Rhetorical it may be but the question deserves an answer.Black Orchid wrote: ↑Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:49 pmhttps://tendaily.com.au/views/a181016sw ... a-20181018Today, a photo will be beamed around the world that will define who we are in 2018 -- but it won’t be a good look for Australia.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Prince Harry will climb the Sydney Harbour Bridge together. At the top, that picture will be one of the most globally viewed Australian images this year.
Two white men -- one a symbol of a colonial era -- will smile for the cameras as two flags fly behind them: the Australian flag and the NSW flag. As far as we know, no representation of indigenous Australians will be in the photo shoot at all.
Welcome to Australia in 2018: white, male, colonial.
OMG shame on Australia allowing a photo of our PM and Prince Harry to be taken on the Harbour Bridge together and "beamed around the world". Two white men. What a disgrace! [/sarc]
Unbelievable. It's idiots like this who actually create far right movements with their idiocy.
Who the hell is Gary Nunn anyway? Rhetorical question!
Gary Nunn is Brian Ross is leftwing progressive politics is the ABC etcetc.
They are all self loathing cultural marxists who are more guilty of racism and xenophobia than those they wantonly accuse, abuse and slur.
An example of this is when, in an effort to negate valid and necessary criticism of ethnic groups, religious or national affiliates that contain disproportionate numbers of ideologues that wish harm upon the society they reside in, they immediately throw the switch to abuse mode and insist any criticism based on group idenity is a racist construct and therefore invalid.
Yet the very essence of their ideology is based in group identity and relied upon to form their arguments, who they consider opponents and their criticism. This indicates that progressive thought requires shutting down the logical and analytical part of the brain to protect itself from being assaulted and overwhelmed by the crushing hypocrisy that the use of group identity as a basis for an argument against the use of group identity would cause to a normal person, hence it allows them to continue to push through the illogical argument as they believe that only progressive argument is worthy of being argued from the basis of group identity.
This is where they develop the tropes of their imagined enemies, like "all white males", "all conservatives", "all Christians", "the patriarchy" etc etc where they can demonize groups with impunity while completely oblivious to the irony.
