Search results for query: *

Sure, and they'll be prioritised higher. Of course this argument is proof that the case for an English monarchy ruling over Australia is so virtually non-existent that the best that can be done is to shrug and say it's just too hard to get rid of them

I wouldn't worry too much about it, you've still got the King of England there to smack her down if she gets out of hand.

Imagine how much more robust the conversation would be if the question of who was going to be the next Head of State was actually a real question

Because Government and the symbols of Government are important, and no one in the rest of the world thinks of Australia when they see King Charles III. I think that as long as we have a foreign medieval relic representing us it prevents us from having that conversation about what kind of...

Okay fair enough, you're happy to live in ignorant bliss, that's fine, but it does beg the question as to why are you even bothering to read and post in a thread about the subject though

Why can't the Constitutional Monarch be Australian?

How do you know there's no direct benefit to anyone? Why wouldn't Australia be better off if the highest job in the land was conceivably open to every Australian instead of to absolutely none of us?

It was a simple exercise in splitting the republican vote and then pretending that it was a fair vote.

And yet the monarchy has never been put to a vote of the British public, which makes all the support purely theoretical. Same for us, if the monarchy is so good for us let's have a vote, or failing that pick a random Australian baby and raise them to be the monarch. If that sounds stupid it's...

Well that's ironic seeings as the events of 1689 were largely driven by religion. Plus the 'divine right of kings' had been a somewhat flexible arrangement since 1399 anyway. Either way, the more you examine the concept of the Monarchy the less sense it makes, maybe it works for Britain as a...

Was that really the Voice objection? A pity that the opponents operated in such ignorance then. What a missed opportunity.

I never read The Australian, but I'm still a bit surprised it's fallen low enough that it uses headlines that look like they were written by one of our more unhinged right wing Bigfooty posters

That's by design, it's how you get the likes of Abbott, Morrison, Trump and the Brexiteers voted in.

So if I think that Sam Kerr isn't racist, that makes me a a word that is designed to have no meaning? Fair enough, I can live with that.

That sums up the term and usage of 'woke' for me, the acceptance that 'half the people' can't define it but people will use it anyway because it's useful because it allows people to assign any meaning to it they like and to be against something without having to bother defining why. It's not...

There's a moon landing thread where someone occasionally posts 'proof' that the landings were faked, the 'proof' promptly gets debunked by someone, the poster completely ignores the debunking and later returns with more 'proof'. I have no idea if it's some kind of long game parody or what

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances This is the whole...

I heard that chin music is woke

What, like some 'biological woman' council or something?

To me, your third point contradicts your first point. Maybe we need to clarify what 'choice' we're referring to. I agree with your second point though, except that I think that 'cancelled' is a largely meaningless word that only exists to obfuscate the fact that actions have consequences, and...

Well if I have to spell it out, no of course there are no training camps, just as there is no way you have any idea what opinions 'biological women' have on this matter. It was a nonsense statement in response to a nonsense argument. And by 'cancelled' do you mean 'suffered the consequences of...

They didn't send out a press release as such, they were indeed responding to a question as to why they weren't stocking the items. It was a simple statement of fact, and I have no issue with companies stating facts, unlike some it seems. Who gets to say what 'biological women' decide though...

How do the 'woke' insert themselves into your life, may I ask?

so all 'biological females' have the same opinion that isn't taken into account, or are there a range of opinions that do get taken into account but at the end of the day a decision has to be made which not everyone will be happy with?

So merely acknowledging the conversation around the stupidity of acknowledging the accomplishments of a foreign nation as your national day (let alone the complete disregard for the actual existence of first nations people) is enough for you to label something virtue signalling? Like most of...

Where did I ever say they were? If it wasn't a commercial decision then what was it?

So if you do it it's good, if someone else does it then it's bad? You must be a parody account, nobody could be that blind to their own hypocrisy.

That's not very proactive if they were going out of their way to generate outrage, is it?

That's the whole point, you're silent on matters that are important, but virtue signal on stuff that pretty much everyone in this thread agrees is virtually meaningless.

How exactly did they go about getting all this attention from everyone? Okay, first step, stop stocking the merchandise that wasn't selling. When did they start doing that? What did they do to publicise it?