This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

What is racism?

Seeing as this is the racism thread I was thrilled to receive this in my inbox this morning:



I wonder if any of it is true?
 
Well in my view, your indoctrination in schools is more damaging to children, than Christmas songs.

and what exactly is my indoctrination?

would you want your kids singing songs preaching other religions? if not you should understand why we don't want your religion preached on us

Please put any response into the religion thread.
 
How does it compare to CEO's of other Logistics companies of similar size.

Is it performance related? In my opinion them skimping on the quality of management to save a few bucks would be a mistake.

Maaate, read the sodding article !

 
Maaate, read the sodding article !

We aren't in those countries.

I am talking about other Australian logistics companies, because its with them that we are competing with for talent.

For example what's the Boss of Toll holdings earning.

edit

I just looked it up, The Toll boss earned $4.9M last year.
 

Sounds like he is grossly overpaid as well.
 
Sounds like he is grossly overpaid as well.

It pales in comparison to some others, Bob Iger Ceo of The Walt Disney Company earned $44.5 Million last year, But the Ideas he has had have set the company up to earn probably 50 Billion over the next 5 - 7 years, so as a share holder I don't mind
 
Been thinking about this racism thing (notwithstanding that race might not be a valid construct).

If we define racism as the recognition and different treatment of different races, is all racism bad? Can there be neutral and good racism?

Governments implicitly endorse such a concept with land rights, indigenous recognition in the constitution, affirmative action etc (whether or not these are truly for the greater good or not).
 
If we define racism as the recognition and different treatment of different races, is all racism bad? Can there be neutral and good racism?

I guess it comes down to fairness, is it fair to judge an individual based on their "race" or "ethnicity", rather than more relevant factors.

Google defines racism as - the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

That sort of belief would lead to all sorts of unfairness, giving advantages to one race and disadvantages to others.


---------------------

In regards to native title, I don't think its a race thing, as much as it is recognition that some of the lands of Australia were already owned prior to British settlement.
 
Google defines racism as - the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
.

I think it is the definition of the words "inferior" and "superior" that are the problem, not whether particular races have particular characteristics.

If you compare Western Europeans to Indigenous Australians and say that the Europeans are superior because of their technology then you also have to consider the adverse effects of that technology, and while the aboriginals did not embrace technology they survived without creating pollution or nuclear weapons so the judgement of superiority in that comparison is a matter of opinion rather than fact.
 

Its not so much that, its about making determinations about individuals based on your preconceived notions of what you think are characteristics of that race.

Eg, saying something like "Preference of university positions for technology related fields should be given to White Western Europeans not Aboriginals, Because White Western Europeans are better at Technology stuff"

Basing decisions such as that on race will lead you to unfairness, because candidates who may prove to be very worthy students were not be considered for spots in preference of less worthy ones simply because the decisions are being made on race, rather than other more valid attributes of the person.
 

By the same argument, all "special advantages" for those of certain races must be racist because it implies those races are not good enough to compete on merit ?

eg housing only for aboriginals or job quotas for minorities are racist ?
 

I do wonder if humans burnt out lots of fauna and flora in the 70k years they have been in Oz
 
By the same argument, all "special advantages" for those of certain races must be racist because it implies those races are not good enough to compete on merit ?

eg housing only for aboriginals or job quotas for minorities are racist ?

Some of them could be considered racist, But they are generally a blunt tool used to try and correct pre-existing problems.

I don't necessarily agree with such things in all cases, But I can see why such programs have been adopted.

for example say in an industrial town, X group makes up 30% of the population, but only 1% of the job roles in middle management or above are going to X group even though it can be shown that there are willing and able individuals, but they are being overlooked because of racial stereotypes.

Now I am generally against law makers stepping in, But some rule maker stepping in and saying "Look, you are going to have to do something about your system it's is not allowing X Group to advance their careers, you have to start working towards at least 15% of management being from X group.

obviously such a rule is not Ideal, but it is one way to fix existing problems in areas that are really bad.
 
I do wonder if humans burnt out lots of fauna and flora in the 70k years they have been in Oz

We probably did, but I doubt it would come close to the extinction caused by humans in Western Europe over the last 70,000 years, Western Europe is unrecogniseable to how it would have looked 1000's of years ago.
 
true for native title
but in that case you would agree that indigenous specific welfare or help is a clear manifestation of racism, to be deemed so inferior to the rest of Australian that you need special treatment or help, based on a % of recognised native blood whether you are born in sydney or in a NT bush, with a surgeon dad or a single mother on welfare.
as you can read thru, I am firmly against race based discrimination, positive or not as positiove discrimination is obviously straight discrimination against the "others" whatever colour of skin, place of birth or footy team they supports
 

I think you missed about 5 continents there McGyver.

The White skin condition has spread all over Mother Earth.
 

Were those the millions on examing the Shroud of Turin? Or that's another attempt at not feeding the poor?

I remember watching those docu way back then where scientist/archeologist go searching the bottom of the Red Sea for evidence that Moses and the Hebrew walked it. I remember the evidence they came up with was they've found some pot and broken plates or utensils dating back to around those time - so I guess conclusion was the sea did part and they didn't kinda sail over it or something.

Anyway, might go back watching DaVinci Code to see how the female lead there was descended from Christ again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...