cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/29061644
We’ve done it, we got rid of another soulless right wing politician!
Peter Dutton first made his party lose this election and now also lost his own seat much like Pierre Pullover
We’ve still got a government that green-lit new coal power plants in it’s last term, screwed over the Aboriginal community with a poorly run referendum, and still doesn’t give a shit about climate change, but baby steps hey.
We have a basic rule that the headline must match the article. Current headline reads:
“Peter Dutton to leave Coalition leaderless, conceding he has lost his seat of Dickson”
I’ll give you a fair shot to correct it before just removing it.
Just remove it.
People who do this shit are actively making this place worse.
Lol “the people actually making content are the problem” y’all are fucking clowns.
Can we just be loose with the moderation while the “top” posts don’t even get 2k upvotes.
It gave lemmy content, it led to engaging discussions, who tf cares if the title is bad.
Jesus Christ I don’t understand this mentality
You’ve made 3 posts in 2 years, op contributed to more fediverse in a day than you did in two years.
You really want to make this place better, then quit your bitchin or contribute more and your bitchin will be more understandable
Editorialized titles distract from the content. There’s enough crazy ass shit happening globally that the added sensationalism isn’t necessary.
Either way, maybe calm down a bit lmao.
maybe calm down a bit
While my tone wasn’t cordial it also wasn’t ALL CAPS SAYING KYS
You may be projecting a bit?
Regardless I’ve seen this garbage take on lemmy enough that I’m not going to politely point out the fault. I’ll check their Lemmy contributions and call them fucking clowns if they are saying silly shit like “remove content me no likey for pendantic reasons” while contributing nothing to posts.
It’s alotta reddit entitlement and I will attempt to call it out when i see it and I’m not going to be pleasant about it
K
If you take an article title directly from a local newspaper and post it verbatim on World News, nobody will know what the fuck it’s about and regardless of its content, it won’t see the light of day. It’s important that the article title is relevant to the audience.
Okay, provided and example of this.
Jfc, it’s like I’m talking to kids lol.
Having civilized discourse on a topic is not childish. I’m sorry you feel that way.
At your service.
That’s what I thought about you when I read your message.
Man fuck em, thank you for adding to the fediverse OP! You should look at non .world communities. .world is the more shitty instance filled with “um actually…” Style users and mods
Done. Only because I respect you.
It doesn’t make sense that rule. But you’ll disagree anyway and there’s never a chance of winning a mod argument anyway.
The article headline you want is pointless and meaningless to the 99% of the world who visits this.
Peter Dutton to leave Coalition leaderless, conceding he has lost his seat of Dickson
I added context and a little bit of juice to it so it would make for a better headline for non-Australians. Did I add some anti Trump sentiment? Sure. Did that misconstrue the content of the article? No.
I understand the current rule makes it easy to mod the place, but it also means you don’t let the OP add context for Lemmy. The rule should be: you can’t misconstrue the content of the article.
Anyway, I appreciate all you mods do and I respect the rules that are in place.
Your original headline was better. New one makes no sense to me M
I’m curious what your headline orginally was
You can see it in the crosspost
Ty! Makes a bit more sense as it does give context. The ‘booting to the curb’ was a bit editorialized. But if like me, you have no idea who Dutton and Dickson are it’s a lot clearer.
I disagree.
Not modifying headings is a fairly universal rule.
Making it “easier to mod” is an understatement. If you let people “adapt titles to be more suitable for lemmy” or whatever you did, then you’ll spend all day having arguments about what adoptions are appropriate. It’s unworkable with volunteer mods.
It’s so pathetic that the top comment chain is discussing this pedantic issue instead of the actual article. Thank god for this moderation or my experience may have been slightly degraded.
It’s a pretty fundamental aspect of content aggregators. If posters editorialise the articles they post it becomes an echochamber for a very confined range of opinions.
Didn’t say moderation isn’t necessary, it is. What I said is it’s sad the top comment chain is about moderation.
I opened this post to read comments out of curiosity, I still don’t even know the context of this article because the top comment is about the title which I find sad.
If only there was some way to determine which content was shown on your device.
Like when there’s too much content to show at once, maybe it could be organised in a tall “page” and you could jump around to read different comments.
Although it would be tall enough it’s more like a scroll I guess. You could “zoom” up or down the scroll and read those comments you found interesting or engaging.
Actually, maybe you could get users to promote those comments they found most interesting and demote others.
It’s a shame nothing like this exists.
If only there was some way to determine which content was shown on your device.
Not really sure how to filter posts whose top comment is regarding moderation, pretty damn specific filter. Then again your comment is a large giant nothing burger that continues to ignore the point I’m attempting to emphasize so I don’t think you really thought it through in the first place.
I hate the fact that it had to be the US that fell to these fascists… but at least it put the rest of the world on notice.
Yeah we kinda hate it too.
While I’m extremely happy about the election results, let’s not forget that the Conservatives were on track to sweep before Trump shit the bed so badly that the entire world had to hold its nose.
perhaps, but they also had an absolutely miserable campaign and labor was phenomenal… it wasn’t a single issue that they won on
Omg I posted this in the wrong thread! This was in reference to Canada’s election.
I guess most of that I said can still be salvaged 😂
There was a definite trump effect, just not as bigly as it was in Canada.
The conservative leader did nominate a a grossly unqualified “efficiency” minister who claimed she would “make Australia great again”.
LOLLLLLLL
REST IN PISS YA WON’T BE MISSED LIB-TURD
Nobody wants to let Dutton be another Trump
Trump is dismantling the US government so his billionaire friends can buy it. He’s not building a global populist movement, he’s siezed power and he’s using it for petty, selfish ends. The whole world can see it plainly
The rise of fascism in the US may have heralded worldwide rises in conservativism for a time, but now that Trump has absolute power, he’s not bothering to hide his intentions. It’s swung back the other way, now the US is making the world less fascist
Fascism’s win condition is always its own destruction. It’s a death cult. It can’t win worldwide because it promotes selfish leaders who sabotage the movement for personal enrichment
It’s gonna be okay, everyone
They’re not going to stop trying just because they lost an election. Don’t become complacent. Victory has not yet been accomplished, defeat has been postponed.
Fascism is an existential threat to all democratic countries.
It’s important to point out that they didn’t just “lose” an election, and it wasn’t only because of Trump.
They’ve been gutted. So many senior party members lost their seats they can’t figure out who’s the next party leader.
Yup, this will be what triggers them to go all in on nazism, same thing happened to America’s Republicans.
I was just listening to something that said the liberal seat losses were predominantly the moderates. The hard-line conservatives fared better, so you might be right.
I’m not steeped in Australian politics like I am in US politics, please correct me if I am wrong, but there are some things I’ve heard (though they may be out of date) that work in the left/center’s favor more than the right, particularly that young Australian men do not seem to be pulling hard right like their US counterparts. Also, it is my understanding that “minor” political parties are more popular and feasible than in the US. Probably the biggest thing working against radicalization is ranked choice voting, it probably splits right more than the left. However, your right wing parties risk losing their identity if they move left and will have to be very competitive as moderates, where they could probably secure a much more ideologically “pure,” resilient, and loyal base by going further right.
young Australian men do not seem to be pulling hard right
I think this is true. Of course there are some who are, but there are fewer than in the US. There is much less “machismo” in Australian culture, there’s still masculinity but it’s focused on sport, cars, outdoor stuff like fishing and camping. It’s much less concerned with power, control, or force.
“minor” political parties are more popular and feasible than in the US.
Yes, and yes it’s because of ranked choice voting. In the recent election there were a lot of seats where Labor (center left) and Liberal (center right) received similar numbers of votes, but then a third candidate from the greens (further left) had an almost equal number of the primary vote. When those voters second preferences are counted enough of them voted center left to push them over the line.
This happens with independent candidates also, who have put on a very impressive show in the most recent election. I’m a bit vague on this part but candidates who won a significant number of votes this time round will receive financial support from the Australian Electoral Commission for their campaign next time.
your right wing parties risk losing their identity
Yeah so our Liberal (center right) party has been whingeing a lot about this. They’re saying they have the further right parties stealing votes from them, and Labor on the center right.
This is exactly the same for Labor (center left) because they have Liberal on their right and the Greens on their left.
That’s politics.
A phrase that’s been coming up a lot in the last 24 hours is that the Liberal party should return to their roots of being “fiscally dry”. That is their identity. Lower taxes, fewer services, small government. They got lost in the weeds trying to get elected on a Trump platform which thankfully the Australian people have rejected.
Thank you so much for your time! Being an American there is a real dearth of information about the politics of other countries, at least in terms of what is “fed” to me via social media and legacy news.
I really wish my country could have learned some lessons from your guys’ election system, it seems much better tuned in terms of producing democratic results and avoiding polarization.
The Australian Liberal party (note, they’re the Conservative Party) has taken an anti-climate change to the Australian electorate for a decade. Over time they lost power, they lost seats to independents who are aligned to Liberal party except on climate change, and now they’ve been reduced to a puddle due in part to their anti-climate agenda. There’s practically zero chance that the Liberal Party will ever campaign on an anti-Climate Change platform (despite what their corporate overlords want). Which means we may finally have clean air for a debate on policy and politics that’s not being hijacked by bullshit fossil fuel arguments.
This is progress, for sure.
Not sure. I can see them go full Trump and get aligned with our extreme right wing parties and billionaires and make their own truth social and just double down hard calling it a hoax. All the flooding is just weather engineering with chemtrails, didn’t you know?
That seems unlikely based on last night’s outcome.
Trumpism has a stink on it.
Dutton was trotting out some Trump rhetoric in the last 2 weeks and Australian voters have issued an emphatic, resounding rejection.
I expect a reformed liberal party will go back to their roots of fiscal and social conservatism, but do anything to avoid the culture war.
I hope Labour learns from this and starts leaning hard into the culture war. More trans rights please!
I’m not sure that’s the right message to take away from what’s happened.
Rejecting Dutton because he was stoking the culture war from the conservative end, does not mean that the electorate will embrace a leader who stokes the culture war from the progressive end.
For example, the voice to parliament was part of the culture war, and it failed spectacularly for Labor. They were lucky to recover really.
That’s not to say the electorate doesn’t want trans rights, but voters do want someone who’s going to address the bread and butter problems they’re facing.
but voters do want someone who’s going to address the bread and butter problems they’re facing.
Nah mate, common myth. The Greens had a way better plan for the bread and butter problems - create a government department for building housing, end negative gearing, cap rent increases, put dental in medicare, build free GP clinics, 50c transport fares, wipe all student debt, 800$ back to school payment, free school lunches, make supermarket price gouging illegal, increase wages.
What voters want, is something comfortable and familiar that makes them feel like they’re opposing Trump, without having to actually think or learn anything. They want the status quo.
I can see them go full Trump and get aligned with our extreme right wing parties and billionaires and make their own truth social and just double down hard calling it a hoax.
They might do that but it would mean political extinction. The Liberals simply cannot form government through appealing to fringes on the right, it just doesn’t work like that in Australia with compulsory voting. At this election there was literally a Trump party running in every seat, funded by a billionaire who was spending insane amounts of money (as he has done in previous cycles). He gained absolutely nothing and actually went backwards.
Be sure to cauterize the wound or else two more heads will grow in its place
Damn, two conservative PM candidates in two former British colonies both losing their seats within days of each other. Things are picking up.
I’m glad our fuck up in the US is inspiring others to step back from the edge. It’s at least a silver lining I can console myself with while everything crumbles around me.
I think it wasn’t so much your fuck-up, as much as an opportunist fuckwit thinking he could emulate that style and that it would work here without the decades of groundwork that made enough people stupid enough to fall for it.
The front fell off.
That’s not very typical.
This forward progress to the human race is brought to you by the color ORANGE.
We proudly demonstrated to the world the proper direction to go.
Our loss is your gain.
It must be stated that the Labor party here are anything but progressive. They are centre-right by the most recent assessment of their values and support a variety of cunts in toxic industries who fund their campaigns.
The libs (our very right wing major party) ran an exceptionally incompetent campaign, with Dutton as a key soulless idiot who can’t admit to mistakes when it hits him in the face. They had a bit of headwind from the global anti Trump sentiment, but it wasn’t like we were in the same situation like Canada.
Regionally we already ARE the 51st state of the USA, because we provide them with much needed Southern Hemisphere intelligence bases which Australians have no right to visit, and they are our protector against any major military threat in the region.
It’s a minor victory for any progressive minded person, as any mention of action on the climate emergency was stupifyingly absent from the entire campaign.
It must be stated that the Labor party here are anything but progressive
I’m not sure how any of these things scream right wing:
- Nine out of 10 GP visits to be bulk-billed
- A rebate on household and small business power bills of $150
- First home buyers access to 5 per cent mortgage deposits
- Cutting a further 20 per cent off all student loans
- Delivering two “modest” tax cuts on July 1, 2026
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-28/election-2025-key-promises-labor-coalition/104717394
I’m not sure how support for universal healthcare, renewables and the party having a gender quota is ‘anything but progressive’ but sure, they’re centre right if your definition of right wing is anything right of the greens
Happy to have a bit of a debate over that. You can put them dead centre if that makes you feel better.
They certainly have some positives for the general public, and more so than the $.25 rebate promised by LNP. However, the majority of stuff they offer are stopgaps, instead of fixing the real underlying issues. High power bills aren’t going to go down with one off rebates. First home buyers 5% isn’t fixing the housing supply, or over demand, nor is it a solution to anyone over 40 who still hasn’t been able to buy, because a 5% deposit means you’ll pay for forever and then some. Same with tax cuts. Also Tax Cuts are right wing, though they are usually for the wealthy.
They are still all for really terrible corporate developments, they are still cosy with the coal lobby, they’re just smart enough to not bring a big beautiful lump of coal into parliament anymore. They won’t tax mega corporations fairly, they won’t do anything for the climate emergency, just boost green energy, without any serious international commitments or plans to reduce or go net zero in this term of this new government. None of that anywhere.
They tried one terribly worded referendum which probably blew the Aboriginal community a chance at some form of reconciliation for the next half a century, and there’s no more follow up. They have no solid plan for the housing crisis, just a few hand outs.
It’s not screaming right wing, and I didn’t say it was, and it certainly isn’t Trumpism, and our democracy is bar none one of the best and most secure in the world, but it isn’t progressive or left at all. It is fairly competent centrism, maintaining the status quo for corporate Australia, while minimally appeasing the plebeians, because thank fuck, it could have been so much worse. it is a shameful far cry from what we needed in order to really respond to the situation we’re in on the global timeline.
The Trump effect is wild lmao
It’s only partially responsible for this.
Significantly partially. In January Dutton started to style himself after Trump, even going so far as getting tips from the GOP, after Trump’s win. However by mid-March Dutton was trying to backpedal rapidly but it was too late. Clearly not all his staff got the memo (esp Jacinta Price… oh dear) and everything he did or said could be met with a variation of “hold on, last week you were saying x”.
Also I’d like to once again say thanks to the founders that gave us compulsory, preferential voting.
thanks to the founders that gave us compulsory, preferential voting
Not sure if sarcastic or not, but it made me look up when these things were introduced. Preferential voting was 1918 by Billy Hughes Nationalist Party. Compulsory voting was a state thing, starting with QLD in 1925 and ending with SA in 1942.
I’m not Australian and I don’t know much about Australian politics.
However, I know that Australian people drive some of the biggest cars in the world. Car companies just manufacture huge SUVs and sell them to the Australian, thinking “these dumb fucks will buy them”.
That’s not good for the climate. That’s bad for the roads. That’s not even good for Australians themselves, because it’s very unsafe for pedestrians. I heard that Albanese encouraged mandatory rules for better fuel efficiency. Which is a good idea. I just don’t understand why the other bald guy says they are bad.
In the 1990s and 2000s, the US Auto Industry successfully fought against every attempt to impose fuel efficiency rules. After US Auto manufacturers went bankrupt in 2008, President Obama bailed them out and forced them to save some fuel. Because outside North American, no one wanted to buy american cars anymore.
During his first mandate, Trump rolled back all those Obama fuel-efficiency rules:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-obama-fuel-economy-standards.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html
Lack of strong fuel efficiency rules is the main reason why American cars are so heavy and consume so much oil compared to European cars. The bald candidate is wrong to say fuel efficiency rules are bad.
I dont know the actual justification behind it but i would say:
- The Liberal party here love protecting business interests and giving pretrochem companies huge incentives, tax breaks, etc to take our resources and they probably get hard for how much more fuel they can sell here.
- Australia has inexplicably bad fuel standards, as such car manufacturers dump their shittest engines here which run on this low grade fuel and every time we talk about reforming this the manufacturors run a scare campaign about how much extra cars will cost if they have to meet these standards and the Libs have been jumping on that.
As to the big cars thing, we have typically had quite regular sized cars and our typical tradesperson vehicles (called “Ute’s” here, “trucks” in the USA) were significatly smaller than their american equivilants, but local manufacturing shut down and now we buy from whats available on the market. Also the laws around taxing work vehicles is worded in such a way that bigger cars get taxed differently and incentivises people buying these cars and slowly our car sizes are increasing and more and more giant ‘Yank Tanks’ are appearing on our roads. And couple this with car manufacturers slowly changing the publics idea of what a ‘family car’ is from a large sedan to a small suv to a full blown suv or 4x4 7 person tank.
(called “Ute’s” here, “trucks” in the USA)
Pickup trucks in the USA. “Truck” is a more generic term that covers just about everything from semi trailers (a.k.a. articulated lorry, heavy goods vehicle) to vans.
Fair enough, but it also spins me out when americans call prime-mover trucks ‘tractor trailers’
Are those the trucks that are only able to move 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 or 13 things at once? (I’ve never heard that term before)
Yes, it makes logistics a nightmare doing the maths.
Its basically a class of truck that is for moving the biggest loads, like road trains (truck&+ trailers) or moving giant mining dump trucks,dozers,etc.In one version of the transformers series optimus prime is actually a prime mover too
English is pretty bad at naming these things. In North-American English they’re often called "Semi"s, which is short for either “Semi-Trailer” or “Semi-Truck”. Why? Who knows, I’m guessing it’s because the trailer part is only half of the whole. The front part with the engine and trailer hitch is sometimes called the Tractor Unit. But, that’s confusing because “Tractor” mostly means the thing you drive around on a farm. The purpose is basically the same, and the name comes from the fact it’s focused on something that pulls, but farming has such a hold of the “tractor” name that that’s what people think of when they hear that.
18 wheeler makes sense for the whole unit together. It’s also good because it identifies the thing that is instantly visually unique about these kinds of vehicles, all the various wheels. But, I’m sure there are many cases where it’s not 18 total wheels. And, when they’re used as road trains with more than one trailer, I’m sure it’s much more than 18 wheels.
The Brits like “lorry”, or “articulated lorry” but where does that come from? And sometimes shortened to “Artic” which makes it sound like it’s really cold.
Other names include “HGV” for “Heavy Goods Vehicle”, but that’s confusing because it’s not clear whether it’s the goods that are heavy or the truck. Presumably they’re also used for light but bulky goods.
Oh well, dumb language, we should start over with Spanish, I’m sure their name is better.
Bravo to the Australian voters. However, you should have purchased the submarines from the French.
That was done by the conservatives
Shouldn’t have bought any subs at all, but sure.
WWIII teams are forming up
Remember that the ultimate enemy are the Sociopathic Oligarchs, and their Corporations. They have nearly unlimited finances, so they have to be resisted in other ways.
The Canadian cons didn’t actually boot Polievre, instead they’re giving him an easy to win riding and a brand new seat in parliament so he can stay on. Which probably means he’ll stick around and win the next election. I hate it.
Edit: autocorrect
I said it a couple days ago that this election reminded me of our 2020 election and what followed. Center-right liberals are only good at driving people away since all they do is tell you what you want to hear and then go behind your back and do the exact opposite. It’s just diet Republicanism here in the US and sounds like it’s very similar abroad. Nobody likes diet Republicanism.
I dunno, I’d like to try to be hopeful. The NDP has a real shot to completely rebrand and come back swinging. Convince Charlie Angus to come out of retirement and lead the party, and spend the next however-long-this-term-lasts rebuilding support. I can’t think of a better outcome than having to Sophie’s Choice between Carney and Angus. Imagine having to choose between 2 legitimately good party leaders.
The deep mind 3D chess move to make here would be to found a better conservative party and split the conservative vote.
Wait what? Source please
It’s about 3 seconds of googling to find out that there will be byelection in Battle River-Crowfoot, which went 81.8% in favour of the Conservative candidate. Polievre will run there, get swept in, and pretend that he represents Canadians.
Telling people to google stuff is so fcking reddit mate.
Thanks for providing context.
Learn to search shit your self, or get off the internet.
No one owes you anything.
As an American working on moving to Australia this was great news to wake up to!
Make sure you open a Seattle style teriyaki joint there!
