 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| watt price tully wrote: |
5. Be forced to eat Gina Rinehart and,
6. Go to a vegan restaurant with Clive Palmer
Not that hard really. |
I think I'd rather go to the restaurant with Clive than eat Gina. For some reason I imagine that to be some funky tasting vaj.
And you're right, I wouldn't be that hard, really.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | How and when do you think we should respond to that ignorance, then? Because as far as I can tell, these sentiments are only growing, and if the debates on here are indicative of anything, people have no interest in listening to reason.
If you don't support counter-protests, what else do you suggest? How can we show the "Reclaim Australia" protestors that they don't speak for us, and how do we show Australian Muslims that they're not on their own?
As much as I share your displeasure with some of the tactics used by protestors on the weekend, I would imagine that many Muslims took heart from seeing non-Muslim Australians stand up for them. |
People have interest in listening to reason, they no interest in having views shoved down their throat. I'd argue that while your motives are good in defending the average muslim person, the manner you often do it is what elicits the kind of response that you really don't want. |
I honestly doubt that there's anything I could say in any way that would change their minds.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187741/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-2/
Great article concerning this issue.
David, you mentioned the wide tableau of the left, but finding genuine lovers of completely 100% open freedom of speech on the progressive side is very hard, there is always a 'but' always a 'free up to a point', always a caveat that speech should be free... except THAT speech that I don't like.
Last edited by Wokko on Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | How and when do you think we should respond to that ignorance, then? Because as far as I can tell, these sentiments are only growing, and if the debates on here are indicative of anything, people have no interest in listening to reason.
If you don't support counter-protests, what else do you suggest? How can we show the "Reclaim Australia" protestors that they don't speak for us, and how do we show Australian Muslims that they're not on their own?
As much as I share your displeasure with some of the tactics used by protestors on the weekend, I would imagine that many Muslims took heart from seeing non-Muslim Australians stand up for them. |
People have interest in listening to reason, they no interest in having views shoved down their throat. I'd argue that while your motives are good in defending the average muslim person, the manner you often do it is what elicits the kind of response that you really don't want. |
I honestly doubt that there's anything I could say in any way that would change their minds. |
So stop trying. I thought you didn't believe in free will. You won't change anyones mind on anything by battering them with information.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I don't, but that has nothing to do with whether or not people change their mind.
Of course, there's the additional problem that people rarely change their minds about anything over the course of an internet debate. But some people are definitely more willing to listen and engage than others, and the "Reclaim Australia" contingent here are mostly brick walls.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: |
So stop trying. I thought you didn't believe in free will. You won't change anyones mind on anything by battering them with information. |
Curious.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what would 'change someone's mind' - or at least make them more open to hearing someone out. Battering people with information is what I do second best, next to avoiding deep conversations by using humour to deflect. And it would be rad if I had more than two ineffectual tricks up my sleeve. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: |
So stop trying. I thought you didn't believe in free will. You won't change anyones mind on anything by battering them with information. |
Curious.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what would 'change someone's mind' - or at least make them more open to hearing someone out. Battering people with information is what I do second best, next to avoiding deep conversations by using humour to deflect. And it would be rad if I had more than two ineffectual tricks up my sleeve. |
Hah, using humour only works when the people actually have a sense of humour, unlike David's little friend.
if you genuinely want to create a situation where you can change someone's mind you need to get them into a position where they want to receive information that they need to do that. Start by empathising with them (difficult I know) and demonstrating that you understand their opinion on the subject and how/why the hold it. Then you start introducing, bit by bit, interesting info that contradicts their own opinion. Don't push too hard, just bit by bit. Do it right and you have them actively asking for more info rather than less. If you attack someone opinion you put them on the defensive straight away and you've lost any hope.
If we go back to the point about the counter rally, I love the mental block that won't let people accept that what they tried to do was censor an opinion they didn't agree with, but that's exactly what they tried to do. Call it what you like, bullying the bullies works, but no matter how you argue the justification it was a clear attempt to silence a viewpoint they found disagreeable. I call that censorship.
Unfortunately for the cause that the counter protesters were trying to promote, my opinion is that they screwed the pooch big time. Probably because SA was clearly involved in the organising.
Firstly by staging the counter rallies with the usual SA level of antagonism they actually achieved the Reclaim Australia getting a lot more publicity than they would have otherwise got. Left alone to march they would have received bugger all media and been largely dismissed as a handful of racist nutjobs. By actively disrupting them, their cause got a lot more attention and, what's really unfortunate, is that they will have actually generated some sympathy.
I know the people who marched saw themselves as the good guys but I'm sorry to be the one to break it to them, the SA and their cohort of professional protestors are not seen as a group that attracts a lot of sympathy from the average person, they actually generate more animosity with their staged confrontational antics. So it's highly likely that as a result of this counter protest not only did they generate more media attention for the Reclaim Australia mob but will have also generated them some sympathisers.
So, sorry for vocalising an unpopular viewpoint. Am I excluding the right from being capable of exactly this behaviour? Absolutely not, I thought that went without saying. The key difference is they wouldn't be so hypocritical about it.
If any of that comes across as condescending or that I'm playing games by throwing handgrenades and then withdrawing without having whatever is supposed to pass as detailed debate on the issues, I'm really sorry. I think my point is pretty clear, I'm not sure what's hard to understand about it. Whether you agree or not is an entirely different matter.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Your entire argument is predicated upon a misunderstanding. This bunch of folks didn't have an "opinion" they wanted to share, they had a prejudice they wanted to indulge. Stopping them from doing so isn't "censorship", it's pest control. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Your entire argument is predicated upon a misunderstanding. This bunch of folks didn't have an "opinion" they wanted to share, they had a prejudice they wanted to indulge. Stopping them from doing so isn't "censorship", it's pest control. |
Gentlemen! I give you exhibit A.
The prosecution rests Your Honour. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Your entire argument is predicated upon a misunderstanding. This bunch of folks didn't have an "opinion" they wanted to share, they had a prejudice they wanted to indulge. Stopping them from doing so isn't "censorship", it's pest control. |
There was a letter in the Age saying something along the lines of Aboriginies wanting to "Reclaim Australia" 
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Your entire argument is predicated upon a misunderstanding. This bunch of folks didn't have an "opinion" they wanted to share, they had a prejudice they wanted to indulge. Stopping them from doing so isn't "censorship", it's pest control. |
Crap I wish I wasn't too old to remember all that, it's awesome!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | Your entire argument is predicated upon a misunderstanding. This bunch of folks didn't have an "opinion" they wanted to share, they had a prejudice they wanted to indulge. Stopping them from doing so isn't "censorship", it's pest control. |
There was a letter in the Age saying something along the lines of Aboriginies wanting to "Reclaim Australia" |
You jest, but apparently there was actually a strong contingent of Aboriginal people on both sides of the protest.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Pies4shaw wrote: | | Your entire argument is predicated upon a misunderstanding. This bunch of folks didn't have an "opinion" they wanted to share, they had a prejudice they wanted to indulge. Stopping them from doing so isn't "censorship", it's pest control. |
Gentlemen! I give you exhibit A.
The prosecution rests Your Honour. |
I flagged the same principle with a leftie Muso I know. His response? "Attempted censorship of hate speech? Fine with me"
No argument from me, just don't try to claim high moral ground on the subject in the future.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| There's "high moral ground" to be claimed in supporting the "right" of pre-cognitive amoeba-impersonators to express their aggressive xenophobia publicly? Who'd a thunk it?. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| "it" being There's high moral ground to be claimed in supporting the right of pre-cognitive amoeba-impersonators to express their aggressive xenophobia? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
