5 ms·
It's the core concept of democracy. You lose, you are mostly out. You know, democracy.
by okokwhatever 3y ago
It's the core concept of democracy. You lose, you are mostly out.
You know, democracy.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y agoThe core concept of democracy is proper representation of interest groups. If groups are being excluded and abused, that's not democracy.
- mandmandam 3y agoDon't forget the foundation of genocide and displacement, followed by centuries of subjugation, propaganda, "reeducation", exploitation, economic and political maginalization and racism.
- decremental 3y ago[dead]
- krona 3y agoSo Australians should solidify their status in to the constitution in perpetuity? How do you square that with basic principle of liberal universalism?
- mandmandam 3y agoI would assert that giving Aboriginal peoples a voice in government is a "bare minimum decency" sort of thing, rather than some sort of abstract attack on "basic principles of liberal universalism".
- krona 3y agoHow do you personally choose whether an indigenous group have a right to be represented? For example, should people in Britain who can trace their ancestors to the Mesolithic gain this right too?
- kiwih 3y agoPerhaps a referendum would be a good way to do it? The UK has proposed, and even passed, a few of those in recent memory
- okokwhatever 3y agoPlease, stop the train, I want to step down...
- pauldenton 3y agoAre the people of the UK feeling represented since all those referendum passed?
- isoprophlex 3y agoDemocracy without compassion, which this referendum is an example of, is just the political equivalent of the tragedy of the commons, nicely sanitized for mass consumption. A smug system of hidden, institutionalized marginalization and oppression.
- logicchains 3y ago>Democracy without compassion Exactly what compassionate outcome would be achieved by giving them a special place in the constitution that couldn't be achieved otherwise?
- Dalewyn 3y ago>giving them a special place in the constitution I would like to put emphasis on "special" here because specifically mentioning the "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people" and giving them special treatment is, by its nature, racist. It's positive racism, yes, but racism is still racism. While I support their endeavours for further and stronger recognition (presumably since it's not equal to the rest), they can't declare how they want to fight racism when they are asking for special treatment based on their race and heritage. Hypocrisy is a great way to kill a message, no matter how good its spirit actually is. (I will clarify I'm American, so I have no tangible horse here.)
- tomohawk 3y agoThis is misplaced compassion. Giving people who happen to have a specific genetic heritage a privileged position in the law because you feel sorry for them is not compassionate - it's racist and demeaning. And exactly how much genetic heritage does someone need to qualify? One drop? Is it really healthy for society to even start having that conversation and categorizing people by their genetic characteristics? If "compassion" is driving you to toss out equality before the law, you're on the wrong track.
- rainonmoon 3y agoNo part of what you said is rooted in anything even barely resembling what the Voice was actually about. Christ, it was a glorified advisory body to the government. Basically harmless except it could've guaranteed Indigenous Australians would have a say in the future of the country violently stolen from them, instead of continuing to be disenfranchised. It has nothing to do with proving genetic heritage to get special treatment. You walk up to the government with a big bag of money to make people listen to your particular concerns and people call it "lobbying", you try to do it the right way and people claim it's some eugenics conspiracy.
- asyx 3y ago"That people who have only been on this continent for 235 years would refuse to recognise those whose home this land has been for 60,000 and more years is beyond reason." Top quote the article...
- ralph84 3y agoI’m quite certain that nobody involved here has been around for 235 or 60,000 years.
- logicchains 3y agoIt's possible to recognise them without giving them a special place in the constitution, thereby enshrining race in the constitution (the opposite of the concept of justice being blind to race).
- orwin 3y agoIt should be about culture, not race.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoShouldn't justice be blind to culture also?
- pauldenton 3y agoWe don't let people conduct Human Sacrifice just because they have Aztec spiritual beliefs/culture
- dissent 3y agoThey are recognised and acknowledged to the point that it becomes tiring hearing about it all the time. The referendum was whether there should be a constitutional change, and the country decided overwhelmingly that there should not be. Several prominent indigenous Australians voted no. There's really nothing to see here.
- 3y ago
- andyjohnson0 3y ago> It's the core concept of democracy. You lose, you are mostly out. You know, democracy. Democracy isn't about winner takes all. Its about you balance the needs and aspirations of everyone in a society: literally the demos. Sometimes, as in my country (UK), democracy is practiced by imposing a thresholding function on decision-making processes ("first past the post") but it's worth remembering that this is largely for political convenience. It doesn't have to be that way, and plenty of places do it better - and have healitier, more equal societies as a result.
- boppo1 3y ago>It doesn't have to be that way, and plenty of places do it better - and have healitier, more equal societies as a result. Where?
- okokwhatever 3y agoBang! You got the point mate.
- tomjen3 3y agoDenmark, for one. Here we have an extension on the election system in Britain where your local area still does first past the post, but any "wasted votes" are then used to get candidates from a broader geographical area, so that each party ends up with nearly the same number of votes per member they send to parliament. This means that there are 12 parties in our parliament (not counting those from Greenland and the Faroe Islands), but only 3 in the UK parliament. I can't say we are healtier, but we are more equal with our votes than the UK are - if the UK had the same system the conservatives wouldn't have had the numbers to dictate Brexit.
- sinuhe69 3y agoYou can not truly call the practice of killing most indigenous people then saying “Now we vote!” a democracy process.
- mrkeen 3y agoGot it. Next referendum I'll try to do fewer murders.
- BiteCode_dev 3y agoThey didn't get a vote when their country were taken by force to install a majority of people acting and voting against their interest.
- throwaway69123 3y agoThere isn’t a country on earth that’s wasn’t taken by force by the current majority people.
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago[flagged]
- okokwhatever 3y ago[flagged]
- throwawa14223 3y ago"Use your real account" has never been said by a person who did not understand exactly what would happen.
- thih9 3y agoIf we were in a Douglas Adams novel, aliens would now invade, take away our homes and our rights. After a couple of generations they would have a vote on giving us some of our rights back. They would vote mostly among themselves using their proven cosmocratic framework.
- belorn 3y agoIt would then highlight how single cell organisms was the original lifeforms everywhere, born from a dish at the restaurant at the end of the universe.
- okokwhatever 3y agoLoL, you've summarized the last decade of crazy social policies in just one phrase. You've made my day, thanks.
- Arnt 3y agoThat which you describe was called roughly "dictatorial majority" when I learned about these things in school, and the difference between it and democracy was that in a democracy, the majority behaves considerately and tries to keep the minority happy. Happy enough to want to participate in the next election, and happy enough to be considerate if the next election ends differently.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoThere is a better way than depending on the majority to be "considerate". I prefer constitutional limits on what the majority can do.
- Arnt 3y agoWhy? This is a serious question. I'm familiar with a couple of countries that have a considerate tradition that's working well. I'm not familiar with any that achieve the same effect with constitutional limits, and would like to learn.