Fred99:

Reciprocity: My brain is still struggling with the notion that someone who is calling for all people to be treated equally, regardless of their race, is somehow the racist.

Well counter to that is a theory,  that after more than a century of "equality" under the law, every single measure of social and economic equality shows that's nothing equal about distribution of wealth and opportunity (as measured by outcome) on racial divides at all.  Any improvements have been recent - and the result of policies that he rejects.

Reciprocity:

Fred99:

 

Reciprocity: My brain is still struggling with the notion that someone who is calling for all people to be treated equally, regardless of their race, is somehow the racist.

 

 

 

Well counter to that is a theory,  that after more than a century of "equality" under the law, every single measure of social and economic equality shows that's nothing equal about distribution of wealth and opportunity (as measured by outcome) on racial divides at all.  Any improvements have been recent - and the result of policies that he rejects.

 

Are you seriously putting forward a theory that after more than a century of equal treatment under the law, that there are different levels of social and economic “success” for different races?

Do you propose that might be because one of those races may have an absence of good role models and have a carefully cultivated “victim mentality” that leads them to believe that they can only be successful if they get special treatment?

Or have you been suckered into Molyneux’s theory that they might just have different capabilities when compared to other races?

Or is there another basis for your theory?

Woah - wait.  I presume we've crossed wires here somewhere.

My comment was based on opposition to Brash's usual argument that "affirmative action" isn't needed, as in his opinion "equality under the law" either had or would - without anything else needed - achieve social/economic equality.  I strongly believe he's wrong.  I do believe that statistics support me there.

I disagree with Brash.  I'm not convinced he's a racist.  I wouldn't personally ban him from anything.  I wouldn't try to help him though.

Molyneux and his so-called "scientific" racism arguments - yup - I'd ban him from speaking anywhere if I had power to do so.  I'd throw him off twitter, banish him from facebook, deny him a work visa to NZ.  His arguments are scientifically wrong, he's not qualified to make them so definitely doesn't deserve a platform on any academic campus, they're entirely consistent with Nazi fascist ideology (it is NOT invoking Godwin's to state that by the way - and I'll cite Godwin to prove it if needed) - he's just as much of a danger as anybody promoting or breaching other limits that most would accept as reasonable. At the bare minimum, figuratively speaking a sock should be jammed in his dirty mouth at every opportunity. He is filthy racist scum.  There do need to be limits - and he's on the wrong side of them.

If I've got a "theory", then the "basis" of that is that very many people are racist, I witness that on a daily basis, apart from that being fundamentally "unfair", it's working against good for society, and that as I don't see that same racist behaviour displayed in young children, my assumption that this behaviour is taught and learned - not inherent or based on unbiased reason - is probably 100% correct.

Sort it out.  I'm an old man - the consequences probably won't affect me directly - I'll be gone.  But there will be blood if it's not sorted, and arguing legitimacy of some hypothetical "both sides debate" between right and wrong won't prevent it.  It will bring it on - I have no doubt.

My comment was based on opposition to Brash's usual argument that "affirmative action" isn't needed, as in his opinion "equality under the law" either had or would - without anything else needed - achieve social/economic equality. I strongly believe he's wrong. I do believe that statistics support me there.

Rikkitic:

I get so sick and tired of this manipulative BS right-wing twisting of reality to justify a distorted interpretation of history and contemporary society. The simple truth is, always had been, and remains, that there has not been a level playing field for Maori in this country and bleating about 'equal treatment' is a particularly dishonest fake argument. As a group, Maori are behind the white majority by almost every measure. Treating them 'equally' just reinforces that. When they have the same employment opportunities, educational standards, health care, and standard of living as the rest of us, that is the time to start treating them equally. Brash is a racist because he tries to use the fake equality argument to keep Maori disadvantaged. It is the most pernicious kind of victim-blaming.

Reciprocity: If we put aside your dislike of Brash, Molyneux, and racists (which is totally your right) and look at the heart of your theory - I think this is it:

My comment was based on opposition to Brash's usual argument that "affirmative action" isn't needed, as in his opinion "equality under the law" either had or would - without anything else needed - achieve social/economic equality. I strongly believe he's wrong. I do believe that statistics support me there.

Are you trying to achieve “equality of outcome”?
Even though doing so means that you would need to remove “equality of opportunity”?

I state that "if" I've got a theory, then it's A - then in the very next post in the thread I've got someone disagreeing with that, telling me that they think "my theory" is something quite different.

Then you've asked a question, and replied to that with an insincere question - it's actually just a statement with a question mark at the end - and the basis of that statement is very clearly a logical fallacy.

So nope.  I'm not playing along with a game like that - and it's veering off topic anyway.

Back on topic, I was pleased to hear Students Association rep on the radio this morning - not screeching for Massey's VC's head on a stake as some political shills have done - but asking for her to explain and throwing it back at the Uni Council to sort out.

This thread is deja vu and circular. Its been pounded out on coutless threads here and the same result occurs, jibes attacks and a never ending cycle of either side sticking firm to their position.

Fred99:

I state that "if" I've got a theory, then it's A - then in the very next post in the thread I've got someone disagreeing with that, telling me that they think "my theory" is something quite different.

Then you've asked a question, and replied to that with an insincere question - it's actually just a statement with a question mark at the end - and the basis of that statement is very clearly a logical fallacy.

Fred99:

 

and opportunity (as measured by outcome)

 

So there are two different things as I see it: -

1) Equality of opportunity (required by law);

2) Equity of outcome (arguable whether this is required by law or not);

The Hobson people (BTW Hobson's spoken words do not form part of the treaty) consider (1) satisfied by equality at law (which everyone in NZ has) and object to differential treatment intending to achieve (2).  They see different/special treatment as racist.

People left-of-centre tend to define opportunity more broadly and see a lack of equity of outcome as reflecting an inherently racist society.   They often favour state-intervention to achieve equity of outcome. 

Different perspectives - who is right/wrong is entirely subjective.

Personally, I think state interventions to address inequity are generally ineffective.  I think equity improves over time as society becomes more tolerant and that has little to do with govt (except a very limited role passing and enforcing anti-discrimination law). 

People in Western Anglo-democracies are generally ornery. They don't like govt control and if you tell them what to do they fight you.  If you let them find their own way, most people will head in the correct direction in their own time.

I support state interventions at a modest level - for example I don't see an issue with Maori seats as other parts of the Treaty support that.  When people start talking about appointing people to education opportunities, jobs or directorships based on race or sex, that breaches my sense of fairness and I seriously object.

The major obstruction for going forward is the past and present. Until all the wrongs are remedied going forward is always going to be difficult. It is not made any easier with individuals like Don Brash that are desperately trying to remain or get relevency through a dubiuos agenda. The so called Hobsons pledge is not part of teh Treaty and is just a statement by one individual and as far as I can tell is not part of any legislation. It is being used by certain individuals to push a particular political belief.

Unfortunately the actions of Massey University has afforded Brash more publicity than he deserves.

Reciprocity:

I’m sorry, I used the wrong word. I understand that you said your “theory” is that many people are racist.

But this thread is (loosely) about Brash - I was referring to your stated strong belief that he is wrong to oppose affirmative action.

I am trying to strip back the passion and the personalities and understand the basis of your belief. I think that you’re saying you’re in favour of equality of outcome. (Which I believe can only be achieved by removing equality of opportunity)

It’s not a game. I’m seeking clarification that I’ve understood your argument correctly

It is a game. You are trying to twist the discussion.

Affirmative action, in whatever form it takes, is an attempt to rectify inequality of opportunity. If you seriously think that everyone has equality of opportunity here, and the weight of history counts for nothing, then you are either misinformed or a racist.

It is easy to prattle about equal opportunity if you are the one on the top of the heap. Unless you have walked in the shoes of those at the bottom, you don’t know what you are talking about.

MikeB4:

 

The major obstruction for going forward is the past and present. Until all the wrongs are remedied going forward is always going to be difficult.

 

I believe that this sentiment is more responsible for the poor social and economic outcomes of certain ethnicities than all other factors combined.

Many diverse ethnicities have suffered unthinkable atrocities over the past 150 years:

- 20 million Russians were killed under Stalin's rule

- 6 million Jews were slaughtered in the Holocaust

- The Japanese had nuclear bombs detonated in two of their major cities killing more than 200,000 (directly)

I could go on...

None of those people are still sitting around claiming that they can never be successful until past wrongs are remedied.  They are simply getting on with being successful.

Reciprocity:
But this thread is (loosely) about Brash - I was referring to your stated strong belief that he is wrong to oppose affirmative action.

That's not actually what I said there:

My comment was based on opposition to Brash's usual argument that "affirmative action" isn't needed, as in his opinion "equality under the law" either had or would - without anything else needed - achieve social/economic equality. I strongly believe he's wrong. I do believe that statistics support me there.

Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome aren't automatically conflicting - especially so as I doubt you'd get consensus on how they're defined / what they really mean.  

6FIEND:

 

None of those people are still sitting around claiming that they can never be successful until past wrongs are remedied.  They are simply getting on with being successful.

 

This doesn't even make any sense. It is completely over the top.