There wasn’t any good reason to vote no, other than you didn’t want rural Aboriginal people to be communicating with the Prime Minister… As that’s all the voice was really about.
Also, a yes vote would have been a step towards becoming a Republic. So these issues are intertwined.
Naryn@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Voting yes was explicitly voting for racial supremacy.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Rightwingers always have these stupid teleological arguments that just completely jump the gun to extreme “civilization ending” conclusion that are never ever not even once accurate or even remotely true and it looks dumb as dogshit ever single time.
Social welfare is Communism!
Gender equality will cause the fall of Rome!
Immigration is white genocide!
…
And what’s this, a new contender; the Yes vote was explicitly going to create a racial supremacist society!
No, the PM would just have to listen to some Aboriginal leaders now… Wouldn’t have to agree, or do what they said. Just he’d be mandated to every now and then, listen to the people we stole the country from.
Naryn@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The vote was about giving a portion of society additional power to create rights for people based solely on their ethnicity.
Yes, that’s racial supremacy.
The fact that you say “we stole the country from” whilst complaining about the right jumping to telological arguments is fucking hilariously ironic.
We didn’t do anything. Not a single Australian alive today was even born under British rule, let alone during the actual colonisation period
DarkCloud@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No shit no one alive “did anything”*, it’s a euphemism for a part of history, it’s intended to impart a general understanding of the transaction in a brief amount of words that sums up events. It’s not intended to accuse modern people of litteral thieft.
It’s okay insecure white man, no mob is going to come a knocking with a deed to your property. They didn’t have a system of written language and your property didn’t exist.
That said there will still be people alive today who either were involved in the forced separation of Aboriginal children from their parents, and/or whose grandparents and so on were. Samantha Armitages family, and probably Gina Rhineharts… That’s part of the psychology of why some are paranoid on the issue.
Paranoia is by definition an irrational fear. The voice simply isn’t about reparations.
As for the idea it will give some racial groups more power than others - again this isn’t true because it wasn’t just about race. Does nothing for big city Aboriginal people for instance.
It was SPECIFICALLY about people from very remote Aboriginal communities who barely count politically and are unlikely to have any affect or contact with the PM otherwise. People who can’t just mount a protest in a capital city.
So it was about addressing a disadvantage caused by distance, cause by just how large Australia is.
So nah, addressing the unfortune of being a small community that goes ignored isn’t a function of over powering them or risking racial supremacy.