Australia is on fire. Which has led to pretty much the whole country, and a good part of the planet, telling Scott “Morals” Morrison to go fuck himself. But supposedly Morals “understands“, and can see why people “fixate“, and “doesn’t take these things personally“.
You’re wrong, Morals. It is personal. Many, many people are disgusted by your person. They are disgusted because you’re a sanctimonious, unprincipled, greasy huckstering halfwit who deserves to fry in Hell if only for the sheer loathsome meaninglessness of your government. Fuck you, fuck the mining lizardmen and Murdoch gargoyles who cover for you, and fuck all the dumb fucks who allowed themselves to be conned into voting for you.
23 Replies to “INtHiTS 3: ScoMoFo Is Told Where to Go”
I might just print this out and stick it to my door. Then the whole neighbourhood.
Apart from the following rather indeterminate suggestions – ‘sanctimonious, unprincipled, greasy huckstering halfwit’ – do you have any actual reasons, for examples policies with which you disagree, that might justify your position? You provide some allusion to mining, but no detail. I assume there are other reasons too. For myself, I rather like the policies of the current government, though would prefer a stronger focus on reducing red and green tape, and perhaps a tilt towards use of nuclear power. Mathematics is a precise subject, and precision would be a useful starting point for political contemplation.
nb, yes I have actual reasons, and I can’t be fucked telling you.
“would prefer a stronger focus on reducing red and green tape, and perhaps a tilt towards use of nuclear power.”
LOL fuck off back to the IPA you clown, Scotty From Marketing doesn’t have too many friends anywhere else at the moment.
SRK, with this post I’m obviously inviting further invective, but please be careful when addressing other commenters. Of course you can say anything you want about ScoMoFo.
marty, et al. Might I suggest you listen to Scott Adams (Dilbert) in relation to arguments that go along the lines of ‘yes I have actual reasons, and I can’t be fucked telling you.’
nb, et nb, try not to be so smug. I am under no obligation to argue with you, and I have chosen to not do so. And, given your subsequent recommending of Scott Adams, I’m pretty comfortable with my choice. If others are foolish enough to argue with you here, I won’t stop them.
I’m not asking for an argument. I’m asking for some facts. Or just one fact, even. As an aside, Scott Adams has a book ‘Loserthink’. Probably useful.
Bullshit. As an aside: Cartoonist, heal thyself.
Go Scotty. You are the best thing to happen to Australia, probably ever in our political arena. When comparisons are made between what you have achieved for Australia compared to what Whitlam, Hawke, Rudd, Cain, Albanese, Beazley, Latham, Bowen, Shorten, Gillard etc, etc, have absolutely failed to achieve, there is no comparison. You have left them all in your wake. Labor has NEVER improved the economic or social situation in our beautiful country at either a State or Federal level, but has always progressed us on the path to economic and fiscal bankruptcy. The Coalition has always had to lead us out of Labor’s disastrous policy consequences and incredibly serious economic situations. One day perhaps, the Coalition might just be able to implement their philosophy and make this country the greatest ever country to live in, in the world, without first having to repair the immense damage done by previous Labor governments. Even Albanese, to his credit, admits the failures of almost all previous Labor leaders.
Geoff, don’t troll.
Fuck that’s a good post. Sometimes even (supposedly dry) mathematicians can be goaded by the awfulness of what surrounds them into a solid rant. There’s not a word I disagree with. Fuck ScoMo, fuck his government, and fuck all the fuckwits who voted for him.
I subscribed to this blog to receive posts about mathematics, including government actions and policies relevant to education. I did not expect a political post (completely irrelevant to anything mathematics), but even so, at least one which wasn’t so biased and filled with emotional anger.
I myself am neither for nor against Scott Morrison, as I do not know much about what he has done, nor do I know what others have done to compare him against. All I can say is that some feel very strongly against him based on what others have said or political leanings and not actual convictions of their own. People also tend to be unopen to hearing what anyone says if they’re from the ‘opposing side’, and as such it’s often better not to engage rather than to vent.
I do wish we would return to mathematics and leave our political differences aside. I did not think the usage of this space to tear down a country’s leader wise nor appropriate.
(I understand the content of this post may cause offense to marty in that I reproof him of his usage of his own blog site, but I really did enjoy your posts and I did not wish a divisive element to enter these posts)
Hi, Stephen. I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote, but I’m not the slightest bit offended by it. It’ll take some time and thought to compose a reply, but I will try to do so soon.
Weird. My first post was equally inoffensive. The answer I got was ‘nb, yes I have actual reasons, and I can’t be fucked telling you.’ I look forward to the answers you provide Stephen.
Your post was equally inoffensive, but it was a Hell of a lot sillier.
Why? None of my positions are outside of mainstream Australian political discourse.
And you somehow think that’s a strong selling point.
I eagerly await your reply
I’m typing as we speak …
Stephen, I’ve thought a lot about how to respond to your criticism, and in particular whether to make my reply short(ish) or very long. I’ve decided on both. Included in my long, long list of intended posts is to write on what I regard as the purpose of this blog, and your comment has pushed that proposed post up the list. So, hopefully soon (a few weeks?) I will write that post. (As long as the Evil Mathologer stays on holiday.) In the meantime, I’ll reply briefly(??) to you.
First of all, thank you very much for your thoughtful criticism. I deplore groupthink and I would be happier if this blog encouraged more (well-intentioned) dispute of what I, and commenters, write. I’ll always fight my ground, but I think fights are healthy. In fact I know there are very many teachers/maths-edders who detest this blog but will not soil themselves by commenting; one of the nicest people I know, who has now disowned me, described the blog as “unreadable” and “incredibly nasty”.
Which brings up the first point: you’re concerned that a “divisive element” will enter these posts?? As in future tense??? Stephen, the overwhelming focus of this blog, at least so far, has been to take a crowbar to educational orthodoxy, to take full-force whacks at pretty much everyone/thing of stature. This blog is already hugely divisive; you just happen to be, it seems, on this blog’s side of that divide.
Of course that divisiveness is not necessarily an argument for further divisiveness, which brings up the second point. Yes, as you concede, it’s my blog and of course I’m allowed to write what I please. But I still owe regular readers at least some consideration of their expectations, and it’s far from obvious that a fact-free slam of ScoMoFo is “wise” or “appropriate”. I will argue this more fully elsewhere, but I will try in brief to argue the case here.
For me, the important point is not that this textbook explanation is garbage, or that this exam question is screwed, or that this op-ed is utter nonsense. These are all locally important, if not infuriating, but they are all just symptoms, indications of an underlying disease. The underlying disease is a complete loss in the sense of the meaning of education. This is much, much more important, and I really want to write more specifically about this disease. (It’s not easy, and it’s not easy to find the required time.)
And, and here’s the argument I’ll make elsewhere, this educational disease is in turn a symptom of a further, deeper disease: the inability of society as a whole, and individuals within that society, to pay proper attention to and to think clearly about things that matter. It is this deeper disease, which has always been deadly and destructive and which now threatens to destroy life on the planet, that is the real concern. The triumph of Trump and Boris and ScoMoFo are all symptoms of this deeper disease, and these assholes are all consciously, evilly promoting the disease. And yes, there are plenty of “left wing” symptoms of and promoters of this disease as well, particularly in education. (More posts …) But these “left” lunatics are only indirectly destroying the planet; it’s the “right” lunatics that are working on it directly.
So, I’m not going to resile from labelling ScoMoFo as the fifth rate, dishonest, imbecilic, society-destroying fucker that he is. I will argue for the label, and argue about the deeper disease, to the extent that it is within my relative expertise and fits in with what I think is of value to write. But I feel absolutely no obligation to justify this stance. ScoMoFo is a fucker, and obviously so. Fuck him.
To end, you say you are neither for nor against ScoMoFo? Then I think you should feel ashamed.
Ross Garnaut economist and environmentalist has some practical suggestions for mitigating carbon emissions going forward as well as taking advantage of Australia’s big solar advantage.
Eg carbon sequestration,efficient DC wire electricity transmission and carbon neutral hydrogen creation to replace diesel
Interesting reading for the current Treasurer perhaps and anyone else who has concerns about tipping points