CalamityJoe

The confusion definitely wasn't helped by the large amounts of deliberate misinformation being put out there about the intention of the Voice, and requests for specificity.

And then the apparently contradictory arguments (often by the very same person, within the same argument) that it was too much, and therefore privileged indigenous Australians over other Australians, and yet also not enough, and would therefore achieve nothing at all. Or that more information needed to be provided, or more often, that specifics needed to be pre-decided and included within the wording (overlooking that those specifics would then be enshrined in the constitution and largely unchangeable ever again)

An argument to paralyse everyone along the decision spectrum who wasn't already in the yes camp or no camps.

To answer your question, the voice was essentially a yes or no to creating a constitutionally recognised body of indigenous Australians, that could lobby Government and Parliament of behalf of indigenous Australians on issues concerning indigenous Australians.

To use an extended analogy:

It would be similar to a board meeting of a large company asking their shareholders to agree to a proposal to create a position within the company of "Disabilities, Diversity, and Equity Officer", and have that position enshrined within the company's charter, to enable a dedicated representative to make representions on behalf of those that fall under those categories, as they all tend to be in minority groups whose needs or ideas don't tend to be (on average) reflected or engaged with by existing company processes or mainstream society. And that the position be held by someone within one of those minority groups.

Sure, an individual employee could take an issue to their supervisor (i.e. the Government/parliament), but that supervisor rightly has a need to observe the needs of the company (its voters) and the majority of employees (the average Australian), and the thought that a policy might not actually be effective for person Y would likely not even occur to the supervisor, as it seems to work for the majority of employees anyway, and they're not raising any issues. The supervisor is unlikely to go proactivelly asking employee Y's opinion on implementing X policy when they feel they already understand what employee a, b, c and d etc. want out of the policy.

Even if employee Y brings up an issue directly with the supervisor, the supervisor is structurally unlikely to take it on board or give it much weight, as it's a single employee vs the multitude of other employees who are fine with the policy as is. And listening involves extra work, let alone actually changing anything as a result.

Having a specific Disability/Diversity/Equity officer not only allows employee Y an alternative chain of communication to feel like they're being seen, and their concerns heard (which has important implications for their sense of self worth, participation, and mutual respect in the company), but the fact that it's a specified company position within the company's charter means the supervisor is much more likely to give that communication from that position much more weight, and consider it more carefully, than if that random, singular enployee Y had just tried to tell the supervisor directly.

The Disability/Diversity/Equity officer doesn't have the power to change rules, or implement anything by fiat. He can only make representations to the company and give suggestions for how things could be better. The supervisor and company still retain complete control of decision making and implementation, but the representations from the DDE officer could help the company and supervisor create or tweak policy and practices that work for an extra 10-15% of employees, and therefore a total of 85% of the company's employees, instead of the previous 70%.

Now, would you expect that the company provide the shareholders with exact details of: what hours the DDE officer will have, how much they'll be paid, what room of what building they'll operate on, how they'll be allowed or expected to communicate with others in the organisation, etc? With the expectation that all this additional information will be entered into the company charter on acceptance, unchangeable except at very rare full General Meetings of all shareholders held every 2 or 3 decades?

No. They just ask the shareholders if they're on board with creating a specific position of Disability/Diversity/Equity officer, and that its existence be noted and enshrined in the company charter so the position can't be cut during an economic downturn, or easily made redundant and dismissed if an ideologically driven CEO just didn't like the idea of having a specific Disability/Equity officer position in the company.

Yeah, reading through the ADL reasoning, one of the articles they use to justify its accusation that Mondoweiss is antisemitic is actually discussing how ultra rightwing and ultra religious some of the recently elected candidates are, and to whom Netanyahu was trying to work closely with.

"Another story, Yes ‘Jewish Power’ party is fascistic, but its rise was inevitable is also very negative toward Israeli Jews."

So an article discussing the election of 6 problematically hard right, ultra religios, Israeli Zionists, and their histories, beliefs and background, in ADL's eyes is a negative anti-semitic article on all Israelis Jews?

That's a very long bow to stretch.

After chatting to a few gen z, if I was to assume a characteristic of this generation, it's that most seem to have completely given up, or not even started, the fight against the deterioration of online privacy, exposure to ads, and companies "rights" and/or ability to harvest personal data from them no matter what they want. It's just part of life to them.

It's just accepted, and whenever I've raised the issue with them, they'll generally just reply with defeatist/pessimist/'pragmatic': "well, the alternative X, y and z apps/websites you've suggested likely all have hardware backdoors forcibly installed anyway"

So I think the willingness to fight, and picture a different way of having things, really is focused on those within millennial and gen-x age bands.

Edit: the point being, gen z therefore appear less likely to move away from existing structures, like Snapchat and Reddit, over increased ad promulgation, personal data harvesting, or bad company behaviour.

Not excusing it, but I'd say it's very easy to feel disconnected from others when you're in a privileged position of power.

Everyone else becomes "them", and you lose track of what "normal" or "average" experiences are like, because you tend to live within a very different space to others, and tend only associate with people with similar privilege levels.

I remember visiting my country's Parliament building, and within about 15 minutes having this weird sense of disconnection due to the incredibly different beautiful and privileged environment. Everywhere were massive pieces of art, beautiful marble inlays, everything was clean and well ordered, great big wide open spaces, beautifully carved wooden chairs in dining areas etc.

I remember thinking no wonder politicians tend to be labelled disconnected and removed from the concerns of the average citizen. If I was working in that building 8-12 hours a day, 4-6 days a week, 40+ weeks a year, I'd find it hard to remain grounded and to also remind myself that what I was experiencing was something less than 5% of the population might experience, rather than being the "norm" or standard for the majority of the population.

Not really that weird.

It's a common occurrence.

It's a passion project that someone or a team spend a lot of time and energy on, likely thinking that the advantages of implementation will be so obvious that it'll just be out into production based on its self-evident merits or improvement on existing practices.

Then it hits the concrete wall of reality, where there's actually lots of friction and barriers in the process of trying to get the project into production and implemented. Management just doesn't want to go ahead with it for whatever reason, and people don't seem to be as enthusiastic about it and clamoring for it as the dev/team thought they would be, despite it solving a number of common issues they have with a product/service.

So the dev/team can either go home and forget about it, starting a new project, or write a manifesto remembering and defending the project they've spent many hours on.

It almost reads like a PhD thesis defence. At least that PhD then gets recorded, filled and archived, and despite it potentially having no immediate real-world impact, possibly someone down the line might access the extensive work and research already done here, and use it to further their own project, and fingers crossed that project has more success in making a real-world change than this one.

TL;DR: I imagine his management don't want to go ahead with implementation for whatever reason, but because the research and any coding was done during his time at Google, he can't just go and create his own app or implementation, or approach another more willing company for implementation. But by providing the research and element summaries, and points for how a better system might work, he not only memorialized his hours of work on a "dead end" project, but allows others in a less captive situation the advantage of taking his summary and using it to actually try to get change happening elsewhere.

Yep. I wasn't aware that I had a habit of just ending a conversation with co-workers and walking away (and honestly believing and remembering it had finished) when it was getting into difficult or emotional territory.

Several years later I found out I had undiagnosed autism, but at the time, was confronting but extremely helpful when the supervisor scheduled a meeting with me and a co-worker to make me aware of that behaviour, and especially that this particular co-worker considered it extremely rude and disrespectful towards her. It had never occurred to me that walking away might be taken that way, but also more importantly, that those conversations weren't actually finished.

The co-worker felt much better after learning that it wasn't disrespect towards her, but me apparently not being able to deal with difficult or emotional conversations, and my brain appearing to completely excise those memories of the end of those conversations at the same time as removing me from the situation.

If I'd found out about it by social media, or overhearing others calling me a misogynist (probably because it was the female coworkers that tended towards emotional or confronting conversation) or weird, I can imagine getting instantly defensive and me not believing them, or thinking that they were over exaggerating, misinterpreting etc. Basically, that the problem was them, not me.

It would have been an impossible leap, while feeling attacked "socially" and indirectly, for me to realise on my own, and then admit, that my brain was doing something weird and unusual, and that I couldn't trust it's recall in those situations.

Arguments included:

"If you don't know, say no" Incredibly reductionist, could be used to justify any position, but a very effective soundbite. It's only when you extrapolate it, that you realise the issues. Imagine if someone told you "If you don't know whether a girl/boy will say yes to you, never ask them out on a date". Uncertainty is an inherent part of most of human nature. A lot less humans would be born if no one had the presence of mind to find out more about whether a person liked them, or just took a gamble and asked for a date.

"This will allow aboriginals to claim and take your land" Because Australia was declared "terra nullus" on 'discovery', and therefore regarded as uninhabited under English law, colonisers basically took and claimed all the land and dispossesed the Native Australians. And ever since, there's been a resistance to recognising prior ownership and use by native Australians, because that might threaten current ownership of land. No one wants land and property they own to be arbitrarily taken away from them with no recompense (ironic, yes?), so it's very easy to create fear in current landowning/propertyowning Australians by saying increased recognition of indigenous Australians in any form could have their land taken from them and given back to indigenous Australians.

"This will be a 3rd chamber of parliament" There are currently two houses of Parliament of government, in which candidates are voted and elected by a majority of their constituents. The houses form the core mechanics of how laws are created, debated and enacted. By portraying the proposed advisory body as a 3rd legislative body on par with the 2 existing houses, and pointing out the body was to be formed from indigenous Australians, the no campaign capitalised on fears of changing our entire political system, and the false impression of giving indigenous Australians incredibly disproportionste and unfair weighting within the political system.

"Enshrining a specific 'political' body made up of only indigenous Australians in the constitution makes us unequal, because they don't do that for other Australians". This one tries to capitalise on feelings of equality, and therefore fairness. Because I don't get X, they shouldn't have X. And neatly creates the assumption that the status quo is equal, so why change it. Ignoring that indigenous Australians are a very small percent of population, and therefore less than 5% or so of the voting population, so unlikely to ever form an effective voting bloc or have their needs and desires reflected in mainstream politics like the average Australian might. Also, the statistics for quality of life are extremely poor when compared to the average Australian, in terms of social and financial mobility, education, health, prison incarceration rates, birth complication rates etc. The average life expectancy of an indigenous Australian is at least 8 years lower than the average Australian. These have been persistent gaps in societal outcomes that haven't closed despite decades of government focus and money, hence trying something new, like the Voice.

"It won't do anything, so there's no point creating it" The argument was that this body has no executive powers, and can only talk 'at' the government, and there's no obligation in the current wording in the referendum, that the government even needs to listen. So it won't achieve anything at all, it will be useless and ineffective.

"It does too much" The argument was that it was too powerful, and would put too much unequal power in the hands of indigenous Australians, and that it would therefore be unfair and unequal. That it would allow indigenous Australians to create laws, change them, create treaties between them and Australia, recognise indigenous land rights etc.

Lots more out there, but that's it for now from me

Examples of bad grammar.

From memory one hypothesis was that tin had become an essential trade good that was required for making bronze, and therefore using bronze for many of the times' high-level technological innovations, especially construction tools, weapons, and for ships.

However, tin is rare, and at the time, there were only a few disparate sources of tin. It's suggested the middle east sourced most of its tin from China via the silk road, and Ancient Greeks were getting theirs from deep inland European sources (possibly near Hungary, Brittany in France, or Cornwall in England).

This was fine during settled and undisturbed times, as the very long, convoluted trade routes prospered and grew.

But they were very susceptible to disruption during unsettled times, and it wouldn't have taken taken much to be disrupted by large movements of nomadic warring raiders or groups of peoples, or particularly terrible famines or natural disasters located across critical trade routes.

And as states and cities likely isolated themselves behind city walls to protect themselves from the strife of the time, this only would have decreased trade even more, and suddenly they would no longer have the ability to make the essential tools and weapons their societies had become reliant on, in the numbers required, right when those nations needed them most.

This would have been especially ruinous if those nomadic raiding tribes, or groups of unknown origin like the Sea Peoples, had access to iron technology, which required only one more easily sourced metal, iron. Pure copper weapons, due to lack of tin to make bronze, would have been fairly ineffective against iron or bronze equivalents.

It's a hypothesis, and not "proven", but I'd say it's a fairly plausible explanation for what likely happened.

The answer to that lies within the question: why put anything in a constitution? Why have a constitution?

Anything could be made using laws or rules. And anyone can then undo and rewrite them.

It's because countries generally need a foundational document outlining how government will operate, and how laws will be made, and what the country stands for. And have the stability and security of knowing that those operating principles can't be easily changed.

So the idea was, by incorporating the Voice within the constitution, you recognise indigenous Australians in your foundational document as having the right to have a recognised voice on what concerns them, and having unique aspects of history, and historical treatment, that make that appropriate.

Not a right to dismiss laws, or change them. Not a right to create laws. Not a right to ignore laws, or amend proposals. Just to have a recognised voice on issues affecting them, and ask the "lawmakers" to do any of the above.

This is important, because yes, you don't want to enshrine anything that gives a small proportion of the population the ability to sidestep the legislative and political process.

But as a country, we do want to enshrine a means by which indigenous Australians, - a historically extremely disadvantaged group of people, who form less than 4% of the population, and don't have the financial or organisational means to engage expensive political lobby firms like large corporations and mining companies- can participate more directly with the political process of laws affecting them, and therefore feel symbolically "seen".

An analogy: If a public company wanted to create a Disability and Equity officer position, and wanted that position enshrined in the company charter to show the public that: the company was really serious about that position; provide good PR; signal to the public the company's values; and protect it from being included in future job cuts, or made redundant in future for economic or ideological reasons under a different CEO, they would present shareholders with the question and put it to a vote.

The company would not include within that question, details about how much that position would be paid. Or what room of what building they would work in. Or how they would communicate. Or what restrictions would be put on the position. Or how candidates would be interviewed, assessed, and hired.

Shareholders would just see something like: "The company resolves to include the position of Disability and Equity Officer in the company charter, as an indication of the company's desire that it become a more inclusive workplace, and to signal those values to the general public."

Because while you want people to know the position is permanent, you also want to leave the nitty gritty details to being guided by other processes, so that they can be changed more flexibly then once a year or more at a General Meeting of all shareholders

Because even with that additional wording was in the constitution, any law or changes that prevented the Voice from existing, and being able to make representations to Parliament, would be unconstitutional.

Not pointless at at all, and I'm not sure why you believe that.

Do you think mining companies and large corporations spend the 100s of millions of dollars they do on political lobbyists, to approach parliament and put forward the companies' views on their behalf, if it was pointless?

No. Lobbyists achieve results, and at a minimum, make the companies feel like they're part of the political process, and that their concerns and needs are being voiced, and a much healthier chance of having proposed legislation amended due to that lobbying. It's political participation.

Lobbyist don't get to change laws either. They don't get to amend or dismiss laws, or sidestep the political process. They communicate and voice their concerns to those that do have that ability. I don't see anyone saying lobbyists are useless pamphlet sellers.

The Voice was essentially a proposal to enable the creation of a constitutionally recognised lobbying entity that would work on Indigenous Australians' behalf, since Indigenous Australians don't have the financial or organisational capacity to create such an entity themselves, and