• TheHolm@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I did many times. Referendum was about First nation which is race. It make it racist, you can’t interpreter it in any other way.

        • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          And do you really think that if voice passed it would help average aboriginal? Nope, it will harm them tremendously, there is reason why they mostly voted no.

          You didn’t explain this view, you just treat it as fact - that’s not how a debate works, both sides need to agree on facts, otherwise they are not facts

          • TheHolm@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sorry. I have explained it other thread of this discussion. Make them special will give everyone who discriminate them are real “constitutional” reason to do so, which will will hurt average guy. Been “special” only good if you hold power. Plus I have doubt that “the voices” will be voice of average guy, not some Aboriginal elite, but this is my pure speculation.

              • TheHolm@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes. May be not create but fuel existing one. In this moment racists can base their views only on their own prejudges (hard core one may use some pseudoscience to base their believes , but they are beyond redemption). Special treatment even without any real power will give some creditability to arguments like. “These guys using their status to stole our taxes” and shit like that. If only referendum was about giving special voice to disadvantaged comminutes, a kind of political shortcut it will be way more palatable with pretty much same effect.

                • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zoneOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I suppose then we can agree that it would not make Australia “more racist” but just emboldened existing racists. Weighing up the pros and cons, however, it probably would’ve been a net positive with, considering not only the benefit the confidence it could instill in First Nations Peoples but the optics from an international perspective

                  • TheHolm@aussie.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    IMHO It will set very bad precedent and focusing nation on past. Aboriginals are not only group which was wronged. But agree it is just opinion piece.

        • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Repeat after me: It. Is. Not. Racist. To. Make. The. Playing. Field. Level. For. All.

          And furthermore, mentioning race doesn’t make anything racist. Was Mabo racist?

          • TheHolm@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Any differential treatment which mention race is racist, by definition. Even it intended to To. Make. The. Playing. Field. Level." but i fail to see how it can be in this case.

            • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Again, the dictionary disagrees:

              racism [ rey-siz-uhm ] noun a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

              Also called in·sti·tu·tion·al rac·ism [in-sti-too-shuh-nl rey-siz-uhm, -tyoo-], struc·tur·al rac·ism [struhk-cher-uhl rey-siz-uhm], sys·tem·ic rac·ism [si-stem-ik rey-siz-uhm] . a policy, system of government, etc., that is associated with or originated in such a doctrine, and that favors members of the dominant racial or ethnic group, or has a neutral effect on their life experiences, while discriminating against or harming members of other groups, ultimately serving to preserve the social status, economic advantage, or political power of the dominant group.

              And yeah, it’s pretty fucking obvious that you can’t see the forest for the trees.

    • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No it isn’t. It’s the first set of information that has been spoon fed to you and you haven’t realised we’ve been educating you cos you are so close minded and dense that you can’t see the forest for the trees. I wish you the best in life, but I can see the future headline now “immigrant dies due to weapons grade stupidity”.

        • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’ve given you more than enough arguments. Instead you ignore anything I say and try to say that it is me who’s the racist. I’m only replying in kind to what you’re saying. As the saying goes “you meet one arsehole in your day, great you met an arsehole. But you meet arseholes all day, well, then may be some introspection is required”. I suggest you look inward and try and move away from being a backwards idiot, I wouldn’t be surprised if the idiocy you’ve expressed in this thread doesn’t get you punched in the face otherwise.