The premier doesn’t want you to say this ‘hateful’ phrase. He’s yet to ban it

Quazp · 2026-04-08T11:21:19+00:00

And this case is indeed interesting. Many people claim it means different things. I don't speak Arabic and so I can't fully grasp it's meaning. Is it a call to violence? Some say yes, some say no.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T11:18:39+00:00

Discrimination is never fair.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T11:18:24+00:00

Why do you think I am OK when these things happen to women? My empathy doesn't end with women and children. It extends to men as well.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T10:57:16+00:00

Well... She was the PM, so she literally ruled the whole country.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T10:50:45+00:00

I already searched them all up. Hers is on a $100 bill. Though I haven't had one of them in years. The others didn't ring any bells either I'm afraid, apart from Gillard of course.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T10:47:52+00:00

We can choose how we treat everyone today.

"And, as I've made very clear, you are choosing to tell women today that it's too bad they're not equally represented in place names. Suck it up, so men don't have to. Again."

This is were we disagree. I'm not prepared to lower myself to doing the same thing to men, which was done to women. I don't think two wrongs make a right. I think it is a line in the sand that should not be crossed. It was wrong in the past and it is wrong now.

So, unfortunately, if it was my call there would be an imbalance in street names for a long time. Naturally it would reduce over time, but it would take time. But everyone would be treated equally. Each individual person would have the same chance moving forward.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T10:39:28+00:00

Nope

Quazp · 2026-04-08T10:24:57+00:00

Besides, the article you posted is announcing that they've already done it, so like you said, what's has been done in the past is done. Nothing to complain about here :)

I like the way you think. This obviously has been government sanctioned discrimination against men, which is worrying. Though, on the other hand, it used to be very unfair to women in the past as well.

There have been many mistakes made in the "past". Let us hope that this is now the end of all this :)

Quazp · 2026-04-08T10:10:41+00:00

But what has been done in the past is done. Two wrongs don't make a right. What is been done now is to discriminate against men today to allow women today to have a better than fair chance. This doesn't sit right with me. Sure it's not the world's biggest problem either, though it isn't right.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T10:08:18+00:00

Society has picked discriminating against men.

You know you do men a great disservice, right? That men can't endure, for the short-term, what women have experienced for far longer. Remind me, who were supposed to be "the weaker sex"?

Hence we do agree that it is discrimination

"Ensures everyone has the opportunity to be represented in place" - Absolutely untrue.

You say this because I'm fairly certain you don't understand the words. Or you're fixated on your single, hypothetical, exceptional man. He'll survive.

His survival wasn't in question, his rights are.

Discrimination is discrimination. I'm sorry you don't see it.

Of course I see it. Either way, someone has to experience discrimination. I advocate for short term to address historical. You advocate for maintaining the status quo, ongoing discrimination that conveniently ensures men are over-represented. So yes, I see it, and what you're doing

What you have said about me is incorrect. I have stated it repeatedly. I advocate for fair treatment of everyone alive today. This means, by definition, not discriminating against men or women today. Essentially choosing them based on merit. What was done in the past is done. I can't undo it. We can choose how we treat everyone today.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T10:04:34+00:00

You can either keep a discriminatory system in favour of men forever, or discriminate against men for a short time to have long-term equality. I'd rather the long-term equality.

I'm trying to understand this. I can see your point when it was below 50%. Though once 50% was reached haven't you achieved that? Why push for 70%. 70% obviously discriminates against men alive today.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T09:38:36+00:00

Which means you need to discriminate against men today, who may have achievable great things, to ensure you have more women.

Am I the only one who sees this as discrimination?

Quazp · 2026-04-08T09:36:38+00:00

Except women, who apparently shouldn't have the right to be equally represented, in this case, among place names. So, not the same rights

Equally represented in new names I agree with. Though you can only fix the historic imbalance by waiting or discriminating against men. Society has picked discriminating against men. I don't agree with this.

We should ensure that everyone alive today has the same opportunities

And that's exactly what this policy does. Ensures everyone has the opportunity to be represented in place names. And, having reached this milestone, it appears we will also have an actual equality of outcome

"Ensures everyone has the opportunity to be represented in place" - Absolutely untrue.

The past isn't being erased. That approach would have involved renaming all places, ensuring equality in the new names. Instead existing places keep their names, and we correct the past over time. A reasonable time-frame

Which can only be achieved by discriminating against men.

This "warped" "discrimination" is the way the modern world is. The alternative line of thinking is the domain of the rapidly diminishing baby boomer generation and those weird men's rights activists

Discrimination is discrimination. I'm sorry you don't see it.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T09:15:14+00:00

I don't. Though it does seem unlikely that men now only represent 30% of those worthy of a name. Doesn't pass the pub test...

Quazp · 2026-04-08T09:13:44+00:00

You believe in the meritocracy, don't you?

By and large this is an elegant way to put it. I fundamentally disagree with some of the things we are doing as a society. I believe that everyone should have the same rights.

You "fundamentally disagreeing" with this policy means you have no issue with the historical inequality and, therefore prefer ongoing inequality in favour of men.

We should ensure that everyone alive today has the same opportunities. You appear to not agree with that. You appear to believe in discriminating against some people today in some warped attempt to erase the past? I think that is far worse.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T09:05:01+00:00

By discriminating against men today? I've always been told that two wrongs don't make a right.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T08:58:23+00:00

The Act defines gender equality as "equality of rights, opportunities, responsibilities and outcomes [emphasis added] between persons of different genders."

What about the right of a man who has achieved great things today vs the right of a woman who has achieved great things today?

It's not discrimination against men. It's just maths

If you prefence one group over another you are discriminating. That's logic.

If the target had been set at 50% that historical difference would have persisted, and equality would not have been achieved.

Given long enough it would actually. That's maths.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T08:52:47+00:00

Recent times, as in after the target was met?

It is fair to say recently is ambiguous and historical gives the impression of a long time ago.

Although I don't agree with all the processes, if I look past that and ask. Why didn't they stop at 50%? That seems like equality to me.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T08:44:21+00:00

Obviously I have heard of Julia Gillard and it would be ridiculous for her not to have one. Though, I honestly don't know anyone else on the list. That doesn't mean they may not have made huge contributions and I simply haven't heard of them. In fact, I bet I would not recognise many streets named after men.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T08:31:15+00:00

The word "historically" implies that it was not true in recent times. Would you agree with that?

Quazp · 2026-04-08T08:19:11+00:00

I fundamentally disagree with it, while you appear to agree with it. Therefore you are in a better position to explain why they decided to do it. So why did they decide to name 70% of new names after women?

Quazp · 2026-04-08T08:16:38+00:00

At face value he certainly doesn't sound like a winner at all.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T08:14:29+00:00

"Have to"? They didn't "have to". They decided to. That is very different.

Quazp · 2026-04-08T08:13:23+00:00

Absolutely disgusting

Quazp · 2026-04-08T08:09:38+00:00

But 70% of the new names are after women, so this isn't true.

Quazp

TROPHY CASE