Placeholder Content Image

Going home for the holidays? How to navigate conflict and deal with difficult people

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jessica-robles-617248">Jessica Robles</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/loughborough-university-1336">Loughborough University</a></em></p> <p>The holiday season is upon us and for many that means all the tension that comes with it. This time of year can be a minefield of uncomfortable moments, disagreement and outright conflict. It’s no wonder <a href="https://fortune.com/well/2022/12/03/home-for-holidays-family-gatherings-mental-health/">many young people</a> are apprehensive about returning home for the holidays after living far away.</p> <p>There are many reasons interpersonal difficulties can arise over the holidays. Perhaps your aunt doesn’t like what you did with her pie recipe, or your friend’s new partner has unsettling political beliefs. Maybe you haven’t lived at home in a while, but your family still talks to you like you’re the same person you were in school. Maybe you’re bringing your partner to meet your family for the first time, and aren’t sure whether everyone will get along.</p> <p>People have socialised less with friends and family <a href="https://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/1167">since the pandemic</a>, and may be feeling out of practice. This can be compounded by all the things people can disagree about.</p> <p>Some topics are higher risk for blowups, and best <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781444354119#page=122">avoided</a> in such settings (religion and politics, for starters). Whether it’s <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-018-9476-2">true or not</a>, there’s a popular perception that tricky subjects are more numerous and divisive than ever. Dare one bring up anything adjacent to Brexit, vaccinations or the cost of living? Even bringing your mobile phone to the dining table could get you in trouble.</p> <p>So what happens if your uncle has too much mulled wine and something slips out that annoys or even horrifies you? Family arguments are a common theme in holiday films, but their scripted resolutions are rarely realistic and not based on <a href="https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/book/Talk_the_science_of_conversation/9476291">empirical research</a>. By considering how these things work in the context of real interactions, we can move from what sounds good in theory to what we can put into practice.</p> <h2>Think before you speak</h2> <p>In real-world situations, <a href="http://pstorage-loughborough-53465.s3.amazonaws.com/21189843/Thesis2019Joyce.pdf">interactions can escalate</a> before you’re even fully aware that they’re happening. You might be able to anticipate why and how an interaction might become a problem. Does alcohol generally lead to arguments in your family? Are your parents usually hypercritical of your new partners? Consider how to avoid problems before they start.</p> <figure>In the moment, you can often spot “clues” that something is about to go awry. Trouble doesn’t usually emerge solely because of one person, but through <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429058011-13/conflict-interaction-phillip-glenn">the back-and-forth between people</a>. Assuming too much about who might be “the difficult one” and why won’t be helpful on its own.</figure> <p>You have to learn to recognise the conversational moves people are making (including your own) and see how <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780126235500500082">other people respond to them</a>. Some facial expressions can express doubt or distrust, and contemptuous expressions (such as <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2021.1936858">eye-rolling</a>) can signal that a conversation might take a turn toward insult rather than discussion. A response that starts with the word <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216615002465?casa_token=gyu3pjfpGrEAAAAA:VwEe8rVBXvsbF9V_aeYylN42IpKYeZ1BGqp85VoP_rkBQZtEI5AbuqBloiPxgTKfsJjj5VTSvcY">“well”</a> can be warning of incoming disagreement.</p> <p>As you notice what ways of speaking get what kinds of responses, you can be more thoughtful about what you choose to say. Even <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1_2">changing a single word</a> can shift the direction of a conversation. A common sign that a conversation is starting to escalate unhelpfully is that people begin <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826765?casa_token=AIU2DQgEJQUAAAAA%3AGoBBF8SPSXcDmiKBAwaIihjFngE1ck8QiVj0HFZO7VGxi8TtkOf7PB0j5NMV9ufgMN4BwF-dMFA1Gw">commenting on the conversation itself and accusing</a> one another of unreasonable behaviour. Once you learn to be more conscious of that, it can help you reflect on how to respond in ways that might deescalate… if that’s what you want to do.</p> <h2>Why we fight</h2> <p>There is a dilemma here: sometimes backing down from a conflict challenges our values of authenticity and commitment to our beliefs. If someone says something insulting, whether mild or <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216622002120">egregious</a>, it feels disingenuous and morally irresponsible to smooth things over. Some conflict is worth engaging, especially with someone you care about who is willing to listen and think about things. The complication is, that’s not always the case.</p> <p>Often when people argue about something they care about, they end up <a href="https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/16661">misaligned</a> or “talking at cross purposes”, where they’re not really even discussing the same thing anymore. Every conversation has a trajectory, but it’s entirely possible for a conversation to have <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786745#metadata_info_tab_contents">parallel or divergent trajectories</a>. In such cases, it’s unlikely that any amount of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08351813.2019.1631044">good-faith discussion</a> is actually going to be <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216618304302?casa_token=y7CoCCptr6AAAAAA:LCHuB6-BRaH4HPIothLVX_ENhSPlfshapdyvxzk9LjlQa24WJyRM4sXF2_bFp6oiWAfWnsVIoK8">productive</a>.</p> <p>At the end of the day, it’s also worth considering what makes a person or conversation “difficult”. Assigning that word to someone <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00234.x?casa_token=g5XfR-FKNLEAAAAA:GFvy6M4CY9IHrE51_NTEJDNgf6bdPqJZPX2Q2KZStBesgv8UIJDj7YTBnVMOSpRCDRWbX-DsmkQFaWQ">is not a neutral or objective</a> statement. Maybe you, in fact, are the “difficult person”. Maybe, for some kinds of conflict, you should want to be difficult. And maybe, sometimes, it’s alright to go outside and let off steam with a snowball fight.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196751/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jessica-robles-617248">Jessica Robles</a>, Lecturer in Social Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/loughborough-university-1336">Loughborough University</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/going-home-for-the-holidays-how-to-navigate-conflict-and-deal-with-difficult-people-196751">original article</a>.</em></p>

Family & Pets

Placeholder Content Image

Kyle Sandilands storms out of studio after argument with Jackie O

<p>Kyle Sandilands has stormed off his hit KIIS FM radio program after an argument with his co-host Jackie O Henderson over Covid-19. </p> <p>Sandilands stormed off just 11 minutes into the show on Tuesday morning, after bringing up that NSW Premier Chris Minns had cancelled his appearance on their show after testing positive to the virus.</p> <p>The argument sparked when Henderson downplayed the seriousness of the virus and said it was "just like the flu". </p> <p>Sandilands hit back saying that Henderson would probably still isolate if she caught the virus, considering how cautious she was in the past. </p> <p>"I'm allowed to change my opinion," Henderson shot back. </p> <p>Sandilands then argued that she should have some "consistency" in her opinions, before declaring that he was going home and storming out of the studio. </p> <p>"Well that escalated quickly," a stunned Henderson said. </p> <p>Not long after their Executive producer Pedro Vitola confirmed that the radio host had gone home. </p> <p>"What's happening today?" Henderson asked. </p> <p>"I'm telling you this full moon, it messes with people," she added referring to what astrologers call the full moon in Gemini, which they believe is a period when people are a bit more restless and rife with misunderstandings. </p> <p>It is unclear whether Henderson also went home as it is reported that the show has been playing repeats of old segments. </p> <p><em>Images: Instagram/ KIIS FM</em></p>

Music

Placeholder Content Image

Heated argument between economy passengers reignites plane etiquette debate

<p>A 12-second clip of two passengers arguing on a plane has reignited the age-old debate of whether it is acceptable to recline your seat on a plane. </p> <p>The viral video which was originally posted on TikTok and then re-shared on X, has racked up over 8 million views since Thursday. </p> <p>In the video, a frustrated woman was calling out another female passenger for pushing her seat the entire flight, right after they landed. </p> <p>“The whole trip she pushed my seat,” the woman said to a male passenger seated next to the female passenger accused of kicking her seat. </p> <p>“You seen it. You know she did.”</p> <p>“I’m allowed to put my seat back," she yelled repeatedly. </p> <p>Ian Miles Cheong, the user who posted the video on X, defended the woman saying: “She’s allowed to put her seat back. You don’t get to kick it repeatedly just because you want more space.”</p> <p>A few were on the woman's side and praised her for standing up for herself. </p> <p>“You are allowed! Period! You want space in front of you instead of pushing the seat, buy a seat with extra space or get your a** to business class. Reclining was put there for a reason,” one person wrote. </p> <p>“She was patient enough to wait till flight landed," they added. </p> <p>“If the seat is reclinable, recline it,” another commented. </p> <p>"What she’s saying is right. The woman has a right to put her seat back without someone kicking it," a third agreed.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">She’s allowed to put her seat back. You don’t get to kick it repeatedly just because you want more space. <a href="https://t.co/WELD7Qh4Re">pic.twitter.com/WELD7Qh4Re</a></p> <p>— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) <a href="https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1719881310351863952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2023</a></p></blockquote> <p>However, others claimed that there was an unwritten rule that you shouldn't recline your seat, especially on a short-haul flight, adding that the recline feature should be scrapped from airplanes. </p> <p>“Putting your seat back in coach is an unspoken thing most people don’t do. It’s really the airline’s fault because they’ve made coach so cramped and tight that putting the seat back shouldn’t even be an option,” one commented. </p> <p>“Airline seats simply shouldn’t be able to recline. It intrudes on the already very little space a person has on the plane for the person behind them,” another added. </p> <p>“Really it’s the airline’s fault for cramming so many people in such a small space. They don’t call it cattle class for nothing,” a third wrote. </p> <p>One user understood both sides of the argument, and blamed the airlines for making the seats so cramped. </p> <p>"It can be annoying sometimes to be behind someone with their seat all the way, but if the airlines didn't want to allow that, it wouldn't happen," they wrote.</p> <p>"You don't kick the seat like a baby. Blame the airline, not the person doing what the airline says is fine." </p> <p><em>Images: Twitter</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

Three arguments why Just Stop Oil was right to target Van Gogh’s Sunflowers

<p>Waves of controversy were sparked recently when the Just Stop Oil activists <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/oil-protest-van-gogh-sunflower-soup-intl-scli-gbr/index.html">threw tomato soup</a> over Van Gogh’s Sunflowers at the National Gallery in London. Although the painting was behind glass <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/14/just-stop-oil-activists-throw-soup-at-van-goghs-sunflowers">so not damaged</a>, politicians were quick to condemn their “<a href="https://twitter.com/JamesCleverly/status/1581327788388163584?s=20&amp;t=ACNnBMBQN9UNL-cxoRhrVg">attention-seeking</a>” vandalism while media commentators proclaimed that the act had “<a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewMarr9/status/1580879221656006656?s=20&amp;t=ACNnBMBQN9UNL-cxoRhrVg">lost them</a>” to the cause. </p> <p>It is perhaps with some poetic timing that I’ve just started a project that is an oral history of the <a href="https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/research-and-teaching/departments-and-schools/geography/oral-history-of-the-environmental-movement-project/">environmental movements in the UK</a>. The aim is to contribute to a greater understanding and wider public awareness of the variety of modes of engagement with environmental issues.</p> <p>This tactic was certainly a provocative act and Van Gogh’s work is undoubtedly some of the most important artwork of modern times. However, many of these commentaries on Just Stop Oil’s actions simply just don’t hold up. </p> <p>The main critiques of the activist stunt are that it <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/10/14/just-stop-oils-van-gogh-soup-stunt-sparks-criticism-alienating-strategy">alienates people</a> who are sympathetic to the climate cause by attacking a much-loved and important piece of art. That it smacks of <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-too-middle-class-heres-how-to-fix-that-123231">middle-class activism</a> and is overly performative. And, finally, that it has required “<a href="https://currentlyhq.com/personal/we-need-more-climate-protests-just-not-performative-ones/">explanation</a>”, which if you have to do, you’re losing.</p> <p>While there is some truth to these critiques, I don’t buy them.</p> <p>Rather than wade further into the quagmire of social media debate, here is a breakdown of the three arguments and explanations of why I think that this kind of provocative activism deserves our unwavering support.</p> <h2>1. Art is an extension of corporate power</h2> <p>First off, museums and art galleries have long been used by fossil fuel companies for the purposes of <a href="https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745335889/artwash/">artwashing</a> – the ethically acceptable process of funding art and culture to smooth over their very unethical corporate practices. Some of the more conscientious institutions (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/19/shells-ends-national-gallery-sponsorship-to-delight-of-campaigners">including</a> <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/c3ab1b10-ee06-4fac-abe9-1a1e4dcef39f">The National Gallery</a>) have <a href="https://news.artnet.com/art-world/bp-ends-tate-sponsorship-2017-447041#:%7E:text=Tate%20was%20forced%20to%20disclose,year%20between%201990%20and%202006.">cut ties</a>with any sponsorship from oil companies, but others have <a href="https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-science-museum-signed-gagging-clause-with-exhibition-sponsor-shell">doubled down</a> on it.</p> <p>Art itself, through the <a href="https://qz.com/513625/the-new-reserve-currency-for-the-worlds-rich-is-not-actually-currency/">networks of global trading</a>, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-02/how-do-the-rich-avoid-taxes-billionaires-use-this-art-strategy?leadSource=uverify%20wall">tax avoidance</a> and the creation of <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/9783956796227/">freeports</a> (huge walled complexes where art is stored away from prying eyes and tax collectors), has become <a href="https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745338248/art-after-money-money-after-art/">totally intertwined</a> with global corporate and fossil fuel capitalism. Corporations plough money into art institutions and art pieces themselves because it buys them validity in the eyes of the public. Art becomes a shield for their more nefarious planet-destroying practices.</p> <p>But the art should never be considered above, or separate from, the capitalist content behind it. Millions of treasured pieces of art are now under the purview of corporate power and have <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/147192/modern-art-serves-rich">become windows</a> – beautiful windows no doubt, but still windows – into the shady practices of global capital and <a href="https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JMLC-01-2021-0002/full/html?casa_token=HAd9Kr6jD2kAAAAA:37GtlbaQIbxeoQOtXExK2-OKjvog5kYNaEv94Jwy_MF1ssCHNztVGBofMoPYjqp-NMkKE5PYOPklW_nmDBelpT8QQpgo6cEAmp_vF_Ydv6DNIL8h1Q">international tax avoidance</a>. As hard as it is to stomach sometimes, art pieces, in this way, become extensions of corporate power and hence are legitimate targets of climate activism.</p> <h2>2. Fighting class oppression and climate change is the same</h2> <p>The second critique, often coming from the left, accuses climate activism of being inherently middle-class. Groups, they argue, are populated by white people and the “mess” they create (be that with soup on paintings or <a href="https://twitter.com/Taj_Ali1/status/1581332937475207169?s=20&amp;t=4ELyikRjs5qmUWZuNYYl6g">milk on supermarket floors</a>) is often cleared up by working-class cleaning staff. </p> <p>There is truth in these arguments, which are often missing from the justification of these activist practices. However, taking a more holistic approach, social and economic justice is a fundamental pillar of climate justice – you cannot have <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/cop26-tackling-climate-breakdown-and-delivering-economic-justice-must-go-hand-in-hand/">one without the other</a>. The Just Stop Oil activists who defaced the Van Gogh recognised these arguments in part when <a href="https://twitter.com/JustStop_Oil/status/1580883249228046336?s=20&amp;t=x0HvtkQci8bXDeUjY0EFQw">they said</a> that many people “can’t afford to even buy and heat soup because of the energy crisis”.</p> <p>“Solving” the climate crisis demands total system change. As <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-strikes-greta-thunberg-calls-for-system-change-not-climate-change-heres-what-that-could-look-like-112891">Greta Thunberg</a> and other prominent voices have constantly said. Capitalism will not solve the problem, it only makes it worse. Capitalism has the oppression of the working class as its core engine. So, fighting against the changing climate means also fighting capitalism’s class (and indeed, racial, gendered and ableist) imbalance. The two are, and need to continue to be, one.</p> <h2>3. Direct action is important</h2> <p>Finally, some people have wheeled out the phrase “if you’re explaining yourself, you’re losing”. Again, there is a kernel of truth to that, but the severity of the climate catastrophe needs no further explanation. </p> <p>Explaining is not the point of direct action. If you need to be “won over” by the argument, then you’re clearly not doing enough. </p> <p>Just Stop Oil’s action with soup on Sunflowers was to symbolise that we’re attacking something we love. The level of ire at those symbolically ruining – remember, it was behind glass so has not be destroyed – a precious art piece should be given a million-fold to those who are actually ruining our precious planet.</p> <p>Direct climate action will only increase as the situation worsens and our governments continue to actively make things worse with new mines, fracking and new <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/07/uk-offers-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licences-despite-climate-concerns">oil drilling contracts</a>. <a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/3665-how-to-blow-up-a-pipeline">Destroying pipelines</a>, <a href="https://www.insider.com/laver-cup-climate-change-activist-sets-his-arm-on-fire-on-court-2022-9">demanding an end to private jets</a> and other direct action against fossil fuel burning infrastructures are important acts in this regard. They highlight how art is also part of that infrastructure and is therefore equally vital.</p> <p>The current crop of climate activists –- Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain etc – will forge their own path because that is what activists need to do to make their points heard. But for all the reasons outlined above, understanding the history (and their successes and failures) will be important to help build a coherent, united and effective climate movement. </p> <p>That cohesive movement will need art yes, but not as a conduit for the very capitalist vehicles that are destroying our beautiful planet. As Van Gogh himself said, "…it is not the language of painters but the language of nature which one should listen to, the feeling for the things themselves, for reality is more important than the feeling for pictures."</p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p> <p><em>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-arguments-why-just-stop-oil-was-right-to-target-van-goghs-sunflowers-192661" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. </em></p>

Art

Placeholder Content Image

“Never get into an argument with a fool”: Dan Andrews’ fiery return to form

<p>Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has used his first press conference to thank his supporters and make a dig at the "vile rumours" being spread about the circumstances relating to his injury.</p> <p>The premier was back at work on Monday after spending 111 days recovering from broken ribs and spinal damage due to falling on wet stairs in March.</p> <p>Mr Andrews thanked his colleagues, medical professionals and his family for the continuous support during his recovery.</p> <p>"It's great to be back after a lengthy absence, one that was required in terms of a very serious injury," he said.</p> <p>"I want to thank Cath and the kids, I want to thank my medical team, I want to thank every Victorian that has sent me cards and notes and best wishes.</p> <p>"I want to thank Deputy Premier James Merlino who has done an astounding job."</p> <p>During the time of his accident, some details about Mr Andrews' condition was unknown, causing a Liberal MP to ask a series of questions about who owned the holiday home where Mr Andrews and his family were staying, who called the ambulance, and whether police had interviewed the premier.</p> <p>Mr Andrews said despite releasing a statement yesterday about his injury in his own words, putting an end to the "vile stories" about the incident may not be possible.</p> <p>However, the premier did not appear fazed by the "fools" who spread misinformation about his injury.</p> <p>"People who make up their own facts, you're best not really to get into an argument with them," he said.</p> <p>"It's very difficult to win those arguments. People know me, they know my work, they know my background. They know that I love my family and I love my state.</p> <p>"Never get into an argument with a fool."</p> <p>The premier said the "vile, wicked" rumours circulating had been "very hurtful" to his family.</p> <p>"It is very, very hurtful when kids are being taunted at school," he said.</p> <p>"It is very hurtful when you see some of this stuff printed. And I'm not speaking for myself. I'm speaking on behalf of my family."</p> <p>Now that he's back, Mr Andrews is ready to help Victorians.</p> <p>"I have spent four months doing rehab, not getting fit to get out, but getting fit and healthy to get back to work for the people of Victoria," he said.</p> <p>"That's what I'm doing, and that's what I'll do for as long as the people of Victoria want me to do that important work."</p> <p>Mr Andrews said he had booked the holiday home for a week, which he paid for himself. He was on official leave at the time of his fall.</p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

"Let me finish": Tense argument on Q&A between Barnaby Joyce and Emma Husar

<div class="body_text redactor-styles redactor-in"> <p>ABC's Q&amp;A was tense last night with Barnaby Joyce and former Labor MP Emma Husar speaking about respect for women.</p> <p>However, as one viewer pointed out, Joyce cut off his female counterparts 12 times in 2 minutes.</p> <p>The panel was described as "lively" by host Hamish Macdonald who tried to keep things together as the talks descended.</p> <p>At one point in the program when writer Jane Caro was speaking, former Labor MP Emma Husar interjected with, “Barnaby, be quiet!” to which Caro added, “It is my turn to talk” and the pair were met with resounding applause.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr">Barnaby just interrupted women 12 times in 2 minutes. On an episode about respect for women. 😂 I just counted. You can't make this up. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/qanda?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#qanda</a></p> — Finance Money Life (@financemoneylif) <a href="https://twitter.com/financemoneylif/status/1328295932551544832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 16, 2020</a></blockquote> <p>Labor MP Husar was forced to resign after sexual assault allegeations and bullying and harrassment claims from staff, saying that over the last week women were held to different standards to men.</p> <p>She then pointed out Joyce's case, which he wasn't happy with.</p> <p>“Obviously Barnaby’s case as well, is that women will be judged by a different set of standards. They will be told to abide by a different set of rules than the men,” she said.</p> <p>She said if the Liberal Party were saying that politicians such as Mr Joyce, Alan Tudge and Christian Porter were “meritorious selection, we’ve got a problem”.</p> <p>“It is galling to watch these men continue in their jobs,” she said.</p> <p>“Continue to go forward and to lead our country, when – you know, in Tudge’s case – he got caught with his pant’s down, Barnaby is the same. Mine was all over innuendo. There was a man that was wielding that agenda because I’d fired him.</p> <p>“A man who felt privileged, who felt like he was entitled to his job, even though he was underperforming, didn’t get his way in fair work, didn’t get his way when he tried to extort me, so went down the path of – you know, getting the media to be complicit in his actions, which – you know, has had lasting ramifications on my life. And I’ve not worked since. “</p> <p>She said while she wasn’t wishing anything bad for those men, she was asking “what the hell is this?”</p> <p>“We can’t put a woman out there and hang her out to dry on rumour and innuendo when we have got behaviour that is clearly outside at least some standard of basic integrity going on while we allow this to happen to a woman,” she said.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/QandA?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#QandA</a> is live with <a href="https://twitter.com/Barnaby_Joyce?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Barnaby_Joyce</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/helenhainesindi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@helenhainesindi</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/emma_husar?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@emma_husar</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/rcbregman?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@rcbregman</a>, and Kate Mills, and a live performance from <a href="https://twitter.com/limecordiale?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@limecordiale</a> <a href="https://t.co/dBOBPuiV3i">https://t.co/dBOBPuiV3i</a></p> — QandA (@QandA) <a href="https://twitter.com/QandA/status/1328288835491401728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 16, 2020</a></blockquote> <p>Mr Joyce went on to say he was “disappointed” in Ms Husar for what she said and he was not apologetic for what happened to her because it was what the Labor Party did that was appalling.</p> <p>“I think she was treated incredibly poorly,” he said.</p> <p>But Ms Husar shot back, “You didn‘t call that out at the time, Barnaby. I remember your party and the government of the day weaponising what I was going through. And making it worse.”</p> <p>He said he was different to Ms Husar in that he accepted he did something that was wrong.</p> <p>“I would say morally wrong, in that my marriage [was] breaking down, but that is not a judgment for another politician,” he said.</p> <p>“If it’s illegal, it is a judgment for police. If it is something else, it is a judgment for priest or pastor … it’s not the job of another politician or a person who’s not the police or some sort of moral guidance counsellor to be in judgment of you.</p> <p>“I’m not in judgment of you, Emma. I do find it a little bit galling that you open your sort of narration with one of the meritorious selection of myself because I most certainly never, ever did that to you.”</p> <p>Fans of the show weren't impressed by Macdonald's lack of moderation during the tense discussion.</p> <p>"Great topic, but there's too much on-screen axe grinding," one fan griped.<br />Another agreed.</p> <p>"Come on Hamish, step on here and do some moderating. I can't believe Jane Caro has been so patient with Barnaby Joyce, second time he's talked over the top of someone and not let them speak," another fan wrote.</p> </div>

TV

Placeholder Content Image

​Grant Denyer opens up about brutal argument with former Sunrise boss: "I nearly killed him"

<p>Grant Denyer has opened up about a brutal altercation he had with a former <em>Sunrise</em> executive producer on the latest episode of his podcast with wife Cheryl, <em>It’s All True.</em></p> <p>The famous TV personality revealed he “nearly killed” Adam Boland during a heated physical argument that took place while Boland prepared to farewell Seven’s long-running breakfast show in 2010.</p> <p>The program was to be broadcast live from Hawaii in an elaborate week-long salute to Boland. </p> <p>Denyer recounted that it was something he “didn’t really want to do.”</p> <p>He admitted that at the time both he and Boland were “admittedly not in the best form of our lives” as he was newly-married to wife Cheryl, who was also six months pregnant and working as a TV producer.</p> <p>He said that Boland gave him an ultimatum if he wanted to bring Cheryl on the trip: “She has to pay for her own flights and she needs to work.”</p> <p>Denyer claimed that while in Hawaii, Boland was “not hands on – he wanted to swan by the pool, have fun and bask in the glow of his success”.</p> <p><img style="width: 500px; height: 281.25px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7838079/denyer-grant-2.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/dbeee74abc7a441fbf3b9e6708400943" /></p> <p><em>Adam Boland made Sunrise a ratings hit in the early 2000's. </em></p> <p>However, he explained that his pregnant wife was put to work scouting locations, producing <em>Sunrise</em> segments and “doing a lot of running around”.</p> <p>A technical failure during one morning’s broadcast saw Cheryl cop Boland’s wrath.</p> <p>“He turns on Cheryl and starts having a go at her. He says Cheryl is useless, incompetent … and he called you a b**ch,” Denyer recounted.</p> <p>“He starts flat-out abusing us. Proper abuse. It wasn’t his finest hour, and it certainly wasn’t my finest hour.”</p> <p>Denyer explained what happened as he went to the control room and confronted Boland.</p> <p>“I blew up at him, told him to get f***ed. I said, ‘You will never talk to my wife like that. There is no way you’ll ever talk to my wife like that.’ I grabbed him and slammed him against the wall and held him by the throat, yelling at him for 10 minutes on,” Denyer revealed.</p> <p>“I let him have it double barrels. I was going to rip his head off, I was so furious. Nobody intervened. I did the wrong thing but I needed to have my say and eventually it took three people to pull me off him!”</p> <p>The TV personality said the incident was “not something I’m particularly proud of”. </p> <p>“I am ashamed of my actions and I would do it differently now,” he said.</p> <p>The star says he and his former boss have since patched things up. “We’re all good now,” he said.</p> <p>“We’ve made up, we’ve spoken about it and we’re all good now.”</p> <p>Cheryl said her husband’s actions were “heroic but scary”. </p> <p>“You really snapped. In all the years that I’ve known you, I’ve never seen that happen,” she said.</p> <p>Boland himself had previously discussed the fight in his 2014 memoir Brekky Central. </p> <p>However, he said the stoush was a case of “crossed wires”, meaning Denyer mistakenly thought he had insulted Cheryl.</p> <p>“I don’t think he sees it the same way I see it,” Denyer said during the podcast.</p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

The new COVID-19 argument for scrapping Daylight Saving

<p>There are growing calls from health professionals around the world to scrap daylight saving, with warnings turning clocks forward for half the year can have significant impacts on people’s health.</p> <p>An Australian professor has voiced his concerns about the health risks associated with the change of time, saying the risks could be amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic.</p> <p>Another professor that has issued a warning has been the professor of diabetes at Monash University, saying the upcoming change can have negative impacts.</p> <p>“In terms of the scientific evidence, which we will want to stick with at the moment, there are more heart attacks just after daylight saving, more road accidents, and then you’ve got workplace accidents, car accidents and their implications,” he said.</p> <p>“There is also cognitive dysfunction in relation to the daylight saving and the change in timing to our normal body rhythms.”</p> <p>The Premier of Victoria Daniel Andrews shut down the possibility of cancelling daylight saving during a press conference on Wednesday.</p> <p>“I don’t want to be disrespectful to the professor, who may be a very learned individual. No. Daylight saving will be proceeding,” Mr Andrews said.</p> <p>“That’s why the curfew changes, that extra hour is really important, well ahead of daylight saving.”</p> <p>Mr Andrews said the extra hour of daylight would hopefully help make the summer “like no other”.</p> <p>“If we stay the course we’ll be able to get close to normal, COVID normal but close to normal, but people will be able to go out and enjoy the city, enjoy the state, enjoy being back at work, enjoy a sense of confidence as they go into 2021 and you know what they’ll enjoy most? They’ll enjoy the fundamental truth that all that they’ve given, all that they’ve done count counted for something,” the premier said.</p> <p>“It wasn’t frittered away. It wasn’t because pressure came on a bad decision was made, the wrong decision was made. We’ve got to avoid that.</p> <p>“This will be a summer like no other and daylight saving, I can confirm, will be a feature of it.”</p> <p>Daylight saving will kick off at 2 am on October 4, with residents in NSW, Victoria, the ACT, South Australia and Tasmania turning their clocks forward by an hour.</p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

10 perfect arguments that make mask wearing a no-brainer

<p>Many people understandably feel powerless against the invisible but very real threat posed by the coronavirus. But we don’t need to resign ourselves to merely hoping it goes away.</p> <p>Wearing a face mask is one of the most powerful steps we can take – along with keeping our hands clean and maintaining social distance – to quash the spread of coronavirus in our communities, says Dr Andrew Pekosz, professor of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.</p> <p>“These things together provide a high degree of protection,” he notes. If you’re not already on board with masks (and 65 per cent of us are, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey), the following facts should convince you.</p> <ol> <li><strong> Masks of all types are effective</strong></li> </ol> <p>Masks unquestionably reduce the spread of droplets from the nose and mouth, says Pekosz. Researchers recently demonstrated this fact when they recorded high-speed video of people uttering a simple phrase both when wearing and not wearing cloth masks. A slightly damp washcloth prevented nearly all of the speakers’ droplets from passing through. Another study concluded that “the odds of developing an infection with a coronavirus were reduced by 78 per cent when wearing any mask.”</p> <p>Even at less than 100 per cent effectiveness, “you don’t throw up your hands,” Dr Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious disease specialist. “That’s silly. Nobody’s taking a cholesterol medicine because they’re going to prevent a heart attack 100 per cent of the time, but you’re reducing your risk substantially.”</p> <ol start="2"> <li><strong> Coronavirus stats are lower where masks are required</strong></li> </ol> <p>A recent study compared death rates in countries where people were required to wear masks with those in countries where masks were optional, and the differences were stark. The mortality rate increased by an average of 43 per cent weekly in countries where people were not required to wear masks, compared with a 2.8 per cent increase in countries where people were wearing masks.</p> <p>In the United States, similar disparities have been seen. In a review of the first 15 states to require masks in public (between April 8 and May 5), researchers found “a significant decline” in the daily growth of cases once masks were mandated, and the effect increased each day after the orders were signed. The researchers concluded that up to 450,000 cases may have been averted due to these mandates by May 22.</p> <ol start="3"> <li><strong> Masks prevent transmission from people who don’t know they’re sick</strong></li> </ol> <p>It takes an average of five days (but sometimes as long as 14 days) for people infected with COVID-19 to show symptoms. In addition, up to 18 per cent of people who have the virus never develop symptoms at all but can still pass it on to others, according to an article from the BBC. In fact, nearly half of all people who develop COVID-19 are infected by people who do not show any symptoms.</p> <p>If those asymptomatic people had worn masks – even though they felt fine – they could have prevented this transmission, Pekosz says. “That’s part of our critical defence against this virus,” he explains. “It’s people spreading this virus before they show symptoms who are really driving this infection.” Researchers still don’t understand why some people remain asymptomatic while others develop full-blown symptoms. That’s just one of the coronavirus mysteries that still can’t be explained.</p> <ol start="4"> <li><strong> Wearing masks could help the economy</strong></li> </ol> <p>A study by the financial firm Goldman Sachs estimates that up to 25 per cent more people would wear masks if governments introduced a national mask mandate. That, in turn, would substantially reduce the rate of infection growth, allowing businesses to remain open and saving 5 per cent of the gross domestic product.</p> <p>Wearing masks would also protect the people who work in those businesses, thereby helping their community thrive.<strong> </strong></p> <ol start="5"> <li><strong> If we all wore masks, kids’ schooling may not be as disrupted</strong></li> </ol> <p>Educators, parents, and students largely agree that the remote-learning options most schools put into place earlier this year have been fundamentally disastrous, especially for disadvantaged students. Learning and social skills have fallen by the wayside, while parents scramble to juggle their own work-from-home schedules with those of their kids, and teachers adapt to new methods of instruction.</p> <p>“If you can control the spread of the virus in the community, then schools can be opened up in ways that allow kids back in the classroom and allow them to have interactions with their teacher and peers, and go forwards in some way,” Pekosz says. One thing is certain, though: Education won’t be the same.<strong> </strong></p> <ol start="6"> <li><strong> Masks protect people with underlying conditions</strong></li> </ol> <p>The teenager working on the supermarket checkout might have Type 1 diabetes. The toddler on the bus might have a heart defect. The man in line in front of you might be caring for his wife who has MS. The truth is, more than half the people you encounter on a daily basis probably have an invisible underlying condition, such as high blood pressure or diabetes. A Canadian study found that 54 per cent of workers do. And the evidence is clear that people with underlying conditions are at the highest risk for severe complications from the coronavirus. Managing a chronic illness is difficult enough in the best of times. We can extend kindness by not making it harder. Donning a mask in public keeps everyone safe.<strong> </strong></p> <ol start="7"> <li><strong> Masks are an easy, low-tech preventive measure until we have a vaccine</strong></li> </ol> <p>Until a vaccine for the novel coronavirus becomes available, our only options for prevention are handwashing, physical distancing, and wearing masks. Even when a vaccine has been tested and determined to be both safe and effective, it will take some time before it’s widely available. “Even if you just focus on the United States, you’re talking about immunising 300 million people. It may be that these vaccines are going to need two doses to work – an initial shot and a booster dose. That’s an awful lot of vaccinations that have to take place to get a large percentage of the population immunised,” says Pekosz. “This won’t be a light switch. It will be a process, based on the logistics.”<strong> </strong></p> <ol start="8"> <li><strong> Masking up is a moral issue, not a political one</strong></li> </ol> <p>The Right and Left on the political spectrum alike endorse wearing masks in public were community have spikes in infections. Even those who initially resisted wearing them now are doing so. One American commentator Karen Hughes, wrote in an op-ed that not wearing a mask is “an incredibly selfish act that puts other people’s lives at risk. Like yelling ‘fire!’ in a packed theatre or brandishing a loaded gun in a crowd, failing to don a mask greatly increases the risk that one person will endanger others.”</p> <p>And wearing a mask doesn’t infringe on individual liberty any more than wearing a seat belt in the car or refraining from smoking in public places does. “There are limitations we accept to avoid hurting people in our community,” says Jeremy Howard, distinguished research scientist and founder of #Masks4All. “It’s reasonable, kind, and respectful to take some actions to reduce the risk of hurting others.”<strong> </strong></p> <ol start="9"> <li><strong> Wearing a mask is a sign of strength</strong></li> </ol> <p>Men are more likely than women to believe that “wearing a face covering is shameful, not cool, a sign of weakness, and a stigma,” according to recent research. Howard emphatically disagrees with that perception. “Wearing a mask is a strong behaviour,” he says. “It actually takes strength to do something that is awkward and uncomfortable to protect jobs, protect the economy, protect lives. Weak people take the easy way out – they’re too scared to do something that’s new or different.”<strong> </strong></p> <ol start="10"> <li><strong> Masks can serve other purposes</strong></li> </ol> <p>Masks have come to the rescue on more than one occasion, like when a cold sore or pimple pops up. Thanks to the mask, no one need ever know it’s there. Ditto that for hiding an uncontrollable smirk in a serious discussion and for keeping your coffee breath to yourself. You’ll also save money on lipstick, since there’s no need to make up the bottom half of your face. And finally, masks are available in such a wide range of designs that there’s sure to be one that expresses your sense of fashion, your personality, or your viewpoint.</p> <p><em>Written by Laurie Budgar. This article first appeared on </em><em><a href="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/healthsmart/10-facts-that-will-convince-you-to-wear-a-face-mask">Reader’s Digest</a>. For more of what you love from the world’s best-loved magazine, <a href="http://readersdigest.com.au/subscribe">here’s our best subscription offer</a>.</em></p>

Caring

Placeholder Content Image

Woman shot dead over argument about dog poo

<p><span>A 21-year-old woman has died after a neighbour allegedly shot at her and her boyfriend while they were walking their dog.</span></p> <p><span>Isabella Thallas and Darian Simon were strolling through Downtown Denver, in the US state of Colorado, on June 10 when Michael Close allegedly became furious as their dog relieved itself.</span></p> <p><span>The shooting took place after a man began to yell at Simon for commanding the dog “to poop,” said police. Close was arrested and taken into custody in Park County.</span></p> <p><span>Ms Thallas died at the scene and Mr Simon is currently recovering in hospital after being shot in the leg and butt, according to authorities.</span></p> <p><span>A GoFundMe page has been set up for Thallas family because her mother, Ana Thallas, has been on furlough and unable to work.</span></p> <p><span>“The family needs our help with funeral and living expenses,” the GoFundMe, set up by a friend of the family, says.</span></p> <p><span>“A mother should never have to bury her child and especially for such a violent reason.”</span></p> <p><span>“She was such a beautiful, innocent soul,” her mother Ana Thallas said according to the Associated Press.</span><br /><span>Her father, Josh Thallas, said his heart was broken.</span></p> <p><span>“I’ve never gone to sleep crying and woke up crying in my life. I’ve been through a lot,” Mr Thallas said.</span><br /><span>“I can’t replace what was taken today.”</span></p> <p><span>Ms Thallas had turned 21 just days before her death.</span></p> <p><span>A GoFundMe has also been set up to help Mr Simon, who is the co-founder and co-owner of Be A Good Person, a brand “developed based on a passion for positivity and a brighter future that we foresee within our society”.</span></p> <p><span>His team is “completely shattered”, according to the statement posted on the website.</span></p> <p><span>On June 12, Be A Good Person announced their store would be closed temporarily, while thanking the Denver community for its support.</span></p> <p><span>“We are overwhelmed in the face of tragedy. But we see you rallying in support, we hear you sending love, and we thank you,” the post said.</span></p> <p><span>“Our deepest condolences go out to the Thallas family. A beautiful soul was lost too soon. We are hurting with you.”</span></p> <p><span>The Thallas family has said they are seeking to convert the spot where Isabella Thallas died into a dog park.</span></p> <p><span>More than 100 people showed up for a vigil to remember Ms Thallas, while Mr Simon watched the vigil from his hospital bed through Facetime, according to ABC7.</span></p> <p><span>According to ABC7, police allegedly found an AR-15 and a handgun Close’s vehicle. He is facing first-degree murder and attempted murder charges.</span></p>

Family & Pets

Placeholder Content Image

How to end an argument fast

<p><span>Ever been in a heated discussion that just wouldn’t cease? Sometimes, no matter how hard you try in getting your points across and providing facts to back them up, the other person simply refuses to acknowledge them. However, there’s a simple trick that could put a stop to the winding debate you find yourself in.</span></p> <p><span>According to Reddit user <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/dt9ve0/lpt_saying_fair_enough_is_the_quickest_way_to_end/">u/nfhii</a>, there is a fitting response that could stop uncomfortable conversations in their tracks: “Fair enough.”</span></p> <p><span>The line is especially suitable for when you could see the other person’s reasoning or how they get to the point they’re making. It does not necessarily resolve the argument, but it allows you to move on in a peaceable way. </span></p> <p><span>User <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/dt9ve0/lpt_saying_fair_enough_is_the_quickest_way_to_end/f6w4zdv/">u/kyithios</a> summed it up: “Context and tone matters. When I say "fair enough" to friends when discussing something, it’s usually to denote I get their point. I may not necessarily agree with said point, but I get what they mean. As a result, we can move forward with a conversation or even change the subject without making things awkward, or someone angry.</span></p> <p><span>“In short, it’s just an acknowledgement of an argument, and understanding of it.”</span></p> <p><span>What about when the opposing party is wrong and far from fair? Saying “agree to disagree” suggests that more discussion is not going to change either of your minds and helps you out without having to concede to their view.</span></p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

How to make excellent arguments

<p>From as early as Grade 3 teachers start teaching children how to put across their own points of view. It’s not about winning arguments, but ensuring kids grow up to be <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0260137032000138158">thoughtful and engaged citizens</a>. These skills might come in to play at school in essay writing, in oral presentations or in debates.</p> <p>And whether we’re talking about making arguments for in life, there are three things present in all good arguments.</p> <p><strong>1. Reasonability</strong></p> <p>Reasonability is about connecting reasons and evidence to your opinions. This serves two purposes.</p> <p>The first is for our own clarity of thought, so we understand how concepts and events relate to each other (or realise when they don’t).</p> <p>The second is so others can assess our reasons. We need to respect the person we’re arguing with and that means giving them the opportunity to agree or disagree with our reasoning. Without this, we’re tricking people into agreeing with us.</p> <p>One shortcoming in the <a href="https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/english/?strand=Language&amp;strand=Literature&amp;strand=Literacy&amp;capability=ignore&amp;priority=ignore&amp;year=11581&amp;elaborations=true&amp;cd=ACELA1536&amp;searchTerm=Modality#dimension-content">Australian Curriculum</a> is that it asks students to write persuasively, by using <a href="http://docs.acara.edu.au/curriculum/worksamples/Year_9_English_Portfolio_Below.pdf">emotive language</a>. We should be teaching our students to provide the reasoning behind their opinion as well as backing it up with evidence, not to manipulate emotions.</p> <p>So if students are asked to write a persuasive essay against same-sex marriage in Australia, for example, it’s not enough to assert an opinion such as “it’s bad for public morals”. They need to say which morals, how the public would suffer, and present any historical or contemporary evidence to support this claim. An argument needs to have reasoning to make it reasonable.</p> <p><strong>2. Charity</strong></p> <p>Charity is one of the most overlooked aspects of debating, which is ironic considering many prominent philosophers, including <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/heyj.12009">Thomas Aquinas</a>, <a href="https://eet.pixel-online.org/files/etranslation/original/Mill,%20On%20Liberty.pdf">John Stuart Mill</a> and <a href="https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/hume1751.pdf">David Hume</a>, saw it as as the highest of virtues. In the context of argumentation, charity means looking past the text of what someone is saying to see the heart of their issue.</p> <p>We’ve probably all enjoyed watching our opponent struggle to articulate their points or deconstruct arguments (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AioJbNL1JS8">President George W. Bush was famous for these gaffes</a>), but doing this serves no purpose but to humiliate.</p> <p>We all fail to make our arguments clear and coherent from time to time, and we need to be generous when interpreting what’s being said. If we approach all people as having worthwhile ideas that might just not be fully developed or expressed, we’ll not only reveal clearer ideas but also make everyone feel valued. And making people feel valued isn’t touchy-feely nonsense – there are <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1467-9256.12069">demonstrable benefits to learning and democracies</a> when we feel our contributions matter.</p> <p>Say another student has done an oral assignment on the dangers of migrants in Australia – of them supposedly taking jobs or causing fights. This may be a racist argument but a more charitable interpretation might lead the listener to take a look at the job security of the debater’s family or their experiences of safety. Their conclusion may be entirely false, but it’s worth looking into whether there are underlying reasons for their argument. Our charity here brings knowledge rather than conflict.</p> <p><strong>3. Fallibility</strong></p> <p>It’s a struggle for anyone – child or adult – to admit they don’t know the answer. But the willingness to be wrong is crucial to learning. We improve our ability to find solutions when we recognise that we might be wrong or limited in our point of view.</p> <p>There are several major benefits in recognising our own fallibility.</p> <p>The first is in learning; children are far more likely to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pits.10092">be willing to try and participate</a> if there’s no need for them to get it perfect the first time round. <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/46412880/Exploring_transformative_learning_and_th20160612-12330-c3kvju.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DExploring_Transformative_learning_and_th.pdf&amp;X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&amp;X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20190822%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&amp;X-Amz-Date=20190822T014719Z&amp;X-Amz-Expires=3600&amp;X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&amp;X-Amz-Signature=14bb04b603f483a9af8462714a41fad2e76efef7bf051ed6eb40c7685e6d1dac">Failure and learning are linked</a></p> <p>The second benefit is we engage in <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-015-9307-6">more meaningful inquiry</a> <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11229-012-0062-6.pdf">if we don’t treat any one argument or perspective</a> as objectively correct.</p> <p>Imagine a school debate on “students shouldn’t have to do homework”. Children aren’t going to be in favour of homework and they’re going to struggle to find reasons in favour of it. At the same time, it’s the perfect topic to separate how they feel (I hate homework) from the practical benefits of doing homework (revision and improved retention).</p> <p>Students don’t need to change their minds and come to love homework. But having them recognise the limitations of their own perspectives is valuable.</p> <p><strong>Try this out</strong></p> <p>A fun way to try this out in the classroom is through a “fishbowl” exercise.</p> <p>This involves having some of the students sit in a circle and discuss a contentious ethical topic. The other half of students sit in a larger circle around them. Their task is to individually analyse the arguments of a specific student and look for fallacies.</p> <p>The outer ring gets the chance to critique the inner ring for their reasoning. After this, the inner ring gets the chance to critique the outer ring for charity.</p> <p>Throughout this, students develop a willingness to be wrong when they discover everyone makes mistakes. Genuine inquiry, reasonableness and open-mindedness become more important than score-keeping.</p> <p>It’s perfectly acceptable to want to win and to be heard. But we want to teach our kids inquiry and making everyone feel valued is more important than winning. After all, we can win and still be wrong.</p> <p><em>Written by Luke Zaphir. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-good-arguments-at-school-and-everywhere-else-121305">The Conversation.</a> </em></p> <p> </p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

“Genuine doubt”: Why one judges’ argument could save George Pell

<p>After George Pell’s application to Victoria’s Court of Appeal was dismissed on Wednesday with two judges ruling that they thought the jury’s verdict was unreasonable, Pell’s legal team has their sights set on the High Court of Australia.</p> <p>It’s all due to one judge who disagreed and put his views forward in a<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/case-summaries/court-of-appeal-proceedings/george-pell-v-the-queen" target="_blank">203-page dissenting opinion.</a></p> <p>Justice Weinburg is a former Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution who joined the Federal Court in 1998 before moving to the Victorian Court of Appeal in 2008. He retired in 2018 but has served as an acting judge since then.</p> <p>There are five reasons as to why he disagreed with his fellow judges.</p> <p><strong>1. Genuine doubt</strong></p> <p>Weinburg says that he has a “genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.” The jury was required in the case to find Pell guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”, but after reviewing the evidence himself, Weinburg thinks that there was a “significant possibility” that Pell did not commit the offences.</p> <p>“My doubt is a doubt which the jury ought also to have had,” he wrote.</p> <p><strong>2. He didn’t find the complainant convincing</strong></p> <p>Weinburg has suggested that there was a lot of evidence that casts doubt upon the complainant’s story.</p> <p>He said that there were “inconsistencies, and discrepancies, and a number of his answers simply made no sense”.</p> <p>One example Weinburg used was that the fact that the complainant did not remember there were rehearsals for the choir after mass on the two days that the abuse likely occurred.</p> <p>The complainant was also unsure if Pell had said mass that day or was leading Mass.</p> <p><strong>3. Weinburg trusts the other witnesses</strong></p> <p>He gave more weight to other witness testimonies than his fellow judges who concluded their evidence was inconsistent.</p> <p>Weinburg has disagreed and said that their evidence is critical and “if accepted, would lead inevitably to acquittal”.</p> <p>The other evidence provided by Pell’s master of ceremonies Charles Portelli established a routine within the church and helped rule out certain dates.</p> <p>The other judges found that the evidence provided by Portelli and sacristan Max Potter was inconsistent, but Weinburg said that it proves there were “modes of conduct that were subject to particularly rigorous and strong norms”.</p> <p><strong>4. Large number of improbable possibilities</strong></p> <p>Weinburg paid attention to one of the arguments put forward by Pell’s legal team which suggested that for the first incident to have happened, a large number of improbable things would have to had occurred within a short time frame.</p> <p>The boys would have had to break away from the procession, go through two normally locked doors and return to choir rehearsal without anyone noticing they were gone.</p> <p>Weinburg accepts this argument.</p> <p>“The chances of ‘all the planets aligning’, in that way, would, at the very least, be doubtful.”</p> <p><strong>5. Unusual aspects of the case </strong></p> <p>Weinburg noted that the prosecution relied entirely on the evidence of the complainant and that there was no supporting evidence.</p> <p>“These convictions were based upon the jury’s assessment of the complainant as a witness, and nothing more,” he said.</p> <p>He noted that juries were told they cannot convict an accused unless they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, as well as being told that they should not convict if there was a “reasonable possibility” that there was substance to the defence provided.</p> <p>“It is not now, and never has been, a question of whether (Pell’s) complainant was to be preferred as a witness to, for example, Portelli, Potter, McGlone, Finnigan, or any other particular witness who gave exculpatory evidence,” Justice Weinburg wrote.</p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

3 key steps to a healthy argument

<p><span>Conflict is an inevitable part of being in a relationship. Studies have shown that having fights is normal and healthy, even for the happiest couples. “The biggest mistake that couples make is avoidance,” Joseph Grenny, co-author of <em>Crucial Conversations </em>told the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/13/couples-who-argue-together-stay-together-research-finds"><em>Guardian</em></a>. </span></p> <p><span>“We tend to avoid these conversations because we are conscious of the risks of speaking up, but unconscious of the risks of not speaking up … without considering the longer-term costs to intimacy, trust and connection.”</span></p> <p><span>So, if fights are necessary for a healthy, thriving relationship, how can we best proceed to fight without creating serious rifts? Here are three tips that experts recommend.</span></p> <p><strong><span>1. Avoid labels and accusations</span></strong></p> <p><span>In the heat of the fight, it can be tempting to resort to labels and sweeping statements like “you’re lazy” or “you always do this”. However, these fleeting words can cause lasting damage.</span></p> <p><span>“Usually we say these things because we think we are having <em>no</em> impact,” said Sue Johnson, <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hold-me-tight/201002/what-every-couple-needs-know-about-fighting?collection=1077717">clinical psychologist</a> and author of <em>Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love. </em>“The trouble is, this kind of label wounds your partner. In fact, our brain registers this kind of hostile criticism in the same area as it does physical pain. Your partner also becomes so busy dealing with this pain that he or she cannot listen to you at all.”</span></p> <p><span>When you’re on the receiving end of these unkind retorts, do not react. Recognise them as a bait that is designed to make you angry and tune it out. Clinical psychologist Deborah Grody told <a href="http://time.com/5402188/how-to-fight-healthy-partner/"><em>TIME</em></a> that when this occurs, the best thing couples can do is to take a timeout and return to the conversation once both parties have cooled down.</span></p> <p><strong><span>2. Listen and ask for clarification</span></strong></p> <p><span>It’s easier said than done but being curious and listening to your partner well when they voice their concerns can truly help nurture growth and connection. </span></p> <p><span>Grody advises against interrupting your partner mid-sentence – if there is something you don’t quite understand, wait until they finish speaking and then ask for a clarification afterwards. </span></p> <p><span>For example, asking “What makes you feel like I’m not doing my part around the house?” is a more respectful and empathetic thing to do for your partner rather than saying, “Well, I’ve already done my part, so you should acknowledge that.”</span></p> <p><span>Go into the discussion with the intention of understanding the other instead of being right and/or winning the argument.</span></p> <p><strong><span>3. Make requests</span></strong></p> <p><span>There are many ways to air your grievances, but some might be better than the others. Common methods, like complaints (“I’m the only one doing the housework around here”) and sarcastic statements (“That’s okay, I have <em>a lot of time </em>to clean the house anyway”) often only result in pent-up frustration and hostile environment. Meanwhile. threats or ultimatums might get you what you want in the short-term but will chip away the foundation of your relationship. </span></p> <p><span>Be proactive and express what you need from your loved one. Direct requests will give your partner some idea on the ways they can meet your needs.</span></p> <p><span>Do you have any tips on having “healthy” fights in a relationship? Share your thoughts in the comments.</span></p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

5 arguments couples always have on holidays

<p>Isn’t it funny how someone that you love so much can also drive you completely crazy? Add the fact that you’re away from home, tired and possibly emotional and it’s easy to see how these little ‘discussions’ can quickly escalate.</p> <p>Not only is it common to have small arguments about petty things, it’s also completely normal. Nearly all couples will be able to relate to these (and we’ve got some tips for how to diffuse the situation).</p> <p><strong>1. What time should we leave for the airport?</strong></p> <p>Preparation for a trip is a key source of stress. Who has the passports? What time should we leave for the airport? If you have differing views of how to manage the details of your trip it can be helpful to allow one partner to be the ‘trip boss’ and make the decisions (and hold onto the tickets) for the duration of the holiday.</p> <p><strong>2. Unpack first or hit the beach?</strong></p> <p>There’s often one partner that wants to settle in, check out the room, unpack their clothes and pop their toiletries away. Then there’s the other who wants to dump the bags and hit the pool bar. As with many arguments, an element of compromise may be in order here. Can you drop the bags off, unpack a few key items and then head out? Find a happy middle ground for everyone.</p> <p><strong>3. No, I don’t need suncream</strong></p> <p>Why oh why do people hit sunny climes and decide they are immune to UV rays? Getting seriously sunburnt at the start of the holiday can be a massive downer for the rest of the trip. The application of sun cream and the wearing of hats should be a non-negotiable, no matter your age.</p> <p><strong>4. Air-con levels</strong></p> <p>You might have gone somewhere with a different climate to home, and all of a sudden, your partner wants the air conditioner set to Arctic levels. Meanwhile you’re shivering under two doonas with your bed socks on. Try agreeing on a comfortable temperature to aim for and stick to that (no secret button pressing, OK?). Or allow the cool breeze until a certain time, after which regular temperatures will be returned.</p> <p><strong>5. Making the most of the all-inclusive package</strong></p> <p>What if only one of you want to booze the night away (to get your money’s worth) at the free bar that you paid good money for? While it’s all fun and games to have a few drinks, if it means the next day will be spent in bed, hungover, that can put a dampener on things for the non-boozy partner. Try to be considerate of each other while also allowing your partner some space to do their own thing. Perhaps the dry partner can plan a day out sightseeing or shopping the next day on their own while the other sleeps it off? You might also try suggesting that the night out is to be just that – one night.</p> <p>Have you ever had a big bust up on holidays? Were you able to make a recovery and still enjoy your trip? We would love to hear your stories in the comments.</p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

How happy couples handle arguments

<p>Arguments are a part of life, but they don’t have to spell the end of a relationship. Follow these tactics from happy couples and learn to fight smart.</p> <p><strong>They listen to each other</strong></p> <p>Communication is the key to a happy relationship at the best of times, but it becomes even more important during an argument. Take time to genuinely listen to what the other person is saying and hear their point of view, rather than just waiting for your turn to speak again. Arguments quickly become worse when it is just two people yelling at each other without ever really listening. Take things slow, take turns and remember that everyone has a right to speak.</p> <p><strong>They don’t run from it</strong></p> <p>On the face of it, it might seem like avoiding arguments altogether is the best course of action. Not so. Leaving an issue to fester, unspoken, inevitably makes it worse. Rather than running from a fight, sit down with your partner and talk it through in a reasonable manner. That way, you will be able to come to some sort of resolution instead of just privately stewing over an issue. It's only a matter of time before it blows up in your face.</p> <p><strong>They attack the problem not the person</strong></p> <p>There’s a big difference between being angry at a person and being angry at their behaviour, and it’s important to keep a clear distinction. Remember that you and your partner are a team, not on opposing sides. Just because you disagree over something, no matter how large or small, doesn't change that. If a problem arises, you are better off focusing on how you can tackle it together instead of attacking the other person directly.</p> <p><strong>They think about the big picture</strong></p> <p>It’s only natural to want to win a fight, but what you should really be focusing on is letting the relationship win overall. It can be easy to get caught up in the minutiae of an argument, focusing on the little details and tiny slights you think have been delivered. But take a moment and see the bigger picture – do you want this relationship to end? If the answer is no, then you need to see this fight for what it is: a bump in the road that you can overcome together.</p> <p><strong>They don’t get nasty</strong></p> <p>This should go without saying but, sadly, it doesn’t. At no point do happy couples resort to name calling, threatening language, out of control yelling or physical violence. Don’t say something you can’t take back or that you will ultimately regret. Remember that, above all, you love each other and you want to be together.</p> <p>How do you handle arguments with your partner?</p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

5 tips for disagreeing grandparents and parents

<p>These days many grandparents are playing an active role in the lives of their children and grandchildren. But as the generations try to work together it’s inevitable that some problems will arise. Today we have some tips for making the relationship between the three generations work.</p> <p><strong>1. Get on the same page</strong></p> <p>There’s nothing like some unsolicited advice to make a parent feel criticised or undermined. It’s important from the start to let everyone know where the boundaries are in terms of the type of help offered or the advice that is warranted. Remember that all parties want what’s best for the little ones, so keep that goal in mind. It’s important for grandparents to always be on the same page as the parents. Comments to the grandkids about their parent’s style of parenting are both inappropriate and potentially damaging for the relationship. Always be constructive rather than critical.</p> <p><strong>2. Wait to be asked for advice</strong></p> <p>Always respect that these are not your children, they are your grandchildren, and so your opinion is secondary. Resist the urge to correct your children or tell them they are doing something wrong (unless you see a safety issue). Most likely you will be asked for your advice down the track once they see that you are not judging them.</p> <p><strong>3. Don’t force anyone to take sides</strong></p> <p>Despite your strong relationship with your own child, putting them in a position where they feel they need to side with you or their partner is never ideal. Most likely they will support their partner and then you will be left out in the cold. If you feel that there is an issue, it’s usually best to speak with your own child about it and be sure the grandkids aren’t within earshot. Open communication is key.</p> <p><strong>4. Be open about your ideal role</strong></p> <p>For some grandparents, being asked to babysit every weekend or attending every soccer game is exhausting. For others, they feel left out if they aren’t invited. It’s important to be clear with your children about how you would like to be involved in their lives so that there are no hurt feelings.</p> <p><strong>5. Enjoy the relationship</strong></p> <p>Being able to spend time with your grandchildren is something that not all grandparents get to enjoy. So instead of worrying that the kids watch too much TV or that the house is a mess, just enjoy the moments that you have with the children. Leave the parenting to the parents and revel in your role as grandparent. </p> <p>Have you ever had a disagreement about parenting with your own children? We would love to hear how you resolved it in the comments.</p> <p><strong>Related links:</strong></p> <p><a href="/lifestyle/family-pets/2016/07/how-to-find-your-balance-as-a-grandparent/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>How to find your balance as a grandparent</strong></em></span></a></p> <p><a href="/lifestyle/family-pets/2016/07/parents-beliefs-about-failure-are-crucial-for-kids/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>Parents’ beliefs about failure are crucial for kids</strong></em></span></a></p> <p><a href="/lifestyle/family-pets/2016/07/how-to-pass-family-history-onto-grandkids/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><em>How to pass family history onto grandkids</em></strong></span></a></p>

Family & Pets

Placeholder Content Image

How to stop money ruining your relationship

<p><em><strong>Liz Koh is a financial adviser and author of “Your Money Personality; Unlock the Secret to a Rich and Happy Life.”</strong></em></p> <p>Are you a joint bank account sort of couple? Or do you prefer to keep everything separate?</p> <p>There is a continuum of possibilities for managing money in a relationship, ranging from complete separation of all financial affairs to sharing of income and expenses but not assets or investments, to complete integration where everything is owned and managed jointly.</p> <p>The way in which money is managed within a relationship reflects how committed the relationship is and how the two people concerned have dealt with their individual differences in their relationship with money. </p> <p>Your relationship with money is a reflection of who you are as a person and how you interact with the world. If you are by nature a cautious person, you will probably be very careful with your money.</p> <p>Likewise, if you are a go-getting risk taker in life, chances are you will take risks with your money. Differences between partners in terms of their relationship with money have an impact on the way in which money is managed.</p> <p>The factors which are most likely to lead to partners managing money separately are:</p> <ul> <li>There is a lack of commitment or trust in the relationship</li> <li>Significant assets have been accumulated prior to the relationship</li> <li>One partner earns significantly more than the other</li> <li>Bad experiences with former partners </li> <li>Strong desire for financial independence</li> </ul> <p>Some people have a very strong desire for financial independence. This is typically seen in people who have entered into a relationship late in life, or people who have had to struggle for financial survival over a long period of time, for example as a single parent on a low income.</p> <p>It is hard for financially independent people to share decision-making and trust another person with access to their bank accounts.</p> <p>Typically, when financial affairs are kept separate, each partner contributes an agreed amount into a joint account for basic living costs.</p> <p>Assets are owned separately and the family home may be owned by one partner or as tenants in common.</p> <p>While it is understandable that money is managed separately in the early stages of a relationship, as time goes by and the level of trust and commitment increases, the way in which money is managed should ideally change.</p> <p>Money can be used much more effectively when it is treated as a combined resource. Financial planning is all about setting goals and using money to achieve them.</p> <p>In a healthy relationship, there are agreed goals – some combined, and some individual – and both partners support each other in achieving these goals. The higher the level of agreement on goals and integration of money, the easier this process is.</p> <p>Relationships don't always work out in the long term and it is wise to agree how finances would be separated along with the relationship. This can be done with a legally binding agreement. It is particularly important to do this if significant assets have been accumulated prior to the relationship.</p> <p>Having a written agreement can also help build trust where one partner has had a previous bad experience or a desire to retain financial independence. The longer the relationship lasts, the less important this issue becomes and it is important to regularly review any agreements made to ensure they remain appropriate.</p> <p>There is no right and wrong way to deal with financial resources in a relationship. There are, however, some basic principles. </p> <ul> <li>Each partner should have access to an agreed amount of money, which they can use without reference to the other.</li> <li>Resources should be shared fairly, and should not be used to wield power in the relationship.</li> <li>Priorities for saving towards common goals should be agreed and adhered to.</li> <li>There should be agreement on which financial decisions need to be made jointly and which can be made individually</li> <li>Each partner should respect the other's views and acknowledge that different attitudes towards money are not right or wrong.</li> </ul> <p>Following these principles should help reduce conflict over financial matters, and ensure the best use of assets and income towards achieving goals.</p> <p><em>Written by Liz Koh. First appeared on <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/" target="_blank"><strong>Stuff.co.nz</strong></a>.</span></em></p> <p><strong>Related links:</strong></p> <p><a href="/lifestyle/relationships/2016/04/communication-tips-for-a-great-relationship/"><strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Top 5 communication tips for a great relationship</span></em></strong></a></p> <p><a href="/lifestyle/relationships/2016/04/how-to-say-no-nicely/"><em><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">How to say no the nice way</span></strong></em></a></p> <p><a href="/lifestyle/relationships/2016/03/toxic-relationship-habits-that-are-healthy/"><strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">3 “bad” relationship traits that are actually healthy</span></em></strong></a></p>

Relationships

Placeholder Content Image

Turns out Paul Keating’s 1980s superannuation argument had legs

<p>In a slowing economy, a counter-argument to the increase in compulsory super contributions is to leave it up to the individual. Many would still opt to save, but low-income earners, in particular, could decide they don’t want a higher retirement income at the cost of a lower standard of living while still working.</p> <p>Right before the National Reform Summit Paul Keating recently attacked the then former opposition leader John Howard for failing to back his proposal to increase compulsory super contributions to 15 per cent of salaries back when Keating was Labour PM.  </p> <p>Had Howard maintained the Coalition’s philosophical principles after beating Keating in 1996, he would have abolished compulsory contributions. Now, however, they are due to rise from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent.</p> <p>Keating’s “reform” was actually a move away from the productivity reforms of the 1980s. Compulsory contributions diverted financial resources away from more efficient uses and boosted trading in existing assets instead of generating capital for productive new investment. The funds management industry was artificially expanded into the world’s fourth biggest in an economy that’s the 12th biggest – furthermore, a Reserve Bank of Australia study shows that super supplied almost none of the investment capital to expand the mining sector between 2003 and 2012.</p> <p>Compulsory contributions can also be argued to hurt reform by increasing the “dead weight” losses by stopping individuals from allocating their income in line with their preferences. If allowed to choose, some people may spend more of their salary to bring up a family, pay off a mortgage, etc.</p> <p>Annual compulsory and voluntary contributions to super exceed $125 billion. On a slowing economy, this compulsion has a significant impact on the potential demand of economy – especially given that wages aren’t rising as quickly as they used to.</p> <p>Part-time workers who earn $16,000 a year would $33 a week better off (or $1716pa) if employers paid their compulsory contributions as normal take-home pay after tax, instead of into super.</p> <p>Those on minimum wage of $35,160 a year would lift their disposable income by $53 a week. A salary of $70,000 would have $85 extra to spare, with further increases the higher the salary.</p> <p>What do you think? Are compulsory contributions necessary, or should it be left to the individual to decide?</p> <p><strong>Related links: </strong></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><em><a href="/finance/retirement-income/2015/10/what-is-life-cycle-super/">What is a life-cycle super product? And do you need one?</a></em></strong></span></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><em><a href="/finance/retirement-income/2015/09/calculate-money-for-retirement/">How to calculate the bank balance you’ll need to retire</a></em></strong></span></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><em><a href="/finance/retirement-income/2015/09/how-to-make-money-after-retirement/">3 great ways to make money after you retire</a></em></strong></span></p>

Retirement Income

Our Partners