stui magpie wrote:pietillidie wrote:Cringeworthy on many fronts, from actually using an idiotic referendum (did you learn nothing from Brexit, you morons?), to the horror lies from the usual dimwits who can only motivate themselves to get out of bed to kick someone in the nuts (did you learn nothing from Brexit, you morons?).
All that just to humiliate an entire people. Grotesque right across the entire spectrum of politics, for and against.
Stop comparing it to Brexit, it's not the same.
It was a sound notion poorely sold. From the start the country was voting Yes but then the lack of detail and poor communication left a vacuum to be filled by conjecture, fear and misinformation.
The same sex marriage plebiscite showed what can be done if you get people on board with a change proposal that has zero impact on the majority but some positive for a minority.
Interesting that the Yes vote largely mirrors the population of Greens voters. ie, the further you get from the various CBD's the stronger the No vote.
The Yes campaign started the race with a 30 metre lead, shot themselves in the foot with the starters pistol and limped through the race as the No campaign ran past them.
It's just like Brexit in its psychiatric splitting.
The data has also long shown that levels of bigotry towards indigenous and black ethnic minorities are significantly higher than gay bigotry, unless you live in a Catholic or Orthodox country. If my memory serves me correct, one study showed Australians were miles more likely to be fine with a gay person living next door than an indigenous, black or Muslim person. And you and I both know that from experience, partly because gay folks aren't a 'dirty underclass', but are instead associated with relative affluence.
But that aside, the mechanism itself is behavioural poison. Once you call a two-choice referendum, it then gets mapped to sides. It could be Doritos versus CCs, for that matter. Have you noticed that 90% of the discussion is talk about talk? X said Y, and he's such a dickead, so Z.
The most energy generated on the topic by a long shot has come from hatred directed at some twat supporting the Yes vote. Once that happens, people might as well put their fingers in their ears and go 'la la la'. They've now got their reason.
Predictably, as the reality of such a vote dawns, tension rises, the histrionic nutcases and opportunists start their shrieking, people start arguing, the media plays people off each other day and night, avid sides form, a culture war is mapped, and before you know it people finally have a reason to get out of bed: hating on someone and opposing something. Just the act of focusing on the expenditure is enough to kill the vote because it sounds like a lot of money, and that amount of money being spent on someone else means less for me. And that will happen no matter how good the campaign.
Even better, people get to kick an incumbent government in the processes, much like in a state election, by-election, or American mid-term. It's all but a foregone conclusion, content aside.
Note that elections are always close even when one candidateis complete rubbish because the splitting process happens like clockwork when parties and sides are involved. Just look how hard has been to support and critique both Palestinians and Israelis this week without fruitcakes trying to force you one way or the other. People are simpletons.
So, it was never ever going to win. Not a chance in hell, no matter how it was sold short of handing out free TVs.
In the end, those who supported it can blame the naysayers, and the naysayers can say it was sold poorly, and the can can be kicked down the road. There was a 99% chance of that happening, and it happened.
There's no way in a million years you'd have bet your house on the yes vote winning no matter how good the campaign. No way at all, even though you were mature enough and experienced enough to step back and see the bigger picture yourself.
