Gorgritch_Umie_Killa @ Gorgritch_umie_killa @aussie.zone

Posts

20

Comments

351

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm glad you've said this. For a harmonious society situations like this have to be treated reasonably equally.

But its such a silly thing to do for such a high profile personality like Kerr. Tje bastards will have a field day! If she actually said it of course, because she has registered her innocence, indicating she disagrees quite sharply with the cops interpretation of events.

Thats what Frodo said to Gaffer when he asked where he was going, "oh, just upshire."

He didn't trick old Proudfeet though, he knew Frodo was weavin porkies.

Sounds like an interesting idea... this isn't some elaborate April Fools prank though, is it?

Oh cool, an Acme version! I didn't imagine that!

Have you ever heard of de'beers diamond hoarding story. Thats like what i expect would happen to humanity if we gained the ability to live forever, 'manufactured scarcity'.

A tumultuous time of oligarchic rule with infighting to control the life extending technology. Eventually ending in a winner take all dictatorship. The masses would never see their lives extended (greener pastures visions may be made in the beginning). In fact common peoples lifespans would likely shorten as the controlling elite no longer required the same sort of widespread healthcare present even at todays standards, (depending upon where you live).

The elite would form a supplicant circle around the eventual dictator who maintains control, drip feeding the life extending technology to those who serve their dictatorship best.

Within a couple generations they won't be a dictator but our Monarch, and the common people will obey, and descend to a miserable condition.

I may have let my imagination loose today a bit...

What this user said.

Be the Post maker of your own subject. Sometimes i spend so long on aussiezone, (my local server, represent!!), i forget the rest of lemmy is there.

I get a pretty cold hard slap when i jump into a political chat and some of the more extreme lemmy elements are settin up camp. Those guys be crazy. And i'm here for it!!!!

Habit is key.

OP if you have a relative interest in seeing a community function better do try to post more yourself.

Find some dnd sites, even if its the biggest most well known ones, and post things you find interesting from there. Use the 'Body' to add your own perspective.

Start small, maybe try to Post one article every Wednesday night, and one article every Sunday night. Once you start a habit you'll naturally begin exploring forr new and interetsting resources.

I dunno, good luck! :)

After re-reading your comment here, your suggesting putting the $364.6 million into indigenous issues directly. Thats a fair discussion to have for budgetary matters. Directing the funding to where it may have the largest impact is an important consideration.

I think this makes the argument for holding a referendum stronger. There are a number of effects this referendum has had:

• education of constitutional law
• normalisation of holding this thing called a referendum (something younger generations had never done)
• a year of aboriginal issues being central to national debate. No matter how toxic it was, everybody will be a lot more familiar with the challenges that group face.
• the Aboriginal community now know beyond any doubt that a 1/3 of Australia have an understanding and want to help in a truly meaningful way. That shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
• politicians understand the electorate on this single issue more clearly. A general election could never deliver this. Take Bill Shortens 2019 failure at election as an example, they still don't quite know why they failed, all they can say it was likely to do with their tax policy. Its one of the reasons they're so gun shy about tax changes in our current national debate.

Sure theres other things the money could have gone on, (there always is). And they might prove to be a better investment. But there have been short term and long term benefits from this referendum even in failure, and even if a voter didn't support the proposition itself, there are still recognisable benefits.

No, you missed the point of the referendum. But you have understood the action proposed to be taken, which is half the story.

Essential to the referendim is the previous experience of centralising Aboriginal organisations along the same vein as the Voice was supposed to be. The problem was, from government to government, there was a lack of ongoing commitment, the organisations were subject to the political winds of the day.

The half of the story you've missed:

Putting a requirement for 'a Voice' in the Constitution sets a minimum standard that all governments in the future would have to meet. In whatever form suits them and the political tides of the day, but they couldn't shut the body down entirely without ensuring replacement of that body with another.

The government could, or may, re-establish an authority like the Voice now, but as before, it has no protection from being closed down for whatever reason, without replacement in the future.

It was a really smart proposal. The fear campaign from Advance, and the poor promotion of the case from the YES side, led to the simple and good proposal being lost in trashy scare campaigns and uplifting adverts of no substance. Not to mention the mostly horrible 'debates' that never actually covered the proposal itself and always wandered off into ridiculous areas the proposal didnt cover.

Some of the best speakers i found on the subject were Hannah Mcglade, Julian Leeser, Anne Twomey, but there were plenty more.

This is a lazy argument.

First, because the comment stands alone, it invites the ridiculous assertion that if voting is expensive, then why should we do any voting at all?

But, of course, thats probably not the intent of the comment. I'd guess your intent was to state how much of a waste that particular vote was. Which is likewise how many people probably felt about the same sex marriage plebiscite, or before that the republic referendum, or any other you can think of.

The point is, a large enough portion of effected people across the country were deemed to see this issue as important enough to consider or rebuff a proposed change. It might've meant nothing to you, in this case, but there were people on both sides of the argument that it meant a lot to, and they still needed the rest of us to weigh in.

Anyway, my issue is with the argument put in dollar terms like that, it just misses the point of all these sorts of things we do.

Oh thats good, i hope that articles right then.

If you come across it again, do you think you could post a link. I'd be interested to have a read.

Thats a problem i have with the reporting on this. All the western nations bang on about so many millions($) spent in support, but how much materiel does that buy? We have the capacity to outspend, but will we deliver a decisively larger amount of materiel for that outspending?

Good illustrative example.

I'm always hesitant to assume growth will always reassert itself in the end though. You know the old saying, 'past performance is not an indicator of future performance', type thing. After all extinction is a thing.

Um, i suppose you could apply the effect of the black plague on middle ages europe.

Estimated to have killed 1/3 of all people. There was a subsequent rise in wages/worker bargaining power attributed to the lack of labour supply.

I suppose thats an example of rock bottom and coming back with some benefit.

I wouldn't call it 'bouncing' back though, more like struggling on with a sliver of silver on those grey clouds. Not an adviseable course for a country to take.

We should have set up a monthly quota from the beginning. Now we definitely need to set up a monthly minimum supply of arms for Ukraine.

Big announceables tickle pollies bellies, but war is won by reliability of supply. By supplying in fits and starts all we'll succeed in is making ourselves feel good about Ukraine's defeat.

Good summary.

Its the people that work at these channels and production co's that baffle me. Their work lives must be so vapid.

I can't imagine what they must think to themselves when they've reached another end of their work day. They must derive a satisfaction from it that i can't envision.

Closed loops are a pretty steep expectation. I'm pretty sure (with no evidence to back me up) with the amount of importers, suppliers, manufacturers, retailers in the supply chain for a product on a shelf, it would be a costly proposition to attempt closed loop.

More costly than using a system of levys to promote behavioural change. Which is the idea behind the system i's suggesting in the previous comment.

Its about changing the system for the better to generate the fewest negative externalities possible. If a closed loop increases costs more than a system of levys, then everyone will be squeezed more than necessary to get the same result, making negative externalities, like black markets, fraud, more likely than they need be.

Cigarettes in Australia are a great example of this in action. There is a black market for Cigarettes here because they are so expensive from the retailers, but the barriers to widespread black market adoption are still perceived as too high for the greater majority of smokers. The result is a small black market, which will almost always exist for any product you can think of, but the government has tightened the screws on smokers in the public market to make it as uncomfortable process as possible for the sale and purchase of Cigarettes. Until the introduction of younger generations vaping, and the lack of younger generations similar experiences with Cigarettes ill effects, the policy position led to a hard disincentive that worked to decrease smoking rates. But, as always, time and creativity need a reaction that we are still trying to get right.

Hahaha, yeah i've found myself in similar situations

A better system is to require all grocery/food/packaging, customer facing retailers to record all sales and from which suppliers those products were bought.

Then charge the retailer the average cost of 'recycling' or 'to the planet', or another measure of cost.

This will increase costs on all products, but by design more on the costs of hard to recycle goods and packaging.

Charge retailers that daily, watch end to end, from supplier/producer to consumer, behaviour change and iterate accordingly.

Start off with an industry sector though, like grocery stores, most are bricks and mortar, and have high brand acknowledgement so can't easily escape regulation. The key is to charge the location of sale, not the companies 'HQ'.

I wonder if members of the LNP tried to get a conscience vote on this.

I know there are a few who are sympathetic to his treatment. Joyce, Alex Antic. Of course none probably feel as safe to cross the floor as Bridget Archer, so could have toed the party line.