HotChip

Do any of you watch this show?

Previously I thought Malcolm Turnbull was the bees knees and that Tanya Plibersek was a muppet and now the situation is reversed.

How can the average voter know which way's up after the airing of each episode?

Does Tony Jones need to be headbutted or is it my imagination?

Beoz

I don't because I find the ABC to far left wing for my liking.

GarryP

I might have agreed with you if you had said "too PC", but QnA isn't left wing at all. The panel ranges from "centralist liberals", through " lite right", to screaming nuts "far right". I've never heard one panelist suggest nationalisation of the means of production (even though it would be VERY sensible in terms of the resource industry).

They generally have a far right 'lib'eral on, who gets torn to shreds whilst quoting objectionable rubbish; but that's in the nature of the extreme views they present. Hell, maybe you think Turnbull shouldn't have been torn a new one for claiming "no cuts to the ABC" didn't really mean a promise to not cut the ABC?

Maybe your dislike might best be described as "insufficiently far right".

Beoz

On that description it sounds like my type of show.

paulry

Some of it is just nuts. Agreed, Tony Jones often looks like he could do with a headbutt but I remind myself that he's needed to keep everyone stirred up.

My family and I watch it for the jaw dropping moments - a bit like the Jeremy Kyle Show.

That's interesting. The PC doctrine is a child of the left but increasingly (maybe in response to trying to entice eachothers voters), the middleground and the right are taking it on board too. I wish if PC could be banished forever so that people can freely debate the real issues without being labelled bigots, ?????ists or ?????phobes.

The Bloke

So you would like to see it evolve into something like the "Jerry Springer Show"? At least on there, they can honestly be called trailer trash!

Amazulu

Public broadcasters around the world are hopelessly left-wing and biased - ABC, BBC CBC, PBS (US). It's the nature of the beast

Q&A is part and parcel of this. The panels and questioners are stacked in favour of the left. The Twitter comments nearly completely so. Tony Jones makes no bones about his socialist/anti-Australia viewpoint and his questions/attitude reflect this

I try and watch it but usually give up half way through

Grayling

Typical right wing paranoia

paulry

No, I'm quite happy for Q and A to stay as it is.

paulry

This one's a recent jaw dropper

GarryP

Actually, interestingly enough, the origin of the term was a perjoritive attack on the extremes by the more 'liberal' centre ground - in that it's an attack on a heavy ideological bent over freedom and community; correct in politics, not reality.

The more modern usurping of the word comes only from the 1990s and was a simple attack by the right wingers on anyone they didn't like (similar to 'liberal' - which should be a positive attribute). Since they tended to be attacking people who were seeking more equal treatment of race, gender, etc. the term became an attack on a mindset that valued equality (almost the opposite of what it originally meant).

Since then it's further narrowed to define the kind of person who would object to 'manhole cover', ie sociology types for whom the semiotic ideology is more important than the practicality.

I think in its most pure form, 'PC' is a description of those that get too wrapped up in an abstract, political view of the world that they can't see how ludicrous and divisive they are - and that is probably best attributed to the far right in today's world (attacks on government whilst needing it to do more, attacks on jobs in the name of a better economy, tax cuts for the rich that are unfunded, etc.) It's definition of the 'sociology student' type was a consequence of the far right attempting to use it as a slur, when it actually applied better to them. Indeed, most of the destruction in the name of 'PC' came from the religious right and their definition of what was acceptable. Witness their still ongoing attack on gay marriage etc.

So, given all that, we really need a different term to describe the 'sociology type' since the issue is not one of politics, but one of misplaced abstract ideology decoupled from the real world, and coupled with an inability to keep your mouth shut and your nose out.

knockoff nige

It's the right wing of politics where they want freedom of speech but protection for their children from radical sentiments/expressions that they oppose. The LNP want you to have a right to be a biggot so you can verbally abuse without penalty. On it's own, you can see their reasoning. But, they must silence any views they deem as radical that are not aligned with theirs. They want the dirty mouth but no-one else can have bad breath. I accept that is a stupid analogy but it made me chuckle a bit.

The ABC needs to show some balls and goade Tony Abbott into appearing since he became PM. The week after that, have Bronwyn Bishop as guest and continuosly talk over her and eventually just turf her out on her old arse. You might think Q&A is bad but if you've watched Question Time in the past year, you'd see just how ridiculous it (and the LNP) is. It's the 'adult' version of 'stop hitting yourself'.

GarryP

Its the imposing of your viewpoint on others.

The far right, and in particular the religious far right, want to define what others can say/do/think within the terms of their viewpoint. So we have abbott forcing religious chaplains into schools, and trained councillor out. And their views on gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc. - all placing religious ideology above common sense.

And then we have the other religion of the far right - that the market will solve everything.

How they can still say that, when the 'free market' almost bought down the entire financial system, is insane. It doesn't work miracles - it's just one methodology of organisation of entities - that's only right in narrowly defined instances; and when there's an adult supervising.

And as was pointed out to paulry before, the main instance of university ideology conniving to get political power was actually the right wing neocons - and look at the mess they made...

Next to that, it's really not justified to say that someone who objects to "mankind" is 'politically correct' - at least their nuts ideology and disconnect from the real world isn't as damaging.

Amazulu

No, it's just that right-wingers like you and I have our eyes open and can see it for what it is

Amazulu

As a conservative (and/or right-winger, I'm comfortable with both), I believe in the right of anyone to say whatever they want (short of advocating violence, paedophilia etc), no matter to whom it causes offence