Speaking at an event in honour of her late father, the activist Charles Perkins, filmmaker Rachel Perkins says it's "depressing" how many people still don't know what the Voice is.
Most of the arguments against the voice that I've seen here have been riddled with misinformation, lies and it sounds like they haven't even read or understand the alteration so I don't blame the yes campaign for having that sentiment. Claiming that the voice will be a waste of taxpayer's money is a bit of a stretch though, if it's too expensive the government can scale it back or just not even pay the members. If you're claiming that having a referendum is a waste of money because they're expensive then you might not appreciate the value of democracy
Colour me impressed. I don't think I could have written such a perfect example of why I hate engaging people in dialogue on this issue. I'll leave you to your echo chamber. I'm sure you and all the other people who support a Voice will sway many people to your side with such convincing arguments.
I've set out my reasoning and understanding for supporting the voice in other comments here. I was just giving you my observations from reading a lot of the arguments here. Some people would straight up call you a racist which I doubt you are, but you've only complained about the yes campaign and not actually given reasoning for your position.
Many people engage in these discussions, sometimes in bad faith without having read the alteration and only a letter from the LNP or whatever Andrew Bolt is saying about it. Perhaps you could give me examples of reasons against the voice I can't dismiss based on the criteria you out up? At least I didn't call you a racist as many would here.
I questioned your value of democracy because I gathered that you were calling the referendum itself a waste of taxpayer's money. The AEC records the cost of referendums on their website, the 1999 referendum only cost $66M which is a small price to pay for the most powerful form of democracy our country can offer. Of course this one will cost more, but I doubt it will cost as much as the recent federal election.
I honestly don't know what the point is? Every single time someone makes an argument for the 'No' side, people accuse the person of 'spreading misinformation' and claim they are 'factually incorrect'.
You mentioned your observations from reading other arguments. I had a brief look at your recent post history for an example of what you meant, and there was one that stood out to me.
Someone made a comment that the Voice would grant powers to a specific race in the Constitution and you loftily replied that you would not be deleting their post but their argument was both 'wrong' and 'misinformation'.
it is not wrong and it is not misinformation, I believe it takes a wild interpretation of the wording to conclude special parliamentary representation is not power.
As an example, people (rightfully) get angered by the major parties throwing 'conferences' where corporations can pay for access to MPs. I doubt many people here would argue these corporations are not being benefited by attending these 'conferences'.
Also, as an aside, while you did not remove that person's post, even mentioning that was an option was not appropriate IMO. How can people have a civilised discussion if they must fear having their posts removed, or being banned from contributing, when a mod or admin disagree with them?
Someone made a comment that the Voice would grant powers to a specific race in the Constitution and you loftily replied that you would not be deleting their post but their argument was both ‘wrong’ and ‘misinformation’.
That comment was reported to me as misinformation (which I should have made clear) and it was: the alteration does not specify that the members of the Voice must be Indigenous or Torres Strait Islanders and the Voice is not about race but about a cultural group.
it takes a wild interpretation of the wording to conclude special parliamentary representation is not power
That isn't entirely true either, from the alteration:
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth
To "make representations to" means to complain or express your opinion (Source). Anyone can already do that, sure if the parliament were to legislate that they were given say an office in parliament house or formal opportunities to address parliament - but that's not what we're being asked to vote on.
Removing posts and banning is always an option, but it is used sparingly and never due to disagreement, only on the grounds of breaking the rules of Aussie.zone or this community's interpretation of those rules. I agree that the way I responded may have appeared to be threatening and apologise for that.
I appreciate now, given the context of user report(s), the reason you specified you weren't deleting that person's post.
Regarding your insistence that the user was spreading misinformation however, I believe that you are splitting hairs. That user did not specify the members would be indigenous, they said it would be racist to include specific powers to a specific race in the Constitution. I already explained my viewpoint that representation is power, a view I am sure most people who support the Voice would agree with given a different context such as the one I earlier described.
if the reason for the 'misinformation' accusation is using the labels 'race' and 'racism' to describe indigenous people and singling them out respectively, then by that logic it is also 'misinformation' in other contexts too. If a shop refuses to serve someone because they are aboriginal, they're not being 'racist' because aboriginals are a 'cultural group' not a race?
Note how the following amendments do not change the validity of the argument one bit:
I love how giving specific powers abilities to make representations to government for a specific race cultural group within the constitution is anything but racism cultural groupism. Sounds almost like the textbook definition of racism cultural groupism to me but what do i know.
The word 'disingenuous' is used too often in debate I think, but I'll be honest, that is what it looks like people are being here; intentionally (edit: perhaps subconsciously would be more apt) misunderstanding the 'No' arguments and shutting them down with accusations of lies and misinformation, all so that they don't have to acknowledge that their points are valid.
Anyone can make a representation to parliament, so the alteration technically doesn't give them any special abilities. They only have power if the government can be forced to listen to them or even publish what they say. Does that not invalidate their point? Furthermore, by using the terms race and racism their point is invalid - your amendment does have a valid point and that is what should be being debated and ultimately what we a voting on. However, with all of the lies and fear mongering, I doubt many people will be voting on that issue which is disappointing.
On the point of people avoiding arguments by labeling as racists, *phobes, bigots, victim-blaming, liars, etc. is something which I have seen alot of on here and it's quite a difficult thing to deal with but I do find it to be destructive to arguments. Infact, I have fallen victim to it in the past on the issue of bicycles and motorcycles on roads. And I think you would have seen many of the initial comments on the megathread were just saying that No voters are racists. Or you get horrible posts like this.
I want to handle this better going forwards, it's just going to require a lot of unpopular actions
Most of the arguments against the voice that I've seen here have been riddled with misinformation, lies and it sounds like they haven't even read or understand the alteration so I don't blame the yes campaign for having that sentiment. Claiming that the voice will be a waste of taxpayer's money is a bit of a stretch though, if it's too expensive the government can scale it back or just not even pay the members. If you're claiming that having a referendum is a waste of money because they're expensive then you might not appreciate the value of democracy
Colour me impressed. I don't think I could have written such a perfect example of why I hate engaging people in dialogue on this issue. I'll leave you to your echo chamber. I'm sure you and all the other people who support a Voice will sway many people to your side with such convincing arguments.
I've set out my reasoning and understanding for supporting the voice in other comments here. I was just giving you my observations from reading a lot of the arguments here. Some people would straight up call you a racist which I doubt you are, but you've only complained about the yes campaign and not actually given reasoning for your position.
Many people engage in these discussions, sometimes in bad faith without having read the alteration and only a letter from the LNP or whatever Andrew Bolt is saying about it. Perhaps you could give me examples of reasons against the voice I can't dismiss based on the criteria you out up? At least I didn't call you a racist as many would here.
I questioned your value of democracy because I gathered that you were calling the referendum itself a waste of taxpayer's money. The AEC records the cost of referendums on their website, the 1999 referendum only cost $66M which is a small price to pay for the most powerful form of democracy our country can offer. Of course this one will cost more, but I doubt it will cost as much as the recent federal election.
I honestly don't know what the point is? Every single time someone makes an argument for the 'No' side, people accuse the person of 'spreading misinformation' and claim they are 'factually incorrect'.
You mentioned your observations from reading other arguments. I had a brief look at your recent post history for an example of what you meant, and there was one that stood out to me.
Someone made a comment that the Voice would grant powers to a specific race in the Constitution and you loftily replied that you would not be deleting their post but their argument was both 'wrong' and 'misinformation'.
it is not wrong and it is not misinformation, I believe it takes a wild interpretation of the wording to conclude special parliamentary representation is not power.
As an example, people (rightfully) get angered by the major parties throwing 'conferences' where corporations can pay for access to MPs. I doubt many people here would argue these corporations are not being benefited by attending these 'conferences'.
Also, as an aside, while you did not remove that person's post, even mentioning that was an option was not appropriate IMO. How can people have a civilised discussion if they must fear having their posts removed, or being banned from contributing, when a mod or admin disagree with them?
That comment was reported to me as misinformation (which I should have made clear) and it was: the alteration does not specify that the members of the Voice must be Indigenous or Torres Strait Islanders and the Voice is not about race but about a cultural group.
That isn't entirely true either, from the alteration:
To "make representations to" means to complain or express your opinion (Source). Anyone can already do that, sure if the parliament were to legislate that they were given say an office in parliament house or formal opportunities to address parliament - but that's not what we're being asked to vote on.
Removing posts and banning is always an option, but it is used sparingly and never due to disagreement, only on the grounds of breaking the rules of Aussie.zone or this community's interpretation of those rules. I agree that the way I responded may have appeared to be threatening and apologise for that.
I appreciate now, given the context of user report(s), the reason you specified you weren't deleting that person's post.
Regarding your insistence that the user was spreading misinformation however, I believe that you are splitting hairs. That user did not specify the members would be indigenous, they said it would be racist to include specific powers to a specific race in the Constitution. I already explained my viewpoint that representation is power, a view I am sure most people who support the Voice would agree with given a different context such as the one I earlier described.
if the reason for the 'misinformation' accusation is using the labels 'race' and 'racism' to describe indigenous people and singling them out respectively, then by that logic it is also 'misinformation' in other contexts too. If a shop refuses to serve someone because they are aboriginal, they're not being 'racist' because aboriginals are a 'cultural group' not a race?
Note how the following amendments do not change the validity of the argument one bit:
The word 'disingenuous' is used too often in debate I think, but I'll be honest, that is what it looks like people are being here; intentionally (edit: perhaps subconsciously would be more apt) misunderstanding the 'No' arguments and shutting them down with accusations of lies and misinformation, all so that they don't have to acknowledge that their points are valid.
Anyone can make a representation to parliament, so the alteration technically doesn't give them any special abilities. They only have power if the government can be forced to listen to them or even publish what they say. Does that not invalidate their point? Furthermore, by using the terms race and racism their point is invalid - your amendment does have a valid point and that is what should be being debated and ultimately what we a voting on. However, with all of the lies and fear mongering, I doubt many people will be voting on that issue which is disappointing.
On the point of people avoiding arguments by labeling as racists, *phobes, bigots, victim-blaming, liars, etc. is something which I have seen alot of on here and it's quite a difficult thing to deal with but I do find it to be destructive to arguments. Infact, I have fallen victim to it in the past on the issue of bicycles and motorcycles on roads. And I think you would have seen many of the initial comments on the megathread were just saying that No voters are racists. Or you get horrible posts like this.
I want to handle this better going forwards, it's just going to require a lot of unpopular actions
Being offended is not an argument. Grow up and get a real one.
My argument is that the people here rely on ad hominem attacks to 'support' their own arguments. Thanks for proving my point you rude twat.
Aaaaaaand there goes your self-proclaimed moral high ground!
How the hell do I block someone in Lemmy?
Edit: Never mind. Figured it out. Had to go to the user profile itself because the block pop up doesn't seem to work.