Referendum

SeaEagleRock8 · Sep 29, 2023

A Yes vote is very important.

The Voice alone will not bring justice. The process for arriving at the Uluru Statement from the Heart was not perfect, yet at this time it is the best consensus First Nations people have reached on a way forward. It calls for a First Nations Voice enshrined in the constitution, and the referendum is a unique opportunity to demonstrate solidarity with the First Peoples of this great land, by voting Yes.

Defeat would set back for a significant period the prospect of First Nations issues being front and centre in any serious national discussion.

We are quite a diverse community here on Silvertails, so let’s apply our collective wisdom and experience to discuss whether the reasons to vote Yes are better than the reasons to vote No. Obviously we won’t all agree, but considering different arguments can help clarify one’s own feelings, even if we don’t change others’ minds.

There was an earlier thread in the rugby league forum (link below, if anyone’s interested), mostly about whether the NRL and companies should even state a position, and about the term ‘woke’. None of which was relevant to actual reasons for or against, but amongst all that, I spotted 10 comments apparently opposed to Yes:

1. why are reparations so integral to the process?

2. if one group is perceived to be 'first among equals' by the constitution itself, expect trouble

3. it will separate Australians by race

4. I might have to pay an annual fee

5. the Voice might be corrupt

6. the costs will be in the hundreds of millions

7. it won’t achieve anything

8. the UN is going to use “Indigenous rights” to remove all private land ownership in Australia

9. “who will be accepted as Aboriginal?”

So feel free to add any others, with your reasons. Silvertails is a footy community, and First Nations people have a long and strong association with our footy codes - including with the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles – which is an added reason, if any were needed, to respect the questions and take the referendum seriously!

Reason 7 is the most important question in my opinion, and most interesting. None of the others have any real weight that I can see – nor do any of the other No reasons in the official campaign - but if you disagree it would be great to hear your reasons.

here’s the earlier thread: NRL & The Voice

BOZO · Sep 29, 2023

LittleSnake · Sep 29, 2023

It's a yes from me. Aboriginal Legal Service gets barley $25 million in funding accross the nation. Yet they represent 1/3 of our correctional centres. A century of white policies on the back of a genocide also reduced them to a 3% minority in our population. They can never be fairly represented in a democracy because of this.

As white Australians we have lost alot of our spirituality and culture to colonialism long ago. We have an opportunity to preserve and draw from a rich culture that evolved with our country, and can teach us so much about caring for the land in which we are butchering. It's totally a yes from me.

All the things Mundine says are nice and would make a big difference but it hasn't happened before and a vote for no keeps the status quo. We need change. We need better representation

Uber Eagle 72 · Sep 30, 2023

Saw this topic recently discussed on my LinkedIn feed. To say the least, it was not pretty.
I have come to the conclusion that discussing personal views like politics and religion is not really compatible with the anonymity of social media and how established social conventions established from our socialisation in the physical world quickly evaporate in the virtual world especially when people personalise and vilify views they don’t agree with in a way they would never do in the physical world…..

John Nicholson · Oct 1, 2023

Yes, now, no second chances after the whistle blows!

SeaEagleRock8 · Oct 4, 2023

BOZO said:
Thank you for posting @SeaEagleRock8

Democracy will once again find a way and it is a NO way

Cutting and pasting an article doesn’t explain your reasons. Please don’t pollute the thread by posting stuff anyone can see just by looking at Sky, we know what Murdoch thinks, but I'm interested to hear what Silvertails posters are thinking. At least, you could say which of Mundine’s points is most persuasive to you?

SeaEagleRock8 · Oct 4, 2023

Uber Eagle 72 said:
Saw this topic recently discussed on my LinkedIn feed. To say the least, it was not pretty.
I have come to the conclusion that discussing personal views like politics and religion is not really compatible with the anonymity of social media and how established social conventions established from our socialisation in the physical world quickly evaporate in the virtual world especially when people personalise and vilify views they don’t agree with in a way they would never do in the physical world…..

Yes but it’s not just social media. In supposedly the leading democracy in the world it’s become normal to insult abuse misrepresent even threaten your political opponents. The point is to bully people out of participating in discussion, by muddying the waters plus some downright intimidation.

If you think even one person might be interested to hear your view, that’s still a good reason to post it! (if some reactions are rude, well, we don’t have to engage with them)

On this topic I’m not so interested in how many think Yay and Nay, but in the various reasons different people have for their views. Especially on the No side I’ve noticed different arguments put forward by both radical left groups and far-right groups! Makes for some strange bedfellows, and shows there’s a lot of confusion out there.

BOZO · Oct 4, 2023

SeaEagleRock8 said:
Cutting and pasting an article doesn’t explain your reasons. Please don’t pollute the thread by posting stuff anyone can see just by looking at Sky, we know what Murdoch thinks, but I'm interested to hear what Silvertails posters are thinking. At least, you could say which of Mundine’s points is most persuasive to you?

Cutting and pasting the prominent aboriginal respected leader Mr Mundines quotes are MY reasons why I support ALL his Views that have inspired me and the majority to vote the NO vote which sound like it is going to be Vindicated feathered friend

Black and White Brothers stand for their RIGHTS
And The No Vote is heading in the RIGHT Direction of Vindication

MuzztheEagle · Oct 4, 2023

BOZO said:
Cutting and pasting the prominent aboriginal respected leader Mr Mundines quotes are MY reasons why I support ALL his Views that have inspired me and the majority to vote the NO vote which sound like it is going to be Vindicated feathered friend

Black and White Brothers stand for their RIGHTS
And The No Vote is heading in the RIGHT Direction of Vindication
View attachment 25235

So....Mundine would prefer a treaty/treaties to the proposed voice and thinks that a no vote will help things move in that direction.
A question for you then: If the referendum was calling for treaty rather than the voice, would you be supporting that? And, if your answer is yes, then why do you believe that to be less divisive than the voice?

BOZO · Oct 4, 2023

MuzztheEagle said:
So....Mundine would prefer a treaty/treaties to the proposed voice and thinks that a no vote will help things move in that direction.
A question for you then: If the referendum was calling for treaty rather than the voice, would you be supporting that? And, if your answer is yes, then why do you believe that to be less divisive than the voice?

We are not voting for Ifs and assumptions
We are voting to what is presented to us

MuzztheEagle · Oct 4, 2023

SeaEagleRock8 said:
On this topic I’m not so interested in how many think Yay and Nay, but in the various reasons different people have for their views. Especially on the No side I’ve noticed different arguments put forward by both radical left groups and far-right groups! Makes for some strange bedfellows, and shows there’s a lot of confusion out there.

There's been plenty of commentary in the past week of how this issue has become a symptom of how polarised political discourse has become. I fear that the majority of voters (on both yes and no) are voting based on political and ideological identity rather than what is best for the nation.
Personally...I'm a gigantic cynic and as a result, highly sceptical of what the voice to parliament is likely to accomplish. But I also acknowledge the problem that we/the government are trying to solve exists and that action must be taken. I'm also not a big fan of our current Labor government. It can definitely imagine a mindset where I look at Labor and the proposal, say it's not good enough and vote no to show my frustration and disagreement. BUT...what does this really accomplish? I cannot imagine any solution where the entire nation agrees to the outcomes and with the way things are heading in politics it's even more unlikely in the future. How will we ever progress if factions are continually unwilling to come together to find solutions. So, for me, it's simple...do the potential benefits outweigh the risk involved? I don't see the risk. It's a (potential) step in the right direction and it's a YES from me.

Uber Eagle 72 · Oct 4, 2023

SeaEagleRock8 said:
Yes but it’s not just social media. In supposedly the leading democracy in the world it’s become normal to insult abuse misrepresent even threaten your political opponents. The point is to bully people out of participating in discussion, by muddying the waters plus some downright intimidation.

If you think even one person might be interested to hear your view, that’s still a good reason to post it! (if some reactions are rude, well, we don’t have to engage with them)

On this topic I’m not so interested in how many think Yay and Nay, but in the various reasons different people have for their views. Especially on the No side I’ve noticed different arguments put forward by both radical left groups and far-right groups! Makes for some strange bedfellows, and shows there’s a lot of confusion out there.

Thanks. Appreciate your insight. I think it’s a lot harder for someone to vilify and insult another in a forum where you at least know the identity of the other person and ideally in physical reality. Where you create an environment where you don’t need to fully own what you say or imply creates an environment where people tend to divert to the bottom of their brain stem as opposed to the more cerebral parts. I am sure if I scroll through the archives of this forum I could find a lot of examples especially where religion and politics are discussed…. Btw. I hope this thread is an exemption…

BOZO · Oct 4, 2023

MuzztheEagle said:
There's been plenty of commentary in the past week of how this issue has become a symptom of how polarised political discourse has become. I fear that the majority of voters (on both yes and no) are voting based on political and ideological identity rather than what is best for the nation.
Personally...I'm a gigantic cynic and as a result, highly sceptical of what the voice to parliament is likely to accomplish. But I also acknowledge the problem that we/the government are trying to solve exists and that action must be taken. I'm also not a big fan of our current Labor government. It can definitely imagine a mindset where I look at Labor and the proposal, say it's not good enough and vote no to show my frustration and disagreement. BUT...what does this really accomplish? I cannot imagine any solution where the entire nation agrees to the outcomes and with the way things are heading in politics it's even more unlikely in the future. How will we ever progress if factions are continually unwilling to come together to find solutions. So, for me, it's simple...do the potential benefits outweigh the risk involved? I don't see the risk. It's a (potential) step in the right direction and it's a YES from me.

I love democracy and admire all people that have the courage to stand for their convictions
Good on you @MuzztheEagle !

MuzztheEagle · Oct 4, 2023

BOZO said:
We are not voting for Ifs and assumptions
We are voting to what is presented to us

Im not really surprised by this response. But seriously why the reluctance to answer my question? This genuinely isn't an attempt at a gotcha, I'm trying to understand you position in the hope that future discussions and solutions might be better suited to people like you. But that can't happen unless you are willing to give a position on what it is you believe (rather than pointing to someone else's opinion).
P.s. please don't respond to this unless you actually have an answer to my previous question. It's a waste of your, mine and the other 2 people reading this threads time.

manly al · Oct 4, 2023

Would be interesting to know the approximate number of people who will be opposing the voice because it does not in their view go far enough .
Reminds me of the old political cliche , maybe better to try to get 80 % of something and quite possible useful then 0 % of nothing
Really did not like the way the voice or the case for was going for a good part , talk of eventual considerations of treaties and a couple of other loose ends
Then in recent times some serious or definite intentions at state levels and largely supported by conservative oppositions to institute some forms of a treaty process , even Tasmania i think .
Then Peter Dutton saying that he would support some form of regional or local voice arrangements , not to be apparently enshrined in the constitution but guess the question is , if the concept or arrangements of a voice is not suitable or so objectionable at a national level , why is it then acceptable at this proposed local or regional level and how would that work .
Irrespective whether it is in the constitution or not .
Then Jacinta Price commenting last week that if a voice was voted in this time , she would be prepared to serve on it . Yet she is one of its most fervent opponents , very confusing .
The way the voice was going at one stage or its case , was more inclined to just vote informal but now am tending to think along the lines of the conservative political commentator Chris Kenny , maybe not the most concise or clearcut proposal but probably worth giving a go and put some faith in the parliamentary process to fine tune it if it did get up .
Then the benefit or probably long overdue outcome of enshrining recognition of Aboriginal and indigenous peoples into the constitution . .
Has got way too partisan and probably for no good overall reason in a lot of the opposition to it , Have got some friends and acquaintances who to my knowledge will be definitely voting against it . [and certainly respect their point of view ] [ Their reasoning ] mainly because of some perception that it will be creating some form of additional equality to the indigenous community yet all indications are that the or some disadvantage still exists and the voice is one measure or a more innovative way to help improve matters in whatever form .
And yet this was originally a Coalition proposal and concept , Go figure .

Eagle 1 · Oct 4, 2023

I see the Silvertails on here intending to vote NO are keeping their powder dry so to speak. But, got a feeling it won't be long tho...

rj90 · Oct 5, 2023

MuzztheEagle said:
So....Mundine would prefer a treaty/treaties to the proposed voice and thinks that a no vote will help things move in that direction.
A question for you then: If the referendum was calling for treaty rather than the voice, would you be supporting that? And, if your answer is yes, then why do you believe that to be less divisive than the voice?

This is my biggest confusion with the Indigenous Australian's that are voting 'No' because they feel the Voice doesn't go far enough?
I appreciate they feel this way, but why do people think voting 'No' to a Voice will then suddenly get them the treaty they want.
A No vote will push back Indigenous progress / recognition in this county by decades.

Chunkytuna · Oct 5, 2023

Eagle 1 said:
I see the Silvertails on here intending to vote NO are keeping their powder dry so to speak. But, got a feeling it won't be long tho...

I wonder why that might be? Maybe being written off and attacked as a racist, bigot blah blah blah - might have something to do with that? Why stick your head above the parapet?

MuzztheEagle · Oct 5, 2023

Chunkytuna said:
I wonder why that might be? Maybe being written off and attacked as a racist, bigot blah blah blah - might have something to do with that? Why stick your head above the parapet?

I think that is definitely true. But I do think we should be looking for ways for civilized an nuanced discussions to take place. Otherwise, everyone's decision was essentially already made and then just reinforced by their own in-groups.
Racism is always going to be a touchy subject and the sad fact is that there are those with racist views (on both sides of the argument) and some of their ideas, fear and lies have now been linked to the arguments presented and there is no way forward without having difficult conversations (and no this doesn't mean accepting that you are a racist).
My biggest fear, not just for the referendum but for the future of democracy, is that people stop looking at things critically, logically and rationally and simply vote with their own tribe. This will tear us apart.
I am more than happy to engage in an open minded conversation (via PM if preferred) that doesn't involve accusations that individuals are a racist. I do NOT believe the overwhelming majority of no voters are racists, but I do believe that there is a huge amount of misinformation and unjustified fear that exists. And, if you refuse to have a conversation because of what some close minded, bigoted and uneducated lefty thinks of you, then it's BOTH sides that are putting democracy in jeopardy.

manly al · Oct 5, 2023

Probably on these sort of topics , would have been good to have had the likes of Woodsie and Budgie still on here and contributing .
Maybe would have had divergent views but was also interesting and definitely worth a look to take note of their points of view and which they generally expressed quite well .
Anyway , Referendums only come along once in a blue moon and historically of course are generally hard to get a Yes approval but also interesting for many people to be aware of sensible and well reasoned points of view on whatever specific proposal .
Also historically , must have been real doozy referenda campaigns [ twice i think with conscription proposals in W W 1 and the communist party banning proposal in the early 1950 "s i think .
All three proposals failed too but i think quite close results or at least a couple of them .
Wonder if Australia will ever get to the situation in Switzerland and California where a referenda bill or proposal can be conducted with a certain number of the general public petitioning for it .[ or in Californias "s case , could even be for the state government tenure ]
Maybe not so popular in Australia , probably as few elections and politicking as possible in many people "s preference .

Team	P	W	L	PD	Pts
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0
	0	0	0	0	0

Referendum

Sea Eagle Lach

Journey Man

Attachments

Super Sub

Reserve Grader

Nicko

Sea Eagle Lach

Sea Eagle Lach

Journey Man

Bencher

Journey Man

Bencher

Reserve Grader

Journey Man

Bencher

First Grader

First Grader

Yeah, Nah.

Bencher

Bencher

First Grader

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Online statistics

Newest members

Stay Connected