Culture wars on the forum: amateur sociology

Legend
6.8K
·
14K
·
over 16 years

Just noticed this conflict period has brought up, minus guns and abortion, a bit of what the yanks call the culture wars. 

hating on hipsters, xenophobia, racism, plain-talk

I was thinking I was going to pull out the posts and analyse them, but I realise I can't so much be bothered. 

Anyway, rather than ignite in the threads I thought I'd mention it here. 

Ryan, mate, looking at you as prominent on one side here...

Marquee
6.9K
·
9.3K
·
over 13 years

Just a bit of friendly banter, plus I'm working late and am procrastinating somewhat.

Legend
6.8K
·
14K
·
over 16 years

Not a perjorative mate!

you weren't the who started the anti-hipster buzzword pile on...

Legend
6.8K
·
14K
·
over 16 years

FYI: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war

not the most useful definition to apply to this context, and it has evolved a bit recently post-Trump I'd say.

Legend
3.6K
·
15K
·
almost 17 years

Culture War is alive and well. Hadn't noticed too much round here but I find myself living and breathing it on twitter at times. 

I have always prescribed to traditionally left ideals but feel myself pulling away from that more and more. I don't feel that I fit into either left or right ideologies any longer. 

The social justice movement has just turned absolutely hysterical, devoid of all logic, I just can't get on board with that any longer. 

What was essentially an equality-of-opportunity movement has morphed into an enforced equality-of-outcome situation, which in my opinion is very discriminatory, and can only lead to serious problems.

We appear to be one of the countries at the forefront of this worldwide, I am interested to see what happens from here. Wouldn't be surprised if there was a major backlash though - if twitter is anything to go by, I am not the only one feeling this way lately. 

Starting XI
3K
·
3K
·
almost 7 years

I'm very left wing but I can not and will not ever associate with the social justice movement, in fact I'm 100% opposed to it. Absolutely hilarious/painful what it's become. I really disagree with people pulling the sexism and racism cards at every opportunity, and at risk of sounding like a 67 year old gun-toting Arkansan, some are simply too precious nowadays and particularly enjoy playing victim.

Equality of opportunity is how it always has been and how it always should be imo. Equality of outcome is plain unfair if relied upon, though elements of it should be integrated into society by any good left-wing government.

That being said I think Jacinda will be brilliant for the country, a bit annoying that there isn't a political party that represents my full beliefs but oh well

Last of all - we're a website of football supporters. What's the need to bring up politics in football-related threads in the first place? Let's just have fun! (do Nix and 'fun' go together though)

Marquee
6.9K
·
9.3K
·
over 13 years

That's why we need direct democracy

Tegal
·
Head Sleuth
3K
·
19K
·
almost 17 years

Is that people voting directly on policies in which they know nothing about? Hell no, people are too stupid for that. 

Not to mention how long a process making any policy decision would become. 

Chant Savant
2.5K
·
12K
·
almost 17 years

Just fudge up and make my Flat White you Fudgeing hipster cods!

Marquee
6.9K
·
9.3K
·
over 13 years

Tegal wrote:

Is that people voting directly on policies in which they know nothing about? Hell no, people are too stupid for that. 

Not to mention how long a process making any policy decision would become. 

The way it works in Flux is everyone has an app on their phone and they vote directly onto a blockchain, this means that everything is untamperable, auditable, and instant. You don't have to vote on every issue and you can assign your vote to a political party or a domain expert. So, I could give The Greens my vote to do with what they want unless I don't agree with one of their policies then I can use that vote for myself. And if someone is a domain expert I can give my vote to them. It will make things much quicker and will also mean that democracy is much more democratic and fluid.

Legend
6.8K
·
14K
·
over 16 years

paulm wrote:

The social justice movement has just turned absolutely hysterical, devoid of all logic....

We appear to be one of the countries at the forefront of this worldwide, I am interested to see what happens from here.

Really?

I'm dead curious as to examples of this. I must not come across this at all in my circles or don't notice it. I'm kinda shocked, honestly, to hear that we think we are the centre of a PC madness maelstrom. I'm not on twitter and don't have much to do with the yankees...

Anyway, I don't think that was quite what I meant.

I guess I was meaning in a smaller way than most of the ways you guys are describing. 

I was meaning, for example, the interesting reaction to the word hipster, when if Ryan had said a positively Wellington experience the essence would have been the same, but the reaction would have been different. 

I thought there was a quite defensive reaction to the word, as if acknowledging part of the club as 'hipster' some how prevented it being a club which they had ownership over or perhaps what was traditionally viewed as a football club. It felt like an attack on what they had been supporting at the 'Nix for 10 years. 

It is interesting in analysing what the YF is. It's certainly a niche bunch in what is a niche sport in this country. Perhaps much more niche than we'd like. It's a sport internationally which sits importantly in many guys' idea of their masculinity and there is a lot of difference in how this is viewed across nations. It's fair to say there are a lot of different identities of football imported onto this forum from across the world and some exported too. Or perhaps impressions of what football should be gleaned from the tele. Certainly with United wondering how to make their ground noisier and the FC United thing, the working class oligarchs game is not sure of its identity in Britain at the moment.

I'm not quite sure exactly where my thoughts were headed with this. Been sampling some of the sponsors product. Needs Desmond Morris to wrap it all up in some Football Tribe type laughs...

Legend
6.8K
·
14K
·
over 16 years

At the risk of side tracking this- here's a bit of old fashioned example how we have thought about the equality of opportunities for some time:

The caption says (or at least the English language one I've seen does) "To be fair the exam must be the same for everyone: PLEASE CLIMB THAT TREE" No idea what the Einstein quote is!

Starting XI
3K
·
3K
·
almost 7 years

All in all - what we believe in outside of the beautiful game shouldn’t matter inside of it. Reckon YF’s a proud melting pot of all New Zealanders and their cultures/beliefs, a step away from the separation between clubs you see in Europe and South America. Let’s be happy about it!

LG
Legend
5.5K
·
23K
·
over 16 years

One of the things I like and appreciate about this forum for the most part is that people can disagree, debate not just football issues but social issues too. In that respect, I think for the most part, the Mods do a good job with the policing. There have been times where I have stepped out of line and been brought to task. Fair enough, football and emotions go together. Others too have been in the same boat and dealt with accordingly. 

Imagine how boring it would be if we all agreed with everything everyone said everytime.

Marquee
6.9K
·
9.3K
·
over 13 years

The hipster comment was a bit of a throway one becuase of the vision professed for the club and also the guy who professed it's beard. 

But, while I'm not a hipster and any beards that I've had over the years have been simply because of lazzyness and not from any sense of fashion or style, I appreciate what a culture like that brings to my city.  We're talking young(ish) professionals with a lot of disposable income who aren't afraid to spend money. They're why the Wellington CBD is vibrant when most other CBDs in the western world are struggling, and also why Wellington is well suited to keep it's vibrancy as the internet keeps encroaching into traditional retail. Basically, you can't get cold press single origin fair trade ethiopian coffee in a vaguely run down alleyway on line, just like you can't get spontaneously fermented hand pulled sour beer. It's the same with boutique fashions and interesting restaurants and cuisine.

Basically, the cities that we're going to have in the future is either going to be something like the rust belt in the US, or Hamilton and Porirua in NZ, or a vibrant destination which is an attraction itself like Wellington is trying to be.

Marquee
1.3K
·
5.3K
·
over 16 years

mrsmiis wrote:

All in all - what we believe in outside of the beautiful game shouldn’t matter inside of it. Reckon YF’s a proud melting pot of all New Zealanders and their cultures/beliefs, a step away from the separation between clubs you see in Europe and South America. Let’s be happy about it!

Fair to say that YF is over represented by cis gendered white males - relative to the rest of the population?

Also, I don't think it's fair complaining about social justice when you are not coming from a position of historic discrimination.

Marquee
1.3K
·
5.3K
·
over 16 years

Ryan wrote:

Tegal wrote:

Is that people voting directly on policies in which they know nothing about? Hell no, people are too stupid for that. 

Not to mention how long a process making any policy decision would become. 

The way it works in Flux is everyone has an app on their phone and they vote directly onto a blockchain, this means that everything is untamperable, auditable, and instant. You don't have to vote on every issue and you can assign your vote to a political party or a domain expert. So, I could give The Greens my vote to do with what they want unless I don't agree with one of their policies then I can use that vote for myself. And if someone is a domain expert I can give my vote to them. It will make things much quicker and will also mean that democracy is much more democratic and fluid.

This is one of the few uses of blockchain that seems useful. Currently being used for crypto currencies is hugely detrimental to the environment.
Marquee
6.9K
·
9.3K
·
over 13 years

The crypto stuff is at V1, they're moving away from proof of work (which requires mining) to proof of stake (which is much more environmentally friendly.) One in one hundred transactions on Etherium won't be mined pretty shortly.

Marquee
1.3K
·
5.3K
·
over 16 years

Ryan wrote:

The crypto stuff is at V1, they're moving away from proof of work (which requires mining) to proof of stake (which is much more environmentally friendly.) One in one hundred transactions on Etherium won't be mined pretty shortly.

I hope it settles down, as soon as it becomes more difficult to mine one currency interest shifts to another - Monero, litecoin, ripple etc.
Legend
3.6K
·
15K
·
almost 17 years

Bullion wrote:

Also, I don't think it's fair complaining about social justice when you are not coming from a position of historic discrimination.

And therein lies my issue with current "Social Justice". 

In some cases the social justice movement has moved into an enforced equality of outcome, which is clearly discriminatory. The people being discriminated against in that situation are usually NOT people coming from a position of historic discrimination. So you are saying they aren't allowed to complain about that, which in turn means they can be freely discriminated against. 

What will that achieve? Resentment. Division. Chaos. 

Righting the wrongs of history is not about punishing those who have had it easier than others. But this is exactly what seems to be happening, there is currently an over-correction, and marxist types are dominating the narrative. 

Being forced to tell a government department that I am a white male in a job application last week tells me that I am being discriminated against as we speak. Heaven help me should I publicly complain about that though right! Because I'll get slammed for white privelege, male privelege, and all the rest. 

We live in a world where we are supposed to be able to speak up now when something is not right. People who have been historically discriminated against did not have that right, and it was terrible. Does that mean I have to give up that right now, as some kind of penance? Please. 

Marquee
1.3K
·
5.3K
·
over 16 years

paulm wrote:

Bullion wrote:

Also, I don't think it's fair complaining about social justice when you are not coming from a position of historic discrimination.

And therein lies my issue with current "Social Justice". 

In some cases the social justice movement has moved into an enforced equality of outcome, which is clearly discriminatory. The people being discriminated against in that situation are usually NOT people coming from a position of historic discrimination. So you are saying they aren't allowed to complain about that, which in turn means they can be freely discriminated against. 

What will that achieve? Resentment. Division. Chaos. 

Righting the wrongs of history is not about punishing those who have had it easier than others. But this is exactly what seems to be happening, there is currently an over-correction, and marxist types are dominating the narrative. 

Being forced to tell a government department that I am a white male in a job application last week tells me that I am being discriminated against as we speak. Heaven help me should I publicly complain about that though right! Because I'll get slammed for white privelege, male privelege, and all the rest. 

We live in a world where we are supposed to be able to speak up now when something is not right. People who have been historically discriminated against did not have that right, and it was terrible. Does that mean I have to give up that right now, as some kind of penance? Please. 

Certain aspects of our society are so ingrained any attempt to alter those views seems to result in knee jerk reactions from those that have benefited the most.

You talk of discrimination, my wife has said that in interviews she was wary about being discriminated against because she is a woman of a certain age in a relationship which could lead the hiring firm to, possibly unconsciously, have negative bias towards her as they may think she could get pregnant.

Legend
3.6K
·
15K
·
almost 17 years

Bullion wrote:

Certain aspects of our society are so ingrained any attempt to alter those views seems to result in knee jerk reactions from those that have benefited the most.

You talk of discrimination, my wife has said that in interviews she was wary about being discriminated against because she is a woman of a certain age in a relationship which could lead the hiring firm to, possibly unconsciously, have negative bias towards her as they may think she could get pregnant.

Care to expand on your first point? What aspects of society? Who is having a knee jerk reaction? Is that what you consider my reaction to be?

Your 2nd point is a good one to bring up. Discrimination against women due to child-bearing is one of the things that annoys me most in the workplace. Most of the time it can't be proven, so people are getting away with it all the time, in big organisations too. This is something I speak of fairly often with people, it's shocking that it continues. One idea I had is that perhaps the government should be helping Employers more when staff need to take parental leave, so that Employers stop weighing it up like they currently do, and don't worry about the financial risk. Not sure, haven't put a lot of thought into that, and I don't know what is already there legislatively. 

In any case, although it's a good discussion point, it's not really relevant. Unless what you're really saying is "women have historically had it worse than men so only women are allowed to talk about discrimination"? 

Marquee
6.9K
·
9.3K
·
over 13 years

The problem isn't really overt discrimination IMO it's the subconscious ones. People are tribal and it's natural for me to hire someone who I feel I'll get along with the most. The problem is that our whole society is built on anglo ideals. It's incredibly tough to fix and it's also understandable that people don't want to change things as they feel that will impact on them.

Some hiring solutions exist where all interviews come through a system which distorts peoples images and voices so you can't identify sex, gender, race, etc. That's not a good solution either because you have to look at body language when interviewing, as I said it's tough.

I was looking at the history of the Maori Electoral system the other day. Back in the 1850s the government realised that Maori weren't participating in elections because they were based on the concept of ownership which didn't exist in Maori culture, so they created a second electoral system which took into account this fact. It's largely irrelevant these days but it is an example of how one culture doesn't fit into the systems of the other. Also it's really great that NZ took measures to try and encourage voting for Maori more than a hundred years before non white people in Australia in the US could even vote across those entire countries.

Also, I sincerely doubt whatever government department you were applying for would disreguard your application because you're white and male, and if that's the case you can go to the human rights comission about it.

Marquee
1.3K
·
5.3K
·
over 16 years

paulm wrote:

Bullion wrote:

Certain aspects of our society are so ingrained any attempt to alter those views seems to result in knee jerk reactions from those that have benefited the most.

You talk of discrimination, my wife has said that in interviews she was wary about being discriminated against because she is a woman of a certain age in a relationship which could lead the hiring firm to, possibly unconsciously, have negative bias towards her as they may think she could get pregnant.

Care to expand on your first point? What aspects of society? Who is having a knee jerk reaction? Is that what you consider my reaction to be?

Your 2nd point is a good one to bring up. Discrimination against women due to child-bearing is one of the things that annoys me most in the workplace. Most of the time it can't be proven, so people are getting away with it all the time, in big organisations too. This is something I speak of fairly often with people, it's shocking that it continues. One idea I had is that perhaps the government should be helping Employers more when staff need to take parental leave, so that Employers stop weighing it up like they currently do, and don't worry about the financial risk. Not sure, haven't put a lot of thought into that, and I don't know what is already there legislatively. 

In any case, although it's a good discussion point, it's not really relevant. Unless what you're really saying is "women have historically had it worse than men so only women are allowed to talk about discrimination"? 

Sure to expand a little, lets say representation of women in parliament. Trying to get closer to an equal representation of men and women in parliament quite often gets attacked, this satircal post sort of highlights how men have never had to be in a minority position striving for equal representation but the very idea of women trying to get more representation, that idea gets attacked:

There are many other areas that get attacked (language, female critics etc.) or a problematic ('chick lit', stereotype threat etc.). Anecdotally, it seems those attacking any form of social justice/progress are those from groups that have historically not been under represented in positions of power and influence.

Marquee
6.9K
·
9.3K
·
over 13 years

Yeah, you don't want to hire more of one sex than the other or people just because they're minorities, because you do want the best people that you can regardless of anything else.

The question is then, surely with a sufficiently large organisation you'll get people represented in about the same percentages that they're represented in your community. This is obviously simplistic but in a fair and equitable society would be true. So, then the question is how do we get it so that everyone has the ability to be equally represented?

One thing that's interesting is since we moved to proportional representation in parliament we've had roughly 50% female and male prime ministers, that's statistically how it should be.

tradition and history
1.5K
·
9.9K
·
almost 17 years

Ryan wrote:

Yeah, you don't want to hire more of one sex than the other or people just because they're minorities, because you do want the best people that you can regardless of anything else.

The question is then, surely with a sufficiently large organisation you'll get people represented in about the same percentages that they're represented in your community. This is obviously simplistic but in a fare and equitable society would be true. So, then the question is how do we get it so that everyone has the ability to be equally represented?

One thing that's interesting is since we moved to proportional representation in parliament we've had roughly 50% female and male prime ministers, that's statistically how it should be.

Only 96 males per 100 females in NZ :)

Marquee
1.3K
·
5.3K
·
over 16 years

Leggy wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Yeah, you don't want to hire more of one sex than the other or people just because they're minorities, because you do want the best people that you can regardless of anything else.

The question is then, surely with a sufficiently large organisation you'll get people represented in about the same percentages that they're represented in your community. This is obviously simplistic but in a fare and equitable society would be true. So, then the question is how do we get it so that everyone has the ability to be equally represented?

One thing that's interesting is since we moved to proportional representation in parliament we've had roughly 50% female and male prime ministers, that's statistically how it should be.

Only 96 males per 100 females in NZ :)

well 62% of parliament are men, 68% in '14 and 69% in '11

:)

Legend
6.8K
·
14K
·
over 16 years

Well I was thinking to turn this towards the forum, but it's seems to be heading in an interesting enough direction.

Question that made me think recently is: what's the opposite of racist?

Legend
6.8K
·
14K
·
over 16 years

paulm wrote:

Bullion wrote:

Also, I don't think it's fair complaining about social justice when you are not coming from a position of historic discrimination.

Being forced to tell a government department that I am a white male in a job application last week tells me that I am being discriminated against as we speak. Heaven help me should I publicly complain about that though right! Because I'll get slammed for white privilege, male privilege, and all the rest. 

This is interesting as, in theory, you shouldn't be able to discriminate on that basis under the BORA. Which is piss weak though if I am correct.

Were you forced to identify gender and ethnicity in the job application? Though usually gender is obvious or implied from pronouns etc. 

Is there a quota system of some sort or whatever affirmative action is called?

I feel I may have to do some reading. 

I understand affirmative action, particularly say in the case where there aren't many doctors within a culture. It's a massive social good to have someone from within a cultural group be able to bring knowledge to all kinds of decisions made about that particular group. 

I definitely understand not being represented in terms of being youngish and not a property owner in the last parliament.

WeeNix
380
·
710
·
almost 7 years

paulm wrote:

Bullion wrote:

Also, I don't think it's fair complaining about social justice when you are not coming from a position of historic discrimination.

Being forced to tell a government department that I am a white male in a job application last week tells me that I am being discriminated against as we speak. Heaven help me should I publicly complain about that though right! Because I'll get slammed for white privelege, male privelege, and all the rest. 

You were probably asked to disclose your ethnicity, but you don't have to by law.

"Under the Human Rights Act 1993 it is unlawful to ask questions of (or about) a job applicant that indicate an intention to discriminate on one of the grounds covered by the Act."

Legend
3.6K
·
15K
·
almost 17 years

Ryan wrote:

The question is then, surely with a sufficiently large organisation you'll get people represented in about the same percentages that they're represented in your community. This is obviously simplistic but in a fair and equitable society would be true. 

No, that is 100% untrue when it comes to gender. 

The gender breakdown of the workplace will entirely depend on the type of work. Studies have shown again and again that the sexes prefer different types of work in general.  

This is the bad assumption that many are making, and is where we go wrong and head towards equality-of-outcome, which can never be achieved in a harmonious way. There are hardly any jobs that females and males both want to do in exactly equal numbers, so for us to enforce that outcome means we must discriminate. 

We need to forget about equality of outcome, and focus on equality of opportunity. When a male or female wants to do a job that his/her sex usually doesn't want to do, we have to make sure they can do that, without experiencing difficulties that the opposite sex would not have to endure. Then we will get the correct outcome, whatever that might be. 

Legend
3.6K
·
15K
·
almost 17 years

Bullion wrote:

paulm wrote:

Bullion wrote:

Certain aspects of our society are so ingrained any attempt to alter those views seems to result in knee jerk reactions from those that have benefited the most.

You talk of discrimination, my wife has said that in interviews she was wary about being discriminated against because she is a woman of a certain age in a relationship which could lead the hiring firm to, possibly unconsciously, have negative bias towards her as they may think she could get pregnant.

Care to expand on your first point? What aspects of society? Who is having a knee jerk reaction? Is that what you consider my reaction to be?

Your 2nd point is a good one to bring up. Discrimination against women due to child-bearing is one of the things that annoys me most in the workplace. Most of the time it can't be proven, so people are getting away with it all the time, in big organisations too. This is something I speak of fairly often with people, it's shocking that it continues. One idea I had is that perhaps the government should be helping Employers more when staff need to take parental leave, so that Employers stop weighing it up like they currently do, and don't worry about the financial risk. Not sure, haven't put a lot of thought into that, and I don't know what is already there legislatively. 

In any case, although it's a good discussion point, it's not really relevant. Unless what you're really saying is "women have historically had it worse than men so only women are allowed to talk about discrimination"? 

Sure to expand a little, lets say representation of women in parliament. Trying to get closer to an equal representation of men and women in parliament quite often gets attacked, this satircal post sort of highlights how men have never had to be in a minority position striving for equal representation but the very idea of women trying to get more representation, that idea gets attacked:

There are many other areas that get attacked (language, female critics etc.) or a problematic ('chick lit', stereotype threat etc.). Anecdotally, it seems those attacking any form of social justice/progress are those from groups that have historically not been under represented in positions of power and influence.

Well these are morons. I agree with you 100% on these sorts of tribal attitudes. 

Again, it comes down to opportunity. As long as everyone who wants to be in parliament is not stopped from doing so by unfair behaviours and attitudes, then the outcome will be the right one. 

I think Trudeau is an idiot for making his cabinet 50/50. We now know that Canada almost certainly does not have the strongest cabinet that their government could have picked, because it's highly unlikely that those exact gender numbers happened to match the best people for each of those jobs. 

Marquee
6.9K
·
9.3K
·
over 13 years

paulm wrote:

Ryan wrote:

The question is then, surely with a sufficiently large organisation you'll get people represented in about the same percentages that they're represented in your community. This is obviously simplistic but in a fair and equitable society would be true. 

No, that is 100% untrue when it comes to gender. 

The gender breakdown of the workplace will entirely depend on the type of work. Studies have shown again and again that the sexes prefer different types of work in general.  

This is the bad assumption that many are making, and is where we go wrong and head towards equality-of-outcome, which can never be achieved in a harmonious way. There are hardly any jobs that females and males both want to do in exactly equal numbers, so for us to enforce that outcome means we must discriminate. 

We need to forget about equality of outcome, and focus on equality of opportunity. When a male or female wants to do a job that his/her sex usually doesn't want to do, we have to make sure they can do that, without experiencing difficulties that the opposite sex would not have to endure. Then we will get the correct outcome, whatever that might be. 

That's why the paragraph that you quoted had two sentences.

Phoenix Academy
360
·
470
·
over 6 years

Bullion wrote:

Fair to say that YF is over represented by cis gendered white males - relative to the rest of the population?

Also, I don't think it's fair complaining about social justice when you are not coming from a position of historic discrimination.

Looks like we've got a live one folks.

"cis gendered white males"

"social justice"

"historic discrimination"

a real snowflake hat trick.

I am all for treating people well and with respect (until they prove otherwise) but this whiney, whingey social justice warrior cult is just a real turn off

Marquee
6.9K
·
9.3K
·
over 13 years

You don't think people were similarly offended when other movements which we now see as fair happened? People put up statues of slavers in the US in the 60s and even now are upset when they're being pulled down. Every time there has been a movement of society to make things fair there has been outrage, and violence, and a whole lot of conservative snowflakes getting all upset. And the real snowflakes are the conservative people, they get so upset at people who get upset it's comical.

Phoenix Academy
360
·
470
·
over 6 years

Ryan wrote:

You don't think people were similarly offended when other movements which we now see as fair happened? People put up statues of slavers in the US in the 60s and even now are upset when they're being pulled down. Every time there has been a movement of society to make things fair there has been outrage, and violence, and a whole lot of conservative snowflakes getting all upset.

How does going around pulling down old statues make help make society fair? An honest question.

All it seems to do is ramp up tensions on both sides. Not my idea of a good way forward. 

Will pulling down statutes help decrease the amount of black on black gun violence in the USA for example?

I think its just another case of divide and conquer. Keep the people squabbling amongst themselves over statues while the elite stand back and laugh. 

Marquee
6.9K
·
9.3K
·
over 13 years

Those statues were raised by the losing side over a hundred years after they lost their war, are statues which commemorate absolutely horrible people and were purely put up to defy progress. They represent hate and bigotry.

If they were truly historic then sure, but they are cheap and nasty and were made mid century specifically because of what they represent. They should never have gone up in the first place.

Phoenix Academy
360
·
470
·
over 6 years

Ngai Tahu seem to be doing alright from "historical discrimination", millions in money and assets.   

The narratives being pushed these days by both the right and the left are just too over simplified, highly reactive and are pretty much all products of people living in social media echo chambers.

I think people need to get in touch with one another's humanity rather than always trying to throttle anyone who has a view they dislike or disagree with. So much anger and yelling these days, so little meaningful discussion.

I have experienced life on all sides of the political spectrum and I can tell you this: there is little difference between the extremes. They are all Just groups of people with rigid belief systems and they want to force their beliefs on to others...or else.

most unattractive. 

Phoenix Academy
360
·
470
·
over 6 years

Ryan wrote:

Those statues were raised by the loosing side almost a hundred years after they lost their war, are statues which commemorate absolutely horrible people and were purely put up to defy progress. They represent hate and bigotry.

If they were truly historic then sure, but they are cheap and nasty and were made mid century specifically because of what they represent. They should never have gone up in the first place.

Surely anything built in the past is historic to a degree? What you call cheap and nasty another person might value as a relic of a different era. 

The Pyramids in Egypt were built by slaves in the most horrific conditions.

Should we pull them down too?

Or should we leave them up and have open discussions about what happened and why instead?

Hmmmm. seems like a no brainer to me.

I mean, where do you draw the line with all this "outrage revisionism"? When will you be happy? When everything that reminds you of the past that you don't like is removed? How does erasing history help us live better today?

Surely it is better to acknowledge history and try to learn from it rather than quash everything you uncomfortable, hurt or angry about?

Hug it out bro :)

Marquee
6.9K
·
9.3K
·
over 13 years

I called them cheap and nasty because they literally were cheap and nasty, they were made cheaply and quickly and were crumbling and quite dangerous.

What happened was this, the southern universities were forced to take in other races so they put up those statues, they weren't installed to celebrate great heroes or moments, they chose the most vial people who had held the grand parents of the people who were attending that school as slaves. They were put up for no other reason than to intimidate.


Since when have the losers of a war, especially one over something as important as human rights, been allowed to put up statues anyway? As I said, those statues were put up in the 60s as a reaction to the times, sure put one in a museum to serve as a warning for just how ignorant people can be, but what they actually end up doing is being a rallying point for the bigoted and hateful and legitimising those sorts of behaviors.

Culture wars on the forum: amateur sociology

You’ll need an account to join the conversation!

Sign in Sign up