This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I have a certain level of non-public information which I can't really source for you since it's stuff I overheard. Apparently Dutton is doing his best to wreck the Voice without looking like he dislikes Indigenous people and split the Liberals (who have their own moderate touchy-feely pro-Voice wing). He is the guy who walked out on Rudd's Apology to the indigenous after all, plus has police experience. It's hard to think of anyone who would be more anti-voice in mainstream Australian politics than Dutton. But he doesn't have much control over the party considering how badly the Liberals have been doing electorally, he can't do much overtly.
The inner workings of the Indigenous groups behind the Voice are incredibly incompetent/dysfunctional and simultaneously grasping for more power. They're using the lack of clarity you mention as the thin end of the wedge to gain actual power. They're trying to phrase terms in ambiguous ways such that future courts will interpret more power to them, once they get the Voice through. (Though given how much they gained from Mabo, which found Indigenous agriculture and sedentary lifestyles on one island off the coast of Australia and extended a certain level of land rights across the whole country, waiting for courts to interpret in their favor is not a bad strategy).
Anyway, this tactic is pretty obvious to the much smarter legal advisers who've called for a more moderate, compromise position. But the advisers are largely ignored. Internal divisions within the Indigenous group are opening up and the whole Voice is headed to failure, according to what I've heard. But this may not happen, I don't have a crystal ball to see the future.
The courts just noted that Terra Nullius was bullshit, and that there was pre-existing land-law just like in any other conquered territory. The courts also made clear that Australian governments could override that land law and extinguish Native Title with little more than a wave of the pen.
But Parliament, under Paul Keating decided pass Native Title Act which went and bolstered native title claims around the country.
I'm not a lawyer and can't confidently discuss this stuff, I can only relay what I heard from people who do have expert knowledge of this specific case. The native title that they granted was only really meaningful and effective in places where no Europeans had done anything with the land, basically just wilderness. But the principle of finding settlements on one island in the Torres Strait and then extending it across the whole country is bizarre and goes against a broad principle of law aiming to be specific as opposed to generalizing out from one edge-case.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If I ran the Liberal party, I would try and split the referendum into 2 questions. One that offers "constitutional respect" and one for the voice. Then people could vote yes:no and not be seen as not caring/being racist
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link