Discussion The Random Discussion Thread

[phantom13]

How is calling someone a rambling fool helpful to the discussion

Where you state "Its also not conducive to any sort of productive convo to claim that that is all Indigenous communities and people."
True Believer said "I didn't say this is every remote community, so don't put words in my mouth.

I too have been to Darwin lately and saw the things that True Believer described. Am I now saying racist s**t
And does anyone here really believe that billions of dollars are spent every year on indigenous welfare without any consultation with the indigenous communities they are trying to help.

When someone rambles foolish shit off (like the Indigenous Parliament shit) it needs to be called out. Its never going to happen and is misinformation fuelling fear.

I have and will happily engage in meaningful discussion about No voting but thats not what True is doing, hes peddling fear mongering horseshit.

His post pretty clearly implied the old white savior racist tropes. Im happy to discuss those issues but as most of those convos go, it looks alot like a bunch of white dudes arguing in circles.

Ive worked with Indigenous youth and organisations is a couple of different capacities for years. Substance abuse and the like are real issues, boiling them down to standardised racist tropes isnt helping anyone and frankly 3 dudes discussing it here isnt helping either, hence the voice which actually might (and for clarity im not saying it will but its alot more productive than whats currently been happening).

I think a shitload of money gets spent on those communities without consultation. Directly the story i told earlier, that money used to just get spent on an item that sat in a briefing document for about 20 years with no direct consultation with anyone until our department changed it and lo and behold, it helped enormously. If youve had any dealing with state or federal government youd be well aware how slow change can be.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

How predictable.

 

[True Believer]

I'm going to leave it here because clearly you either don't read what is written, or worse, you intend to deliberately misrepresent. Plus and I can't stand to keep hearing your pet phrase "racist tropes".
I stated, repeatedly, that things such as an Indigenous Parliament, were solutions that were put forward at the consultation meetings around the country. Some of those solutions were put forward only at one or two meetings, others, such as treaties, were put forward at every single meeting. I did not say we are getting those things!!!!
I firmly believe however, that if there are pages of repeated expectations, then a simple consultation committee is not the end game.
As an aside, obviously having not attended those meetings myself, I would hazard a guess that the cause of the repetitive nature of some submissions at those meetings was the facilitators. No doubt a group including people such as Thomas Mayo traveled around the country at taxpayer expense to help facilitate those meetings. It would be safe to assume the meeting format, based on the way the meetings notes were structured, was to break those meetings into working groups, and probably have the facilitators leading the working groups, (or guiding them), hence why the same outcomes keep coming up from repeated meetings in different locations.

I think most decent and reasonable people want the best possible outcomes for all Australians, I just don't have any faith that this is the way to get it. I see this simply being another vehicle for political elites to redirect yet more public funds and give themselves power and pats on the back. I think little or nothing will change for those that this is supposedly to help.

But all that aside, if you believe from your experience that the way forward to real solutions is simply more widespread and genuine consultation - why do we need to change the constitution for that? That is the crux of my problem with it. More consultation doesn't require a change in the constitution. If people are hell bent on wanting to change the constitution, then I want to know why?

 

[George]

Managed to generate a couple pages of discussion and got a non saints fan (who also happens to be Indigenous) in here as well.

I think a lot of people care.

A great sample size for sure

 

[phantom13]

I'm going to leave it here because clearly you either don't read what is written, or worse, you intend to deliberately misrepresent. Plus and I can't stand to keep hearing your pet phrase "racist tropes".
I stated, repeatedly, that things such as an Indigenous Parliament, were solutions that were put forward at the consultation meetings around the country. Some of those solutions were put forward only at one or two meetings, others, such as treaties, were put forward at every single meeting. I did not say we are getting those things!!!!
I firmly believe however, that if there are pages of repeated expectations, then a simple consultation committee is not the end game.
As an aside, obviously having not attended those meetings myself, I would hazard a guess that the cause of the repetitive nature of some submissions at those meetings was the facilitators. No doubt a group including people such as Thomas Mayo traveled around the country at taxpayer expense to help facilitate those meetings. It would be safe to assume the meeting format, based on the way the meetings notes were structured, was to break those meetings into working groups, and probably have the facilitators leading the working groups, (or guiding them), hence why the same outcomes keep coming up from repeated meetings in different locations.

I think most decent and reasonable people want the best possible outcomes for all Australians, I just don't have any faith that this is the way to get it. I see this simply being another vehicle for political elites to redirect yet more public funds and give themselves power and pats on the back. I think little or nothing will change for those that this is supposedly to help.

But all that aside, if you believe from your experience that the way forward to real solutions is simply more widespread and genuine consultation - why do we need to change the constitution for that? That is the crux of my problem with it. More consultation doesn't require a change in the constitution. If people are hell bent on wanting to change the constitution, then I want to know why?

If were not getting them (and make no mistake, were not) then why do they need to discussed. Surely you can see how presenting them as some sort of "end game" is fear mongering. Discuss the merits of the voice and its suitably to enact change, thats fair (your last paragraph is a fair question and one i suspect we just probably wont agree on) but flagging the Indigenous Parliament and the like as though its what will happen if you vote yes (and perhaps it wasnt your intention to do that but you flagged it was their end goal and you noted Albo has comitted to enacting the full recommendations which includes those things) is ridiculous. It wont, so its another "slippery slope" argument and its pointless, worse its misleading.

You seem pretty caught up on the change to the constitution, im far less worried about that personally. Ensuring that a specific advisory body cant be disbanded if Dutton and co get in seems like a smart choice to me but i would also say, if you are particularly attached to the constitution then that is also a fair concern. Id also say your concern that another advisory body might not achieve anything is completely fair as well. I dont think weve had one as clear and deliberate as this, hence my support.

To be really clear, vote however you like, i seriously doubt my banging on will change a single mind, i do get fiery about misinformation though and that what much of your posting has looked like, perhaps i got it wrong and if so i apologise.

 

[phantom13]

A great sample size for sure

This is my whole world man, dont take it away from me.

 

[George]

Different opinion then yours so must be racist
Poor from you

This isn't directed at phantom (although yes I agree it's a pretty poor comment) but gee it makes me laugh when people do this. What a regressive way to have a discussion.

 

[phantom13]

Im still really yet to see a no argument that isnt standard racist, cooker shit or slippery slope (which fall under cooker shit for me).

And ill acknowledge that that is extreme language and not all arguments against it are actually horribly racist or tin foil hat stuff.

Also, and i feel like i have to say this alot, describing someones language or phrasing as racist is not calling that person a racist. I dont think anyone in this discussion is a racist but im also positive that we all (my included) have used racist language or stereotypes or jokes. Those things dont make you a racist, but im not sure how else youd describe it.

People have such a visceral reaction to the word racist or racism, we probably all need to chill and accept that it happens, we all do it.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

This isn't directed at phantom (although yes I agree it's a pretty poor comment) but gee it makes me laugh when people do this. What a regressive way to have a discussion.

Something an alt-right neo-cooker conspiracy theorist racist would say

 

[phantom13]

Something an alt-right neo-cooker conspiracy theorist racist would say

If the shoe fits George

 

[Dard Ball Get]

People have such a visceral reaction to the word racist or racism, we probably all need to chill and accept that it happens, we all do it.

Probably the dumbest thing you’ve said yet. Just be cool with being labeled racist, lmao.
Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[George]

Something an alt-right neo-cooker conspiracy theorist racist would say

If you're white and you have questions about something that coincidentally affects people.that don't look like you, yOuRe rAySaSt

 

[phantom13]

Probably the dumbest thing you’ve said yet. Just be cool with being labeled racist, lmao.
Absolutely ridiculous.

Not what i said, like, at all.

But does kind of prove my point. You see the word racist and immediately think someone is calling you a racist.

 

[phantom13]

If you're white and you have questions about something that coincidentally affects people.that don't look like you, yOuRe rAySaSt

Cmon man, boiling down the convo thats been had to this isnt it.

Theres genuine questions about the voice, ive said that over and over, most of the objections to it (certainly all that ive seen) are either garden variety racism or slippery slope shit.

Theres fair questions about its implementation and effectiveness that might lead an individual to vote no but i havent seen too many of them advocating for a no vote either.

 

[Dard Ball Get]

Not what i said, like, at all.

But does kind of prove my point. You see the word racist and immediately think someone is calling you a racist.

Nah. But it is exactly what you did with the gay discussion.
Reduce counter viewpoints to caricatures and ignorant bigotry.
You have huge blind spots on subjects you are clearly passionate about, and go the attack, twist, misrepresent rather than be productive.
A shame, because you’re usually very balanced.

 

[phantom13]

Nah. But it is exactly what you did with the gay discussion.
Reduce counter viewpoints to caricatures and ignorant bigotry.
You have huge blind spots on subjects you are clearly passionate about, and go the attack, twist, misrepresent rather than be productive.
A shame, because you’re usually very balanced.

Yeh i dont think i do.

For clarity im not saying that racist behaviour means youre a racist but what else do you call it?

Let me put it this way. Ever told a racist joke? Does that make you a racist person? Of course not. But if someone says "hey thats racist" the default position is to go aggressive defense. Thats in spite of the fact that its absolutely racist. We live in a world where most people think being labelled a racist is worse than whatever racist shit you actually did (and im not removing myself from that either).

 

[phantom13]

Also im not suggesting i dont have blind spots, we all do, i just dont think this is one.

If someone presented a genuine clear reason for the No vote that didnt fall into one of the catagories i noted then id be all ears (and AGAIN there are legitimate questions about how it will be implemented and administered that might lead to a no vote that arent in those catagories but im not seeing those people advocating for it)

 

[gringo2011]

Nah. But it is exactly what you did with the gay discussion.
Reduce counter viewpoints to caricatures and ignorant bigotry.
You have huge blind spots on subjects you are clearly passionate about, and go the attack, twist, misrepresent rather than be productive.
A shame, because you’re usually very balanced.

To be fair that goes both ways on here. Subtle nuanced debate isn’t a thing these days. Face slap point making is easier to get your point across quickly.

 

[phantom13]

Ill cop that i got punchy and loud to True (i explained why, that Indigenous Parliament shit is really damaging) but outside of that i thought we had a pretty productive conversation.

 

[Sun Ra]

This is my whole world man, dont take it away from me.

Agree - in the past week or so in here, we've solved the issues around gay AFL players coming out and now solved The Voice.
I'll be voting YES. Can't see anything to be afraid of here, only positive outcomes from it, if it gets up. If the NO vote
gets up, we become an international pariah and the whole reconciliation movement is set back for a couple more generations.
We also found that Bruce Lehrmann was probs guilty.

 

[phantom13]

Agree - in the past week or so in here, we've solved the issues around gay AFL players coming out and now solved The Voice.
I'll be voting YES. Can't see anything to be afraid of here, only positive outcomes from it, if it gets up. If the NO vote
gets up, we become an international pariah and the whole reconciliation movement is set back for a couple more generations.

Yeh we havent even touched on the damage the No vote getting up probably does (and im not gonna keep waffling on, i get that my shit gets tiresome).

 

[gringo2011]

Also im not suggesting i dont have blind spots, we all do, i just dont think this is one.

If someone presented a genuine clear reason for the No vote that didnt fall into one of the catagories i noted then id be all ears (and AGAIN there are legitimate questions about how it will be implemented and administered that might lead to a no vote that arent in those catagories but im not seeing those people advocating for it)

At the end of the day, we all jump on and argue but the posters that are passionate enough to post have already decided which way that they'll go. I'm an idiot for jumping back in. I'm resigned to it not getting up. It's been poorly articulated and deliberately misrepresented. It's a shame but hopefully they come back at it with a better model and a more clearly defined outcome. Most Aussies are fair minded and if they get the feeling that it's the best outcome they'll generally get on board.

 

[gringo2011]

Agree - in the past week or so in here, we've solved the issues around gay AFL players coming out and now solved The Voice.
I'll be voting YES. Can't see anything to be afraid of here, only positive outcomes from it, if it gets up. If the NO vote
gets up, we become an international pariah and the whole reconciliation movement is set back for a couple more generations.
We also found that Bruce Lehrmann was probs guilty.

I think that even the right would acknowledge that we need a treaty long term. No-one wants it on their watch but even the Libs who are made up mostly of ex lawyers would understand the need for one. At some point we'll have to do it either through international pressure or a feeling of benevolence.....or perhaps lawyers making it a necessity.

 

[BigPowerForward]

At the end of the day, we all jump on and argue but the posters that are passionate enough to post have already decided which way that they'll go. I'm an idiot for jumping back in. I'm resigned to it not getting up. It's been poorly articulated and deliberately misrepresented. It's a shame but hopefully they come back at it with a better model and a more clearly defined outcome. Most Aussies are fair minded and if they get the feeling that it's the best outcome they'll generally get on board.

I think the misrepresentation runs on both sides Gringo, but I 100% agree with you that if the YES case was clearly articulated, most Aussies are fair minded and if they get the feeling that it's the best outcome they'll generally get on board.

 

[Sully111]

I dont think anywhere in that rambling fools post did he suggest fixing s**t, he asked how the voice would fix it. I answered.

Stepping over the drunken Indigenous people while watching them bash their missus and not send their kid to school is racist trope though. Surely were not disputing that. Its also not conducive to any sort of productive convo to claim that that is all Indigenous communities and people.

Also important to note im not calling anyone a racist, i noted that those were standard racist tropes. If we cant discuss people saying racist s**t without using the word racist or noting well worn racist stereotypes then were really never gonna get anywhere.

The highlighted above is an absolutely huge problem in many Aboriginal communities. It just is.

Having a conversation regarding improving the lives of Aboriginal people in Australia absolutely needs to include those facts. Otherwise it's pointless.

Only way to get anywhere is to get real... or all you're left with is a bunch of intellectual masturbating that in the end will benefit nobody.

Mentioning that it's a huge problem doesn't have to blanket all Indigenous Australians.... at all. That would be incredibly stupid.

So is ignoring it.