Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: General Discussions (Read 343880 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1668 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
https://theconversation.com/voice-referendum-results-point-to-shifting-faultlines-in-australian-politics-215673


Quote
Polling on the Voice referendum identified divisions that seemed to indicate similar chinks in the country’s progressive constituency. According to those polls, support for the Voice was strongest among the highly educated and the young – those mainly clustered in inner urban areas.

On the other hand, opponents of the Voice were more likely to live in the outer suburbs and regional and rural areas. They had lower education attainment, and were older. The results of Saturday’s referendum were consistent with these findings.

I've seen this a couple of times.

Highly educated and young, inner urban areas voted -Yes
Lower educated and old, rural and regional areas voted- No

But there is another demographic at play there.
Rural, regional, outer urban people are much more likely to have contact, experience and impact with indigenous people.

I suspect there are not the same issues for the folk in the Teal seats of North Sydney as there are for the indigenous and non indigenous people of western NSW.

There is this impression that things like crime, alcoholism and health issues are only a problem for the indigenous communities, but these things can impact on the whole town or region.

These are 'all people' problems requiring 'all people' actions and support.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1669 –
I certainly accept that it would be harder for folks living among indigenous people, who may be subject to negative behaviours from those indigenous folks, to see past all that and try to understand the deeper structural issues at play. I get that if your car has been vandalised a few times, you may not be feeling particularly charitable or generous towards our First Nation brothers and sisters. But that's not seeing the forest for the trees IMO. The Voice was supposed to play a part in addressing these issues, at least as I understand it.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1670 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
I certainly accept that it would be harder for folks living among indigenous people, who may be subject to negative behaviours from those indigenous folks, to see past all that and try to understand the deeper structural issues at play. I get that if your car has been vandalised a few times, you may not be feeling particularly charitable or generous towards our First Nation brothers and sisters. But that's not seeing the forest for the trees IMO. The Voice was supposed to play a part in addressing these issues, at least as I understand it.

I wasn't really trying to emphasise the anger that some in the regional communities feel if they have been adversely affected.
Though no doubt that is a real and potent factor for some people
It was more to point out that to suggest they don't have an understanding of those issues is completely wrong.
They have a great understanding of where the problems lie...probably a greater appreciation than those living in the more affluent suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne.
So in voting they probably feel that an extra voice isn't what's needed....it's somebody to actually do something to address those problems.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1671 –
Quote from: Lods – on
I wasn't really trying to emphasise the anger that some in the regional communities feel if they have been adversely affected.
Though no doubt that is a real and potent factor for some people
It was more to point out that to suggest they don't have an understanding of those issues is completely wrong.
They have a great understanding of where the problems lie...probably a greater appreciation than those living in the more affluent suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne.
So in voting they probably feel that an extra voice isn't what's needed....it's somebody to actually do something to address those problems.

Yes, I'm not so sure that simply living among a certain group of people somehow makes you an expert in understanding where the problems lie. I've not seen that happen much. I think the best way forward and the best way of understanding the issues is to study them with proper frameworks and proper methodologies, proper resources and the like. It is, in my opinion, no great surprise that academics who actually study the issues, and earn their stripes from doing so, are all pretty much in favour. I've never been in favour of the idea that the person in the street somehow becomes knowledgable simply by a kind of osmosis. No doubt the rural types who have regular interactions with First Nation people would have some knowledge, maybe over and above the inner city types, but whether that knowledge translates into something constructive is IMO, another matter entirely.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1672 –
@PaulP "constructive" being the key point from your post above.
Yourself and Lods have made some excellent points.
Up here the no vote was definitely as a result of peoples negative interactions.
Let’s go BIG !

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1673 –
Quote from: northernblue – on
@PaulP "constructive" being the key point from your post above.
Yourself and Lods have made some excellent points.
Up here the no vote was definitely as a result of peoples negative interactions.

Yes. I certainly understand that we all have a limit, and you may get to a point where you give them the proverbial finger and decide you're not really going to help them. I wish there was an easy answer to this. I imagine there are long standing hostilities on both sides. It's easy and tokenistic for folks like me to say you need to look beyond that. The only indigenous folks I've been exposed to (through my wife's work) are inner city corporate / semi corporate types (almost yuppies but not quite), and I imagine they would be rather different to the First nations folks you would encounter.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1674 –
No doubt knowing doesn't always translate to constructive outcomes.
In fact sometimes (often) the suggested solutions are a bit over the top.

The thing is it's all 'academic' now.
The voice won't be part of the constitution.
That won't be revisited.
But I suspect that within a very short time there will be a 'voice' of some description legislated.
And hopefully the debate as to the best way forward to close the gap in standards in a number of social areas will be given a boost, resulting in some genuine positive outcomes.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1675 –
There are four states/territories that already have Indigenous Advisory bodies:
 - ACT
 - Vic
 - SA - they legislated their own Voice - first elections to this body are in March
 - Qld

This may be due to the Feds palming off some of the outcomes of closing the gap to the States.

I believe all States are heading down the treaty path - some further down the track than others - don't think there are any in place.

I don't really know what treaty is and tbh can't be bothered finding out.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1676 –
Quote from: dodge – on
......................

I don't really know what treaty is and tbh can't be bothered finding out.

https://theconversation.com/what-actually-is-a-treaty-what-could-it-mean-for-indigenous-people-200261

This gives a little detail. It was written a few months ago, and certain hopes / assumptions were made about the Voice that did not eventuate.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1677 –
Some of you might come across some posts discussing changes to US FDA approvals on some commonly used cold and flu medicine, it seems a side-effect of many companies doing large scale trials of the efficacy of compounds in treating COVID or it's symptoms has exposed that they have components that are useless for the purpose advertised. I won't list them here, but pretty much all the big name brands have products that are affected.

To me this is a good thing, but ...............

It has exposed just another example of how weird life in the USA has become. In most cases it's a single component of those medicines that turns out to not do what it is claimed, but the medicines still have a range of efficacy delivered from the other components in the compound.

The US FDA still allows homeopathic, naturopath or pseudoscience compounds to remain sitting on the shelf, and for the packaging of those products to make outlandish claims. Like diluted 500x for maximum efficacy!

So commercial pharmaceuticals that actually do something are to be withdrawn, while the snake oil remains.

Snake Oil 1
Reality 0

This of course affects us all, because most countries globally just fall into line with basic FDA guidelines. So you might find your favourite cold and flu medicine being pulled form the shelves, but you'll still be able to purchase a jar of "500x Diluted Megatrength Devil's Ar5e Miracle Cure" so it is all good! ;D
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1678 –
My knowledge in this area is far from complete.

My understanding is the 'snake oil' treatments don't actually need any kind of FDA approval. Supplements and the like that use natural ingredients are not required to undergo the same 'stress tests' that your chemical compound stuff does. As a result, they can claim whatever the hell they want and there is no scope for holding them accountable.

Alternatively, there is so many new things coming out that DO require testing, that they physically cannot test everything, and its claims, and maybe 5% of the stuff gets tested appropriately.

Both scenarios are very worrying.

Re: General Discussions

Reply #1679 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
My knowledge in this area is far from complete.

My understanding is the 'snake oil' treatments don't actually need any kind of FDA approval. Supplements and the like that use natural ingredients are not required to undergo the same 'stress tests' that your chemical compound stuff does. As a result, they can claim whatever the hell they want and there is no scope for holding them accountable.

Alternatively, there is so many new things coming out that DO require testing, that they physically cannot test everything, and its claims, and maybe 5% of the stuff gets tested appropriately.

Both scenarios are very worrying.
I think you are correct, in that the Snake Oil companies are using loopholes that allow there product to sit alongside without the same requirements.

If Big Pharma tried to do the same social media would smash reputations so it has no choice but to comply.

The problem as I see it is that the Trump era has unleashed a new generation of influential Luddite's just looking for an uprising / dollar, some are fundamentalist while others are more Pete Evan's or Gwyneth Paltrow like looking to milk followers.

The US system seems to be migrating towards "If you are stupid enough to believe it, then it's your fault!".
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"