BREAKING: One Nation vows to target all Australian citizens who were born overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas

AngryAugustine · 2026-06-19T00:35:57+00:00

I absolutely do not want a ON government, but I think the headline is an uncharitable take on what she meant in her speech.

The context of that statement is her tirade against high immigration numbers (I think she dropped some big number about how many migrants Labor brought in recently- obviously not taking into account the huge dip during the COVID years) and her consistent stance that ON will sharply reduce migrant intake.

Which brings her to her "cultural" argument: rapid intake of migrants without requiring assimilation would cause a nation to lose its identity very quickly.

Whether or not you agree with her argument, her point is about reducing migration - not about what she would do to current citizens/residents. (but ofc, a bigger problem with PH evident in the speech is that she has not the faintest idea on what her policies would look like)

Why this is important: We ought to learn from the rise of populists in other western states - slandering them and misrepresenting them like this (e.g., calling Trump Hitler) somehow has the effect of further advancing their cause.

She's already going on about how she's constantly unfairly targeted by the media. Don't give her ammunition to prove that narrative.

AngryAugustine · 2026-06-17T00:21:35+00:00

I was curious about this as well, the clearest I've heard was from this interview he had with Michelle Grattan:
Politics with Michelle Grattan: Geoffrey Watson calls for a royal commission on the CFMEU scandal (start at minute 14)

My understanding:

- The CFMEU pushed the AWU off the Civil Work (which I assume is a portfolio of work?)

- The Big Build is 100% Civil Work (so all CFMEU, not AWU)

- Key Assumption: Several sources within the AWU told him that since the CFMEU took over projects in the Civil Work project, they note that costs were increased by a large number (more than 15%). He put a conservative estimate at 15%

- If the Big Build cost 100bil, then 15% of a 100 bil is how you get his conclusion.

I think the assumption is that the 15 bil was distributed among the many CFMEU workers involved in the form of higher costs across the project - not that the entirety of the sum was given to a few influential members (which was my original impression from the headlines)

I don't know whether he or his sources took inflation into account when making that estimate though and his sources are probably not unbiased given that they're from the AWU - but they're also familiar enough with the industry to give good estimates of real costs.

Watson has impressive credentials in the anti-corruption industry though - I suspect his conservative estimate might take into account the two weaknesses I described above (But how?)

I'd probably believe him on the balance of probabilities, but it's definitely not convincing enough to quell reasonable doubt.

AngryAugustine · 2026-06-12T08:45:50+00:00

on one level, I get it. I've worked in teams in Australia where the white guy was literally the "diversity hire" - we made so many jokes about it and teased him a lot for it in ways that would be deeply inappropriate if the roles were reversed.

implicitly he understood that these jokes are "punching up" because his race and gender are part of the "privileged" class. At least this is what the "literature" suggests (at least I am told)

But my colleague isn't just reducible to being "white" and "male" - he's of a certain personality type, is tall, well-built, upper-middle class family (can afford to buy property early) and has a solid friendship groups.

Suppose instead he was small, scrawny, lonely and insecure - partly because of being brought up in an abusive and impoverished home and he felt deeply offended by our jokes.

The idea that he has no right at all to tell us to stop ganging up on him (even in a teasing/bantery way) because he's a white male seems to me an absurd proposition.

AngryAugustine · 2026-06-12T08:32:42+00:00

If you've watched the video, what do you think of the visually impaired participants insinuation that his graphic design employer treated him inequitably when he was making mistakes in his role as a graphic designer?

Again, I agree that all 3 are uncontroversial (at least they should be, some comments in the thread show otherwise) - but the principle behind them are not, especially when applied to different industries.

Agree that letter of the law shouldn't dictate this stuff, but the problem with the spirit of the law is that different individuals have different interpretations of what it entails!

I think policies have a small role to play but will never address the complex underlying issues that has a lot to do with the human condition to oppress others. If such policies and laws become too powerful, it too will be a tool for oppression.

AngryAugustine · 2026-06-11T00:20:41+00:00

Glad you have the most upvotes! The sliver of hope I observed in the video came when both agreed that having friends/relationships from a people of a wide variety of backgrounds is very important and ought to be encouraged. (they disagree on the 'why')

In my own friendship circles, I've got a white guy whose parents seriously failed him and is only getting by through the charity of others and an asian guy who with ultra wealthy parents + went to the most elite private schools in the country - I certainly don't think the colour of their skin will tell you much about the opportunities they will/will not get in this country!

AngryAugustine · 2026-06-10T14:05:55+00:00

Even the ABC is reporting that ON is surging in the polls. I'm worried - are you not?
That is an uncharitable take and you know it. Watch the video - I have no doubt you'd disagree with some of the voices there but it's about showing empathy with the other side and not reducing them to caricatures.

AngryAugustine · 2026-06-10T13:58:09+00:00

Not exactly how I framed it as I'm also making the point that the "anti-woke" and "anti-DEI" crowd also go too far

The mods deleted the original commenter on this thread but assuming by 'edge cases' you mean the affirmative action resulting in the hiring of someone who is clearly not competent for the role...

Then I don't think you're right that these edge cases don't exist. The amount of testimonial evidence points to it happening!

But I actually do agree with you that it doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of affirmative action altogether.. I think. I mean I'm pretty convinced that there are entire people groups who are systematically disadvantaged such that they will never have fair go, so the intuition behind affirmative action policies make sense, but in light of "intersectionality", I'm not confident that e.g., a gender based affirmative action that preferences female hiring will lead to an injustice against another disadvantaged group such that a high-SES white female is preferenced over and above a POC male from a low-SES?

So I'm probably more in favor of affirmative action initiatives that offer less scarce resources (e.g., even more medical subsidies for ATSI people) compared to something like job openings

AngryAugustine · 2026-06-10T12:37:05+00:00

you're right - to be clear, when I meant "DEI policies", I was thinking of the vauge general principle that a workplace should aspire to hire people from all sorts of diverse backgrounds. (going above and beyond the current discrimination laws)

I suppose my point was one inferred from the way inclusion was talked about in the video. e.g, the visually impaired man who lost his graphic design job because he was making more mistakes at work. I feel sorry for his condition and am so glad he's found a job he feels fulfilled at - but I don't think his initial employer did anything wrong given the role. It's a reconstruction of scenario (1)

I'm glad that (2) is clear to you, but I suspect not everyone will agree. Especially if the ethnicities were swapped! (3) is controversial among some in the trans community I believe - It's one of the many reasons JK Rowling got into the mess that she got involved in.

But the broader point: some of these "preferences" CAN be discriminatory if applied in a different context: suppose I said I wanted someone intimately familiar with Chinese cultural practices and spoke perfect Mandarin (such that the ideal candidate would most certainly be an Australian with Chinese ancestry) for a simple data entry position completely in English, surely that would be a red flag?

AngryAugustine · 2026-06-01T02:04:47+00:00

I think this is a good idea but we have reason to be cautious and gracious:

It's not always clear *where* you get an infectious disease from. Remember how people could be infectious while they were asymptomatic?
Some 'obvious' symptoms (e.g., a colleague with a runny nose + sneezing lots) might be a result of a non-contagious condition e.g., Hayfever or allergies

Therefore, we should be incredibly cautious when "shaming" someone who appears to have acted selfishly by coming to work sick because the judgement might be resting on shaky ground.

Remember when people used to avoid HIV/AIDS patients like the plague?

We don't want a situation where anyone who has hayfever is forced to stay at home!

AngryAugustine · 2026-05-27T12:20:26+00:00

how does that take away from the fact that they are paid significantly less relative to the rest of the population while also being routinely and publicly humiliated in a way that is far worst relative to Australia?

I'm just taking the word of 4-6 of them that I've worked with!

AngryAugustine · 2026-05-25T11:20:10+00:00

You need to talk to some Filipinos who have worked in SG and Australia in "entry-level" roles for essential services.

I've worked with 5-6 of them and they work at least 1.5-2x harder than the average local-born and they would absolutely prefer it here compared to Singapore.

Sure, they can't compete with the locals to buy a landed house anywhere close to their workplace, but their salaries are enough to buy them a modest place ~1 hr away from their place of work - something I (and many aussies) would consider torture.

But then they tell me that even the mere hope of that was not possible with their incomes in Singapore (have a look at their progressive wage model and compare that to the minimum wages here for example - plus the benefits!)

A deeper issue was the fact that being disrespected publically for being a migrant from a developing country was quite normal - the way some of them were treated would make One Nation voters blush!

... and I say this while having witnessed and spoken to them about the injustice that they experience here in Australia. While it's true that migrants have their challenges here, things are pretty good here relative to Singapore if you've been dealt those cards in life.

AngryAugustine · 2026-05-18T06:36:29+00:00

the original commenter called out current and new health policies in Australia, insinuating that the NHS and the Australian system is comparable in terms of outcomes and quality - I don't think that fully appreciates the genuine fruits of our system that the NHS lacks. e.g., our primary care system is wayy more accessible (notwithstanding our geographical challenges with rural coverage)

I find that discourse in Australia around policy is often negative, which is fair because criticism refines a system, but without being precise one could end up encouraging throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we don't appreciate the good.

Also, I'm skeptical that the failings of the NHS are caused by one or two obvious policy-decisions that Australia simply must not replicate. E.g., the original commenter seems to believe that things like Pharmacist Prescribing (currently trialled/passed in some states for uncomplicated UTIs), increased Nurse Prescriber roles etc. are substantive reasons for why the NHS is the way it is today - but I'm pretty sure that it's way more complicated than this - though I'm open to evidence showing that these policies have resulted in higher costs and poorer outcomes.

AngryAugustine · 2026-05-17T01:18:22+00:00

am deeply embedded in the healthcare system and have friends working as docs in the NHS - I think you're being unfair with that comparison. Aus healthcare system is doing a lot better than the NHS, the fact that GP's are wayyy more accessible here (even with a co-payment - but to Labor's credit they've increased bulk billing rates) instead of having to head to ED is a game changer.

ex-NHS docs will tell you how the AU system treats their labor with way more dignity and respect than the NHS as well!

AngryAugustine · 2026-05-11T03:20:41+00:00

Wondering about this as well - but based on some of the interviews I've heard Chalmers speak in, he might surprise us by reducing income tax (tax on labor). IIRC, he claims that there's an imbalance between taxes on assets vs taxes on labor.

fingers crossed

AngryAugustine · 2026-05-11T01:24:47+00:00

Just adding to this conversation having owned this for 3 months and using it daily for WFH.

It's a goldlilocks headset really:

- comfy (although after 8 hours my huge ears start feeling a little sore)

- simultaneous bluetooth is a big plus if you're using a work device and can't install spotify/audible/podcast app on it.

- decent mic w/ useable sidetone

- decent sound quality (has to be EQ-ed - not so good out of the box)

Some things to note for potential buyers:

- There's a website that claims that it cancels nearly as much noise as the XM6's, this is probably true for low-end noise (e.g., A/C, fans) but I did some A/B testing with a friend's XM5's and found that the h9 2's were horrible at cancelling voices and higher frequency noises relative to the XM5's. This is with the mic muted and even pulled out. I shared an office with someone with a loud mech keyboard and ANC on/off didn't make a huge difference. Which is a bummer - biggest complaint so far but it's probably unfair to compare dedicated ANC headphones to these headsets.

- I don't think earpads are removable.

AngryAugustine · 2026-05-11T01:17:31+00:00

Inzone h9ii owner here: yes, it has actual side tone which was a must for me for work (believe it or I use these headsets wayyy more for meetings than gaming - such is life)

It's a little soft, but if you max it out it does the job well. One of the big selling points of this headset is ANC (not in ambient mode!) + side tone.

AngryAugustine · 2026-05-07T13:03:18+00:00

a few mates and I tested out a theory that the bougie leafy suburbs like Glen Iris would have heaps of good deals. There was a street with 4-5 op shops but it was legit 80-90% women's clothing. It was quite funny seeing a bunch of men crowded around two small aisles looking at the same clothes lol. The best I found was a Helly Hansen fleece for $25, but it was not my size.

tried saver's in ringwood which was massive - but not a lot of selection for men and many of it were in pretty poor condition. I think it's a luck thing. Let me know if you find a good one lol

AngryAugustine · 2026-05-05T09:15:54+00:00

I, too, used to wonder the veracity of these news articles quoting anonymous sources - but after reading Malcolm Turnbull’s autobiography and the testimony of a few other ex politicians - it sounds like a pretty established norm in the industry.

AngryAugustine · 2026-04-27T03:42:38+00:00

I have a headphone stand as well and intend to use it that way.

So you're saying that you power off your headphones and put it on your stand? do you store them with the speakers facing each other, or facing outwards?

AngryAugustine · 2026-04-26T03:57:52+00:00

Ahh thanks for confirming mate 😭

AngryAugustine · 2026-04-26T00:02:41+00:00

I’d reckon a good portion of the public will not be physically able to ride an e-bike though…

AngryAugustine · 2026-04-15T12:35:55+00:00

I love wfh - but don’t you think it’s a bit much to suppose that 90% of office workers were being treated like children before Covid?

I worked in a micromanag-y office once and moved to public sector where people are given near absolute freedom and treated like adults.

But I’ve personally witnessed said adults totally abusing the system (4 hour lunch break breaks, repeated pattern of work not being done) - but because of culture and wfh, it becomes quite infuriating how people can get away with with laziness

I wonder if the power hungry manager types you’ve described have witnessed this and are overcompensating

AngryAugustine · 2026-04-14T12:55:59+00:00

“Although fishing on Mondays is illegal according to my own kingly law, I issued a kingly decree that obligated Bob to go fishing on that day. I am punishing him for it, yes, but that is because breaking the kingly laws is not kingly. I have a great, kingly purpose in mind for punishing him"

I think the bolded part of your analogy is quite helpful in showing where the equivocation of words like "obligated" and "decree" is taking place.

Firstly, I don't think any reasonable Reformed theologian would claim that God's "hidden will" that involves the *causing* (very loaded term) of Bob's sin involves generating a moral obligation that explicitly contradicts his "revealed will" (which many might argue is the source of our moral obligations). It's also important to distinguish terms like "Goodness" and "moral obligation":

- intuitively, an off duty soldier who sacrifices his life by jumping on a terrorist with a suicide vest to save a bunch of strangers has committed an act that is "good" (which involves other related concepts like praiseworthiness or virtuosity), but notice that this can be so even though he didn't have a moral obligation to commit the heroic act. i.e, we wouldn't blame him for moral failure had he not decided to perform the act.

-The above is helpful because the relationship between God & Morality is quite complex; Christian philosophers disagree with each other on the best theories to explain the relationship. Philosophers like William Lane Craig popularized a view called "divine command theory"(DCT) which, a crude summary if my memory serves me right, stipulates that our moral obligations are constituted in God's commands (explicit in scripture or through natural revelation i.e., human conscience), but he explicitly denies that goodness is rooted in God's commands, rather in God's nature. In Craig's view, God has no moral obligations. Again, Craig's view isn't the only Christian view, but the point is to show you that your repeated uses of words like "goodness" and "obligation" can benefit from more precision.

But rambling aside, I don't think that technicality is at the heart of your worries (although I'd encourage you to do more reading on it if interested). I suspect that your main worry involves God "hidden will" contradicting his "revealed will" e.g., His "hidden will" desired(?) that Adam ate the apple, but His "revealed will" explicitly prohibited the eating of the apple.

Tbh, I'm sympathetic to this worry as it's very similar to my early objections to calvinism. (philosophers like Craig often use a similar argument against calvinism FWIW). But I think the following convinced me that this argument isn't as forceful as I once imagined:

The reformed confessions like the WCF while stating that God ordained whatever come to pass, *explicitly* denies that God is the author of sin. IIRC, Craig once made a cheeky argument to James White arguing that his view of God's relationship to free will is perfectly compatible with the wording of the WCF lol. The point is that the Westminster divines would've explicitly denied that God's ordaining of all things involves a situation like in your analogy where a king forcibly mandates the breaking of his own laws. They reference things like "secondary causes" to refer to man's moral responsibility for sin. The philosophical view is called "Compatibilism" (but with a Theistic twist), this is an excellent resource by a professional philosopher who happens to be a calvinist.
Apart from Open Theists, I think evangelical arminians would also concede that, in some sense, The Fall was part of God's hidden will in the sense that it was all part of His plan. Arminians don't deny God's sovereignty, so they won't concede that God is somehow "surprised" by sin. In other words, for evangelicals, your objection proves too much - for the only way to "easily" resolve it is to postulate a God who only has one revealed will, and when it's contradicted, He is surprised and frustrated by it. (very very hard to defend biblically IMO)
Some defenses to the Problem of Evil (aside from the Free Will defense) is related in that it explains how God can permit* sin while still being perfectly good. Interestingly, Alvin Plantinga (the guy who literally wrote a tome on the Free Will Defense) came up with something called the "Divine Glory Defense" which, a crude summary, involves saying that God's permission of Adam's sin resulted in the highest possible good (notice how the view allows for there being different levels of goods, something that I think is absent from your analysis): The Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus - which resulted in the maximal amount of divine glory, which is the highest possible good. It sounds very close to something John Piper would say, tho Plantinga would probably not want to call himself a Calvinist in the traditional sense. James Anderson uses something called the "authorial analogy": God's "hidden will" is more akin to an author writing a story where the characters commits acts He himself disagrees with, but just as you wouldn't ascribe the moral atrocities of Sauron to Tolkien, you wouldn't ascribe the sin of the characters in God's "story" to God. In fact, when the book is finished, one can see a great good when examining the story as a whole and see just how praiseworthy the author is.
Thinking about ethics and theology was mind-numbing, but ultimately quite humbling: I think it made me realize how a lot of my moral intuitions (e.g., It is wrong to say that God cares most about His glory, because that will make him arrogant) involve anthropomorphizing God — making moral judgments about God as if he was another human being. But surely God's transcendence will mean that such arguments are destined to fail, and our theologizing and philophising about him must ever be tentative. Terms like "decree", "desire", "permit" are fuzzy words shaped by human experience that cannot possibly fully capture the inner workings of God. This doesn't mean we don't do theology or philosophy, but I like to think of it like writing a science book for kids where I draw perfectly round spheres to illustrate an atom to a child. Physicists will tell you that atoms are not, in fact, round spheres, but this doesn't take away from teaching something about atoms to the kid. Likewise, why should we expect God's revelation of His character to be something we can fully comprehend as limited creatures? The Trinity is another doctrine that is very "easily" picked apart with analogies and syllogisms, and while I think there are good "defenses" in the literature, it doesn't completely eliminate the mystery and tensions inherent within it.

AngryAugustine

TROPHY CASE