So your case is now based on what others are claiming?Umm, the fact that media ran with the "white men" in their headlines.
Please show where I have insulted you.Hey rob I noticed you can't go one post without an insult now.
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.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.
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 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.
At what point do you concede that most people elected to Parliament are white men?Its hardly a false narrative when a person's color suddenly becomes relevant and the need for them to be "swapped out" for diversity.
The problem is the journalistic licence people use, when applying a definition, as with most things definitions can be applied subjectively.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.
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?The problem is the journalistic licence people use, when applying the definition, as with most things definitions can be applied subjectively.
My apologies, I didn't read that far back, I will remove my foot.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?
Of course, as long as you keep it to yourself and don't tell anyone.So , is it ok to be a white , anglo saxon , heterosexual male these days ?
Or a black, Asian, lesbian woman.So , is it ok to be a white , anglo saxon , heterosexual male these days ?
Why does it matter what color they are?At what point do you concede that most people elected to Parliament are white men?
So , is it ok to be a white , anglo saxon , heterosexual male these days ?
It would be racist if it were used as a criteria for making a decision except in circumstances where clear and obvious reasons exist.the issue is what makes "white" a racist term
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.Why does it matter what color they are?
?It would be racist if it were used as a criteria for making a decision except in circumstances where clear and obvious reasons exist.
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 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.
That's actually "discrimination".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.
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.
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.I see the point being made about diversity but I question whether race is the biggest concern there?
I thought everyone was to be treated as an equal.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"?
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.I would think that someone's life experience, which to considerable extent is influenced by their occupation, would be far more relevant than race.
?
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.
That's actually "discrimination".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?