Tetrahedrite Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 The Sydney Morning Hedrald (10/11/04) had a small peice about this website crashing the other day because of so many people posting to it http://www.sorryeverybody.com On top of being very amusing, it makes an interesting commentary on some of the issues discussed in the forum recently
Pangloss Posted November 10, 2004 Posted November 10, 2004 My review: Strictly partisan, far-left fare. Not for reasonable minds, except as entertainment value. It is kinda funny, but it's a one-joke deal.
Tetrahedrite Posted November 10, 2004 Author Posted November 10, 2004 My review: Strictly partisan' date=' far-left fare. Not for reasonable minds, except as entertainment value. It is kinda funny, but it's a one-joke deal.[/quote'] Of course it's partisan! It is just a reminder that nearly 50% of the popution in the USA still hates bush. It also demonstrates what at least some people in the US appreciate that local politics affects the whole world. BTW You don't have to be far-left to hate Bush. We have family friends in Maryland who are fundamentalist christians and usually vote Republican, but this time around voted Democrat because they were so unhappy with what's happened. Many very conservative people here were also unhappy in Australia (some were given the title "doctor's wives")
Pangloss Posted November 11, 2004 Posted November 11, 2004 It is just a reminder that nearly 50% of the popution in the USA still hates bush. No, it doesn't do that at all, any more than the right-wingers can say that that web site shows us that nearly half of the population of this country is "stupid". It also demonstrates what at least some people in the US appreciate that local politics affects the whole world. No, it doesn't do that either. This discussion board does that. That web site does not. BTW You don't have to be far-left to hate Bush. We have family friends in Maryland who are fundamentalist christians and usually vote Republican, but this time around voted Democrat because they were so unhappy with what's happened. Many very conservative people here were also unhappy in Australia (some were given the title "doctor's wives") Sounds like my kind of folks.
Tetrahedrite Posted November 11, 2004 Author Posted November 11, 2004 No' date=' it doesn't do that at all, any more than the right-wingers can say that that web site shows us that nearly half of the population of this country is "stupid". [/quote'] You are quite correct, that was a silly statement to make It also demonstrates that at least some people in the US appreciate that local politics affects the whole world. I stand by this statement.
The Nacho Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 I think that it's a good web site. Being a democrat, it seems like a nice place. Just a friendly reminder that not everybody in the USA is stupid like bush.
Ophiolite Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 It is kinda funny, but it's a one-joke deal. Consider the possibility that one of the reasons the site needs to exist is that you see it as a joke.
JohnB Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Considering the level of debate in most forums prior to the election, I'd say their whole system is a joke. Tetrahedrite and I may be at the opposing ends of the Australian political spectrum (I, of course, being on the side of goodness, light and Bundaberg Rum, while he is a pinko, commie, VB drinking, New South Welshman. ) but in Australian political debate I would never even dream of descending to the levels of insult I saw then. The biggest thing I noted was the apparent complete lack of respect for opposing opinions. From both sides. The "You disagree with me, therefore you are an idiot" attitude was generally done away with in this country 20 years ago.
Tetrahedrite Posted January 11, 2005 Author Posted January 11, 2005 Tetrahedrite and I may be at the opposing ends of the Australian political spectrum (I' date=' of course, being on the side of goodness, light and Bundaberg Rum, while he is a pinko, commie, VB drinking, New South Welshman. ) [/quote'] I happen to be a Bundy drinker!!!!! ps Don't mistake everyone with compassion for their fellow man as a pinko commie, as I am not.
john5746 Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 I thought the whole point of politics was to dehuminize the opponent so the simple-minded electorate can easily make a black and white decision? Is it different in other countries?
Tetrahedrite Posted January 12, 2005 Author Posted January 12, 2005 Yes, it is. Although this happens to a certain degree in Australia, it is nowhere near as bad as the attrocious behaviour of the American political parties. I'm not sure about the British system (sorry, don't know where you are from) but I'm almost certain it's much more timid. Just lately the horrible right wing government we have in Australia has taken to making personal attacks on their opposition. This, however, is no surprise as our fearless leader John Howard is trying to turn us into a mini-America.
JohnB Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 I happen to be a Bundy drinker!!!!! Ahhh, there's hope for you yet. Tetra, I wouldn't be too hard on Howard, we had a left wing PM who enjoyed calling his opposition "scumbags", remember? Having said that, the shift to personal attacks is not something I've been happy with in Australian politics. If you have to resort to personal attacks, it means you've run out of sensible arguments. assimilation is the loss of culture Or the creation of a new and better one.
ecoli Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 Personal attacks is the best way to get voters not to vote for the opposition.
Tetrahedrite Posted January 13, 2005 Author Posted January 13, 2005 Personal attacks is the best way to get voters not to vote for the opposition. Only if the electorate is simple minded!
ecoli Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 Which I wish wasn't the case in the Good ole U.S. of A
budullewraagh Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 assimilation is the loss of culture Or the creation of a new and better one. no, not at all. cultural diffusion does indeed occur but if allowed to do so completely, would form a homogeneous world. this homogeneous world would contain elements of many cultures and thus, among the other elements from other cultures, would lose their significance
budullewraagh Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 if you can find "elimination of" to be equivalent to "progression of" then yes, although that makes little to no sense whatsoever
JohnB Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 Personal attacks is the best way to get voters not to vote for the opposition. Down here it's probably the easiest way to get people not to vote for you. Budullewraagh, are you suggesting it's better for a culture to remain static than to adopt facets of other cultures? That to me is like cooking with only one ingredient, or painting with only one colour. Also the concept of "preserving cultural purity" is very close to "preserving racial purity" with all the inherent dangers. Or am I misunderstanding you?
budullewraagh Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 are you suggesting it's better for a culture to remain static than to adopt facets of other cultures? not in the least. rather, i believe that cultures should diffuse, but not to an extent where the meaning of culture is lost
JohnB Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 I think I see what you mean. But how do you know where to draw the line?
Glider Posted January 14, 2005 Posted January 14, 2005 You can't. Resistance is futile! I rather enjoy the differences between cultures. It's the main reason for travelling. I'd hate to see the world turn into an homogenous, English speaking, McDonalds eating mass.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now