Gorgritch_umie_killa

What is a piece of paper worth in this Age.

The Americans have just pissed on a lot of international trade agreements, and have had a soft stance of 'rules for thee, but not for me', for the whole post war period. The Russians, don't stand by anything it seems. China has simply ignored their international trade agreements at times.

The planet turns, power fluctuates. Ukraine might not always be so reliant on the USA as it is. And the interests of their next partners may be far more closely aligned.

The worlds rules are changing as we speak. No idea where it ends up, it largely depends on the decisions of many national leaders, but i'm certain agreements made between countries in this time, means less, and is less enforceable than they were a decade or more ago.

Well damn, thats a good point about the irony.

But i don't know, i'll have to whack it up on my servers c/meta for a final admin decision. Just thought i'd float the idea alongside this post today.

Its such an issue. And the self centered voting patterns of the country has killed so many meaningful reforms that could have built up to really tackle the problems by now.

Hmm, definitely not married to the name 'safe as houses', but 'housing crisis' i dislike to describe the current problems.

'Housing Crisis' suggests the problem is new, or relatively short term. That it wasn't predicted by every bumbling goofball and their dog as countries announced tax incentives, or bank deregs, or whatever housing policies have led to the market in its current state where-ever you live.

But also, i's thinking of having a broader mix, rather than the shitshow of housing in western markets, but articles about Indonesian housing, or Fijian, Mexican, anywhere really.

Hmm, it seems a bit problematic that it was going to be a political party fundraiser.

If it was a fundraiser for Veterans, or maybe a thankyou party for campaign staff, would the reactions have been different?

I'm wondering how much of this is Greens bashing, and how much of this is genuine.

They definitely threw around a lot of money, i believe the way the media counted the funding also probably underestimated the amounts they really had for that campaign.

But the referendum was a complicated beast, misinformation certainly played a part, but there was also simple confusion, lack of goodwill, Australian's natural propensity to be conservative with our actions. It was always a moon shot.

I know the actual result ended up just about the opposite to the pre/early referendum polls, but i think too much weight is put on those polls as evidence for the undue influence No campaigner's misinformation had.

I'll try to explain my reasoning below,

A referendum is nothing like an opinion poll which is a cheap indication at best of a snapshot of sentiment on a subject.

• The question asked by a market research company will be treated by a respondent with far less seriousness than that same question in a referendum. So thats one thing.

Same thing seems to be happening to Dutton and the Liberals now the Federal election has been called.

• The bar for a referendum is very high, that in itself likely has a tonal effect on the citizenry during the campaign, as the citizenry learn the double majority rules, and the practical finality of constitutional changes.

• There is widespread misunderstanding, and distrust of the interpretive nature of Australian law as opposed a more codified system. The populous, i believe, thinks our laws are far more codified than they actually are. A fundamental, but often overlooked strength of Australia is our judiciaries, for now, ability to interpret the statutes/Constitution for the uniqueness of the case before them, the more codified a system is the less this nuance can be utilised by the judiciary. No where is this more the case than in Constitutional law.

My point about interpretation of law is fundamental to the wording of the Voice proposal. It was intentionally vague for the protection of the courts ability to apply the real world cases that would inevitably rise.

But by serving the interests of making good law, it made it a confusing proposition to the citizenry, and due to its vague wording allowed a No campaign ample room to attach all kinds of possibilities that the wording couldn't reject without judicial intervention, ie a High Court case determining the limits.

So the vagueness allowed a wide berth for misinformation to seem plausible, whilst being hard to deny or counter.

• Lack of community goodwill, i also think, was a key under-rated problem with the Voice Referendum, especially when compared to the Same sex Marriage Plebiscite. A difference between the two is the relative dispersals of the two minority populations within the wider Australian community. LGBT+ persons are distributed relatively more evenly throughout class, race, ethnicity, geography, etc, whereas Indigenous Australians are for more centralised along those demographics. So there was a closeness, and therefore higher rates of familiarity, with LGBT+ Australians, than with Indigenous Australians. I think this played a big role.

Then theres other factors like lack of bipartisanship, which decreased likelihood of rusted on Party line voters to vote in favour, against their general election behaviour.

I don't that was a big moment for Australia. I don't think most people have reslly reckoned with the complicated reasons why that fell the way it did.

Its why i'm so excited by the idea of Activitypub. It offers the world another chance at a genuine 'Market of Ideas'. And thats what i'm all about, sharing the idea's not necessarily from a specific political hue, but they have to be based in the facts for me.

But, i don't think its a coincidence that theres a large crossover with progressive publications, and 'factual' outlets. Progressives afterall have to take the world as they find it otherwise they'd progress from nonsense to chaos. Thats something not all across other parts of the political spectrum feel a strong demand on.

So, i was speaking in the context of Australia. So thats important when considering how its working out so far. Each Nation's media is distinct to a greater or lesser degree. And, i think its going pretty well here, not perfect though.

You're dead right about the media and social media skews. But Australia is, luckily/smartly, dealing with these issues better than most. We actually have a Government whonis willing to put up legislation afainst social media platforms, however flawed that legislation may be, that places known limits in the minds of those platforms owners' power.

The concentration of traditional media has been diluted from its zenith of power by the ABC, and the introduction of Guardian. One of which will never leave, and the other of which has a great deal of support. And of course those Social media companies whose interests don't always align.

Basically, i think its going better for us here, which the Greens success as a mainstay Party proves. Along with other minor parties, Nationals not included in that, they have a unique historical context which seems to have frozen them as a share of the electorate and nation.

Yeah, na, good point.

I suppose i's thinking of the longer term argument, where hopefully enough people learn the spurious claim that are made.

Its a nice theory, but the people who stand in line saying, "the majors are as bad as each other, i'm gona send them both a message", kind of undermines the idea.

I'd say it'd be a more uniform shift down in lower turnout than you've suggested across the political spectrum. But interestingly it'll be of the more moderate sections of each political side. Thereby over time reducing the points of commonality between the Party's resulting in increasingky hateful political partisan rhetoric and policies. So what has happened in the USA.

Looks all's fair in love and war, as they say, so I don't see a problem with these people organising against the Greens, Labors, or anybody else's policies. Let the best arguments win, which is great cause their arguments rely on lies, fiction, and crimes against humanity. The Greens need to be able to handle themselves against attacks like this.

The real question i have with Advance, and Aust Institute for that matter is, who funds them. I have to accept them, i suppose, but if they're going to have influence over this country's politics, the average voter must be able to know who funds them.

Greens Truth

The Truthers schtick is so tiresome. Its like a gold star they put on all their homework to make themselves feel special.

The type of assistance Advance has on offer was revealed by two Jewish advocacy groups in a recent forum hosted by the Australian Jewish Association (AJA).

I suppose this is the real guts of the article, the importance of highlighting a truly sad partnership of the Reactionary Rightwing International. These Jewish groups and their links to Advance is a sad union for them to seek.

According to Piper – who appeared in Advance’s anti-renewables Dollars & Destruction video series – the organisation is a natural ally for groups that feel they are mostly excluded from the conversation taking place in parliament and the media.

“Advance is helping get publicity for the grassroots people who have been shut out of everything,” he said.

The victim complex is unbearably boorish.

They have the the largest private media organisation/conglomerate in their corner. They have not one but four plus parties shouting their propaganda. Libs, Nats, ON, Palmer, SFF?, Sustainable Aus?.

They are dominant in all but reality. It is the realisation that no matter how much shouting at the wind is done, it doesn't turn it back, it can create a hurricanes though... so that'll be useful for exactly no one.

He's apparently a writer for the Herald Sun and Australian. Thats enough for me to discount anything he says immediately as probably skewed if not outright false, until he proves otherwise. Believe it or not they, (Murdoch Propagandists), can, rarely, make levelheaded comments. Its a rare sight though.

Advance is Exposed in Macnamara

Title seems deliberate, and a little hyberbolic, in an attempt to mislead readers as to the articles subject matter.

The article reads like a friendly disagreement among friends. Where one friend has a brainfart their muddled mind construes as profound then has to express it, thus demonstrating his knowledge and command of a subject to all around.

They are aligned with Islamist extremists, offering a safe space for anti-Semites. The party backs some of the world’s most violent, tyrannical, misogynist, anti-gay and racist regimes. They claim to be progressive but are the exact opposite of progressive.

Classic lazy partisan writing.

Assertion of non-specific associations. Using language indicating those associations as deplorable to the unbelievably extreme.

But all too often turns out to be literally unbelievable. With comparisons easily made about all other actors, in this case Labor/Liberal/Nats/etc, when judged by the same skewed grounds these allegations have been laid.

One massive problem with this type of shitscoop writing is, when a truly disgusting association comes to light of some heinous group/individual and some political entity, be it individuals or Party, the languages impact has been minimised due to its low bar for deployment.