In Australia - Moira Deeming defamation trial now on

[TheSandgroper]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-17/moira-deeming-john-pesutto-defamation-trial-day-two/104360100

This is from our very TRA ABC. Please note the comment from “Mr Southwick, a Jewish MP re Angie Jones’ tweet”. Well, Angie Jones is as Jewish as they come but they don’t say that.

Also, for, those who don’t know, see Angie on m.youtube.com/@TERFTalkDownUnder, though she hasn’t posted for a while. Some really good interviews.

All of my previous posts were attempting to provide a macro persepctive.

But Instead of engaging in a honest, open and intellectual way, you tend to resort to the game of positioning people in the role of enemy. It is like you are looking for proof of what you suspect all of the time rather than trying to be constructive and honest about the actual issues at play in the world at present.

😂Obviously, it's the Internet and so I could be anyone, but "critical analysis" is exactly what I've done for my whole adult life and I'm approaching 50 now.

Understanding "how and why something occurs" requires analysis, facts, and the ability to separate what is known from conjecture.

A "macroperspective" that the far right has arisen in response to the left is a hypothesis. Then you look at the facts, rather than conjecture.

If you state your perspective without facts its an opinion, not a macroperspective. And people are within their rights to disagree.

I'm still interested in what your macroperspective is though.

Reading your posts you could do with taking your own advice here. If you didn't want to go down a rabbit hole of being "misinterpreted" as supporting to Meloni you could stop coming to the defence of her without any facts to back it up. You claimed she is not far-right without providing any evidence and yet there is lots to back up calling her far right (something Cassie isn't the first to do - it's widely agreed and that her party is far-right and she herself has numerous associations with far-right views). Do you have anything other than Melonis denial? Because when you instantly get triggered that someone is far right before going on to say you can understand her implementing right wing policies you surely must understand that over a forum with no other context - it does come across as supportive, no? Your posts read as you insisting others move beyond opposition to what makes them uncomfortable but it's so clear you have an instant trigger to defend people accused of being far right for some reason. You also seem to be referencing a macro perspective while at the same dismissing posters who are referencing the rise of the far-right on a macro level across Europe.

Yes. I remember that too. I wonder if Pesutto has revised his trust of wiki since then?

Well, I'd say you are looking for proof of your perspective all the time, rather than being open minded and seeking the evidence to test your position.

As I said earlier, the left/right hamsterwheel is a derail. And I'm not debating with people who are disrespectful, and imply I'm a liar/bad faith/wilfully misrepresenting etc.

There have been articles in the press all year, including in the Guardian, about how Meloni does not follow the same pro Russian positions as say Orban and Le Pen, and how she has secured good working realtionships with Von De Lyon and is actuall being very centrist in her approach to the EU.

You have to meet people in the middle grounds if you actually want to achieve anything. She is widely being seen as doing a good job on important issues; even if some her policies. ( such around LGB parenting) are not favourable in the eyes of many.

That I can say the above is not because I am "a supporter" of Meloni as you suggest, rather than i am taking a more nuanced approach to understanding world issues.You, though, seem to be doing the exact same thing as Cassie and cannot rise above the oppositional nature of your stance.

You can understand people's motives and why they act as they do - without necessarily agreeing with that approach yourself. It is the refusal to understand because you don't want to be seen to " align" that is the problem, I think.

Could you use paragraphs, please. Being presented with a big wall of text is very off putting.

Thank you

What do you mean by " far right" Cassie. Can you explain what you think the essential stand-points of "far rightism" are?

I will be happy to do that when there is common consensus it's not acceptable and posters also agree to stop referring to "the Left" when talking about particular ideologies and approaches. Sounds like a good plan.

I'm not sure whether to bother asking again as I am sure you saw and chose to ignore the question in my post - what counter evidence do you have to claim as firmly as you did that she and her party is not far right? You haven't provided any in your response.

Are you now saying you don't know what far-right means? How on earth do you keep deducing who isn't far-right if you don't have a basic understanding of it's premise...?

You see you don't refer to the right but the FAR right. It's not a neutral descriptor it's a judgement.

Understanding how certain movements and types of politics comes about requires a in depth as well as a broader perspective. You need to be cognisant of history too, and of the issues any particular country is currently facing.

What do you think the " facts" are in regard to Meloni's government, for example, so far. Which precise policies do you have an issue with and on what basis?

Do you understand what polarisation is? You cannot have polarisation without two poles which are far apart and which repel each other, while simulataneously being held together a deeply uncomfortable tension. Polarisation always happens at the extremes. There is no opposite pole to centre ground.

I understand what is generally meant by far right... ( though i suspect the term is thrown around quite a lot without the person doing the throwing actually having much grasp of what it is they are talking about),

I'm asking what your definition is, with some examples. What do you think motivates far right politics and thought? It would help to understand your working definitions. How can you attempt to ever understand someone if you don't ever understand the frames of reference they are using.

And what do you think motivates Far Left politics and thought?

I explained earlier on how I thought the Right is very generally about boundaries, borders: clear rules and definitions, whereas the Left tends to be about openness, fluidity and the erosion of boundaries and definitions. ( from a psychic/psychological perspective)

Please stop sealioning. You know what far right means and I know what it means and now to avoid providing any facts for your post you are resorting to questioning the definition despite there being no suggestions we are operating from different definitions.

Perhaps you could go back to explaining why you were certain Meloni and her party isn't far right by providing counter evidence to all the documented far right association's and history they have?

Or are you just going to continue engaging in ad hominen and sealioning tactics? It really adds nothing to the discussion if so.

You must also have read lots of articles about her policies and about how her working relationships with European leaders have been developeing and progressing?

I starting from the assumption that you know what you are talking about - without me having to do all of the work explaining things you must already know.

I've just explained, broadly, my terms. Why can you not do the same?

i've no idea what you mean by "sea-lioning?" Could you explain that, too?

Is it at all possible for you to engage in a less obviously hostile way. It leads me to think you are not here for genuine progress in understanding, but just for aggro?

If you cannot engage in a more collaborative and constructive manner, I won't be responding or wasting any more of my time with you again.

You have said nothing of any substance at all, yet.

What exactly are you explaining? 😂 You keep avoiding a very simple question which is only asking you to provide context to your statement that Meloni isn't far right. I'll ask you again clearly to avoid confusion - given the document history of her party and her own politics why did you so firmly state that Cassie was mistaken in calling her far right? It would be so helpful if you could educate us all with how we are wrong to say that (and presumably why all the journalists who have fact checked her history also maintain she is far right?)

How can you discuss different ideologies and political approaches without naming and analysing them?

As if you are unaware or can't Google but just to highlight that you do know you're trolling:

"Sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the "sea lion" may seem innocent, they're intended maliciously and have harmful consequences."

I am not offering an argument, I'm asking you to provide the substance for yours. So for the third or fourth time, can you provide the substance to Meloni not being far right and your accusations that Cassie is somehow smearing her incorrectly that way? The fact that you only respond with endless questions when asked to stay on topic and provide the substance to an argument you made (especially when such argument is in opposition to all evidence) suggests you're engaging in bad faith to stop people debating an issue.

It's really not a hard question, surely.

I can help with what far-right now means. And how disingenuously it is bandied about. In plain words. It is certainly women who don’t want to lose our rights, or be trampled over. Also women who wish children to thrive naturally and protected with safeguarding and sound science.

For instance, women who don’t want to have rapists placed in women’s jails. Or women who complain when they are assaulted or raped. Or women who say men are most certainly not women. Or women who don’t want women’s sports to have cheating men taking their prizes, accolades and awards. Women who don’t want men prancing around refuges and rape crisis centres further traumatising women. Only a few examples, but anything where women don’t pretend that men change their sex, that women aren’t props to be used for men to place themselves among, where there are objections to early sexualisation and grooming of children. Or filling their heads with irrational, anti-scientific nonsense which has no basis in fact.

Women who organise into vocal groups are especially hated as always. Just label them ‘far-right’. The same old story of men (and the women who prioritise men’s interests) targeting the ‘monstrous regiment of women’.

It does remind me somewhat of what happened with the church in Ireland (and other places). People felt so betrayed when it was revealed that the powers that be simply moved priests who were paedophiles onto another parish with scant regard to any victims, past or future. So many believed the allegedly good men. The nuns in Ireland seemed to be quite sycophantic to men of the cloth.

The powers that be in the parties of the left have (on the whole) betrayed women. They profess goodness (like the church), and equality. Women thought it meant us too, but it turns out not. You’re far right if you’re a woman who wants that! If women want rights, they are like dinosaurs hoarding rights, courtesy of David Lammy. Well maybe the biddable women can talk if they tow the ideological line of their own non-existence, and prioritise the irrational (and dangerous for women) wants of entitled men. If you don’t wish to work against your own interests by serving them, then women are dinosaurs’.

At least the church didn’t issue statements saying how good it was that a paedophile priest could be moved around as he wants if he wished to do so, as if they had been virtuous in letting predatory men move onto new prey.
In contrast to this statement by Lisa Nandy was “You asked about whether trans people should be in women’s or men’s prisons. I think trans women are woman and trans men are men. So I think they should be accommodated in the prison of their choosing.”

What a good girl Lisa is. Happily toeing the line that men (even the rapists, as that was the question preceding) should be able to be accommodated in the prison of their choosing. So virtuous.

So, quite dirty political tactics really. The betrayal and selling out of women, followed by smearing those who recognise or object to the trampling of our sex as far-right.

The cat was yowling at the back door in the middle of the night. Far right b*gger.

I'm sure I've posted this to you on a thread before. I like Eco's "Ur-Fascism" categories. https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html

1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.” Harking back to a golden age where everything was perfect; distrust of anything not traditional. Features of this movement are seen in MAGA (Make America Great Again)

2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
Some of the right wing views of the likes of CPAC that progressive social justice movements like Black Lives Matter or gay marriage are not traditional and should be stopped. Support for the "Trad Wife" and pro-natalist school of thought in a feminist context.

4. The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Lying about ridiculous things. Taking unpredictable courses of action. This undermines people's own reasoning and logic so that they become dependent on someone else (e.g. a dictator or other leader) to speak for them. This is a persistent feature of Trump, also Farage. Gove "we have all had enough of experts" fits here too.

5. Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
The cult of personality, no disagreement with the leader will be tolerated. Shut down any debate or dissent. Putin is a good example of this, Trump and Orban demonstrate elements of this in their approach too.

6. Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
Ethno-nationalism; talking about threats to "indigenous people". Anti-Islam sentiment, the "great replacement theory", fear mongering about immigrants of the type that triggered the recent race riots. This is the mode d'emploi of Tommy Robinson.

7. Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
"Them and us" divisions between classes, stoking discontent. A lot of the Reform type narrative around the "white working class" and their concerns is reminiscent of this. Lee Anderson is a good example of this kind of rhetoric.

8. The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
The most striking example of this is Liz Truss and her "deep state" theory and "Ten Years To Save The West.

9. The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
This was/is a common refrain against Starmer - simultaneously authoritarian (won't listen/ruthless) and weak (won't deal with activists, noone knows what he stands for).

10. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
I'm not going to say too much here other than some of the attitudes towards the Gaza conflict by elements of the right (that I would call far right) fit with this.

11. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
Them and us mentality - "only we (the right) are brave enough to deal with this. They are weak and cannot be trusted (the left)".

12. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
I'd say this is reflected in the far right tendency for "rage baiting" and amplifying threats, recording violence and sharing online. The way Trump's assassination attempt was portrayed (including the imagery he posed for, fist in the air, bloodied ear) is a good example.

13. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
Anti-LGB, "slut shaming", traditionalist views of gender roles - men are naturally aggressive, women are naturally nurturing.

14. Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
Bear in mind this was written in the 90s. Do I need to give examples?

15. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
I would say the modern day equivalent of this is to reduce every idea to black/white, right/wrong reductive positions. "If you dont think this, you must think that". People can not explore ideas without language. We've seen it on this thread. "What even is far right anyway?"

Any politician or political movement that shows many of these features I'd think was far right.

Now can you return the favour and present a list of "far left" with examples?

No I'm sorry but this is hyperbolic and is only associating GC beliefs with the far-right when they don't have to be. It's perfectly possible to be GC, want to protect same-sex spaces and be utterly opposed to political parties or figures with links to the far-right and fascism.

Pesutto is the one who put his name to the media releases, spoke at press conferences and did interviews. He’s the one who publicly talked shit about her. Southwick didn’t. It was all private away from the public, so not defamation.

I’d like a definition of “sharing a platform”. It’s been used numerous times in this court case. At times it seems like it means sharing an opinion/ideology and other times using the same type of social media.

After watching the Pesutto videos today he reminded me a lot of a disgraced LNP politician named John Barilaro. He was in NSW state politics. Deputy Premier at one stage. He sued a YouTuber for defamation and blamed him for him quitting politics. Meanwhile he set the Fixated Persons Unit (normally for terrorism or stalking) on him and his staff. Head to YouTube, look up Friendly Jordies, and then the playlist about him. I think it’s called Bruz. Enjoy the rabbit hole. There’s an additional video on his website that he had to remove. There’s also one that I think got banned here in Australia but is visible overseas. It has a smiley emoji as the title.

What an idiot! He has staffers who could have done that for him.

And also at the time someone edited Pesutto's own Wikipedia to show how easy it was. I can't remember exactly what they put but it was quite amusing.

That’s gold! Good work to the person who did that.