Yeah I’m skeptical as well

If the assertion is;

Nobody could execute or enforce such complex laws

then a new law yet to be implemented is not evidence to the contrary.

Just like tax laws, it’s extraordinarily difficult to legislate the behavior of very wealthy people because they have more resources with which to develop work arounds than the regulators have to restrict them.

I was trying to log in with the web client which didn’t work.

I may have been using the wrong server though.

great, thanks, this sorted it. thankyou.

I’m having trouble joining xmpp.

at movim.slrpnk.net I get an error - a dialog appears which says “the server takes too long to respond” or some such.

I’ve tried other clients, but I’m not sure of the server - is it chat.slrpnk.net ?

This is all really interesting.

As an early iteration it’s great, but without wanting to sound critical - it really does demonstrate a lot of problems.

To me, this format is too specialised to see much use in Australia for example. I can’t think of many suburbs that would be flat enough for one person to drag around 3 bodies plus the machine even with a bigger motor. I cycle regularly, but it wouldn’t take much of an incline with a headwind to make hauling 3 bodies plus machine a real challenge.

Hi!

I’m new here and have no business telling anyone how to do anything.

That said, every time I see the description for the !climate community I get a bit twitchy. It says “truthful information about climate, related activism, and politics”. One thing that’s become clear living in this post-truth world is that “true” can be very difficult to nail down.

I guess a single statement can be true as in “today is Thursday” but information can never really be a complete truth because for complex concepts, particularly climate change, we just don’t have all the details (although we have enough data to draw conclusions confidently).

Another issue is, there can be multiple perspectives of the truth. People with different predispositions can form different conclusions from the same facts.

I guess I’m wondering what others think about the term “truthful” and whether there might be a better alternative like “authoritative” or “reliable” or some term that doesn’t have the same baggage.

Regardless, it’s not my intention to be critical. Go team!

Woah. Actually I think that is better because reading “4, 5, 1, 2 all the rest are bad for you” didn’t make me realise that I have a bunch of styrofoam boxes that I’m using as planters. It’s no drama though - everything I planted in those died.

I’m surprised PVC is bad for you though? Our retic system is all PVC pipe. Wouldn’t most market gardens use PVC also? Everywhere in Asia uses PVC for potable water.

Personally I think the “progressive no” vote was a myth.

The purported argument was that this proposal was unsatisfactory, so reject this one and get a better offer. A nonsensical argument really - accepting this proposal was the gateway to getting a better outcome on every issue to go through parliament in future. This proposal could have paved the way to the body/system with actual power.

The “progressive no” term was coined by this guy from Black People’s Union: https://youtu.be/G0kFfqb-63s

He’s not really promoting the type of futuristic utopia most people think of when they use the term progressive.

Their list of demands includes a few odd statements:

We also do not acknowledge a treaty/ies as a solution to reconcile the historical and ongoing issues faced by First Nations people. The goal of national and economic liberation will only be achieved once the capitalist and colonial social relations cease to exist in Australia. National liberation will always be an intrinsic part of the revolutionary struggle against capitalism, colonialism and imperialism.

… and some interesting demands:

• The abolition of private property.
• The return of all crown land and waters and all land and waters used as a primary resource to the custodianship of their rightful Indigenous owners.
• The redirecting of taxes related to land and water usage and ownership paid by non-Indigenous homeowners to their relevant Indigenous Nation.

Old mate continuously refers to the voice as tokenistic, “there’s other advisory bodies” and “this one doesn’t even have any power” et cetera. I’m not aware of any other advisory bodies that were backed by the constitution with a clear mandate from the Australian people. Imagine a government ignoring the voice to parliament when the Australian populace has supported them.

This guy’s whole argument is “no compromise”. He wanted the referendum rejected, to galvanise first nations people to demand more. That’s not how modern democracy works in Australia.

It’s also very frustrating that he happily perpetuates the misunderstanding that he somehow speaks for First Nations people generally. That’s pretty fucked IMO. Honestly, I think this guy has a lot to answer for - I genuinely feel that he has done First Nations Peoples a disservice.