Dave, you’ve become an advocate for a particularly corrosive idea: that ignorance isn’t something to overcome - it’s something to defend.
Instead of evidence-informed argument, you reach for "you people": shadowy tribes, convenient villains and simplistic stories that require almost no curiosity to sustain.
It's loud and lazy. And because it’s loud, some sadly mistake it for substance.
That matters, because it gives social licence to wilfully stupid. It tells people they don’t need to read, check or understand. They just need to be angry, certain and sufficiently indignant when challenged.
That’s not holding power to account. It’s degrading public debate and it’s infantile.
And now you’re telling Sue that "you people don’t ever critique" Labor, as though everyone who calls out your relentless bullshit belongs to some homogeneous political tribe.
They don’t.
You’d know that if you’d spent any time reading Sue’s work. She’s not reflexively pro-Labor, nor does she treat politics as a team sport. Her writing is thoughtful, evidence-based and often critical, but the criticism is grounded in good-faith engagement with difficult issues rather than partisan reflex.
That’s the difference. Sue does the work. She considers the evidence, wrestles with complexity and tries to advance the argument. Her writing is linked is in her profile.
And finally, while I'm still going, let me add that I’m also so just fucking sick of your style of politics.
Tired of people like you who add nothing, illuminate nothing and solve nothing, yet still feel endlessly entitled to dominate the conversation. Tired of the laziness. Tired of the certainty without effort. You confuse having a platform with having something worth saying.
Your large audience does not transform intellectual laziness into insight; it just gives the laziness a bigger distribution network.
And that's really the tragedy here.