Quinkla

I keep being pinged with notifications for this so it has persuaded me briefly out of PIO dormancy. The original article is behind a paywall so I cant read it, but it refers to scientists, suggesting that this is not a proposed change to our common language but rather a need to refer to people in a quite specific mediical situation - e.g. trans men who retain some parts of the female reproductive system which need attention. Referring to such people in scientific articles as men or women would be unhelpful, so there is a need for more situation-specific terms. As I say, I can't read the article so this is just my supposition. But it would not be the first time the far right have quoted something out of context to stir up prejudice and hate. It's what they do best.

You might be surprised if you actually look up the language requirements.

Many visas require little or no English. The Ielts 4.5 level for functional English is a very low level, and many visa holders are not even required to get to that level.

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/br2018200/s84.html

In fairness, though, fences in Australia are much higher and people are made to block out their windows to avoid seeing their neighbours.

You are boring. You bore me. I am bored. That's how transitive verbs work.

I mean that the friendships seem superficial - they seem to rely too much on never rocking the boat, never being needy or unhappy, never saying how you actually feel. Differences of opinion seem to be taken as personal affronts.

Fair enough. I have discussed this with a number of expats from a variety of home countries and they say this is also their experience.

Australia is not a particularly friendly country and even looking at other people's friend circles, they are quite superficial. IMO Australians are way too uptight and probably the most thin-skinned people on Earth. Even supposedly close friends seem to be constantly looking for ways to be upset and offended.

Fair enough - that's their funeral. I guess the borders will have to remain closed then.

I'm sure Victoria would be willing to share its experiences but ultimately it is not our responsibility to get your tracing capability up to scratch.

No they don't. https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/are-covid-death-rates-really-falling-globally Please stop making stuff up. It doesn't help.

How and ever, the Constitution sets states up as sovereign and the Commonwealth only gets a look in on issues that the states and territories have agreed to cede to the Commonwealth. Actually, a national approach would be very unhelpful right now. Even within states, we are seeing local differences in regulation according to need. A one size fits all approach either leads to restrictions being placed on areas that don't need it, or on an inability to tackle hotspots until the problem has got big enough to justify a national intervention.

Of course not. Just noting that the same people who said we should open up for Mothers' Day are the same people who said our lockdown was not strict enough and we should have brought in the police/army, who are the same people who voted against a state of emergency, who are the same people as now say we should live with Covid and accept the mortality. I am not seeing scrutiny or strategy, just contrariness. As for who they are - they are the same people who signed a contract for the East West link a couple of weeks before an election they knew they would lose, committing Victorians to paying hundreds of millions for cancelling the contract just so they could criticise the new Government. Blowing millions of dollars of hard earned money and spreading a deadly virus to score political points - and still people vote for them. Go figure.

If I were a cynic, I'd be suggesting that some people who don't have Daniel Andrews's best interests at heart are trying to sabotage his strategy in order to have political ammunition to lob at him - paying for that ammo with lives.