No you're wrong.I got on with my life and and made something of it.
Life is too short for wasting it on the past.
I'm not interested in playing the victim card.(He was a victim of society etc..)
I'm just pointing out to you and others here how stupid and uneducated
some people are here by posting cliches. (He's white so he's GOTTA be rich..right?)

_b

I get that. But I mean, there's all kinds of nonsense in this thread, that's what caught you.

Frankly, power and privilege are real things all humans indulge in as we're able. And as we enjoy more power and privilege, the less we like to talk about it. But experience shows that the more concentrated power gets the more damaging it becomes to our way of life. So we need to talk about it, even if clumsily.

Even if we've cooked up ourselves a story of how I've had it tough, but all on my own I've made something for myself and it's all mine, don't you dare take that away from me, and so on.

Let's leave it at then.You don't understand where I'm coming from and I didn't cook up any story on how tough my life is.
If you think thats a work of fiction to elicit sympathy then you don't know nor
care to know what others go through.
Peace. :)

I'm getting too old to get into flame wars.

You misunderstand, I don't mean story as in a work of fiction, I mean a story as in a narrative.

I'm not interested in a flame war either. Just because I'm challenging you, doesn't mean I'm combative. I don't know what ZoSo and bradman have going on, I'm not part of that.

My issue with the idea of meritocracy and personal responsibility is that although it is an intuitive idea(s), it’s actually not really grounded in reality as in fact we are all pretty much products of our environment. So when someone does well in society, as well as patting them on the back we need to look at the ways they were conditioned and nurtured into where they are. Through this examination of our preconceived notions about meritocracy not only does it show us things we need to be putting in place as a society; it also allows us to see those failing in society in a more accurate light.

For example, a lot of the kids who really excel academically weren’t born fundamentally different to other kids it’s that they almost always come from stable, well-resourced families that from a young age have been pushed hard by parents.

Now even if we do start to look at things in terms of cause and effect or inputs and outputs people still let ideologies get in the way. Talk about increasing social services (increasing DPB, feeding kids at school, UBI, increasing benefits) and people are quick to assert things like doing so will mean people won’t want to work or will have kids for money when in fact for most beneficiaries’ this extra support will take a lot of financial pressure off, they’ll be less stressed, provide more for their kids, be better role models etc. etc. Hell even if a punitive approach to welfare did change people’s life for the better (which it doesn’t) it’s still not a humane approach particularly when we can get better outcomes through supporting people through changing their environment for the better.

End first NZG rant in ages

isn't that the basis of National's last few years of welfare policy?

Spending thousands of dollars on at-risk kids now saves milions of dollars on fucked-up adults later.

National did the bare minimum they had to to undercut Labour rather than a real commitment to change. Had this not been alongside 9 years of beneficiary bashing and public sector under funding then it might have seemed like a genuine concern.

Policy maybe. In practice, I don't think so.

They canned the most cost-effective approach: accessibly early childhood centres sufficiently funded for at least one masters level trained child specialist. There are countless positive flow-on effects to this, and they reinforce over subsequent generations. Although I guess we have to be satisfied with the 3-9 years Labour & co get every 9 or so years.

And CYF is jacked up. It's a vulnerable organisation charged with protecting our most vulnerable. You can't dick around with it to satisfy policy. Traumatised families and budget & policy demands are pretty much impossible things to juggle. A fucking nightmare.

Dude, you asked:
I was explaining privilege, not saying you were necessarily a beneficiary of said privilege which is why things were couched as questions rather than statements.

Ok.

It's a pretty subjective statement isn't it? Also I don't really accept blanket statements that people make based upon someone's race, gender, etc.

Uh, what are you talking about? I merely gave some examples of things that can give a leg-up that aren't in your control; of privilege.

What statement are you talking about?

It wasn't until I was well beyond childhood that it ever entered my head that not everyone grew up surrounded by books and music.

I'm meaning when someone makes stereotypical statements 'white male privilege'.

What's stereotypical about it?

It's true, many use these terms and others with little insight into their origin or intended application. Is it helpful to let how stupid people apply these terms dictate the value of their insight?

The roots of concepts like white male privilege exist in generations of disciplined academic research that continues to have significant real world impact.

Getting a handle on the complex dynamics that govern our lives is an important step in growing human agency. Concepts like "white male privilege" is some of what pops out.

I don't understand how a blanket statement like that can be accepted academically. Or is it a wealth/class thing?

My rationale behind it is because there are plenty of 'white' males who are lacking in life and aren't exactly privileged. E.g. Divorced parents, poor, drug/alcohol addictions, deviancy, etc. How would that get accounted for in such research?

Except that it isn't a blanket statement - it's a descriptor for how certain forces within particular societies operate. Just like any other field it's a piece of jargon to condense a whole lot of ideas into a short phrase that saves time in discussions within the field (instead of having to qualify every little thing - one phrase instead of 5 pages of explaining).

If you seriously want to understand some of rationales behind it I do strongly suggest just having a look at the wikipedia page on the idea - it's pretty good and does cover where the idea came from, what fields constituted it (and how different fields constitute it differently), how it has developed over time AND the critiques of it (including all the questions you asked above about how things are accounted for in research) as a term and where it has weakness.

R U SRS? :rolleyes:

I've read some literature, though i'm yet to find a balanced literature review from the likes of Peggy McIntosh re: negatives of being a male. To me that seems like her research has bias. Or perhaps I'm not researching enough?

Yeah bro, everyone with white skin gets advantage from this.

This article explains things without too much twaddle.

I don't get what you're saying? Is it you think there's a lack of literature into the struggles of men? Or do you expect "white male privilege" to be somehow proven in a way that satisfies you?

White Privilege on the internet is really only used as a tool to silence and undermine opinions/viewpoints.

Anyways, what a lucky break for Jacinda and Co getting their token offer to take some refugees rejected :rolleyes:

Do you think privilege (white or otherwise) is being used to silence and undermine any opinions or viewpoints in this case?

To be fair, a sound argument also may be used to silence and undermine opinions/viewpoints.

I'll point out that when the NZG massive has been in full swing (i.e. three people with the same opinion posting at the same time), belittlement has been an accepted tool for silencing opinion. So it's not like we have some high standard of discourse here all of a sudden.

Shut up, Ashley!

Jacinda doing all the right things, Turnbull looks like a prick.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-0...s-time/9120028

I don't think Turnbull is too worried about looking like a dick.

Jacinda went over there to meet Malcolm and ask for some refugees in exchange for lower tertiary fees for NZ students in Aus. She failed. Malcolm is not bovvered.

She's generating moral authority on the cheap. Of course Turnbull doesn't care, but it's not about him. It's about everyone else looking on. A Western leader with moral authority is a curiosity these days, it will attract attention.

And what's great is the morally bankrupt have no effective response, we'll all see how pathetic they really are as they weep and gnash.

Moral authority doesn't help NZers living in Aus, which is who Ardern purported to be helping.

Except to basically ignore her, as Turnbull has done.

I would call that an ineffective response. It does nothing to shift the perception that Australia are being a bunch of cunts.

But it does. This is what's so great about this approach. Either Jacinda helps NZers by convincing the Aussie government to change its ways. Or Jacinda helps NZers by undermining the authority of the leadership responsible for NZers hardships.

Either way Turnbull loses.

Nah I don't think the white privilege card gets pulled out much on NZG, all of our opinions are equally worthless :D

Turnbull doesn't need NZ to undermine his authority, he can do it all by himself

Definitely low hanging fruit for Labour.

Muppetry in the House today:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...s-in-the-house

Oh, snap.

So Labour has fucked up and given National what it wanted anyway. Not a great start.

If Bridges was bluffing and Labour actually HAD the votes that would be extra lolsome.

Smile and Wave 2.0/Smile and Hugs 1.0, can help them outside. Probably not inside.
Although H2 will likely thrash them back into line.

OMG Labour actually had the numbers, Bridges was bluffing. Hipkins fell for it.