87
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
87 points (100.0% liked)
Australia
3622 readers
193 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Whoever came up with the idea of putting him In a team member uniform and filming the interview in a supermarket should also "retire". Australians absolutely hate inauthentic behaviour, especially from the wealthy and powerful. Woolworths was never going to soften public opinion with that strategy and should have just gone full corporate damage limitation mode like Coles.
are you kidding? we are pathetically prostrate. Our culture is passive and obedient to a fault, and I mean that last part.
Remember the mining tax? we fucking love deep throating billionaires. Remember the outcry when extinction rebellion did literally anything? we hate authentic behaviour.
Those traits are pitfalls of being a high trust society.
what's the point of what you said? Like I don't mean it confrontationally just that I don't understand what the reason you wrote that down is.
To acknowledge the truth of what you said but offer an explanation. It's a fly in the ointment, if you like. No one wants to live in a low-trust society.
Ah right.
hmmm I don't think trust is monolithic and noncontextual. Like we've produced billionaires, our society has failed economically. That doesn't mean we have to distrust say, election officials. Or for example our police are shitbags but that doesn't mean we distrust our doctors.
@naevaTheRat @fosstulate Am I being overly cynical in thinking that it's no coincidence the CEO of Woolies steps down, just as the talk of inquires and regulatory reform heats up?
After all, if there's a public inquiry or a Royal Commission, and the head of Woolies is called to testify, they'll now honestly be able to say that they only just stepped into the role recently, and have no idea about the decisions their predecessor made.
Is that the mining tax which the Gillard government introduced after publicly declaring there would be no carbon tax? That whole saga was perceived as inauthentic behaviour by the electorate and they were punished for it.
No. It is the proposed mining tax where the Rudd government had the temerity of suggesting all that dirt belonged to all of Australia and those massive profits should be shared with the country. It wasn't even a bill, just raising the topic for discussion.
Then came a very successful (and in hindsight, cheap) media blitz by mining companies against the idea. Which in turn led to the Labor party dropping their leader only two and a half years into his first term.
You're thinking of the Emissions trading scheme, which the opposition very successfully smeared as a tax. It was never a tax. It was a quota system on the amount of pollution each company would make. It was also deeply flawed, because many of the biggest pollutors got a pass on their emissions.
Even if you want to call it a tax, Labor did not win a mandate from the population to go with just their own platform. They were sent in as a minority government, Australians had directed them to work with other parties like the Greens and their policies. You don't get to turn around and call that a broken election promise. They did what we told them to do.
The EMS was the spiritual successor to the Rudd government's mining tax. It was the same thing, as far as the electorate was concerned. As I said in my other reply, it doesn't matter whether they were technically different or even a tax at all. It matters how the public perceived that saga - Gillard said "no tax" then appeared to introduce a tax. That's inauthentic as far as voters are concerned.
are you sure it wasn't fear of mah jerbs and temporarily embarrassed millionaires voting against their own interest. Gillard was voted out because Australia hates change and especially hates women. We have one of the highest rates DV among similar countries. We fuuuuucking hated her because she was a woman, it had nothing to do with the mining tax or carbon tax.
Pick negative gearing, wealth taxes, free uni whatever we fucking suck.
Also mining tax was separate from the carbon tax you Dill. I misread your comment because I assumed you were smarter than you were.
Yes it did. The "carbon tax" was one of several key issues jumped on by the Coalition to push the idea that Gillard was untrustworthy and inauthentic, which was a big problem for her considering she was seen as having stolen power by orchestrating a coup against a prime minister. She has directly acknowledged this herself. Watch 'The Killing Season', it was a massive problem for Labor. The fact that there were other problems for Labor during that election does not mean this was not one of them.
Can you read? I never said they were the same thing. I said the electorate perceived it to be inauthentic behaviour.