Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

[Call Me Cake]

It is divisive. No race should ever be enshrined into a constitution if you truly believe that all humans should be viewed as equal regardless of skin colour, race or cultural background.

You cannot make it make sense for children to be taught to not judge others based on their DNA make-up, but then tell them there are distinctions/exceptions based on DNA make-up in their own constitution. It is destructive, divisive and alien to modern people who understand the concept of humans > old social constructs/ethno-states.

 

[Howard Moon]

It is divisive. No race should ever be enshrined into a constitution if you truly believe that all humans should be viewed as equal regardless of skin colour, race or cultural background.

You cannot make it make sense for children to be taught to not judge others based on their DNA make-up, but then tell them there are distinctions/exceptions based on DNA make-up in their own constitution. It is destructive, divisive and alien to modern people who understand the concept of humans > old social constructs/ethno-states.

Yeh...but don't text people's personal phones either way, ay

 

[jmoo wan]

It is divisive. No race should ever be enshrined into a constitution if you truly believe that all humans should be viewed as equal regardless of skin colour, race or cultural background.

You cannot make it make sense for children to be taught to not judge others based on their DNA make-up, but then tell them there are distinctions/exceptions based on DNA make-up in their own constitution. It is destructive, divisive and alien to modern people who understand the concept of humans > old social constructs/ethno-states.

All LivEs MatTEr!!!!

 

[doug85]

View attachment 1800834


Shameless cretins at it again, think another boat is on the way too

It sounds like the No vote is the hot favourite too. Maybe the ‘Yes’ cohort haven’t done a good enough job explaining how low risk the voice really is?

I’ll be bitterly disappointed if the No vote gets up. **** we’re a disappointment sometimes.

 

[dank420_]

I’ll be bitterly disappointed if the No vote gets up.

It's getting up. Referendums only go through if it's bipartisan.

Dutton wanted to get one over Albo and it was always going to be easy for him on this particular topic.

 

[Pweter]

View attachment 1800834


Shameless cretins at it again, think another boat is on the way too

Just received this exact same text a moment ago. postal.vote for what should be a federal government url - sounds legit. I hope they ask for me credit card details when I click on it and give them the rest of my PII.

 

[Howard Moon]

It's getting up. Referendums only go through if it's bipartisan.

Dutton wanted to get one over Albo and it was always going to be easy for him on this particular topic.

Hmmmm Tbh I was mostly resigned to it being a no purely due to the large cohort of boomers still alive tipping the scales as they have done through their life history. But as you point out, it's now a partisan issue, which probably just gets voted upon via rusted on party lines? Maybe that could just mirror the last election result?

 

[dank420_]

Hmmmm Tbh I was mostly resigned to it being a no purely due to the large cohort of boomers still alive tipping the scales as they have done through their life history. But as you point out, it's now a partisan issue, which probably just gets voted upon via rusted on party lines? Maybe that could just mirror the last election result?

I think it's different because it's an actual 2 horse race - and the vote has to win in every state. You have to be very sure everyone wants that change before committing.

No matter which way you look at it, politically, Dutton has destroyed Albo here using the tried and true fear campaign. The election was different because people were genuinely afraid of Scomo running the country any longer. So from that respect it's playing out similarly LOL

 

[Howard Moon]

I think it's different because it's an actual 2 horse race - and the vote has to win in every state. You have to be very sure everyone wants that change before committing.

No matter which way you look at it, politically, Dutton has destroyed Albo here using the tried and true fear campaign. The election was different because people were genuinely afraid of Scomo running the country any longer. So from that respect it's playing out similarly LOL

Also nobody is voting Dutton in, which is helpful to their cause...

 

[quotemokc]

I think it's different because it's an actual 2 horse race - and the vote has to win in every state. You have to be very sure everyone wants that change before committing.

No matter which way you look at it, politically, Dutton has destroyed Albo here using the tried and true fear campaign. The election was different because people were genuinely afraid of Scomo running the country any longer. So from that respect it's playing out similarly LOL

Why is it so hard for people to accept that people disagree with them.

Stop calling it a fear campaign or that you will be disappointed with the result to try and make yourself feel like you know better.

 

[dank420_]

Why is it so hard for people to accept that people disagree with them.

Stop calling it a fear campaign or that you will be disappointed with the result to try and make yourself feel like you know better.

Every political party in history has run fear campaigns. This is no different. And it works. It's very simple.

 

[justlookingaround]

I just can't wait for this referendum to be over.
Reckon the whole thing's been pretty shit for the country.

 

[Howard Moon]

I just can't wait for this referendum to be over.
Reckon the whole thing's been pretty s**t for the country.

Just shifting my tinfoil slightly but I'm sure they will have a little something something sliding through a side door somewhere in parliament while everybody is fixated, arguing yesses and no's

 

[Beerfish]

 

[Call Me Cake]

View attachment 1800873

A person shouldn't answer for, be disadvantaged by or receive less help due to events of the past based purely on the fact that they looked like them. That's racism.

A person shouldn't benefit, be treated better or be made an exception for anything other than their character due to events of the past based purely on the fact that they looked like them. That's racism too.

And this notion that a land should be an ethno-state, a concept borne out of a bygone era which is incompatible to the modern view of all people being a part of a human race first before any notion of ownership is destructive. This idea that if you're born on a land that you somehow chose that and can never self-identify with other humans that were born on the same land you were.

It's divisive, archaic and the result of a tribalism mindset - not humanism.

 

[Beerfish]

A person shouldn't answer for, be disadvantaged by or receive less help due to events of the past based purely on the fact that they looked like them. That's racism.

A person shouldn't benefit, be treated better or be made an exception for anything other than their character due to events of the past based purely on the fact that they looked like them. That's racism too.

And this notion that a land should be an ethno-state, a concept borne out of a bygone era which is incompatible to the modern view of all people being a part of a human race first before any notion of ownership is destructive. This idea that if you're born on a land that you somehow chose that and can never self-identify with other humans that were born on the same land you were.

It's divisive, archaic and the result of a tribalism mindset - not humanism.

 

[dank420_]

A person shouldn't answer for, be disadvantaged by or receive less help due to events of the past based purely on the fact that they looked like them. That's racism.

That's not being proposed at all.

A person shouldn't benefit, be treated better or be made an exception for anything other than their character due to events of the past based purely on the fact that they looked like them. That's racism too.

And this notion that a land should be an ethno-state, a concept borne out of a bygone era which is incompatible to the modern view of all people being a part of a human race first before any notion of ownership is destructive. This idea that if you're born on a land that you somehow chose that and can never self-identify with other humans that were born on the same land you were.

It's divisive, archaic and the result of a tribalism mindset - not humanism.

I would say that the argument of the entire human race being one and the same is outdated and lacks nuance.
Identity is important and that includes race. It just so happens that part of the Australian indigenous identity includes being a part of a country that got invaded and that lives under a constitution that originally did not look after them in any way, shape or form. Like it or not, parts of it still don't.
If it wasn't an issue, the '67 referendum wouldn't have happened. The people voting on that didn't seem to take the colonisation upon their own shoulders. No one is asking you to. Systemically, the invaders of this country are still looked after much better than it's indigeous people, which is to be expected if you invade somewhere, granted.

If you think it's divisive it's because you have been scared into thinking you will be disadvantaged by it.

IMO

 

[Call Me Cake]

That's not being proposed at all.

Didn't say it was, I was responding to Beerfish's image above my post. The next paragraph was in regards to the issue.

the entire human race being one and the same is outdated and lacks nuance.

Which is a destructive, tribal mindset rooted in racism. Plain and simple.

Your notion of all human beings not being born equal is what is outdated - it is exactly the kind of mindset that past bad actors used to justify the things they did - "oh, we're not the same, so it's okay".

Identity is important and that includes race.

Identity is important, and the important part of it is an individual's personality and actions.

Race can be acknowledged in terms of outside appearance but should never used to distinguish people based how they should be treated, aided, judged, guided or regarded.

If you think it's divisive it's because you have been scared into thinking you will be disadvantaged by it.

Absolutely incorrect. I think it is divisive because I clearly stated earlier - it is because no race should be enshrined into the constitution of a country that believes that we are all born equal. Our children cannot be taught to not use race as a distinction in how they regard people if their own constitution does so.

To the contrary, your inability to see all humans as equal is because you've been scared into thinking you (or others) will be disadvantaged by doing so. You need race as a justification for how to judge because you need a visual direction to direct your generalisations. Which is exactly the kind of thing we should always fight against.

 

[Howard Moon]

So what happens in the aftermath of a 'no' ?

We don't just go back to regular programming surely, understand it's the will of the people but something still needs to happen in some way shape or form

 

[jannissary]

So what happens in the aftermath of a 'no' ?

We don't just go back to regular programming surely, understand it's the will of the people but something still needs to happen in some way shape or form

dutton hinted that he might do one of his own if they win the majority in the next election.

generally speaking referendums tend to be voted down (i think it's like 10/42 historically have passed but i may be misremembering.

fact of the matter is, people don't give a shit about voting more than 2-3 times every few years (state/federal) so it'd make more sense to have it in conjunction with another election or something like that.

i'm for the voice, there's been far too much misinformation spread about it for the average person who's not interested in politics to know what is and isn't true. it's a shame but ultimately unsurprising to me that it's gone down this way.

 

[Lore]

Voting Yes is not only right, it’s about honouring our promise​

The Age's View, October 13, 2023 — 5.00am​

A Voice will allow First Peoples to chart their own, improved course to correct this abysmal situation. It will help them address these lasting, real-world, daily effects of colonisation.​

​

The Age first stated its support for the Indigenous Voice in 2019, two years after Indigenous leaders called for the Voice in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, saying it was a mechanism that belonged in Australia’s Constitution. It was a position stated before a senior advisory group, commissioned by the former Coalition government, tabled a final report to the then minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, that provided detail about the proposed structure for the Voice and how it likely will work.​

​

The Age urged then prime minister Scott Morrison to use his voice to lead the change required to deliver an enshrined Indigenous Voice: “It is historical inequality that makes a Voice to parliament written into the Constitution so important for our future. This would protect the Voice from the whims of an adversarial government. And acknowledging Indigenous Australians’ unique place in our society with a Voice protected by our most fundamental document of principles is crucial to reconciliation.”​

Voting Yes is not only right, it’s about honouring our promise

Passively maintaining the status quo is unacceptable, but choosing to stifle Indigenous advancement is unforgivable.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Lore]

Herald Sun’s view: We should not divide Australia​

3 min read October 13, 2023 - 5:00AM​

The biggest point was this: the Voice represents a new section and chapter in our Constitution that can only be altered through another referendum. The Constitution has served us well for more than 120 years, and any changes to its wording demands exacting scrutiny.​

​

In the end, many voters are still unclear on what the Voice is and how it could help those most in need. It hasn’t been adequately explained how it would better outcomes in remote communities where benchmarks for health, education and employment run below the already deplorable statistics for the wider Indigenous community.​

​

Australians are also clearly uncomfortable with one group or race being given special rights above the rest of the nation. There’s legitimate concern the Voice will entrench more division, just as the campaign has created.​

​

For these reasons, the Herald Sun believes the Yes campaign has failed to make a compelling case to alter our Constitution in such a substantial way. Fundamentally, our Constitution should treat all Australians equally.​

​

Those who choose to vote no aren’t racist and certainly don’t deny legitimacy to the First Nations people who have lived here for 60,000 years.​

​

A rejection of the Yes campaign shouldn’t be confused with a rejection of the vital need for constructive change in approaches to the Indigenous plight.​

​

Whatever the referendum result, Voice combatants must abandon their battlelines and join together to determine the way forward to deliver the best possible outcomes for Indigenous Australians.​

​

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/theres-legitimate-concern-the-voice-will-entrench-more-division-just-as-the-campaign-has-created/news-story/27e6b5b6e7483b512c4427f865ad637d?amp&nk=20a65267b27863f1cee1cd8448ad27cf-1697143440

 

[Lore]

 

[yodellinhank]

The Constitution has served us well for more than 120 years

It's served some people well...

 

[justlookingaround]

Just voted. Changed my decision at the death too lmao.