Jump to content

Don't make it political (Mentions Fires)


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#51 Romeo Void

Posted 26 December 2019 - 11:49 AM

Decent people pull together while the a**holes stand on the sidelines and say 'oh look, they love doing this sort of thing'.  By keeping it all volunteer based it lets the cheapskates and penny pinchers get away with doing nothing.  It needs to be mandated, the load spread.  Our fires are too large and too draining to be managed by volunteers alone anymore.
And we have to talk about it *now*...

#52 TrixieBelden

Posted 26 December 2019 - 12:00 PM

Oh yes just about the only thing that has made me laugh the last few weeks has been the desperate attempts to characterise rural firefighters of 20 yrs standing as extreme ‘greenies’ akin to XR getting in the way of commuters trying to get on a train.

#53 MooGuru

Posted 26 December 2019 - 12:04 PM

View Post*Spikey*, on 26 December 2019 - 09:21 AM, said:



You know what? This p*sses me off.

You are silencing people because it isn't convenient.

What may be good for you as a victim or centre worker, is not what is good for everyone.

I seriously can't believe that you think "consider your audience and don't make it political in a one on one conversation with someone who is distressed because they've just lost their home" (which is what Kimasa said) is p*ssing you off because it is silencing you.

It isn't. You can be as angry as you like. You can talk politics as much as you like. But "having the threat of bushfires hanging over you for a month" isn't the same as having lost your home and not having anywhere to go. Yes some people will be angry and want to shout about politics at that time and if they want to speak to the media then they should go for it. Kimasa never said they couldn't.  

Seriously I'm incredibly angry about the lack of funding for research into childhood cancer. If someone walked up to me as we walked out of the hospital the day DS died to talk politics about childhood cancer it would've traumatised me ten fold more. Because for me, in that moment it wasn't about the politics it was about surviving. Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

Assess. Your. Audience. Then get angry and shout from the rooftops about it.

#54 born.a.girl

Posted 26 December 2019 - 12:11 PM

I suspect in specific situations, we'd all be on the same page.

One extreme is talking AT someone who's in a desperate situation about what you believe is the cause of that situation, without invitation.


The other extreme is telling people who WANT to talk about the causes, even though they're in the middle of a desperate situation themselves, and shutting them down.


Both hugely inappropriate.

#55 Hollycoddle

Posted 26 December 2019 - 12:41 PM

View Postrosie28, on 26 December 2019 - 09:21 AM, said:



No it’s not. The Greens aren’t in power and practically speaking have little influence on actual implemented policy. A bit here and there perhaps depending on the make up of individual parliaments from time to time.

I don't think the people saying this are referring to the actual Greens party, more like 'greenies' in the derogatory, tree-hugging sense. The lack of intelligence and critical thinking evidenced by such a comment points to the likelihood that those people have no idea of what the various political parties even are.

And yes, it's a null and void point as the fire authorities have come out and confirmed that backburning has been curtailed due to unfavorable weather conditions as a direct result of climate change.

#56 Kreme

Posted 26 December 2019 - 12:54 PM

It’s only a political debate because politicians have made it so. If they would accept the science and take a bipartisan approach to action then we could focus on what needs to be done.

But given that they won’t, then the time to point the finger is right now. Otherwise they will wriggle out of responsibility, and the people who voted for them will continue to do so without thought for the impact their policies, or lack of, are having.

My relatives live in drought and bushfire prone areas. They are always talking about their difficulties and how city folk couldn’t possibly understand. And then they insist that it’s just part of a 100 year cycle and write messages of support to wish Barnaby Joyce a merry Christmas. Spare me!

#57 *Spikey*

Posted 26 December 2019 - 12:58 PM

View PostMooGuru, on 26 December 2019 - 12:04 PM, said:

I seriously can't believe that you think "consider your audience and don't make it political in a one on one conversation with someone who is distressed because they've just lost their home" (which is what Kimasa said) is p*ssing you off because it is silencing you.

It isn't. You can be as angry as you like. You can talk politics as much as you like. But "having the threat of bushfires hanging over you for a month" isn't the same as having lost your home and not having anywhere to go. Yes some people will be angry and want to shout about politics at that time and if they want to speak to the media then they should go for it. Kimasa never said they couldn't.  

Seriously I'm incredibly angry about the lack of funding for research into childhood cancer. If someone walked up to me as we walked out of the hospital the day DS died to talk politics about childhood cancer it would've traumatised me ten fold more. Because for me, in that moment it wasn't about the politics it was about surviving. Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

Assess. Your. Audience. Then get angry and shout from the rooftops about it.

How absolutely ridiculous.

Kimasa said we shouldn't politicise this - which is what I objected to - and you're saying she didn't say that. Taking lessons from Smoko are you?

Has Kimasa lost her home? Nope.

According to your own argument, she has no authority to speak on behalf on anyone, although she claimed it by listing her involvement, and you've accepted that as a higher claim of authority than my lived experience. I decline to play that game, because it brings me no joy or satisfaction. But well done you for minimising my experience. Silencer.

And if someone who is devastated wants Australia to bear witness to that grief, then Kimasa (as caring as she might think she is being) should allow that, rather than 'protecting' them from the media. We don't all grieve our losses in the same way. Some people feel the need to do something for the greater good, to lessen their pain. The few clips from people who've spoken reflect that - and they've had nothing but support, except for those people who keep telling them they aren't allowed to talk about the failures of government because that's politicising their losses.

And way to go making it all about you.

#58 gruidae

Posted 26 December 2019 - 01:09 PM

I do agree that context is everything and everyone should be sensitive to those in traumatic situations.In general however, those pushing the "don't make this political" line are talking about only one side of the debate needing to be silenced.

Morrison himself said "Don't make this political" and then in the next breath talked about land management practices needing to take to task those inhibiting fuel reduction burning, further pushing the suite of lies that somehow

:1) the Greens are in power in the bush
2) even if the Greens were in power in all those LNP/Nat voting electorates, that they're banning fuel reduction burning and
3) ignoring the Firies themselves who have said repeatedly that the weather hasn't been safe for as much of this burning, even in the winter

This is being pushed en masse in the Murdoch press and is now taken by conservative voters as gospel.I'm hearing them say "Don't make it political" then start bashing "the Greens" in literally the same sentence.

Why is only one side of this debate considered politcial speech? Most people who want action on climate change don't see it as an inherently politcial issue. It's a global problem, not a political issue. Only one side has made it into highly charged political fodder and that is the side demanding silence from anyone wanting change while simultaneuously demanding the right to bulldoze more trees.

*edited because for some reason it didn't save any paragraphs

Edited by gruidae, 26 December 2019 - 01:12 PM.


#59 Kallie88

Posted 26 December 2019 - 01:32 PM

Does anyone have a source I can save for the firies saying they haven't been able to back burn because of the weather? I'll remember the info if I need to argue with someone but it's always good to have the back up source :)

#60 MooGuru

Posted 26 December 2019 - 01:33 PM

View Postkimasa, on 26 December 2019 - 07:59 AM, said:

I think who you're making it political to is the big thing and I have experienced situations in the past, primarily when I've worked in a relief centre, where people can't differentiate between the two.

Making it political in larger discussions, very important.

Making it political in a one on one conversation to the person who has just lost their home and is trying to figure out where to live, dude, shut the **** up.


View Post*Spikey*, on 26 December 2019 - 12:58 PM, said:

How absolutely ridiculous.

Kimasa said we shouldn't politicise this - which is what I objected to - and you're saying she didn't say that. Taking lessons from Smoko are you?

Has Kimasa lost her home? Nope.

According to your own argument, she has no authority to speak on behalf on anyone, although she claimed it by listing her involvement, and you've accepted that as a higher claim of authority than my lived experience. I decline to play that game, because it brings me no joy or satisfaction. But well done you for minimising my experience. Silencer.

And if someone who is devastated wants Australia to bear witness to that grief, then Kimasa (as caring as she might think she is being) should allow that, rather than 'protecting' them from the media. We don't all grieve our losses in the same way. Some people feel the need to do something for the greater good, to lessen their pain. The few clips from people who've spoken reflect that - and they've had nothing but support, except for those people who keep telling them they aren't allowed to talk about the failures of government because that's politicising their losses.

And way to go making it all about you.

Read her post again. Then tell me who is being ridiculous.

#61 Dianalynch

Posted 26 December 2019 - 02:11 PM

Our lack of action on climate change and the resultant increased likelihood of the catastrophic fires we are seeing now is political...the last people I’d harangue about that fact are the people who have lost their homes, farmland, livelihood, loved ones, communities. I direct my ‘haranguing’ where it needs to go - our elected representatives, who should not be hiding behind people’s loss and grief. Our politicians should be dealing with a proper policy response to climate change, while also putting in place proper adaptation strategies such as no longer relying on a volunteer workforce...Our elected representatives should be doing this while showing empathy and comfort to those impacted by the fires, instead of using them as an excuse for inaction.

#62 *Spikey*

Posted 26 December 2019 - 02:12 PM

View PostMooGuru, on 26 December 2019 - 01:33 PM, said:

Read her post again. Then tell me who is being ridiculous.

I did. I did make the mistake of conflating Sancti and Kimasa - after she decided to disagree with me about letting the person decide for themselves if they want to politicise their loss or not.

So, technically, I think that makes you ridiculous?


*****************************

Oh, and this link might be helpful for those who are still coping the backburning thing.

Basically, science says you cannot backburn a rainforest or banana plantation.....until it is tinder dry, at which point, it's all too late.

https://www.abc.net....dZh5vl0I9DjKnDA

#63 *Spikey*

Posted 26 December 2019 - 02:20 PM

View PostDianalynch, on 26 December 2019 - 02:11 PM, said:

Our lack of action on climate change and the resultant increased likelihood of the catastrophic fires we are seeing now is political...the last people I’d harangue about that fact are the people who have lost their homes, farmland, livelihood, loved ones, communities. I direct my ‘haranguing’ where it needs to go - our elected representatives, who should not be hiding behind people’s loss and grief. Our politicians should be dealing with a proper policy response to climate change, while also putting in place proper adaptation strategies such as no longer relying on a volunteer workforce...Our elected representatives should be doing this while showing empathy and comfort to those impacted by the fires, instead of using them as an excuse for inaction.

But no-one is suggesting haranguing those who have experienced loss.

We are saying, it is their right to harangue the government - and our job to help them do it if that is what they choose, and we do that when they decide to do their haranguing, either when they are grief stricken, or later - it's up to them, not us, to decide that.

#64 gruidae

Posted 26 December 2019 - 02:20 PM

View PostKallie88, on 26 December 2019 - 01:32 PM, said:

Does anyone have a source I can save for the firies saying they haven't been able to back burn because of the weather? I'll remember the info if I need to argue with someone but it's always good to have the back up source Posted Image

https://www.abc.net....hfires/11817336
Quote from the article from the above link;

"
QFES Superintendent James Haig told Fact Check that authorisation under Queensland's Fire and Emergencies Act was necessary to conduct hazard reduction burns on private and state-managed lands. This would take the form of either a notification (in cases such as burning assignments for the sugarcane industry), or as a permit obtained from local fire wardens.
"We have a large number of fire wardens, many of whom are volunteers, so they come from the community and they are aware of the local conditions," Mr Haig said.
According to QFES records, approximately 28,000 permits a year were issued for controlled fires since 2015.
"In 2019, QFES and its partners completed 229 priority mitigation activities to reduce bushfire risk at high-risk sites," it said in a statement sent to Fact Check.
"This includes 108 of 175 planned hazard reduction burns, 83 targeted education activities and 38 fire line upgrades."
However, such activities were "highly dependent" on weather conditions, it added, with not all planned 2019 burns able to be completed.
"In some areas, it rapidly became too dry to burn safely," the QFES statement continued.In other areas, it was too wet too early on and dried out rapidly, leaving a short window of opportunity to safely conduct mitigation activities."
Mr Haig elaborated: "The most common reason for a permit not being granted would be because the local conditions were too dry; that it was difficult to conduct safely and with the appropriate outcome."
He added that if moisture levels in the soil were too low, then farmers (especially graziers) often would want to hold onto the grass they had, so there were fewer applications for fire permits.
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, which manages primarily native forests and state-owned land, is exempt from obtaining a "permit to light fire".
It has its own procedures and burn targets, and collaborates with the QFES on initiatives such as operation Cool Burn.
"From 1 January [2019] to date, QPWS conducted 291 planned burns over 1,443,882 hectares — which is the largest area covered in the last six years," a statement provided to Fact Check said.
"QPWS's annual target for Protection Zones burns is 90 per cent (14,884 hectares). In 2018-19, QPWS achieved 118 per cent of this target."
Really good article covering most of the outright lies being told

https://www.theguard...azard-reduction

#65 Dianalynch

Posted 26 December 2019 - 02:26 PM

View Post*Spikey*, on 26 December 2019 - 02:20 PM, said:



But no-one is suggesting haranguing those who have experienced loss.

We are saying, it is their right to harangue the government - and our job to help them do it if that is what they choose, and we do that when they decide to do their haranguing, either when they are grief stricken, or later - it's up to them, not us, to decide that.

Well yes, I wouldn’t presume, I haven’t lost my home or a loved one in these fires. ETA my post wasn’t in response to or an argument with anyone else’s- just my own thoughts.

Edited by Dianalynch, 26 December 2019 - 02:28 PM.


#66 kimasa

Posted 26 December 2019 - 02:52 PM

You know what, deleted. I'm not in the mood for digging up the past today.

I'll leave it at, Spikey, if you're going to do a laundry list run down of what someone has experienced, it would be nice to actually check with them if you're accurate on it or not.

Edited by kimasa, 26 December 2019 - 03:40 PM.


#67 gruidae

Posted 26 December 2019 - 02:56 PM

View Post*Spikey*, on 26 December 2019 - 02:12 PM, said:


Oh, and this link might be helpful for those who are still coping the backburning thing.

Basically, science says you cannot backburn a rainforest or banana plantation.....until it is tinder dry, at which point, it's all too late.

https://www.abc.net....dZh5vl0I9DjKnDA

Yes indeed. In fact fuel reduction burning has never been conducted in rainforest ever before. Because there's never been a need and they don't propogate by fire. It's only the past couple of years we've even HAD rainforests burning. They haven't recovered either because they're not adapted for fire. Bye bye carbon sink.

#68 lizzzard

Posted 26 December 2019 - 03:07 PM

I was speaking with someone recently who is an expert in natural disasters. He pointed out the over the last ten years the speed at which disasters become politicised has fallen from about 6 months to a matter of hours. He operates in the political arena and said this is problematic because it distracts from appropriate human responses (compassion and connection) in the midst of the event (instead people are in strategic point-scoring mode) and has replaced wise, active leadership when the crisis is over. His arguments against politicisation in the midst of disasters were very compelling to me.

#69 born.a.girl

Posted 26 December 2019 - 03:09 PM

View Postgruidae, on 26 December 2019 - 02:56 PM, said:

Yes indeed. In fact fuel reduction burning has never been conducted in rainforest ever before. Because there's never been a need and they don't propogate by fire. It's only the past couple of years we've even HAD rainforests burning. They haven't recovered either because they're not adapted for fire. Bye bye carbon sink.

Some of the trees burnt in Tasmania's bushfires last season were 1,000 years old.  :(

#70 kadoodle

Posted 26 December 2019 - 03:36 PM

View Postlizzzard, on 26 December 2019 - 03:07 PM, said:

I was speaking with someone recently who is an expert in natural disasters. He pointed out the over the last ten years the speed at which disasters become politicised has fallen from about 6 months to a matter of hours. He operates in the political arena and said this is problematic because it distracts from appropriate human responses (compassion and connection) in the midst of the event (instead people are in strategic point-scoring mode) and has replaced wise, active leadership when the crisis is over. His arguments against politicisation in the midst of disasters were very compelling to me.

I think he’s putting the cart before the horse. People are politicising these issues so quickly now due to the lack of long term leadership in the area. When I lost my home 6 years ago, the PM was very determinedly refusing to discuss climate change or the privatisation of power companies  (it was poorly maintained overhead powerlines that started the fire) as contributing factors, which was upsetting to those of us affected. We understood the problem , and were being deliberately ignored because it was a politically inconvenient position for the government and their corporate backers.

#71 gruidae

Posted 26 December 2019 - 04:07 PM

View Postborn.a.girl, on 26 December 2019 - 03:09 PM, said:

Some of the trees burnt in Tasmania's bushfires last season were 1,000 years old.  Posted Image
I always feel bad liking a post like this. It's absolutely tragic what's been happening.Arctic wetlands don't recover either :down:

#72 gruidae

Posted 26 December 2019 - 04:11 PM

View Postlizzzard, on 26 December 2019 - 03:07 PM, said:

I was speaking with someone recently who is an expert in natural disasters. He pointed out the over the last ten years the speed at which disasters become politicised has fallen from about 6 months to a matter of hours. He operates in the political arena and said this is problematic because it distracts from appropriate human responses (compassion and connection) in the midst of the event (instead people are in strategic point-scoring mode) and has replaced wise, active leadership when the crisis is over. His arguments against politicisation in the midst of disasters were very compelling to me.

Well, the govt have a large hand in this. They were blaming people being burnt out for the fires for being "greenies" from week 1. People in areas that had been control burned 3 months beforehand. People who were RFS volunteers. Which says to me they knew the escalating risks and had decided they could get away with inaction because they had a scapegoat already lined up.

#73 Lucrezia Bauble

Posted 26 December 2019 - 04:25 PM

View Postgruidae, on 26 December 2019 - 04:11 PM, said:



Well, the govt have a large hand in this. They were blaming people being burnt out for the fires for being "greenies" from week 1. People in areas that had been control burned 3 months beforehand. People who were RFS volunteers. Which says to me they knew the escalating risks and had decided they could get away with inaction because they had a scapegoat already lined up.

yes exactly.

the people who are getting all high and mighty saying “people are grieving here, don’t politicise, it’s inappropriate” are (IMO) the very same people who have no hesitation - no hesitation whatsoever - bagging the “greens” who have apparently infiltrated every local government area, state parliament, and federal bodies to the point that they can dictate policy. it’s intellectually dishonest and very manipulative. don’t politicise it unless you are blaming the political green left then it’s ok?

the thing is - it shouldn’t BE controversial to say this is a political problem. that shouldn’t offend anyone - governments have successfully made this a partisan issue. but it shouldn’t be. we all breathe the same air. we all need the trees. we are all vulnerable.

#74 Amica

Posted 26 December 2019 - 04:37 PM

Climate is as divided here as guns and the NRA are in the US. We will still be talking about this in decades to come whilst other develiped (and developing) countries have innovated, mitigated, and moved on to successful carbon based economies. It is internationally embarrassing. We look like a bunch of uneducated hicks living in a backwater that is at the a*se end of the earth... and we deserve that image, we've earned it.



#75 born.a.girl

Posted 26 December 2019 - 04:45 PM

View Postgruidae, on 26 December 2019 - 04:07 PM, said:

I always feel bad liking a post like this. It's absolutely tragic what's been happening.Arctic wetlands don't recover either Posted Image


I know what you mean, don't worry.  I have the same hesitation sometimes.


In Canada earlier this year I saw the damage that winters that are not as cold are doing to the forest there - the bugs that have a symbiotic relationship with the trees die off in extremely cold weather and the ones that were there, preferred the dead trees. Now there are so many that they are killing the live trees.  There's significant damage in the heart of the Rocky Mountains.  Lots more dead trees mean lots more fires. We couldn't see for smoke on our first day in Jasper, and their summers are now very affected by smoke.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

 
 
Advertisement
 

Top 5 Viewed Articles

 
Advertisement
 
 
 
Advertisement
 
 
Essential Baby and Essential Kids is the place to find parenting information and parenting support relating to conception, pregnancy, birth, babies, toddlers, kids, maternity, family budgeting, family travel, nutrition and wellbeing, family entertainment, kids entertainment, tips for the family home, child-friendly recipes and parenting. Try our pregnancy due date calculator to determine your due date, or our ovulation calculator to predict ovulation and your fertile period. Our pregnancy week by week guide shows your baby's stages of development. Access our very active mum's discussion groups in the Essential Baby forums or the Essential Kids forums to talk to mums about conception, pregnancy, birth, babies, toddlers, kids and parenting lifestyle. Essential Baby also offers a baby names database of more than 22,000 baby names, popular baby names, boys' names, girls' names and baby names advice in our baby names forum. Essential Kids features a range of free printable worksheets for kids from preschool years through to primary school years. For the latest baby clothes, maternity clothes, maternity accessories, toddler products, kids toys and kids clothing, breastfeeding and other parenting resources, check out Essential Baby and Essential Kids.