<Back to Media Releases
Tim Minchin’s searing song about the same-sex marriage vote goes viral
SBS11.08.17 6:00 pm
It is true that my opinons are just opinions in the sense that they represent a particular model of reality. But in that sense abs, we all just have ‘opinions’. The question is, whose opinions are going to prevail in the short and long term?
In the short term, yours are going to prevail because they have considerable momentum that takes time to slow down, desconstruct and eventually destroy. And as long as business as usual stays entrenched in the general economy, you are safe, even if challenged, because your side controls so much of the means of social administration.
To some extent, you are in the position to talk down to me and treat me as ideological cockroach. You represent the established order; the status quo, much in the same way as your ecclesiastical predecessors were able to do at the turn of the sixteenth century.
Those clerics were widely despised, but they had far too much power and status to take on. Nobody wanted to be branded a heretic. They still don’t.
This puts you in a position to do the social branding and expect quite rightly to get away with it. Bigotry, homophobia and prejudice are the heresies of our time, because you, secular cleric, can confidently assert that you are the one with the approved and established received truth and worms like myself, only have ‘opinions’. I am the one ‘disconnected from reality’. You have have the inside dope. Like the clerics used to say, “We represent the infallible Word of God”.
And yes your enemies, who represent the works of the devil, will helplessly cry and gnash their teeth to no effect against divine providence and pre-ordained wisdom of God.
You talk grandly about sustainability cleric, but when these nasty secular corporates start going down and they have to close up the consumer indulgence economy, your indulgence ideology will be closed down with it.
Without your corporate sponsors that you so fulsomely condemn (as clerics so often do with secular authority; you know, virtue versus power) powering the privatization, deregulation and disinhibition agenda in the economy, you will suddenly find all the levers have disappeared, or they just don’t have any effect anymore.
And then you will find, dear cleric, that your existential certainties will be those of the coyote in the Warner Brothers Roadrunner cartoons
who has unknowingly walked over a cliff, and it gradually dawns on him….
Then we will see who has the illusions, cleric…
Christopher, you’re really all over the place now. You have responded to me on another thread about Minchin’s song that I had not posted on (prior to your post), you repeated refer to me as ‘Abo’ (on this other thread), and now you post a comment that you have posted twice (#10 and #14/15) on this other thread
take a deep breath, relax and accept that your opinions are just that, opinions. You have expressed them sufficiently, we get your position.I personally see it as being largely irrelevant, quite bloated with self-serving tautology and disconnected from reality. But that’s just my opinion.
Meanwhile, homosexuals will start to marry soon, the sky will not fall and people’s moral-outrage will go on in their own minds and bodies alone.
Moving right along on comment 20, ‘bigotry’ and ‘prejudice’ are not anybody’s monopoly. And using those words is a bit like pointing at someone; one finger forward and three point straight back at the user.
When is bigotry not bigotry? When it is a refusal to tolerate and indulge baloney, and standing up to it resolutely, even in the face of abuse and stereotyping; stereotyping that assumes an ideological lock down, which is as conceited as it is delusional.
What is prejudice? The other guy’s beliefs…another conceit and delusion…
These words and words like ‘homophobe’ have become so abused by casual over-use, they have become a form of ideological crying wolf. They have become cliches of vilification and stereotyping. They have become abusive substitutes for real debate. And they falsify that debate, even where it occurs.
‘Homophobia’ whether or not it is actually a current psychological condition, the word occurs in a medical context with the ancient Greek etymology you would expect. It gives the word an authority and reach it never would have if it didn’t have that context. And the way you abo try to reconfigure it is just to fudge the word out into an ideological catch all that can mean almost anything. It is crude intellectual cheating.
The etymological context is an irrational fear…as in phobia It was never meant to be politicized and distorted in the way any political co-option inevitably does. Its political use strips it of its scientific context and turns it into a term of heresy/political deviation, not science.
To try and suggest that dislike of homosexuals is necessarily a phobia is nonsense. People might ‘dislike’ homosexuals because they feel they represent a sexual perversion of ‘the real deal’; you know, a loss of sexual compass, gender grounding and an inappropriate model in the public realm, especially around children.
That is a very hard line view, but widely shared in Eastern Europe, virtually all of Africa and an overwhelming majority of the Islamic world, vehemently, because they are moving away from secular liberalism. They think its libertarianism is out of control, corrupted and its social product degenerate. You haven’t registered that yet.
Libertarian propagandists abuse this term to tar anyone who opposes HAFT Inc’s agenda on political principle, like me, not because we are against homosexuals, who we are quite happy to co-exist with, but because we oppose their lobby’s political agenda. It is a dirty and unconscionable sleight of hand that they could only ever get away with in a society whose capacity to debate fundamental issues has become severely compromised.
I am not an unalloyed fan of psychology because so much of it has become an intimate component of the marketing system to manipulate consciousness to a degree never before achieved.
Part of that politicization of science as a manipulative commercial marketing tool has spilled over into anthropogenic climate change pseudo science. But the corporates are not the only ones doing it.
When Jeff Kennett was Chair of ‘Beyond Blue’, he had the temerity to suggest that marriage was strictly for men and women, regiments of so called ‘Health Experts’ came out of the wood work and accused him of causing/exacerbating depression among homosexuals, who were already suffering depression. They shut him down and forced him to recant.
It did not occur to anyone to question the palpable mix up of moral judgement, social values and scientific psychology. You know, the poor things were going to be denied an ideological sweetie in the great human rights emporium. They felt so upset that they were being outrageously denied their ideological sweetie rights by someone who was supposed to be looking after them and meeting their their infantile demands! And they cried and cried until Daddy Kennett was forced to give in by crowds of highly orchestrated outraged onlookers, who demanded ‘social justice’ and ‘fairness’.
And then we have ‘gender fluidity’ coming into schools pretending to be a ‘scientific’ rationalization for behavioral ‘fluidity’ in which sexual/gender boundaries are magically made to disappear into a virtual supermarket of not two, but fifty-one gorgeous identity options.
All human beings are opportunists, who if the boundaries disappear, will go all over the place. But removing the boundaries for children is moving onto even thinner ice. It is called grooming, The sexual revolution is not necessarily benign.
Those putting that stuff into schools aren’t scientists so much as ideological space cadets armed with a scientific sounding theory that when you boil it down, is about as scientific as eugenics. The pushers have got away with it because much of the architecture of political discourse has been hopelessly undermined and corrupted by generations of people who have systematically populated it with ideological junk, like the indulgence economy that it apes.
Sure Spikey. Whatever.
lets be perfectly clear on this
i think you are completely and utterly full of shit
and use big words and lots of them, not because they support any of your spurious claims, but because you must think they make good reading.
they don’t. you’re still an anonymous shameful example of humanity, stirring up hate and trying to be clever about it,
you’re not clever, you’re a very naughty boy
that you represent a fascist sect with exclusive behaviour, does not make you an authority on decency or what maketh a good society
last para should read
Furthermore, homophobia is real, when diagnostic criteria for Specific Phobia (DSM-V) is met. If someone mets diagnostic criteria for Specific Phobia and the ‘stimuli’ that they have the phobia with is homosexuality, then the term ‘homophobia’ is appropriate in a general fashion (ie it would be inappropriate to use the term clinically/professionally: an appropriate term would be “Specific Phobia (towards homosexual people)”. Again, perhaps you don’t have to be so reactive here if you are not homophobic
Christopher, you have given your support to Neil previously - see
Neil has repeatedly made this comment, “…to make homosexuality look acceptable …” . The clear implication is that homosexuality is NOT acceptable. You appear to endorse this by giving him and his commentary ‘heartfelt support’ . Maybe this is the drive behind your apparent emotional reactivity in the comments above.
In this thread you comment at #4
“Neil Aitchison, you have my heartfelt support against detractors who really are aggressive bigots who so blinded by their own ideological prejudices they imagine that those who oppose them are not genuine interlocuters and must be suffering from some kind of pseudo-scientific psychiatric condition (‘homophobia’) or a vicious heresy with a nasty name (‘bigot’).”
the hypocrisy is astounding. Decry the use of the term “bigot” as representing “vicious heresy with a nasty name (‘bigot’).” , yet in the same paragraph you label people of an opposing position as “…detractors who really are aggressive bigots who so blinded by their own ideological prejudices ….“.
This is what you are doing here: throw all manner of crude insults at those who have a differing opinion, then complain that your position is being dismissed with labels and insults.
I asked you to reflect upon why you present emotionally here. I wonder if you struggle to accept that humanity is evolving in a way that you think to shouldn’t.
You also state - “Homophobia’ was originally a psychological condition used to describe people who couldn’t deal with their own sexuality and therefore lashed out at people who represented that unresolved part of themselves”
This is incorrect, or at best a distortion of reality. Homophobia was never (in a historical sense) considered a “psychological condition” by the profession. This is a very recent development in the Psychological profession, that ‘homophobia’ is being discussed as being considered a ‘psychological condition’. As with the nature of diagnosing psychopathology, there will be specific criteria to be met.
Homosexuality was pathologised up until 1973 by the American Psychiatrist Association as evidenced by its classification as a mental disorder in the DSM, ‘homophobia’ was not.
What is more relevant is the societal (non professional) use, and defining, of the term. This is broader and inclusive of discrimination, aversion, antipathy, and intolerance.
“For some things one has to qualify, by meeting certain status and/or capacity requirements. And I am saying, if you feel that you want to identify and behave as a homosexual, that is fine, but you then deal yourself out of the reproductive environment. You have no business there and you are not an equal in that realm”
well… no you don’t. As humans have evolved to fly in planes, we have also evolved to be creative with reproduction using science and redefined societal norms. You seem not to like this, even to the point of having difficulty tolerating this.
Furthermore, homophobia is real, when diagnostic criteria for Specific Phobia (DSM-V) is met. If someone mets diagnostic criteria for Specific Phobia and the ‘stimuli’ that they have the phobia with, the the term ‘homophobia’ is appropriate in a general fashion (ie it would be inappropriate to use the term clinically/professionally: an appropriate term would be “Specific Phobia (towards homosexual people)”. Again, perhaps you don’t have to be so reactive here if you are not homophobic
Spikey you are used to getting away with Delphic style oracular declammations, as if they had some kind of credibility and authority.
If ideological farting in my general direction is all you are capable of, fair enough. May I suggest an excellent old school text book to help you with the basics of developing some critical capacity.
Gwyneth M Dow ‘Uncommon Common Sense: Signposts to Clear Thinking’ 1963.
I’m dying laughing of HAFTer
You seem very to eager to use the literary tactics you describe, demonise and assign to a hilarious cast of thousands.
Your perverse jumble of ‘definitions’ and deliberate misrepresentation of the issue at hand is beyond bamboozlement.
Spikey, you are all bluff and bluster.
You are under attack because your position is precisely that.
You are used to getting away with derogatory stereotyping and expecting that it will shut down voices you do not want to hear. Not any more.
The social libertarian wing of indulgence capitalism is heading for the same kinds of rude shocks as the corporate wing is already having with its environmental and economic management.
You have been indulged quite long enough and people like myself just aren’t going to tolerate you anymore. You and your mates are going to have defend yourselves and come up with something that sounds plausible if you are going to survive the coming debates.
It is your legitimacy that is in question because you have remorselessly abused the social commons, like your corporate cousins have the environmental and economic ones, and it will be extremely unlikely you will ever be forgiven, anymore than they will be.
You are the ones who are going to have to somehow redeem yourselves, regain your moral compass and some kind of existential integrity.
The HAFT (Homosexuals and Fellow Travellers) Inc campaign agenda is as full of language distortion, manipulation, fudge, lies and bluff as the tobacco lobby. And it works because mass constituencies are now routinely trained to non state propaganda. Imagine trying to sell bottled water in 1950. Everyone would have died laughing. Not any more.
The manipulation of language by propagandists to dress sectional interests as ‘just’ and ‘fair’ is as old as propaganda itself. And if you dress mutton that isn’t too tough as lamb, cook it patiently and relentlessly spruik it with sufficient enthusiasm for enough time, the punters will eventually buy it.
If you keep matching ‘marriage’ and ‘equality’ you get the same as vacuum cleaners and Hoover.
Aggressive brand proponents armed with plausible sounding stereotypes and using repurposed language is very powerful magic.
‘Homophobia’ was originally a psychological condition used to describe people who couldn’t deal with their own sexuality and therefore lashed out at people who represented that unresolved part of themselves. That has been morphed into anyone who doesn’t like homosexuals for any reason.
Disliking individuals or categories of individuals doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with fear or sense of threat. One has to have an awful lot of tickets on oneself to believe that the enmity of others is necessarily based on that. More often than not, dislike is just a reaction to perceived poor or ‘inappropriate’ behaviour.
“We don’t like children who pick their noses and eat it, do we children?”
And then the word has been transformed again into anyone who politically opposes the HAFT Inc ‘marriage’ agenda. The Soviet KGB operatives pulled the same dirty trick on dissidents in the latter years of the regime, as it was losing its political legitimacy. Instead of accusing them of political crimes, they had them certified as suffering from debilitating psychiatric disorders and threw them into asylums. It was a very effective pseudo-scientific abuse of pyschology.
If you can’t lead a decent rational argument, putting a dissident’s psychological condition into question is a beauty. It works, especially in a society where critical thinking is being overwhelmed.
‘Bigotry’ is another goody. Originally it was a term coined to identify puritanically intolerant moral extremism by compulsive sin sniffers, whose sole enjoyment and raison d’être in life was to condemn and caste down others. It was one of the less endearing qualities in parts of the pucker lipped protestant puritan movement during the reformation.
Recent history would seem to indicate that the worst offenders these days are the very people who use the word most commonly. I speak of the extreme self righteousness of the ideologically Orthodox who have taken on the holier-than-thou authoritarian mantle of a modern clericalism, whose beliefs have mysteriously become sacred sites that no one is entitled to question. Sound familiar?
‘Bigotry’ (and ‘arrogance’) has come to mean anyone with the nerve to stand up to and call the bluff of the real bigots of our time. And the way the bastards get away with it is to conflate ‘intolerance’ with the refusal to indulge an aggressive bluffer. It is an equally dirty little trick to the ‘phobia’ ploy.
‘Prejudice’ is another bludgeon for your ideological aggressor-about-town. It is a word used to describe what is regarded as pre set conventional received wisdom/beliefs, usually held by ‘simple’, ‘ignorant’ and ‘irrational’ people without much education, or capacity to think for themselves on the merits of the situational facts before them.
The use of the word ‘prejudice’ has almost always been an ideological vanity and conceit that asserts that the user has rational beliefs, while the other person has unfounded ‘prejudices’. Not only is the process of modelling how we construct and understand ‘reality’ much more complex than that, but it conveniently conceals the politics of power and dominance; like say, the traditional political dominance of men over women, who routinely dismissed women as the font of ‘prejudice’ and ‘old wives tales’. It is a crude dismissive that short circuits the need to justify one’s own position.
I have chosen to highlight three particularly egregious examples of perverse political language and how it can manipulate mass consciousness, blunt criticism and establish a politically authoritarian and ideologically orthodox power structure populated with all the sacred sites you would expect, whose power derives mainly from bluff and systematic meaning shift; i.e., bamboozlement.
And the worst victims of this are its purveyors.
nagle, you appear to be a gregarious cockroach
‘You are well practiced in the art of derogatory ideological put down, but clearly your intellectual training ends there. You seem to have no idea what critical analysis is.’
Let me critically analyse as much intentionally overcontrived offensive tripe as you feel fit to throw up.
You appear well practiced in some arts, mostly entertainment/hypocrisy, and some other darker arts, that involve using pseudoscientific jargon crossed with some perverted interpretation of what you’d have portrayed as christian beliefs as worthy of writing about, in far too many words.
i reckon you deliberately try to stir up hate
and talk total overcontrived bollocks
behind a pseudonym
ain’t you just a peachy fella/lady/person of unknown sexual identity
your disgusting stereotypes, are only used by the politically driven, those of proven zero morality, tell me more about your hypocrisy and who you represent… because to me you represent fascism
abs, if you think that you have actually raised any real points in #2 or #6, or anywhere else for that matter, I think you are wildly exaggerating.
You are well practiced in the art of derogatory ideological put down, but clearly your intellectual training ends there. You seem to have no idea what critical analysis is.
But let us tease out a few things that might do with some further explanation.
I have dealt with the ‘reactionary’ accusation, which you have not acknowledged and as to your discussion of the matter of ‘homophobia’, I think what you are saying is a bit obscure. But let us go back to it and some of the other keywords you and yours are so fond of using to try and shut down real political discussion.
Below is what the real discussion is about….
I think ANY off message sexual preference is dodgy, because whatever it is, it interrupts the politics of life giving and good quality inter-gendered intimacy. And while some people are sexually misassigned from birth and can’t help it, for the rest, it’s an alienated lifestyle choice driven by their sexual fantasies. Most people are not helpless before these things and to pretend that they are is sexistentialist pseudo philosophical ‘spiritual’ baloney. But then, this is the consumer ‘revolution’, where you can have it all, because the entire machinery of the culture is driving and conflating fantasy into want, into need and then, ever upward to a sacred right.
The consumer revolution brought on by indulgence capital to turn mass populations into fantasy driven adolescent egoists has allowed, encouraged and legitimized outrageously tendentious and spurious sexistentialist claims, which are the only reason homosexual ‘marriage’ isn’t universally ridiculed and recognized for what it is; a grotesque carricature straight out of Petronius’ ‘Satyricon’.
But, notwithstanding that, as long as my sexually off message brothers and sisters don’t try to put it about like the fox did in Aesop’s story about ‘The Fox With No Tail’, that taillessness is a cool ;state of being’ that is the equal of those that are ‘tailed’, I don’t give a damn how they choose to live their lives or exercise their sexual tastes. It’s none of my business, because it is their private business. And as long as it remains private, the rest of us have an obligation to protect that, facilitate non reproductive partnerships and respect their space. They can have as many enemas as the like, flog each other within an inch of their lives and smell each other’s underwear to their hearts content, if that is what makes them happy….
I just wish the bastards would reciprocate the favour, instead of using our tolerance and good will as leverage against us, to invade our space
Their business starts to become my business when a Mardi Gras becomes a marketing opportunity to all the family, including the kiddies. At least the sado-masochist crowd have the decency (or lack the colossal front and ideological hide) to keep their sexual preferences inside the privacy of a ball room or a hellfire club.
It becomes my business when they want to politically interfere with kids and start to spread their lousy propaganda (sorry marketing)...(sorry educational agenda) into schools.
And it really becomes my business when they start to interfere with the fundamentals of our species identity, and the purposes and meaning of life, of which reproductive intimacy is right at the heart.
And yes, they can get away with it now, because right now anything goes if one’s marketing is good enough.
“If it feels good and turns you on, it is good. Isn’t that right boys and girls?”
But, as Indulgence Capitalism starts to get pushed into the unsustainability heap in the recycling and waste disposal facility of history, our homosexuals and fellow travellers (HAFT) ‘community’ will get to see just how fast their agenda can unravel. And inevitably, it will be very messy.
And the reason it will be ‘messy’ is that the HAFT ‘community is trifling with stuff that comes straight out of the most primitive part of us; the medulla; the original bit of our brain that we share with crocodiles, ‘where the beast in the basement’ resides. And if you razz this beautiful but very powerful creature too much, in circumstances of great uncertainty, threat and fear, you get what happened on St Bartholomew’s Day in 1572, during the wars of toleration in France….pan European wars that were the crucible of the modern period, just as war is likely to be a crucible for its end.
The situation is already starting to look dicey. As I said, if I were a homosexual, I would heading for the hills, yesterday and cursing characters like you and your mates, for all the well meaning chaos you are going to be leaving in your wake; that you already have.
Christpher, you have not engaged with a single point that I have raised in #2 and #6. You are not coming from a position of authority to demand that your position is all that is allowed in the debate. LOL
As stated, you have not provided valid reason, other than that you hold an opinion, as to why your “post Marxist analysis of Indulgence Capitalism” needs to be engaged with in relation to SSM. I mean it is kind of interesting, yet so is the perspective of individualism and equality. Youu seem to write as if you holding your perspective means that it is correct and other perspectives are aligned with society’s downfall.
Your interpretation of other people’s sexuality as an indulgence is ...well ... just your opinion, nothing more, tiger!
Should we assume that you are heterosexual? that you have engaged in love with another?
If so, you simply deny other’s the indulgences that you yourself have enjoyed. seems to me that because your engagement with your own sexuality conforms to a ‘norm’ (that you hold) and is aligned with reporduction (forget, for your convenience, IVF, childless heterosexuals, and child-bearing homosexuals who utilise surragacy, IVF and adoption etc), then the enjoyment, comfort, security, identity, etc that you have derivesd from it is removed from the equation. yet for homosexuals, these same factors equate to some sort of vile, humanity destroying force.
your comment displays tautology, define it as, and it will be as.
further, you seem lost in your own insults towards others who do not hold your opinion, an uncomplimentary display.
If I were to stoop to such a low, I would say that you lack the ability to empathise, convincing yourself that your beliefs and opinions (note: not facts) are above those of others.
#10 yeah, three cheers for the handmaidens of the apocalypse.
what an eloquent overcontrived rant of mindbending twaddle
i’m talking to you now nagle
at least it had flair
mouthpieces for the mockingbirds
have lacked much
Abs, you have not engaged a single thing that I have said. You are doing the dance of the seven veils, leaving us all still hoping that we will see some real flesh. This is classic slip, slide, weave n duck. And I don’t know you well enough to know whether you really can’t do it, or you are just intellectually lazy and used to getting away with bluff and bluster.
to be more specific, Christopher. the template you place on this is simply the way you see and engage with the world. You seem genuinely annoyed that your applied template is not getting traction, here.
To assume that I need engage with your ” post Marxist analysis of Indulgence Capitalism” take on this is arrogant itself. I have observed much of what you write as simply deriving from someone who doesn’t like something and then blames it on wet liberals or indulgent capitalism (hows the keyboard on that indulgent computer device you’re using?)
There is as much evidence for what you write (when one can deduce from the wildly exagerated, vage language you use), as there is for you being personally uncomfortable in a world that has left you behind (you have stated your”..visceral gorge rising disgust…’) .
again I state that you may benefit from internal reflection as to what drives your (seemingly) emotive commentry.
On second read your last post is unhinged somewhat. The accusations are rife, the rhetoric is huge and the implication you make is that we are all going to hell in a handbag. Yet the consequences of SSM will be that gays marry, period. You fail to make a case beyond that, partially due to the vague, extremist language you chose to use.
You state that I am not responding because i find something “unpalatable”, that I am am “delusional to the point of being the last one to find out”, that I am a “..political ingenues/uncritical sucks..”, that I am ...”‘doing’ poor thing minorities…”, I have “left a trial of chaos”, ’ that I am a “coroporate handmaiden”, and you called me a “prick”.
and you wonder why your comment is not taken seriously…
your “arguements” are not considered such, Christopher. Rather, they are viewed as vague, exagerated, emotive, wordy, hyperbolic, opinions.
not to forget, accusational! you know nothing of me yet have accused me of all manner of things in the latest rant.
good for you, is all I say, because you fail to put forward anything of substance.
put forth some ‘arguements’ and I will debate.
#6 Abs, you are not responding to the arguments that are being to led to you. Here and repeatedly over the last year, I have been endeavoring to put a post Marxist analysis of Indulgence Capitalism.
What is unpalatable to you, which is why you are not responding, is that it places the petty bourgeois libertarian clique who now run the department of social administration (education, social welfare, aboriginal affairs, health and parts of the media and the law) as part of the regime/status quo/establishment in much the same way as the Church was under feudalism.
You are part of a regime partnership (albeit a quarrelsome and competitive political jostling one) under the aegis of Indulgence capitalism.
Since the 1950s, real socialist counter hegemonic opposition to capitalism has very gradually lost its historically purposed rationale and gradually transmogrified into a consumer ideology. It has adopted and become part of its underlying privatizing, deregulatory and disinhibitive thrust to render socially based governance obsolete and enable market forces to march in and occupy the space without opposition. And its effect has been every bit as devastating to the social commons as exactly the same agenda run by the corporate wing has been in relation to an increasingly dysfunctional economic record and relentless ecological collapse.
This counter narrative is trying to draw attention to just how badly compromised and delusional you and your fellow travelers have become. And by the looks of it, you are going to be the last to find out.
All this minoritarian kiss n kuddling with small sectionally interested opportunists and bluffers merely exposes you as political ingenues/uncritical sucks in a game run by people and organisations a great deal more sophisticated than you. You are ‘doing’ poor thing minorities because although you have a key role in managing the system of social administration, you no longer have a mass following.
The only reason you and your mates have any leverage at all is because you are furthering the ends of the system of economic indulgence that renders mass populations virtually helpless and all but destroys marginal groups, like the aboriginal, social welfare and mental health constituencies, because you have participated in taking down most of their social software; you know, the empowering disciplines and setting of behavioral boundaries that empowers people to be autonomous characters. And you have left behind yourselves a trail of absolute chaos….
You casually dismissed all that internal control stuff and the training for it as ‘repressive’, illiberal’ and ‘authoritarian’. Remember! You helped turn fantasies into wants into needs and hallelujah, goddamned human flaming rights! Because the indulged customer is always right. Right!
The corporates love you because you are their bloody handmaidens. That is why you are allowed inside the corporate ecosystem and why you pricks have so much influence.
If you were not a key component of the status quo, you wouldn’t be there. Your software platform would suddenly be ‘unsupported’ Your leverages would mysteriously disappear. The young would be taught that you were yesterdays people and your cohort would seamlessly age out.
If I were just ‘A Right Wing Reactionary’ (which is just a traditional label of disapproval rather than a properly defined category these days), I wouldn’t bother to talk to you, because I would have no interest in you other than just to dismiss you as a beyond redemption ‘lefty’.
All that is left of the ageing old New Left is blather, malarkey and some nasty stereotypes. That is all you have left to bless yourselves with. And it is about time you honestly faced up and fessed up to the cul de sac you have maneuvered yourselves into.
You aren’t lefties anymore. You are consumer advocates, and that is the best that could be said of you.
Christopher, I will have to agree on one point you appear to make.
It does seem that our society is on the verge of collapse. That is shown very well by those who have managed to get themselves into positions of power.
In the end days the likes of Abbott and Trump rise to the top, a clear signal that the plug has been pulled and we are going down the gurgler.
The only thing that can save humanity now is a paradigm shift of consciousness. Leaving behind the tendency to look for differences and to use our minds obsessively. Our minds are useful to solve problems but they are also very good at creating problems. Unfortunately we have created more problems than solutions. Our minds have become a prison.
You appear to be very angry about those people who choose to live differently. You may not be, it may just be that you like using archaic and strange terms, to turn your writings into some form of twisted prose.
I believe that your views are in the minority. I can remember the days of Gay Bashing in the 1970’s, I would not like to see a return to such fear and intolerance. Hopefully humanity will not return to the days of the Inquisition.
and just to demonstrate the point, Christopher launches in with more over-the-top reactionary commmentry.
Best to ask yourself why you are so committed and energised on the topic, Christopher.
Homo sexual relationships have legitimacy and acceptance already (except amonghstr some, but that is theirs to own), they exist and are none of your business.
Your opinions about being a homosexual (“heading for the closet…”,”..unhappy with the pricks down at homosexual marriage inc..” ) are absurd, and speak more of you than of homosexuals, or broader society.
There is a quite long standing delusion that history is a one way linear ticket; a ‘progress’ that can only go ‘forward’, building its way as it goes. It is a delusion of modernism that continues despite multiplying signs that modern times may very well be coming to an end.
We talk glibly about the unsustainability of Indulgence capitalism (both private and state run) as an economic and environmental actor, but we do not talk about the ideological sustainability of the project; you know, the intellectual and social superstructure that sits on top of the beast that articulates, rationalizes, legitimizes and generationally reproduces the human infrastructure that keeps it going.
Every ideological settlement has a lifespan. As we speak, the post WW2 settlements and ideological consensus that have defined the last sixty to seventy years are coming unstuck.
Globally, the bourgeois democratic consensus is collapsing. And religious fundamentalists and the conservative van behind them aren’t just questioning the values of the so called ‘Enlightenment’. They are mounting an assault.
The decline of the US into ideological incoherence should be sending some warning signals that as with the Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons, he’s already gone over a cliff and just hasn’t looked down yet.
The petty bourgeois ideological ascendancy is no longer in a position to dictate the terms anymore. Sure, they have the running on the homosexual stuff, but only because it has reached the end point of a multi decadal campaign with a huge amount of momentum behind it. But clearly they have no idea how fast their position can evaporate, once someone starts to call their bluff, and they come under attack.
And the thing about the homosexual question is that it raises matters of legitimacy, consent and social licence, about which people go to war, because we are talking absolute fundamental bottom lines about the purposes and nature of human society. Folding down inter-gendered reproductive engagement into ‘sexuality’ is a neat sexistentialist (I am my sexuality) sleight of hand, but its a crib and a con that just won’t last long.
You social libertarians would be in a stronger position if the social infrastructure you are playing with weren’t in such parlous condition, as a result of a consumer culture based around privatization of the moral commons to avoid accountability to a collective will, deregulation of the social commons so there aren’t any rules to be accountable for and the disinhibition of social conduct and mores because discipline, responsible agency and other regarding obligation have been systematically removed in favor of marketing, consumer egoism and indulgent freebies that shamelessly conflate fantasy, wants, needs and rights.
Privatization, deregulation and behavioral disinhibition are not a monopoly of the corporates Their effects in the social realm are every bit a vicious and unconscientable as they are in the economic and ecological ones. Your social libertarian position is as vulnerable to disorder and collapse as the corporate one. The banksters almost broke the system they were responsible for in 2008 and you social libertarians are every bit as blithe and off with the fairies as they are
You are skating on incredibly thin ice and you are as much into denial about this and obfuscating the overwhelming facts of life as your corporate cousins are about climate change.
History is going to have absolutely no mercy on any of you. The homosexual marriage ‘equality’ triumph will probably be your last…because the time is coming when you aren’t going to be tolerated any more.
Wars of toleration broke out almost immediately the hyper disruptive modern paradigm started to unfold itself. The same is already starting to happen as it breaks up. If I were a homosexual I would be heading for the closet now, to beat the rush. And I would be incredibly unhappy with the pricks down at homosexual marriage inc….
“Minchen represents a clique that has no intention of running a debate over perhaps one of the most singularly key shifts about we see ourselves as a species, in the most important single thing any of us do; to create the partnerships that will bring life into the world and raise it through daily mentorship and example through a generational cycle, so that life might be carried on, and its templates preserved, of what it means to be a man and woman, cleave and be fruitful.”
Seems to me Christopher that you are reducing humanity to the level of single celled organisms.
I would never agree that our purpose here is to keep on populating and be fruitful (as you put it).
If you were to understand the lessons of our many spiritual teachers over the millenium you would know that we are here to do far more than procreate.
I do not see that it is any of our business (heterosexuals) what other people do in their bedrooms. Why should people who are slightly different in their likes be legally discriminated against. Marriage is a human construct.
I wonder, do you have friends who are Gay?
I do and they have the same aspirations as everyone else I know. That is to be accepted and feel that they belong.
correction to #2
The reason we are forced to have this debate and vote is because Turnbull does *not* have authority as PM.
this is a funny song adaption by Minchin, and #1 is best understood as over-he-top and reactionary—(“his fear…” ?? “ideological and cultural saboteurs”...?? “....break the power that gives him his leverage and appearance of credibility…??) sheeesh….
i don’t think he is coming from a position of fear. an absurd opnion. This accusation is aligned with the accusation that Christopher seems to find provoking to him, yet he professess that he doesn’t mind.
I also thinks he has credibility more so than his detractors.
You exagerate the consequences of this. The debate is old Christopher, it’s been had. The unions are already occuring, society knows about the gays. This is a concept in society: these change historically.
The reason we are forced to have this debate and vote is because Turnbull does have authority as PM.
Did it ever occur to you Christopher, That Tim was not refering to you?
That in fact h was refering to the large group of Australian homophobes. I grew up in counrty Australia, and have connection to that regularly. There are lots of homophobes, it is no secret.
Nothing could more encapsulate arrogant moral assumption, political hubris and implied ideological triumphalism than this abusive misuse of an otherwise perfectly decent song. And it brings out in me a visceral gorge rising disgust at everything he represents…and the overwhelming desire to break the power that gives him his leverage and appearance of credibility.
Minchen represents a clique that has no intention of running a debate over perhaps one of the most singularly key shifts about we see ourselves as a species, in the most important single thing any of us do; to create the partnerships that will bring life into the world and raise it through daily mentorship and example through a generational cycle, so that life might be carried on, and its templates preserved, of what it means to be a man and woman, cleave and be fruitful.
This is no small matter. This is not some minor extension of a franchise to realize a claimed ‘equalitiy’ and ‘justice’, which in reality is just fudged equivalencing, special pleading and sectional interest that has been promoted by a lobby and marketing model shared with Exxon, the Koch brothers and Monsanto.
Minchin is no better than them. His agenda is no more sustainable than theirs. The values he spouts are every bit as crummy, offense and destructive against our long term prospects as theirs.
I do not mind being accused of ‘homophobia’ by the likes of people like him. It is a badge of honor not because I know the epithet is a pathetic pseudo scientific bluff to try and convert principle political opposition and enmity into a psychiatric condition, but because I know that in the longer term, his fear of those who would defend our humanity from ideological and cultural saboteurs… will not be a phobia….
Remember my personal information
Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.
Tasmanian Times © 2017 | AANDCP
How to use this website | The Legal Bits | About | RSS