Submitted by Blowin on Fri, 06/21/2019 - 08:01
Talking points worthy of further discussion without devolving into insult.
I just had a look at that link and have got zero idea how it could be interpreted as racist or vile . European thought teaches us to be curious. How is being curious as to the veracity of Pascoe’s work vile ?
I’d appreciate if you can point out exactly what you find so appalling, Stu. I read a few little bits at random in the link and it appeared considered and well researched.
I’ve never read Dark Emu and I’ve never seen that site before, I don’t have any real partiality to the subject. I don’t see why indigenous claims to precolonial habitation requires bolstering with any qualifiers on their mode of existence either way.
But any history should be challenged. Is it the fact that verification is required a symbol of ongoing delegitimisation, Stu ?
The claims and research could be fictional,as far as I’m aware , but they seem well referenced. Quotes from Pascoe’s book do seem determined to portray the colonisers as irredeemably evil.
In 'Parents, Is Young Dark Emu Appropriate for your Child?' they use Marcia Langton's quote out of context. Langton thinks it is appropriate (look it up), however made an off-the-cuff comment that kids may be scared by what they learn about frontier violence. The explanation of that quote is put to the side and her comment is made to read like an opinion against the book.
In 'About Us' they say they just present the facts, and then in almost every entry they second guess what Bruce Pascoe is thinking. Read it for yourself. It's the very opposite of academic inquiry - it's a hatchet job.
The lack of credits makes it read like We Are Anonymous. At least historians like Windshuttle and Blainey use their names.
Entries that begin with "Strangely, Mr Pascoe..." setting up the passage like it's the lawyer from the Simpson's cross-examining Apu Nahasapeemapetilon in the witness box.
The continual - it is awfully tedious - binary understanding of hunter gather / agricultural societies when Pascoe argued for a different understanding reliant on climate and location. The point is hammered without taking into account Pascoe's explanation of it.
In "Where are the coconuts?", they forward a proposition that because Aborigines didn't farm coconuts they must be hunter gatherers, which might well be a good piece of evidence, however they present it like a gotcha moment: "So, no Aboriginal ‘agriculture’ or ‘horticulture’ to see here!" and then go on to castigate "Southern intellectuals". How can it be taken seriously?
Honestly, it seems like there are points worth pursuing but I can't get past the partisan attack language. I would love to hear what Pascoe has to say in reply, though the website attacks him as much as it attacks his ideas so I doubt he'd entertain the debate.
"Open question from discussion above : if you have to continually burn your country in small amounts to avoid larger, later catastrophic fires - how does this fit in with the carbon accounting and CO2 targets you are supposed to meet? Do you get a special exemption because of eucalypts?"
No chance whatsoever, i mean we provide quality coal, gas & uranium to other countries in effect keeping their emissions lower than they would be if poor quality coal or oil etc was used instead, but the emissions from mining these count in Australia's emissions.
Whoop, wrong thread
"Sacked rugby union star Israel Folau has linked the NSW bushfire crisis and drought to legalising same-sex marriage and abortion, warning the disasters are a "little taste of God's judgment".
They should make a reality TV show of Israel having his holy water spiked with ultra-pure MDMA and then attending the Gay Mardi Gras.
Live-stream his spiritual revelation as the Sisters of Mercy rip his God Bothering clobber off and apply liberal amounts of glitter and body paint . Watch as he loses himself to the beat and links arms into a high kicking chorus line of Village People impersonators.
Closing scenes of him stumbling through Taylor’s square into a rising sun , exchanging details with a couple of bare arsed , chap clad hombres .
Final shot is him power fisting the air as he realises that in the past night he’s learnt as much about himself than he has about his new mates at the Pile On Club.
I’m thinking a cross between “ The Breakfast Club “ and “ Jack Reacharound vol 4 - A hard man is good to find”
Izzy surely has some screws loose but still doest go against the fact he was farked over pretty bad (but lets not get into that again)
What ever happened to his legal case?..wonder how it's going or if it's going?
Izzy is a freakin moron.
Fornicators are going to hell......FFS.
I’m all for spiritually and philosophically pondering existence, but that’s some low-rate , spoon fed bullshit that only the mindless would ever consider to be factual.
Don’t think he’s too sharp but the scary thing is he’s cause has got traction with many in Morrison’s government and the Christian lobby. These latest pronouncements will do him no favours.
BTW. Without sounding like a suck, ive got to say i think you do a very good job at moderating these forums, if you had deleted that link it would be the first decision i wouldn't have agreed with, otherwise all post deleted or shut down i think have been very fair decisions.
Your political views etc. are clear but i think you do a very good job at biting your lip or letting threads run or views that you oppose, no way on earth i could do that my personal views would get in the way.
Only time i think you should have stepped in sooner is some of the threads with Herc that turned into back and forth abuse.
Cheers ID. Ain't always easy but it's usually worthwhile.
"There is no conversation more boring than the one where everybody agrees." - Mick Montaigne.
Burnt leaves now washing up on the Northern Beaches, not sure where from but it'd have to be north, even after the strong southerly winds yesterday..
Just when you think that everything is accounted for , something like this happens.... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-komodo-d/
Big +1 for Stu keeping this going and censor free -
Youtube on Dec 10 is removing any channel they deem "not commercially viable".
The censorship on social media is ongoing at full steam, Orwell by corporations.
In the meantime:https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/05/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-...
Stu's going to have a choice one day, when one of us prints something that has recently been declared "hate thoughts" (though formerly wasn't). In the meantime long may an open forum keep going
The biased moderation of most sites is astounding.
Some days the comments following SMH and the Conversation articles are pure echo chambers despite being on highly divisive topics.
Imagine if Blindboy , for example, was in charge of moderating these threads. The definition of “ hate speech” includes anything not personally agreed with.
Smoke from the NSW fires making for an eerie sunrise over here:
Where are you ?
Ha ha speaking of bias moderation.
Ive been blocked on Extinction rebellions Australia main Facebook page and i haven't abused anyone or use bad language etc.
Now that is the definition of ironic a groups that believes they can break the law to protest blocking others views.
IB a great & slightly disturbing photo.
Craig just updated the SSW thread, and it looks like another negative SAM is forming, so bushfire conditions should unfortunately persist in NSW and QLD into the near future.
On a lighter note, here's some other things Aus has sent over to NZ (whoops):https://newzealandvacations.com/blog/did-i-just-see-a-kangaroo-in-the-wi...
The irony indo is you actually think you can post your usual claptrap on a Facebook account like ERs with immunity and not be expected to be blocked.
Sorry thats not really ironic, but yeah i could have also used the world hypocritical.
No i wouldn't have expected to be blocked by a pro freedom of speech freedom of protest and action, quite funny really.
Looks like that Australian article you quoted about greenies vs hippies was somewhere between a beat-up and total BS Indo.
"Prominent Nimbin identity and HEMP Party president Michael Balderstone has told The Echo that he is ‘still feeling very bruised’ by a front page Australian newspaper (Newscorp) splash which featured him inaccurately on November 12.
He’s accused the Rupert Murdoch-owned paper of misrepresenting his comments over the Greens and says the reporter did not make it clear to him ‘at all’ how he was being quoted for the story.
The paper’s environment editor Graham Lloyd quoted Balderstone as saying the ‘Greenies have a lot to answer for over the incendiary state of the Australian bush’.
‘That’s complete bullshit – I did not say that,’ Balderstone told The Echo.
The comment is at odds with the fact that the Greens have never been in power at a state or federal level, and the newspaper offered no evidence that the Greens had resisted back burning.
Balderstone told The Echo that Newscorp’s Lloyd rang him ‘looking for someone to talk to about a fire story he was writing and told me how [Greens leader] Richard Di Natale was blaming climate change for the fires and the coalition was attacking him’.
‘I think that’s how he got that quote from me… I said something like, “Yeah they’ll cop it on the head, there’s been some Greens obsessed with no fires etc. I remember a few years back, someone wanted to ban fires”.’
Balderstone said it was ‘just casual conversation with me agreeing the Greens will get attacked,’ and he then suggested Lloyd ‘talk to a fire captain we both know’.
‘I had no idea he was writing down what I said’.
Balderstone also says Lloyd sent the paper the headline Country Gone Wild, ‘but the editors changed it to “Hippies blaming Greenies”… Which was nothing like what I was saying. I did speak to him about us white fellas ignoring the Aboriginal fire gardening wisdom, which he reported correctly’.
Balderstone added that Lloyd has lived in Nimbin for a ‘long time, but I don’t know him well.’
‘He feels really bad and embarrassed about it, like I do,’ says Balderstone. ‘Perhaps he’s been working for Murdoch for too long.’
What ......A newspaper has misquoted someone in order to generate controversy or to support their predetermined perspective !
When did they start doing that ?!?!
It's quite obvious to any sane person if you talk to the Australian paper journalist what type of angle they are going to paint.
I guess he must have got a lot of flack from locals.
seems like both of the articles you came up with Indo, the protagonists were taken out of context or their comments wilfully misrepresented.
Anyhow, thats the depths the Murdoch culture warriors will stoop too to obfuscate on climate change.
We'll be seeing plenty more of that this summer.
This guy might have been misquoted, sure that's a possibility or he could just be another shit dribbling Nimbin local thats done way too much drugs and got given $100 from a journalist and cant remember what he said five minutes ago let alone a few days ago.
But if by "both" you are saying the scientist was misquoted then that is just not true.
It's recorded (full sound bite on other page) no edit, question clearly asked, answer clearly given with some detail.
Even the little word he wants to insert latter actually makes little to no difference to his original statement especially seeing what he added before and after that part of his answer.
Its quite obvious he just never expected the media attention from his answer and it didn't make him or his organisation or cause look good, so tried to do some back peddling, problem was he was way to clear and detailed in his answer, there was virtually no wiggle room to change things, he tried but i cant see how its changed anything.
no, I didn't think you would.
“It's quite obvious to any sane person if you talk to the Australian paper journalist what type of angle they are going to paint.“
........ got to agree with you indo on the above quote so why quote the Murdoch rags as objective news sources yourself so frequently?
You sometimes quote the Guardian yeah?
Same deal, it aligns more with our views, neither is objective, each has bias or angles it wants to paint.
Im not really sure if there is such thing as objective non bias reporting, its just more about degrees.
For example sky news would be the worse one way and i guess you would go those smaller rags like New maltilda the other way.(and public radio like RRR 3PBS)
Then maybe you have the Australian and Murdoch press further in on the right.
Then Gaurdian, SBS, ABC etc the other direction.
Then in the centre mmm maybe the age is possibly as central non bias as you could get?
Personally i like to get a bit of both views Sky news for a laugh and to get my blood boiling against the left, Murdoch news for a bit more balance (for me not you) and ABC ad independent radio like RRR etc for more of a left view, that also gets my blood boiling ;D
I really don't like the Guardian indo, if I have quoted them it would have been sometime ago and for a specific purpose, I much prefer the Age and ABC although I believe the Age has softened with the change of ownership. Getting objective news rather than opinion or bias dressed up as news is a real problem and hence the importance of a strong ABC.
Indo if you'd like to see a different right bias and viewpoint from that of Murdoch et al, - and certainly libertarian - with an Australian focus, I can suggest:
If you want a more traditional left viewpoint than the hyper-globalised one that Guardian purports, I can suggest:
and also well worth reading if you want to go down the rabbit-hole of money and discover the magick within, well worth reading this one:
apologies if too many red pills for one post
True objectivity is impossible because everything comes through personal filters. So yes gather as much information as possible from all perspectives then give it your own meaning. Even then that choice will be biased, but at least it's your own bias. That's the beauty of contrasting perspectives, they allow you to create and give meaning to your human experience. For me it's not about who or what is wrong and right, but what works, especially what works for me being me. Sometimes I shake me head at humanity insanity, but it is what it is.
Sorry Dave, but that sounds like Byron Bay self focused, self absorbed (living my truth, man) mumbo jumbo to me.
There is an external reality and truth outside of our mind.
It's not all about you.
Argh those ones seem pretty extreme, no offence might stick to what i know :D
Yeah i agree with a lot of that.
Bias to a degree is natural and is about different perspective.
Sometimes i will read or see some news from the right or left media and think one thing and then i will google the topic to see what the opposing view is, sometimes it's actually really easily explained, and you know what i hate to admit it, sometimes the left media is correct and change my perspective, sometimes the right do, but yeah 100% i sill have a bias to certain views especially right leaning.
But yeah like Freeride says there has to be some limits too what bias is allowed and accepted and limits on stretching the truth.
The recent topic of Black Emu is a great example of this where it's quite obvious the bias for a political/social narrative has seen the truth stretched to it's limit.
It's scary when this happens in the mainstream and is accepted as truth, im starting to develop a soft spot for Trump as time goes on, but i have to admit Trump is also a great example of this danger.
Free ride and indo, I reread my post and can't see my saying there was no outside reality. I simply stated we all have personal filters and these are biased. What is truth, what is allowable? Actually it is all about me, because I know there is only one thing, life. So my self absorption is about life in all its forms. In fact I am so self absorbed I can allow any other aspect of life the freedom they think they deserve and require.
Ha ha. Christianity meets communism. If our souls were truly at stake wouldn't we cease all contact? Wouldn't we avoid any dealings with them. Wouldn't we be wise to avoid any communication and trade with them? Trade, we need their money mate, just not their ideology. Come on rave, don't you make us look like hypocrites here. We will whinge and whine, but will that be cash, visa or Mastercard? Sorry about the little misunderstanding comrades, it's always a pleasure to do business with you and please buy again and again and again, we will even throw in a few freebies for you. What you want some farms, airport, ports and power companies, no problems, will that be cash, visa or Mastercard our good friends?
Buddhism teaches us attachment is the source of all suffering.
A group of missionaries set off to the cannibal camp intent on getting them to change their ways. The cannibals met the missionaries with civility and accepted the gift of bibles most graciously. However it wasn't long before the missionaries found themselves in a big pot fuelled by pages of their own bibles. The missionaries stated to complain bitterly when the cannibal chief calm said, " I see you have been too attached to your own delusions. That is why you are suffering. You knew we were cannibals yet you still came to us, even bringing us paper books to fuel our fire with, yet you complain. Please stop that it will make you too unsavory and make it difficult for us to digest".
No worries Indo, where you go the government of the day will follow :)
GS attachment may be the source of all suffering but it also helps our legropes stay on. It's true though.
dave, we are starting to see the "cease contact" bit, the dislocation of the globalised economy into blocs, just like the Great Power struggles of previous centuries. It all comes and goes in cycles. We've just lived through 'peak globalism', maybe the last time it peaked in 1914.
And, to go back to the fires:
This one is close to home as wife's cousin had just copped a 25K fine shortly before the fires (Kinglake to Whittlesea area) for clearing around his house. Guess whose house survived the fire? His neighbours weren't so lucky.
As has been stated there's no fines for clearing around houses and making firebreaks in NSW.
In fact, if you live in the bush, the RFS will door knock you and tell you to do that.
The problem is the window for hazard reduction burns is becoming smaller and smaller and some country just can't be burnt safely.
ie the Mt Nardi fire, which continues to burn.
We are going to need a whole new approach, especially in areas that were not considered bush fires states like NSW and QLD.
"For me it's not about who or what is wrong and right"
Davetherave - and you wonder why in this "post truth" world people are so confused and easily manipulated.
Also probably plays a fair part in the increase in anxiety and mental illness.
Gday Andy, I don't wonder any such thing. Post truth world? I am ecstatic with my take on life and that is possible for all of us. This works for me, what works for you I am certain you know what that is. That's my truth.
Are you acknowledging that people can and do get confused when presented with the option of choosing their own "truth"?
AndyM, I acknowledge that all things are possible. But it would be highly arrogant and presumptious for me to speak on behalf of anyone else. Do you get confused with choosing your own truth Andy? Has someone told you that this is what happens to them? To me confusion is a sign that you have forgotten who you really are, life being you.
Dave, what I certainly don't get confused with are the realities of the world as shown by evidence and logic.
When you, and many others talk about "choosing their own realities", this tends to mean having belief systems which are do not stand up to scrutiny and critical thought.
It's clear that many people are very confused with choosing their own truth, the only question in my mind is a chicken or the egg question - do confused people choose this path of thinking and belief or does this way of thinking embed confusion.
In any case, I don't see it as being beneficial for individuals or larger communities.
Andy, you seem to be agreeing with what I posted earlier about there being no real objectivity but only different levels of bias. Evidence, logic, scrutiny, critical thought are only possible through an individual or group of people thinking and concluding.
As you state, you don't see people choosing their own realities as beneficial. Fair enough, but I do. What's the problem? Do I have to believe what you want me to believe or what you think is beneficial? Let's just leave it at that you are unique in your own way and I am unique in my own way and all others are as well. I hope you can come to peace with your chicken and egg question and invite you to consider that dichotomies are a real and valid part of human life. In fact accepting dichotomies can transform confusion into peace.