|
South Africa called to remind everyone that the Dutch weren't any better.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
Calling LibertyCat a racist is sure fun and all but I'm not sure it's going to change their mind any time soon. Especially when you're attacking their kinda correct (though terribly phrased) premises. Aboriginal society was ultimately doomed. In no possible reality would the entire continent stay untouched and the locals unmolested like some tribes hidden deep in hard to reach places. Even without colonisation or annexation their leaders would be corrupt assholes completely in bed with multinationals gutting the land of its resources and abusing the locals, or just outright displaced/oppressed by corporations while the international community ignores their plight. Pre-settler aboriginal society continuing into the present day is some fantasy bullshit level of alternate history and has no real value in serious discussion. So why the gently caress do people bring it up? Firstly, "someone else would have done it anyway" is never a good excuse to do terrible things. If conservatives put half the effort into earning the high road as they put into pretending they're already on it we wouldn't even be discussing aboriginal sovereignty. Any aboriginal person suggesting such a thing would be seen as ridiculous as state secessionists if we weren't providing good incentives for it all the time. It's actually kinda telling that sites that are significant to aboriginal people are not just seen as significant sites for Australian people. That Australian history is basically settler history and maybe some cute stories of the dream time. Etc. There's been no real mingling of cultures and histories. We're basically just a European society picked up whole and moved to another continent. That's the problem. There shouldn't be an "us" and a "them". That we haven't essentially merged into a single new entity by now is evidence that we're loving up. Blaming aboriginals for not just getting over the invasion and getting on with it is crazy because our actions are the reason they haven't. In a closer to ideal world we'd all agree that the settlement was an invasion but that it's just part of our history and we're no longer those discrete warring parties any more, but we keep leaving a trail of breadcrumbs right back to that time through our actions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
That's what started the discussion, but the dog-pile wasn't over denial of the invasion.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
Starshark posted:See where engaging meaningfully with people like this has gotten us, tithin? Do you still think we should adjust our tone for the sake of filth like this? Politeness is not the reason everyone got sucked into a dumb semantics argument.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Because they're able to get away with acting like and doing what every other group would do if they could. See also: rich people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Real criticism of the bake sale: it should have been based on comparison to median income or the poverty line. Or Newstart.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:Why? Because they used all sorts of privilege beyond just gender. Except economic. They really shouldn't ignore it. Actually they ideally would compare their parent's wages but the basic point is the same. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 11:12 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 11:08
|
|
|
Making words with 'bro-' in front of them is real dumb. People should stop doing it. Actually let's expand that to the word bro and all derivatives of it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
hooman posted:“Excessive taxes, excessive debt serve as a handbrake on economic growth.” Someone should tell businesses that borrowing money is bad for growth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
If you don't want people to get certain degrees with government money then the solution is to not fund those degrees in the first place. Blanket changes to the rules so as to squeeze money from lower income people seems to not be a solution targeted at your stated problem.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
I'm glad we agree on that point LibertyCat because I think that the below disagreement comes from a similar place.LibertyCat posted:This is a good example of the fundamental difference between our viewpoints. They took a risk. It went well for some, not others. It's no-ones fault that mining is no longer bringing in the big bucks. Life has risks. Who took a risk though? The people who took on HELP debt and 4 years on an engineering degree, or the government who lent out that HELP debt and enabled a citizen to opt out of the workforce for 4 years? Mining engineers were desired, and so wages were raised to encourage people to study in the field. The desired outcome was to produce more mining engineers. All those people who took on those degrees were doing exactly what the economy/government/mining companies wanted them to do. If every single party involved wants the outcome, why is the risk placed on the individual? The companies don't lose out because they didn't spend any money or time training those engineers. The universities don't lose out because they got paid regardless. The government might lose out if the person does not earn enough to trigger repayments, but they're now trying to get out of that risk. Why does the buck stop at the person who has the degree, and not the industry that encouraged that degree, or the universities that provided the degree, or the government that enabled the degree? If you want something you need to put in the work to get it, right? I agree with this completely. The fundamental difference in our viewpoints is not that responsibility is a bad thing or you should be entirely free from risks, but that ALL parties need to take responsibility and shoulder their share of the risks. If we as a society want a highly educated workforce then we need to put in the work and shoulder the risks inherent with having people take off several years to undertake that education. If we want a supply of the unemployed so business can more easily fill new positions then we need to support the unemployed. Etc. If we want things we need to actually do the stuff necessary to support those things. In this case the government took on the risk that HELP recipients will never be able to pay it back, and they need to own that, not look for ways to weasel out of their portion of the risk.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
Yeah my first impulse was that family violence leave is the silliest niche thing I've heard of. But then if it's really silly to have it in the contract then it's not going to be used so it doesn't matter how silly it is. And if it is ever used then it's not really that silly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
From what I can tell she says he took the kids to Lebanon and is keeping them there illegally, but he says that she agreed with the children moving to Lebanon. Has any evidence been put out to support either narrative?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
I disagree entirely in government funding of the fine arts. Or at least, with direct government funding of the fine arts. If you want to assign X dollars to the arts and then have the public vote where it goes, or subsidize tickets for X dollars per person per person, or find some other way to ensure the arts the public care about are funded then I'm cool with that. Otherwise we just end up funding whatever the elite consider to be worthy and perpetuate elitism that has infested the arts ever since the days when you could only survive as an artist through the patronage of the nobility. Funding arts degrees is fine as long as the program is rigorous. It doesn't really matter what you're researching or writing about as long as you're learning the proper practices while doing so. It's all transferable skill even if the field specific knowledge is not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
I'm not saying it's always elitist stuff that gets funded. I'm basically just not comfortable with having a small number of people empowered to make decisions on public spending in an entirely subjective field like art. If private foundations or individuals want to fund specific stuff they like or think is valuable to society then that's their business, but public money should reflect the will of the public when it comes to something subjective.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:But when the public largely has a similar outlook on art as our friend LibertyCat you'll just end up with completely lifeless art that displeases no one.  Then that's what happens. I didn't form the opinion because it'll cause funds to be spent the way I want them to be spent; I think it's the fair way for it to be spent. Don't you think it's patronizing to imagine what the public would want to fund and then be like "nah, we know better what is good for this culture"?Also if you just funded tickets/gave each individual a way to spend their arts credits or whatever then presumably people like yourself would be funding things you value so they'd not all just go away.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
It would depend on how the voting worked. If people got to vote for whoever and then anyone over a certain threshold got funding then I'd imagine a proportionate amount of non-white artists would get funded, and if not I'm sure you could tweak the variables. If people voted with (subsidized) wallets or a system like Patreon then I'd imagine the same.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Direct democracy requires revolutionary consciousness and discipline to work. hth. We're talking arts funding, not general budgets. General budgets should be constructed by experts on behalf of the people and reflect what is best for the people. Arts budgets should reflect the desires and tastes of the people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
starkebn posted:Sooooo, you want to add a few more ballot sheets at the next election for which art to fund? How does this public voting happen? Yeah I dunno. I'm just spitballing when I talk alternatives. I just want the system to be more democratic and open.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
tithin posted:having it is important for the expression of our culture. This is probably the part that bothers me most. How can art be an expression of our culture if its production is based on undemocratic methods? It's an expression of the culture of the committees that choose the art that gets funded, or at best what they interpret as our culture. It's like when a council commissions a piece of art to go in a local park: it doesn't reflect the culture or tastes of the local people so much as it reflects on the small fraction that got to make the decision. For something like that I'd prefer that the locals get input into the commissioning of the piece. I also reject the notion that alternative art enriches the lives of those who don't value it. You need to have a somewhat open mind for it to make much of an impression, not to mention the desire to actually expose yourself to it in the first place. That people would only fund boring worthless poo poo but that committee funded art would enrich their lives seem like conflicting statements to me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
Pickled Tink posted:This article should be required reading for everyone: Thanks for this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
If the Liberals adopt a quota that might mean unqualified people get selected
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
Don Watkins posted:Economic Inequality Complaints Are Just A Cover For Anti-Rich Prejudice Importing from the Israel/Palestine play book is pretty funny.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
There are many cures for wealth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
 Only then did Bronwyn realise what a terrible mistake she had made.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
I have a great deal more respect for Abbott because at least his tiny clown brain believed all the stupid poo poo he was shilling.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
I hope Bill wins. Having a Prime Minister I have no real opinion on would be a refreshing change.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
MythLisp posted:Just to add further anecdotal evidence about Path lab chat in public hospital - consider that with public path labs, not only do almost every doctor outside a Sexual health clinic or hospital send their bloods to be tested in private labs, we also have to deal with the patients who need tests that just aren't commercially viable. I wonder if there's anyone in this entire chain unaware that gutting public services is a feature of the system.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Transformers says more about our modern world than Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Toilet cubicle graffiti says more about our modern world than Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man too. Oh yeah I agree with you, was replying to the post above mine. I actually get really annoyed by arguments that Transformers aren't art because it kinda shuts down discussion on how to improve them. You have "lol I just want to watch robots fight" on one side and "lol those transformers movies are beneath me" from the other side. People should be looking at Transformers and figuring out how to make movies that tickle the robots fightin part of the brain but aren't completely empty trash at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
turdbucket posted:They have it's called anime. Anime is trash though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Or someone is targeting you? Or there's a problem with the system, or something that's out of your control prevented you from delivering good service, ... It doesn't take a particularly vivid imagination to think of a situation where you could get bad reviews without being at fault. There are good reasons for unfair dismissal laws, developing an app that lets you give people star ratings doesn't do anything to invalidate those reasons. So you update the laws to protect people from unfair dismissal due to star ratings. If customers keep complaining about an employee you can usually fire them quite easily. What about a star rating is really any different? If the rating system is abused in a particular driver's case or it's weighted too much against the drivers then the courts can rule unfair dismissal. You could also have a driver's union that protects drivers from unfair dismissal, or have legislation lay out the grounds of dismissal based on star ratings. Just looking at the status quo and declaring it anti-worker is not the way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
Fair enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
open24hours posted:What do you think would have happened to Australia if the British had lost WW1? What the gently caress would the Germans have done that is so terrible? This isn't Nazi Germany we're talking about (which, btw would probably not happen in this Germany wins WW1 timeline). WW1 was just 2 packs of imperialist assholes going at it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
We are too far away for direct rule and weren't independent at the time so we would have just changed masters, which I don't really consider an existential threat. Maybe their rule would have been worse but I don't see any reason to believe that it would necessarily have been. All this is also assuming we even come under German rule. It's entirely possible they don't ask for us in their demands, especially if we stayed neutral. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Apr 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
Channel 9 is just trying to keep alive the fine Australian tradition of taking children from their non-white parents and placing them in white households. Why all this hate for the defenders of our heritage?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 12:28
|
|