The Australian Greens party

[rederob]

Umm, the fact that media ran with the "white men" in their headlines.

So your case is now based on what others are claiming?
What are you offering that supports your contentions and which is in the context of Jordan's speech?

Hey rob I noticed you can't go one post without an insult now.

Please show where I have insulted you.
You cannot show how Jordan's comments are racist, unless you delude yourself into believing the false narrative you create.
I consistently point out that you have made claims which do not exist in Jordan's speech, and you never address these.

 

[Smurf1976]

The simplest test to find out whether you're dealing with racism or sexism is to change the input and see if the output changes.

Swap "white" for "black" or swap "man" for "woman" and see what happens.

Assuming it's some sort of decision making process and we're not talking purely about biology then if the output changes there's racism or sexism involved somewhere yes. Because if there's no racism then changing the "race" input produces no difference in the decision. Likewise gender.

It's all very straightforward if you take it back to basics.

Where it gets complicated is when someone wants to implement racism or sexism whilst pretending to do otherwise. That's common in practice and no amount of politely dressing it up changes what it is.

 

[moXJO]

So your case is now based on what others are claiming?
What are you offering that supports your contentions and which is in the context of Jordan's speech?
Please show where I have insulted you.
You cannot show how Jordan's comments are racist, unless you delude yourself into believing the false narrative you create.
I consistently point out that you have made claims which do not exist in Jordan's speech, and you never address these.

Oh robbie boy, "others claiming"was to show the intended consequence in pushing that particular statement. It indeed did have an effect in pushing culture wars, grabbing headlines, and dividing opinion.
And that I'm not the only one honing in on the statement in my "delusions".

Its hardly a false narrative when a person's color suddenly becomes relevant and the need for them to be "swapped out" for diversity.
Its not a claim, its in the speech.


“The era of white able bodied men is over"
A statement thats going to get a reaction. Well placed to play to their base. It was clearly intended to be used in this manner. And it got a reaction as far as the US.

It did not need to be added to the speech.
It was a political dog whistle and it played out as intended.

 

[moXJO]

Rob why do you think that particular line needed to be added?

 

[rederob]

The simplest test to find out whether you're dealing with racism or sexism is to change the input and see if the output changes.
Swap "white" for "black" or swap "man" for "woman" and see what happens.
Assuming it's some sort of decision making process and we're not talking purely about biology then if the output changes there's racism or sexism involved somewhere yes. Because if there's no racism then changing the "race" input produces no difference in the decision. Likewise gender.
It's all very straightforward if you take it back to basics.
Where it gets complicated is when someone wants to implement racism or sexism whilst pretending to do otherwise. That's common in practice and no amount of politely dressing it up changes what it is.

Given that there is a definition of racism. if the conditions of that definition are not met then what you say is not at all relevant.
If most people elected to Parliament are white men, what makes that input racist/sexist?
The basics you need to apply would relate to what it means for a statement to be racist/sexist.

 

[rederob]

Its hardly a false narrative when a person's color suddenly becomes relevant and the need for them to be "swapped out" for diversity.

At what point do you concede that most people elected to Parliament are white men?
If this group is representative of the broader community, show how it is.
You refuse to address the context of Jordan's speech and continue to make claims which are wholly inconsistent with what words and phrases mean.
For example, your claims of dog whistling cannot be valid in that white men are clearly identified by Jordan as a group not representative of the broader community. If you believe I am incorrect, please present a definition of dog whistling from a credible source.
Your claim of racism relies merely on the fact that the word "white" was used. Again, please provide a definition of racism from a credible source which supports your claim.

 

[sptrawler]

Given that there is a definition of racism. if the conditions of that definition are not met then what you say is not at all relevant.

The problem is the journalistic licence people use, when applying a definition, as with most things definitions can be applied subjectively.
Just the application of affirmative action, warps the application of racism, as it is applied differently to one group as opposed to another.
As with most things in life, it is they who hold the stage, who dictate what is acceptable and or the norm.
The rest feel unable to voice their concerns, for fear of retribution and bullying. As was very apparent, during the gay marriage period, Margaret Court a case in point. IMO
She didn't agree with their definition of marriage, but those with her view of the definition, didn't have the stage.
Now the definition has been changed, to conform with those who hold the stage, life goes on.

 

[rederob]

The problem is the journalistic licence people use, when applying the definition, as with most things definitions can be applied subjectively.

Given racism has been used many times in this thread, the issue is what makes "white" a racist term in the absence of evidence that it could be construed that way from Jordan's speech?

 

[sptrawler]

Given racism has been used many times in this thread, the issue is what makes "white" a racist term in the absence of evidence that it could be construed that way from Jordan's speech?

My apologies, I didn't read that far back, I will remove my foot.

 

[SirRumpole]

So , is it ok to be a white , anglo saxon , heterosexual male these days ?

 

[sptrawler]

So , is it ok to be a white , anglo saxon , heterosexual male these days ?

Of course, as long as you keep it to yourself and don't tell anyone.
If you say anything you are a smug racist, homophobe who came from a wealthy sheltered background.
Not only that, you also can't jump.
Which brings me to another point, what would happen if a film came out, called "black men can't swim"?

 

[rederob]

So , is it ok to be a white , anglo saxon , heterosexual male these days ?

Or a black, Asian, lesbian woman.
And everything in between, or in top of, in addition to etc..

 

[moXJO]

At what point do you concede that most people elected to Parliament are white men?

Why does it matter what color they are?
And they were elected by their communities to represent the whole of their communities. It doesn't matter what color they are and I already made this point before. As a community grows it will no doubt elect who they want.
Unless he is advocating for quotas based solely on skin color, which is a whole other thing.

If an American Indian was elected is the argument "They are way too small of a minority to represent the community"
suddenly acceptable?

Rob why do you think that particular line needed to be added to the speech?

 

[Ann]

So , is it ok to be a white , anglo saxon , heterosexual male these days ?

Of course it is Rumpy, we need someone on which to focus our hate and loathing. After all a feminist won't attack a transgender, a lesbian won't attack a vegan, a vegan won't attack a climate changer a homosexual won't attack a person with disabilities and none of the preceding will attack any of the others. Who is left to attack?

Humans always need to find a common enemy because we don't have any natural predators. Guess what Rumpy, you are the lucky one, a white heterosexual male, you are now the hated target. God help you if you don't accept CC , love to eat steak or vote for anyone other than the greens. You, to put it in the vernacular are fcuked!

 

[Smurf1976]

the issue is what makes "white" a racist term

It would be racist if it were used as a criteria for making a decision except in circumstances where clear and obvious reasons exist.

If you need an actor to play the role of a real person who happens to be a black man then obviously you would not employ a white female actor to play that role. Commonsense there and nobody would sensibly take issue with that.

If the question is who can be appointed Commissioner of Police or CEO of xyz corporation then using race or gender as part of the selection process would be racist / sexist since there is no reason someone of any race or gender with a suitable career background and experience could not perform the role.

 

[rederob]

Why does it matter what color they are?

For the umteenth time, they belong a group which which clearly is not representative of the broader community and I believe that to be a fact. Jordan's vision is for a Parliament which is.
Before Jordan spoke, Penney Wong spoke. In accepting their respective prizes for outstanding political leadership both spoke out strongly against racism and hate speech. Neither could be described as able bodied white men, yet it is this group which leads the principal parties - despite their being better alternatives imho.
To construe white in a pejorative manner, as distinct from a matter of fact, would require that Jordan somewhere said they were inferior/superior and included prejudicial comments. He made no such remarks. Instead, his theme was of the need for people in Parliament to be representative of the broader community. In that context it is reasonable to identify what needs to change for Jordan's vision to be realised.
Issues of who is ultimately elected and their responsibility to their constituents are quite separate from the value of diversity on the floors of the respective Houses. That diversity brings new perspectives into debate and policy formulation.
Jordan is 24 years old, spoke without notes, and was passionate about what democracy can achieve with the values he enunciated as fundamental to leadership.

 

[rederob]

It would be racist if it were used as a criteria for making a decision except in circumstances where clear and obvious reasons exist.

?
I won't open up a new line of argument here, but your statement implies that it is ok to restrict how first peoples spend newstart allowances, but not everyone else.

If you need an actor to play the role of a real person who happens to be a black man then obviously you would not employ a white female actor to play that role. Commonsense there and nobody would sensibly take issue with that.

They are actors and can, do and will play various roles as different rules apply. Watch Cloud Atlas for the most number of people playing multiple roles. More here.

If the question is who can be appointed Commissioner of Police or CEO of xyz corporation then using race or gender as part of the selection process would be racist / sexist since there is no reason someone of any race or gender with a suitable career background and experience could not perform the role.

That's actually "discrimination".

 

[Smurf1976]

his theme was of the need for people in Parliament to be representative of the broader community. In that context it is reasonable to identify what needs to change for Jordan's vision to be realised.
Issues of who is ultimately elected and their responsibility to their constituents are quite separate from the value of diversity on the floors of the respective Houses. That diversity brings new perspectives into debate and policy formulation.

I see the point being made about diversity but I question whether race is the biggest concern there?

Is someone with dark skin fundamentally different to someone with white skin in any way other than appearance? I thought the whole argument there was that "we are all the same"?

In contrast it would be hard to argue that our parliament isn't outright stacked full of lawyers and unionists compared to the numbers of such people in the rest of society. If the proportion of lawyers in parliament reflected that in the community then we'd have one, yes one, member in federal parliament (lower house) with a legal background. We'd also have one former police officer, one plumber, two medical practitioners and so on.

I would think that someone's life experience, which to considerable extent is influenced by their occupation, would be far more relevant than race.

 

[rederob]

I see the point being made about diversity but I question whether race is the biggest concern there?

How do you identify the group which is not representative unless you say who they are? In saying that, there are few alternatives to describing them other than them being white men.

Is someone with dark skin fundamentally different to someone with white skin in any way other than appearance? I thought the whole argument there was that "we are all the same"?

I thought everyone was to be treated as an equal.

I would think that someone's life experience, which to considerable extent is influenced by their occupation, would be far more relevant than race.

Yes, but the diversity of occupation, ability, ethnicity and gender are poorly reflected in Parliament. I hope you watched both Penny and Jordan speak as these themes are borne out.

 

[Smurf1976]

?
I won't open up a new line of argument here, but your statement implies that it is ok to restrict how first peoples spend newstart allowances, but not everyone else.

I fail to see any reasoning on the basis of biology as to why you'd have different rules for spending welfare payments.

What those rules, if any, actually are is another question.

They are actors and can, do and will play various roles as different rules apply. Watch Cloud Atlas for the most number of people playing multiple roles. More here.

Plenty of films have been made over the years in which actors play the role of a real person either alive or dead.

For a recent example well it's no surprise that the actor playing the role of Freddie Mercury in the film Bohemian Rhapsody looks very much like Freddie did. Not perfect but as close as could be expected. Surely nobody would suggest that a black female would be cast in the role?

That's actually "discrimination".

Any selection process, for anything, will involve some sort of discrimination since that's the whole point of it. Progressively apply more and more criteria until you've excluded all except one person.

Discrimination itself isn't a problem. It's discrimination on the basis of race which is the issue here since with few exceptions there is no rational reason for doing so.