SRC Election Results 2005 - the Post-Mortem (2 Viewers)

[walrusbear]

How am I being melodramatic? They did attack cops. There is solid evidence. The left continues to persist that these people are being trialled for holding "alternative" views. These are the facts, and it is absolutely disgusting that they try to justify such actions.

there was a scuffle involving a handful of people during a protest. from the sounds of things the cops attempted to stop a protestor throwing stuff and provoked more students to stop it happening. looks like people were pushing etc.
it's concerning that they're being prosecuting them because it's an overreaction
more like with the intent of deterring protestor's than of any practical use

btw, does your solid proof include quah's photos? because they were quite ambiguous

 

[walrusbear]

It's these "stupid principles" that delivered you the beautiful country you see today. Individual freedom should be held paramount, and the aims of the choice campaign were based upon this.

how is individual freedom upheld for people who want to promote equality through the means of the likes of queer collective etc.

choice had an ironically destructive campaign

 

[Calculon]

there was a scuffle involving a handful of people during a protest. from the sounds of things the cops attempted to stop a protestor throwing stuff and provoked more students to stop it happening. looks like people were pushing etc.
it's concerning that they're being prosecuting them because it's an overreaction
more like with the intent of deterring protestor's than of any practical use

btw, does your solid proof include quah's photos? because they were quite ambiguous

Them, other photos and television footage.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Walrusbear, is there seriously a situation when people that would protest against this occasion would not protest on the side of the student? No.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The Queer collective / Womens collective aren't about equality, they're about compensation and inequality (giving greater preference to groups which are traditionally considered to be disadvantaged, an advantage, and through giving them that advantage disadvantaging other groups).

 

[Calculon]

how is individual freedom upheld for people who want to promote equality through the means of the likes of queer collective etc.

choice had an ironically destructive campaign

Ramming such ideas down people's throats does not promote individual freedom, rather it fosters a further resentment within the community, especially when there are fuck all awareness campaigns being run to counteract this.

 

[walrusbear]

The Queer collective / Womens collective aren't about equality, they're about compensation and inequality (giving greater preference to groups which are traditionally considered to be disadvantaged, an advantage, and through giving them that advantage disadvantaging other groups).

so are you suggesting that notions of marginalised groups and inequality are old and irrelevant? is there now a level playing ground??

it's about trying to assist in offering agency to marginalised groups in society.
i fail to see how it affects others in a negative way?

 

[myg0t]

Quah, you lost sunshine....why are you still here?

 

[walrusbear]

Ramming such ideas down people's throats does not promote individual freedom, rather it fosters a further resentment within the community, especially when there are fuck all awareness campaigns being run to counteract this.

how does it detract from 'individual freedom'??

 

[Calculon]

There is not a level playing ground, but assuming equal ability then there will eventually more or less be one, because:
a) People resent being told who they can and can't hire. If someone gets into a particular position merely because they are a woman then they are going to resented by the rest of the workplace and this is going to increase misoginy.
b) If things are left to their own devices employers will fall behind if they refuse to hire the best person for the job because they are black/gay/female, this effect will be clearly seen and things will correct themselves.

EDIT: I should have the individual freedom to hire who I want. If I hate black people then I will then be disadvantaged myself because my competitor will employ any aboriginals I knock back if they are the best people for the job.

Also redistribution of wealth (eg taking money from hetero students to fund the homo students' spaces) is by definition disadvantaging one group to benifit another.

 

[walrusbear]

Also redistribution of wealth (eg taking money from hetero students to fund the homo students' spaces) is by definition disadvantaging one group to benifit another.

by what 'definition' is that?? economic rationalism?
an equally valid definition is that not doing so is disadvantaging to one group to benefit another (promoting status quo and maintaining a marginalised status for another).

 

[gerhard]

b) If things are left to their own devices employers will fall behind if they refuse to hire the best person for the job because they are black/gay/female, this effect will be clearly seen and things will correct themselves.

Except for the current generation and maybe the next, who will have to experience discrimination in order to for things to 'correct themselves'.

Of course, no policy can eliminate discrimination completely, but it isnt going to happen in a hurry if we just let things correct themselves.

 

[Calculon]

by what 'definition' is that?? economic rationalism?
an equally valid definition is that not doing so is disadvantaging to one group to benefit another (promoting status quo and maintaining a marginalised status for another).

So you're saying that discrimination's fine when it's administered by the government, but not when it's part of the status quo?

Except for the current generation and maybe the next, who will have to experience discrimination in order to for things to 'correct themselves'.

Of course, no policy can eliminate discrimination completely, but it isnt going to happen in a hurry if we just let things correct themselves.

But anything acheieved by coercion will require the coercion that initiated the change to remain in place, and this is an undesirable outcome compared to letting things sort themselves out.

 

[lbft]

It's these "stupid principles" that delivered you the beautiful country you see today. Individual freedom should be held paramount, and the aims of the choice campaign were based upon this.

If I must be exact, I was referring to the promise to give students back $20 for the Queer collective, which in of itself costs less than a dollar to every SRC member...

That shows bloody-mindedness and overenthusiasm to the point of ridiculousness.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

so are you suggesting that notions of marginalised groups and inequality are old and irrelevant? is there now a level playing ground??

When you give someone an advantage, you disadvantage other people. While there is not a level playing field outside of the university environment, I think you would be hard pressed to claim women are disadvantaged at university.

They achieve better than males.
There are more females than males.
etc.

So why does it make sense to continue to have structures in place to give women this artifical advantage, when they are now achieving better then men?

 

[lbft]

Discrimination is not fine in any circumstance. Affirmitive action to attempt to minimise the effect of existing discrimination is a necessary evil (if we all lived in an ideal world, all holding hands and singing and dancing around pots of gold at the foot of rainbows, then it would be unfair. In the Real World, it doesn't work like that.

 

[Calculon]

If I must be exact, I was referring to the promise to give students back $20 for the Queer collective, which in of itself costs less than a dollar to every SRC member...

That shows bloody-mindedness and overenthusiasm to the point of ridiculousness.

The SRC budget is completely fudged. I have seen the costs of the protests, they cost each student $3 each. These*5 + NUS + Queer Collective = $20.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Discrimination is not fine in any circumstance. Affirmitive action to attempt to minimise the effect of existing discrimination

Show me an example of how women are disadvantaged in the current university environment, that warrents them continuing to have the advantages that were put in place to combat the discriminatory advantage to males.

 

[walrusbear]

So you're saying that discrimination's fine when it's administered by the government, but not when it's part of the status quo?

in the context of this discussion how does the government discriminate?

 

[jordanv]

Of course, no policy can eliminate discrimination completely, but it isnt going to happen in a hurry if we just let things correct themselves.

Everyone is assuming that discrimination is a bad thing, but I won't push that line of argument since its likely to stir up a shitstorm.

Basically, my line is - society is responsible for itself - government intervention can't fix the causes of problems, it can only try to patch up the symptoms (and fail).

Government doesn't instigate change, society does.

Just like with women's suffrage - if it wasnt for acceptance in society, it wouldnt have happened.

You can't change the way people think, but what we can do is remove the elements of discrimination in the system (which do still exist in some areas, even if it is so-called positive discrimination).

I think that things like the queer collective do more harm than good.