How do we sleep while our beds are burning?
I love this song, it’s still in my playlist
There is a recent cover version by AWOL Nation & Rise Against (or maybe just Tim McIlrath, not 100% sure).
Removed by mod
Australian Government: “Should we finally grant the victims of our historic genocide a symbolic advisory role on matters that impact those victims”
Australians: “Git Farked”
Edit: That last viz “by age group” is really about how society progresses one death at a time.
They’re not telling the indigenous people to get fucked, they’re merely saying, “I’m too ignorant of the many many crimes committed against you for me to possibly vote in your favor. Perhaps if we were more educated, but alas… That would require voting for someone like you and I’m simply too ignorant…” See the difference? It’s a far more diplomatic way of telling someone that you really couldn’t give a shit whether they get fucked or just go off and die somewhere.
Thefartographer’s going to be prime minister and get a Nobel peace prize one day
If you’re using a racist slur to satirize racists, you gotta know Poe’s Law applies to you here.
Just curious, is it a slur or a contraction? Like calling Finnish as “Finn” or Aboriginals as “Abo”? I mean, I’m Finnish and I don’t find the Finn as insulting. Not that I actually have a horse in this race but to me it sounded like a contraction of a word rather than a slur.
It’s a slur by historic usage
@NoMoreCocaine - it’s definitely a slur. I think what makes something a slur is the way it has historically been used, not the technicalities of its construction/how the word was derived.
The other factor is how the people it is being applied to feel about being called that, which of course is related to the first point.
In the case of the word above, it has been used to demean and denigrate people for a long time, and is widely considered to be an offensive and racist slur.
To give a comparison, it’s “just” a contraction in the same way the N word is “just” derived from the Latin word for black.
It sounds the same as how here in the UK, referring to someone as ‘Pakistani’ is fine, but referring to someone as a ‘paki’ is NOT. I know plenty of Pakistani-origin people who refer to each other as paki but generally the use is in a demeaning way when it’s used by someone outside that group.
Finn isn’t a contraction in English. Finnish is always an adjective and Finn is always a noun. By the looks of it, the original word was Finn. It’s the same situation as Scot/Scottish or Kurd/Kurdish.
Can you not use hate-speech in your post please?
Ummm, nah.
All this over an advisory board with no real power? How could that even be harmful?
Conservatives oppose it for the same reasons indigenous groups want it.
Nope, its a vote to change the consimtitution to add a body which is for one racial group and then to decide its powers after its been created. Its undemocratic and racist
You’re undemocratic and racist.
It is undemocratic and racist if the position is filled by an elected person and it is based on the race of people. That’s like directly derived from the very definition of those words.
It can still be morally correct though!
You’re being a dolt. They’re there because of their quasi sovereign pre invasion nationality, you see it as color they see it as an attachment to the land.
Yes, that’s why I say it can still be morally correct to create this position in parliament. Quite frankly I think they should get more than just this one position. It boggles the mind how land can just be taken and the native population just ignores like this for centuries.
But if it’s based on race it’s racist. That’s a fact. Unless you redefine racist to be only against minorities. Or only against non-white people. But for me racism is action based on the race of people.
Agreed.
Nope. Not even by the definition of racism. It’s equity, equitable things can be based on protected classes, sure.
As opposed to what exactly, non humans?
Your delineation of race is bigoted and frankly stupid. Also, morally incorrect.
My edit didn’t go through. It should read
It is undemocratic and racist if the position is (edit: not!) filled by an elected person and it is based on the race of people.
(I blame the federated nature of lemmy for that, but in the future I need to double check if any corrections do reach the intended server.)
I am aware that some people think racism can only be done by white people or by the majority. My definition of racism is that it is action based on the race of people.
I’m from Germany and quite frankly, I think the concept of race is indeed stupid. We got rid of that concept and its everyday use 75 years ago. But it is commonly used in the anglosphere (no doubt due to the big influence of the USA and it’s domestic problems with african-american citzens), so that’s the word I use in internet discourse as well.
I’m from Germany, and frankly, you’re talking shit.
Hilarious. Germany.
have you considered that you may be racist?
No I haven’t cos I’m not. I’m only interested in preserving democracy. That means equality and egalitarianism. Representative government, which we already fucking have.
White Australians just standing up for democracy and egalitarianism. How noble. First nations people dying at 50 yo will no doubt salute your brave stance
White Australians making decisions on things they don’t understand because of guilt for things the British empire did. How noble.
The Brits were dicks. But its current white australians getting their knickers in a twist being merely asked to listen to the people who’s land they stole.
This is completely false, but unfortunately that is the type of lie that has been spread and amplified by conservatives and their media, and caused a lot of uncertainty and fear in people.
It is clear what the voice is going to be. It is clear what powers it will have. It is clear how it is going to work. Everything else is FUD.
What are you on about? How is it clear? if anything its deliberately unclear. Theres no framework, no restrictions, no indicationonf membership or how it will be chosen, no scope of any kind.
How the fuck does that parse as “clear” in your mind?
If it’s so unclear as you make it out to be, how can you be so certain that it will be all the bad things you’re harping on about in this thread?
What bad things would those be?
You keep repeating the same demagoguery. Shush.
I’m voting yes, and i have tried to help people see why it’s a good thing, but when people call me racist for saying I’m in the yes camo, i know that far too many are just morons who have no critical thinking, or ability to tell what is a good source of information.
Adding a new governmental body that is open to only one racial group is racist and it is also undemocratic.
Your vote is well intentioned its just poorly informed. You’ve been propagandised.
You idiots have the same repeated talking points and they are just plain wrong.
In late 2023, Australians will have their say in a referendum on whether to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia in the Constitution through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Not just one group, but two. And they are not racial you fuckwit, they are geographical and historical groupings.
Cultures have value and our First Nations are owed a debt. We live on their lands, we benefit from their experience. We owe them so much and this is just a vote for First Nations to be formally represented in parliament.
They’re not racial groups? Are you fucking kidding me? You absolute Muppet.
They’re not but you represent a bit racist group. And I love the Muppets, thanks wankstain.
I don’t represent anything except the desire to maintain democracy and egalitarianism
No, what you represent is casual racism and selfishness draped in the auspices of egalitarianism which distorts the true nature of democracy.
You obsess over words like race because you’re a racist. It’s really that simple.
…casually failing to mention that the “one racial group” are the traditional land owners who lost their land and 50,000 year-old culture due to colonisation.
And what does that have to do with our modern (and future) Democratic nation?
None of us took anything from any others of us. Its a totally irrelevant point.
We can’t go around changing g the fundamental nature of democracy because of historical tragedies or in 15 minutes we’ll be back to fucking tribalism and feudal lords.
This is always an interesting one - who is “propagandising” us, and what do they have to gain from their significant investment in advancing this agenda?
Well I mean, have you researched the issue, analyzed it, and developed your own position based on evidence?
Or are you just listening to what comes out of the TV?
If you get your opinions from someone who hands them to you fully formed (like Voice good, no voice racist) then that is propaganda, not information.
As to your second question - a: politicians scoring points and winning elections; and b: a whole lot of people who get a hand in deciding laws and economic decisions for their own special group.
And before you bang out the line about lobby groups all having a say already - yes of course we should fuck those off as well because they too are undemocratic corruption
Ah yes - do your own research… The mating call of the conspiracist.
So it’s the Labor party propagandising us to secure an election win that isn’t an election (top-tier research, I see)? Seems like a big deal that carries a very real risk of a loss, with opportunity for marginal gain at best, which necessitates burning immense political capital. This doesn’t smell of conspiracist bullshit to you?
The Labor Party have invested $9.5m into this, which has been spent on things like broad civics education and website upgrades. The yes campaign has also been set to lose for some time now - so my comment and the risk is already validated, and Labor get to tie themselves to an unpopular position, and lose. Genius.
Do you baselessly assume I get my information from TV because you don’t own/watch TV, get your info from the likes of YouTube (or better, Rumble - where do you get your research?), and think you’re an enlightened type because of it? I’ve looked at legislative review and the explanatory memorandum, cases from both campaigns, stats around indigenous outcomes, and the history of this country, but there was really no need - this is very simple. I personally don’t think it’s great to turn up, genocide the population, take their land, witness comparatively atrocious outcomes according to just about any metric you care to choose that persist 2 centuries after we turned up and shrug my shoulders because doing the bare minimum about that would be racist. The least we could do is give them a dismissable voice in matters that relate to them.
You can say you disagree with the existence of representative bodies like the business council, but the fact of the matter is that we have them. To now shut the gate on a marginalised group while the other bodies continue to exist only exacerbates the issue. Those bodies also have massive amounts of cash to throw around - the voice, on the other hand would get to make representions that can simply be ignored… What are you afraid of here? This is like me beating you up and taking your lunch money, then saying we can’t do a thing about that because you’re a different race/gender/sexuality/whatever, and that would be (pick)-ist.
I’ll put it differently - is the massive disparity in outcomes for indigenous Australians a product of the systemic issues that have been thrust upon them, or inferior genetics? If it’s systemic, why not get their input on addressing the issues that affect them? If it’s genetic, we get to have a very different chat. Feel free to pick a deflection like culture, but it’s all a product of genetics or systemic in the end.
The real reason it will fail is politics. The opposition party decided getting this voted down would strike a blow to the government.
So they’ve just blown racist dog whistles, racist trumpets, set of racists cannons and doubled down on ignorance: “If you don’t know vote No”
They have effectively weaponised division.
They created division by spreading lies, uncertainty and fear. Lies were repeated over and over, and became increasingly outrageous, despite being refuted again and again.
Then they pointed at the division they created and said “this is too divisive, we shouldn’t do it.”
Colonialism intensifies
What’s even the point of having a democracy if the majority of the voter base is uninformed
Not just uninformed - deliberately misinformed.
Voting on yes or no was made very easy when I saw that neo nazis, flat earthers, anti vaxxers and a multitude of other whack jobs are voting no. You are the company you keep in my book.
What a bunch of cunts
Well that’s disappointing.
fucking national disgrace…
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Australians look set to reject a referendum proposal to recognise Indigenous people in the constitution by creating a body to advise parliament, with polls showing a clear majority for no in almost all states before Saturday’s vote.
The yes campaign has also been battered by the Blak sovereignty movement, which has led the progressive no case, arguing the voice would be powerless while pushing for truth and treaty to come ahead of constitutional recognition.
The no campaign has leaned heavily on the slogan “If you don’t know, vote no”, which former high court justice Robert French described as an invitation to “resentful, uninquiring passivity”.
The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, spent part of the final campaigning week in the nation’s centre, Uluru, where the proposal for the voice was first formally presented in 2017.
Sitting with senior traditional owners in central Australia, Albanese said Australians had an opportunity to “lift the burden of history” and move forward with a positive vote on Saturday.
“Many Indigenous Australians who are on the frontlines of dealing with these problems in towns and cities and communities and outstations and home lands are very worried about the prospect of losing the voice because they already have little say, and a loss will mean that they have even less.”
The original article contains 827 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
'cos Aussies love racism
Keep it classy, Australia.
Literally nothing stops the government making “the voice” without changing the constitution. The only reason they want it in the constitution is so future governments can’t change the function of the body.
The whole thing is an organised circus for political gain and dividing the population.
In the past, the government had a “voice” for the indigenous for like 10 years. Just bring it back, no constitutional change needed.
If you’re going to try put an aboriginal rights group in the constitution, just make it basic human rights group with representation for everyone. Basic human rights that are severely lacking in Australia. Freedom of speech? We don’t even have that.
Isn’t the fact that it was taken away before a justification for enshrining it in the constitution?
Like every other advisory body, it’s the role of the elected government to manage (as it would continue to be if added to the constitution, they could just reduce it to one underfunded person instead of disbandening it, or create a new group).
Just vote for the party you want to represent you. The current government doesn’t have a “voice” for the indigenous despite proposing this constitutional change.
It’s like complaining about others possibly hampering your climate change efforts so you instead make none at all
Who is preventing your speech?
Let me guess, ‘woke green loonies who use cancel culture’.
