Australian man arrested over racist statements on Social Media

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How about you tell us what rings in your ears when you hear certain words? I'm sure we'll all be the better for it.

Go home Les - you're drunk

:-)

But on the outside (outside) chance that you're still up for an actual conversation - why don't you explain why you're so afraid of language?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Go home Les - you're drunk

:-)

But on the outside (outside) chance that you're still up for an actual conversation - why don't you explain why you're so afraid of language?

I'm not. Are your ears ringing? Must be more dog-whistles.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not. Are your ears ringing? Must be more dog-whistles.

You're not what? Afraid of language - or drunk?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You're not what? Afraid of language - or drunk?

Neither. Once again, there must be some inaudible sounds the rest of us are unable to hear that you pick up on. Please share with the rest of us.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you're not afraid of language Les, why are you so concerned about dog whistles?

If I had realized that this was something that really got to you I would have said it sooner

It's interesting

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

If you're not afraid of language Les, why are you so concerned about dog whistles?

If I had realized sooner that this was something that really got to you I would have said it sooner

It's interesting

Why would you say I'm concerned with dog-whistles? I was pointing out your concern for them, not mine. What is interesting is the entire claim of dog-whistle politics, for instance that certain words are dog-whistles for racists, but then it always seems to be people like yourself who pick up on them.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Damn you just served (her?) well done.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Well, I guess it is true. When a country gives up their guns, they start to lose their free speech too. Australia and much of Europe, being pretty much the perfect example of a glove that fits more perfect than any other ever has.

Get your guns back people, and then you can say whatever you want again.

Truer words have never been spoken. Being arrested for speech, or calling out a corrupt politician, like in the UK is a progression from being disarmed.
I'll bet that not in the too distant future more laws will be added that further protect authority from challenges of their actions and policies, and maybe in the future it could be a capital crime to do so. In China they do in fact kill people who speak ill against the party. Some they just jail and torture.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Why would you say I'm concerned with dog-whistles? I was pointing out your concern for them, not mine. What is interesting is the entire claim of dog-whistle politics, for instance that certain words are dog-whistles for racists, but then it always seems to people like yourself who pick up on them.

There you go. Good lad - not drunk after all. And not lazy either

I mentioned it once - you kept bringing it back. So, there you go. Obvious hot button is obvious :-)

It's no big mystery Les. It's not magic - or superstition. It's just language

If someone wants to say something without using the words they really want to be able to say - they just dog whistle. But you already knew that

It's not exactly a tough code to crack though - is it? If it were it wouldn't work

Subtlety of language is a beautiful thing. Metaphor is the way of the human Les. I know you prefer directness, but - there we are

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I really dislike the term "snowflake". It gets applied to people who so much as voice the idea that they feel offended about something.

the snowflake thing is being overused now, I agree. its basically a blanket term used for anyone expressing offense..and there are things in the world that will be taken as offended. I try to only use it when people try to make rules to protect them from being offended, be it demanding universities not allow controversial speakers from being invited, or in this case laws enacted that would arrest and imprison people for speaking like a jerk online and anyone who supports it, etc..

I am offended by many things. racism, blatant sexism, etc..typical lib stuff. I want people to be classier in society, but I am more offended at people trying to get people fired over harmless jokes (donglegate) and pushing for legal action against thoughts and words online

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: SaturnFX

funny, but i think if you asked the man who made the comments, his answers would be real answers, and he would say exactly what he meant. not cowardly grammatical technicalities high priced lawyers would use on defense against possibly someone who acted on what they posted online...

lulz..

I have no doubt the guy is most likely racist, I was just splitting hairs and showing how his comments actually could also be seen as not racist at all..context tends to matter, and intent.
I got the spirit of a lawyer in me I suppose.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

If someone wants to say something without using the words they really want to be able to say - they just dog whistle. But you already knew that

It's not exactly a tough code to crack though - is it? If it were it wouldn't work

Well no, "dog-whistle" politics is a propaganda technique used to deride the views of others. It only works to pretend people are speaking in secret code. However, the claim that people are speaking in secret code to each other is not only hilarious, but cowardly and meaningless.

originally posted by: Sargeras
Why as you say would " only an idiot would say such a thing publically about a government official "?

I don't get your meaning.

Even if it wasn't against the law, to publicly use racial and sexist insults against a government official is going to bring unwanted attention. Unless he wanted the attention, I think it's a foolish thing to do. It's like carrying a gun into an airport. Only an idiot...

Do you get my meaning?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well no, "dog-whistle" politics is a propaganda technique used to deride the views of others. It only works to pretend people are speaking in secret code. However, the claim that people are speaking in secret code to each other is not only hilarious, but cowardly and meaningless.

Pretty much what I just said Les - what else you got?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Pretty much what I just said Les - what else you got?

Actually, quite a bit. Believe it or not I've studied it quite a bit in the hopes of writing about it, though I never posted or published it and no longer intend to. But for your pleasure:

Dog-Whistle Politics

Donald Trump has been called the Pied-Piper of Dog-whistle politics, which is fitting since the whole Republican party has been charged for engaging in dog-whistle politics for quite some time. The dubious insinuation in that charge is that Trump and the Republicans are speaking in secret code to racists, whom I wager are hiding in the bushes, like dogs, awaiting the long-awaited sound to bring in the coming race war.

The thing about a dog whistle is that only dogs can hear it. So when I am lead to believe that the right is engaged in “dog-whistle politics”, I have to wonder why these sounds seem to ring so loud in the ears of the left.

According to anti-conservative author Ian Haney Lopez’s book “Dog Whistle Politics”, when Nixon spoke of “Law and Order”, he was secretly passing messages to racist via inaudible code. To the racist hounds who were able to pick up on this covert racism, “Law” meant race and “Order” means anti-activism, as they tend to do.

When Paul Ryan had the audacity to link poverty to a “ tailspin of culture”, especially in the “inner cities in particular”, “of men not working” and “generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work”, the words magically morphed into the inaudible sound of a racist dog whistle. Rep. Barbara Lee’s recognized this inaudible sound as a “thinly-veiled racial attack”, and that when Ryan spoke of “inner-city” and “culture”, he surreptitiously meant “black”. According to Ryan, race never crossed his mind. Nonetheless, to the ears of racists, he was secretly speaking about black people this whole time.

Jimmy Carter knew all too well that the animosity against President Obama from the right was because he was a black man, and not because of his policies, as has traditionally been the case. Mark Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center agreed. "I think what President Carter said is precisely what is going on. I am not saying that everyone involved in opposing healthcare reform is a Klansman in disguise, but it is the elephant in the room." Congressman Henry Johnson echoed his statements. "I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside." The RNC chairman at the time and obvious racist Michael Steele denied the accusations.

Alex Hern, technology reporter for the Guardian, wrote on the subject of Republican dog whistles for the New Statesman. When a Mitt Romney aide commented that Romney would be a better president than Obama because be better understood the Anglo-Saxon heritage that Britain and America share, Hern’s ears started ringing. “This sort of statement is known in politics as a ‘dog whistle’,” he wrote. “To most people, it looks innocuous, if a bit weird, but to its target audience – in this case, racists – it reads as a perfectly clear statement that Romney is better than Obama because he is white.” And there you have it.

While it is probably true that there is a pack of racists out there making connections between such statements and racial stereotypes, the insidious assumption that the right are secretly speaking to racists in some sort of hidden inaudible code is a reckless and sloppy fantasy.

Rather, it appears the only racists able to both hear and translate the racist messages are the very same ones who always claim “dog-whistle politics”. To the extent that it is only they and perhaps some unscrupulous racists who are connecting irrelevant words to irrelevant racial stereotypes, it must be conceded that the dogs in tune to the racist dog-whistle are the very ones making such suspicious connections

I apologize to the OP, for this may be off topic.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You know what? This only proves to me something I've noticed for a while, but even more so lately

Some of us are literalist/traditionalist. Some of us are symbolist/progressive

Those things get mixed in with each other - the amount of possibilities is limitless of course

Language is our most useful tool - when it comes to the group. But, still - it can be so limiting if we don't all use it the same way

Dog whistles - it interests you to say that only dogs can hear them - but they do work. You think that they are imaginary for some people but do exist for the people that call them out?

Hilarious - and telling

You aren't that naive - but, nice shell game

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Maybe you can provide an example, and how that proves your assertion?

Of course not. Unverifiable assertions and bold claims—basically lies—to poison the well of your political opponents. Pushing the agenda of your clan forward, but worse than that, through spineless methods.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

WTH? We live in scary times...

Indeed we do.
This man's been arrested and charged for wearing an offensive T shirt.

Paul Grange, 50, was arrested on Monday and charged with "displaying abusive writing... likely to cause distress"
www.bbc.co.uk...

The thought police are here.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: CynConcepts

You would be even more surprised how they also hide behind anti-defamation laws - they bankrupt you in the courts. We have no bill of rights and only "implied" freedom in our Constitution, Basically we are still a military run colony.

technically we are a constitutional Monarchy and our Government can be sacked by the Governor-General...Appointed by the Queen of England

I guess that is what concerns me about some in our nation wanting to be more like the rest of the westernized world. I like my freedom of speech and America. Other nations seem to be coming more authoritan states under the philosophy of offend no one!

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Maybe you can provide an example, and how that proves your assertion?

Of course not. Unverifiable assertions and bold claims—basically lies—to poison the well of your political opponents. Pushing the agenda of your clan forward, but worse than that, through spineless methods.

Spineless you say? You mean - like this:

I bet you are familiar with no more than 1% of the laws in your country.

:-)

You're the champ kiddo