UnAustralian

Current Events, World Discussion, Opinions etc
19 posts Page 1 of 1
rollyz
Posts: 3334
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 6:58 pm


The 21st Century was supposed to be fab. New tech, new ideas, new freedoms, etc But instead the cuntry is going backward to the dark ages. Increased uni fees, internet censorship, decreased speed limits, Art exibitions beeing shut down as too controvercial, 1am closing times for pubs/clubs, increased power bills from coal, yet not support for renewables, security checks/searches/dogs/scanners/camera survelance everwhere as if we are all enemies of the state, banning fireworks, opposition leaders saying women should be chained to the kitchen, banning drugs even before they are invented, banning ingredient that could make drugs even though they have mainstream legit uses..... etc

Now I read the news and they want to ban Ralph, People, FHM from service stations and newsagents as they are too pornographic for children. I also read that a christian (catholic?) re-enactment of Jesus on the cross was shut down by police as it made children cry....

Fuck.... how UnAustralian this cunrty has become....

What's next? Banning nudity on SBS?

Have a bitch, Post up what else you find UnAustralian. :angry:
herbsandspices
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm


You make a point that has been bothering me for years, and is one of the reasons I no longer call the sunburnt cunt home.

For example: In the paper yesterday Abbott comes out and publicly says that jesus would turn back assylum seekers... seriously WTF?

The older generations whinge about young binge drinkers, when in their day pubs were rammed between 5 and 8 pm with men sculling as many as they could before home, every night.

Australia was build on the backs of workers who fought hard since the Eureka stockade to maintain their conditions and rights whcih in 10 short years have been stripped to nothing, and the union movement slaughtered. Now Australia stands behind only the UK and Israel in length of a working week in the developed world. All in the name of productivity.

To be blunt, it seems to me that Australia has become a nation of wowsers, brown-nosers and dobbers.

But why....? Must have something to do with the media I guess. I suppose that's what happens when your countries moral compass is guided by today tonight.
susan
Posts: 2124
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 5:29 pm


is it though? it doesn't guide me, or you, or actually, anyone i know.
maybe it is only a guide for those who had no clue of their own to begin with
and maybe there's a lot of them out there. everywhere. avoidance is my best policy.
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


rollyz wrote :
The 21st Century was supposed to be fab. New tech, new ideas, new freedoms, etc But instead the cuntry is going backward to the dark ages. Increased uni fees, internet censorship, decreased speed limits, Art exibitions beeing shut down as too controvercial, 1am closing times for pubs/clubs, increased power bills from coal, yet not support for renewables, security checks/searches/dogs/scanners/camera survelance everwhere as if we are all enemies of the state, banning fireworks, opposition leaders saying women should be chained to the kitchen, banning drugs even before they are invented, banning ingredient that could make drugs even though they have mainstream legit uses..... etc


Yes, welcome to the 21st century. It fucking stinks.

We do seem to be loosing our freedoms at an alarming rate. It's not unique to Australia though. The same losses of freedoms are happening in the UK and the US. How much more did you really expect we would enjoy given our level of apathy? Freedoms need to be defended and the public are generally numbed from what amounts to a form of social conditioning through the media. I guess its complicated as fuck, and you need to sift through it yourself but it seems as if there is a kind of a clamping down on the middle class of western countries. To what end, i can imagine a few reasons, but I can't help but see some kind of eventual socialist destination on the horizon.

Still... it's all entirely un Australian.... bOOOooOO!!! Bring back Steve Waugh as captain, smoking in pubs and holy shit.... that Chances show was good for the tits ??! Bring that back too.. :shock:
Kratonic
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:35 pm


I don't know whether it's "Unaustralian" or not but it sucks. There does seem to be a great new wave of conservatism. New freedoms? I don't think so - welcome to the century of lowest common denominator legislation and policing. It's much easier to make blanket rules and ban symptoms than fix causes for issues.

The sad thing is that by far most people support randomly banning anything that might have a negative affect on their life. Young people* seem less adventurous and much more prone to remain at home in the safe cocoon of consumerism provided for them by their parents than they were in the 70s and 80s, rather than challenging anything. I tried to get people at work to come to the Brisbane rally against the proposed lock out - two of us went, both in our 40s. Several of the younger ones argued with me that it was not such a bad thing if closing times were earlier (they are of course entitled to their opinion). None of the majority that did want closing times to stay as they were could be fucked showing up.

It's worse than wowsers, brown-nosers and dobbers (although that's true) - it's fear and apathy. Fuck em all. :(


*Sorry about this term - it means people in their 20s who I kind of expect to want to change to world. The majority seem to just want to make it more like 1950 america but with more rules!
herbsandspices
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm


ionized wrote :

I guess its complicated as fuck, and you need to sift through it yourself but it seems as if there is a kind of a clamping down on the middle class of western countries.



This interests me. By my way of viewing the world, the "middle class" are the clampers not the clampees.

I have always understood the middle class as being those people who were removed from the means of production, that is to say those that "produced" something whether tangible or intangible (it could be a set of data, a car, an image etc) for money were by definition working class. The greatest trick the middle and ruling class ever perpetrated was fooling the working class into believing that because they wore a tie and could afford a brick 2 storey shitbox in a treeless surburban wasteland, that they were no longer workers. This is a recent innovation in the past 20 years.

The middle class are those that have the most to benefit from removing those freedoms we have been discussing, but perhaps we have a different definition.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


herbsandspices wrote :
I have always understood the middle class as being those people who were removed from the means of production


I just did a little Marxjizz in my panties :wink:
ionized
Posts: 1474
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:20 pm


herbsandspices wrote :
ionized wrote :

I guess its complicated as fuck, and you need to sift through it yourself but it seems as if there is a kind of a clamping down on the middle class of western countries.



This interests me. By my way of viewing the world, the "middle class" are the clampers not the clampees.


I'm not talking about globalization, or paying factory workers in mexico 5 pesos a week. I was referring to the emerging technological conservatism being exercised on the 'middle class' by their own ruling elite, be they government or private business.

herbsandspices wrote :
I have always understood the middle class as being those people who were removed from the means of production, that is to say those that "produced" something whether tangible or intangible (it could be a set of data, a car, an image etc) for money were by definition working class.


I would say look at the socio economic brackets then and then to the rising gap between the lower and higher levels of income but considering your average tradie earns a fuckload more than your average uni graduate these days, then perhaps your right and working class doesn't exactly mean what it used to and the labels of low, middle and upper class are defunct. Fair enough. There are people that do 'stuff' for 'pay' and there are people that sit on their arse and earn millions.

Your examples are also very broad though. A financial analyst produces 'sets of data' yet is by no means working class. Countries that outsource their labor jobs still produce things, just not things that are traditionally considered 'products'

herbsandspices wrote :
The greatest trick the middle and ruling class ever perpetrated was fooling the working class into believing that because they wore a tie and could afford a brick 2 storey shitbox in a treeless surburban wasteland, that they were no longer workers. This is a recent innovation in the past 20 years.


Ya'rly.

You should watch this talk by James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency. Funny as hell but he makes some good observations on suburbia.



herbsandspices wrote :
The middle class are those that have the most to benefit from removing those freedoms we have been discussing, but perhaps we have a different definition.


I would say the consumer will be used as it always has by government and big business. It's just people are more apathetic and so the nature of the manipulation and the means of control has become more overt since they can get away with it.
treedreamer
Posts: 393
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:00 pm


being a whiner is un-australian and who decides 'australianess' anyway? our predecessors worked their asses off and did not complain. they drank heaps to have a little joy. we drink because we are hedonistic and selfish. drinking and pubs should be curtailed. Australia has serious alcohol problems and to ignore that is to be ignorant.

We live in one of the safest, wealthiest, free countries in the world and have little true cause to complain. to complain is to show how spoilt we really are. elsewhere, people really do suffer - war, starvation, genocide. conservatism is just another phase and so what if lame mags get pulled. mags are fucked anyway and if you read them you are a sucker - i say shred the lot. people might come to know their own identity and like themselves a lot more and thus be kind to others. man, i really despise popular culture magazines.

Middle class? you mean all those who are literate, get to further study and hold down jobs? own a car or will? have access to technology? have the luxury to complain? i hate to break it to you lot, but we ARE middle-class! class shame is kind of silly. we are born into our demographic. you could deny it - go and live on 2 cents a day in an indian slum, but no-one is going to choose that life - so be grateful to be middle class, and give something back to society for your luck.

It's not a national identity thing, it's wealth and media that are creating the problems. Australia is not it's past anymore so to mourn the loss of the 'digger'/ working class stereotype is futile. we will never be that again (some might say that's a good thing!). we have always had a thwarted identity anyway - that's what happens with colonization and isolationism. no-one really belongs and those who do belong are denied their identity.
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


treedreamer wrote :
i hate to break it to you lot, but we ARE middle-class!


Hehehe fuckin ay!

Speaking of which, some of you might find this interesting. I sure did:

Blood, Sweat and T-shirts:

This BBC Three series from May 2008 saw six young fashion addicts swap shopping on the high street with working in India‘s cotton fields and clothes factories. Find out whether they could handle a sewing machine and meet the target of two garments a minute. And whether their experience changed their throwaway attitude to clothes shopping.


http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/542985
Galactic Monkey
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:03 pm


rollyz wrote :
The 21st Century was supposed to be fab. New tech, new ideas, new freedoms, etc But instead the cuntry is going backward to the dark ages. Increased uni fees, internet censorship, decreased speed limits, Art exibitions beeing shut down as too controvercial, 1am closing times for pubs/clubs, increased power bills from coal, yet not support for renewables, security checks/searches/dogs/scanners/camera survelance everwhere as if we are all enemies of the state, banning fireworks, opposition leaders saying women should be chained to the kitchen, banning drugs even before they are invented, banning ingredient that could make drugs even though they have mainstream legit uses..... etc

Now I read the news and they want to ban Ralph, People, FHM from service stations and newsagents as they are too pornographic for children. I also read that a christian (catholic?) re-enactment of Jesus on the cross was shut down by police as it made children cry....

Fuck.... how UnAustralian this cunrty has become....

What's next? Banning nudity on SBS?

Have a bitch, Post up what else you find UnAustralian. :angry:


Really? You mean your personal liberties are being taken away? Unexpectedly? Hardly. Do any of us actually read the bills that get passed? Do we even know that they get passed at all? Do we take affirmative actions against them being passed? No. I posted another thread in regards to Obama's healthcare and how fucked up it really is and that it basically allows for the government to murder people it no longer needs and the gist of some of the responses included "well that's for the best, when we are no longer needed we should be removed from this life." So thank you for posting this (and further illustrating the point I've been trying to make) but we should not be surprised at all, we are hopelessly dependant on the system that we allowed to do our thinking for us due to our own laziness and unwillingness to make tough decisions and we certainly got all tht we wished for and then some. And there's a lot more to come. Enjoy the matrix my dear human batteries :) Just remember, the system does not work for you, you work for the system, and if you completely deny this to yourself and others, well that just makes you a better slave.
kayhat
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:40 am


treedreamer wrote :
i hate to break it to you lot, but we ARE middle-class!


Who's we? I don't associate with class, as I've been working class and I've been middle class, and some other kind of class again online.

I don't really think it fits to jam people into any sort of class in a world that's so full of information and change right now.
herbsandspices
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm


If you produce something for a living, working for another's (corporate or individual) profit, you are not middle class by any definition but your own. Education or comparative global household income is irrelevant when discussing class politics. Class is about people's roles in a society, and concepts of power distribution between those roles.

The average working week in Australia is longer now than it ever has been in colonial history, and in many cases without paid overtime. This includes the working hours imposed on convict labour (though, granted it's a different type of work performed normally).

If other places in the world have wars, famines and economic hell, does that remove your right to preserve personal liberties which are being eroded, when such liberties have no impact on social justice issues elsewhere? In my humble opinion, no. To believe so is to accept the propaganda myth "you are too lucky, you deserve less". We have a global economy that dumps grain into the ocean to preserve market value. There is more than enough resource to go around if re-distributed, but without people speaking up, that will never happen.

Australian workers have traditionally fought long and hard for their rights and freedoms, to think otherwise is to be historically ignorant (ie that our predecessors worked their ass off and did not complain- it's simply not true).

I agree with wealth and media being the problem, but maybe not in the same way you do, not sure.

Perhaps I should have used a red font. :)
kayhat
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:40 am


Image
venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


herbsandspices wrote :
Australian workers have traditionally fought long and hard for their rights and freedoms, to think otherwise is to be historically ignorant (ie that our predecessors worked their ass off and did not complain- it's simply not true).


A little while back there was a thread in which I brought up the history of trade unions and the labour party in Australia in response to people saying that unions are useless and we shouldn't bother joining them because they could never achieve anything. I can't remember which thread it was and it really doesn't matter because there was an almost unanimous reply of 'fuck off venatrix what would you know'. It's really, really fucking depressing.
kayhat
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:40 am


Take your depressed ass outside and get some sunshine then if you're going to be a negative troll.
MotherShabubu
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:27 am


Galactic Monkey wrote :
Really? You mean your personal liberties are being taken away? Unexpectedly? Hardly. Do any of us actually read the bills that get passed? Do we even know that they get passed at all? Do we take affirmative actions against them being passed? No. I posted another thread in regards to Obama's healthcare and how fucked up it really is and that it basically allows for the government to murder people it no longer needs and the gist of some of the responses included "well that's for the best, when we are no longer needed we should be removed from this life."

I assume you are refferring to my post to http://australiens.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=16121 given only two people responded and the other response was:
Marsoups wrote :
I don't really care that much for US internal policy, but I think Obama is doing a good thing for the Americans by introducing this.. Of course there are going to be some that whine about the new law. It's always there!


I think the actual response you are alluding to was:
MotherShabubu wrote :
Galactic Monkey wrote :
- A government agency will decide who over 65 will live or die, that is if they decide your treatment is too costly for the state they reccommend to you and your family that you die. I guess the reccommendation can easily come in a form of "Well all we can do is reccommend but, whoops, we just ran out of money, so you can stay here and die slowly, or we can offer you this pill". They call it end-of-life care and euthanasia, but really this is money motivated murder, as with euthanasia the end of life gets decided by the person themselves, or by their loved ones, certainly not by Big Brother.

Completely unlike the current system where your private health insurer tells you to fuck off because your coverage doesn't include the needed treatment. Or when the hospital refuses to admit you at all because you have no health insurance.
And ignoring the fact your view is overstated and partially false (go read some decent articles on the actual Obama plan regarding end-of-life care) I think that encouraging people to consider care at the end of their life is a good idea. Currently a very large proportion of our healthcare resources are dedicated to providing very temporary prolongation at a very low quality of life. Perhaps it's better to just die than spend lots of resources to live a short while longer in constant pain with very little awareness of the world.


You really think the gist of that was "when we are no longer needed we should be removed from this life."?
What I was actually pointing to was the fact that people often make rather illogical decisions regarding prolonging their lives or the lives of loved ones. Even if we only consider their own experience, ignoring any greater issues, to choose to live a few extra weeks in constant pain or with no awareness of what's going on doesn't seem to me to be a very logical choice. I'm sorry but we're all going to die sometime, no amount of resources are going to change that.

And if you take a rational, or you might say uncaring, point of view and consider the resources then I think it becomes even more stupid. In the US "half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months" (according to http://www.thirteen.org/bid/sb-howmuch.html which I think is at least roughly right). Do you honestly think that (unfortunately limited) resources are better spent on giving a few people a small amount of pretty fucked up time left rather than working towards cures for the innumerable preventable diseases/conditions that affect much larger percentages of the population who could otherwise live a normal life with a reasonable quality of living? Or do you just think it's worth it for your mother/grandmother?
Sure, it would be great if we gave all the resources needed to cure all the problems people have. That isn't happening and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. In the meantime fellings have to give way to logic.

And if you bothered to actually read the bill, or read enough different sources to get by fucked/partisan/agenda driven/conspiracy resources you'd see that many of the points of the analyses you've accessed are complete bullshit. What the Obama bill actually deals with is end of life counselling. Not telling people whether they should or shouldn't choose to die or choose to let their loved one die but counselling them on the issues involved.

I find it ironic that you are telling people they should educate themselves about what the bills say when you have obviously taken your information from a select group of, generally biased, sources and, perhaps, a pretty cursory glance at the actual bill. Just to take the most blatant example you didn't even know that the Obama bill was about giving people money for health care insurance not actual health care and claimed that "the amount that you have assigned per year is $5000 per person, so basically about 1 day stay in hospital" whereas actually it is $5000 per year of health care insurance. And then you re-iterated various claims by conspiracy theory web sites that anyone with a basic ability to read the bills in question could see were false.

Or do you want to actually question any of the claims I made rather than ignore them and later try to rubbish them without actually directly dealing with them?
Galactic Monkey
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:03 pm


MotherShabubu wrote :
Galactic Monkey wrote :
Really? You mean your personal liberties are being taken away? Unexpectedly? Hardly. Do any of us actually read the bills that get passed? Do we even know that they get passed at all? Do we take affirmative actions against them being passed? No. I posted another thread in regards to Obama's healthcare and how fucked up it really is and that it basically allows for the government to murder people it no longer needs and the gist of some of the responses included "well that's for the best, when we are no longer needed we should be removed from this life."

I assume you are refferring to my post to http://australiens.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=16121 given only two people responded and the other response was:
Marsoups wrote :
I don't really care that much for US internal policy, but I think Obama is doing a good thing for the Americans by introducing this.. Of course there are going to be some that whine about the new law. It's always there!


I think the actual response you are alluding to was:
MotherShabubu wrote :
Galactic Monkey wrote :
- A government agency will decide who over 65 will live or die, that is if they decide your treatment is too costly for the state they reccommend to you and your family that you die. I guess the reccommendation can easily come in a form of "Well all we can do is reccommend but, whoops, we just ran out of money, so you can stay here and die slowly, or we can offer you this pill". They call it end-of-life care and euthanasia, but really this is money motivated murder, as with euthanasia the end of life gets decided by the person themselves, or by their loved ones, certainly not by Big Brother.

Completely unlike the current system where your private health insurer tells you to fuck off because your coverage doesn't include the needed treatment. Or when the hospital refuses to admit you at all because you have no health insurance.
And ignoring the fact your view is overstated and partially false (go read some decent articles on the actual Obama plan regarding end-of-life care) I think that encouraging people to consider care at the end of their life is a good idea. Currently a very large proportion of our healthcare resources are dedicated to providing very temporary prolongation at a very low quality of life. Perhaps it's better to just die than spend lots of resources to live a short while longer in constant pain with very little awareness of the world.


You really think the gist of that was "when we are no longer needed we should be removed from this life."?
What I was actually pointing to was the fact that people often make rather illogical decisions regarding prolonging their lives or the lives of loved ones. Even if we only consider their own experience, ignoring any greater issues, to choose to live a few extra weeks in constant pain or with no awareness of what's going on doesn't seem to me to be a very logical choice. I'm sorry but we're all going to die sometime, no amount of resources are going to change that.

And if you take a rational, or you might say uncaring, point of view and consider the resources then I think it becomes even more stupid. In the US "half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months" (according to http://www.thirteen.org/bid/sb-howmuch.html which I think is at least roughly right). Do you honestly think that (unfortunately limited) resources are better spent on giving a few people a small amount of pretty fucked up time left rather than working towards cures for the innumerable preventable diseases/conditions that affect much larger percentages of the population who could otherwise live a normal life with a reasonable quality of living? Or do you just think it's worth it for your mother/grandmother?
Sure, it would be great if we gave all the resources needed to cure all the problems people have. That isn't happening and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. In the meantime fellings have to give way to logic.

And if you bothered to actually read the bill, or read enough different sources to get by fucked/partisan/agenda driven/conspiracy resources you'd see that many of the points of the analyses you've accessed are complete bullshit. What the Obama bill actually deals with is end of life counselling. Not telling people whether they should or shouldn't choose to die or choose to let their loved one die but counselling them on the issues involved.

I find it ironic that you are telling people they should educate themselves about what the bills say when you have obviously taken your information from a select group of, generally biased, sources and, perhaps, a pretty cursory glance at the actual bill. Just to take the most blatant example you didn't even know that the Obama bill was about giving people money for health care insurance not actual health care and claimed that "the amount that you have assigned per year is $5000 per person, so basically about 1 day stay in hospital" whereas actually it is $5000 per year of health care insurance. And then you re-iterated various claims by conspiracy theory web sites that anyone with a basic ability to read the bills in question could see were false.

Or do you want to actually question any of the claims I made rather than ignore them and later try to rubbish them without actually directly dealing with them?


Yeah yeah, end of life councelling. In other words government deciding who to council. You just wait, it will turn from councelling into "well our economy is so broke now that we can no longer afford to keep you on medication. So we can give you this pill that will end it all or you can slowly die without medication and in pain." Woo, democracy, your right of choice and your freedom to die :) :) :)
traveller
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 11:03 am


venatrix wrote :
herbsandspices wrote :
Australian workers have traditionally fought long and hard for their rights and freedoms, to think otherwise is to be historically ignorant (ie that our predecessors worked their ass off and did not complain- it's simply not true).


A little while back there was a thread in which I brought up the history of trade unions and the labour party in Australia in response to people saying that unions are useless and we shouldn't bother joining them because they could never achieve anything. I can't remember which thread it was and it really doesn't matter because there was an almost unanimous reply of 'fuck off venatrix what would you know'. It's really, really fucking depressing.




"UNIONS! The folks who brought you the weekend!"
19 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests