I am enormously sick of the no campaign brigading every discussion with terrible arguments in bad faith.
I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed. Similarly, the law is my degree. I've spent five years of my life studying it, and although I'm not a graduate yet (two units to go), I'd think I'd know more about this shit than Joe from bumfuck nowhere on Facebook.
There is no case for a no vote. None whatsoever. The change would not grant special rights to Indigenous Australians. It has been repeatedly explained by both lawyers and politicians. You can read the change yourself. It has to be a constitutional change, because that protects it from being outright removed by successive governments, which is the very thing that happened to the previous body that performed this role. By definition, it is not racist, as racism refers to negative treatment on the basis of race or ethnic background, and not differing treatment. This is one of three steps proposed by Indigenous Australians towards reconciliation, and isn't the endpoint. If it fails, it will be the endpoint.
When the colonisers arrived, Indigenous Australians outnumbered colonisers. Now, they make up just 2.5% of the population. We are driving them to extinction. If this fails, by the time we get around to trying again, it is likely the genocide will have all but been completed.
Ethically and morally, a yes vote is the only choice. Legally, it is the best choice for change.
I've been debating that myself tbh. As things stand I keep worrying taking on a student for such a brief time wouldn't be ethical, given the ongoing nature of both academic improvement and the subject
Yeah, you're almost certainly right. In any case, given graduation is just a few months out, I can't decide whether to hunt for something in my degree area. Problem I face is prospective employers will be able to tell I'm graduating soon, and I'm rather afraid they'd pass me over in favour of a cheaper and longer-lasting international student.
Graduating at the end of November, Gods willing. I really, really hope my budget lasts that long, but I'm penny pinching in a big way and have been a while now (income is only about $800 a fortnight, post rent I'm left with less than half of that).
You and the other commenters are probably right honestly, it's shitful as I love the job itself, but deeply hate my boss. I honestly cannot wait until I can just get the hell out of here, although it's going to get ugly before it gets better (I'm a tutor and a lot of my income comes from VCE students, most of whom have their last class towards the end of October)
I agree, but I can't afford to until I graduate (still a few months out). When that happens though, I will be reporting my current for sham contracting (which has fucked me over so fucking badly)
It's been a month since my boss put me under "observation" to determine whether I'd get the (from $30 to $33 an hour) raise I requested. They tried to claim they don't take inflation into account, and dismissed every piece of evidence, making claims that because a coworker of mine uses their phone on the job I might be, and that's reason why I shouldn't get a raise.
Also, they claimed that they should be lowering my pay.
How on Earth do I handle this? I'm a Uni student and don't have time to go on a job search, not to mention for equivalent pay. I just want to be able to earn enough to pay rent and food comfortably, not struggle every damn week to make ends meet
Meanwhile, my boss refused to give me a raise because "we don't take inflation into account" and "your coworker was using his phone, and therefore you might be".
Frankly, if they get a payrise for doing fuck-all, I should be getting at least equivalent for busting my arse and producing some of the best results for the company in a decade.
Also, fuck the fact that we don't have legislated consistent payrises. If we legislated wages being directly tied to inflation, life would be much easier.
Not remotely microtransactions at all. The purchase you're referring to is the deluxe edition upgrade, which came free to anyone who played the game during the beta, and costs $10 USD for:
The Soundtrack
An Artbook
An ingame dice skin
Some completely cosmetic items that are outclassed by literally every other thing in the game.
Honestly? To call this a microtransaction is making a pretty big and unjustified claim. This is a bonus to chuck the devs a little extra money for the soundtrack and artbook. The additional stuff is moreso a bonus for purchasing the first two. By comparison, CoD charges $18USD for a gun skin.
Mate, you have no idea what you're on about. Larian is one of the most transparent studios there is, and they have not once released a game with microtransactions or DLC. Similarly, every game they made has had a free "definitive edition" within twelve months of release.
Research before you make claims like this, Larian are not a AAA studio.
Thanks mate. I fully agree; both the users and the general public are endangered by it. Ultimately though we need to better police sales and importation; by the time it's in people's hands, it's too late.
Got a source on the child labour thing? Not doubting you, but as a non-American I'm confused as to how the hell youse aren't in open revolt.
EDIT: Responding individually later. In short, fuck. In long, thanks all for sending me those links, I'm gonna go wash my eyes out with bleach and attempt to un-know all that I now know
Was threatened by a methhead on Separation Street out Northcote way this morning. I've reported it to the cops (who actually took me seriously, I'm kinda shocked), but is there anything else I should be doing? On my way to work right now but feeling super unsafe.
Successful and good are completely different and unrelated metrics. Fifty Shades of Grey was extremely successful, but no one in their right mind would ever call it good. Psychonauts was met with universal acclaim, and is widely considered to be one of the best games of all time, and yet it was a complete flop and needed more than a decade to get a sequel.
Bethesda games are extremely successful. They are not good games, and their success is not a good thing. Bethesda kicked off microtransactions in 2007 with Horse Armour. This decision completely fucked the wider industry. Not a fan.
Honestly mate? Not at all. I'm concerned about Starfield because of Bethesda's track record since Fallout 4, and in particular, their constant attempts to introduce paid 'mods' to their games through the creation club (which are always overpriced for tiny amounts of content) as well as how broken their games have been at launch since Morrowind. When my PC, which can run Baldur's Gate 3 on max settings, can't run Oblivion without mods without regular crashes, then there's a big problem.
I want Starfield to be good. But Bethesda do not make good games. They make broad games, but there's no depth, and what is there is fairly consistently buggy. They have the Pokemon problem though, where people are willing to give them a pass because of the big name. I guarantee you, if a smaller developer released games in the state that Bethesda does, their games would be (rightfully) panned.
Dalek Thal @ Dalek_Thal @aussie.zone Posts 2Comments 260Joined 2 yr. ago
A summary of my viewpoint:
I am enormously sick of the no campaign brigading every discussion with terrible arguments in bad faith.
I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed. Similarly, the law is my degree. I've spent five years of my life studying it, and although I'm not a graduate yet (two units to go), I'd think I'd know more about this shit than Joe from bumfuck nowhere on Facebook.
There is no case for a no vote. None whatsoever. The change would not grant special rights to Indigenous Australians. It has been repeatedly explained by both lawyers and politicians. You can read the change yourself. It has to be a constitutional change, because that protects it from being outright removed by successive governments, which is the very thing that happened to the previous body that performed this role. By definition, it is not racist, as racism refers to negative treatment on the basis of race or ethnic background, and not differing treatment. This is one of three steps proposed by Indigenous Australians towards reconciliation, and isn't the endpoint. If it fails, it will be the endpoint.
When the colonisers arrived, Indigenous Australians outnumbered colonisers. Now, they make up just 2.5% of the population. We are driving them to extinction. If this fails, by the time we get around to trying again, it is likely the genocide will have all but been completed.
Ethically and morally, a yes vote is the only choice. Legally, it is the best choice for change.