supercharged said:
35.9% are 'Australian' by ancestry? What do they define as Australian ancestry? Born in Australia? I sure as hell don't see 35.9% Aboriginal population in the public realm.
How does the census calculate the number of asians in Australia? Just those born overseas? How about those born here and those who speak english as a first language?
At least in urban areas asians are a sizeable minority. If you think asians aren't under-represented by the Australian media in general then you're just delusional and blind. And non-representation IS discrimination. Same as the US in the 1950's when no blacks were on tv.
Ok.
Im not arguing with an idiot any longer.
If you even bothered to have a fucking look at the link i posted you would see, that
19 Australian Aboriginal 94,950 0.5 0.4
99 Australian South Sea Islander 3,442 0.0 0.0
are also included in the census.
Furthermore, the census is based on responses to ancestry, which means the lineage, rather than citizenship. Again LEARN TO FUCKING READ YOU STUPID GOOK.
"At least in urban areas asians are a sizeable minority. If you think asians aren't under-represented by the Australian media in general then you're just delusional and blind. And non-representation IS discrimination. Same as the US in the 1950's when no blacks were on tv."
So now were restricting it to urban areas? What next? If you look at cabramatta they are definitely a majority don't you think? Why don't we allocate a channel because of that?
No one is saying they are under-represented, we are telling you, that they are under-represented because they are a minority, GET WITH THE FUCKING PROGRAM.
Non-representation is discrimination, you having a computer is technological discrimination, you being able to speak english is liguistic discrimination.
Stop throwing discrimination around like its a fucking normal term. It comes with its own evident contexts, bias, and connotations which could change with time and place. You have said that because commercial TV representation of asians is under-represented, that it is discrimination. I have argued, that it is a discrimination, and one which follows business and economic factors as much as it does social factors. But unlike your insinuations that its an institutional concept, i have illustrated that there are other factors which run commercial broadcasters, moreso than cultural or social obligations. That is the governments area, not private companies.
Unlike the US, there is NO explicit rules, nor are there boundaries for people to get into places, thats what the anti-discrimination act serves to do. If you are discriminated against by age, sex, race, or otherwise, there are relevant avenues to pursue particularly in a professional industry.
You have presented nothing but some typical asian vs the world dribble, without statistics, with nothing more than hearsay and hypothesis.