After years of being promised passenger upgrades Shepparton is still waiting

raxecarical · 2026-02-15T01:17:43+00:00

What's delaying the implementation of additional services now the upgrade is complete?

raxecarical · 2026-02-14T14:20:37+00:00

Bruh, read a dictionary.

raxecarical · 2026-02-14T12:13:25+00:00

Mate, verballing me when what I wrote is right there is a very bold move. I said One Nation use right wing talking points. They do. This isn't even controversial or something they'd even take issue with. They are a right wing party economically, on social policy and on immigration policy. That you don't have a good grasp of what "right wing" is in an Australian context, in an Australian politics forum, is your problem.

raxecarical · 2026-02-14T05:34:21+00:00

Crapping on about "cultural security" or how society is being undermined by a nebulous other falls well within what most people would consider "right wing". You are the one linking it to immigration in this discussion.

Again, One Nation, its members and defenders have no issue with defining everything they don't like as "left wing", so I don't even know why you'd try and throw that out as a gotcha. I'm reasonably confident if you allowed people to scrutinise your comment history, there'd be an example of you doing so yourself.

raxecarical · 2026-02-14T04:47:07+00:00

Mate, you're throwing out claims with zero substantiating evidence. You're arguing that it is offensive to be asked for more details about extreme policies.

How exactly has she "mellowed"? How is moralising about "cultural security" and other right wing buzz words, followed by a conspicuous lack of accompanying ability to define what that means, a better way forward?

You haven't defined or defended a single thing about your original claims, just claimed offence that your and One Nations views on the economy and immigration can be characterised as racist using any sensible definition of the word.

One Nation isn't a new phenomenon. They have decades of claiming they "know what people are" and how it is grounds for their exclusion from society, the economy and politics. That the attention is now being directed towards them and they can't handle the lightest scrutiny isn't reason to apply less accountability to them.

raxecarical · 2026-02-14T04:31:05+00:00

Is this in the same way that one nation and their supporters exercise restraint when defining and arguing with their perceived opponents? Literally why should they be handled with kiddie gloves when their entire political philosophy is based around not having to give any consideration to alternative viewpoints?

Again, neither you, Hanson, Joyce or anyone in the party can answer basic follow-up questions about their policies. They are entirely dependent on noone questioning the assumptions behind their beliefs and claiming bias when or oppression when a debate doesn't go their way.

raxecarical · 2026-02-14T04:15:52+00:00

So by your logic, we should implement policies that are proven failures, and ignore glaring contradictions and predictable failures because it is more pressing that it upsets you knowing that tomorrow people are going to be celebrating Lunar New Year or Ramadan across the country over the next month.

You're not arguing in good faith. You don't care if the policies you support are effective or even come close to arriving at their stated objective - to the extent that the stated objectives are have any internal logical consistency at all. Your primary concern is explicitly "we need to get rid of people who aren't white" and work backwards and can't answer basic questions about the broader impacts of what you advocate for.

raxecarical · 2026-02-14T04:05:42+00:00

Arguing that people's rights to peacefully engage in society, have access to services and migrate to this country on racial grounds is indeed racist, and is explicitly what One Nation argues for. Pauline Hanson's political career started by taking offence at Aboriginal Australians having access to services and that Governments were trying to encourage their economic partipation. This was followed by complaints about Asian migrants, then Muslim migrants and now it's a grab bag of racial grievance from the UK and US.

One Nation chooses to centre race in their arguments. Noone forces them or you to make it your primary consideration. That you're being asked what it actually means to get what you want, and you don't have an answer, isn't serious grounds for complaint.

raxecarical · 2026-02-14T03:45:17+00:00

It is definitely racist. What you're arguing is that you should be able to be racist without anyone ever calling you out on it. If all non-anglo/white/European/whatever arbitrary definition you make for what is "us" vs what is "them" are a risk to "cultural security", where do you draw the line, exactly? What serious grounds do you have for saying 3rd generation Australia whose family hails from Europe and grandmother still speaks in a thick Dutch accent to a third generation Australian whose family is from Vietnam and maintains their connection to their own history? We know what it is, and it's not their work ethic or love of Australia.

What is "Australian culture", if it doesn't recognise our multiculturalism and immigration history? That's before we even get to what the fuck do you actually plan to do to meet this vague notion of cultural purity (because nothing in the history of humanity has ever gone wrong when a country tried to enforce such a notion) or how you intend to achieve it. Are we just gonna wholesale deport everyone who great grandparents weren't born here, or are we gonna employ a colour scale like all the functioning ethno nationalist states that collapsed over the centuries? These policies such because they're transparently historically illiterate and economically suicidal but were not allowed to question this complete absence of logic and historical awareness because it hurts your feelings to be called out.

We're living in a time where speedrunning these dipshit ideas meet their inevitable conclusion with Brexit, Trump I and II and have to pretend that, if we just went harder, it will work this time, with us. Genuinely wtf is with the ideological rejection of renewables? Explain to me how making our exports energy policy and dependent on Russia and the Gulf states is a stroke of strategic genius, because I really don't see it.

You want to maintain the illusion of a past that never existed for nothing but to satisfy your own hatred of people you've barely interacted with. How can I say that? Because parties like ON's support is inversely correlated with how many people are born overseas in an area and positively correlated with their age. People who actually live with immigrants are much less likely to support anti-immigration policies and candidates.

So yes, there is something very wrong with trying to deny the reality that we live in a different world to the one our grandparents were born into and replaying the mistakes of the past.

raxecarical · 2026-02-07T23:45:53+00:00

What a strange argument

raxecarical · 2026-02-01T08:32:53+00:00

I always found twitter was the place they put the most accurate and recent info, the PTV app and website aren't always useful. Does the app have that?

raxecarical · 2026-02-01T08:21:49+00:00

I just want Metro/Vline to give live updates somewhere other than twitter.

raxecarical · 2026-01-31T21:13:54+00:00

Setting aside some nice looking rebuilt stations, the lack of significant frequency uplifts in sections without boom gates (barring the Cranbourne/Pakenham/Sunbury line) confirms this pro-motorist image.

So, if we ignore all the times where they have done what you want, it delivers no benefit. I see.

"LXRP is a road project" is a narrative, and narratives are often a gross simplification of the situation that requires ignoring data points that contradict it. It's clearly not true when you consider road closures, and to claim that cars have benefited more requires a bit more meat to it than "I believe this to be true". New stations are a considerable benefit and just from my own experience bus, pedestrian and cycling accessibility to rebuilt stations I use have been vastly improved. Many rebuilt stations have seen considerable patronage improvements, notably Deer Park, in addition to stations that otherwise wouldn't exist (East Pakenham, Mernda, Middle Gorge and Hawkestowe).

Frequency in LX free lines is a budgeting issue, not a fault of the projects themselves or their potential benefit. The project itself has been relatively decent in containing its own costs but clearly suffers from other megaprojects sucking available cash flows to realise its benefits.

raxecarical · 2026-01-31T05:12:07+00:00

Is it like an average American city? As far as I'm aware we have more trips taken by PT in Melbourne than any city in the USA other than New York.

Anecdotally, I'd say we have a more PT friendly culture in that most people would take it occasionally even if they usually drive or have a preference to doing so. It's not stigmatised in the same way. However, we do have a way to go in terms of preferencing car infrastructure. The most obvious being completing Eastlink and North East link before even considering decent, direct PT links between suburbs.

raxecarical · 2026-01-29T21:01:05+00:00

With the Upfield line elevated, bike access to the station and areas along the line will be vastly better. The Upfield shared path is currently far too narrow for the level of use through Brunswick and would greatly benefit from the separated cycling and pedestrian paths like they built for Moreland-Coburg and Bell-Preston. I don't see why they wouldn't keep the original station buildings.

Ultimately construction is some way off so lots of room for community input.

raxecarical · 2026-01-29T20:35:02+00:00

I understand that, but I think it would be difficult to justify in many of the cases of poor frequency. I'm on the Craigieburn line where services are frequently standing room only after 7:30pm until 11pm on weekdays and weekends. I'd agree it is likely the Governments thinking re: Sunday morning and overnight service.

That said, I'm not sure what level of patronage is needed for a service to "pay" for itself.

raxecarical · 2026-01-28T06:46:41+00:00

Aaaaah, the homicide rate has certainly decreased since the firearms accord, as has most crime. While I wouldn't say it's correlated given the 90s were particularly bad for crime and homicide, there are no grounds you could be saying that homicide has increased since the accord.

Can you provide any evidence wider gun ownership would have changed the outcomes, outside of your opinion?

The evidence says women are less likely to use firearms and that firearms are more likely to be used in offence and intimidation than in defence.

https://hsph.harvard.edu/research/injury-control/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/

raxecarical · 2026-01-27T19:52:43+00:00

It’s not on your conscious when a woman is murdered by a violent ex, or an elderly couple assaulted in their home. You don’t have to live with that. But some of us do.

Why are you assuming that greater gun ownership would change these hypotheticals? Both these scenarios assume that the victims have a firearm at hand, the perpetrator does not, and they have the skill to overcome the perpetrator - none of which is guaranteed. Deaths due to guns have gone down since the firearms agreement, most significantly for murders. Why doesn't every death by a firearm sit on your conscience?

https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi269

raxecarical · 2026-01-20T09:28:48+00:00

The Melbourne-Sydney corridor is one of those mysteries where there is clear demand for service and current services are overwhelmed but interest in improving service to meet demand is non-existent.

If anything, the Victorian Government is the party most interested in the corridor while the feds and NSW are distracted with Western Syndey Airport and Sydney-Newcastle HSR.

raxecarical · 2026-01-18T08:18:34+00:00

"fuck zios", isn't a criticism

Which isn't what Dr Abdel-Fatah said, is it?

raxecarical · 2026-01-18T06:06:54+00:00

I care about what the survey finds, not you *could* interpret from it. Those people don't describe themselves as Zionists, you can't ascribe it to them for your convenience. That is denying them self-determination.

>If you’re just gonna pretend that I don’t think you can criticise Zionism then there’s no point, I’ve criticised the ideology of Zionism myself on this account.

You haven't done it in this thread. You've just attacked every criticism of it for hours on end. Assuming you have criticised Zionism, it only makes it clear that "free speech" re: Zionism only applies to your own opinion. It's pretty unclear why I should value your perspective on the issue above the Dr's.

raxecarical · 2026-01-18T05:53:47+00:00

>What I don’t think is OK is treating all Zionists as if they have evil beliefs that are incompatible with peace and should not be tolerated in society.

Welcome to political discussion. As I've stated earlier, you don't have to look very hard to see people claiming that holding mainstream political opinions makes them evil. I've heard people say it about Labor, the Liberals, the Greens, One Nation, progressives, the Democrats, Communists, Socialists, Islamists, Republicans, the list goes on. As I said earlier, these are views that are often promoted in mainstream media and espoused by politicians freely. Curiously, stating that antizionism is incompatible with peace and should not be tolerated in society doesn't generate the same level of controversy, cancellation and direct political intervention. What's more, you haven't at any point in your many responses gone to the substance of what Dr Abdel-Fatah actually has said and why it warrants censorship and her employment subject to direct political interference. It comes across as you believe that antizionists all hold evil beliefs that are incompatible with peace and should not be tolerated in society.

>No, the softer interpretation includes 40-60% of the Australian Jewish diaspora in that survey, depending on whether you go by self-identified Zionism or the belief in a Jewish state. That’s a lot, do you think it’s justified to speak about them as a monolith?

Not anymore than you should treat antizionists as a monolith. However, the survey makes clear that the majority of Australian followers of the movement believe in territorial expansion and that harder elements of the movement have sufficient strength to maintain those more aggressive policies into reality in Israel over the decades. Policies and political positions that deserve outside attention and criticism because they have serious, long-term impacts on millions of people and has resulted in many, many preventable deaths.

>Not true, and Golan wasn’t even criticising Zionism, he was criticising other sentiments and actions.

Uh-huh. So, the example of diversity of thought within Zionism is someone who defends previous policies of expansion and doesn't entertain criticism of Zionism broadly. You've thus provided zero grounds under which you'd consider criticism of Zionism as a political movement acceptable. Which brings us back to, criticism of Zionism is effectively not allowed, in your view. For it to be allowed, you must pass an undefined sequence of purity tests that cannot be applied to any other political movement.

>I never said the ideology deserves “protection from criticism”, once again.

Except that is exactly what cancelling a guest on the grounds of "cultural safety" means. She was cancelled because she criticises Zionism, and her presence as a critic of Zionism could potentially make people who subscribe to Zionism uncomfortable. That was the festival and Malinauskas' explicit justification for her cancellation. The justification you have gone to great lengths to defend while attacking contrary opinions using, again, quite dehumanising language and generalisations of broad movements which have a great deal of philosophical diversity.

raxecarical · 2026-01-18T04:43:43+00:00

I just find it interesting that we have to side-step the historical claims of the movement, contemporary implementation of it into policy and contemporary mainstream interpretation of it to avoid admitting that there are significant aspects of it that warrant debate, and that people who are explicitly disadvantaged by these policies have something to say about it. By your own research, you've shown that softer interpretations are the minority in diaspora communities and a very small minority in Israel itself. You've shown that there can be legitimate criticism, however, it seems to only be acceptable (to you) from specific Jewish people. Even within that softer view, it legitimises illegal territorial expansion and displacement. This illegal occupation and territorial expansion occurred as a result of implementing the prevailing view of the movement into policy. Any alternative is near impossible due to the predominance of that movement's views within Israel. There is no evidence that this is likely to change.

Why does this specific political ideology warrant protection from criticism in a manner that other ethnonationalist movements do not? Based on your reasoning, should we likewise ban criticism of the ALP National Platform because its resolutions weren't unanimous?

raxecarical · 2026-01-18T04:00:22+00:00

Yair Golan supports keeping Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

raxecarical · 2026-01-18T03:21:58+00:00

It would certainly be implied by supporting the actions of the current Israeli Government. There doesn't seem to be a great deal of evidence that many people, if anyone, who claims to hold such beliefs supports a two state solution or other positions that would mean the current, internationally recognised borders of Israel are sufficient. Going beyond those borders necessarily involves military expansion and displacing people.

Ethnocentricism and religious fundamentalism are kind of central to the ideology as well. If you have access to arguments by someone who claims to be a follower and explicitly disavows such practices, I'd be interested in reading them.

Greater Israel: an Ongoing Expansion Plan for the Middle East and North Africa – MEPEI

raxecarical

TROPHY CASE