Comment on Lack of understanding about the Voice 'alarming' as referendum approaches, filmmaker says

• Ilandar@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Being offended is not an argument. Grow up and get a real one.

  source

  • Affidavit@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Ilandar@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Thanks for proving my point you rude twat.

      Aaaaaaand there goes your self-proclaimed moral high ground!

      source

      • Affidavit@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        How the hell do I block someone in Lemmy?

        source
• unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • Affidavit@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    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?

    source

    • unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • Affidavit@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        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 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments