spiffmeister @ spiffmeister @aussie.zone

Posts

1

Comments

97

Joined

2 yr. ago

I guess the greens decided they couldn't get anything more out of Labor.

Yes but a contained nightmare.

The article doesn't refer to violent offenders? Is this in the actual report from the truth telling commission?

What's your point here? The article you linked relates to a murder in Qld and seems to have nothing to do with the report from truth telling commission.

This may answer that question:

https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/secret-list-of-voice-plans-a-concoction

Sex Education is important

Underrated comment imo

They didn't give any more examples than a politician saying they've spoken to people in the community.

1. If you don't trust anyone on here why bother? It isn't difficult to discern a bad faith argument.

As far as I'm concerned anyone making this sort of argument should be ignored because it's the easiest form of bad faith argument.

2. You trust polling but not another human that you are peaking to through the internet? Anecdotal evidence isn't perfect but polling has financial reasons to push lies and special accounting tricks to make the numbers say whatever they want.

This is true, and you can make an argument against the polling, but that's an argument that can actually be had. You can't argue with random anecdotes. I don't understand how you can simultaneously point out legit issues with polls but also accept unverifiable anecdotes.

Anyone who reads the constitutional amendment critically will see it is the way the referendum is written is just a empty gesture to delay real action.

I agree it's a risk. There's a lot of really easy things the country could be doing to help indigenous Australians and this may not help while just being a massive distraction.

Polls are only so accurate and can be subject to a range of issues as well sure. The difference is the sample size is much larger, and you can generally find a polling organisations methodology so you can probably see how they collected results broadly, if you have an issue with the methodology you should argue with that.

Cool, so why should anyone listen to anything you say?

You shouldn't if I make claims that I know people and they say X.

I'm still not sure I get Lidia's arguments tbh. I agree with her on treaty and I honestly don't know why (other than being a pack of racists) we haven't implemented the recommendation of the royal commission into indigenous deaths in custody, I'm just not sure that voting the voice down is a good move or would even help get those things done. It could make Australia wake up to its past by giving it a shock, but just (maybe more) likely the referendum failing will empower racists.

Literally every one of my indigenous friends and colleagues that I've spoken to are voting no,

Did you forget what you wrote?

2 points:

1. Anyone can say they have indigenous friends or have spoken to indigenous people. In fact Peter Dutton has been doing that this whole time. This is a largely anonymous forum so there's no reason to believe anyone who says "ah yeah I spoke to a guy."
2. We have polling on indigenous peoples opinions on the voice. The people we surround ourselves with or we encounter in our daily lives are an insignificant sample size and subject to selection bias.

Ah, a contained disaster. Fair point.

I can understand the need for some secrecy, since we still have to deal with other countries etc... But otherwise I agree, you should have to have a pretty good reason for censoring government reports entirely.

Tbh dude this thread is going to be a shitshow.

I think it's worth basically ignoring anyone who says "I've spoken to indigenous people." In fact I would suggest anyone (for or against) who speaks to people around them and makes that judgment should consider consulting surveys/polls, rather than relying on their small circles as a sample size.

There's a lot of "it's probably concealed for a reason" type posts that I don't think I'd be seeing if this was the LNP.

Also how can Australians trust the government to make national security laws if they aren't informed on national security issues?

It would be good if scientists stopped publishing in closed access journals

The thing is, publishing your article as open access generally requires you as the author to pay upwards of $2k USD. I think I've seen some that are around 4k.

Some journals now also encourage a "plain language abstract" as well, along side the normal abstract.