BoS Users Political Views (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter scaryshark09
- Start date
synthesisFR
afterhscivemostlybeentrollingdonttakeitsrsly
Idk it’s both good n bad
synthesisFR
afterhscivemostlybeentrollingdonttakeitsrsly
@carrotsss why u laughing
scaryshark09
∞∆ who let 'em cook dis long ∆∞
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,618
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 1999
elaborate on why you think the housing crisis is good
synthesisFR
afterhscivemostlybeentrollingdonttakeitsrsly
It’s good for literally anyone who has an investment property
scaryshark09
∞∆ who let 'em cook dis long ∆∞
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2022
- Messages
- 1,618
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 1999
fair point i guess
do you
piers morgan is a human shaped fart
SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
virtually every opinion piece that's ever on abc news has a clear left wing perspective
and they produce all kinds of programs that are left wing, such as that 'go back to where you came from' immigration propaganda show and they have a podcast series called 'what the british stole', and they've heavily promoted the 'dark emu' book which is historical propaganda written by a fake aboriginal
The ABC has a mandate to provide balanced coverage of news, which it does - unlike some others that might be mentioned.. Opinion pieces are not news, they are opinion.
The British arrived with convicts in 1788 and set up a new settlement, one that was located where the native peoples of Australia has been for a very long time. They claimed ownership of the land under the doctrine of terra nullius, the notion that the land was empty - not of people, as some believe, but of any people sufficiently advanced to have a concept of ownership and lawful possession. The fact that the indigenous inhabitants did have well established laws and concepts relating to land and occupancy was either not recognised or ignored, those concepts being significantly different from those of the British.
Our own High Court, in Mabo, recognised that terra nullius was a legal fiction unsupported by the reality of 1788. They recognised that the native title held by Australia's native peoples, along with aspects of their laws and customs, have managed to survive to the present day. On any reasonable reading, the British did steal from the indigenous inhabitants of this continent - that is a fact of the origins of modern Australia and to claim otherwise cannot withstand scrutiny. Colonial arrivals generally mistreated native populations in many (most?) cases around the world. Admitting this truth is not taking a "black armband" view of history, it is to accept that history is about facts and not ideology, that the past includes wrongs done, even if with good intentions, and people hurt, lives ruined, and cultures disrupted or even destroyed. History, of course, also requires recognition of the positives of events and actions. There is no country with history that is only good, or only bad, including Australia.
As for Bruce Pascoe's work Dark Emu, there certainly has been debate and criticism as part of the so-called "history wars". The description "historical propaganda written by a fake aboriginal" is so slanted as to be parroting ideologues like Andrew Bolt and not a remotely balanced evaluation of Pascoe or his work. The work has attracted both praise and criticism, balanced and biased, and any fair analysis could not conclude that the situation is either black or white.
I encourage all readers who see this to not take my word, or Sylvia's, or anyone else's... if you don't know enough to have an idea of both perspectives on Australia's indigenous and colonial history, and on the history wars and Pascoe / Dark Emu, look for evidence yourself, and form your own view.
synthesisFR
afterhscivemostlybeentrollingdonttakeitsrsly
how old am i bruh
my family does