Indigenous leaders who supported the Yes case at last week’s Voice referendum have written to the prime minister saying the No vote was a “shameful victory”.
And do you really think that if voice passed it would help average aboriginal? Nope, it will harm them tremendously, there is reason why they mostly voted no.
You didn’t explain this view, you just treat it as fact - that’s not how a debate works, both sides need to agree on facts, otherwise they are not facts
Sorry. I have explained it other thread of this discussion. Make them special will give everyone who discriminate them are real “constitutional” reason to do so, which will will hurt average guy. Been “special” only good if you hold power. Plus I have doubt that “the voices” will be voice of average guy, not some Aboriginal elite, but this is my pure speculation.
Yes. May be not create but fuel existing one. In this moment racists can base their views only on their own prejudges (hard core one may use some pseudoscience to base their believes , but they are beyond redemption). Special treatment even without any real power will give some creditability to arguments like. “These guys using their status to stole our taxes” and shit like that. If only referendum was about giving special voice to disadvantaged comminutes, a kind of political shortcut it will be way more palatable with pretty much same effect.
I suppose then we can agree that it would not make Australia “more racist” but just emboldened existing racists. Weighing up the pros and cons, however, it probably would’ve been a net positive with, considering not only the benefit the confidence it could instill in First Nations Peoples but the optics from an international perspective
Any differential treatment which mention race is racist, by definition. Even it intended to To. Make. The. Playing. Field. Level." but i fail to see how it can be in this case.
racism
[ rey-siz-uhm ]
noun
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
Also called in·sti·tu·tion·al rac·ism [in-sti-too-shuh-nl rey-siz-uhm, -tyoo-], struc·tur·al rac·ism [struhk-cher-uhl rey-siz-uhm], sys·tem·ic rac·ism [si-stem-ik rey-siz-uhm] . a policy, system of government, etc., that is associated with or originated in such a doctrine, and that favors members of the dominant racial or ethnic group, or has a neutral effect on their life experiences, while discriminating against or harming members of other groups, ultimately serving to preserve the social status, economic advantage, or political power of the dominant group.
And yeah, it’s pretty fucking obvious that you can’t see the forest for the trees.
It’s not like you were giving out facts or explaining your opinions
I did many times. Referendum was about First nation which is race. It make it racist, you can’t interpreter it in any other way.
You didn’t explain this view, you just treat it as fact - that’s not how a debate works, both sides need to agree on facts, otherwise they are not facts
Sorry. I have explained it other thread of this discussion. Make them special will give everyone who discriminate them are real “constitutional” reason to do so, which will will hurt average guy. Been “special” only good if you hold power. Plus I have doubt that “the voices” will be voice of average guy, not some Aboriginal elite, but this is my pure speculation.
That is an interesting point. If we assume that racists will be racist anyway, do you speculate that it would create new racists?
Yes. May be not create but fuel existing one. In this moment racists can base their views only on their own prejudges (hard core one may use some pseudoscience to base their believes , but they are beyond redemption). Special treatment even without any real power will give some creditability to arguments like. “These guys using their status to stole our taxes” and shit like that. If only referendum was about giving special voice to disadvantaged comminutes, a kind of political shortcut it will be way more palatable with pretty much same effect.
I suppose then we can agree that it would not make Australia “more racist” but just emboldened existing racists. Weighing up the pros and cons, however, it probably would’ve been a net positive with, considering not only the benefit the confidence it could instill in First Nations Peoples but the optics from an international perspective
IMHO It will set very bad precedent and focusing nation on past. Aboriginals are not only group which was wronged. But agree it is just opinion piece.
And there we go, you’re admitting you’re just making shit up. What a fucking surprise.
Only in second part and I clear state it. Do not be naive, politics is shit show.
Politics is a shit show, but you’re still making shit up.
Repeat after me: It. Is. Not. Racist. To. Make. The. Playing. Field. Level. For. All.
And furthermore, mentioning race doesn’t make anything racist. Was Mabo racist?
Any differential treatment which mention race is racist, by definition. Even it intended to To. Make. The. Playing. Field. Level." but i fail to see how it can be in this case.
Again, the dictionary disagrees:
racism [ rey-siz-uhm ] noun a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
Also called in·sti·tu·tion·al rac·ism [in-sti-too-shuh-nl rey-siz-uhm, -tyoo-], struc·tur·al rac·ism [struhk-cher-uhl rey-siz-uhm], sys·tem·ic rac·ism [si-stem-ik rey-siz-uhm] . a policy, system of government, etc., that is associated with or originated in such a doctrine, and that favors members of the dominant racial or ethnic group, or has a neutral effect on their life experiences, while discriminating against or harming members of other groups, ultimately serving to preserve the social status, economic advantage, or political power of the dominant group.
And yeah, it’s pretty fucking obvious that you can’t see the forest for the trees.
Answered in other branch