Should Australia Day date be changed?

[Q.]

It was implied.

Most people won't like it being pointed out that they're racist, even if the argument is calm and rational. Platforms for hate were being taken away, and quite clearly, a lot of people still want those platforms.

[Q.]

Most people don't handle criticism well. But most people don't criticise well. Engaging someone thoughtfully to confront a flaw can easily feel like a personal attack.

[gadj1976]

I just had a thought.... does Choc Mundine refer to himself as "Choc"? If so, wouldn't that be inviting racism by anyone who called him that?

[HH3]

Well, I don't think people who may not have all the knowledge of Australias history are automatically racist, as is implied by a lot of people advocating the change of date.

If you want a calm and rational discussion, you probably shouldn't tell someone they're a racist at the beginning.

If they're calling people derogatory names or being actively offensive, go nuts. But a lot of people that have never had to even consider Australias history are automatically classed as racists.

Being uninformed isn't being racist. You've gotta learn the facts from somewhere.

If you want to educate someone, tell them what you know about the subject. Don't start with an accusation as inflammatory as being a racist.

Do school teachers start with "We're going to learn about parallelograms today. You're all idiots for not knowing this already."?

[Wedgie]

I just had a thought.... does Choc Mundine refer to himself as "Choc"? If so, wouldn't that be inviting racism by anyone who called him that?

Hardly, seeing as one of his grandparents gave it to him because of his love of chocolate.
He also calls himself The Man, is that inviting sexism?

[amber_fluid]

He also calls himself The Man, is that inviting sexism?

Luckily no one else calls him that........

[Grenville]

Most people don't handle criticism well. But most people don't criticise well. Engaging someone thoughtfully to confront a flaw can easily feel like a personal attack.

A perceived flaw perhaps, just because one person's opinion on something differs to another doesn't necessarily make it a fact or flaw. It's just that, an opinion.

[Q.]

Most people don't handle criticism well. But most people don't criticise well. Engaging someone thoughtfully to confront a flaw can easily feel like a personal attack.

A perceived flaw perhaps, just because one person's opinion on something differs to another doesn't necessarily make it a fact or flaw. It's just that, an opinion.

"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Opinions are usually very revealing.

[Ronnie]

Most people don't handle criticism well. But most people don't criticise well. Engaging someone thoughtfully to confront a flaw can easily feel like a personal attack.

A perceived flaw perhaps, just because one person's opinion on something differs to another doesn't necessarily make it a fact or flaw. It's just that, an opinion.

"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Opinions are usually very revealing.

Sure, but what happens when good people disagree on issues? You can't reduce everything to a good v bad scenario.

Good people disagree on a whole range of issues, it doesn't make them morally inferior if they disagree with your view of the world.
The worst thing that can happen is if you think that everyone that disagrees with your is somehow a lesser being, for holding contrary views. Your set for a massive fall somewhere along the line if you go around thinking you know best. You don't , no one does.

[Grenville]

Most people don't handle criticism well. But most people don't criticise well. Engaging someone thoughtfully to confront a flaw can easily feel like a personal attack.

A perceived flaw perhaps, just because one person's opinion on something differs to another doesn't necessarily make it a fact or flaw. It's just that, an opinion.

"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Opinions are usually very revealing.

Indeed they are, on both sides of a discussion. There are many ignorant people who know not that their opinion is a confession of character. There are also many who are fully aware of who they are as a person is reflected in their views. If people wish to perceive either of these groups in a certain light that is their prerogative, it doesn't necessarily mean they are correct.

[Q.]

Most people don't handle criticism well. But most people don't criticise well. Engaging someone thoughtfully to confront a flaw can easily feel like a personal attack.

A perceived flaw perhaps, just because one person's opinion on something differs to another doesn't necessarily make it a fact or flaw. It's just that, an opinion.

"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Opinions are usually very revealing.

Sure, but what happens when good people disagree on issues? You can't reduce everything to a good v bad scenario.

Good people disagree on a whole range of issues, it doesn't make them morally inferior if they disagree with your view of the world.
The worst thing that can happen is if you think that everyone that disagrees with your is somehow a lesser being, for holding contrary views. Your set for a massive fall somewhere along the line if you go around thinking you know best. You don't , no one does.

Not all disagreements are moral ones. But even moral claims can be backed or refuted with evidence.

[Grenville]

Indeed, on both sides. Again, it comes simply down to an opinion.

[bennymacca]

Indeed, on both sides. Again, it comes simply down to an opinion.

Structured arguments with facts are also different to opinion and people often think these should carry equal weight.

The problem is in politics the evidence is sometimes not clear.

[Q.]

Indeed, on both sides. Again, it comes simply down to an opinion.

Actually it comes down to evidence, facts, and stats.

Anyone can have an opinion.

[Q.]

If you're opinion is based on flawed reasoning, expect your flaws to be corrected.

[Grenville]

There can also be structured arguements with facts, evidence and stats on both sides of an discussion. How one promotes one's case can make one's case somewhat more compelling to some. 'Flawed' reasoning can more often than not be up to the interpretation of those who wish it to be so, it doesn't always make them right. You can attempt to 'correct' someone's flaws if you wish, you will generally not find a particularly receptive audience, neither will it necessarily make you correct. Only in your eyes and those that share similar beliefs. The same can also be applied to those on the opposing side of a discussion. Life would be very dull if everyone marched to a single drum. I have enjoyed the repartee that results from a passionate discussion such as this Q, but we are, however, seemingly on an eternal roundabout from which neither of us are willing to alight. Might I suggest we sheath our rapiers for the meantime and resume hostilities at another juncture.

P.S. I am going to Melbourne to watch Hawthorn v Collingwood this season, I'll bring the petrol, you bring the match to the verbal stoush.

[gadj1976]

I just had a thought.... does Choc Mundine refer to himself as "Choc"? If so, wouldn't that be inviting racism by anyone who called him that?

Hardly, seeing as one of his grandparents gave it to him because of his love of chocolate.
He also calls himself The Man, is that inviting sexism?

ABBAsolutely! I didn't know the reference Wegs, thanks bud.

I know Choc Williams was called Choc cos of his skin colour maybe I mixed them up. Sorry!

[Pseudo]

I just had a thought.... does Choc Mundine refer to himself as "Choc"? If so, wouldn't that be inviting racism by anyone who called him that?

Hardly, seeing as one of his grandparents gave it to him because of his love of chocolate.
He also calls himself The Man, is that inviting sexism?

ABBAsolutely! I didn't know the reference Wegs, thanks bud.

I know Choc Williams was called Choc cos of his skin colour maybe I mixed them up. Sorry!

I thought Choco was called Choco 'cos he had a fondness for Choc Wedges as a kid?

[RB]

^Pretty sure Pseudo's explanation is correct.

[Psyber]

I just had a thought.... does Choc Mundine refer to himself as "Choc"? If so, wouldn't that be inviting racism by anyone who called him that?

Hardly, seeing as one of his grandparents gave it to him because of his love of chocolate.
He also calls himself The Man, is that inviting sexism?

No but it does invite criticism of his arrogance perhaps...

Whining about the fight decision after he should have been disqualified for that shot from behind during the referee's separation also has that effect.