The irony will go over relevant football fan heads......

That said, I bet you will find a correlation on football fans who are fine with civil liberties being eroded, while saying regarding the FFA banning that "if you don't do anything wrong you won't get banned" or words to that effect, because it's in their lazy nature to conflate issues :idea:

Several at Griffith were for support eg. living away from home etc. What would be wrong with a white union like this? There were a lot of guys in my cohort who lacked support because they didn't know anyone.



Not at all. It was a specific point from the article i linked to where the students felt like their concerns were completely ignored because they were white complaining about a non-white person or group of people.

Of course the uni's would do absolutely nothing other than send out a token bulk email that would probably be ignored. They'd also put up signs in the study areas which would be ignored and staff would refuse to do anything about it.



Why? Aren't white kids allowed to help each other out? For example helping those who've moved from other cities get used to uni life.

Are they not allowed to have exclusive groups like other ethnicities have?



The sad thing is that everyone is passing off as a troll is proving that if you're a whitey at uni no one really gives a fuck about your needs.

If it is a troll, it has given those who started it the exact response they were looking for.

It's such a sad state of affairs, we're like 10 years behind the USA and now they have huge white unions because those kids are sick of ignored.

People can play the 'privileged' card all they want but all that really is achieving is pissing off more people who want to be involved with university life but have no voice.

It's either ok to have specific ethnic/racial groups as unions at uni or it's not. You can't have one rule for some and another rule for others because that is the definition of racism. White people are a race. They are an ethnicity known as Caucasian just like other racial groups.

People who think white people are "privileged" are racists. This seems to upset people.

Cory Bernardi on Kitchen Cabinet, even though hes a religious nutcase, hes got the charisma and aura just like any church figure.

...what?

Of course white people are privileged in Western societies. It's as simple as saying wealthy people are privileged - it has nothing to do with prejudice, it's simply a reflection of reality. Even if it's marginal, there are all kinds of instances in everyday life where being white is an advantage. Casual and systemic racism are still major problems, and there are all kinds of obvious examples of its influence: compare Indigenous life-expectancy to that of non-Indigenous Australians, or look at the number of Prime Ministers we've had without an Anglo-Saxon last name (answer: none).

Also, complaining about things like black power is just as bad as homophobes asking why there aren't straight pride parades. The black power movement didn't develop as an expression of racism - it was a reaction against racism. Black power is important because blacks still suffer real disadvantages based on the colour of their skin (whereas - in the West at least - whites virtually never suffer such disadvantages).

One of the biggest misconceptions in the world.

In my industry. white men are the minority. Our universities are not being filled by white people. There is a disproportionately lower level of white people in our universities than non-whites compared to the general population.

The reason why white people dominate positions of power is because the generation in power are usually in their 50s and 60s. These are the politicians, CEOs, wealthy businessmen etc. Their generation is mostly white. Most people in this country over 50 are white.

When my/our generation are in power, this will change. We will have probably 60% female politicians and a far greater number of people who are non-white. This isn't a bad thing. It's just the way it is. I'm predicting the next labor prime minister to be penny Wong for example. We need to stop making white people feel guilty for any success they have.

We've all seen white trash in society. Now that is some disadvantage.

But even if your rosy prediction of when our generation is in power is true, that doesn't change the present reality. The present reality is one dominated by white men, as you've just admitted.

Even if you're right and it will all change in a generation's time, right now it's blatantly obvious that white people are privileged. Pointing that fact out isn't racist, it's realistic.

But it's important to recognise the different generations. It's an important distinction to make. For example, the most powerful and highest income demographic in Australia for people under 35 is Asian women. This is important because you will often hear the "white privilege" rage being bandied around when talking about a young white man.

Our university places and test scores are disproportionately dominated by Asian people. This is people all across Asia including Chinese, sub continent and middle eastern students. This is not a criticism. These groups are dominating because they work harder. Good on them. They will dominate this country in the next 20-30 years. We can already see this happening across many facets of society. The number one media personality in Aus undoubtedly is a brown skinned Muslim man as an example. Our politicians are becoming more ethnically diverse in keeping with the nation.

Success stories are usually always the same. It's always got to do with working hard and being rewarded. Not what race you are.

Also, there are some races which are definitely disadvantaged for many reasons and aboriginal people are definitely one of them, but, importantly this doesn't automatically mean one race is privileged as a result.

Also, those politicians in power now aren't priveleged by their race, they are priveleged by their class and education it's just that most people of that age in Aus are white. The dominant groups in Aus are never young. They are usually old because it takes so long to get there.

Interesting. I think we actually agree on a fair bit. A few things I would say, though:

Even if we recognise the different generations, that shouldn't obscure patterns of privilege in society. Fifty years ago, Australia was essentially dominated by WASPs. Today the dominant/privileged group has expanded somewhat - second generation immigrants from Southern European countries (for example) don't suffer from the disadvantages that their parents did when they first arrived here and were labeled as 'wogs.' Maybe in another generation Asian-Australians will form part of that dominant/privileged group, but right now they don't. It's entirely accurate to say that white Australians are privileged - that may change in the future, but for now (and for a few decades more, at least) it remains the case. Even the young white men of today (such as myself) benefit from that privilege - we're more likely to have gone to a private school, to have higher incomes, etc. The very fact we've never had a non-white Prime Minister (or until recently, a female Prime Minister) is itself an impediment to any non-white (or female) Australian's ambitions and goals.

Also, probably worth pointing out that privilege is basically a zero-sum game. If Aboriginals are disadvantaged, that means non-Aboriginals are necessarily privileged.

Class, education and all kinds of other factors are obviously relevant in determining privilege as well. I'm certainly not saying race is the only issue - but it is one issue.

Edited by JP: 3/12/2015 11:56:52 PM

You're not a young white man decentric :)

This is interesting to me. I've been trying to find a source of this but my googlefu must be a bit off today. Do you have a source for this info?

Exactly and I'm 100% for these groups providing they are to support students in adjusting to university life and helping with issues.

Lets face it, us whities are unlikely to understand personal issues of cultures/ethnicities foreign to us. It is better than people who understand them a bit better are tasked with supporting them.

It's the reality but it is a reality which is used to marginalise and silence whities in places like universities. Unless of course you're an eco-warrior or a socialist. Somehow those parasites get a voice.

The million dollar question is how does one change this? It seems as though our privilege compared to Aboriginals is something that causes great animosity, as in it's entirely our (being non-aboriginals) responsibility to improve their lives.

It's not hard to find examples of them totally disregarding all efforts to provide them with accommodation and support in rural communities.

someone please put a lock on this thread, its in total meltdown, its meant to be about politics in Australia, not race and privilege

I strongly disagree with your statement that anyone (including indigenous people) seriously state that its "entirely" the responsibility of "non-aboriginals" to improve their lives.

You are falling victim to the 'white man's burden' paternalistic argument.

The actual issue is the responsibility of society to remove the roadblocks that exist due to many and varied reasons, that hold back indigenous people.

These issues are generational and not easy to fix. It is obvious that these problems were created through generations of government policy which forcibly moved indigenous people onto reservations, prevented them from working etc etc.

I concede that my choice of words was terrible.

I will clarify in saying that in my opinion we are failing terribly to engage these people in helping them to improve their lives. We appear to not be trusted by senior members of the communities we do try to engage and the whole process breaks down.

These poor people were considered to be animals until something like the 1950's if I recall. It is little wonder there is so much animosity.

However, they need to come to the table on this and drop the hate. We cannot be persecuted for the sins of those who came before us if anyone expects there to be any changes.

Enjoying the respectful discussion going on atm and am still keen to read up on the powerful female asians under 35 demographic (can see how this might be possible and my mind is open to it). But on a different note...

Labor have been shifting their focus on attacking the Greens lately to try and claw back some of the more progressive voters, in particular because they did a deal with the Libs on tax avoidance laws. Considering all the dastardly shit they voted with the Libs on (e.g. metadata retention, infinite detention of asylum seekers & cutting emissions targets) I really don't see it working for them.

The Greens will always be a minority party. Generally speaking, their ideas are too progressive for most Australians to grasp, or more pertinently, to put the mental effort in to be willing to grasp.

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 4/12/2015 11:04:17 AM

I think some of their ideas a good. However I find some of them a little bit too rigid. For example, they would cease gas exploration i.e. by not giving out any new licences. Given how much exploration goes on in this country and the newly constructed infrastructure (SANTOS GLNG in Gladstone) which cost something silly like $16bn, do you honestly expect people to embrace this policy?

Screwing over an entire industry just would not be able to happen. The affects on our economy and in particular the construction sector would be devastating.

They also need to be more realistic when it comes to investment in green energy. We currently do not have the capacity to switch off the coal fired plants. It would be 20-50 years before we had eve 50% renewables as our energy source. It annoys me that someone like Di Natale who I have a lot of respect for is so blinded when it comes to the practicality of creating a renewable grid that could power our major cities. Unless you want to back tax every major corporation whose skirted our laws with interest (good luck) funding will always be an issue for the infrastructure.

The demographics (word of the day? :lol:) of their membership base is getting broader and I think there will be further changes to their policy platform. They're showing decent capacity to compromise as well.

This. I like alot of the Greens Ideas but to keep to the ideal of a planet friendly alternative they also have pretty huge laws that would impact Australia in a big way.

I cast them preferences so they can keep pressuring for change, but they are a Jekyll and Hyde. To get the good you have to accept the bad.

Problem is they are by far and away the closest thing we have to a third party alternative.

I think Di Natale is more progressive than Milne who was unlikeable in addition to being far too rigid when it came to mining and development.

The hardcore eco-warrior element is still strong. I mean look at Larissa Waters in QLD who propagated blatant lies about dredging in the Great Barrier Reef and then, astonishingly, continued to propagate the lies after being put in her place.

Yes change is certainly not a "by the next election" prospect. I don't think they'll ever govern in their own right but a credible third party required in coalition to form government is something that would really help our politics here in my opinion. Whether it's the greens or someone else I don't really mind.

Edited by mcjules: 4/12/2015 11:39:32 AM

They're certainly useful for keeping the big two in check! Someone certainly needs to.

First funding/policy dig at Abbott

I think Libs will sail through the next election. The problem is that the last 8 years of constant negativity, leadership challenges and policy fumbles and farces have made people extremely fatigued about politics.

People are just actually relieved that they can safely ignore what is happening without worrying about some sudden policy changes coming out of nowhere.

Regardless of your thoughts about Malcolm, and the govt's policies, I think it is a safe bet that no policy changes will be announced without being telegraphed well and truly ahead of time.

I think (fairly or unfairly) Shorten is and will be associated with the Rudd/Gillard era.

Turnbull is regarded as a "pair of safe hands".

Unless he over-reaches and the conservative base uprises significantly, I think when it comes to election time people will be happy to switch off and stick to the status quo.

I am not casting judgment on the merits of the ALP and Libs, I just think this is how things will play out.

ALP won't be an electoral threat with Shorten at the helm.

True, but they will all be good policy announcements. More spending on education, health, innovation etc, all the buzzwords people love to hear that wins elections. Turnbull is too much of a populist, even more so than Rudd, to announce anything that will erode his political capital, such as cuts. By the time he is done being PM our debt levels will be about 50% of GDP.