Australians 'fed up' with Palaszczuk’s 'hypocrisy'

Page 3 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

22 Jul 2021, 6:06 am

cyberdad wrote:
Honestly only you would have the patience to search for the OPs comment on Gladys.

And yet, I didn't even do that - It was in this very thread in which you claimed such sentiments from the OP did not exist :o

I will take it as a compliment that you recognise the fact that I do research and provide the sources\links when making comments, though.

cyberdad wrote:
He throws in an occasional post because he thinks it will throw people from his clear preferences.

His favourite people to attack include climate change activists and labor politicians. You are (as usual) evading the obvious.


Well, if that's where he finds the majority of the hypocracy he is interested in, where's the problem[1]. Should hypocracy be ignored when it is from a certain side, but targetted when on the other side? And if so, should he be taking the pleasure of pointing it out from certain other members here who appear quite gleeful when presented with an opportunity to attack that side?

[1] Given media tends to have an overall "left" lean ("63% of all of the publications are left-leaning, even if just a little bit. " - https://towardsdatascience.com/how-statistically-biased-is-our-news-f28f0fab3cb3?gi=dcb428f99a9c, it would follow that hypocracy from the "left" would be less likely to be commented on (more likely to be "hidden) by the media, whereas that by the "right" would be more liable to having this reported on.

As to evading the "obvious": My intention was on addressing the obvious falsehoods being peddled in the post to which I replied... What reason have I given to suggest that I would desire to deviate from this in order to address an area which was not a specific part of that post to which I was replying (and so being unaware that it was "expected" to be adressed)?

cyberdad wrote:
You would need to convince a fair few beyond me, even the mods have pointed out his bias.


Everyone has a degree of bias. The difference is to what degree an individual can see it within themselves and seek to compensate for it: Some are more successful than others - and some don't even bother trying. Similarly, the fact that a person posts something should not be seen as endorsement (or condemnation) of what they are posting, particularly in cases where no personal commentary is attached to this.

Given this site's overall appearance of bias in one direction (possibly accurate, but alternatively potentially skewed by the high volume of posts from a small portion of the membership who are aligned in that direction), it isn't surprising that anyone putting forward contrary views would be seen as "biased" because they didn't follow the "group-think" of the majority (actual or merely vocal).

cyberdad wrote:
Frankly I don't care, but at least he could just be up-front and honestly say he is partisan toward right wing parties/beliefs and news sources. His claim to being impartial is pretty weak and I'm not the only one who has stated the obvious.

I take it you feel the same way about others: That they should be upfront about their partisanship when attacking the "right", and indicate when their comments are based on their prejudices and biases rather than trying to give the misleading appearance of them being factual, where they are unable to supply data\sources which support the claims when making them?



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

22 Jul 2021, 9:07 am

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Alternatively: Have you considered that it could be simply that you don't like critism of members of the "left" (or the "left" in general) and are viewing the post through this bias?.


Except for four reasons
1, This is a consistent pattern with the OP

I have seen the OP making posts critical of those on the "right" (doubtless they can provide links if required...One such example from within this thread is included in point 4 below) - However I don't recall seeing you critisising those on the "left" (happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken on this point).
cyberdad wrote:
2. The OP relies on sky news for all their information

If one side of a conversation is unlikely to have viewed that source (through their prejudice regarding the source, for example), putting forward links from there would seem reasonable, as it is opening the audience to information which they would otherwise have been unlikely to be aware of.

There is also the question of whether this falsehood is intentional or merely caused by a lack of concern for determining the truth behind it (in favor of a particular narrative they wish to put forward) given the following listed sources used by the OP, for example (links to respective posts by OP which contained them):
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/conflict-with-china-a-high-likelihood-says-top-australian-general-20210503-p57ogv.html
and
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/adam-goodes-war-cry-wasnt-an-outrage-it-was-a-heartfelt-show-of-his-proud-heritage-20150531-ghdcfz.html
cyberdad wrote:
3. The OP has in the past spent an inordinate amount of time attacking Vic and Qld despite the fact he lives in NSW

Perhaps the issues the OP is posting about align with certain "special interests" they may have (such as examining the hypocracy of politicians?) and there have been fewer "major" occurences in their state compared to elsewhere.
cyberdad wrote:
4. Currently people in NSW are very angry with Gladys and Scomo but remarkably the OP is deafeningly silent on this issue. It's like the OP is only concerned with criticising labor ministers but proudly claims to be impartial and a non-binary thinker which patently false

Related in part to item 1, but also ignores the fact that while some citizens of a state may be "very angry" with politicians in their state, others may be neutral, or in agreement with them.

After all, he's not assigning blame away from the party in power ("left") for items that are their responsibility (Hotel quarantine):
Quote:
As a Victorian I blame the conservatives for the mess Victoria is in with the vaccine roll-out and botched hotel quarantine policy

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=397614&p=8801037#p8801037

In fact, even a simple glance at this thread would show the OP criticising the "right" aligned Federal and NSW state politicians you specifically named:
Quote:
Morrison stuffed up the vaccine roll-out because he put all his eggs in the AZ vaccine.

Gladys Berejiklian's government stuffed up TWICE with international aircrews.

Source: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=398571&p=8826176#p8826176

Given the unsubstantiated (and demonstratably false) assertion in this final statement, made in the same thread in which the above had already been posted (along with the other points raised and addressed previously), would certainly tend to give credence to claims of hyperpartisanship and support the initial suggestion that the underlying issue is simply that you don't like critisism of members of the "left" (or the "left" in general) and are viewing the post through this bias - This isn't something "wrong", but it is something that should be considered when evaluating information which may not agree with those biases (or put forward which supports those biases).


-I have criticised Scott, Gladys, and howard.
-I think Trump is a narcissist and wish we would get out of politics.
-I like Uncle Joe Biden.
-I hate big business after the Royal Commission into the corrupt banking and superannuation industries.
-I was not impressed that the conservative government was protecting these businesses.
-I don't like the boys club of the conservative party.
-I don't vote conservative.

Anyone who thinks I am a hyperpartisan conservative has "issues".
Simples. 8)



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

22 Jul 2021, 9:21 am

Brictoria wrote:
And yet, I didn't even do that - It was in this very thread in which you claimed such sentiments from the OP did not exist :o


It staggers the mind, don't it. 8O :mrgreen:

Brictoria wrote:
Everyone has a degree of bias.


I have said many times that I am a moderate conservative independent.
Mind you, I don't vote conservative, so I guess that makes me just a moderate independent, these days. 8)

Brictoria wrote:
Given this site's overall appearance of bias in one direction (possibly accurate, but alternatively potentially skewed by the high volume of posts from a small portion of the membership who are aligned in that direction), it isn't surprising that anyone putting forward contrary views would be seen as "biased" because they didn't follow the "group-think" of the majority (actual or merely vocal).


This website has a left-wing bias.
This is common knowledge.
The problem seems to be that some members are intolerant of anything/k that isn't part of the left-wing narrative, yes. 8)



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 65,510
Location: Over there

25 Jul 2021, 11:59 am

 ! Cornflake wrote:
And so this thread dies a death in a mess of accusations and forensic investigations.

When it is done to the extent as in this thread - and in many others - it is indistinguishable from an attack on the person. This is also not helped by posts popping up, apparently in support, which contain little more than self-promotional noise.
And to be clear, this refers to the unearthing and quoting of earlier posts to make some point, some complaint or wordy speculation about why someone posts what they do.

If it's not possible to attack what's posted without wrapping it in a fanciful dissertation on why someone posted the way they did, attempting to demonstrate a perceived untrustworthiness or failing of some sort - and in doing so making it an attack on the person - then the right to respond is forfeit.

If this behaviour continues in other threads they may also be locked.


Locked.


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.