and I notice you keep leaving ‘radical’ off the front of ‘radical centre’, thereby changing it’s meaning for reasons only known to you.
Meanings in politics are routinely twisted all out of shape.
As I’ve said before…
The Liberals aren’t liberal, they’re conservative.
The Labor party doesn’t represent workers any more.
The Greens are half red, with no environmental policy I can find.
The most divisive party in the country call themselves One Nation.
The folks on the right think that libertarian-left is an oxymoron. Most of the left think libertarians are extreme right wing.
I don’t want to get hung up on the definition of a word.
Frankly, we could define the “radical centre” to mean whatever we wanted to, or pick another phrase.
What concerns me is what function we intend to perform.
Will we be the solutions party that strives to solve problems and connect people, or something else?
Oooo… “Solutions Party”.
Has anybody broken that bit of the language yet?
The Political Compass was explicitly devised to separate that muddling. The Left/Right axis they use is purely economic, with -10 being an entirely state controlled economy and a 10 being no economic regulation whatsoever. All social issues are on the Lib/Auth axis.
What we disagree over is the question of equal opportunities vs equal outcomes. We both claim to advocate the former, but whenever you explain your position in detail you tend to go for the latter. All the while refusing to acknowledge that adding discrimination in pursuit of trying to eliminate discrimination is a logical contradiction. If the quiz was 100% accurate it would place you slightly more Authoritarian than me for that, but… /shrug
You are on record as supporting a racist policy and stating you’ll step down from your position if it isn’t adopted. But it’s okay because it suits your equal outcomes sensibilities. Again, what you claim to support in summary and what you actually support in detail are different.
Well, that’s a bit of a stretch.
I don’t see how the set of people who are racist constitute a race, therefore discrimination against them can’t constitute racism.
Having said that, I think we agree that it’s not a fruitful approach.
You are the person pushing for a new identity. Just stay Pirates. Don’t comment on where we fit in the political spectrum, it is bullshit. I don’t want to lie about where I sit on the spectrum, which is what you are asking. We are the party of the future. Does that cut across left and right adequately?
Well I want identical outcomes, to get that we need to address the structural inequalities. If inequalities have been created through racist and sexist laws, I see no contradiction in using the same legal system to address the inequality that was previously caused by racist and sexist laws and the application of force. The government enforced racist and sexist laws, there is no contradiction in using the same systems to dismantle them.
Where you want to keep all of the privileges of being a white male in a society that has been dominated by white males for centuries, and by men in general for millennia; I want equality.
Dealing with colonial history is dealing with racism, which you don’t want to do. You are the racist because you think the conquest of a continent with no accommodation of the original inhabitants is fine.
I’m referring the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Frew wants to adopt a policy where we support a specific ethnicity (Australian Aborigines) having privileged representation to parliament over other citizens. That involves discrimination based on race, and is therefore racist. It’s also against the party constitution.
I think an accurate statement in Political Compass terms would be that we’re extreme Libertarians. That’s it. We also tend to be pragmatic and evidence based.
I’m quite happy with the existing core tenets listed on the front page.
No, I want to end racist/sexist discrimination. You on the other hand want to continue it indefinitely in support of a presumably demarchic worldview. You’d fit right in with the Greens on this.
Remember my previous statements about supporting reparations and the like? Because I’ve made several previous statements supporting reparations and the like. Kindly stop trying to twist definitions by selectively ignoring what I’ve written.
I wondered what “demarchic” meant so I googled it. I got demarchy:
Quote: “government by decision-makers who have been randomly selected by sortition (lot) from a pool of eligible citizens”
I have literally no idea what demarchy means in this context.
How do you propose to address cultural discrimination where it isn’t a product of bigoted laws? This is where bigotry functions these days and failing to address attitudes of bigots means that the remaining inequalities still remain unaddressed. Whilst I may think the approach of certain activists is a bit shit, I still support the goals of ending cultural discrimination and am open to ideas.
The people I associate outside of the Pirate Party are usually NSW Greens (by accident of geography) and ALP Left, if they are politically active. Whilst I am generally way to the libertarian compared to the Greens on most issues, I like their approach on social issues where it isn’t authoritarian, and generally it isn’t. They aren’t that much more authoritarian than us, they are less authoritarian than the ALP.
How would reparations function differently to a treaty? Between already existing native title and reparations, what more would be on the table with a Treaty? They are negotiated, not signed off on. Recognising that sovereignty hasn’t been ever formally ceded and negotiating from a position of mutual respect would make it much easier to put Australia’s colonial past behind us. Dealing with other inequalities without making an effort to show that we understand the horrors of European invasion and the subsequent traumas, will leave a cultural sore point that will blister until it is dealt with sometime further in the future. It will have to be dealt with sometime. I think we should deal with it now so we can move on.
It may not be the right word. The intention was to express that you want the people involved in any endeavour or place in life to be of the same gender/racial makeup as the general population. Or in other words, “The population is 50/50 male/female and our group is only 30% female? Better introduce mandatory quotas!” and similar affirmative action measures. Such things completely fail to show that there was any discrimination present to begin with and skip straight to introducing actual discrimination to fit someone’s ideals with no regard for how things came about.
Not sure what you’re asking with this. There are already laws on the books against discrimination on the basis of race/gender/religion/etc. I’ve heard and seen enough to suggest that the laws aren’t effective enough, true, and organisational procedures can be designed to minimise possible discrimination, but you’re talking about attitudes here. There’s really nothing for it aside from campaigning to convince them otherwise. Instituting thoughtcrime would be wrong and counterproductive on several levels.
I’d rather not repeat myself and discuss around in circles with this. I’m fairly certain I’ve already told you that there’s no Aboriginal nation still around to form a treaty with, that sovereignty doesn’t have to be ceded to be lost, and that you’re trying to turn back the clock and erase history rather than acknowledging it, applying what little justice there is to be had and moving forward as a democratic nation. Go reread that thread you made about the proposal.
Horseshit. Discrimination in cases where quotas have been introduced are usually obvious by the statistics, backed up by the history. I have never any examples of bullshit quotas over fake differences. They may exist, but they would be an outlier in any overall policy approach. That said, we have no policies on quotas and none have been proposed.
That is what needs to be done. The discussions are awkward, but need to happen. I haven’t proposed anything different other than that we should be aware of those injustices and when all else is equal, err in the direction of the person from the discriminated against group. We do need to be aware of those structural injustices in order to not perpetuate them.
My local elders would disagree with that statement. I’m on their side.
I’m not sure whether or not you just implied that PPAU illegally discriminates with their membership. I’m also not sure whether or not you just advocated thoughtcrime and/or guilty until proven innocent. Again. Some clarification would be helpful.
I certainly do know you’re continuing to advocate for a segregationist and racist policy regarding the Aboriginals, but your views on that are quite clear by now.
A great book which, while largely left-leaning, nevertheless espouses this philosophy, is “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion” by Jonathan Haidt. Highly recommend.
I think of the center as Gillard and Turnbull, as opposed to Rudd and Abbot. The center is about populism and appealing to voters who sway with the tabloids. By extension, radical centrism might involve manipulating the popular vote through biased media reporting, national security fear mongering, leveraging social divisions, or endlessly hyping problems in order to prioritise the solutions.
The center is for the apathetic and a radical center party would be for the completely clueless, to be lead by the opportunistic. That’s my thoughts anyway.
OK, I couldn’t make it all the way through this thread, but here is what I think could be a solution:
Forego existing terms, which evidently lead to much internal argument, and come up with a new term, one that we can teach people is associated with the good bits of leftism, the good bits of centrism, the good bits of libertarian, and whatever else the evidence suggests is good.