The way I see it, the problem is also that we keep expanding our cities ever outward, and without public transport to cover these areas, so that people are forced to drive.
Until we deal with that, people will be very unwilling to get out of their cars.
I live car free because I choose to, even if I have higher housing costs, but not everyone can make that choice.
Though places you can feasibly get by public transport should not have free parking (other than for delivery and disabled spots), in my opinion.
Yes, but it bears noting that the "independent" FWC presidents are appointed by the government of the day.
It's why under the Liberals they reduced Sunday penalty rates to Saturday rates for hospo workers.
It's not independent, really, and it's kinda annoying that they keep hyping it up to be.
It's pretty shoddy as a regulator, considering my award literally says (paraphrased) "refer to section 62 of the act" under what counts as a reasonable request for overtime.
And so, we all work "reasonable hours of overtime" every single week.
Like, THAT WAS YOUR JOB FWC, ffs.
Labor put through a pretty milquetoast bill (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates Bill 2025) that will fix this eventually, but it only kicks in whenever the FWC get around to updating your award (which is on a 3 year cycle, I believe).
Kinda annoying, because they cited the "independent" nature of the FWC when justifying their approach, and they could have just legislated it pretty easily.
That, and thanks to Labor and the Accords, it has the power to rule your strike illegal.
Anyway, thanks for reading my rant - the FWC is only sort of independent.
Just like in our "public" healthcare system, it's insane that we deal with all these middle men. We ought to be hiring care workers directly, and permanently employing them.
Would save a bunch of money and provide job security and mobility for all the workers.
Labor has just been too damn neo-liberal for too damn long to dare to be properly left wing...
Essentially all sexual assaults are committed by males on females.
This is the biggest brain-dead take out of all of them. Go ahead, please do find any study that shows trans women commit assaults at anywhere near the rates of cis men. Because if this is the argument you're trying to make, you had better actually have some evidence for it.
Feels like a what? Define "woman" without using the word woman.
You keep saying this like it's some gotcha, but clearly you haven't read my comments. I already told you (twice) definitions do stem originally from biological sex, I've already conceded this from the very beginning, but that I still don't think this matters or is a terribly convincing reason to say "nope you're not a woman because historically our ideas of what a woman is stem entirely from DNA and your sex organs". Agree to disagree on this I guess. Again it's weird how you want to make sure people have vaginas.
This triggers you massively, it seems.
I have daughters. I have a wife. I don't want them losing opportunities that are meant for women to males. I don't want them sharing changing rooms or bathrooms, made for women, with males. They don't want to because it makes them uncomfortable in a place where they should be safe and comfortable. Essentially all sexual assaults are committed by males on females. If there are no males in a female place, the females are safer than if there are.
As above, you're just asserting something about safety, but I also wanted to add that 1. Changing rooms and bathrooms really should be separate stalls. It's really weird (to me) that you're expected to change in a room with other people in it. 2. What opportunities? Vaguely sport is the only one that could make sense to me - but we can create new categories there not based on gender too (there are weight classes in certain sports, wouldn't be crazy to do something similar there too bases on biology, and not gender)...
Basically. Get a grip mate. This is such a tiny issue.
Identify politics is such a waste of time.
I'd much rather be talking about fighting the ruling class, they're actually impacting our lives...
Nah you're right. Subsidy to private companies is stupid. Including to renewables.
Infrastructure should be built by the government directly - will have a bunch of money we don't need to pay in profits, will mean continuity of knowledge because employees won't need to keep changing jobs as projects start and finish, and save money and time in not having the government departments needing manage a slew of contractors.
The way we build infrastructure in this country is stupid, and it used to be much more straightforward when government departments actually built stuff, not just vaguely oversee things...
The thing that sucks most about Israel, is that when you see "anti-Semitism" you now have to investigate whether they're actually talking about racism, or simply don't like a political opinion.
It sucks because it means when there are actual victims of racism, people will be biased to not believe them immediately.
Criticising Israel isn't anti-semitism, just like criticising any other state or political entity...
Claiming a state has authority to speak for an entire religious or ethnic group is some craaaaazy nationalism that does not hold water in 2026. And then further claiming criticising israel is racism is nonsense.
During the first week of hearings, a 68-year-old man was charged with wearing a shirt emblazoned with a “prohibited Nazi symbol” outside the commission in Sydney, a police statement.
The design appeared to incorporate a Star of David superimposed over a swastika with the slogan: “Antisemitism. Proud to be accused. Speak up!”
I reckon the Star of David here is implied to be Israel, not Jewish people. Though I didn't see the shirt, so couldn't say conclusively, and Israel's flag includes the star of David :/
If it had been clearly a swastika on the Israeli flag, that shit is not anti-Semitism, it's a political statement.
And a pretty fair one at that.
Nazis and Zionists, both seem to love denying a genocide... Like, the shoe fits.
I like your idea, but raise you a new one. Zero subsidy. Oh it'll hurt jobs? Sweet, we should run it ourselves and keep all the profits.
Oh but that'd be "inefficient"... and "socialism" (good, but it wouldn't be socialism in isolation).
Snowy hydro 2.0 and practically every other project handed over to private companies to execute prove how the private companies aren't any more efficient than government departments, and are trying to do the least work for the most profits possible.
And government departments suffer from the same problems - the lack of democracy in the workplace.
How many non-technical, unknowledgeable do we have to keep putting in charge to learn our lesson? I dunno.
The full answer, which is boring as hell, doesn't prove your position - and in my opinion - is a waste of time (and I kind already stated above in other words):
Original societal concepts of what a "woman" is come from biological sex. No doubt about that. What what many consider gender now isn't the same as that.
Same as marriage isn't some natural phenomena. Society isn't really "natural" either.
If someone FEELS like they are a woman, then they are to me, what more do we really NEED to define it as? What purpose can it possibly serve?
The concept of a "woman" is still vaguely based on historical ideas of what a woman is - but what a woman is isn't some fixed concept. Women used to be seen like second class citizens without the right to vote, who should stay at home, and obey their husbands. That was what some cultures defined as being a woman.
No one's forcing you to be attracted to a woman who was male at birth. Literally how does this affect you or anyone else?
Christ, identity politics is such a waste of time. Why do you give a shit what equipment people have in their pants? It's weird.
Societal concepts of women certainly come from biology originally, there would be no concept of sex if there was no Y chromosome, but honestly to me: a woman is whoever identifies as woman. Just like sexuality, it's just an innate part of who you are. Most women are female and birth, but I don't give slightest fuck that there are women who aren't female at birth. Just like I don't give a fuck that there are men who are attracted to other men.
Like who cares. If your birth certificate says your name is Steve, but you go by Paul, who the fuck am I to protest that it's not your name given to you by your parents?
The question doesn't stump me, I just think it's a colossal waste of time.
You can identify however you bloody like, why should I care? As long as you're understanding if I mix up your pronouns, then it affects me literally not at all
It's all a distraction to keep us plebs fighting each other instead of the ruling class.
This is such a non-issue. Let people identify how they like, try call people by their self-identified gender. Who is the fuck cares that someone who's sex is female at birth is a man, vice versa, or otherwise. Bathrooms should be all-gender anyway, with stalls with complete walls from wall to ceiling. We don't solve sexual assaults with separate bathrooms, the notion that we do is absurd.
Fucking insane that people fall for this bullshit, and also that progressives waste their time fighting with them over this.
I really wish we started treating this as the common sense issue that is. To me, women are women if they say they're woman, men are men, etc. ffs move on.
There's no war but the class war, and trans people are just the latest "other" for the ruling class to focus on to keep us divided.
We also should be doing transport centric development - plenty of people who live in apartments near public transport can live car-free.
As much as I think it won't be handled terribly well because we've done little to reign in property developers building crap places, the Vic government's policy of train and tram activity centres makes a bunch of sense compared to continually expanding our city.
I've previously lived in apartment where I had a car space, and it mostly went to waste because I didn't have a car - and never plan to. I can just rent one whenever I actually need one, which is practically never.
The only solution to traffic is viable alternatives to driving.
Angus and the right wing faction aren't aware that by emulating One Nation all their going to do is scare off the rest of their affluent, but socially progressive and environmentally not insane voter base, to the point that all their votes have either jumped ship to One Nation or the Teals.
My good gentleperson, this is the biggest TL;DR I've ever not read on Lemmy.
If you want people to engage with it at this length, you at minimum need headings (use #, ##, ### for headings), a SUMMARY at the beginning and conclusion at the end, and ideally a table of contents.
What you've currently got is unreadable because there's no structure, nothing to indicate what the point you're trying to make is without reading an enormous post. You need something succinct to draw a reader in.
Vaguely, I'm guessing you're trying to stay: the government is currently dropping the ball so badly people will be desperate enough to consider One Nation?
(Note: I haven't read the whole thing, skimmed bits)
The way I see it, the problem is also that we keep expanding our cities ever outward, and without public transport to cover these areas, so that people are forced to drive.
Until we deal with that, people will be very unwilling to get out of their cars.
I live car free because I choose to, even if I have higher housing costs, but not everyone can make that choice.
Though places you can feasibly get by public transport should not have free parking (other than for delivery and disabled spots), in my opinion.