The last word

There have been a number of posts and hundreds of comments on this site relating to the Israel Folau matter.  TAFKAS has been party to many.

And this debate on this site has demonstrated the most of the best and most consequential debates are on this side of the political divide.

The other side debates who to take from and who to give to.  This side debates why to take and transfer.

The other side debates whom to reap vengeance upon.  This side debates how to build and design a just and prosperous society.

You may not agree with what is written on this site but at least we have the opportunity to have such debates.  We cannot have such debates where they are within the rubric of 18c lest we be punished by the state or forced into silence (can anyone read the Andrew Bolt articles anywhere?).

TAFKAS thanks Doom Lord and his WordPressWorkers for providing this medium and hopes the scope of discussions expand and not contract; watch out for more State Security legislation and Religious “Freedom” legislation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to The last word

  1. Bruce of Newcastle

    Right: let us reason together.
    Left: shut up, he explained.

  2. Delta

    Yes, but it seems that confidence in WordPress remaining neutral may be misplaced. A full back up may be required with a contingency to move elsewhere.

    From Breitbart on 3 July – Michelle Malkin: Big Data ‘Pulling the Plug’ on Conservatives ‘Who Might Tip the Scales’ in 2020

    Freedom of speech and expression is being continually eroded by technology companies across the internet, observed Malkin.

    “Our once-unfettered access to the internet space is no longer something that we can rely on,” warned Malkin. “It is alarming to me that this change has happened in a matter of ten, fifteen years. Currently, my blog is housed on WordPress, and I was just used to taking it for granted that WordPress would leave me alone to write what I want to write and publish what I want to publish. Yet now, there is an increasing trend of WordPress and other Silicon Valley overlords simply pulling the plug on longtime customers because they see them as threats who might tip the scales when it comes to the 2020 election cycle, or because they simply don’t like their point of view.”

  3. a happy little debunker

    “…more State Security legislation and Religious “Freedom” legislation”

    What we need is less legislation and regulation, not more.

    Less legislation covering marriage ‘rights’.
    Less legislation covering the ‘rights’ of some partial descendants of the first immigrants.
    Less legislation about offence taking.
    Less legislation over workplace conditions and workplace contracts.
    Less bureaucrats and mini autocrats would be nice.

    That is not say we should have less laws to protect the populace, but allow common law to operate as designed – justice based on social mores & precedent.

  4. Iampeter

    We cannot have such debates where they are within the rubric of 18c lest we be punished by the state or forced into silence (can anyone read the Andrew Bolt articles anywhere?).

    Which is ironic since your colleague has called for this this very kind of statist punishment on this very issue, on this very site.
    As has Bolt and other hopeless conservatives.

    This has not been some kind of “deep” political debate. Conservatives have conducted themselves like a bunch of triggered SJW’s, pushing their identity politics. Conservatives have proved what I always say about them is correct. They are just religious and politically illiterate leftists.

    Now is not the time to be patting yourselves on the back, or something.
    Now is the time for some pretty serious and honest self reflection.

  5. mh

    Which is ironic since your colleague has called for this this very kind of statist punishment on this very issue, on this very site.

    How did Rafe call for statist punishment?

  6. a happy little debunker

    Which is ironic since your colleague has called for this this very kind of statist punishment on this very issue, on this very site

    Expecting your Prime Minister ( as a man of faith, no less) to have something useful to say on a social/religious/workplace confrontation is very different from legislating willy-nilly to employ some statist punishment.

    That you cannot discern that difference should give you cause to ‘seriously and honestly self-reflect’ on your obvious desire to censure people who disagree with you.

  7. Muddy

    The other side debates who to take from and who to give to. This side debates why to take and transfer.

    The other side debates whom to reap vengeance upon. This side debates how to build and design a just and prosperous society.

    Yet we still gaze on the field with reason alone in our clammy hands, and assure ourselves that ‘No, my enemy’s tactics which have worked thus far, will work no further. In any case, moral righteousness alone will protect me and see me victorious.’ We gingerly step across the dividing line with one foot, and submit to ignorance and a certain, immediate wound.

    To draw a long bow, the Japanese in WWII had a similar mindset: that their spiritual superiority would carry them beyond the limitations of resource and manufacturing deficiencies, and an overly ambitious strategy. How did that end for them? Will we have a post-conflict benefactor that sees a benefit in not annihilating us?

    In one sense, Reincarnation of Hammy is correct: Now is not the time to be patting ourselves on the back. It is the time for reflection: Reflection and analysis of how the struggle is proceeding.

    Reason alone is a bronze age dagger; keep it in our waistband, but seek out and use multiple other tools to achieve what we believe in.

  8. Iampeter

    Expecting your Prime Minister ( as a man of faith, no less) to have something useful to say on a social/religious/workplace confrontation is very different from legislating willy-nilly to employ some statist punishment.

    So you think the head of state throwing his weight around on employment and contract disputes is not a massive threat to all our freedoms?
    You also think that the group the head of state belongs to, should play some role in his thinking on this, as opposed to requiring him to remain objective and neutral?

    But you don’t think you’re a politically illiterate leftist, pushing identity politics?

  9. Rusty of Qld

    The ony reason this shit storm is being rained down on Folaus head is because he has pointed out homosexuals must repent to enter heaven, not piss-heads, rooters, liars or ther assorted sinners they don’t count, no political,business or social clout.
    Whats the old axiom, if you want to see who rules you, see those whom you can’t talk the truth about.

  10. Tim Neilson

    Poor old Iamashiteater.

    Check out the “To Folau or not Folau” thread for a tragic example of Iamashiteater’s fact free, logic free self-beclownment.

    Read Iamashiteater for utter confusion between basic logical concepts e.g thinking that “not identical” means “mutually exclusive”, leaping from “violation of free speech rights” to “censorship” in a single bound…

    Iamashiteater’s postings on that thread are a textbook example of desperately sad Dunning-Kruger effect failure by a would-be intellectual.

    But apart from that I largely agree with this post by TAKFAS.

  11. mh

    So you think the head of state throwing his weight around on employment and contract disputes is not a massive threat to all our freedoms?
    You also think that the group the head of state belongs to, should play some role in his thinking on this, as opposed to requiring him to remain objective and neutral?

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated that he wanted the Folau issue deprived of oxygen. Iampeter argues that if the Prime Minister should not want the Folau issue deprived of oxygen it would be a “massive threat to all our freedoms”.

  12. Prime Minister Scott Morrison Turnbull, stated that he wanted the Folau issue deprived of oxygen.

    FIFY

  13. Tel

    Iamashiteater’s postings on that thread are a textbook example of desperately sad Dunning-Kruger effect failure by a would-be intellectual.

    Plus a bit of weak disguise, with a peppering of personal abuse, bluster, and pretending to be a “right wing” Randian. On every issue he just happens to demand exactly what the Democrat / Progressive movement is wanting, but hey rights protecting, blah blah blah, can’t explain it, you figure it out, blah blah blah, throw in more childish abuse.

    Pretend to be one faction, attack other factions … division and discord.

  14. a happy little debunker

    So you think the head of state throwing his weight around on employment and contract disputes is not a massive threat to all our freedoms?

    Since when is ‘saying something useful’ a tactic of totalitarianism?

    P.S. the Australian Prime Minister is not now, nor ever has been a Head of State.

    That you know so little of how this country works should be a continual embarrassment to you and is found in all your contributions.

    Still in engaging here there is a chance you will learn – so, Bravo to you!

  15. stackja

    Liberty Quote
    If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.

    — Friedrich von Hayek

  16. Tel

    stackja #3099154,

    The moment RA started accepting government money, coercion was in play. If you wanted to oppose coercion then that moment has passed.

    What’s more, all property rights (including contracts) involve some degree of the use of force … because someone gets the task of enforcing that property right. This means we need a system where it’s clear ahead of time who gets to decide what, and what a contract means and what it does not mean. So that we know ahead of time where and why force will be deployed. Who gave RA the power to decide for an entire country who gets to play sport, and under what conditions? Did you agree to that? I don’t remember agreeing to it.

    Who gives certain RA employees a bigger voice than other RA employees? Did you see anything in their “code of conduct” explaining that it applies selectively?

  17. Tel:

    Who gives certain RA employees a bigger voice than other RA employees? Did you see anything in their “code of conduct” explaining that it applies selectively?

    It was in the fine print, Tel.
    In the microdot comma on line 23 of the contract.
    They fooled us all, because microdots are supposed to be full stops – not commas.
    Cunning bastards!

  18. P

    All the debates imaginable will not alter anything for some of us.
    For me Ephesians 1:19-21 (NLT) says it all.

  19. Paridell

    The other side debates whom to reap vengeance upon.

    No, “The other side debates whom to wreak vengeance upon.” Grain is reaped; vengeance is wreaked.

    An apt quotation in this context is Deuteronomy 32:41 (Amplified version): “If I whet my lightning sword and my hand takes hold on judgment, I will wreak vengeance on my foes and recompense those who hate me.”

  20. twostix

    Any sort of religious “protection” law will be a disaster for christians.

    The state doesn’t give people the “right” to hold religious views, anymore than it defines marriage.

    Howard passing marriage definition laws was the literal platform that gay marriage stood upon. So to if the government that was born of the society we created deems itself now worthy to offer us “protection” as though it is now a separate entity from us.

    No.

  21. P

    Any sort of religious “protection” law will be a disaster for christians.

    The state doesn’t give people the “right” to hold religious views, anymore than it defines marriage.

    Exactly.

  22. Iampeter

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated that he wanted the Folau issue deprived of oxygen. Iampeter argues that if the Prime Minister should not want the Folau issue deprived of oxygen it would be a “massive threat to all our freedoms”.

    No, that’s not what I’m arguing.
    The PM’s response was perfect.
    But you religious leftists wanted him to take your side on this issue, which would constitute an actual threat to our freedoms. Unlike someone getting sacked, which is never a threat to our freedoms.

    Iamashiteater’s postings on that thread are a textbook example of desperately sad Dunning-Kruger effect failure by a would-be intellectual.

    Plus a bit of weak disguise, with a peppering of personal abuse, bluster,

    That’s right. I’m the one who doesn’t even know how “free speech” and “censorship” works and am throwing insults at the rest of you for pointing that out and triggering me.
    You’ve totally exposed me. It’s totally not the exact other way around…

  23. Amadeus

    One thing that intrigues me still is that not once have we heard from a rugby player, or for that matter an NRL player, who has been set-upon by Folau simply because the player was a homosexual. Rather Folau has been a giant of a player, the consummate sportsman, who has been respectful of all his team-mates and opponents. The fact that Folau scored more tries (as I understand it) than any other Australian representative rugby player is, I guess, bye-the-bye – obviously what you do on the field no longer matters to RA. Perhaps that explains why Australian Rugby is going down the toilet, run by turkeys who think feelings are more important than tries and winning.
    I imagine RA will soon be installing safe crying rooms for those players whose feelings have been hurt.
    The takeaway I suggest is whenever politics/political correctness enters a sport, you can kiss goodbye to the spectator interest. Since Folau left the field, my interest in rugby is virtually non-existent – the NRL and AFL are much the same….

  24. FelixKruell

    The other side debates whom to reap vengeance upon. This side debates how to build and design a just and prosperous society.

    Agree, largely.

    But keeping it civil, and arguing the point (and not the man) seems to be a problem on this side (almost) as much as the other.

  25. @FelixKruell

    But keeping it civil, and arguing the point (and not the man) seems to be a problem on this side (almost) as much as the other.

    Agreed. Very much agreed.

  26. The BigBlueCat

    The PM’s response was perfect.
    But you religious leftists wanted him to take your side on this issue, which would constitute an actual threat to our freedoms. Unlike someone getting sacked, which is never a threat to our freedoms.

    You know, I actually agree with the position that the PM shouldn’t comment on the Folau case, nor should he be introducing legislation to define “religious rights” so they might be protected – “rights” occur naturally (as opposed to coming from nature), and the only legislation that might be considered is about protecting clearly identifiable, actual rights. The risk is that government might not inadequately define “rights”, “religion”, “freedoms”, etc, and so those they try to protect might find themselves restricted in terms of the practice of their religion. Another risk is the potential for introducing “rights conflicts” where protecting someone’s “rights” interferes with another’s “rights”. Governments tend to perform poorly in this area.

    But the PM should encourage debate without punishment on issues like the Folau issue. While I am certain ScoMo is under a lot of pressure to do something regarding a Religious Discrimination Act, the reality is (under employment law at least) there is protection for being terminated because of “religion” (except where the employer enjoys certain protections – for good reasons).

    But I can’t agree with “Unlike someone getting sacked, which is never a threat to our freedoms.” In the context of Iampeter’s previous statements like “an employee can sack an employee for any reason” (which is clearly contrary to Australian law, since there are reasons that are considered unlawful), should employers (generally) be allowed to start down that road, they are not acting within their own rational self-interest. Atlas Shrugged! is not an example to be followed for run-of-the-mill employment issues. As we see with the RA/Folau case, RA has (allegedly) unlawfully terminated Folau’s employment. If found to be unlawful, then Folau should have remedies. But Iampeter is siding with RA (potentially) who has implemented (it seems) an “any reason” approach to dealing with Folau’s termination.

    If employers can sack employees “for any reason”, our employment agreements mean nothing, and it does affect us all as the threat of losing one’s job “for any reason” is dramatically increased. Clearly we aren’t free to work for that employer any more, and our other freedoms might be impinged because of loss of income, stigma, etc. Note I am not talking about rights here … but neither did Iampeter (who is possibility equivocating).

    I also note that Iampeter snuck in the word “repeated” when referring to “reasonable requests”. One refusal of a reasonable request is far different from repeated refusals. Of course, an employer can give an employee “three strikes” based on provable (non-)performance as justification for dismissal, or if the matter is egregious enough then instant dismissal might apply. But if an employee, say, refuses to run down to the shops to buy the office milk when it’s not in their job description, their refusal should not be considered a dismissable offence.

    The request might be considered “reasonable”, but in the context of what else the employee has to do under their hire agreement might prevent them from achieving the tasks they have been hired for. Yet Iampeter thinks it probably is a sackable offence (to refuse to get the milk). The employer and employee needs to consider what the impact of the seemingly “reasonable request” is on the employee’s productivity and their ability to perform the task (how far away is the shop, what is the impact of the employee being out of the office, what isn’t being done in the employee’s absence, is the employee physically OK to perform the task, is “milk” against the employee’s religion or personal philosophy, etc).

    But like most employment matters, the act of “run down to the shops to get the office milk” can and should be a negotiable item in the job description, and should be consistent with the role the employee is hired for (and which everyone agrees to) and any real (rather than imagined) personal abilities and limitations of the employee.

  27. Iampeter

    Agree, largely.

    But keeping it civil, and arguing the point (and not the man) seems to be a problem on this side (almost) as much as the other.

    Not really. You’re not going to find any leftist website with this level of toxicity. But then the posters here and conservatives in general are not on a different “side” to the left anyway, as the Folau issue has demonstrated perfectly. They just don’t know it and therein lies the problem.

    You’re not going to get the kind of unhinged ranting you see at the Cat anywhere else, because you’re just not going to find people as confused about politics, while thinking they are experts, anywhere else.

  28. Fisky

    Not really. You’re not going to find any leftist website with this level of toxicity.

    Oh. My. God. Iampeter, the mask has really slipped here buddy, and it doesn’t look good!

  29. JC

    Pete’s been whining and complaining about this website for 3 straight years. Every single one of his comments is either a complaint or telling someone they’re leftist. Deranged stuff.

  30. Jannie

    JC
    #3100584, posted on July 9, 2019 at 1:28 am

    Pete’s been whining and complaining about this website for 3 straight years. Every single one of his comments is either a complaint or telling someone they’re leftist. Deranged stuff.

    What is even more deranged is people try to reason with him.

  31. Iampeter

    Yes that’s right. Unhinged rants by politically illiterate leftists who spend their time on a right wing blog for some reason, are the hallmarks of reasoning.

    I realized who you guys remind me of. You remind me of Vox Day and his supporters. You guys should google that blog and go over there.

    You will feel right at home.

    You can thank me later.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.