this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025
82 points (95.6% liked)

World News

47824 readers
4051 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/42078882

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Yes but governments can't make massive changes in legislation easily and small incremental changes over time can achieve the same results.

Like they say, don't let perfection be the enemy of good

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Yes, I agree, but they were still the only party that were opposed to genocide and nobody cared enough to vote for them.

So whatever your views of the greens, the voters view of genocide was that it wasn't important.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (5 children)

No, that's wrong.

You can't elect a party on one issue, three entire election is multifaceted you can't try claim because the greens said the were against genocide and no one voted for them it's simply due to that.

The greens could have lost on any of their other policies with their views on genocide being ignored.

Look at America, good old "genocide Joe", lost the election being supposedly pro genocide while trump was going to fix it.

No one is elected on one issue

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, I’m saying that as the only party to be anti genocide, if Australians cared about it as an issue, their votes would have increased, not decreased.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, based on many. However, that implies that people don't care about the genocide, which is what ive repeatedly said.

If you want to be more precise, they cared about everything else more, which is a different way of saying they don't care about it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

No you're holding it up as a one item agenda, the marijuana party didn't get in either but tons of cunts love weed

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago

No, I'm pointing out, again, about the reduction of votes they got. They are the only party with the potential for seats to support ending genocide. They had less votes and lost seats.

I'm not saying it was their only issue but it clearly wasn't an important issue for Australians based on that.

If it was important to Australians, more would have voted for the greens. Australians either didn't care or supported genocide instead.

It's not like the USA where it was a hold your nose situation. We have preferential voting. If people cared about other issues, they could still preference the greens for their genocide stance, of they deemed it important. they did not.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)