Attacks on pluralism (was: Re: [LINK] Surely it's time we privatised the ABC)
cas at taz.net.au
Wed Oct 18 10:44:26 AEST 2006
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 08:55:48PM +1000, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au [rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au] wrote:
> > The point, as relevant to Link, is that any pluralist seat of discussion
> > like ours is considered a target. It's a threat, not because all of the
> > views are leftist, but because it's got an ethic of good manners which
> > tolerates a wide spectrum. It's not whether or not a group endorses a
> > political view that matters; it's the permissive attitude which is
> > intolerable. And that's the reason for the attack.
> plurality?? plurality?? where is it? show me the political plurality
> on this group? are you talking various shade of pink and red? where is
> the blue other then myself?
> "manners"? I see its ok if you bash the right wing "galah" but as soon as
> I sling some mud back thats an attack on permissiveness. sure whatever.
your posts are mocked because of the moronic football-barracker
manner in which you express them, not because they're right wing. you
contribute nothing worthwhile to any debate, you just drown it out with
jingoistic sloganeering, reducing everything to an infantile equation of
"all things good = capitalism, all things bad = commie under the bed".
i.e. the fact that you are a right-wing troll is incidental to the fact
that you are a troll. you'd be just as pointlessly irritating no matter
what opinions you were expressing.
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
More information about the Link