top 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 34 points 9 months ago (4 children)

This and not being able to criticise the actions of a country are really disturbing. It among other things feels like a slide into fascism

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 17 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Really starting to find it hard to argue that Labor aren't Liberals light this week.

    Where the fuck is Free Speech Pauline?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Good question and one that’s started to be asked around some pundit circles.

    We know where she is, most of her supporters are on board with this anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -40 points 9 months ago (29 children)

    Unpopular opinion but I agree. The protests are not protests but disruption of ordinary people's lives for free.

    It is one thing to get your opinion expressed freely, it's another to block half a city because you think you have the right to express freely.

    People do actually suffer consequence because they miss court dates, interviews, appointments, etc. They don't matter?

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] [S] 29 points 9 months ago (19 children)

    Hmm, thats about what I think about the AFL. Every. damn. game. half the cities blocked up tighter than a bees bum... won't someone think of muzza's* third court appearance.

    Living alongside other peoples a bitch ain't it.

    ^*no shade on the muzza's out there, love ya!^

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 9 months ago (18 children)
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    You're right, the point of the AFL isn't the same as a protest.

    The point of the protest is to stop our country's government from aiding and abetting a genocide. Anything else pales in comparison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    So it's not the outcome that's the problem then, but rather the intention?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 9 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] [S] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

    After reflection i suppose you're right. The outcomes are different, one car in my way on the freeway is there to protest, the other car in my way on the freeway is there to AFL. Very different outcomes there... *

    ^*Maybe we should ban all cars but mine? Am I crazy, or would that solve my problem?^

    I suppose totally different messages being sent though: one is, 'i care about this thing and you're also gona have to for a bit'; the other is, 'i care about this thing and you're gona need to wait'. Theres a nuance there.

    Sadly there is one unavoidable outcome :) MUZZA DOESN'T MAKE HIS COURT APPEARANCE!! The judge. is. ropeable...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] [S] 3 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Uh oh... rumbled. ;)

    Of course i'm not. I am satirising. Because your suggestion, and the implications of which, are ridiculous from the outset. The only sane response is to satirise the idea in the vain hope that through the equivalences drawn the ideas own ridiculousness is laid bare. In a bit of a 'the emperor has no clothes' kind of moment.

    Have a good day mate. Lets protect freedom together in our own ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 9 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] [S] 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    ... in the corner; out the way; down the street; where it can't be heard.. etc it doesn't matter the caveat.

    The suggestion that other people shouldn't have to deal with protestors on the road, because "they're in the way". Well shit, the AFL is in my way! And they're playing for a good half a year or more as well. Point is, certain things people do, especially on our roads, are gonna annoy others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Sydney Town Hall was a poor choice or a good choice then? To you.

    Look, we're in protest positioning and tactics here. Its essential for the scope of ways to protest be necessarily broad, to allow for the creativity that often accompanies effective protests. You seem to be arguing for a quite narrow definition of allowable/effective protest, and we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

    Just stop oil with the paint in the museums et al; Rosa Parks on the bus; Japanese Bus drivers refusing money; Palestine Action Group over the harbour bridge. They're all acceptable and creative forms of protest to me. Whether they're effective isn't the point, the point is we have a society built to accept and accomodate the fact that humanity isn't a monolith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 8 months ago

    ...the point is we have a society built to accept and accomodate the fact that humanity isn't a monolith

    Lots of protests i don't agree with that I'm glad weren't effective. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have been allowed. Don't know where you're from, but in Australia we try to respect the fact all people are different and accomodate that fact. Emphasis on the try.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Our right to protest is a key tool in our political power toolset. Gathering to show support or discontent for an issue, and disrupting ‘business as usual’ is the whole bloody point - it applies pressure and creates visibility.

    The government can’t tell us not to protest. Full stop. Our democracy in Australia is already cooked enough - let’s not let it slide.

    If our ability to have ‘legal’ protests is taken - we have to protest anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments