Minority Groups "Special Rights"

[Darat]

Talk about vagueness. Are you able to write more than dismissive posts? So far you've posted a lot of "you're wrong" but without going into the detail of why I'm wrong. How is this a false dichotomy. What are the other choices I'm forgetting?



Isn't that exactly the same as forcing them to hire minorities they usually wouldn't hire?



You're the ones telling me that this isn't how they work. Do you know how they work? If not, how can you say how it doesn't work? It seems that you're putting a lot of effort into not actually making an argument or a point. Several other posters have managed to do that, so what gives?



I'm well aware of the aim, and it's laudable. It's the means I'm questioning. That's what you seem to keep missing.

I don't know the specifics of how it works in your country so I told you how it works in most of the UK. You are of course free to discard evidence that doesn't support your bias in this matter.

 

[Darat]

...something the rest of us can't do. So although it's not a "right", one can see why people might thing that a minority group has a "special right".

Do you consider yourself "male" and does your birth certificate state you are male?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Please don't bring my country into your prejudices

A it's annoying
B you have no idea

NZ? Unless you can say to me with a straight face that I would have no luck, or even any difficulty finding Maoris and other nonwhites kvetching endlessly about cultural appropriation, insufficient representation, marginalization, the legacy of colonialism, insufficient hand outs and set asides, etc. then your comment is invalid and it is not I who brought NZ into this conversation, but rather NZ which brought itself in.

I humbly request that you actually address whether such a dynamic of minorities bemoaning the consequences of being minorities can be readily found in your newspapers, on your TVs, etc. or not and if it can be, then kindly explain why my including NZ was invalid. Don't just appeal to your own preference that I not make such points. Refute me. For reals.

So as a minority in the US what should be done with you?

Obviously I always would favor the best treatment possible for me and my kind and I am no slave to the idea of fairness. I wasn't talking about how minorities SHOULD be treated, though.

I was talking about how minorities typically have been and are still treated and how they tend to feel about their minority status.

Regardless of how I or anyone else feels Whites should be treated as we shrink to an ever smaller minority globally and in the majority of nations we once had firm majority status in, the reality of how we WILL BE treated may be quite another matter. It's a matter prudence necessitates pessimism about. While we are still a majority there are already legal and institutional mechanisms in place to discriminate against us and one can get a very robust dose of anti-white rhetoric in almost any university or on almost any major news outlet. Or would you care to deny that in the current year whites are now openly demonized and our decline openly celebrated in completely mainstream courses and publications?

So I look at this trend toward demonizing whites and singling us out as the unique villains of history and I can't help but consider what the full flower of rhetoric like that may be when whites are a minority at the mercy of how larger groups with historical beef choose to treat us.

I have to think about this sort of thing because I have many decades left in me and I don't want my children slaughtered in a Haiti style ethnic cleansing in retribution for their privilege, group sins, historical oppressions both real and imagined, etc.

There's a reason that one of the central features of human history is distinct groups fighting like hell to take and hold their own slice of the planet. Being subject to others sucks. Self-determination is good.

 

[Darat]

Do you want to do it? If there was a reasonable push for unisex bathrooms then we could surely accommodate it. Although theres no real reason for it is there? Transsexuals have a reason for their demand.

This kind of thing irks me a bit. It ignores that the so called special rights have been granted for a reason. A reason not everyone has. Its like complaining that disabled people get to park closer to the supermarket entrance.

As far as I know in the UK only in certain places do you have to provide separate toilets (public bath rooms really dropped off with the introduction of bathrooms at home ). A quirk of anti-discrimination legislation still survives and today causes a bit of a problem. At the end of the 19th century toilets were not provided in public places for women. Legislation was passed that forced developers to give equal square footage to toilets for both men and women. That worked really well to get women toilets but since women's toilets to have the same capacity of peeing per hour as men's would need more space it means now when we have pretty much 50/50 women and men in most places women end up having to queue whilst men do not.

 

[Darat]

Everyone but white males is eligible for affirmative action, not just blacks.

...snip...

Evidence? Certainly in the UK there is no such inequality in our anti-discrimination legislation.

 

[banquetbear]

NZ? Unless you can say to me with a straight face that I would have no luck, or even any difficulty finding Maoris and other nonwhites kvetching endlessly about cultural appropriation, insufficient representation, marginalization, the legacy of colonialism, insufficient hand outs and set asides, etc. then your comment is invalid and it is not I who brought NZ into this conversation, but rather NZ which brought itself in.

...I'm Maori.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Since I've been bought into the conversation, please explain yourself further.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

There's a reason that one of the central features of human history is distinct groups fighting like hell to take and hold their own slice of the planet. Being subject to others sucks. Self-determination is good.

The longest sustained conflicts in the history of humanity have been between "white people", not between "white people" and "non white people". The idea that conflict predominantly occurs between people with different skin colours is refuted by the entirety of western history.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

...I'm Maori.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Since I've been bought into the conversation, please explain yourself further.

Are topics connected to colonialism, respect for Maori tradition and culture, representation in media, what things should or should not be named, what white figures from NZ history should be celebrated vs. disavowed, territorial disputes, racist jokes, cultural appropriation, etc. part of the conversation among Maoris or are these entirely absent from NZ today and I would have no luck whatsoever finding Maori people in NZ today with grievances which could be reasonably connected to their status as a minority group?

If you can tell me that all of these are complete non-issues in NZ today, then I'll have been shown as having been wrong to mention NZ.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

NZ? Unless you can say to me with a straight face that I would have no luck, or even any difficulty finding Maoris and other nonwhites kvetching endlessly about cultural appropriation, insufficient representation, marginalization, the legacy of colonialism, insufficient hand outs and set asides, etc. then your comment is invalid and it is not I who brought NZ into this conversation, but rather NZ which brought itself in.

I humbly request that you actually address whether such a dynamic of minorities bemoaning the consequences of being minorities can be readily found in your newspapers, on your TVs, etc. or not and if it can be, then kindly explain why my including NZ was invalid. Don't just appeal to your own preference that I not make such points. Refute me. For reals.



Obviously I always would favor the best treatment possible for me and my kind and I am no slave to the idea of fairness. I wasn't talking about how minorities SHOULD be treated, though.

I was talking about how minorities typically have been and are still treated and how they tend to feel about their minority status.

Regardless of how I or anyone else feels Whites should be treated as we shrink to an ever smaller minority globally and in the majority of nations we once had firm majority status in, the reality of how we WILL BE treated may be quite another matter. It's a matter prudence necessitates pessimism about. While we are still a majority there are already legal and institutional mechanisms in place to discriminate against us and one can get a very robust dose of anti-white rhetoric in almost any university or on almost any major news outlet. Or would you care to deny that in the current year whites are now openly demonized and our decline openly celebrated in completely mainstream courses and publications?

So I look at this trend toward demonizing whites and singling us out as the unique villains of history and I can't help but consider what the full flower of rhetoric like that may be when whites are a minority at the mercy of how larger groups with historical beef choose to treat us.

I have to think about this sort of thing because I have many decades left in me and I don't want my children slaughtered in a Haiti style ethnic cleansing in retribution for their privilege, group sins, historical oppressions both real and imagined, etc.

There's a reason that one of the central features of human history is distinct groups fighting like hell to take and hold their own slice of the planet. Being subject to others sucks. Self-determination is good.

You are a minority. Get over yourself.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

The longest sustained conflicts in the history of humanity have been between "white people", not between "white people" and "non white people". The idea that conflict predominantly occurs between people with different skin colours is refuted by the entirety of western history.

I agree that there can be powerful divisions within a racial group and you'll be aware that these always still come down to a fault line upon some vector of diversity. Religious, ethnic, etc.

I also agree that undertaking the project of trying to get people to expand their "circle of kinship" to reduce these conflicts was a good thing to do, by and large.

I just happen to think that human nature and the scope of differences as you get further from closely related ethnic groups within a race, mean that you are likely to encounter diminishing returns as you continue to try to expand that circle.

It is dangerous to extrapolate from successes (in highly prosperous environments) with highly similar groups to the notion that you can mix any types of humans in any proportion while ignoring degree of difference (both genetic and cultural and these almost always scale up simultaneously), pace of demographic change, etc. and that the result will hold indefinitely and be resilient against the influence of distant global conflicts between these groups which may arise, economic downturns, scarcity, etc... is incredibly reckless IMO.

 

[banquetbear]

Are topics connected to colonialism, respect for Maori tradition and culture, representation in media, what things should or should not be named, what white figures from NZ history should be celebrated vs. disavowed, territorial disputes, racist jokes, cultural appropriation, etc. part of the conversation among Maoris or are these entirely absent from NZ today and I would have no luck whatsoever finding Maori people in NZ today with grievances which could be reasonably connected to their status as a minority group?

...I asked you to explain yourself further, not just to repeat what you have already said.

We have grievances based on the Treaty of Waitangi: our founding document and a treaty that was signed between the Crown and Maori Chiefs. But that is not connected to our status as a minority group: but due to our status as tangata whenua.

If you can tell me that all of these are complete non-issues in NZ today, then I'll have been shown as having been wrong to mention NZ.

Yes: you are wrong to have mentioned NZ.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

You are a minority. Get over yourself.

Ah contraire, if nonwhites have taught me anything it's that the proper way to be a minority is to obsess about my identity and complain endlessly about our situation.

I'm definitely doing it right.

 

[Darat]

You are a minority. Get over yourself.

Sounds like someone who wants extra privileges and rights for his minority.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

...I asked you to explain yourself further, not just to repeat what you have already said.

We have grievances based on the Treaty of Waitangi: our founding document and a treaty that was signed between the Crown and Maori Chiefs. But that is not connected to our status as a minority group: but due to our status as tangata whenua.

And if Maori were 95% of the populace and Whites were 5%, do you think that might better position the tangata whenua to renegotiate or overturn entirely the Treaty of Waitangi? Lol. Looks like your grievances were related to being a minority after all.

Side note: if Whites had come with 1/100th of the numbers they did come with, would they even be alive in NZ now or would they have been repelled and/or genocided and/or absorbed? Has their status as a majority had any impact on their ability to command respect, arrange the society to their liking, prevent themselves from being expelled or slaughtered, and reflect their values, culture, and sensibilities within NZ? Or is that all entirely unrelated? LOL!

Give me a friggin' break.

Yes: you are wrong to have mentioned NZ.

Ah, so I'd have no luck finding Maori and other nonwhites in NZ complaining about ANY of those non-treaty related items I listed? Really??? Answer this truthfully and straight on, please.

NZ is a total racial harmony zone besides a couple of minor treaty related matters which i'm sure you'll have resolved presently?

 

[banquetbear]

And if Maori were 95% of the populace and Whites were 5%, do you think that might better position the tangata whenua to renegotiate or overturn entirely the Treaty of Waitangi?

...why the **** would we want to overturn the Treaty of Waitangi?

Can I suggest you some basic research before you engage on a topic? When you've done that: maybe I will address your other points. But you appear to lack even the most basic knowledge of NZ history.

Lol. Looks like your grievances were related to being a minority after all.

No they are not. They are related to both a difference in the text between the English language version of the Treaty and the Maori version: and to the times that the Crown failed to abide by the terms of the treaty.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

...why the **** would we want to overturn the Treaty of Waitangi?

Can I suggest you some basic research before you engage on a topic? When you've done that: maybe I will address your other points. But you appear to lack even the most basic knowledge of NZ history.



No they are not. They are related to both a difference in the text between the English language version of the Treaty and the Maori version: and to the times that the Crown failed to abide by the terms of the treaty.

You're dancing around my point. If you were 95% and Whites were 5%, would that in any way position you better when it came to resolving the grievances you referred to, or would it not?

And if that had always been the proportion, would any of you have felt compelled to speak English much? Would that treaty exist in any form remotely like its current form? Would that alternate version be more or less likely to please the Maori and lead to White grievances due to who was the majority and who was the minority?

You're fighting me on basic reality because you don't want to concede ANYTHING to the big bad racist.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You're dancing around my point. If you were 95% and Whites were 5%, would that in any way position you better when it came to resolving the grievances you referred to, or would it not?

And if that had always been the proportion, would any of you have felt compelled to speak English much? Would that treaty exist in any form remotely like its current form? Would that alternate version be more or less likely to please the Maori and lead to White grievances due to who was the majority and who was the minority?

You're fighting me on basic reality because you don't want to concede ANYTHING to the big bad racist.

Who are these mythical whites you keep referring to as if they are thing. Even the white males on this thread dont identify with you let alone the entire world who are lucky enough to never have had to interact with you?

 

[banquetbear]

You're dancing around my point. If you were 95% and Whites were 5%, would that in any way position you better when it came to resolving the grievances you referred to, or would it not?

...if you knew anything about my posting history, I have little time for playing with hypotheticals: especially poorly constructed ones like yours is.

And if that had always been the proportion, would any of you have felt compelled to speak English much? Would that treaty exist in any form remotely like its current form? Would that alternate version be more or less likely to please the Maori and lead to White grievances due to who was the majority and who was the minority?

I wouldn't have the foggiest. Real life isn't a hypothetical.

You're fighting me on basic reality because you don't want to concede ANYTHING to the big bad racist.

I'm more than happy to concede a point to anyone regardless of race, religion, gender, or their tendency to be an over-the-top racist. But I live the reality of a Maori in New Zealand. So I know that I am not fighting basic reality.

But I'm actually trying to figure out exactly what your point is. Do we have conversations about cultural appropriation here? Sure. Most New Zealanders (Maori and Pakeha) don't like it when the Haka is appropriated and used in a disrespectful manner. But what does that prove exactly?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

<SNIP>But what does that prove exactly?

It proves exactly what I was seeking to prove: that I was not incorrect to include NZ in the list of countries where you'll find that minorities have grievances typical to minorities and which flow from them having to live in societies where larger groups are setting the tone and the rules.

In other words, like I've been saying, minority status is something to be avoided and the consequences of assuming that status can be a hell of a lot more severe than "hey stop doing my tribal dance, I'm offended!"

They can range all the way up to "hey, please stop boiling my baby alive and raping my wife as you chop my head off!"

Look into what's been going on in South Africa.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sounds like someone who wants extra privileges and rights for his minority.

The fact that he identifies himself as white defeats his very thesis ironically.