Australia - you're standing in it
Actually, a good conservative would default to the pragmatic solution (upgrade the toilets) and moved on, not hold ridiculous rallies with questionable attendants.
More questions....???
Geez Morrison was a disaster for Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/22/labor-was-presente...
flollo wrote:Actually, a good conservative would default to the pragmatic solution (upgrade the toilets) and moved on, not hold ridiculous rallies with questionable attendants.
Yep. Upgrade bathrooms ASAP then these discussions do not need to happen.
burleigh wrote:flollo wrote:Actually, a good conservative would default to the pragmatic solution (upgrade the toilets) and moved on, not hold ridiculous rallies with questionable attendants.
Yep. Upgrade bathrooms ASAP then these discussions do not need to happen.
Why is everything dumbed down into a binary position? Individual toilets are way better anyway and it's widely done, even at the beaches. You can upgrade the toilets and have a discussion. You can respect tradition, religion, and others' right to self-identify. Why is it always option A vs option B?
garyg1412 wrote:Indo maybe it's time for a survey asking everyday women, young and old, of any major space safety issues they have had with:
a) Biological men identifying as a women
b) Biological men identifying as a man
When they say women's safe spaces, they aren't just talking about the need for a safe space for physical safety it also covers other aspects, like the women's right to just not feel vulnerable, uncomfortable, intimated etc or even for instance say in a swimming change room not to have your 12 year old girl for instance catch an eye full of some old guys tackle when he drops his dress or has a shower.
In the past it has been generally unacceptable for the opposite sex no matter how they identify to use a women's safe space, so its never become an issue, however things are changing because many would really like everyone to believe there is no difference between biology and identifying and to even challenge this can see you labeled negatively. (which shuts most people up, which is the whole aim)
I dont think the issue of biological women wanting to use mens spaces is such an issue for a number of reasons, and in reality a biological women identifying as male would generally feel uncomfortable and possibly unsafe using a mens only space.
It's not at all the same when flipped around.
BTW. Ive listen too these TERFS and to that more radical* one from the UK as she was on the Triggernomentry podcast, and while the main issue for everyday women is things like bathrooms and changing rooms, it does spill over into areas like prison system and then of course gores into the sports area too.
* Ive listened to a few and she is peak radical, she makes some good points but there is aspects where i think she is also wrong and goes over the top.
flollo wrote:Actually, a good conservative would default to the pragmatic solution (upgrade the toilets) and moved on, not hold ridiculous rallies with questionable attendants.
Its not a conservative issue, it's a women's rights issue the people who attended this rally(Let women speak rally) came from all political backgrounds with most being feminist or TERFS (generally radical feminist that dont accept trans women as real women)
And the rally had nothing to do with those Nazi clowns, they turned up for some strange reason and weren't even in the area where the speakers were, it really makes no sense what they were doing there?
Maybe in some instances shared toilets might make sense but its unrealistic in many places and often has other issues particularly for women, also its not just about toilets it covers many areas like change rooms.
In most places there is a third option for special needs, but of course those wanting to push boundaries are unlikely to take that option.
BTW. Apparently the rally was organized by "Angela Jones, a left-wing, pro-gay rights Jewish woman"
https://www.facebook.com/MoiraDeemingMP
@indo I am not talking about the rally but more broadly. And broadly, you see a lot of debate falling down onto toilets. Toilets are obviously just part of the picture and the overall discussion but it's the one that can be easily solved (and is implemented pretty much everywhere anyway).
Rally's are just a terrible choice of environment to be the forum for so many issues.
frog wrote:Rally's are just a terrible choice of environment to be the forum for so many issues.
Reminds me of the Mitch Hedberg line: "I'm against protesting but don't know how to show it".
What I also find strange is that all these different groups have a need to prove their point in Melbourne? Why is that?
10 minute podcast with Angie Jones speaking about the rally. https://www.2hd.com.au/2023/03/21/angie-jones-the-principal-organiser-of...
some very basic, entry level common sense and wisdom by someone who actually seems to have read some history, in a time dominated by completely insane, unhinged fanatical US war mongering and military adventurism aimed at provoking China and creating a self-fulfilling prophesy:
Speculation that China might invade Taiwan to distract from mounting domestic challenges - or because Chinese leaders imagine that their window of opportunity to seize the island is closing - is not just wrong, but dangerous. Here's why: https://t.co/mawriqRj1e THREAD
— Jessica Chen Weiss (@jessicacweiss) March 21, 2023
"Beijing, Washington, and Taipei must avoid creating the very do-or-die scenario that they fear." 🇺🇸🇨🇳🇹🇼
— Asia Society Policy Institute (ASPI) (@AsiaPolicy) March 21, 2023
New in @ForeignAffairs, @jessicacweiss of ASPI's #CenterforChinaAnalysis provides her take on the dynamics between the U.S., China and Taiwan: https://t.co/av2pJgmtiJ
JESSICA CHEN WEISS is the Michael J. Zak Professor for China and Asia-Pacific Studies at Cornell University and a Senior Fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis.
Jessica Chen Weiss wrote:In the West and parts of Asia, concern is mounting that China might invade Taiwan to distract from mounting domestic challenges or because Chinese leaders imagine that their window of opportunity to seize the island is closing. Facing an economic slowdown and rising unemployment, some analysts argue, Beijing might be tempted to launch a military offensive to rally popular support. In January 2023, for instance, Taiwan’s foreign minister, Joseph Wu, speculated that Chinese President Xi Jinping might create an external crisis “to divert domestic attention or to show to the Chinese that he has accomplished something.”
Other analysts warn of an impending war because China’s rise is slowing. In their view, Beijing might try to seize the opportunity to use force against Taiwan while it has the advantage. Admiral Mike Gilday, chief of U.S. naval operations, suggested in October 2022 that China could try to take Taiwan as early as 2022 or 2023. Other U.S. officials, including Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and William Burns, the director of the CIA, have cautioned that Xi has not yet decided to invade Taiwan. But there is growing concern among some Western security analysts and policymakers that once the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) believes it has the military capability to invade Taiwan and hold the United States at bay, Xi will order an invasion.
Fears that China will soon invade Taiwan are overblown. There is little evidence that Chinese leaders see a closing window for action. Such fears appear to be driven more by Washington’s assessments of its own military vulnerabilities than by Beijing’s risk-reward calculus. Historically, Chinese leaders have not started wars to divert attention from domestic challenges, and they continue to favor using measures short of conflict to achieve their objectives. If anything, problems at home have moderated Chinese foreign policy, and Chinese popular opinion has tended to reward government bluster and displays of resolve that do not lead to open conflict.
If Western policymakers exaggerate the risk of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, they might inadvertently create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of worrying that Beijing will gin up a foreign crisis to bolster its standing at home or assuming that Beijing feels pressured to invade in the near term, the United States should focus on arresting—or at least decelerating—the action-reaction spiral that has steadily ratcheted up tensions and made a crisis more likely. That does not mean halting efforts to bolster Taiwan’s resilience to Chinese coercion or to diversify the United States’ defense posture in the region. But it does mean avoiding needless confrontation and identifying reciprocal steps that Washington and Beijing could take to lower the temperature.
The hard but crucial task for U.S. policymakers is to thread the needle between deterrence and provocation. Symbolic displays of resolve, unconditional commitments to defend Taiwan, and pledges of a surge in U.S. military power in the region could stray too far toward the latter, inadvertently provoking the very conflict U.S. policymakers seek to deter.
WAG THE DOG?
Although the logic of diversionary aggression has an intuitive appeal, there is little reason to think that domestic challenges will tempt China’s leadership to launch a war abroad. In a 2008 review of cross-national studies of international conflict, the scholars Matthew Baum and Philip Potter found little consistent evidence of world leaders starting military hostilities to whip up domestic support. Moreover, authoritarian leaders may be less likely than democratic ones to initiate crises in the wake of domestic unrest because they have greater latitude to repress their people, the political scientist Chris Gelpi has found. And rather than embark on risky military adventures, leaders facing domestic challenges often choose other means to quell discontent, including working with other states to address threats from within—for instance, by settling border disputes to calm unrest on their frontiers—or resorting to repression.China’s response to once-in-a-generation protests against its draconian COVID-19 restrictions late last year is a case in point. After demonstrators took to the streets in dozens of cities carrying sheets of blank paper—symbols of resistance in the face of censorship—the Chinese government did not seek to deflect attention from domestic discontent with aggressive foreign policy measures. Instead, it eased its COVID-19 restrictions, detained and interrogated protesters, and continued its post-pandemic efforts to reassure foreign investors.
Chinese leaders have given few signs that domestic insecurity might prompt them to lash out against Taiwan. On the contrary, Xi and the Chinese Communist Party leadership have sought to project an image of confidence and patience in the face of growing international risks and challenges. Despite pessimism in China about trends in public opinion that show Taiwan pulling away from the mainland politically and culturally, Xi told the CCP’s 20th Party Congress in October 2022 that “the wheels of history are rolling on toward China’s reunification.”
Historically, Chinese leaders have tended to temper their foreign policy during times of domestic turmoil. Sometimes, they have engaged in harsh rhetoric and saber rattling, but they have only rarely launched military operations in such periods. Even Chairman Mao Zedong, who ordered the shelling of offshore islands in 1958, sought to mobilize the Chinese population while avoiding an outright war over Taiwan, warning that China must only fight battles it is sure of winning.
According to the political scientist M. Taylor Fravel, China has compromised in 15 of the 17 territorial disputes it has settled with its neighbors since 1949—most of them during periods of regime insecurity arising from domestic political challenges, including unrest in Tibet and Xinjiang in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, and renewed unrest in Xinjiang in the early 1990s. In an analysis of Beijing’s behavior in militarized interstate disputes between 1949 and 1992, moreover, the political scientist Alastair Johnston found “no relationship between domestic unrest and China’s use of force externally.” If anything, the frequency of China’s involvement in militarized interstate disputes declined when domestic unrest increased. On the whole, in other words, Chinese leaders have done the opposite of what many analysts are warning: they have sought to reduce external tensions in order to tackle domestic challenges from a position of greater strength while attempting to deter foreign efforts to exploit internal tensions.
Beijing’s behavior in the East and South China Seas has followed this pattern. During two flare-ups with Tokyo in the 1990s over the island chain known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China, for instance, Chinese leaders quashed expressions of popular antipathy toward Japan with the aim of preserving economic ties with Tokyo, according to the international relations scholars Phillip Saunders and Erica Downs. And the political scientist Andrew Chubb has shown that between 1970 and 2015, Chinese leaders tended to be less aggressive at sea during periods of internal strife. When Beijing did act assertively in these maritime territorial disputes, it did so mainly to thwart perceived challenges with new capabilities, not to distract from heightened domestic insecurity.
BARK NOT BITE
Claims that Beijing is looking for opportunities to lash out for domestic political purposes aren’t just wrong. They are dangerous because they imply that U.S. actions have no bearing on China’s calculus on Taiwan and that the only way to deter Beijing from diversionary aggression is to deny it the ability to prevail in such an endeavor.Domestic considerations and the military balance of power are not the only factors Xi will weigh when deciding whether to attack Taiwan. Even if he prefers to avoid a near-term conflict and believes that China’s military prospects will improve over time, he might still order a military operation if he and other Chinese leaders perceive a sharp increase in the risk that Taiwan could be lost. As Fravel has shown, China has often used military force to counter perceived challenges to its sovereignty claims in territorial and maritime disputes.
Such challenges, including U.S. actions that endorse Taiwan as an independent state or suggest that Washington might be on the cusp of restoring a formal alliance with the island, might trigger such a reaction from China. Even so, Beijing has less risky ways to respond to perceived provocations, including rhetoric and actions that could burnish its nationalist credentials without escalating to military conflict. As I have previously argued in Foreign Affairs, China’s leaders frequently engage in rhetorical bluster to appease domestic audiences and minimize the popular costs of not using military force. They may also choose from a variety of escalatory measures short of war to signal resolve and impose costs on Taiwan, including military, economic, and diplomatic efforts to squeeze the island and deter it from pulling away from the mainland. Behavior of this sort should not be mistaken for preparations for war.
KEEP CALM
In any society, there are people who go looking for a fight. But among the ranks of China’s top leaders, those people still appear to be less influential than those who recognize that it is better to win without fighting. Although Xi warned in 2021 that China would take “decisive measures” if provoked by “forces for Taiwan independence,” the CCP reiterated in 2022 that “peaceful reunification” remains its “first choice.” Even the hawkish Qiao Liang, a retired major general in the Chinese air force, has cautioned against the tide of nationalist agitation for action against Taiwan. “China’s ultimate goal is not the reunification of Taiwan, but to achieve the dream of national rejuvenation—so that all 1.4 billion Chinese can have a good life,” Qiao said in a May 2020 interview. He went on to warn that taking Taiwan by force would be “too costly” and should not be Beijing’s top priority.At present, Chinese leaders are still pressing the PLA to prepare for a possible war over Taiwan, which indicates that they are uncertain about their ability to win. So long as these doubts linger, the use of force to take the island will remain an option of last resort. These leaders cannot count on a swift victory to bolster their domestic popularity, and there is no evidence that they are preparing for an imminent invasion. As John Culver, a former U.S. intelligence analyst focused on East Asia, has noted, preparing to seize Taiwan would be an enormous, highly visible effort. In the months before an invasion, such preparations would be impossible to keep secret.
For now, the best way to prevent a showdown is to recognize that mutual efforts to show resolve and threaten punishment are not enough to keep the peace. China, Taiwan, and the United States must resist analysis that could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy and make sure that alternatives to conflict remain viable.
To that end, Washington should assure Beijing that it is not bent on promoting Taiwan’s permanent separation or formal independence from China. U.S. officials and representatives should not refer to Taiwan as a country, ally, or strategic asset, or attempt to sow discord or encourage regime change in China, which would provoke rather than deter Beijing. Washington should help bolster Taiwan’s defenses, but it should do so without signaling dramatic changes in U.S. military support, which risk inadvertently creating the impression that Beijing has a limited window to invade. Beijing, Washington, and Taipei must avoid creating the very do-or-die scenario that they fear.
"for instance say in a swimming change room not to have your 12 year old girl for instance catch an eye full of some old guys tackle when he drops his dress or has a shower."
Indo that is a really simplistic example. Honestly, how many time do you reckon that is going to happen?? Compared to the issues we have with say 12 year old girls forcefully catching a handful of some old guys tackle, if you want to put it so crudely, then maybe we're protesting against the wrong things that affect women's rights hey??
garyg1412 wrote:"for instance say in a swimming change room not to have your 12 year old girl for instance catch an eye full of some old guys tackle when he drops his dress or has a shower."
Indo that is a really simplistic example. Honestly, how many time do you reckon that is going to happen?? Compared to the issues we have with say 12 year old girls forcefully catching a handful of some old guys tackle, if you want to put it so crudely, then maybe we're protesting against the wrong things that affect women's rights hey??
It was just an example, nobody can say how often it could happen, in some places it might never happen in other places it could happen daily for instance if communal showers and there are regular trans users.
If a "12 year old girls forcefully catching a handful of some old guys tackle" id expect the parents could report the man for sexual abuse of a minor and the law could even be involved, at a minimum im sure he would be given a warning or banned from the facility if a pool etc.
All kinds of similar sexual abuse issues are talked about and dealt with all the time (not suggesting this is sexual abuse but your example is), this women's safe space, trans free issue is a little different its a fairly new and evolving one and is based on a difference of opinion of ideology "what is a women"
And the whole topic covers many different aspects as we have even seen recently with the WSL making an announcement on who can compete in womens events.
Anyway I think the women have a right to not only be heard, but not to be demonised or put in the box along with Nazi's because some crazy Nazi's crash their event.
From my personal political perspective i think it really sucks how media have reacted and Victorian LNP because this LNP women member Moira Deeming may loose her position when she has done nothing at all wrong, and even if she doesn't she has had her name dragged through the mud, which sucks because i want to see more conservative women like her not less.
@Indo
a "12 year old girls forcefully catching a handful of some old guys tackle" id expect the parents could report the man for sexual abuse of a minor and the law could even be involved, at a minimum im sure he would be given a warning or banned from the facility if a pool etc.""
Reckon a warning would not be sufficient. Sexual assault of a minor should be a jail sentence offence.
Don't see what this has got to do with this debate however. Anyway I'm staying clear of this one... Live n let live
Good conservative Christians...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/22/videos-urged-coun...
andy-mac wrote:Good conservative Christians...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/22/videos-urged-coun...
No need for any of it. From both sides
Everyone - NUDE UP!
some very basic, entry level common sense and wisdom by someone who actually seems to have read some history, in a time dominated by completely insane, unhinged fanatical US war mongering and military adventurism aimed at provoking China and creating a self-fulfilling prophesy:https://twitter.com/jessicacweiss/status/1638226985238274067
https://twitter.com/AsiaPolicy/status/1638284596126306304JESSICA CHEN WEISS is the Michael J. Zak Professor for China and Asia-Pacific Studies at Cornell University and a Senior Fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis.
Mehh more hyperbole preceded by a fairly sensible article that concludes with the obvious.
Anyways how about that Hong Kong.
some very basic, entry level common sense and wisdom by someone who actually seems to have read some history, in a time dominated by completely insane, unhinged fanatical US war mongering and military adventurism aimed at provoking China and creating a self-fulfilling prophesy:https://twitter.com/jessicacweiss/status/1638226985238274067
https://twitter.com/AsiaPolicy/status/1638284596126306304JESSICA CHEN WEISS is the Michael J. Zak Professor for China and Asia-Pacific Studies at Cornell University and a Senior Fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis.
Mehh more hyperbole preceded by a fairly sensible article that concludes with the obvious.
Anyways how about that Hong Kong.
“And after the melodrama and the subterfuge, of course, came the threats..”
On a lighter note, the excitement (for some) about submarine jobs for Australia reminds me of the classic "hit" song "Is We Is" from way back when Flora - a small town in Illinois - was competing with 33 other communities to become the site of a new prison - jobs jobs jobs.
The police chief thought a semi rap type song might help and created the lyric of the century:
"Is we is or is we isn't gonna get ourselves a prison?"
Crazy cargo cult small town USA stuff
Flora never got a prison
Bonza I genuinely feel sorry for you and for the overwhelming majority of Australian people for being so saturated in deep rooted fear and for not being able to step outside of the Anglosphere echo chamber and narrative control.
If you were to crowbar your mind out of it you'll realise that the overwhelming majority of the world's population left destabilised and war-torn, underdeveloped and in poverty, and raped and pillaged by the West - again, large chunks of Africa, Latin America, central Asia, southeast Asia, China, Russia, the Middle East, the Islamic Kingdom, India, etc - believe that the world is at a crucial historical turning point at which the balance of geopolitical power is shifting and finally enabling them to get out from under the West's colonial and post-WW2 tyrannical oppression and subjugation, and finally get out of poverty and onto the path of freedom, development and improving their living standards and way of life.
AUKUS is just an attempt at dragging out this tyrannical oppression, largely aimed at China, because China is the main country driving this shifting balance of geopolitical power and now trying to work with the less developed nations. In doing this, China is directly going against the West's strategy of oppression and exploitation of those peoples.
Some more sanity and wisdom, this time from ASEAN and the Malaysians:
Asean wants no part in US-China rivalry or an unjust war over Taiwan
Peter T. C. Chang wrote:Asean supports a free world but it is not taking sides in the US-China rivalry because it could lead to an unjust and catastrophic war, misguidedly waged in the name of liberal democracy.
The US policy of “strategic ambiguity” has for decades facilitated development on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and Beijing is unlikely to seek reunification by force, unless it is provoked by Taipei’s moves towards independence.
But, from Washington’s perspective, the relative stability of the past few decades has disproportionately benefited China, eroding America’s global dominance and even possibly posing a threat to US sovereignty.
So China, the thinking goes, has to be contained before it’s too late.
While some US Republicans have expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping appears to have no sympathisers in Washington. As shown by the recent “spy balloon” incident, a feverish anti-China phobia is gripping the United States.
The groupthink on China has led to a reckless one-upmanship between the Republicans and Democrats to out-hawk each other on China. Thus, the campaign to contain China is pushing their already tense rivalry into ever more dangerous territory.
With US General Mike Minihan warning of a possible military conflict with China by 2025, talk of war is becoming more prevalent. The groundwork is being laid to prepare the American public for war with China.
According to the just war theory, war can be justified when all other options have been exhausted and there is a reasonable probability of success; in other words, the potential benefits must outweigh the harm caused.
By most accounts, war over Taiwan does not qualify as a last resort, and there would be no clear winners. Additionally, it risks escalating into a wider conflict with overwhelming costs. Given the devastation already caused by the Ukraine crisis, a war over Taiwan would have catastrophic global consequences.
This is the main reason Asean is not taking sides in the US-China rivalry: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations wants to avoid becoming complicit in a morally unjustifiable war.
Most countries in Southeast Asia are democracies, and while China presents challenges, such as territorial disputes in the South China Sea, it is not seen as an existential threat. These challenges should be managed diplomatically.
Contrary to the “end of history” hypothesis, Southeast Asia’s pluralistic world view holds that liberal democracy is not the only way to achieve good governance. Just as the world is inevitably multireligious, the ideological landscape should also be diverse.
No one religion or ideology has a monopoly of virtue and few are inherently evil. The responsibility lies with both democracies and non-democracies alike to strive towards their ideals.
America’s democracy is experiencing a crisis. The rise of authoritarian sentiments, attempts to overturn election results and the spread of conspiracy theories have cast doubt on the effectiveness of the US system.
In addition, the stagnation of working-class living standards and the polarising cultural wars over issues like race, abortion and gender identity are tearing the country apart. These challenges represent a significant setback for America’s soft power and global leadership.
Thus, America is waging a two-front war to defend liberal democracy: domestically and internationally. Restoring its democracy should be Washington’s top priority, as a strong and exemplary American leadership is seen as crucial to preserving the free world.
Relentless US efforts to contain China run the risk of a catastrophic war, which is unlikely to make the world or America safer.
The most acute threat to US democracy comes from within the country. Founded on the enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality, America is fracturing along racial, ideological and religious fault lines. Christian nationalism wants to return the US to its Christian roots, while the far right and left vow to fight to the end to preserve their versions of America. Not since the civil war has the republic been at greater risk of open, armed conflict.
The fissures cutting across the US sociopolitical landscape are deeply rooted in American soil. They did not originate from China and are unlikely to disappear even if China is contained.
Sadly, the baneful American ethno-religious impulses are also felt abroad, particularly in the vilification of China. A former US state department official, in framing China’s rise as a peril, noted that it was a non-Caucasian civilisation. In the Christian nationalist grand narrative, the China threat is often placed within a world view of an epic battle between good and evil.
Another principle of the just war theory is that war must be waged for a justifiable cause. To invoke war in the name of race and religion does not constitute just cause. The US and its allies have placed themselves on a war footing, not so much to defend liberty and equality but to preserve America’s ethno-religious hegemony.
The 21st century faces a looming crisis. The world is in danger of becoming embroiled in an unjust war that would not only be catastrophic but waged on the false premises of defending liberal democratic values. Asean and other like-minded democracies must continue to make the case for peace and help pull humankind back from the brink of disaster.
bonza wrote:“And after the melodrama and the subterfuge, of course, came the threats..”
gsco wrote:Bonza I genuinely feel sorry for you and for the overwhelming majority of Australian people for being so saturated in deep rooted fear and for not being able to step outside of the Anglosphere echo chamber and narrative control.
Hahaha. oh come on gsco - whatever you are feeling towards me - it ain't sympathy.
Those things in the article i posted either happened or didn't happen. if you say they didn't happen then show me. or you can continue with your "poor me, now its payback time sob stories. "
if you cant show me those things didn't happen then its obvious you support CCP shitfuckery within Australia. I don't.
andy-mac wrote:bonza wrote:“And after the melodrama and the subterfuge, of course, came the threats..”
andy-mac we can do this all day - fact check each other sources and dismiss the bones based on left right biases. or you can try a bit harder and respond to the contents not the source.
I am very aware of quillettes biases. they particular have a infatuation for all things trans which is pretty tiring. yes they are conservative but they also have a lot of qualified contributors and sensible arguments.
I like to stay in touch with publications and read articles that challenge my world view. how about you?
gsco wrote:Bonza I genuinely feel sorry for you and for the overwhelming majority of Australian people for being so saturated in deep rooted fear and for not being able to step outside of the Anglosphere echo chamber and narrative control.
These are very broad and unnecessary population-level accusations. What is the evidence you have to support this claim? Can one have reservations towards the CCP while also acknowledging the failures of the West? Is that allowed in your book? You assume that everyone who speaks against the CCP is automatically brainwashed and supports the US on all fronts. That of course is ridiculous.
bonza wrote:andy-mac wrote:bonza wrote:“And after the melodrama and the subterfuge, of course, came the threats..”
andy-mac we can do this all day - fact check each other sources and dismiss the bones based on left right biases. or you can try a bit harder and respond to the contents not the source.
I am very aware of quillettes biases. they particular have a infatuation for all things trans which is pretty tiring. yes they are conservative but they also have a lot of qualified contributors and sensible arguments.
I like to stay in touch with publications and read articles that challenge my world view. how about you?
@bonza
Agree with you that there are many opinions and people can generally back up these opinions.
Honestly, I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this whole issue as realise I have hardly any real inside knowledge on what is going on, which I think would include anyone commenting on a surf website. Definitely don't think I am on the fringe of any side.
My concern is even if what your posted article claims is true, that pouring billions of dollars into the USA's military complex for a few subs in a decades time at best and maybe a little strengthening of the alliance is the best way to defend Australia? This thought is hardly controversial.
To defend Australia against a country that I cannot see would have any reason to try and invade as they are our biggest trading partner and have contributed incredible wealth to our country, at least Gina and Twiggy anyway.
Having the subs to protest out trade routes from to ensure we can keep trading with our biggest trade partner, yep , makes sense to me.
It seems like the money could be a lot better spent elsewhere!
Andrew Robb you may remember leased the Port of Darwin to them in exchange for a pretty high paying gig post politics, I disagreed with this at the time. Chinese also own a lot of farmlands etc.
I am also not wanting to be in 100% with the USA as their track record is that that great in regard to war over the last 50 years.
Last post rushed as had to get to work.... Excuse grammar. :)
The only reason I could ever see China wanting to invade and rule Australia is for our resources and land to help their ever expanding population. I highly doubt this scenario would ever happen. If there is ever a war between China and the USA , I can’t see either successfully defeating the other . Just my thoughts.
"In doing this, China is directly going against the West's strategy of oppression and exploitation of those peoples."
I'm sure there are a few countries currently that would disagree with you on that one gsco. Oppression and exploitation are still oppression and exploitation whether by the barrel of some dictators gun or by financial shitfuckery. The US has managed to master both. Time will tell if China can do the same.
yes it's very interesting to observe China taking a more active role on the world stage, motivated in large part by a genuine belief that it can do a better job and be a better steward of the planet than the US, and in doing so step on the US's toes and directly challenge US interests across the planet, and overall challenge US hegemony.
It's equally interesting to then observe the response of the US and overall West of a global escalation of preparing to go to war with China and a global containment and rollback strategy of China.
I'd personally question the validity of a lot of the content and commentary about "wolf warrior diplomacy" and "financial and economic coercion" that we're routinely seeing disseminated as part of the West's information and propaganda campaign.
It remains to be seen if China is able to do a better job than the US and keep the interests of developing nations at heart. And I'm sure China knows that dealing with developing nations is tricky and not without its pitfalls like corruption, cronyism, changing goalposts, broken promises and contracts, etc. And China also know it's up for one hell of a battle if it wants to stand on the world stage as an equal alongside the US.
"China taking a more active role on the world stage,"
Nah, he's telling them to prepare for war, which is what you are flinging at the West.
indo-dreaming wrote:garyg1412 wrote:"for instance say in a swimming change room not to have your 12 year old girl for instance catch an eye full of some old guys tackle when he drops his dress or has a shower."
Indo that is a really simplistic example. Honestly, how many time do you reckon that is going to happen?? Compared to the issues we have with say 12 year old girls forcefully catching a handful of some old guys tackle, if you want to put it so crudely, then maybe we're protesting against the wrong things that affect women's rights hey??It was just an example, nobody can say how often it could happen, in some places it might never happen in other places it could happen daily for instance if communal showers and there are regular trans users.
If a "12 year old girls forcefully catching a handful of some old guys tackle" id expect the parents could report the man for sexual abuse of a minor and the law could even be involved, at a minimum im sure he would be given a warning or banned from the facility if a pool etc.
All kinds of similar sexual abuse issues are talked about and dealt with all the time (not suggesting this is sexual abuse but your example is), this women's safe space, trans free issue is a little different its a fairly new and evolving one and is based on a difference of opinion of ideology "what is a women"
indo reckons a trans woman, who obviously does not feel like or identify as a man, let alone is comfortable in a man's body, that's if they even still have male genitalia, is going to be in public areas blatantly letting young girls "catch an eye full of some old guys tackle when he drops his dress or has a shower".
Brilliant.
Romney explains it nicely, I agree with him. There is a lot of homework US needs to do to stay competitive.
Supafreak wrote:The only reason I could ever see China wanting to invade and rule Australia is for our resources and land to help their ever expanding population. I highly doubt this scenario would ever happen. If there is ever a war between China and the USA , I can’t see either successfully defeating the other . Just my thoughts.
I have no idea how realistic the threat of invasion from China is, I leave the judgement of that shit up to the experts to judge, "but resources and land to help their ever expanding population" sound like a very good reason especially as we are so mineral rich, farming land rich and well placed to provide lots of renewable energy in the future, id say its all about much more than some possible threat of invasion though.
Personally with this whole issue i just see it way above our pay grade to have the intel/judgement/understanding on, i could use the opportunity to bag Albo and try to make him look bad, but personally i think these kind of deals are bigger than the PM or party in power and would happen no matter which party or PM is in power.
2027
indo-dreaming wrote:Supafreak wrote:The only reason I could ever see China wanting to invade and rule Australia is for our resources and land to help their ever expanding population. I highly doubt this scenario would ever happen. If there is ever a war between China and the USA , I can’t see either successfully defeating the other . Just my thoughts.
I have no idea how realistic the threat of invasion from China is, I leave the judgement of that shit up to the experts to judge, "but resources and land to help their ever expanding population" sound like a very good reason especially as we are so mineral rich, farming land rich and well placed to provide lots of renewable energy in the future, id say its all about much more than some possible threat of invasion though.
Personally with this whole issue i just see it way above our pay grade to have the intel/judgement/understanding on, i could use the opportunity to bag Albo and try to make him look bad, but personally i think these kind of deals are bigger than the PM or party in power and would happen no matter which party or PM is in power.
I think a major part of the argument is not really about the invasion of Australia. From what I have read, that by purchasing these subs they are primarily for collaborating with the USA to help patrol the South China Sea, miles away from our border. Many have argued we would be a lot better off spending this kind of money on other military and naval hardware if our main goal was to defend our borders.
The only 'up' side of this deal looking at it from a Hawkish view is that we strengthen our alliance with the USA as our protector. Did we have a choice? Dunno.
Australia does have an abundance of natural resources that China needs, but why would they invade to acquire these resources when they can buy them with trade. They own farmland, have mining interests and lease other infrastructure in Australia (Port Darwin). It would be a lot more expensive (life's and $$$$) for China to mount an invasion of Australia to obtain these resources, so really it does not make any sense.
They only factor could be if Australia did in fact stop exporting these resources to China via a trade war or something similar, and they felt they had no choice. Whether they could successfully accomplish this would be doubtful in long term in my view. The USA adventures in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate it is one thing to mount an initial invasion, quite the other to occupy a hostile population.
As far as having a go at Albo, this was a deal it seems that was set up with Morrison and the Albo govt have been forced into it whether they like it or not, as mentioned earlier in this thread, once a deal signed with USA, cannot really break it. No real angle there for political bagging.
flollo that's actually a good little clip, nice one.
I'd say two things to it:
1. China genuinely believes it has good intentions and will be a positive and responsible global power, leader and steward of the planet. They believe that they have the best interests of all nations at heart, and that they have about 2,000 years of experience of being a positive global power in a multipolar world since at least the Han dynasty, which coincided with the Roman Empire. I'm not sure if it's necessary to fear the rise of China like the West currently is. Actually, I believe it should be celebrated and viewed as an opportunity.
2. Romney is basically right in saying the US doesn't have a comprehensive strategy. The US's current strategy is one of confrontation, containment and rollback of China, economic and technological damage, and outright war preparations. Kevin Rudd has been saying a similar thing in that the US currently doesn't have well developed economic, technological, political, etc, strategies to respond to China's rise (you may recall Rudd being berated for saying this a couple months ago). Rudd's idea of managed strategic competition with guardrails in his recent book is one of pushing for the global powers to compete with each other positively and in a way that advances the economic, cultural, technological, etc, progress and development of the whole planet - that benefits the planet as a whole - and that doesn't degenerate into damaging each other or the overall planet like it is currently doing, or that doesn't result in military conflict like is currently being risked.
I and many others believe the US needs to move away from its confrontation and rollback strategy towards China and seek to counter China's rise simply by focusing on improving its own backyard and economic, technological, cultural, etc, development. This is also basically what China is saying, and that the current path of military buildup, rollback and provocation that the US is on will only lead to war.
andy-mac wrote:Australia does have an abundance of natural resources that China needs, but why would they invade to acquire these resources when they can buy them with trade.
China is definitely smart with this approach. But there are complications. When a buying entity is a state-owned enterprise controlled by CCP you would naturally think about safety concerns and political interference. How would China behave if a country pushes back on such 'investors'? Would pushback even be warranted? I reckon it's contextual (personally, I don't even know) but as you know, all you need is one hardline government to stir things up dramatically.
We currently are not an enemy of China. If we join the US in a madman’s game of pretending the republic of China ( Taiwan) isn’t China and go to war over it we will become chinas enemy and in their eyes fair game.
Biden’s global weapons for sale “or else “ get rich quick scheme is the single greatest threat to the globe.
Do NOT do what nutty old men tell us to do. If America is dumb enough to follow Biden let them do it alone. The UN including Britain voted that Taiwan is China.
If they want a type of independence they will have to negotiate a good deal themselves without the guns and suicidal tendencies. The yanks need to stay home and tidy up their own backyard as it’s getting embarrassing there.
@gsco I agree with that. And let me be clear, I am not having a go at CCP because I love the US or endorse their strategy. The list of issues regarding the US is never-ending. I am one of those people who see China's dominance as an inevitability. They make an enormous amount of investments into the right areas and the US is severely lacking behind. Just look at the engineering capability of Chinese people (thank you good education system) and you will spot a huge difference to the US. If you look at this area, the only lever the US can pull to catch up is good old, trusted immigration. But then you get someone like Trump and it becomes a big issue.
But there are things that CCP needs to answer for if they want to lead the world. We are spoilt in the West, we have random individuals like friendly jordies ridiculing and exposing politicians across all sorts of issues. There is so much information (good and bad) about the US that we can analyse and judge. CCP needs to go through the same cycle of scrutiny to gain people's trust. And that's what I personally am looking for. To be honest, I don't even think about the US too much because I see it as a waste of time.
flollo wrote:andy-mac wrote:Australia does have an abundance of natural resources that China needs, but why would they invade to acquire these resources when they can buy them with trade.
China is definitely smart with this approach. But there are complications. When a buying entity is a state-owned enterprise controlled by CCP you would naturally think about safety concerns and political interference. How would China behave if a country pushes back on such 'investors'? Would pushback even be warranted? I reckon it's contextual (personally, I don't even know) but as you know, all you need is one hardline government to stir things up dramatically.
True, but that is an issue created by Australia. We were not forced to sell to CCP in the first instance.
When Robb leased out the Port of Darwin, I thought it was a stupid decision at the time. Keep important infrastructure and land Australian owned.
“ I'd personally question the validity of a lot of the content and commentary about "wolf warrior diplomacy" and "financial and economic coercion" that we're routinely seeing disseminated as part of the West's information and propaganda campaign.”
Love to hear you expand on that in the context of my question re the quillette article which succinctly summarises Hamiltons expose. And do it without playing the victim.
udo wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-23/lidia-thorpe-attempts-to-interrup...
Just wow! I don't know what's worse; these 10 or so protesters, Lidia rolling on the grass and blaming the police or media actually reporting on it all. What a sad day for the proud aboriginal flag. To see it rolled down in the dirt on this pathetic occasion...
Lidia is a shocker, Sad too that people can no longer have their say without the counter protesting all the time. The new sexual revolutionaries have made a lot of ground and the law has supported them. Time for them now to let others have their beliefs and respect as well. They themselves are becoming the very oppressors they used to despise.
She reminds me of that woman in the movie Lost In Translation that goes into Bill Murray's room and throws herself on the floor saying "lip my stocking"
What a joke....
Lidia has zero hope of effecting any change now...her whole modus operandi is to push the boundaries, scream for her audience, get her face on TV often, take maximum non taxable benefits, use Qantas and it's lounge...and generally disrupt as much as she can.
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.