Aus was originally a penal colony. you generally arent going to be your best when you get exiled to the ass end of nowhere - and that reinforced successive generations. I lhave a few Aussie friends and they’re all sort of abrasive. fun bunch though.
“In both your cases your prospects of rehabilitation are good,” she said.
Does not really jive with this:
Sewell’s reprieve came nine months after he was also spared jail by a magistrate for a separate incident, when he repeatedly punched a Channel Nine security guard at the network’s Melbourne headquarters while on bail, as Hersant filmed.
I like the TLDR bot but it could still use some fine tuning. It misses out on nuanced gems like: “Outside court, Sewell and Hersant told journalists they were innocent of the charges, despite entering guilty pleas.”
And
“They spouted homophobic and anti-Semitic slurs and walked off.”
And one of these cunts was already convicted for assault (which the other Nazi filmed) but didn’t had to do jail time because of “his lack of criminal history”. So the excuse now is they have good prospects for rehabilitation. So the fucking judge thinks a violent repeat offender has a good chance at rehabilitation by doing community service. This judge is insane. Bet if it were anti-fascists they would be doing hard time.
If it was insanity, it’d be easier to understand her actions – she might not be completely completely in control of herself or aware of what she’s doing. She knows what she’s doing.
Whoop, good point. I did read the article, it’s just that my native language has no grammatical gender so it’s like stupid easy to slip up with this stuff
Grammatical gender just feels so, well… pointless. Like, why should I have to care about what someone’s gender is when I’m referring to them? If someone’s gender is actually relevant somehow I can just use words like “woman” etc. to specify (eg if I need to point someone out in a crowd or whatever), but it’s rarely relevant at all. Defaulting to “he” isn’t too great either even though I do it myself too sometimes because it’s so common and it was taught in school too etc., but it’s neat that “they” is more popular nowadays.
I should actually probably just fucking ditch gendered pronouns altogether and use “they” most of the time – would feel more natural, and as bonus it would annoy conservatives
It sounds like it’s in the context of sentencing and in the context seemingly of some discussion about their chances at rehabilitation so I imagine it was meant in that sense. “Good luck on your journey towards being not being a piece of shit any more”. Doesn’t sound like that journey is progressing very well though considering they immediately declared their innocence after entering guilty pleas and then spouted anti Semitic and homophobia remarks to the press outside court and walked off.
The judiciary has always been sympathetic to fascists. That was true in Weimar Germany as well. It’s the reason brown shirts felt safe to beat up people in the street, there were no real consequences.
The far-right do openly endorse terrorism. The funnel starts with people like Elon, Tucker, Peterson and Rogan and ends in Discord channels where mass shooters that hunt minorities are openly celebrated.
When they’re not doing that, they’re brainstorming ways to breed more far-right terrorists, which almost always involves memes and identifying vulnerable communities.
Too often I see people being called neo-nazis just because they have different world views from the woke herd. I’d rather treat labels like this with caution as it’s far too easy to hurt someone’s image undeserved, especially when biased media starts echoing these claims.
Ah yes, the thing that already is heavily discouraged and doesn’t happen (unless illegally, which is a whole other issue and has jack to do with your imaginary mob), and the thing that… The “woke mob” already believes in? Alrighty then.
The general consensus of the left nowadays seems to be equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, very big difference (eg diversity quotas and gender wage gap)
So in this scenario, what exactly is the equal outcome supposed to be exactly? Affording education? Being accepted into a job that you’re qualified for in a diverse setting which is preferred scientifically considering workspaces and study groups benefit more from diversity of lived experience, background and origin? (Chicago Tufts University. “Racial Diversity Improves Group Decision Making In Unexpected Ways, According To Tufts University Research.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 10 April 2006. )
Does this actually happen as much as you claim it does or are some people pissy that the establishment they applied to decided, between equally qualified candidates, to pick the one that would add to their diversity? Or are you implying (I don’t even need to ask if you’re from the US) that most minorities only ever get a job/scholarship not because of their own efforts, but because they’re receiving handouts and of course could never actually be qualified for anything?
Microsoft and Target do this, to name 2 big ones. They don’t explicitly say so, but no respectable company will ever admit to discriminating against anyone and they’re both proudly showing off how diverse they are.
Don’t get me wrong, I personally don’t have any issues with diversity, I have an issue with people getting places they shouldn’t be because they are in a specific group. Whether that’s an elitist white male group or a minority group, I believe all discrimination is wrong.
So to be clear, you’re saying that Microsoft and Target hire people who are objectively unqualified for their roles, purely because they’re minorities?
Because that’s definitely bullshit and would be career suicide for anyone in charge of hiring.
I understand your concern but trust me, if this situation happens ever, it happens incredibly rarely, especially with Walmart and Microsoft considering the thousands of applications they receive. At some point, you have a whole lot of highly qualified individuals, some from diverse backgrounds. The better choice for the company is to pick with diversity in mind through the top. It’s just how it is scientifically, it’s what benefits the company the most.
That being said nepotism is shit, Idiocracy is shit, but meritocracy is also very much, shit.
That doesn’t answer the question, which was whether these companies hire less qualified people over better qualified people due to diversity targets. You seem to assume they do, but where’s the evidence?
Removing diversity quotas and addressing the wage gap (which you seem to oppose, but it’s probably because you’re just listing trigger words) doesn’t make for a meritocracy and it’s been shown over and over again.
In controlled conditions, when someone is completely unable to know the gender, race or sexuality of the person they’re judging, minorities have the same merit and are judged much the same as anyone else.
When you remove those conditions, suddenly, in a magical coincidence, straight white men just happen to think that other straight white men are the most qualified for the job.
On top of that, people who heard the words “diversity quotas” and assumed they knew everything about them tend to assume they’re mandatory discrimination, then get upset.
They’re not. Managers aren’t saying “well unfortunately, all these hirely qualified men aren’t eligible because the quota said, so we have to hire this black gay woman who turned up to the interview visibly drunk”.
Any job tends to have a pool of candidates, any of whom are qualified. If you’ve genuinely been hiring on merit and have ended up with an all male team, that shouldn’t be difficult to demonstrate when scrutinised.
Victoria was a British queen. Sometimes places are named after famous people. This website has a .au adress. It's Australian news. Australia was part of the British Empire when Victoria was queen.
Did they fucking travel back in time?
Yes. They travelled back in time from the 19th century/Victorian times to the 21st century.
Shit’s getting really bad. I mean I’m not sure what I think on the judgement, but the fact that there’s people here walking around with Nazi symbols and openly literally becoming members of the National Socialist Network. How has it all gone so wrong and so… Weird.
We live under states, the right to use violence to protect ourselves and our community has been taken from us. The state is allegedly supposed to protect you so you don’t need to use violence, but as we can see, the state has failed at this.
There should not be NAZIs openly walking around – they should not be able to make it out of their neighborhood.
Maybe it would be a little less intellectually dishonest to not claim socialism = fascism, wouldn’t it be? Call it what it is, English fascism. The Nazi movement originally did carry INGSOC acronym, and “socialism” was used as a term by Hitler to lure working class and win their votes for their NSDAP Nazi party.
We’ve always had odd balls, arseholes, pointlessly angry people, racists, homophobes, all varieties of people out on the fringe of generally acceptable behaviours. Modern technology has allowed them to find community and sort of glob together much easier, be much louder and more visible, spread their particular brand of thought.
Just my musings anyway. They were always there, the regular people were just more numerous and those on the fringe couldn’t find each other so easily.
I think we surpassed the “finding community” part long ago.
These days white extremists are manufactured by other white extremists on social media – the closest thing we’ve ever built to mind control.
The underlying grooming strategies aren’t much different to the ones Islamic extremists have been using on budding young suicide bombers for decades, they just throw in a few more memes.
Oh and most importantly, profits. There’s a lot of ad impressions and user engagement on the path from human being to far-right terrorist, eventually culminating in gun-based mass murder that is like Christmas for the gun lobby and for-profit media.
Targeting young, disillusioned men isn’t a new invention – Islamic extremists have been doing it in the Middle East for decades.
But America has brought modern convenience to the process. Fresh meat is easy to find and they only need a few hundred bucks to buy a gun for maximum damage and minimum risk.
Add comment