Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Debating Clydesdale

136 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Simon Fraser,

    So Steve,

    Neighsayer doesn't win the argument.

    What do you think, that it's fair we have a quota of Pacific Islanders coming in, even to the detriment of their own countries, who lose workers and customers because of the amount of people moving to NZ?

    The Them and Us argument is invalid too. We are part of a democracy, and should debate these issues, and vote on them.

    Are you debating the issue, trying to prove that the quota is a good idea, or just lambasting anyone who dares question your opinions?

    Auckland • Since Jun 2008 • 22 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    We ask, "What skills do you have?" If we don't need their skills, we already know there is no work for them here, then we say, "No thanks."

    Doesn't the United States do that?

    The US also says "Give me your tired, your poor,

    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"...A well known inscription on the Statue of Liberty

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 5690 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Is that the nude puppet sex scene?

    No.. the vomit scene!:-)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 5690 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Fraser,

    And Sofie, we do the same.

    We allow many refugees in, but are biased in favour of Pacific people.

    Why?

    Auckland • Since Jun 2008 • 22 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Fraser,

    What happened to free thought:

    1. Multiculturalism told people to go back to their heritage. I am not part of this scene. I rejected my Christian upbringing and reject the idea that I have to do anything because it is my culture to do so.

    2. The PC Thought Police told us that if we even thought anything negative about another group is society, we would be hung out to dry.

    3. People chose a camp, either Left or Right wing; then from then on, just thought whatever the rest of their group thought.

    You guys are all anti Clydesdale because you have to be.

    The people on the Kiwiblog site appear to all be pro Clydesdale, once again, because they have to be.

    I'm the only one debating with anyone, and you assume I must be a right wing nut.

    I've been left wing all my life. Although, you come to a point where you realise you need to think for yourself.

    I will not be told what to think by a group.

    Use your minds, lazy people.

    If we have an immigration problem, let's discuss it and solve it, rather than calling the person who draws attention to the issue a racist.

    Sweeping problems under the carpet won't make them go away.

    Auckland • Since Jun 2008 • 22 posts Report Reply

  • dubmugga,

    But unlike you, I will refrain, because, unlike you, I can get along with people no matter where they're from.

    Hassling someone for what race they were born into is disgusting, and in fact, is racism. And you think it is okay.

    hahaha...bro unlike you, i don't buy into your western definitions of race or cultural superiority based solely on economic growth.

    ...methinks thou protesteth too much. I mean, for someone who can get along with people no matter where they're from, you seem to be struggling with a fulla from christchurch.

    the back of your mind • Since Nov 2006 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Fraser,

    Two comments form The Thought Police book:

    1. When OJ Simpson went to trial for the murder of his ex-wife, women's rights activists got into bed with the Civil Rights movement in brandishing the trial as an attack on a role-model for you black men, rather than calling it justice for a murderer;

    2. The LA Riots were not a Black Uprising, the media just made it out to be one. The majority of the participants were Hispanic. Also, that guy who got pulled out of his truck and attacked was helped first by some black people who saw it happen.

    Someone's making a lot of money out of propagating this myth that brown/black people are being persecuted.

    Yet crime's not a racial thing.

    Many talk about the problems in South Auckland, yet Christchurch comes a close second when it comes to crime, and the problem there (people say) is the 'White Trash", not the Polynesians.

    Auckland • Since Jun 2008 • 22 posts Report Reply

  • dubmugga,

    We allow many refugees in, but are biased in favour of Pacific people.

    Why?

    ...cos we're so damn good looking :)

    the back of your mind • Since Nov 2006 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Fraser,

    Dub- if you simplify economies: we all need a certain amount to survive. Food, water, shelter, etc. And we all know there is a hierarchy of needs. luckily, in New Zealand, we are all doing well, compared with many countries at least.

    It's not a Western idea.

    Hypothetically:

    If we supported too many people financially who were unable to repay us, or worse, who turned to crime thus making our standard of living worse, it would be a bad idea.

    If you agree with that, then it's logical to question who gets to move to New Zealand.

    Especially if one criteria applies to most of the world, but a small select group get in on a quota, without the criteria being applied to them.

    Your inability to debate this so far belies your lack of an answer to this problem.

    Auckland • Since Jun 2008 • 22 posts Report Reply

  • dubmugga,

    Your inability to debate this so far belies your lack of an answer to this problem.

    hypothetically...

    How could i have been so ignorant and racist. You're absolutely right. The drop in living standards, increased crime and an economic downturn is solely because polynesians have been migrating here for the last 700yrs.

    I totally agree the only answer is to keep them at home because they're lazy, stupid, breed too much and maybe we should deport the ones who are already here.

    How about we raid their houses at 5 in the morning, drag them out of bed and shift em off to the airport cos they'll all be drugged up and tired from a hard nights partying, rooting and criminalising and don't have jobs to got to anyway.

    ...would that make you happy ???

    the back of your mind • Since Nov 2006 • 257 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    ...methinks thou protesteth too much

    My thoughts too. He sure plays the victim card pretty heavily too. "PC Thought Police" and all that - then the terrible, terrible treatment of Holocaust deniers, then "some of my best friends are...", "look, there are worse people on Kiwiblog", silent majority versus lazy PC conformists. He'd be comparing himself to Galileo if this was a discussion on climate.

    Especially if one criteria applies to most of the world, but a small select group get in on a quota, without the criteria being applied to them.

    Ah, but that's the point: Clydesdale specifically referred to an ethnic group as a whole.

    Your inability to debate this so far belies your lack of an answer to this problem.

    Nonsense - and not only because of the rather quaint grammar. Clydesdale's research has been ably demolished - not least by Clydesdale himself. Kim Hill just gleefully handed out the rope with which he hanged himself. I particularly liked his saying (I paraphrase) that NZ employers aren't racist in rejecting people with foreign-sounding names, they just act exactly like racists. If it quacks and waddles...

    The argument is a pseudo-argument designed more as a posture than as an intellectual discussion. Of course immigrants should be willing to contribute - I'm sure we all agree, and we all agree that death can upset one's schedule, cancer is inconvenient and distracting and that oxygen is quite useful to have around.

    If we supported too many people financially who were unable to repay us, or worse, who turned to crime thus making our standard of living worse, it would be a bad idea.
    If you agree with that, then it's logical to question who gets to move to New Zealand.

    The quote above is what I call a Procrustean argument - limbs are lopped off to make a fit. The only acknowledged contribution is financial and the rest follows like the fine print in a crooked contract - "if you sign up to A, then you are also obliged to follow B", but in fact the premises of A are dubious and do not really logically require B.

    The definition of "contribution" is the real point here - and in Clydesdale's paper and the argument above, it's strictly according to narrow financial and purely immediate dollar-value criteria, which is utterly exclusive of any other contribution. I'd recommend Marilyn Waring's groundbreaking work, Counting for Nothing which shows up the true economic value of unpaid and unacknowledged work by women as a corrective.

    And then there's this approving quote:

    aspect of political correctness: the attempt to kill an argument or discussion by the use of labelling

    Er, like "PC Thought Police"?

    Pot, kettle, black (or is it brown or white?). Make a well-known phrase using these words.

    I propose an ammendment to Godwin's Law: that once people start flinging about empty buzzwords like PC and histrionically wailling about how brave but persecuted they are, the discussion becomes pointless.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 955 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    Both hilarious and chillingly accurate.

    You know what really scares me? The fact that I understand that gibberish.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 955 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Kracklite - same. Note with interest that our "Simon Fraser" posted this on kiwiblog at 11.35am as "freethought (3)":

    "You guys are great. I have been debating with people at http://www.publicaddress.net/system/topic,1152,hard_news_debating_clydesdale.sm?p=53197 and they’re scarily ignorant.
    You speak of how you get labelled as soon as you try to open a debate: that’s what happened to Clydesdale and then what happened to me when I joined this other forum."

    Simon, have you even read the report or the reviews of it? You want a debate then how about making it an informed one. To do otherwise would be, well, ignorant.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 15701 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    Someone's making a lot of money out of propagating this myth that brown/black people are being persecuted.

    I'd like to know where my cheque is, in that case.

    Your analysis of racially charged events in the USA is really excellent, though. So nuanced. So historically accurate. And with a soupcon of sexism, as a garnish.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3582 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    I'd like to know where my cheque is, in that case.

    Maybe you'll get a T-shirt. You know, "I joined the PC Thought Police and did they give me a spiffy black uniform with shiny shiny leather boots and whip? Nooooo - all I got was this lousy T-shirt"

    Maybe that could be shortened a bit.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 955 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Just so you guys know, there is a mass of people who think what I think ...
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/05/pacific_island_immigration.html#comment-453647
    Au revoir

    Ha. Choice! You accidentally linked to your own post there, whining about being picked on here:

    freethought (3) +0 Says:
    June 8th, 2008 at 11:35 am
    You guys are great. I have been debating with people at http://www.publicaddress.net/system/topic,1152,hard_news_debating_clydesdale.sm?p=53197 and they’re scarily ignorant.

    You speak of how you get labelled as soon as you try to open a debate: that’s what happened to Clydesdale and then what happened to me when I joined this other forum.

    For more on this societal problem, read The New Thought Police, by Tammy Bruce. It opened my eyes.

    Reading books by batshit crazy people will usually open your eyes in one way or another.

    But really, it's a bit lame to strut around shouting the odds here then scurry over to Kiiwblog to complain about how much you're being oppressed by teh liberalz. We get it already: you're a victim.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 17915 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Beat me again Russ. No that wasn't a request, I meant you beat me to it. I was going to link to http://www.dailyhowler.com on Tammy Bruce's "The New Thought Police"

    And

    Entry under quotas

    People from the Pacific Islands continued to enter and stay in New Zealand during the late 1970s and 1980s, legally if they could, illegally if they could not. From 2002, under the Samoan quota, 1,100 Samoan citizens could be granted residence each year provided they had a job offer and met other conditions.

    A Pacific Access category set quotas for people from Tonga, Fiji, Tuvalu and Kiribati to be granted residence in New Zealand. Pitcairn Islanders were considered for residence provided they had a firm job offer in New Zealand.

    The Quota is a LIMIT to the number of people from a specific country NOT a target.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4437 posts Report Reply

  • David Haywood,

    And I'd point out that the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau are all part of the Realm of New Zealand. So people from these places are all New Zealand citizens and have every right to come here.

    By the way, if you ever want to feel depressed about being a New Zealander, then read a history on our nation's (mis)management of our former territories.

    Dunsandel • Since Nov 2006 • 864 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    It opened my eyes.

    ... is usually code for "It articulated and therefore confirmed my paranoia!"

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 955 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    Kracklite - Matthew Arnold called economics "the dismal science" because of its materialistic reductionism, but I feel that the label is more appropriate because the scientific methodology is dismal.


    One of my fave lectures once said "I have a PhD in economics, so you don't have too."

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    Looking at Greg Clydesdales page at Massey & Lincoln he seems to be doing a bit of academic slip-streaming.

    He got his PhD in 2002, but sites presentations from 1991. The reason may be that the co-presenter in 1991 is held in high regard? His co-presenter sites peer reviewed publications from 2001 on his bio.

    http://www.massey.ac.nz/~wwwmib/staff/clydesdale.htm
    http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story1699.html

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    One of my fave lectures once said "I have a PhD in economics, so you don't have too."

    Reading aerospace engineer Ben Rich's autobiography some years ago (__Skunk Works__ nice read, can't say that much about really classified projects, but a lot of interesting anecdotes and views on the business), I came across a neat little passage. In order to get a promotion or something, Rich was sent to Harvard Business School for an MBA. When he returned to Lockheed afterward, he wrote an equation for his boss:

    2/3 HBS = BS

    Of course an engineer would write something like that. :-)

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 955 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    One of the things I noticed about Clydesdale's study is that the word "racism" only appears once.

    It appears in a brief paragraph where he doubts that employers could be racist if it hurt the success of their business. The argument is not stated clearly enough for me to actually unpick it.

    Clydesdale notices that there is a group of people who don't do as well in New Zealand, but he has no interest in finding out why. He (and Simon) don't seem to have ever heard of institutional racism.

    Getting back to Simon:

    If we supported too many people financially who were unable to repay us, or worse, who turned to crime thus making our standard of living worse, it would be a bad idea.

    Yeah, it would, but that isn't really happening.

    Pacific unemployment in NZ is apparently 5%. In other words, out of 20 potential labour force participants, 19 are busy working hard, paying tax and being "productive". And disproportionately, doing the shittiest, most dangerous work. Their taxes are paying your granny's super, while their labour swabs out her nursing home.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2906 posts Report Reply

  • Simon Fraser,

    Just you you all know,

    My complaints about the Thought Police began with Kim Hill interrupting Clydesdale and not letting him make his point, because it was so 'offensive' and controversial.

    I get that his report has flaws, however, a lot of people have attacked him primarily for criticising the wrong people.

    Someone made a good point on Kiwiblog: if he was attacking white middle class men you wouldn't be so up-in-arms about what he said.

    You people want equality yet you support our quota for letting Pacific Islanders into the country. If they are equal to English peope, why do they need extra help getting in?

    And why would we drop the standards for letting them in? If they have so much to offer, surely that wasn't necessary.

    I get that this is the Anti-Clydesdale forum; the Kiwiblog apparently is the pro-Clydesdale one. If I was so offended by your lame personal attacks on me, I wouldn't have kept posting here.

    For an explanation of the Thought Police comment, for those who will never ever read Bruce's book: there is a scary movement in the world in which people no longer restrict being offended to what a person says or writes: they get offended by what they were thinking.

    The thing that makes you so mad about Clydesdale is that you believe he is being racist.

    If his report is flawed, it will receive the appropriate criticism from his peers; apparently that is already happening.

    You can thank Kim Hill for me wanting to come on here and give you guys an entertaining weekend of debating. I like listening to her, and will continue to doing so. She was more polite to Henry Rollins though.

    She tried the same thing she did with Clydesdale on John Pilger: he ripped into her for it on live TV. At least Clydesdale was polite about it.

    For the record: all people are of equal value, and should be treated by equal standards. Giving special treatment for a race implies that race must be inferior. I don't think Polynesians are inferior, nor do I think they need special treatment. Your statement that Pacific unemployment is only 5% is proof that Pacific Islanders don't need special treatment. Maybe we should have a quota for bringing English people here instead. It sounds like they need more help, if what you say is right.

    Hate speech laws are effectively terrifying people out of even thinking something bad about another sector of society. We need more of that here, for your sake: prohibit people saying anything disparaging or critical of anyone else. Then you could have silenced Clydesdale effectively; and I could use the same laws against you guys for your personal attacks on me. That'd be fun.

    It seems like your methods are working, so keep going. Persecute anyone who says something you don't like, then no one will ever do it again. Who needs debate anyway.

    As much as you enjoy ripping into me for what I'm saying, you would have had a boring weekend if I wasn't here. No one else on this site is arguing with you.

    Good night, and God bless.

    Auckland • Since Jun 2008 • 22 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Come on. Kim Hill interrupted Clydesdale because he wasn't making enough sense, not because she was trying to suppress his precious ideas. Sound familiar? If you can't handle being held to a decent standard of informed debate then stay out of the kitchen.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 15701 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.