4 ms·

> You're assuming malice. No. I'm more assuming they were trying to win some mindshare by doing something progressive sounding, but they had no real intention

> You're assuming malice. No. I'm more assuming they were trying to win some mindshare by doing something progressive sounding, but they had no real intention of following through to make tangible changes. As demonstrated by their lack of effort to actually figure out the details up front, rather than going on a marketing tour and trying to big note themselves. Those aren't the ingredients of good, long term improvements for people. So, rather than "malice" I'm thinking "stupidity or laziness". Either way, no real desire on their part to actually change things for the better. Thankfully the Australian people didn't buy their bullshit. That's my take anyway. :) > They couldn't explain what it was going to be. They couldn't explain why it needed to exist. They couldn't explain why it needed to be in the constitution. Yeah. I lump that into "didn't want to put in the effort to figure things out". They seemed to be wedded to marketing (probably still are), and extremely light on putting in the effort required to actually figure things out. Probably because putting in effort is harder, and might take longer than "before the next election". :(

Affric 3y ago
> they were trying to win some mindshare by doing something progressive sounding, but they had no real intention of following through to make tangible changes That’s the malice you are assuming. And the idea that the voice is no tangible change when it was decried by the previous government as too radical beggars belief. The voice was to be the body to create the basis for negotiations for a treaty between the Commonwealth and the First Nations of Australia. The campaigners aren’t stupid. They aren’t lazy. Sometimes we disagree with people. Sometimes people are wrong. Success has papered over a thousand would be defeats. The best-laid schemes of mice and men, go oft awry, and leave us nothing but grief and pain, for promised joy. The idea that the yes campaign and the government weren’t seriously committed to getting this across the line is laughable. They were simply wrong about the assumptions they were working under. Assumptions that are commonly held in Australia. The referendum was the culmination of a process that began in 2015 when Turnbull was Prime Minister. That’s 3 Federal Elections (and prime ministers) ago. It has been through councils, reports, a convention. They didn’t run the campaign you think they should have. They didn’t run the campaign I think they should have. That doesn’t mean it was a mess of lazy idiots making the wrong decision at every turn.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > That’s the malice you are assuming. Again, that's not malice. I'm kind of wondering if our understanding of what "malice" is might be different though.

Affric 3y ago

> they were trying to win some mindshare by doing something progressive sounding, but they had no real intention of following through to make tangible changes That’s the malice you are assuming. And the idea that the voice is no tangible change when it was decried by the previous government as too radical beggars belief. The voice was to be the body to create the basis for negotiations for a treaty between the Commonwealth and the First Nations of Australia. The campaigners aren’t stupid. They aren’t lazy. Sometimes we disagree with people. Sometimes people are wrong. Success has papered over a thousand would be defeats. The best-laid schemes of mice and men, go oft awry, and leave us nothing but grief and pain, for promised joy. The idea that the yes campaign and the government weren’t seriously committed to getting this across the line is laughable. They were simply wrong about the assumptions they were working under. Assumptions that are commonly held in Australia. The referendum was the culmination of a process that began in 2015 when Turnbull was Prime Minister. That’s 3 Federal Elections (and prime ministers) ago. It has been through councils, reports, a convention. They didn’t run the campaign you think they should have. They didn’t run the campaign I think they should have. That doesn’t mean it was a mess of lazy idiots making the wrong decision at every turn.

justinclift 3y ago
> That’s the malice you are assuming. Again, that's not malice. I'm kind of wondering if our understanding of what "malice" is might be different though.