The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
A bit off topic but relevant to gsco's broader views and to the way the Voice Debate has been framed.
Steeping aside from loaded labels like Marxism that gsco uses, lets one see things more clearly. Here is another label that is hard to argue with:
The ABC and much of the left leaning MSM has adopted "Virtuosity" as its manifesto. The Manifesto is to support any narrative deemed from on high, by approved experts and just set around the coffee machine chats to be aligned to:
- Saving the planet
- Promoting social inclusivity
- Keeping us safe
- reducing inequality
Therein lies the Manifesto's power and the missionary zeal of its adherents. Who can argue against such goals??
Every ABC story on anything just a tiny bit related to such issues is framed from this perspective. Every ABC moderator or journalist nudges their story in this direction and actively steps in to counter any viewpoint that may run counter to the narrative or that just raises inconvenient complications or problems.
All sort of good so far if the approach was fair, balanced and issues were carefully understood and nuances could at least be explored.
The problem, for us all, lies with the "Virtuosity Manifesto" is that it goes hand in hand with keeping the message simple so as not to confuse the ignorant masses (ooops listeners). Almost al;ways, they sweep as much complexity, nuance and possibility for unintended consequences under the carpet as possible. This narrative control and the debate killing power of phrases such as "saving the planet" makes such virtuosity based messaging ripe for manipulation by deeper forces trying to mold and fragment society or often simply driven by profit motive of huge multinationals.
Examples
"Keep us safe"
Covid was the classic example - the "keep us safe" mantra lead to terrible abuses of power and unintended consequences for health, mental health, inflation, debt, economic inequality, and obscene profits for some big Pharma companies. Yet the ABC reporters during the pandemic peak glowed with excitement and an aura of missionary zeal as they strove to parrot the official narrative - even as the facts emerged to show it to be wrong and changing quickly.
"Inclusivity"
A while ago I was listening to an ABC panel show on gender issues and one fairly balanced panel member made the point that it was not so appropriate for some transgender people to go into schools and read stories to kindergarten kids if they had adopted the highly sexualised and exaggerated mode of make up and dress. Seemed a reasonable point. Most would not be keen on a female dressed in say a sexy burlesque stripper outfit reading to their kids in school either.
But predictably, the ABC host had to step in and defend the right to do so based on "inclusivity". They just can't help themselves - "button pushed must defend (not explore) narrative" response activated. This is tiresome to listen to and stifles exploration of important issues.
It can lead to bad or ineffective policy. It also destroys credibility of experts, media and government once the gap between narrative and reality yawns too wide (the term medical expert is now viewed totally differently to before covid).
The Virtuosity Manifesto has many advocates:
- the well meaning,
- the brainwashed
- the ideological control freaks - yes they can be on the left as well as the right
- the (ironically) plundering capitalists cynically using it to make massive profits
- geopolitical disruptors trying to weaken their opponents.
- parasitic grifters
- etc.
A more complex world than just some Marxist Conspiracy.
I am afraid skepticism and critical thinking has to be part of your media consumption. Or else, you may choose just succumb, agree and wrap yourself in the warm cloak of virtuosity. Or forget it all and just go surfing!
But remember, there are lots of unintended consequences await from pendulums swinging too far and if the nuances and complexities of issues are not understood.
Looking up the Jacobins could be a substitute for the M word frog. They, too, were frustrated that people didn't do what they deemed people should do: an ideal behaviour and way of being. Also big on renaming months, days etc.
totally frog
all of it!
"...The problem, for us all, lies with the "Virtuosity Manifesto" is that it goes hand in hand with keeping the message simple so as not to confuse the ignorant masses (ooops listeners). Almost al;ways, they sweep as much complexity, nuance and possibility for unintended consequences under the carpet..."
the thing with 'the ignorant masses' is...
they are not that ignorant anymore
even if they dont write good... they know stuff...
and the self loving 'virtuous' hubrics, think they are all a bit dumb and treat them with absolute disdain
enter vitriolic division
some of the smartest cookies I know, have never even stepped inside a university
(with the exception of the wild uni bar band shows late 80s - 90s that is... before the unis went woke!)
did someone mention jacobins?
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/were-middle-revolution-victor-davis-...
frog wrote:A bit off topic but relevant to gsco's broader views and to the way the Voice Debate has been framed.
Steeping aside from loaded labels like Marxism that gsco uses, lets one see things more clearly. Here is another label that is hard to argue with:
The ABC and much of the left leaning MSM has adopted "Virtuosity" as its manifesto. The Manifesto is to support any narrative deemed from on high, by approved experts and just set around the coffee machine chats to be aligned to:
- Saving the planet
- Promoting social inclusivity
- Keeping us safe
- reducing inequalityTherein lies the Manifesto's power and the missionary zeal of its adherents. Who can argue against such goals??
Every ABC story on anything just a tiny bit related to such issues is framed from this perspective. Every ABC moderator or journalist nudges their story in this direction and actively steps in to counter any viewpoint that may run counter to the narrative or that just raises inconvenient complications or problems.
All sort of good so far if the approach was fair, balanced and issues were carefully understood and nuances could at least be explored.
The problem, for us all, lies with the "Virtuosity Manifesto" is that it goes hand in hand with keeping the message simple so as not to confuse the ignorant masses (ooops listeners). Almost al;ways, they sweep as much complexity, nuance and possibility for unintended consequences under the carpet as possible. This narrative control and the debate killing power of phrases such as "saving the planet" makes such virtuosity based messaging ripe for manipulation by deeper forces trying to mold and fragment society or often simply driven by profit motive of huge multinationals.
Examples
"Keep us safe"
Covid was the classic example - the "keep us safe" mantra lead to terrible abuses of power and unintended consequences for health, mental health, inflation, debt, economic inequality, and obscene profits for some big Pharma companies. Yet the ABC reporters during the pandemic peak glowed with excitement and an aura of missionary zeal as they strove to parrot the official narrative - even as the facts emerged to show it to be wrong and changing quickly."Inclusivity"
A while ago I was listening to an ABC panel show on gender issues and one fairly balanced panel member made the point that it was not so appropriate for some transgender people to go into schools and read stories to kindergarten kids if they had adopted the highly sexualised and exaggerated mode of make up and dress. Seemed a reasonable point. Most would not be keen on a female dressed in say a sexy burlesque stripper outfit reading to their kids in school either.But predictably, the ABC host had to step in and defend the right to do so based on "inclusivity". They just can't help themselves - "button pushed must defend (not explore) narrative" response activated. This is tiresome to listen to and stifles exploration of important issues.
It can lead to bad or ineffective policy. It also destroys credibility of experts, media and government once the gap between narrative and reality yawns too wide (the term medical expert is now viewed totally differently to before covid).
The Virtuosity Manifesto has many advocates:
- the well meaning,
- the brainwashed
- the ideological control freaks - yes they can be on the left as well as the right
- the (ironically) plundering capitalists cynically using it to make massive profits
- geopolitical disruptors trying to weaken their opponents.
- parasitic grifters
- etc.A more complex world than just some Marxist Conspiracy.
I am afraid skepticism and critical thinking has to be part of your media consumption. Or else, you may choose just succumb, agree and wrap yourself in the warm cloak of virtuosity. Or forget it all and just go surfing!
But remember, there are lots of unintended consequences await from pendulums swinging too far and if the nuances and complexities of issues are not understood.
Well said Frog, kind of agree on all points.
It's amusing and confusing. I go on twitter and my feed is full of lefties complaining that the ABC has become too right wing, I come here and the thread is full of accusations that the ABC is too left wing. Both say things have to change, or that it has to go.
There's a memo floating around the internet, written by Ita Buttrose, where she sacked a presenter for what she perceived as left wing bias in an interview with some right wing guest. Sacked him on the spot, get your shit and go immediately, where she goes on to issue instructions on how the on air staff were to proceed and which is being touted by the left as proof of right wing bias. I'll try and find it and post it later.
In the meantime, here is an article written for the Monthly last year, by an old Uni mate of mine Josh Bornstein, which traces some of the history and canvasses the issue. It's free.
https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2022/august/josh-bornstein/what-s-go...
Yes Sypkan of course life has always been like that in many ways.
But what I see is currently is a renewal of a more generally extreme, militant and activist version of it compared to previous decades, very much focused on culture wars and social justice activism and revolution as apposed to basic economic inequality and economic solutions, with much more mainstream political/media/education take-up and cheerleading, with it using very nasty information warfare techniques, and with very anti-West and anti-Anglosphere themes and focus interestingly also peddled by Russia and China.
Australia does not need to follow the US down its degenerative path of social and cultural dysfunction and division.
And good post frog.
This looks like an interesting book: The Identity Trap.
"some of the smartest cookies I know, have never even stepped inside a university" beg to differ, all the smartest traders I know never went to uni, however all the smartest people I know went to uni.
san Guine wrote:"some of the smartest cookies I know, have never even stepped inside a university" beg to differ, all the smartest traders I know never went to uni, however all the smartest people I know went to uni.
Depends what you mean by smart, there is all types of different intelligence.
Ive met professionals like university lectures and scientist that are extremely intelligent in some ways but then also just lack basic logic and understanding of other things, or even have trouble with simple things in life
Lets take Tony Abbott of an example i will use him as an example because im sure nobody here likes him so nobody will try to defend him.
He is extremely intelligent in many ways even went to Oxford and graduated after studying Philosophy, politics and economics.
But on the flip side he thought he could buy back leaky fishing boats from Indonesian fisherman to stop people smugglers, just a ridiculous idea that goes against common sense and logic
You can be intelligent in many ways especially on paper but then kind of a dumb arse in many other ways.
adam12 wrote:Sameaswas, I don't know or care what your colour or race is. but you blame Marcia Langton and Noel Pearson for something they are trying to solve, not condone.
I have no idea what your second sentence has to do with it.
adam... the israel govt does not hold the post war german ppl accountable for the nazi regime, the point i am makeing is the voice holds a race of ppl (*white) to blame for past events that have nothing to do with me, us.
saw a video of a radio interview of noel pearson he did ystrday, he was asked what plan b was if voice fails he said "no plan b" and HE had been planning this voice for 20yrs. "on the ground" with fnp communities.
so that is 20yrs of indoctrination of their children to have a racist attitude towards white ppl because of past events.
the state of israel does not teach their children to hate germans. nazism hate yes.
OK I found it, Ita sacked Breakfast presenter Paul Kennedy after an interview with Michalea Cash, in the memo she says she has been aware of left wing bias amongst on air presenters and "this will no longer be tolerated". I can't get it to copy and paste so here it is reported in The Bug:
https://thebugonline.com.au/2020/01/20/abc-sacks-paul-kennedy/
So I wonder who is correct, the left or the right? Maybe they both are?
Like beauty, maybe ABC bias is in the eye of the beholder.
My view is that the Australian media landscape is dominated by right wing media owners and news/opinion and that the LNP who long perceived a left bias at the ABC set out to change that going back to the Howard, Abbott, Turnbull era. They succeeded in stacking the Board and management with their own people which has flowed through production and on air. Great journalists like Kerry O'Brien and Barry Cassidy were replaced by lightweight ex Murdoch/Sky news people like Speers and Karvalis and that the platforming of right wing/LNP viewpoints rose exponentially. The Breakfast show, Q&A, The Afternoon Briefing and ABC radio are all flashpoints now for accusations of right wing bias by the left. Alice Workman, the Q&A producer, in particular, as well as David Speers, come under attack constantly for perceived right wing/LNP bias and my personal view is that there is some merit in those criticisms.
Is the ABC Marxist or pushing the Virtuosity Manifesto or is it Murdoch lite?, what the balance is that needs to be struck is an open question and the debate seems as polarising as the Voice debate, both sides vehemently see the other as the problem.
Like I said above, confusing and amusing.
sameaswas wrote:adam12 wrote:Sameaswas, I don't know or care what your colour or race is. but you blame Marcia Langton and Noel Pearson for something they are trying to solve, not condone.
I have no idea what your second sentence has to do with it.adam... the israel govt does not hold the post war german ppl accountable for the nazi regime, the point i am makeing is the voice holds a race of ppl (*white) to blame for past events that have nothing to do with me, us.
saw a video of a radio interview of noel pearson he did ystrday, he was asked what plan b was if voice fails he said "no plan b" and HE had been planning this voice for 20yrs. "on the ground" with fnp communities.
so that is 20yrs of indoctrination of their children to have a racist attitude towards white ppl because of past events.
the state of israel does not teach their children to hate germans. nazism hate yes.
Sameas, OK got it now. I apologise for my comment to you last night, it was an asshole thing to say and I take it back, I can be a prick online sometimes and am too much of a pedant, I had a shitty day yesterday and was in a foul mood at the time, but it is no excuse. I'm sorry and hope you are well. Best wishes.
adam12 wrote:sameaswas wrote:adam12 wrote:Sameaswas, I don't know or care what your colour or race is. but you blame Marcia Langton and Noel Pearson for something they are trying to solve, not condone.
I have no idea what your second sentence has to do with it.adam... the israel govt does not hold the post war german ppl accountable for the nazi regime, the point i am makeing is the voice holds a race of ppl (*white) to blame for past events that have nothing to do with me, us.
saw a video of a radio interview of noel pearson he did ystrday, he was asked what plan b was if voice fails he said "no plan b" and HE had been planning this voice for 20yrs. "on the ground" with fnp communities.
so that is 20yrs of indoctrination of their children to have a racist attitude towards white ppl because of past events.
the state of israel does not teach their children to hate germans. nazism hate yes.Sameas, OK got it now. I apologise for my comment to you last night, it was an asshole thing to say and I take it back, I can be a prick online sometimes and am too much of a pedant, I had a shitty day yesterday and was in a foul mood at the time, but it is no excuse. I'm sorry and hope you are well. Best wishes.
cheers adam, no offence was taken, i should of explained my point better.
When will it stop?
"Depends what you mean by smart, there is all types of different intelligence."
yep
piaget's theory of multiple intelligences tells us most people are smart in one way or another. but will be deficient in one of the other multiple intelligences...
the scientists example above is prime example. many engineers and the IT crowd might be smart in mathematics and predictable systems... but are totally lacking in 'emotional intelligence'...
and I think this where we run into trouble with the hubris of the contemporary journalists... they might be able to write with skill and flair... but by their own admission, most can barely do year 9 maths... this became most evident through corona...
and is most evident in the misplaced contempt journalists constantly display towards your average pleb
mixing the educated and intelligence is a huge rookie mistake, tony abbott is a primo example
there's no doubt that pursuing an education to increase one's intelligence improves the equation... though the measuring of that equation is actually very contested ground...
intelligence aside...
ignorance is a thing of the past with the internet
deciphering the mess that is the internet is now the new game
the machine, their clowns, and their new self appointed roles as the arbiters of all truth shows daily... they are just not that smart...
Prescient to the discussion of ABC bias, the lefties on twitter are going apeshit at the moment over an appearance on RN Breakfast this morning by prominent No campaigner lawyer Louise Clegg who argues the Voice "will entrench "identity politics" into our democracy."
Louise Clegg is Angus Taylor's wife.
This was not disclosed to the listeners.
It should have been.
Is that right wing bias or is it part of the Virtuosity Manifesto?
Or just shit journalism?
Surfers Voice please.
Inequality is sadly rife in lineups. Hot surfers are simply mirroring patriarchial stereotypes of dominance taught by right leaning performance-obsessed surf media and are renowned for not being inclusive of kooks.
Surf lineups are also not sufficiently diverse and inclusive with deeply ingrained systemic surf break elements caused by Mother Nature's unresponsive bathymetry, swell patterns and predator food chains that discourage participation from the plus plus sizes, the unfit, non swimmers and those scared of drowning and sharks.
Perfect endless surf should be a right for all - not just for those with the unfair privilege of proximity, fitness, practice, ocean oriented parents and favourable body types.
Elo is at a loose end. Maybe he could lead a campaign with a focus on celebrity endorsements (Kamal?) and Turps doing voice-overs.?
Just an observation on ABC gsco, i reckon it's more of a targeted audience thing.
I only get ABC radio on my shitty car stereo and i've noticed alot of the quick news bites on the voice have been letting no advocates have more air time, quite bizarre grabs too. A quick little insert into the news about how so and so politician says it will be a bad thing etc...but there's no context or real justification for the story to even be in there.
It's kinda bugged me because it does feel like propaganda slotted into a news bulletin.
I'm guessing in this part of oz, the radio listeners are mostly the oldies and those out on the land and farms who are probably pretty staunch in their old school views.
In contrast, yep, the website is much more pro voice, and i'm guessing this is aimed more towards the younger generation (under 60) who are more tech savvy and more aware of social issues.
So possibly just focusing the content on their platforms to their known target audience?
Anyway just an observation.
The Voice is about the future not the past. No part of it is to blame anyone for anything.
seeds wrote:The Voice is about the future not the past. No part of it is to blame anyone for anything.
The voice is dividing a nation. It's not the future were we should be heading.
seeds wrote:The Voice is about the future not the past. No part of it is to blame anyone for anything.
they're gone, seeds.. ghosts-gone-tribal who stare at vacuous, captioned puppets and put bets on the game.
Got in early and voted YES today , didn’t see any purple signs, a few no ideas attempted to pull me into a conversation, just ignored them and strolled on in .
But it doesn’t matter to Price and co whether these arguments make sense – only that voters feel a sense of personal aggrievement at the money being spent – wasted – on Indigenous Australians. https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/10/04/aud...
Supafreak wrote:But it doesn’t matter to Price and co whether these arguments make sense – only that voters feel a sense of personal aggrievement at the money being spent – wasted – on Indigenous Australians. https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/10/04/aud...
Future PM material according to Janet Albrechtsen on the front page of if the Australian....
Mmmmm yeah nah....
Watch her fall from view and significance after Voice done.
burleigh wrote:seeds wrote:The Voice is about the future not the past. No part of it is to blame anyone for anything.
The voice is dividing a nation. It's not the future were we should be heading.
Nation's been divided since LNP decided rightwing racism was A'ok... first was that snivelling grub Howard and his pathetic lies about kids overboard etc... then came the Onionmuncher... at least he was honest about his slimeness. But lo and behold along came Scummo who doesn'thold a hose... who will ever forget his grubbiness, his inability for truth, his delusions of grandeur and just how much people hated him. Now the Spud. This worm-ridden powermongrel thinks a pair of specs will give him a veneer of respect. Ha.. his fascism is simmering at the moment and his negativity is dividing the nation... he could've gone bipartisan and allowed this country a grand historic moment but his pathetic politicking is showing his true colours early. Honestly, these grubs have no redeeming features at all. Just free market pirates who suck the marrow out of everything to increase their own privilege. Private skool suckjobs who havent known a day of decent work in their ugly lives. Disgusting.
Supafreak wrote:
Love it... see the flies hanging around the shit?
burleigh wrote:I focus wrote:andy-mac wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/03/indigenous-voice-...
No will probably get up, unfortunately in my opinion.
But think it will be pyrrhic victory for Dutton and his party.Yeah been thinking the same for awhile myself no voters are pretty infatic with their views I have sorted accepted Australians still don't like Aboriginals same as in my childhood sentiment hasn't shifted much unfortunately.
The problem with that sentiment is no focus of inclusion for solutions so nothing will change, that rings loud with Price's finger pointing paternalism all the while telling whites what they want to hear to shore up her political career and status... cringe worthy but it works.
Another one doing more damage than good. Sure there will be some racists that are voting no, but I bet they would be the majority of no voters.
Calling all no voters racists shows just how little you understand
I didn't call all no voters racists read what I said, get off the gear FFS.
And understand what?
I focus wrote:burleigh wrote:I focus wrote:andy-mac wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/03/indigenous-voice-...
No will probably get up, unfortunately in my opinion.
But think it will be pyrrhic victory for Dutton and his party.Yeah been thinking the same for awhile myself no voters are pretty infatic with their views I have sorted accepted Australians still don't like Aboriginals same as in my childhood sentiment hasn't shifted much unfortunately.
The problem with that sentiment is no focus of inclusion for solutions so nothing will change, that rings loud with Price's finger pointing paternalism all the while telling whites what they want to hear to shore up her political career and status... cringe worthy but it works.
Another one doing more damage than good. Sure there will be some racists that are voting no, but I bet they would be the majority of no voters.
Calling all no voters racists shows just how little you understand
I didn't call all no voters racists read what I said, get off the gear FFS.
And understand what?
You said: I have sorted accepted Australians still don't like Aboriginals
andy-mac wrote:Supafreak wrote:But it doesn’t matter to Price and co whether these arguments make sense – only that voters feel a sense of personal aggrievement at the money being spent – wasted – on Indigenous Australians. https://www.themonthly.com.au/the-politics/rachel-withers/2023/10/04/aud...
Future PM material according to Janet Albrechtsen on the front page of if the Australian....
Mmmmm yeah nah....
Watch her fall from view and significance after Voice done.
Of course she will get far less publicity after this especially when the focus goes from voice to actual issue's that affect people like energy prices and cost of living.
Normally people barely know the name of the government's indigenous minister let alone the shadow indigenous minister, but even when she wasn't shadow indigenous minister she got a fair bit of press so im sure she will still continue to get some especially now she is pretty much a household name.
The good old days of Labor hey
Yes i did ensure they are things they actually said.
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id...
https://www.couriermail.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=CMWEB_WRE170...
Spud doing his best to get everyone focused on an audit into government spending on FNP , what’s he trying to distract everyone from looking at ? Is it his time as home affairs minister ? Hmmmmm
I agree with the sentiment of frog's earlier comments. (The word he was looking for is probably not virtuosity.)
Although the ABC is a great national asset, its presenters do tend to lean very left, and as frog pointed out, can uncritically claim the moral high ground of victim-championing, regardless of whether those ideas actually result in better outcomes overall.
In such a worldview, groups who claim victimhood cannot be criticised, as they are not responsible for their own conditions or outcomes. Paradoxically, they must also be celebrated as strong and independent. When you can't examine and discuss something honestly and fearlessly, it is impossible think logically, let alone approach the truth.
When the BLM movement was at its peak, to question whether Black Americans were actually at more risk of police violence than other demographics was absolutely off the table. And yet, when taking into account their higher propensity for violent crime, it turns out they are no more likely to be killed by police than white Americans. Taboo!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883
https://www.noahsnewsletter.com/p/variation-in-fatal-police-shootings
As we watched the shocking brutality of George Floyd's murder footage and saw good people making noble speeches, stopping to actually run the numbers seems like cold-hearted nitpicking. And yet, it's actually anti-racist, and vital to stop the topic degenerating into ideological tribal wars. It's also important to treat them equally when they start rioting and looting in the name of justice.
Anyway, we don't have that exact situation. But I'm hearing a lot of pro-voice arguments that are not really linked to the proposed solution. The logic, as far as I can tell, goes something like this:
1. Aboriginal people have much worse outcomes than other Australians on many key measures, such as life expectancy, child mortality, education, crime, and family dysfunction.
2. Many of those outcomes can be tied to European occupation and the generations of harm they perpetrated against Aboriginals.
3. The current system is not working.
4. This is a bad thing.
(all undeniably true, although it does rob Aboriginal people of any role in their own condition).
Therefore, (huge leap):
5. We should permanently change the Constitution to add a race-based bureaucracy who has the ear of parliament.
What are the tacit steps underlying that huge logical leap? That people can only understand their own race? What could be more racist?
That Australian Aboriginal people are totally unique among humans on this planet, and that any measures proven to work elsewhere could not be adapted to their context?
That Aboriginal people know how to solve all their own problems. If the government only did what they said, then the kids would stay in school, the adults would support their families, they would all give up the grog, and live longer, healthier, better educated, more productive lives. Or they would live on the land in peaceful harmony like the olden times (or something)?
If only Yes supporters would tell us! I just don't think they've thought it through.
It is a shameful fact that Australia has not been able to improve the lot of our First Nations people. But I just don't see how enshrining an us-and-them divide in the constitution is going to bring us together. Compared with many other countries, Australia has very little racism. This move would undermine a fundamental tenet of our liberal democracy: that we are all equal under the law and all have equal citizenship. If that equality were consistently applied, then we would care just as much about the problems of blackfellas in a remote community as we do about whitefellas in a rich inner city suburb.
I consider myself a bit of a lefty, and it's unfortunate that the unspoken vibe of this debate is that voting 'No' is considered a racist move. It's true, most racists would vote 'No'. But it's also true that many people such as myself will actually see it as an anti-racist move to vote 'No'. The Voice just seems like another bad idea in the name of a good cause.
frog wrote:Surfers Voice please.
Inequality is sadly rife in lineups. Hot surfers are simply mirroring patriarchial stereotypes of dominance taught by right leaning performance-obsessed surf media and are renowned for not being inclusive of kooks.
Surf lineups are also not sufficiently diverse and inclusive with deeply ingrained systemic surf break elements caused by Mother Nature's unresponsive bathymetry, swell patterns and predator food chains that discourage participation from the plus plus sizes, the unfit, non swimmers and those scared of drowning and sharks.
Perfect endless surf should be a right for all - not just for those with the unfair privilege of proximity, fitness, practice, ocean oriented parents and favourable body types.
Elo is at a loose end. Maybe he could lead a campaign with a focus on celebrity endorsements (Kamal?) and Turps doing voice-overs.?
And let's not forget the systemic discrimination that was aimed at surfers by both law enforcement officials and employers, the over the top incarceration rates for smoking the herb and a stolen generation of much loved impounded rust buckets.
Our most sacred sites have been trampled on by the masses who show no respect for elders of the surfing community. Gentrification and the real estate market has destroyed most of our traditional coastal way of life, and whinging to the local Council is getting us nowhere.
Vote Yes
@harrycoopr
I think it goes further back than children overboard. The rise of Pauline Hanson and One nation shocked Howard and the LNP. They had promoted a platform of multiculturalism up to that point and it was a shock to them when she stole a big hunk of their base and opened their eyes to the number of voters who they thought they owned but didn't. Howard's language and policies started to change at that point. It would have suited them to let her have those voters had she been amenable and they could guarantee her preferences and support on the floor of the Senate but she got too big and was such an unpredictable loose cannon, and they held only small electoral majorities, that the risk of her disruption meant they went her and tried to shut her vote down and reclaim the racists and looney right. Abbott even got her jailed at one point. One nation survived but Pauline learned her lesson and could be relied on for preferences and Senate votes from then on, in the most part. She was almost finished as an electoral force anyway until the LNP put a "moderate" in Turnbull in as leader and the far right bailed on them again and Pauline and One Nation got their second wind. To win back her support the LNP had to abolish the Family Court, a personal mission of Pauline's due to her perceived treatment of her son by the Family Court in a messy divorce and something the LNP didn't mind as it was one of the great achievements of the Whitlam era and Lionel Murphy who was a longtime political enemy. Pauline always votes with the LNP in the Senate these days.
The division started mostly with her, the LNP just capitalised on it. Children overboard was the litmus. It worked and the purging of the moderates and the move further right followed, so they have arrived at where they are today, radical right wing reactionaries with Dutton leading them on about 20% PPM and a sea of red governing across the mainland.
What is interesting is that Pauline has been largely absent in the Voice debate. I'm sure she is out there opposing the Voice, but I've seen more of knucklehead Mal Roberts in this space than Pauline in the past months. That's been a bonus, although her usual presence on these issues has been taken up by equally stupid and abhorrent heads so swings and roundabouts.
But you are right, the division is ugly and unnecessary and sad for our nation. It really is a bit of a nothingburger, the Voice, in terms of it's impact, but it has become a canvass for expressing some ugly, hurtful and embarrassing things about us as a country and the ramifications of the vote, yes or no, will be enduring.
What a great bunch of humans the yes23 people are:
Leader of the no hopers . 
Underpinning much of the struggle of the "yes" case is overcoming a deep seated prejudice within the majority of Australians of all backgrounds - including FNP. Interestingly, before you leap in with an assumption and the usual counter argument either way, it does not begin with "r". It begins with "s".
"S" is for Skepticism - towards the ability of large committees to solve complex, intractable social and economic problems... or any problem for that matter.
Such skepticism is sort of instinctive from lived experience at work and through observation of committees.
It is also backed up by any examination of research into project management and steering committees' successes and failures (scope too big, committee too large, lack of clear governance, committee make up, leadership etc. are all known risk factors to be managed).
Overwhelming positivity, as well as emotional and simplistic messaging from the "yes" campaign, does not allay such skepticism. It quietly magnifies it.
Details on the committee's operation or at least upfront recognition of the challenges ahead and some solutions would have helped.
burleigh wrote:I focus wrote:burleigh wrote:I focus wrote:andy-mac wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/03/indigenous-voice-...
No will probably get up, unfortunately in my opinion.
But think it will be pyrrhic victory for Dutton and his party.Yeah been thinking the same for awhile myself no voters are pretty infatic with their views I have sorted accepted Australians still don't like Aboriginals same as in my childhood sentiment hasn't shifted much unfortunately.
The problem with that sentiment is no focus of inclusion for solutions so nothing will change, that rings loud with Price's finger pointing paternalism all the while telling whites what they want to hear to shore up her political career and status... cringe worthy but it works.
Another one doing more damage than good. Sure there will be some racists that are voting no, but I bet they would be the majority of no voters.
Calling all no voters racists shows just how little you understand
I didn't call all no voters racists read what I said, get off the gear FFS.
And understand what?
You said: I have sorted accepted Australians still don't like Aboriginals
I think that's a big part of the negativity, classic conversation is " I am not racist but then they go on to knock Aboriginals" doesn't solve the issues.
Have had that conversation repeatedly.
I don't think it applies to all No voters you are voting No I don't think you are a racist or the above.
frog wrote:Underpinning much of the struggle of the "yes" case is overcoming a deep seated prejudice within the majority of Australians of all backgrounds - including FNP. Interestingly, before you leap in with an assumption and the usual counter argument either way, it does not begin with "r". It begins with "s".
"S" is for Skepticism - towards the ability of large committees to solve complex, intractable social and economic problems... or any problem for that matter.
Such skepticism is sort of instinctive from lived experience at work and through observation of committees.
It is also backed up by any examination of research into project management and steering committees' successes and failures (scope too big, committee too large, lack of clear governance, committee make up, leadership etc. are all known risk factors to be managed).
Overwhelming positivity, as well as emotional and simplistic messaging from the "yes" campaign, does not allay such skepticism. It quietly magnifies it.
Details on the committee's operation or at least upfront recognition of the challenges ahead and some solutions would have helped.
Interesting and pretty much accurate take there Frog I reckon.
The problem with the "give us the detail" argument is that it is not how the Constitution and referendums work. The parliament has to first establish legislative power for the Voice to exist before it can then legislate the detail, the same with any other power it exercises.
For example let's look at it's power to impose taxes.
s51(vi) gives the Federal Parliament the power to make laws for " Taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States: "
That is all that it says.
It provides no detail on anything else.
Nothing about the Tax Department or any tax laws or who, what and how tax is imposed.
Those details are left to the Parliament to legislate and the High Court to decide if they are within the power of the parliament to make once they are.
The Tax Act is so big with detail you can't jump over it.
The High Court tax precedents and case law could fill a library.
No detail in the Constitution about how the power is exercised.
The same applies to all the heads of power.
Here it is, s51, not in full
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:--
(i.) Trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States:
(ii.) Taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States:
(iii.) Bounties on the production or export of goods, but so that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth:
(iv.) Borrowing money on the public credit of the Commonwealth:
(v.) Postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services:
(vi.) The naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth:
(vii.) Lighthouses, lightships, beacons and buoys:
(viii.) Astronomical and meteorological observations:
(ix.) Quarantine:
(x.) Fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits:
(xi.) Census and statistics:
(xii.) Currency, coinage, and legal tender:
(xiii.) Banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money:
(xiv.) Insurance, other than State insurance; also State insurance extending beyond the limits of the State concerned:
(xv.) Weights and measures:
(xvi.) Bills of exchange and promissory notes:
(xvii.) Bankruptcy and insolvency:
(xviii.) Copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks:
(xix.) Naturalization and aliens:
(xx.) Foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth:
(xxi.) Marriage:
(xxii.) Divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants:
(xxiii.) Invalid and old-age pensions:
(xxiiiA.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:
(xxiv.) The service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the judgments of the courts of the States:
(xxv.) The recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of the States:
(xxvi.) The people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws:
(xxvii.) Immigration and emigration:
(xxviii.) The influx of criminals:
(xxix.) External affairs:
(xxx.) The relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific:"
As you can see many only provide one or a few words of detail, for example "Quarantine", one word, yet it provides power for a system that contains incredible detail in terms of agencies, laws and regulations.
This is how the Constitution and referendums and power to create a body like the Voice works. First you get the power, then you get the detail (I sound like Tony Montana) through debate and vote and legislation in the parliament.
It is a major deficiency for the Yes case that the detail cannot be provided before the power to create it exists, and that has been exploited by Dutton and the No side, although Dutton very well knows it is a bullshit argument.
The Yes side, and Albanese in particular, could have done a lot more to explain this.
More could have been done to provide voters with a theoretical explanation of what the Voice could look like and how it will operate.
That is a fundamental failing of the Yes proponents and Albo himself and if the vote fails I can guarantee it will be recognised as a factor in the post mortems.
But it is how the system operates.
Nailed it @adam12.
Frog, Adam12, unusually insightful comments.
I checked this forum a couple of days ago and was concerned about a few posts.
wow, adam12, you must be in a good place to be wading back into this slop, so patient at this crucial juncture.. thank you for your continued explanations, I hope crew find it helpful.
And thanks burleigh, I found it interesting that Auslan for dickhead is the same as our global international hand-signal for dickhead.
Exactly basesix!
Adam12, I guess Pauline is the real unflushable turd of Australian politics.
Burliegh, there is plenty of unsavoury No peeps clips online. Your algorithm won’t go there.
ps good explanation by Adam12 as to why no details. Also, Ray explaining how those details can’t be given now and would or could change over time due to need and therefore by legislation through parliament. (wink wink full transcript wasn’t in Burliegh’s repost of someone on Insta)
I’m still leaning towards No though. Because of my new found fondness for the constitution and my ongoing confusion as to what it’s purpose is.
Albo will deflect to the newest go to deflection if unsuccessful, namely "disinformation!".
But there have been a few misteps:
- Shaq !!!????
- Small target campaign
- Standard parliament argy bargy scripted ridicule of concerns and questions on an issue deserving of sober discussion
- "I haven't read it, why would I?"
- Kamalmentum !???
- disinformation about ... disinformation
He will own the win ... or the loss.
seeds wrote:Burliegh, there is plenty of unsavoury No peeps clips online. .
Here's a good one.
&ab_channel=Cooker28 Only 6 minutes, that’s acceptable.
While its true what Adam says about the constitution, in this day and age a lot of people aren't going to support something like this until they can see the detail or see it operating.
It would have been smart and not hard to say while the model/detail itself doesn't get put in the constitution, here is the voice and here is every little detail, here is the answers to your question's.
Or better still put it in legislation first, show Australians how it works then latter take it to a referendum, which would give it much more chance of getting up.
This was actually recommended to Albo by at least three seperate people, Shorten, father frank brennan ( human rights lawyer and academic) & Noel Pearson.
But Albo ignored their advice, why we can only speculate but im glad he did.
Uni assignment i did a few years ago. This is my take on things. I'm sure this will ruffle many feathers. I hope so.
Love Blue Diamond x
The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Introduction – Compensatory Justice
Disparities between the standards of living of humans on this planet have long been a part of our history on this planet. From the wealthy nations of the West to the developing and undeveloped nations on this globe, the diversity in the quality of life when viewed from a moral standpoint are without a doubt grossly unfair.
In this paper I will look at why historic injustices do require some form of reparation. I take a strong stance that we are more obliged to solve current injustices than to provide reparation for every act of injustice in the past. In doing this I will first investigate the historic injustice of the Aboriginal people of Australia and I will look at the argument that they are entitled to some form of reparation and why.
I will incoroporate some interesting views from Jeremy Waldron, Robert Nozick and others which will help me slowly build to my conclusion that reparation should be in the form of Non Indigenous Australians surrendering some of our priveleges as a form of reparation.
Historic Injustices to Indigenous Australians:
Australia the continent was well inhabited for many years long before white settlement. It is commonly known that in 1788 Australia was colonised as a country under the rule of the British Empire, with total contempt for the fact that it was already inhabited by a native indigenous race of people.
The way the original inhabitants have been treated, including forced assimilation, execution, stolen families and not even allowed to be recognised as citizens for a large part of white Australia’s history are also well known facts. (Poole, 1999,pp114-142)
There exists now a situation where there is a large divide between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal Australian’s that can be traced back to the moment Australia was invaded by English settlers and the brutal and unfair treatment that has followed.
So at this point now, in 2013 what is the just and fair way to make amends for past actions?
I would argue that a moderate to large amount of reparation is overdue for this nation of people, the Aboriginal people. But there are many challenges to this view point especially that of how much reparation, and what sort of compensation.
Past injustices or present suffering?
One of the questions raised in an issue like this is whether it is better to provide compensation or reparation for past deeds, which have already been done in a previous generation and cannot be changed, or whether it is better to now provide assistance to those who are suffering in their current situations and consider that as a form of moral duty.
To understand this we need to delve a little deeper into this issue and hear some differing viewpoints.
Firstly we need to understand what the best way to provide reparation. How do we judge what is the best way of giving back and how much? Jeremy Waldron states “The historic record has a fragility that consists, …in the sheer contingency of what happened in the past” (Waldron,1992,p5 )
This is saying that we can’t trace every single injustice back to the original act therefore reparation for every act would be almost impossible because it would ultimately be guess work.
In this statement he has an objection from Robert Nozick who believes it is in fact possible to address this problem by “changing the present so that it resembles how the past would have looked had the injustice not taken place” (McKenzie, 2013)
This would be a way to ultimately provide maximum reparation, but is it the correct approach? I believe this is a fairly radical approach, although it does have some merits in the fact it would be working in a positive way for indigenous people, I don’t think it is entirely the right way to deal with these issues but it is on the right track.
Waldron argues that it is based on too many unknowns. “The status of counterfactual reasoning about the exercising of human reasoning of human freedom is unclear”(Waldron 1993,p10)
Which leaves the question somewhat open about the sort of reparation that is required, but provides one clear answer to the key question. Both agree that yes, reparation to some extent is required. But how much and in what form?
Another philosopher who leans more towards Waldron’s views is Kymlicka. He is somewhat more straightforward in his assessment that property rights in particular for Aboriginals would create “massive unfairness” and also he maintains the argument “Aboriginal rights must be grounded in concerns about equality and contemporary disadvantage. (McKenzie, 2013) I agree with both these views but I don’t think they provide any active solutions.
The Solution?
So if its not handing back all of Australia’s land to the original inhabitants that is the most appropriate way to deal with past injustices, then what is?
I look at the current country I grew up in, as a white Australian. I ask myself why I never had Aboriginal friends growing up, no understanding of Aboriginal culture and why my basic understanding of Indigenous Australians is mostly 200 years old. I look at our flag, a symbol of a nation that stole a country from its original inhabitants, with no recognition of the Indigenous people at all on it. I see that Australia considered Indigenous people as less than people until only 40 years ago and I see the way that Indigenous Australians live a completely separate life to the way of life I know as an Australian. I see that the only indigenous politician I am aware of is a former Olympian and it is because of this fact of her sporting status that I know this. I see no collective power or representation of Indigenous Australians and I see non Indigenous Australians,( a culture built on a history of stealing a land and mistreating its people) still taking, taking as much out of this land as they can, with little to no regard of sharing or giving to the original inhabitants. I see a government that says lots of words about ‘closing the gap’ and bringing the living standards of non- indigenous and indigenous Australians closer together, but apart from nice words, there is no conviction, no follow through, just assimilation , and all that still remains are injustices.
As stated by Sparrow, “Continuity gives rise to responsibility on part of present generations of Australians for our history”.(McKenzie,2013). Although deeds happened in the past beyond our control, what we do now to either ignore, or rectify these issues will reflect on us in history. So if we choose to do nothing, we are contributing to the history of the mistreatment of non- indigenous Australians. And this is simply unacceptable in my opinion.
Conclusion
So what is fair? I believe that the way forward is a surrendering of some of our privileges as non- indigenous Australians. The simple fact is it was morally wrong without a doubt what has happened in the past. And it is also morally wrong without a doubt to ignore these facts and not offer some form of reparation in the present. But how much?
I think that going back to Robert Nozick’s argument is a start. I think Nozick is wrong to make the present resemble the past in every aspect. But I do think that it would be reasonable to restore some aspects of the way things should be. The things that happened in the past were out of our control and we can’t go back to changing the way things were. But we could change the way things are.
For some examples. Why not give at least 50% of political power to indigenous people? It surely would be a fair thing to do considering this is their country. Media control. 50 percent. Industry. Realestate. The list goes on. Why do we not acknowledge the indigenous people on our flag, or better still use their flag? Why is Australia still a part of the Commonwealth when it serves little purpose to any of us and serves as a constant reminder to Indigenous Australians that they are still controlled by the original invaders. These to me are fairly simple reparations that would have minimal impact on Australia as a whole. Perhaps, it would alter the way we live but I think it is our responsibility, morally to forfeit some of our privileges for the greater good. Basically a little bit goes a long way.
In closing, it is a fact that a huge injustice occurred to the Indigenous population and suffering continues to this day. There is no easy solution to such a burden of pain. I believe the only solutions are for the non- Indigenous population to take responsibility and sacrifice our own way of life to bring about an overall equality. Sacrifice is not an easy word. But it all comes down to right and wrong. We are in a position to give, in this current generation. What are we so scared to lose, that was never ours in the first place??
Bibliography
McKenzie,C.”Prof” (2013), Lecture, Historic Injustices and Indigenous Rights, Macquarie University
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28
References
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28