A flyer authorised by the Australian Greens has created controversy for its deliberately bold and colourful language as SA party members say it blindsided them.
Yeah, but I think @maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone’s point is that they shouldn’t have needed to “distance themselves from” the flyer, because usually distancing yourself is something you do when you want to make it clear you do not agree with the message or tone. But both the message and tone here are pretty basic, and not something I could see the Queensland Greens feeling the need to spend effort disavowing.
It’s less about whether they agree with it and more about the fact that they had absolutely zero involvement in it. Why needlessly involve yourself in artificially generated political controversy when you can just opt out of it entirely? The word “distanced” is just the ABC’s interpretation, I wouldn’t read too much into it.
The point is that it doesn’t really matter whether they agree or not. It’s a question of why they would choose to make a statement at all if the goal wasn’t specifically to undermine the message.
Because it was insinuated that it came from them when it clearly didn’t. In fact, it’s not actually clear whose message this was considering the federal candidate was also out of the loop.
The SA Greens didn’t authorise or distribute the flyer.
Yeah, but I think @maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone’s point is that they shouldn’t have needed to “distance themselves from” the flyer, because usually distancing yourself is something you do when you want to make it clear you do not agree with the message or tone. But both the message and tone here are pretty basic, and not something I could see the Queensland Greens feeling the need to spend effort disavowing.
It’s less about whether they agree with it and more about the fact that they had absolutely zero involvement in it. Why needlessly involve yourself in artificially generated political controversy when you can just opt out of it entirely? The word “distanced” is just the ABC’s interpretation, I wouldn’t read too much into it.
The point is that it doesn’t really matter whether they agree or not. It’s a question of why they would choose to make a statement at all if the goal wasn’t specifically to undermine the message.
Because it was insinuated that it came from them when it clearly didn’t. In fact, it’s not actually clear whose message this was considering the federal candidate was also out of the loop.