That gay marriage thing........

pharmaboy said:
White privilege - most overused term of 2017?

Used to be a description of self and has become a term of derision/insult
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's not the way I'm using it. I quoted some one with that line (can't recall who now) and it's just a simple way of saying that when the people who've had it easy, sometimes at the cost of others - or haven't had it as hard as others see others getting things they don't get they feel unjustly targeted when the scales stop tipping in their favour. Most of the time they aren't aware of the fact they haven't been discriminate against or that they have had free access when others have not. So when they see people getting privileged access they feel like they've been discriminated against themselves.

pineapplehead said:
Nope. I really feel uncomfortable about this. It's a nice fantasy, but doesn't address the root causes of our societal and environmental issues.
Looking for technology to help us is really a bit of a cop out, and ultimately a search for a justification to continue living our self-centred ways.
In all of this talk about sustainability etc, the concept of behaviour change isn't seriously discussed. Not in regards to recycling (which in practice is quite inefficient) or driving electric cars etc. I'm talking about serious attitude change, like altering our entitlements towards say, the ease of jumping on a plane for the holidays, or having hot water 24/7, or eating quinoa grown internationally. These things are deceptively not 'normal' and actually come at a great cost.
The thought of us having to actually make real sacrifice is too confronting for all but the most radical neo-peasants out there.
Click to expand...

Can I ask what 'normal' is?
 
johnny said:
Can I ask what 'normal' is?
Click to expand...

Ah, One of the great philosophical questions of our time...
It certainly isn't living wasteful consumeristic apathetic lives, stuck in traffic, watching TV or if boredom, and disposing plastic like it simply dissolves, and not dealing with the consequences. Sadly, the aspirations of our culture are simply not sustainable.

BTW, I voted yes. Love is love.
 
johnny said:
Sure, but that's not the way I'm using it. I quoted some one with that line (can't recall who now) and it's just a simple way of saying that when the people who've had it easy, sometimes at the cost of others - or haven't had it as hard as others see others getting things they don't get they feel unjustly targeted when the scales stop tipping in their favour. Most of the time they aren't aware of the fact they haven't been discriminate against or that they have had free access when others have not. So when they see people getting privileged access they feel like they've been discriminated against themselves.
s?
Click to expand...

Haha, actually it was Moorey that made me think of the “white privilege” monika. Bit of a tangent I know. Just funny how words get a sudden popularity.

More seriously, doesn’t that really only apply in your context when someone is whining about affirmative action of some kind?

Whereas when people use privilege showing it’s just complaining about pretty much anything that shows you are from a western country , last year it was first world problems this year,........
 
Last edited:
pineapplehead said:
Nope. I really feel uncomfortable about this. It's a nice fantasy, but doesn't address the root causes of our societal and environmental issues.
Looking for technology to help us is really a bit of a cop out, and ultimately a search for a justification to continue living our self-centred ways.
In all of this talk about sustainability etc, the concept of behaviour change isn't seriously discussed. Not in regards to recycling (which in practice is quite inefficient) or driving electric cars etc. I'm talking about serious attitude change, like altering our entitlements towards say, the ease of jumping on a plane for the holidays, or having hot water 24/7, or eating quinoa grown internationally. These things are deceptively not 'normal' and actually come at a great cost.
The thought of us having to actually make real sacrifice is too confronting for all but the most radical neo-peasants out there.
Click to expand...

The root cause is too many humans.

9 billion people living more sustainable lives is still an overwhelming problem.

We need less people and better technology. Think about reverting to pre fossil fuel transport with that many people. We would still have global warming from the number of horses farting.

Sent from my HTC_0P6B using Tapatalk
 
Oddjob said:
The root cause is too many humans.

9 billion people living more sustainable lives is still an overwhelming problem.

We need less people and better technology. Think about reverting to pre fossil fuel transport with that many people. We would still have global warming from the number of horses farting.

Sent from my HTC_0P6B using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This is true. At its heart the solution is values-based, not techno-based. Population is the other element.

We're kidding ourselves if we think that going 'eco' is any solution..
 
pineapplehead said:
Ah, One of the great philosophical questions of our time...
It certainly isn't living wasteful consumeristic apathetic lives, stuck in traffic, watching TV or if boredom, and disposing plastic like it simply dissolves, and not dealing with the consequences. Sadly, the aspirations of our culture are simply not sustainable.

BTW, I voted yes. Love is love.
Click to expand...
Actually, I've sobered up now.

The above example probably is actually 'normal', statistically speaking. Normal however does not necessarily correlate with 'sustainable' or 'moral' /etc
 
Well it's done, finally. Now we can sit back & giggle at the nutbags running around waiting for the sky to fall in when any two people they don't know get married....
 
The Duckmeister said:
Well it's done, finally. Now we can sit back & giggle at the nutbags running around waiting for the sky to fall in when any two people they don't know get married....
Click to expand...

Yup so true.
Since the majority of no voted are god botherers they probably think it is literally is the end of days..
In fairness I know a few religious 'no' voters that choose to throw their vote in the bin.. Their reasoning; it was none of their business and they shouldn't have to decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top