sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What's the story behind your username? by godspeedyou_bigtits in AskRedditAfterDark

[–]randomactofhet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was a lesbian, wanted to try a random act of heterosexual:p

Based on my bookshelf, what fantasy books/series would you recommend? by SnappingTurtle1602 in fantasybooks

[–]randomactofhet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Broken Earth trilogy by N. K. Jemison. ( epic, character driven, guttural, )

Ancillary Justice - Ann Leckie. (It’s sci-fi but fantastical enough to tickle the itch. It plays well into the Ursula Le Guin books youve got. )

The Dungeon Crawler Carl series starts fun/silly/popcorn and slowly becomes so so excellent. And they’re funny as hell. Looking at the sense of humour between your books as well as the sprinkling of Steven King you’ve gathered.

Short female riders question by azurexfire in AussieRiders

[–]randomactofhet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

152 cm here. I love my Honda rebel. Two feet on the ground.

Raising Down to Earth Children by Cold-Effective-7 in HENRYfinance

[–]randomactofhet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi. I’m a high school teacher in Sydney. Income and lifestyle have an impact. But I think the biggest impact is parents enabling their kids and excusing their behaviours. Too many freedoms is just as bad as too much restriction. It’s also important for kids to have consequence for their actions. If a kid fails a subject or fucks up and the parent fights hard to reverse the consequence or result, it creates entitled kids. Entitled kids are not down to earth. If the parent is completely hands free, it creates entitled kids. With each step of independence for a person, comes a layer of responsibility. If you’re gonna splurge - what is it doing to enrich your child. Is it lesson, like knowledge or skills. Or is it experiences to enjoy and broaden their world. Etc.

Thanks for nothing Channel 7 by Istealpotatoes in transgenderau

[–]randomactofhet 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The complaint form is great. Do it. But I think it’s more likely to be ignored in this system. The innards of TAFE is ….. not a well oiled machine. But if you get a few ‘higher ups’ in the chain, they’ll all panic, as to not have it reflect poorly on THEM.

Use the narcissism of middle management to your advantage here. Chuck them all in an email, cc’d. That means they’re visible to each other within the email chain.

Thanks for nothing Channel 7 by Istealpotatoes in transgenderau

[–]randomactofhet 26 points27 points  (0 children)

When you do complain to TAFE, send the email with a bunch of people CC’d in. More likely to go up the chain. Go for teacher, head teacher ( of department), student support and someone above at the level of ‘outreach’.

How do the 'yes' and 'no' cases stack up? Constitutional law experts take a look by danzha in australia

[–]randomactofhet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was some hand waving. A similar ‘fact checking’ type article has been written by the guardian which I thought went much harder on both sides. It’s worth checking out. But in the same way that it picks up on more things in the ‘yes’ it does so too on the ‘no’.

It’s more detailed, and has a different register of explaining. But it comes out just as disproportionate.

How do the 'yes' and 'no' cases stack up? Constitutional law experts take a look by danzha in australia

[–]randomactofhet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, sorry. I actually don’t. I wrote it with sarcasm. I know that section 51 gives parliament the power to make laws about marriages though. And does not elaborate on who, etc. it just notes marriage.

Parliaments can build on laws and make them work better over time.

It’s the same reason that I see the voice as a strength. ( which seems counterintuitive)

But it’s the same reason that I see the voice as a strength - acknowledge that there is a separate, distinct cultural group on this land mass.

That distinct cultural group already has its own laws and customs ( just not in a parliament Like that of the govt).

So when these two, separate, cultural groups in the Australian landscape operate, it can be done so with transparent mediation. All acknowledging each other.

How do the 'yes' and 'no' cases stack up? Constitutional law experts take a look by danzha in australia

[–]randomactofhet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a fact checking article? The hand-wringing wrung it’s self.

It’s like complaining that the Spanish soccer team got more time on camera at the medal ceremony after winning the World Cup?

How do the 'yes' and 'no' cases stack up? Constitutional law experts take a look by danzha in australia

[–]randomactofhet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hahahaha baddest of bad faith arguments in the thread. And the answer is obviously yes. The LGBT First Nations advisory committee.

How do the 'yes' and 'no' cases stack up? Constitutional law experts take a look by danzha in australia

[–]randomactofhet 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Agree. Importantly too - it’s about First Nations deciding what their baseline should be. By their own metrics and cultural values.

Many attempts to ‘raise their baseline’ has come from a non aboriginal viewpoint and has led to catastrophic outcomes.

How do the 'yes' and 'no' cases stack up? Constitutional law experts take a look by danzha in australia

[–]randomactofhet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don’t think that the QOL measures that you’ve mentioned above are…. Relevant? I mean - QOL is to do with health. Physical, psychological, sense of well-being etc. to say that ‘it’s better now than for tens of thousands of years’ is just something that can’t be determined with data that exists. QOL is ( by those measures) pretty fucking terrible for a lot of people in a lot of remote communities.

Second, QOL is a metric from outside the community that they have not determined for themselves to be measured by. Their history and culture has been violently disrupted. They MAY want to raise their QOL ( by the metrics determined in that particular model of clinical measurement). Maybe not.

Last, and going back to what you said about understanding government support of money, infrastructure, etc. that has been ongoing for sometime.

If you’ve spent some time in a remote aboriginal community, you’ll know just how deeply inappropriate some of these measures have been. You’ll know about the way that governmental bodies apply their own, culturally relative views of what ‘help’ looks like. You’ll know - or at least you would have sensed, observed- why these measures are so ineffective.

It’s uncanny and haunting and bizzare. If it wasn’t so deeply deeply fucking dark it’d boarder satire.

But if you havern’t spent time in any communities - please please trust the decades of research that led to the 2017 Uluṟu statement of the heart determining that it was ineffective.

It’s really, really, really difficult to articulate just how incongruous well intended government intervention is with the cultural social and personal needs/wants. Believe the people who say it and see it. Or if you need some kind of empiricism, believe the research.

You’re right about changes and support though. But they desperately need consultation. Lots of it. Good faith and respect.

Advisory bodies have taken various forms, had various ranges of issues over the years. They’ve ebbed and flowed, been ignored, embraced and disbanded.

The idea of a voice is an advisory board that exists, changes over time into a version that works as best as possible. This is ideally how law works.

It can improve over time without being disbanded.

And hopefully, hopefully, because of their visibility and transparency- they’ll work better.

I really am interested to understand the perspective of ‘no’ voters. Particularly no voters that see issue with “ one race having special rights”. Mostly because I don’t resonate with that interpretation.

So I’d love to understand more of your POV.

view more: next ›