Half the population are children, most of whom will dedicate their life to a blood feud.
Half the population are children, most of whom will dedicate their life to a blood feud.
Wait, that’s a real thing? I thought it was just a marketing stunt!
To someone who can’t be bothered doing any independent research, this sounds the most likely.
So every time you buy a coffee you’re actively killing a starving child? Struth!
Well, there are 5 governments you should be concidering. Or is it 8? Might be 12 by now…
Agreed but the puritans that have to give it up before we can expect sites like this to overexpose themselves to legal action.
proofs of idiocy and/or bad faith they offer
Then a downvote is justified, same user or not.
There’s nothing in the legislation that prevents the (predominantly white European) government from continuing to cherry pick. We don’t need another excuse to be apathetic about indigenous issues.
Either way, some of us whities just don’t feel comfortable determining the future of indigenous people.
Well there was this bloke called Captain Cook right…
Entirely depends on how it’s to be structured. Which the public didn’t vote on. Done correctly I do agree on the optics of an official body though.
I’d say less. Still finding my place here but the comment section seems more polarised than on Reddit. The recent Australian referendum for example. Any nuanced discussion is impossible (only in some instances I’m sure) because alternative opinions make you a racist according to the average (most vocal at least) commenter. It’s sad because as in that instance and regardless of politics, it often means a bunch of white people dictating what is/isn’t, true/false, wanted/needed… important.
deleted by creator
So there will be just as many people saying the voice doesn’t represent them or their country but white folks can feel like everything is fine and dandy. Swell
Which a token gesture does absolutely nothing to change…
Wot? Absolutely nothing stoping parliament from listening to the numerous recommendations that would improve the standard of living or life expectancy of indigenous people. Why would you think a few token lines in the constitution will change that?
Theoretically… Yes.
More autonomy and self determination is a big one. More so than land rights or any sort of reparations in my experience, but different regions face very different issues. Unless we’re just looking for a token gesture, it’s a bit daft to lump a hundred diverse aboriginal countries together and expect them to all agree.
Can’t deradicalize extremists without engaging them. Not to say where and when that should happen, or that the moral argument is even relevant. As Popper said in the wake of WWII,
If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Okay. So who is keeping tally? Does the side with the least war crimes win or something?..