LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
No bio...
User ID: 657
Culture War Update on my previous post on Australia's Voice to Parliament.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has finally released the wording of the question that will be proposed in the referendum as follows:
“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
He has also release the proposed provisions being added:
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
Parliament is expected to vote on the wording of the referendum question in June.
Some brief comments:
The proposed question is a leading question, by implying that the recognition of the 'First Peoples' necessarily requires the establishment of the Voice. There could easily be two separate questions here:
-
One for a constitution recognising Indigenous people in the Australia Constitution, a symbolic gesture, something that has been suggested many times in the past (which I still don't support but is still far less contentious that setting up a new government body).
-
One question for the establishment of the Voice itself.
The proposed amended provisions don't actually outline the structure or powers the Voice will have, which is still a major concern of many Australians. Instead, it allows for the Australian Parliament to define it through regular legislation. While this is being touted by Labor as a smart or good or effective way to go about it (perhaps disingeniously) because it allows the Voice to be adjusted with regular legislation, I see this as concerning for two reasons:
-
Firstly, in order to pass any legislation in the Senate, Labor needs the support of the Greens. Supposing this referendum does pass, and the Labor government tries to pass the first legislation to establish the Voice, they would need to negotiate with the Greens who have an even more radical and woke conception of what the Voice would be
-
Secondly, I can easily see how these provisions can be abused by woke legal activists through the High Court, getting them to extend the Voice through implied powers. The wording 'make make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government' could easily be made to mean any number of things, 'representations' is a pretty malleable word (you could quite sensibly, if disingenuously interpret this to mean they should have representation in the House of Representatives, for example). The ability to 'make representations' being in the Constitution could easily overrule any regular legislation made by judicial activism to give certain de facto powers to the Voice (perhaps this is the point). The other provision is 'relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples', which given that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are in fact Australian citizens and are affected by literally everything in Australian politics from taxes to trade, one can easily see how this provision means 'everything'.
I strongly oppose the term 'First Peoples', which would bake a woke/progressive terminology and worldview into the Constitution.
And the thing that perhaps annoys me the most of all this, is when the Voice turns out to be a disaster in one form or another, which I'm nearly certain it will, there will be no way to actually get rid of it, now being constitutionally enshrined. This will be ATSIC 2.0 but there is no actual way to get rid of it and the corruption, even assuming the culture and media is actually conducive to it. There is no way that another referendum will occur in my lifetime to repeal this amendment. This is what annoys me so much, that this is a social 'Tesla valve' (or Cthulhu only swims left, or the slippery slope), if this does pass there is no reversing it. Reversing it would require a mass genuinely reactionary popular sentiment (on the level of Orban at least) to happen in Australia, which won't happen, and even if it did happen would introduce new different problems of its own.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
Given the prevelance of single sex friendship groups and associations compared to evenly balanced friendship groups, there functionally are male societies and female societies.
I get your point, but I am yet to meet a man or woman who can reproduce asexually.
does Feminism actually have any realistic solution to how men should react to female promiscuity?
Feminism's answer or 'solution' to any problem is always the same. Men have to be more and more accommodating, to the point of remaking men if necessary. If women are unhappy, that's because men (i.e. the patriarchy) are making them unhappy! Women feeling like sluts and devalued after years of sleeping around! That's only because the negative spooks the patriarchy is slut shaming you and trying to control your sexuality! Men have to learn to accept women's sexuality (sexuality, of course, means sleeping around)! Women feeling unfulfilled after 20 years climbing the corporate ladder and having no family? That's only because the patriarchy is trying to push you back into oppressive gender roles (at a abstract, psychic level if necessary if not discrimination can be found)! Men need to accept women can be girlbosses! Feminism is just a long list of demanding men accommodated more destructive behaviours from women and give them more.
Really, this is nothing new, this is how women have excerted influence for millennia. Women complains, men accommodates or makes changes. Moral panics. The difference is that feminism is leading women down a endless self-perpetuating death spiral, a train with no brakes. Other moral panics would reach a critical point and dissipate. Here, the dissipation that feminism is pointing at is women, men and society itself.
Because there isn't a seperate 'women society' and a seperate 'men society' that are independent from each other where people from each society can voluntarily elect to interact just for a bit of fun. Nor is this some kind of financial transation for a novelty item where people can just pay the exorbitant price, or choose not to and suffer nothing for it.
This situation is incredibly dysfunctional to society and if it continues, it can quite easily become ruinous. And sure, yeah the 'market' will correct itself eventually even if takes the whole thing crashing and burning. I'm sure the Romans with their civilisation burning would have been comforted if they only knew that other empires will come after theirs.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
While we're discussing DeBoer, I want to briefly talk about his post immediately prior to this one, Of Course You Know What Woke Means.
In typical DeBoer fashion, he makes a lot of poignant points about the nature of the woke, but ultimately misses the forest for the trees. Woke isn't a 'school of social and cultural liberalism', nor is the 'woke approach to solutions to politics is relentlessly individualistic'. DeBoer does what virtually every old school anti-woke materialist socialist/Marxist does when talking about the woke - completely ignore the reality the woke/critical social justice is a leftist movement that shares some roots (even if it has developed distinctly) with the Marxism that DeBoer and people like him support. DeBoer obviously would rather incorrectly lay the blame squarely at the feet of 'liberalism' (the arch-nemesis of Marxism), then in anyway implicate Marxist concepts through association with the woke. While DeBoer does vaguely allude to the woke being 'leftist', it's pretty clear DeBoer believes that wokism is liberalism that has evolved into a quasi-leftist movement, rather than wokism genuinely descending from leftism and overtaking liberal sentiment.
Marcuse was not liberal. Angela Davis is not liberal. Bell Hooks was not liberal. Ibram Kendi is not liberal. The underlying ideology and philosophy of woke is not liberal. The fact that 'liberals' have been adopting this ideology while still (mis)labelling themselves liberal does not make woke liberal.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
Sorry, but it's one study cherry-picked by the Guardian that just so happens to fit their political bias and serves as good clickbait fodder.
The article even implicitly admits if flirs in the face of most research.
Other studies have measured some financial and health benefits in being married for both men and women on average, which Dolan said could be attributed to higher incomes and emotional support, allowing married people to take risks and seek medical help.
I'm sure it could. Almost sounds like there's benefits to being married.
Also I would add that 'happiness' is a fleeting and imprecise measure in my opinion. I think modern society puts far too much emphasis on hedonia rather than eudaimonia.
This article was amended on 30 May 2019 to remove remarks by Paul Dolan that contained a misunderstanding of an aspect of the American Time Use Survey data.
This doesn't fill me with confidence.
I believe generalizations about gender are useless, as outliers in other cultures prove that the behaviors are arbitrary.
Do you believe the generalisation that men are stronger and larger than women to be useless, and outliers prove them arbitrary?
Do you believe there are no innate social/psychological differences between men and women, and it's all just socially/culturally contingent?
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
You're basically just asking what is the "True Church" of Jesus Christ which is a much larger question, and something a non-believer probably isn't qualified to answer as it goes to theology.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
it's not men who need to be convinced to be married
I agree with you on this point
(the opposite direction was true of married women)
I straight up don't believe this unless you have a source.
Being screwed over by family courts is only relevant if you're having kids with someone
Alimony and asset splits can be and often are brutal to the husband even if no kids are involved. Kids just make it worse.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
You are probably correct, I was mostly just grasping at straws (though I am reasonably confident at least as far as Amazon and PNG are concerned)
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
Depends how large you're allowing a place to be for you question. Certainly there's Amish/Mennonite communities who don't use mobile phones.
You could probably find various tribes in the jungle Amazon, Papua New Guinea and maybe the Congo Jungle (I'm not just referring to the completely uncontacted tribes) who use very little technology, period. Maybe some nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples in Sahara/Sahel and the Eurasian Steppe (Mongolia?) I'm starting to run out of places. Some small groups in the Himalayas, Yunnan Mountains etc maybe? Extremely remote Laos? There's probably more tiny groups in other really remote and inaccessible areas but let's call it there.
Old people don't work (or work much less efficiently if you force them to). The more old people compared to yoing people you have in your society, the more people you have to provide for and the less people are able to provide.
Look at South Korea, currently with a fertility rate of 0.78 (!) If this rate continues, this means there will be 5 grandparent/old person for every grandchild. It means the next generation will be 40% (!) the size of the previous generation. This is a doomed society, it is completely unsustainable.
Where I disagree slightly with @aqouta is that it's not even a matter of taxes and wealth, not that they don't matter, but it's a red herring. It's really a question of labour. There simply won't be enough labour to actually do shit that needs to be done, wealth be damned.
Accumulated wealth is meaningless if you can't actually find or have enough anyone to pay to do things. If you don't have kids or grandkids to look after you, it's going to have be someone else's kids that wipes your geriatric arse. And they can charge a lot for the pleasure, because the demand will be sky-high. Assets and capital actually need someone to use them. It all comes back to labour. Again, you need people to actually do shit, and not have a signifant percentage of the manpower taken up by caring for older generations, which drains wealth from society, it doesn't generate it.
Also, in many countries, generational wealth stored in property, and the property market will crash as the population shrinks and demand crashes. The value of many assets and wealth in general will crash - the idea that the older generations can used their accumulated wealth (perhaps substainal due to not having kids) to pay for people to look after them comfortably is an illusion, a lie. (Don't get me started on national debts which will have absolutely no way to pay off with a shrinking labour pool).
I suppose we can just hope robots and AI bail us out. Although that might just cause its own not dissimilar issues.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
How do men benefit more from marriage and what research are you referring to?
Keeping in mind that men are uniquely screwed over by divorce/family courts and that ~80% of divorces are intiated by women (of the top of my head).
There is nothing special or amazing about the 'survival' of Christendom in that regard.
I disagree, at least as far as the early history of Christianity is concerned. That fact that (what started as) some tiny Jewish sect managed to survived centuries of persecution from the largest and most powerful empire in history, forming a massive underground network of believers through preaching and genuine belief alone, and managed to convert said prosecuting empire to Christianity is nothing short of remarkable. In some sense the conversion of Rome to Christianity is the promise of Christian redemption manifest on a civilisational scale.
Before someone mentions Manichaeism, I will point out that Manichaeism is partially based on gnostic Christianity, and that Manichaeism/gnosticism clearly lost the theological battle with (now) orthodox Chrsitianity as embodied by Saint Augustine.
There is really nothing compariable with early Christianity. The closest thing is Buddhism, where the blood thirsty and tyrannical Emperor Ashoka who became so distraught about the destruction and violence he had committed in the Kalinga War he had a religious experience and converted to Buddhism and became a pacifist and virtuous (at least as the myth goes), and is responsible for Buddhism becoming a world religion rather than some tiny obscure or dead Hindu sect.
"Faith not works" is one of the distinguishing tenets of fundamentalist Christianity.
"Faith not works" was one of the key theological arguments of Martin Luther. Unless you are claiming that all Protestant sects which are derived from Martin Luther's theology are fundamentalist (a claim that requires far more evidence), this is incorrect.
Edit: I should also add "everyone is a sinner" is more or less just original sin which goes back to Saint Augustine in the 3rd century which is hardly a novel creation of modern fundamentalist Christianity.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
There's a trend I've notice in the last couple of years where progressive/woke media will decry cancel culture, while at the same time completely ignoring the progressive/woke origin of cancel culture. They portray it as something that happens at random with no political or ideological impetus (or at least not for woke reasons).
I'm not sure why they do this, I suspect it's to poison the well or pre-empt criticism of the woke due to cancel culture by superficially criticising it themselves.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
This is a leading question because the obvious answer that you want to get ("fuck that dude, you are right to shame him sweetie") is obviously going to conflate people who think OP is wrong because he is not conforming to traditional sexual norms (no casual sex, period), with those who think OP is wrong because he didn't play the game properly (casual sex is fine, OP just went about it the wrong way).
The issue is that if you accept a sexually liberal or libertine culture, OP didn't really do anything morally wrong he just committed a massive faux pas so he doesn't deserved to be permanently ostracised and labelled a dangerous incel. After all, all he did was believe the advice liberal society gave him to be honest and treat women like men.
Most people sympathetic to OP are addressing the fact he is operating in this sexually liberal environment, and judging it on that basis (and finding it hypocritical and treating OP unfairly on its own terms).
This does not mean I think a sexually liberal culture is a good thing. If it were up to me, all these young adults would be pulled away from casual sex. OP would an idiot lecher trying to defile a maiden with premarital sex, and the girl would rightfully scold and shame him for trying to take away her chastity (and I presumably would be the father with a shotgun threatening OP). But that's not the cultural environment this is taking place in, and the girl isn't shaming OP for trying to take her chastity, but for being an incel creep loser.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
Yeah except this falls apart when men aren't also allowed to improve and be given a second chance. Because a significant portion of men, probably a majority, will fail this torturous mind game at some point. This level of sabotage against men leaves only a small portion of successful men. This is how you end up with the implicit polygynyous relationships of today.
The deck is completely stacked against (young) men now. In the past, there were social conventions and explicit courtship rituals even a social inept but otherwise good man could follow and be reasonably successful. Now it's the wild west, men have no idea that there are no rules, no guidance, the publicly acceptable advice is sabotaging you and you don't even know it, you as a young man assume all the social risk and put at the mercy of a woman's reaction who can utterly destroy you. This is not a stable arrangement.
This arrangement isn't even good for women in the long run either, because it sabotages the formation of long-term stable relationships which both men and women benefit from.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
I can guarantee at some point someone told OP 'just be honest, straightforward and upfront with women and nothing bad will happen, the worst the woman will do is reject you but respect you for being honest.' And he completely understandably took that advice at face value.
The vast majority of 'dating advice' young men are given (by the mainstream liberal feminist zeitgeist) is absolutely terrible and only land them in situations like this if they follow through with it.
I can guarantee at some point someone told OP 'just be honest, straightforward and upfront with women and nothing bad will happen, the worst the woman will do is reject you but respect you for being honest.' And he completely understandably took that advice at face value.
This is combined with the fact we have a sexually liberal, if not libertine culture. The young man probably though that offering some girl to be FwB directly - despite being a literal virgin - was perfectly fine cause media and social media told him that's just how things are. And besides, men and women are the same, so women must think about this hypothetical arrangement the same way he does.
OP is also an actual idiot for thinking his proposal would end in anyway but horribly badly for him and being stupid enough to think going from virgin to FwB playa is in anyway feasible or a good idea. But the problem is that young men aren't allowed to fuck up in a healthy way and learn from the experience anymore, if young men fuck up they're 'literally incels' and a danger to young women who must be ostracised and exiled.
This is what happens when you have a social environmental where the social rules are poorly defined if they exist at all, the advice the young men get is terrible and contradictory, and the consequences for men are astronomical and completely at women's mercy.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
Yes, that is correct.
My complaint is not directed at liberal arts/humanities themselves. They have incalcuable value.
My complaint is directed at the universities/colleges who have been doing a piss-poor job at educating students in the humanities.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
Yes?
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
3yr ago
Frankly, this has been a long time coming and I think very little has been actually lost.
The stark reality of the liberals arts courses in most Western universities/colleges is that they have been in decline in quality for a long time, and very little is actually being taught in them. I say this from both personal experience and from data. Unless you're lucky enough to have gotten a really engaging and intelligent teacher in the arts (needle in the haystack), most students come away from a liberal arts degree with very little (or in the case of ideological brainwashing, have actually been made worse).
The quality of liberal arts graduates and how little they know is frankly quite shocking. They know little to nothing of the classics, they know nothing of the works of important figures from Socrates all they way up until modern thinkers like Dewey. For many students, they think, or are taught there is nothing of intellectual value prior to the 1970s or so. Rawls is as about as far back and sophisticated they go (well, other than Marx of course, though even this is often through an attenuated way).
I'm not completely sure why this is the case, but I think it's some combination of the postmodern intellectual brainrot that continues to infect the academy and credentialism driving everyone to get degrees (which lowers standards).
If anything, I see the drop-off in student numbers for the liberal arts as a positive development, because hopefully that means the students who do remain actually care about things like philosophy, politics and the humanities generally aren't being held back by being in a larger, stupider cohort, and in time actually will remake the liberal arts degree into something respectable again (unlikely, but a man can dream).
I so wish we could even debate the charitable interpretation as you say. But all evidence points to the contrary, we're not even at that point.
Just as one example - the Australian Government's 'National Energy Transformation Partnership' includes an 'initial priority' to "co-design a First Nations Clean Energy Strategy to ensure First Nations people help drive the energy transformation" (whatever that is meant to mean). Literally this stuff is already everywhere. Everything has to have 'First Nations/Indigenous' strategy/plan/consultation no matter how little it has to do with Indigenous issues. This is just going to institutionalise it to the highest degree - constitutionally.
More options
Context Copy link