In the distant future, by the time we're old men, any comment about a person's race will be deemed off limits. Any mention of black, African american, Native American, Asian, Arab will all be gone and instead you will not be allowed to refer to someone's race.

I guarantee that this will happen.

The next big thing in the near future I believe will be people who become "trans-racial". They were born white, but they feel black so they undergo a race change. Or people being known as cis-white, or cis black.

The Chinese and Indians will outbreed everyone so really "race" will be redundant. (Already they're 40-45% of the world's population.)

Not at all - China's one child policy means their population demographics will age faster than western countries.

That's been running for over thirty years and their population has doubled.

It's only a matter of whether it'll be India or China which take over in the end.

Not at all - the issue is not one of whether you can discuss race. It's just about what terms are acceptable to use.

You fail to understand how demography works.

China’s lower mortality rate, when combined with the one-child policy, has resulted in a dramatic aging of China’s overall population. By 2005, citizens over 65 years of age rose to 6.96 percent of the whole population. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the rapid decrease in China’s birth rate, combined with stable or improving life expectancy, has led to an increasing proportion of elderly people and an increase in the ratio between elderly parents and adult children. By 2020, over 23 percent of China’s citizenry is expected to be over age 65, resulting in a major challenge to China’s medical and social insurance system.

http://www.wikinvest.com/concept/China's_Aging_Population

Look, without getting all academic what I'm saying is mostly tongue in cheek.

Having said that and as you'd know, the one child policy varies across the country, is laxly enforced in a lot of places and can be circumvented by money.

It's far from a lay down misere as you are trying to make out.

Sorry - gotta disagree. I am not arguing anything about the compliance or otherwise of the one-child policy. I am just looking at the statistics based on the age of the population.

The region that will have massive population growth is Africa and the Middle East, not asia.

All this information is freely available online, its not me inventing anything. China's population has already more or less peaked.

We're fast running out of terms. Trust me when I say that the word "black" will be the next to go and we'll wonder how we could've ever used such a derogatory word.

Then we'll be left with "African-American" and this too will cause consternation because people will say "I'm not African, I'm just American"

I see patterns emerge.

When you're a very old man like me, we will think the world has gone mad, we'll not be able to keep up with progressive thinking forever and there will be things we will never be able to understand. This is inevitable.

The fun thing is to try and think of something that you would find immensely strange.

Mate, I'm in my late 30s. Its not that complicated. The term "black" went from being offensive, to now being non-offensive. It may change again.

But that has as much to do with the way the meaning of language changes generally, as anything else.

Groups will always have terms to self-identify. The only way we will get rid of "race" names is if we eliminate race as a social construct. Not something that will ever happen.

I really don't see what the problem is if a group changes the term they use to self-identify. It's not that difficult!

I wasn't and I don't think anyone is.

I just said I had no idea it was derogatory.

Its not a problem mostly when people identify as something, even if they identify as something they clearly are not, and even if they use stupid terms, UNTIL, they start identifying themselves as something they are not for personal gain which is already happening.

Also, as a side note, the policing of terms used out of context by "groupthink" outrage is immensely Orwellian. Forgive me for being over the whole "death by social media outrage" thing. That shit just rubs me the wrong way. I better hurry up and get used to it though for my own sanity.

Has anyone figured out why it's acceptable for blacks (sorry, racist?) to refer to each other as *n****rs*' yet when a white person says it, even in jest, it's considered racist and highly offensive? Isn't that a kind of racist double standard, in that certain words and meanings are interpreted differently and applied different moral standards depending on the skin colour of the person who is saying it?

I wrote something exactly along these lines and then thought "fuck it" I won't be able to stand the grief that would ensue.

Personally I think if you don't like the slur then don't use it yourself. And the "n#gger" one is right at the top of the list for me.

And that goes the same for "wogs" in Australia that call themselves "wogs".

The argument of course is "they're taking ownership of it".

Garbage for a bunch of reasons I couldn't be arsed expanding on.

What am I looking at?

I honestly can't comprehend how people still think they have a right to tell other people how they should feel about certain words/phrases/actions. If you know a word will have a negative affect on someone, and still use it, than it says more about you than the person taking offense.

I'd also love to hear the 'bunch of reasons' why it's garbage that it gives people a sense of ownership of the word.

Therein lies the inherent racism and double standard. Whether offence is taken is contingent on the skin colour of the person who's saying it. If they have black skin it's considered "taking ownership" and an affectionate term, if they have white skin it's deemed offensive. That is clear cut racism and a glaring double standard is it not?

.

Edited by munrubenmuz: 24/10/2015 08:32:32 AM

Popped in and saw this shit. I think I'll go back to enjoying my weekend on the Sunshine Coast. :roll: :lol:

is that possible???

Not sure in what context you meant but it turned out that yes it was possible. That's even though the weather wasn't great, the water was still pretty warm for a south coaster :lol:

where were you? sunshine coast is pretty big......some places up there are Bogan city

Of course. Spent most of my time at the beach at Maroochydore and Moolooloba. Came across many hippies but not many bogans :lol:

The Coalition have dropped to 52-48. Honeymoon looks to be even shorter than what it historically is

Grasping at straws champ.

They lost 30 in a row remember.

Easily a good result.

Murdoch torturing the numbers to ensure a result.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/newspoll-bill-shorten-records-worst-ever-result/6887114

The Coalition has pulled ahead of Labor in a new opinion poll, recording its strongest result in almost two years.

Today's Newspoll in The Australian newspaper shows the Government leading 52 per cent to 48 on a two-party preferred basis, after the parties were tied a fortnight ago.

Malcolm Turnbull is preferred prime minister among [size=6]63 per cent[/size] of respondents compared to [size=6]17 per cent[/size] for Labor leader Bill Shorten — his worst result.



Edited by munrubenmuz: 27/10/2015 09:11:00 AM

Labour have no hope with Shorten at the helm.

-PB

Unfortunately, as a large percentage of people vote on personalities rather policies, Labor would be best to replace Shorten

After the election though.

Let him try and fail.

Need to stop the endless chopping of leaders.

-PB