[mhh__]

> Please note:

> This website contains names, images and voices of deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

> This website contains war-related material, including images which some people may find confronting and disturbing.

how trite

[oliyoung]

The indigenous warning isn't "trite", it's a culturally sensitive practice that most Australians are used to seeing.

[OJFord]

I have no horse in this, but that sounds more like an argument that it is trite?

[javawizard]

I believe the word "trite" generally implies overuse to the point of uselessness. These warnings very much have a use to indigenous peoples, and they serve that use well - so I'd argue that they don't qualify.

[OJFord]

Sure, I just meant 'it is common' is not an argument that it's not trite, it's the uselessness as you put it that you need to contest.

But anyway like I said I don't have a particular view or reason to care about how trite it is, just a silly tangential point. :)

[javawizard]

Fair enough :)

[kragen]

web1913:

> Worn out; common; used until so common as to have lost novelty and interest; hackneyed; stale; as, a trite remark; a trite subject.

wiktionary:

> From Latin trītus "worn out," a form of the verb terō (“I wear away, wear out”).

> 1. Often in reference to a word or phrase: used so many times that it is commonplace, or no longer interesting or effective; worn out, hackneyed.

> 2. (law) So well established as to be beyond debate: trite law.

so i think you're kind of right; certainly the etymological origin means 'worn out', which implies 'useless', but it seems like it's commonly used nowadays in english to simply mean 'used very commonly', without the implication of uselessness, in particular in the legal sense

[kragen]

traditional aboriginal people might not want to be exposed to that and close the web page rather than continuing. it's a taboo similar to certain kinds of photographs in cultures you may be more familiar with

[EnigmaFlare]

It's not really out of concern for people's cultures. Lots of cultures have all sorts of taboos about types of images or information. Muslim fundamentalists for instance don't like pictures of any people, of any ethnicity, alive or dead. This is just a nonsense fashion for the Australian government. All their websites have something like the one at the bottom of the page:

"The Australian War Memorial acknowledges the traditional custodians of country throughout Australia. We recognise their continuing connection to land, sea and waters. We pay our respects to elders past and present."

[defrost]

It makes a change from chaining aboriginals neck to neck which they kept up after I was born, along with taking babies, and having exclusion zones "boundary roads" in cities.

Is that the era you want to return to?

[EnigmaFlare]

I'd prefer the happy middle ground between glorifying a race and chaining them neck to neck.

[flir]

Lack of a warning is "glorifying" (odd word choice, I'd maybe go with "foregrounding"?) the culture that doesn't need the warning.

[EnigmaFlare]

I was referring to the "we pay our respects to the elders" part as glorifying.

[defrost]

> how trite

How gammon.

[concordDance]

I don't quite understand how you think a racist/colorist slur is acceptable here.

[defrost]

In context here "trite" would be the term diminishing recognition of particular race issues, and "gammon" is the term disparging a particular attitude within the UK and doesn't target all with a particular genetic background or skin colour.

As an Australian I don't find the "trite" comment that diminishes recognition of indigenous contributions to the commonwealth war effort to be acceptable here and labelled that comment as gammon.

Curiously, in addition to the UK term which derives from a ham cut, there's an Australian indigenous term common in NSW and the NT with an unrelated etymology that also works here to a degree.

[concordDance]

"Gammon" is a clear reference to a ruddy skin color and is intended to be offensive. It is a textbook racial slur.

Claiming that its not is like claiming the "n-word" isn't a racist slur because it was about a particular attitude and doesn't apply to all African Americans (see Chris Rock's https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggas_vs._Black_People for an example of this).

[defrost]

You're not from the UK are you?

It seems clear you've never heard it used or how it's used there.

If you are and you have then it would seem you're arguing in bad faith.

It's a slur on character as two people of clearly the same race, age, and gender could overwhelmingly be voted as one Gammon, one not.

It's about a cetrain shoutiness and empire centric values and attitude.

I've seen a lot of Chris Rock and your opinion notwithstanding that doesn't easily apply here.

As a genuine question, how is it that you've honed in on my response to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40194063 which is an actual dismissal of recognition of non western values?

You appear to have latched onto the mote in one comment and ignored the beam in another.

[concordDance]

I'm from the UK, but have only admittedly heard it used twice (once in person, which I objected to and my objection was accepted).

Yes, I've latched onto that one thing because I don't have anything to say about the other. Catering for other minority value systems is an extremely thorny issue for many reasons (on the extreme you get utility monsters) and far too hard a problem for me to have a firm opinion on. I've leaned both ways depending on minority size, history and apparent value strength and dont have a proper philosophy for it to share.

[48864w6ui]

I'd thought gammon was a clear reference (in GBBO tradition) to a "swiney hiney".