Referendum 2023

[Kelce68]

I am only thinking logically. That is it. Calm, rational, logical and clear arguments.

I can articulate why I am voting yes if that will help.

I am voting yes because Indigenous people have requested a voice and I can see absolutely no issue with providing this to them. It is simply an advisory body but hopefully this leads to better value out of spend and worst case this should lead to greater accountability to Indigenous people in relation to how this money is spent as well.

I am definitely not emotional or illogical or irrational. If you are voting no because of some future issue that you've made up and cannot provide any proof for that is irrational.

If you are worried about a treaty that is irrational. I would be pro-treaty. I see no problem with confronting this directly.

If you use words like activist and woke then you don't have an argument. If you are arguing for a no vote you are in fact an activist.

Well, no.

An activist is a member of the public who works to bring out social or political change.

It literally describes the purpose of the Yes campaign.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

I'll never get the drama about this issue. We spend $5bn per year on Indigenous issues. That is less than 1% of the total budget.

The voice will simply provide input into parliament in relation to this spend.

I do think this will lead towards a treaty but I think that will happen anyway.

I've accepted that this will be a no vote and I'll be fine.

Who knows Earl? What happens after the vote? No one knows. Where do those trucks go with the votes?

 

[earl]

Articulate all you want. You dont get the last word. That is a fair point is it not? They do what they want to do. Like they always have. But you are doing your best from your position. Total respect brother.

Everyone always does what they want mate. This won't really help people. It might give someone a nice emotional response or a high if they feel their side won but they'll go back to their lives and it'll be no different.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Well, no.

An activist is a member of the public who works to bring out social or political change.

It literally describes the purpose of the Yes campaign.

For the betterment of us?

Everyone always does what they want mate. This won't really help people. It might give someone a nice emotional response or a high if they feel their side won but they'll go back to their lives and it'll be no different.

The people never win. The few do.

 

[earl]

Well, no.

An activist is a member of the public who works to bring out social or political change.

It literally describes the purpose of the Yes campaign.

Activism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Activism (or advocacy) consists of efforts to promote, impede, direct or intervene in social, political, economic or environmental reform with the desire to make changes in society toward a perceived greater good

If you are promoting a no vote aren't you trying to impede change.

it's cool to have an opinion but strongly arguing a no vote and then talking about the activists is hypocritical in my opinion.

 

[earl]

The people never win. The few do.

Here is the thing mate. I think the people always win in the long run. Technology goes forward and society tends to become more liberal.

We have the Internet, big TV's etc. Being gay was once illegal. Now gay marriage is legal.

This is small fry in the scheme of things. Give it time. Things get better.

 

[Kelce68]

Activism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you are promoting a no vote aren't you trying to impede change.

it's cool to have an opinion but strongly arguing a no vote and then talking about the activists is hypocritical in my opinion.

Short of this turning into a 'whose definition is better' argument, I'll concede that the definition that you shared makes sense, I have simply never heard it used in that context.

I also didn't find that use very common in my searching of a variety definitions, whereby they almost exclusively spoke to proponents of change.

But I'll yield on that one.

Although...

I would assume that the impedence to change would be in the context of a scheduled change slated to happen, whereby protesters wish it to cease, therefore use activism to prevent its implementation.

As opposed to this situation, where there is no change occurring as a fait accompli, but there is advocacy for change. Therefore, in this context, those advocating for change (Yes campaign) would be the activists.

I think it would be hard to argue that those promoting maintenance of the status quo are engaging in activism...

 

[Winston Churchill]

Finally making some sense with your last paragraph instead of all your woke feelings

First post he didnt get sanctioned by his labor handler.

 

[earl]

Short of this turning into a 'whose definition is better' argument, I'll concede that the definition that you shared makes sense, I have simply never heard it used in that context.

I also didn't find that use very common in my searching of a variety definitions, whereby they almost exclusive spoke to proponents of change.

But I'll yield on that one.

View attachment 7098

I get what you are stating. We shouldn't get caught up in semantics.

Whatever the case once you start using the term activist to try and demonize a group it shows an inability to talk to the facts. It shows an emotional response rather than a rational response.

People can have different opinions but we should be debating facts.

 

[Winston Churchill]

Because you have most people who dont agree with you on ignore....dont you Earl? Dont you? Can you hear me? Your happy to listen arent you?


But you are still voting yes...well thought out Earl....in detail.

Can you imagine what his screen looks like. 90% of the page he is seeing will have someone reply to something he cant see.

I choose to leave him unblocked for the pure comedic value of it.

 

[Winston Churchill]

Trouble is the vast majority of vote no promoters don't trade in facts.

The vote is for recognition of indigenous Australians in the constitution and an advisory voice to parliament.

Nothing more, nothing less, and anyone pretending otherwise is either a liar, or has been fooled by liars.

I guess formerguest must be the only one in Australia that actually knows what a YES vote entails. Pity i already voted NO, your post just changed my mind with all the unpretending and non lies in it.

 

[Kelce68]

I get what you are stating. We shouldn't get caught up in semantics.

Whatever the case once you start using the term activist to try and demonize a group it shows an inability to talk to the facts. It shows an emotional response rather than a rational response.

People can have different opinions but we should be debating facts.

Too much of that all round.

Though, it's the lack of engagement in discussion that is the bigger tell for an ill-informed opinion.

A refusal to engage in discourse, particularly on a contentious topic, is the domain of an incomplete person.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Sinister.

 

[Winston Churchill]

Anything stating otherwise.

I suggest that you ask Winston, as he seems to be an expert on such, with an example at the bottom of each post.

I will leave you to discuss it with him and similar others.

The standard reply of a far lefty when not insulated in their echo chamber and are challenged on their political ideology. Preach those righteous fact brother, preach. Keep asserting based on nothing and then run away. Tried, true and tested.

 

[Winston Churchill]

Man, someone’s learned a new word this week

This boomer again. Still struggling with current year.

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

Vote Yes for Albo. He got our backs. Trust the man with the plan.

 

[Odessa]

The truth about the Voice 4 very important minutes

 

[Winston Churchill]

The truth about the Voice 4 very important minutes

I bet you nobody voting YES will even bother watching that video. Why bother to watch a far right programme when they are already an all knowing morally superior being? Just ask formerguest.