Next Federal Election

juegasiempre wrote:

Failure to assimilate is the death knell for any society. As it's always been. I encourage anyone who thinks otherwise to read Joseph Campbell.

Furthermore, Muslims don't and will never integrate. It's in their book and you're the infidel! There's no extreme Islam; there is only Islam. Once again, it's all in their book if you want to read it.

That might come across as extreme but nuance is important when it comes to religion and religious tolerance.

I'm an ideological pro-immigration socialist believe it or not!

But the point is, that most do assimilate over time.
The Italians, Greeks, Vietnamese etc etc.

Re Islam, not buying it. Know plenty of 'muslims' who like a drink, eat bacon etc, and some who are living successfully in Australia.
There will always be extremes as there will be with Christians, Jews, Hindus and atheists but cannot single out one faith.

BTW, love Joseph Campbell, his full interview with Bill Moyers is excellent.
Use to be on Youtube.

Ever been to Europe or the US …

Here's another book that shows how the Mormons really ran with the religious freedom, which to be fair it's constitutionally protected, in Australia we have no such provision, to essentially create a powerful theocracy within a tolerant democracy! It's a sub plot but one I find very interesting and relevant if you believe the Muslims are harmless. Which is a totally ignorant take I'd argue.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10847.Under_the_Banner_of_Heaven

@indo good reasonable posts about nuclear and your follow up post where you touched on immigration above.
Just on your comment about the wrong type of immigrants coming in and not assimilating with Australian values....i guess you could say that happened 200 odd years ago.....but better not go there eh?! haha.
(rhetorical question obvs.).

As not to be branded an ignorant racist. The only religions I have a problem with are Islam and Zionism. The rest are sweet. It's important to study them individually.

Muslims are harmless

Like Christians are harmless

Etc etc …

;)

juegasiempre wrote:

As not to be branded an ignorant racist. The only religions I have a problem with are Islam and Zionism. The rest are sweet. It's important to study them individually.

How about the Exclusive Brethren? they're amongst the most isolationist and regressive sects of the bunch

benskii wrote:

I disagree that immigrants not sharing our values is a valid or serious concern. It's been a constant refrain since the white australia policy was canned. And probably even before that.

What does it mean to share our values? Reading through these threads I have many completely different values from indodreaming, burleigh and gsco. But that doesn't matter at all to wider society.

We don't have a state mandated language. We don't have a state mandated religion. We don't have state mandated names (to refer to the lowest frequency dog whistle I've seen on this site where indo reccently noted that muhammed was the most common name in the UK now, as though that's a problem or indicative of anything other than the fact that many people no longer name their kid things like david or jason but rather, jaisn or jaesun or jaiden, or jayzzdon or lamp or trinket).

The only values that actually matter in Australia is the freedom to be who we want to be, speak how we want to speak. All the other stuff that gets dressed up by politicians as "as australian values" (see albo's speech on saturday night), don't matter at all unless we have the freedom to embrace them or ignore them.

So whether someone is a muslim who thinks women should wear a head covering (something I disagree with), or a naturist who thinks we should walk around starkers (something I probably also disagree with), does not matter so long as they keep within our secular laws and don't force others to follow their own values.

I guess the complication is whether someone should have the right to express their opinion that they should be able to impose their values on others (i.e. a muslim person arguing we should all wear head coverings). Of course they should have the right to do that. They should have the right to argue that hamas are some kind of freedom fighters. So long as they do so within the law. Because if they don't have the right to express themselves then the actually meaningful Australian values have been eroded.

It's the same for the christian peeps you see protesting abortion rights. They don't have the right to impose their religious views on the lives others and it would be "unaustralian" if they did. But the only australian values that really matter is that they can express that view all day long.

If the population doesn't have the right to try and cause division then we no longer have actual freedom to be ourselves that is the hallmark of australian values. Because everyone's definition of division is different and we don't have a state mandated definition of it. With the caveat, so long as we remain wihtin the law that we've all agreed on.

So in effect there's zero cultural difference between Australians, Americans, the English, the Dutch, and every other country that offers freedom under the law?

Articulating national values is a fool's errand...but they exist, otherwise the above statement is that, yes, the listed countries, and others, are all identical.

For mine, they're clearly not. Australia and its people possess some cultural values that are intrinsic to us.

Just don't ask me to define them.

You've reached your video limit Teary.

Type your thoughts or GTFO.

Try and avoid your default strain of whataboutism.

Fair enough

Impressed by your selective definition abilities

“ The only values that actually matter in Australia is the freedom to be who we want to be, speak how we want to speak. All the other stuff that gets dressed up by politicians as "as australian values" (see albo's speech on saturday night), don't matter at all unless we have the freedom to embrace them or ignore them. “

The point is: Are Australian people exactly the same as Americans, or the English, or the French etc ? (other nations with freedom under the law)

If we're not, then Australians have some unique cultural values, whatever they may be.

Those values will change over time as nations evolve and demography shifts, but if it happens too fast people will reject the visible face of those changes (this is the point made by Tim Flannery in 1994 and Pauline Hanson in 1996).

Conservatives want slow change. Progressives want fast change.

The sensible position is somewhere in the middle.

It's not that the progressives want fast change. They are now the ones trying to impose their values on everyone else. That's the whole point. That's why they're also called the "illiberal" left. They are not liberal at all. If you don't comply, you're at the receiving end of their cancel culture tactics.

stunet wrote:

So in effect there's zero cultural difference between Australians, Americans, the English, the Dutch, and every other country that offers freedom under the law?

Articulating national values is a fool's errand...but they exist, otherwise the above statement is that, yes, the listed countries, and others, are all identical.

For mine, they're clearly not. Australia and its people possess some cultural values that are intrinsic to us.

Just don't ask me to define them.

I guess the point I'm making is we as citizens aren't required to embody any and all of those cultural values that differentiate us from the dutch, americans etc. We can choose what values we wish to value. If we couldn't, then the differences I highlighted between me and the other posters here would not exist. Since we as citizens aren't required to embody any specific cultural values, we can't demand that immigrants do, beyond following the law.

Our values change over time. I would posit there's as much a difference between Australians and the Dutch today as there is between Australians of 2025 and 1940. The changes to values come from all sorts of sources and of course we must allow them to change, whether by demographic shifts due to immigration and changes to birth rate or by cultural influences of social media etc. And I would think the Austrailan value of live and letting live implies the freedom to change our values individually which may eventually flow to the collective value set.

gs-co wrote:

It's not that the progressives want fast change. They are now the ones trying to impose their values on everyone else. That's the whole point. That's why they're also called the "illiberal" left. They are not liberal at all. If you don't comply, you're at the receiving end of their cancel culture tactics.

Ever tried lifting the needle and lowering it on another track?

And regarding national identity and values, yes every country has a unique identity forged through its unique history. And there is nothing wrong with trying to retain it or at least much of it. There's nothing wrong with celebrating it.

The progressives are of course dead against Western values and culture. They see Western values and culture as the root cause of all evil on planet earth, so they're drying to destroy them.

Try living in a country like China to experience a nation that holds its national values, culture, identity, tradition and history very strongly and dearly. China celebrates it all and will never let it get eroded, particularly by immigration. If you criticise any aspects of it you're disappeared.

There's no valid reason for why the West has to allow its unique values and identity to be eroded, when countries like China do not. We're allowed to celebrate our values, culture, identity and history.

Doing so doesn't make you racist or fascist.

"It's a good album but every single track sounds the same."

Ok was wondering what people mean by western values, I have my own idea.
I put it into Chatgpt and this is what I got.
Got to say I agree with pretty much all of it.
Interesting that some of the main pushers of so-called western values are rallying against some of the main points.

from chat:

Western values refer to a set of cultural, social, political, and philosophical principles that have evolved primarily in Western Europe and later spread to countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and others influenced by European traditions. These values are deeply rooted in the history of Ancient Greece and Rome, Christianity, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and modern democratic developments.

Key Western values include individualism, which emphasizes personal freedom, autonomy, and responsibility. People are encouraged to make their own choices and pursue personal goals. Democracy is another central value, supporting the idea that governments should be chosen by the people and accountable to them. Rule of law ensures that everyone, including leaders, is subject to the same legal standards.

Freedom of speech, religion, and expression are highly valued, as is equality, especially in terms of gender, race, and human rights. Western societies often promote rationalism and scientific inquiry, placing a high value on education and critical thinking.

These values also support capitalism and free-market economies, where businesses operate with minimal government interference, and competition drives innovation and efficiency.

However, interpretations of Western values can differ between countries and evolve over time. Critics argue that some Western values can conflict with or overlook the values of non-Western cultures. Nonetheless, Western values continue to influence global political systems, education, economics, and international relations.

In summary, Western values shape much of modern life in the Western world, focusing on individual rights, democracy, freedom, and rational thought.

flollo wrote:

Freedom under our law sounds great until immigration grows big and powerful enough to influence those same laws and push their political agenda.

like the UK and parts of europe?

I know it's a touchy point of outright denialism for some, but sharia law and enclaves have developed in certain places that do practice these things

whether it's policy or just overlooked for 'social cohesion' purposes... doesn't really matter, the fact is, it has been allowed to take hold, and that's what most people would like to prevent here...

andy-mac wrote:

''I also have great concern's about large numbers of immigrants that we are bringing in that dont share the same values as most of the population and cause division.''

What are these values to speak of?

The main thing causing division has been the dog whistling of the right, started under Howard, that was spurred on the Hanson.

Are the Italians, Greeks, Vietnamese, Chinese, Lebanese, Jews, Indian, English, South Africans, Nepalese, Sri Lankans, Japanese, Indonesian or some other ethnic group, race the problem causing division?

no they're not (including Indonesian muslims)

I disagree it's strictly a 'muslim thing' as posted above, it's a multiculturalism thing...

not multiculturalism as such, but what has developed as multiculturalism after decades of well meaning policy evolution

assimilate is a dirty word - especially in australia - with good reason... but the truth is there is more reluctance now from certain cohorts to assimilate, I think that is for a host of reasons... and we all could possibly be more accommodating... however, I believe current policies encourage enclaves, and a kind of 'us and them' mentality to develop...

in terms the 'muslim thing' I think we cannot overlook that in many countries - and muslim countries especially - there has been a pushback against 'western values', both from leadership, and at a grass roots level... a bit of... 'errrr ok, but no thanks...'

this is totally evident in Indonesia, where the rise (and fashionability) of hijab wearing is quite pronounced, and often mentioned by old school visitors and scholars

it's interesting, because I wouldn't really take the popular view that it's mainly comes from leadership, the patriarchy, and the mosques, it appears a very grass roots personal choice...

@andy mac
"We have the law and it must be stuck with no matter who you are, I would also argue for a Bill of Rights (@adam your thoughts?)."

Jeezus, big can of worms there.
It depends on whether you are talking an enshrined Bill of Rights (in the Constitution, would need a referendum) or a statutory one, one created under legislation by the Federal Parliament.

It's been a big debate for a long time. Proponents and arguments on both sides.

We are the only Western Democracy that doesn't have a Bill of Rights in either the Constitution or Statute Law. We have a patchwork, some enshrined, some implied in the Constitution, some in Federal and State legislation, some in Common Law (law made by judges, including Common Law adopted from England like the Magna Carta) and some under International Law, treaties we are signatories of, of which there are seven main ones, (Conventions on Civil and Political Rights, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Rights against Racial Discrimination, Discrimination against Woman, Inhumane Punishment, and Disabled and Children's Rights.) We are also signatory to the most important Human Rights Treaty, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We are UN members and signatory to the Rome Statute that created the ICC and as UN members we are bound by the World Court established as the main judicial organ of the UN.

But International Law is not like domestic law. Recent issues like the genocide, still ongoing, in Gaza and Palestine, and our tepid response, that began with unquestioned support and changed to muffled displeasure, under a Labor leadership, bears this out. It is "optional" law, ignored when it suits a State to do so.

"Rights" also covers a diverse range of areas, there are many types of rights, civil and political and social and economic.
The Australian Constitution contains some rights protections, the right to vote, the right to a jury trial, freedom of religion, the right to just enrichment on compulsory acquisition of property, and the right against discrimination based on which State or Territory you reside in.
It also implies the right of free political communication, this was decided by the High Court in the '90's.
Common Law (law made by Judges) gives the right to a fair trial, and some others.
States also have rights legislation. But it is invalid when it contradicts or contravenes Federal Law.

Also the Human Rights Commission was established in 1986 to protect and monitor Human Rights and to prevent against discrimination and monitor enforcement of anti discrimination legislation.
(It became a political football for the right under Howard's leadership, some may remember.)

There are arguments for and against a Bill of Rights, either one enshrined or legislated federally, both sides of the debate depending on your politics and beliefs. A consultation committee was set up during Rudd's term that recommended a statutory Human Rights Act but it was rejected, too hot to handle. Andrew Wilke had a crack at introducing a Bill that codified Human Rights obligations and gave some economic rights around 2016 I think but it got knocked back. as well.

My own view is that Australians are such great procrastinators and our political class is so borked by self interest and fear of decisive action on such matters, and fear of unleashing the Murdochs and other right wing MSM bobbleheads that it is a pointless exercise trying to achieve any form of a Bill of Rights in our country. For all our self appointed free and fair democratic self beliefs we are really incapable of fundamental change, on this or many things.

i.e. The whole legal basis for our existence is still based on flawed law, our Constitution, our sovereignty, all of it, based on a legal lie, acquisition by settlement.
English Law Lords, English Common Law imposed on this continent and it's FNP, not Customary International Law, or legal logic. We still have a big chip on our shoulder because of this in my opinion, our "unfinished" national identity, why we seek approval so embarrassingly from other nations, particularly the US, and why we have Charles and (FMD) Camilla as our Heads of State still. Why FNP often suffer still and face discrimination and become a culture war issue.
And why we are the only ones that don't have a Bill of Rights.

An enshrined Bill of Rights is impossible in modern Australia, referendums fail here, political will is non existent, and as the US has shown, particularly their second amendment, are unworkable and unchangeable when circumstance changes with time, (and under Trump and the new order over there, the entire Constitution is optional apparently.)

A legislated one here would require political will too, plus leadership and guts and I don't see much of that. Not for rights protections or many other fundamental flaws and inequities in modern Australia.
It would be a good thing if it happened and give us some standing and moral authority internationally and provide some protections against many things, like the Howard government "intervention" in the NT or the kind of treatment and cruelty dished out to asylum seekers here in recent times, but it would just become another political football to get kicked around by our political "discourse".
We procrastinate, we don't change unless it is in increments.
We do have rights, some have protections at law, but when it suits they can be ignored in many respects.
That suits our "democracy", our political and business classes.

The lucky country still run by second rate leadership and relying on digging shit up and importing people.
A great country that could be much more.
With a great Bill of Rights.

Now I'm off to deal with trying to sort a burred nut on my brake hard to flex line, the fkn thing, as is my right in "Albo's Australia".

and as to the tendency of over accomodating that has developed, I think the recent muslim call to prayer debate that sprung up in sydney is a good example

certain forces, reflexively, jump to their... 'oh it's just the same as church bells...' argument

well it's not really, like it or not... we have a largely christian population and history, if muslims are only a minor % of the population... (which they are) I think it's totally reasonable that we don't have to accept call to prayer amidst our urban environments and soundscape...

in bali for instance, where there is often a huge muslim population just quitely going about their business, there is never a call to prayer in the predominantly hindu areas, you never hear it, ever, and fair enough I reckon...

predominantly muslim areas it is totally different

adam12 wrote:

@andy mac
"We have the law and it must be stuck with no matter who you are, I would also argue for a Bill of Rights (@adam your thoughts?)."

Jeezus, big can of worms there.
It depends on whether you are talking an enshrined Bill of Rights (in the Constitution, would need a referendum) or a statutory one, one created under legislation by the Federal Parliament.

It's been a big debate for a long time. Proponents and arguments on both sides.

We are the only Western Democracy that doesn't have a Bill of Rights in either the Constitution or Statute Law. We have a patchwork, some enshrined, some implied in the Constitution, some in Federal and State legislation, some in Common Law (law made by judges, including Common Law adopted from England like the Magna Carta) and some under International Law, treaties we are signatories of, of which there are seven main ones, (Conventions on Civil and Political Rights, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Rights against Racial Discrimination, Discrimination against Woman, Inhumane Punishment, and Disabled and Children's Rights.) We are also signatory to the most important Human Rights Treaty, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We are UN members and signatory to the Rome Statute that created the ICC and as UN members we are bound by the World Court established as the main judicial organ of the UN.

But International Law is not like domestic law. Recent issues like the genocide, still ongoing, in Gaza and Palestine, and our tepid response, that began with unquestioned support and changed to muffled displeasure, under a Labor leadership, bears this out. It is "optional" law, ignored when it suits a State to do so.

"Rights" also covers a diverse range of areas, there are many types of rights, civil and political and social and economic.
The Australian Constitution contains some rights protections, the right to vote, the right to a jury trial, freedom of religion, the right to just enrichment on compulsory acquisition of property, and the right against discrimination based on which State or Territory you reside in.
It also implies the right of free political communication, this was decided by the High Court in the '90's.
Common Law (law made by Judges) gives the right to a fair trial, and some others.
States also have rights legislation. But it is invalid when it contradicts or contravenes Federal Law.

Also the Human Rights Commission was established in 1986 to protect and monitor Human Rights and to prevent against discrimination and monitor enforcement of anti discrimination legislation.
(It became a political football for the right under Howard's leadership, some may remember.)

There are arguments for and against a Bill of Rights, either one enshrined or legislated federally, both sides of the debate depending on your politics and beliefs. A consultation committee was set up during Rudd's term that recommended a statutory Human Rights Act but it was rejected, too hot to handle. Andrew Wilke had a crack at introducing a Bill that codified Human Rights obligations and gave some economic rights around 2016 I think but it got knocked back. as well.

My own view is that Australians are such great procrastinators and our political class is so borked by self interest and fear of decisive action on such matters, and fear of unleashing the Murdochs and other right wing MSM bobbleheads that it is a pointless exercise trying to achieve any form of a Bill of Rights in our country. For all our self appointed free and fair democratic self beliefs we are really incapable of fundamental change, on this or many things.

i.e. The whole legal basis for our existence is still based on flawed law, our Constitution, our sovereignty, all of it, based on a legal lie, acquisition by settlement.
English Law Lords, English Common Law imposed on this continent and it's FNP, not Customary International Law, or legal logic. We still have a big chip on our shoulder because of this in my opinion, our "unfinished" national identity, why we seek approval so embarrassingly from other nations, particularly the US, and why we have Charles and (FMD) Camilla as our Heads of State still. Why FNP often suffer still and face discrimination and become a culture war issue.
And why we are the only ones that don't have a Bill of Rights.

An enshrined Bill of Rights is impossible in modern Australia, referendums fail here, political will is non existent, and as the US has shown, particularly their second amendment, are unworkable and unchangeable when circumstance changes with time, (and under Trump and the new order over there, the entire Constitution is optional apparently.)

A legislated one here would require political will too, plus leadership and guts and I don't see much of that. Not for rights protections or many other fundamental flaws and inequities in modern Australia.
It would be a good thing if it happened and give us some standing and moral authority internationally and provide some protections against many things, like the Howard government "intervention" in the NT or the kind of treatment and cruelty dished out to asylum seekers here in recent times, but it would just become another political football to get kicked around by our political "discourse".
We procrastinate, we don't change unless it is in increments.
We do have rights, some have protections at law, but when it suits they can be ignored in many respects.
That suits our "democracy", our political and business classes.

The lucky country still run by second rate leadership and relying on digging shit up and importing people.
A great country that could be much more.
With a great Bill of Rights.

Now I'm off to deal with trying to sort a burred nut on my brake hard to flex line, the fkn thing, as is my right in "Albo's Australia".

Thanks very much for that @adam, much appreciated.

andy-mac wrote:

''I also have great concern's about large numbers of immigrants that we are bringing in that dont share the same values as most of the population and cause division.''

What are these values to speak of?

The main thing causing division has been the dog whistling of the right, started under Howard, that was spurred on the Hanson.

Are the Italians, Greeks, Vietnamese, Chinese, Lebanese, Jews, Indian, English, South Africans, Nepalese, Sri Lankans, Japanese, Indonesian or some other ethnic group, race the problem causing division?

Yep it's the dog whistling from way back when that is the problem and is still a problem today. It's always easier to blame the new kid on the block instead of looking within to work out where the problem lies and how to cope with it.

The current immigration system is like a fire that needs oxygen which we just don't have or are prepared to supply. I always use the analogy of towns in Australia in say the 100k population range like say Bendigo. If you increase that population by 5000 people (1250 families) in say 2 years, which is probably a conservative assumption, you will then have to:

1) Find 1250 additional accommodation properties
2) Supply water and treat the sewerage of an additional 5000 human beings
3) Have 2500 more cars on the roads (assume 2 per family)
4) Provide an additional 2500 more school spots
5) Truck in every day living items for an additional 5000 people
6) Provide medical care (doctors, hospitals, etc) for an additional 5000 people
7) And the list goes on .....

It's just not happening, and we are not keeping up with this demographic shift due to lack of political and financial will. If you live in these small towns it's much more in your face when you try and see a doctor, find a rental property, etc, etc. Those dog whistlers then blame the immigrants for the tilt in their lives which is unfair and wrong. We have reached a point where that fire has learnt to feed itself without oxygen, and we don't have a clue how to put it out without getting 3rd degree burns.

Being a 1991 immigrant myself it's perplexing nowadays to get my head around why successive governments are so short sighted to keep this inflow of new Australians going without actually preparing for their arrival and subsequent living standards. We are so far behind the eight ball now with demand out stripping supply in every aspect of our lives we will never catch up.
Soon our citizenship ceremonies will begin with "Welcome to Australia - the land of milk and honey - just bring your own cows and bees"

sypkan wrote:

and as to the tendency of over accomodating that has developed, I think the recent muslim call to prayer debate that sprung up in sydney is a good example

certain forces, reflexively, jump to their... 'oh it's just the same as church bells...' argument

well it's not really, like it or not... we have a largely christian population and history, if muslims are only a minor % of the population... (which they are) I think it's totally reasonable that we don't have to accept call to prayer amidst our urban environments and soundscape...

in bali for instance, where there is often a huge muslim population just quitely going about their business, there is never a call to prayer in the predominantly hindu areas, you never hear it, ever, and fair enough I reckon...

predominantly muslim areas it is totally different

Agree re call to prayer, noise laws should cover that in Australia.

well, as others have said, it's the pace garyg

(and the lack of debate)

the ridiculous numbers

and the fact, it is totally debatable, whether it's smart economics, or even possible... to do it at the pace that's being shoved down people's throats...

gs-co wrote:

It's not that the progressives want fast change. They are now the ones trying to impose their values on everyone else. That's the whole point. That's why they're also called the "illiberal" left. They are not liberal at all. If you don't comply, you're at the receiving end of their cancel culture tactics.

The left arent "liberals", nor do we see ourselves as such, so calling the left "illiberal" as a pejorative doesn't work on a few levels.

pretty relevant to all this dog whistling about assimilation

View this post on Instagram

^ Haha, well played…

(just not sure sausage n oyster pies will take off)

Adam Bandt is gone.

Wow.

So too is Zoe Daniels (most likely).

Wow.

Two more frauds bite the dust…
Glad Labor are doing it for themselves.

Hopefully the Greens will now play ball in the senate and let Labor pass some things. Time they pulled their heads in and respect Labor’s big win this election and after their big lower house defeat this election.

andy-mac wrote:

sypkan wrote:

and as to the tendency of over accomodating that has developed, I think the recent muslim call to prayer debate that sprung up in sydney is a good example

certain forces, reflexively, jump to their... 'oh it's just the same as church bells...' argument

well it's not really, like it or not... we have a largely christian population and history, if muslims are only a minor % of the population... (which they are) I think it's totally reasonable that we don't have to accept call to prayer amidst our urban environments and soundscape...

in bali for instance, where there is often a huge muslim population just quitely going about their business, there is never a call to prayer in the predominantly hindu areas, you never hear it, ever, and fair enough I reckon...

predominantly muslim areas it is totally different

Agree re call to prayer, noise laws should cover that in Australia.

@sypkan , I often stay with a local friend in klungkung when the waves & wind are good . Klungkung as you would know , is a very old dynasty of emperor’s and kings where the majapahit that moved from java set up camp . They are the highest caste with nearly everyone’s first name being Agung. In klungkung there are several mosques and these date back to when the majapahit also first arrived. Prayer can be heard through loud speakers starting around 4.00am 5 times a day . This is tolerated by the overwhelming majority hindu community and nobody really bats an eyelid over it . To be frank , I find it a bit annoying .

it's an interesting one, bells, buzzers, oyez and call-outs are more often used to remind plebs of the powers that be. The magnificent cacophony of the stephansplatz bells in vienna might be fun for a tourist, annoying for a viennese city worker, and have other connotations for someone who pondered the fact that the church bells are made from melted down turkish cannons..

.. my mother found the call to prayer in Istanbul very beautiful and nourishing when she visited after she'd just got a health diagnosis.. said it was like being on an alien planet, where you find there is a universal longing and acknowledging among sentients of something bigger than yourself..

we're defs at a bit of a modern era cusp.. people getting angry about pronoun preferences on people's professional signature blocks.. if we had email 60 years ago, signature blocks would have had 'God save the Queen' at the end..

funny aren't we?

^^

basesix wrote:

it's an interesting one, bells, buzzers, oyez and call-outs are more often used to remind plebs of the powers that be. The magnificent cacophony of the stephansplatz bells in vienna might be fun for a tourist, annoying for a viennese city worker, and have other connotations for someone who pondered the fact that the church bells are made from melted down turkish cannons..

.. my mother found the call to prayer in Istanbul very beautiful and nourishing when she visited after she'd just got a health diagnosis.. said it was like being on an alien planet, where you find there is a universal longing and acknowledging among sentients of something bigger than yourself..

we're defs at a bit of a modern era cusp.. people getting angry about pronoun preferences on people's professional signature blocks.. if we had email 60 years ago, signature blocks would have had 'God save the Queen' at the end..

funny aren't we?

I've heard some calls to pray that sound beautiful, others like a cat being skinned.

EasternLombok was especially grating... :/

haha, yep. a feller I know was stuck in a hotel for a week that had a tinny speaker blaring the stylings of a none-too-blessed vocalist 1 meter from his hotel window : /

Happy birthday indo https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/federal...

Supafreak wrote:

Happy birthday indo https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/federal...

Thank you the best birthday present ever.

basesix wrote:

haha, yep. a feller I know was stuck in a hotel for a week that had a tinny speaker blaring the stylings of a none-too-blessed vocalist 1 meter from his hotel window : /

“ I've heard some calls to pray that sound beautiful, others like a cat being skinned.

EasternLombok was especially grating... :/ “……….klungkung is definitely the cat version .

Happy birthday Indo….that would have been Jesus …not those other guys that can’t hear you…ha ha…..
There’s a lot of us that prayed he’d be gone…
…...now respect the choice of the people even if like me your not keen on the leader.

Optimist wrote:

Two more frauds bite the dust…

Adam Bandt and Zoe Daniels are frauds?

In what way?

Optimist wrote:

Happy birthday Indo….that would have been Jesus …not those other guys that can’t hear you…ha ha…..
There’s a lot of us that prayed he’d be gone…
…...now respect the choice of the people even if like me your not keen on the leader.

Yeah well i did ask those god's the other day for this, so yes thank your mate Jesus for me.

One thing that should not be forgotten in the discussion of western so called values and immigration is the correlation between the western value of Empire and the subsequent issue of immigration and assimilation.

Maybe?

Sorry missed the beat change, yeah Adam Bandt greens, the non threatening Marxist boogeyman. Yay?

thermalben wrote:

Optimist wrote:

Two more frauds bite the dust…

Adam Bandt and Zoe Daniels are frauds?

In what way?

Fair question.
In what way have they been dishonest or deceptive to gain a personal benefit?
I think they stuck to their guns and couldn’t and haven’t gained any benefit.
Religion and its organisations fits that description perfectly.

it's just dopey isolationism..
china fell behind while japan said 'yep! more! show us!!'

this western values thing is ridiculous.. so Filipinos that are Catholic are ok?
not the ones that hate Catholicism and Americanism though,
the ones trying to refind their spanish roots.. no? their polynesian roots.. what?

when rome fell in the 5thC eastern europeans stormed western europe..
so the spanish and portugese that killed incas, made them be all jesussy,
and settled south america are basically from turkey, mogolia, and kazakhstan..

what are you strange units talking bout?
we won.. the western thing has happened..

now, what, we become a museum like china chose to be?
or display and include like japan chose to do?

now it's just subtle flavours like @stu said..
ours is maybe hard work, environment
poking fun at ourselves and welcoming anyone
as long as they have a laugh with us.. dunno..

I am defs UK Aussie, Indo is very Dutch Aussie,
@quad is anti-ruski eastern euro Aussie..
Flollo = usa Aussie, sypkan is very antarctica Aussie..

I think overseas people see us as having a flavour, which is great..
it's definitely through having an egalitarian society
where we give newcomers a hard time, but then defend them hard,
but the post UK melange and learning from nth america's stacks totally defines us

seeds wrote:

thermalben wrote:

Optimist wrote:

Two more frauds bite the dust…

Adam Bandt and Zoe Daniels are frauds?

In what way?

Fair question.
In what way have they been dishonest or deceptive to gain a personal benefit?
I think they stuck to their guns and couldn’t and haven’t gained any benefit.
Religion and its organisations fits that description perfectly.

Perhaps Optimist got Zoe Daniels mixed up with Tim Wilson?

This article from 2019 may refresh his memory:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/wilson-and-wilson-the-mp-the-fun...

Haha Opti douchebag missed that one.
To be fair so did I.
None the less a fraud has regained his seat and Opti is happy about it.