I don't think that calling people who want to understand the mechanism by which people will be selected/elected for The Voice to be "Chicken Little"-like behaviour. To me it is ironic that Albanese is belittling this particular concern that it is a white person dismissing one of
2. the main concerns that my black relatives have about #TheVoice. It is not an answer to say "we'll tell you later" because human nature is subject to Akerlof's "Market for Lemons": people are going to assume that if information is being hidden that it jstor.org/stable/1879431
3. is being hidden because people would view that information adversely if they knew what it was. I'm not saying that the mechanism is good or bad - we aren't told, so I can't evaluate it: but I am saying that since we aren't being given details, and in law the Devil is in the
4. details, that the Yes campaign is not resounding with a significant number of Aboriginal people who are concerned that it will end up being like ATSIC - where they obtained little benefit and where the people in charge ended up helping themselves.
It's not right to label them
5. "chicken little" - instead of being abusive and insulting, Albanese should listen to their concerns - after all, if he can't listen to the concerns of black people who worry about the mechanism, what hope is there for Parliament listening to The Voice?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have been watching with interest what people such as Samantha Maiden have said about Grace Tame pulling faces and playing political games. There had been, previously, an unspoken assumption that the Australian of the Year was designed to be unifying as opposed to overtly party-
2. political. Morrison leaves me cold, but at the same time, the question that presents itself is how should a professional deport themselves in circumstances such as someone else's big day - in this case Dylan Alcott. I was taught that it was about them and not to make it about
3. me. It is insulting to say that the expectation of manners should be altered or mitigated by virtue of someone's personal history. If there are varying rules of behaviour for people depending on their individual circumstances, then manners are a dead concept and society will
Here is an interesting quandary: first we are told to accept the proposition by the Democrats that parents have no "right" to know what their children are doing at school and that the "professional" trained teachers know best. Then we witness things like a black girl being forced
2. to eat waffles out of the garbage because she threw them away because she did not like them.
Let's examine the logic - if the first proposition is true, the second action should also be acceptable as teachers are infallible. If the action proves the first proposition false,
3. then there is no good reason why parents should not be facilitated and expected to keep track of what is going on and being "taught" AT ALL TIMES with their children within schools. #logicnewsone.com/4281327/palm-e…
I don't agree with beating the girl who was throwing urine bombs, but can understand that being hit by one and knowing she would not be punished would be hard to take. When parents, the courts and police can't deter kids, the risk is that people will news.com.au/national/nsw-a…
2. increasingly attempt rough justice. This social experiment of saying "kids will be kids" to excuse assault between children or kids assaulting adults has to be over. If there are no consequences, there's no incentive to behave. The parents need consequences too, otherwise
3. they have no incentive to know what their children are doing and where they are. Time to make parents/ guardians accountable for their children's actions but also to give parents more leeway to, eg, prevent children from leaving home to hang out with gangs/ do drugs.