One Nation, what a bitches brew party....

And you are still coming across as far right when it comes to “women’s business”

 

You think regarding women as entirely free to and capable of making their own decisions is NOT Leftist? You think NOT making excuses for women (because making excuses for women implies they're stupid and helpless) is Rightist?

No wonder I have so much trouble with Progressives.

 

Telling it like it is is NOT making excuses

Blaming women for getting pregnant in the first place is the worst kind of duplicitous dreck ever posted. At least you haven’t, like two of the American posters, blamed an eleven year old for having sex with her grandfather

 

NOT holding women responsible for themselves (ie, exposing themselves to a potential pregnancy) is outrageously misogynistic. You must think very very little of females, if you think they cannot control their own actions.

 

Seems to me you are having two bob each way, billy the kid. There is a stack of stuff on Google to read, even the transcript of his Police Interview in which he admits to kidnapping a male, putting him in a car boot, and incinerating the car. Watch the video in this link.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...lia-worst-mass-murder-thought-camera-off.html

 

Yep, and theres a stack of evidence about JFK and 9/11 also........

 

[

really??

You have a strange definition of misogyny

It takes two to Tango you know and giving men a free pass on reproduction whilst insisting women shoulder all of the blame is far from equality

Tell me! Do you agree with the posters when they said that if the little girl (11 years old) did not want to get pregnant she should not have had sex with her grandfather? Is me saying the shitfaced kiddie fiddler should have tied a knot in it - is that “blaming her” or “making excuses”?

 

In all cases but rape, the woman is ENTIRELY responsible for 'yes' or 'no'. The man cannot make her choose one answer or the other (again, unless you think women are complete idiots).

You need to get square with what your 'feminism' is really saying about women.

 

In an ideal world yes, but in the real world, no.
Not all women are strong, some live in dependent relationships, some are weak, some fukked by religion or upbringing, some even have economic reasons and so on.
While I do agree that a woman can open or close her legs to her liking, there is too much of a grey zone when it comes to real life. Sometimes I wish women become stronger, and use the tools they have (sorry might sound cheap, but is not my intention) for their good and/or for a better world....
Reg.

 

Did you watch the video in the link?

 

Yes.

 

So...where is there any room for a second shooter?

 

And, read all of this. No second shooter, and Bryant being videoed by several people.

Link.

 

While true, that's a separate issue (but FTR, I absolutely don't agree with the outrageously wasteful feting implicit in careful historical consideration of each case. If you weren't raped, it's on you). We're discussing the claim of feminism while simultaneously denying women agency. The buck stops at: "I believe women are 100% capable of making their own decisions". If you believe that (and all feminists, male and female, claim to believe that), you have no choice but to accept the implications of that - ie, 100% responsibility. You cannot simply believe it when her choices are favourable, and deny it when they aren't.

 

You don't genuinely believe that do you, I am ashamed to be the same gender as you if you do, that sort of thought went out 50 years ago.

 

I believe women are perfectly capable of being fully responsible for themselves, yes.

I take it you feel that full female agency and autonomy is 'shameful'? And you think that full female agency went out 50 years ago? I'm not sure what planet you reside on, but it seems a bizarre one.

PS: are you male?

 

Billy, do you agree that Bryant killed the Martins at the Seascape Guesthouse (before the Cafe was hit,) hijacked that BMW and put that bloke in its boot (after the Cafe was hit) drove back to Martin's Guest House holding 'boot guy' hostage, then putting the cottage to the torch to emerge burned himself to surrender to Police?

 

Yes I am what has that got to do with anything

 

You said you were ashamed to be the same gender as me. Since you're not, you need now only feel shame about regarding women as silly children who can't control themselves.

 

crank - I'm the confronting irritant, the pragmatist Lefty who never abandoned the mission in favour of identity politics and elitism.

This says so much I don't know where to start. The Left has, contrary to its detractors, never been the sort of monolith as the Right. The struggle between the labourist and the elitist has been going for years. The labourist thinks the elitists are intellectual wankers and the elitists love the working class but can't stand an individual working class person who is probably socially conservative and concerned more with getting a decent wage than racism, gay rights, conservation and all the rest of it. For Labor in Australia the rot set in when the socialist objective was removed. Labor was rendered social democrat rather than democratic socialist. Mind you it was Doc Evatt who had a big hand in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights so I don't want Labor to be seen as totally bourgeois. When the means of production are socially owned fairness will be part of the nation's DNA. That doesn't mean that the push for fairness for all should be abandoned, I think it should run parallel, the two aims are not incompatible. But dumping the socialist objective destroyed the party's soul.

 

A lot here so I'll dot point my response:

1) I believe the Left is a monolith, in 2019. They now have close to 100% control of media, the arts, academia, etc. That has never happened before. We only ever had 50%.

2) I also believe we've lost to the Elitists. Even those who work hard on retaining unbiased pragmatism, are still very often ruined by fear of being seen to disregard Identarianism. I personally couldn't care less if they think I'm a Racist/Bigot/Transphobe/Nazi/Islamaphobe/Hitler/Satan. I'm old enough to remember when sneering Elites were the enemy.

3) Unfortunately Labor (and Democrats, et al) are pretty much totally bourgeois, now. They've gone too far down that road to convincingly claim otherwise. It will take a little while for that horrible reality to filter down through the working classes, but they're catching on.

4) The problem with seeking 'fairness', is that it doesn't always mean equity. In the (tiny) minds of the bourgeoisie, fairness means every kid gets the same sized slice of cake, even the naughty ones. In the mind of the Pinko, that's not equitable. The abandonment of equity in favour of fairness is a disaster ... both for the Left, and for any society this inequity exists in. The Pinko would not give an equal slice of cake to naughty children. A Pinko would ask that children who want equal cake, earn their slice equally. So yes, the Pinko factor is needed.

 

I will just address point one

WTF??? 100% control of media?? Since when was Rupert Murdoch a “leftist”???

 

The mass media is business. Business is the owner of capital. The mass media are capitalists.

The elites do not care about the working class. They've got theirs. They are inclined to tear up when faced with "social injustice" which they want to define. Kids with their arses hanging out of their trousers because their single mother hasn't got two pennies to rub together to buy them something decent are not representative of social injustice in the eyes of the elite.

Most Australian political parties cater to capitalists, social elites, fringe nutters and aspirational voters.

As a society we should strive to remove economic misery.

 

Near enough to 100%. There is no longer a 50/50 divide.

 

1) yes, today's Leftists are flaming capitalists, we agree on that.

2) we also agree that elites have saturated the Left, meaning the working classes are irrelevant.

3) what economic misery?