Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote Yesterday at 11:49am:
As usual - your biggest hindrance in discussion is your assumption that others support the things they discuss - I often discuss the actualities of Nazism here and the parallels with today and weak government - but that does not mean I support Nazism.
You have that half-baked schoolyard idea of discussing issues that dictates to you that everyone must be either for or against.... clearly you do not understand discussion, but live in a world filled with confrontation. That US or THEM silliness is what gets people mass murdered in the U.S. .... infantile extremist thinking, the best representation of which would be idiots chanting 'from the river to the sea' and advocating genocide without one single thought of the reality they are pushing ....
I don't think Taylor is the goods - let's see how it pans out in the real world first, eh? As things stand - with Albo so weak etc, One Nation will continue to gain ground....
Let's see if you think that means I support One Nation now.... DUH ...
You're arguing with something I didn't say, and defending yourself against an accusation I never made.
At no point did I claim you support the Liberals, One Nation, or any other party. What I criticised was the idea that past behaviour somehow becomes irrelevant just because a new slogan is rolled out about the future. That's not "US vs THEM" thinking, it's basic accountability.
Pointing out that trust has to be earned is not tribalism. It's the opposite. It's recognising that credibility is built on record, consistency, and follow-through, not vibes and hopeful waiting. Dismissing that as "negativity" is just a way of avoiding the substance of the argument.
Dragging in Nazism, mass murder, or genocide slogans doesn't strengthen your case, it weakens it. If a discussion about political trust immediately feels like a personal indictment, that suggests a sensitivity problem on your end.
I even explicitly said people are entitled to support whoever they like, and that genuine disagreement over policy is healthy when parties actually honour what they take to an election. That's not confrontation, that's democracy functioning as intended.
If you think Taylor is the goods, fine. If you want to wait and see how it pans out, also fine. But don't rewrite my position into some cartoonish accusation just so you can argue against it.
Criticism of political records is not a personal attack, and scepticism is not radicalism. If that distinction feels uncomfortable, that's worth reflecting on.