Society/Culture Notional Take Back Australia Day

[FIGJAM]

As it became socially acceptable to be racist people acted on it.

I'm glad I don't share your negativist attitudes on Australians.

 

[ferball]

You're glad you're delusional?

Far from the only one I spose.

 

[FIGJAM]

You're glad you're delusional?

I'd suggest delusion is the root cause of your opinion that 40% of Australians flipped from being pro-The Voice in June 2022 to choosing to vote No, due to a sudden surge of latent racism across that period and culminating in October 2023.

 

[Episode IV]

People marching to change the date of Australia Day don’t have radical racist and oppressive ideologies. They just want the date changed. It isn’t hard to understand.

Explore it as much as you like in order to create a narrative you want.

People marching to reduce immigration aren't racists. They just want to cut it back to acceptable and sustainable levels and give the place a chance to breathe. It isn't hard to understand.

When it comes down to creating narratives, I think your mob have a better handle on things. That is, you know, if you think calling people names and straw manning everything is a better handle.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

People marching to reduce immigration aren't racists. They just want to cut it back to acceptable and sustainable levels and give the place a chance to breathe. It isn't hard to understand.

When it comes down to creating narratives, I think your mob have a better handle on things. That is, you know, if you think calling people names and straw manning everything is a better handle.

As opposed to the three word slogans that conservatives are famous for?

 

[Kram]

You do realise immigrants do the jobs that Australians don’t want to do?

 

[Episode IV]

As opposed to the three word slogans that conservatives are famous for?

Always know you've hit a nerve when this one gets logged in to start yelling about shiny things.

 

[Gethelred]

Most people vote not on political opinions but rather what works best for them and their community, freinds, family etc.

Thus is racism maintained.

Think about it. Do you genuinely think all those who supported slavery thought black people were lesser beings?

 

[Episode IV]

View attachment 2504609

Heh. We all know one.

There is another way of looking at this though. A while ago I mentioned the Left and the "corporations" being strange bedfellows in these times; that comment was alluding at least partially back to this situation.

Australian workers rights, and the fight for them, are well documented. Apart from Sundays being mostly sacrosanct (Christianity), workers had no guaranteed paid annual leave, no weekends, very few public holidays and little in the way of job security until the mid 60's and 70's. No aged pensions, no dole... that actually came about because thousands of Australians coming home from the war needed to be looked after (mid to late 1940's).

Certain cultural expectations have become part and parcel of Australian life as a result of largely forgotten battles and events back in the day. In effect, the workers rights slowly gained by earlier, oft-maligned generations are the reason Australian workers today have such high expectations to begin with.
Which is, incidentally, one of the reasons I roll my eyes every time I see the boomers (and X'ers) being disparaged.

On the flip side, of course, we have those who don't necessarily have those same expectations, and are quite willing to work under conditions modern Australians would raise an eyebrow at.

There are many corporations who find it quite agreeable to pay someone working the graveyard shift the same rates as a regular day worker, by way of example. It's not a situation your average Australian is going to find all that sustainable, but there are plenty of migrant workers who will.

So the corporation gets to advertise itself as supportive of diversity whilst getting cheaper labour in the process. A somewhat symbiotic relationship.

What factors would contribute to this situation as being "good" or "bad"?

I suppose, when you think about it, when considering the question of what it is we're taking Australia back "from", this sort of thing might be taken into account - the steady erosion of working conditions (and living standards) as a result of excessive and unnecessary migration.

 

[Gethelred]

I'd suggest delusion is the root cause of your opinion that 40% of Australians flipped from being pro-The Voice in June 2022 to choosing to vote No, due to a sudden surge of latent racism across that period and culminating in October 2023.

The way racism perpetuates is that those who are unquestionably racist and have the power to try and prevent anti-racist measures create fear within the wider community that an anti-racist measure will damage their lives in some way. This is directly observable through the voice, and it's how systems of oppression are formed; an alliance between racists and people who would sooner be called racist than have their lives changed, whether it's small change or large.

Some people booed Goodes because he slid into bloke's legs a few times. Some people booed because he was an activist from First Nations background. In the end, Goodes got booed from the game.

Do you think it matters to the minorities in question why people make racist choices, or that they make racist choices?

 

[Episode IV]

demondavey's posting in here reflects a different definition to racism to how you usually view the world; specifically, it reflects the history of racial inequality and structures built from generations of racist policy designed to discriminate...

"Let me give you a clue about white people in the sense of what we are discussing re racism; white settlers, colonists and invaders are a permanent part of European history. When we are talking about oppression, slavery etc white people have a monopoly on those atrocities."

That's a fairly unequivocal statement, Gethelred.
If you think 90% of people (100% if not on this forum) who read that are going to interpret it in the way you did and in which davey nodded to afterwards, I'm afraid you'd be very mistaken. There is nothing in that statement to tie it in with your later interpretation.

It does bring something to attention I've been wanting to mention though, which is the propensity of humanity to "look after their own" first.
Wonder where I'm going with that.

 

[Episode IV]

Most people were in favour of recognising indigenous Australians in the constitution and would have voted yes to that. Dutton asked and Albo refused to separate recognition and the voice into two separate questions.

They don't want to know.

 

[schneebly111]

People marching to reduce immigration aren't racists. They just want to cut it back to acceptable and sustainable levels and give the place a chance to breathe. It isn't hard to understand.

That’s been thoroughly debunked. There was plenty of video of the protests and the majority of the crowd were in support of protest leaders (who are linked to the NSN or just straight up NSN) who cheered when talking about expelling non white migrants.

Anyone truly there for non racist sustainable migration issues were a small minority and has left any movement that formed after this. The Aug 31 protests (themselves not really that big) dropped massively in size for the second round in October so this movement is dead already.

 

[demondavey]

Heh. We all know one.

There is another way of looking at this though. A while ago I mentioned the Left and the "corporations" being strange bedfellows in these times; that comment was alluding at least partially back to this situation.

Australian workers rights, and the fight for them, are well documented. Apart from Sundays being mostly sacrosanct (Christianity), workers had no guaranteed paid annual leave, no weekends, very few public holidays and little in the way of job security until the mid 60's and 70's. No aged pensions, no dole... that actually came about because thousands of Australians coming home from the war needed to be looked after (mid to late 1940's).

Certain cultural expectations have become part and parcel of Australian life as a result of largely forgotten battles and events back in the day. In effect, the workers rights slowly gained by earlier, oft-maligned generations are the reason Australian workers today have such high expectations to begin with.
Which is, incidentally, one of the reasons I roll my eyes every time I see the boomers (and X'ers) being disparaged.

On the flip side, of course, we have those who don't necessarily have those same expectations, and are quite willing to work under conditions modern Australians would raise an eyebrow at.

There are many corporations who find it quite agreeable to pay someone working the graveyard shift the same rates as a regular day worker, by way of example. It's not a situation your average Australian is going to find all that sustainable, but there are plenty of migrant workers who will.

So the corporation gets to advertise itself as supportive of diversity whilst getting cheaper labour in the process. A somewhat symbiotic relationship.

What factors would contribute to this situation as being "good" or "bad"?

I suppose, when you think about it, when considering the question of what it is we're taking Australia back "from", this sort of thing might be taken into account - the steady erosion of working conditions (and living standards) as a result of excessive and unnecessary migration.

Sorry, could you actually elaborate succinctly on how working conditions have been eroded due to migration? Apart from about 4 paragraphs of absolute nothing you finally managed to weave the word migration into lesser living standards and working conditions.

Working conditions would be at the best they’ve ever been due to the application of fair work and legislation to focus on the worker. The left and corporations certainly aren’t strange bedfellows at all, in fact history will tell you they are polar opposites in terms of what they stand for.

Fairly sound conspiracy theory drivel from you. Consistent at the least.

 

[demondavey]

"Let me give you a clue about white people in the sense of what we are discussing re racism; white settlers, colonists and invaders are a permanent part of European history. When we are talking about oppression, slavery etc white people have a monopoly on those atrocities."

That's a fairly unequivocal statement, Gethelred.
If you think 90% of people (100% if not on this forum) who read that are going to interpret it in the way you did and in which davey nodded to afterwards, I'm afraid you'd be very mistaken. There is nothing in that statement to tie it in with your later interpretation.

It does bring something to attention I've been wanting to mention though, which is the propensity of humanity to "look after their own" first.
Wonder where I'm going with that.

Answer the question without giving a convoluted long winded diatribe.

In our history, do you think white people have perpetuated extreme forms of racism and oppression? Do you think that racism has created ingrained cultural behaviour and standards that have still been maintained through to very recently?

Just answer, don’t give us your typical long winded off topic essays.

 

[demondavey]

Most people were in favour of recognising indigenous Australians in the constitution and would have voted yes to that. Dutton asked and Albo refused to separate recognition and the voice into two separate questions.

No they weren’t. They’d have skipped the sideshow and just voted yes if that were the case.

 

[demondavey]

View attachment 2504609

That in itself is a pretty foul joke

 

[demondavey]

People marching to reduce immigration aren't racists. They just want to cut it back to acceptable and sustainable levels and give the place a chance to breathe. It isn't hard to understand.

When it comes down to creating narratives, I think your mob have a better handle on things. That is, you know, if you think calling people names and straw manning everything is a better handle.

Sorry, but they are.

If migrants were all blonde and blue eyed from Europe would they protest?

Come on…

 

[GrayRanga]

Heh. We all know one.

There is another way of looking at this though. A while ago I mentioned the Left and the "corporations" being strange bedfellows in these times; that comment was alluding at least partially back to this situation.

Australian workers rights, and the fight for them, are well documented. Apart from Sundays being mostly sacrosanct (Christianity), workers had no guaranteed paid annual leave, no weekends, very few public holidays and little in the way of job security until the mid 60's and 70's. No aged pensions, no dole... that actually came about because thousands of Australians coming home from the war needed to be looked after (mid to late 1940's).

Certain cultural expectations have become part and parcel of Australian life as a result of largely forgotten battles and events back in the day. In effect, the workers rights slowly gained by earlier, oft-maligned generations are the reason Australian workers today have such high expectations to begin with.
Which is, incidentally, one of the reasons I roll my eyes every time I see the boomers (and X'ers) being disparaged.

On the flip side, of course, we have those who don't necessarily have those same expectations, and are quite willing to work under conditions modern Australians would raise an eyebrow at.

There are many corporations who find it quite agreeable to pay someone working the graveyard shift the same rates as a regular day worker, by way of example. It's not a situation your average Australian is going to find all that sustainable, but there are plenty of migrant workers who will.

So the corporation gets to advertise itself as supportive of diversity whilst getting cheaper labour in the process. A somewhat symbiotic relationship.

What factors would contribute to this situation as being "good" or "bad"?

I suppose, when you think about it, when considering the question of what it is we're taking Australia back "from", this sort of thing might be taken into account - the steady erosion of working conditions (and living standards) as a result of excessive and unnecessary migration.

Nice fairy tale you're telling us

Pity it doesn't have a basis in truth.

The reasons why Australia has the bare minimum of worker's srithgts is due to the power of the vaious unions who had fought hard for their member's rights since before Federation.

If not for the unions, Australia would have a mixture of British masters and Servants legislation and an American based Work Choices vaunted by the 'boomer's champion, John Howard

 

[Gethelred]

"Let me give you a clue about white people in the sense of what we are discussing re racism; white settlers, colonists and invaders are a permanent part of European history. When we are talking about oppression, slavery etc white people have a monopoly on those atrocities."

That's a fairly unequivocal statement, Gethelred.
If you think 90% of people (100% if not on this forum) who read that are going to interpret it in the way you did and in which davey nodded to afterwards, I'm afraid you'd be very mistaken.

... which is part of why I made it.

There is nothing in that statement to tie it in with your later interpretation.

There's nothing in it to contradict what I said, either.

It does bring something to attention I've been wanting to mention though, which is the propensity of humanity to "look after their own" first.
Wonder where I'm going with that.

C'mon. You know precisely where you're going with that.

 

[schneebly111]

Sorry, but they are.

If migrants were all blonde and blue eyed from Europe would they protest?

Come on…

A few years back now supposed anti migrant Hastie attended a protest demanding expedited visas and settlement of white South Africans farmers. They even carried signs at the rally making it known they were considered the “right ones” to be allowed to migrate to Australia:



Now I wonder why Hastie didn’t think these migrants would make Australians feel like “strangers” in their own country……..

 

[FIGJAM]

The way racism perpetuates is that those who are unquestionably racist and have the power to try and prevent anti-racist measures create fear within the wider community that an anti-racist measure will damage their lives in some way.

We're in agreement here.

This is directly observable through the voice, and it's how systems of oppression are formed; an alliance between racists and people who would sooner be called racist than have their lives changed, whether it's small change or large.

Not in agreement here. No doubt actual racists were trying to subvert The Voice campaign, but if you hang your hat entirely on that as the reason, then you're stating unequivocally that The Voice model was flawless and that Albanese's choice to not negotiate, even just a teeny tiny bit, was completely justifiable, as well as the lack of detail on what the set up would look like.

My take is as a Yes voter, is that I can see the problems with The Voice campaign and why it failed and whilst there may have been racists tipping some fringe racists into voting No, that would have been on the fringes. Certainly not justifying a 40+% fall in the polls.

Some people booed Goodes because he slid into bloke's legs a few times. Some people booed because he was an activist from First Nations background. In the end, Goodes got booed from the game.

Do you think it matters to the minorities in question why people make racist choices, or that they make racist choices?

I don't think it matters, hence why I said:

...or worse in the case of some indigenous Australians; sometimes perceived as a racist vote against them.

I saw an interview with Stan Grant the other day and he was depressed about it, talking as though it was totally a vote against the indigenous people. I felt bad for him because I understand why he holds that viewpoint, but he is missing the alternate point of view that the whole campaign was largely botched.

You simply cannot go from 80+% polls to a 39% result in 18 months due to fear campaigns and a sudden uptick in racism. Albo gets a too big a leave pass here from those who wish to stick their heads in the sand and blame other factors IMHO.

 

[Gethelred]

Not in agreement here. No doubt actual racists were trying to subvert The Voice campaign, but if you hang your hat entirely on that as the reason, then you're stating unequivocally that The Voice model was flawless and that Albanese's choice to not negotiate, even just a teeny tiny bit, was completely justifiable, as well as the lack of detail on what the set up would look like.

My take is as a Yes voter, is that I can see the problems with The Voice campaign and why it failed and whilst there may have been racists tipping some fringe racists into voting No, that would have been on the fringes. Certainly not justifying a 40+% fall in the polls.

There's significant history in Australia of referendums failing, and the negative campaign was funded extensively by special interests determined to convince the common people that voting yes would impact their lives.

There's two problems with this:
1. On the basis of what was proposed, there would've been little material change to the everyday lives of the people most afraid of it. Over time perhaps, but the proposed Voice wasn't onerous nor imposing in ambition. It didn't seek to right the whole wrongs of Australia's history.

The problem here is that the people arguing against it lied, and did so without consequence. A society without standards of evidence is a society without truth.
2. Sometimes, you have to take a hit in order to do the right thing.

A slave owner is going to take a financial and time hit when slavery becomes illegal, but that hit is necessary to be borne because owning another human is wrong.

History does not repeat exactly, but it's a pretty clear pattern of people indisputably racist gaming the system - whatever that system is - to keep themselves comfortable and in power, and those lower in the hierarchy siding with them out of fear of a change in material conditions.

I don't think it matters, hence why I said:

... which is at least an acknowledgement that you're aware of the problem: that society continues to do racist things out of materialism. 'It inconveniences me, so I won't do it.'

A man sees his mate grope a woman in front of his friends, and refuses to take a stand.
A person in a cricket club doesn't say anything when the president makes racist comments regarding indians out of fear of rejection.
A person covers up a sexual assault in Parliament house prior to an election, because it would derail their party's campaign.
A person sides with the south to keep slaves, because it would impact them economically if slavery were abolished.

The reason why it's a necessary point to ask is that if there's no discernible difference between people are indisputably racist and the rest of those standing beside or around them to the people they're victimizing is that there is no difference in act.

You might not personally have done the racism, but racism is done regardless.

I saw an interview with Stan Grant the other day and he was depressed about it, talking as though it was totally a vote against the indigenous people. I felt bad for him because I understand why he holds that viewpoint, but he is missing the alternate point of view that the whole campaign was largely botched.

IMO, this is a smokescreen.

You simply cannot go from 80+% polls to a 39% result in 18 months due to fear campaigns and a sudden uptick in racism. Albo gets a too big a leave pass here from those who wish to stick their heads in the sand and blame other factors IMHO.

First things first.

The Federal government cannot provide money or advocate for a side of a referendum.

Ms Burney’s office has confirmed to RMIT FactLab in an email that the “Commonwealth government is not providing any funding to the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ campaigns”.

The minister’s spokesperson made clear that the law prohibits such funding, citing Section 11 (4) of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, which states that the government “shall not expend money in respect of the presentation of the argument in favour of, or the argument against, a proposed law”.

What was done by Albanese around education was civics education related to the referendum process; what is done, what is proposed, the result of the changes, etc. Facts. Outside of that, the Yes campaign was conducted privately by advocacy groups, and how Albanese is supposed to influence them is something I'd be interested in hearing.

The next side of it is, I genuinely do not think you're willing to hear another view on this; telling people that they 'wish to stick their heads in the sand' is a pretty surefire way to indicate that you yourself are pretty insulated in your views.

I think you confuse your inability to convince others with an inability to be convinced.

 

[demondavey]

We're in agreement here.



Not in agreement here. No doubt actual racists were trying to subvert The Voice campaign, but if you hang your hat entirely on that as the reason, then you're stating unequivocally that The Voice model was flawless and that Albanese's choice to not negotiate, even just a teeny tiny bit, was completely justifiable, as well as the lack of detail on what the set up would look like.

My take is as a Yes voter, is that I can see the problems with The Voice campaign and why it failed and whilst there may have been racists tipping some fringe racists into voting No, that would have been on the fringes. Certainly not justifying a 40+% fall in the polls.



I don't think it matters, hence why I said:



I saw an interview with Stan Grant the other day and he was depressed about it, talking as though it was totally a vote against the indigenous people. I felt bad for him because I understand why he holds that viewpoint, but he is missing the alternate point of view that the whole campaign was largely botched.

You simply cannot go from 80+% polls to a 39% result in 18 months due to fear campaigns and a sudden uptick in racism. Albo gets a too big a leave pass here from those who wish to stick their heads in the sand and blame other factors IMHO.

What do you think contributed to a 41% drop?

 

[RCAB]

People marching to reduce immigration aren't racists.

Oh yes they are.

FWIW anyone that says that they voted "Yes" but continually constructs weak, non-sensical or completely ignorant arguments on why people voted No... I don't believe any of those people voted Yes. Most people I know personally would've voted No.

The "reverse" virtue signalling here from closet racists is funny to me. Particularly because you're not fooling ANYONE.