The Voice

[IFocus]

Craven is voting YES for the moral imperative. But, he sees the wolf in sheep's clothing in what The Voice has morphed into. It's actually worth reading, will cut and paste it to you.

Well, I'll paste it here. It's long so in quotes.

Thanks Sean appreciate it , interesting well written summery, typical of any process such as this with so many competing interests, hearten by Cravens point he will still support the referendum the man is a human after all, the question is, who else is?

Note a survey in WA gave 60% support mostly younger generation and women.

 

[IFocus]

Typical, If people don't agree, you bring out the racism card.
.Mick

Mick I don't care who you are we all have a level of racism including 1st nations until you admit it its like alcoholism you dont address the issue.

Typical conversation I am not a racist but...

 

[mullokintyre]

Mick I don't care who you are we all have a level of racism including 1st nations until you admit it its like alcoholism you dont address the issue.

Typical conversation I am not a racist but...

So, why is it not ok to call out those who want a voice based on race as racist?
Mick

 

[rederob]

Its not really about having a voice to Parliament, its its for the purpose of a treaty and truth telling.

You really have not followed this topic well.

Its part of an ruse to get something into the constitution that goes far beyond the voice.

Utter nonsense. Again, it shows you are now making up things because you don't understand the purpose of the Voice.

Typical, If people don't agree, you bring out the racism card.

Explain what has been at issue then. This thread is deeply riddled with racist pejoratives, false claims and conspiratorial ideal such as yours.

If having a special section of the constitution that applies only to a particular race of people is not racism, I don't know what is.

Your last three words sum up how little you understand this topic.

 

[IFocus]

Mick

The point of the Voice is nothing to do with the below


Oxford definition of a racist

adjective

1. characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
   "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse"
   

noun

1. a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
   "he has been targeted by vicious racists online"

 

[wayneL]

Mick

The point of the Voice is nothing to do with the below


Oxford definition of a racist

adjective

1. characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
   "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse"
   

noun

1. a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
   "he has been targeted by vicious racists online"

Thanks for clearing that up. 99% of people accused of racism aren't racists then.

However the proposed amendment elevates one group above all other groups residing in this country, therefore the racism is implicit rather than explicit and opens the door for more explicit racism; ipso facto, racist legislation.

Anyone who wants equal treatment under the law regardless of race should vote no to this egregious trojan horse of a proposal and is anything *but a racist.

 

[mullokintyre]

Mick

The point of the Voice is nothing to do with the below


Oxford definition of a racist

adjective

1. characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
   "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse"

noun

1. a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
   "he has been targeted by vicious racists online"

So when did the marginalised bit get added?
Is the accepted definition of racism now that its ok to be antagonistic or discriminate against a race provided that the particular race or ethnic group is not marginalised?
Who decides which group is marginalised?
Does the term White Supremacy, or white privilege, both of which get bandied around about people like me not fit under the term as described above?
The new semantics.
Mick

 

[IFocus]

All can hyperventilate as much as they like crying victim, its cringe worthy when mainstream carry on.

No group in our country have face dispossession, mass murder, incarceration, abduction, marginalization, racism etc as 1st nations that includes early convict labor.

Trying to equate that to mainstream is absurd.

 

[wayneL]

All can hyperventilate as much as they like crying victim, its cringe worthy when mainstream carry on.

No group in our country have face dispossession, mass murder, incarceration, abduction, marginalization, racism etc as 1st nations that includes early convict labor.

Trying to equate that to mainstream is absurd.

Oh so you're a holocaust denier now?

How about POWs that were fighting for our country, how about the genuine refugees and their descendants who live here.

That comment is truly offensive.

 

[rederob]

Thanks for clearing that up. 99% of people accused of racism aren't racists then.

Maybe back to front on that idea!

However the proposed amendment elevates one group above all other groups residing in this country,

How is the fact that first nations people get recognised as first nations people in the Constitution any other than true?
Your idea of "elevation" has no merit.

Anyone who wants equal treatment under the law regardless of race should vote no to this egregious trojan horse of a proposal and is anything *but a racist.

Totally absurd idea.
The Voice is about effecting better policies for first nations people and has absolutely nothing to do with the law, unless there can be potentially better laws as a result of advice from the Voice.
It seems a few commenting here are intent on voting "no" on the basis of self delusion, conspiracy, ignorance and any host of other factors that are not relevant to the Constitutional question.

How about POWs that were fighting for our country, how about the genuine refugees and their descendants who live here.

Whataboutisms are not arguments.

 

[Knobby22]

All can hyperventilate as much as they like crying victim, its cringe worthy when mainstream carry on.

No group in our country have face dispossession, mass murder, incarceration, abduction, marginalization, racism etc as 1st nations that includes early convict labor.

Trying to equate that to mainstream is absurd.

Yes, and not only the holocaust --- what about the Armenian Genocide hey?
And the Irish Catholics earler last century? And did you see what we did to the Italians in WW2?
And have you forgotten the bodyline series? These batsmen were suffering grievous bodily harm for our country.

I too am truly offended.

 

[IFocus]

Oh so you're a holocaust denier now?

How about POWs that were fighting for our country, how about the genuine refugees and their descendants who live here.

That comment is truly offensive.

Speaking of hyperventilating


Read my comment again none of you examples were carried out by Australians against other Australians or are you saying they were?

 

[wayneL]

Speaking of hyperventilating

Ad hominem fallacy.

Very low brow bro.

Read my comment again none of you examples were carried out by Australians against other Australians or are you saying they were?

So what? Can you demonstrate how those injustices are still in effect?

Nobody is arguing against giving the indigenous a hand up, but the argument is that such institutionalized racism is unlikely to achieve that and it will simply benefit the elite.

 

[wayneL]

Yes, and not only the holocaust --- what about the Armenian Genocide hey?
And the Irish Catholics earler last century? And did you see what we did to the Italians in WW2?
And have you forgotten the bodyline series? These batsmen were suffering grievous bodily harm for our country.

I too am truly offended.

Thanks for that, I didn't think your thinking was so deep in the cesspit of toxic ideology, but there you go.

 

[IFocus]

So what? Can you demonstrate how those injustices are still in effect?

Can certainly show the effects...the Gap Report!

Nobody is arguing against giving the indigenous a hand up

Actually you are arguing against a very simple improvement that will have 0 impact on you.

 

[wayneL]

Can certainly show the effects...the Gap Report!




Actually you are arguing against a very simple improvement that will have 0 impact on you.

No, I am not arguing against a simple improvement, I am arguing that it *won't be a simple improvement at all. Instead it will be a complex shytshow that may disadvantage all, including grass roots indigenous, in favour of a self-interested elite.

 

[orr]

No, I am not arguing against a simple improvement, I am arguing that it *won't be a simple improvement at all. Instead it will be a complex shytshow that may disadvantage all, including grass roots indigenous, in favour of a self-interested elite.

'a complex shytshow' ???
And that would be maintained as such in by all parliaments perpetuity with no attenuation? ....there goes that bent toward a miserable dipotia...... again.

And now over to Joe Heller; via Chief White Halfoat ; A language warning for the sensitive.

A quote from Catch-22

[Chief White Halfoat:] Racial prejudice is a terrible thing, Yossarian. It really is. It's a terrible thing to treat a decent, loyal Indian like a ******...

www.goodreads.com

 

[rederob]

So when did the marginalised bit get added?

It's there to indicate which groups are typically subject to racism, rather than what racism requires.

Is the accepted definition of racism now that its ok to be antagonistic or discriminate against a race provided that the particular race or ethnic group is not marginalised?

No, read the definition again as it is written in plain English.

Who decides which group is marginalised?

The definition of marginalised determines which groups it can be applied to, so if you can understand the definition then you can apply it to a relevant group, thus it's you who decides.
However, that does not change what racism is.

Does the term White Supremacy, or white privilege, both of which get bandied around about people like me not fit under the term as described above?

They are different senses, but a supremist is a natural racist.

The new semantics.

Which hundreds of years of meaning of racism is new?

 

[rederob]

No, I am not arguing against a simple improvement, I am arguing that it *won't be a simple improvement at all.

You are only offering an unfounded opinion.

Instead it will be a complex shytshow that may disadvantage all, including grass roots indigenous, in favour of a self-interested elite.

You have no evidence for any level of complexity, and a delusional view about "a self-interested elite".
The processes for getting advice on policy have been in place for a very long time and are not at all complex.
Meanwhile the idea that the grass roots could be any further disadvantaged than they are today is somewhat far fetched. So too is the idea that self-serving policies for those heading the Voice would pass the pub test or be adopted by any government. Having written policies that were adopted by government I know the level of scrutiny that occurs before implementation. It takes a level of Ministerial dishonesty, such as occurred with Robodebt, to achieve a self-interest outcome.

 

[IFocus]

No, I am not arguing against a simple improvement, I am arguing that it *won't be a simple improvement at all. Instead it will be a complex shytshow that may disadvantage all, including grass roots indigenous, in favour of a self-interested elite.

As nothing has passed parliament yet on how it will work its pretty safe to dismiss your argument or lack of.

The Voice is a very modest proposal far short of what's required the reason for that is some what found in you attitude and comments.