Jump to content
BarryBevan

Alan Jones

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Inequality, poverty bigger causes. People have been violent before we had electronic video games. Maybe the crusades would have been more violent if they had an x box, but I doubt it

Ahhhhh so, what is it people are violent, or oy violent due to language used by shock jocks? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, monkie said:

And the rest of it mate. $25k is just domestic (and it is the whole team and not just me) . Almost all of my air travel is for work though and that's a deal with the devil I have had to make. Relocating next year to a place where I can reasonably use a train to do a lot of my international travel and I shall do that. 

Very happy to discuss the causes of violence in society, but that shouldn't deflect from the fact that Alan Jones is a turgid flog and what he said was unacceptable. Perhaps start a new thread to air your outrage about violent films and games? 

E2A: This is another whataboutism. Predictable.

I thought we had already confirmed Alan Jones was a flog and what he said was unacceptable. So the natural flow of conversation had continued on... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, more said:

I thought we had already confirmed Alan Jones was a flog and what he said was unacceptable. So the natural flow of conversation had continued on... 

Apologies I must have missed that bit. I'm glad we agree. Not sure why I'm under attack then for taking action to try and remove a flog who says unacceptable things from the airwaves?

But seriously, start a new thread. I think it's an important topic and as a person who will (hopefully) be raising children soon I would love to hear from people how they have tried to educate / shield their offspring in a world that in which violence in many forms exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, more said:

Ahhhhh so, what is it people are violent, or oy violent due to language used by shock jocks? 

Humans have violence in their genes. Belief systems foster this. For thousands of years humans did the most horrendous things in the name of their beliefs, generally religion.

Jones is a voice of and representative of a set of beliefs, which depending on your point of view are less than progressive or constructive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, monkie said:

Apologies I must have missed that bit. I'm glad we agree. Not sure why I'm under attack then for taking action to try and remove a flog who says unacceptable things from the airwaves?

But seriously, start a new thread. I think it's an important topic and as a person who will (hopefully) be raising children soon I would love to hear from people how they have tried to educate / shield their offspring in a world that in which violence in many forms exists.

I didn't mean to attack you, it's just an expression of my frustration at society these days.

As I've mentioned I believe that are much bigger problems causing violence in society than Alan Jones. 

Even the reporting of crime these days is over the top. Have you noticed how it's not' so and so was murdered', it's now 'so and so had her throat slit'. Why does the public need to know this level of detail, what good does it achieve? 

So yeah stupid half arse petitions against an easy target is like pissing in the ocean, might make you feel better but that's about it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Humans have violence in their genes. Belief systems foster this. For thousands of years humans did the most horrendous things in the name of their beliefs, generally religion.

Jones is a voice of and representative of a set of beliefs, which depending on your point of view are less than progressive or constructive.

So you admit people are naturally violent, want to blame violence on Alan Jones but can't accept that there is a much larger problem in our society with mainstream media, movies, TV and computer games all promoting and glorifying violence.. 

Mental gymnastics in overdrive.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, more said:

I didn't mean to attack you, it's just an expression of my frustration at society these days.

As I've mentioned I believe that are much bigger problems causing violence in society than Alan Jones. 

Even the reporting of crime these days is over the top. Have you noticed how it's not' so and so was murdered', it's now 'so and so had her throat slit'. Why does the public need to know this level of detail, what good does it achieve? 

So yeah stupid half arse petitions against an easy target is like pissing in the ocean, might make you feel better but that's about it. 

I understand, I also feel sad about a lot of what I see.

I haven't signed a petition, that would be a waste of time, what I've done is do a very simple thing that will encourage the removal of a poisonous voice from our airwaves. If one fewer person hears his incitements to violence then I think that is a good thing. There are many, many things to be fixed but staring at the enormity can cause paralysis. Small steps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, more said:

So you admit people are naturally violent, want to blame violence on Alan Jones but can't accept that there is a much larger problem in our society with mainstream media, movies, TV and computer games all promoting and glorifying violence.. 

Mental gymnastics in overdrive.. 

 I do not think the videos are as much of an issue as ingrained human DNA, poverty, inequality and bigotry. Represented by prominent speakers.

I don't think the video games and movies are great. But humans have been more violent before we had electricity and transistors. Did the inquisition warm up with Grand Theft auto, They had all of the above with religion as there primary ally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

 I do not think the videos are as much of an issue as ingrained human DNA, poverty, inequality and bigotry. Represented by prominent speakers.

I don't think the video games and movies are great. But humans have been more violent before we had electricity and transistors. Did the inquisition warm up with Grand Theft auto, They had all of the above with religion as there primary ally

That's a stupid argument mate. In one breath you are saying people have always been violent so you can't blame video games, and then in the next breath try to blame violence on Alan Jones. 

Like in my example many posts back id be willing to wager a kid would be more affected by seeing 40,000 murders on TV/movies by the time he is 18 and having been exposed to hours and hours of computer games where his goal is to kill as many people as possible.... Compared to a kid who heard a guy on the radio say to shove a sock down someones throat... It's hilarious in that context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan Jones has been responsible for

1) triggering the worst step in race relations in this country. Bringing a suburb of Sydney to international disrepute and inciting riots 

2) fostering climate denialism in this country by supporting any voice willing to be a mouthpiece for the coal industry

3) wielding a disproportionate influence on politics in this country 

4) distasteful misogyny 

5) flagrant disregard for factual broadcasting and responsible commentary 

he is more a danger to Australian society than spotty boys playing fortnite or suburbanites watching Tarantino films

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, more said:

That's a stupid argument mate. In one breath you are saying people have always been violent so you can't blame video games, and then in the next breath try to blame violence on Alan Jones. 

Like in my example many posts back id be willing to wager a kid would be more affected by seeing 40,000 murders on TV/movies by the time he is 18 and having been exposed to hours and hours of computer games where his goal is to kill as many people as possible.... Compared to a kid who heard a guy on the radio say to shove a sock down someones throat... It's hilarious in that context. 

How does jonsey equal video game. The parallel is with figures of power and with a voice during the inquisition or other extremely violent times.

anyway not sure what this is about anymore but debate is constructive if it helps us understand each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BarryBevan said:

How does jonsey equal video game. The parallel is with figures of power and with a voice during the inquisition or other extremely violent times.

anyway not sure what this is about anymore but debate is constructive if it helps us understand each other.

Yeah I'm out, has been a fun discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is, I believe, good... 

I shall discuss with my better half but I think it makes me think in a better way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also this: 

Someones in a youtube hole!

E2A: Gonna tag you @more so you see this. I think these "leftists" have a lot that you will find interesting. Apologies if I have made an assumption there but this is definitely interesting.

Edited by monkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BarryBevan said:

https://www.2gb.com/kill-all-men-controversial-feminist-booted-from-charity-fundraiser/

Well she was removed from a fund raiser. Her behaviour is inexcusable. With a much lower profile than Jonesy, I did not know who she was until now. But she is just as bad probably worse.

She wasn't removed from that fund raiser by the left. There was no outrage from the left. No opinion pieces in the MSM. And her excuse that it's obviously not meant to be taken seriously is the same one people on the right use but aren't allowed to get away with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A2K said:

She wasn't removed from that fund raiser by the left. There was no outrage from the left. No opinion pieces in the MSM. And her excuse that it's obviously not meant to be taken seriously is the same one people on the right use but aren't allowed to get away with.

she didn't get away with it, what is MSM. Who are the left

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, A2K said:

She wasn't removed from that fund raiser by the left. There was no outrage from the left.

 

Who gives a flying FK about left/right? Can't we just talk about what is right & wrong, or does one side of politics have a mortgage on what is right?

 

This from the Chris Smith show on 2GB

Quote

“Who does she think she is to speak to a government minister like that. Who is she to speak to anyone like that?

“That’s a sackable offense, isn’t it?

When one of their own speaks about a Prime Minister is a similar way it doesn't seem to be a sackable offence.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

 

Who gives a flying FK about left/right? Can't we just talk about what is right & wrong, or does one side of politics have a mortgage on what is right?

 

I agree. What I want to see is consistency not hypocrisy and double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

 

Who gives a flying FK about left/right? Can't we just talk about what is right & wrong, or does one side of politics have a mortgage on what is right?

 

This from the Chris Smith show on 2GB

When one of their own speaks about a Prime Minister is a similar way it doesn't seem to be a sackable offence.

The same Chris Smith who sexually assaulted his female staffers at a Christmas party and plead mental health, drugs, alcohol, [insert excuse here] and kept his job. That one? Left, right, sideways. NRL player and he's gone. Broadcaster with a platform and a big mouth. Safe as houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A2K said:

I agree. What I want to see is consistency not hypocrisy and double standards.

Then how can 2GB have a commentator stating what was above, and hang on for dear life to another who did exactly what the former was complaining about?

edit to add: Multiple times.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, A2K said:

I agree. What I want to see is consistency not hypocrisy and double standards.

Where is the double standard she did not get to present following her comment. AJ did as did smithy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the news this morning of Jones urging Morrison to get tough on her with a few backhanders. Plus a few more sponsors have withdrawn from his radio show. 

He might be sitting beside his mate Izzy soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to the crunch, money talks and bulkshit doesn't walk.

Give it a month, it'll blow over and sponsors will return or others fill the gap.

As far as not wanting to see hypocrisy and double standards, don't look too politicians.  It's par for the course for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this topic is a great illustration of why "the left" continually fails to do anything but foster their own smugness.  Jones and the right wing media/politicians/organisations don't don't create this , they just feed off of it and provide a focus.  Like it or not, Jones is on air because people listen.  Instead of trying to shut him down people should be asking why?  And if the answer you come up with is that the people listening are in some way morally inferior to you then you are part of the problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jones is on air because old people listen to the radio and don't use the internet, don't listen to podcasts or other channels not backed by media monopolies owned by rich white blokes living overseas who need old people to buy newspapers or listen to radio stations. Old people with fixed ideas and political leanings to the right listen to him. His influence is out of proportion to his audience because of some perceived fear he engenders in politicians. Thankfully some now refuse to go on his show and be abused, berated or spoken over. they realise they have no chance of changing the minds or worldview of his audience or him so don't bother.

With regard to the morally inferior bit, I would say inflexible and entrenched in their ideals. And old. With no thought for the future beyond their own lifetime.

Quote

The evidence presented in this paper indicates that perceptions of Jones’ influence and political sway are disproportionate to the size and nature of his audience. His listeners are much more conservative and authoritarian in their views than other Australians. His audience is small - about the same as a low-rating television program - and highly concentration among older listeners with well-established and inflexible political allegiances. This suggests that his influence is based more on networking and fear of on-air criticism than a real ability to shift votes.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suggestion that Jones' influence is based on his limited listenership is a pretty narrow view.  Rightly or wrongly his voice is heard much wider when he makes a fuss.  If this wasn't the case nobody much would care what he said about anyone but many of you feel so strongly about it that you want him forcibly removed.  It's really not what he says or where he says it that scares politicians and the like, it's the scrutiny it might bring.  Personally I think he's a bit of a scumbag but I don't greatly concern myself with his ramblings.

38 minutes ago, Parkside said:

With regard to the morally inferior bit, I would say inflexible and entrenched in their ideals. And old. With no thought for the future beyond their own lifetime.

By which of course you mean that they haven't yet managed to become as enlightened as your fine self.  Many of them have probably spent their entire lives not being able to look past their next pay, let alone their lifetime.  It's amazing how sanctimonious one can become if you lose sight of just how privileged your life really is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stikman said:

By which of course you mean that they haven't yet managed to become as enlightened as your fine self.  

How dare you question Transitions' self appointed moral arbiter like that?

Know your place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stikman said:

The suggestion that Jones' influence is based on his limited listenership is a pretty narrow view.  Rightly or wrongly his voice is heard much wider when he makes a fuss.  If this wasn't the case nobody much would care what he said about anyone but many of you feel so strongly about it that you want him forcibly removed.  It's really not what he says or where he says it that scares politicians and the like, it's the scrutiny it might bring.  Personally I think he's a bit of a scumbag but I don't greatly concern myself with his ramblings.

By which of course you mean that they haven't yet managed to become as enlightened as your fine self.  Many of them have probably spent their entire lives not being able to look past their next pay, let alone their lifetime.  It's amazing how sanctimonious one can become if you lose sight of just how privileged your life really is.

It was the sponsors who felt strongly enough to leave. I have never thought in terms of morally inferior. People who spruik violence and division or participate in acts of violence are not on Xmas card list, if thats morally superior, I'll take that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Stikman said:

By which of course you mean that they haven't yet managed to become as enlightened as your fine self.  Many of them have probably spent their entire lives not being able to look past their next pay, let alone their lifetime.  It's amazing how sanctimonious one can become if you lose sight of just how privileged your life really is.

I am under no illusion as to how privileged I am. I am two generations downstream from an upbringing of poverty with no thought of home ownership or high school let alone tertiary education. I understand others hold different opinions to me and elderly, religious people may not be in a position or inclined to look forward more than the next pension day. This was my grandparents. I am also of the opinion that the next generation is going to be worse off than mine, financially and environmentally and that the conservative influence of Jones and the politicians he endorses are not acting in the best interests of present and future generations. I hate that the noisy minority hold undue influence through media magnification and sway our politics disproportionately.  If that makes me sanctimonious then I guess I am. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Stikman said:

By which of course you mean that they haven't yet managed to become as enlightened as your fine self.  Many of them have probably spent their entire lives not being able to look past their next pay, let alone their lifetime.  It's amazing how sanctimonious one can become if you lose sight of just how privileged your life really is.

So it's poor folk? Just trying to work out who "the left" is in your definitions and also "the right"?

Are poor people on "the right"? Those of us who are lucky enough to be rich "the left"?

Is "the left" made up of people who don't like violent imagery against women? So therefore "the right" do?

Do "the left" believe in climate change? And "the right" don't?

It's a silly way to try and describe people. Please be more specific.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't particularly like boxes.  There are obscenely wealthy and devastatingly poor on both sides of the political divide.  There are those whose self-interest would lie on one side but choose to align themselves on the opposite.  There are also many who think they are on thing but their words and deeds are more akin to their foe than they would like to believe.  Most of us just spend time vascillating at varying distances from the centre depending on the issue.  There would be very few people who you could describe fully with a categorisation of left or right wing.  Parky is the one who labelled Jones' audience as politically right, I think it's far more nuanced and it seems we don't do nuance.

I don't like violent imagery against women.  Almost every person I've ever loved in my life has been a woman.  That doesn't mean that if someone makes a statement of hatred against a woman they must be labeled a misogynist, I mean they might just hate that woman for a particular (and perhaps legitimate) reason.  Does Jones target only women or just people he dislikes, some of whom are naturally going to be women?

I stand to be corrected but nobody in this topic seems to be an avid listener of the chap, so how do we know what bile he spews at who and in what ratio by sex?  Based on what you hear from other media?  Seems to me that it's far more likely to get into the general news-sphere if it's against a woman because we consider it more outrageous.  Is that sexist?  Maybe but it's true.  If he'd said the exact same words about the president of Fiji would you even know it, let alone be talking about it?  If you genuinely think the answer to that is yes then it's only you you're kidding.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stikman said:

There would be very few people who you could describe fully with a categorisation of left or right wing.  Parky is the one who labelled Jones' audience as politically right, I think it's far more nuanced and it seems we don't do nuance.

 

I actually looked stuff up on the inter webs. Jones audience is as conservative and right leaning as you can get. Based on Morgan polling reported by Australia Institute in 2006 (Howard PM)

Perhaps the largest difference between Jones’ listeners and other Australians is the extent of their support for the Coalition Government. While 47 per cent of Australians say that the Government is doing a good job running the country, fully 75 per cent of Jones’ listeners agree. Not surprisingly, their voting patterns match this expressed support for the Government. They are twice as likely as other Australians to vote for
the Federal Coalition with 65 per cent saying they give their first preference to the Liberal Party.”

I cant see any reason the demographic has changed in 13 years except to get older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@stickman Thank you for your considered response. I also dislike the use of the terms "left" and "right" because, as you say, it misses the nuance that is very important but it was yourself who used the term and generalised "the left" as being ineffective and smug.

We've been over the question as to whether he uses violent imagery equally between the sexes already in this topic. You are correct that I don't listen to the mouthbreather but from Google he does seem to save a particularly violent bent to his language to use against women (although his Chaff Bag comments were also aimed at men). This may be a bias survey because Google favours more recent news which has focussed on his latest unacceptable comments.

This is not a reason however to find those comments acceptable. Firstly I don't think anybody who is broadcasting on the airwaves should suggest shoving a sock down anybody's throat. I think that normalises violence against people with whom you politically disagree which is not OK. Much as I enjoyed the video of Nigel Farage having a milkshake thrown at him I don't think it is acceptable and I'm glad that the perpetrator has been prosecuted for it.

Secondly we have to face the reality that male violence against women is a particular problem. Women are regularly killed by men, far, far more than men are killed by women and so one does need to be even more careful with the way one deals with language that relates to that. By all means attack Ardern's policies, her approach, he politics, her manner but I do not think it is ever OK to suggest that anyone (and especially not a man, given the data about how common it is) suffocate her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stikman said:

The suggestion that Jones' influence is based on his limited listenership is a pretty narrow view.  Rightly or wrongly his voice is heard much wider when he makes a fuss.  If this wasn't the case nobody much would care what he said about anyone but many of you feel so strongly about it that you want him forcibly removed.  It's really not what he says or where he says it that scares politicians and the like, it's the scrutiny it might bring.  Personally I think he's a bit of a scumbag but I don't greatly concern myself with his ramblings.

By which of course you mean that they haven't yet managed to become as enlightened as your fine self.  Many of them have probably spent their entire lives not being able to look past their next pay, let alone their lifetime.  It's amazing how sanctimonious one can become if you lose sight of just how privileged your life really is.

as enlightened as self appointed virtue signallers at busso moralising over others percieved drafting at busso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Stikman said:

  It's amazing how sanctimonious one can become if you lose sight of just how privileged your life really is.

Yes, you couldn't have described Jones more accurately.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder what Jones will have to say about Pell today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems I'm being misconstrued as defending Jones and what he says.  I'm not but I guess it's yet another example of people hearing what they want to hear.  What I'm suggesting is that dismissing his influence based on the size of his listening audience and what you believe their motivations are is short-sighted and foolish.  When you dismiss without understanding you lose the chance to capture the underlying problem and make change.  Standing on either side of a fence and shouting at each other is never going to work.

15 hours ago, monkie said:

Secondly we have to face the reality that male violence against women is a particular problem. Women are regularly killed by men, far, far more than men are killed by women and so one does need to be even more careful with the way one deals with language that relates to that. By all means attack Ardern's policies, her approach, he politics, her manner but I do not think it is ever OK to suggest that anyone (and especially not a man, given the data about how common it is) suffocate her.

I think that's true in a certain context but it's not the whole truth.  If you only consider physical violence male-on-female vs female-on-male almost certainly that's the case, if you further consider psychological abuse then probably still true but the picture becomes a lot more fuzzy.  How many of the 2,349 male suicides in 2017 had vindictive family disputes as a major factor for example?  Then of course if you look at death by domestic violence as a whole men are more likely to be victims than women by a ratio of two-to-one, but that's mostly blokes killing blokes so I guess we don't need to worry about that...  Domestic violence is a huge issue, if you consider that only to be men abusing women you are missing too much of the big picture that's needed to make real change.  Here's some stats from 2019 from an advocacy group for women, horrible reading on all fronts but we generally only concern ourselves with women.  http://www.impactforwomen.org.au/australias-death-toll-2019.html

Again though it doesn't diminish the need to call out threats by males against women.  Jones should, and has to some extent, been put under pressure because of it.  When he or anyone else makes comments of violence against anyone, male or female, we should do the same.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Stikman said:

What I'm suggesting is that dismissing his influence based on the size of his listening audience and what you believe their motivations are is short-sighted and foolish. 

I love the theory that nobody listens to 2GB or watches Sky News, but they still managed to overthrow a sitting prime minister...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

I love the theory that nobody listens to 2GB or watches Sky News, but they still managed to overthrow a sitting prime minister...

What I would love to see is: AJ telling management to stick it... He gets sacked and pulls a gig at 2SM. And all his supporters follow and 2GB go down the gurgler.

Would then be interesting to see how big his reach is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎20‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 7:07 PM, Parkside said:

I actually looked stuff up on the inter webs. Jones audience is as conservative and right leaning as you can get. Based on Morgan polling reported by Australia Institute in 2006 (Howard PM)

Perhaps the largest difference between Jones’ listeners and other Australians is the extent of their support for the Coalition Government. While 47 per cent of Australians say that the Government is doing a good job running the country, fully 75 per cent of Jones’ listeners agree. Not surprisingly, their voting patterns match this expressed support for the Government. They are twice as likely as other Australians to vote for
the Federal Coalition with 65 per cent saying they give their first preference to the Liberal Party.”

I cant see any reason the demographic has changed in 13 years except to get older.

So this is why you don't like Alan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

What I would love to see is: AJ telling management to stick it... He gets sacked and pulls a gig at 2SM. And all his supporters follow and 2GB go down the gurgler.

Would then be interesting to see how big his reach is.

 

How many listeners did he bring over from 2UE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Stikman said:

It seems I'm being misconstrued as defending Jones and what he says.  I'm not but I guess it's yet another example of people hearing what they want to hear.  What I'm suggesting is that dismissing his influence based on the size of his listening audience and what you believe their motivations are is short-sighted and foolish.  When you dismiss without understanding you lose the chance to capture the underlying problem and make change.  Standing on either side of a fence and shouting at each other is never going to work.

I think that's true in a certain context but it's not the whole truth.  If you only consider physical violence male-on-female vs female-on-male almost certainly that's the case, if you further consider psychological abuse then probably still true but the picture becomes a lot more fuzzy.  How many of the 2,349 male suicides in 2017 had vindictive family disputes as a major factor for example?  Then of course if you look at death by domestic violence as a whole men are more likely to be victims than women by a ratio of two-to-one, but that's mostly blokes killing blokes so I guess we don't need to worry about that...  Domestic violence is a huge issue, if you consider that only to be men abusing women you are missing too much of the big picture that's needed to make real change.  Here's some stats from 2019 from an advocacy group for women, horrible reading on all fronts but we generally only concern ourselves with women.  http://www.impactforwomen.org.au/australias-death-toll-2019.html

Again though it doesn't diminish the need to call out threats by males against women.  Jones should, and has to some extent, been put under pressure because of it.  When he or anyone else makes comments of violence against anyone, male or female, we should do the same.

 

I'm not entirely sure what we're disagreeing on here now you have clarified your position as not defending Jones. Unfortunately your contributions so far did not make that clear.

Post 1: You jumped in and claimed "the left" were smug and useless.

Post 2: You claimed that Jone's listeners were poor and that was somehow an excuse for supporting his reactionary views.

Post 3: You asked a question that had already been answered in this topic and seemed to suggest that people deploring violence by men against women was somehow sexist.

Post 4: This post makes some sense (and is the first time you actually condemned Jones) and I am certainly under no illusion that domestic violence is just men on women. Having been a volunteer ambo for almost 14 years now I've been the one picking up the pieces often enough in both directions. But I really do think blaming women for male suicide is a bit of a stretch. Male suicide (and suicide in general) is incredibly complex and has a whole load of contributing factors to it. To make the huge assumption that "some nasty woman" is the cause is part of the problem in society. Unless of course you have a source for that in which case I will retract.

All violence is wrong but to say that we don't have an issue around men killing women (far more than women killing men, that's just the data) is wrong. Men also kill men but we're not talking about that here, we're talking about a man saying another man should suffocate a woman live on the radio. I find that abhorrent.

 

Edited by monkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not particularly making a claim, just an observation that there are many things that aren't captured with raw statistics and some of it is utterly tragic.  I'm not aware of data but I am aware of a number of specific cases where suicide is directly as a result of the loss of connection with children through vexatious ex-partners and frustration at an unbalanced legal system.

First post:

On 20/08/2019 at 11:24 AM, Stikman said:

And this topic is a great illustration of why "the left" continually fails to do anything but foster their own smugness.  Jones and the right wing media/politicians/organisations don't don't create this , they just feed off of it and provide a focus.  Like it or not, Jones is on air because people listen.  Instead of trying to shut him down people should be asking why?  And if the answer you come up with is that the people listening are in some way morally inferior to you then you are part of the problem.

Didn't feel that my thoughts on Jones were relevant to the message.  The point being that the hard left achieve very little because they only ever take a superficial view and treat anything they don't like as if it were a naughty child.

Post 2:

On 20/08/2019 at 3:51 PM, Stikman said:

Many of them have probably spent their entire lives not being able to look past their next pay, let alone their lifetime.

Was in response to Parky's accusation that his listeners didn't look past their own lifetimes (i.e. they were selfish.)  Just providing a more sympathetic option as to why that may be the case, if indeed it is.

20 minutes ago, monkie said:

All violence is wrong but to say that we don't have an issue around men killing women (far more than women killing men, that's just the data) is wrong. Men also kill men but we're not talking about that here, we're talking about a man saying another man should suffocate a woman live on the radio. I find that abhorrent.

As do I.  But why do we find it more abhorrent than when he has said similar things about male individuals?  Why do we not find Clementine Ford's more graphic anti-male comments equally abhorrent as a society?  My argument is that by not applying consistent standards (a sign of integrity) and making implied excuses for some but not others then all we do is offer permission for it to continue, because everyone thinks their circumstances are special cases.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stikman said:

As do I.  But why do we find it more abhorrent than when he has said similar things about male individuals?  Why do we not find Clementine Ford's more graphic anti-male comments equally abhorrent as a society?  My argument is that by not applying consistent standards (a sign of integrity) and making implied excuses for some but not others then all we do is offer permission for it to continue, because everyone thinks their circumstances are special cases.

Clementine Ford can get in the bin as far as I'm concerned.

But to answer the bigger question I think you need to look at the paradigm in which these things are being said. Like I have said, most violence committed against women is by men (in fact, most violence is committed by men). Most sexual assault and rape is male on female (not exclusively, but most). In that world where "equality of violence" (a horrible expression) does not exist then "equality of outrage" will not follow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stikman said:

But why do we find it more abhorrent than when he has said similar things about male individuals?

Do we? How often does he say these similar things about male individuals? Remembering, women make up a very small percentage of people in powerful positions, so if he was being consistent, you would expect 5 abusive comments regarding males to every one he makes about women.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Do we? How often does he say these similar things about male individuals? Remembering, women make up a very small percentage of people in powerful positions, so if he was being consistent, you would expect 5 abusive comments regarding males to every one he makes about women.

 

To be fair he did say the Chaff Bag comment about Barak Obama and others too. Not excusing it and I still think he's a horrible misogynistic creep but facts matter 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Stikman said:

 

As do I.  But why do we find it more abhorrent than when he has said similar things about male individuals?  Why do we not find Clementine Ford's more graphic anti-male comments equally abhorrent as a society?  My argument is that by not applying consistent standards (a sign of integrity) and making implied excuses for some but not others then all we do is offer permission for it to continue, because everyone thinks their circumstances are special cases.

Well said!!! This has been my biggest issue-the lack of consistency. Many of the people that jump on the bandwagons of moral outrage are essentially bullies-because they pick easy targets.

Where is their moral outrage for example at the extraordinarily high rates of child sexual abuse in aboriginal communities? Where is their moral outrage at the rates of violence with government statics suggesting 70% of aboriginal families experience domestic violence?

Much easier to make a mountain out of a mole hill about some stupid sock comment than tackle a real issue that is happening as we speak to thousands of poor kids in our country.

Their moral outrage is all about an easy target to make themselves feel better, not about effecting any real change in society.

Pathetic.

Edited by more
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, monkie said:

Clementine Ford can get in the bin as far as I'm concerned.

...(in fact, most violence is committed by men)...

Misogyinist!!!

And that, my friend, is the important point.  The victim should be valued equally, whether male, female or non-binary, black, white, Catholic, muslim.  Male violence is male violence and the causes of male violence against women are mostly the same as the causes of male violence against males.  You won't reduce one without reducing the other so let's focus on that.  Of course the problem with that is that many of the characteristics that can make a male violent are what we want to see when it's used for our protection.  If you took out the context from most action movies the hero is not somebody we would want in our society but that's okay because they are always justified or compelled into their actions.  Speak to most perpetrators of violent crime and they will tell you they were too, they just have a different line in the sand and that's what we need to understand.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...