For most of the complex, I'm struggling to see the significance worth preserving. I'm sure it's sentimental to some people, especially those with military history, but to me the bulk of it seems little more than unused military housing and a heap of non-functional turf next to a huge existing park. When people in the city are struggling to afford housing, this lack of use is stark.
crossposted from comments
__
Currently playing is Perfect Arrangement (4 February- 7 March 2026)
PRESENTED AS PART OF MARDI GRAS+
“If I stay, it’s giving up the belief that things should be better”
It’s 1950s America, and a new colour has been added to the Red Scare: lavender. The Lavender Scare saw LGBTQ+ people interrogated, outed, and dismissed from government service in a sweeping campaign of fear and moral panic.
Enter Bob and Norma, two U.S. State Department employees tasked with identifying and reporting “sexual deviants” within their ranks. There’s just one problem: both Bob and Norma are gay, and are married to each other’s partners as a carefully constructed ruse.
Inspired by the early stirrings of the American gay rights movement, this madcap, classic-sitcom setup gradually gives way to sharp, provocative drama, as two “All-American” couples find themselves staring down the closet door — and the cost of keeping it shut.
Topher Payne explores themes of fear and the weaponisation of identity – themes that feel just as relevant today.
“Usually, a playwright has to choose between writing a laugh-out-loud comedy and a very serious drama. Topher Payne has written both with Perfect Arrangement.” Theatre Mania
The list of ways they can actually help are endless, they just don’t want to actually do any of them - they just want you to think they want to help.
This part is absolutely correct. A social billionaire is a direct contradiction.
The idea of billionaires self-regulating is utopian - if they were willing to do this without external coercion, they would already be doing it. At least something like a tax can be enforced, but even then, like you said, politicians who make laws are in the pockets of the owning class. We'd need a radical overhaul of the whole rotten system to be able to enforce any seriously important financial law on them.
That said, creating charities and aid isn't a bad idea, it would be far better for them to support ones which already exist and are struggling. And it's particularly difficult to trust billionaire claims of being charitable when so many already perform investment and other financial activity under the guise of philanthropism. Supporting grassroots aid efforts rather than building charities from scratch would demonstrate legitimacy. And like you said, there is no legitimacy in these claims.
Something like this happened in Australia, with the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism being Jillian Segal, whose husband is a major donor to a right-wing think tank.
Gillian called out every little thing anti-Zionist thing they could imagine about pro-Palestine protests, while consistently ignoring white supremacists and even self-declared neo-Nazis, including the time they gave explicitly anti-Jewish speeches in public in front of NSW Parliament, holding up a banner saying "Abolish the Jewish Lobby".
https://theklaxon.com.au/jillian-segal-misleads-senate-over-neo-nazis/
I wonder if The Chaser have a tip line for donating high-quality headlines.
Adding that the linked post from Stop the War on Palestine (SWOP) was co-created by:
- Hannah Thomas and Jenny Leong (Greens)
- Jews Against the Occupation '48
- Palestine Justice Movement Sydney
- Teachers & School Staff for Palestine NSW
Even if you think it means to evict/kill all Jews in the land (which many people don’t mean when they say it), banning free speech threatens democracy itself, if people can be restricted from criticising unjust governments or policies.
Banning genocide advocacy, like suggesting people in a place should be killed because they are Jewish, really does not threaten democracy. Nor do anti-racism laws in general (the problem is that hate laws are being abused to include states like the Zionist Regime).
And of course, as we both know, this is just a hypothetical: the chant obviously isn't anti-Jewish.
Yes.
(On the bright side, comments like that show just how blatant and out of touch the cops are, to a point where even those with faith in the police are starting to see what happens on the ground and can no longer find excuses. Moments of escaping a media filter bubble is often an early step towards changing ones own political worldview. So, while this event was horrible, I'm optimistic that it's thrown away the curtains and shown clear unprovoked state + police violence on display to those who wouldn't have otherwise seen it)
Thanks for rehosting the video. Cool add-on, always good to see people explaining how to do this. (yt-dlp, and friendlier tools using it under the hood, is also useful for all kinds of websites)
That police action is absolutely egregious. I've seen plenty of police violence and other abuse, but this is an example that they had to know was offensive and unnecessary. Secularism and a general freedom of religion are widely-accepted Australian national values. And to see PAG organisers among those pushed away while praying just makes it even clearer.
It's moments like this which clarify just how alienated, or simply uncaring, these officers are. At some point, they will each choose between standing with Australians or standing with governments to keep their job.
If you want a crazierfuckingvideo, look what happened when the coppers came across some Muslims in the middle of prayer, including some of the protest organisers in yellow.
Edit: see it at https://aussie.zone/post/29490599
~~Unfortunately reddit is the only source I can find right now:~~ https://www.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/1r00oj1/nsw_police_assaulted_muslims_praying_peacefully/
A look at the laws with particular focus on how it can affect the National Socialist Network (with emphasis on how the law overlaps with their core activities.
It also touches on how expert groups have argued the law could also affect free expression which is not antisemitism, such as criticism of countries and their governments, like the Zionist Regime (particularly the inclusion of the protected category of "nation", noting the already-present category "ethnicity")
5
Cancer Council's iHeard articles - responses to claims people have heard about cancer
(www.cancer.org.au)
view more: next ›
Yep, that part of their statement tell us enough.