4 ms·

Democracy without compassion, which this referendum is an example of, is just the political equivalent of the tragedy of the commons, nicely sanitized for mass

Democracy 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 ago
This 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 ago
  No 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.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > 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. Are Indigenous Australians denied the right to vote in modern-day Australian elections? Are there special constraints on their political activity that do not apply to other Australians (like being unable to serve in Parliament or being forbidden to contact their MP about issues that concern them)? If they aren't denied those rights, do other groups in Australia already have special representative bodies that "guarantee... [their group has] a say in the future of the country"? > It has nothing to do with proving genetic heritage to get special treatment. What would the qualifications for someone to sit on the proposed "Voice"? Would all Australians eligible, or just certain ones?
    - rainonmoon 3y ago
      Hey friend, the answers to your questions are immediately accessible via the world wide web, but seeing as how I actually live in this country and have endured damn near a year of this dogwhistling quasi-rhetorical inquiry that you mistakenly believe was novel enough to chip in, I'm gonna let you find your own way to it. Or not. But this "debate", which never should've been a debate in the first place, has lost its charm. I hope one day you fix your heart.
      - tivert 3y ago

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 ago

This 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 ago
No 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.
- tivert 3y ago
  > 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. Are Indigenous Australians denied the right to vote in modern-day Australian elections? Are there special constraints on their political activity that do not apply to other Australians (like being unable to serve in Parliament or being forbidden to contact their MP about issues that concern them)? If they aren't denied those rights, do other groups in Australia already have special representative bodies that "guarantee... [their group has] a say in the future of the country"? > It has nothing to do with proving genetic heritage to get special treatment. What would the qualifications for someone to sit on the proposed "Voice"? Would all Australians eligible, or just certain ones?
  - rainonmoon 3y ago
    Hey friend, the answers to your questions are immediately accessible via the world wide web, but seeing as how I actually live in this country and have endured damn near a year of this dogwhistling quasi-rhetorical inquiry that you mistakenly believe was novel enough to chip in, I'm gonna let you find your own way to it. Or not. But this "debate", which never should've been a debate in the first place, has lost its charm. I hope one day you fix your heart.
    - tivert 3y ago