Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,053|6561|Little Bentcock

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

If a proposal isn't well fleshed-out or a Bad Idea, opposition should at the very least articulate why with the same energy as they output their one-line catchphrase.

But that's just like, my opinion man.
You're saying it like a one line catch phrase was the depth of their whole campaign, and not just something one guy said. You have to remember this was a year long campaign, you'd think something other than saying it's just the right thing to do because if you don't you're "racist".

The AEC even sent out a pamphlet with 5 pages of each sides arguments side by side, every household got it. Perfect opportunity to make a non emotional argument, and it was a flop. The no camp presented arguments about what the repercussions would be if it didn't work, the uncertainty of what it would entail etc. It was just I'd you don't know vote no.

Last edited by Adams_BJ (2023-10-24 13:47:49)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6710|PNW

Most of what I've seen out of the country through mainstream is catchphrase focus. Barely any of why people should vote against it outside of that. If detailed "no" articulation was as widespread as the catchphrase, fine. But the catchphrase is still an insult to people's intelligence imo: my point.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2023-10-24 02:08:15)

Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6655

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

abc seems to put it succinctly here:

It was an emphatic No from Australians who were unconvinced by an ineffectual Yes campaign and a simplistic but persuasive No campaign which ran rings around its opponent online.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-16/ … /102977272

huh.
Yes campaign spent less than 100k in facebook ads as well, and only targetted SA and TAS.

When no state voted yes.... that's a big problem the yes campaign needs to look at. Everyone thought at least Vic would vote yes.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6655

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Most of what I've seen out of the country through mainstream is catchphrase focus. Barely any of why people should vote against it outside of that. If detailed "no" articulation was as widespread as the catchphrase, fine. But the catchphrase is still an insult to people's intelligence imo: my point.
The if you don't know vote no was used in the australian republcian referendum... another failed one.

Labor couldn't even get all their premiers on side, albo was really by himself in this campaign.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6045|eXtreme to the maX
https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/09/pencemike_091523gn18_w.jpg?strip=1

"I'd like to change the constitution, I'll tell you what the change is after you've voted for it. Now fucking vote for it OK?"

Do you need more information or is your default position to vote yes?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6710|PNW

I feel like there's more bullet points to it than that, on both sides of the issue, and people are doing themselves no favor in oversimplification. We like to laugh and grouse at how ill-informed, uneducated, and perpetually hoodwinkable voters are, but the "dumb" facet of campaigns feeds directly into it.

With the sheer amount of bunk and spin out there on stuff, more information is always good. Having a default opens you to manipulation. Innocuous ballots show up in my mailbox sometimes with proposals that are short and obfuscate on the card, with equally uninformative, heartstrings-tugging yes/no/counter argumentation in the pamphlet (especially pronounced locally). That's when you can harness the power of the 📣internet📣 to untangle doublespeak.

side:
IMO voting here is still stuck 30 years ago. Bring on e-voting already. Who feels good about dumping their envelope in a seedy mailbox somewhere to end up in the back of someone's trunk? Do people actually enjoy driving 30 miles to a gerrymandered dropbox monitored by glaring sheriffs? Who in their Right Mind feel nostalgic for standing in line forever in a stinky school gymnasium with a bunch of coughers? Is it just a boomer thing I'll never fully understand? FFS, old people are banking online. If you want to meet up with your old people buddies, go have a bbq or something.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2023-10-25 02:39:10)

Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,053|6561|Little Bentcock
https://www.aec.gov.au/referendums/lear … oklet.html

This was the pamphlet every household got. For a lot of people this was the only in depth arguments they saw for both sides so it was in the best interest to get everything across.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6710|PNW

Better than a one-liner, but is still quite the (at times impassioned, at times vaguely general) abridgement. "It can't shut the voice up!" comes off a bit acrimonious, but maybe that's just Oz 101. The little blurb about checking your sources at the end, yes more people should be doing that.

This doesn't mean the slogan didn't sound reductive, disconnected, and a bit condescending, though, at least imo.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6045|eXtreme to the maX

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I feel like there's more bullet points to it than that, on both sides of the issue, and people are doing themselves no favor in oversimplification. We like to laugh and grouse at how ill-informed, uneducated, and perpetually hoodwinkable voters are, but the "dumb" facet of campaigns feeds directly into it.
There was literally nothing.

In the absence of a good argument for change my default position is no.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,053|6561|Little Bentcock

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Better than a one-liner, but is still quite the (at times impassioned, at times vaguely general) abridgement. "It can't shut the voice up!" comes off a bit acrimonious, but maybe that's just Oz 101. The little blurb about checking your sources at the end, yes more people should be doing that.

This doesn't mean the slogan didn't sound reductive, disconnected, and a bit condescending, though, at least imo.
But what did you take away from the yes argument when considering a change to the constitution.
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,735|6676|Oxferd Ohire
Always vote against the white man
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6710|PNW

Adams_BJ wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Better than a one-liner, but is still quite the (at times impassioned, at times vaguely general) abridgement. "It can't shut the voice up!" comes off a bit acrimonious, but maybe that's just Oz 101. The little blurb about checking your sources at the end, yes more people should be doing that.

This doesn't mean the slogan didn't sound reductive, disconnected, and a bit condescending, though, at least imo.
But what did you take away from the yes argument when considering a change to the constitution.
On the pamphlet? Not a whole lot more than I got from the no vote, really. As I said, quite abridged.

Beyond whatever merits of the constitutional change or its rejection, it seems fair for people to want better representation and say in the government, say in its affairs and decisions that will especially affect them. Especially after many years of abuse and neglect by society and said government. This event should light the fire under ongoing conversation for that, but the mood I'm picking up is that it should be swept under the rug again. I wonder if a powerful politician will be willing to put things on the line to pick up that torch any time soon.

Funny thing: for the no camp acting so unsure about what the voice is, it's sure able to fire off a list of all the little risks and threats out there, in allcaps even. "We won't be able to silence them!" "It opens the door for activists!"

"Australia Day will be abolished!" (lmao, how american)

It's a lot of definite to unpack for "we don't know."
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,053|6561|Little Bentcock
Most states are going ahead with treaty legislation
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6045|eXtreme to the maX

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Beyond whatever merits of the constitutional change or its rejection, it seems fair for people to want better representation and say in the government, say in its affairs and decisions that will especially affect them.
They have a vote already, why should they have two votes and a veto?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6655

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Beyond whatever merits of the constitutional change or its rejection, it seems fair for people to want better representation and say in the government, say in its affairs and decisions that will especially affect them.
They have a vote already, why should they have two votes and a veto?
they dont have a veto or two votes bruh, its just an advisory commitee... which i mean parliament can already make one.

and Adam's on the spot, every single state is pushing for its own treaty/voice which is what they're going to do regardless of the referendum results.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6045|eXtreme to the maX

Cybargs wrote:

its just an advisory commitee... which i mean parliament can already make one.
No need to change the constitution then. So what was it all about?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6045|eXtreme to the maX
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6045|eXtreme to the maX
Scott Morrison is a piece of shit, and either a complete dunce or very shrewd.

The plan to go to have the French convert their nuclear submarine design to diesel-electric was a truly stupid one.

Abandoning the French when it was decided Aus needed nuclear submarines compounded stupidity on stupidity.

Going to the Americans for nuclear submarines when they can't deliver enough to themselves was the third strike.

On top of that to be assured of getting those submarines in 2038 means Aus will have to give full support to the US for that full period.

Maybe that was his plan, the same person who moved the Aus embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem for no reason whatsoever wants Aus to be even more dependent on the US than ever.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-09/ … /103083780

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2023-11-09 01:03:22)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6710|PNW

biblical rat plague in australia right now sounds pretty wild
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6045|eXtreme to the maX
Its in about one small town apparently.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard