Home > australian politics, terrorism > Alan Jones vs Terrorism

Alan Jones vs Terrorism

Like most Australians, I don’t really care about what Alan Jones says, nor do I use him as my moral compass. I don’t support his comments made about Julia Gillard and her father, John Gillard, but I do support his freedom to say it. The people who threaten Alan Jones and the companies that advertise on his program have the same philosophy and ideals as terrorists. Extremists. Fanatics blinded by irrational beliefs. These are the type of people, who if not kept in check, will escalate their opinions and beliefs into actual acts of violence. They make threats. They try to enforce their beliefs through threats. If given the chance, they will act on their threats. They are terrorists. Perhaps their extreme methods are watered down, being labelled as “cyber bullies.” In terms of philosophy, they are terrorists.

Companies should not give in to terrorists. I believe companies should support Alan Jones and his freedom to say what he likes. If you don’t like what he says, you are free to not listen. Pulling support and advertising in the wake of threats is a decision that gives power to the terrorists making the threats. Companies should stand strong against these terrorists. They should not pander to threats. They should not support the idea that opinions can be enforced onto others through terrorism. This only encourages more terrorism. I’d be encouraged to buy the products of a company that supports it’s people in any type of hardship, whether it’s from terrorist threats or anything else. I am discouraged to buy products from gutless companies who pander to threats or do not support their people when they need support. It’s easy to pull the pin. It’s much harder to fight and maintain support.

These terrorists, like most other terrorists, are likely to be hypocrites  They have probably enjoyed the entertainment value of a shock jock at some stage. Whether it’s Australian Idol or one of the other mundane spin-offs or some sort of radio program. Whether with or without Kyle Sandilands, many programs use this device to garner an audience. It’s entertaining. It’s a ploy to get attention. It’s controversial and sparks discussion and interest  People watch it, and in doing so support it. Watching or listening to a show containing this style of entertainment device is a vote in its approval. Part of the risk of this type of ploy is that sometimes some people will be offended. It’s part of the game. It’s unavoidable. Watching or listening to a shock jock is accepting and supporting the fact that occasionally some people will be offended. To be critical and withdraw your support when an unfavourable circumstance arises from a device that you originally supported is hypocritical.

I’ve never listened to Alan Jones’ show. Since I’m strongly against terrorism and hypocrisy  I might start listening now. I want to demonstrate my support for freedom and the right to live in a world where you are not threatened by hypocrites who believe something different to you. Also the show is commercial free now. Bonus.

Advertisements
  1. October 8, 2012 at 12:50 am

    Hi Joe. First, thanks for coming over to the Pig’s Arms. You are welcome.
    I’m in a bit of a rush this morning, so I cannot do your blog full justice by reading it thoroughly just now. However, I too chose to exercise my right to not listen to Alan Jones.

    I think we have the basis of enjoying a decent discussion to come on the other matters – like Nanny-state government. I like the cognitive dissonance of supporting people’s freedom to smoke while simultaneously decrying it as a disastrous mistake to actually smoke.

    My Dad died from metastatic bone cancer (a particularly painful way to go) at age 60 – from lung cancer caused by smoking a pack a day for forty years. Did he have a right to force Mom and I to enjoy secondary smoking and deprive my kids (who arrived not long after he died) of having a grandfather ?

    Or should we support a perhaps theoretically undesirable constraint of individual freedom in the interests of greater good for the innocent bystanders ? Should society protect the weak-minded who, judging by the state of most addicted people are incapable of making rational decisions and acting on them ?

    Is addiction itself – in all its forms the real enemy ? How should we deal with it as a specific brain malfunction ? Do Buddhist teachings have the best answers in this space ?

    I look forward to exploring the ethical comparisons involved in choice either way.

    Regards,

    Emmjay.

    • October 8, 2012 at 1:56 am

      Mr Emmjay Trouserzoff

      Thanks for your comment. It’s hard to resolve all these issues in the comments section of a blog. A better forum would involve a much freer flowing conversation medium and a much freer flowing beer supply.

      Yes the children need to be protected. No different to, when exposing children to the risk of vehicle accidents, adults with children passengers should not be drunk, should drive carefully and should ensure the children’s seat belts are on. Also they shouldn’t drive over children playing on the sides of the road. An alternative is to ban driving. That is the only way to eliminate the risk.

      If we want to protect children against not having a grandfather, then we need to ban living, or we need to all live in a “The Matrix” style incubator. Living involves risks. Any activity is risky. The risk from smoking is not unique.

      Smoking and it’s addiction is not special. Everything is addictive. For example, I’m addicted to macadamia nuts. I find the smooth buttery texture and delicious flavour irresistible. I’m pretty sure consuming so many calories every night just before bed isn’t good for me. Also they’re super expensive, preventing me from allocating funds to more important matters. Further, to the dismay of my wife my addiction means I often go to bed late after a big night of TV and macadamia nuts, so it is rare for us to have any special time together in bed. You know, cuddles.

      I guess we need a system for addressing addiction that can be consistently and fairly applied, rather than arbitrarily targeting certain addictions on political crusades.

      I don’t know much about Buddhism, but those guys seem to have pretty good answers for most things.

      It’s only the morning but now I can’t stop thinking about macadamias. A few early morning beers should quell that. No different to yesterday I suppose.

      Joe

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: