Imagine being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money every year to just straight up lie, repeatedly, with zero consequences. The only qualification necessary is to be morally and ethically bankrupt in every way imaginable. These people are the lowest of the low.
You know what is lower. The people voting for this type of politician.
You know, I'd tend to agree with you on that, but recently I've come to see that the vast majority of people just take what they hear as fact and don't really think to much about it.
What that means is that if you have billions of dollars of capital at your disposal and tens or more of billions of dollars of future earnings at stake it's pretty cost effective to manipulate those people who I mentioned in the first paragraph of my post.
Depressing, but unfortunately true as best I can tell
For 30 years, no less. asiatic hordes, islamic hordes, gay hordes and back again.
Hate-mongering is big business
Whichever horde is in fashion
if anyone is stupid enough to see this and think the voice means they will get kicked off beaches by aboriginals cause albanese gave them legal right to declare ownership of any lands they want...
they are deadset lost causes.
and to think the 'no' side keeps saying voting yes is 'divisive'
That's just it though, they know it's divisive, that's the point. They don't care if they're lying they just hope their lies spread to enough people.
Indigenous issues are pretty complex imo, so writing people off who are getting confused by the flood of BS seems like a good way of losing the referendum.
I agree we need to try, in my experience there's not a lot of fence sitters on this topic. people have made it about their "tribe" again and are happy to believe obvious lies because YES won't change their lives directly so they don't care
I think Albo screwed up. He's called for a referendum on a vague agenda to win legacy votes, and it's biting back in the arse. He along with Linda Burney completely understood that the No campaign is within it's right to lie and lie on the pamphlet, and get scrutinised by critics who have an incentive for them to lose.
Hanson is just doing Hanson things. It doesn't matter if it is misleading, it doesn't matter. I can see the Yes campaign losing badly, and the proponents in their confirmation biased bubble will be left soul-searching.
I can see where you're coming from, but remember that Indigenous Australians did actually ask for the referendum and are continuing to ask for it despite recent polling. Labor may have dropped the ball with regards to their communication around the Voice, but ultimately they are listening to and honouring the request made by Indigenous Australians in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
can someone give me a tldr of the voice? I don't know how to vote in the referendum because I don't understand it.
This is the culmination of a long process by Indigenous Australians to work out how they can move forward with non-Indigenous Australia given everything that has happened over the last 253 years. Indigenous leaders and elders from all around the country spent years talking to each other, which resulted in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. That statement calls for the government to enable a constitutionaly enshrined Voice to Parliament and a Makaratta Commission (this would assist governments with the processes of treaty and truth telling).
It's important to note that the Labor government is not inventing this out of nowhere. The referendum is happening because they have listened to what Indigenous Australians are asking for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart and are attempting to implement it, despite recent polling, out of respect. Indigenous Australians have been asking for this since 2017, and deserve the opportunity to take it to a referendum.
The referendum is just a vote on the Voice to Parliament. You are being asked whether an Indigenous Voice to Parliament should be enshrined in the constitution. It would be able to proactively and reactively make recommendations to government, but it would have no power to change things by itself. It is not a third chamber of parliament, it is just an advisory committee made up solely of Indigenous Australians. This is important for two reasons. Firstly, other advisory committees for Indigenous Australians often have a very low percentage of Indigenous Australians actually working for them, which means their advice is still just mostly coming from a non-Indigenous perspective. Secondly, it solves the issue of governments continually disbanding Indigenous advisory committees every time they come into power. Governments cannot change the constitution, so if there is an advisory committee in the constitution it will have more security.
"Should aboriginals have a say in parliament?"
What that means is saved for future debate. Is deliberately vague so that parliament can decide how it's implemented and most importantly change it in the future without having another referendum.
The referendum is necessary to change the constitution, as that's the only process available to do so.
So all they're asking is whether the aboriginal voice should be heard when deciding on laws.
The no campaign are calling it racist because it's giving special treatment to one group. Of course, if most of them hadn't been slaughtered then they would not be such a minority in the first place.
ah. that helps. Thanks. What do you think the likely outcomes will be if the voice is decided upon?
There has been a bit shared on that. From memory it would be a body made up of a few aboriginal people from different areas, that would exist to consult with parliament on issues that concerned aboriginal people.
You vote yes because the people hoarding the power/money pie that is Australia are working hard to make it seem like you will be losing your share of that pie. In reality they possess all of the pie already and you don't have any; so voting to give a fraction of that pie to Indigenous Australians is of zero consequence to you.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has used a misleadingly edited viral video to claim a Yes vote in the Voice to Parliament referendum will lead to increasing conflict between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
The video shows a confrontation between an Indigenous mother and daughter and an elderly white woman in the coastal Queensland town of Poona.
Ms Hanson shared the video on her official Facebook page with the caption: "This is just a taste of what is to come if Australians don't stop [Prime Minister Anthony] Albanese's race-based Voice and its Treaty".
RMIT FactLab editor and misinformation researcher Esther Chan said the incident had no connection to the Voice referendum and claims about Australians having to surrender their land had already been debunked.
Many of the comments on Ms Hanson's post of the video contain vitriolic abuse directed towards the Indigenous women, including a call for genocide against First Nations Australians.
The edited video was first published by former One Nation candidate Brett Johannsen on August 4, but among those who shared it, Ms Hanson had the largest audience.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
If you're posting anything related to:
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
https://aussie.zone/communities
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