Skip to main content
Topic: Sam Newman at it again! (Read 7452 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #60
Representatives of the relevant Aboriginal group(s) may be employed to assist with the preparation of the plan but the lion's share of cost of the plan goes to the archaeologist.
There is another major development site within 50km of Melb CBD that at this very moment cannot even clear / lift abandoned pine trees to begin soil testing without the presence of an indigenous council member to certify whatever gets disturbed or exposed is not of cultural significance, they haven't even made it to site survey yet as the members of the indigenous council refuse to attend the site, and the owners have been warned off disturbing the site without indigenous oversight, which is basically holding the new owner to ransom.

This is not the only case like this I've learned of in recent years, and it's got little to do with heritage and everything to do with politics.

The associated council and state government know this is going on and have done nothing.

The Force Awakens!

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #61

Firstly I apologise for misquoting you.

Newman, and others of his ilk, wouldn't know a debate if it bit him on the ar$e. He has no interest in debating, he has no interest in understanding anything in any depth, he has no interest in anything other than just gobbing off to anything he doesn't like. He is the first one to shoot down anyone who disagrees with him, with all manner of insults and dismissive cr@p.

Free speech is not equally distributed among the population - they are blatant power asymmetries that give people like him leverage that others don't have. Newman speaks from a position of privilege and status that affords him protection from any real punishment. Imagine if Lidia Thorpe came out and said we should all burn Australian flags and slow clap during the National Anthem ? There's a reason why hate speech is used predominately by protected groups like the one to which Newman belongs.

As i said, i am not going to protect Newman as a quality individual, but i am 100% supportive of his rights to make foolish and ignorant comments. i am and always have been against booing of players or anything really and i feel like the call to boo a ceremony is extremely distasteful, but .... People had the right to be stupid and (to a degree) ignorant.

Joe Rogan is a perfect example, i detest him, but i still want him to be able to have his podcasts, on the condition the talk doesn't cross into illegal areas.

We faced the same issues during the same sex marriage referendum, anyone who was against it was bigoted or homophobic... There was at least one publicised account of a girl (in Canberra i think) who was fired for posting on her own facebook that it was "okay to vote no" and that because of her religious beliefs she would in fact be voting no.. She didn't harass or belittle any group, but was fired and her boss posted that she would not allow anyone with such hateful opinions to work there (or something to that effect). That is the society we are heading towards and it is a major problem. That Sam Newman can be such a wanker, is just an example that we still have the right to voice non conformist opinions, even if (again) he is actually largely irrelevant and almost never has anything to say worth hearing.

In the case of the Welcome ceremony, i personally don't like it... Does this make me racist or is it only the people that boo it racist?? We have to stop pigeon holing people and listen to what they are saying, then disagree with their arguments.

Another example was Daisy Pearce vocally supporting not having a minute of silence after the queen died at AFLW games.. I thought the decision was atrocious (and should have seen government funding potentially pulled) and Daisy was completely wrong... but whilst Daisy has to have the right to be (imo) wrong, the competition had (and has) obligations it should have met.
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL


Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #62
There is another major development site within 50km of Melb CBD that at this very moment cannot even clear / lift abandoned pine trees to begin soil testing without the presence of an indigenous council member to certify whatever gets disturbed or exposed is not of cultural significance, they haven't even made it to site survey yet as the members of the indigenous council refuse to attend the site, and the owners have been warned off disturbing the site without indigenous oversight, which is basically holding the new owner to ransom.

This is not the only case like this I've learned of in recent years, and it's got little to do with heritage and everything to do with politics.

The associated council and state government know this is going on and have done nothing.

You’re either making stuff up or exaggerating the situation LP.

That’s not how the legislation works.

Furthermore, any decision made by the govt agency or a Registered Aboriginal Party is subject to judicial review.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #63
Getting slightly off topic here but I have to pull LP up on the misinformation he’s peddling about the way the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 works. 

For a start, the Act was drafted in close consultation with the full range of stakeholders; local govt, civil contractors, urban developers, planners, miners, farmers and traditional owners.  All agreed that a system that provided certainty was required, and that’s what we got.

Almost every major development and/or change of land use in the State is subject to a mandatory or voluntary cultural heritage management plan.  That includes subdivisions, pipelines, road projects, wind farms, marinas, intensive agriculture, boat ramps, quarries, mining, desalination plants, shopping centres, etc.  It is a routine, well-established process that project managers build into their project plan and is integral to project funding.

The Act was reviewed in 2012, as required by modern legislation, and was amended to better reflect stakeholder requirements.  As I said before, the Act is widely acknowledged as world best practice.

There may be the odd issue but the legislation provides mechanisms for resolving those issues. 

The situation, as described by LP above, simply cannot happen.  Why then are such spurious claims being promoted and who benefits?
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #64
As i said, i am not going to protect Newman as a quality individual, but i am 100% supportive of his rights to make foolish and ignorant comments. i am and always have been against booing of players or anything really and i feel like the call to boo a ceremony is extremely distasteful, but .... People had the right to be stupid and (to a degree) ignorant.

Joe Rogan is a perfect example, i detest him, but i still want him to be able to have his podcasts, on the condition the talk doesn't cross into illegal areas.

We faced the same issues during the same sex marriage referendum, anyone who was against it was bigoted or homophobic... There was at least one publicised account of a girl (in Canberra i think) who was fired for posting on her own facebook that it was "okay to vote no" and that because of her religious beliefs she would in fact be voting no.. She didn't harass or belittle any group, but was fired and her boss posted that she would not allow anyone with such hateful opinions to work there (or something to that effect). That is the society we are heading towards and it is a major problem. That Sam Newman can be such a wanker, is just an example that we still have the right to voice non conformist opinions, even if (again) he is actually largely irrelevant and almost never has anything to say worth hearing.

In the case of the Welcome ceremony, i personally don't like it... Does this make me racist or is it only the people that boo it racist?? We have to stop pigeon holing people and listen to what they are saying, then disagree with their arguments.

Another example was Daisy Pearce vocally supporting not having a minute of silence after the queen died at AFLW games.. I thought the decision was atrocious (and should have seen government funding potentially pulled) and Daisy was completely wrong... but whilst Daisy has to have the right to be (imo) wrong, the competition had (and has) obligations it should have met.


I disagree with the way "free speech" is understood in society, and the direction this concept has taken. Free speech is not an excuse for hate speech, it's not an excuse to say whatever you like. Words don't just fall into a black hole after they've been uttered. Words are important, they have consequences. It's not a coincidence that the rise of far right ideologies has occurred at the same time as "free speech" has been trumpeted as some kind of panacea to cure the worlds ills. One follows the other. It's not a coincidence that hate crimes have increased in recent times.

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #65
I disagree with the way "free speech" is understood in society, and the direction this concept has taken. Free speech is not an excuse for hate speech, it's not an excuse to say whatever you like. Words don't just fall into a black hole after they've been uttered. Words are important, they have consequences. It's not a coincidence that the rise of far right ideologies has occurred at the same time as "free speech" has been trumpeted as some kind of panacea to cure the worlds ills. One follows the other. It's not a coincidence that hate crimes have increased in recent times.
labelling ideas you don't agree with as hate speech, is why we have lost freedom of speech.

The yes/no vote on the voice stops short of saying that if you are vote no you're racist, but it insinuates that with a false equivalence of supporting the yes vote. 

Regarding the welcome to country, it is pointless to non indigenous.  That's not hate speech.  It's truth.

Nationalist ideals have been prevalent longer than any other political affiliation.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #66
Sam Newman is nothing but a grumpy old man who is still looking for headlines.

He made a living on the Footy Show by going out on the street and making fools of unfortunates who didn't know any better, and he is still poking a stick at those he feels are beneath him.

I know it is said he is a top bloke, but his public persona is one of an irrelevant flog who doesn't deserve the oxygen that he keeps getting from his old mates in the media.  He should look up the word respect and see if he can find a scintilla of it in his rantings.

What also comes with freedom of speech is the responsibility of free speech.  You can't have one without the other.

What an absolute ripper post, Tonyo! Love it.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #67
labelling ideas you don't agree with as hate speech, is why we have lost freedom of speech.

The yes/no vote on the voice stops short of saying that if you are vote no you're racist, but it insinuates that with a false equivalence of supporting the yes vote. 

Regarding the welcome to country, it is pointless to non indigenous.  That's not hate speech.  It's truth.

Nationalist ideals have been prevalent longer than any other political affiliation.

I don't interpret what Pauly is saying about the influence and power of words as declaring anyone who differs as necessarily engaging in 'hate speech,' but rather that freedom of speech is not as a license to say anything ...without consideration as to how it will effect others.

And I don't personally view the Welcome To Country as pointless to non-indigenous folks. I choose to see the gesture from the viewpoint of indigenous folks, and how important it is to them, and ultimately to all of us ...and I respect that. It's a uniting gesture from my humble view. And I'm a big fan of inclusiveness and unity.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #68
Getting slightly off topic here but I have to pull LP up on the misinformation he’s peddling about the way the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 works. 

For a start, the Act was drafted in close consultation with the full range of stakeholders; local govt, civil contractors, urban developers, planners, miners, farmers and traditional owners.  All agreed that a system that provided certainty was required, and that’s what we got.

Almost every major development and/or change of land use in the State is subject to a mandatory or voluntary cultural heritage management plan.  That includes subdivisions, pipelines, road projects, wind farms, marinas, intensive agriculture, boat ramps, quarries, mining, desalination plants, shopping centres, etc.  It is a routine, well-established process that project managers build into their project plan and is integral to project funding.

The Act was reviewed in 2012, as required by modern legislation, and was amended to better reflect stakeholder requirements.  As I said before, the Act is widely acknowledged as world best practice.

There may be the odd issue but the legislation provides mechanisms for resolving those issues. 

The situation, as described by LP above, simply cannot happen.  Why then are such spurious claims being promoted and who benefits?

I work with a guy who had issues as LP described sub dividing land in Tooradin. Basically was told it couldn't be done because the land was sacred until they paid enough money then it was OK.

The money side of this doesn't bother me if it's been put to good use helping indigenous communities and not ending up in the pockets of crooks like Phil Egan.
I just don't like the welcome to country stuff. It's fake, the land was stolen and we owe them trillions.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #69
Guess what? No-one booed 🙂

97,000 people with more sense than Sam Newman

"I don't like the Welcome to Country, it's not necessary"

"We should boo the Welcome to Country"

Two completely different things

Like most things the Voice debate is  a spectrum.
Where we sit on the spectrum is dependent on our own knowledge and experiences.
At each end of the spectrum there are extreme views.
In the middle, folks will be torn.
Had the question been..."Should First Nation people be recognised in the constitution" it would have romped in
The 'Voice' aspect has made success more difficult, not impossible, but more difficult.
I suspect the majority of people have already made up their minds, even if they declare otherwise to pollsters.
Vote for what you believe to be right.

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #70
97,000 people with more sense than Sam Newman

"I don't like the Welcome to Country, it's not necessary"

"We should boo the Welcome to Country"

Two completely different things

Like most things the Voice debate is  a spectrum.
Where we sit on the spectrum is dependent on our own knowledge and experiences.
At each end of the spectrum there are extreme views.
In the middle, folks will be torn.
Had the question been..."Should First Nation people be recognised in the constitution" it would have romped in
The 'Voice' aspect has made success more difficult, not impossible, but more difficult.
I suspect the majority of people have already made up their minds, even if they declare otherwise to pollsters.
Vote for what you believe to be right.

Couldn't agree more, Principal LODS. From the get-go of this campaign I couldn't help but think how poorly it was introduced and promoted... from a marketing pov. It opened the door for the Far Right to pounce, and pounce they duly did.

Your suggestion as to how to launch it, ""Should First Nation people be recognised in the constitution"" ...would have been far better.

The 'spirit' of the Yes campaign is very relevant and needed, it's just the execution/PR was clumsy.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #71
Read a terrific article in The Conversation this morning regarding the retirement of R Murdoch. And it has some relevance in this Newman discussion.

Senior Editor, Sunanda Creagh, wrote the article and quoted, within the article, Uni of Melbourne journalism expert Andrew Dodd as saying (re Murdoch), “His news media empire is fundamentally antisocial in the way it operates. I believe it’s caused so much harm to so many people along the way, and that cannot go unacknowledged. From the UK phone hacking scandal and beat ups to climate denial and the demonisation of minorities, News Corp can be counted on to dumb down complexity, make issues binary and turn one side against the other.”
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

 

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #72
labelling ideas you don't agree with as hate speech, is why we have lost freedom of speech.

The yes/no vote on the voice stops short of saying that if you are vote no you're racist, but it insinuates that with a false equivalence of supporting the yes vote. 

Regarding the welcome to country, it is pointless to non indigenous.  That's not hate speech.  It's truth.

Nationalist ideals have been prevalent longer than any other political affiliation.

Sam Newman didn't just politely agree to disagree on the Welcome To Country - he stated very clearly that people should boo or slow clap during the ceremony, which is clearly an attempt to ridicule and diminish - that's hate speech.

If I meet a fundamentalist Christian who declares that Leviticus 20.13 should be taken literally and men who practice anal sex must be put to death, is it okay to defend such a view on religious beliefs ? It's in the Bible, I guess it must be.

There's a very good reason why organisations like the FBI are not issuing warnings against Woke leftists, but rather against those who endorse right wing authoritarian identity politics. It's completely wrong to think it's just left versus right. Words have consequences. Unless the participants in the January 6 riots have perjured themselves, they are on the legal record as saying they were inspired by Trump's words.

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #73
And I should also add that I'm not indigenous, and I don't find the Welcome To Country pointless.

Re: Sam Newman at it again!

Reply #74
I disagree with the way "free speech" is understood in society, and the direction this concept has taken. Free speech is not an excuse for hate speech, it's not an excuse to say whatever you like. Words don't just fall into a black hole after they've been uttered. Words are important, they have consequences. It's not a coincidence that the rise of far right ideologies has occurred at the same time as "free speech" has been trumpeted as some kind of panacea to cure the worlds ills. One follows the other. It's not a coincidence that hate crimes have increased in recent times.

i don't agree that hate crimes are actually increasing, perhaps if looking at a micro timeline this is true, but certainly not over any extended period. As much as you say Free Speech is misunderstood, i believe it is even more true of "hate speech".

I won't go into great details, but gender identity is an example of an area that is rife with accusations of hate speech, which in fact discourages a much needed (and desired) discourse on the subject. There are many people who understand that gender identity is a real issue, but completely disagree with the way society is handling the subject and the impacts it is having on current society, but by constantly shutting down opinions that differ and being quick to label them as something the are not, it discourages people even engaging in the conversation and society being out of touch and increasingly divisive.

We seen this  phenomenon when Donald Trump was first elected president. The polls had absolutely no idea that this was going to occur, because the right didn't want to engage in conversation because it turned to lectures and condemnation from the left, rather than any meaningful discussion, so people stopped publicly supporting (of course this done a 360 once he was elected).

We seen this with Brittney Higgins. We had a tv presenter come out and basically declare someone guilty who had never been through the legal system and anyone who openly questioned this was a terrible person. The #IBelieveHer movement allows hate speech against an accused, but it doesn't consider it so. We have constant hate speech against males and in particular white middle aged hetero sexual males with claims of toxic masculinity, inherent privilege etc in main stream media, but any attempt to have cohesive discussions on this is met with total derision. This is despite the fact that most men don't have any of this inherent privilege, often their bodies are destroyed by the time they are in their 40s due to years of hard physical work and they have the highest rate of suicide by far in society.... but any attempt to suggest that this "male bashing" is a real problem in society is scoffed at because  "women have had it worse", "ethnic minorities have had it worse" etc etc. Again a meaningful and required discussion cannot be easily had, so people keep their problems inside with no real idea how to deal with them.

Free Speech to so many people has become "Freedom to agree" and this is why people need to be able to hear the likes of idiots like Joe Rogan and Sam Newman and any other idiot with ridiculous opinions (if not of course illegal hate speech), if only to know it is okay to have an unpopular opinion and to voice it...

Free Speech does NOT of course include inciting acts of violence, anything to do with racial superiority etc, there are reasons certain 'free speech' has been made illegal and it should be, but we should not be stopping people from voicing opinions and people need to stop "being offended" and start debating actual views.


Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL