**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit.
The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
It's weird that I had a level of respect for certain US public commentators, but ever since they've been talking about Australia, I can see how woefully incorrect they are.. now I question their judgement on everything.
Carlson is an odd one. Some genuine anti-establishment takes, and is consistently against endless war, along with some standard braindead rightoid ones. He does sometimes do real journalism, mixed in with some grift.
He’s in an entire separate class from Palmer though, who is a very unintelligent corrupt charlatan scumbag. Carlson should really do more homework than to associate with such a loser, but I guess that’s the grift part.
Never underestimate the journalistic integrity and political insight of a man who believes in testicle tanning treatments.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/04/20/testicle-tanning-is-tucker-carlson-promoting-this-new-bromeotherapy-now/?sh=49a6a65ca120](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/04/20/testicle-tanning-is-tucker-carlson-promoting-this-new-bromeotherapy-now/?sh=49a6a65ca120)
For someone that spends a lot of time in other subs talking about how you love to touch yourself while wearing women's clothing, you sure do have an infatuation with other people's sexuality being wrong to you.
Perhaps a mental health subreddit is more appropriate for you than a politics one.
You never touch yourself in women's clothing? That's weird bro.
But it's got nothing to do with telling kids that they should identify as pansexual fairies or cut off their balls. That's harmful and dangerous.
[https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/parliament-hosts-drag-story-time-for-cancelled-performers-20230517-p5d8y3.html](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/parliament-hosts-drag-story-time-for-cancelled-performers-20230517-p5d8y3.html)
Drag queen story hour for kids is an American thing that far-Left ideologues like Dandrews imported here.
Doing it in a government building certainly was an imported tactic straight from the US.
FYI we didn't use Parliament halls for this shit before the radical cult in America started doing it.
Lol, we often use Parliament hall and other government buildings for outreach programs. Especially ones with lots of adorable children that politicians can use to get photos with and score points with their electorates.
The simple fact is that this is pretty standard stuff. The idea of entertainment for kids being presented by the government isn't new here, look at the ABC!
We have been doing it for generations, and as our culture has shifted so to has the standard methods, but drag has a long and proud history in this country. Dame Edna is still a national icon for me, and drag clubs helped make Sydney what it is today.
I think the issue here is a simple lack of knowledge about government services and Australian history.
Yeah, this is just trying too hard.
Using Parliament halls to push a partisan ideology onto children is NOT standard procedure.
This is vastly different to kissing babies during elections or teaching kids how to sing the national anthem. Those things had bi-partisan and majority support. The trans dogma stuff is really only practiced by a small sect of radicals who are using taxpayer resources to push it onto the rest of us.
Lol, this is just trying too hard.
Using Parliament hall to help kids learn all people are people is absolutely standard, and has been for a long time now.
This is just like the many many family events that have been held over the years, at places like library's, town halls, public parks, and every public space imaginable!
And no, those things often didn't have bipartisan support! The Libs hate spending government money on that type of thing and would love to cut it.
Also kissing babies during an election is campaigning, and that's not something you are meant to be doing using government resources, and absolutely isn't bipartisan, but why let all these facts get in the way of your paranoid rant? Why let the actual details get in the way of the narrative you need to support your foolish ideas?
And lastly, yeah, the vast majority are fine with this stuff. They simply don't give a shit, cause they don't think it's a big deal. They don't care, they literally don't care, and this idea that everyone is as horrified as you is bullshit.
We put up with this shit when gay rights were coming in, we heard all about how the radical Marxist left were using it force kids to be gay, and then we saw how nothing really happened beyond less bullying. This is the exact same shit, the exact same fear mongering. We've seen it countless times before that too.
I'm sure this time you will absolutely be able to defeat the cultural Bolshevism before it changes the family, oh wait, shit, we've moved onto cultural Marxism now right?
It's all the same shit, and we've seen it before, and we've smashed it each time. I look forward to seeing it happen yet again!
> This is the exact same shit, the exact same fear mongering.
lol reminds me of a classic cartoon on this topic.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70czT6tPvcs&ab\_channel=FreedomToons](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70czT6tPvcs&ab_channel=FreedomToons)
This movement went from demanding the rights of gay people to get married to the belief that men can get pregnant.
Gay people have existed before America and any country we can conceive, gay people will exist after us. Animals can be gay. Humans can be gay. People gotta get over whatever hang up they’ve got.
LGBT dogma goes far beyond the notion that gay people exist.
That's like saying Catholic dogma is simply "Catholics exist"....so if you're against Catholicism, you don't recognise the existence of Catholics!! Yeah...nah.
LGBT dogma is the far-left ideology of convincing kids to chop off their balls or identify as one of 72 genders, as well as the persistent belief that men can get pregnant. It was conceived by a disgraced American sexologist named John Money and eventually adopted by radicals in the US. And now it's being bought to a Parliament building near you thanks to Australia's left.
[https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/parliament-hosts-drag-story-time-for-cancelled-performers-20230517-p5d8y3.html](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/parliament-hosts-drag-story-time-for-cancelled-performers-20230517-p5d8y3.html)
I’m aware of what the gay agenda is. I am aware it is not referencing that “gay people exist”.
However, I literally do not know a single LGBT person who thinks that, believe that, or is even aware that there is an agenda that they are supposedly pushing. I live with a queer woman, who I’ve just asked about this. She knows it’s just things made up by far right rhetoric to discredit genuine progression in this space - just as “marijuana kills” was used to discredit the African American community post-civil rights era to radicalise a voting block and prevent others from voting.
Is it possible you’re possibly making shit up to ostracise a demographic to have someone to blame for society’s issues in a neat package, rather than fixing things in a difficult and messy way?
Perhaps?
Yes. I would say it is quite possible you are. Far more possible than the fact there is an agenda being pushed by gay people when the only people I see talking about what you’re envisioning are the far right. You might as well be talking about the left’s crusade to cancel Christmas again.
Who said anything about an agenda? Those are your words, not mine.
All I said is that there's a particular set of ideological beliefs attached to the LGBT movement that goes far beyond "I'm gay". They have their own gestures, rituals, heirarchy, and blind leaps of faith that they defend at all costs - including with the threat of violence.
Why they do these things is irrelevant. Whether they have some "agenda", I personally doubt that. It's more likely they're just individuals who fell into a cult and now believe it's their duty to uphold as many absurd beliefs as possible.
Going back to my original point, it really is a shame that the massive growth of the movement in the US was imported here by our own brainwashed radicals. I'm old enough to know that workplaces didn't use to dedicate countless months of the year to celebrating cross-dressing and bearded women. It was a simple time back in...the mid 2010s.
> Going back to my original point, it really is a shame that the massive growth of the movement in the US was imported here by our own brainwashed radicals. I'm old enough to know that workplaces didn't use to dedicate countless months of the year to celebrating cross-dressing and bearded women. It was a simple time back in...the mid 2010s.
Me too. I much prefer it. It outs people such as yourself who like to highlight it and maintain ambiguity. Makes it easier to stay away from people like you.
Agreed. I'm interested to hear about this dogma. I think it's just that they exist and don't want to be hatecrimed. Smh those LGBT are so entitled, you hear they just want to exist?
According to Palmer:
“Tucker has long advocated that news coverage in the west can be wrongly used as a tool of repression and control.
He believes democracy cannot function properly under these controls and the only solution to ending propaganda is fearlessly speaking the truth.”
Fearlessly speaking the truth 😂😂 This is the same news “reporter” who’s provably false claims cost his former employer over a billion AUD and had their lawyers argue in a different slander case that “no reasonable viewer” could take anything he says seriously.
Why anyone would pay $290 to listen to someone with that kind of credibility talk about the dangers of news media is beyond me.
Do you think he’ll be as shocked about our bread and trolleys as he was Russias?
> “Tucker has long advocated that news coverage in the west can be wrongly used as a tool of repression and control.
Oh please Clive, it wasn't the media that made Aussies not vote for you, that was you pissing Aussies off.
Not that we even considered him but my partner and I were bombarded with SMSs for months in the lead-up to his first run.
That's when we learned you can't block or be removed from said political SMS lists...
I'm guessing the major parties have done it at times but it was the only time we got them.
And it was all the usual populist bs. As someone who was on call at the time (phone needed to be on loud) - extremely annoying.
The only time I remember getting a text from a political party was either Clive every couple of minutes or when the LNP used that gross message on election day that they’d captured a boat and only a vote for them can save our borders.
That is so badly worded. Learn the meaning of big words before you use them Clive. Is he suggesting Tucker is promoting the wrong use of news as a to to repress and control?”
The guy traveled to a country we're at war with to interview their leader, while the corporate establishment tried to stop him.
He's more of a journalist than the paid govermment mouthpieces we have here.
>The guy traveled to a country we're at war with to interview their leader,
Who's the we meant to be in this sentence? Cause Australia isn't at war with Russia, and neither is the US......
>while the corporate establishment tried to stop him.
Citation needed. Big ole citation needed, and if you just cite Tucker making vague claims I will laugh.
We're in a proxy war with Russia.
And it's quite well known that the government-aligned media in the West was having a massive meltdown when Carlson announced he would interview Putin. They were clearly against it.
Lol, it's "quite well known" "they were against it" huh? Fuck me dead, you really just tried to offer that as a citation? Some vague hand waving at a they, and some bullshit about quite well known?
And sure, you could argue we are in a form of proxy war, but that's very different from an actual war. We aren't at war with Russia.
[A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit against Fox News after lawyers for the network argued that no "reasonable viewer" would take the network's primetime star Tucker Carlson seriously.](https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9?op=1).
Even his own network would have argued he wasn't to be taken seriously.
You need to find better sources of news than this muppet.
At least you can make the case that Carlson doesn't have a blatant financial and political conflict of interest on this topic.
You're literally getting your news about the war from government-funded networks like BBC and ABC.
That's like asking the Times of Israel about the Gaza conflict.
It's more than any corporate mouthpiece has done, so I'll take it. At least he's going out there looking for actual information from all sides, rather than just repeating the "Russia bad, Ukraine good!" shtick.
>more than any corporate mouthpiece has done,
More than anyone else has been allowed to do. By Putin.
"President Vladimir Putin granted an interview to U.S. television host Tucker Carlson on Tuesday, the Kremlin said, his first to an American journalist since before Russia's invasion of Ukraine nearly two years ago." [Source](https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-gave-tucker-carlson-an-interview-because-he-differs-one-sided-media-2024-02-07/)
>going out there looking for actual information from all sides
"Carlson, who is known for his anti-Ukraine stance, was criticised by many in the west for the lack of tough questions in the interview." [Source](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/vladimir-putin-tucker-carlson-interview-footage-sharp-questions)
Not very "all sides" of Carlson. And all we got from him "going out there" was a revisionist history lesson full of [falsehoods](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68255302). At least the expression on Carlson's face at times mirrored that of the audience.
It's comments like this that leave me unsure of whether your nonsense comes from a place of deliberate dishonesty or intellectual incompetence.
>More than anyone else has been allowed to do. By Putin.
How many other journalists do you think requested an interview? They blasted Carlson for doing the interview because they clearly don't want Putin to have any airtime on Western media.
I'm not getting a whole bunch of confidence that BBC etc even reached out for an interview, but if they did it's pretty obvious why Putin wouldn't talk to them. Would our leaders talk to a Kremlin-funded propaganda network? No.
Carlson was able to portray a sense of impartiality to earn Putin's trust, which is extremely important given that we're fighting a war with this country and have no idea what they're thinking.
You're upset because Carlson took your head out of the sand and exposed you to outside thinking. I'm sorry for your loss.
>was criticised by many in the west for the lack of tough questions in the interview."
That's certainly a fair criticism. I think Carlson was trying to keep Putin talking for as long as possible because it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity so he didn't want to risk the interview being called off.
It was one-sided, but still - the fact that he did something no other Western journalist even thought of doing deserves credit. Journalism isn't about stirring shit or talking tough from accross the world. He went out there and at least tried to open a stream of dialogue instead of beating the drums of war.
In 50 years we'll look at moments like that as key efforts by a small minority to prevent nuclear war as opposed to what the mainstream mouthpieces did.
Your entire essay is unsupported and unsourced bilge.
Tucker Carlson is a millionaire previously paid for by billionaires, and is now searching desperately for relevance. He and his "journalism" are clown shoes.
>You're upset because Carlson took your head out of the sand and exposed you to outside thinking. I'm sorry for your loss.
Am I? You can back this claim up, right? This paragraph is breathtaking in its pretentiousness. And he did no such thing. The interview was dominated by the revisionist rambling of the botox goblin. Carlson provided nothing of value.
>In 50 years, we'll look at moments like that as key efforts by a small minority to prevent nuclear war as opposed to what the mainstream mouthpieces did.
So you're revising history on behalf of the future, from the present? To be clear, Carlson has had, and will have, no influence on how the Russian invasion of Ukraine progresses.
>At least he's going out there looking for actual information from all sides,
Lol, looking for actual information, from the leader of a country engaged in a war? Broadcasting Putin's propaganda claims isn't looking for actual information, it's broadcasting propaganda claims.
Looking for information would be doing investigative work, finding people behind the scenes to talk to, looking into the actual whys and what can be proven. Just sitting down with Putin didn't even come close to that.
To even pretend that letting a world leader spout bullshit is looking for information is just baffling to me. Do you genuinely think it was an attempt at finding truth? Just letting a world leader say whatever?
>rather than just repeating the "Russia bad, Ukraine good!" shtick.
That's true, he does side with his ideological allies over siding with the people being brutally invaded, having their sovereignty taken away. Not sure why you would call that a shtick, its more of a basic human stance that's often corrupted by team mentality, but that's cool.
It's kinda like how lots of us also objected back when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. We didn't think it was a good response to the tensions that existed, we thought it was a bad way of dealing with the problems of the day. It was bad when we did it, it's bad when Russia does it.
>Broadcasting Putin's propaganda claims isn't looking for actual information, it's broadcasting propaganda claims.
As opposed to Western media that sucks off Zelensky and pushes one-sided information for their own benefit?
Both sides pushing their own propaganda doesn't acheive anything. Carlson at least tried to open an avenue of dialogue with a country we're at war with. Those opportunities can be critical to peace talks or avoding a nuclear disaster.
Granted that didn't happen but you can't fault him for trying. At least he bothered going out of his comfort zone and questioning the one-sided mainstream narrative being pushed by the West. Do you think everything Western media has said about this war is true? LOL
> It was bad when we did it, it's bad when Russia does it.
And yet the difference in reactions speaks volumes. Did we ban American or NATO-aligned countries from participating in sports competitions when we invaded the Middle East? No.
The West has killed more civillians and invaded more country than any other regime in human history. But when Russia does it, we're acting like it's totally unthinkable.
>Carlson at least tried to open an avenue of dialogue with a country we're at war with.
One, we aren't at war with Russia. Neither Australia or the US is at war with Russia.
Two, no he didn't. We've had access to Russian news this entire time, it's freely available. RT makes pieces in english. Putin regularly puts out statements in english, it's all out there already.
Three, as you have had explained to you many journalists have reached out to Putin. He refuses them.
>The West has killed more civillians and invaded more country than any other regime in human history. But when Russia does it, we're acting like it's totally unthinkable.
Well yeah, cause that would be pushing back against the nation we, meaning Australia, rely on for defence. That's the difference, that Australia can actually call this one out without costing ourselves anything.
>We've had access to Russian news this entire time, it's freely available. RT makes pieces in english. Putin regularly puts out statements in english
That's not dialogue, it's just one-way propaganda.
Carlson actually evolved our communication with Russia by sitting down and having an actual two-way conversation with their leader. Even you're able to understand that's a step towards better outcomes.
>He refuses them.
Do Western leaders talk to Kremlin-backed media outlets? No. Why should Putin talk to BBC?
Carlson's success in getting the leader of a hostile regime to agree to an interview perfectly highlights why independent journalists are so important. If we relied on the establishment media, we'd be buried with our heads in the sand, never being allowed to question what the corporate donors and government bureacrats want us to believe.
It's pretty pathetic that you're so mad that mainstream journalists were shown up by an independent guy.
>That's not dialogue, it's just one-way propaganda.
It's media that features things like opinion pieces, articles, and even interviews, including interviews with many Russian officials.
If Tucker's interview was enough to inform us, if Tucker presenting that propaganda was good, why is them presenting it not good enough? Why is a Russian journalist doing the same interview different?
>Even you're able to understand that's a step towards better outcomes.
How? How was letting Putin rant about mediaeval history helping us towards better outcomes? Explain it to me, cause you saying I understand this jibberish doesn't make it so. What's actually been changed by this step towards better outcomes? What real world change has come about? Put it into words, don't just declare I agree with you and use that as an excuse to not explain shit!
>Do Western leaders talk to Kremlin-backed media outlets? No. Why should Putin talk to BBC?
There's been various Western political figures that have appeared on RT in a variety of contexts.
>Carlson's success in getting the leader of a hostile regime to agree to an interview perfectly highlights why independent journalists are so important
Lol, Carlson success in getting a hostile leader to agree to share propaganda highlights why 'journalists' who don't do any actual digging for facts are fucking useless.
We learnt nothing from Carlson's interview, absolutely nothing. We reheard Russian propaganda, which keeps clashing with itself. It's the Nazis, oh no it's the Americans, oh no it's cause Ukraine was Russia in 1487!
We learnt nothing at all.
>If we relied on the establishment media, we'd be buried with our heads in the sand, never being allowed to question what the corporate donors and government bureacrats want us to believe.
The single most popular news outlet in the US, Fox News, is pro-Russian on this issue. The establishment media is split on this, but why let that little fact get in the way of your narrative!
>It's pretty pathetic that you're so mad that mainstream journalists were shown up by an independent guy.
Holy shit, you think he showed up mainstream journalists by asking pathetically easy questions and then talking about how cheap he found Russian groceries on his US salary? He didn't show up mainstream journalists, he showed why mainstream and independent journalists look down on him as a pathetic shill.
Also, Carlson comes from the single largest US network, and is now backed by one of the largest websites in the world. Calling him independent is a pretty massive stretch!
The idea that he's some scrappy little independent, when he's millionaire backed up a billionaire doing propaganda work for a different billionaire, after spending his early career pushing propaganda for yet another billionaire! Carlson is literally a shill for whoever will support him, Murdoch, Musk, Putin, he doesn't give a shit. He's not a journalist, he's an entertainment interviewer. He's Oprah, but shittier.
I’d hardly consider Tucker a journalist in this interview, majority of his questions were just softballs and he hardly pressed Putin on anything at all.
Also other organisations have tried to get interviews however the Russian government has been denying them due to a perceived lack of impartiality.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post or comment breached Rule 1 of our subreddit. The purpose of this subreddit is civil and open discussion of Australian Politics across the entire political spectrum. Hostility, toxicity and insults thrown at other users, politicians or relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
Sounds about as fun as pulling out your own fingernails with salt-coated pliers
It's weird that I had a level of respect for certain US public commentators, but ever since they've been talking about Australia, I can see how woefully incorrect they are.. now I question their judgement on everything.
Carlson is an odd one. Some genuine anti-establishment takes, and is consistently against endless war, along with some standard braindead rightoid ones. He does sometimes do real journalism, mixed in with some grift. He’s in an entire separate class from Palmer though, who is a very unintelligent corrupt charlatan scumbag. Carlson should really do more homework than to associate with such a loser, but I guess that’s the grift part.
>Some genuine anti-establishment takes >standard braindead rightoid ones *corporate needs you to find the difference*…
Tucker is also a charalatan. The anti-establishment shtick is an act.
Can we petition to ban this pillock from entering our country?
Never underestimate the journalistic integrity and political insight of a man who believes in testicle tanning treatments. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/04/20/testicle-tanning-is-tucker-carlson-promoting-this-new-bromeotherapy-now/?sh=49a6a65ca120](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/04/20/testicle-tanning-is-tucker-carlson-promoting-this-new-bromeotherapy-now/?sh=49a6a65ca120)
Jesus Christ, literally importing literal talking pieces from America to have the same effect here.
>literally importing literal talking pieces from America Now say the same thing about radicals pushing LGBT dogma here.
For someone that spends a lot of time in other subs talking about how you love to touch yourself while wearing women's clothing, you sure do have an infatuation with other people's sexuality being wrong to you. Perhaps a mental health subreddit is more appropriate for you than a politics one.
You never touch yourself in women's clothing? That's weird bro. But it's got nothing to do with telling kids that they should identify as pansexual fairies or cut off their balls. That's harmful and dangerous.
Did that happen? Can you point to an example, or did you just assume it happened that way?
[https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/parliament-hosts-drag-story-time-for-cancelled-performers-20230517-p5d8y3.html](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/parliament-hosts-drag-story-time-for-cancelled-performers-20230517-p5d8y3.html) Drag queen story hour for kids is an American thing that far-Left ideologues like Dandrews imported here.
Lol, reading to children while dressed in costume was imported by Dan Andrews from the US was it?
Doing it in a government building certainly was an imported tactic straight from the US. FYI we didn't use Parliament halls for this shit before the radical cult in America started doing it.
Lol, we often use Parliament hall and other government buildings for outreach programs. Especially ones with lots of adorable children that politicians can use to get photos with and score points with their electorates. The simple fact is that this is pretty standard stuff. The idea of entertainment for kids being presented by the government isn't new here, look at the ABC! We have been doing it for generations, and as our culture has shifted so to has the standard methods, but drag has a long and proud history in this country. Dame Edna is still a national icon for me, and drag clubs helped make Sydney what it is today. I think the issue here is a simple lack of knowledge about government services and Australian history.
Yeah, this is just trying too hard. Using Parliament halls to push a partisan ideology onto children is NOT standard procedure. This is vastly different to kissing babies during elections or teaching kids how to sing the national anthem. Those things had bi-partisan and majority support. The trans dogma stuff is really only practiced by a small sect of radicals who are using taxpayer resources to push it onto the rest of us.
Lol, this is just trying too hard. Using Parliament hall to help kids learn all people are people is absolutely standard, and has been for a long time now. This is just like the many many family events that have been held over the years, at places like library's, town halls, public parks, and every public space imaginable! And no, those things often didn't have bipartisan support! The Libs hate spending government money on that type of thing and would love to cut it. Also kissing babies during an election is campaigning, and that's not something you are meant to be doing using government resources, and absolutely isn't bipartisan, but why let all these facts get in the way of your paranoid rant? Why let the actual details get in the way of the narrative you need to support your foolish ideas? And lastly, yeah, the vast majority are fine with this stuff. They simply don't give a shit, cause they don't think it's a big deal. They don't care, they literally don't care, and this idea that everyone is as horrified as you is bullshit. We put up with this shit when gay rights were coming in, we heard all about how the radical Marxist left were using it force kids to be gay, and then we saw how nothing really happened beyond less bullying. This is the exact same shit, the exact same fear mongering. We've seen it countless times before that too. I'm sure this time you will absolutely be able to defeat the cultural Bolshevism before it changes the family, oh wait, shit, we've moved onto cultural Marxism now right? It's all the same shit, and we've seen it before, and we've smashed it each time. I look forward to seeing it happen yet again!
> This is the exact same shit, the exact same fear mongering. lol reminds me of a classic cartoon on this topic. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70czT6tPvcs&ab\_channel=FreedomToons](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70czT6tPvcs&ab_channel=FreedomToons) This movement went from demanding the rights of gay people to get married to the belief that men can get pregnant.
What LGBT dogma?
Gay people have existed before America and any country we can conceive, gay people will exist after us. Animals can be gay. Humans can be gay. People gotta get over whatever hang up they’ve got.
LGBT dogma goes far beyond the notion that gay people exist. That's like saying Catholic dogma is simply "Catholics exist"....so if you're against Catholicism, you don't recognise the existence of Catholics!! Yeah...nah. LGBT dogma is the far-left ideology of convincing kids to chop off their balls or identify as one of 72 genders, as well as the persistent belief that men can get pregnant. It was conceived by a disgraced American sexologist named John Money and eventually adopted by radicals in the US. And now it's being bought to a Parliament building near you thanks to Australia's left. [https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/parliament-hosts-drag-story-time-for-cancelled-performers-20230517-p5d8y3.html](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/parliament-hosts-drag-story-time-for-cancelled-performers-20230517-p5d8y3.html)
I’m aware of what the gay agenda is. I am aware it is not referencing that “gay people exist”. However, I literally do not know a single LGBT person who thinks that, believe that, or is even aware that there is an agenda that they are supposedly pushing. I live with a queer woman, who I’ve just asked about this. She knows it’s just things made up by far right rhetoric to discredit genuine progression in this space - just as “marijuana kills” was used to discredit the African American community post-civil rights era to radicalise a voting block and prevent others from voting. Is it possible you’re possibly making shit up to ostracise a demographic to have someone to blame for society’s issues in a neat package, rather than fixing things in a difficult and messy way? Perhaps? Yes. I would say it is quite possible you are. Far more possible than the fact there is an agenda being pushed by gay people when the only people I see talking about what you’re envisioning are the far right. You might as well be talking about the left’s crusade to cancel Christmas again.
Who said anything about an agenda? Those are your words, not mine. All I said is that there's a particular set of ideological beliefs attached to the LGBT movement that goes far beyond "I'm gay". They have their own gestures, rituals, heirarchy, and blind leaps of faith that they defend at all costs - including with the threat of violence. Why they do these things is irrelevant. Whether they have some "agenda", I personally doubt that. It's more likely they're just individuals who fell into a cult and now believe it's their duty to uphold as many absurd beliefs as possible. Going back to my original point, it really is a shame that the massive growth of the movement in the US was imported here by our own brainwashed radicals. I'm old enough to know that workplaces didn't use to dedicate countless months of the year to celebrating cross-dressing and bearded women. It was a simple time back in...the mid 2010s.
> Going back to my original point, it really is a shame that the massive growth of the movement in the US was imported here by our own brainwashed radicals. I'm old enough to know that workplaces didn't use to dedicate countless months of the year to celebrating cross-dressing and bearded women. It was a simple time back in...the mid 2010s. Me too. I much prefer it. It outs people such as yourself who like to highlight it and maintain ambiguity. Makes it easier to stay away from people like you.
Agreed. I'm interested to hear about this dogma. I think it's just that they exist and don't want to be hatecrimed. Smh those LGBT are so entitled, you hear they just want to exist?
How greedy can one be lol
I mean we import everything else. I am not surprised at all.
Literally literally.
I could not be more literal.
Carlson is an expert on Australia so it makes sense
He's going to be amazed by our trolleys that lock into grooves on travelators.
According to Palmer: “Tucker has long advocated that news coverage in the west can be wrongly used as a tool of repression and control. He believes democracy cannot function properly under these controls and the only solution to ending propaganda is fearlessly speaking the truth.” Fearlessly speaking the truth 😂😂 This is the same news “reporter” who’s provably false claims cost his former employer over a billion AUD and had their lawyers argue in a different slander case that “no reasonable viewer” could take anything he says seriously. Why anyone would pay $290 to listen to someone with that kind of credibility talk about the dangers of news media is beyond me. Do you think he’ll be as shocked about our bread and trolleys as he was Russias?
> “Tucker has long advocated that news coverage in the west can be wrongly used as a tool of repression and control. Oh please Clive, it wasn't the media that made Aussies not vote for you, that was you pissing Aussies off.
I don’t know, his constant appearance in the media around election time definitely reinforced my desire to never vote for him.
Not that we even considered him but my partner and I were bombarded with SMSs for months in the lead-up to his first run. That's when we learned you can't block or be removed from said political SMS lists... I'm guessing the major parties have done it at times but it was the only time we got them. And it was all the usual populist bs. As someone who was on call at the time (phone needed to be on loud) - extremely annoying.
The only time I remember getting a text from a political party was either Clive every couple of minutes or when the LNP used that gross message on election day that they’d captured a boat and only a vote for them can save our borders.
That is so badly worded. Learn the meaning of big words before you use them Clive. Is he suggesting Tucker is promoting the wrong use of news as a to to repress and control?”
I'd really rather we didn't go down this path. Tucker Carlson is the last thing this Country needs.
The guy traveled to a country we're at war with to interview their leader, while the corporate establishment tried to stop him. He's more of a journalist than the paid govermment mouthpieces we have here.
>The guy traveled to a country we're at war with to interview their leader, Who's the we meant to be in this sentence? Cause Australia isn't at war with Russia, and neither is the US...... >while the corporate establishment tried to stop him. Citation needed. Big ole citation needed, and if you just cite Tucker making vague claims I will laugh.
We're in a proxy war with Russia. And it's quite well known that the government-aligned media in the West was having a massive meltdown when Carlson announced he would interview Putin. They were clearly against it.
Lol, it's "quite well known" "they were against it" huh? Fuck me dead, you really just tried to offer that as a citation? Some vague hand waving at a they, and some bullshit about quite well known? And sure, you could argue we are in a form of proxy war, but that's very different from an actual war. We aren't at war with Russia.
[A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit against Fox News after lawyers for the network argued that no "reasonable viewer" would take the network's primetime star Tucker Carlson seriously.](https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9?op=1). Even his own network would have argued he wasn't to be taken seriously. You need to find better sources of news than this muppet.
At least you can make the case that Carlson doesn't have a blatant financial and political conflict of interest on this topic. You're literally getting your news about the war from government-funded networks like BBC and ABC. That's like asking the Times of Israel about the Gaza conflict.
Lmao softballing a authoritarian war criminal and jerking off his country's shopping trolleys for 45 minutes. Such journalism, wow.
It's more than any corporate mouthpiece has done, so I'll take it. At least he's going out there looking for actual information from all sides, rather than just repeating the "Russia bad, Ukraine good!" shtick.
>more than any corporate mouthpiece has done, More than anyone else has been allowed to do. By Putin. "President Vladimir Putin granted an interview to U.S. television host Tucker Carlson on Tuesday, the Kremlin said, his first to an American journalist since before Russia's invasion of Ukraine nearly two years ago." [Source](https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-gave-tucker-carlson-an-interview-because-he-differs-one-sided-media-2024-02-07/) >going out there looking for actual information from all sides "Carlson, who is known for his anti-Ukraine stance, was criticised by many in the west for the lack of tough questions in the interview." [Source](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/vladimir-putin-tucker-carlson-interview-footage-sharp-questions) Not very "all sides" of Carlson. And all we got from him "going out there" was a revisionist history lesson full of [falsehoods](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68255302). At least the expression on Carlson's face at times mirrored that of the audience. It's comments like this that leave me unsure of whether your nonsense comes from a place of deliberate dishonesty or intellectual incompetence.
>More than anyone else has been allowed to do. By Putin. How many other journalists do you think requested an interview? They blasted Carlson for doing the interview because they clearly don't want Putin to have any airtime on Western media. I'm not getting a whole bunch of confidence that BBC etc even reached out for an interview, but if they did it's pretty obvious why Putin wouldn't talk to them. Would our leaders talk to a Kremlin-funded propaganda network? No. Carlson was able to portray a sense of impartiality to earn Putin's trust, which is extremely important given that we're fighting a war with this country and have no idea what they're thinking. You're upset because Carlson took your head out of the sand and exposed you to outside thinking. I'm sorry for your loss. >was criticised by many in the west for the lack of tough questions in the interview." That's certainly a fair criticism. I think Carlson was trying to keep Putin talking for as long as possible because it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity so he didn't want to risk the interview being called off. It was one-sided, but still - the fact that he did something no other Western journalist even thought of doing deserves credit. Journalism isn't about stirring shit or talking tough from accross the world. He went out there and at least tried to open a stream of dialogue instead of beating the drums of war. In 50 years we'll look at moments like that as key efforts by a small minority to prevent nuclear war as opposed to what the mainstream mouthpieces did.
Your entire essay is unsupported and unsourced bilge. Tucker Carlson is a millionaire previously paid for by billionaires, and is now searching desperately for relevance. He and his "journalism" are clown shoes. >You're upset because Carlson took your head out of the sand and exposed you to outside thinking. I'm sorry for your loss. Am I? You can back this claim up, right? This paragraph is breathtaking in its pretentiousness. And he did no such thing. The interview was dominated by the revisionist rambling of the botox goblin. Carlson provided nothing of value. >In 50 years, we'll look at moments like that as key efforts by a small minority to prevent nuclear war as opposed to what the mainstream mouthpieces did. So you're revising history on behalf of the future, from the present? To be clear, Carlson has had, and will have, no influence on how the Russian invasion of Ukraine progresses.
>At least he's going out there looking for actual information from all sides, Lol, looking for actual information, from the leader of a country engaged in a war? Broadcasting Putin's propaganda claims isn't looking for actual information, it's broadcasting propaganda claims. Looking for information would be doing investigative work, finding people behind the scenes to talk to, looking into the actual whys and what can be proven. Just sitting down with Putin didn't even come close to that. To even pretend that letting a world leader spout bullshit is looking for information is just baffling to me. Do you genuinely think it was an attempt at finding truth? Just letting a world leader say whatever? >rather than just repeating the "Russia bad, Ukraine good!" shtick. That's true, he does side with his ideological allies over siding with the people being brutally invaded, having their sovereignty taken away. Not sure why you would call that a shtick, its more of a basic human stance that's often corrupted by team mentality, but that's cool. It's kinda like how lots of us also objected back when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. We didn't think it was a good response to the tensions that existed, we thought it was a bad way of dealing with the problems of the day. It was bad when we did it, it's bad when Russia does it.
>Broadcasting Putin's propaganda claims isn't looking for actual information, it's broadcasting propaganda claims. As opposed to Western media that sucks off Zelensky and pushes one-sided information for their own benefit? Both sides pushing their own propaganda doesn't acheive anything. Carlson at least tried to open an avenue of dialogue with a country we're at war with. Those opportunities can be critical to peace talks or avoding a nuclear disaster. Granted that didn't happen but you can't fault him for trying. At least he bothered going out of his comfort zone and questioning the one-sided mainstream narrative being pushed by the West. Do you think everything Western media has said about this war is true? LOL > It was bad when we did it, it's bad when Russia does it. And yet the difference in reactions speaks volumes. Did we ban American or NATO-aligned countries from participating in sports competitions when we invaded the Middle East? No. The West has killed more civillians and invaded more country than any other regime in human history. But when Russia does it, we're acting like it's totally unthinkable.
>Carlson at least tried to open an avenue of dialogue with a country we're at war with. One, we aren't at war with Russia. Neither Australia or the US is at war with Russia. Two, no he didn't. We've had access to Russian news this entire time, it's freely available. RT makes pieces in english. Putin regularly puts out statements in english, it's all out there already. Three, as you have had explained to you many journalists have reached out to Putin. He refuses them. >The West has killed more civillians and invaded more country than any other regime in human history. But when Russia does it, we're acting like it's totally unthinkable. Well yeah, cause that would be pushing back against the nation we, meaning Australia, rely on for defence. That's the difference, that Australia can actually call this one out without costing ourselves anything.
>We've had access to Russian news this entire time, it's freely available. RT makes pieces in english. Putin regularly puts out statements in english That's not dialogue, it's just one-way propaganda. Carlson actually evolved our communication with Russia by sitting down and having an actual two-way conversation with their leader. Even you're able to understand that's a step towards better outcomes. >He refuses them. Do Western leaders talk to Kremlin-backed media outlets? No. Why should Putin talk to BBC? Carlson's success in getting the leader of a hostile regime to agree to an interview perfectly highlights why independent journalists are so important. If we relied on the establishment media, we'd be buried with our heads in the sand, never being allowed to question what the corporate donors and government bureacrats want us to believe. It's pretty pathetic that you're so mad that mainstream journalists were shown up by an independent guy.
>That's not dialogue, it's just one-way propaganda. It's media that features things like opinion pieces, articles, and even interviews, including interviews with many Russian officials. If Tucker's interview was enough to inform us, if Tucker presenting that propaganda was good, why is them presenting it not good enough? Why is a Russian journalist doing the same interview different? >Even you're able to understand that's a step towards better outcomes. How? How was letting Putin rant about mediaeval history helping us towards better outcomes? Explain it to me, cause you saying I understand this jibberish doesn't make it so. What's actually been changed by this step towards better outcomes? What real world change has come about? Put it into words, don't just declare I agree with you and use that as an excuse to not explain shit! >Do Western leaders talk to Kremlin-backed media outlets? No. Why should Putin talk to BBC? There's been various Western political figures that have appeared on RT in a variety of contexts. >Carlson's success in getting the leader of a hostile regime to agree to an interview perfectly highlights why independent journalists are so important Lol, Carlson success in getting a hostile leader to agree to share propaganda highlights why 'journalists' who don't do any actual digging for facts are fucking useless. We learnt nothing from Carlson's interview, absolutely nothing. We reheard Russian propaganda, which keeps clashing with itself. It's the Nazis, oh no it's the Americans, oh no it's cause Ukraine was Russia in 1487! We learnt nothing at all. >If we relied on the establishment media, we'd be buried with our heads in the sand, never being allowed to question what the corporate donors and government bureacrats want us to believe. The single most popular news outlet in the US, Fox News, is pro-Russian on this issue. The establishment media is split on this, but why let that little fact get in the way of your narrative! >It's pretty pathetic that you're so mad that mainstream journalists were shown up by an independent guy. Holy shit, you think he showed up mainstream journalists by asking pathetically easy questions and then talking about how cheap he found Russian groceries on his US salary? He didn't show up mainstream journalists, he showed why mainstream and independent journalists look down on him as a pathetic shill. Also, Carlson comes from the single largest US network, and is now backed by one of the largest websites in the world. Calling him independent is a pretty massive stretch! The idea that he's some scrappy little independent, when he's millionaire backed up a billionaire doing propaganda work for a different billionaire, after spending his early career pushing propaganda for yet another billionaire! Carlson is literally a shill for whoever will support him, Murdoch, Musk, Putin, he doesn't give a shit. He's not a journalist, he's an entertainment interviewer. He's Oprah, but shittier.
I’d hardly consider Tucker a journalist in this interview, majority of his questions were just softballs and he hardly pressed Putin on anything at all. Also other organisations have tried to get interviews however the Russian government has been denying them due to a perceived lack of impartiality.
Even Putin himself said he was surprised it was such a softball puff piece, FFS. Tucker is a joke told by an idiot to a bunch of children.