The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
indo-dreaming wrote:sypkan wrote:good article...
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/the-devil-in-the-details-insi...
what a shambles
pity there wasn't more of this analysis before...
it's like a closd shop union scenario brought the whole thing down
sealed unit closed shop and hubris...
The comments are much better than the article.
There's those bloody "elites" again.
Like I said, when you can't find an enemy, invent one.
The right are such a miserable pathetic bunch of do nothing whingers.
indo-dreaming wrote:sypkan wrote:good article...
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/the-devil-in-the-details-insi...
what a shambles
pity there wasn't more of this analysis before...
it's like a closd shop union scenario brought the whole thing down
sealed unit closed shop and hubris...
The comments are much better than the article.
Love the last comment
A Salty Dog wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:sypkan wrote:good article...
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/the-devil-in-the-details-insi...
what a shambles
pity there wasn't more of this analysis before...
it's like a closd shop union scenario brought the whole thing down
sealed unit closed shop and hubris...
The comments are much better than the article.
There's those bloody "elites" again.
Like I said, when you can't find an enemy, invent one.
The right are such a miserable pathetic bunch of do nothing whingers.
Seems the "left" in here are doing all the whinging. Including yourself. If you live an a glass house, don't throw rocks.
sypkan wrote:it's the same with the ndis
if labor don't take those ridiculous spiralling out of control numbers seriously soon...
they'll soon lose that 'principle' too
Ah yes, the NDIS.
Those out of control spiralling costs are largely due to your fellow taxpayer rorting the system and ultimately you.
Those service providers found to be acting fraudulently , apart from any criminal penalty, be banned from receiving any taxpayer funded benefit such as medicare, PBS etc for life.
Anyway we now we have a template on how to ensure a referendum doesn't get up.
1. Ensure you dont have bipartisan support, you can do this by not negotiating on the proposal.
2. Ensure you dont have draft legislation in place so people dont understand or trust things.
3. Ensure you cant answers important questions and tell them you will figure those things out after (see number two)
4. Ensure you give as much mixed messages as possible, better still just lie where possible about things people can check and see are not true, ideally you want to have as many different people saying different things present and in the past, so instead of one or two leaders with clear messages have half a dozen with mixed messages.
5. Ensure you have questionable people involved who are on record having said some shady things that are going to spook people, praising communist is good start
6.Insult and call names to those that dont agree with you or question your proposal, racist, chicken littles, bigots, stupid, is a good start and when they bust your lies call them conspiracy theorist, its also important to call anything they say or point out as disinformation.
7. Ensure you have USA celebrities telling Aussies what they should support, cause we always love other's getting involved in our politics especially when they have no idea what its about.
8. Ensure big corporations back you, big business is a must but big sporting bodies and other organisations are good too, everyone loves being told how to think by big corporations.
9. Ensure you have an old washed up pop singer with an old annoying hit that people have already heard ten too many times as your theme song, then make an long advert with no info in it they must endure.
10. Slam your message down peoples throats, with non stop TV advertising, bill boards, TV host, bands, concerts the more the better, guilt trip the fuck out of people until they vote against what you want.
Was trying to keep it to ten, but 11 is important.
11. Make sure the question doesn't reflect the actual thing you are selling, for instance you could bang on about advice and advisory body for a year and then not even have the words advice or advisory body in the question or chapter to be included in the constitution, even better focus on one aspect like recognition when its really more about the aspect not mentioned properly like an advisory body.
After all this, you should get the No result you are after.
burleigh wrote:A Salty Dog wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:sypkan wrote:good article...
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/the-devil-in-the-details-insi...
what a shambles
pity there wasn't more of this analysis before...
it's like a closd shop union scenario brought the whole thing down
sealed unit closed shop and hubris...
The comments are much better than the article.
There's those bloody "elites" again.
Like I said, when you can't find an enemy, invent one.
The right are such a miserable pathetic bunch of do nothing whingers.
Seems the "left" in here are doing all the whinging. Including yourself. If you live an a glass house, don't throw rocks.
I'm not "left" mate.
Dutto and the boys were complaining about Albo and the crew ignoring more pressing issues such as the cost of living, yet the right are still banging on about the referendum.
indo-dreaming wrote:sypkan wrote:good article...
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/the-devil-in-the-details-insi...
what a shambles
pity there wasn't more of this analysis before...
it's like a closd shop union scenario brought the whole thing down
sealed unit closed shop and hubris...
The comments are much better than the article.
Pretty hilarious really. Scomo refused to take responsibility for anything, down to lying to a Royal Commission. Albo takes responsibility and people are calling for his head. Pretty funny what people want when it suits an agenda.
GuySmiley wrote:#algorithmrabbitholes
Gee wizz what does it take to be quoted as an authority on SN these days? No matter the bullshit as long as the person I’m quoting agrees with me that’s all that matters
#algorithmrabbitholes
#cockwomble
#fuckfacts
#legendinmylunchbox
#mythoughtsaremytruthandreality
soggydog wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:sypkan wrote:good article...
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/the-devil-in-the-details-insi...
what a shambles
pity there wasn't more of this analysis before...
it's like a closd shop union scenario brought the whole thing down
sealed unit closed shop and hubris...
The comments are much better than the article.
Pretty hilarious really. Scomo refused to take responsibility for anything, down to lying to a Royal Commission. Albo takes responsibility and people are calling for his head. Pretty funny what people want when it suits an agenda.
And Scomo was Minister for Everything at one stage.
soggydog wrote:sypkan wrote:it's the same with the ndis
if labor don't take those ridiculous spiralling out of control numbers seriously soon...
they'll soon lose that 'principle' too
Aaaah, I think you might find bill shorten already addressed the mismanagement of NDIS funds from the previous government and provided tax payers with quite the saving….. I’m not 100% sure but I think it was to the tune of $750 mill. So even if you subtract the $400 mill from the voice campaign taxpayers could be ahead about $350 mill.
But yeah, Labor has the numbers problem.
it was / is a good start...
the whole thing is fundamentally flawed in it's design, it would take some real self refletoon to accept that...
it is just mindblowing the amount of bureaucracy that came with this beast, along with lack of the most basic of checks and balances
it is beyond unsustainable
still...
burleigh wrote:Seems the "left" in here are doing all the whinging. Including yourself. If you live an a glass house, don't throw rocks.
Grammar alert Burleigh!! You can't throw rocks. They're too fucking big. It's stones you don't want to be throwing in a glass house.
A Salty Dog wrote:sypkan wrote:it's the same with the ndis
if labor don't take those ridiculous spiralling out of control numbers seriously soon...
they'll soon lose that 'principle' too
Ah yes, the NDIS.
Those out of control spiralling costs are largely due to your fellow taxpayer rorting the system and ultimately you.
Those service providers found to be acting fraudulently , apart from any criminal penalty, be banned from receiving any taxpayer funded benefit such as medicare, PBS etc for life.
getting a bit accusational there salty one
when actually, the opportunities I've resisted...
perfectly legitimate ones (see above)
gawd knows why I bother
the inherent design encourages otherwise...
I should buy some tuning forks and increase my prices to match the premium for 'therapuetic practice'
'research' and 'evidence based' practice of course...
apparently...
but not!
" ... it is just mindblowing the amount of bureaucracy that came with this beast, along with lack of the most basic of checks and balances ..."
Huh?
Want to rephrase that? explain yourself? or are you happy with the inherent contradiction ?
A Salty Dog wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:sypkan wrote:good article...
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/the-devil-in-the-details-insi...
what a shambles
pity there wasn't more of this analysis before...
it's like a closd shop union scenario brought the whole thing down
sealed unit closed shop and hubris...
The comments are much better than the article.
There's those bloody "elites" again.
Like I said, when you can't find an enemy, invent one.
The right are such a miserable pathetic bunch of do nothing whingers.
Yep Gina, one of the richest individuals on earth carrying on about elites!!
garyg1412 wrote:burleigh wrote:Seems the "left" in here are doing all the whinging. Including yourself. If you live an a glass house, don't throw rocks.
Grammar alert Burleigh!! You can't throw rocks. They're too fucking big. It's stones you don't want to be throwing in a glass house.
Just confirmed with my Geologist wife that you can indeed throw a rock.
GuySmiley wrote:" ... it is just mindblowing the amount of bureaucracy that came with this beast, along with lack of the most basic of checks and balances ..."
Huh?
Want to rephrase that? explain yourself? or are you happy with the inherent contradiction ?
what contradiction?
it is possible to have layers and layes of bullshit bureaucracy whilst overlooking the most basic of checks and balances isn't it?
I know it is...
because that's what they did
garyg1412 wrote:burleigh wrote:Seems the "left" in here are doing all the whinging. Including yourself. If you live an a glass house, don't throw rocks.
Grammar alert Burleigh!! You can't throw rocks. They're too fucking big. It's stones you don't want to be throwing in a glass house.
He just wrote the first thing that came into his head.
sypkan wrote:GuySmiley wrote:" ... it is just mindblowing the amount of bureaucracy that came with this beast, along with lack of the most basic of checks and balances ..."
Huh?
Want to rephrase that? explain yourself? or are you happy with the inherent contradiction ?
what contradiction?
it is possible to have layers and layes of bullshit bureaucracy whilst overlooking the most basic of checks and balances isn't it?
I know it is...
because that's what they did
true but the language you use there was similar to that used by abbott to sack 100s at the ATO, ASIC and ACCC under the smoke and mirrors excuse of cutting red tape before the Hayne RC into banking and we all know what that found.
sypkan wrote:GuySmiley wrote:" ... it is just mindblowing the amount of bureaucracy that came with this beast, along with lack of the most basic of checks and balances ..."
Huh?
Want to rephrase that? explain yourself? or are you happy with the inherent contradiction ?
what contradiction?
it is possible to have layers and layes of bullshit bureaucracy whilst overlooking the most basic of checks and balances isn't it?
I know it is...
because that's what they did
Yeah, but Sypkan. Your original post had a tone that is was Labor that was mismanaging the NDIS, when it was actually the LNP. Shorten has cleaned it up to the tune of billions over 4 years. Did you check the link I posted. The saving over 4 years is projected into the billions.
sypkan wrote:GuySmiley wrote:" ... it is just mindblowing the amount of bureaucracy that came with this beast, along with lack of the most basic of checks and balances ..."
Huh?
Want to rephrase that? explain yourself? or are you happy with the inherent contradiction ?
what contradiction?
it is possible to have layers and layes of bullshit bureaucracy whilst overlooking the most basic of checks and balances isn't it?
I know it is...
because that's what they did
Like Robodebt……….. the hard bit is going to be how you pin that one on Labor.
The trouble with the NDIS, aged care and child care costs is the “private “ operators price gouging and general dishonesty, Howard started the privatisation lunacy with child care and aged care and its been a runaway gravy train for spivs ever since … it’s how neoliberalism is supposed to work
A Salty Dog wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:sypkan wrote:good article...
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/the-devil-in-the-details-insi...
what a shambles
pity there wasn't more of this analysis before...
it's like a closd shop union scenario brought the whole thing down
sealed unit closed shop and hubris...
The comments are much better than the article.
There's those bloody "elites" again.
Like I said, when you can't find an enemy, invent one.
The right are such a miserable pathetic bunch of do nothing whingers.
Its pretty clear the majority of people voted based on income/class and not even party lines so much, most of the Yes seats are in areas with high to very high incomes its not a stretch to call this demographic Elites, or all those politicians and academics elites like Marcia & Noel, yeah sure there is many elites in the No camp too and Elites that would have voted No, but there was still a clear pattern based of class on how people voted.
Elite being
"In political and sociological theory, the elite (French: élite, from Latin: eligere, to select or to sort out) are a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a group. Defined by the Cambridge Dictionary"
“academics elite”
You mean like the Melb Uni “elite” whose comments you’ve postings????
You simply can’t make shit up like this
#algorithmrabbitholes
#cockwomble
#fuckfacts
#legendinmylunchbox
#mythoughtsaremytruthandreality
#myelitesaren’telite
like i said above
"yeah sure there is many elites in the No camp too and Elites that would have voted No, but there was still a clear pattern based of class on how people voted."
The results of seats where people voted Yes generally supports this.
indo-dreaming wrote:A Salty Dog wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:sypkan wrote:good article...
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/the-devil-in-the-details-insi...
what a shambles
pity there wasn't more of this analysis before...
it's like a closd shop union scenario brought the whole thing down
sealed unit closed shop and hubris...
The comments are much better than the article.
There's those bloody "elites" again.
Like I said, when you can't find an enemy, invent one.
The right are such a miserable pathetic bunch of do nothing whingers.
Its pretty clear the majority of people voted based on income/class and not even party lines so much, most of the Yes seats are in areas with high to very high incomes its not a stretch to call this demographic Elites, or all those politicians and academics elites like Marcia & Noel, yeah sure there is many elites in the No camp too and Elites that would have voted No, but there was still a clear pattern based of class on how people voted.
Elite being
"In political and sociological theory, the elite (French: élite, from Latin: eligere, to select or to sort out) are a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a group. Defined by the Cambridge Dictionary"
And they have always been there (as a kid we would call them toffs) and they come from both sides of the political spectrum.
"Elites", like "Wokes" are just terms adopted and bastardised by the right to label others when in need of an enemy.
What's next I wonder?
"Like Robodebt……….. the hard bit is going to be how you pin that one on Labor."
because they designed it
it's their baby
and they are reluctant to admit the fundamental design flaws within it
some of it was acceptable at the start, even inevitale... but they have had 10 years or more now to sort it out, but nohing...
interestingly, I know people deep within it, that advocated for it at the start, even before its conception, and will continue to do so...
but even these people can see it is totally unsustainable, and are quietly screaming for change... silently biding their time, before planning to blow the whistle on the whole thing...
also interestingly, many people did the hard yards in the sector before, on low wages, doing shit jobs - literally... but with the influx of cash, came a heap of blowins and money makers. even some famous footballer was celebrated in the afr for his astute 'investment' and selling on of his business...
literally anyone can move in, set up with no experience, and print money... the only qualification being capital... and those connected to policy makers - from both sides of politics - know this, have been told this...
it's a fucking disaster, attracting all the wrong people
once again, it's intentions were so good, but some very very basic overlooking -bordering on incompetence - has created a monster...
and once again, the sensitive nature of the sector, means questions that should be asked, are swept away and shut down
meanwhile, in darkness...
Darn right there salty except once as a community education was valued without question but these days as you correctly suggest it’s been downgraded by weaponised terms like‘elite’ for crass political reasons
Elites is actually a very fair and accurate word to describe these people and majority of Yes seats and its far from a new word or description
Obviously its doesn't mean everyone that voted Yes are elites, or that many elites didn't vote No.
I guess some people like you might not like it, because as a Yes voter you dont like to be lumped in with elites as traditionally the left has not been elite, quite the opposite although the vibe i get here is more of a elite type vibe more a white collar vibe.
Over the last twenty years we have and are seeing a clear change of values in many areas between left and right. almost a complete flip.
Traditionally the right have been the rich and elites, the left the common man and blue collar worker, today though they are not they are the inner city university educated.
You can see this swap in all kind's of areas, for instance Conservatives were always the ones doing the censoring which is now more only religious conservative's, while now its the left who are obsessed with canceling and suppression of views.
BTW. This is actually a problem for LNP as they are losing these high income elite seats, especially too teals and those teals seat's also voted Yes not a good sign for LNP
Unfortunately change is not happening so much the other way and many working class people in the burbs havent woken up to this shift yet , i guess because they take far less interest in politics or social issues so vote more on tradition or habit.
And then you have people stuck in the middle like Sypkan or Blowin etc who have seen the shift and are traditionally leftist (in a positive way) but cant bring themselves to move to the right, Blowin even use to use the term fake left, these are the people that long for the Labor of old.
This vote is interesting because it was far less along party lines and more about class in how people voted to me the results clearly shows the true left and true right. (obviously taking the Aboriginal voter out of things)
GuySmiley wrote:The trouble with the NDIS, aged care and child care costs is the “private “ operators price gouging and general dishonesty, Howard started the privatisation lunacy with child care and aged care and its been a runaway gravy train for spivs ever since … it’s how neoliberalism is supposed to work
I would check my mothers unity bill each month and with out fail there would always be some bullshit added costs . Her package from the government gave her $54,000 a year and unity was our aged care provider . Besides the $14,500 annual administration costs they would charge $60 for a 1 hour care worker and pay the workers $27. There were charges per kilometre for distance worker had to travel from previous job but they would also charge for a nurse visit that never happened, this happened on numerous occasions. Very generous from the government $54,000 a year only for private aged care agencies to rort the fuck out of it . Unity was once government run but was privatised like everything else .
Indo
You said
"Elites is actually a very fair and accurate word to describe these people and majority of Yes seats and its far from a new word or description."
You missed the point again.
more pure gold from the AFR:
Enlightenment ideals defeat the identity politics of the discriminatory Voice
"The arguments for the referendum failed because they challenged the fundamental principles of Australia’s liberal democracy and longstanding political culture.
"In the referendum debate, Australia’s Enlightenment liberalism, based on equal citizenship for all and humanitarian respect for the individual, was forced to confront the new culture of identity politics and defeated it.
"Again, only within the ideology of identity politics can it become “racist” to refuse to treat individuals principally as members of a race."
AFR wrote:Australians need not fear the result of the Voice referendum, nor give undue regard to those who say that it has inflicted lasting damage on reconciliation and on recognition of Indigenous people.
Andrew Breitbart famously said that politics is downstream of culture. That is another way of saying, as John Howard has said, that politics is a battle of ideas. The Voice referendum will be seen in retrospect as a historic battle of ideas with deep meaning for the future of Australia’s liberal democratic culture, and for our national project of giving effect to liberal ideas in our institutions and policy.
In the referendum debate, Australia’s Enlightenment liberalism, based on equal citizenship for all and humanitarian respect for the individual, was forced to confront the new culture of identity politics and defeated it.
Though it may not be evident today, and some bitter words have been spoken, it is evident that the referendum was approached by supporters of both the YES and NO sides with great goodwill towards Indigenous Australians. The goodwill was represented by the over 90 per cent support for the 1967 referendum, and today, inter alia, by the high representation of Australians with Indigenous heritage in the Federal parliament.
A large majority of Australians responded positively to the first proposals for the Voice, before they discovered that the government would refuse bipartisanship, details and coherent argument, forcing them to vote on an issue that challenged their deep belief in equal citizenship.
So, what went wrong? It is now indisputable that the concept of a constitutional Voice failed the most basic tests of principle and practicality in the minds of most voters. How was it that experienced political minds of the government could not address this?
A large part of the answer to this puzzle is the incursion into elite, and especially Labor, culture, of the new Marxism of identity politics, which is increasingly revealing itself as offering fragile support for sound policy and successful politics.
Australia’s liberal democracy and its political culture have been built around three great streams of thought coming from the Enlightenment of the 18th century at the time of the British arrival: the humanitarian belief in the common humanity and dignity of all people; the requirement to govern in the public interest rather than the selfish interests of the powerful few; and the productive and creative power of personal freedom under just laws.
These are the ideas that have fuelled Australia’s emergence as perhaps the most successful and liberal of countries. Argument for the Voice failed to acknowledge, and indeed challenged, each of these fundamental aspects of the nation’s long-standing political culture.
Identity politics is a philosophy that interprets liberal society as divided between exploiting and victim classes. In the 19th and for half of the 20th century, these classes were deemed to be capitalists and proletariat. Today these classes are based on race and gender.
Married with a humanitarian rhetoric, this divisive philosophy treats all Aboriginal people for the purposes of policy as a race, and, almost imperceptibly, has taken hold of the country’s ruling elites. The flaws of this modern version of Marxism, however, damned the Voice as a viable project.
Identity politics explains the government’s failure to make a rational case for the Voice, for identity politics is an ideology, immune from rational dispute, and determinedly blind to contrary ideas. It is an ideology that deplores disagreement and regularly threatens cancellation and censorship through cries of “disinformation”.
To an adherent, it is persuasive simply to name the identity group being privileged. Identity politics misled the government into imagining that the mere fact that Indigenous activists wanted the Voice was an argument in its favour. As most Australians believe, that is no argument at all.
Remarkable advances
Again, only within the ideology of identity politics can it become “racist” to refuse to treat individuals principally as members of a race. Most Australians still believe that it is racist to grant a privilege to one group of citizens over another – on whatever basis, race or indigeneity, matters not.
The campaign made clear that many Australians of Indigenous heritage resented, as an affront to their human dignity and freedom, being treated as identical and uniform when the individuality and diversity of Indigenous Australia is very great, both in heritage and life purposes.
The main issues of gross disadvantage are to be found among the 20 per cent of Aboriginal people in remote communities, not among the 80 per cent living in major cities and towns. The 2021 Census recorded that of 813,000 people identified at that time as having an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestry, 516,000 (63 per cent) also noted that they had other ancestries: English, Scots, Irish and many others.
Albanese argued, inaccurately, that previous policy frameworks had failed. In fact, the past half century and more has seen remarkable advances, of which most Australians are aware. The 19th-century betrayal of the Enlightenment promise of equal citizenship has been reversed, the infringements on liberty and dignity of the “Protection” regimes have been abolished, equal citizenship with equal rights has at last been achieved, and the barriers to equal opportunity largely dismantled.
In 1966, the first known Aboriginal university graduates, Margaret Valadian and Charles Perkins, received their degrees. By 2018, there were more than 18,000 Indigenous higher education students.
Australia’s flexible liberal economy had enabled between 12,000 and 16,000 Indigenous-owned businesses to come into existence, with a similar distribution across industry types to non-Indigenous business. More than 25,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were in professional occupations, including some 600 solicitors and a similar number of health practitioners. By 2018, 89 per cent of Indigenous Year 3 students in major cities met or were above national minimum standards in reading and numeracy.
Recognition does not depend on one measure, and it certainly did not depend on a discriminatory Voice. There has already been great recognition of Indigenous Australians, through such advances as the 1962 Electoral Act entrenching the right to vote for all Indigenous Australians, the 1975 Anti-Discrimination Act, and especially the 1993 Native Title Act based on negotiation that finally addressed the dispossession of country for many Indigenous citizens.
Identity politics does not provide the language or social understanding that enables the resolution of disadvantage in a harmonious society. The disharmony caused by the campaign is its true fruit.
Corporate leaders need to see that identity politics is a poor basis for the virtue signalling that has degraded the national debate in recent months. Their freedom in the future depends on the survival of political processes in which all Australians have equal rights and responsibilities. Advocating that would be true virtue.
Supafreak wrote:GuySmiley wrote:The trouble with the NDIS, aged care and child care costs is the “private “ operators price gouging and general dishonesty, Howard started the privatisation lunacy with child care and aged care and its been a runaway gravy train for spivs ever since … it’s how neoliberalism is supposed to work
I would check my mothers unity bill each month and with out fail there would always be some bullshit added costs . Her package from the government gave her $54,000 a year and unity was our aged care provider . Besides the $14,500 annual administration costs they would charge $60 for a 1 hour care worker and pay the workers $27. There were charges per kilometre for distance worker had to travel from previous job but they would also charge for a nurse visit that never happened, this happened on numerous occasions. Very generous from the government $54,000 a year only for private aged care agencies to rort the fuck out of it . Unity was once government run but was privatised like everything else .
Sad to say that your story wouldn’t be the exception Supa, best not to grow frail :/
I will point out a worrying trend for me .
Important debates in Australia are becoming progressively grubbier .
Politics has lead the way with the media following very happily .
The USA will split within 10 years .
The Two sides hate each other .
Their ( so called ) Un biased Institutions are now in the contest .
Australia is not like the US !
We have referendums !
I played League and real Football from school to 36 .
Loved a contest and miss it like an old dog .
However !!!!
Life is not like football .
There should be no ( real ) contest between family ( I have 2 daughters who are tough ) , friends and neighbours . Lot's of problems and arguments , no problem . Lot's of give and take .
Listen to PBS 106.6FM 24/7 ( when you're not surfing ) , and don't watch the telly .
And be good to your mums :)
haha, are you Kemp, @gsco, or did you work with him at uni? Quite enjoyed A Liberal State, bit broad-brushstoke though.
.
one for reform...
"The Yes campaign was sabotaged from within"
oooooooohh... a conspiracy theory... from the left!
jokes aside...
(jokes?)
why the hell did they use a liberal campaign apparatus?
detail...
someone say elites?
Yes campaign.
— Kos Samaras (@KosSamaras) October 15, 2023
Focused on at first not providing detail. For months, this was actually their strategy. Relying on the ‘vibe’. This approach lasted for months. Allowing the No camp to walk right into the vacuum.
The only way you combat alleged misinformation is with???
Not… pic.twitter.com/8aFqI6a9pC
No . Went to uni , but didn't work .
what went on there? felt like a burger gal reveal.
maybe gsco and pop down are AI and it glitched.
what happen to the maths chat basesix?
first you must answer there riddles 3 (well, just boring questions really):
are you kemp, have you chatted to optimist, do you have reverence for the hexagon?
gsco wrote:more pure gold from the AFR:
Enlightenment ideals defeat the identity politics of the discriminatory Voice
"The arguments for the referendum failed because they challenged the fundamental principles of Australia’s liberal democracy and longstanding political culture.
"In the referendum debate, Australia’s Enlightenment liberalism, based on equal citizenship for all and humanitarian respect for the individual, was forced to confront the new culture of identity politics and defeated it.
"Again, only within the ideology of identity politics can it become “racist” to refuse to treat individuals principally as members of a race."
AFR wrote:Australians need not fear the result of the Voice referendum, nor give undue regard to those who say that it has inflicted lasting damage on reconciliation and on recognition of Indigenous people.
Andrew Breitbart famously said that politics is downstream of culture. That is another way of saying, as John Howard has said, that politics is a battle of ideas. The Voice referendum will be seen in retrospect as a historic battle of ideas with deep meaning for the future of Australia’s liberal democratic culture, and for our national project of giving effect to liberal ideas in our institutions and policy.
In the referendum debate, Australia’s Enlightenment liberalism, based on equal citizenship for all and humanitarian respect for the individual, was forced to confront the new culture of identity politics and defeated it.
Though it may not be evident today, and some bitter words have been spoken, it is evident that the referendum was approached by supporters of both the YES and NO sides with great goodwill towards Indigenous Australians. The goodwill was represented by the over 90 per cent support for the 1967 referendum, and today, inter alia, by the high representation of Australians with Indigenous heritage in the Federal parliament.
A large majority of Australians responded positively to the first proposals for the Voice, before they discovered that the government would refuse bipartisanship, details and coherent argument, forcing them to vote on an issue that challenged their deep belief in equal citizenship.
So, what went wrong? It is now indisputable that the concept of a constitutional Voice failed the most basic tests of principle and practicality in the minds of most voters. How was it that experienced political minds of the government could not address this?
A large part of the answer to this puzzle is the incursion into elite, and especially Labor, culture, of the new Marxism of identity politics, which is increasingly revealing itself as offering fragile support for sound policy and successful politics.
Australia’s liberal democracy and its political culture have been built around three great streams of thought coming from the Enlightenment of the 18th century at the time of the British arrival: the humanitarian belief in the common humanity and dignity of all people; the requirement to govern in the public interest rather than the selfish interests of the powerful few; and the productive and creative power of personal freedom under just laws.
These are the ideas that have fuelled Australia’s emergence as perhaps the most successful and liberal of countries. Argument for the Voice failed to acknowledge, and indeed challenged, each of these fundamental aspects of the nation’s long-standing political culture.
Identity politics is a philosophy that interprets liberal society as divided between exploiting and victim classes. In the 19th and for half of the 20th century, these classes were deemed to be capitalists and proletariat. Today these classes are based on race and gender.
Married with a humanitarian rhetoric, this divisive philosophy treats all Aboriginal people for the purposes of policy as a race, and, almost imperceptibly, has taken hold of the country’s ruling elites. The flaws of this modern version of Marxism, however, damned the Voice as a viable project.
Identity politics explains the government’s failure to make a rational case for the Voice, for identity politics is an ideology, immune from rational dispute, and determinedly blind to contrary ideas. It is an ideology that deplores disagreement and regularly threatens cancellation and censorship through cries of “disinformation”.
To an adherent, it is persuasive simply to name the identity group being privileged. Identity politics misled the government into imagining that the mere fact that Indigenous activists wanted the Voice was an argument in its favour. As most Australians believe, that is no argument at all.
Remarkable advances
Again, only within the ideology of identity politics can it become “racist” to refuse to treat individuals principally as members of a race. Most Australians still believe that it is racist to grant a privilege to one group of citizens over another – on whatever basis, race or indigeneity, matters not.
The campaign made clear that many Australians of Indigenous heritage resented, as an affront to their human dignity and freedom, being treated as identical and uniform when the individuality and diversity of Indigenous Australia is very great, both in heritage and life purposes.
The main issues of gross disadvantage are to be found among the 20 per cent of Aboriginal people in remote communities, not among the 80 per cent living in major cities and towns. The 2021 Census recorded that of 813,000 people identified at that time as having an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestry, 516,000 (63 per cent) also noted that they had other ancestries: English, Scots, Irish and many others.
Albanese argued, inaccurately, that previous policy frameworks had failed. In fact, the past half century and more has seen remarkable advances, of which most Australians are aware. The 19th-century betrayal of the Enlightenment promise of equal citizenship has been reversed, the infringements on liberty and dignity of the “Protection” regimes have been abolished, equal citizenship with equal rights has at last been achieved, and the barriers to equal opportunity largely dismantled.
In 1966, the first known Aboriginal university graduates, Margaret Valadian and Charles Perkins, received their degrees. By 2018, there were more than 18,000 Indigenous higher education students.
Australia’s flexible liberal economy had enabled between 12,000 and 16,000 Indigenous-owned businesses to come into existence, with a similar distribution across industry types to non-Indigenous business. More than 25,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were in professional occupations, including some 600 solicitors and a similar number of health practitioners. By 2018, 89 per cent of Indigenous Year 3 students in major cities met or were above national minimum standards in reading and numeracy.
Recognition does not depend on one measure, and it certainly did not depend on a discriminatory Voice. There has already been great recognition of Indigenous Australians, through such advances as the 1962 Electoral Act entrenching the right to vote for all Indigenous Australians, the 1975 Anti-Discrimination Act, and especially the 1993 Native Title Act based on negotiation that finally addressed the dispossession of country for many Indigenous citizens.
Identity politics does not provide the language or social understanding that enables the resolution of disadvantage in a harmonious society. The disharmony caused by the campaign is its true fruit.
Corporate leaders need to see that identity politics is a poor basis for the virtue signalling that has degraded the national debate in recent months. Their freedom in the future depends on the survival of political processes in which all Australians have equal rights and responsibilities. Advocating that would be true virtue.
You know if writer is carrying on about Marxist, woke, identity politics blah blah that they could be full of shit?
Mac - I agree .
Anything could be full of shit so I read the article twice .
I removed the words ( and a paragraph ) Marxist , woke and Identity politics the second time .
It's not full of shit , mostly facts imho !
Pop Down wrote:Mac - I agree .
Anything could be full of shit so I read the article twice .
I removed the words ( and a paragraph ) Marxist , woke and Identity politics the second time .
It's not full of shit , mostly facts imho !
https://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/the-tragic-...
andy-mac then you may need to enlighten university humanities departments across the globe with your wisdom that they're full of shit - they're the ones peddling this western Marxist claptrap, as reflected in the voting patterns of the Yes vote: inner city, younger, uni educated (brought up on a steady diet of 3 square meals per day of critical race theory, which is all that's taught nowadays)
basesix:
1. quite possibly nothing is as it seems
2. opti used to be a forums stalwart until the hardline history-denying western Marxists finally broke him by denying the central importance of Christianity and engaging in their typical tribal cancel culture abuse. I was nice to him btw and valued his views.
3. challenge me
gsco wrote:more pure gold from the AFR:
Enlightenment ideals defeat the identity politics of the discriminatory Voice
"The arguments for the referendum failed because they challenged the fundamental principles of Australia’s liberal democracy and longstanding political culture.
"In the referendum debate, Australia’s Enlightenment liberalism, based on equal citizenship for all and humanitarian respect for the individual, was forced to confront the new culture of identity politics and defeated it.
"Again, only within the ideology of identity politics can it become “racist” to refuse to treat individuals principally as members of a race."
AFR wrote:Australians need not fear the result of the Voice referendum, nor give undue regard to those who say that it has inflicted lasting damage on reconciliation and on recognition of Indigenous people.
Andrew Breitbart famously said that politics is downstream of culture. That is another way of saying, as John Howard has said, that politics is a battle of ideas. The Voice referendum will be seen in retrospect as a historic battle of ideas with deep meaning for the future of Australia’s liberal democratic culture, and for our national project of giving effect to liberal ideas in our institutions and policy.
In the referendum debate, Australia’s Enlightenment liberalism, based on equal citizenship for all and humanitarian respect for the individual, was forced to confront the new culture of identity politics and defeated it.
Though it may not be evident today, and some bitter words have been spoken, it is evident that the referendum was approached by supporters of both the YES and NO sides with great goodwill towards Indigenous Australians. The goodwill was represented by the over 90 per cent support for the 1967 referendum, and today, inter alia, by the high representation of Australians with Indigenous heritage in the Federal parliament.
A large majority of Australians responded positively to the first proposals for the Voice, before they discovered that the government would refuse bipartisanship, details and coherent argument, forcing them to vote on an issue that challenged their deep belief in equal citizenship.
So, what went wrong? It is now indisputable that the concept of a constitutional Voice failed the most basic tests of principle and practicality in the minds of most voters. How was it that experienced political minds of the government could not address this?
A large part of the answer to this puzzle is the incursion into elite, and especially Labor, culture, of the new Marxism of identity politics, which is increasingly revealing itself as offering fragile support for sound policy and successful politics.
Australia’s liberal democracy and its political culture have been built around three great streams of thought coming from the Enlightenment of the 18th century at the time of the British arrival: the humanitarian belief in the common humanity and dignity of all people; the requirement to govern in the public interest rather than the selfish interests of the powerful few; and the productive and creative power of personal freedom under just laws.
These are the ideas that have fuelled Australia’s emergence as perhaps the most successful and liberal of countries. Argument for the Voice failed to acknowledge, and indeed challenged, each of these fundamental aspects of the nation’s long-standing political culture.
Identity politics is a philosophy that interprets liberal society as divided between exploiting and victim classes. In the 19th and for half of the 20th century, these classes were deemed to be capitalists and proletariat. Today these classes are based on race and gender.
Married with a humanitarian rhetoric, this divisive philosophy treats all Aboriginal people for the purposes of policy as a race, and, almost imperceptibly, has taken hold of the country’s ruling elites. The flaws of this modern version of Marxism, however, damned the Voice as a viable project.
Identity politics explains the government’s failure to make a rational case for the Voice, for identity politics is an ideology, immune from rational dispute, and determinedly blind to contrary ideas. It is an ideology that deplores disagreement and regularly threatens cancellation and censorship through cries of “disinformation”.
To an adherent, it is persuasive simply to name the identity group being privileged. Identity politics misled the government into imagining that the mere fact that Indigenous activists wanted the Voice was an argument in its favour. As most Australians believe, that is no argument at all.
Remarkable advances
Again, only within the ideology of identity politics can it become “racist” to refuse to treat individuals principally as members of a race. Most Australians still believe that it is racist to grant a privilege to one group of citizens over another – on whatever basis, race or indigeneity, matters not.
The campaign made clear that many Australians of Indigenous heritage resented, as an affront to their human dignity and freedom, being treated as identical and uniform when the individuality and diversity of Indigenous Australia is very great, both in heritage and life purposes.
The main issues of gross disadvantage are to be found among the 20 per cent of Aboriginal people in remote communities, not among the 80 per cent living in major cities and towns. The 2021 Census recorded that of 813,000 people identified at that time as having an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestry, 516,000 (63 per cent) also noted that they had other ancestries: English, Scots, Irish and many others.
Albanese argued, inaccurately, that previous policy frameworks had failed. In fact, the past half century and more has seen remarkable advances, of which most Australians are aware. The 19th-century betrayal of the Enlightenment promise of equal citizenship has been reversed, the infringements on liberty and dignity of the “Protection” regimes have been abolished, equal citizenship with equal rights has at last been achieved, and the barriers to equal opportunity largely dismantled.
In 1966, the first known Aboriginal university graduates, Margaret Valadian and Charles Perkins, received their degrees. By 2018, there were more than 18,000 Indigenous higher education students.
Australia’s flexible liberal economy had enabled between 12,000 and 16,000 Indigenous-owned businesses to come into existence, with a similar distribution across industry types to non-Indigenous business. More than 25,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were in professional occupations, including some 600 solicitors and a similar number of health practitioners. By 2018, 89 per cent of Indigenous Year 3 students in major cities met or were above national minimum standards in reading and numeracy.
Recognition does not depend on one measure, and it certainly did not depend on a discriminatory Voice. There has already been great recognition of Indigenous Australians, through such advances as the 1962 Electoral Act entrenching the right to vote for all Indigenous Australians, the 1975 Anti-Discrimination Act, and especially the 1993 Native Title Act based on negotiation that finally addressed the dispossession of country for many Indigenous citizens.
Identity politics does not provide the language or social understanding that enables the resolution of disadvantage in a harmonious society. The disharmony caused by the campaign is its true fruit.
Corporate leaders need to see that identity politics is a poor basis for the virtue signalling that has degraded the national debate in recent months. Their freedom in the future depends on the survival of political processes in which all Australians have equal rights and responsibilities. Advocating that would be true virtue.
Good article +1
+2.
Went over to the ABC to get their editorials on what happened and they are on a different planet.
gsco wrote:andy-mac then you may need to enlighten university humanities departments across the globe with your wisdom that they're full of shit - they're the ones peddling this western Marxist claptrap, as reflected in the voting patterns of the Yes vote: inner city, younger, uni educated (brought up on a steady diet of 3 square meals per day of critical race theory, which is all that's taught nowadays)
basesix:
1. quite possibly nothing is as it seems
2. opti used to be a forums stalwart until the hardline history-denying western Marxists finally broke him by denying the central importance of Christianity and engaging in their typical tribal cancel culture abuse. I was nice to him btw and valued his views.
3. challenge me
Well you're the one working in a University.
Way I see it, we have a media landscape dominated by Murdoch, who is 100% behind the LNP. Then there is Nine media whose chairman is Peter Costello, again may have a little more sense of balance, but pro LNP all the way. AFR included.
ABC had board stacked by previous conservative govts, and now with all their main presenters ex Murdoch. All pushing IPA , LNP objectives. ABC tries to give impression of balance, but goes harder on Labor pollies than LNP. If a reporter goes hard on LNP such as Michaela Cash, Ita will sack them on spot as happened.
And you say we are being over run with a woke Marxist agenda.
Geez they must be active on tiktok as the only time I hear about the danger of neo Marxist ideas is when I read articles from even more right wing publications such as Quadrant and your comments here.
Anyway I've said enough. Sad time for Australia where we cannot recognise our FNP in the constitution and give them a non binding Voice on how to improve their situation....
But hey keep throwing the shit and misinformation.
Ciao.
gsco wrote:andy-mac then you may need to enlighten university humanities departments across the globe with your wisdom that they're full of shit - they're the ones peddling this western Marxist claptrap, as reflected in the voting patterns of the Yes vote: inner city, younger, uni educated (brought up on a steady diet of 3 square meals per day of critical race theory, which is all that's taught nowadays)
basesix:
1. quite possibly nothing is as it seems
2. opti used to be a forums stalwart until the hardline history-denying western Marxists finally broke him by denying the central importance of Christianity and engaging in their typical tribal cancel culture abuse. I was nice to him btw and valued his views.
3. challenge me
I'm sorry, but without further information, I'm going to peg you as an intelligent person with a cultural or fundamental disconnect. Generally, you sound like one of my international students, trying to work out how this all works here, overlaying their own weird theory and squashing everything to fit. It is quite sweet in the real world. But takes some discussion.
intriguing, but you are officially denied meaningful engagement with me, due to duplicitous fogging. It is a shame, though this is a surf site, I had hope for you here, gsco. I wish you well, and hope you find challenge in the world you have created.
velocityjohnno wrote:+2.
Went over to the ABC to get their editorials on what happened and they are on a different planet.
we all know what planet...
just had an in depth discussion with a voice advocate mate... said exactly the same thing!
their 'analysis' requres some analysis...
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