this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
952 points (96.5% liked)

World News

39102 readers
3708 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Australians have resoundingly rejected a proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in its constitution and establish a body to advise parliament on Indigenous issues.

Saturday’s voice to parliament referendum failed, with the defeat clear shortly after polls closed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The title is hugely misrepresenting the referendum.

Not even our conservative party, the liberals, opposed recognition of aboriginal and Torres islander people as the traditional owners of the land.

The neo liberal progressive party, labor, put in a change to political process. This is what people disagreed with.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think most people didn't understand what was being proposed.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The obfuscation was purposeful. The mining / oil industry were backing the no vote, and there's no onis to be truthful in political advertising. That's what needs to change.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Just knowing the oil industry doesn't want something to pass should automatically be a ringing endorsement for it imo

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bhp put their support behind the yes campaign. And Albo voted down the need for truth in advertising

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

BHP was the one behind the weak messages attributed to the yes campaign. They deliberately played this one to lose.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It wasn't a change to political process. It was to be another advisory body, of which we have many over several decades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Agreed, my bad

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

A bit off topic but, American here, the liberals are your conservative party? Interesting.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

American politics are all right wing compared to other socially democratic countries.

Our major political parties are the Australian Labor Party (progressive/socialist), Liberal Party of Australia (capitalist/liberal), The Greens (environmental/progressive), National Party of Australia(authoritarian/regressives).

The Liberals and the Nats have a coalition called the Liberal National Party (LNP) because it's the only way they can get enough representation to get majority government.

Greens typically vote along Labor lines.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I see. That's really interesting, thanks for the reply!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Further to this, Labor is Centre-Left, Greens are far-left, Liberal and Nationals are both far-right, with liberals being business interest focoused and the nationals being strongly rural community focused.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's worth noting that Australian and American interpretations of liberalism differ quite significantly. The modern Liberal party and its predecessors formed in direct opposition to the Labor party, in direct opposition to the labor movement. They formed as a party against radical social change, against socialism, and for free-market policies and laissez faire capitalism, describing themselves as "classical liberals". On the other hand, "liberalism" in the US more refers to social liberalism, but it's actually the exception in that regard.

All that is to say that, when Australians refer to someone as a liberal, we mean a different interpretation of the word closer to classical liberalism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For an American, that's so counterintuitive lol.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I think the American definition of Liberal is the one that's different from the rest of the world.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

No, liberals are liberal. The Liberals (capital L) are fiscally liberal (good at wasting money) and socially conservative.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep very misleading. There's recognition, and then there's the advisory board question. The Yes campaign did a shoking job and alienated everyone by calling people racist who asked questions about the Voice.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. Asking questions is one thing.

Sealioning is another.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do you mean 'concern trolling' or 'sealioning'?

'Concern trolling' is falsely pretending to agree with an idea but raising concerns, in order to sew discontent. Something like, "I agree with giving them a Voice, but I'm concerned that ... ", an insincere astroturfing attempt.

'Sealioning' is when someone relentlessly stalks a person asking them for evidence or arguments, in order to 'just try and have a debate' when the other person doesn't want to. The term comes from from this comic, which describes it well. It's personal harassment pretending to be civil debate.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sealioning.

Though JAQing Off would probably be more accurate.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, that sucks to hear about.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, it sucks that people were disingenuously asking questions to try and hide they were overt racists, and then cried when they called out for their behaviour.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"sealioning", in my experience, is also a way to attack someone asking you to back up your claims in any way.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No.

But if it's "your experience", it certainly says something about you.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago