Society/Culture Universities create our right wing politics

[Gethelred]

That is such a broad demand to make that no-one is going to bother answering. Melb Uni literally has a course called Gender Studies that is entirely devoted to pushing gender and identity ideology and theory as fact onto students.

... as a component of sociology. You know, the study of society.

The fact that a concept of "whiteness" is even permitted as a topic of tertiary education is disturbing.

... this is very, very silly. You yourself are more than capable of doing a google search and checking things out; you're more than capable of ensuring that you have the accurate version of the conversation.

African American scholars sought to define what and who they were through the way society treated them and how they interacted with it. They arrived at a theory of the other, sometimes referred to as orientalism or blackness depending on which minorities were being referred to; correspondingly, to be 'othered' you need to have a default, the way society treats you if you are not othered.

Hence, whiteness.

Now, I'm not an expert or anything more than at an undergrad understanding of sociology and that was a good 14ish years ago. Others who are more across it could describe or detail it better than I have (seeing as race is an area of study within sociology) but that's not to say you couldn't have arrived at this destination for yourself.

But no. You decided to seize on the term 'whiteness' and play a culture war game; a game made altogether rather ironic, considering the obsession with freedom of speech within your wing of politics.

Either speech (and study) is free, or it isn't. Which side of the liberalism fence do you sit, stefcep?

The idea that somehow just being white automatically confers socio-economic advantage is a racist statement and is not in accord with reality.

Strawman, borne from you not actually looking it up.

For example, many of Australia's post-war migrants were white, but were fleeing generational oppression and poverty. They arrived with literally no belongings, wealth or position, had limited opportunity (and lets be frank suffered discrimination and racism) Their children did not attend the best schools with the best facilities and a path to the best paid jobs and careers.

What did their "whiteness" do for those white migrants?

Nothing.

It got them to Australia ahead of African or subcontinental immigrants.

You're kind of treating the White Australia policy as though it wasn't a thing.

These people were far worse off than today's colored migrants, many of whom are middle class English speaking Indian or Chinese., who enjoy governement services and protections that just didn't exist back then and whose children make up a disproportionate number at the most prestigious universities and courses.

... the tone suggests that there is a problem in this occurring. Do you think you could elucidate it a bit more?

Not because I disagree so much - using our universities to sell education as a product is something I'm rather adamantly against - but I'd be interested in reading why you object to it.

What matters is that instead of providing practical pathways for people to move up socio-economically eg education, stregthening the nuclear family unit, prevention of drug and alcohol abuse, irrespective of race, we have the lie of "whiteness" propogated by our best Universities as the root cause of basically everything bad, the white male being the worst of the worst.

Strawman again, because you didn't do the required reading.

And yet it escapes these people at the very campuses where this occurs, are disproptionately populated by non-whites students with all the opportunity their access to education provides.

... could be that those people understand what is meant by colour theory, given how wider society treats them. Edward Said was a Palestinian born in Jerusalem but went to school at Columbia.

An awful lot of these insights are born from immigrants trying to explain their experiences moving from one culture to another, and creating sociological theories from it.

 

[stefcep]

... as a component of sociology. You know, the study of society.

Does that somehow legitimize it ?

... this is very, very silly. You yourself are more than capable of doing a google search and checking things out; you're more than capable of ensuring that you have the accurate version of the conversation.

African American scholars sought to define what and who they were through the way society treated them and how they interacted with it. They arrived at a theory of the other, sometimes referred to as orientalism or blackness depending on which minorities were being referred to; correspondingly, to be 'othered' you need to have a default, the way society treats you if you are not othered.

So what of the tens of miilions American white immigrants who have experienced discrimination, denied opportunity and experienced poverty? You know the dago's the wops etc. Or say the non-immigrants but the tens of millions who live in poorer cities and states? Do they get to define what and who they were through the way society treated them and how they interacted with it? Or is it their own stupid fault for not making the most of their "whiteness"?

.

Hence, whiteness.

Now, I'm not an expert or anything more than at an undergrad understanding of sociology and that was a good 14ish years ago. Others who are more across it could describe or detail it better than I have (seeing as race is an area of study within sociology) but that's not to say you couldn't have arrived at this destination for yourself


But no. You decided to seize on the term 'whiteness' and play a culture war game; a game made altogether rather ironic, considering the obsession with freedom of speech within your wing of politics.

If you have a problem being pulled up about words you use then don't use them.

Either speech (and study) is free, or it isn't. Which side of the liberalism fence do you sit, stefcep?

You can say whatever you like, and people can respond in kind, respectfully of course.

Tertiary study has not been free except for a very short time when something like 1 in 20 went to Uni. Over 30 years ago now.

Strawman, borne from you not actually looking it up.

It got them to Australia ahead of African or subcontinental immigrants.

You're kind of treating the White Australia policy as though it wasn't a thing.

Or so now we're down to who got here first? Does it count at all these privileged whote people left everything behind in the rubble of WW2, lost brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers or escaped the murderous regimes that came after, for a country they knew nothing about, did not speak the language, was culturally alien to them, and then became the exploited and discriminated "wogs" and "dagos"?

... the tone suggests that there is a problem in this occurring. Do you think you could elucidate it a bit more?

It is an observation that the current wave of non-white immigrants enjoy far better conditions, opportunity and support than the previous white immigrants ever did.

Not because I disagree so much - using our universities to sell education as a product is something I'm rather adamantly against - but I'd be interested in reading why you object to it.

Again its an observation.

Strawman again, because you didn't do the required reading.

A strawman isn't everything that challenges your opinion.

... could be that those people understand what is meant by colour theory, given how wider society treats them. Edward Said was a Palestinian born in Jerusalem but went to school at Columbia


An awful lot of these insights are born from immigrants trying to explain their experiences moving from one culture to another, and creating sociological theories from it.

Does color theory also help explain the experiences of white immigrants moving from one culture to another? Or do their insights not count because they're white and it might result in a social theory that contradicts color theory?

 

[Gethelred]

Does that somehow legitimize it ?

... I'm sorry, but do you think society's viccitudes and behaviours shouldn't be studied?

Colour theory concerns how society will treat you based upon your perceived race. Is this not a useful lens with which to investigate in your eyes?

So what of the tens of miilions American white immigrants who have experienced discrimination, denied opportunity and experienced poverty? You know the dago's the wops etc. Or say the non-immigrants but the tens of millions who live in poorer cities and states? Do they get to define what and who they were through the way society treated them and how they interacted with it? Or is it their own stupid fault for not making the most of their "whiteness"?

... sigh.

Those people are only recently accepted as 'one of us' in Australia, Brittain (even there, it's a bit suspect) and America. It's very, very easy to trace anti-Irish, anti-Greek and anti-Italian sentiment in all three societies; to demonstrate that their difference from whiteness as a social default is manifest in how wider society treated them.

Thank you for demonstrating that you didn't and don't understand colour theory. You've made my argument for me.

If you have a problem being pulled up about words you use then don't use them.

Hang on.

You've said that universities opening up study into 'whiteness' is disturbing. This suggests that some things should be above study, beyond it, which contravenes notions of freedom of speech and expression.

I have zero problem about being criticized for something I've said, but you're not pulling me up for using a term so much as you're misrepresenting both what I've said and a field of study because you're uncomfortable with it.

Let's call a spade a spade here, shall we?

You can say whatever you like, and people can respond in kind, respectfully of course.

Tertiary study has not been free except for a very short time when something like 1 in 20 went to Uni. Over 30 years ago now.

Not relevant to the point being made: either people can study whatever suits them (and there being positions at tertiary level to study these thing suggests that they've justified their existence to people whose opinion matters more than yours does) or speech isn't free.

Pick your poison: you're welcome to criticize an idea or position you dislike but challenging its position as a component of sociology is off the table on freedom of speech grounds, or you're not for freedom of speech.

Or so now we're down to who got here first? Does it count at all these privileged whote people left everything behind in the rubble of WW2, lost brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers or escaped the murderous regimes that came after, for a country they knew nothing about, did not speak the language, was culturally alien to them, and then became the exploited and discriminated "wogs" and "dagos"?

Again: these people were still affected by their difference from the norm, and this is depicted by colour theory, which is something you'd have known had you researched it before the kneejerk made itself known.

And to pretend as though they were not advantaged by being allowed to leave a war torn Europe for Australia - despite their pain and their obvious losses - compared - for example - to people in the north of Africa that were still involved in the war but could not leave is rather silly.

It is an observation that the current wave of non-white immigrants enjoy far better conditions, opportunity and support than the previous white immigrants ever did.

Cool. This doesn't mean they're not subject to conditions that immigrants who are the social default - say, an equivalent immigrant from England compared to the like from India - don't have to negotiate.

A strawman isn't everything that challenges your opinion.

A strawman is a misrepresentation of another's argument for the purposes of beating it more easily, something you've done multiple times in this conversation. Having said that, I'm probably doing you a disservice as I don't think you're doing it maliciously; you're seemingly making a mistake of ignorance rather than malice.

You don't know what you don't know, but you're sure you don't like it.

Does color theory also help explain the experiences of white immigrants moving from one culture to another?

It absolutely can, because whiteness is not necessarily linked to skin colour. Whiteness is short hand for the social default, because the majority of societies that have discussed this have white people as that social default.

It's why it's a useful theory. It works regardless of where you are, because it's about navigating society as the other.

Or do their insights not count because they're white and it might result in a social theory that contradicts color theory?

I've probably given you enough to answer this yourself.

 

[Gethelred]

Simply put, I'm seeing five arguments being made in your posts, stefcep.

1. There is racism between different types of white people, so that somehow delegitimises or decreases the harm racism does to racial minorities of different skin colour.
2. Universities study things that should not be studied, and this drives people right.
3. There are too many students from other countries in our universities (but this is merely an observation, not something you want explored too deeply).
4. People of colour have never had it so good, and they should be grateful for what they have now and the progress they've made.
5. White people are being made to feel as though they are to blame for things that are not their fault.

I'd be more than content to have a chat about items 2, 3, 4 and 5, but 1 is very, very dumb.

 

[stefcep]

... I'm sorry, but do you think society's viccitudes and behaviours shouldn't be studied?

Not when it is under-pinned by racist ideas.

Colour theory concerns how society will treat you based upon your perceived race. Is this not a useful lens with which to investigate in your eyes?

... sigh.

..sigh. Clearly the color of their skin did not help the whites who have been treated worse.

Isn't it worth studying why that happens?

Could it be that color theory is at best really just a subset of something more, or at worst wrong?

Those people are only recently accepted as 'one of us' in Australia, Brittain (even there, it's a bit suspect) and America. It's very, very easy to trace anti-Irish, anti-Greek and anti-Italian sentiment in all three societies; to demonstrate that their difference from whiteness as a social default is manifest in how wider society treated them.

Oh here we go. So we're now playing word games. "Whiteness" doesn't really mean whiteness. It means particular whites in particular white societies. So its its not really a race problem. You may on to somethoing here...

Thank you for demonstrating that you didn't and don't understand colour theory. You've made my argument for me.

I'm going to waste time reading the details of bullshit theories.

Hang on.

You've said that universities opening up study into 'whiteness' is disturbing. This suggests that some things should be above study, beyond it, which contravenes notions of freedom of speech and expression.

Universities should not be teaching subjects that are at their core racist. Whiteness fits that bill.

I have zero problem about being criticized for something I've said, but you're not pulling me up for using a term so much as you're misrepresenting both what I've said and a field of study because you're uncomfortable with it.

Most socialogical studies are not reproducible. Theories based on that research being presented as fact to young impressionable minds is what I'm uncomfortable with. No "white guilt" making me uncomfortable here mate.

Let's call a spade a spade here, shall we?

Not relevant to the point being made: either people can study whatever suits them (and there being positions at tertiary level to study these thing suggests that they've justified their existence to people whose opinion matters more than yours does) or speech isn't free.

Pick your poison: you're welcome to criticize an idea or position you dislike but challenging its position as a component of sociology is off the table on freedom of speech grounds, or you're not for freedom of speech.

Really? We have laws that literally ban words, slogan and symbols. "whiteness" should be no different.

Again: these people were still affected by their difference from the norm, and this is depicted by colour theory.

... which is something you'd have known had you researched it before the kneejerk made itself known.

Then don't call it "colour theory". Don't call it "whiteness". Call it what is: discrimination.

(But that doesn't fit the racist white-privilege narrative does it? No political points and even less research dollars.)

Cool. This doesn't mean they're not subject to conditions that immigrants who are the social default - say, an equivalent immigrant from England compared to the like from India - don't have to negotiate.

The color of the skin may or may not matter. The outcome can be equally or worse for that white person who is subjected to the discrimination.

A strawman is a misrepresentation of another's argument for the purposes of beating it more easily, something you've done multiple times in this conversation. Having said that, I'm probably doing you a disservice as I don't think you're doing it maliciously; you're seemingly making a mistake of ignorance rather than malice.

You don't know what you don't know, but you're sure you don't like it.

I know the gist of your argument and I'm calling it out as bullshit. Something you've read and you believe is legitimate because it was in a course somewhere. Maybe a bit of "white guilt" in there too.

It absolutely can, because whiteness is not necessarily linked to skin colour. Whiteness is short hand for the social default, because the majority of societies that have discussed this have white people as that social default.

In China and India where 1 in 3 people in the world live, is the social default also "whiteness"? Is whiteness the social default of India's Caste System? In China, is whiteness behind the oppression of the Uyghurs. Was "whiteness" the social default when Tutsi and Hutu genocides in Africa happened. Was "whiteness" behiind 500 years of Ottoman Empire oppression of the Eastern European whites.

Read my lips: there is no social default, and no-one but American academics who have infected our schools is calling it "whiteness"

It's why it's a useful theory. It works regardless of where you are, because it's about navigating society as the other.

I've probably given you enough to answer this yourself.

Its not useful theory. Its divisive and results in no lasting improvements. In fact it creates resentment and pushback.

 

[Gethelred]

Not when it is under-pinned by racist ideas.



..sigh. Clearly the color of their skin did not help the whites who have been treated worse.

Isn't it worth studying why that happens?

Could it be that color theory is at best really just a subset of something more, or at worst wrong?



Oh here we go. So we're now playing word games. "Whiteness" doesn't really mean whiteness. It means particular whites in particular white societies. So its its not really a race problem. You may on to somethoing here...




I'm going to waste time reading the details of bullshit theories.




Universities should not be teaching subjects that are at their core racist. Whiteness fits that bill.




Most socialogical studies are not reproducible. Theories based on that research being presented as fact to young impressionable minds is what I'm uncomfortable with. No "white guilt" making me uncomfortable here mate.



Really? We have laws that literally ban words, slogan and symbols. "whiteness" should be no different.





Then don't call it "colour theory". Don't call it "whiteness". Call it what is: discrimination.

(But that doesn't fit the racist white-privilege narrative does it? No political points and even less research dollars.)



The color of the skin may or may not matter. The outcome can be equally or worse for that white person who is subjected to the discrimination.




I know the gist of your argument and I'm calling it out as bullshit. Something you've read and you believe is legitimate because it was in a course somewhere. Maybe a bit of "white guilt" in there too.




In China and India where 1 in 3 people in the world live, is the social default also "whiteness"? Is whiteness the social default of India's Caste System? In China, is whiteness behind the oppression of the Uyghurs. Was "whiteness" the social default when Tutsi and Hutu genocides in Africa happened. Was "whiteness" behiind 500 years of Ottoman Empire oppression of the Eastern European whites.

Read my lips: there is no social default, and no-one but American academics who have infected our schools is calling it "whiteness"




Its not useful theory. Its divisive and results in no lasting improvements. In fact it creates resentment and pushback.

There we go:

Pick your poison: you're welcome to criticize an idea or position you dislike but challenging its position as a component of sociology is off the table on freedom of speech grounds, or you're not for freedom of speech.

Choose, my man. You can't have it both ways: are you for freedom of speech - you personally; let's not have the semantic letoff you attempt above with your handwaved 'speech isn't free in Australia', put your money where your mouth is - or aren't you?

You've also flipped again. You absolutely know what colour theory/social default theory is, and you pick whichever you want to lampoon. Hanlon's razor no longer applies; you're in it for the misrepresentation.

Dunno what you reckon you're achieving here, either. You're not winning all that much misrepresenting colour theory on BF in this backwater of a thread. There's not that many hearts and minds round here.

 

[stefcep]

Simply put, I'm seeing five arguments being made in your posts, stefcep.

1. There is racism between different types of white people, so that somehow delegitimises or decreases the harm racism does to racial minorities of different skin colour.

There is discrimination between White and White, Black and black, Asian and Asian, white and black, black and white, etc and all other permutations. Its universal. Its not whiteness. Its people who preference their own kind. You'll find them everywhere. The reason why you may see it as "whiteness" issue is because most immigration has been TO Western societies, because these are the most popular destinations for their numerous advantages they offer over anywhere else.

2. Universities study things that should not be studied, and this drives people right.

Universities departments push left wing ideology rather than fact, that's what drives people to the right

3. There are too many students from other countries in our universities (but this is merely an observation, not something you want explored too deeply).

No. Its the blind hypocrisy of mostly white priviliged middle class lecturers surrounded by non-white middle class privileged students at elite universities and in elite courses teaching those students they are victims of discrimination and lack of opportunity. Uh Helloooooo.

4. People of colour have never had it so good, and they should be grateful for what they have now and the progress they've made.

As long as they're now worse off than everyone else, what is there to be gained?

5. White people are being made to feel as though they are to blame for things that are not their fault.

Because it isn't their fault. Should a 23 year old grad from Melton not get the job because they're white? Or does the Asian with rich parents from Doncaster deserve it more becaiuse their not white?

I'd be more than content to have a chat about items 2, 3, 4 and 5, but 1 is very, very dumb.

 

[Gethelred]

There is discrimination between White and White, Black and black, Asian and Asian, white and black, black and white, etc and all other permutations. Its universal. Its not whiteness. Its people who preference their own kind. You'll find them everywhere. The reason why you may see it as "whiteness" issue is because most immigration has been TO Western societies, because these are the most popular destinations for their numerous advantages they offer over anywhere else.

I don't see it as a whiteness issue, that is how it's studied in an American context. In others it's referred to as social default theory, which - in my opinion - is thoroughly more useful.

Universities departments push left wing ideology rather than fact, that's what drives people to the right

Kay.

Prove it.

No. Its the blind hypocrisy of mostly white priviliged middle class lecturers surrounded by non-white middle class privileged students at elite universities and in elite courses teaching those students they are victims of discrimination and lack of opportunity. Uh Helloooooo.

Tell me, does inking this sort of thing red indicate a change in tone or a supposed upgrade in seriousness elsewhere online? Because this is a fun change.

I might make my next reply in green.

As long as they're now worse off than everyone else, what is there to be gained?

... wat?

Are you referring to white people or minorities here? You're getting a bit... strident.

Because it isn't their fault. Should a 23 year old grad from Melton not get the job because they're white? Or does the Asian with rich parents from Doncaster deserve it more becaiuse their not white?

You're really struggling, mate.

No-one is 'deserving' or undeserving. What is being discussed here is the broad brush way society treats people based on their difference.

It depicts what is, not what should be happening.

 

[Gethelred]

You've also still declined to tell me if you believe in freedom of speech, stefcep. Does this mean that you don't?

Does this mean I get to treat you as though you don't?

 

[stefcep]

You've also still declined to tell me if you believe in freedom of speech, stefcep. Does this mean that you don't?

Does this mean I get to treat you as though you don't?

Freedom of speech has never been absolute so explain what you are tring to show here.

I don't see it as a whiteness issue, that is how it's studied in an American context. In others it's referred to as social default theory, which - in my opinion - is thoroughly more useful.

Kay.

Prove it.

Prove what? That CRT, "whiteness" and "social default theory" are all made-up bullshit based social research with an abysmally low replication score, the worst of any research field?

Tell me, does inking this sort of thing red indicate a change in tone or a supposed upgrade in seriousness elsewhere online? Because this is a fun change.

To make it eeasier to read

I might make my next reply in green.

That's good too.

... wat?

Are you referring to white people or minorities here? You're getting a bit... strident.

You keep missing the point:


White people are not some homogenous mass. Some are wealthy or have wealthy families, Some are poor and poor families. Some are from the Anglosphere. Others are not. Some have tertiary level skills and qualifications. Some don't I could go on..the point being that "White people" and "minorities" are not mutually exclusive.

You're really struggling, mate.

No-one is 'deserving' or undeserving. What is being discussed here is the broad brush way society treats people based on their difference.

What you're actually doing is generalizing racist discrimination by some whites towards non-whites, and extrapolating that to all whites and non-whites.

So you rely on made-up words with made-up meanings like "whiteness' that re-define established words like "racism" and "discrimination" as not only things done by whites, but things ONLY done by whites.

Its divisive nonsense that turns people away.

 

[sdfc]

Some people seem very keen to divide the working class along racial lines. It's very much a destructive distraction.

The only class that benefit from it are our corporate overlords.

 

[Gethelred]

Freedom of speech has never been absolute so explain what you are tring to show here.

You think this shouldn't be studied. This breaches freedom of speech. You are welcome to make an argument as to why, but you are seemingly loath to do so.

That you are loath to do so is something I'd be breathless for you to elucidate a reason why. I'm genuinely curious as to why you aren't willing to take an explicit position here.

Prove what? That CRT, "whiteness" and "social default theory" are all made-up bullshit based social research with an abysmally low replication score, the worst of any research field?

... I mean, it's extremely easy to demonstrate and hardly has a worse success rate than - say - the Chicago school of economics.

To make it eeasier to read

That is fun!

You keep missing the point:

White people are not some homogenous mass. Some are wealthy or have wealthy families, Some are poor and poor families. Some are from the Anglosphere. Others are not. Some have tertiary level skills and qualifications. Some don't I could go on..the point being that "White people" and "minorities" are not mutually exclusive.

Um...

Der. We're not talking about how there are subcategories within supposed demographics, and pointing it out is merely to point out precisely the limitations of all generalisations.

We're also - seemingly - back to argument 1: that racism between white people supposedly invalidates racism from white people towards other ethnicities. This is reasoning without justification and is just as dumb as the first time you attempted to espouse it.

What you're actually doing is generalizing racist discrimination by some whites towards non-whites, and extrapolating that to all whites and non-whites.

No, what I'm doing is describing in brief a theory I learned in my undergrad that you've misrepresented - at length - for the purposes of correcting a mistake.

Do you have time? I've already referred to Orientalism in this conversation, but I've got even more lovely books for you to read that could make my case far better than I can, because - as stated - I'm not an expert; more to the point, neither are you, given the fact that your first resort was a strawman and each subsequent attempt has featured further misrepresentations.

So you rely on made-up words...

I don't want to be rude, but this reply has at times featured misspellings and larger than usual gaps between words. While I acknowledge that sometimes people post on their phone, this - alongside the red font - is what gives the impression of stridency, of being a bit unsettled. While I like that you're capable of laughing at yourself, this reply is less... together than it might otherwise have been.

All words are made up. Pointing out that any given word is made up is so far as to be beyond redundant as to be... well, how far down the line of succession do you have to be before a nuclear strike couldn't do the job for you?

... with made-up meanings like "whiteness' that re-define established words like "racism" and "discrimination" as not only things done by whites, but things ONLY done by whites.

Its divisive nonsense that turns people away.

That's why studies outside America use social default theory rather than whiteness, but then you rather know that. You're not stupid, so one wonders why you continue affecting the pretense that you don't understand it.

There's a barrier in this conversation, and it's that I'd actually be interested in hearing why you disagree with the theory; going into intricacies, an actual, intellectual critique. But the problem is that each responding post has, essentially, boiled down to "I don't like it" or "It's bad science" without establishing that it's bad science.

If it's so simple to foil then foil it.

 

[Gethelred]

Some people seem very keen to divide the working class along racial lines. It's very much a destructive distraction.

The only class that benefit from it are our corporate overlords.

Or, ignore the needs of minorities within your revolution at your peril.

You want them to march with you, right?

 

[stefcep]

You think this shouldn't be studied. This breaches freedom of speech. You are welcome to make an argument as to why, but you are seemingly loath to do so.

That you are loath to do so is something I'd be breathless for you to elucidate a reason why. I'm genuinely curious as to why you aren't willing to take an explicit position here.

I've done it mutiple times but you seem to want a specific answer. So I'll dumb it down for you. Freedom if speech has never ben absolute. Presently ist accepted that racism should not be taught in tertiary institutions. The topic you want to be discussed in universities IS racist. To be consistent, it should be banned. But its not.

We're also - seemingly - back to argument 1: that racism between white people supposedly invalidates racism from white people towards other ethnicities. This is reasoning without justification and is just as dumb as the first time you attempted to espouse it.

You clearly lack the capacity for logical thought. Nowhere have I said any of that. YOU made those conclusions.

To dumb this down as well: ALL RACES are capable of being racist. Deliberately inventing terms like "Whiteness" to describe racism and discrimination deliberately misrepresent racism and discrimination as exclusively belonging to white people. Hence the idiotic (and racist) phrase that only white people are racist that leftist like to repeat. Teaching that in universities is racist bullshit and should be banned.

No, what I'm doing is describing in brief a theory I learned in my undergrad that you've misrepresented - at length - for the purposes of correcting a mistake.

Do you have time? I've already referred to Orientalism in this conversation, but I've got even more lovely books for you to read that could make my case far better than I can, because - as stated - I'm not an expert; more to the point, neither are you, given the fact that your first resort was a strawman and each subsequent attempt has featured further misrepresentations.
c
I don't want to be rude, but this reply has at times featured misspellings and larger than usual gaps between words. While I acknowledge that sometimes people post on their phone, this - alongside the red font - is what gives the impression of stridency, of being a bit unsettled. While I like that you're capable of laughing at yourself, this reply is less... together than it might otherwise have been.

It means I edit things after I write them and sometimes its not 100%. Its a ****ing forum, not a draft thesus up for publication, yeah? I used different colored text for the sake of clarity. As has been said before.

All words are made up. Pointing out that any given word is made up is so far as to be beyond redundant as to be... well, how far down the line of succession do you have to be before a nuclear strike couldn't do the job for you?

Oh we're getting somewhere. Good lad.

All words are made up, but they only make sense IF the person who made the word up and the person they are being said to, agree on their meanings. Otherwise its meaningless gibberish.

Nearly all of the recent leftist ideas originated in the humanities and social studies. The stock in trade there is really language. These people are very very good at bending the meanings of words and inventing new ones to shape public opinion and fact. They have weaponized language so that in their minds, words become reality. Agree with them, and the argument is lost, because the words and their meanings once agreed set the parameters of what is fact and what is made up bullshit.

So when they change the meanings of words eg "gender is social construct", and make up other words eg"whiteness", I know that is just part of how lefists push their agenda. And I'll simply say "Nope, you just made that up..**** off".

That's why studies outside America use social default theory rather than whiteness, but then you rather know that. You're not stupid, so one wonders why you continue affecting the pretense that you don't understand it.

"social default theory" is just a fancy made-up phrase for the social systems that preface local people and culture. In India, the "default society" is Indian. In China, it is Chinese. In Malaysia its Malayan. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. The citizens of these nations expect it , like it and want it!

Secondly I see no evidence outside Western mainly white nations, that "social default theory" has any meaning. The phrase might be used instead of "whiteness" used in American academia, but its used by other Westeners who simply imported "whiteness" and re-named it. The rest of the world does not give a second thought to it

There's a barrier in this conversation, and it's that I'd actually be interested in hearing why you disagree with the theory; going into intricacies, an actual, intellectual critique. But the problem is that each responding post has, essentially, boiled down to "I don't like it" or "It's bad science" without establishing that it's bad science.

If it's so simple to foil then foil it.

I have.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The big factor missing from this kind of ideology is that economic status correlates much more strongly than skin colour in our society. No one can tell me that a white kid from Belmont has more advantages than a kid of Indian heritage who has a doctor as a Mother and an accountant as a Father.

Perhaps when accounting for such status, then yes, I would agree that an Indigenous kid, for instance, from Belmont probably has less privilege than a white kid from Belmont, but then you need to go into other factors like parental behaviour, presence or absence of addictions in the household, and other factors that are hard to use broad brush strokes to describe.

The point is, I would've pushed back on that lecturer and got them to acknowledge that there are more factors than simply the colour of one's skin to consider when making assertions about privilege and oppression.

But then, as a white male, it is foreseeable that I may subsequently have been accused of being too assertive/abusing my privilege to engage in such discourse. Then again, I am gay, so that puts me slightly ahead of the straight white male in the pecking order.

And therein lies the problem. Universities used to be places where ideas could be freely discussed. Now, I am not so sure this can be said of all of them.

May I ask, how often have you been told to go back where you came from, or to piss off to another country? I'm not white and it's happened to me several times in life when meeting disagreeable people. It isn't the world's biggest deal, but it's an example of an advantage white people have in Australian society - fewer people question their belonging here.

 

[stefcep]

May I ask, how often have you been told to go back where you came from, or to piss off to another country? I'm not white and it's happened to me several times in life when meeting disagreeable people. It isn't the world's biggest deal, but it's an example of an advantage white people have in Australian society - fewer people question their belonging here.

I'm white. My parents arrived her in the 1970's from Eastern Europe. I've been called a "wog", I've been spat it, I've been physically assaulted, I've been told to go back where I came from. Many times and all before the age of ten.

This is absolutely nothing new and had nothing to do with my skin color.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I'm white. My parents arrived her in the 1970's from Eastern Europe. I've been called a "wog", I've been spat it, I've been physically assaulted, I've been told to go back where I came from. Many times and all before the age of ten.

And since then? Does this happen nowadays?

 

[stefcep]

And since then? Does this happen nowadays?

Hardly at all. These shit people started to get off my back when a new set of immigrants came along. Plus, we assimiliated, and didn't seek preferential treatment under the guise of DEI. We got on with it.

 

[kickazz]

For example, many of Australia's post-war migrants were white, but were fleeing generational oppression and poverty. They arrived with literally no belongings, wealth or position, had limited opportunity (and lets be frank suffered discrimination and racism) Their children did not attend the best schools with the best facilities and a path to the best paid jobs and careers.

What did their "whiteness" do for those white migrants?

My grandparents were part of these post war migrants. Yes they would have faced discrimination. But there was opportunity, post war there was high taxation and high government investment and high employment.

But to answer your question as to what their "whiteness" did for them - it allowed them to get citizenship, straight away.

Aboriginal Australians had to wait until 1967. Displaced people of colour weren't even allowed on a boat.

 

[Gethelred]

I've done it mutiple times...

No you haven't. Not once.

... but you seem to want a specific answer. So I'll dumb it down for you. Freedom if speech has never ben absolute. Presently ist accepted that racism should not be taught in tertiary institutions. The topic you want to be discussed in universities IS racist. To be consistent, it should be banned. But its not.

You've also not proven that it (social default theory) is racist, because it would require you to cease misrepresenting it to do so. You clearly don't want to do this, because it's waaay more fun running with a 'lefties are racist' line of argument.

You clearly lack the capacity for logical thought.

Oh, the condescension! The weekend has done you well, stefcep! You've gone from monosyllabic and mistake ridden to high up on that intellectual horse.

It's also extremely ironic. If I lack the capacity for logical thought, you lack the intellectual spine to actually confront an argument on its own terms.

Nowhere have I said any of that. YOU made those conclusions.

Lol. You've done it multiple times when pointing to categories of white people being racist towards each other.

To dumb this down as well: ALL RACES are capable of being racist.

That's because not being the social default results in society treating you different.

Oh dear, perhaps you're not as sterling an intellect as you thought you were, seeing as you keep proving my argument for me.

Deliberately inventing terms like "Whiteness" to describe racism and discrimination...

This is a whine. You're whining now. The rest comes across as hilarious as a consequence.

... deliberately misrepresent racism and discrimination as exclusively belonging to white people. Hence the idiotic (and racist) phrase that only white people are racist that leftist like to repeat. Teaching that in universities is racist bullshit and should be banned.

There we go. You're not pro freedom of speech.

It means I edit things after I write them and sometimes its not 100%. Its a ****ing forum, not a draft thesus up for publication, yeah? I used different colored text for the sake of clarity. As has been said before.

Try and be more lighthearted. It'll decrease your bloodpressure.

Oh we're getting somewhere. Good lad.

All words are made up, but they only make sense IF the person who made the word up and the person they are being said to, agree on their meanings. Otherwise its meaningless gibberish.

Nearly all of the recent leftist ideas originated in the humanities and social studies. The stock in trade there is really language. These people are very very good at bending the meanings of words and inventing new ones to shape public opinion and fact. They have weaponized language so that in their minds, words become reality. Agree with them, and the argument is lost, because the words and their meanings once agreed set the parameters of what is fact and what is made up bullshit.

So when they change the meanings of words eg "gender is social construct", and make up other words eg"whiteness", I know that is just part of how lefists push their agenda. And I'll simply say "Nope, you just made that up..**** off".

Projection.

Every single thing you've just accused lefties of doing is something that has been done by the right in a modern context.

"social default theory" is just a fancy made-up phrase for the social systems that preface local people and culture. In India, the "default society" is Indian. In China, it is Chinese. In Malaysia its Malayan. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. The citizens of these nations expect it , like it and want it!

This is where I begin to get my back up.

Social default theory is an extrapolation for whiteness theory in non-white cultures. You've had it both ways most of this chat, but we're getting to the point where I'm disinclined to argue with someone who is unwilling to converse in good faith.

If you want to keep trying this level of disingenuousness on, you rather won't like what happens next.

Secondly I see no evidence outside Western mainly white nations, that "social default theory" has any meaning. The phrase might be used instead of "whiteness" used in American academia, but its used by other Westeners who simply imported "whiteness" and re-named it. The rest of the world does not give a second thought to it

You yourself said above that all races are capable of being racist. The point being, racism as defined within sociology is studied using social default theory in other countries.

The bolded is also an admission of defeat. Surrender noted.

 

[stefcep]

My grandparents were part of these post war migrants. Yes they would have faced discrimination. But there was opportunity, post war there was high taxation and high government investment and high employment.

Nothing has changed: Taxes remain very high, private income represents an ever-increasing proportion of tax revenue, new taxes like GST have been introduced, property taxes (CGT Stamp Duty, Land Tax, Council Rates) are through the roof.

As for governemnt investment, billions if not trillions of dollars have been spent on Medicare which didn't exist, even more on the NDIS, spending on massive infrastructure projects; far more students are now going to university (which was free for a very short for a very small number- its likely your grandparents didn't get a tertiary degree, most people and immigrants less so, didn't.

But to answer your question as to what their "whiteness" did for them - it allowed them to get citizenship, straight away.

Australia wasn't the privileged place it is today back then. I recall my parents generation saying "We did the dirty, dangerous jobs the locals didn't want". Mant paid for it with poor health, injury and pre-mature death.

Aboriginal Australians had to wait until 1967.

Nearly 60 years ago.

Displaced people of colour weren't even allowed on a boat.

Which was normal for the time The ships were full of millions of displaced whites fleeing war-torn Europe and murderous regimes. They followed by Vietnamese and Cambodians in the 80's. Then the Middle east.

 

[stefcep]

No you haven't. Not once.

You've also not proven that it (social default theory) is racist, because it would require you to cease misrepresenting it to do so. You clearly don't want to do this, because it's waaay more fun running with a 'lefties are racist' line of argument.

Oh, the condescension! The weekend has done you well, stefcep! You've gone from monosyllabic and mistake ridden to high up on that intellectual horse.

It's also extremely ironic. If I lack the capacity for logical thought, you lack the intellectual spine to actually confront an argument on its own terms.

Lol. You've done it multiple times when pointing to categories of white people being racist towards each other.

That's because not being the social default results in society treating you different.

Oh dear, perhaps you're not as sterling an intellect as you thought you were, seeing as you keep proving my argument for me.

This is a whine. You're whining now. The rest comes across as hilarious as a consequence.

There we go. You're not pro freedom of speech.

Try and be more lighthearted. It'll decrease your bloodpressure.

Projection.

Every single thing you've just accused lefties of doing is something that has been done by the right in a modern context.

This is where I begin to get my back up.

Social default theory is an extrapolation for whiteness theory in non-white cultures. You've had it both ways most of this chat, but we're getting to the point where I'm disinclined to argue with someone who is unwilling to converse in good faith.

If you want to keep trying this level of disingenuousness on, you rather won't like what happens next.

You yourself said above that all races are capable of being racist. The point being, racism as defined within sociology is studied using social default theory in other countries.

The bolded is also an admission of defeat. Surrender noted.

Your problem is you have a pre-defined idea of what my responses should be to fit your narrative and when they're not you lose you capacity for coherent logic, engage in personal insults, and then come the thinly-veiled threats.

Knock over the chess pieces, take a shit on the board and then claim victory.

I'll leave it that-I've made my points its there for anyone to read and make up their own mind.

 

[Gethelred]

Your problem is you have a pre-defined idea of what my responses should be to fit your narrative and when they're not you lose you capacity for coherent logic, engage in personal insults, and then come the thinly-veiled threats.

Knock over the chess pieces, take a shit on the board and then claim victory.

I'll leave it that-I've made my points its there for anyone to read and make up their own mind.

 

[kickazz]

Nothing has changed: Taxes remain very high,

The top rate isn't close to the 75% it was post war. Don't make things up

 

[stefcep]

The top rate isn't close to the 75% it was post war. Don't make things up

The top rate and the proportion of tax revenue that is personal income tax isn't the same thing.

The average personal income tax rate in 1950 was 11%. Today its about 28%.

Don't make claims you don't understand.