I agree with this statement but thought I’d have a go at challenging it just for fun. The nature of profits and wages is relative to whether or not a business model requires workers to make profit. For example some companies make money off of owning the result of a worker’s labor (patents, software, creative work etc) rather than their ongoing labor. So while not all profits are necessarily unpaid wages, they are still dependent on the exchange of labor.
Got lucky and met my partner when I was 18. First long term relationship and still going strong 12 years later. We’re both neurodivergent but didn’t figure that out until a few years ago. We bonded over our interests and still do. Our dates are so much fun and we enjoy doing everything together. We also have very compatible values and even though our communication isn’t always great, we always find a way around it because we’re both really committed to understanding each other’s feelings.
I would have thought it would be the opposite but there you go.
It’s worth noting that this current Labor government brought in the human rights act in 2019. So not only are they suspending the human rights act, they’re undermining their own reforms.
I was so excited about the human rights act when it passed. I remember thinking fuck yes qld is actually moving in a more progressive direction and while this act likely won’t stop human rights abuses, it will at least give people a leg to stand on in fighting for their rights. In retrospect I regret being so optimistic about this.
Yep and I’m not looking forward to the sort of bullshit arguments people will espouse in opposing a truth telling process.
These parliamentarians don’t necessarily represent or advocate for Indigenous Australians as they represent everyone in their electorate. Anthony Albanese doesn’t just represent the Italians in his electorate, he represents everyone. That’s how majority based systems work. The majority based system is a problem when you have a minority group who are so disadvantaged and have limited ways of having their voices heard. Especially when it’s about policies and laws that affect them specifically.
I wish I got to vote in the Republic referendum. What was the rhetoric like in comparison to the current one? Did anyone make a fuss about the ticks and crosses thing?
Ok cool. You do you, I’ll do me. There’s no need to attack each other’s approach to decision making.
Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint and it’s not my place to say what is or isn’t a good approach to change in this space. The progressive no campaign is connected to the Indigenous sovereignty movement and I can understand why they have taken the position they have. I’m not an Indigenous person so I don’t feel like it’s appropriate for me to try and represent their ideas. But I don’t think it’s fair to close yourself off to them, especially when the principle of the voice should is about listening to the diversity of Indigenous perspectives.
This is the first referendum voting experience for me so I’m excited to be part of history even if the outcome is not the one I want. I’m personally in the critical yes camp where I hope the referendum is successful but still agree with the points raised by the progressive no campaign. I was unsure for a while because I’m not an Indigenous person and wanted to listen to as many different Indigenous perspectives as I could before deciding. What really pushed me to yes was the idea that while not every person who votes no is racist, all racists will vote no.
The worst case scenario for them is that marginalised groups might start getting a greater say over the policies and laws that affect them. If Indigenous Australians are awarded more power in a system that is designed to keep them powerless then who knows what other groups in a similar situation of powerlessness might start getting uppity about.
The conservative no campaign don’t want to change the status quo because they don’t have a problem with it. Shit’s working fine in their view. The yes campaign and progressive no campaign agree that the status quo is not good enough but disagree about how it needs to be changed.
If you read the conservative no campaign’s brochure one of the concerns that they have about the voice is that it opens the door to activism. I personally think that is the foundation of their position and everything else is just incoherent fluff to wrap it up in.
I saw one once but it was in a botanical gardens in Tasmania and I had to look very closely.
I agree with you but don’t understand why the government isn’t more concerned about losing the referendum. The voice is a key agenda item and they’ve committed their first term to it. Not that losing the referendum will automatically mean they lose the election, but it still looks pretty bad for your legacy if you fail to achieve such an important agenda item. The polls have not been painting a good picture and the no campaign has been more effective than it should be considering how fucking batshit it is.
This is also on the Greens as well. Even though the majority of their voters are voting yes, the Greens still have a lot of experience with grass roots campaigning that could be advantageous here. Labor also need to focus on the 30% of their voters who say they’re voting no. Bringing half of these voters around could make all the difference and lnp no voters are kind of a lost cause at this point.
Y’all really need to reform your voting system. We have a preferential system over here in Australia. It’s not perfect but it feels like our democracy is a lot more robust and diverse because of it.
Nazis are the ultimate intersectional mobaliser
Hit up your local community centre as they often provide a lot of these services and are government funded rather than charities.
I know that mine in Nundah is always looking for volunteers.
I’m a phd student so I’ll just stick with my university library databases.
While I do think Labor’s housing future fund is a dogshit policy that will subsidise property developers, both Phillip Lowe and the previous government really do have a lot to answer for in this situation. Lowe told everyone that interest rates wouldn’t rise - which, yes they were obviously going to rise eventually and a lot of people have certainly overleveraged themselves. But Lowe really shouldn’t have added to this by assuring people that they wouldn’t rise. On top of this the lnp loosened lending laws and allowed people to withdraw from their super. Sure there’s a certain degree in which people should be responsible for the decisions they make. But expecting everyone to be a rational decision maker at all times is not a great basis for financial policy. Throw in the fomo rhetoric being pushed by the media and you get quite a shitty situation all round.
I do wish the government would at least tax some of the profits that the banks are making off this.
In Australia it’s not just knowing how to swim but where to swim and when. A lot of tourists drown in the ocean here because they don’t know how to read the waves / don’t have an understanding of the local area.