Not really, this is would have been a change that required another expensive referendum and a double majority to undo, not just within parliament. This wasn't something that is like say banning guns or recognising indigenous Australians as people rather than fauna. This was something that needed pretty clear details other than "if you vote no you're a racist". That's ultimately why it failedunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Whatever, point still stands though.Adams_BJ wrote:
It wasn't legislation, it was a change to our Constitution, the legislation was going to be figure out "later".unnamednewbie13 wrote:
[…]
I wasn't making argumentation on the thing's (if that's all I'm allowed to safely call it) merits. My point was the no campaign's slogan looked deliberately obtuse. Don't even try to educate yourself and make a yes or no off that. Just give up!
very racistDilbert_X wrote:
OK, so you're racist.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I wonder why people would think that native americans would need an extra apparatus in the first place.
other state governments are rolling out backup voice already so....unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I wasn't making argumentation on the thing's (if that's all I'm allowed to safely call it) merits. My point was the no campaign's slogan looked deliberately obtuse. Don't even try to educate yourself and make a yes or no off that. Just give up!
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n … deral-body
it can be anything parliament wants, whcih parliament can already do and there's nothing preventing that.Dilbert_X wrote:
The problem was it was a lot more than an "advisory body"
Advisory bodies can be tacked onto anything without legislation, to change the constitution to insert an "advisory body" was colossal overkill which really suggested it wasn't an advisory body at all.
Try this:
"Lets change the American constitution so congress must consult with a native american advisory body on all matters."
What would that mean in practice? Any idea? This is what we asked to vote for with no detail beyond that.
"Trust us, we'll tell you the detail later, it'll be fine, if you don't you're a racist"
60% said No.
it can be as much as "let aboroginals run the shop" to "here's one guy thats gonna talk to the PM, house of reps, and senate for 3 minutes every 10 years".
(slash-s)Cybargs wrote:
very racistDilbert_X wrote:
OK, so you're racist.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I wonder why people would think that native americans would need an extra apparatus in the first place.
i mean, in nations with histories of genocide, past/present-tense discrimination and neglect, and outright denial of these things by some, and/or refusal to entertain their lasting effect as a thing that exists: it shouldn't be difficult to understand why certain population groups would want to try different things in the first place. dilbert's what-about-america didn't feel like much of a gotcha. huge problems here.
should people be more startled that it got the attention it did? should there be more resultant dialog over there, or does everyone want to go about as usual?
australia sounds like a place to get bitten or stabbed by something venomous, poisonous, or both, possibly while cooking to death. if i had to fish for a compliment, kudos to the combat prowess of your emus. handed humans a humble pie.
should people be more startled that it got the attention it did? should there be more resultant dialog over there, or does everyone want to go about as usual?
australia sounds like a place to get bitten or stabbed by something venomous, poisonous, or both, possibly while cooking to death. if i had to fish for a compliment, kudos to the combat prowess of your emus. handed humans a humble pie.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2023-10-18 05:45:10)
If there had been a sensible proposal and a coherent argument it would have gone through.
As it was there was literally nothing and it got 40% of the vote
Makes you think.
As it was there was literally nothing and it got 40% of the vote
Makes you think.
Fuck Israel
I imagine a sensible proposal and coherent argument would get opposed by a catchphrase about as inane and passive as the last.
Well then the inane and passive catchphrase would have lost.
But really, the PMs lifelong project "You should vote for it because, uh, yeah"
But really, the PMs lifelong project "You should vote for it because, uh, yeah"
Fuck Israel
Will it have? Before COVID-19, people thought we'd listen to the reasoned thoughts of experts and handle a pandemic as logically as possible.Dilbert_X wrote:
Well then the inane and passive catchphrase would have lost.
So anyway, why doesn't the US govt have a mandatory advisory body of native americans they have to run everything past?
Fuck Israel
I think it would have, it was polling at 70% yes when it was initially raised. It was just a very, very poor and not thought out campaign.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Will it have? Before COVID-19, people thought we'd listen to the reasoned thoughts of experts and handle a pandemic as logically as possible.Dilbert_X wrote:
Well then the inane and passive catchphrase would have lost.
It wasn't so much the campaign as there was just nothing there.
"Vote yes and we'll work out the rest of it later"
"Vote yes and we'll work out the rest of it later"
Fuck Israel
That's what I mean
We have all kinds of advisory councils on stuff. Though apparently, they could use more potency since we can still run any leaky, toxic pipeline through their lands we want.Dilbert_X wrote:
So anyway, why doesn't the US govt have a mandatory advisory body of native americans they have to run everything past?
People will say that they get to have casinos where casinos probably wouldn't be allowed, so not only is racism over but it's racism in their favor. I'd think most would rather have their people's land back, but we have to work with what's actionable y'know! More token gestures, and more water-table-poisoning pipelines it is.
Is it mandated in the constitution though?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
We have all kinds of advisory councils on stuff.Dilbert_X wrote:
So anyway, why doesn't the US govt have a mandatory advisory body of native americans they have to run everything past?
Fuck Israel
Should it be? I'd like to read arguments for and against if such a thing comes up in discussion. Less interested if they're overly short, rhyme, and fit on a button.
Oversimplifying it, they have a form of limited sovereignty. Less simplified, it's complex and changes. (Side note: Indian government itself influenced US government despite how people like to imagine it stemming purely from Greek philosophers or whatever.)
The formation of Australia and USA took place under different atmospheres anyway. Overly comparing the two should be backed up.
Oversimplifying it, they have a form of limited sovereignty. Less simplified, it's complex and changes. (Side note: Indian government itself influenced US government despite how people like to imagine it stemming purely from Greek philosophers or whatever.)
The formation of Australia and USA took place under different atmospheres anyway. Overly comparing the two should be backed up.
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Should it be? I'd like to read arguments for and against if such a thing comes up in discussion.
Fuck Israel
why shouldn't it? a native american council that will have a constitutional right to advocate on the behalf of all native americans to both congress and the president. would the americans support it?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Should it be? I'd like to read arguments for and against if such a thing comes up in discussion. Less interested if they're overly short, rhyme, and fit on a button.
Last edited by Cybargs (2023-10-22 04:38:55)
Just vote yes, its the vibe of the thing.
Fuck Israel
I'm not sure what smirking gotcha angle, if any, you and dilbert are aiming for.Cybargs wrote:
why shouldn't it? a native american council that will have a constitutional right to advocate on the behalf of all native americans to both congress and the president. would the americans support it?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Should it be? I'd like to read arguments for and against if such a thing comes up in discussion. Less interested if they're overly short, rhyme, and fit on a button.
The whole argument dilbert has of "well why not give Blacks their own branch of government" is a little apples to oranges. Such a thing with its more clearly racial overtones (pfft, as if the us government doesn't have a history of that) probably shouldn't be considered the same way as indigenous polities.
As opposed to a country just doing whatever it appallingly pleases with the indigenous, the idea of a constitutionally reinforced entities such as advisories and arms in legislature is on the surface an attractive one and maybe should be trialed and hashed out if current representations and councils are insufficient.
If a proposal isn't well fleshed-out or a Bad Idea, opposition should at the very least articulate why with the same energy as they output their one-line catchphrase.
But that's just like, my opinion man.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2023-10-22 11:22:40)
Well, my opinion is if something is put to a referendum it should be defined better than "just vote for it ok"
I think also the PM thought was being clever by not defining it and expecting to do whatever he wanted with it when it passed.
But the PM is not a clever man and it didn't pass.
I think also the PM thought was being clever by not defining it and expecting to do whatever he wanted with it when it passed.
But the PM is not a clever man and it didn't pass.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2023-10-23 02:06:59)
Fuck Israel
abc seems to put it succinctly here:
in unrelated, antivax australian politics:
Failed Senate candidate and anti-vaccine protester denies assaulting police officer
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-17/ … /102985502
huh.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-16/ … /102977272It was an emphatic No from Australians who were unconvinced by an ineffectual Yes campaign and a simplistic but persuasive No campaign which ran rings around its opponent online.
in unrelated, antivax australian politics:
Failed Senate candidate and anti-vaccine protester denies assaulting police officer
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-17/ … /102985502
huh.