We all know how the Gillard government and the Greens hate free speech. From seeking to ban ‘insults’, to proposing new media controls, to supporting the Bolt inquisition, this has been the most anti-free speech government for decades. What is not clear is how supporters of free speech should respond tactically and strategically to this development. I hope some of the ideas below help to clarify matters.
A generation and a half ago, the political establishment in most Western countries was broadly conservative. The status quo was pro-business, pro-church, pro-traditional family and wowserish on issues like pub opening hours and pornography. As late as the second half of the 1970s, the media were generally hostile to Labor governments. Even Fairfax editorials called Neville Wran a ‘socialist’ and warned of the dangers of electing ‘socialist’ governments like Gough Whitlam’s.
Social democrats were an anti-hegemonic movement, attacking the outdated strictures of the ‘reactionary establishment’; the calls for ‘social liberalism’ and reducing moral constraints were very appealing to the younger generation. As with most opposition movements, the Left were unequivocally pro-free speech, not just because it was in their interest to be so, but because the new permissive zeitgeist required it. Being offensive was not just a ‘right’, it was positively desirable and a useful way to shock the establishment.
Then something changed around the 1980s. As the graduates of the 1960s and 70s got promotions and wormed their way into positions of influence, the status quo gradually shifted. By the end of the 1990s, the establishment could be broadly identified as Leftist in nature. Now, it is the Liberals’ turn to be on the outer – they are the ones who have to govern within tight constraints imposed by the media and the bureaucracy, as Labor had to 40 years ago. Labor governments now face far fewer constraints. Consider that John Howard took 10 years to implement his IR agenda; it was repealed in two. Consider that nearly every item on the Left’s wish-list would get through a hung parliament, with fewer Labor than Coalition seats, speaks volumes.
Being the status quo now, the Left no longer have a compelling interest in supporting free speech, and virtually every piece of Leftist legislation in the last two decades relating to free speech has been an attempt to tighten the controls on free expression, not to loosen them. The sine non qua of the Left is equality. The arguments made against free speech by the Left do not begin with a requirement to avoid offence or licentiousness as with the old establishment – this is a secondary matter for Leftists – but rather a determination to create equality, as at least one Catallaxy contributor has said before.
The problem is that equality, or anything approaching equality, cannot possibly be achieved in an advanced technological civilization, and wouldn’t be a desirable goal even if it were achievable, thanks to the division of labour (less specialization, lower productivity and therefore less goods to go around). Working in total opposition to reality, the greater one strives to create equality, the more authoritarian the government becomes. The most extreme cases were the Communist movements that swept through East Asia last century, killing far more people than their European comrades did.
From anti-discrimination laws through to the recent Bolt case, the attempts to produce equality by placing ever greater constraints on behaviour have spawned an intricate hierarchy of victims, where the permissibility of an action or statement is determined not by its objective content, but by the social position of the speaker. If they are deemed to be ‘socially-oppressed’ in some way, then they should be allowed to say anything, even if it is defamatory in nature. On the other hand, if they are identified as being ‘powerful’, regardless of whether in fact they have any power or influence at all, then they can expect censorship.
What this means in terms of public discourse is that there is no way to reason the Left out of their authoritarian stance on free speech, despite its being based on a flawed first principle and on false secondary assumptions about who can be identified as ‘strong’ or ‘weak’. Conservative commentators, such as Janet Albrechtsen, have written some very eloquent defences of free speech in recent years, but in addressing themselves to the Left, by really pleading with the Leftist establishment not to restrict free speech, such exercises in eloquence are futile. They don’t care about Areopagitica – that’s stuff for dead white males.
Those of you who have children will know that the most effective means to get your way with someone is not to reason with them, but to impose a high cost on their behaviour should they act contrary to your wishes. Regardless of whether the other person is able to extract any moral principle from your act of deterrence, the constraints placed on them will establish patterns of behaviour that are not easily broken. This has been applied on a large scale, with a lot of the Latin American Left having been put in their box by the harsh discipline imposed on them in the 1980s, as Chomsky has argued. Danny Ortega looks like a broken man nowadays, and the post-Pinochet Chilean Left have remained within the neo-liberal paradigm.
Where am I going with this? I am totally opposed to discussing freedom of speech with people who only pay lip service to it, and who reject it at the deepest level. Instead, we must openly talk about the uselessness of Leftism, and how it wouldn’t be missed at all if it were to disappear. Names of people who ought to have their right to free speech taken away should be casually dropped, focusing particularly on those who have been the loudest in opposing free speech for others. It should be intimated to the apparatchiks who work directly in the commissions and bodies that control free speech that they still have time left to update their CVs.
The purpose of this is to change the nature of the debate, from a defensive discourse about rights that are steadily being eroded by the establishment, to a more assertive discussion about how to deal with those who oppose liberty, and who should be sacked or demoted and who should be allowed to stay on. Campbell Newman has shown that mass sackings are possible, and now we should take his example and give it some ideological steroids. Only when the opponents of liberty come to believe that they could risk their own freedoms and livelihoods if they continue on the current path, will they be stopped dead in their tracks. Repealing the authoritarian agenda would then be a matter of time.
If you can’t beat them, join them.
Supporters of free speech should floods human rights commissions with complaints. Thousands, tens of thousands of complaints.
There’s plenty of vilification of Anglo-Saxons, White Australians, Christians, Catholics in the media and elsewhere.
If the politically correct felt the effects of their own laws it might change their mind.
Fred
10 Mar 13 at 2:14 pm
Better yet would be to stack the commissions with right-wing ideologues, and amend the relevant legislation to remove all of the qualifiers (sex, race, etc), leaving only blanket non-discrimination laws that can be used against anyone. And then use them capriciously.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 2:22 pm
Great post Fisk. I agree with you 100%. There ought to be a cost associated with opposing free speech and they should not be treated with kid gloves either.
Case in point… Lets discuss Clive Hamilton. Hamilton has not once but several times written about curtailing the freedoms of those he opposes either by removing their rights to free speech or having , as he called it, the security services sicced against them.
Happy Hamilton was recently appointed to the Climate Authority by Greg Combet. Presumably Hamilton is still earning his university salary.
Of course he will be fired from the Climate Authority the minute the Libs win office. But what about his academic position though? Why should the taxpayer support this leftist totalitarian wannabe and charlatan with an academic stipend?
Isn’t this like supporting an outspoken NAZI?
For that matter what ought to happen to Combet for promoting him?
As you suggest there ought to be a cost associated with this behavior.
Combet’s action ought to be treated company directors committing fraud and therefore would be charged with an offense.
JC
10 Mar 13 at 2:29 pm
And go in hard as lessons need to be learnt.
JC
10 Mar 13 at 2:30 pm
I like the idea of setting up government-funded right-wing activist groups to stage sit-ins and picket lines in Clive Hamilton’s office and generally make it impossible for people like him to go about their daily business. In the event that retribution is impossible through normal channels, we should build-up external forces – basically right-wing loons with too much time on their hands – and use them as a battering ram for constructive dismissal.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 2:37 pm
Egregious as the Left’s position is, there are many on the “right” who are little better, and that includes the “R” Right. I see no sign of Cory Bernardi defending the right of muslims to proselytise by word of mouth – yet that is the same freedom as is enjoyed by Gert Wilders.
Freedom granted only when it is known beforehand that its effects will be beneficial is not freedom
Pyrmonter
10 Mar 13 at 2:38 pm
Pyrmonter, if you are a Leftist, and your comment is a pointer to Leftist sympathies, then the door is thataway. We are not entering into a free-speech discussion with Leftists.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 2:40 pm
My point is that there are terrible opponents of freedom of speech across the political spectrum, and a few friends in rather odd places: Cassandra Wilkinson comes to mind on the Left, but as I’m by no means linked into the left, I struggle to think of many more examples. In fact, I’d call myself a frustrated “classical liberal” – not a C conservative or R rightist – and am a lifelong (Australian) Liberal.
Pyrmonter
10 Mar 13 at 2:50 pm
I see. But Muslims have not had their right to proselytize questioned by anyone in a position of influence. Geert Wilders has. As the people who are deciding who gets to speak and who doesn’t are Leftists, we need to concentrate our fire on them. There are to be no diversions about Fred Nile on this thread please.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 2:53 pm
Have you seen him attacking the right of muslims to proselytise by word of mouth? If so links please. If not your point is irrelevant and a piss-poor attempt at attacking a consevative.
jupes
10 Mar 13 at 3:01 pm
The right need to realise that trying to cosy up to the left never fucking works. Trying to placate them DOESN’T FUCKING WORK. If the Liberals get in government they need to purge places like the ABC of the leftists quite forcefully — using new legislation that gives the relevant minister the power to sack and appoint anyone in the ABC. Find the most crazy, out there, insane right-wing ideologues and appoint them to every position within the ABC. Fire everyone who works for the anti-discrimination comission and replace them with the most vehemently racist, sexist people you can find. Make a climate change comisssion and stack it with the most anti-climate change people you can find from all over the world. Pay them large salaries. Fire anyone from Treasury who is a Keynesian. Appoint austrians. Ban all left-wing organisations from consulting with you on new legislative changes – that means the ACOSS can fuck off and die. Remove their tax exempt status.
James
10 Mar 13 at 3:06 pm
certainly not about to mistake Fred for a liberal – although I rather admired his sponsorship of this fellow – http://www.cdp.org.au/component/jnews/mailing/view/listid-3/mailingid-704/listype-1.html
Gert Wilders says some things worth listening to, even if they’re wrong … and I don’t think there was any real prospect of his being stopped.
That repellent nazi-sympathiser Irving says nothing worth listening to, and his entry was banned by a Liberal government (although an earlier Labour one allowed him in). The touchstone of commitment to freedom of speech is whether we’re willing to allow vile people like Irving to spout their nonsense; and, I think wrongly, the majority seems to accept that. Personally, I’d much prefer to expose them to the ridicule they deserve, but I am – again – in a minority on that point.
Pyrmonter
10 Mar 13 at 3:07 pm
pyrmonter, I’m sorry to say that you have added nothing to this thread that we haven’t already heard a million times before. We are discussing the facts as they currently stand, which is that the authorities currently restricting free speech are overwhelmingly Leftist, and that they are applying said restrictions as a means to shut down their opponents. We are also talking about how to Carthage said institutions, and the personnel involved, so that the Left never again even think about trying this crap on. If you want to post about Teh Evil Bernadi, then do so in a more relevant forum.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 3:15 pm
@James, I do like the idea of stacking institutions with right-wing lunatics in order to discredit and destroy said institutions.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 3:21 pm
British Columbia has an extremely broad hate speech law that prohibits the publication of any statement that “indicates” discrimination or is “likely” to expose a person or group or class of persons to hatred or contempt.
Professor Sunera Thobani of the University of British Columbia faced a hate crimes investigation under this statute after she delivered a vicious diatribe against American foreign policy.
Thobani, a Marxist feminist and multiculturalist activist, remarked that Americans are “bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood.”
The Canadian hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from hate speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans.
The greens are also courting litigation when they call for truth in political advertising laws.
Jim Rose
10 Mar 13 at 3:21 pm
Great post.
One of the things that disappointed and angered me about the Bolt case was that nobody dared make reference to the elephant in the room – or, rather, the court. I’m talking about the judge. He was presiding at the trial of Australia’s foremost critic of the ALP and the left. Few, if any, western countries have a commentator of comparable influence and reach. And yet Justice Bromberg was known to have been a prospective Labor Party electoral candidate and was a member of the leftist faction (an extremist group). Moreover, this wasn’t a commercial or criminal case with no strictly fact-based evidence for impartial, literal consideration. It was an ideological case, involving matters of subjective determination. It was, in short, a show trial. Somebody – a Christopher Pyne or a Barnaby Joyce – should have stated publicly that Mordy recuse himself. A stink should have been kicked up; such a malodorous pong, in fact, that the case was nobbled from the get-go. But the Liberal Party did nothing of the kind. They ‘respected’ the ‘law’ and the course of ‘justice.’
It is time for the alternative government – the party aligned against the establishment – not only to gradually criminalise expressions of leftism and leftist tactics but to fight dirty against the nomenclatura’s obedient servants.
C.L.
10 Mar 13 at 3:25 pm
As I read your argument, Sinclair, there seems to be a problem of means and ends. The use of the phase, “stopped dead in their tracks” is unfortunate, but perhaps revealing. Are you suggesting that defamation laws be abolished because they impinge on free speech? I infer that to be the case, so I wonder why you do not explicitly put that position. Or, are you primarily concerned about making the argument against the evil ones of the left with their unrealistic ideas of equality, even before the law, or as voters perhaps? The evil ones, or the scapegoats, are responsible, as history reminds us repeatedly, for all that is wrong, for the the disturbances, in society. We know how that ends.
[Fisky is the author of the post not me. It is a bit troubling that you can't work that out, but want to read into the meaning of the post. Sinc]
wmmb
10 Mar 13 at 3:26 pm
I must have missed the paragraph where we execute them in the town square.
Infidel Tiger
10 Mar 13 at 3:34 pm
Thank you wmmb for being the first Leftist mouth-breather on this thread. No, there is nothing in the post that said defamation laws should be abolished. In fact, I am a supporter of defamation laws, and applying them vigourously against the Left. But the fact that you immediately played the defamation card (the implicit argument is that if you support ANY restrictions on absolute free speech, then you must support ALL) tells me enough about your intentions. If you would like to defend the Bolt inquisition, or the prosecution of Danny Nalliah, don’t hide behind defamation, just make your case.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 3:39 pm
link
stackja
10 Mar 13 at 3:58 pm
No idea how that is relevant, stackja.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 4:00 pm
Pyrmonter,
You will find the anti-NAZI and Irving rhetoric sourced in the deliberations of the political left.
I stumbled on an anecdote from WWII documentaries which I knew to be technically impossible and which then forced me to do some research. It means studying the other viewpoint, and I was rather concerned to discover further evidence that the political left tend to fabricate history. Fabricate in the sense of narrations of what they think situations were with an incomplete assembly of the facts.
The fact that the left proscribe free speech comes from their core assumptions – they reject objective facts, and only accept those facts which are confirmed by common assent among themselves. Hence they assert facts when everyone they know also agree to the truth of a fact. Hence they regards facts as innate expressions of individuals, and when facts make them feel badly, their gut instinct is to remove the source of irritation, the messenger, as you seem to have done with Wilders and Irving.
Just what was Geert Wilders wrong on, for example.
Messenger shooting is a lefty trait, after all.
Louis Hissink
10 Mar 13 at 4:07 pm
Anyone invite you into this discussion WMMB, or you just decided to gatecrash?
Let me remind you that Fisky politely informed all and sundry leftists they had nothing to discuss over the issue of Free Speech and that your input isn’t asked for nor wanted.
And you fucking idiot, Sinc didn’t write the thread and neither did it discuss removing libel and slander laws.
Get lost.
JC
10 Mar 13 at 4:21 pm
Apart from proudly displaying cluelessness, wmmb also demonstrates that he’s a ponce
JamesK
10 Mar 13 at 4:38 pm
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_o%27clock_swill
The law was intended to reduce drunken mayhem and alcohol consumption but encouraged them because of the short time men had to consume alcohol between knock off time and 6 p.m.
Men often drove home from the pub extremely drunk. Car crashes and assaults by men on their wives and children were at their highest between 6.30 and 8 p.m
the law was a failure; sports and workingmens clubs were considered private bars and were allowed to trade alcohol until very late. patrons would buy alcohol from off-licences to consume at home or parties
Jim Rose
10 Mar 13 at 4:38 pm
Nice one JC. Oops there’s someone I disagree with. Must be a Leftist!! (who obviously subscribes to the Leftist compendium of mandatory comforting beliefs) To the swearing cannons! Quickly, before he lets loose with a subversive idea and damages my conservative compendium of mandatory comforting beliefs!
Maybe free speech is rarer than I first thought.
Paul
10 Mar 13 at 4:39 pm
JS Mill discussed the distribution of truth as follows:
if the righteous majority silences or ignores its opponents, it will never have to defend its belief and over time will forget the arguments for it.
As well as losing its grasp of the arguments for its belief, Mill adds that the majority will in due course even lose a sense of the real meaning and substance of its belief.
What earlier may have been a vital belief will be reduced in time to a series of phrases retained by rote. The belief will be held as a dead dogma rather than as a living truth.
Beliefs held like this are extremely vulnerable to serious opposition when it is eventually encountered. They are more likely to collapse because their supporters do not know how to defend them or even what they really mean.
Mill’s has scenario involves both parties of opinion, majority and minority, having a portion of the truth but not the whole of it. He regards this as the most common of the three scenarios, and his argument here is very simple. To enlarge its grasp of the truth the majority must allow the minority to express its partially truthful view.
Three scenarios – the majority is wrong, partly wrong, or totally right – exhaust for Mill the possible permutations on the distribution of truth, and he holds that in each case the search for truth is best served by allowing free discussion.
Mill thinks history repeatedly demonstrates this process at work and offers Christianity as an illustrative example.
By suppressing opposition to it over the centuries Christians have ironically weakened rather than strengthened Christian belief. Mill thinks this lack of debate and debating skills explains the decline of Christianity in the modern world.
Truth is a casualty of the suppression of falsehood.
Jim Rose
10 Mar 13 at 4:41 pm
Except I don’t want to stack the ABC or Dept. of Climate Change – I want to get rid of them and change our tax system in a way that the people really experience the cost of each and every government expenditure. (eg. Abolish PAYG and get the tax office to send out a bill each year.)
Do it the day after you win govt. and ask yourself how many people would be clamouring for their return four years later?
Otherwise the left will just redecorate when they gain power again.
Ellen of Tasmania
10 Mar 13 at 4:42 pm
Only one problem with quoting JS mill, Jim.
Note the fourth word in that first sentence. It’s majority.
The left in this country are a minority attempting to muzzle free speech.
JC
10 Mar 13 at 4:46 pm
Fuck off Paul. There’s nothing subversive about leftist ideas. None. It’s all about money and control. To even call it that is laughable. To even suggest we’re/I’m afraid of it is hysterical.
You’re a prime example why there is nothing to discuss with you over the issue of free speech.
The basics of the thread are about leftist attempts… actually repeated attempts.. to close down the right to free speech. And you pop up like a miniature clown suggesting we’re afraid of your ideas… subversive ones. You fucking, fucking idiot.
JC
10 Mar 13 at 4:51 pm
Fisky, an excellent idea to finally have the Fisk Doctrine written down and given flesh in a formal post. For those Cat lurkers who’ve heard passing references to the doctrine, bookmark this post for future reference.
Oh, and I share IT’s frustration about the exclusion of references to the need for executions. The Fisk Doctrine has a rich accompanying compendium of political humour about the need for action against the establishment czars of the new totalitarian left, which is unrecognisable compared with the left of the 1970s and 1980s. That savage humour will continue to inform the opposition to the institutional left, which now dominates government, bureaucracy, academia and media in Australia as a ruthless, humourless fascist caricature of the freedom movements the left once embraced.
Tom
10 Mar 13 at 5:13 pm
Great stuff, Fisky.
A well argued, articulate and coherent post.
You are a fellow ideological warrior.
Rabz
10 Mar 13 at 5:25 pm
I have a poster on my my wall that was sent to me about how to treat leftists and people like WMMB and Pyromonter on this blog. This should also be applied to the ABC and the totalitarians in the Human Rights Commibnssion. Please forgive the language.
“You there: Fuck off. When you get there fuck off from there too. Then fuck off some more. Keep fucking off until you get right back there. Then Fuck off again”.
CyrilH
10 Mar 13 at 5:32 pm
On a serious note, the Fisk doctrine or parts of it should be married up with parts of the Bill of Rights that Sinclair was discussing on the Bill of Rights thread.
That is, any judge, public sector official (including the press council) or politician that is found to be attempting to subvert free speech should be prosecuted to the limits of the law and no wiggle room is allowed.
I’m opening the betting at 10 years without any possibility of parole.
JC
10 Mar 13 at 5:37 pm
According to Napoleon Newman, he has sacked nobody. They’ve all taken VRs.
Evry time Newman opens his mouth he tells lies.
Catallaxy reveals the truth….
1735099
10 Mar 13 at 5:40 pm
Press Council? You mean it’s not going to be abolished under the doctrine? Why do we need a Press council?
Gab
10 Mar 13 at 5:42 pm
Oops, sorry is this na thread about Newman? I thought it was about the Fisk Doctrinaire?
Gab
10 Mar 13 at 5:43 pm
Great idea.
Let’s start with Rabz, Mick of the Gold Coast, and Noname.
They routinely
1735099
10 Mar 13 at 5:51 pm
Spuds
Why post irrelvant leftist crap on this thread when you politely asked not to.
You have nothing to say about safeguarding the absolute right to free speech and like the insidious vermin that you are post turgid crap.
Please go away like the rest of your breed.
———
It’s pretty fucking insightful. Of all the leftist interruptions on the Fisk Doctrine thread there’s not been one single comment of relevance.
Spuds thinks it’s about Da Newman. One idiot thinks it was Sinc who wrote the thread when it’s clearly highlighted as a guest post in the title. This same moron thinks “sinc” wants to remove libel laws even though nothing about this topic was discussed. Leftist “Paul” thinks he’s being subversive. Lol.
This is like a Q&A audience on stupid pills.
JC
10 Mar 13 at 5:51 pm
If it’s a free association then that requires no state intervention. If it’s a leftist attempt to close free speech then close it down with maximum hostility. I think though that people like Julian Disney would want to be very very careful in how they conduct themselves as they could face prosecution if found to be trying to take the rights of free speech away from citizens.
JC
10 Mar 13 at 5:54 pm
Great post Fisky. That’s definately a keeper!
A Lurker
10 Mar 13 at 5:59 pm
The Fisk Doctrine rocks!
Bookmarked.
wes george
10 Mar 13 at 6:03 pm
And
Unconscious comedy from JC who holds the delusional belief that he/she/it is a noble proponent of free speech, whilst simultaneously denying it to anyone who disagrees with him/her/it……
1735099
10 Mar 13 at 6:03 pm
Spuds, you syphilitic has-been. Fuck off and stop trying to wreck the thread.
Fisk, can you have this Leftist douchebag removed from here?
JC
10 Mar 13 at 6:06 pm
Numbers, aren’t you the crank who claimed that free speech was the cause of US military atrocities in Vietnam, that you witnessed first hand?
You shouldn’t be on here. Shoo. Get lost.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 6:08 pm
My mistake, Frisky is the author, even though it clearly says at the bottom “Written by Sinclair Davidson”. I stand corrected.
To nobody’s surprise I anticipated the general reaction. We all can make mistakes, and we can be self reflective, and consider the implications of our proposals for others. I would like to believe that it would be possible to engage in a process that led to truth and understanding, but that is not the same as an exercise in hatred and contempt.
I genuinely wondering why in logic – my implicit argument – you are not in principle opposed to defamation, as a restriction on free speech? What motivates you to use it against the left, since you are a strong proponent of the freedom of speech?
wmmb
10 Mar 13 at 6:11 pm
Paul, the Left’s ‘subversive’ ideas are to blow trillions on useless crap, give citizenship to far-right Islamic hate preachers, build more windmills to stop da carbin, and throw Andrew Bolt in prison.
I think we’ve heard enough from the Left, quite honestly. I’m not sure they have much to contribute anymore, really.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 6:12 pm
No.
Find a reference to this blatant lie, or apologise. Another one of Bolt’s acolytes – making “facts” up.
The rabid Right is identified by two main characteristics – a lack of ideas (so the same old crap is recycled) and a complete disregard for the truth.
Evidence of both abounds on this site.
1735099
10 Mar 13 at 6:14 pm
Fighting fire with fire may sound like fun, but it is also lazy. Some heavy lifting is required.
Fighting illiberal ideas with illiberal means discredits liberalism. We need to fight illiberal ideas with liberal means to show why liberalism is far superior to Leftism.
Stacking the ABC, Human Rights Commissions and universities with your own cronies is as illiberal as the Left stacking these institutions with their own. As there are no liberal justifications for governments funding universities and broadcasters and no justifications for Human Rights Commissions in their current form, the appropriate liberal response is to privatise the ABC, SBS and universities and abolish the Human Rights Commissions.
We also need to do the hard work that Chris Berg and his colleagues at the IPA are doing in making the arguments for free speech. That doesn’t mean engaging the Left. (You are quite right about not wasting our time with such a pointless exercise.) But we do need to engage the broader public so that there will be a public uprising whenever the Left tries to imposes it will on Australians.
You never know, you may even get the Liberal Party to embrace liberalism if you put the work in.
johno
10 Mar 13 at 6:15 pm
Another “fact” Fisky?
1735099
10 Mar 13 at 6:15 pm
Okay then, lets start with this as an opener.
Do you agree that the attempts to prosecute Catch The Fire Ministries, the prosecution of Bolt, The Finkelstien advice to the government, The Greens broadsides and finally that disgusting Roxon’s proposals were all to subvert citizens free speech?
One word answer. YES or NO?
JC
10 Mar 13 at 6:17 pm
Really good to read this post Fisky. Spot on in observing there is no point whatever in expecting the problem to vanish by using superior logic.
Whatever may have been true early last century I do wonder whether
Whatever purity of motive may have once motivated Fabians around the world, is it not the case that the left is now driven by nothing more dignified than hatred of ‘them over there’ and the lust for power at any price?
This is not just an idle quibble because a deterrent can be fine tuned in its effectiveness if the motivation of the perpetrator is accurately understood and the public is solidly on board with the logic.
It would also be good to give up on the expectation that it will ever be possible to logically talk the left out of its symbiotic dependence upon climate change dogma. Isn’t it about time that some adult person in a position of authority called bullshit on the whole box of crap?
Maybe jail time for people who make repeated and wrong public predictions of an impending climate cataclysm ? It’s a lot like shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded cinema-but on a massive scale.
Tapdog
10 Mar 13 at 6:17 pm
Wmmb, although I allergically opposed to discussing anything of importance with Leftists, your question appears to be a sincere attempt to discover an alternative position, and an exception can be made.
Defamation is a tort. People really could inflict career-destroying damage on others by spreading malicious falsehoods, and the costs imposed by this behaviour can be calculated and repaid. The same is true of the Left’s behaviour. We can calculate the damage caused by Leftist ideas in lost GDP, lost lives (over 1,100 on the high seas) and wasted hundreds of billions. Ideally, the Labor party would be forced to repay all of this money from its bank account, but I would be happy to accept a 10-year silence from Leftists as a compromise.
More seriously, there is no equivalence between defamation laws and the RDA, so don’t even try that on.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 6:18 pm
You did say just that, Numbers. In a discussion on Andrew Bolt and ‘hate’ speech, you claimed to have observed the effects of this first hand in ‘Nam. I remember the thread clearly.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 6:19 pm
I agree with that. But they still need to pretend to have a moral position that unites them, even if that’s not what they really are about. Equality is the most powerful tool they have.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 6:21 pm
The point of stacking these institutions is to destroy them, and seriously burn the Left on the way out. I don’t want to privatise the ABC at all – it should be shut down.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 6:24 pm
You f*cking sad, diseased ol’ hypocrite.
If you had your way, no one would have any free speech, it would be ‘regulated’ by pathetic, pompous, fat and stupid nonentities like you.
You come this discussion with a view that there is no such thing as ‘free speech’ – therefore, you have nothing legitimate to offer on this topic.
So fuck off – time to get your colostomy bag changed.
Rabz
10 Mar 13 at 6:25 pm
You should have no trouble finding it then – go ahead – or apologise.
1735099
10 Mar 13 at 6:38 pm
The Goebbels technique – beware anyone how claims to speak for all, and uses the collective pronoun.
Show me any official government statement that “supports” the “Bolt inquisition”. The action was bought by eight people who identified as Aboriginal, not by the government. You’re making “facts” up again.
Those were the days – the days when a Coalition government used a combination of dog-whistling (the baddies were the Reds) and the ultimate in social engineering (conscription) to attempt to hold on to political power.
I presume you would describe Howard as a “Leftist”. He was an important part of the establishment from 1996 until 2007, after all.
Consider that Abbott lacks any real capacity to negotiate.
Ah Ha – a fiendish plot to promote the ideals of the American revolution – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
The law applies to all. This is a major issue for some conservatives who believe they have the divine right to be exempted.
Obviously you believe that these freedoms should be applied selectively – to those whom the thought police regard as having the above mentioned divine right.
And what you propose is not “authoritarian”?
Pull the other one – it has bells on.
You also forgot to wear your tinfoil hat.
1735099
10 Mar 13 at 6:43 pm
Right.
It’s called a “suicide squad.”
And guess who pioneered it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_Legislative_Council#Abolition
C.L.
10 Mar 13 at 8:58 pm
The Old Commo Traitor is a good example of someone who should be executed without negotiation or trial as a diseased peace of meat whose existence is a threat to public health.
Tom
10 Mar 13 at 9:13 pm
I wouldn’t execute numbers but I would make him wear a jester suit.
Infidel Tiger
10 Mar 13 at 9:16 pm
Another superhero story spudpeeler. Make sure it involves you saving children. It’s so heartwarming
Tiny Dancer
10 Mar 13 at 9:23 pm
You wrote
So what you call “wowserish on issues like pub opening hours” had its genesis with a drinking problem so it is ‘relevant’.
stackja
10 Mar 13 at 9:24 pm
Too late.
Gab
10 Mar 13 at 9:54 pm
It was a Liars Party government which introduced the law that caught Bolt, you fucking moron.
Since then they have not only not rescinded it and apologized to Bolt for the appalling treatment, they have also brought out Finkelstien as a way to threaten their opponents in the media, Conroy the C..t, has suggested ways of restricting internet freedoms, the fascist goon, Von Roxon has trialed other restrictions against free speech and the Greenslime wants to pass a law that would have the government determine who is allowed to own a newspaper or a media business.
You disgusting filthy individual spuds. You dare even try and defend this here?
JC
10 Mar 13 at 10:02 pm
“Maybe jail time for people who make repeated and wrong public predictions of an impending climate cataclysm ? It’s a lot like shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded cinema-but on a massive scale.”
Excellent point. I have never thought of that before.
I would also add that speech promoting class hatred and the politics of envy should be reclassified as restricted hate speech. It has been demonstrated time and again that such rhetoric leads to violence, disorder and social breakdown.
Monkey's Uncle
10 Mar 13 at 10:17 pm
Numbers, you need to get it through your thick skull that we don’t really care what you have to say about anything. You are an atavistic crank who once advocated herding asylum seekers into ‘immigration zones’, only to complain about non-assimilation of migrants in the next breath. Obviously, anyone suffering from cognitive dissonance on that level belongs in a mental health clinic, not in a public forum.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 10:55 pm
I’ve been a long time supporter of such laws as a lesson learning experience for the left and hate speech laws.
JC
10 Mar 13 at 10:57 pm
Here, moron.
So it turns out, in denying you said exactly what I claimed you said, YOU are the liar.
Are you going to apologize for misleading the thread, or are you not man enough, gutless wonder?
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 11:12 pm
I have given some thought to the illiberal Fisk Doctrine and I think fisky is right. This is war and for the survival of a culture. Napoleon beat the Austrians because they carried on fighting according to their tradition and Napoleon unilaterally changed the rules. The lefties have changed the rules and are winning because by libertarian old liberal standards they are cheating. There is no point trying to fight using the old assumptions of an honourable opponent who has neglected to grasp an obscure fact and who is susceptible to reason. They are dishonest through and through. They should be destroyed using their rules.
DrBeauGan
10 Mar 13 at 11:12 pm
And before you try a “look over there” in denying the other stupid shit you said about forcing immigrants into ‘immigration zones’, here is that thread too:
In an act of shocking callousness, you also made light of the deaths of boat people:
Clearly, watching people die is not such a biggie for you.
Revolting man. You would last five minutes under the Fisk Doctrine you piece of shit.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 11:16 pm
Amen brother, you get it.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 11:18 pm
Liberty is only for those who believe in it and fight for it. All the rest can go to hell the express route. Preferably after an elaborate execution in the town square.
Infidel Tiger
10 Mar 13 at 11:19 pm
So do I have it right the ‘doctrine’ simply boils down to using their stupid laws against them? Like figuratively turning back the V1 flying bombs?
Chris M
10 Mar 13 at 11:27 pm
This numbers character sure is one hard to flush turd! For someone of his age he has still never learned not to argue like an undergraduate sophist.
Monkey's Uncle
10 Mar 13 at 11:35 pm
I’m not sure why you would bother stacking the Human Rights Commission, ACOSS etc if you have the power to simply abolish their funding. The same goes for the ABC.
One of the first things Howard did after he first became PM was to hold an inquiry into the future of the ABC. It was chaired by Bob Mansfield. He recommended that it remain in public hands. An incoming Liberal government ought to repeat this exercise but should appoint a different sort of person to chair it.
TerjeP
10 Mar 13 at 11:35 pm
It’s much more nuanced than that, and there are many different layers to it.
Fisky
10 Mar 13 at 11:42 pm
Two factors. One picked up by Alan Barcan writing about trends on campus in the 1950s (in an early Quadrant), vol 1 no 1 1957.
Barcan was concerned about the growing immaturity of university students, and behind that he perceived declining standards of school education, falling standards in newspapers, films and radio, few challenges as a stimulis to maturity, too much state activity eroding voluntary organizations.
“What will be the effect on Australian social development when this student generation of the ‘fifties assumes political and social leadership? What qualities in journalism and literature, in art and speculative thought, in teaching and law and politics, will they offer their fellow Australians in the ‘seventies?”
Second, the spectre of conscription for Vietnam that really screwed the Coalition and gutted the conservative parties of young talent for several student student generations through the late 1960s and 1970s.
Rafe
10 Mar 13 at 11:45 pm
OK thanks appreciate the clarification…
Chris M
11 Mar 13 at 12:16 am
My lazy reply did not do justice to the Doctrine. If you are uncertain as to the intention of the Doctrine, re-read the last two paragraphs. It should be clear that it is NOT just about censoring people. It is about recalibrating the debate over free speech, ironically (given the principle demand of the Doctrine) in favour of free speech.
Fisky
11 Mar 13 at 12:29 am
from Sinclair and
from Rafe just above here has given me plenty of homework to do this week – thank you gentlemen for your excellent pieces.
I do wish we could invoke Rule 303 for the snarling old commo’s mad invasion halfway through the discussion – liberty and the right to vote are wasted on the pig ignorant.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
11 Mar 13 at 12:44 am
For Robert numbers:
You are not only deceitful – an inveterate liar, here and elsewhere – but you are also a dead set gutless busted.
I suspect that has been a personal characteristic of your entire miserable, rancorous existence.
I have never before witnessed anyone who had anything to do with the forces leverage so much self aggrandisement so often off the sacrifice of others. You are a disgrace.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
11 Mar 13 at 12:52 am
Mick – twas I, not Sinclair
Fisky
11 Mar 13 at 1:16 am
Bugger! I knew that from reading it here earlier today. I was wrong – I apologise to you Fisky.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
11 Mar 13 at 1:18 am
The Fisk Doctrine seems to me to be a free speech version of God-Emperor Leto II’s Golden Path in the Dune novels.
I think I’ve discovered Fisky’s true identity. He is Paul Atreides.
Yobbo
11 Mar 13 at 2:45 am
@ Fisk
Here, moron.
Both these hacks make a living from inciting hate. I saw enough of the consequences of this in Vietnam in 1970, and in this country upon my return to convince me that I would call it every time I saw it.
Any apology is owed by them – not to them.
So it turns out, in denying you said exactly what I claimed you said, YOU are the liar.
Are you going to apologize for misleading the thread, or are you not man enough, gutless wonder?
What you said I said -
Numbers, aren’t you the crank who claimed that free speech was the cause of US military atrocities in Vietnam, that you witnessed first hand?
What I actually said –
Both these hacks make a living from inciting hate. I saw enough of the consequences of this in Vietnam in 1970, and in this country upon my return to convince me that I would call it every time I saw it.
That is at least a vile misrepresentation. In other words, a lie.
To say that I would call hatespeech every time I saw it, is not to say it caused US military atrocities in Vietnam. That statement is yours, not mine. There’s a vast difference between calling hatespeech, and saying it caused atrocities. I made the first statement. The author of the second statement was you. You’re either as thick as two short planks, or you’re a liar – both, most likely.
Now that you have been revealed as a liar, it’s time to apologise – moron.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 6:05 am
Here, moron.
Both these hacks make a living from inciting hate. I saw enough of the consequences of this in Vietnam in 1970, and in this country upon my return to convince me that I would call it every time I saw it.
Any apology is owed by them – not to them.
So it turns out, in denying you said exactly what I claimed you said, YOU are the liar.
Are you going to apologize for misleading the thread, or are you not man enough, gutless wonder?
What you said I said -
Numbers, aren’t you the crank who claimed that free speech was the cause of US military atrocities in Vietnam, that you witnessed first hand?
What I actually said –
Both these hacks make a living from inciting hate. I saw enough of the consequences of this in Vietnam in 1970, and in this country upon my return to convince me that I would call it every time I saw it.
That is at least a vile misrepresentation. In other words, a lie.
To say that I would call hatespeech every time I saw it, is not to say it caused US military atrocities in Vietnam. That statement is yours, not mine. There’s a vast difference between calling hatespeech, and saying it caused atrocities. I made the first statement. The author of the second statement was you. You’re either as thick as two short planks, or you’re a liar – both, most likely.
Now that you have been revealed as a liar, it’s time to apologise – moron.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 6:06 am
What you said I said -
What I actually said –
That is at least a vile misrepresentation. In other words, a lie.
To say that I would call hatespeech every time I saw it, is not to say it caused US military atrocities in Vietnam.
That statement is yours, not mine. There’s a vast difference between calling hatespeech, and saying it caused atrocities. I made the first statement. The author of the second statement was you. You’re either as thick as two short planks, or you’re a liar – both, most likely.
Now that you have been revealed as a liar, it’s time to apologise – moron.
Fisk fisked…..
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 6:07 am
For Mick the Prick from Little Baghdad on the Nerang.
You head is still firmly stuck where I said it was yesterday.
Must be painful….
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 6:11 am
@Sinc
Time to find more literate and rational guest posters.
You’re scraping the bottle of the barrel with this one. He/she/it is a common or garden variety ranter.
I’m happy to volunteer.
You’d get something of substance.
And you’d be doing your bit for free speech.
Come on, you know you want to…
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 6:17 am
And fix your technology – it’s as dodgy as most of the posts.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 6:21 am
[Tom - that's unnecessary. Sinc]
Tom
11 Mar 13 at 6:28 am
@Tom
To think garbage like you actually have children….
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 6:33 am
That pedgogic head explosion has left blue ink all over this page.
Another landslide for the conservatives, numbers. Enjoy.
Blogstrop
11 Mar 13 at 6:59 am
For more evidence of where the left line leads, here’s a very good piece by Victor Hansen called:
Beautifully Medieval California.
There are differences, but so many similarities with what they do here.
Hollowing out the middle class and cementing a nomenklatura above a hoi polloi is the basic plot. For those who say communism hasn’t worked because it hasn’t been done properly, one might observe that human nature is such that leftists will always do it in much the same way.
When too many people are in jobs that are not reality based, it’s too easy for them to become leftist drones. We know from the many people witnessing their own mature conversion here that you can become sensible with age and experience. There may be An age beyond which such reform becomes unlikely or inpossible. Is it forty, or older?
Blogstrop
11 Mar 13 at 7:32 am
Numbers, you have really got to get out of your lying habit. By citing “Vietnam” in “1970″, you weren’t referring to playground insults, but a conventional shooting war. You also claimed that “hate speech” was somehow responsible for the things that were happening at this time, which we understand to be mass killing and environmental destruction.
In other words, your actions on this thread – which have been an attempt to deceive the readers – have just demonstrated the urgent necessity of the Fisk Doctrine.
Fisky
11 Mar 13 at 10:13 am
I’ll have to think about this some more. I’ve always thought defunding the left would be enough. I’m not sure the Liberal (sic) party has it in them.
I can’t see Abbott defunding universities, but reversing the Trade Union Party’s anti-free speech laws making it an offence to stifle free speech is compelling.
Forester
11 Mar 13 at 10:38 am
@Fisky
Put simply – you lie.
Refer above, to the difference between what I said, and what you claimed I said.
It’s pretty clear.
I said I will always call hatespeech. I’ll call it on this thread –
This is typical of the authoritarian Right. No one has the right to disagree. If they do, they should be eliminated.
Weird stuff….
And you obviously take yourself seriously. That’s the scary part.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 10:44 am
Don’t just sit there – send it through.
Sinclair Davidson
11 Mar 13 at 10:51 am
Great. Spuds has suffocated another thread with his pathetic trolling and gross stupidity.
He’s exhibit A for the Fisk Doctrine.
JC
11 Mar 13 at 10:52 am
The scary part is that you aren’t institutionalised, numbers.
blogstrop
11 Mar 13 at 10:52 am
I suspect one reason for the emotion here is the problem posed, particularly for Libertarians, in promoting individual freedom and dealing with the harmful consequences that such “liberty” can have for others, both directly and indirectly. Any imposition of limitations leads to internal conflict, if you like cognitive dissonance. Hence, for example, the ridiculous assertion that defamation law and the RDA must not be compared.
wmmb
11 Mar 13 at 11:09 am
You either dreaming or lying.
The “problem here with the Left’s attempts to detroy the right to free speech.
Let’s go through them again.
C..t Conroy’s attempt to control the internet.
Attempts to allow the government, ie the Left the last say in who can run a media company. Licensing. This is something that hasn’t happened in the Anglophone for 400 years.
Finkelstien
Von Roxon’s attempts to create new restrictions.
My humble solution, Payback. It’s a real bitch.
JC
11 Mar 13 at 11:18 am
By contrast to your comments about Alan Jones.
We know, we know, hatespeech is in the eye of the great censor (i.e. Numbers) and it is ok when vomits the hate filled bile.
Token
11 Mar 13 at 11:21 am
My heartfelt thanks Fisky and others for their writing in this outstanding post.
It gives me some degree of comfort to know that many clear thinkers here detest Leftism and what it has done to debase Western civilisation and our own beloved Country.
Long have I waited for the overdue payback because for too long have we politely played their game and accepted their umpire’s decisions.
They have used the soft underbelly of democracy to white-ant the very freedoms that underpin it ….such as free speech which they secretly despise.
I’m all for the Fisk Doctrine but where to from here?
81Alpha
11 Mar 13 at 11:41 am
How about Malcolm ‘mugabi’ Fraser whom actually delights in his personal hand in destroying Australia.
NoFixedAddress
11 Mar 13 at 12:04 pm
I will go further and declare that ‘mugabi fraser’ has cost Australia more money than deluded Gough W.
NoFixedAddress
11 Mar 13 at 12:07 pm
They’re easy enough to compare.
One provides redress for all. One provides redress for some.
One is based upon limiting harm. One is based upon limiting restraint.
One requires that something untrue and damaging must have been said. One simply requires that someone else has a hissy fit about something said, regardless of truth.
DriftForge
11 Mar 13 at 12:10 pm
Anglosphere. Not anglophone
JC
11 Mar 13 at 1:41 pm
Why so? Serious question… I’m all for getting some of the mega-dollars of taxpayers’ money tossed into that pit back.
By privatising all or most of it, we would achieve that, and it would most likely die or morph into something far more acceptable anyway.
mct
11 Mar 13 at 3:45 pm
“That is at least a vile misrepresentation. In other words, a lie.
To say that I would call hatespeech every time I saw it, is not to say it caused US military atrocities in Vietnam.”
“Both these hacks make a living from inciting hate. I saw enough of the consequences of this in Vietnam in 1970″.
Sure. No-one would think your second quote in any way implies a causual link with US military atrocities. “Consequences” of “inciting hate”.
Just own up to your mistake and apologise you moron.
Monkey's Uncle
11 Mar 13 at 4:32 pm
“Egregious as the Left’s position is, there are many on the “right” who are little better, and that includes the “R” Right. I see no sign of Cory Bernardi defending the right of muslims to proselytise by word of mouth – yet that is the same freedom as is enjoyed by Gert Wilders.” – Pyrmoneter,
As someone who is more of a libertarian than a conservative, I will adjudicate and call bullshit on this one. I suspect this character is a leftist troll.
While it is true that many conservatives are hostile to certain forms of social freedom, they are not generally hostile to free speech. These days the demands to shut down or criminalise dissenting views overwhelmingly come from leftists who want to stop anyone from challenging their PC orthodoxy.
Monkey's Uncle
11 Mar 13 at 4:43 pm
81alpha wants to know where we go from here. We have two types of people to deal with, the largest group by far are the herd animals who take their opinions from their neighbours and simply want to conform. In their company, speak out. The sight of a strong man or woman speaking their mind spreads doubt. Doubt is good and the first stage.
The smaller group comprises ideologues. Nail them for being just that. Announce cheerfully that they are adherents of a particularly disgusting religion that worships the state. Don’t waste time or energy getting mad at them just point it out. And laugh at them. They hate that.
And use every ghastly institution they have created or corrupted against them. Complain to every grievance committee. We need a list of places to email our contemptible whinges to. Fight your natural reluctance to be a weak whinger and go for it!
DrBeauGan
11 Mar 13 at 5:31 pm
Fine. Are you going to ban the Koran for hate speech or not? Are you going to arrest Communists for inciting acts of violence (expropriation of private property is violence) or not? Nope, didn’t think so. Your argument is worthless.
There is no equivalence. We know this to be true because you haven’t even bothered to explain why you think it is. Truth is an absolute defence under defamation law, not under anti-hate laws. Also, defamation law actually has to prove damage and award costs. The RDA does not make any attempt to prove damage – rather it has to prove that someone was vilified.
You are just going to have to cook up another justification for baning right-wing speech, while leaving the Koran and Left-wing publications unbanned. Sorry.
Fisky
11 Mar 13 at 5:52 pm
@ Monkey’s Uncle
You’re absolutely right about that – no-one except for many of the deluded who post here.
Looks like you’re one of them.
FWIW, atrocities such as My Lai were a result of poor morale and weak leadership. They had nothing to do with hatespeech.
The fact that young Australians were conscripted in peacetime by a Conservative government, did however have a connection with decades of fear of communism generated by hatespeech.
This fear was used cynically by Conservatives, and their DLP brethren to cling to power.
Much the same technique (this time it’s fear of Islam) is used today.
It’s far more productive to hold it up to ridicule than to ban it.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 7:41 pm
Oh fuck. Not bloody Vietnam again. Give it a rest.
Gab
11 Mar 13 at 7:42 pm
You moron, nobody has been conscripted to fight Islam in the real world, that is just in your bigoted homophobic delusions.
Token
11 Mar 13 at 7:43 pm
I don’t think it is possible to exaggerate the malevolent nature of a movement that advocated class genocide.
Fisky
11 Mar 13 at 8:24 pm
I don’t think it is possible to exaggerate the malevolent nature of a government that used fear to conscript young Australians in peacetime on the basis of eliminating an ideology.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 8:35 pm
I can. If it were a peaceful ideology, then it would be beyond the pale. As it stands, Menzies supported conscription to fight against people who weren’t much better than Nazis. Noble aim, but counter-productive means.
Fisky
11 Mar 13 at 8:39 pm
Chickenhawk John Curtin used phony fear of a Jap invasion to introduce conscription in 1943. Of course, the Japanese had no intention or ability to invade.
C.L.
11 Mar 13 at 8:45 pm
But did Curtin know that? The fear was widely shared.
Cato the Elder
11 Mar 13 at 8:49 pm
@CL
Fortunately we had a Labor PM when we needed strong and decisive leadership, with the cojones to stand up to Churchill and demand the return of the 7th Division.
If Pig Iron Bob had been in charge, we’d be blogging in Japanese.
You might care to note that war had been declared, a number of northern cities had been bombed, and the much-maligned Chockos were the first to defeat the Japanese on land.
Australian conscripts, despite the moral ineptitude of the practice, have acquited themselves well.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 8:59 pm
Of course he knew. Douglas MacArthur told the war cabinet the Americans were not here to garrison Australia. They were here to launch themselves north – where they were needed. After Curtin’s famous “free of any pangs” speech, FDR said Curtin’s behaviour “smacks of panic.” At the time, that was about the worst thing you could say about another man.
C.L.
11 Mar 13 at 9:02 pm
Curtin was a chickenhawk (textbook definition) and a drunk.
C.L.
11 Mar 13 at 9:03 pm
Curtin saved Australia. What a pity you can’t rewrite history. The only time this country was in existential peril was in WW2, and Labor was in government.
There were attempts to introduce conscription in WW1, but the Australian people defeated it twice in referenda.
Menzies lacked the guts to take the issue to the vote in the sixties.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 9:09 pm
Hold onto the myth that Curtin was the only leader that could save Australia in WW2. It is a fiction told to simple minds without the wit to see through it.
Token
11 Mar 13 at 9:14 pm
When can we flog people Fisky?
Tal
11 Mar 13 at 9:22 pm
“If Pig Iron Bob had been in charge, we’d be blogging in Japanese.”
You’re overplaying the Japanese threat. There was no attempt or even plan to take Australia down.
Jarrah
11 Mar 13 at 9:24 pm
The 2nd AIF at Milne Bay were peeling spuds?
Steve of Ferny Hills
11 Mar 13 at 9:30 pm
I guess you must have been around at the time, and understood the national sentiment. My father, who served in the RAAF in New Guinea, used to refer to Churchill as “that rotten old drunk”. Churchill was unpopular with Australians fighting in New Guinea, as he had the same attitude to colonial troops in WW2 as he did in the Dardanelles.
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 9:31 pm
We’ll stick to facts, we’ll leave the emoting based upon the fables you were told at papa’s knee to you.
Token
11 Mar 13 at 9:34 pm
I am struggling to understand why we are discussing John Curtin with an ahistorical crank. This is an important thread, and the only value Numbers is adding is in providing some useful examples of speech that would be banned under the Doctrine.
Fisky
11 Mar 13 at 9:35 pm
Bull. The Japanese were defeated by the US military and would have been eventually regardless of our efforts – brave as they were.
Not to denigrate the role of the militia but the Second AIF (2/9th, 2/10th, 2/12th etc.) played a rather large role there.
Huh? If you mean conscription is morally unsupportable I agree with you, but inept?
Matt
11 Mar 13 at 9:37 pm
Floggings have their place, Tal.
But don’t forget the power of tramplings.
My Christian elephants stand ready.
C.L.
11 Mar 13 at 9:39 pm
“we’ll stick to facts….”
Ok – try these for size -
Labor saw Australia through WW2.
Conscription was defeated in two referenda in WW1, but was introduced by Labor for service in Australia and mandated territories in WW2.
The Coalition introduced conscription in peacetime during the Vietnam conflict.
Would Fisk’s doctrine prohibit the publication of these facts?
1735099
11 Mar 13 at 9:44 pm
Flog and Stomp Lad I like it
Tal
11 Mar 13 at 9:52 pm
@Fisk
Can I add that any time that the Senators for ‘Stalin’ that I know about like ‘fukin’ dog or the crazy mad rabid one, or whatever their names, should be held up as prime examples of Labor (whomever they represent).
NoFixedAddress
11 Mar 13 at 10:58 pm
CyrilH, is this the one you refer to?
Winston SMITH
12 Mar 13 at 4:21 pm
Fisky, @1112. Good work – going to your link, you managed to shut the Digital Dude up until little lunch the next day. And he only spoke about a completely different subject.
Winston SMITH
12 Mar 13 at 4:50 pm
Bugger. Just checked – it was a Saturday.
Winston SMITH
12 Mar 13 at 4:52 pm
Frisky,
I am not trying to justify banning “right wing speech”, however intolerant that might be. I congratulate you in taking a stand against violence in all its forms. Since you have an implied capacity for empathy, you will understand there are cases of vilification that are gratuitous and unacceptable.
I appreciate that freedom of speech is part of freedom of expression. Aside from the difficulties, there is a lot to be gained from disagreement, provided we keep in mind to resolve issues and problems better and to discover the truth. At a deeper level it is about valuing every human being.
The problems with Bibles, Qurans and Torahs is that people draw very different interpretations from them. The same is true for the volumes of Das Kapital. Needless to say, I have not read any of these volumes. So I would not ban them
A practical test is not to engage in interpersonal hostility and retain a sense of humour. Who knows we all learn from engaging in the process of democratic dialogue. Could that be possible?
wmmb
14 Mar 13 at 12:38 am
Yes, like the verses in the Koran calling for eternal hell-fire for non-believers.
No, that is NOT the problem with these books. The problem is that they advocate fanatical hatred and eternal torture of non-believers. There are literally hundreds of verses in the Koran which state in gruesome detail what is going to happen to people who do not believe in Allah, including instruments of torture, scorching oil, hellfire, etc. There is no room for interpretation at all. I don’t think, for instance, “slay the idolators wherever you find them” is a just a roundabout way of saying “smother them with kisses”.
A brilliant non sequitur – next up, if someone commits a murder that you don’t hear about, they shouldn’t be prosecuted!
There is nothing whatever to discuss with the Left.
Fisky
14 Mar 13 at 8:36 pm
Dear Chief Inquisitor Fisky,
Is my Bible safe? Will I be allowed to continue to read the works of the Church Fathers, St. Anselm, St. Aquinas, and so on?
Yours humbly,
dover_beach
dover_beach
14 Mar 13 at 8:49 pm
You will, as soon as Braggs, Wmmmb all the other Leftist clowns explain why they aren’t calling for the Koran to be banned. It seems to be a slight contradiction in their worldview – wanting to lock Bolt up for being naughty about some racial issue while giving the Koran a pass.
Fisky
14 Mar 13 at 9:03 pm
Frisky, I was unaware of my entertainment value, as you seem to imply. I am often quite amused at what I see here.
Quite seriously, polarized, black and white thinking, is unhealthy both individually and collectively. It is both uncivilized and “uncivilizing”.
I defend very strongly, the right of “morons”, or any other category of persons, to express themselves. I would hope to have the patience to listen carefully, and so understand what is said.
Mr Bolt’s newspaper comments seemed to me, from memory, to be fragrant, and intentional. In other words, he could have expressed himself in a way that didn’t cause offense, and in doing so make a stronger case. Why didn’t he try?
OK, there is a problem about the limits of free speech, and you then have to look at particular cases. Do they represent substantial or important limitations on freedom of expression?
There are people who are experts in the interpretation of texts of the Bible, the Torah and the Quoran. This is an issue related to respect for freedom of belief.
A notable aspect of the Quoran is the respect given to other Abrahamic religions. We have to remember the formative influences and context for the development of these religions are very different, although with common threads. Furthermore, as regards interpretation, the text of the Quoran is a particular form of Arabic.
The intolerance among Muslims matches the historic intolerance among Christians. where did that go?
wmmb
15 Mar 13 at 11:10 pm
No, we don’t have to take that into account at all. That the Koran is a plagiarized version of the Old Testament is neither here nor there. What matters is that both books are morally worse than Mein Kampf, and that anyone who bases their morality on these books belongs in a mental asylum, assuming they don’t end up in The Hague first.
If that is your way of saying that I only need to wait another 500 years or so before Moslems start behaving themselves, then I am decidedly unimpressed. The only thing that matters is that their morality, insofar as it is based on the Koran, is disgusting. The further they depart from that book, the better; and many do just that. But the book itself is a source of evil, and should, under your criteria, be banned.
But you aren’t interested in doing anything about actual evil, just trimming the edges of right-wing speech that you don’t like. For this reason, your views would be totally prohibited under the Fisk Doctrine.
Fisky
15 Mar 13 at 11:20 pm
Despite, Sinclair’s censure, not totally unjustified, I am aware of “the Frisk Doctrine”. It concerns me. And you are not alone in adopting similar position. I oppose them all because I think that as citizens it is our responsibility to be democratic in practice.
As with the Bible, even the Old Testament, and the Torah, the Quoran can be a source of good and evil. It depends on interpretation. Not all Islamic belief is of one kind, either historically or contemporaneously, much like Christianity in general, or for example Catholicism. And as you might imagine I tend to favour the pagans, although I would make an exception for the Roman Emperors.
I think it is misguided and wrong for you on the basis of at best a superficial understanding to disparage Islam and its sacred texts, which is offensive and ignores the significant cultural and individual accomplishments of Islam
Offense here means that we all grow up in cultural context that gives us meaning and direction. It defines who we are. It depends on the person to some extent, but it is not a trivial matter.
The case of Mein Kampf is significantly different,and in Germany, if it is banned there, it is still necessary to read for an understanding of the rise of Fascism. I think the better response, although hard for some of us, is the recourse to reason and argument, which might be then tested.
wmmb
16 Mar 13 at 3:20 am
How can you credibly claim that Fisky is taking an “at best superficial understanding” of Islam when you have not read their seminal doctrine? How on god’s green earth would you know? You haven’t read it. And its texts are sacred? Again, you haven’t read it. And since you haven’t read the Koran, I suspect you haven’t read the Hadiths (which are even more evil than the Koran).
How can you claim Fisky is misguided and wrong? Any fair-minded person would effortlessly come to the conclusion that, due to your own confession that you haven’t even bothered to read the texts you’re defending, are not even remotely informed enough to make such judgements.
Massive, massive faceplant. Go away and be embarrassed, Scrabble Fantasy Word.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 4:28 am
No, it doesn’t depend on interpretation. It is entirely down to ignoring the calls for violence/genocide and pretending God was on holiday or something when that stuff was written. I’m not very impressed by this rationalisation at all, to be honest.
You have already admitted to having no understanding at all. The end.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 12:07 pm
This is what happens, with respect to the last comments. We stop listening to the what the other person is saying because we think their is an argument to be won, not truth to be discovered. I am as much at fault.
I am confident that I know enough from some haddiths of the Prophet and from a general sense of history, including the Crusades and the Inquisition to make a judgment. My reference, for example, to the Torah, seems to have escaped you.
However, I did learn a lot if only from expressing what I thought. Thank you for the responses, in particular yours Frisky. You left me with an question, which I did not recognize at the time but thought of later, What gives rise to evil, particularly if we assume that people are inherently good?
wmmb
16 Mar 13 at 2:31 pm
Wmmmb, I would be delighted to discover what you think you know about the Crusades, and the Inquisition for that matter, but I also shouldn’t get my hopes up given your epistemological crimes on this thread – chastising someone for quoting a text “out of context” and then admitting you know nothing about the text, but later maintaining that you still have enough of a “sense” to make a judgment anyway. This is totally unacceptable.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 4:45 pm
It’s cases like these which the Fisk Doctrine should deal with. There is no point discussing an issue with a leftist who, by their own admission, has no actual knowledge of what they’re defending.
In fact, in this particular case, I think the state should adopt a merciful approach and actively cure the leftist of their ailment using the latest advances in psychiatric medicine and techniques.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 5:52 pm
OCO, there is no doubt that the Soviet Union’s great advances in political psychiatry, that country’s only genuine contributions to humanity, would be well-applied in the case of Leftists. It would be such a waste not to put the USSR’s extensive research in this sadly-underutilised field into practice, on the Left and only the Left.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 6:11 pm
So a short summary of the Fisk Doctrine is to have a hissy fit whenever someone you don’t agreee with tries fo engage you in discussion.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 6:24 pm
Fisky is right! In these dire times, it is necessary to think outside the box and look in improbable places for solutions and cures for Leftism (sorry, forgot it’s a proper noun now). And the Soviet Solution sounds like a thoroughly pragmatic and proportionate response to the grave threat that the Left-afflicted pose to our wellbeing.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 6:34 pm
If you have been reading carefully, sdfc, you’ll note that wmmb has been doing nothing of the sort. Claming that my views on a text are ‘offensive’ and ‘out of context’ while also admitting that he hasn’t read any of the text, does not qualify as discussion to my mind.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 6:35 pm
No. Nurse! Sedate the patient!
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 6:36 pm
SDFC
Leftism is a serious mental illness and needs to be treated as such. Failure to recognize this leads many people to lead unhappy unfulfilled lives.
We’re better than that which is why the Fisk Doctrine supports medical intervention in a case of leftism Syndrome. Leftism syndrome means part of the brain isn’t working well which therefore means a little shock therapy would certainly help. Sov style.
JC
16 Mar 13 at 6:38 pm
SDFC
Leftism is a serious mental illness and needs to be treated as such. Failure to recognize this causes many people to lead unhappy unfulfilled lives.
We’re better than that which is why the Fisk Doctrine supports medical intervention in a case of leftism Syndrome. Leftism syndrome means part of the brain isn’t working well which therefore means a little shock therapy would certainly help. Sov style.
JC
16 Mar 13 at 6:40 pm
sdfc, we want to promote shocical coheshun, remember, and free, compulsory medicine is but one valuable tool in our endeavours.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 6:44 pm
What hasn’t he read Fisky. Your “doctrine” that people you disagree with should not have free speech?
Just look at OCO, who used to be a seemingly reasonable commenter but who now acts like a screaming queen when someone disagrees with him.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 6:53 pm
What’s wrong with out health system? It has shown itself to be far more effective than the US system.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 6:55 pm
Many libertarians argue that there are very few services that are better provided collectively (ie by government). One of those is national defence, another upholding the rule of law, another is epidemic control. And that’s what we’re dealing with here. An outbreak of Leftism. Free inoculations against this highly contagious disease and free, compulsory treatment for those afflicted with it fits perfectly within the small government ideology.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 6:55 pm
SDFC: have you actually read the post? You would be a prime target for the FD’s attention. There is no point discussing this with the likes of you.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 6:57 pm
No, when I pointed out that the Koran is a substantial source of hate speech, he claimed I had taken it out of context while admitting he hadn’t read any of it. That’s not a ‘dialogue’ at all.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 6:58 pm
Of course, once you are cured of your ailment and ready to re-enter civil society, you will automatically attain full rights of a free individual, which is your birthright.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 6:59 pm
That is so true. One day, we can expect epidemiology to be so sophisticated that it will be possible to trial a childhood vaccine against Leftism. As you say, this would not violate small government principles at all.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 7:00 pm
Fisky – SDFC is also unaware of what he’s defending. There is no dialogue to be had with him, either. He is ill. He deserves mercy and needs to be cured.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 7:03 pm
I have noticed that. Twice I brought his attention to wmmmb’s offending statements, and twice he failed to grasp the problem. There is a systematic deficiency in his brain circuitry that conventional techniques have thus far failed to detect.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 7:07 pm
” particularly if we assume that people are inherently good?
Who thinks this?
I ain’t and I bet most of you ain’t.
I would eat children if I was hungry. How am I good?
WhaleHunt Fun
16 Mar 13 at 7:07 pm
Fisky
Did he say he’d never read any of the Koran? I’ve a a look a couple of times and didn’t see where he said that.
However I have read some of hte Koran (before bailing out due to boredom) and it indeed does have some good stuff in there.
I don’t tend to pin by attitude to Muslins on a 7th century text.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:08 pm
240 volts through both temples ought to resolve the problems he’s facing.
JC
16 Mar 13 at 7:12 pm
sdfc, wmmmb said the following:
When we detected that he had apparently admitted to not having read the Koran, he did not contradict this, and only later claimed to have read parts of the Hadith (in fact, the Hadith is worse than the Koran, as it includes a famous call for the extermination of all Jews, quoted in Hamas’s written constitution).
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 7:14 pm
JC cheering from the boundary. What a nancy.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:14 pm
Yes he did. And did Fisky say that the Koran lacked “some good stuff”?
These inabilities to reason and perceive reality are symptoms of your illness, SDFC. Don’t worry, you will be treated soon and recover.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 7:15 pm
To clarify further, sdfc, wmmmb’s very slightly ambiguous statement was in response to a previous point I made about the need to ban the Koran and Communist texts for inciting violence.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 7:16 pm
So he did not say it then.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:16 pm
Why would you ban any religious or political text?
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:17 pm
He certainly has not denied the accusation, so I rather think his intention was to say it. In the context of what he was in fact responding to, it is more likely than not.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 7:19 pm
See the problem? I’m trying to help you SDFC. I’m suggesting electric shock treatment to help you and all I get is this abuse. Shame on you.
JC
16 Mar 13 at 7:19 pm
Payback. Most certainly and without equivocation payback to the Australian left for trying to curtail free speech as a way to stop criticism of them.
Absolute in your face payback.
JC
16 Mar 13 at 7:23 pm
JC is likely involved in productive work at present and does not have time to help induct you into the Fisk Doctrine programme of epidemic control. I’m sure he will generously donate some of his time to the cause later, however. It’s a labour of love – assisting our fellow men and women to rid themselves of what ails them and lead better lives.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 7:24 pm
So I need shock treatment for advocating public health care and education?
See the problem with your doctrine Fisky?
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:24 pm
It is unlikey that JC earns much if any more money than me OCO so run along lickspittle.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:27 pm
In the case of the Koran, I would not ban it, for this would be impossible. But publication would require Roxonite health labels stating clearly that the text is not to be preached as the literal word of God, and that the verses calling for the slaying of idolators and the beating of wives are illegal in most jurisdictions. Whilst it would be an offence to preach these verses openly, anyone claiming that they don’t exist or mean what they clearly do would be Finklesteined for a lengthy period. We cannot have people arguing for absence as a backdoor to achieving false respectability.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 7:29 pm
OCO
Of course I would donate my time. I’d be more than happy to administer the shock therapy to SDFC and know he’d thank after I’ve cured him of his mental illness.
This is a great example of my humanitarian instincts. I’ve always been a great, great humanitarian.
JC
16 Mar 13 at 7:31 pm
Okay.. how much do you earn, Larissa? Run it by me.
JC
16 Mar 13 at 7:32 pm
So you’re against freedom of speech Fisky?
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:32 pm
This virulent, delusional lashing out at others is another symptom of Leftism, which resembles rabies the more it is studied. Fascinating. The Fisk Doctrine will of course provide much needed funding to further this vital research.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 7:33 pm
Yes OCO
The pecking order is very important to them.
JC
16 Mar 13 at 7:39 pm
No, as a consistent Roxonite, I just think the public deserve to be informed about the dangers they might face. We need more warning labels, public health announcements, early childhood interventions etc.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 7:40 pm
Fuck me Fisky now comments are going missing. Get your shit together, I pay good money to comment on this site.
JC
My position on the income bell curve suggests it is likely I earn more money than you. I used the word likely for a reason genius.
You go first day trader. How much?
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:41 pm
Who says all lefties are Roxonites?
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:43 pm
I had someone else make the same comment here, SDFC. I honestly don’t understand the obsession with earning relativities that some people like you focus on.
Lets say I make enough money that lets me live an okay life along with others I support.
If you make more money than I do more power to you as I really don’t care seeing it’s not a zero sum game as most leftists like you seem to believe.
JC
16 Mar 13 at 7:47 pm
Swannies are in front late in the last quarter. I know you’re interested.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:48 pm
I think you mean who says all Roxonites are Lefties, but never mind that. We can go over that when you’re in the institution.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 7:51 pm
Under proper medical supervision, I should add.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 7:52 pm
JC
I don’t disagree. I’m an advocate of equality of opportunity not income equality.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:53 pm
All lefties are roxonites or just closet Roxonites, SDFC.
Get real.
JC
16 Mar 13 at 7:53 pm
OCO you’re not contributing. You come across as the weedy guy standing behind the big dogs egging them on.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:54 pm
I’m a lefty JC. I’m not a Roxonite. Your theory fails at the first hurdle.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 7:56 pm
It’s ok, SDFC. These delusions will go away with treatment.
Isn’t the standard of labour in the public service disgraceful? Even at high positions, apparently. Of course, this is primarily due to the fact these government institutions are peopled primarily by Leftism sufferers. After the Fisk Doctrine is implemented, efficiency within the public service will skyrocket, meaning many positions will become redundant. That isn’t a problem because huge numbers of those cured of Leftism will seek alternative, more productive careers as soon as they are welcomed back into society.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 8:12 pm
So you’re a digruntled public servant. What a surprise.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 8:19 pm
What’s the matter, pissed off the PS doesn’t see your real value? Quit and get a job in the private sector pansy.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 8:28 pm
Now in this case we can see a patient suffering from Leftism exhibiting the classic symptoms of the disease. The disease means the patient is unable to properly comprehend even simple statements made by those he disagrees with. You may also have noticed he lacks the self-awareness to realise he just lashed out at a 3rd party for failing to comprehend a statement he had made just previously. This is also a classic symptom of the illness. This patient is in the advanced stages of the disease, and in such a case, the normal course of action would be rapid high-level intervention which would include social isolation in a high-care facility and extensive medical and psychological therapy. The prognosis is sound, but the treatment expensive, so it is recommended that only the most severely afflicted receive this kind of care. For the majority of Leftist sufferers, a programme of pharmaceutical treatment plus outpatient therapy should be sufficient to cure them.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 8:30 pm
Still nothing to contribute I see. There is nothing Sadder than the right wing PS.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 8:35 pm
My capital employs people OCO. How about you?
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 8:37 pm
The patient’s sense of humour is also severely curtailed by the disease, and they are liable to make outlandish claims about others in the hope of appearing witty and/or incisive. Usually, any insights they may have gleaned stem from the perpetual confusion they find themselves in due to disruptions the disease causes to the Central Nervous System. Other Leftist sufferers usually find Leftist attempts at humour amusing, but those not affected by the disease seldom do.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 8:37 pm
Given up on your “free speech” crusade then Fisky?
Tell us again how people you disagree with will be dennied free speech.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 8:40 pm
Why, I am a rich man. Very very rich, and my income is enormous. Bigger than yours. I have capital. I own property. This employs people. I also make a point of going on the internet and telling everyone about this, and I am universally believed.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 8:40 pm
Tillman used to tell everyone he was loaded, too. Aha! Another symptom of Leftism!
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 8:42 pm
OCO, the only PS worth his salt apparently. Maybe your problem is a lack of ability.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 8:42 pm
I have no reason to lie to strangers. I say nothing out of the ordinary. That you believe I do suggests you are a taxeater. And not a very good one.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 8:44 pm
Delusions of grandeur, more often than not involving unprovoked interjections about the patient’s high net worth in situations where this would be impossible to verify. It has been mooted by researchers in Japan that this particular delusion is linked to the inherent sense of envy Leftists display towards those they perceive as being more successful than them, however this has yet to be proven in a clinical environment. Further study is recommended.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 8:47 pm
Now we’re seeing the outlandish inferences that may strike the untrained eye as buffoonish. Medical specialists must show sympathy at all times, regardless of what ridiculous nonsense the patient may come out with. It can be difficult, but try to maintain your professional composure. Giggling is not recommended.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 8:51 pm
Well, it’s been fun but I need to return to my taxeating job at late afternoon on a Saturday. Buhbye SDFC! And don’t forget, those men in the white coats who’ll be knocking at your door shortly are there to help.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 8:56 pm
Shit OCO all those pixels and not a coherent argument to be found. Good luck in your sad endeavours.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 8:59 pm
Nah, it doesn’t.
I keep pointing people to Sam Harris’s critique of not only Islam but the religious impulse in general.
Any discussion about freedom of speech and a mature society must focus on religion because religion is fundamentally against free speech, or at least free speech without dire consequences.
So, while I agree with Fisky’s excellent essay as far as it goes in respect of the left I think his comments about religion also go some way to addressing this core issue of religion.
For instance should freedom of religion allow incitment to violence which the practice of Islam inexorably does; to this end I would not ban the Koran but I would closely control preaching based on it.
How would that work given the extreme violence muslims have manifested at even ‘slights’ against their beliefs; how are they going to react when some infidel listens to Friday Mosque proceeding where mullah joe is invoking his flock to oppose and defeat the heathens.
The left are flat-track bullies and have got away with their bullshit, as Fisky says, because they have changed the rules of discourse; but how are you going to deal with Islam when they can’t even prosecute those who shot up Lakemba police station; here is ground zero for the Fisky doctrine.
cohenite
16 Mar 13 at 9:44 pm
Yes Cohenite, the scientist, that didn’t know CO2′s role in heating the planet is now an expert on a book he hasn’t read. Too funny for words.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 9:53 pm
Who said I hadn’t read it?
And why bring AGW bullshit into the discussion.
One of the funniest things ever to happen was after the mullahs overthrew the shah they then summarily executed all the left academics, trade unionists and msm sods.
It never fails to astound me that the left support the ‘rights’ of islam whose only intention is to remove the rights which they use to gain influence in the first part.
The point here is that to protect an individual rights based social structure how much do you infringe the rights of sections of the community whose values threaten that social structure.
The left have not even reached the stage of understanding that point.
cohenite
16 Mar 13 at 10:01 pm
And why bring AGW bullshit into the discussion.
Because you’re a dickhead.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 10:02 pm
How refreshing Catallaxy is where people bereft of a point can be wedged into that little space which represents that paucity and be left with nothing but a witless diatribe.
cohenite
16 Mar 13 at 10:07 pm
I am just trying to understand how a “scientist” can have no idea how the planet heats.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 10:09 pm
Why ask me, ask the pricks who are pushing the AGW scam.
cohenite
16 Mar 13 at 10:12 pm
So is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Come on man. Are you as a “scientist” turning over climate science itself?
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 10:13 pm
Fisky, do you mind this fuckwit derailing your thread? I mean I’m happy to engage him and I guess the scam of AGW is being used by the left as a justification to close down debate and free speech; it was after all the primary reason offered by Finkelstein as a justification to curtail the influence of the press in subverting the minds of the general public.
cohenite
16 Mar 13 at 10:16 pm
Freedom of speech Cohenite. You totalitarian.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 10:18 pm
What are you trying to engage me on?
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 10:20 pm
Now, that’s an interesting point; this is Fisky’s thread; should he have control over who comments and what they comment on; obviously that would contradict his point, except in respect of derailing and trolling.
Should he set parameters as a matter of proprietal right which is a fundamental individual right always at threat from a centralised authority, or should he allow this thread to go wherever as an intellectual seredipity?
cohenite
16 Mar 13 at 10:25 pm
I’m not trying to argue with you. Free speech should not be discussed with Leftists. If you actually got around to reading the head post, you might have a better chance of understanding the point Fisky was making, and also why your constant questioning “so you don’t believe in free speech?” is ridiculous. It’s ok, though. It’s not your fault. You need treatment. And under the Fisk Doctrine, you will get it.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 10:43 pm
Any doctrine worth its salt to be able to be able to stand up to dissent without resorting to censorship.
Freedom of speech appears foreign to the adherent of the fisk doctrine.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 10:45 pm
No you have not tried to argue with me OCO. You’ve resorted to calling me a liar and mentally ill.
On evidence you, in short, are a dickhead incapable of argument.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 10:52 pm
You are. I pity you. Hopefully you will get the treatment you need soon. Then after that we can argue to your heart’s delight. While you’re afflicted with Leftism, however, there is no point discussing anything with you.
Oh come on
16 Mar 13 at 10:59 pm
“So is CO2 a greenhouse gas?”
Since massive increases in the concentration of it over the last 16 years have not heated the planet to a statistically significant extent, to that extent no it isn’t.
The atmosphere of the earth is not a bell jar. It works differently. There are a multitude of factors affecting. The contribution of O=C=O to temperature is presumably present but our last 16 year long experiment has proven the contribution to be insignificant. So for all practical purposes it is not a GHG.
WhaleHunt Fun
16 Mar 13 at 11:06 pm
So Whalehunt is throwing in his lot with the heretics.
I assume there is a paper you can cite that overturns accepted science on how the planet heats.
OCO
Sad arse PS unable to make an argument. It’s no wonder you are been overlooked.
sdfc
16 Mar 13 at 11:10 pm
Jeez, how about some physics.
The greenhouse has assumption involves a whisper thin layer of gas enveloping a thermally resistive object called the earth. Any change in the thermal state of the atmospheric gas envelop has no chance of altering the magnitude greater thermal mass of the earth itself.
So SDFC, how does the planet heat?
Louis Hissink
16 Mar 13 at 11:16 pm
Yeah, one of them is that great big glowing ball in the sky but for some reason the climate “scientists” never factor that into their predictions.
So SDFC, how does the planet heat?
Gab
16 Mar 13 at 11:18 pm
I don’t approve, naturally, but at the same time, it is helpful that the long-overdue publication of the Doctrine has flushed out so many of the wreckers and malcontents in one go.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 11:37 pm
The sun heats the planet, sdfc; whatever role GHGs play, it is that of insulating, not of heating. Words meaning something.
dover_beach
16 Mar 13 at 11:38 pm
I for one am delighted that Finkelstein will bequeath such valuable tools of repression to non-Leftists.
Fisky
16 Mar 13 at 11:40 pm
And here we see further symptoms of the disease. Instantly and rather pathetically recycling a jibe posted their way right back at the person who made it, as if no one would notice. The disease’s degenerative effects on the productive centres of the Leftist brain means that those suffering from it often lack the imagination and wit to think up their own material, so they often crib from others. It isn’t unlikely that they will simply take a line directed at them prior and simply send it back in practically identical form. This can become confusing to the person from whom the jibe originated, because surely no one could go full-retard that hard, right? A common response to this is often ‘What, you’re just going to say the same shit back at me as what I just said to you then? Get a fucking act, you pitiful clown.’
It’s important to realise that this kind of behaviour seems perfectly reasonable to the Leftist, and they may become confused when you start pointing out how pinching a verbal barb from an opponent and then using it in your next exchange is an acheingly weak tactic. Nevertheless, it’s essential that calm medical heads prevail. Recommended that, in the context whereby the leftists are deploying such statements, call your local police lines and describe the situation. You will be instantly transferred to a patient and sympathetic agent of the Fisk Doctrine. Let them take it from there. You have already served your society greatly, And they will know what to do to help the disease-ridden Leftist cast off their shackles. The Fisk Doctrine people are very compassionate, let’s not forget.
Oh come on
17 Mar 13 at 5:38 am
“Greenhouse” is such a stupid concept to begin with; greenhouses do not heat by radiative processes, they heat by curtailing convection.
The whole premise of the greenhouse effect is wrong to begin with.
sdfc should enlighten us by explaining how CO2 specifically, as the deus ex machina of AGW, causes heating.
cohenite
17 Mar 13 at 9:54 am
Yea, like I’ve heard that 1000 times before. They are just weasel words, that’s all.
Look doofus, you suggested earlier you’re a big high income earner- one of the highest in the country. (Frankly I don’t understand that and would count it as one of the few examples of true market failure. But I digress).
So you’re sending your kids to private school instead of the public one down the road? In your leftwing world you don’t consider that ought to be possible. But then these sorts of things only apply to others and not yourself, right?
I mean rank hypocrisy is the golden rule in current leftism.
JC
17 Mar 13 at 10:23 am
Actually, litle is known regarding the efficacy of treating Leftism with ECT. The Fisk Doctrine advocates the scientific study of new and existing forms of treatment of mental disorders to see if they can also be used in the treatment of Leftism. Therefore, clinical trials of ECT on Leftism patients is the only responsible approach to best help these poor people recover. Cheery Dr Joe will be in charge of these important trials.
Oh come on
17 Mar 13 at 7:40 pm
Sinclair, I agree with you about talking to people with whom you are likely to disagree. The polarized view of the world is probably just another category error. But look how this discussion has ended? What is your take on this outcome?
wmmb
19 Mar 13 at 3:18 am
[...] at Catallaxy proposes The Frisk Doctrine. I have not Frisky’s permission to quote him, nor have I advised him I would reference him [...]
ARTS OF THE POLIS | DUCKPOND
20 Mar 13 at 12:39 am
Fairfax editorials calling for the election of a conservative government has a history going back 100 years. It is like asking the Guardian to endorse voting Tory.
did you miss the growth in government and the welfare state after 1945?
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 12:01 am
Ortega has been president of Nicaragu since 2007! check your facts.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 12:09 am
No Rose, you are not allowed to play “look over there” after your being caught plagiarizing.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 12:54 am
CO2 is generally considered responsible, a little, along with water, a lot, to cause the average temperature of the Earth to be above zero instead of below.
This does not mean that more results in. higher temp, but it does contribute. Infrared that would radiate directly to space is absorbed and converted to heat. in the atmosphere. Presumably there is some contribution by the glass in a glasshouse. The glass absorbs infrared emitted from inside and passes this as heat to the air inside and out. It may not be the dominant contributor to the temp, but it is a contribution.
WhaleHunt Fun
31 Mar 13 at 1:15 am
But putting a second glass house outside the first, and then a third and fourth will have less and ver less effect.
So once all the infrared is being absorbed there is bollocks effect whn you add more glass…… or CO2
WhaleHunt Fun
31 Mar 13 at 1:17 am
Evening all
WhaleHunt Fun
31 Mar 13 at 1:18 am
Fisky, I was just pointing out the poor quality of your analysis. as you go on:
You and the Left should spend time at the pub exchanging conspiracy theories. You have mutually exclusive explanations of the late 20th century.
The Left also goes on about ‘how something changed around the 1980s’.
This change was the rise of neoliberalism. The election of Reagan and Thatcher.
• What happened to the fall of the Berlin wall!
• China going capitalist just as Steven Cheung predicted in 1980.
Blair, Clinton Hawke and Keating are denounced by the Left as neoliberals too.
You missed all of these people in your analysis as well. Howard just rounded off the work of Hawke and Keating years. Labor is now firmly social democratic. Labor believes in capitalism, but with the benefits more broadly spread.
What really happened around 1980? There was neither a resurgence of neoliberalism nor a resurgence of the Left over Left – to borrow from Ronald Radosh’s autobiography’s title – as suggested by you.
Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, Clinton, Hawke and Keating saved the welfare state from bankruptcy.
The studies starting from Peltzman showed that governments grew in the mid-20th century in line with the growth in the size and homogeneity of the middle class that was organised and politically articulate enough to implement Director’s law.
Peltzman pointed out that most of modern public spending is supported by the median voter. Most of this spending is income transfers.
After the 1970s stagnation, the taxed, regulated and subsidised groups had an increasing incentive to converge on new lower cost modes of redistribution.
Reforms ensued led by parties on the left and right, with some members of existing political groupings benefiting from joining new coalitions.
Becker showed that government spending grew in the 20th century because of demographic shifts, more efficient taxes, more efficient spending, a shift in the political power from the taxed to the subsidized, shifts in political power among taxed groups, and shifts in political power among subsidised groups and in particular to the elderly.
Becker showed that more efficient taxes, more efficient spending, more efficient regulation and a more efficient state sector reduced resistance by the taxed and regulated groups.
The post-1980 economic and fiscal reforms are an example of a political system converging onto more efficient modes of income redistribution as the deadweight losses of taxes and regulation grew.
Becker argued that improvements in the efficiency of taxes, regulation and spending reduced political pressure to suppress the growth of government and thus increased or prevented cuts to both total tax revenue and welfare state spending so loved by the Left. Economic regulation lessened after 1980 but social regulation grew unabated.
The post-1980 reforms by neoliberal nemesis of the Left such as Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Clinton, Hawke and Keating saved the welfare state they so love.
you missed the Left going from wanting to replace capitalism to wanting to run it better than the capitalsts can.
as for all the PC stuff that upsets you, it is an example of meddlesome preferences discussed by James Buchanan. This is where high minded, self-important people want to control others why expecting their stash of dope/sexual preferences/religious & cultural practices to be left well alone.
Much of the culture war is about resentment that the other side has had a chance to enact into law their meddlesome preferences when they were last in power. in time, most meddlesome preferences are enacted into law driving everyone crazy.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 10:32 am
Have you no shame, Jim Rose? You’re caught plagurising a number of times and you have the hide to say Fisky has poor analytical skills.
By the way, is what you have shown above your work. or stolen from another author?
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 10:57 am
pla·gia·riz·ing !
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 10:58 am
gab, Fisky does have poor analytical skills.
He subscribes to what Popper called the conspiracy theory of society in which all bad things are by intentional design. Sinster forces must always be afoot.
Fisky does not know that the main task of the social sciences for Popper and Hayek is to ‘trace out the unintended consequences of human action’.
The search for purpose and design in everything is why he (and you) obsess with content scripting in a medium where time is short for the reader and poster.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 12:34 pm
And what about addressing your plagiarism, Jim? Or are you too much of a coward? Deflecting to others to avoid your stealing authors’ words doesn’t work here.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 12:36 pm
gab, is a blog post a conversation or a publication?
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 12:47 pm
Stealing words from authors and not attributing it to them and passing it off as your own work, as you have done here on many many occasions, Jim, is plagiarising not a “conversation”.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 12:48 pm
Jim
If you passed that stuff as your own in the way you have here even in conversation I would call that dishonest.
Stop trying to excuse yourself as it’s wrong.
JC
31 Mar 13 at 12:49 pm
JC, you must have stilted conversations with long asides tracing the history of every idea you use.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 1:02 pm
The 2005 uniform defamation law established truth, fair opinion and fair reporting of public proceedings as unqualified defences nation-wide for the first time. Large corporations lost the right to sue. Non-economic damages were capped.
mostly state labor governments organised these law reforms that freed up political speech from the chilling effect of defamation writs. A major reform.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 3:23 pm
Jim, you have ensured that nobody from now on is going to pay any attention to what you write. You shouldn’t waste your own time.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 3:47 pm
Fisky, which is worse? content scripting or you getting most of your facts wrong?
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 4:07 pm
Jim, again. We don’t care. Your credibility is blown.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 4:21 pm
It is obvious. brute experience changes minds:
you overrate the role of ideas and democratic deliberation in social and political change. that cry for self-importance among intellectuals is a constructivist error.
Stigler contended that economists exert a scarcely detectable influence on the societies where they live.
He said that if Richard Cobden had spoken only Yiddish, and with a stammer, and Robert Peel had been a narrow, stupid man, England would have repealed the corn laws as its agricultural classes declined and its manufacturing and commercial classes grew in the 1840s.
As Stigler noted, when their day comes, economists seem to be the leaders of public opinion. when the views of economists are not so congenial to the current requirements of special interest groups, economists are left to be the writers of letters to the editor in provincial newspapers.
These days they would run an angry blog.
people become more interested in free speech when hate speech laws and campus speech codes might backfire on them. no one enjoys being the subject of the meddlesome preferences of others.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 4:25 pm
Jim the plagiarist, if you continue trolling this thread, I shall have to apply to have you banned from posting here.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 4:34 pm
I’m sorry but that is not satisfactory at all. We are not talking about footnoting every single idea that pops into your head. We are in fact discussing the lifting of entire paragraphs and op-ed pieces and passing them off as your own work. That’s plagiarism.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 4:39 pm
Fisky, has any part of your substantive post survived a fact check?
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 4:39 pm
I’m sorry Jim, but there is no point engaging you on any matters of substance until you confess and apologise for being a plagiarist.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 4:45 pm
Interesting, so you don’t really know what lifting stuff and pretending it’s your own is about?
Jim, stop the bullshitting.
JC
31 Mar 13 at 4:47 pm
The destruction of a political neutral public service started under Hawke but gathered full speed under Howard when he sacked half a dozen department heads.
The blue book in Washington lists 6,000 patronage appointments for a new president including several hundred requiring senate confirmation.
Takes a year or more to make all of these appointments and that is despite a large cadre of trusted party workers of genuine ability who fill these spots over their careers at various seniorities
Australia lacks a pool of talent to allow for mass sacking with every new government.
See http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/7-8/the-degradation-of-the-public-service for the case for high quality public administration.
p.s. I only once saw John Stone in action. He asked Michael Pusey where he went wrong: a first in physics and then PPE at oxford. He was not exposure to the dangerous ideas of economics until the graduate level as part of a wider major, as suggested by Pusey, but he still went off the rails.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 4:59 pm
Fisky, Hayek made a similar prediction in the road to serfdom. Many enjoyed spenting much time reminding him how wrong he was. you repeated Hayek’s error
Hayek did not anticipate eurosclerosis and Swedosclerosis. the EU is full of fully democratic countries with massive welfare states.
Tullock in the cato journal used Sweden as an example to support his argument that the basic problem with The Road to Serfdom is
Tullock wrote before the index of economic of freedom where in full flight.
One feature of Nordic welfare states is high levels of economic freedom. Denmark is ahead of the USA and not far behind Australia.
A commitment to flat marginal tax rate structures, high VAT rates, but light taxes on income from capital are common in the Nordic countries.
The Nordic Left and, more importantly, the Nordic median voter are alive to the power of incentives and not killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 5:17 pm
Rose
How can you have economic freedom when the tax rate is some of those ratholes is 65% for salaried people?
JC
31 Mar 13 at 5:20 pm
take that up with the heritage foundation. I was a bit surprised too. index construction is a balancing act
what is australa’s top marginal tax rate on labour incomes and on capital? are they higher than denmark?
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 5:23 pm
fisky, see http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2010/07/stopping-points-on-road-to-serfdom.html for a nice discussom of how you and Hayek were both wrong about socialism being an inevitable road to serfdom.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 5:29 pm
Jim, you are not listening and our hospitality is being abused. We don’t care what you have to say on any matter of substance because you are an unapologetic plagiarist.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 5:30 pm
I think the case for Sweden in particular is quite interesting.
From what I recall there is a center right coalition there and they are in the process or at least continuing the process of economic reforms, which tends to favor liberal markets. They may not have got to the tax rates as yet. However to ignore the reforms they have been making is not to do full justice to what has been going on there.
Sweden was at the top ranking of per cap income in the very early 70′s according to a Swedish free market think tank. And they progressively slipped to becoming economically sick until about a decade ago.
So perhaps Sweden ought to be used an en example of what happens when there are liberal leaning economic reforms. This doesn’t support big government!
JC
31 Mar 13 at 5:36 pm
And Jim… Fisk has a point. a fair point.
It shows the level of respect you have for this blog by continuing to do that crap and offer no apology, which of course means you’ll be at it again.
JC
31 Mar 13 at 5:37 pm
Fisky, none of your post survived a fact check.
I know that it is controversial to show this is so for a guest poster but this blog “strives to maintain the most laissez faire comments policy on the web”. There are caveats but being controversial is no crime on this blog.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 5:39 pm
Actually, Jim, everything you posted here has been factually out, totally wrong-headed and based on fantasy. But we’re not inclined to enter any dialogue with you on those matters because you are a plagiarist.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 5:42 pm
JC, that’s interesting about Sweden, but I wouldn’t discuss it in the presence of Jim Rose as he is an unapologetic plagiarist. We have nothing to say to him.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 5:45 pm
being “‘socially-oppressed’ in some way” is not a defence to defamation under Australian law. The statutory and constitutional defences are
• truth
• fair comment
• absolute privilege
• qualified privilege
• political debate
• triviality
• innocent dissemination
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 5:47 pm
JC, See http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-three-swedish-models
1. Sweden moved toward a welfare state in the 1960s, when its government sector was then about equal to that in the United States in size.
2. Sweden could afford this at the end of the era that Lindbeck labelled ‘the period of decentralization and small government’.
3. Sweden was one of the fastest growing countries between 1870 and 1960.
Swedes had the third-highest OECD per capita income, almost equal to the USA in the late 1960s, but higher levels of income inequality.
By the late 1980s, government spending grew from 30 percent of gross domestic product to more than 60 percent of GDP. Swedish marginal income tax rates hit 65-75% for most full-time employees as compared to about 40% in 1960.
Swedish economists encountered a new phenomenon they named Swedosclerosis:
1. Economic growth slowed to a crawl in the 1970s and 1980s.
2. Sweden dropped from near the top spot in the OECD rankings to 18th by 1998 – a drop from 120% to 90% of the OECD average inside three decades.
3. about 65 per cent of the electorate receive (nearly) all their income from the public sector—either as employees of government agencies or live off transfer payments.
4. No net private sector job creation since the 1950s, by some estimates!
In 1997, Lindbeck suggested that the Swedish Experiment was unravelling.
Sweden is a classic example of Director’s Law. Once a country becomes rich because of capitalism, politicians look for ways to redistribute more of this new found wealth to the middle class.
no need to refer to socialism or the road to serfdom. Director’s law explains all.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 5:51 pm
see http://super-economy.blogspot.se/ for an excellent blog on sweden and the Eu from a classical liberal viewpoint.
the blogger is a Kurdish Swed late of Economics and then Public Policy at the University of Chicago
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 6:02 pm
Ah I see Jim has been here all day still plagiarizing. People who cannot write for themselves steal the work of others.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 6:35 pm
Gab, now that is a false allegation.fact checking is not your strong suit
I spent the day fact checking fisky for this tread anyway.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 6:47 pm
You have no credibility here, Jim. Fact check all you like but stop your plagiarizing.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 6:48 pm
Actually, Jim, you’ve been cutting and pasting rubbish which no one is interested in reading. Elsewhere you have been plagiarizing freely.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 6:50 pm
Where have i content scripted today?
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 6:54 pm
Jim
Blogs aren’t formal places.. that’s of course true. However there is a form of blog etiquette that people follow.
You don’t have to cite like it was an academic paper.. but you can make a reference that you picked this up or that from some place. I do that lots of times. I mostly forget where I got it from and say so without the need to link (which I can’t, if I’ve forgotten where it came from).
JC
31 Mar 13 at 6:57 pm
Many times I’d like to steal someone else’s words and pass them off as my own in order to sound smart. But I just can’t do it. It’s sleazy and pathetic.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 6:59 pm
Heard a very funny story today from a friend.
The family had a dog when he was growing up. It was a cross between a bulldog and some bull sort of terrier and the only thing that was ever on its mind was food… and then more food
Anyways this dog was seriously hurt in a car accident but it still managed to get itself home go into the kitchen and attack all the food that was lying on the island until there was nothing left while no one was home.
They knew it had been hit because it left a trail of blood from the road to the kitchen bench that was easily followed.
JC
31 Mar 13 at 7:03 pm
No Jim you haven’t ‘content scripted’. The technical term is plagiarism.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 7:04 pm
Oh no – not Fisky here to explain the Fisk doctrine..
as far as I could make out from previous readings it means you (secretly) kill all lefties once in power?
Doesnt it Fisk?
I dont think thats a good idea.
Alice
31 Mar 13 at 7:11 pm
I take this as evidence all lefties should be exterminated according to Fisk
“Where am I going with this? I am totally opposed to discussing freedom of speech with people who only pay lip service to it, and who reject it at the deepest level. Instead, we must openly talk about the uselessness of Leftism, and how it wouldn’t be missed at all if it were to disappear.”
So all discussion is over and we should kill any (openly useless) leftie who disagrees and they should be made to “disappear”.
Be careful where your useless extremist doctrines take you fisk lest you move on to the mentally diabled, the homosexuals, the dissidents, the jews
Your doctrine is nothing more than intolerant shite Fisk and Ill be the first to say so. (and people like you need to crawl back under the rock where you mormally inhabit.) God knows why the f***** Fisk doctrine ever got airplay in the first place.
Alice
31 Mar 13 at 7:16 pm
JC! I hat tip when i remember where i got material.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 7:18 pm
Sorry Jim but you are on Fisky’s hit list.
Alice
31 Mar 13 at 7:21 pm
No it isn’t actually about that at all Alice. Try again.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 7:21 pm
No you don’t. You copied entire paragraphs from the National Review without attribution.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 7:22 pm
I’m not surprised that you would, given you’re not very bright and spend most of the day drinking.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 7:24 pm
And JC – of speech was really free and not biased let me give you an example..
The papers hire Howes to speak about labor because he is an idiot and when he speaks about labor they know he is an idiot..
If you want to push a view one way you hire morons and idiots to speak about the other side.
Alice
31 Mar 13 at 7:24 pm
Fisk – the great Fisk – has to resort to a drinking insult directed at me.
Sad but expected from a moron.
Woeful fisk and I thought you were held in some esteem here.
Truth is you cant answer me truthfully because you are a blind one sided extremist crackpot. We all know what your “how would they be missed’ comments mean.
Mad, bad and dangero and so are you. Answer that.
Alice
31 Mar 13 at 7:28 pm
No we don’t “all” know that actually Alice, probably because you are the only person who has seriously drawn that conclusion.
That’s because you are not a normal person, but a crank who needs medical assistance in rehab.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 7:31 pm
Bullshit Fisky – you have been pushing the “when we get into power lets just exterminate the opposition” for some time now
It aint no sectret.
You are a ratbag.
Nothing special in my books.
Alice
31 Mar 13 at 7:32 pm
Hope you’ve got Alice in poll position #1 on your list, Fisk.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 7:33 pm
Fisky – its you that desperately needs some form of rehab. You have a major hate problem in your mind.
Alice
31 Mar 13 at 7:33 pm
If I have been pushing that line “for some time now”, then it would be quite easy for you to produce a quote.
Oh that’s right, you can’t, because you don’t reside in reality but rather in your own world of fabulism and delusion.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 7:35 pm
Yeah Gab – get ight behind Fisky’s doctrine. I can see you being the Eva Koch of the new millenium.
A brainless “I belong to this tribe” wife, and no other ideas count.
Yeah thats you Gag.
Alice
31 Mar 13 at 7:37 pm
You’re still having trouble spelling my name, Alice. It’s only three letters but perhaps that’s just expecting too much from you to grasp.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 7:39 pm
Fisky – you think you are a star because others quote the “Fisk doctrine’ here.
Why dont you put the words of the FIsk doctrine right here now so every can see and judge for themselves. You have made enough quotes on it before. Its your doctrine.
So post it openly cretin or shut up.
Alice
31 Mar 13 at 7:39 pm
I renamed you Gag, Gab for personal reasons.
Alice
31 Mar 13 at 7:41 pm
I already have. It’s compiled and expliciated in a Guest Post titled: “The Fisk Doctrine Explained”.
Oh wait a minute, this is the Guest Post! Now let’s see if you can find where I called for the political opposition to be exterminated, Alice.
GO!
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 7:43 pm
Sorry, “explicated”
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 7:44 pm
Very petty of you, Alice.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 7:44 pm
People do change their minds. Labor lost 1 million votes federally in the last few years. even more were lost at the recent state elections.
For a review of how as people hit middle age their youthful radicalism is replaced by conservatism see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7887888/Champagne-socialists-not-as-left-wing-as-they-think-they-are.html
The underlying paper is based on a study of 136,000 people in the World Values Survey. The data was from 48 different countries between 1981 and 2008.
- Participants were asked to choose whether they saw themselves as left or right.
- The results were then compared with their responses to more detailed questions about their views, to determine how closely the participants own perception matched their real position on the ideological spectrum.
Well-educated individuals are more likely to wrongly characterise their political position, thinking that they are more left wing than they actually are.
a career and raising a family leads them to adopt more conservative outlooks.
One reason the left voters do not realise that they have shed their youthful liberalism is they socialise with people going through the same shift to the right.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 7:54 pm
Yes Fisk
I hear your little pasthetic agenda now as quopted directly from above
‘ I am totally opposed to discussing freedom of speech with people who only pay lip service to it, and who reject it at the deepest level. Instead, we must openly talk about the uselessness of Leftism, and how it wouldn’t be missed at all if it were to disappear.”
Lets start with the sackings and demotions and move on shall we
“The purpose of this is to change the nature of the debate, from a defensive discourse about rights that are steadily being eroded by the establishment, to a more assertive discussion about how to deal with those who oppose liberty, and who should be sacked or demoted and who should be allowed to stay on.”
Fuck you Fisky. You put all this shite behind the words of freedom yet you want to start with sackings and demotions (and much more I will bet) if people dont agree exactly with you.
Bugger off Fisk. You are just another control freak who thinks they have the only answer to liberty – as long as it is libertty according to Fisk (and if it isnt it will be sackings, demotions and possibly exterminations). Will there be a panel of three interview before people get sacked or demoted?
Fucking hypocrite contol freak.
Where is my liberty if I dont agree with you? Sacked or demoted? BS
Aliice
31 Mar 13 at 7:54 pm
Gab – I had no other alternative but to rename you Gag. You agree with the far right far too much.
Aliice
31 Mar 13 at 7:56 pm
lol So becuase I have a different view to you, you decide to be nasty. Very childish of you, Alice.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 7:59 pm
Gag,
I dont mind you agreeing with the moderate conservatives (hail) or the nationals (hail) or the agrarian socislaists like Katter (I like him) but as for agreeing with Fisky – thats really stretching it.
Aliice
31 Mar 13 at 8:00 pm
Alice, I shall take your qualification of “possibly” to mean that you don’t in fact have any evidence that the Fisk Doctrine calls for the extermination of political opponents. It took you a while, but you finally got there. Thanks.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 8:02 pm
I’ll try to give a fuck about what you do or don’t mind, one day, Alice. Just not today.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 8:03 pm
People are more likely to vote to the Right as they gain more experience of the world, have responsibilities and children, and can reflect on personally living through different policies, governments, and types of political leaders.
the before and afters of Thatcherism, Rogernomics, Reagan, the cold war, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Rise of China are for them personal memories rather than books they just read last week at university.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 8:03 pm
Now, onto the next claim. Where did I call for “sackings and demotions (and much more I will bet)” of people who “dont (sic) agree exactly” with me?
GO!
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 8:04 pm
And the broken Turing machine appears. Fantastic.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 8:05 pm
Thats OK Gab. I can wait. I dont hold a grudge but I really dont like the Fisk doctrine explained, and I think Fisk has gotten carried away with, what is in fact, an anti libertarian doctrine (only, in his peronal pursuit of liberty according to Fisk, he cant see it).
Aliice
31 Mar 13 at 8:07 pm
oh, the 7.03 comment should be on the open fred. Sorry.
JC
31 Mar 13 at 8:08 pm
Alice, you are not a libertarian so please take your concern trolling elsewhere.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 8:09 pm
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 8:09 pm
Fisy says
“Where did I call for “sackings and demotions (and much more I will bet)” of people who “dont (sic) agree exactly” with me? ”
You called it right here cretin (in your post).
, to a more assertive discussion about how to deal with those who oppose liberty, and who should be sacked or demoted and who should be allowed to stay on. Campbell Newman has shown that mass sackings are possible, and now we should take his example and give it some ideological steroids.
Steroids?
Yes obviously your brain is on steroids not to recall where you suggested sackings or demotions.
Aliice
31 Mar 13 at 8:11 pm
Alice, let’s go over this again.
Where did I call for “sackings and demotions (and much more I will bet)” of people who “dont (sic) agree exactly” with me?
Note the bold tag? Now answer the question. Go!
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 8:14 pm
Take my trolling elsehwere you bastard.
You come up with all this control freak stiff in the name of liberty and now you ask me? to take my trolling elsehwere.
This is freedom of speech, right here and now Fisky.
Who decides?
Should I volunteer for a demotion or resign in case you and your mates deem me to have opposed your version of pure liberty?
Aliice
31 Mar 13 at 8:16 pm
Read moron
Aliice
31 Mar 13 at 8:17 pm
Hurry up and answer the question, Alice, I have important work to get onto. Please tell me:
Go!
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 8:17 pm
or see Jim Rose’s post above mine.
Aliice
31 Mar 13 at 8:18 pm
Answered Fisky – now three times anwered. This is getting boring.
“Did you commit the crime/” “No’ “I repeat did you commit the crime?” “no’….”did you answer my question?” “Yes”
“are you sure?”
“yes”
Fisky says
“go” . Alice says – this is getting boring.
Aliice
31 Mar 13 at 8:22 pm
Alice, you obviously don’t understand English. To answer my own question, there is nothing in this Guest Post or any other post of mine calling for legal sanctions against people who do not “agree exactly” (note the bolded adverb) with me. Nil.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 8:23 pm
oh split hairs Fisky
You know as well as I do to drop a suggestion doesnt require precision on details and you dropped the blatant suggestion that people should be sacked or demoted (for being anti liberty) and held Campbell neuam up as your guiding star….
You sure all the people Campbell saked were anti liberty?
You interviewed them all did you?
Aliice
31 Mar 13 at 8:29 pm
No, not split hairs, a fundamental point of fact. There is nothing in this post or any other post advocating legal sanctions against people who do not “agree exactly” with me.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 8:32 pm
Fisky, didn’t bill clinton at the paula jones deposition get into a debate about the meaning of what ‘is’ is? Clinton said:
his particular ‘is’ allowed him to truthfully deny he was a relationship with lewinsky because he had not relationship with her at the time of questioning.
he later admitted that he planned to be truthful under oath but not be helpful.
HT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 8:35 pm
I don’t know enough about the Paula Jones case, and I don’t care because it is not relevant to the present discussion.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 8:37 pm
OK i will concede the minor point of agreeing “with you”.
But your post advocates legal aanctions against people who are anti liberty.
Now please tell me Fisky….who’s definition of being “anti liberty’ will invoke these sanctions of sackings and demotions against people
and then we can move on…
Aliice
31 Mar 13 at 8:37 pm
fisky, its relevance is tunneling in on a turn of words to escape accountability. you instead should be leading by example in blog manners.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 8:40 pm
That was my point Jim.
We are going round and round on who’s defintion of anti liberty will actually end up sacking people or demoting them and then of course we have not even drilled down to what being anti liberty means.
Anything too vague like this is likely to result in the worst case scenario ie people being jailed for being ‘anti liberty” and that of course is well you know …anti liberty.
Aliice
31 Mar 13 at 8:46 pm
Jim Rose, as you have not even admitted to being a plagiarist let alone apologised for it, I would kindly request that you abstain from using the word “accountability”. Thanks.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 8:48 pm
Alice, now that you have dropped both of the false claims against me and conceded your error, I will be drawing this conversation to a close. I’m just not interested in entering a discussion with you about anything significant.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 8:50 pm
sir humphrey was good at making Hacker think he had answered his questions. he did so by tunneling in on the words used.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 9:00 pm
Fisky is the self-appointed guardian of truth, justice and the blogging way, but does not like to answer questions or respond to fact checking of his guest post?
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 9:02 pm
And he resorts to ad hominem when he’s run out of ideas….
1735099
31 Mar 13 at 9:05 pm
Oh great, so now the stupid git numbers comes along and inserts himself into the argument. Good insult, numbers, well done.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 9:07 pm
numbers, Fisky does not like to respond to fact checking of his guest post.
his statements are counter-productive to his own cause, for example,
that increase the numbers who oppose you. rather than divide and rule, the treat of mass sackings force your opponents into a corner where they will fight harder because they have nothing to gain from giving in.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 9:19 pm
Bit rich coming from you, Jim the Plagiariser. You’re quick to point out what you see as wrong in others and yet you won’t even admit and apologise for your blatant plagiarising. You weak person. You coward.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 9:23 pm
Fisky, fact check the wikis on the fairfax press.
the SMH did not endorse Labor at any election until 1984 or at a state election until 2003! Bob Carr was a socialist? no one told him or the rest of the NSW Right.
The Age was a key supporter of Whitlam, but also exposed the loans affair. The Age then supported Hawke in 1983. John Fairfax Media bought a majority of shares in the Age in 1972.
newspaper slants and endorsements reflect their readers as predicted by economics and changes in media ownership do not change media slants.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 10:00 pm
You’re like Hitler pointing at Stalin and saying “He’s a bad man”.
Gab
31 Mar 13 at 10:09 pm
No, all he’s doing is stringing together non sequiturs and pretending they constitute a rebuttal. And he still hasn’t owned up to being a plagiarist.
Fisky
31 Mar 13 at 10:11 pm
Both parties chase the median voter. Elections are crucial to controlling political parties. Parties that do not connect with the median voter do not get elected.
The Left provides a minimual competent replacement for when the Right gets tired and flabby in government and needs to be spelled, feed and rested.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 10:26 pm
Jim, if we want your opinion we’ll google it.
You are the karaoke machine of commenters.
Infidel Tiger
31 Mar 13 at 10:41 pm
Fisky, the Fraser years were not the golden era that you suggest.
It was after 1980 that economic deregulation and privatisation started abroad and came to Australia in the late 1980s. growth in social regulation was unabated.
The decline in the family started in the 1960s. Church going was already terminal.
Wowserism on pornography is stronger now that is the 60s and 70s.
Friedman wrote the tyranny of the status quo in 1984 out of pessimism. He thought that big government was still the face of the future.
Peltzman wrote at the end of the 1980s about how the rapid economic deregulation in the 1980s caught the prevailing public choice theory short.
Jim Rose
31 Mar 13 at 11:04 pm
Jim says,
“Fisky is the self-appointed guardian of truth, justice and the blogging way, but does not like to answer questions or respond to fact checking of his guest post?”
Nope – he doesnt respond to questions on his great Fisk Doctrine like
a) who’s definition of being “anti liberty” will get people sacked or demoted (or jailed – or worse – come on Fisky you little cretin – fess up what you really mean by anti liberty)
b) define “anti liberty”
c) state clearly the criteria by which someone will be judged “anti liberty” with the deliberate intent of infringing the so named person’s liberty, by another person.
As for being in the company of those logical enough to argue Fisks doctrine with the illogical Fisky my thanks go to….
no not to “The Cheerleader” Gag, or to “The Word Fiddler” himself, Fisky, but to the esteemed “Plagiarist” Jim Rose.
Sorry I missed you “Potato Peeler” Numbers.
They didnt even leave us a cadbury’s chocolate in the fridge on easter sunday and they ate all the Lindors. They took serious liberties.
Aliice
1 Apr 13 at 8:12 am
Malice, I am going to lobby to have you beatified as the Cat’s patron saint of trolls.
Your constant intercession for the mentally deficient left wingers of this site is both heart warming and commendable.
Splatacrobat
1 Apr 13 at 9:37 am
Fisky and John Quiggin both talk romantically of a good old days.
For Fisky, it is the Fraser years and before.
for John Q., his golden age is the Menzies era. Big Ming appears to be John’s hero.
both recalcitrants look back at a similar period of time and see the opposite.
Fisky sees a pro-business, pro-church, pro-traditional family and wowserist status quo.
John Q. looks at the same era up to 1970 and see his social democratic ideal: a mixed economy, strong unions and the golden age of keynesianism.
I must put John Q. well ahead of Fisky as an economic historian. Hands down.
Jim Rose
1 Apr 13 at 9:58 am
I think I must as well JR. Menzies didnt shy away from bigger government projects and these did create employment which is what we need now and will never get…. with the current mindset in conservatism that the government should not build anything and should privatise the lot.
Why thankyou Splatocrat. I am honoured. Without what you call “the mentally deficient left wingers of this site” would you all be discussing SATPs bed hopping pub staff, or MK50s lobster catch or Lizzies fabulous dinner recipes?
You love the trolls too, and we know it.
(Note I do not include myself in your description and consider it always and everywhere a duty and an obligation to criticise both parties policies wherever inclined and wherever possible. Trust no-one!)
Aliice
1 Apr 13 at 3:20 pm
That bloody troll looks like me Splat!
Aliice
1 Apr 13 at 3:22 pm
I agree. many forget that Abbott is an old fashioned Tory. He will show those colours once elected and will have to be criticised for the same.
Jim Rose
1 Apr 13 at 3:28 pm
Listen JR (the right honourable plagiarist). You may as well know… Splat was laughing the other night in the open thread, that they had you me and numbers corralled here in the Fisk Inquisition Doctrine thread….LOL
We could make it our own hold…its very poorly defended…if we get any trouble, meet back here to plan the next sortie.
Aliice
1 Apr 13 at 8:27 pm