Miranda Devine: Reverse racism is now acceptable in Australia

[Ana the Ist]

Well, then, that has nothing to do with any disparity of strength or intelligence, so I don't know why you brought it up.

I was making a point...I was hoping you'd see it....

Even if we were to slice up and portion out every available resource on the planet to everyone equally...there would still be iniquity between those who could do more with less and those who cannot.

To point at iniquity based on fundamental aspects of humanity (one being that we are not the same) is like complaining that..."People are people! It's not fair!"

 

[Paidiske]

But it's not the inequity of resources that people most fundamentally object to (or at least, that's not what I was driving at). It's the inequity of how people treat other people that I see as the glaring injustice.

People are people? And we shouldn't constrain our worst behaviours?

 

[Ana the Ist]

But it's not the inequity of resources that people most fundamentally object to (or at least, that's not what I was driving at). It's the inequity of how people treat other people that I see as the glaring injustice.

We aren't speaking of crimes though.

People are people? And we shouldn't constrain our worst behaviours?

What should and shouldn't be are rather silly concerns compared to what is. The fact is, we are all different slightly and this will lead to iniquity...regardless of whether or not you see it as some injustice (I don't). I don't think this can change...nor do I think it should. In systems variety breeds growth...sameness breeds death.

Even if you could magically somehow convince everyone to never act upon their biases (you can't) it would only be one generation later before everyone would act upon their biases. You do it...you do it all the time. You do it without thinking about it. You're human...just like the rest of us.

 

[Paidiske]

I am more optimistic; I think change is possible.

I look back at how our world was, say, a hundred years ago, and I am grateful to live now. I hope my descendants might say the same a hundred years from now.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am more optimistic; I think change is possible.

I look back at how our world was, say, a hundred years ago, and I am grateful to live now. I hope my descendants might say the same a hundred years from now.

I'm not optimistic...

I don't see the world a hundred years from now getting better...I think it's going to be far far worse. If you wanna help your descendants...toughen them up now. They won't live in such soft times.

 

[greenguzzi]

Is that a vague attempt at an insult?

If you want to call me stupid...grow a pair and call me stupid. You're the one who's claiming there's no causal relationship between saving money and personal wealth.

No, it wasn't a vague attempt at an insult. Just ask @Paidiske; she has had the unenviable duty of asking me to keep my thoughts to myself. Just a month ago I was told ("not a warning") that I had to change my tone, or I might get barred from this forum. So I assure you, I won't leave you wondering what I think of you. If I decide to insult you, it won't be vague. (My time here is limited, I am curious to see what travesty of mine crosses the line.)

I never claimed that there was no causal relationship between saving money and personal wealth. I said that correlation is not causal.
So, we can correlate any two things. No matter how reasonable it is that one of those two things seem to cause the other, there is still no proof of causation.

Seeing as I didn't make my point clear I'll try again: If you think that two things are causally related, it's up to you to prove this. The fact that there is correlation between them is not proof in itself that there is any causal relationship. I'll say it again: If you claim a causal relationship, then prove it!

I think that all of us who are peripheral experts of any subject are prone to the Dunning–Kruger effect. I mention it because I am convinced that statistics, above all other arenas of discussion, is the most Dunning–Kruger–prone of all. If anyone (you included) offered a credible objection to any statistical conclusion I had made, I would retreat immediately before my next attack.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it wasn't a vague attempt at an insult. Just ask @Paidiske; she has had the unenviable duty of asking me to keep my thoughts to myself. Just a month ago I was told ("not a warning") that I had to change my tone, or I might get barred from this forum. So I assure you, I won't leave you wondering what I think of you. If I decide to insult you, it won't be vague. (My time here is limited, I am curious to see what travesty of mine crosses the line.)

I never claimed that there was no causal relationship between saving money and personal wealth. I said that correlation is not causal.
So, we can correlate any two things. No matter how reasonable it is that one of those two things seem to cause the other, there is still no proof of causation.

Seeing as I didn't make my point clear I'll try again: If you think that two things are causally related, it's up to you to prove this. The fact that there is correlation between them is not proof in itself that there is any causal relationship. I'll say it again: If you claim a causal relationship, then prove it!

I think that all of us who are peripheral experts of any subject are prone to the Dunning–Kruger effect. I mention it because I am convinced that statistics, above all other arenas of discussion, is the most Dunning–Kruger–prone of all. If anyone (you included) offered a credible objection to any statistical conclusion I had made, I would retreat immediately before my next attack.

No...I fully understood. I already asked about what you personally would accept as evidence that "saving is related to wealth" several posts ago if I'm not mistaken. Instead of answering though, you decided to go down another path.

We're done...you've already demonstrated multiple times that you're not interested in any discussions which involve honesty.

 

[greenguzzi]

We're done...you've already demonstrated multiple times that you're not interested in any discussions which involve honesty.

I assure you that I am always honest. I'm not always clear though. But if you say we are done, then so be it. It's a shame for me though, because you are not like any atheist I have thus far encountered.

Yes, I did go down the wrong path. My error; I made some assumptions about you which were wrong. I thought you would "get" what I was on about, but you didn't. I know I can be an ass sometimes, I was this time for sure. I apologise.

Hope to chat again. If not, then my best regards.

 

[bill5]

I wonder why they call it reverse racism? Racism is racism, no matter who it's against.

Because it's racism against the majority. That seriously needed to be explained?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Well, me for a start. I'm white and British, and I have an Anglo face and a boring name, and a cool accent. I can get a job pretty much anywhere without prejudice. Not so much my brown-skinned equal.

How is it then that the United States, the most powerful nation on earth, elected a black man for president, not only once but twice? Forbes named Obama as the most powerful man in the world when he was POTUS.

 

[greenguzzi]

How is it then that the United States, the most powerful nation on earth, elected a black man for president, not only once but twice? Forbes named Obama as the most powerful man in the world when he was POTUS.

The answer is simple. How is it that in the USA, they have only ever had one president of colour?

 

[greenguzzi]

Because it's racism against the majority. That seriously needed to be explained?

Racism against the majority is joke. Nothing needs to be explained. If you are white, then you are a privileged pomegranate!

 

[Redac]

Racism against the majority is joke. Nothing needs to be explained. If you are white, then you are a privileged pomegranate!

Mhmm. So when whites aren't a majority anymore, does our supposed privilege go away too? If not, at what point does it stop?

 

[bill5]

The answer is simple. How is it that in the USA, they have only ever had one president of colour?

? All presidents were "of color." I'm pretty sure white is a color.

Racism against the majority is joke. Nothing needs to be explained. If you are white, then you are a privileged pomegranate!

No, it's your deluded, self-righteous posts that are a joke.

 

[Paidiske]

Gentlemen, if we could keep the conversation civil and on-topic, that would be a great help.

 

[rambot]

What should and shouldn't be are rather silly concerns compared to what is. The fact is, we are all different slightly and this will lead to iniquity...regardless of whether or not you see it as some injustice (I don't). I don't think this can change...nor do I think it should. In systems variety breeds growth...sameness breeds death.
.

I'm wondering if I could get your thoughts on multiculturalism?

 

[rambot]

Racism against the majority is joke. Nothing needs to be explained. If you are white, then you are a privileged pomegranate!

Racism is a PERSONAL perception of inferiority. "How many people" belong to a certain group is completely irrelevant. If a person thinks less of a race or of a person because of their race, they are racist; whether you are in the majority or minority.

When I was living in South Korea, I was the EXTREME minority and I experienced overt and PLENTY of covert racism. BUT, if I were to have though "filthy, dirty Koreans don't know how to drive and are so weak and limpwristed I have no respect for them" I would be JUST as racist as anyone who was giving me a hard time.

 

[greenguzzi]

So when whites aren't a majority anymore, does our supposed privilege go away too?

Yes, it probably does.

 

[greenguzzi]

No, it's your deluded, self-righteous posts that are a joke.

A post is inanimate, it cannot be deluded. It can be wrong, but not deluded. If it's wrong, then provide an argument rather than just call names.

 

[greenguzzi]

Racism is a PERSONAL perception of inferiority.

That is one definition, but not the one that I would have thought we were talking about in this thread. But if that's what you think we are talking about, then I guess you are correct. But I can't help thinking you are missing the point.