Politically Correct Diversity policy is not diverse in the way that power is distributed. It hands to power to the few at the expense of the many. I urge all people to return to balance in society.

Everyone gets their 1 min to speak- individuals can't be allowed to get preferential treatment because they come from an intersectional minority group. Those that scream loudest cannot be allowed to hijack debate. Enlightened self interest can be a valuable way to judge policy.

For example- Should you support lgtbi policy? How many people do you know as a proportion of the people that you know are lgtbi? If you support lgtbi in a binary way without considering those that are "not lgtbi" then you are supporting the minority at the expense of everyone else.

There will always be injustice we can only move towards a more just world in careful steps. This starts with caring for those around us first. Everyone has to live with the people around us- we spend our lives exploiting our surroundings building ourselves and our sphere. If we exploit to excess we damage our societies, if we help to excess we hurt ourselves.

We are at a time when we need to protect the societies that parents, our grandparents, our uncles and aunties, our ancestors have built for us- we need to stand shoulder to shoulder. In war everyone must contribute to the nation and protect our culture- for our legacy. We must ignore minor things. It's just a bullet- walk it off. We must stand up for ourselves and protect those around us.

Good luck.

SR,

Maybe you could point out a news organisation that did not make it clear that SSM was the popular choice, or even campaigned against it? Notably, it was my lot that legislated SSM after 6 years of stonewalling by your lot.

Secondly, the ABC has been campaigning relentlessly against border protection which has a greater support in Aus than SSM, incl articles accusing soldiers of torturing detainees by burning their hands etc.

Finally, an independent survey of voting intentions indicated an even split of voting intentions at Newscorp with a 90% odd labor/greens majority at the ABC.

As for the metaphor I used of the hijacked plane, the meaning is clear without straining it.

"Less people would be better so that there is less competition for resources- and therefore less conflict. Paraphrasing Malcolm Reynolds "we may have been on the losing side but I'm yet to be convinced that it was the wrong side". "

Trouble is , a nuke war may remove an awful lot of conflicting people who were not wrong.

SSM the ABC has been blasted with the charge it is the reason we now have SSM.
Can we let a truth in here.
Abbotts CONSERVATIVE ELECTORATE voted about 70 percent for it.
Read what you want to in that but please understand,within this government, small L Liberals exist, they supported SSM they want action on climate change,they want their party back.
Supporters of the extreme right, that faction that failed to install Dutton, but FAILED are pushing policies of fear and hate not supported by any majority
In not much more than a month the mid terms in America will deliver the birth place of far right extremism a massive blow, just maybe enough to warn this government to return to its place of birth small L Liberalism

Belly,

It is also notable that of the 17 electorates that had a majority No vote 16 were labor seats, which is why labor so strongly advocated against SSM. At this point, Shorten advocated for a referendum on the issue.

When Abbott was in power he attempted to put in place a referendum which was then blocked by a labor that was now playing politics. MT then found a way around this and managed to implement SSM.

In this time all news agencies predominately had articles advocating for SSM.

NNN AKA AlanB