Seudo @ Seudo @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

117

Joined

2 yr. ago

There's nothing in the legislation that prevents the (predominantly white European) government from continuing to cherry pick. We don't need another excuse to be apathetic about indigenous issues.

Either way, some of us whities just don't feel comfortable determining the future of indigenous people.

F in the chat for victims of the Great Oxygenation Event.

Well there was this bloke called Captain Cook right...

Entirely depends on how it's to be structured. Which the public didn't vote on. Done correctly I do agree on the optics of an official body though.

I'd say less. Still finding my place here but the comment section seems more polarised than on Reddit. The recent Australian referendum for example. Any nuanced discussion is impossible (only in some instances I'm sure) because alternative opinions make you a racist according to the average (most vocal at least) commenter. It's sad because as in that instance and regardless of politics, it often means a bunch of white people dictating what is/isn't, true/false, wanted/needed... important.

So there will be just as many people saying the voice doesn't represent them or their country but white folks can feel like everything is fine and dandy. Swell

Which a token gesture does absolutely nothing to change...

Wot? Absolutely nothing stoping parliament from listening to the numerous recommendations that would improve the standard of living or life expectancy of indigenous people. Why would you think a few token lines in the constitution will change that?

Theoretically... Yes.

More autonomy and self determination is a big one. More so than land rights or any sort of reparations in my experience, but different regions face very different issues. Unless we're just looking for a token gesture, it's a bit daft to lump a hundred diverse aboriginal countries together and expect them to all agree.

Can't deradicalize extremists without engaging them. Not to say where and when that should happen, or that the moral argument is even relevant. As Popper said in the wake of WWII,

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

I'd say an excuse for politics to ignore indigenous issues for another decade by placating the white masses for the next few election cycles would be a lil worse.

The amendment if full,

i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;  * ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; * iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures

So... No. Your friend is full of shit. It provides no powers whatsoever.

The same parliament ignoring indigenous voices for a century will be the only one free to listen to "the" indigenous voice.

A decade ago our PM said sorry. Twenty years ago we were told the gap in life expectancy would be closed. One of our most famous moments in history is a PM giving old Lingari a handfull of dirt.

The majority of indigenous people I've spoken to have said they're voting no or don't care. Another empty gesture to placate the white population for another election cycle isn't what we need. An official voice that can make recommendations to the same governing body that has oppressed them for a century and to this day continue to ignore or obfuscate the most basic voices of reason from academics, human rights experts and elders?.. Yeah nah fuck that for a solution.

I didn't vote because I think each country should decide how and if they want to be incorporated into the Western system. The polarisation in the media compared to the results on the day make me think I made the right choice. Australians famous laconic apathy is ripe for spin masters to manipulate by only giving extreme minority groups the mic and as usual the actual victims are doubly fucked.

Who watches the watchers?

Meh, makes me feel a little better about our slide into dystopia knowing we had it coming are too damn lazy and apathetic to do anything about it.

Apparently entertaining an idea without believing it is the mark of an educated mind.

Life expectancy at, is used by academics when relevant. Average at birth, adulthood and even once they're over the hill have utility. Like identifying outliers.

Regardless, the average person is going to use average as a nebulas concept occasionally informed by science but hearsay and superstition on an average day.