4 ms·

I think it is worth noting here, that for Australians into politics, linking articles sourced from the Institute of Public Affairs is akin to linking article fr

I think it is worth noting here, that for Australians into politics, linking articles sourced from the Institute of Public Affairs is akin to linking article from Breitbart - heavily politically charged and not a good source of objectivity. (The author is a member of the IPA). For context, the IPA is the think-tank that are responsible for the rise of far-right conservatism in the Australian Liberal Party (the currently in power party), and have shaped their policy for over a decade - indirectly putting the current party in power on the payroll of big mining companies. (The IPA sources their money primarily from donors like Gina Rinehart). E.g. the faction that caused the Leader of Australia to change were people with heavy links to this group. That doesn't necessarily summarily dismiss this article, but I would caution to read articles like this with that in mind - throwing the "left" side of university people under the bus is almost certainly coming from an extremely politically biased echo-chamber that historically does everything in its power to degrade progressives/unions/"leftists" etc. Edit - Should have expected it, but downvotes for giving good context? This isn't crazy talk here, it's normal knowledge of anyone of Australian political interest.

glangdale 8y ago
The IPA is no Breitbart, as they are (sadly) definitely an Establishment think thank. However, they do lean extremely right wing and have been rented by the hour by the tobacco and fossil fuels lobby and are more or less owned by Gina Reinhart (like you say). They've even been commissioned by the government in the past to investigate bias in NGOs (!). The idea that they are principled free speech defenders is pretty funny. There's a lot of rhetoric about thin-skinned millennials, but if you want to see a real triggered snowflake, just ask someone from the Murdoch press about whether we are showing a little too much reverence on Anzac day, or share a couple anecdotes about some of the less savory ways that Australia came to be controlled by white Europeans. I don't think the IPA has any track record of defending freedom of speech unless it's either (a) conservative or (b) a left-on-left fracas where a bit of bastardry is useful (i.e. spats about feminism where rushing to the defense of one feminist is primarily a good way of putting the boot into another).

glangdale 8y ago

The IPA is no Breitbart, as they are (sadly) definitely an Establishment think thank. However, they do lean extremely right wing and have been rented by the hour by the tobacco and fossil fuels lobby and are more or less owned by Gina Reinhart (like you say). They've even been commissioned by the government in the past to investigate bias in NGOs (!). The idea that they are principled free speech defenders is pretty funny. There's a lot of rhetoric about thin-skinned millennials, but if you want to see a real triggered snowflake, just ask someone from the Murdoch press about whether we are showing a little too much reverence on Anzac day, or share a couple anecdotes about some of the less savory ways that Australia came to be controlled by white Europeans. I don't think the IPA has any track record of defending freedom of speech unless it's either (a) conservative or (b) a left-on-left fracas where a bit of bastardry is useful (i.e. spats about feminism where rushing to the defense of one feminist is primarily a good way of putting the boot into another).