What rubbish. The voice was a virtue signalling nothing-sauce for indigenous people. It was so inner city white lefties can feel smug about themselves for beating racism while not actually doing anything of meaning.
The standard is “not putting useless shit in the constitution”.
Okay, what’s your solution that isn’t “virtue signalling nothing-sauce”? It wouldn’t happen to be “do nothing” would it?
No, it wouldn’t. Make an indigenous government board and give them protected senate seats, like 10 of them so they have actual real power. Have them handle all indigenous related government projects, and fund them to be able to make real change. Actually give them the power and money to make change, not just give them a “seat at the table” but then no power to be able to do anything at the table other than be ignored until they all quit. How does that sound?
Most people don’t want nothing done, but they don’t want to do something that the best thing even the most ardent supporters can say for it is “maybe, maybe, it might lead to something good one day?”. If we’re going to change the constitution, something that happens very very rarely, let’s actually add something worthwhile into it!
A standard that’s apparently very important to people who can’t name a single thing that’s actually in the constitution.
Make an indigenous government board and give them protected senate seats, like 10 of them so they have actual real power.
Cool sounds good. Pitch it to the “no” vote groups. They spent millions of dollars pushing the no vote, so if you’re correct about their motivations, I’m sure they’ll be eager to support it and shake off any accusations they might have just astro-turfed over bigotry.
Or is this more of a Liberal Party election promise kind of thing?
What are you basing this on?
I am basing this on asking every no voter I met face to face to tell me a single thing in the constitution. The one outside the polling place, wearing a “no” shirt and handing out “no” flyers, said “freedom of speech”.
Cool sounds good. Pitch it to the “no” vote groups. They spent millions of dollars pushing the no vote, so if you’re correct about their motivations, I’m sure they’ll be eager to support it and shake off any accusations they might have just astro-turfed over bigotry.
Or is this more of a Liberal Party election promise kind of thing?
That’s not my job, it’s the governments. They thought this “voice” would be a better idea than mine, which goes to show you their motivations - virtue signalling. They don’t want real change, they just want to keep lining their own pockets without doing anything to help indigenous people.
FYI I’ve literally never voted LNP. Likely never will. I’ve voted for the greens more than I’ve voted for Labor in the last 20 years. Good try on making me out to be a stuck in the mud LNP voter though. Keep attacking the people you need on your side though, look how well it worked for you for this referendum. Keep calling people racist and abusing them, they’ll definitely come around. We all know that’s the way to change peoples minds.
To me, you’re the conservative one. You’re the one that was happy to just do as little as possible.
Gotcha, its only your job to advocate against votes, not for them.
Keep attacking the people you need on your side though, look how well it worked for you for this referendum.
Weren’t you supposed to be insisting that the “no” vote was a noble, pure of heart endeavour by highly moral people such as yourself?
Because that sounds a lot like “I will throw people under the bus out of spite unless they’re nicer to me”.
Actually, not even to you, to groups you’ve decided are you, like the people who flock to discussions on domestic violence and abuse to insist “not all men” because they feel personally attacked by the mere discussion.
Keep calling people racist and abusing them, they’ll definitely come around.
You deciding that every comment is about you is not my problem and people not immediately fellating you and your opinions doesn’t constitute “abuse”.
To me, you’re the conservative one. You’re the one that was happy to just do as little as possible.
Nothing says “conservative” like staunchly insisting that no gesture towards a minority group, however small, is to be carried out without your rubber stamp of approval.
Maybe next election, you can work with mining and oil companies to undermine any climate change promises because you don’t think it goes far enough, since it almost certainly won’t.
I’ve never advocated for people to vote no. People can vote however they want. It’s not my job to make policies for the government. If they want to hire me to do it they know where to find me. I certainly wouldn’t have suggested the referendum they did because it was a loser from day 1. It was too vague and was of questionable benefit at best.
I never attacked anyone for their vote, unlike the vocal Yes side. A huge portion of the No voters absolutely want more help for indigenous people than the virtue signalling yes voters.
Who exactly did I throw under the bus?
If you think that that was me “making every comment about me” then your reading and interpretation skills are sorely lacking. I’m commenting on the common theme of yes voters to call every no voter a racist, and how it is a flawed and stupid strategy that literally never works.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s just bizarre. Again - greens voter here. Im the one wanting actual change. I’m the person that wanted a full fibre NBN while people like you would go “hell yes I’ll take a nation wide ADSL2 network! That’s better than ADSL and it might one day maybe lead to something better”.
I opened your comment history to see if you were bullshitting, flicked down with my thumb and landed on the sentence “That’s reason to vote against it because it’s pointless”.
But I’m sure you’re telling the truth about everything else.
I never attacked anyone for their vote, unlike the vocal Yes side. A huge portion of the No voters absolutely want more help for indigenous people than the virtue signalling yes voters.
Oh except this bit, where you literally attack yes voters as “virtue signalling” in your very next sentence, then “stupid” shortly after that, the latest in a chain of comments that you started by labelling yes voters as “smug inner city white lefties”.
Maybe it’s time for you to hop back in your clown car and fuck off.
I’m commenting on the common theme of yes voters to call every no voter a racist, and how it is a flawed and stupid strategy that literally never works.
I understand now. You’re upset because a group that you’re negatively generalising negatively generalised you.
I’m the person that wanted a full fibre NBN while people like you would go “hell yes I’ll take a nation wide ADSL2 network! That’s better than ADSL and it might one day maybe lead to something better”.
Oh boy you sure picked a shit example since Scott Ludlam publicly read from a submission I contributed to advocating FTTP.
But regardless, aren’t you supposed to be indignantly insisting you hold the moral high ground because “yes” voters didn’t include every nuance of your opinions as a disclaimer in every conversation they had?
You can’t even get through a single post, to a single person, without doing exactly the same thing you’re trying to demonise others for.
And ADSL? That stuff that uses phone lines? Sounds like virtue signalling dial up for stupid idiots to me. Why even bother with anything that isn’t 100gbps to every home and mobile device? That’s the clearly perfect solution and until someone presents it to me, I insist that nobody has anything.
You’re reaching mate. None of those examples say what you’re claiming they do. Saying something is a reason to vote no isn’t “advocating for people to vote no”. Pointing out the behaviour of people isn’t attacking anyone.
You might want to take a step back, that was a very upset post lol.
What rubbish. The voice was a virtue signalling nothing-sauce for indigenous people. It was so inner city white lefties can feel smug about themselves for beating racism while not actually doing anything of meaning.
The standard is “not putting useless shit in the constitution”.
Okay, what’s your solution that isn’t “virtue signalling nothing-sauce”? It wouldn’t happen to be “do nothing” would it?
A standard that’s apparently very important to people who can’t name a single thing that’s actually in the constitution.
No, it wouldn’t. Make an indigenous government board and give them protected senate seats, like 10 of them so they have actual real power. Have them handle all indigenous related government projects, and fund them to be able to make real change. Actually give them the power and money to make change, not just give them a “seat at the table” but then no power to be able to do anything at the table other than be ignored until they all quit. How does that sound?
Most people don’t want nothing done, but they don’t want to do something that the best thing even the most ardent supporters can say for it is “maybe, maybe, it might lead to something good one day?”. If we’re going to change the constitution, something that happens very very rarely, let’s actually add something worthwhile into it!
What are you basing this on?
Cool sounds good. Pitch it to the “no” vote groups. They spent millions of dollars pushing the no vote, so if you’re correct about their motivations, I’m sure they’ll be eager to support it and shake off any accusations they might have just astro-turfed over bigotry.
Or is this more of a Liberal Party election promise kind of thing?
I am basing this on asking every no voter I met face to face to tell me a single thing in the constitution. The one outside the polling place, wearing a “no” shirt and handing out “no” flyers, said “freedom of speech”.
That’s not my job, it’s the governments. They thought this “voice” would be a better idea than mine, which goes to show you their motivations - virtue signalling. They don’t want real change, they just want to keep lining their own pockets without doing anything to help indigenous people.
FYI I’ve literally never voted LNP. Likely never will. I’ve voted for the greens more than I’ve voted for Labor in the last 20 years. Good try on making me out to be a stuck in the mud LNP voter though. Keep attacking the people you need on your side though, look how well it worked for you for this referendum. Keep calling people racist and abusing them, they’ll definitely come around. We all know that’s the way to change peoples minds.
To me, you’re the conservative one. You’re the one that was happy to just do as little as possible.
Gotcha, its only your job to advocate against votes, not for them.
Weren’t you supposed to be insisting that the “no” vote was a noble, pure of heart endeavour by highly moral people such as yourself?
Because that sounds a lot like “I will throw people under the bus out of spite unless they’re nicer to me”.
Actually, not even to you, to groups you’ve decided are you, like the people who flock to discussions on domestic violence and abuse to insist “not all men” because they feel personally attacked by the mere discussion.
You deciding that every comment is about you is not my problem and people not immediately fellating you and your opinions doesn’t constitute “abuse”.
Nothing says “conservative” like staunchly insisting that no gesture towards a minority group, however small, is to be carried out without your rubber stamp of approval.
Maybe next election, you can work with mining and oil companies to undermine any climate change promises because you don’t think it goes far enough, since it almost certainly won’t.
I’ve never advocated for people to vote no. People can vote however they want. It’s not my job to make policies for the government. If they want to hire me to do it they know where to find me. I certainly wouldn’t have suggested the referendum they did because it was a loser from day 1. It was too vague and was of questionable benefit at best.
I never attacked anyone for their vote, unlike the vocal Yes side. A huge portion of the No voters absolutely want more help for indigenous people than the virtue signalling yes voters.
Who exactly did I throw under the bus?
If you think that that was me “making every comment about me” then your reading and interpretation skills are sorely lacking. I’m commenting on the common theme of yes voters to call every no voter a racist, and how it is a flawed and stupid strategy that literally never works.
As for the rest of your comment, it’s just bizarre. Again - greens voter here. Im the one wanting actual change. I’m the person that wanted a full fibre NBN while people like you would go “hell yes I’ll take a nation wide ADSL2 network! That’s better than ADSL and it might one day maybe lead to something better”.
I opened your comment history to see if you were bullshitting, flicked down with my thumb and landed on the sentence “That’s reason to vote against it because it’s pointless”.
But I’m sure you’re telling the truth about everything else.
Oh except this bit, where you literally attack yes voters as “virtue signalling” in your very next sentence, then “stupid” shortly after that, the latest in a chain of comments that you started by labelling yes voters as “smug inner city white lefties”.
Maybe it’s time for you to hop back in your clown car and fuck off.
I understand now. You’re upset because a group that you’re negatively generalising negatively generalised you.
Oh boy you sure picked a shit example since Scott Ludlam publicly read from a submission I contributed to advocating FTTP.
But regardless, aren’t you supposed to be indignantly insisting you hold the moral high ground because “yes” voters didn’t include every nuance of your opinions as a disclaimer in every conversation they had?
You can’t even get through a single post, to a single person, without doing exactly the same thing you’re trying to demonise others for.
And ADSL? That stuff that uses phone lines? Sounds like virtue signalling dial up for stupid idiots to me. Why even bother with anything that isn’t 100gbps to every home and mobile device? That’s the clearly perfect solution and until someone presents it to me, I insist that nobody has anything.
You’re reaching mate. None of those examples say what you’re claiming they do. Saying something is a reason to vote no isn’t “advocating for people to vote no”. Pointing out the behaviour of people isn’t attacking anyone.
You might want to take a step back, that was a very upset post lol.