The only problem in all this is that I'm quite pooped. For that reason, I'm not going to attempt to dictate a forum topic today, but just leave it to you to comment on what you will.
I know that sometimes this generates discussion, other times not. Still, I leave it to you to wander (or not) as the mood takes you!
13 comments:
Back in July 2014 Jim had an interesting post http://belshaw.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/saturday-morning-musings-white-people.html which provoked some interesting comments - not the least by LE - but ended with Jim's informing (not instructing, just informing) me of the preferred language for our indigenous peoples, and how and why there is a difference between 'Indigenous' and 'Aboriginal'.
This stuck with me, because I always like to be respectful of others' views and preferences - except for the occasional just plain foolish.
Anyway, this came sharply back to mind early this morning when I was reading an ABC website opinion piece (by Susan Butler, editor of The Macquarie Dictionary) re Senator Abetz's recent brush with the language police: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-23/butler-eric-abetz-has-revealed-the-complications-of-taboos/6879880 because, while I had thought it a quite reasonable explanation of potential language difficulties, at the bottom was a 'clarification/correction' from the ABC/Drum team carefully pointing out where the author herself had 'erred'.
I go back to Jim's old post - where in one reply to me he ended with "It can all become a bit of a minefield!"
kvd
Hi kvd and thanks. That was a strange ABC para actually for it confused the hell out of me. These appear to be the guidelines they are referring too http://pzja.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/TSSAC-27-August-2008-Meeting-46_5.1A-abc-cultural-protocol.pdf
I was bemused by the whole thing. I remember reading an old James Bond novel [a fine source of socially aware thinking] where Bond's CIA friend Felix Leiter says something like "Race relations here are really tense. In bars you don't ask for a jigger of rum, you ask for a jegro." The implication was that then, the term negro was polite. I don't know when negro became a term of disdain and I'm sure Abetz had was startled to be reported for a "racial slur" when he was trying to put the boot into gay marriage, irrespective of race.
Manufactured outrage at its most idiotic.
On another subject, second poll is out showing Shorten had better start differentiating himself from the Coalition. Shanahan (I think) wrote a fairly biased piece, but I couldn't help agreeing with the phrase "an indolent Labor Party".
tanners, your "manufactured outrage at its most idiotic" made me smile.
This is one of the resons why one of my fav morning reads is The Conversation - which should carry an obligatory subtitle something like "So many causes, such paucity of OPM" - although I think to be more accurate, it should be "tenured outrage" rather than "manufactured outrage".
Why, only this morning there was an article teased as
"Could a new 'basic income' protect Australia's most vulnerable?
Might the lessons of Australia’s super-efficient welfare system offer a potential way forward for the development of a basic income – a universal, low but adequate payment?"
That 'super-efficient welfare system' seems right up your alley, tanners :)
kvd
ps stay away from debating with the lass engaged in research for second PhD in Humanities and Social Sciences (Performance Studies/Theatre & Drama/Dramatic Literature/Visual Arts) to be found being unprofound on another subject entirely: she seems to have reached her conclusion, and is now seeking supporting evidence.
Which lass are we talking about kvd? And what does OPM stand for?
Other Peoples' Money. Mrs Thatcher was way more succinct.
'The lass' is uninteresting, except that she is now on the public teat for her second PhD in not very much useful.
kvd
Staying with correctness, I wondered about reactions to this piece - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/lehmann-greer-and-the-no-platforming-scourge/6887576
Funny you should pick that; 'twas the exact subject upon which the lassie was opining :)
I don't mind reading (and debating) different views, and I have always respected and particularly enjoyed GG's essays; she is not only a 'feminist writer' but a considerable public intellectual who writes on a wide range of topics. Wish there were more of her. And I am quite disappointed with the various poseurs who have begun their tepid defense with something like "I hate to stick up for Germs, but in this case..."
Anyways, what can one (safely, these days) offer on this latest tiff? My considered response is 'jazz hands' :)
kvd
Hi kvd. I was strongly put of GG by some of her earlier stuff. Perhaps I should revisit? jazz hands? Perhaps
Some of her earlier stuff? What have you got against frogs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/10018103/We-need-to-fight-to-stop-frogs-extinction.html
- read it at the time, and still remember admiring the writing.
kvd
So many causes, such a paucity of OPSM. Yes, the glasses manufacturers.
Compared to most, our welfare system is superefficient, but that's a low bar. John Quiggin (Uni of Queensland) argues that complex welfare systems are badly targeted and demeaning, and that an efficient system would be to hand over a wad of cash and let the presently disadvantaged make and live with their own choices, which will at least be informed by a far better knowledge of their own circumstances than the bureaucracy possesses.
I've put his argument into an unjustifiably short nutshell - he's been writing about it for years. His blog (johnquiggin.com) has a good search function. He's fairly left wing, if such a thing exists.
Good morning, kvd. Your comment on frogs got caught in the spam trap. My apologies for my slow response. I have nothing against frogs! That was a well written piece. My reactions to GG date back to her much earlier days when I found her expression arrogant and abrasive. We are talking quite a long time ago, of course.
Yes, 2t, JQ can fairly be described as fairly left wing! I have a lot of sympathy with his line of argument in this case. Leaving aside both human effects and choice issues, from an economic efficiency viewpoint the increasingly targeted and restrictive system including the attempt to achieve rigorous anti-fraud provisions makes the system far more cumbersome and adds to costs.
Post a Comment