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.
Typical, If people don't agree, you bring out the racism card.
.Mick
So, why is it not ok to call out those who want a voice based on race as racist?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...
You really have not followed this topic well.Its not really about having a voice to Parliament, its its for the purpose of a treaty and truth telling.
Utter nonsense. Again, it shows you are now making up things because you don't understand the purpose of the Voice.Its part of an ruse to get something into the constitution that goes far beyond the voice.
Explain what has been at issue then. This thread is deeply riddled with racist pejoratives, false claims and conspiratorial ideal such as yours.Typical, If people don't agree, you bring out the racism card.
Your last three words sum up how little you understand this topic.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.
Thanks for clearing that up. 99% of people accused of racism aren't racists then.Mick
The point of the Voice is nothing to do with the below
Oxford definition of a racist
adjective
noun
- 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"
- 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"
Mick
The point of the Voice is nothing to do with the below
Oxford definition of a racist
adjective
noun
- 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"
- 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"
Oh so you're a holocaust denier now?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.
Maybe back to front on that idea!Thanks for clearing that up. 99% of people accused of racism aren't racists then.
How is the fact that first nations people get recognised as first nations people in the Constitution any other than true?However the proposed amendment elevates one group above all other groups residing in this country,
Totally absurd idea.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.
Whataboutisms are not arguments.How about POWs that were fighting for our country, how about the genuine refugees and their descendants who live here.
Yes, and not only the holocaust --- what about the Armenian Genocide hey?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.
Ad hominem fallacy.Speaking of hyperventilating
So what? Can you demonstrate how those injustices are still in effect?Read my comment again none of you examples were carried out by Australians against other Australians or are you saying they were?
Thanks for that, I didn't think your thinking was so deep in the cesspit of toxic ideology, but there you go.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.
So what? Can you demonstrate how those injustices are still in effect?
Nobody is arguing against giving the indigenous a hand up
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.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.
It's there to indicate which groups are typically subject to racism, rather than what racism requires.So when did the marginalised bit get added?
No, read the definition again as it is written in plain English.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?
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.Who decides which group is marginalised?
They are different senses, but a supremist is a natural racist.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?
Which hundreds of years of meaning of racism is new?The new semantics.
You are only offering an unfounded opinion.No, I am not arguing against a simple improvement, I am arguing that it *won't be a simple improvement at all.
You have no evidence for any level of complexity, and a delusional view about "a self-interested elite".Instead it will be a complex shytshow that may disadvantage all, including grass roots indigenous, in favour of a self-interested elite.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?