Responding to a huge volume of questions on borders, refugees and migration, Geraldine Brooks, Tom Elliott, Voranai Vanijaka and Mark Colvin search for insight and progress on this charged and crucial subject.

As a nation composed mostly of migrants, modern Australia’s relationship with refugees and asylum seekers runs deep: through regional and global wars, famine and disaster, and economic and political upheavals. In recent years, that discussion has become increasingly polarised and fearful. Meanwhile, asylum seekers continue to suffer in conditions that most people agree are unacceptable, cruel.

Throughout all this, Australia’s challenge and policy response has made world news. Now, with Europe’s dramatic influx of refugees mostly from Syria, the question has renewed urgency – of a kind that demands answers beyond the obfuscation of politics.

centre-heracles.s3.amazonaws.com/wheeler-centre/assets/16/db7650b29911e5ae16a1a55b0920f9/Is-the-concept-of-a-country-obsolete--Questions-in-a-refugee-crisis-video-poster.jpg">

Left to right: Geraldine Brooks, Tom Elliott, Voranai Vanijaka and Mark Colvin

It has to be said: the cat pictures might not be enough. The internet definitively sucks sometimes. It’s a willing and fertile host to our most objectionable prejudice, anger and desire; an open marketplace for exploitation, child porn and illicit drugs and weapons. It provides a container for our greed, impatience and emotional evasiveness, and its liberating potential often feels like a false promise buried in a much larger mountain of disconnection, voyeurism and social media-fuelled narcissism.

Even the feelgood and useful bits are compromised – our tracked behaviour is sold to advertisers, while security agencies like the NSA have been found to spy extensively on … well, almost everybody.

centre-heracles.s3.amazonaws.com/wheeler-centre/assets/f4/d7cc90b29611e587455121befbe2e3/Best-way-to-destroy-the-internet-Cory-Doctorow-video-poster.jpg">

Cory Doctorow

In that light, is it blind and foolish to defend the internet – or does idealism provide a corrective vision? What gives this incredible technological structure its potency? What does the internet offer in terms of political freedom and social mobility, privacy and big data, and broadcasting and publishing and political change – and what does it cost us?

Blogger, science fiction author, Electronic Frontier Foundation special advisor and Boing Boing co-editor Cory Doctorow speaks with multitalented and beloved broadcaster, writer and director Alan Brough about whether we should really destroy the internet – or whether it instead needs our protection.

Your tweets:

‘We have yet to articulate a coherent way of thinking about security and the internet.’ @doctorow #askinterrobang pic.twitter.com/0gaaUEKlRQ

— The Wheeler Centre (@wheelercentre) November 28, 2015

Lack of disclosure with digital security leads to failure. ‘This is how every alchemist ends up drinking mercury.’ @doctorow #askinterrobang

— The Interrobang (@askinterrobang) November 28, 2015

.@doctorow is talking about very surprising ways in which industries co-opt governments to protect their IP, and generate $. #askinterrobang

— The Interrobang (@askinterrobang) November 28, 2015

Computers in everything: digital locks for protectionist practices, anti-circumvention rules feed the beast. Ergh @doctorow #askinterrobang

— Kate B. (@eyeofbast) November 28, 2015

"We haven't reached peak surveillance. There's plenty of ways the internet could be creepier. Like wifi Barbie." @doctorow #askinterrobang

— steph harmon (@stephharmon) November 28, 2015

Mass surveillance operates on the principle that watching another individual costs nothing. @doctorow #askinterrobang

— The Interrobang (@askinterrobang) November 28, 2015

We need to have spaces that are not ‘on the record’ in order to have social progress. @doctorow #askinterrobang

— The Interrobang (@askinterrobang) November 28, 2015

"When the Beatles co-opted other cultures it was called art. When Public Enemy co-opted the Beatles, it was theft" @doctorow #askinterrobang

— steph harmon (@stephharmon) November 28, 2015

‘I’m incapable of making predictions. I’m a science fiction author.’ @doctorow #askinterrobang

— The Interrobang (@askinterrobang) November 28, 2015

‘Our mission, if you care about this stuff, is to try and get other people to care before it’s too late.’ @doctorow on digital security.

— The Interrobang (@askinterrobang) November 28, 2015

Watching @doctorow continue to fight the good fight thanks to @askinterrobang. It’s depressing and empowering at the same time.

— Josh Kinal (@sealfur) November 28, 2015

If we peel back religion, politics, economics and other big players in our collective pursuit of the ‘common good’ … what do we end up with? How are our ideas of goodness formed – and can they ever be agreed upon?

centre-heracles.s3.amazonaws.com/wheeler-centre/assets/5f/61f420c31611e59b1443a96f39e5e5/2015-11-28-Interrobang-What_s-the-good-in-the-good-fight-ethics-ethical.jpg">

The panel: Mark Colvin, Anne Summers, Alan Duffy, Raimond Gaita and Gregory Phillips

As globalisation and technology draw the world closer together, they’ve also revealed chasms in how we relate to each other as nations, cultures and individuals – and how we resolve conflicts. What happens when good intentions are incompatible?

Raimond Gaita, Anne Summers, Gregory Phillips and Alan Duffy come together to seek out and dissect practical questions of ethics: are there basic values or ideas of goodness or fairness that we can all share? What, specifically, are they? What even is ‘ethical’, should we strive for it – and can there be a middle ground? Hosted by Mark Colvin.

Australian racism is a slippery thing. We’ve seen it (at the football, on a bus with a singing French tourist, in select policies of successive governments, at anti-something protests). We know it exists. But as a nation – a deeply multicultural one, arguably defined by migration – we haven’t progressed to a realistic understanding of who we are, what that means and what we thus expect of ourselves and each other.

centre-heracles.s3.amazonaws.com/wheeler-centre/assets/b5/b3c5b0b29f11e58988390c8fdd6659/When-is-australia-racist-video-poster.jpg">

The panel: Benjamin Law, Voranai Vanijaka, Nakkiah Lui, Gregory Phillips and Abdul Abdullah

How do we distinguish our ideals from the real world? Is mainstream Australian – whatever that means – capable of living up to its own myths? Let’s not let subcultures off the hook, either. What draws our meanest impulses out of hiding? When do we laugh about our differences … and when do they come to define us?

With artist Abdul Abdullah, writer and comedian Nakkiah Lui, Aboriginal health expert Gregory Phillips, journalist and political commentator Voranai Vanijaka and Gaysia author Benjamin Law, we’ll explore Australian equality on a number of fronts: representation, social support, sex and decision-making. Our panellists consider what it might take to achieve a culture that reflects a true picture of Australia back to itself – and what we’d be losing if we didn’t.

Your reactions

@wheelercentre is #askinterrobang panel sess When Is Australia Racist? pic.twitter.com/WdwBhDfkik

— Melissa O'Donovan (@SoulGroundau) November 28, 2015

Does Australia market and export an image of 'us' as Multicultural and more than just a white image #askinterrobang

— Monique Toohey (@MoniqueToohey) November 28, 2015

Greg Phillips crystal clear on Aust not dealing with colonisational genocide & the legacy that hangs in power strictures #askinterrobang

— Kristin Alford (@kristinalford) November 28, 2015

@MoniqueToohey Who is the We? Who is the You?That was never defined in the session.

— Melissa O'Donovan (@SoulGroundau) November 28, 2015

@SoulGroundau @stephharmon No, in regards to my Aboriginality

— Nakkiah Lui (@nakkiahlui) November 28, 2015

"I've never felt Australian" - @nakkiahlui. Perhaps Aboriginal... but that is a white construct, doesn't represent culture #askinterrobang

— Kristin Alford (@kristinalford) November 28, 2015

It's false to say everyone is racist - Greg Phillips. Lots of cultures are accepting of difference, it comes down to values #askinterrobang

— Kristin Alford (@kristinalford) November 28, 2015

Racism is structural. Ethnocentrism is what need to be mindful of and overcome. Identify the dynamic & call it out #askinterrobang

— Monique Toohey (@MoniqueToohey) November 28, 2015

'There is no such thing as reverse #racism. Reverse racism presumes there is egalitarianism.' @gregoryabstarr #askinterrobang

— The Interrobang (@askinterrobang) November 28, 2015

Whiteness: cultural blindness to see ones own advantage & benefit in society #askinterrobang #noroomforracism

— Monique Toohey (@MoniqueToohey) November 28, 2015

@stephharmon @askinterrobang @voranai #askinterrobang How is that reverse? Reverse would be beating up yourself because of someone's race

— Paul (@paulkoan) November 28, 2015

Strands of industrialisation & capitalism are inseparable from racism in this discussion - they shapes resources & values. #askinterrobang

— Kristin Alford (@kristinalford) November 28, 2015

Cultural intelligence is needed to improve intercultural relations social cohesion, health & education outcomes & innovation #askinterrobang

— Monique Toohey (@MoniqueToohey) November 28, 2015

'When is it racism and when is it white supremacy?' @nakkiahlui asks at #askinterrobang

— BitterSweet (@spoonfulofthyme) November 28, 2015

Can cultures with strong social and environmental consciences also be racist? #askinterrobang

— Ayan Dasvarma (@amravsad) November 28, 2015

Where can we create spaces for intercultural interaction & can we make it mandatory for politicians to be residents there? #askinterrobang

— Monique Toohey (@MoniqueToohey) November 28, 2015

How do u unpackage urself from ur racial and/or cultural personal identity? By continuing to use the national/racial label? #askinterrobang

— Melissa O'Donovan (@SoulGroundau) November 28, 2015

'Australia is not a multicultural country - it has many ethnic groups.' Greg Phillips #askinterrobang

— BitterSweet (@spoonfulofthyme) November 28, 2015

centre-heracles.s3.amazonaws.com/wheeler-centre/assets/da/6c2170b29c11e5978afd1d0781053f/Why-are-people-nicer-when-it_s-your-birthday--video-poster.jpg">

How are you?

Such a habitual, everyday question remains one of our most difficult to answer honestly and fully. Where do we even begin? Are we ever possessed by just one state or feeling? What moves the tides of our emotional lives?

In a thoughtful discussion to address our very large – and more nuanced – human dilemmas, Raimond Gaita, Jane Caro, Benjamin Law, Kristin Alford and Sammy J  interrogate our search for meaning and contentment within our own circumstances (including gender, cultural background, upbringing and socio-economic position). Why happiness rather than contentment? Why does a part of us want to destroy what we love? Are we born happy, spending our lives defending that, or are we born neutral – destined to spend our lives trying to attain happiness?

How is it possible to be incredibly happy and incredibly sad at the same time? Our Brains Trust attempt to resolve the complicated experiences of satisfaction, kindness and contradiction.

Your tweets

Why are people nicer to you on your birthday? They are thankful that you exist #askinterrobang #speccy pic.twitter.com/lluaYkyPrB

— Sue Hogg (@planetsuzie) November 28, 2015

Jane Caro advocates for realistic lower expectations so that it'll be easier to find happiness. #askinterrobang

— Shannon Hick (@Toast_forDinner) November 28, 2015

"The baseline for happiness is remarkably easy to achieve" - how much do we really need to be happy? @mrbenjaminlaw at #askinterrobang

— Rose Johnstone (@RoFloJohnstone) November 28, 2015

‘What sort of friend are you; do you think you should be? What do you offer?’ @kristinalford #askinterrobang pic.twitter.com/BiebbLmVXx

— The Interrobang (@askinterrobang) November 28, 2015

Do soul mates exist & what are the chances of meeting them? RaiGaita jumps in 'she's sitting right there' audience weeps 💗 #askinterrobang

— Shannon Hick (@Toast_forDinner) November 28, 2015

'The concept of #friendship and the concept of being a father, or a mother, or a sister, or a brother – they have standards. They're not always the standards of #morality, because #love can sometimes compete with morality … the idea that you can have friendship without the possibility of guilt strikes me as foolish; like the idea that you could have love without the possibility of sorrow.' #RaimondGaita, exploring questions of relativity and hope at 'Why are people nicer when it's your birthday?', part of #askinterrobang today.

A photo posted by The Wheeler Centre (@wheelercentre) on Nov 27, 2015 at 6:36pm PST

As part of The Interrobang, Cheryl Strayed – author of Wild and Tiny Beautiful Things – shares a story of her children leaping, literally, into the unknown.

'When I contemplated the question of the relationship between words and actions,' she begins, 'I thought about a recent experience I had with my kids. For the last two summers, I've gone to the little town of Chamonix, France. I teach a writing workshop there every summer, and it's one of those little villages in the Alps with just a few city streets – and all around you are these beautiful, high snowy peaks. The first summer we went there, my kids were eight and nine. Chamonix in the winter is a skier’s paradise, but in the summer that are basically two things to do: hike, or go to the top of the mountain and jump off with nothing but a kite on your back.'

'Well,' says Mary Norris – New Yorker copy editor and author of Between You & Me: Confessions of a Comma Queen, 'it’s true that my life has been completely squandered on words. I’ve hardly ever done anything!'

As part of The Interrobang, Norris unpicks the complex relationship between words and actions. If actions give birth to words, and words may inspire actions, does it really come down to deciding between the figurative chicken or the egg?

In this rollicking short lecture, MasterChef Australia-winning chef and Destination Flavour presenter Adam Liaw attempts to pick apart the differences – etymologically, compositionally, and culturally – between muffins and cupcakes. Along the way, he touches on how we assign meaning to what we eat, and how the tiniest of changes made decades or centuries ago can influence what we find on our plates today.

'When I first got the email about this topic,' Adam says, 'I happened to be standing next to Ben Shewry, from Attica. I thought, I've got one of Australia's best chefs right next to me – I should probably ask him. I said, "Ben, what is the difference between a cupcake and a muffin?" He thought about it for about five seconds, looked me straight in the eye, and said, "A cupcake is never savoury, and a muffin is never iced.' Which is bloody good; it's a brilliant definition. You can't get much better than that. But, of course, that's not the end of the story.'

Scientists have told us how the world began, but how do they think it will end? Explore pre-human mass extinctions (and how close it came to ‘the end’) – and why our thoughts often drift toward apocalyptic predictions and end time fears – with a half hour talk from molecular biologist and science communicator Upulie Divisekera.

In the hierarchy of improbable things, a grammatical error in the pages of the New Yorker must certainly sit close to the top – and as copy editor at the notoriously fastidious literary institution, Mary Norris has been at the frontline of the fight against errant apostrophes for several decades. 

centre-heracles.s3.amazonaws.com/wheeler-centre/assets/02/bff6e0972411e5bf1fbfc4a14ae753/Norris.jpeg">

In conversation with Jane Caro at The Interrobang, Norris shared the story of her ascendance to the throne of the comma queen. Beginning her working life as a ‘foot-checker’ at a public pool in Cleveland, Norris noted that her life has followed a classic ‘foot-checker to fact-checker/from toes to prose’ trajectory.

centre-heracles.s3.amazonaws.com/wheeler-centre/assets/cc/50e110971811e5b8fc772fe477ae4e/Interrobang-Saturday-Photographs-67-Mary-Norris-Jane-Caro.jpg">

Contrary to popular belief, Norris admitted during the conversation, errors do slip into the pages of the New Yorker. Her first? Erroneously rendering ‘chaise longue’ as ‘chaise lounge’. An easy mistake to make, but it was an error that wasn’t readily overlooked. ‘Are the glory years of the New Yorker gone forever?’ asked a reader, in a typewritten letter that an elder copy editor made sure to circulate around the office. (‘They certainly are!’, the copy editor had made sure to scribble underneath.)

The New Yorker’s style guide is famously opinionated, sometimes obstinately so. ‘The Democrats coöperate to reëlect the President,’ Norris has offered, as an example of a sentence that could be found in no other magazine. Still, she told Caro, ‘When writers complain about the New Yorker style, I think, “You’re writing for the New Yorker; shut up”.’ 

centre-heracles.s3.amazonaws.com/wheeler-centre/assets/cf/25d300971811e5b8fc772fe477ae4e/Interrobang-Saturday-Photographs-69-Mary-Norris-Jane-Caro.jpg">

Listen to the full discussion – featuring digressions into the battle between editors and writers in driving linguistic change, the dire need for a second person plural, the stylistic flexibility of the dash, and a meta-discussion on the interrobang. Bow down to the comma queen!

centre-heracles.s3.amazonaws.com/wheeler-centre/assets/ce/2a0de0971811e5b8fc772fe477ae4e/Interrobang-Saturday-Photographs-68-Mary-Norris-Jane-Caro.jpg">

Your tweets: