Qld Labor's plan to rename everything
- Thread starter Todman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
schneebly111
Club Legend
- Mar 23, 2023
- 1,290
- 2,715
- AFL Club
- Richmond
They don’t need to. All it is is a trigger for idiots to rail on about something that was never going to happen.
It isn’t Peter Gleeson’s first time lying to perpetrate fake “political correctness gone mad!” (now shortened to “woke”) outrage.
Lied about schools wanting ban Christmas carols:
Reheating Christmas carols outrage - Media Watch
Do SA schools plan to ban Christmas carols?
www.abc.net.au
The story has already done its job. The talkback radio listeners have been sucked into the outrage, Palaszcuk’s denial is limited to a one sentence statement published on their webpage very few will read and even fewer will believe.
“Can you believe the latest thing the WOKE BRIGADE are trying to do?!?!!?”
They can even run a fake outrage for a day, get it into the heads of listeners and then issue a legally protecting denial statement later after the damage has been done.
I remember a few years back the same talkback/breakfast TV/Murdoch shock jocks got us riled up about the “woke/PC plan to ban the word Easter from Easter eggs!”. Plenty of easily influenced people in my workplace were OUTRAGED! when that story broke. Only problem was it was utter BS. Went to the shops that afternoon and counted at least a dozen Cadbury products with the word “Easter” prominently displayed. The rednecks never apologised or admitted they were fooled, they just moved onto the next thing their Murdoch overlords told them was going to be banned due “PC Gone Mad!”.
As a poster above said, it’s just confected outrage designed to keep mindless deadshits distracted from real news (Gladys being corrupt). And it works. If you try to take the time to research these stories and inevitably come up with proof that it’s manufactured nonsense they don’t believe you, they call you “woke” and they move onto the next story of fake outrage.
It’s exhausting living in the same world as these people.
Last edited:
I don't think anybody really got sucked in to the story that the state government has got a secret plan to change the name of the city. Discussion on the broader idea is a different kettle of fish.
Sounds like more Sky fakenews trying to stir up trouble to impact on the voice - as if the ALP would be that stupid.
On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app
On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app
It's only tokenistic if nothing else is done for Indigenous people beyond a rename. You'll find the people who are pro-Indigenous rights want both recognition of Indigenous place names and material improvements for the quality of life of Indigenous people too. But some will call it "tokenistic" anyway so they can look down on those who want change.
Speaking as the one you highlighted as questioning the validity of the story, I know full well it isn't real and still have thought for a long time that renaming places to Indigenous names is a good thing. I would also like to rename Queensland as Murriland if the Murris are on board with that.
It doesn't sound true. If true, my thoughts are that the more famous the name, the less appropriate it is to change the name.
Supposedly when they were carving out the Northern Territory, they considered naming it Kingsland.
I’m sure Pauline and the Sky News crew still insist on calling St Petersburg by its previous name too.
Mofra
Moderator
- Dec 6, 2005
- 67,113
- 198,420
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Coney Island Warriors
- Moderator
- #37
Typical lazy Australia naming things in the most simple and obvious way. Look at the States we named - South Australia, Western Australia then we called the big territory 'Northern'
And don't get me started on the Great Sandy Desert or the Blue Mountains...
I reckon that's a good point, you wouldn't change Sydney for instance.
I'd be happy to consider a change to South Australia and even Adelaide.
SA for starters is a bit boring and neither are particularly unique, don't get me wrong, we have far too many anti everything to ever consider it.
If you change the name of a very famous thing, it does more harm than good because some groups might be pleased, but you piss off a much larger portion of the population. If anything, doing such a thing would send reconciliation backwards, creating a backlash and perception of 'Oh what now?! Changing everything! They have more rights than us!'
See what I mean? I don't agree with those quotes at all, but we've all heard that sort of talk. Perception is everything.
See what I mean? I don't agree with those quotes at all, but we've all heard that sort of talk. Perception is everything.
- Jul 6, 2015
- 1,373
- 3,034
- AFL Club
- Carlton
In protest will not watch test matches played at the Gabba. Add it to games from Mumbai, Chennnai and Kolkata.
It dies serve to get particularly stupid people riled up and angry.
- Aug 11, 2008
- 8,962
- 12,263
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
They should update Godwin's theory, instead referencing Nazis or Hitler, but to the evil Murdoch Empire.
Reckon there'd be a 100% success rate on this site.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 22,938
- 25,132
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
I like the idea of using both names, like Hobart/nipaluna.
Yes, there will always be a backlash, but what I'm interested in is, why? What causes people to be so conservative that they are not merely indifferent to a name change but actively hostile to it?
It's difficult to articulate in words, but I believe it's a sense of robbery, lack of agency and micro-grief. The name of something you know and love has been taken away from you suddenly without your input, and never again will the old name be the correct one. Names matter - we use them every day greeting each other, and in some sense, changing the name of something is taking away part of its identity. In addition, it takes effort to learn a new name - just watch people calling Uluru Ayers Rock, calling Jobseeker Payment Newstart, calling a payment summary a group certificate or calling Mumbai Bombay.
Perhaps that is the mentality of many. Yet corporations change names all the time and nobody bats an eyelid. I find that strange.
Inanimate objects and collections of inanimate objects don't inherently have an identity. People ascribe an identity to it. I wonder if the name must be part of that ascribed identity when the underlying thing has not changed. Shakespeare said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but not to many, it would seem.
That's okay, change takes time. The issue I have is that when something only requires a matter of time and practice to be accepted and become second nature to most people, then it seems really arbitrary for them to be so wedded to a particular name as an identity. After all, it's not hard to find counter-examples. Nobody would refer to Thailand as Siam, Telstra as Telecom or Tasmania as Van Diemens Land in common speech anymore.
Last edited:
Natural things like Uluru I like changing the name. Cities or towns not so much.
I think a lot if the small south west towns in WA already have names with Indigenous roots, that's why there's so many ending in "in" or "up".
I think a lot if the small south west towns in WA already have names with Indigenous roots, that's why there's so many ending in "in" or "up".
Similar threads
