Nonameuser678

I've been arguing this for years! We sell that high quality black coal that keeps everyone coming back for more.

As someone who just submitted an article for review I am gobsmacked by how brazenly the authors have done this. The absolute disregard for integrity and the knowledge production process is astounding. But also the balls to just submit a paper like this without fear of the consequences says something more profound about the state of academia.

I'm quite a cynical person but I'll admit it gave me goosebumps and I'm definitely feeling this vibe.

Fuck I've already got this song stuck in my head and it's going to be stuck in there for months.

If you are not an Indigenous person then the voice will not really be advising on things that are relevant to you. And the voice is fundamentally an advisory group that will present their concerns to the government. The government will then act on this advice. It will still be the government making laws and policies. It just needs to be constitutional so that it can't be terminated like previous advisory groups have been.

Considering the level of disadvantage that Indigenous Australians experience, don't you think it's reasonable that they should have greater say (a voice) on how to address the issues that are relevant to them?

From what I understand the new CEO was the former CFO so has actively contributed to said problems.

I actually think community based sustainability is going to be a huge in demand area as climate change worsens. Depending on how much you want to sell your soul to the capitalist machine, there will be plenty of work opportunities in helping companies implement sustainability initiatives.

Also, social work and community development are widely applicable across the human services industry. You could get a job in government or not for profit organisations. In order to qualify as a social worker you'd probably have to do a masters, but there's plenty of community based roles that you can get into with a bachelors.

In Australia it's not just knowing how to swim but where to swim and when. A lot of tourists drown in the ocean here because they don't know how to read the waves / don't have an understanding of the local area.

These parliamentarians don't necessarily represent or advocate for Indigenous Australians as they represent everyone in their electorate. Anthony Albanese doesn't just represent the Italians in his electorate, he represents everyone. That's how majority based systems work. The majority based system is a problem when you have a minority group who are so disadvantaged and have limited ways of having their voices heard. Especially when it's about policies and laws that affect them specifically.

Ok cool. You do you, I'll do me. There's no need to attack each other's approach to decision making.

Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint and it's not my place to say what is or isn't a good approach to change in this space. The progressive no campaign is connected to the Indigenous sovereignty movement and I can understand why they have taken the position they have. I'm not an Indigenous person so I don't feel like it's appropriate for me to try and represent their ideas. But I don't think it's fair to close yourself off to them, especially when the principle of the voice should is about listening to the diversity of Indigenous perspectives.

This is the first referendum voting experience for me so I'm excited to be part of history even if the outcome is not the one I want. I'm personally in the critical yes camp where I hope the referendum is successful but still agree with the points raised by the progressive no campaign. I was unsure for a while because I'm not an Indigenous person and wanted to listen to as many different Indigenous perspectives as I could before deciding. What really pushed me to yes was the idea that while not every person who votes no is racist, all racists will vote no.