I come from Aotearoa so the question in my mind is "why not a treaty?" and there doesn't seem to be an argument against that that has a charitable explanation. My reservations about the easily-ignored, unfunded Voice pale to nothing when I see social media (and bought media) comments against having a voice. It's very much "I don't want to be associated with the people against this" territory. FFS, Reddit couldn't even agree that "we're all equally Australian".
The loudest objections are coming from the most racist, obviously, but those cannot be answered by providing more detail, only with an "Ein Volk" approach. It's probably wise to write them off and speak as though they don't exist.
But the Liberal Party and other Murdoch staff... I think they're JAQing off (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=JAQing%20off). Answer whatever questions they have now and they'll come up with more. This isn't a debate, except in the very loose "political debate" sense where the goal is whatever gets you the win. And they have decided, for reasons we can only speculate about, that acknowledging Aboriginal Australians in a positive way is unacceptable.
I don't think there is any common ground on this one between the Blak Greens and the Murdoch side of the Liberal Party, or between the ALP and the christofascist wing of the Liberal Party. The Voice would have to be simultaneously representing "All Australians (Especially The White Ones)" to be acceptable to the "we're not racist, you're the racists" side, while being "A Voice to Negotiate The Treaties" to be acceptable to Blak Greens. The more detail you announce the more you'll offend all sides.
I'm very leftwing and undecided. I want to hear what indigenous activists I trust have to say about it before making up my mind (not out of some principle of identitarian deference, but simply because I don't feel informed enough).
I worry that a bad model could be worse than nothing at all- a Warren Mundine type figure talking about how government needs to break a "culture of poverty" and justifying abominable things.
I come from Aotearoa so the question in my mind is "why not a treaty?" and there doesn't seem to be an argument against that that has a charitable explanation. My reservations about the easily-ignored, unfunded Voice pale to nothing when I see social media (and bought media) comments against having a voice. It's very much "I don't want to be associated with the people against this" territory. FFS, Reddit couldn't even agree that "we're all equally Australian".
The loudest objections are coming from the most racist, obviously, but those cannot be answered by providing more detail, only with an "Ein Volk" approach. It's probably wise to write them off and speak as though they don't exist.
But the Liberal Party and other Murdoch staff... I think they're JAQing off (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=JAQing%20off). Answer whatever questions they have now and they'll come up with more. This isn't a debate, except in the very loose "political debate" sense where the goal is whatever gets you the win. And they have decided, for reasons we can only speculate about, that acknowledging Aboriginal Australians in a positive way is unacceptable.
I don't think there is any common ground on this one between the Blak Greens and the Murdoch side of the Liberal Party, or between the ALP and the christofascist wing of the Liberal Party. The Voice would have to be simultaneously representing "All Australians (Especially The White Ones)" to be acceptable to the "we're not racist, you're the racists" side, while being "A Voice to Negotiate The Treaties" to be acceptable to Blak Greens. The more detail you announce the more you'll offend all sides.
I'm very leftwing and undecided. I want to hear what indigenous activists I trust have to say about it before making up my mind (not out of some principle of identitarian deference, but simply because I don't feel informed enough).
I worry that a bad model could be worse than nothing at all- a Warren Mundine type figure talking about how government needs to break a "culture of poverty" and justifying abominable things.
Totally agree and hope we're wrong.