Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

There is no reliable estimate of the Indigenous population at the time of settlement of Sydney Cove. Given the size of Australia and the tiny white population for the first 50 years it is also difficult to make a very useful guess. Hunter-gatherers follow a seasonal cycle across a large area so there was a lot of potential for double counting or for completely missing out whole tribes.

Which leads me to another great myth about Aboriginals: before 1967 they weren't counted in the Census because they were covered under the Fauna and Flora Act and, thus, not considered people.

Firstly, the Australian Government has never had a Fauna and Flora Act, or Flora and Fauna Act, or just Flora, or just Fauna, or any Act with Fauna and Flora in the title.

Second, at the time of Federation there was no power in the Constitution of Australia to impose income tax. The plan was that the Federal Govt would be funded by a levy on each State proportional to their populations. WA and Qld objected to this because they said they had large Aboriginal populations who lived outside the cash economy and thus couldn't be taxed in any way to contribute to the State's levy to the Commonwealth Govt. That is why Aboriginals weren't counted in the Census because the primary purpose of the Census was to determine each State's contribution to the cost of running the Federal Government.

There's a third side issue often thrown into this. Allegedly, since Aboriginals weren't counted in the Census, they weren't allowed to vote. Not true. The only restriction back in 1901 was that they should be literate enough to register on the Electoral Roll, at which point they could vote.

That's a lot of words to not answer the question I asked and then shut down an argument no one but you had made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

That's a lot of words to not answer the question I asked and then shut down an argument no one but you had made.

600K - 1 million

I included that because thanks to an appearance by Akilah on a Frankie Boyle show, that myth has become popular in Britain. Apparently Akilah is an expert ethno-historian in his spare time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Farmduck said:

600K - 1 million

I included that because thanks to an appearance by Akilah on a Frankie Boyle show, that myth has become popular in Britain. Apparently Akilah is an expert ethno-historian in his spare time.

It's not a myth I'd come across but then I am so phenomenally out of touch that I'm currently debating with a duck on a rugby league board whilst listening to Radio 3. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

It's not a myth I'd come across but then I am so phenomenally out of touch that I'm currently debating with a duck on a rugby league board whilst listening to Radio 3. 

Yes and I've spent the whole day venting about a topic that has driven me mad for 40 years - endless policies based on White Guilt which have achieved next to nothing because every Australian politician would rather avoid offending people than fix a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

Yes and I've spent the whole day venting about a topic that has driven me mad for 40 years - endless policies based on White Guilt which have achieved next to nothing because every Australian politician would rather avoid offending people than fix a problem.

I can recommend listening to Radio 3.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Farmduck said:

Primarily among people who do poorly on IQ tests but nobody in the Cognitive sciences doubts their validity. Think of it this way. Treat IQ tests as a scientific theory. Then you devise an experiment which is repeated and refined year after year for 80 years on anything from 1million to 10 million subjects in 30 different countries which consistently produces reliable results, what kind of case could anyone successfully mount to undermine the legitimacy of that theory?

This article (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/) seems to cover a lot of the points I've seen raised quite a few times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

This article (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/why-people-keep-misunderstanding-the-connection-between-race-and-iq/275876/) seems to cover a lot of the points I've seen raised quite a few times.

I just skimmed that article. Been there, done that and with a deeper commitment to the science than that guy.

http://rugbyleagueuniverse.freeforums.net/thread/280/race-iq-realism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fired Google employee, James Damore,  has filed a lawsuit against Google for discrimination.

Quote

 

Damore, who was fired in 2017 after writing a controversial memo about gender and technology, alleges in the lawsuit that white, male conservative employees at Google are “ostracized, belittled, and punished”.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/08/james-damore-sues-google-discrimination-white-male-conservatives

 

 

 

I don't want to go into the full back story. If you're not familiar with the case it's difficult to provide a link to any bare-bones, factual outline. Both sides took the extreme polarised positions that their dogmas demanded. Suffice it to say that, for the purposes of this thread, he wrote an internal memo about the state of Google's employee diversity, the ineffectiveness of its current policies in the area and possible issues which might be addressed in future policies. He made one big, fatal error. He suggested that evolution and sexual dimorphism hadn't stopped at the neck? @?#?$?#?@

Naturally he was immediately denounced - Alt-Right and literally, Hitler - and fired for crimes against something? Maybe feminism? Diversity policy? Anyway it was an egregious crime of Wrongthink, right-wing deviation and problematic positionality and retribution was swift. He became a darling of the Alt-Centrist and Right wing media commentariat and appeared on everything from Fox News to Rubin to Molyneux to CNN to Philip deFranco.

Here is his sickening manifesto:  https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf       To save any readers from trauma or psychological damage, I will extract a few quotes but I warn you, it's like reading Mein Kampf.

"I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes."

"People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us."

"Women, on average, have more openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas."

"Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things"

"Women on average are more cooperative"

"I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more."

I'll stop there because I don't want to cause too much outrage. As you can understand, some women at Google had to call in sick after this document was released because they were too scared to be in the same building as a psychotic troglodyte Nazi like Damore.

For any Fascists reading this who don't understand what the problem was, it's simple. Damore's comments are supported by a huge body of sociological studies and some genetic studies which suggest that sometimes, women, in general, make different choices from men. Can you believe that it's [current year] and there are still sick people out there who still believe this? Every right-thinking person knows that women's choices are constricted to whatever narrow options are grudgingly left open to them by an overbearing, stifling Patriarchy.

Anyway, I hope this goes to trial and gets massive media coverage.

 

Edited by Farmduck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the full text of the Damore suit: www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit It's 160 pages long so it's only for the very, very interested. It contains about 100 pages of attachments. Here is one of my favourites:

AHTJiqB.png

This guy, Urs Holtzle has a PhD in Computing Science from Stanford and is the senior vice president of technical infrastructure at Google. I was surprised to hear a "scientist" say:

Quote

That's because questioning the exact details can easily be perceived as questioning the overall validity of the effort or the veracity of a historical context. In these situations, determining the exact truth can often be counterproductive because it's situationally inappropriate

An alleged "scientist" thinks the truth can be "counterproductive" in a discussion about race, discrimination and justice because it's "situationally inappropriate."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a strange turn of events. After Sargon of Akkad (aka Carl of Swindon) was largely ineffective in a long, long, live stream against Richard Spencer, he has grudgingly deigned to acknowledge that he probably is the King of the Skeptic™ Community™. He has further acknowledged that the Community has performed very poorly recently against the Alt-Right and has suggested that he will take a more pro-active role in 2018 and part of that will involve re-branding. He has proposed Liberalists as the new brand although that is pointless, given that the majority of his followers live in the USA and would have to spend half their time explaining the difference between liberal and Liberalists. (Just as we do, explaining to Yanks that, in OZ, The Liberal Party is the conservative party.)

Side beef: I don't know how many times I've seen Americans on the internet say, "We're a Republic, not a Democracy." I think they mean, "We're a Federation, not a direct Democracy." Honestly, Americans have destroyed political terminology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41y7L7BjDX0

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An update on the Celebrity Big Brother situation. I'm sure you're all dying to hear It! Actually it is proving to be an interesting microcosm of much of what is happening socially at the moment. Personally I think it demonstrates the intellectual brick wall that is identity politics. 

The trans woman India has ended up being nominated for the first eviction and will almost certainly be evicted on Friday. The public are very much against her and she has upset the whole house over a couple of issues some related to trans issues and some not. 

This has caused a mixed reaction most of it through the lens of identity. For some commentators the dislike is proof of rampant transphobia in the UK. I've no doubt if she is evicted we will see much more of this. The second is an attempt to criticise C5 for including a bad representative of the trans community and to try and suggest she is not a friend of trans people. 

The reality is that she isn't a very nice person. Surely full acceptance of trans people will involve the understanding that there are nice trans people and bad trans people just like everyone else. 

A second aspect is a comment Ann Widdicombe made about Meghan Markle where she said she thinks she is trouble. When pushed she said it was because of her background and attitude. Somehow this has been viewed as racist. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Farmduck said:

Here's a strange turn of events. After Sargon of Akkad (aka Carl of Swindon) was largely ineffective in a long, long, live stream against Richard Spencer, he has grudgingly deigned to acknowledge that he probably is the King of the Skeptic™ Community™. He has further acknowledged that the Community has performed very poorly recently against the Alt-Right and has suggested that he will take a more pro-active role in 2018 and part of that will involve re-branding. He has proposed Liberalists as the new brand although that is pointless, given that the majority of his followers live in the USA and would have to spend half their time explaining the difference between liberal and Liberalists. (Just as we do, explaining to Yanks that, in OZ, The Liberal Party is the conservative party.)

Side beef: I don't know how many times I've seen Americans on the internet say, "We're a Republic, not a Democracy." I think they mean, "We're a Federation, not a direct Democracy." Honestly, Americans have destroyed political terminology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41y7L7BjDX0

 

For once Australians were ahead of the game! In Australia Liberal has always been the group of intolerant nutjobs, this change is relatively new to the US.

As for Sargon, this is what you get when you have 'leaders' who have never actually achieved anything and have only got big through a mixture of good fortune and being in the right place at the right time. I've said it before, he's just the pub bore with a million followers.

I actually welcome the attempt to try and move the 'Skeptic community' away from the alt-right but the rebranding is just pure cringe. These are the people I'm largely talking about when I say people who've moved to the right politically because they dislike SJWs. Rubin perhaps epitomises this person more than any other. He has become predictable in his defence of people on the right (Trump) and opposition to those on the left (Oprah most recently).

However, Liberalist sounds like a cross between Liberal and mentalist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maximus Decimus said:

 

The trans woman India has ended up being nominated for the first eviction and will almost certainly be evicted on Friday. The public are very much against her and she has upset the whole house over a couple of issues some related to trans issues and some not. 

This has caused a mixed reaction most of it through the lens of identity. For some commentators the dislike is proof of rampant transphobia in the UK. I've no doubt if she is evicted we will see much more of this. The second is an attempt to criticise C5 for including a bad representative of the trans community and to try and suggest she is not a friend of trans people. 

The reality is that she isn't a very nice person. Surely full acceptance of trans people will involve the understanding that there are nice trans people and bad trans people just like everyone else. 

A second aspect is a comment Ann Widdicombe made about Meghan Markle where she said she thinks she is trouble. When pushed she said it was because of her background and attitude. Somehow this has been viewed as racist. 

I worked with a M->F trans person in the early 90s. Holy SJW, she had so many victim points - Aboriginal, trans, ex-prisoner. She was an appalling human being. She just could not grasp that, in a busy office, people aren't focused on their hatred of someone different. They're kinda focused on the never-ending pile of work in front of them. You could have been a Martian but, as long as you pulled your weight in doing the work, nobody cared.

She was the absolute worst stereotype of a trans person. Everything was a full-production drama. She expected a Nobel Prize simply for doing her job to most basic level of competency. (and an Oscar)

But you also point out another problem with the Culture War - you can never win. Our Labor Party's current Parliamentary representation is 56% women, including an Egyptian Muslim woman, an Aboriginal woman and a Chinese lesbian. Even the males have 1 Muslim (but he's white, from Bosnia.) Where are all the Indigenous males? Where are the trans people?

One I loved from last year was at Cornell University. The Black Students Association was protesting that too many of the allocated black places were being taken by immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa - stats show that these two groups, particularly Jamaicans and Nigerians, regularly outperform black Americans in academia. Apparently there are different classes of blackness. They wanted the black quota to be reserved for people whose families had been in the USA for 2 generations or more because the "foreigners hadn't "suffered" the oppression of black Americans.

So how did the Africans get to Jamaica, I wonder. Just out fishing off the coast of Senegal a couple of hundred years ago and their boat was blown off course? If colonial imperialism is the source of all evil (and we all know that it is) then weren't the Nigerians also kind of oppressed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

As for Sargon, this is what you get when you have 'leaders' who have never actually achieved anything and have only got big through a mixture of good fortune and being in the right place at the right time. I've said it before, he's just the pub bore with a million followers.

I actually welcome the attempt to try and move the 'Skeptic community' away from the alt-right but the rebranding is just pure cringe. These are the people I'm largely talking about when I say people who've moved to the right politically because they dislike SJWs. Rubin perhaps epitomises this person more than any other. He has become predictable in his defence of people on the right (Trump) and opposition to those on the left (Oprah most recently).

However, Liberalist sounds like a cross between Liberal and mentalist. 

I'll work backwards. He figured that if feminists follow feminism and collectivists endorse collectivism the Liberalists endorse Liberalism. I can't believe he came up with something that bad.

The problem for the Skeptics is that 2017 showed their limits. They were just people who mostly opposed a core set of ideas: feminism, SJWs, Islam and (mostly) immigration. Their coffers swelled during the 2016 election on the back of Trump supporters. A lot of them became full-time YTers but then, when Trump won and the Adpocalypse 1.0 hit, they couldn't risk alienating their financial bases. I wrote many critical comments (including on Sargon vids) about how any skeptical channel could let Trumpism run for months without comment.

I rate Carl of Swindon a bit higher than you do. I can't stand his obsessive-compulsive anti-Communism, where he displays no skepticism at all towards the "Western" version of that era. But I think his willingness to read and research topics is well-above average in that community and I think he fully understands and sincerely believes the ideas of Lock and Mill. Again, I like a bit of Enlightenment too but, IMO, their ideas would have carried substantially more weight if they'd thrown in at least one paragraph about how slavery wasn't a completely optimal situation for all parties involved. You know, nothing too radical, just a sentence about how maybe slavery was worth revisiting as a philosophical issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Culture Wars' seems very valid in the USA, where you have the Jefferson hierarchical, conservative culture and the yankee liberal, urban, industrial culture.

In the UK and perhaps in Australia, the victim scoring seems mutual and it seems a little pettier to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

'Culture Wars' seems very valid in the USA, where you have the Jefferson hierarchical, conservative culture and the yankee liberal, urban, industrial culture.

In the UK and perhaps in Australia, the victim scoring seems mutual and it seems a little pettier to me.

I don't understand why you keep saying this. I've given several examples of how it plays out in real Government policy affecting real people in OZ. The same banning of The Red Pill movie happened here in OZ. The same ignorant condemnation of any men's issues dominates TV socio-political discussion shows here in OZ. The same immediate shutdown of any discussion of any aspect of immigration - no matter how legitimate - also happens in OZ.

For me this has nothing to do with scoring points. I want government decisions based on facts. I want Universities and workplaces to operate on merit. I want academia to embrace ideas regardless of their political sensitivity. I want scientists to be able to pursue science without having to worry that their funding will be pulled if they get the wrong answer. I want everyone in Australia to have equal rights under the law based on their citizenship not based on some nebulous notions of victimhood, marginalisation or systemic oppression.

I want to be able to say that the reason so many Aboriginals in Alice Springs sleep in parks and under bridges is because they're alcoholics and, until they, as individuals, choose to do something about their alcoholism, no Government policy can help them. I want to live in a society that hears that and replies, "Yes, based on an examination of the facts and all available evidence, you are correct." I don't want to live in a society where the official Government reply is, "No you're wrong and you're a racist. They're all just victims of white supremacist, colonial imperialist, cis-hetero, patriarchal oppression."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

I don't understand why you keep saying this. I've given several examples of how it plays out in real Government policy affecting real people in OZ. The same banning of The Red Pill movie happened here in OZ. The same ignorant condemnation of any men's issues dominates TV socio-political discussion shows here in OZ. The same immediate shutdown of any discussion of any aspect of immigration - no matter how legitimate - also happens in OZ.

For me this has nothing to do with scoring points. I want government decisions based on facts. I want Universities and workplaces to operate on merit. I want academia to embrace ideas regardless of their political sensitivity. I want scientists to be able to pursue science without having to worry that their funding will be pulled if they get the wrong answer. I want everyone in Australia to have equal rights under the law based on their citizenship not based on some nebulous notions of victimhood, marginalisation or systemic oppression.

I want to be able to say that the reason so many Aboriginals in Alice Springs sleep in parks and under bridges is because they're alcoholics and, until they, as individuals, choose to do something about their alcoholism, no Government policy can help them. I want to live in a society that hears that and replies, "Yes, based on an examination of the facts and all available evidence, you are correct." I don't want to live in a society where the official Government reply is, "No you're wrong and you're a racist. They're all just victims of white supremacist, colonial imperialist, cis-hetero, patriarchal oppression."

To me, this does not seem like a culture war.  It seems like social poltics.  That is not to say it does not matter. 

If the UK and Ukraine merged to form one state, there likely would be a huge split between groups.  But, the equivalent in the UK is often a case of generation against generation, rather than community against community.

There is also examples like the H&M thread.  Basically, it was insensitive, but probably not malicious.  Take it down, apologise.  Some will declare it is PC gone bad and be outraged, some will declare it is terrible racism.  It will be generational rather than two separate cultures to my mind.

As for the society that will consider factually.  I understand that, but to repeat myself, it will not happen for a reason. 

The example you refer to above is a typical one in politics.  The best individual response is for the person to take complete responsibility.  I used to work in a centre for the homeless and it was hard-core into conservative values.  High standards and no room for begging or complaining.  But, everyone working and volunteering there was left-wing, as the solution had to be bigger.  We realized it was not simple (as we were not naive left wing), but blaming the people dropping out and leaving it there was not the answer either.

On 7/1/2018 at 3:03 PM, Bob8 said:

I posed a question to my girlfriend.  I asked whether "Cat calling is a problem in London and even worse in Rome" would seem sexist.

The answer was no.

I then asked whether ""Cat calling is a huge problem in Rome and less of a problem in London".

With self-awareness of the contradiction, she said yes.  The problem is trusting each others motives and understanding when we are generally right to have some suspicion.   In that example, her suspicion of the motive for the statement would make the debate difficult.

People will be suspicious of motives.  I used to think people who said "...but we are not allowed to say that!" were merely idiots making noise better suited to their behinds.  But, I realise some of then actually think they are being brave and are more ordinarily cowards, so they will hide what they mean.

As in the example above, this leads the other side to be paranoid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bob8 said:

'Culture Wars' seems very valid in the USA, where you have the Jefferson hierarchical, conservative culture and the yankee liberal, urban, industrial culture.

In the UK and perhaps in Australia, the victim scoring seems mutual and it seems a little pettier to me.

As I said in the OP it was for want of a better term. It is quite a widely used term to describe very real disputes that do not follow the traditional left and right lines of politics.

America is where it largely originated and where much of it still comes from. It will inevitably be where much of the content in this thread comes from too. However, as so much of this is online and discussed across the world, I don't think you're right to say that it is petty outside of America. Many of the topics have certainly started to filter into mainstream culture.

Take gender for instance. This is an area of huge difference. I'm talking about the idea of multiple, variable genders and the use of neutral and different pronouns etc. I was recently in a Catholic school and took part in two INSET days on LGBTQ issues. The people who delivered it were lovely and tried hard to make people feel safe to talk openly, but at the same time social pressure meant that people probably didn't. During the talk gender was presented exactly as the progressive side would like. Transgender kids using hormone blockers was presented in a 'how could anybody argue against it?' way.

Whichever side ends up winning the debate will have a huge impact on the future society and culture of the US and much further beyond. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

Culture war: Virgin Trains banning the sale of the Daily Mail on their trains.

I'll just have to buy the guardian instead.  Oh no I can't they don't sell that either... Or the sun, or star, or express, or indie, or telegraph...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

Culture war: Virgin Trains banning the sale of the Daily Mail on their trains.

As much as I despise the Daily Mail I must admit I don't find this to be a good development. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

As much as I despise the Daily Mail I must admit I don't find this to be a good development. 

I find it rather disquieting.  VT is not the first to do this of course.  The rather pathetic Paperchase I think it was did the same thing a few months ago.  It's a bit sinister.  The left is trying to undermine freedom of the press and to me that hints of totalitarianism rather than simple socialist discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday

Rugby League World - Jan 2018



Rugby League Books On Sale Here