there's a pretty dishonest rhetorical comparison being implicated here
Are you surprised? Since when does propaganda care about ethics or rhetorical honesty?
Pauline Hanson is such a dumb moron...
Or will the Senate condemn them for their "intolerant immigration policies" & "lack of diversity"? We'll have to wait & see!
Imagine saying shit like this then wondering why people don't like you, grow the fuck up
Why does Pauline Hanson look like someones racist aunt?
Pauline Hanson is known for pulling stupid shit in the Senate like this.
Since when does *Boilrig.
I know im always in for a laugh when I see a Pauline headline. I am curious though what IS the counter argument to her presumptions, why is it ok for some people to be anti immigration but not for others? I would genuinely like to see some for and against arguments (that hopefully doesn't devolve but we will see).
"So if the brown people do it, that means its ok"
because she literally is
Because behind her rhetoric, she's against non-white people immigrating to Australia, a country she believes should be a white country. It's a common far-right argument, one country for one race.
... because the sentinelese island is tiny, has zero infrastructure, a population of a few hundred unanimously hostile to foreigners, and said population has zero immunity to common illnesses?
Surely, you knew of their special situation before this post was made, and consequently - how the comparison she implies is ridiculously dishonest?
I wasn't asking about her ideology or her as a person or whatever she believes outside of this specific case, its pretty obvious where she stands im more curious about the idea certain groups shouldn't be subject to immigration, diversity etc over others thanks though.
So its infrastructure and the ability for a population to adapt to hostilities, illness etc brought by the new group? and if the population is hostile to new comers? and yeah I know of their situation (and personally believe they should be allowed to live their lives the way they see fit free from interruption) however how dishonest is it? its an extreme example but it isn't hard to extrapolate the comparisons provided we are specific, IE the caveats you laid out. Thanks for the responses.
Unlike most cases of being anti-immigration, this is a case where the culture involved simply doesn't want to interact with the greater world in any capacity. In other cases it's always a matter of not wanting immigrants but still wanting to take advantage of globalization. This is true of even reclusive nations like North Korea.
Can't wait for Australian border guards to start throwing spears at those damn illegal immigrants while running naked.
So she just compared the entire country of Australia to a pre-Neolithic tribe?
We never said it was an unfair comparison.
It's outrageous specifically because it's such a unique case. Where else can you extrapolate this to?
Hahaha! I made this exact post the other day. Great minds think alike and all that.
Apparently the Kitty character is just "one of those people".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.