Slashdot Mirror
Aussie Politician Threatens To Contact Employers of Satirical Article "Likers"
Chuq writes "Tasmanian Liberal candidate for Bass, Andrew Nikolic, was the subject of a satirical article by NewExaminer on Facebook. Nikolic didn't like it, which is understandable. However he then went to considerable lengths to identify the people who liked the article, find out their employers (via their Facebook profiles) and 'name and shame' them on a follow-up post on his own page. Andrew Nikolic has a history of poorly handling conflicting views on his Facebook page, resulting in creation of another page, 'Andrew Nikolic blocked me.'"
Doesn't he know that a real politician gets his enemies back in *secret*?
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
NOTICE TO SLASH DOT USERS
All posts on this article will be taken to constitute mockery of Tasmanian Liberal candidate for Bass, Andrew Nikolic, and the Slash Dotters in question will be dealt with accordingly.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
He's not even a politician - he's preselected to run as a candidate in the as-yet-unscheduled federal election, which isn't likely to occur until 2013.
As far as I'm concerned, any politician who gets in a hissy fit over political satire simply doesn't have the balls to be a politician, regardless of any actual policies. Move over and make way for someone who can take a bit of criticism.
... Some people express their opinions on Facebook, and some other people express their counter opinions on Facebook. Did I miss the part where Facebook profiles were supposed to be anonymous or something?
Who cares?
I don't know what qualifies as cyberstalking under 'stralian law, but this looks like it might qualify. I don't know any law that limits cyberstalking to just one target. Digging out an employer is quite an intrusion, obviously intended to intimidate.
Of course there will be some Parlimentary Privilige, but I believe that applies only to comment on the floor, not elsewhere.
Sounds just like liberals and socialists here in the USA! (sorry for the obvious redundancy)
At first I thought that we had slashdotted facebook, but thinking about it further it seems that facebook has already taken the page most likely to be offensive and problematic offline.
Either that, or the submitter typed the wrong URL.
I must admit I was perhaps guilty of some morbid curiousity to see what sort of naming and shaming was going on.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
According to his own page (https://www.facebook.com/AndrewNikolic4Bass/posts/327230677345451), "I have removed my response on this issue from Facebook"
Which means that the link up top no longer works.
"She's furniture with a pulse"
$0.02 - Nikolic needs a better campaign manager, if s/he is letting him do this kind of crazy shit.
I have the hiccups.
I'd hate to see what Tasmania's conservatives are like 8-(
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Since the satire story is not directly linked.. just go to the "On Facebook" link above and down to May 3rd... It's the only post that day... Lets see if we can get it over 100,000.... It's only 67 right now....
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
Don't care about the troll, but for anyone who doesn't want to look it up:
"Liberal" in Australia's Liberal Party refers to economic liberalism, not center-left politics. They're pretty firm in right-wing territory, including the obligatory hate against homosexuals and women's rights. Add gun crazies, religious zealots and Birchers and you'd have the GOP*.
*I'll refrain from making the obvious "Remove gun crazies, religious zealots and Birchers from the GOP and you're left with nothing" joke. Well, maybe not.
It's a bit of a shock, I know, but those strange and barbarous foreign people are allowed to use words in a way that is different than their use in the US. I'm not sure why Jesus allows it; but it happens.
In this case, the Tasmanian Liberals are more or less similar to those American 'Conservatives' who are still pretending to endorse the 'compassionate conservative' label.
Note key phrases such as "We believe in the importance of the family and that the standards of a free society should support family ideals.", "We further believe government should not compete with an efficient private sector", "We believe that Australia has a constructive role to play in maintaining international peace in alliance with other free nations", and "We further believe that competitive enterprise, the free choice of consumers in the marketplace and individual effort will maximise economic growth and national prosperity.".
You'd need a local observer to say to what degree these reflect genuine classical 'Liberalism', in something resembling the 19th century sense, and to what degree they reflect the rhetorical coating of a group of privatization-crazed crony capitalists with strong ties to local extraction industries and an enthusiasm for foreign policy adventurism; but these are not the 'liberals' in the American sense of the term...
You are free to express your opinions, but there are a few things to keep in mind. If you support an opinion by 'liking' it, you are basically supporting it with your name. It's like signing a petition: you surrender your anonymity in order to give more weight to the statement. But that will also mean that others disagreeing with you might like you less in the future, which is why you should only give your name to something you really agree with. This guy basically just republished the data others made publicly available on Facebook, which he is also free to do.
And this is no joke, I will name and shame every single one of you! I'll tell your boss on you, or your mother, or your wife, or your MMO buddies, whoever I can find! This indignity will not stand! I will backtrace you and report you to the cyber police if necessary!
- Andrew
Oh did you think they where actually Liberals. When do Liberals ever do that. Its doublespeak as it always tends to be. These people never grow up.
"Tasmanian Liberal candidate for Bass, Andrew Nikolic"
So who do the Liberals have running for lead singer, guitar and drums?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
My suspicion is that the only 19th century thing about them is their brand of social policy(the parts that aren't 12th century, of course); but without a detailed knowledge of Australian politics I wanted to leave open the possibility that they weren't actually lying abhumans who leave a slime trail when they move...
Wow, nice way to bust "macho Australian" and "tough vet" stereotypes in one fell swoop. Please let him be a "defence of marriage" type as well, those are always the funniest when they get busted trawling for trade in airport bathrooms.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
you forgot "Consequences will never be the same" and "hnnnnrrrrrr"
You also forgot Poland.
Some politicians think it applies only to people who agree with them.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Straight from the mouth and Facebook page of a Australia Liberal politician.
"it's probably best you relocate your interaction to sites more suited to your ideological perspectives. This is a supporter's site for a Liberal Campaign after all." - Andrew Nikolic
When a Liberal politician openly admits that he has no interest is listening to or even allowing you to continue talking about issues that he disagrees with (and even continually threatens those who disagree with him [earlier in that same comment he threatens to contact the students university]), what hope is there for the future?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
""Tasmanian Liberal candidate for Bass..."
Interesting. Is there a candidate for Perch? What about Walleye?
Proverbs 21:19
You know who that guy ought to get involved with? Barbara Streisand. They both have the same unfailing strategy for dealing with privacy and publicity. Welcome to the Internet, Nick. I'm writing in from Africa, where I'd never heard of this dude until now. Probably not what he had in mind.
Left or right wing has nothing to do with homosexuals or women's rights at all. It refers ONLY to economic politics. Economic liberalism is in fact *the same thing* as right wing politics.
Nikolic's profile on his campaign site seems to almost entirely given over to describing his military experience. A decent military record is certainly a positive trait, yet a bit strange when overplayed to the exclusion of almost everything else. Did he miss his chance for a position in Myanmar, and is now settling for Tasmania?
JC
I bet you are a cock gobbling ass licking retard when you think no one is watching.
Greetings from the USA. Come and see us, we will spit on your stupid face.
The terms stem from the french parliament where progressives used to sit on the left side and "conservatives" on the right side. These days there are no universal definitions of what are left and right wing and the terms are even more meaningless if we look at economic politics. For example, both socialists and anarchists are considered left wing, though their views on the desired economic system are like night and day. I think that most widely agreed definitions base "left-wing" on some form of social justice and equality and right-wing on being conservative (both economic and social conservatism). That's not 100% perfect but it's pretty much as good as can be expect for such simple terms.
I'm not aware of any point in history or any location on earth, in which the terms would have referred solely on economic principles and not on the whole parties/social movements/etc...
As the other AC said, the terms aren't specific. If you want something more meaningful, try the political compass (or grid), which splits the usual left/right range into two lines, one each for social and economic views. A pro-market social conservative would be upper right, while a left-libertarian would score in the lower left. It would also take care of the problem with the word "libertarian" which has been claimed by Ayn Rand's crowd, much to the chagrin of libertarians outside the US.
What's a "Bircher"? Someone who makes clothing from birch trees? Maybe it is someone with a strange sexual fetish involving said trees? Please enlighten me.
We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_society
without a detailed knowledge of Australian politics I wanted to leave open the possibility that they weren't actually lying abhumans who leave a slime trail when they move...
That's a remote possibility anywhere. After all, we are talking about politicians (or wannabes, anyway) after all. The ones who aren't lying abhumans leaving a slime trail when they move are extreme outliers anywhere in the world.
*headdesk*
And I apparently repeat myself, apparently. This is why I shouldn't post when I'm not awake.
Australian here. You also should keep in mind that the Australian Liberal Party(and in reflection the state Liberal parties) is usually part of a coalition with the National Party who are generally pro-country and right wing. The particular political leaning of a Liberal Party or Coalition MP will be generally right wing... but that may vary greatly from person to person(probably much like the US republication party)... Especially in the big cities you will find Liberal MPs that are very centre right... out in the sticks(Sorry electorate of Bass) you can find some true wing nuts.
... and Andrew Nikolic had contacted me.
I would have asked all my employees to like the satirical article in question.
I hear ya.....tell that to Obama...I've never seen a guy with such thin skin.
There is actual real criticism that could be made of Obama. I rarely hear conservatives making it -- but instead get bizarrely off the mark dribble like this. Any outside observer will note that Obama is a very cool rational person who speaks in measured tones -- quite the opposite of what you suggest.
This is, of course, falling on deaf ears, since perspective is completely alien to people who say things like "Obama has such a thin skin". You just know that it comes from some right-wing echo chamber that's disconnected from the rest of the world. I know it is scary to break out of this comfy padded cell, but seriously, this is just madness.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Holy shit... WOW...
I um... feel stupid. I thought it was a typo on birther...
Just when you feel clever, you wish you never opened your mouth.
We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
It is once he gets out of the public eye, that he and his administration will really go after, even vilify someone that disagrees with him, or ruffles his feathers.
This is classic projection. The examples of Gov. Brewer and Jindal are a case in point of how Obama is very cool when the mimophants start whining.
I no fan of liberal politics -- but I gotta say, that the most paranoid dribble on the liberal side, you take that, invert it, and you that's the level that republican politics actually operates at. Your examples are a case in point. If only you knew how absurd you guys look from the outside. No wonder independents like myself are steering clear of this type of lunacy, despite an historically bad economy.
As I said, there is plenty of valid, grounded criticism to be made of Obama without resorting to just making stuff up.
That's why we have the term "Goldwater Republican." Goldwater was an economical and governmental libertarian, and trashed the Republican party when the religious right started taking over. His legacy is mostly left in the American Libertarian party and the non-religious, fiscally and governmentally conservative wing of the Republican party.
Also don't forget our liberal base has moved to the left quite a bit and become more radical. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were to the right of much of the Democrat base these days. On the foreign policy front, can you imagine how modern Democrats would react to JFK's Cuba policies and actions, or his escalation of the conflict in Vietnam? He sounded like a Republican when speaking of tax rates, "...the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates now."
Do remember that conservatism in America depends in part on our nature as a union of states. Many things are fine at the state level, but conservatives will be against it if done at the federal level because they are not powers delegated to the federal government under the Constitution.
So you will see non-religious conservatives who want Roe v. Wade overturned not because they are "pro-life" or "anti-choice," but because they believe the issue should be left up to the states. Romney had an equivalent of the individual mandate portion of Obamacare in MA, and even many conservatives liked the idea, but it cannot be done at the federal level because that power was not delegated to the federal government.
An important lesson has been learned today.
That's how Liberals work eh? Free speech for me, but not for thee.
Ah, that explains why the liberal ACLU defended those westboro "God hates fags" people protesting military funerals. Because liberals hate gay people and love church.
If someone trolls you on the Interwebs, you should kill them!
The Guardian has moved politically to the right because so many of its page views are American. The Lib Dem party has liberals on the right and (social) democrats on the left, which is why it is now between a rock and a hard place with the Libs enthusiastically pro-conservative and the party in the country, mostly leftish, wringing its hands. Trad Guardian readers go for the. Independent nowadays - Lebedev isn't worried about US clicks.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It's only Tasmania. Nothing to see here, carry on.
YankDownUnder Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire
You could argue that such statements as "believe that competitive enterprise, the free choice of consumers in the marketplace" indicate a belief in economic liberalism: they believe in permissive (i.e. liberal) treatment of the marketplace.
Actually - Malcom Turnbal is a Liberal - and does not hate Gays (I know this from experience) and womens rights. Hes also intelligent and thoughtful.... OK - there are many in the Liberal party that arent like him but there are some that are reasonable - rational human beings.... .... his Lesbian sister does embarress him a little bit....
OK Abbott is OPUS Dei and wants to outlaw divorce etc... but
Perhaps you should read a bit more of the discussion; in this case the term "Liberals" refers to the Australian political party bearing that name, which holds beliefs consistent with what Americans would term "conservatives".
My sig can beat up your sig.
Look, I see what you want the terms to mean but that simply isn't true.
"The term only originates from the French revolution, but it's is not and has never been what it actually means." Is almost absurd. It very clearly was what it meant when they were coined during the french revolution. Right-wing term was coined and didn't mean "libertarian" and left-wing term was coined and didn't mean "socialist".
"Anarchism isn't a left-wing ideology either." Is similarly just not true. Anarchism is very commonly considered left-wing ideology, both by anarchists and non-anarchists. While Wikipedia isn't perfect source of definitions, I went there just because I was certain I could find that statement in the first paragraph or two and sure enough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism "Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology" can be found in the second paragraph.
Hell, just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing and see history of the term (which directly conflicts with everything you're trying to say) and "positions" (in which economy is one of the 7 subheadings... not even the largest one. You can similarly look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing and reach the same conclusion.
You could say "Wikipedia is just ramblings from uneducated masses, but in official and exact context..." and your claim still wouldn't hold true. Again, I looked up Europol's EU TERRORISM SITUATION AND TREND REPORT, just because I felt confident that whatever classifications they would use for left-wing or right-wing terrorism wouldn't support your view. Sure enough, right-wing includes nationalists, racists, etc. (just as they are in those Wikipedia articles) and left-wing is coupled with anarchists.
I'm aware that if you take a two-dimensional political map, you can decouple liberal-conservative from the term but that doesn't change the fact that when people talk about left-wing and right-wing, they talk about much more than economic issues.
My concern would be that(at least when sampling from the ones who actually have power) a substantial percentage of people who say things like that are actually entirely OK with substantial state interference in the marketplace, so long as it is in the direction of themselves or their allies. Crony capitalism is not respectable; but it has a great many friends in useful places who are polite enough to espouse free market principles when in public.
You are free to express your opinions
Actually no. There is no such thing as "free speech" in Australia.
This is pure bollocks.
http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm
you need to do some reading.
Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest.
What you're not allowed to do, is write false information, for example saying "OzPeter is a pedophile" without proof would be illegal if it were not an example.
It's great that we Australians don't take ourselves to seriously, because when they do (like the parent has) they are normally full of shit.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
This guy has form.. See his victims speak up here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYBjYUs-Kx0
I wonder if by an 'efficient private sector' they still mean one in which standards of terms of employment created over the course of decades between worker's unions and employers can be thrown out at whim and replaced with whatever terms the employer wants to offer? One thing for a union to stand up against unfair conditions, but if your boss said to you 'work an extra day every 4 weeks, or you can find another job and I'll replace you with someone who will' - and what if it was a six day week every 3 weeks, or two? How many people would feel comfortable in saying to their bosses 'sorry, I'm not prepared to do more than five days a week' if they knew it was their job on the line? And if enough people were employed under those conditions that finding another job where five days was all that was expected of you was difficult (especially at the lower end of the scale skill-wise), wouldn't that be a wonderful world for employers?
It's interesting to see that he's deleted almost everything relating to it. I was on there last night and saw him threatening someone who posted on his wall that he'd contact the head of the poster's university and tattle on him. This man is a disgrace! Bullies have no place in public office, and this man responds to opposotion and critisicm with petty thuggery and censorship.