• WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Australian Government: “Should we finally grant the victims of our historic genocide a symbolic advisory role on matters that impact those victims”

      Australians: “Git Farked”

      Edit: That last viz “by age group” is really about how society progresses one death at a time.

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re not telling the indigenous people to get fucked, they’re merely saying, “I’m too ignorant of the many many crimes committed against you for me to possibly vote in your favor. Perhaps if we were more educated, but alas… That would require voting for someone like you and I’m simply too ignorant…” See the difference? It’s a far more diplomatic way of telling someone that you really couldn’t give a shit whether they get fucked or just go off and die somewhere.

    • livus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you’re using a racist slur to satirize racists, you gotta know Poe’s Law applies to you here.

      • NoMoreCocaine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just curious, is it a slur or a contraction? Like calling Finnish as “Finn” or Aboriginals as “Abo”? I mean, I’m Finnish and I don’t find the Finn as insulting. Not that I actually have a horse in this race but to me it sounded like a contraction of a word rather than a slur.

        • livus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          @NoMoreCocaine - it’s definitely a slur. I think what makes something a slur is the way it has historically been used, not the technicalities of its construction/how the word was derived.

          The other factor is how the people it is being applied to feel about being called that, which of course is related to the first point.

          In the case of the word above, it has been used to demean and denigrate people for a long time, and is widely considered to be an offensive and racist slur.

          To give a comparison, it’s “just” a contraction in the same way the N word is “just” derived from the Latin word for black.

          • Bleeping Lobster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            It sounds the same as how here in the UK, referring to someone as ‘Pakistani’ is fine, but referring to someone as a ‘paki’ is NOT. I know plenty of Pakistani-origin people who refer to each other as paki but generally the use is in a demeaning way when it’s used by someone outside that group.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Finn isn’t a contraction in English. Finnish is always an adjective and Finn is always a noun. By the looks of it, the original word was Finn. It’s the same situation as Scot/Scottish or Kurd/Kurdish.

    • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      70
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nope, its a vote to change the consimtitution to add a body which is for one racial group and then to decide its powers after its been created. Its undemocratic and racist

        • Turun@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It is undemocratic and racist if the position is (edit: not!) filled by an elected person and it is based on the race of people. That’s like directly derived from the very definition of those words.

          It can still be morally correct though!

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re being a dolt. They’re there because of their quasi sovereign pre invasion nationality, you see it as color they see it as an attachment to the land.

            • Turun@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, that’s why I say it can still be morally correct to create this position in parliament. Quite frankly I think they should get more than just this one position. It boggles the mind how land can just be taken and the native population just ignores like this for centuries.

              But if it’s based on race it’s racist. That’s a fact. Unless you redefine racist to be only against minorities. Or only against non-white people. But for me racism is action based on the race of people.

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Agreed.

                Nope. Not even by the definition of racism. It’s equity, equitable things can be based on protected classes, sure.

          • steakmeout@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            As opposed to what exactly, non humans?

            Your delineation of race is bigoted and frankly stupid. Also, morally incorrect.

            • Turun@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              My edit didn’t go through. It should read

              It is undemocratic and racist if the position is (edit: not!) filled by an elected person and it is based on the race of people.

              (I blame the federated nature of lemmy for that, but in the future I need to double check if any corrections do reach the intended server.)


              I am aware that some people think racism can only be done by white people or by the majority. My definition of racism is that it is action based on the race of people.

              I’m from Germany and quite frankly, I think the concept of race is indeed stupid. We got rid of that concept and its everyday use 75 years ago. But it is commonly used in the anglosphere (no doubt due to the big influence of the USA and it’s domestic problems with african-american citzens), so that’s the word I use in internet discourse as well.

        • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          No I haven’t cos I’m not. I’m only interested in preserving democracy. That means equality and egalitarianism. Representative government, which we already fucking have.

          • kaffiene@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            White Australians just standing up for democracy and egalitarianism. How noble. First nations people dying at 50 yo will no doubt salute your brave stance

            • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              White Australians making decisions on things they don’t understand because of guilt for things the British empire did. How noble.

              • kaffiene@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The Brits were dicks. But its current white australians getting their knickers in a twist being merely asked to listen to the people who’s land they stole.

      • rifugee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        As other commenters have pointed out, anything coming out of the Voice is non-binding, so it’s powers have been already decided and it will be effectively powerless. There are legitimate arguments that have been made for and against, but I don’t think yours is one of them.

        Moreover, I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It’s not so much that it is giving a specific racial group a special government body as it’s giving a group of people that stand apart from the Australian government a voice. If this group of people were not a single racial group, but otherwise everything was exactly the same, would you still vote no?

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          As other commenters have pointed out, anything coming out of the Voice is non-binding, so it’s powers have been already decided and it will be effectively powerless.

          On first sight, coming from a German perspective, I’m asking “why put it in the constitution if everything is non-binding”, over here we we have various councils that represent minorities and they’re all plain and simply registered associations, nothing special. But, well, then they’re also actually listened to. So on second sight given the degree of ignorance aboriginals are generally afforded I’d say it’s probably a good idea to make the “fucking listen” part mandatory.

          …and now my head is playing the dead heart on repeat, should’ve seen that one coming.

        • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not campaigning here so I’m not really making a coherent argument, and I know that isn’t helping.

          Still, here’s the main point - look at the constitution. What’s it about and what’s it for? It starts by outlining theformationa and function of the house of reps, senate, and judiciary. There’s a section on the states and one on commerce. That’s it. Its a how-to manual for the federal government.

          So how then does an advisory body fit into thatdocuments? What’s its purpose? It can only be as a third (fourth?) Branch of government because that’s what the document is.

          When you get all these people saying “oh its just this or that it has no power its just so they get a say” - that’s not the function of the constitution and its parts. By putting it in there with a legislative blank check - that’s the creation of a part of the government.

          I would not support the creation of that body regardless of its makeup. For 300 years no we’ve been running vaguely successful democracies (that’s a whole other conversation) with two legislative branches and a judiciary. Nobody through this whole process has given any reason why this should change or even given a thought to a change management process.

          What’s the actual reasoning, the actual effect, the actual risks? Nobody knows! Because if you dare to raise any question you’re clearly just a fucken racist.

          Final question - people that stand apart from the Australian government? Can you clarify that? Because that sounds like insurrection to me. If this is some sort of soft revolution, I’m even more against it.

          • rifugee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So your argument boils down to, “I don’t want to change the constitution?” If a purely advisory body was created by an act of parliament then you’d be okay with it?

            What I meant by standing apart is that there is this group of people that were living their best lives for 60k years and then another group of people came and said, “This place is ours now and we are going to run it like we want and we don’t give a shit about your customs, so either start doing things our way or fuck off.” They are standing apart because they weren’t included.

            • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              My argument is that this is the shut way to make a change and does nothing to address any issue that . All it does is create a new branch of government that is exclusive to one type of people. That’s the start of apartheid, not a solution to the issues of health education and opportunity.

              They were and are included you fucking moron. How many first nations people are currently sitting members of state and federal parliament? And besides that every fucking person in this country has council members, state MPs and federal MPs already. Not included my shiny metal ass

              • rifugee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Name calling is unnecessary.

                Indigenous people definitely were NOT part of the formation of the Australian government and in order to participate they have had to conform in order to get votes from people outside their group, right?

                And to reiterate, it’s called the Voice because that’s what it will give them. That’s it. Just a way to have some formal input (that can still be ignored) without having to pander to people that do not understand their way of life. Is it enough? No, but it’s a start at least.

                I, for one, know that if I was just living my life and an outside group of people came and told me that they were taking over and I had to do things their way instead if I had any hope of having a say in my future, I would be pretty pissed. I would also be pretty pissed that those same outsiders would presume to deny me a voice for reasons that they can’t coherently articulate without resorting to name calling.

                • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How many of usnin this country are here because exactly that situation occered in their homeland? And now they arrive here and find that instead of equal opportunity for everyone, we are actively implementing apartheid?

                  In this case name calling is necessary

      • rainynight65@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is completely false, but unfortunately that is the type of lie that has been spread and amplified by conservatives and their media, and caused a lot of uncertainty and fear in people.

        It is clear what the voice is going to be. It is clear what powers it will have. It is clear how it is going to work. Everything else is FUD.

        • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What are you on about? How is it clear? if anything its deliberately unclear. Theres no framework, no restrictions, no indicationonf membership or how it will be chosen, no scope of any kind.

          How the fuck does that parse as “clear” in your mind?

          • rainynight65@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If it’s so unclear as you make it out to be, how can you be so certain that it will be all the bad things you’re harping on about in this thread?

  • Wakdem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m voting yes, and i have tried to help people see why it’s a good thing, but when people call me racist for saying I’m in the yes camo, i know that far too many are just morons who have no critical thinking, or ability to tell what is a good source of information.

    • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      64
      ·
      1 year ago

      Adding a new governmental body that is open to only one racial group is racist and it is also undemocratic.

      Your vote is well intentioned its just poorly informed. You’ve been propagandised.

      • steakmeout@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You idiots have the same repeated talking points and they are just plain wrong.

        In late 2023, Australians will have their say in a referendum on whether to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia in the Constitution through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

        Not just one group, but two. And they are not racial you fuckwit, they are geographical and historical groupings.

        Cultures have value and our First Nations are owed a debt. We live on their lands, we benefit from their experience. We owe them so much and this is just a vote for First Nations to be formally represented in parliament.

          • steakmeout@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            They’re not but you represent a bit racist group. And I love the Muppets, thanks wankstain.

            • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I don’t represent anything except the desire to maintain democracy and egalitarianism

              • steakmeout@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, what you represent is casual racism and selfishness draped in the auspices of egalitarianism which distorts the true nature of democracy.

                You obsess over words like race because you’re a racist. It’s really that simple.

                • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  "You obsess over words like race because you’re a racist. "

                  Its not me making the law here for one special separate group of people with their own distinct genetics

      • g0nz0li0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        …casually failing to mention that the “one racial group” are the traditional land owners who lost their land and 50,000 year-old culture due to colonisation.

        • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          And what does that have to do with our modern (and future) Democratic nation?

          None of us took anything from any others of us. Its a totally irrelevant point.

          We can’t go around changing g the fundamental nature of democracy because of historical tragedies or in 15 minutes we’ll be back to fucking tribalism and feudal lords.

          • g0nz0li0@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Colonisation took everything from First Nation people, but all you care about is that recognition might end up costing you something. Sound a lot like that tribalism you reckon you’re want to avoid.

            And what are you actually giving up?

            There is no threat to democracy, The Voice is an advisory body. It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.

            Referendums are described in the Constitution to allow Australians to change how it functions. So we explicitly can change how aspects of our democratic process works, and obviously should do so to reflect changes in Australian society since Federation 120+ years ago.

            • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well you’ve just erected a pretty nice strawman there but not much else.

              “It has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers.”

              Nobody has any fucking clue what powers it might have, its a blank check. Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this “advisory body” can and can’t do, or shut the fuck up.

              Sure, we can change it. But there has not been any fucking legitimate reason presented as to why we should. The arguments presented by the Yes campaign are certainly emotional, but not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.

              • g0nz0li0@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Let’s stick the the topic and avoid juvenile debate tactics.

                Show one fucking piece of evidence that there is any public plan for what this “advisory body” can and can’t do, or shut the fuck up.

                Here is exactly what the referendum entails, and note that it specifically limits the role of the Voice (in whatever form it takes) to “make representations” and also that it specifically highlights that parliament - and only parliament - “shall… Have the power to make laws”.

                Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

                129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

                In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander by peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

                there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

                the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

                the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

                I repeat: the Voice Has no legislative, executive, or judicial powers, and you have no legitimate basis to imply otherwise. We are 100% not being asked to vote on a Constitutional change that undermines democratic principles. If you vote No on that basis then it is because you are ignorant of the proposed Constitutional change and have been conned by the right wing and media.

                not fucking one has presented any argument as to what this body will actually do to change anything.

                The Voice is part of modest recommendations proposed respectfully by First Nations people via the Uluru Statement from the heart. You need to be cynical and unrealistic to think that accepting and supporting their views - with no downsides to you personally or us as a country - really won’t change anything. Are you really interested in the outcomes for First Nations people? If so, please explain how you expect to see change if the Voice is rejected?

                • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Forgot to add - I haven’t been conned by any media, either right wing or slightly less right wing. Don’t own a TV and the only social media I’m on is this which is unsurprisingly light on Aus politics.

                  Its ain’t me being conned here

                • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Right here:

                  “its composition, functions, powers and procedures”

                  There is literally no scope included - they’ll decide after

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is always an interesting one - who is “propagandising” us, and what do they have to gain from their significant investment in advancing this agenda?

        • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well I mean, have you researched the issue, analyzed it, and developed your own position based on evidence?

          Or are you just listening to what comes out of the TV?

          If you get your opinions from someone who hands them to you fully formed (like Voice good, no voice racist) then that is propaganda, not information.

          As to your second question - a: politicians scoring points and winning elections; and b: a whole lot of people who get a hand in deciding laws and economic decisions for their own special group.

          And before you bang out the line about lobby groups all having a say already - yes of course we should fuck those off as well because they too are undemocratic corruption

          • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ah yes - do your own research… The mating call of the conspiracist.

            So it’s the Labor party propagandising us to secure an election win that isn’t an election (top-tier research, I see)? Seems like a big deal that carries a very real risk of a loss, with opportunity for marginal gain at best, which necessitates burning immense political capital. This doesn’t smell of conspiracist bullshit to you?

            The Labor Party have invested $9.5m into this, which has been spent on things like broad civics education and website upgrades. The yes campaign has also been set to lose for some time now - so my comment and the risk is already validated, and Labor get to tie themselves to an unpopular position, and lose. Genius.

            Do you baselessly assume I get my information from TV because you don’t own/watch TV, get your info from the likes of YouTube (or better, Rumble - where do you get your research?), and think you’re an enlightened type because of it? I’ve looked at legislative review and the explanatory memorandum, cases from both campaigns, stats around indigenous outcomes, and the history of this country, but there was really no need - this is very simple. I personally don’t think it’s great to turn up, genocide the population, take their land, witness comparatively atrocious outcomes according to just about any metric you care to choose that persist 2 centuries after we turned up and shrug my shoulders because doing the bare minimum about that would be racist. The least we could do is give them a dismissable voice in matters that relate to them.

            You can say you disagree with the existence of representative bodies like the business council, but the fact of the matter is that we have them. To now shut the gate on a marginalised group while the other bodies continue to exist only exacerbates the issue. Those bodies also have massive amounts of cash to throw around - the voice, on the other hand would get to make representions that can simply be ignored… What are you afraid of here? This is like me beating you up and taking your lunch money, then saying we can’t do a thing about that because you’re a different race/gender/sexuality/whatever, and that would be (pick)-ist.

            I’ll put it differently - is the massive disparity in outcomes for indigenous Australians a product of the systemic issues that have been thrust upon them, or inferior genetics? If it’s systemic, why not get their input on addressing the issues that affect them? If it’s genetic, we get to have a very different chat. Feel free to pick a deflection like culture, but it’s all a product of genetics or systemic in the end.

      • Chunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        No matter how many downvotes you get on Lemmy you still have the majority of your countrymen on your side so at the end of the day you still win.

        • 0ddysseus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which is a damn shame too cos most tkof them are doing because they’re just as uninformed as the yes side.

          Its fucking brexit all over again.

          Some discussion and informed decision making wouldn’t go astray, but its a bit fucking late now

          • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Except Brexit very predictably sent the country off the rails, while this establishes an advisory body that can simply be ignored.

  • galoisghost@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The real reason it will fail is politics. The opposition party decided getting this voted down would strike a blow to the government.

    So they’ve just blown racist dog whistles, racist trumpets, set of racists cannons and doubled down on ignorance: “If you don’t know vote No”

    • rainynight65@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They have effectively weaponised division.

      They created division by spreading lies, uncertainty and fear. Lies were repeated over and over, and became increasingly outrageous, despite being refuted again and again.

      Then they pointed at the division they created and said “this is too divisive, we shouldn’t do it.”

  • Fleur__@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    What’s even the point of having a democracy if the majority of the voter base is uninformed

  • Dubman@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Voting on yes or no was made very easy when I saw that neo nazis, flat earthers, anti vaxxers and a multitude of other whack jobs are voting no. You are the company you keep in my book.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Australians look set to reject a referendum proposal to recognise Indigenous people in the constitution by creating a body to advise parliament, with polls showing a clear majority for no in almost all states before Saturday’s vote.

    The yes campaign has also been battered by the Blak sovereignty movement, which has led the progressive no case, arguing the voice would be powerless while pushing for truth and treaty to come ahead of constitutional recognition.

    The no campaign has leaned heavily on the slogan “If you don’t know, vote no”, which former high court justice Robert French described as an invitation to “resentful, uninquiring passivity”.

    The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, spent part of the final campaigning week in the nation’s centre, Uluru, where the proposal for the voice was first formally presented in 2017.

    Sitting with senior traditional owners in central Australia, Albanese said Australians had an opportunity to “lift the burden of history” and move forward with a positive vote on Saturday.

    “Many Indigenous Australians who are on the frontlines of dealing with these problems in towns and cities and communities and outstations and home lands are very worried about the prospect of losing the voice because they already have little say, and a loss will mean that they have even less.”


    The original article contains 827 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!