Racism in Alice Springs
Deborah reports on a shocking story from Alice Springs where the Haven Backpackers Resort Hotel evicted a group of women and children, just because of their skin colour – they were Aboriginal. And a former staffer has said management told them not to allow Aboriginals to stay. Disgusting.
Bloggers are encouraged to blog on this issue, so the hotel will have its actions high up in Google when people search on them in future.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Haven Backpackers Resort Hotel, racist
March 15th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I mean it’s not as if they were Welsh, now is it?
But seriously just when you think Australia is ready to turn a corner and shed its most disgusting forms of ignorance, it comes right back atcha did any one see the minority of truckers allegedly using children for sex this week?
Truly a place of extremes, isn;t it?
March 15th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Well I take a different approach – this is really an issue about rights. We wail and moan because government get involved in our lives (anti smaking etc) but deep down we really should not only have the right, but also be allowed to exercise the right, to control our own property.
We have motels (quite rightly) saying no to anyone who looks like they might leave the motel smelling like a curry factory and cafe’s (again quite rightly) saying ‘No’ to mothers with kids (god – what could be worse than having a coffee with screaming kids filling the air – or leaving an awful mess – which is more common than one might think. And we have airlines assuming that all males are sex criminals and wont put them next to children etc.
So if I owned a motel or backpackers and didnt want to let out rooms to aborigines or welshmen or people dressed in those awful middle eastern head to toe covers with just eye slits or in fact anyone I didnt particularly like, then I should be allowed to say No.
No one has a god given right to turn up at a motel (owned privately) and demand a room.
If the Governemt or other members of society want to cater to that market then they are free to do so.
[DPF: One can argue about whether anti-discrimination laws are effective or necessary. But that is irrelevant to the issue of individuals choosing to condemn and boycott a business whose racist attitudes they disapprove of. That is what I am calling for. Whether or not the owners or managers have a right to be racist, I have a right to condemn them for it, and to vow never to do business with them]
March 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Barry has a point- except that if a person wants to discriminate, they should say so, so that people know not to stay at their motel because they object to being associated with such behaviour- or because they share the prejudices of the owner.
The Media Statement on their website presents a very different view of events.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Ha ha ha…why don’t you throw in age, religion, and gender into the pot as well Barry. In fact, human rights generally…f**king over-rated. Don’t like Catholics? Just say no. Don’t like people in their 60’s? Just say no man!! Hey, maybe Air New Zealand could follow your logic and say that in fact they just don’t like kiwis (cost too much and skin gets pasty at high altitude) and, basically, they just like those Chinese workers a whole lot better. Yeah, that’ll work.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
There’s a distinction between legality and morality, though, Barry. From a legal point of view, those of us who believe in small government and property rights would agree with you: no one has the right to demand a room. From a moral point of view, arbitrarily denying service on the basis of skin colour should be condemned and attention should be directed in exactly the way DPF suggests – a great example of a non-government solution to a social problem.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I agree Glenn, but I still wonder how true all the allegations are, given the absolute denial given by the hostel. It isn’t impossible that someone has exaggerated matters- lets see how this develops.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Barry is right. It is their property they should be free to do what they want with it. DPF. You have left out the fact that there were other customers at the hotel that didn’t want these people there and were willing to leave. I am not a racist but I don’t see why a hotel should risk losing business just to appease PC nonsense.
[DPF: If you think judging 500,000 people all on the basis of their skin colour, rather than their individual behaviour, is not racist, then what the hell is racism? And as I said, they may be free to be racists, and I and others are free to condemn them as racists and refuse to ever do business with them]
March 15th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
If you saw some of the local Abos you would not let them within fifty yards of a back yard shit house, let alone a motel room. It is highly likely they were filthy, pissed, abusive and aggressive. I suspect they might have been turned away for behaviour and have then bleated racism.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
You see there is the rub – when does it translate from having the ‘right’ to turn people away from your own motel to having the ‘right’ to generalise willy-nilly in an abusive manner? From a strictly utilitarian view I’d suggest that our ‘rights’ to hurl abuse or refuse entry should be tempered by how much each action benefits the general good. By this benchmark, I would suggest that Adolf shouldn’t have the ‘right’ to express himself like he did at 1.00 but I should have the right to use terms he might not appreciate as a response to him expressing himself in that manner..
March 15th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
As I understand it, the hostel has a policy of only allowing non-Australians to stay. Outside NZ, this seems to be quite common as backpacker hostels wish to target the backpacker market rather than the low-cost accommodation market in general for various fairly obvious reasons. It’s definitely the common policy here in the US.
If that is their rule, and given that an Aboriginal is quite obviously almost 100% likely to be an Australian, then it may not have been a race issue.
If it was a race issue, I agree with the opinion that they should be allowed to have whatever kind of policy they want, but that it’s also perfectly acceptable (in fact, preferable) to spread word of that policy so that consumers can make the decision not to stay there accordingly and indicate their feelings against race-based customer profiling with their wallets.
EDIT: Checked out some news sites, and it seems the ‘tourists only’ policy was just a smoke screen from the hostel. Since they let the group in and then kicked them out, it’s transparently not true. Sorry, should’ve read all the links first!
March 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
That is terrible. I just do suspect, obviously along with others, that there might be more to it. Like, what if they did something to their room that would get anybody evicted? Now I know some will automatically condemn ME as a racist for daring to say this, but its not as if there isn’t abundant prior experience that entitles one to be suspicious every time some minority group members “play the racism card”. Sorry, but there it is.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
A further point to consider…….these days anyone would KNOW they are GONNA GET TAKEN TO THE CLEANERS if they were so blatantly racist as this, and that in itself makes it difficult to believe that anyone WOULD be that stupid even if they did harbour racist feelings…..
March 15th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
[DPF: If you think judging 500,000 people all on the basis of their skin colour, rather than their individual behaviour, is not racist, then what the hell is racism? And as I said, they may be free to be racists, and I and others are free to condemn them as racists and refuse to ever do business with them]
I never said you were not free to condemn them. All I am saying is the proprietor made a clear economic decision. In my opinion if they chose to have a racist policy they may do very well out of that (large) niche market. The problem is they are not free to do so because government interferes with “discrimination” policies. The market should be left to decide if racism is wrong (economically counter-productive) or not.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
DPF – Never forget that racism is a two sided coin – negative and positive. I regard that special efforts put into helping any racial group just as I do to efforts that go into disadvantaging any racial group – in both cases its racism. In the US you are no doubt aware of a growing move among negro (why they call them afro americans i have no idea – they dont call everyone else by their origin – french americans, welsh americans, etc) who are readyng claims for their loss of culture and identity DUE TO THEM BEING BUSED TO DIFFERENT SCHOOLS – and they are serious about it. In fact they are saying that in many cases they are worse off for busing.
If it wasnt for laws, this issue in Ausy wouldnt be an issue – anti discrimination laws are the very basis of this situation and the claim that may arise. Its not a theoretical arguement.
Morris – do think that doesnt happen now ?? Ask any imigrant. Its human nature. I know a guy who runs a factory and he wont employ anyonw from the middle ast who wears headgear. Why – the rest of the workers in the factory give them arseholes and there have been some worrying confrontations. Its not his job to spend his money on solving these problems – so he simply wont employ them – even though they are generally excellent workers. When there are enough of them he might staff his whole facory – but until then – no.
Oh -and I dont know how old you are but wait until you are 50+ and then try to get a job.
Also – when there were three or meat companies in the Otahuhu area, they would never employ maori and P.I’s in the same facory. they hate each other and that combined with knives was too dangerous. You might call it racism, I would call it very sensible.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
So, all we have is an ABC report on what the aggrieved people said, not really on firm ground yet are we ? It is, after all, not unknown for these things to be played up in the media, makes for a great story and very topical. I mean, what if the hostel’s policy is “overseas visitors only”, so the aboriginal people were asked to leave as they were clearly australians, is that still racist. I am not claiming that is the reason, but I for one would want a bit more fact behind these allegations before beating my self up about it. Racists in the end are like sexists, they do themselves enough damage without anyone really needing to do anything much about them.
March 15th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
If it was only one story on one news outlet, I would be inclined to want to know more before leaping to judgement too, Ed. But, the ABC is reasonably reliable, and there’s far more than one news outlet with the story. Also, there’s a fair amount of corroborating material around.
For example, the hostel gave a couple reasons for kicking the women out – (1) that other guests had complained, (2) that they were an international hostel and so didn’t take bookings from Australians. But these reasons came out at different times, which suggests that the hostel was trying to cover itself. Check this story in the Sydney Morning Herald for details.
Also, the women were kicked out very soon after they had arrived. So it seems unlikely that any other guests had any time to make complaints.
I’m going to continue this in another comment, so that I don’t overload the comments with links and get blocked.
Cont./
March 15th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
cont./
Then a former employee confirmed that it was a known policy to not allow Aboriginal Australians to stay at the motel. See this story in The Age for details.
cont./
March 15th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
cont./
And another story in the SMH confirming that the group was only there for a very short time before being asked to leave.
Someone upthread wondered whether the group had damaged the hostel at all, and that’s why they were asked to leave. But given that the hostel has landed in such hot water over this, you would think that if the group had damaged the hostel, then the hostel would have made that reason known, because it would be a reasonable thing to do. But no one, anywhere, has mentioned any damage at all, which suggests that whatever the reason that the group was asked to leave, it wasn’t that they were damaging the property. In any case, it hardly seems likely given that they were only there for half an hour.
cont./
March 15th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
cont./
As for the idea that it’s an ‘international’ hostel
in this story on the ABC site.
So I think that the original story does hold water. Finally, this story came out last Tuesday, which is plenty of time for the story told by the group of Aboriginal women to be thoroughly examined. The story is still holding up.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I find the rush to excuse the hostel from some commentators absolutely sickening. Never have I seen such a spurt of special pleading, bigotry and ever sheer invention of facts to try to defend the indefensible. All this crap about property rights, economic arguments and practicalities is arrant nonsense. Here is the key: IT IS NOT ALRIGHT TO TREAT YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS AS SOME KIND OF SUBHUMAN.
It’s that simple. If you don’t believe that, you might as well fuck off and join the Taliban.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Pffffttt… If there’s one thing that aborigines need its more sympathy and understanding from citified white liberals. Like, its done them so much good so far.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Oh yeah, forgot the evidence…
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4440061a12.html
March 15th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Sympathy and understanding? What has that got to do with not being treated like sub-humans? I’m calling you on that Redbaiter. I say it is just a smokescreen for bigotry.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
If there’s one thing that aborigines need its more sympathy and understanding from citified white liberals.
Yes – what they really need is more racism from Aussie rednecks. Put that meths bottle away Redbaiter, it seems to be doing your head in.
March 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Psycho plays the ol’ redneck card. Yawn what else would I expect from Mr Milt !! Meths cleans liberal shit !!
March 15th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Northern Territory seems to be where NZ was 50+ years ago. Three examples from South Auckland:
1. Papakura Workingmens Club had a rule that expressly prevented Maoris from joining. In fairness to them they quickly repealed the rule when its existence was publicised in the Herald.
2. The cinema in Pukekohe required that Maoris sat in the two front rows (where you were too close to the screen and got a sore neck).
3. Government set up a Maori school in Pukekohe in response to lobbying from Europeans and possibly Chinese market gardeners. Maori children were perceived as having more head lice than average.
At about that time an Alice Springs magistrate suggested that Aboriginals should be whipped for alcohol offences (this at a time when UK, Australia, NZ etc had abolished floggings except for immates who assaulted prison officers – the last one being at Pentridge prison in Melbourne in the late 1950’s).
March 15th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
“I say it is just a smokescreen for bigotry.”
Where I see the most bigotry is in white liberals remaining silent in the face of anti white racism that is inversely the equal of the Klu Klux Klan, whilst they scream their pathetic guilt ridden brainwashed heads off at the slightest perception of racism from whites.
“meths bottle??”
Joke right Milt? ..and so appropriate. Only you in your utter dimwitted dullness could come up with that.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Roark “The market should be left to decide if racism is wrong (economically counter-productive) or not.” The ‘Final Solution’ was quite profitable for Hitler’s lot, so I wouldn’t support that proposition.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Milo- what’s your view on this event?
http://www.australian-news.com.au/Aboriginal_racist_murder.htm
March 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
“If you saw some of the local Abos you would not let them within fifty yards of a back yard shit house, let alone a motel room. It is highly likely they were filthy, pissed, abusive and aggressive. I suspect they might have been turned away for behaviour and have then bleated racism.”
and that just proves what an ass you are Adolf
im sure a group of women and children were pissed and being abusive
that is often what groups of women and children do
man what an ass
March 15th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
“that is often what groups of women and children do”
Aborigines are often just like Adolf described them, and the reason they’re like that is because of the misguided self indulgent bullshit of people like you. Read this for an idea.
http://www.australian-news.com.au/killing_softly.htm
(BTW, I’m no bigot, I’m merely a seeker of truth, that concept that to leftists, is like a wooden stake to a vampire. )
March 15th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
no need for me to comment on your possible bigotry Redbaiter
your declaration of “I’m not a bigot” says enough
March 15th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Murders are terrible. I don’t condone it. Are you saying all Aboriginals are to blame for that crime? In that case, are all white Australians to blame for the crimes against Aboriginal people? I don’t quite see where your logic is going to lead you …
PS. Whites are often perverted drunken liars. Should they be banned from the Hostel too?
March 15th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“no need for me to comment on your possible bigotry Redbaiter”
Hahaha, of course not Shorty. Why would you feel the least need to rationalize your position when the refuge of name calling and slogans is so close at hand.
Definition of bigot (or racist)- “Any thinking person who challenges the ascendant left liberal position on any (race) issue. Any person who doesn’t drink from the same pseudo liberal Kool Aid bottle as limp wristed left wing apologists and their namby pamby sensation seeking media advocates.”
March 15th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
“Should they be banned from the Hostel too?”
If you’d ever run a hostel in Australia’s outback, you might have a clue to the answer. I know you haven’t.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Redbaiter. That is an answer in the sense that you have replied to my post. But it is no answer in the sense that you have failed to address the truck sized holes in your argument. Am I therefore to assume that you are happy to blame Aborigines as a group, but not whites? Am I to assume that you are happy to ban nice young black girls there for a lifesaving course, but not fat drunken white truck drivers fucking prostitutes to the loud sound of AC/DC? Am I to assume that you would not have wanted the slaves free in the south, because they were not nice enough people. Or was that, not white enough people?
Am I to assume that you are retreating to these bogus arguments because you don’t have a leg to stand on? In fact, your arguments are as legless as a blind pirate after his fourth bottle of rum. Only a parrot would find them plausible.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
“I don’t quite see where your logic is going to lead you …’
Of course you don’t because you’re blinded by your trendy craven reverse racism. The point is, no media mentioned the race of the culprits, because guilt ridden dimbulbs like you don’t want to read about it or view it. Your preference is for white against black racism, so that you can beat your pathetic racism drum and feel all self important and ‘liberal”. As you do in the instance of the Aboriginals being refused a room, but the vicious raced based attack on the families in Geraldton is something you don’t care about and don’t want to know about. Your media driven conditioning and your fashionable knee jerk reaction to the motel case, as opposed to your blind eye to the murder, is just sickening weak bigotry to any intelligent person.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
So do all aboriginal people bear the shame of that crime, Redbaiter?
March 15th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
For fuck’s sake. You bear it Milo. It is people like you who have driven the Aborigine people of Australia to the despairing depths they are at today. Did you read any of the other links I provided you with? Start with the one on Stuff. You won’t of course. Like all leftists the last thing you want is your pathetic self focused delusions shattered by truth.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Redbaiter, it seems that if I disagree with you, I must be a leftist. That must be comforting for you. It ensures that you need never challenge your own beliefs. How you can apostrophise me like that is a mystery though – or was there a website to guide you ?
So, let’s assume that well-meaning but misguided ‘liberals’ have contributed to the decay of Aboriginal society. Might be true to some extent, although I think the causes are a little more complex. BUT. The key point is, surely, above everything else, improvements in the lives of Aboriginal people must come from a wellspring of self respect. Self-determination starts from self-respect.
The racism of the Haven Backpackers is an attack on such self-respect. So are many of the comments on this thread, which assume the Aboriginal people must automatically, somehow be at fault. How can you have any self-respect if the automatic presumption is that you are subhuman scum?
So to me, a key question is, how do you promote self-respect? The answer that works for protestant immigrants will not necessarily work for the ravaged remaints of the Earth’s oldest peoples. That is the nettle that the far right must grasp. Their basis for self-respect, and self-determination, may not work for somebody else.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
“Redbaiter, it seems that if I disagree with you, I must be a leftist.”
Milo, I’m sorry if that is inaccurate, but the truth is that the idea that negative racism by bigoted whites is the reason that the Aboriginal people are in such dire straits in a left liberal social construct. Its an approach designed to appeal to the hearts and cheque books of the vacuous guilt ridden social liberals of Vaucluse and Double bay, and bring votes to the left, who portray themselves as the only hope for Aborigines. The truth is that the real hard core left only see the plight of the Aborigines as one of their many stepping stones to political power.
The same situation exists with the Maoris in NZ and the African Americans in the US. Both groups are exploited by the left for the same reason. Political power. When you buy into the “whites are to blame because they’re racists” scenario, you’re buying into leftist bullshit, patronising leftist political initiatives involving welfare cheques, commissions, qangos, action groups and the like. Using deceitful PC terms like “self determination”, and “closing the gaps”. Decades of these kinds of ’solutions’ have only seen the Aborigines sink lower on the social scale. In about direct inverse proportion to the ascendancy of left liberal political and social ideology. The circumstance of the Aborigine is stuck fast in hopelessness and despair, and will be so stuck until this left liberal whining guilt ridden welfare focused patronising big government syndrome has finally run its course. Two generations away at least.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
We may perhaps agree that the solution starts in self-respect. Although I doubt we would agree about how to achieve that.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Clearly not, as the view that the Aborigines are the way they are because of negative white racism is a view I totally reject. It is also my view that the longer we pursue this complete fabrication, the longer it will take for the Aborigine to turn themselves about.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
In a sense the reasons are irrelevant. What matters are the solutions. Causes and history are important only insofar as they affect or inform the range of feasible solutions. IMHO. To borrow from your phrasing: The longer Aborigines are turned away from hotels for being black, the longer it will take for them to turn themselves about.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
the ‘Final Solution’ was quite profitable for Hitler’s lot, so I wouldn’t support that proposition.
What a fucktard. The final solution was not profitable. In fact the resources allocated to it took from the NAZI war effort. Hitler was a “National Socialist” and like all socialists he was certainly not afraid to heavily interfere with the market.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:10 am
“The longer Aborigines are turned away from hotels for being black, the longer it will take for them to turn themselves about.”
You see, that’s just the kind of weak minded crap I’m talking about. They were not “turned away for being black”. This is just the pathetic psychological projection that dumbfuck liberals can’t stop themselves from making. Even if we give the propagandising ABC the benefit of the doubt, and accept that things happened as reported (in reality extremely unlikely) they were turned away for being the people that left liberals have made them, not for their skin colour.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Roark: I guess you don’t know much about the period, other than that the Nazis had the word “Socialist” in their name.
Milo: Redbaiter seems to define “leftist” as someone who disagrees with Redbaiter. It was hilarious to see him get banned from Sir Humphreys for trying out that bullshit on its extremely right-wing owner.
So, we have an interesting argument here: on the one hand, the traditional view that Aborigines as a broad ethnic group are so fucked because their country was invaded and taken from them, they were pushed out of all the fertile areas into the barely survivable areas, they were treated like a rather annoying species of animal for more than a century, and generally fucked over in every way conceivable. On the other hand, Redbaiter’s view that they’re so fucked because white liberals have started expressing sympathy for them during the last 30 years. Which argument has the better logic? I leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:39 am
One of the general arguments that this story raises is the morality or rightness of racial or ethnic or even just group profiling.
I recall as a youngster going away on sports trips that some motels would not accept sports teams because their experience had let them to conclude that the risk of problems was too great. This didn’t make them anti-sport did it?? Did it make them bigots? Now of course if I was to swap the words sports team for the word aboriginal then a lot more people would conclude that there was something morally reprehensible about such an approach. In reality people who adopt such an approach are often racist but you must admit it raises an interesting point for discussion. To what degree would statistics have to support such an approach as rational before the majority would agree that the policy was justified – or can such a policy never be justified?
Far be it for me to want to agree with Redbaiter but what about the stolen generation of professional or general middle class aboriginals who subsequently complained of being so hard done by – the irony that it was only their relatively privileged upbringings for many of them that enabled them to bring claims was not lost on everybody.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:09 am
“Redbaiter seems to define ”
Hahha, how ridiculous. Here’s Milt who censors comments on his website on the grounds of political incorrectness, now claiming to be qualified to present some kind of argument against perceived discrimination by a motel owner. Good grief. Liberals- is there any kind of animal more addicted to hypocrisy?
“Which argument has the better logic?”
Argument? Where? Oh, hang on, that pathetic mainstream media resourced litany of assertions, sensationalist lies and distortions, that fairy tale that liberals buy into due to their mentally dysfunctional psychosis controlled personalities was your argument. OK then.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Tell me Milt – do you alternate your political ‘arguments’ against Redbaiter with long drawn out literary discussions with the vegetables in your fridge? I’m just curious.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Used to. He gave it up when the vegetables kept winning.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:47 am
RossK: if a motel owner refused to accept sports teams as guests because he hated sport, then yes that’s a weirdo whose business I’d prefer not to patronise. in what sense is the case under discussion unlike that?
…Milt who censors comments on his website…
Blah blah standard disclaimer blah, original thread, readers decide etc.
I’m interested in your claim that the less pleasant events of Australian history are in fact a “…pathetic mainstream media resourced litany of assertions, sensationalist lies and distortions…” Feel free to present your alternative analysis demonstrating a history of well-intentioned co-operation demonstrated by the settlers of Australia towards the indigenous population – you’ve got a lot of historians to refute in the process though. Good luck.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Danyl, we all have our idiosyncracies. One of mine is treating Redbaiter as though there were a chance that one day he’ll make a point, rather than an abusive assertion. Nobody’s perfect.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:15 am
When I was attached to the Australian Navy for a while some years ago, one of the most honourable and engaging people I worked with was a Torres Strait Islander, who was admired and respected. He did admit to me however, that in order to be the success he was, he had to acknowledge he was an alcoholic, and he did not allow a drop of alcohol to pass his lips. Having spent an evening driving with the Police in Darwin brought home in no small way the damage that colonisation has done to the Aboriginals. However I also have to say that the Aboriginals are often their own worst enemy.
Notwithstanding that, the people who own this backpackers are racist bastards, and I, for one, would rather sleep under a bridge than spend a night there.
How many Backpackers get to Alice Springs anyhow?
March 16th, 2008 at 11:17 am
“Feel free to present your alternative analysis ”
Thanks for that Milt, but whether I present such an analysis or not, I’ll do it without the arrogant invitation of some pissant censoring politically correct liberal with a vacuum flask for a brain. If you’ve never read anything other than standard mainstream liberal bullshit, is it my responsibility to enlighten you? (You think it is don’t you you pathetic bludger.) There are plenty of alternative writings on aboriginal history out there. Your claim not to know of them could well be true. More likely its just the same old willful blindness that results from your pseudo liberal mental condition.
“treating Redbaiter as though there were a chance that one day he’ll make a point,”
Give up Milt. You’re obviously not smart enough to discern when that occurs. Like most sneering liberals, who claim similar things, but conversely spend all there time on Kiwiblog discussing my arguments amongst themselves, making disparaging remarks about me, occasionally engaging with me and then yelping off like frightened dingos, and otherwise doing their damn best to discredit me. Not bad for someone who apparently can’t ever make a point.
Just for you Milt. Here’s my point. Spelt out so that even a dumbfuck like you just might be able to grasp it. The idea that aboriginals were historically mistreated by whites and that mistreatment is the cause of their plight today is a fictional liberal social construct. Its a perception that arises due to the mentally aberrational viewpoint of your average white liberal and is a view that has no founding in real recorded history (history uncontaminated by the delusional scribblings of ivory tower liberal academics) or reason. Here’s where you can start finding out about the reality yourself. Read some Keith Windschuttle for the truth on Aborigines, but before that read here-
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LyleHRossiterJrMD/2006/12/04/the_liberal_mind_the_psychological_causes_of_political_madness
..and that will help you understand why your delusional beliefs are so important to you. Then using the context of Windschuttle’s studies and your new found understanding of your dysfunctional mental state, think things over again. …and don’t ever say I don’t try and help you.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Actually, the relevant part, the bit that applies to the left’s perceptions regarding Aboriginals is so damn good, I’ll post it here. After listing what the liberal considers unimportant, Dr. Rossiter continues with a list of concepts that underpin the liberal psychosis-
Quote-
What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”
The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama.
Unquote
March 16th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Psycho Milt – Did you not read my post at all.
You write “RossK: if a motel owner refused to accept sports teams as guests because he hated sport, then yes that’s a weirdo whose business I’d prefer not to patronise. in what sense is the case under discussion unlike that?”
I wrote “I recall as a youngster going away on sports trips that some motels would not accept sports teams because their experience had let them to conclude that the risk of problems was too great.”
To spell it out for you Psycho Milt I am implying that the Hotel owners may have had a similar reason – that their experience had led them to conclude that they were more likely to have a problem with aboriginal occupants.
If that were the case then the “sense” in which the case under discussion is like my example of sports teams is pretty obvious. Get it??
March 16th, 2008 at 11:53 am
“Psycho Milt – Did you not read my post at all.”
He probably did, its just that like most leftists, his comprehension skills are abysmal. Drove the fridge vegetables crazy.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:55 am
“The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking.”
Redbaiter,
I’m a liberal, and I don’t want there to be any government at all.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Redbaiter: the problem with your argument – that they were turned away for being nasty – is that it was comprehensively rebutted by the evidence Deborah linked to. The fact that you ignore the evidence is a good indicator of your fanaticism, which we knew about anyway. But the fact that you choose to invent false evidence to condemn these people can only be interpreted as bigotry.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your cherished beliefs.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“Redbaiter: the problem with your argument – that they were turned away for being nasty”
I’ve not made that argument. I don’t know why they were turned away. I have asserted my firm belief that it was not because of their skin colour. Neither you nor any of your liberal mates have presented one iota of proof that this was the case. You’ve merely echoed and applauded the premise of the original story, a story that has come to you by way of one of the most discredited institutions in modern history, the mainstream media. (The Sydney Morning Herald, the Melbourne Age and the ABC..!!! For fuck’s sake man, have you no idea whatsoever? These are three of the most liberal news outlets in a sea of liberal news outlets)
Don’t talk to me about facts. Your whole argument is the weakest kind of hearsay.
As for your pathetic and predictable decision to resort to allegations of bigotry, I wrote this definition above. Maybe you didn’t read it or understand it, or more likely you forgot it, so I’ll post it again.
Definition of bigot (or racist)- “Any thinking person who challenges the ascendant left liberal position on any (race) issue. Any person who doesn’t drink from the same pseudo liberal Kool Aid bottle as limp wristed left wing apologists and their namby pamby sensation seeking media advocates.”
Call me a bigot if you want, all you and others like you do is diminish the impact of the word and corrupt its meaning. Eventually it will be like so many other words, rendered useless by its misuse by simpering easily offended politically correct liberals who use such mindless smears as a substitute for reason.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Redbaiter, you said” ” they were turned away for being the people that left liberals have made them, not for their skin colour.” Can you explain what you mean by that, if you don’t mean they were being turned away for being nasty.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Redbaiter, you said: “Don’t talk to me about facts. Your whole argument is the weakest kind of hearsay.”
I saw two of the lifesaving group interviewed on TV. They were well-presented articulate people with a coherent story to tell. Meanwhile, the evidence linked to earlier clearly proves the point. Calling all this hearsay just shows a reluctance to engage with the facts. Mind you, hearsay would be a step up from your arguments, which are based on nothing more than wishful thinking – wishing that blacks could be people you can fairly hate. Well they aren’t. Grow up Redbaiter.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
“Mind you, hearsay would be a step up from your arguments, which are based on nothing more than wishful thinking – wishing that blacks could be people you can fairly hate. Well they aren’t.”
What about Chris Rock?
Surely you can fairly hate Chris Rock.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
And, frankly, if I can’t hate Ernie Dingo, the terrorists have already won.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Good point Ryan – but you’d hate him whether he was Eskimo, Chechen, Brazilian, Maori or German. (Actually, I quite like him.)
March 16th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Good point Ryan – but you’d hate him whether he was Eskimo, Chechen, Brazilian, Maori or German.
That’s true.
(Actually, I quite like him).
Sadly, now I hate you too.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“wishing that blacks could be people you can fairly hate”
..and you have the nerve to accuse me of bigotry at the same time as you make allegations like that…!!
You’re hopeless. You see this is why you liberals are viewed with such contempt and disgust. All you can ever do if your arguments are challenged is throw out smears and false allegations like that.
“Meanwhile, the evidence linked to earlier clearly proves the point.”
What evidence? You need to go and look up the definition of that word. If you can find anything that isn’t an unsubstantiated story, please post it here.
“Redbaiter, you said” ” they were turned away for being the people that left liberals have made them, not for their skin colour.” Can you explain what you mean by that, if you don’t mean they were being turned away for being nasty.”
If you’re going to quote me, please have the honesty not to snip words that are important to the meaning of what I say. I pre-qualified that phrase with the statement “if the reports from the MM can be believed”.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
You see this is whay you liberals are viewed with such contempt and disgust.
Redbaiter,
I’m a liberal, and I’m viewed with a mixture of lust and awe.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Given most of your posts seem to be about you Ryan, its no doubt your own view you’re talking about too.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Redbaiter: I’m not trying to smear you, I’m trying to fairly assess the views you have expressed on this thread. Yes I am saying some unpleasant things. That is because I want your disgusting lying and bigotry to stop.
There are no reports from the mainstream media that say the group was trouble. Some report the accusation that the group was trouble, but these reports were always presented with contradictory evidence. Meanwhile, why don’t you read the evidence at the following link. If you don’t find that convincing, I can add more.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/13/2188967.htm
Ryan:
March 16th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Given most of your posts seem to be about you Ryan, its no doubt your own view you’re talking about too.
Well, I do have excellent taste, so who can blame me for being terribly impressed with myself? I think it’s my modesty I find most appealing.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“That is because I want your disgusting lying and bigotry to stop.”
Once again, you display your liberal psychosis, in labelling any opposing view to your own, (in solid lockstep with the liberal media) as lies and bigotry. As for your link to
1) an ABC site- ABC at the core of the left liberal mainstream media has no credibility.
2) The words of some stray observer of aboriginal descent who is no doubt extremely unpartisan (like where’s the evidence for fucks sake??)
3) Whatever, it does not support your allegation that people were barred on the basis of skin colour. Just for your pathetic white liberal citified edyucashion, Aboriginals can be white or black or any colour in between.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
“I think it’s my modesty I find most appealing.”
Well, when it comes to appealing, you couldn’t apply that word to your vainglorious belief that your pathetically witless offerings here are amusing. Go away you self obsessed bore.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Oh, Redbaiter. I wuv oo.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Redbaiter: HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ! RAOTFL ! That’s just PRICELESS. You know, your inability to deal with reality could be a sign of a more serious condition. I suppose the courts are stalinist agents of communism as well ! Oh, what fun. My sides are aching … Actually, the evidence from many people, the self-contradictory and changing stories from the owner, the TV footage, it’s all PLANTED BY ALIENS isn’t it?
March 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
“Redbaiter: HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ! RAOTFL ! That’s just PRICELESS. ..blah blah blah.. the courts are stalinist agents of communism as well ! Oh, what fun. My sides are aching … blah blah blah … it’s all PLANTED BY ALIENS isn’t it?”
Hmmm, from weak allegations, to smears to blathering nonsense. (and courts?? what courts??) I guess I couldn’t have asked for a more stark illustration of capitulation.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Can’t the ABC be sued if they lied on their news coverage?
March 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Not quite Redbaiter. I live in a world where facts trump opinions. You seem to live in a world where opinions trump facts. You feel the need to disregard or invent facts to suit your case, and treat contradictory evidence as part of a conspiracy theory.
So yes, capitulation in the sense that there is no point arguing with you, as you do not follow the rules of rational discourse. But not capitulation, in that the facts prove your position wrong, and your rhetoric proves you a lying bigot. I don’t know why you want to hate Aboriginal people, but clearly it’s such a deeply held belief that no amount of evidence will ever change your view.
Or, perhaps, as a final question: is there any conceivable evidence that would lead you to change your mind about the inappropriateness of the hostel’s actions? That is the acid test, really. If there is no conceivable evidence that would lead you to change your mind, then you are espousing a religious belief rather than an argument.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Meanwhile, here is some more evidence, this time from that communist organ the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7289896.stm
Note the management’s claims ‘The management has denied allegations of racism. In a statement it said the hostel caters for “international backpacking tourists” and was not suitable for the group of Aboriginal lifesavers’. This has been contradicted by bloggers in Australia who have found the hostel promotes to Australians and offers low cost travel insurance to Australians who stay there (see Deborah’s links above). So management admit they didn’t think the group was suitable, and then lie about the reason. But the facts have caught them out.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
“there is no point arguing with you”
followed by-
“Or, perhaps, as a final question:”
followed by-
Meanwhile, here is some more evidence (a BBC report?? For fuck’s sake you have no idea do you? What a fucken ivory tower waste of space)
Such contradictions are par for the course in any exchange with liberals, who see themselves as crusading white knights and are struck dumb by the realization that others see them as destructive imbeciles. Like any rational person, I’m ready to consider evidence, as long as such evidence is indeed evidence and not just media reported hearsay.
Its your psychological make up that is the problem Milo. A problem for you but a bigger problem for the Aborigines, in that it is your self focused mindset that has resulted in such destructive outcomes for so many of them. Read Dr. Rossiter’s thesis on liberals, and you’ll see yourself described there so perfectly. Your lame attachment to the ideas and sympathies expressed by the mainstream media is another give away.
You need to understand that its no crime to disagree with current collectivist thinking conventions. You need to understand that just because someone confronts the rambling idiocy you call “rational discourse” this does not make them haters or bigots, just people who see things different to you, who see the destruction you have wrought over the last few decades, and who search for the truth and a better way.
You need to understand all of those things. You won’t though, because you’re politically crippled and mentally stunted by your mindless obeisance to the ideology of post modern liberalism. Whilst Rome burns to ashes around you, you’ll remain fiddling merrily away on your whining discordant liberal violin.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Redbaiter: Nice rhetoric. No answers. No evidence. No attempt to engage with the facts presented above.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
What facts ? What evidence? Reports from the ABC and the BBC and random bloggers are not facts or evidence. They’re hearsay.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
What do you accept as a fact, Redbaiter ?
March 16th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Hmmn. No answer. Could it because Redbaiter defines a fact as “something he agrees with”?
March 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Sorry, but I consider your unshakable faith in the reporting of such widely discredited mainstream media organisations as the BBC and The ABC and other well known liberal media outlets as a sign of mental illness. A fact is something irrefutable. All you have done is bring in partisan reports from partisan media outlets and partisan observers with unsworn statements and claimed they were the unchallengeable truth. I prefer to withhold my judgment until I have more objective and credible sources of information. That aside, there is one solid fact on display here, and that is that in spite of all that you have presented, not one word has supported your allegation that what happened was a result of the colour of the (perceived) victim’s skins.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Redbaiter,
Are there any media outlets you consider reliable?
And do you have anything to back up the claim that the BBC and the ABC have been discredited?
March 16th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Your definition of a fact is rather naive Redbaiter. Nothing is irrefutable. As a test, can you name any completely irrefutable facts about another person. Even one?
Meanwhile, here is a snippet from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/13/2188967.htm about the hostel.
The former employee, who wants to be known as Sarah, says on one occasion she felt chastised and intimidated for letting an Aboriginal man hire a room. She says it was common practice not to let Aboriginal people stay and she left the Haven shortly after the incident. “If it sounded remotely Aboriginal we were told not to book them at all and we would have to refer them onto another hotel in town.”
Is that a fact?
March 16th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
“Hmmn. No answer.”
Impatient dimwit. You should consider yourself damn fortunate that I’m sacrificing a large part of Sunday to try and expand the consciousness and knowledge of an ignorant rambling idiot like you.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Actually Redbaiter, that’s the point. I’d rather have you wasting your time here, perhaps learning something in the process, than pouring your poison into somebody else’s ear. Every minute you spend on this thread results in a net increase in the sum of human happiness.
March 16th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
“Is that a fact?”
Is what a fact? The statement? The claims made in the statement? The identity of the “former employee”? the claim that she’s a former employee? her story about what she was told?
…AND ONCE AGAIN YOU BORING STUPID DUMBFUCK, NO REFERENCE TO SKIN COLOUR….!!!!!!
March 16th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
“Every minute you spend on this thread results in a net increase in the sum of human happiness.”
A while ago you said there was no point in arguing with me. Since when has consistency and truth ever been a factor in the arguments of liberals?
March 16th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“And do you have anything to back up the claim that the BBC and the ABC have been discredited?”
Do you claim that nothing in this vein exists?
March 16th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Redbaiter,
Which news sources do you trust, as opposed to outlets like the BBC and the ABC?
March 16th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Speaking of skin colour, click on the following link for a picture of one of the lifesaving group who was thrown out. Must be an accident though. Most aboriginal people I’ve seen are actually orange with green polka dots.
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200803/r231375_924372.jpg
March 16th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Dr Rossiter’s thesis on liberals? Sigh – we have a lot of work to do here. First up, Dr Rossiter’s opinion of liberals is an entirely different thing from a thesis on liberals.
However, good on you for trying. Now we can argue the point. Next up, we need to consider how useful ad hominem arguments are – the answer is “Not at all.” Many people confuse ad hominem with simply insulting your opponent. In fact, ad hominem is the attempt to claim your opponents’ arguments are wrong because your opponents are bad people of type ‘x.’ Your quoting from Rossiter is a classic example of this: Milt is wrong about colonisation having a negative impact on Aboriginal society because Milt is a liberal, and these are hand-wringers who want a big govt. It’s hopelessly flawed in two ways:
1. Liberals might be hand-wringers with a love of big govt, and still correct in this particular instance.
2. Liberals are unlikely to share Dr Rossiter’s unflattering opinion of them.
You need evidence that goes to the point. I’ve pointed to the general academic consensus being that colonisation has severely negative effects on indigenous populations, as evidenced by a range of colonisation experiences around the world. Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that in fact these indigenous populations have simply made individual decisions to be lazy, violent drunkards, because “liberals” have provided them with social welfare. Which leaves you to explain why “liberal” welfare should affect indigenous people in this way to such a greater extent than the rest of us – so far, you haven’t.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing Windshuttle into this. He had some success demonstrating that some historians were wrong to claim there’d been an active and deliberate programme of genocide in Tasmania. Well, fine, but I never claimed there was one – apart from a few extremists, none of us had actually confused colonial-era Australia with Nazi Germany.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
And yes, I did think there was no point arguing with you, Redbaiter, but I discovered one! Keeping you off the streets.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Do you claim that nothing in this vein exists?
No, I don’t. I’m just curious about your reasons. All news sources have a bias.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“Your point, if I understand it correctly”
You don’t Milt. You never do. Its why you need to censor replies to your posts on your blog. But there’s more. You’re not only low in comprehension, you’re an intellectual coward. Its more than just welfare Milt, its the whole liberal/ progressive social construct.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
“And yes, I did think there was no point arguing with you, Redbaiter, but I discovered one! Keeping you off the streets.”
Great, you’ve admitted you were wrong. We’re making progress. Keep it up, and we might end up improving things for Aborigines.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“No, I don’t. I’m just curious about your reasons”
I’m not here to cater to the whimsical curiosity of self obsessed dipshits.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Okie dokie. I love you, Redbaiter.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
No Redbaiter, I have not admitted that I am wrong. I’m still waiting for the irrefutable fact, by the way …
It seems to me that you are very selective in your arguments about evidence. You are correct that evidence is never value-free, but that does not make it pointless. And as evidence is never value free, your demand for “irrefutable facts” is a standard that can never be met. That is why, I suppose, you offer no facts of your own; because you know they can be subject to the type of post-modernist deconstruction you yourself would like to employ. This is convenient for you, as by ruling all facts out of order, you are free to treat your opinion as some kind of higher truth.
I never thought I’d see the thinking of Ann Rand and Jacques Derrida combined in this way. Go you postmodernist right wing anarchist, you. Go!
March 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“Speaking of skin colour, ”
Speak of it all you want. You need proof. Post your silly photos with your empty comments. Where’s your evidence that skin colour was the criterion for allowing people to stay at the hotel? Seems to me that if the reports are reliable, which they aren’t, that these people were denied entry on the grounds of cultural identity and behaviour.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“No Redbaiter, I have not admitted that I am wrong.”
You have. You said in one post there was no reason, and in another that there was a reason. If you can’t agree that this is an admission of error than you’re even crazier than I’ve previously thought.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“I’m still waiting for the irrefutable fact”
I have not used the phrase “irrefutable fact”, and I’ve no idea why you’re waiting on one from me. Is this another weird unexplained reference like your earlier insane rambling about “stalinist courts?” …and anyway, how does an “irrefutable fact” differ from a plain fact?
March 16th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Cultural identity? What, you mean all lifesavers are banned?
But I’m amused that you continue to argue as if there is evidence you would accept. Clearly, as a postmodernist deconstructionist right wing anarchist, you only find agreement meaningful, and anything else is just biased discourse.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Redbaiter said in response to me: “I’m still waiting for the irrefutable fact” I have not used the phrase “irrefutable fact”, and I’ve no idea why you’re waiting on one from me
Yet previously, Redbaiter said: A fact is something irrefutable.
And I had replied Your definition of a fact is rather naive Redbaiter. Nothing is irrefutable. As a test, can you name any completely irrefutable facts about another person. Even one?
This seems to show Redbaiter is, ahem, forgetful. However, this criticism of mine is clearly a hostile, biased discourse which is not to be trusted. I expect to see it on the ABC any day now.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
“Cultural identity? What, you mean all lifesavers are banned?”
Sorry, can’t see how you can weave someone’s profession into the argument. Unless you’re just another nut job liberal that is.
“Redbaiter said “I have not used the phrase “irrefutable fact”, ” Yet previously, Redbaiter said: A fact is something irrefutable.”
So you agree with me that you were wrong again or what?
Really, you’re reaching for some pretty off topic straws aren’t you. But that’s OK, I’ve argued with many a liberal in my time, and this is always the way the argument turns out, with the liberals slinking off into the sunset whining about issues far removed from their original argument, which was if I may remind you, your claim that the people were denied entry based on “skin colour”. Where’s the proof you time wasting rabbiting irrational emotionally driven dipshit?
March 16th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Weird shit. It’s like arguing with a blamange. But that’s what you get when ideology triumphs over truth. You seem to be arguing that Aboriginals are discriminated against because of their culture rather than their skin colour. Whatever. You are fiddling with invented distinctions in language rather than engaging with the arguments. They key point remains; we have established that you are immune to evidence.
Anything that a normal person regards as proof, you seem to regard as a conspiracy theory. Tell me, did Buzz Aldrin land the Eagle on the moon, or was that just filmed in a Hollywood basement? Until you show some ability to accept evidence, or define the evidence you would be prepared to accept, you’ll continue to be a laughingstock. But never mind, at least you know you are right.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“You seem to be arguing that Aboriginals are discriminated against because of their culture rather than their skin colour.”
If the reports are correct, of course I am you time wasting non comprehending bore. I’ve been arguing that point since the start of this exceedingly boring exchange. It might have given you a clue to this when I stated the FACT that aboriginal skin colour is both black and white and every shade in between. If someone was going to discriminate on skin colour there would be many others besides Aborigines asked to leave, and many Aborigines free to stay at the hotel. Gawd you liberals are always always always so unendingly thick.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“Anything that a normal person regards as proof,”
If the characteristic of a “normal person” is unshakable faith in the output of discredited partisan organisations like the mainstream media, then I’m glad I’m not normal.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
“We have established”
“you’ll continue to be a laughingstock”
Same old same old. Always the reaching out to the imaginary crowd of supporters. So mentally weak. Where’s your evidence that these people were discriminated against on skin colour?
March 16th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“Black” is shorthand for Aboriginal features and characteristics in this circumstance. That is a point that is obvious from the context of the conversation. And indeed all conversations are contextual. Your willful misrepresentation is another sign of your willingness to twist anything to suit your preconceptions.
But the real point is that you are a deconstructionist masquerading as a rationalist.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
““Black” is shorthand for Aboriginal features:
Black skin colour is black skin colour. I welcome your admission that you are wrong yet again. That’s three times. Four if you also take this capitulation as a like admission that there was never any evidence of dicrimination on skin colour, and that you made it up, like most liberals are always making things up.
“But the real point is that you are a deconstructionist masquerading as a rationalist.”
The real point is that you are claiming to have proof of discrimination based on skin colour and have been unable to provide that proof. Keep reaching for a diversion tho, its helpful to my own convictions to have as much evidence as possible concerning the parlous mental state of liberals.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
No I don’t admit that I’m wrong. And having you, of all people, present “facts” about my admissions is absolutely risible. If we’ve established nothing else, we’ve established that you are a stranger to the truth.
Your continuing demand for evidence does not undermine the evidence already presented above, again, and again. And again. Defining things you disagree with as unreliable, while treating your own wild speculations as cast iron proof is a strategy that will convince nobody but yourself.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Milt: Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that in fact these indigenous populations have simply made individual decisions to be lazy, violent drunkards, because “liberals” have provided them with social welfare. Which leaves you to explain why “liberal” welfare should affect indigenous people in this way to such a greater extent than the rest of us – so far, you haven’t.
Redbaiter: You don’t [understand Redbaiter's point] Milt. You never do… Its more than just welfare Milt, its the whole liberal/ progressive social construct.
It seems I understood it reasonably closely, if that’s the only correction you have to offer. Very well, let’s rephrase it:
Your point, now that I understand it correctly, is that in fact these indigenous populations have simply made individual decisions to be lazy, violent drunkards, because “liberals” have provided them with social welfare and created the whole liberal/ progressive social construct. The problem with your point remains the same: it still to leaves you to explain why “liberal” welfare and their whole social construct should affect indigenous people in this way to such a greater extent than the rest of us – so far, you haven’t.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
“If we’ve established nothing else, we’ve established that you are a stranger to the truth.”
..and how precisely has this been established? You have made a number of claims that have been sequentially discredited, and yet it is I who is untruthful? Only a liberal could come to such an incredibly perverted conclusion. Let me list your errors for you-
1) Not worth arguing with (yet still arguing) Admitted and self demonstrated error.
2) Claimed I used the phrase “irrefutable fact” when I didn’t. Admitted and self demonstrated error.
3) Claimed Aborigines were denied accommodation on basis of skin colour. Admitted and self demonstrated error.
4) Claimed to have proof of discrimination on the grounds of skin colour. Now admits there was no such proof in accordance with the preceding admission of error (no. 3).
I could also ask you why you have refused to explain references to ‘Stalinist courts’ and how an ‘irrefutable fact’ differs from a plain fact and why you also need to make references to Buzz Aldrin, fake moon landings and aliens, and an imaginary crowd of like thinking supporters, but for now, I’d be happy to leave those issues aside in preference for your explanation of how you have “established” that I am a stranger to the truth.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Redbaiter says: “Black skin colour is black skin colour”
Just to make the point that Redbaiter really is speaking a private language, his definition excludes Barack Obama, Muhummad Ali, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and in fact almost all the black people in the world. Why? Because their actual skin colour is brown, not black. Incoherence is it’s own reward, eh Redbaiter?
March 16th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
“The problem with your point remains the same: it still to leaves you to explain why “liberal” welfare and their whole social construct should affect indigenous people in this way to such a greater extent than the rest of us – so far, you haven’t.”
That’s because I don’t need to as I don’t agree with the premise. The reasons that it has affected Aborigines are manifold, however if you check back up the page to a few of my web references on the issue, you might find the information you seek. (killing softly or whatever) Really Milt, I have no inclination to argue with a leftist who censors posts/ responses on his web page. I will do most people the courtesy of argument, but I draw the line at those who have demonstrated they have so little respect for freedom of expression that they would gag anyone they disagreed with if they had the power. Go and argue with someone else. I do not afford you any legitimacy.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“Incoherence is it’s own reward, eh Redbaiter?”
Not at all you thick idiot. I’m trying to demonstrate to you that the claim that discrimination is based on skin colour is a liberal fabrication. A left wing myth. How have you “established” that I am “a stranger to the truth”?
March 16th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Redbaiter.
1 – As I said, I changed my mind. I know you never do.
2 – If you read the quotation above, you will see that I did not claim that. That is your (mis) interpretation of the claim. But who cares, it’s a complete red herring.
3 – See the point above. Denied because they were aborigines. Claiming that skin colour is somehow different is a weird private language that is inconsistent with common usage. Why don’t you go and tell Muhummad Ali he ain’t black? He might have a punch or two left in him yet. .
4 – Proof linked to above, repeatedly..
Stalinist courts – I’m assuming, perhaps wrongly, that if this reaches the courts and they find for the complainants, you will just regard them as part of the same communist influenced wet liberal pansy conspiracy.
Irrefutable fact. You said a fact is something irrefutable. You haven’t been able to produce a single thing you regard as irrefutable, or to say what type of evidence you would accept to say that you are wrong.
Instead, you have blamed the Aboriginal people, and tried to discredit the reputable news sources that provide facts that are inconvenient to you. This twisted approach and attempt to justify subhuman treatment of Aborigines (blacks!) shows to me that you are a stranger to the truth. You have no standard for accepting evidence that you disagree with.
And that really is the key. You cannot accept any evidence that contradicts your worldview. You would rather heap abuse on a bunch of innocent young people, thereby contributing to the oppression they have suffered.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I will do most people the courtesy of argument…
This is untrue, unless you genuinely believe abusing people constitutes making an argument. Sadly, I suspect you do genuinely believe that.
That’s because I don’t need to as I don’t agree with the premise.
A better way of putting this would be: “Now that you’ve made my point explicit, demonstrated the flaw in it, and asked for some validation of it in a form other than “You are…” or “Socialists are…”, I am at a loss.”
That’s OK – keep telling yourself it’s a point of honour not to argue the case with me. I don’t doubt there are also some reading who believe you.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
“1 – As I said, I changed my mind. I know you never do.”
No you didn’t. You made a clear statement of what you asserted was a fact and then contradicted yourself later. ..and you’re still contradicting that statement now.
“But who cares”
You will of course pretend not to, but the truth is you were as wrong on this issue as you were on the other issues.
“Claiming that skin colour is somehow different is a weird private language that is inconsistent with common usage”
You claimed they were excluded on skin colour on more than one occasion and now openly admit that was wrong.
“Proof linked to above, repeatedly”
Mainstream media reports on conversations with people of doubtful identity and with possibly partisan viewpoints would never be accepted as evidence by any rational person. Think the fake Bush National Guard documents for one salient example of why not.
“You cannot accept any evidence that contradicts your worldview.’
You have not presented any evidence, and your posts are nothing but empty bluster. There is absolutely nothing for me to reach for even if I was sympathetic to your viewpoint. You have nothing. Other than your unshakable faith in the reliability of the liberal media.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
“That’s OK – keep telling yourself it’s a point of honour not to argue the case with me.”
Its not a point of honour Milt, its merely that I prefer not to waste time on people whom I know I cannot trust.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
You assert nonsense. As usual.
But riddle me this, Redbaiter: the mere fact that they were “Aboriginies” (as reported by the so-called liberal media) was enough for you to take the view that they were the ones to blame. How on earth can you reach this position if there are no “facts” available.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
” attempt to justify subhuman treatment of Aborigines (blacks!)”
I have not attempted to justify any such action. I have merely asked you to provide proof for your assertions as to what took place and the reasons for the event. You cannot do it, instead preferring to seek refuge in waffling off topic left liberal idiocy about fake moon landings and other irrelevancies.. Pathetic.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
“How on earth can you reach this position if there are no “facts” available.”
I have not “reached any position”. It is you who has done that. Based on media reports.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Most amusing that you take metaphor and satire literally. It’s a sign of something …. I wonder what ….
March 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
So you admit another error. That’s five. So far. ..and spare me the vomit inducing smilies.. greaser.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Redbaiter: Your recent comments are inconsistent with your earlier ones. Allow me to remind you that you said: Aborigines are often just like Adolf described them,.
Adolf’s description was: If you saw some of the local Abos you would not let them within fifty yards of a back yard shit house, let alone a motel room. It is highly likely they were filthy, pissed, abusive and aggressive. I suspect they might have been turned away for behaviour and have then bleated racism .
How did you reach that point of view? Did you take a survey? Rely on hearsay? Use media reports? You also said:
They were not “turned away for being black”. This is just the pathetic psychological projection that dumbfuck liberals can’t stop themselves from making. Even if we give the propagandising ABC the benefit of the doubt, and accept that things happened as reported (in reality extremely unlikely) they were turned away for being the people that left liberals have made them, not for their skin colour.
Given your later conversation, it’s not clear what you mean by skin colour – whether you mean aboriginal features and colouring. It seems likely you did mean that, but your later arguments seem to take a different view. Whatever, that’s not the point.
The point is, you seem to know that it is extremely unlikely they were turned away because of their race or skin colour, but rather it was because they are some kind of nasty horrid people. How did you know that, if the media reports are so unreliable?
Or do you now disown your previously expressed views? To say that you haven’t reached any position seems most disingenuous given the comments that I quote above.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
“How did you reach that point of view?”
I’ve spent a lot of time in their company. Some of them are as Adolf described them.
“Given your later conversation, it’s not clear what you mean by skin colour”
Its always been clear what I mean by skin colour. You’re the one suffering the confusion.
“How did you know that, if the media reports are so unreliable? ”
I have never claimed to “know” anything about what happened there and every time I have commented on the issue, I have qualified those comments with the same reference to the unreliability of the media. Your talking abject irrational nonsense you time wasting bandwidth wasting repetitive dumbfuck.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I see, so if I ask difficult questions, I am simply a “dumbfuck”.
And if I require evidence, it turns out that something you saw once is more reliable that all the world’s media combined. Guess what, Redbaiter, your experiences may not be that representative of the rest of the population.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
“I see, so if I ask difficult questions, I am simply a “dumbfuck”.”
No, your questions are manufactured from entirely false premises, and this kind of feeble dishonesty is what makes you a dumbfuck.
“Guess what, Redbaiter, your experiences may not be that representative of the rest of the population.”
Something I have never claimed, and once again, your “argument” falls further into the realm of made up off topic rambling nonsense. You’re merely an empty liberal with no where to go once your prejudices and emotional baggage are exposed. You have been proved wrong on almost every point you have promoted. You’re just wasting time and bandwidth, but of course, there’s really nothing else left for you is there?
March 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Redbaiter: funny isn’t it – I think you are describing yourself up there. Although I don’t think you are a dumbfuck. But I’m just happy to remind you again of what you said. Aborigines are often just like Adolf described them.
Adolf’s description was: If you saw some of the local Abos you would not let them within fifty yards of a back yard shit house, let alone a motel room. It is highly likely they were filthy, pissed, abusive and aggressive. I suspect they might have been turned away for behaviour and have then bleated racism.
And you said They were not “turned away for being black”. This is just the pathetic psychological projection that dumbfuck liberals can’t stop themselves from making. Even if we give the propagandising ABC the benefit of the doubt, and accept that things happened as reported (in reality extremely unlikely) they were turned away for being the people that left liberals have made them, not for their skin colour.
I think it speaks for itself.
March 16th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Sure it speaks for itself, and it exposes your pathetic dated liberal psychosis manifested in your limp wristed pre-occupation with the myth of skin colour. How often are we going to relitigate the same points??
March 16th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Milo, sweetie, I don’t think Redbaiter is ever going to be convinced. He’s completely irrational, unable to use either facts or reason to make a case, or to respond to other people’s points. And then when it’s clear to anyone with even a modicum of intellectual ability that he’s losing, he retreats to insults. What a nasty, vicious little man.
You, on the other hand, are not a little man. So, why don’t you give up on him now, and come to bed with me instead.
With love, from your Fausta
March 16th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
“Read some Keith Windschuttle for the truth on Aborigines . . .”
Windschuttle’s a sociologist masquerading as a historian.
When it comes to Aboriginal history, he’s nothing more than the Australian equivalent of a holocaust denier.
He appeals to the same kind of inadequate social cripples who are sucked in by the self-serving nonsense of Davud Irving.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Charles Murray once said something like this: Parents don’t object to black pupils being bussed in to share their kids classes, they object to any disruptive, abusive, violent, bullying pupils. It doesn’t make those parents “racist” if a disruptive, abusive, violent, bullying pupil happens to be black………