People like this should not be allowed to enter into politics. I believe that every politician should have proper training before they are even allowed to run a campaign. Being in a high up status, these people should be aiming to better our society in every way possible, not serve there own political agenda.

This should be prioritized considering the history and active racism they still experience to this day.

This is very impressive - a protest able to stop such massive projects. It just shows how important social movements are and how people having a voice and freedom can actually enact change in Australia's woke society.

I dont think a natural ecosystem should sought to be 'controlled'. It should be us, as a society, aiming to protect our reef. A fight for power over it would only destroy it further.

I am unsure that this correlates, as there are many different charities that have nothing to do with government conspiracies??

I agree with this to an extent. I believe that for a period of time, social movements and protests can very well be destructive to society, but essentially, the society would already be in a negative state for people to feel change is necessary.

People need to FEEL mutual support and share a collective interest. They need to relate to one another in order to be motivated enough to form a collective identity and possible movement.

This is interesting considering all the elements for collective action are present, yet why did a social movement not occur? This motivates me to research more about social movements and why people still choose individualized solutions over collective action? Is it the stigma? The stereotype surrounding protests and collective actions? If so, a serious change in our society must be made.

I believe this to be untrue. Sure, many movements have been unorganized, but majority have been well performed. This stigma surrounding social movements and protests is the reason why the people protesting are so frowned upon in society and treated as 'less than'.

I find it inspiring that so many different types of people can come together to form a collective movement. Even if they may view other aspects of life differently, they all feel so strongly about one thing to come together and form a social movement despite their possible underlying differences,

This is why many studies on many social movements may be biased because the study will be based of how the author interprets a certain social movement. This is why militant activists are reputable sources because they have actually been involved in the protest and have primary data.

This is an interesting statement because a lot of protests have been surrounding racism and societal issues rather than economic issues. For example, the Black Lives Matter protests were significant because it focused on police brutality, having little to do with the government (not nothing to do with it).

This is a shocking statement to read because I never knew Brisbane to be this way. It makes sense though because it is such a large, diverse city, movements would be happening everywhere especially in the late 70's & 80's.

This comment resonates with me because in everyday society the media loves to depict activists as violent and dangerous. This has created the stereotype for most activist campaigns and people often look down on movements rather than see why the movements are occurring and understand the thought process behind certain types of social movements. People are so quick to judge these types of activists without taking the time to understand their concerns.

This is true to an extent. If the worst is to come, every human is at risk, regardless of financial status. Sure, if it's just a minor earthquake or a tornado, wealthier people have access to better protection than those of a lower income, however, if the world was to have such an extreme weather event, every human is at risk regardless of what protection they have access to.

It will be interesting to see how the world changes now that this phenomenon is becoming more common with transnational climate change activism increasing. I believe that social movements on a global level have been rare up until this point because of the invention of social media. Social media is a heavy influencer, and it connects everyone, everywhere, which enables more accessibility for participation in such movements.

I am glad this has been said.

Although my standpoint on conspiracy theories remains neutral, when it becomes dangerous and nonsensical, my viewpoint clearly becomes negative.

How does this correlate? Conspiracy theories and the right wing conservative party? Sure, some conspiracy theories may indicate a more right-wing view-point, but there are just as many conspiracy theories that are left-wing viewed also! Or even not political at all. For example, people not believing that the moon landing is real is neither a right-wing nor left-wing view, it is just a theory.

I disagree with a conspiracy theory being termed a 'misbelief', because if the truth is already being contested, who is to know that the supposed 'truth' mightn't be the 'misbelief'. Also, if one believes something it is true, then that is there belief and shouldn't be classed as a misbelief. Covid-19 for example, if people believe with backed up evidence that the vaccines are having adverse effects, then who are we to say that it is a misbelief. We do not know what that person has been through, what if their family member had still passed away even after getting the vaccinations.... Is it still a 'misbelief' then?

I feel as though this article is solely based on India and the women of India. They can't make a statement saying globalisation is closing the gender pay gap if they only focus on the positive effects in one country. What about Australia, America, Africa?

Is there evidence to back this up?

Yet it's still so prevalent amongst many industries?

Continuing the cycle...

This comment brings light to the fact that inequalities in human development are so prevalent in today's society. Consider two socio-economic areas, one lower than the other and how they have far less opportunity in almost all aspects of life than that of the higher. 'Inequalities start before birth' - people born into these lower socio-economic areas are already at a disadvantage from the day they are brought into the world, and something needs to be done to combat this inequality in human development issue.

I find this comment interesting as I have always thought inequalities were harmful. The fact of being not equal has just become a negative term in my head, but when you think about it, I suppose many things are not equal or on the same level. Such as a $500,000 house compared to a million dollar house; not equal.