Posts by David Cauchi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I don't disagree with that, but he was working with the definition that you provided, so you could be big about it and admit that it's "positive racism" rather than ignoring the fact that he's turned your words against you quite successfully.
It seems I should have clarified that 'positive discrimination' means 'positive racism' (positive in that the benefits justify discriminating on race). I foolishly assumed that people would recognise that, given how that's the definition and all, just as 'sexism' is discrimination on the basis of gender and 'ageism' is discrimination on the basis of age, so used the usual term. How did he turn my words against me? I'm stupid and missed that.
-
You see, there we run into problems. Because, for example, it would flag things like targeted health spending or the Maori seats in Parliament as racism.
Your examples are often referred to as 'racism' by those who oppose them and as 'positive discrimination' by those who support them. Both sides acknowledge there's discrimination solely on the basis of race. It's just that some argue that these cases are okay because they address negative discrimination.
Plus, where did you gain that belief about common definitions? I had a look at a few dictionary definitions and they all seem to include prejudice, animosity, belief in your own superiority etc as parts of their definition, which fits more happily with the way I'd use the word.
I'm not sure where I got that belief. Things that I've read, no doubt.
-
I've seen many an instance of innocent people being forced from a house and handcuffed at gunpoint. In fact on one ocassion during a search for an escaped prisoner in Palmy North, the occupants of a Tremaine Ave house were ordered from their flat, handcuffed and left on the side of the street, and then the police fired teargas cannisters into the house. The projectiles caught on the net curtains, and the house burned down. The escaped prisoner wasn't even at the house. On another ocassion, searching for a wanted bank robber, carloads of AOS officers stopped a car in Wellington, forced the elderly occupants out of the car onto the road and handcuffed them. They turned out to be British tourists, and were extremely traumatised. They subsequently sued the police, and lost.
Oh well, that's quite all right, then, if they routinely illegally detain people and wantonly destroy property while using psychological intimidation.
This article 'What makes a terrorist' is quite interesting:
One set of factors that I examined did consistently raise the likelihood that people from a given country will participate in terrorism—namely, the suppression of civil liberties and political rights, including freedom of the press, the freedom to assemble, and democratic rights. Using data from the Freedom House Index, for example, I found that countries with low levels of civil liberties are more likely to be the countries of origin of the perpetrators of terrorist attacks. In addition, terrorists tend to attack nearby targets. Even international terrorism tends to be motivated by local concerns.
-
Oh, and what Steve said about there not really being anything as what's commonly meant by 'race' is true. I believe there are more genetic differences within an ethnic group than there are between ethnic groups.
-
I believe racism is commonly defined as 'treating someone differently solely on the basis of race'. So stuff like
...classing people being awkward in their attempts to be culturally sensitive ... [and] the "commodification of indigeneity", which I assume means something like "people thinking stuff is hip because it comes from an indigenous culture"...
is what's known as mild racism, whereas things like KKK lynchings and handing out blankets infected with the influenza virus is much more serious racism. You don't need a new word just to distinguish between degrees. It's all racism.
The fact is that functional MRI scans have shown that we all have an inbuilt propensity to racism. This propensity can, however, be easily overcome if you are aware of it. What this means is owning up to what racism is, not hiding from it by claiming that only stuff like KKK lynchings count.
I'd personally like to call for a moratorium on the use of the words "stormtrooper" and "ninja" with respect to the police.
I don't approve of moratoria on words. Using emotive language for rhetorical effect has a long and honourable tradition, can be glorious when used well (even if you don't agree with what's being expressed), and gives you useful information about the person using it when used badly.
-
I can't be the only person who finds people who repeatedly open responses to other people's seriously argued posts with "Ha ha" very obnoxious.
I presume this refers to me. I count two cases of opening with 'ha ha', only one of which was a response to someone's seriously argued post. Unfortunately, I thought the claim I was responding to was so bizarre that it was laughable, so I responded accordingly.
I find sanctimonious complaints that allude to who they're complaining about indirectly and inaccurately fairly obnoxious, but I'm not going lose any sleep over it. Each to their own.
-
I think I'm going to freak out a bit
Ha ha, best understated quote ever.
-
Ha ha
It's my understanding however that the first evidence of the use of the TSA was when one of the people raided made a copy of the warrant available publicly. How is that the police's fault?
I don't know. Maybe by getting the warrant under the TSA in the first place?
Please tell me where I've said these people are guilty, as compared to the half dozen times I've said "these people may have done something, and we don't/won't know".
Dearie me. You haven't said these specific people are guilty of this specific crime, but you have been going on as if there is a specific terrorist threat in NZ. And
Well no doubt the defence will be looking into the argument that their clients cannot get a fair trial now that they've been tagged with the terrorist label.
doesn't exactly help your argument, does it?
But, you're right, you are catching some flak, mostly from me, for what is a reasonable (but wrong) position to hold. Isn't a free society great!?
-
Look, anyone can make up outrageous claims about what someone's been up to. These claims need to be substantiated before anyone takes them seriously.
We have not been presented with any evidence anyone has been up to anything like terrorist activity. All we have had is sensational leaks of supposed, but untested, evidence.
I, like other people, have suggested the police have a reason for leaking that. This is not unreasonable.
-
Yes Kyle, I see your point. There is a possibility there's been some grossly criminal behaviour that the cops can't prosecute.
However, that's only a possibility. I refer you again to the presumption of innocence, a point you seem to have trouble with.