Same Sex Marriage Delarations

I will not be sharing how I vote on SSM on Facebook or any other social media site. How I vote is my business, no one else's. 

I don't have the urge to join the public declaration crowd. Why? Because I don't need anyone’s validation on whether I'm doing the right or wrong thing. The only person I have to justify my decision to is myself. 

More importantly I have friends in both camps. Friends I greatly respect along with respecting their right to hold their views. I won't be pushing my opinion down their throats. Or trying to guilt trip them into changing their minds as some have attempted to do. 

When I read declarations from people stating they will no longer associate with people based on how they vote I think debate has reached a whole new level of crazy. I judge people for who they are not what they believe. On how they treat others and how they treat me. So, I will still think my friends are awesome whether they vote Yes or No. Ticking a box won't change that. 

George Orwell Was Right

I think we should drop the tired and overplayed hashtag #fakenews and replace that with one much closer to what’s happening with alarming frequency;  #ignoringthefacts. One of my twitter buddies suggested #youcanthaveyourfacts at the same time as lamenting the prevention of the use of apostrophes in hashtags. A lament I share but that’s another story.

I know I bang on (great descriptive bang on) about comments to media columns. If I had any sense, I wouldn’t read them. I usually just end up with a headache due to clenching my teeth. But it is a sign of what people think and what they believe. It’s alarming how frequently in an effort to outdo each other the keyboard warriors just blithely ignore the facts. Then along comes the ‘like lemmings’. Dependent on whom the target of the assault is the like buttons can go into meltdown. I sit here shaking my head thinking did you even bother to read what was written? Or question the veracity of an opinion piece. Or even check updated news. It’s blatantly obvious they don’t.

A graphic example was a piece in the Australian on Friday featuring George Brandis and the Tony Abbott head-butt. The attack was rightfully condemned as it should be. Then, Brandis stated the attack had nothing to do with the SSM vote as had been reported ad nauseam through the day. Brandis was attacked left right and centre by the key board warriors. Most of them appear to be exLibs who salivate over any opportunity to stick it to the Govt.

One of the more irrational claims came from someone who accused Brandis of being useless. We could debate that based on fact. However, he then on went to claim Brandis should be sacked and stated, “But, what else would expect from someone who wouldn’t step in over the young lady from Canberra who was sacked for using an It’s OK to Vote NO, frame on Facebook.”  When it was pointed out Brandis can’t step in, that was completely dismissed but about 50 odd people liked the original comment. Not one person acknowledged the response that Brandis didn’t have the authority to interfere in a perceived case of unfair dismissal. Facts tossed out the window. Hands over ears, “We don’t want to hear that.”

For my sins I also commented that the only person who knew why the attack took place was the attacker. George Brandis (unless he had been advised by the police given an arrest had been made) and the rest of the know-alls  were merely speculating. That is fact; any claim was pure speculation. The key board warriors turned on me because I had the temerity to state the obvious. I received some absurd replies. But you get used to that. I was even accused of making a PC comment. How strange that a statement of fact is considered PC. At least I dodged the “fake-news” slur.

As it turned out Brandis was correct. I suspect he was already aware of that. The attack wasn’t SSM related. The attacker confirmed that in a media interview. A person who aided Mr Abbott said no mention was made of SSM. In fact Tony Abbott made no mention of the words SSM being used. It had been assumed the attack was due to Abbott’s vote NO position because the attacker wore an SSM sticker. That was probably a reasonable assumption to make at the time.

Hours after the facts became known people continued to bang on throwing scorn at George Brandis. Others resorted to using capital letters. The angry language used by the less articulate. Even more bizarre responses were directed to people like me who had pointed out the updated events. But.. “He wore the badge they cried, of course it was about SSM.” So the attacker confessed why he did it, stating vehemently he just hated Tony Abbott and he was under the influence. The key board warriors weren’t having it. Fact and truth just hurled out the window again. It was all BS. Of course it was about SSM. The verdict was ‘guilt by sticker’ according to the keyboard warrior’s court.

 Malcolm Turnbull didn’t escape either. In response to another column on the assault people got stuck into him because he hadn’t come out in public and said anything based on THEIR acceptability timeline. “ITS 9am HE HASN’T SPOKEN YET. HE’S A DUD, SACK HIM.” Of course the baying hordes completely ignored that Turnbull was touring. He had in fact phoned Mr Abbott to check on his welfare and he did have the assault reported to the Federal Police. That’s what a PM should do. Then later in an interview on 3AW Turnbull was forthright in condemning the assault. Of course that was met with silence. No, No, NO.. “We don’t want to hear that.”

People with agendas appear incapable of determining fact from fantasy even when the facts are put in front of them. Research has highlighted our collective IQ in Australia has declined. I don’t know if that’s a contributing factor. Or if it is the case that people are so brainwashed they just refuse to accept the truth/facts because it doesn’t suit their agenda. Or if they are incapable of understanding what’s truth and what isn’t. Perhaps it’s an attempt to see who can outdo each other on the comments bizarre meter (I really wish we had one of those). Someone should come up with a bizarre meter emoji.

It was George Orwell who said, “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” Isn’t that the truth!! It’s happening before our eyes. Truth and fact is now considered irreverent and hateful.  Why is that and how did to get to this point? I wish I had the answers. For me, the scary part is that more and more people appear to be buying into that. It doesn’t matter that what is in front them is true/factual they are not going to budge. Whatever is driving this, it’s concerning. We are moving into very dangerous territory. I just hope people wake up before it’s too late.

Before I go, another gripe.  We Over Play The Cry Wolf Card…

I feel compelled to say something about the furore over Big W’s Christmas-less tree boxes. What a storm in a teacup. I’m convinced that people just spend their days looking for things to be outraged about. This is one of those instances.

Any number of items on display in Big W has Christmas plastered across the front of the packaging. The tree packaging doesn't. Cue the meltdown. Up goes the cry.. “BOYCOTT Big W.” That’s followed by headlines, news reports, interviews and social media rampage. Once the outrage machine swings into action it follows a very predicable path.

I listened to Big W’s GM’s explanation of why the tree packaging didn’t include the word Christmas. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me. The trees are displayed in an area festooned with Christmas delights branded Christmas. So you don’t have to be a genius to figure out the tree is a Christmas tree despite the missing word. The trees come in a range of colours and coordinate with decorations around colour themes. Nice; it makes it easier to put your theme together.

Let’s face it. You buy the tree. You take it home and you put it up. When Christmas is over the tree goes back in the box and is shoved into the cupboard until next year. Frankly, if you don’t know it’s a Christmas tree because the box didn’t say so, then you’ve got bigger issues to worry about.  Seriously guys, it’s time that people took a chill pill. Save the outrage for those who refuse to acknowledge Christmas exists. There are enough of those to go around. Leave Big W alone, they are not one of them.  

We need to stop the emotional blackmail and intimidation

I am growing very weary of being bombarded by various groups and individuals telling me how and why I should vote the same way they will in the SSM postal plebiscite. I'm also somewhat dismayed by articles I've read and comments people have made that if their position isn't adopted they will no longer be friends with those who hold an opposing view. Some have even declared they will not even associate with someone who doesn't support them. Seriously how melodramatic and childish is that?

We've always prided ourselves as a society who embraced different opinions and who respected the right of others who differed from us. That is a sign of an intelligent, caring, enlightened, colourful and mature society. But that has changed and not for the better.

I'm proud to acknowledge I have friends and associates within my various circles with whom I don’t share the same beliefs; culturally, politically, environmentally and also on the topic of religion. I've learnt a lot from those people. That has led to some unique and fascinating relationships over the years. Not to mention some highly entertaining and robust dinner party discussions. In some cases I've changed my position based on compelling arguments. But above all I respect them as individuals and I would never wipe them just because we hold different views. I value them for who they are and the richness they bring to my life, not what they believe.

I had two so-called friends completely wipe me because of all people Donald Trump. I was stunned by that. Whilst I am an avowed conservative I could not support someone like Trump. I gave my reasons but I was flicked anyway. If the same were to happen should anyone become aware of how I vote on SSM, I would now consider that a positive. Why? I don’t want to associate with people who would simply shut me out for no other reason than a different opinion. Or to associate with people who want to live in a one dimensional society. A society where to be respected and accepted we all have to think the same and believe in the same things they do.

How I vote is my decision, no one else’s. I will be making my decision based on several factors. I will take into consideration my personal views.  In addition I'll consider the potential changes (if any) in law and what that will mean in the shorter and longer term across a number of spectrums. I won't cave in to emotional blackmail or intimidation from either side; Yes or No. In fact I find that behaviour nauseating.

"You've got to do what's right, or what you think is right. And  you've got to make tough decisions. And you've got to be willing to take on your friends when they disagree with you." Antonio Villaraigosa

That's true, we do. But above all we have to be true to ourselves. If others choose to cast us out because of it, it's their loss.

How Can You Respect the Opinions of Others, If You Don't Respect Yourself?

I had an interesting dialogue in comments in the Australian today as this relates to same sex marriage. In particular Cricket Australia jumping on the Yes bandwagon. I'm of the opinion sporting bodies should respect all their supporters and not take sides.

A poster, who goes by the name Damon made this comment. "It must be feeling very isolating being a no voter. They are already to some degree but ever increasingly pariahs." Odd wording but that is not the main point.

As I'm sure you will appreciate Damon's comment generated some responses of which some were perhaps unfortunate. But as Damon labelled those who disagreed with him Marxists, it probably didn't help.

My reply was granted pointed but I don't take kindly to being labeled a pariah. I pointed out labelling people pariahs for doing nothing more than not agreeing with him was immature and small-minded.

Damon replied, he was merely pointing out what must be for me a painful fact. He went on to say in years to come I would have to reconcile that I was on the wrong side of history and how embarrassing that would be. Of course Damon has no idea what side of history I'm on. I suggested he probably shouldn't make an ass of himself in jumping to conclusions.

What escapes people like Damon despite me suggesting it, is this. Reasonable people never feel like asses because others don't share their opinions. In fact they value a society where differing opinions are encouraged and respected. Some, may even change their opinions based on respectful and logical debate. Of course the ability to do that is usually associated with your level of commonsense, intellect, maturity and most importantly your upbringing.

Damon certainly wouldn’t win too many over to his side of the argument in 'spraying' everyone. But that's so typical today. No wonder it is a struggle to have sensible debate on issues that are important

I also think it’s sad that Damon admits, "It's hard to be respectful of a view when you don't respect it.". Damon fails to see you can disagree on an opinion but still respect the rights of others to hold opposing views. That means you don't label them pariahs. But then he summed it up when he said, "I care little for any respect you may have for my opinion. History will ultimately be the judge."

That probably explains a lot. How can Damon respect the opinions of others when it's blatantly clear he doesn't respect himself? If he did respect himself he would care what others think about his views.