World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
As other commenters have pointed out, anything coming out of the Voice is non-binding, so it's powers have been already decided and it will be effectively powerless. There are legitimate arguments that have been made for and against, but I don't think yours is one of them.
Moreover, I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It's not so much that it is giving a specific racial group a special government body as it's giving a group of people that stand apart from the Australian government a voice. If this group of people were not a single racial group, but otherwise everything was exactly the same, would you still vote no?
On first sight, coming from a German perspective, I'm asking "why put it in the constitution if everything is non-binding", over here we we have various councils that represent minorities and they're all plain and simply registered associations, nothing special. But, well, then they're also actually listened to. So on second sight given the degree of ignorance aboriginals are generally afforded I'd say it's probably a good idea to make the "fucking listen" part mandatory.
...and now my head is playing the dead heart on repeat, should've seen that one coming.
I'm not campaigning here so I'm not really making a coherent argument, and I know that isn't helping.
Still, here's the main point - look at the constitution. What's it about and what's it for? It starts by outlining theformationa and function of the house of reps, senate, and judiciary. There's a section on the states and one on commerce. That's it. Its a how-to manual for the federal government.
So how then does an advisory body fit into thatdocuments? What's its purpose? It can only be as a third (fourth?) Branch of government because that's what the document is.
When you get all these people saying "oh its just this or that it has no power its just so they get a say" - that's not the function of the constitution and its parts. By putting it in there with a legislative blank check - that's the creation of a part of the government.
I would not support the creation of that body regardless of its makeup. For 300 years no we've been running vaguely successful democracies (that's a whole other conversation) with two legislative branches and a judiciary. Nobody through this whole process has given any reason why this should change or even given a thought to a change management process.
What's the actual reasoning, the actual effect, the actual risks? Nobody knows! Because if you dare to raise any question you're clearly just a fucken racist.
Final question - people that stand apart from the Australian government? Can you clarify that? Because that sounds like insurrection to me. If this is some sort of soft revolution, I'm even more against it.
So your argument boils down to, "I don't want to change the constitution?" If a purely advisory body was created by an act of parliament then you'd be okay with it?
What I meant by standing apart is that there is this group of people that were living their best lives for 60k years and then another group of people came and said, "This place is ours now and we are going to run it like we want and we don't give a shit about your customs, so either start doing things our way or fuck off." They are standing apart because they weren't included.
My argument is that this is the shut way to make a change and does nothing to address any issue that . All it does is create a new branch of government that is exclusive to one type of people. That's the start of apartheid, not a solution to the issues of health education and opportunity.
They were and are included you fucking moron. How many first nations people are currently sitting members of state and federal parliament? And besides that every fucking person in this country has council members, state MPs and federal MPs already. Not included my shiny metal ass
Name calling is unnecessary.
Indigenous people definitely were NOT part of the formation of the Australian government and in order to participate they have had to conform in order to get votes from people outside their group, right?
And to reiterate, it's called the Voice because that's what it will give them. That's it. Just a way to have some formal input (that can still be ignored) without having to pander to people that do not understand their way of life. Is it enough? No, but it's a start at least.
I, for one, know that if I was just living my life and an outside group of people came and told me that they were taking over and I had to do things their way instead if I had any hope of having a say in my future, I would be pretty pissed. I would also be pretty pissed that those same outsiders would presume to deny me a voice for reasons that they can't coherently articulate without resorting to name calling.
How many of usnin this country are here because exactly that situation occered in their homeland? And now they arrive here and find that instead of equal opportunity for everyone, we are actively implementing apartheid?
In this case name calling is necessary
Giving indigenous people a voice is apartheid? That's some racist fearmongering if I've ever heard it. You say that every time you try to have a conversation about the issue you get called racist? Have you considered that maybe it's because you are racist? No, of course not; that would require a level of introspection that you are too cowardly to reach for, whether you admit it or not.
I sincerely hope that you some day find the courage to confront your prejudices and grow as a person, but I'm not interested in waiting for that day.