Conquer Club

A large island off the coast of Australia has been stripped of its European colonial name, with the Australian government officially replaced 'Fraser Island' with the name K'gari, referencing the Aboriginal story of the island's creation:

http://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2023/06 ... er-island/

With reports Australia is also weighing up a referendum on removing the UK monarch as its head of state, one more country may well be moving on from the shameful history of European Christian cultural and military colonialism. Respect, Australia (y)

f*ck AUSTRALIA. Meow is my word.

KITTY
LIVES
MATTER

Australia solved it!

We are done here!

Rename an island and all disparities are erased, all social problems solved, and everyone is happy now.

Right?

It's a step in the right direction. Certainly more in the right direction than your jokes about how black people shouldn't wear kilts.

Seems stupid that they would have named a whole island after an early 2000s TV show in the first place.

bigtoughralf wrote:It's a step in the right direction. Certainly more in the right direction than your jokes about how black people shouldn't wear kilts.

The right direction to where?

Renaming an Island “solves” absolutely zero “problems”.

It may be considered a sign of weakness and capitulation which might embolden ‘Pro Indigenous Rights” extremists to make more ridiculous demands.
Give them an inch…

Just because a change doesn't immediately have an impact on a number in a spreadsheet doesn't mean it won't be impactful. Giving cultures greater prominence and importance helps stimulate acceptance and culture change, and culture change leads to changes in values and behaviours.

For example, official recognition of the Irish language in Northern Ireland combined with investment in Irish language teaching and promotion (since last year) may well lead to more Northern Irish people developing stronger senses of Irish identity and over time boosting support for a united Ireland. It might also help some culturally Irish NI people to feel less marginalised and therefore less resistant to or distrustful of state institutions.

If recognising an Australian island's history and native culture is 'weakness' in your eyes then I dread to think what your proposed show of strength would look like. Sounds like ol' jim is a fan of Xin Jinping's Uyghur leisure centres.

bigtoughralf wrote:Just because a change doesn't immediately have an impact on a number in a spreadsheet doesn't mean it won't be impactful. Giving cultures greater prominence and importance helps stimulate acceptance and culture change, and culture change leads to changes in values and behaviours.

For example, official recognition of the Irish language in Northern Ireland combined with investment in Irish language teaching and promotion (since last year) may well lead to more Northern Irish people developing stronger senses of Irish identity and over time boosting support for a united Ireland. It might also help some culturally Irish NI people to feel less marginalised and therefore less resistant to or distrustful of state institutions.

If recognising an Australian island's history and native culture is 'weakness' in your eyes then I dread to think what your proposed show of strength would look like. Sounds like ol' jim is a fan of Xin Jinping's Uyghur leisure centres.

Neither of these things you suggest as positive outcomes are automatically positive.

In many ways they can also be big negatives.

It’s funny how people use words to suggest a meaning, when they often actually mean or result in the opposite of the suggested meaning.

bigtoughralf wrote:It's a step in the right direction.

Why is it a step in the right direction?

What is gained by pretending to care about ancient tribal names?

Do you refer to Constantinople as Byzantion?

The guy who pointedly refers to Beijing as 'Peking' is questioning whether nomenclature matters?

bigtoughralf wrote:The guy who pointedly refers to Beijing as 'Peking' is questioning whether nomenclature matters?

You’re not only claiming it matters… you’re also claiming it’s a good thing.

So defend THAT position.

I already gave examples of how it's a good thing. I know you saw them, because you quoted the post they're in. Did I use words with too many syllables?

bigtoughralf wrote:It's a step in the right direction. Certainly more in the right direction than your jokes about how black people shouldn't wear kilts.

Most hypocritical case of kettle/black I've EVER seen. Well played.

I guess your poking fun at my dead mother is a completely different set of "ok".

You fucking waste of skin. I hate you.

As usual, I won't be replying.

bigtoughralf wrote:I already gave examples of how it's a good thing. I know you saw them, because you quoted the post they're in. Did I use words with too many syllables?

You gave some lame examples, but you DID NOT explain HOW these were “good” or positive..,

jimboston wrote:

bigtoughralf wrote:Just because a change doesn't immediately have an impact on a number in a spreadsheet doesn't mean it won't be impactful. Giving cultures greater prominence and importance helps stimulate acceptance and culture change, and culture change leads to changes in values and behaviours.

For example, official recognition of the Irish language in Northern Ireland combined with investment in Irish language teaching and promotion (since last year) may well lead to more Northern Irish people developing stronger senses of Irish identity and over time boosting support for a united Ireland. It might also help some culturally Irish NI people to feel less marginalised and therefore less resistant to or distrustful of state institutions.

If recognising an Australian island's history and native culture is 'weakness' in your eyes then I dread to think what your proposed show of strength would look like. Sounds like ol' jim is a fan of Xin Jinping's Uyghur leisure centres.

Neither of these things you suggest as positive outcomes are automatically positive.

In many ways they can also be big negatives.

It’s funny how people use words to suggest a meaning, when they often actually mean or result in the opposite of the suggested meaning.

If fact in some ways the two “goods” you suggest are also contradictory.

So you want to change Australian culture… so you are saying Australian culture is bad.

So, you suggest this it may lead to more trust in state institutions. So the Australian culture sucks but their gov’t is awesome?

I see your ability to make inductive leaps is going from strength to strengths.

You state that the name change can lead to…
“cultural change” and “changes in values and behaviors”.

So all change is good?

I’m sure cultural change being a good or evil is 100% subjective.
—-

You state that this can lead to “less resistant to or distrustful or state institutions”.

So blind faith in State Institutions is a good thing?

I think so resistance and distrust of state institutions can be a good thing.
Again the degree is subjective and whether/when it’s a good or ill is very subjective.

So are you prepared to defend your claims?
Or will you just give some snarky meaningless response?

IDK as long as they don't rename Tasmania.

jimboston wrote:You state that the name change can lead to…
“cultural change” and “changes in values and behaviors”.

So all change is good?

And if all change is good... therefore the Holocaust was good?

Why is bigtoughralf explicitly condoning genocide in this thread?

I think so resistance and distrust of state institutions can be a good thing.

Most American response ever.

So you’re unable to defend your comments.
I get it… it’s hard to admit.