News Violence Against Women Ad - Australia

[Nevermore]

This thread is ironic to me. It's just this - the non acceptance of different points of view, the intellectualisation of a very basic human probleM - which to me is just another form of one upmanship - the need to WIN - that leads at times to violence.
The solution to the problem lies within, I reckon! And I don't exclude myself there either!

 

[Anarchy]

But my opinion still stands - you made this statement:

Anarchy said: ↑
the funder of the advert claims to have a right to legitimately inflict aggressive violence

Which boils down to this:

Anarchy said: ↑
Oz? I don't know, I'm not immersed in the Aussie mainstream buzz, but I would strongly suspect that even if it is not an implicit policy of a party or a department, there will be individuals in positions of influence pushing [the strategy of tension] agenda.

You made a statement about the funder of the ad and positioned it as fact - when in actuality, it's a theoretical supposition.

Those are two different things.

First:
"The claim to a right to legitimately inflict aggressive violence,"

• is central to the definition of a state, and to its everyday functioning.

The Australian state definitely does this, examples would be:
Threat of force to extort taxes.
Threat of force to prohibit people from engaging in free exchanges of materials (usually plant products) which it disapproves of.
use of force to detain and imprison people trying to approach the area within which the state claims the right to initiate violence.
Use of force outside its turf; Australian involvement in military actions.

Second
Operating a "strategy of tension" / "divide and rule"

• This is what I'm not sure about in OZ, the extent to which there is a policy of stirring up and facilitating conflicts in order to be able to offer itself as the solution and protector

and specifically I don't know whether or not the advert could be part of such a policy.

 

[joeylittle]

Threat of force to extort taxes.

Just picking this one as an example - can you cite the threat of force to extort? I'm assuming you are replacing the 'aggressive violence' phrase on purpose - is that correct? Force does relate better to enforcement, which is what govt does with law - just not necessarily with aggressive violence. (Makes me think of 'we will man- or woman- handle you into a cell if you don't pay your taxes'.)

Extortion is undue or illegal acquisition, which strikes me as more POV than fact...but I could be wrong, there.

Your reasons read as being heavily partisan. It's not a problem if you're giving your opinion. But if you mean to be making plain, factual statements, I am not seeing it, and wondering if you can point me to some contemporary factual backup.

Also - to be clear, I'm genuinely interested in this conversation, not just arguing to argue; I hope it doesn't seem that way. And you are totally free to stop trying to explain it to me, I won't take that as a 'look, I won' - I'm not trying to win something. I'm trying to see what you are saying, in re: government funding on social message and how that may or may not be tainted with agenda - but it's this connection of 'state', 'aggressive violence', 'extort', and 'force' - any factual example of occurrence in the contemporary AU govt would help me.

(just wanted to be clear about where I'm coming from, since cannot read tone on the internet).

 

[blackemerald1]

@Anarchy the whole point of the add is to address the issue of violence against women & it's insidious way of developing from very young to very old.
There are many adds based around various issues.
Some are privately funded, some are government funded.

The real issue here is not who paid for the add! I don't think there has been any controversy over the content or who paid for it in Aus. I believe the overwhelming population are sickened to the core by DV.
DV actually costs a shit load of money (taxpayer money) to address. But the real cost is the breach of community confidence in the sanctuary of human lives. Lost forever. Ruined, broken & lost.

As a taxpayer, if my money is going towards this kind of issue which is a scourge on our way of life here. I don't mind at all. More power to the mind's that are trying to wake up those who may not realise that they have a role in their daily lives about how to stop this violence.

I spoke about the add against "The Coward's punch" earlier in this thread. This is violence male to male. This is also very much welcomed & again if I as a taxpayer am contributing towards the eradication of this scourge in our society I am all for it.

It's all too late to be sad when these disastrous events occur in our society & people say 'Oh how terrible that shouldn't have happened'. We cannot stop this from happening by just being sad.

Proactive programs, education and numerous other lever's must be used to protect & reverse this behaviour.

We elect our Governments at Local, State & Federal levels. We pay them to move on this kind of violent behaviour.

As a taxpayer, mother & in my past career's too often I saw the destruction of lives. Real people dead because of violence.

I see no point whatsoever in swimming around in what my country does in foreign affairs or speculation on theories.

It's not male vs female. It's all about violence. This add relates to how we inadvertently or intentionally as a society must stop this from happening.

 

[Anarchy]

It's not male vs female. It's all about violence. This add relates to how we inadvertently or intentionally as a society must stop this from happening.

amen