Springboks as a political tool.

[vigras rojara]

In #26 I said if bleeding heart boks get swept up in political campaigns e.g. GBV it could create bad vibes in the team, since the team is not one big bleeding-heart blob, which would affect performance, potentially going into the WC.

I didn't bring race into it. But if you are saying race is a part of it.... well, that is just adding to my argument.

Players should be selected on merit alone.

Don't you think so?

It sounds from what you said in #27....

... as though you think these players are not being selected purely on merit.

What, in your view, would be the negative fallout for the Springboks, if all players were selected on merit alone?

My entry into the thread was to point out that the Springboks are exactly the opposite of what you preach - a diverse bunch of people with different backgrounds, and world beaters. Also "better together" which generally makes you a bit crazy. You then stated that their success was despite their diversity. I don't see why I should have to repeat what I said previously, but anyway.

And all the players I mentioned were selected on merit alone, yes.

 

[lexity]

My entry into the thread was to point out that the Springboks are exactly the opposite of what you preach - a diverse bunch of people with different backgrounds, and world beaters. Also "better together" which generally makes you a bit crazy.

It's all the BS that is smuggled in via that slogan.

It's obviously supposed to distract from the fact that the right to freedom of association takes a back seat, in the Rainbow Project.

You then stated that their success was despite their diversity.

You'll have to quote me, because I don't recall even mentioning 'diversity'.

I mentioned Rainbow propaganda.

And all the players I mentioned were selected on merit alone, yes.

So why the need for race quotas?

 

[vigras rojara]

You'll have to quote me, because I don't recall even mentioning 'diversity'.

I mentioned Rainbow propaganda.


So why the need for race quotas?

Define "Rainbow propaganda" then.

in a South African context, "Rainbow" specifically refers to the country's diversity. If you made up some alternative meaning, you should really let people know.

 

[lexity]

Define "Rainbow propaganda" then.

in a South African context, "Rainbow" specifically refers to the country's diversity. If you made up some alternative meaning, you should really let people know.

You are showing your true colours, now.

Most sensible people are familiar with the joke about politicians and babies' nappies requiring changing for the same reason.

Most of us know only too well that you have to read between the lines when it comes to political language.

Just because they repeat these wonderful sounding slogans and catchphrases, doesn't mean the intent behind them is not full of ****!

Newsflash.... IT IS!!!!!

More specifically, the term 'rainbow' in 'Rainbow Nation' is borrowing from the true virtue of free markets where there is no uninvited 3rd party dictating terms of interaction between otherwise mutually consenting adults.

During Apartheid the right to Freedom of Association (FoA) was limited. The Rainbow Nation was supposed to put an end to restrictions on FoA.

That is the virtue i.e. purely voluntary interaction, to which the symbol of the rainbow was attached. It no longer was relevant what your ethnic or cultural or economic background was. The transition was - supposedly - towards willing buyer willing seller... with no uninvited 3rd party imposing their terms.... legally or illegally.

But what we have subsequently found out, is that the reality of the Rainbow Nation, in terms of FoA, is very much the same as it was under Apartheid. And it has been this way, constitutionally, right from the start.

Under Apartheid FoA was violated through forced separation.
Under the Rainbow Nation, aka AA(DEI), it is violated through forced integration.

Iow, the right was violated by the State then, and it is still violated by the State today, 33 years later.

Of course, the political class, is committed to ensuring the market is anything BUT open, and the playing field aka equality before the law, is anything BUT level.

This is a feature of all flavours of Collectivism. Whether it is Communism, Fascism(Corporatism), NAZIism, Socialism etc.

So they - the diverse parasite/political class - have taken the virtuous concept of being free to choose your friends and associates aka the right to Freedom of Association, previously an infringed-upon right, and repackaged the infringement. By going from forced separation to forced integration.

That is, since you asked, how I define the terms and the problem I have with the frilly language - what I referred to as 'Rainbow propaganda' - you choose to hide behind.

So... your turn to answer the question I asked..... here it is again....

... since you effectively agree there is nothing stopping selection by merit alone, regardless of race, why the need for Springbok race quotas('targets') in selection policy?

 

[porchrat]

Why would you even bother using the term 'gender-based,' unless you were trying to distract from violence per se?

because it's in reference to the victim's gender. Duh.

I'll tell you.... it's because the State has an horrendous track-record of committing violence against its fellow citizens.


Is the point I'm making.


Every media reporter and targeted celeb uses that term - itself a neutral term - to refer to violence against women/girls exclusively.

Who uses it to refer to violence including that committed by women?

Watch any MS news report over the last couple of days..

I see they are now, as of the last day by the looks of things attaching an 'F' to GBV.

Kolisi specifically calling for males to speak out.

See video in post#1.

I think you'll find the majority of perpetrators will be men. So the language makes sense. It doesn't mean they're exclusively men and I doubt anyone is actually saying that.

 

[Cray]

So they - the diverse parasite/political class - have taken the virtuous concept of being free to choose your friends and associates aka the right to Freedom of Association, previously an infringed-upon right, and repackaged the infringement. By going from forced separation to forced integration.

Yup, just yesterday, I got paid a visit by the government friendship department. Apparently, the official audit of my Facebook friends list didn't show enough diversity, so I had to unfriend a few people, and also have to attend a braai once per month in Pinetown to get my friendship rating up to the level they require. Bit of a pain, but we all have to step up in the new SA.

 

[Cray]

What, in your view, would be the negative fallout for the Springboks, if all players were selected on merit alone?

Can you point to any player in the current Springbok setup that you would regard as a quota player?

 

[lexity]

Yup, just yesterday, I got paid a visit by the government friendship department. Apparently, the official audit of my Facebook friends list didn't show enough diversity, so I had to unfriend a few people, and also have to attend a braai once per month in Pinetown to get my friendship rating up to the level they require. Bit of a pain, but we all have to step up in the new SA.

Don't be so obtuse.

People would hire those they know and trust above strangers any day of the week if it were legal. Why should that category exclude friends?

#apartheid
#bee
#affirmative-action
#dei
#violation-of-the-right-to-freedom-of-association

 

[lexity]

Can you point to any player in the current Springbok setup that you would regard as a quota player?

Give me access to the "transformation target" meeting minutes, and I could probably tell you.

If you have admitted "diversity" policy aka DEI/affrimative action is an existing policy, why not simply answer the question as to whether you think it is necessary?

Obviously those involved in selection policy - the people you carry water for - think it is necessary. Otherwise this institutional racism would have already been abolished.

Do you think it is necessary, Cray?

 

[lexity]

because it's in reference to the victim's gender. Duh.

It doesn't make sense why you would use the term 'gender based', unless you were singling out a particular gender, but were not candid enough to say what you mean.

Because ALL violence would be 'gender violence'.

I think you'll find the majority of perpetrators will be men.

What do the stats tell us when it comes to violence against children in the womb?

Do you think the roughly 100k+(not counting illegal abortions) are included?

So the language makes sense.

Just like 'nappies don't need changing' makes sense.

It doesn't mean they're exclusively men and I doubt anyone is actually saying that.

I don't think repeating myself about reading between the lines is going to be fruitful, in your case.

What did Orwell say about the political use of language?

Inner party apologists can be a real menace.

 

[Cray]

Give me access to the "transformation target" meeting minutes, and I could probably tell you.

If you have admitted "diversity" policy aka DEI/affrimative action is an existing policy, why not simply answer the question as to whether you think it is necessary?

Obviously those involved in selection policy - the people you carry water for - think it is necessary. Otherwise this institutional racism would have already been abolished.

Can you give evidence that there is an official quote policy in play with the Springboks, or is this more of your "it's so obvious even though I don't have any actual evidence"?

Do you think it is necessary, Cray?

I don't think it's nescesssary for any sporting code.

 

[Cray]

Don't be so obtuse.

If you are going to make an argument, at least be honest and specific about it. No one is forcing you to be friends with people who you don't want to (luckily for them).

People would hire those they know and trust above strangers any day of the week if it were legal. Why should that category exclude friends?

So you are only discussing the people in a position to hire workers? Because most people have never been in a position to dictate who their co-worrkers are. Of courwe, they could always quite and find a new job but that has always been the case.

#apartheid
#bee
#affirmative-action
#dei
#violation-of-the-right-to-freedom-of-association

So you are suggeasting that the people you are standing up for in this argument are resentful that they might have ro associate with black people in a professional enironment?

 

[vigras rojara]

You are showing your true colours, now.

Most sensible people are familiar with the joke about politicians and babies' nappies requiring changing for the same reason.

Most of us know only too well that you have to read between the lines when it comes to political language.

Just because they repeat these wonderful sounding slogans and catchphrases, doesn't mean the intent behind them is not full of ****!

Newsflash.... IT IS!!!!!

More specifically, the term 'rainbow' in 'Rainbow Nation' is borrowing from the true virtue of free markets where there is no uninvited 3rd party dictating terms of interaction between otherwise mutually consenting adults.

During Apartheid the right to Freedom of Association (FoA) was limited. The Rainbow Nation was supposed to put an end to restrictions on FoA.

That is the virtue i.e. purely voluntary interaction, to which the symbol of the rainbow was attached. It no longer was relevant what your ethnic or cultural or economic background was. The transition was - supposedly - towards willing buyer willing seller... with no uninvited 3rd party imposing their terms.... legally or illegally.

But what we have subsequently found out, is that the reality of the Rainbow Nation, in terms of FoA, is very much the same as it was under Apartheid. And it has been this way, constitutionally, right from the start.

Under Apartheid FoA was violated through forced separation.
Under the Rainbow Nation, aka AA(DEI), it is violated through forced integration.

Iow, the right was violated by the State then, and it is still violated by the State today, 33 years later.

Of course, the political class, is committed to ensuring the market is anything BUT open, and the playing field aka equality before the law, is anything BUT level.

This is a feature of all flavours of Collectivism. Whether it is Communism, Fascism(Corporatism), NAZIism, Socialism etc.

So they - the diverse parasite/political class - have taken the virtuous concept of being free to choose your friends and associates aka the right to Freedom of Association, previously an infringed-upon right, and repackaged the infringement. By going from forced separation to forced integration.

That is, since you asked, how I define the terms and the problem I have with the frilly language - what I referred to as 'Rainbow propaganda' - you choose to hide behind.

So... your turn to answer the question I asked..... here it is again....

... since you effectively agree there is nothing stopping selection by merit alone, regardless of race, why the need for Springbok race quotas('targets') in selection policy?

More walls of meaningless agenda-pushing waffle.

 

[WoodWhisperer]

There is only one political tool on this thread...

 

[Cray]

More walls of meaningless agenda-pushing waffle.

What I find fascinating is that literally every discussion that Lexity has on this forum will eventually loop back to discussion of libertarian BS, it's always there, lurking on the horizon of every conversation with him.

When I first saw him posting on the rugby thread, was quite suprised, that maybe he had got a hobby outside his proselytising. Then he started moaning about the politics of the tour series, now we are here and his screed is once again front and centre...as sad as it is predictable.

 

[vigras rojara]

What I find fascinating is that literally every discussion that Lexity has on this forum will eventually loop back to discussion of libertarian BS, it's always there, lurking on the horizon of every conversation with him.

When I first saw him posting on the rugby thread, was quite suprised, that maybe he had got a hobby outside his eulogising. Then he started moaning about the politics of the tour series, now we are here and his screed is once again front and centre...as sad as it is predictable.

Yup, it's always only a matter of (not very much) time before the FoA nonsense makes its appearance.

This thread shouldn't even be in the Sports forum anyway, as it was clearly intended to be political from the outset. It should be in Philosophical Discussions, seeing as we don't have a "Letters from Valkenburg" sub-forum currently.

 

[lexity]

Can you give evidence that there is an official quote policy in play with the Springboks, or is this more of your "it's so obvious even though I don't have any actual evidence"?

Yes, apparently it's still a thing, although again, political correct language is used to take stench off the policy....

Yes. South Africa’s current rugby transformation policy sets explicit race-representativity targets for the Springboks, and those targets are intended to shape who ultimately gets selected.

• SA Rugby’s Strategic Transformation Development Plan (STDP) 2030 aligns with the government’s mandate that national teams be 60% Black and Coloured by 2030.

~ ewn.co.za (perplexity.ai)

Quotas!

Political meddling, in sport is still a thing, and looks to remain so, at least until 2030.!

I don't think it's nescesssary for any sporting code.

We agree, there!

 

[lexity]

People would hire those they know and trust above strangers any day of the week if it were legal. Why should that category exclude friends?

So you are only discussing the people in a position to hire workers? Because most people have never been in a position to dictate who their co-worrkers are. Of courwe, they could always quite and find a new job but that has always been the case.

Freedom of association is all-encompassing.

If a person cannot choose who to associate with in their business, that effects friendships made through work, obviously.

Well, it's obvious to most of us. Clearly not to the willfully ignorant.

 

[Cray]

Freedom of association is all-encompassing.

Your ideals always seem to run aground on the harsh shores of reality. So how would that work practically in any normal work environment? You apply for a job, get hired, but then decide you don't want to work with any brown people? If normal people hate their co-workers, they quite and go somewhere else, yet you consider this to be some sort of human rights violation?

If you own your own business, you are free to discriminate by not dealing with certain businesses (I understand Muslim owned businesses do this all the time). You just miss out on incentives which try to encourage people to deal with everyone, not just their mates.

 

[lexity]

Does anyone have an argument in favor of race-quotas in the Springbok selection policy?