.