I feel like you say that without the context of anything. In isolation what you say might be true but within context it's just fairly clear to see why you'd get a minority group committee of advisers to be more widely heard. "Different rights to different people" is literally how the world works. If you want to pretend that majority bias doesn't exist then so be it, I can't change your support for systemic racism.

[–] JustSomePerson@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When you choose to use the expression "absolutely no reason", it is trivially easy to disprove your claim. My argument is one of them, and it is a valid reason to vote no. Your further arguments are valid reasons to vote "yes", and their pros and cons may or may not outweigh each other.

But you are verifiably wrong to claim that there are no reasons to vote no. Opposing race-based legislation in all its forms is a very valid position, and the only non-racist position possible to take in this.

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry, I figured you wouldn't be pedantic. I clearly meant no valid reason that I see to vote no. Racism and support of systemic racism is a reason, you are right. Go get your internet pedantic star.

[–] JustSomePerson@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Grow the fuck up. You are the one arguing for race-based legislation. That makes you the racist. Every human has the right to be equal in the eyes of the law. There simply cannot be an excuse for having tests based on genetics that lead to different rights in a society. That's just purely despicable in every way.

[–] ravenford@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Tests based on genetics that lead to different rights". Again, that sounds alot like the constitutional rights granted to just one family line as head of state. And that genetic line didn't come from Australia. So which race of humans have primacy in australian law?

[–] Pladermp@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's possible to hold both of these beliefs simultaneously:

The constitution conferring special rights and privileges on the royal family and their delegates is a bad idea.
The constitution conferring special rights and privileges to a subset of people within the country based on race is a bad idea.

[–] ravenford@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure but then we must acknowledge one of those unacceptable things is reality, and the other which could have added some equality and balance was rejected, leaving the constitution favoured to one group of people, as society has been structured.

[–] JustSomePerson@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Fuck, that's an awful take. All laws based on race or genetics are always a bad idea.

[–] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

The constitution has been and still is racist - try researching it before spreading misinformation.

[–] MJBrune@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is Equality, Equity, and Justice. I highly recommend reading about why you should go for Justice rather than Equality. Also, this law would have nothing based on race or genetics. It was based on what the tribes, which are organization bodies like the Australian government, would put in the committee. It's fairly racist to assume that indigenous committee representatives have to be of indigenous genetics in this day and age.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Racism, by definition, is treating one race negatively. Enshrinign the voice in the constitution is not racist, while you're being pedantic.

[–] Welt@lazysoci.al 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If one "race" (which isn't a scientific term and its use in the US is dated and itself racist) is treated differently from another, regardless of which group is perceived to be treated favourably or unfavourably, such a situation can legitimately be described as racist.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not according to the definition, to wit: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

Racism is by definition negative treatment, not different treatment. Putting darker make up on a black actor is not racist. Giving women breast cancer screening is not sexist.

[–] JustSomePerson@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is fucking disgusting to see your defense of racism.

ALL HUMANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY IN THE EYES OF THE LAW!

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Currently, the Australian constitution allows for different races or people to be treated differently. In practice, this has meant laws targeting ATSI people. The voice was a proposal, from consultation over many years within their community to have a say in any proposed law. It gives minimal power, just a voice to be heard. It’s part of the Uluṟu process, which is guided by the Uluṟu statement.

Racism is treating one group negatively, based on race, as per the definition above. This was an attempt to start a process to right historical racist wrongs and lead a path to true equality together. Quite the opposite of racism.

Screeching about misplaced racism doesn’t make you factually correct or morally correct.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

They know. The whole "progressives are the real racists" shtick is just a way for them to chew up values and spit them back in peoples faces.

They're not actually concerned about genuine racism and routinely tolerate it, if not outright support it.