Australian national broadcaster ABC has projected three states voted No, effectively defeating the referendum.

When you choose to use the expression “absolutely no reason”, it is trivially easy to disprove your claim. My argument is one of them, and it is a valid reason to vote no. Your further arguments are valid reasons to vote “yes”, and their pros and cons may or may not outweigh each other.

But you are verifiably wrong to claim that there are no reasons to vote no. Opposing race-based legislation in all its forms is a very valid position, and the only non-racist position possible to take in this.

Grow the fuck up. You are the one arguing for race-based legislation. That makes you the racist. Every human has the right to be equal in the eyes of the law. There simply cannot be an excuse for having tests based on genetics that lead to different rights in a society. That’s just purely despicable in every way.

“Tests based on genetics that lead to different rights”. Again, that sounds alot like the constitutional rights granted to just one family line as head of state. And that genetic line didn’t come from Australia. So which race of humans have primacy in australian law?

It’s possible to hold both of these beliefs simultaneously:

The constitution conferring special rights and privileges on the royal family and their delegates is a bad idea.
The constitution conferring special rights and privileges to a subset of people within the country based on race is a bad idea.

Sure but then we must acknowledge one of those unacceptable things is reality, and the other which could have added some equality and balance was rejected, leaving the constitution favoured to one group of people, as society has been structured.

The constitution has been and still is racist - try researching it before spreading misinformation.

Racism, by definition, is treating one race negatively. Enshrinign the voice in the constitution is not racist, while you’re being pedantic.

If one “race” (which isn’t a scientific term and its use in the US is dated and itself racist) is treated differently from another, regardless of which group is perceived to be treated favourably or unfavourably, such a situation can legitimately be described as racist.

Not according to the definition, to wit: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

Racism is by definition negative treatment, not different treatment. Putting darker make up on a black actor is not racist. Giving women breast cancer screening is not sexist.

They know. The whole “progressives are the real racists” shtick is just a way for them to chew up values and spit them back in peoples faces.

They’re not actually concerned about genuine racism and routinely tolerate it, if not outright support it.

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Indigenous Voice: Australians reject historic Indigenous referendum - BBC News(bbc.in)

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Rules:

Community stats

Community moderators