So, ALP won. Thoughts?
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously. ♥
I'm going to let Jay handle this from here.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Stop bullying Dilbert.
Dilbert, I have solution, a final solution to the bullying problem here. First you will need to get your guns together and buy a black outfit. Next, find Uzique.
Parody
Parody
Parody
The irony in this sentence is palpable. "influencing based on ignorance rather than deconstruction" sounds like the urban dictionary definition of a politician's answer.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It's an argument I see a lot of in politics and other issues here, influencing based on ignorance rather than deconstruction.
No, the issue was the statement for was "Yeah, dunno"unnamednewbie13 wrote:
It's an argument I see a lot of in politics and other issues here, influencing based on ignorance rather than deconstruction. "The vaccines could be a trojan horse. Health care reform is a trojan horse. I don't know what's in those voting machines, do you? Civil rights are a pandora's box. THIS FOOD MAY HAVE CHEMICALS!" Blah blah blah.
The burden is of course more on the people pushing for legislation to communicate why it improves society, but man what a low-effort, low-energy counter. "Statement against, 'no, i dunno.'"
It wasn't legislation, it was a change to our Constitution, the legislation was going to be figure out "later". On the surface it seems like a great thing to do, the trouble wasn't so much in the details, it's that there wasn't any details. There was hundreds of millions spent on campaigning and conducting the referendum, and countless opportunities to answer the many questions asked around the point. And the polling before the question was worded was very positive to the point that it was almost unthinkable that it wouldn't pass. It was putting an advisory body to the government with nothing really detailing the who what and how behind the whole thing, and because it would have been part of the Constitution you'd need another referendum to remove it if the Voice didn't work or wasn't suitable.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Point.
It's just funny to me when an opposition against legislation is nearly or more vague than the legislation they're accusing of vagueness. Granted, it probably gets a better result (politically) in some cases creating a scary unknown rather than detailing why you think something should be scrapped. I suppose agencies like Fox and Sky will tell people what to think anyway.
Doesn't make for very exciting for/against dialog though.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2023-10-16 01:29:25)
Whatever, point still stands though.Adams_BJ wrote:
It wasn't legislation, it was a change to our Constitution, the legislation was going to be figure out "later".unnamednewbie13 wrote:
[…]
What are the chances of that after the backlash against CRT?Dilbert_X wrote:
Try this:
"Lets change the American constitution so congress must consult with a native american advisory body on all matters."
What would that mean in practice? Any idea? This is what we asked to vote for with no detail beyond that.
"Trust us, we'll tell you the detail later, it'll be fine, if you don't you're a racist"
60% said No.
OK, so you're racist.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I wonder why people would think that native americans would need an extra apparatus in the first place.