- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues.
Saturday’s voice to parliament referendum failed, with the defeat clear shortly after polls closed.
So far this is filled with posts about how Australia is racist and Americans talking about America (because that’s relevant?)
The title is a lie, or at the very least being maliciously deceptive. This is a common theme among ‘Yes’ supporters I’ve noticed. They laughably claim that their opponents spread ‘fake news’ all the while plugging their fingers in their ears spreading their own misinformation while sniffing their own farts so they can feel superior.
The referendum was about permanently enshrining an advisory body into Australian politics specifically to make race-based representations to parliament. That is racist. Most Australians don’t support embedding racism into our Constitution. They voted against it. The end.
They’d rather stick with the de facto racist shit they’ve been putting aboriginals through obviously. After all, creating an advisory body to address issues of racism is obviously itself racist.
If you’re completely captured by punditry and manipulation that is.
Opponents of the amendment weren’t protesting in front of Parliament House to scrap the Racial Discrimination Act.
They were just lying about the extent of the law to fear monger, true. Wonder if they might’ve said something when that act was initially passed though.
The only people I have personally seen lying are ‘Yes’ supporters. For instance, I’ve seen none of this ‘veto’ nonsense that is allegedly being spread everywhere. The only ‘No’ pamphlets I received were pretty bloody accurate representations.
In your two replies to me you’ve created three different straw men; I don’t think you need to worry about other people lying.
If you haven’t seen it then it clearly doesn’t exist lol. Argument from anecdotal evidence is a huge logical fallacy.
You talk about rhetorical fallacies like you understand how to use them and it’s hilarious. You’re right though I should be more concerned with morons like you that eat up fallacious thinking.
Sharing my personal experience that I haven’t personally been lied to is not a logical fallacy. Also, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the one negating it. You and other ‘Yes’ supporters can’t go two minutes without claiming that, “THEY’RE SPREADING LIES!!!”, yet can never seem to back it up. You’d much rather wave your dick in the air calling everyone but your reflection a moron.
It’s been backed up by a recent comment. It speaks volumes though that instead of reading the language of the bill to clarify you just throw out fallacies to defend your interpretation.
You’re claiming that an advisory body existing is racist and clearly don’t understand that this advisory body has no legislative power. It literally exists to just give opinions to actual lawmakers. That’s just one misrepresentation that people like you eat up uncritically.
Oh, it was backed up by ‘a recent comment’? Thank goodness that’s cleared up. /s
Also, note that my original comment that you replied to explicitly used the wording from the proposed amendment that it was an advisory body that would make representations to parliament. Using the actual wording is hardly a misrepresentation. If my wording upset you, then maybe you should have voted ‘No’.
What the fuck are you on about
This is why I voted no and this needs to be at the top.
Because you believed the lies? Weak.
Cool story bro…
They weren’t cool stories, bro.
Given this definition of racism, it creates an interesting problem: how can one solve systemic racism, without doing actions which take race into account? If someone needs help, is it unfair to treat them the same as someone else who doesn’t need help? Or would it be more unfair to treat them the same as someone who doesn’t need help, and therefore keeping things the same, leading to them still needing help? And, regardless of whether it’s fair or not (subjective morality), is it more beneficial to society (material outcome)?
I had decided to abstain from commenting on this subject further. Pretty much every reply I have received is a variation of ‘fake news’ or ‘racist cunt’.
As you’ve asked a good question in a civil manner (how novel!), it’s only fair to respond in kind.
To answer your question; I believe removing restrictions is more helpful than adding divisive policies that benefit one race over another. I would argue that abolishing slavery, universal suffrage, and anti-discrimination laws have done far more to solve systemic racism than racial affirmative action.
Also, off the top of my head, I can’t think of a situation where it wouldn’t be even better if affirmative action policies were focused on factors outside of race. Affirmative action based on geographical location or economic prosperity would help the most people in need and capture many more who would otherwise fall through the gaps.
Thank you for your constructive comment.
Yeah, kneejerk reactions get tiring. I tend not to use reddit-like or twitter-like forums much because of how low-effort and unempathetic most posts are. ‘Read the news title, get angry’, might as well be the motto. I’m glad you appreciated it.
This absolutely is and should be fought for, alongside other movements. The concentration of wealth at the top has just accelerated after the main COVID crisis. Our whole economic system funnels wealth to those with capital, and their influence on our political system and mass media is the root cause of most issues in our society. My caveat is that affirmative action re: economic prosperity won’t solve this, the problem runs so deep that affirmative action will ultimately be inadequate, treating the symptoms rather than the cause. We need a systematic overhaul… far far far far easier said than done.
That said, economic equity doesn’t cover everything, as many Indigenous people have other priorities that aren’t strictly economic, a major one being land rights. A somewhat-known recent example of the issue is mining companies destroying sacred land or historical artifacts, another is traditional use of the land to live off of. I admittedly don’t know enough about land right to explain in proper detail, but it’s one of the main demands that protesters have demanded for decades and decades.
I agree, and I would say that this doesn’t mean affirmative action isn’t still important. To take a metaphor from the Civil Rights struggle, that anti-discrimination is taking the knife out, there is still a need to heal the wound before we can say things are fine. We’ve abolished the most blatant aggression like non-suffrage, but done very little to make amends on things like colonisation and centuries of repression and land possession.
Generations of loss and disadvantage evidently still exist, and will remain without positive interference. Disadvantage is cyclical, it doesn’t heal by itself, poverty is an self-evident example of the cyclic nature of powerlessness. And to re-emphasise, this applies generally to disadvantage, not just disadvantage caused by colonisation or racial disadvantage.
As a side note, I’m not sure if it’s even correct to frame this as about race, Indigenous classification just inherently matches up with race since the historical inhabitants of Australian land were all, to use a racial term, Black indigenous Australians, and we’ve historically just grouped them all together when it comes to the social concept of race because they’re not White or Asian. The ill-advised and quite frankly worthless Voice proposal was about them being the native peoples, not about them being a certain race or having been racially discriminated.
I’ll have two of what this one is smoking, please.
Lie. Not permanent, just more resistant to change.
Lie. Not religious.
Lie. Specifically to make CULTURE based respresentations.
While “true”, not relevant, since nothing racist was being embedded. But it IS racist to try and make up a lie to mislead and oppress.
Lie. It won’t be “the end” until you racists finish massacring them all.
Yeah, I’ve said enough. Not wasting my time on this nonsense any more. Feel free to read my other comments if you want some counter-arguments to your ‘points’. You haven’t said anything particularly original (apart from your strange belief that ‘enshrining’ must have a religious basis, which doesn’t warrant a response).
You haven’t actually said anything. Wind and fury, signifying nothing. The definition of s blow hard.
Just a useless liar, called out for his weak bs.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-19/fact-check-yes-no-campaign-pamphlets-aec/102614710
That’s not what the referendum was about. You got lied to.
Rather than sharing a useless link, why not specifically say which part of what I wrote was a ‘lie’? I’d be very interested to see which part, considering I specifically tailored my comment to adhere as much to the proposed wording in the amendment to avoid sanctimonious people coming and claiming with their noses 10-foot in the air that, ‘I was lied to’.
The only thing your actually saying is that it’s racist, which is a gross misinterpretation of the word. Racism as a form of harassment or degradation can only effectively apply to a minority or marginalised group, it requires a power dynamic to be in play.
Saying that giving a horribly treated minority group the power to have their voices heard in law is racist is double think, it’s a perversion of the term racist.
You have been misled, and your happy about it because it means you can be righteously wrong
Tell that to every major dictionary.
You using an out-of-whack definition of the word that almost no one outside of the liberal-arts agrees with is not me being ‘misled’. Language is owned by the masses.
But not owned by you.
Everything you wrote was a lie.