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
Well you've just erected a pretty nice strawman there but not much else.
"It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers."
Nobody has any fucking clue what powers it might have, its a blank check. Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this "advisory body" can and can't do, or shut the fuck up.
Sure, we can change it. But there has not been any fucking legitimate reason presented as to why we should. The arguments presented by the Yes campaign are certainly emotional, but not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.
Let's stick the the topic and avoid juvenile debate tactics.
Here is exactly what the referendum entails, and note that it specifically limits the role of the Voice (in whatever form it takes) to "make representations" and also that it specifically highlights that parliament - and only parliament - "shall... Have the power to make laws".
I repeat: the Voice Has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers, and you have no legitimate basis to imply otherwise. We are 100% not being asked to vote on a Constitutional change that undermines democratic principles. If you vote No on that basis then it is because you are ignorant of the proposed Constitutional change and have been conned by the right wing and media.
The Voice is part of modest recommendations proposed respectfully by First Nations people via the Uluru Statement from the heart. You need to be cynical and unrealistic to think that accepting and supporting their views - with no downsides to you personally or us as a country - really won't change anything. Are you really interested in the outcomes for First Nations people? If so, please explain how you expect to see change if the Voice is rejected?
Forgot to add - I haven't been conned by any media, either right wing or slightly less right wing. Don't own a TV and the only social media I'm on is this which is unsurprisingly light on Aus politics.
Its ain't me being conned here
Interesting. I'm curious why you aren't familiar with the details of constitutional amendment I linked to. You're clearly not basing your opinion on primary sources, so what secondary sources are you consuming?
What makes you think I'm unfamiliar with it? I know exactly what it says, regardless of whether I'm a shit debater
Maybe because you keep claiming information hasn't been made available when a simple google search proves you wrong?
I never said that
I have the receipts. Here's false statements you made that I corrected using easily available resource you refuse to acknowledge.
And
And
And
All of these are defined and you have wrongly claimed otherwise. You're a rube.
Right here:
"its composition, functions, powers and procedures"
There is literally no scope included - they'll decide after
They will decide after how to establish the advisory body that has no legislative, executive, or judicial power and can only advise parliament (who will then decide what actions are taken or even if any action is taken at all).
They cannot make decisions with respect to giving the Voice Constitutional powers to make or change legislative, executive, or judicial decisions unless there's another referendum. They can legislate powers, but they can already do that without the referendum.
What specifically do you object to about this?
Sure, but they can certainly give it powers to make or veto economic policy, make decisions on land ownership, environmental matters, regulations, or pretty much anything else, because there is no limiting phrase around "powers"
And all this done by a group of people or an individual chosen through unspecified means with unspecified credentials.
Those specifically are what I object to
They can do that right now. Albo can legislate what you're describing and the next government can de-legilsate it. If the referendum passes it has no bearing on what powers are legislated.
The referendum does not give the powers you're describing and does not impact whether those kinds of powers are granted or revoked in the future.
You are misunderstanding what the Yes vote is. The referendum would only establish a voice in the Constitution that "may make representations" while specifically outlining that only "Parliament shall make laws".
Again, all of this is explained in the resources I linked to earlier, and the only reason you're ignorant to that fact is because you haven't bothered to do your research.
So, again, what's your issue here?
None of that actually says anything. Its just wide open phrasing that allows for limitless scope. Can you not see that somehow?
All this is way out in the fucken weeds anyway man.
Why the fuck are people trying to create a less inclusive and egalitarian society instead of trying to find and implement actual solutions to solve the problems that exist. And why do people who apparently think of themselves as progressive and socialist think any of this is OK?
Use the mechanisms we have to push for positive long term structural change, using the huge moral and political advantage gained at the election. Build, change, organize, grow systems that actually help people who need it.
Everyone is just going along with this stupid pointless circus because they feel guilty about British crimes and think this will somehow help people who died 200 years ago.
Get a fucken grip and use your Democratic power to help, don't throw your weight behind people who are making the world less inclusive ffs
How? You refuse to explain. Every gap you identify I dispute and you go "nah man" and act like that's as good as actual facts.
How does the No vote lead to the actual change you're describing? You won't even answer that.
I've been nothing but respectful toward you, even in disagreement. You're being an absolute cunt. This is the no vote in a nutshell n
There is! The power is limited to "may make representations". It's written in stone, what more do you need than official, published documentation that clearly refutes what you claim is the position of the Yes campaign?