this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
134 points (92.9% liked)
Australian Politics
1604 readers
143 users here now
A place to discuss Australia Politics.
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australia (general)
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Many of the reasons they’re “in deep shit already” come back to governments making unilateral decisions for easy media and corporate donor ‘reasons’ - specifically targeting Aboriginal people (as allowed under the constitution) rather than listening to what the communities actually need or want.
Hence the Voice. But now we can keep doing the same old shit, targeting the same old Aboriginal communities, but 60% of the population can keep kidding themselves there’s no victims and they’re absolutely not racists at all, oh no no.
No one says the was not a victims, but these guys are dead as well as one who did wrong to them. Task in hand it not give some better treatment but give all everyone same treatment. Remote communities need help - absolutely - but not because they aboriginal but because they in trouble. And do you really think that if voice passed it would help average aboriginal? Nope, it will harm them tremendously, there is reason why they mostly voted no.
Aboriginal people mostly voted yes.
https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/the-referendum-for-a-voice-to-parliament-failed-but-what-outcome-did-most-indigenous-voters-support/i2reavyqn
Look mate, you’re just wrong about everything you’ve said so far.
Thanks. This is first piece of facts I got in this discussion.
I did many times. Referendum was about First nation which is race. It make it racist, you can't interpreter it in any other way.
Sorry. I have explained it other thread of this discussion. Make them special will give everyone who discriminate them are real "constitutional" reason to do so, which will will hurt average guy. Been "special" only good if you hold power. Plus I have doubt that "the voices" will be voice of average guy, not some Aboriginal elite, but this is my pure speculation.
Yes. May be not create but fuel existing one. In this moment racists can base their views only on their own prejudges (hard core one may use some pseudoscience to base their believes , but they are beyond redemption). Special treatment even without any real power will give some creditability to arguments like. "These guys using their status to stole our taxes" and shit like that. If only referendum was about giving special voice to disadvantaged comminutes, a kind of political shortcut it will be way more palatable with pretty much same effect.
IMHO It will set very bad precedent and focusing nation on past. Aboriginals are not only group which was wronged. But agree it is just opinion piece.
And there we go, you're admitting you're just making shit up. What a fucking surprise.
Only in second part and I clear state it. Do not be naive, politics is shit show.
Politics is a shit show, but you're still making shit up.
Repeat after me: It. Is. Not. Racist. To. Make. The. Playing. Field. Level. For. All.
And furthermore, mentioning race doesn't make anything racist. Was Mabo racist?
Any differential treatment which mention race is racist, by definition. Even it intended to To. Make. The. Playing. Field. Level." but i fail to see how it can be in this case.
Again, the dictionary disagrees:
racism [ rey-siz-uhm ] noun a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
Also called in·sti·tu·tion·al rac·ism [in-sti-too-shuh-nl rey-siz-uhm, -tyoo-], struc·tur·al rac·ism [struhk-cher-uhl rey-siz-uhm], sys·tem·ic rac·ism [si-stem-ik rey-siz-uhm] . a policy, system of government, etc., that is associated with or originated in such a doctrine, and that favors members of the dominant racial or ethnic group, or has a neutral effect on their life experiences, while discriminating against or harming members of other groups, ultimately serving to preserve the social status, economic advantage, or political power of the dominant group.
And yeah, it's pretty fucking obvious that you can't see the forest for the trees.
Answered in other branch
No it isn't. It's the first set of information that has been spoon fed to you and you haven't realised we've been educating you cos you are so close minded and dense that you can't see the forest for the trees. I wish you the best in life, but I can see the future headline now "immigrant dies due to weapons grade stupidity".
So no arguments, only insults. Sorry closing there.
I've given you more than enough arguments. Instead you ignore anything I say and try to say that it is me who's the racist. I'm only replying in kind to what you're saying. As the saying goes "you meet one arsehole in your day, great you met an arsehole. But you meet arseholes all day, well, then may be some introspection is required". I suggest you look inward and try and move away from being a backwards idiot, I wouldn't be surprised if the idiocy you've expressed in this thread doesn't get you punched in the face otherwise.