56
France to sue Australian platform for 'negligence' after livestream death (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/australia@aussie.zone
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I mean, to call it gerrymandering is valid, but people always tend to use it as a dirty word. Any time people are making the choices about electoral boundaries there's gerrymandering at play. We just choose in Australia to generally try to make seats as competitive as possible. On the balance of things, Greens-dominant areas in Fitzroy North and Carlton North were also redistributed away from Melbourne to Wills, which meant that Peter Khalil (Labor) had a huge 7.60% swing against him. Samantha Ratnam (Greens) came within 3k votes of winning the seat. This is all coming from a Greens member by the way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Do you think Greens would have won within the old boundaries? Or would the preferences have screwed them anyhow? Speaking of which...

    The greens lost out because the liberals preferenced Labor over them

    Just to be precise: Greens probably preferenced Labor in the previous election too. The difference this time is that 2PP was between Lab & Grn, whereas previously it was between Lib & Grn so of course the Kab preferences followed mainly to Greens.

    You sound savvy enough to know it but your wording was ambiguous so I just want to make sure a fellow Green is armed with the info.

    I no longer vote #1 Greens although they get my vote via preferences. A few of my friends have followed suit. Their support of the Digital Identity Bill was a sellout and their lack of criticism of Hamas put me off.

    Also Larissa Waters using the hashtag #ibelievewomen. I have been arguing this week with two women friends who embraced it literally to mean that not a single woman would lie about rape. It took me a lot of energy to budge them from that delusional stance. That is why using the hashtag is irresponsible regardless of what Waters means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't put them first myself, usually I put the Socialists. I also don't make voting choices based off hashtags though...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Hashtags sometimes are used for indexing. In this instance it was the the only hashtag used and it was at the end of an understandable congratulations Tweet re Higgins win.

    The hashtag was used to make a political point and it is an irresponsible one IMO, feeding hysterical views in vulnerable people (as my two friends demonstrated - yet Reddit don't think anyone would interpret the hashtag thus).

    There was the other two points I mentioned as well, all within a year.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    People are always going to misinterpret something as shortform as a hashtag. I think there's a larger conversation to be had about their use in spaces like politics, but I'd hardly say that makes one instance of their use irresponsible to the level you're implying. Especially when you consider the fact that "women often make false accusations" is absolutely a red-herring used to try and delegitimise accusers again, and again, and again. The most prominent example from recent memory that comes to my mind, within politics, being the way Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Brett Kavanaugh were treated.

    Have a nice night though 💜😊

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    "women often make false accusations"

    Up to 10% of the time in court. "often" is not a useful qualifier.

    absolutely a red-herring used to try and delegitimise accusers again, and again, and again.

    "Absolutely"? So no exceptions? Just like my two friends eh? One of whom implied all accused should be castrated because no woman would ever have a reason to lie.

    I am all for presumption of innocence until proven guilty and treating all parties with dignity in the meantime (even though the vast majority of the men in the hearings are guilty).

    Am unfamiliar with the Kavanagh case.

    Did you see the video example in the Reddit thread showing cops automatically believing the woman and treating the man in an undignified fashion? Spoiler: the man is obviously innocent.

    Enjoy your passive-aggressive smugly wugly day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent