ACT leader Jamie Whyte on race

[fixed_truth]

more blind outrage . . .

Why ACT always needs to play the race card

All other things being equal... except they aren't

[Ab]

The thing is nobody wants ACT to be a classically-liberal individual-rights party. Righties want it to be a Conservative party, rednecks want it to be a racist party, and the lefties want it to be a conservative racist party because then they can be outraged by it. So you've got this classically-liberal leader talking individual rights and everyone loses their minds over what they WANT HIM TO HAVE SAID rather than what he did.

[CCS]

It's funny, really. When the whole incest comments went down, people lost their shit. To a somewhat sly question, he gave an answer which was philosophical and libertarian and people took it as an out and out political statement. Despite Whyte saying that he personally found incest distasteful, people wanted so badly so be outraged that they took it as Whyte floating a state-sanctioned endorsement of fucking your sister.

Same deal here. People are calling Act's statement 'desperate' when in fact (I'm rather certain) Act has been against things like Maori seats from day one. It's hardly a policy they've come up with out of the blue because they're polling poorly.

It's no more desperate than the policies of any other small party.

It's a shame that Act can't have a discussion about race based policies without accusations of desperation or racism.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

The thing is nobody wants ACT to be a classically-liberal individual-rights party. Righties want it to be a Conservative party, rednecks want it to be a racist party, and the lefties want it to be a conservative racist party because then they can be outraged by it. So you've got this classically-liberal leader talking individual rights and everyone loses their minds over what they WANT HIM TO HAVE SAID rather than what he did.

Tell yourself that a few more times, maybe it will become true.

[Ab]

Of all the independent clauses in that post, which one is "that"?

[Lightspeed]

I was referring to a more nebulous "that", whatever underlying story you have generating those absolute statements. Whatever compels you to make complex reality simplistic.

[pxpx]

The pot would like a word.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Tell yourself that a few more times, maybe it will become true.

I've done my time.

[adonis]

The Maori "nation" was never suppose to be completely dissolved into the the Crown. It was suppose to remain partially autonomous. Therefore the issue is not one of race, but of nationalism. The mere act of calling these issues "race based" is racist, and saying that the Maori seats should be removed when you're rich and white is a bit like an American saying NZ should become the next state to join the USA against the will of the NZ people.

The thing is, in principle, I actually agree that there shouldn't be Maori seats. There shouldn't be a NEED for the Maori seats, but there is. There's a thin line between nationalism and racism, and creating a one world administration that protects people's right to self-determination seems like a fantastic idea. But it's an idea that people need to judge and adopt for themselves, and such an idea needs to be backed up with the practical considerations necessary to make it work.

The major practical consideration highlighted here is the level of understand that people in a socially privileged position have of the issues working against this idea. That understanding is so woefully inadequate that there simply won't be any motivation for oppressed peoples to amalgamate any representation that they have, which should be entirely understandable.

If and when idiots like Whyte finally understand just how racist their views are, and see the massive intellectual blind spots and double standards inherent in their own outlook, then perhaps we can have an honest discussion. But until then, I would advise people who lack privileges to use any and all means to maintain and enhance what influence they have.

[Golden Teapot]

As the world is cut by different dimensions just about everyone will be able to find something that seems unfair to them. For some it's their income tax contribution. For some others it will be lack of access to opportunities afforded to others.

My preference is for equal opportunity and the essay seems very reasonable to me. On the other hand I don't care particularly.

The policies adopted by NZ here do by and large target the right people i.e. the poor with little chance of escape from that situation (for lots of reasons). Yes there is some collateral damage - some people miss out and some are able to rort the system.

I'm not sure an alternative approach could do better in any absolute sense. Any set of criteria by which a judgment could be made will be subjective with no chance of everyone agreeing on what the criteria should be.

Those who hold dear the ideas of USA-style individual accountability will resonate with Act's position. Those with say a Danish-style view will think differently. Most in both camps won't realise their views are impossibly biased based on their environment.

This is what it is. There is no chance of it being changed. Act is simply reminding a segment of the electorate that they're the party to vote for if this stuff floats your boat. Every hundredth person or so cares and Act needs these folk to remember to vote for them since that's their only chance of coat-tailing others in on their Epsom free ride.

[Spink]

Isn't it interesting how people's answer to stuff like the socio economic issues we face is limp wristed policies designed to "guide" them towards a better path.

Like the way both parties are constantly increasing the tax on smoking could be construed as unfair on Maori, as a larger percentage of Maori(44%) smoke than non-Maori(18%) in New Zealand. They're trying to make it more difficult to smoke because smoking is bad.

But, isn't levying what could be a fixed number extra tax against Maori who are generally also in poorer socio economic situations unfair? smoking could even be construed as part of their culture now (not that anyone in politics would be willing to say that, lol) and we're trying to erode it.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Whyte Power: Act and the winner takes all society

It’s a particularly nasty form of white male syndrome – the need to universalise everything.

had to laugh

[Spoon1]

Originally Posted by adonis

The Maori "nation" was never suppose to be completely dissolved into the the Crown. It was suppose to remain partially autonomous. Therefore the issue is not one of race, but of nationalism. The mere act of calling these issues "race based" is racist, and saying that the Maori seats should be removed when you're rich and white is a bit like an American saying NZ should become the next state to join the USA against the will of the NZ people.

Oh, sweet, so then I can identify as part of the Maori "nation" then to become a doctor with lower grades? No? I need to to show a genealogical ("blood") link to a Maori person? Oh ok then...

I think the people saying it's "racist" should go look up the dictionary meaning again. Arguing for the elimination of considerations of race is not racist.

Personally I'm not overly fussed by Maori Seats and think they possibly have some weight given the ToW but the other bollocks can go jump and really both just immediately set up an "us and them" situation which I don't believe is helpful in the least.

Has the existance of the quotas and easy-ins etc had ANY appreciable impact on the numbers of maori in poverty/crime/etc statistics? I suspect not.

I would much rather we ditched all of the race-based stuff and concentrate on REALLY helping ALL people stuck in the poverty-crime-etc-go-round. How? I don't know but I'm confident it wouldn't require race-based policies.

On a semi-related matter I would actually like to see all our officially recognised languages mandatorily taught at school to a certain level. What's the point of having an official language if only a tiny smattering of people actually speak it? Danish kids learn multiple languages with no problems so I can't see how it couldn't work here.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Spoon1

Oh, sweet, so then I can identify as part of the Maori "nation" then to become a doctor with lower grades? No? I need to to show a genealogical ("blood") link to a Maori person? Oh ok then...

No, you can't. Passing grades for Maori are the same. Entry level grades differ to reflect the inequalities that exist in prior education. The policy is a result of Maori representation. Educational criteria differ from country to country to reflect social differences, this is no different.

Your statement is blatantly racist. Perpetuating ignorance of this kind promotes attitudes that harm Maori - actually any minority or oppressed segment of society. Racism can be more than simply making generalisations about people based on their looks or other attributes, in this case it's the reinforcement of systemic oppression.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Spoon1

I think the people saying it's "racist" should go look up the dictionary meaning again.

You might be right. Sometimes people say "racist" when "cunt" would be more accurate.

[Ab]

Note: TERMS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE

[CCS]

Calling people racist kinda Godwin's this thread.

[Lightspeed]

I don't think anyone is calling anyone racist, but rather calling statements or views racist. Maybe they are, I don't intend to.

Racism is a complex, destructive phenomena in our society, we benefit from grappling with it.

[Spoon1]

Originally Posted by adonis

No, you can't. Passing grades for Maori are the same. Entry level grades differ to reflect the inequalities that exist in prior education. The policy is a result of Maori representation. Educational criteria differ from country to country to reflect social differences, this is no different.

Your statement is blatantly racist. Perpetuating ignorance of this kind promotes attitudes that harm Maori - actually any minority or oppressed segment of society. Racism can be more than simply making generalisations about people based on their looks or other attributes, in this case it's the reinforcement of systemic oppression.

My point was to refute your comment that it's not race-based when it quite obviously is.

And you've confirmed that lower grades are required. Frankly I don't know the details but am aware that there are such policies in place and apparently for other groups too (perhaps someone can expand on that or provide a link).

I don't think there should be any special considerations made that are based on who your father was. If you're going to apply something then use a race-neutral modifier, like what decile your school was or something.

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

You might be right. Sometimes people say "racist" when "cunt" would be more accurate.

Say that then. I'm not going to apologise for not wanting to reverse discriminate based on race.

Anyway, I've said my bit and this isn't going anywhere so meh.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Spoon1

Say that then. I'm not going to apologise for not wanting to reverse discriminate based on race.

It's a bit cunty that you want to reverse discrimination based on race when you currently benefit from historical racial discrimination.

You should stick around though Spoon1, it's a good discussion to have, even if it's not pleasant.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Spoon1

And you've confirmed that lower grades are required. Frankly I don't know the details but am aware that there are such policies in place and apparently for other groups too (perhaps someone can expand on that or provide a link).

From an earlier link:

Second, the Maori quotas do not deny non-Maori a place in law school. The quotas are in addition to the general admission places and are recognition of the need for Maori lawyers to serve Maori communities. There have been many years when the full allocation of positions under the quota scheme have not been taken up and at no point were additional places then provided to non-Maori students.

In this context; what's the problem? Non-Maori aren't missing out on anything and the school is achieving a set outcome that they deem important ie, Maori communities gaining greater access to legal services through more Maori Lawyers. Like the rural targeted admission scheme; it's about targeting people with a certain subset of skills rather than the unreasonable alternative of making it so every law student must be have those subset of skills whether they will utilise them or not.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Spoon1

My point was to refute your comment that it's not race-based when it quite obviously is.

It's no more racist than any rights that are granted via citizenship. Where's your outrage at Americans having an entirely different constitution and set of rights? Or Australians? Or any other nationality? They receive those rights based on their lineage. Be consistent and I won't call you out for saying racist things.

And you've confirmed that lower grades are required.

For entry - Maori who enter this way qualify to become doctors just like everyone else.

I don't think there should be any special considerations made that are based on who your father was. If you're going to apply something then use a race-neutral modifier, like what decile your school was or something.

In a perfect world I would agree, but when people are clearly the victims of systemic discrimination ignoring that systemic problem isn't going to make it go away. Society is more than laws. Some degree of discrimination targets Maori, just as it targets woman and other demographics.

How about showing some outrage at the fact that Maori are unfairly treated by the justice system? Racism there is well documented, but you'd rather whine about Maori being given the chance to become doctors.

Say that then. I'm not going to apologise for not wanting to reverse discriminate based on race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsbbmdGrcI0

[adonis]

How about this? I avoided going to a public school, I went to a very expensive private school with the best facilities money can buy.

I got privileges 'cause my parents could afford that, my lineage payed for that. Where's your outrage over that?

[crocos]

Originally Posted by adonis

How about this? I avoided going to a public school, I went to a very expensive private school with the best facilities money can buy.

Get a refund

[Ab]

Originally Posted by adonis

It's no more racist than any rights that are granted via citizenship. Where's your outrage at Americans having an entirely different constitution and set of rights? Or Australians? Or any other nationality? They receive those rights based on their lineage. Be consistent and I won't call you out for saying racist things.

That makes no sense. Citizenship and "lineage" are unconnected things.

My daughter has rights in Australia because she is an Australian citizen. Those rights have nothing to do with her ethnicity.

Interestingly enough she is not yet a New Zealand citizen, since we haven't filed the paperwork. But - and here's the relevant bit - even without citizenship she is legally entitled to certain things in New Zealand because she is Maori, things that a 5th-generation New Zealander, born and bred in New Zealand but of non-Maori descent, is not.

Now my household ain't rich but the description "semi-comfortably middle-class" is probably pretty appropriate. Right now, having been to NZ twice in her life and being neither an NZ citizen nor even a resident, my daughter can get off a plane and instantly be eligible for all kinds of consideration that is not available to a poor kid born in NZ to non-Maori parents who could really fucking use some help.

Is that fair?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

legally entitled to certain things . . .eligible for all kinds of consideration

For the sake of the discussion what are some of these certain things and considerations?

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Ab

That makes no sense. Citizenship and "lineage" are unconnected things.

The relationship between the two may not always be absolute, but to call them "unconnected" is stupid. Your daughter was born in Australia because you had the ability to emigrate there.

Tell all those "boat people" who are being locked up by the Australian government that their lineage isn't a factor in how they're treated.

Regardless of how you spin it, her rights were given to her because of where she comes from and who her family is.

Is that fair?

"Fairness" is relative. As I've said before, the issue is that people do not understand the systemic oppression that still exists.

[pxpx]

Edit: nevermind

[Ab]

Originally Posted by adonis

The relationship between the two may not always be absolute, but to call them "unconnected" is stupid.

I, my sister, my children, and hundreds of thousands of other Maoris outside of New Zealand have legal rights INSIDE New Zealand in virtue of what you are calling "lineage" but which is not lineage. Those legal rights are totally independent of and unconnected with citizenship. Citizen of NZ, citizen of somewhere else, stateless non-citizen, doesn't matter.

Edit update: unless you're speaking in the strict sense of citizenship being something that one can become eligible for if one is the child of an existing citizen. In that sense I concede, lineage and citizenship can be connected.

[fixed_truth]

Out of all the commentary owning Whyte in the last few days; this is my favorite - The crybaby philosopher

A man as intelligent as Whyte endlessly claims to be would have anticipated, even embraced, all this criticism, rather than expressing hurt and astonishment at it. What we have seen instead instead is a crybaby philosopher, a manchild who seems almost pitiably innocent of the job he’s supposed to be doing. We can only speculate what absurdity Whyte would generate in the unlikely event he enters Parliament.

[chubby]

jamie face to face on his nonsense.
oh my god.

http://www.maoritelevision.com/news/...ie-whyte-panel

[Ab]

TLDR, what were the lowlights?

[chubby]

the whole seven minutes.
jamie acted as if he had given his chosen topic about as much thought as i might some flip comment at a dinner party.
didn't seem to realize that there would be an actual,committed journalist asking him questions requiring grown up answers and thinking.

funny, when jamie first came on the scene i was concerned...'an actual man of learning,mebbe with some good points for the "libertarians"-whoops.'
not worried any more.

[Ab]

Mihingarangi Forbes is a) hot, which is either irrelevant or a cunning part of the fact that she is b) NZ's best interrogative journalist. She somehow has the knack of getting her guests to buttfuck themselves without them knowing they're doing it.

Edit update: imagine her moderating the leaders' debate. That would own.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Ab

Edit update: imagine her moderating the leaders' debate. That would own.

Now THAT is a great idea.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by chubby

the whole seven minutes.

Yeah, that bit where he didn't know what Whanau Ora was? Bit awkward.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Ab

Yeah, that bit where he didn't know what Whanau Ora was? Bit awkward.

quite.
ms forbes really struggled not to visibly sneer about that point.

[fixed_truth]

Good on this guy:


Act candidate quits over leader's speech 'stunt'

"Jamie was in Dunedin for a small gathering of ACT supporters on the morning of 20 July, and he mentioned to me that he was in search of a 'stunt ... because you know, the polls.' A week later ACT rolled out a controversial and obviously unprepared race relations policy."

[Golden Teapot]

I don't know what whanau ora is. I'm not ashamed of this either.

[Ab]

Yes, but you're not the leader of a political party that has taken a rather dogmatic approach to race-based government policy.