Comments on: Strange affiliations: the Clean Feed's political trajectory

By: Nickws

Nickws — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:00:14 +0000

Or they might even be anti-cleanfeed activists.

By: Nickws

Nickws — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:54:17 +0000

I just realised that Australia’s strict libel and political campaigning laws (and how they’d be applied online) are the issues most likely to go nuclear with ordinary folk if a compulsory meta-filter is installed with the intent of actually working.
People, don’t fall for Hamilton’s rope-a-dope strategy whereby you just end up saying, “fuck you, authoritarian communitarian Red Chinaman internet nazi!”
(I heard him interviewed by BBC world service radio–he put forward his nonsense about how the Internet should not be excempt from the censorship TV and newspapers are subjected to–Instead of a retort like, “but wot about telephones and ham radio?” or “will QCs seize the houses of people who trashtalk on social networking sites,” the reporter just babbled about China.)
Why can’t all cleanfeed activists put meat onto the bones of their arguments–are they all obliged to masturbate furiously like Soon, Rundle, Miller?

By: Droo

Droo — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:17:41 +0000

Mark, anemia doesn’t actually mean anything. Its American English. The word is anaemia which derives from the ‘ancient greek’ for without blood. Anemia means nothing except it emphasises the point that Americans can’t spell and are as inconsistent as the rest of us when it comes to their own language. How about being a bit more precise and less sloppy?

By: feral sparrowhawk

feral sparrowhawk — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:49:57 +0000

If the left wing blogs have only opposed the proposal “anaemicly” how is the red-blood cell count measured? Number of posts, level of vitriol, or is it necessary to call for a vote for the Liberals on this single issue to be considered red-blooded?

By: Mug Punter

Mug Punter — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:42:41 +0000

Rudd put Conroy where he is, with the filtering job, so he would be clearly seen as the idiot he is. Cabinet reshuffle?

By: Adrien

Adrien — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:08:07 +0000

Spiked are Marxists who appear to advocate neolibertarian ideas. That have Cafe Hayek on their blogroll yet support the liberation of Iraq. Jason Soon likes ‘em a lot. Strange bedfellows.
.
I think Jason gets a kick out of the far left dismissing the soft left (pseudo left) as a bunch of claret skullin’ ivory tower types. Of course they’re dead wrong. It’s far too hot in Qld for claret.
.
Anyway I think Mark’s right. Protests are naff. The one today in Melbourne had some info but Jeeez it was dull. And in the bloody rain! And you sign a petition and you chant some bullshit and for what?
.
I’d get involved in a campaign to make Conroy eat this.
.
I reckon if a protest campaign is organized by a small number of people who are smart, dedicated to winning, strictly against violence or harm to property and realize that protests are actually media events and not very good ones – well you could actually succeed.
.
Any takers? Of course not. The Left protest ineptly and the Right don’t protest at all.

By: Bill Posters

Bill Posters — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:22:23 +0000

Kerry Miller’s article in Spiked

Spiked? You mean the journal of the entryist Revolutionary Communist Party (UK)?

By: Nickws

Nickws — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:39:41 +0000

Good points, Mark, but I could have done without exposing my beautiful mind to the bad vibes of that first blogpost or the really bad vibes at that Marx-Lenin-Mao-Kill-Bush-Kill blog. (Strange Times? Inspired by High- and Fortean-, I guess.) I understand your critique of 'communitarianism', but you're far too generous to the Iraq-Kill-Kill-Thrill-Thrill-Thrill writer when you say she mightn't be objective RE Hamilton and his policy advocacy. You think? Just because she makes a good pretence of being against authoritarianism doesn't change the mad fact she believes killing people in faraway places is the very height of 'liberation'. I've got a feeling the communitarians wouldn't even be the first up against the wall if they (the Maoists) somehow got to rule the world... And Soon, is Soon even making an grown-up argument? Wot a w- er, difficult chap. But I was really disappointed to read Rundle on what he reckons drives the offending minister:

...politics closer to Italy’s post-fascist Social Alliance party than anything emerging from an emancipatory working-class tradition

Guy, Guy, you're meant to be the moderate one here, but you have to go and flirt with Godwin's; though I suppose your analogy might be okay as long as we can all agree that Eyeties don't count as white people & therefore are really quite unHitleresque; there, that makes things all peachy clean and non-offensive. (But seriously, 'social democrat' Rundle makes no mention whatsoever of either Hamilton or the 'c' word, only one throwaway reference to Polly Toynbee. I'm going to take a punt and suggest he would back Clive's ideological hobbyhorse 100% if it meant the destruction of that surprisingly non-doctrinaire 'social conservative', Conroy.) How can we even begin to keep Federal Labor intellectually honest if the noisiest voices against the pandering can't argue bollocks without foaming at the mouth?

By: Adrien

Adrien — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:30:56 +0000

Well I think the standard pissing contest viz which party is more Nazi is pretty much useless. In my opinion, if you’ve run for parliament, you’re a closet fascist until proven otherwise. Thus far Vaclav Havel is the only one who gets my nod.
.
Whatever the truths about Howard’s authoritarianism (and he was) Kevvie seems to think you can fix the world by a. Writing regulations and b. Appointing a bureaucracy to ‘watch’ stuff.
.
This piece of fascist crap from the less than plesant Conroy is a goft to anyone who wants to portray the ALP as a bunch of totalitarians. It is totlaitarian. It’s secret censorship, it’s instituted for purposes which are questuionable, it will hamper the economy (way to go Kevvie) and it won;t actually do what it’s supposed to.
.
Frankly I’m surprised that makers and distributors of child pornography still use the internet. It’s a gift to those who would bust ‘em. Thanks now to Conroy this lot will go under that radar.
.
Thing is, if it’s only about child pronography, or prtecting children from ornography or whatever – then why do we need this apparatus with broad powers and no accountability. Conroy is on a moral crusade. There’s nothing more immoral than a moral crusader.
.
Shame tho’ the usual protest, speech and chant tactics obtain. I’d like to be more pro-active. How about let’s get rid of Conroy? Easy enough. Vote ALP. Well just vote for everyone but him. If you could get enough people to do it, it would be

By: daiskmeliadorn

daiskmeliadorn — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:46:10 +0000

ahhhh ‘libertarianism’ makes a lot more sense