andrew bolt GUILTY (4 Viewers)

[thank_dentists]

If said individual by virtue of these benefits begins to achieve some social mobility, begins entering new circles which he or she would otherwise have been unlikely to enter without the affirmative action, for some hot headed windbag to then turn around and say that it's wrong simple because said individual doesn't look the part is absolutely contemptible.

But they part white.

 

[SnowFox]

To be an abo, you must get three signatures from elders in your local tribe recognising you as one.

Truth be told, i think its a fucking rort. If you want to be recognised as an abo, so be it, but if you are earning enough to support a family, you dont get anything.

The benefits are there to stop full/half castes sniffing petrol and get them to do something productive, not for some 1/16th assjockey with a diploma to come along and say "i can do art, RECOGNISE ME!"

I just made a comic. It is a form of art.
Im 1/16th abo, i wish to be granted $10K.

 

[Funky Monk]

The debate about affirmative action generally is a legitimate debate, to start launching attacks on it's beneficiaries because they don't conform to some pre colonial archetype of what an aborigine should be is disgusting.

Pre-colonial archetype lol

So you don't see any problem at all in a white human with blues eyes and blonde hair who has lived their entire life in Melbourne who has 1/6 Aboriginal blood receiving grants that are limited in number for ostensibly being a disadvantaged Aboriginal?

Forget about who poorly and crassly articulated the issue.

Think about that poor snotty-nosed blackfella in da bush who coulda done with that grant for his rock-art (this sorta demagogic bs is your bread and butter m8 cmon)

 

[Lentern]

Pre-colonial archetype lol

So you don't see any problem at all in a white human with blues eyes and blonde hair who has lived their entire life in Melbourne who has 1/6 Aboriginal blood receiving grants that are limited in number for ostensibly being a disadvantaged Aboriginal?

Forget about who poorly and crassly articulated the issue.

Think about that poor snotty-nosed blackfella in da bush who coulda done with that grant for his rock-art (this sorta demagogic bs is your bread and butter m8 cmon)

You can comment on what I actually said and I'll respond to it. I'm not going to answer questions based upon you attributing things to me that I have never said.

 

[thank_dentists]

Do you think that the 1/6th Aboriginal person even requires the social mobility boost in the first place?

 

[SnowFox]

The debate about affirmative action generally is a legitimate debate, to start launching attacks on it's beneficiaries because they don't conform to some pre colonial archetype of what an aborigine should be is disgusting.

You believe "discriminating" against white abos (howdafuck) is disgusting.

Pre-colonial archetype lol

So you don't see any problem at all in a white human with blues eyes and blonde hair who has lived their entire life in Melbourne who has 1/6 Aboriginal blood receiving grants that are limited in number for ostensibly being a disadvantaged Aboriginal?

Forget about who poorly and crassly articulated the issue.

Think about that poor snotty-nosed blackfella in da bush who coulda done with that grant for his rock-art (this sorta demagogic bs is your bread and butter m8 cmon)

Questions your stance on the matter, adding on how its very well stupid that a person who could pass off as hungarian could get the benefits whilst some real fuelhuffer cant.

You can comment on what I actually said and I'll respond to it. I'm not going to answer questions based upon you attributing things to me that I have never said.

Cant tell if srs or just stupid.

 

[Selador]

'White' aboriginals are not subject to the same discrimination as black indigenous peoples. Thus they are in effect 'stealing' these benefits and opportunities from the people who actually need them. There is considerable debate within the aboriginal community about what constitutes an aboriginal and how to deal with this problem.

But that is beside the point, clearly there is a legitimate matter here for public debate, and to stifle that debate is utterly terrible in a free society such as ours.

 

[Lentern]

You believe "discriminating" against white abos (howdafuck) is disgusting.



Questions your stance on the matter, adding on how its very well stupid that a person who could pass off as hungarian could get the benefits whilst some real fuelhuffer cant.



Cant tell if srs or just stupid.

With respect, calling a defamatory attack disgusting is not commenting, one way or the other, on the policy of affirmative action itself.

 

[Lentern]

Do you think that the 1/6th Aboriginal person even requires the social mobility boost in the first place?

I think I made it pretty clear earlier on that I'd want to read more about the issue before I appoint myself he who decides where the line should be drawn. I appreciate though that making belligerent comments about an issue one knows fuck all about is generally the accepted practice on race issues here.

 

[SnowFox]

With no respect, im 1/16th abo, and i believe its a load of bullshit that someone who looks like me, earns the same as me, and lives the same as me, could get benefits that are made for abos who cant live for themselves. I also think its a BS that someone who calls the "White Abos" out for what they doing should be found guilty. He told the truth, they only did it for self gain.

 

[Lentern]

With no respect, im 1/16th abo, and i believe its a load of bullshit that someone who looks like me, earns the same as me, and lives the same as me, could get benefits that are made for abos who cant live for themselves. I also think its a BS that someone who calls the "White Abos" out for what they doing should be found guilty. He told the truth, they only did it for self gain.

Again, "who looks like me" launching these attacks because the person doesn't look the part. I'm not surprised you agree with Bolt, you are every bit the revolting grub he is.

White abos, who uses a term like that.

 

[SnowFox]

I do, because technically i am a white abo.

Winner of 2009's richest art prize for Aborigines.

Come off it, he saw a quick buck and grabbed it.

 

[Lolsmith]

I guess making claims about others in slander or libel that are demonstrably untrue and likely to harm reputation.

Well

Since it doesn't damage your property, I don't think so in that regard. You have no inherit right to customers or business, so the onus remains on you to create revenue for yourself in some way or another. Feel free to address that

Of course, there are mitigating circumstances in that situation but that's the point, it can be mitigated, or fettered, to stick to our brief. The idea that speech is absolutely free is a nonsense which you've as good as conceded. Likewise I doubt you would defend a journalist publishing the details of a seven year old child who is currently deeply involved in legal proceedings, to use a gruesome example, as the alleged victim in a rape case. What about false speech? Can't it be construed that compelling someone to tell the truth under oath is denying them their otherwise right to tell lies?

No nothing is absolute, I never said such a thing. I said I support unfettered freedom of speech. Admittedly I was talking about legislative action against speech, but it just as much applies to this situation. No I wouldn't defend that, it is a reprehensible act, but that does not in any way mean that he should immediately be disallowed to do such a thing. The consequences will be his own to undertake whether they be lynch mobs or civil litigation against him. Also, when you are under oath you are agreeing to limit your speech to the truth as you see it. The key factor being that you *agree* to do such a thing. Again, the consequences are your own if you fail to hold up that contract.

Freedom of speech is encroached upon in all sorts of situations, the question is one of balancing the disadvantage that it places upon the individual to restrict the right versus the public interest. I think that whatever disadvantage Andrew Bolt is put at by not being able to spread his tawdry filth is insignificant compared to the benefits of sparring innocent and unassuming members of the public from racial vilification. You may not, there is no denying it is an issue of conjecture but don't give me some crap about freedom of speech being absolute, for god sake.

Never said it was an absolute, just that I support people's ability to write/say whatever the shit they want.

White abos, who uses a term like that.

Bess Price for starters

 

[Graney]

Bolt's lawyers had to concede even before this case began in the Federal Court that nine of these named "white Aborigines" had identified as black from childhood. All nine came to court to say they didn't choose this down the track but were raised as Aborigines. Their evidence was not contested by Bolt or his paper.

So as we say in the trade: no story. Yet Bolt went at it with mockery, derision and sarcasm. They are Judge Bromberg's words. He added: "I accept that the language utilised in the newspaper articles was inflammatory and provocative."
Here's Bolt on Larissa Behrendt: "She's won many positions and honours as an Aborigine, including the David Unaipon Award for Indigenous Writers, and is often interviewed demanding special rights for 'my people'. But which people are 'yours', exactly, mein liebchen? And isn't it bizarre to demand laws to give you more rights as a white Aborigine than your own white dad?"

Among the problems here are that Behrendt's father was a black Australian, not a white German. And like all the others, Behrendt was raised black. Judge Bromberg wrote: "She denies Mr Bolt's suggestion that she chose to be Aboriginal and says that she never had a choice, she has always been Aboriginal and has 'identified as Aboriginal since before I can remember'." Bolt didn't contest her evidence.

david marr

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...lt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

 

[antonio primo]

the articles point that the abos described in this whole debacle identified as australoid since childhood is interesting to me and i've always wondered why when when white men get even a tiny drop of the boong or the coon in them from day one they always say they're flatout boong. what's going on here? surely the multicult and the uncoolness of being white under the current climate has something to do with it but that alone is definitely not enough imo - my theory is that australoidisation or negrification is evident more visibly and unmistakably even with tiny amounts of boong and coon admixture, making it outright impossible to feel and be a white man. nigger hybrids just as the best example of this phenomenon NEVER look white no matter how small the nigger droplets in them are - once you go black, truly, you *NEVER* go back.

 

[Blastus]

Don't know enough about it to make an informed call there, find me something to read from a thinktank or royal commision etc and I'll make my way through it.

Means test potentially?

 

[Blastus]

I'm convinced of the fact that bolt lied but on a philosophical level I have issues with defamation/libel laws because they make words worth far more than they actually are.

 

[zombie omie jay]

I think I made it pretty clear earlier on that I'd want to read more about the issue before I appoint myself he who decides where the line should be drawn. I appreciate though that making belligerent comments about an issue one knows fuck all about is generally the accepted practice on race issues here.

should there be a line at all

 

[zombie omie jay]

david marr

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...lt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

raised black

what is that even

is it living off whichety grubs

or is it living off govt subsidies all your youth and participating in naidoc stuff during the short amount of time that you attend school?

 

[Blastus]

front page newspaper article

three columns today

blog still up

freedom of speech DESTROYED