Guest Post: Fisky – The Fisk Doctrine explained

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Social democrats were an anti-hegemonic movement, attacking the outdated strictures of the ‘reactionary establishment’; the calls for ‘social liberalism’ and reducing moral constraints were very appealing to the younger generation.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 Consider that John Howard took 10 years to implement his IR agenda; it was repealed in two.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.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

367 Responses to Guest Post: Fisky – The Fisk Doctrine explained

  1. Fred

    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.

  2. Fisky

    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.

  3. JC

    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.

  4. JC

    And then use them capriciously.

    And go in hard as lessons need to be learnt.

  5. Fisky

    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.

  6. Pyrmonter

    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

  7. Fisky

    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.

  8. Pyrmonter

    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.

  9. Fisky

    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.

  10. jupes

    I see no sign of Cory Bernardi defending the right of muslims to proselytise by word of mouth

    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.

  11. James

    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.

  12. Pyrmonter

    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.

  13. Fisky

    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.

  14. Fisky

    @James, I do like the idea of stacking institutions with right-wing lunatics in order to discredit and destroy said institutions.

  15. Jim Rose

    We all know how the Gillard government and the Greens hate free speech

    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.

  16. C.L.

    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.

  17. 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]

  18. Infidel Tiger

    I must have missed the paragraph where we execute them in the town square.

  19. Fisky

    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.

  20. stackja

    opponents of liberty could risk their freedoms and livelihoods

    link

    At the beginning of 1916, [14 Feb 1916] however, serious trouble occurred, at the light horse camp at Casula, near Liverpool, at Liverpool itself, and in Sydney. At Casula some tightness of discipline, some severity of camp regulation, and a soreness about overwork, produced a mutiny. Some of the men broke camp, and, with their numbers swelled by sympathisers, descended upon Liverpool, where they broke into hotels and looted food and drink. Disorder reigned in the town, though not in the Liverpool camp. Owing to the censorship, the public received no definite information, and consequently in Sydney the rumour spread that thousands of armed and angry men were at large at Liverpool, had seized the trains, and were bent on making iheir voice heard by authority, whether at Sydney or at Melbourne. Senator Pearce promptly closed the hotels indefinitely. Ringleaders from Casula were separated from their followers and arrested; the others were ordered back to duty. Their grievances were investigated, and a number of men were dismissed from the forces. Meanwhile improved conditions restored peace and satisfaction. Casula was soon closed, the men were transferred to Liverpool, and are said on ultimately reaching the front to have proved remarkably good soldiers. Reports of the incident went the world over, but it was not symptomatic of bad command or of any dangerous state of soldier psychology. In Australia it had one immediate result-to focus attention upon the licensing question. The Commonwealth Government at once prohibited the sale of drink in officers’ messes and military canteens. In New South Wales, after a considerable amount of hesitation, the State Government brought in a new liquor law, and a referendum was taken on the closing hours of the hotels, resulting in a vote in favour of 6 o’clock. In other States somewhat similar reforms were carried through.

  21. Fisky

    No idea how that is relevant, stackja.

  22. Louis Hissink

    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.

  23. JC

    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.

  24. JamesK

    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.

    Apart from proudly displaying cluelessness, wmmb also demonstrates that he’s a ponce

  25. Jim Rose

    resulting in a vote in favour of 6 o’clock.

    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

  26. Paul

    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.

  27. Jim Rose

    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.

  28. Ellen of Tasmania

    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.

  29. JC

    Only one problem with quoting JS mill, Jim.

    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.

    Note the fourth word in that first sentence. It’s majority.

    The left in this country are a minority attempting to muzzle free speech.

  30. JC

    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.

  31. Tom

    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.

  32. Rabz

    Great stuff, Fisky.

    A well argued, articulate and coherent post.

    You are a fellow ideological warrior.

  33. CyrilH

    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”.

  34. JC

    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.

  35. Campbell Newman has shown that mass sackings are possible

    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….

  36. Gab

    Press Council? You mean it’s not going to be abolished under the doctrine? Why do we need a Press council?

  37. Gab

    Oops, sorry is this na thread about Newman? I thought it was about the Fisk Doctrinaire?

  38. 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.

    Great idea.
    Let’s start with Rabz, Mick of the Gold Coast, and Noname.
    They routinely

    have been the loudest in opposing free speech for others.

  39. JC

    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.

  40. JC

    Press Council? You mean it’s not going to be abolished under the doctrine? Why do we need a Press council?

    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.

  41. A Lurker

    Great post Fisky. That’s definately a keeper!

  42. wes george

    The Fisk Doctrine rocks!

    Bookmarked.

  43. Why post irrelvant (sic) leftist crap on this thread when you (sic) politely asked not to.

    And

    Please go away like the rest of your breed.

    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……

  44. JC

    Spuds, you syphilitic has-been. Fuck off and stop trying to wreck the thread.

    Fisk, can you have this Leftist douchebag removed from here?

  45. Fisky

    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.

  46. 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?

  47. Fisky

    Quickly, before he lets loose with a subversive idea and damages my conservative compendium of mandatory comforting beliefs!

    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.

  48. 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?

    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.

  49. johno

    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.

  50. and throw Andrew Bolt in prison.

    Another “fact” Fisky?

  51. JC

    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.

    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?

  52. Tapdog

    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

    The sine non qua of the Left is equality..

    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.

  53. Fisky

    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.

    I genuinely wondering why in logic – my implicit argument – you are not in principle opposed to defamation, as a restriction on free speech?

    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.

  54. Fisky

    Find a reference to this blatant lie, or apologise. Another one of Bolt’s acolytes – making “facts” up.

    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.

  55. Fisky

    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?

    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.

  56. Fisky

    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.

    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.

  57. Rabz

    They routinely have been the loudest in opposing free speech for others.

    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.

  58. 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.

    You should have no trouble finding it then – go ahead – or apologise.

  59. We all know how the Gillard government and the Greens hate free speech.

    The Goebbels technique – beware anyone how claims to speak for all, and uses the collective pronoun.

    to supporting the Bolt inquisition

    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.

    A generation and a half ago, the political establishment in most Western countries was broadly conservative.

    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.

    By the end of the 1990s, the establishment could be broadly identified as Leftist in nature.

    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 nearly every item on the Left’s wish-list would get through a hung parliament, with fewer Labor than Coalition seats, speaks volumes.

    Consider that Abbott lacks any real capacity to negotiate.

    but rather a determination to create equality, as at least one Catallaxy contributor has said before.

    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”

    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.

    The law applies to all. This is a major issue for some conservatives who believe they have the divine right to be exempted.

    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.

    Obviously you believe that these freedoms should be applied selectively – to those whom the thought police regard as having the above mentioned divine right.

    Repealing the authoritarian agenda would then be a matter of time.

    And what you propose is not “authoritarian”?

    Pull the other one – it has bells on.
    You also forgot to wear your tinfoil hat.

  60. C.L.

    The point of stacking these institutions is to destroy them…

    Right.

    It’s called a “suicide squad.”

    And guess who pioneered it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_Legislative_Council#Abolition

  61. Tom

    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.

  62. Infidel Tiger

    I wouldn’t execute numbers but I would make him wear a jester suit.

  63. Tiny Dancer

    Another superhero story spudpeeler. Make sure it involves you saving children. It’s so heartwarming

  64. stackja

    No idea how that is relevant, stackja.
    Fisky 10 Mar 13 at 4:00 pm

    You wrote

    Fisky “wowserish on issues like pub opening hours”

    In Australia it had one immediate result-to focus attention upon the licensing question. The Commonwealth Government at once prohibited the sale of drink in officers’ messes and military canteens. In New South Wales, after a considerable amount of hesitation, the State Government brought in a new liquor law, and a referendum was taken on the closing hours of the hotels, resulting in a vote in favour of 6 o’clock. In other States somewhat similar reforms were carried through.

    So what you call “wowserish on issues like pub opening hours” had its genesis with a drinking problem so it is ‘relevant’.

  65. Gab

    Spuds, you syphilitic has-been. Fuck off and stop trying to wreck the thread.

    Too late.

  66. JC

    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.

    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?

  67. Monkey's Uncle

    “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.

  68. Fisky

    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.

  69. JC

    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.

    I’ve been a long time supporter of such laws as a lesson learning experience for the left and hate speech laws.

  70. Fisky

    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.

    You should have no trouble finding it then – go ahead – or apologise.

    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?

  71. DrBeauGan

    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.

  72. Fisky

    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:

    There is a solution to this. Remember the Australia Card? Ignore the bleatings of the Libertarians, introduce it, make it compulsory for everyone to carry, and pass legislation that sets up immigration zones. Acceptance of citizenship could be made conditional on residence in one of these zones.

    In an act of shocking callousness, you also made light of the deaths of boat people:

    So we could solve the “problem” of boat people drowning quickly and easily. But I wonder if the “problem” has more to do with our attitude towards refugees than it has to do with lives at risk.

    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.

  73. Fisky

    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.

    Amen brother, you get it.

  74. Infidel Tiger

    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.

  75. Chris M

    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?

  76. Monkey's Uncle

    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.

  77. TerjeP

    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.

  78. Fisky

    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?

    It’s much more nuanced than that, and there are many different layers to it.

  79. Rafe

    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.

    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.

  80. Chris M

    It’s much more nuanced than that, and there are many different layers to it.

    OK thanks appreciate the clarification…

  81. Fisky

    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.

  82. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    “Where am I going with this? … The purpose of this is to change the nature of the debate …”

    from Sinclair and

    “Two factors. One picked up by Alan Barcan writing …”

    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.

  83. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    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.

  84. Fisky

    Mick – twas I, not Sinclair

  85. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    “Mick – twas I, not Sinclair”

    Bugger! I knew that from reading it here earlier today. I was wrong – I apologise to you Fisky.

  86. 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.

  87. @ 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.

  88. 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.

  89. 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.
    Fisk fisked…..

  90. 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….

  91. @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…

  92. And fix your technology – it’s as dodgy as most of the posts.

  93. Tom

    [Tom – that’s unnecessary. Sinc]

  94. @Tom
    To think garbage like you actually have children….

  95. Blogstrop

    That pedgogic head explosion has left blue ink all over this page.
    Another landslide for the conservatives, numbers. Enjoy.

  96. Blogstrop

    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?

  97. Fisky

    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.

  98. 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.

  99. @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 –

    Revolting man. You would last five minutes under the Fisk Doctrine you piece of shit.

    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.

  100. Sinclair Davidson

    I’m happy to volunteer.

    Don’t just sit there – send it through.

  101. JC

    Great. Spuds has suffocated another thread with his pathetic trolling and gross stupidity.

    He’s exhibit A for the Fisk Doctrine.

  102. blogstrop

    The scary part is that you aren’t institutionalised, numbers.

  103. 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.

  104. JC

    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.

    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.

  105. Token

    I said I will always call hatespeech.

    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.

  106. 81Alpha

    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?

  107. NoFixedAddress

    My humble solution, Payback. It’s a real bitch.

    How about Malcolm ‘mugabi’ Fraser whom actually delights in his personal hand in destroying Australia.

  108. NoFixedAddress

    I will go further and declare that ‘mugabi fraser’ has cost Australia more money than deluded Gough W.

  109. 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.

    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.

  110. JC

    Anglosphere. Not anglophone

  111. mct

    I don’t want to privatise the ABC at all – it should be shut down.

    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.

  112. Monkey's Uncle

    “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.

  113. Monkey's Uncle

    “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.

  114. DrBeauGan

    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!

  115. Fisky

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  116. @ Monkey’s Uncle

    Sure. No-one would think your second quote in any way implies a causual link with US military atrocities. “Consequences” of “inciting hate”.

    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.

  117. Gab

    Oh fuck. Not bloody Vietnam again. Give it a rest.

  118. Token

    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.

    You moron, nobody has been conscripted to fight Islam in the real world, that is just in your bigoted homophobic delusions.

  119. Fisky

    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.

    I don’t think it is possible to exaggerate the malevolent nature of a movement that advocated class genocide.

  120. I don’t think it is possible to exaggerate the malevolent nature of a movement that advocated class genocide.

    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.

  121. Fisky

    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.

    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.

  122. C.L.

    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.

  123. Cato the Elder

    But did Curtin know that? The fear was widely shared.

  124. 1735099

    @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.

  125. C.L.

    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.

  126. C.L.

    Curtin was a chickenhawk (textbook definition) and a drunk.

  127. 1735099

    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.

  128. Token

    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.

  129. Tal

    When can we flog people Fisky?

  130. Jarrah

    “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.

  131. Steve of Ferny Hills

    the much-maligned Chockos were the first to defeat the Japanese on land

    The 2nd AIF at Milne Bay were peeling spuds?

  132. 1735099

    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.

  133. Token

    I guess you must have been around at the time, and understood the national sentiment

    We’ll stick to facts, we’ll leave the emoting based upon the fables you were told at papa’s knee to you.

  134. Fisky

    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.

  135. Matt

    If Pig Iron Bob had been in charge, we’d be blogging in Japanese.

    Bull. The Japanese were defeated by the US military and would have been eventually regardless of our efforts – brave as they were.

    much-maligned Chockos were the first to defeat the Japanese on land.

    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.

    moral ineptitude

    Huh? If you mean conscription is morally unsupportable I agree with you, but inept?

  136. C.L.

    Floggings have their place, Tal.

    But don’t forget the power of tramplings.

    My Christian elephants stand ready.

  137. 1735099

    “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?

  138. Tal

    Flog and Stomp Lad I like it

  139. NoFixedAddress

    @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).

  140. 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.

  141. Bugger. Just checked – it was a Saturday.

  142. 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?

  143. Fisky

    Since you have an implied capacity for empathy, you will understand there are cases of vilification that are gratuitous and unacceptable.

    Yes, like the verses in the Koran calling for eternal hell-fire for non-believers.

    The problems with Bibles, Qurans and Torahs is that people draw very different interpretations from them.

    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”.

    Needless to say, I have not read any of these volumes. So I would not ban them

    A brilliant non sequitur – next up, if someone commits a murder that you don’t hear about, they shouldn’t be prosecuted!

    Who knows we all learn from engaging in the process of democratic dialogue. Could that be possible?

    There is nothing whatever to discuss with the Left.

  144. dover_beach

    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

  145. Fisky

    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.

  146. 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?

  147. Fisky

    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.

    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.

    The intolerance among Muslims matches the historic intolerance among Christians. where did that go?

    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.

  148. 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.

  149. Oh come on

    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.

    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

    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.

  150. Fisky

    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.

    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.

    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

    You have already admitted to having no understanding at all. The end.

  151. 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?

  152. Fisky

    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.

  153. Oh come on

    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.

  154. Fisky

    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.

  155. sdfc

    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.

  156. Oh come on

    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.

  157. Fisky

    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.

  158. Oh come on

    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.

    No. Nurse! Sedate the patient!

  159. JC

    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.

  160. JC

    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.

  161. Fisky

    sdfc, we want to promote shocical coheshun, remember, and free, compulsory medicine is but one valuable tool in our endeavours.

  162. sdfc

    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.

  163. sdfc

    What’s wrong with out health system? It has shown itself to be far more effective than the US system.

  164. Oh come on

    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.

  165. Oh come on

    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.

  166. Fisky

    What hasn’t he read Fisky. Your “doctrine” that people you disagree with should not have free speech?

    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.

  167. Oh come on

    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.

  168. Fisky

    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.

    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.

  169. Oh come on

    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.

  170. Fisky

    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.

  171. WhaleHunt Fun

    ” 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?

  172. sdfc

    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.

  173. JC

    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.

    240 volts through both temples ought to resolve the problems he’s facing.

  174. Fisky

    sdfc, wmmmb said the following:

    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

    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).

  175. sdfc

    JC cheering from the boundary. What a nancy.

  176. Oh come on

    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.

  177. Fisky

    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.

  178. sdfc

    So he did not say it then.

  179. sdfc

    Why would you ban any religious or political text?

  180. Fisky

    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.

  181. JC

    JC cheering from the boundary. What a nancy.

    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.

  182. JC

    Why would you ban any religious or political text?

    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.

  183. Oh come on

    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.

  184. sdfc

    So I need shock treatment for advocating public health care and education?

    See the problem with your doctrine Fisky?

  185. sdfc

    It is unlikey that JC earns much if any more money than me OCO so run along lickspittle.

  186. Fisky

    Why would you ban any religious or political text?

    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.

  187. JC

    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.

  188. JC

    It is unlikey that JC earns much if any more money than me OCO so run along lickspittle.

    Okay.. how much do you earn, Larissa? Run it by me.

  189. sdfc

    So you’re against freedom of speech Fisky?

  190. Oh come on

    It is unlikey that JC earns much if any more money than me OCO so run along lickspittle.

    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.

  191. JC

    Yes OCO

    The pecking order is very important to them.

  192. Fisky

    So you’re against freedom of speech Fisky?

    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.

  193. sdfc

    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?

  194. sdfc

    Who says all lefties are Roxonites?

  195. JC

    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.

  196. sdfc

    Swannies are in front late in the last quarter. I know you’re interested.

  197. Oh come on

    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.

  198. Oh come on

    Under proper medical supervision, I should add.

  199. sdfc

    JC

    I don’t disagree. I’m an advocate of equality of opportunity not income equality.

  200. JC

    All lefties are roxonites or just closet Roxonites, SDFC.

    Get real.

  201. sdfc

    OCO you’re not contributing. You come across as the weedy guy standing behind the big dogs egging them on.

  202. sdfc

    I’m a lefty JC. I’m not a Roxonite. Your theory fails at the first hurdle.

  203. Oh come on

    It’s ok, SDFC. These delusions will go away with treatment.

    My position on the income bell curve suggests it is likely I earn more money than you.

    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.

  204. sdfc

    So you’re a digruntled public servant. What a surprise.

  205. sdfc

    What’s the matter, pissed off the PS doesn’t see your real value? Quit and get a job in the private sector pansy.

  206. Oh come on

    All lefties are roxonites or just closet Roxonites, SDFC.

    I’m a lefty JC. I’m not a Roxonite. Your theory fails at the first hurdle.

    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.

  207. sdfc

    Still nothing to contribute I see. There is nothing Sadder than the right wing PS.

  208. sdfc

    My capital employs people OCO. How about you?

  209. Oh come on

    So you’re a digruntled public servant. What a surprise.

    What’s the matter, pissed off the PS doesn’t see your real value? Quit and get a job in the private sector
    pansy.

    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.

  210. sdfc

    Given up on your “free speech” crusade then Fisky?

    Tell us again how people you disagree with will be dennied free speech.

  211. Oh come on

    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.

  212. Oh come on

    Tillman used to tell everyone he was loaded, too. Aha! Another symptom of Leftism!

  213. sdfc

    OCO, the only PS worth his salt apparently. Maybe your problem is a lack of ability.

  214. sdfc

    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.

  215. Oh come on

    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.

  216. Oh come on

    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.

    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.

  217. Oh come on

    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.

  218. sdfc

    Shit OCO all those pixels and not a coherent argument to be found. Good luck in your sad endeavours.

  219. cohenite

    the Quoran can be a source of good and evil.

    However I have read some of hte Koran (before bailing out due to boredom) and it indeed does have some good stuff in there.

    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.

  220. sdfc

    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.

  221. cohenite

    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.

  222. sdfc

    And why bring AGW bullshit into the discussion.

    Because you’re a dickhead.

  223. cohenite

    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.

  224. sdfc

    I am just trying to understand how a “scientist” can have no idea how the planet heats.

  225. cohenite

    I am just trying to understand how a “scientist” can have no idea how the planet heats.

    Why ask me, ask the pricks who are pushing the AGW scam.

  226. sdfc

    So is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Come on man. Are you as a “scientist” turning over climate science itself?

  227. cohenite

    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.

  228. sdfc

    Freedom of speech Cohenite. You totalitarian.

  229. sdfc

    What are you trying to engage me on?

  230. cohenite

    Freedom of speech Cohenite. You totalitarian

    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?

  231. Oh come on

    Shit OCO all those pixels and not a coherent argument to be found.

    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.

  232. sdfc

    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.

  233. sdfc

    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.

  234. Oh come on

    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.

  235. WhaleHunt Fun

    “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.

  236. sdfc

    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.

  237. Louis Hissink

    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?

  238. Gab

    There are a multitude of factors affecting.

    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?

  239. Fisky

    Fisky, do you mind this fuckwit derailing your thread?

    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.

  240. dover_beach

    Yes Cohenite, the scientist, that didn’t know CO2?s role in heating the planet

    The sun heats the planet, sdfc; whatever role GHGs play, it is that of insulating, not of heating. Words meaning something.

  241. Fisky

    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.

    I for one am delighted that Finkelstein will bequeath such valuable tools of repression to non-Leftists.

  242. Oh come on

    Sad arse PS unable to make an argument. It’s no wonder you are been overlooked.

    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.

  243. cohenite

    “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.

  244. JC

    JC

    I don’t disagree. I’m an advocate of equality of opportunity not income equality.

    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.

  245. Oh come on

    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.

    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.

  246. 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?

  247. Pingback: ARTS OF THE POLIS | DUCKPOND

  248. Jim Rose

    Even Fairfax editorials called Neville Wran a ‘socialist’ and warned of the dangers of electing ‘socialist’ governments like Gough Whitlam’s.

    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.

    A generation and a half ago, the political establishment in most Western countries was broadly conservative

    did you miss the growth in government and the welfare state after 1945?

  249. Jim Rose

    Danny Ortega looks like a broken man nowadays

    Ortega has been president of Nicaragu since 2007! check your facts.

Comments are closed.