5 ms·

I think they mean apartheid in the sense of South Africa - separate and unequal. Look at the NZ approach of taking race into consideration when prioritizing me

by refurb 3y ago

I think they mean apartheid in the sense of South Africa - separate and unequal. Look at the NZ approach of taking race into consideration when prioritizing medical care. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-surgeons-must-now-consider-ethnicity-in-prioritising-patients-for-operations-some-are-not-happy/ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-surgeons-must-now-con...

foldr 3y ago
Comparisons with apartheid South Africa are not to be made lightly. Anyone who makes the comparison in this case is either extremely ignorant or simply trying to stir up pointless controversy. Any serious argument against the policy described in the linked article can only be weakened by such an absurd comparison.
- zx8080 3y ago
  Does it basically mean "don't compare because it's different"?
  - foldr 3y ago
    It's like a schoolboy calling their teacher a Nazi for putting them on detention. There's an abstract point of comparison (authoritarian behavior), but the differences in scale, severity and underling motivation are so vast that the comparison is absurd. If someone seriously wants to argue against this particular form of affirmative action – and knows what South African Apartheid actually was – then they don't make this comparison. (Similarly, if you think a teacher is being too authoritarian with their students, you won't make your case any more convincing by making comparisons with crazed dictators.)
- fallingknife 3y ago
  You could have saved a lot of words there by just writing "your opinion isn't valid because I say so"
  - foldr 3y ago
    Not really, because I wasn't arguing against the poster's opinion (as I don't know much about, or have strong opinions on affirmative action in New Zealand), but only the absurd comparison being used to support their argument. It's the sort of wild comparison that gets thrown around on hotheaded internet message boards but that would get you laughed (or heckled) out of the room in any serious discussion of the issue.
- Forgotthepass8 3y ago
  Calling people nazis is ok though?
lostlogin 3y ago
The approach we tried before that saw Māori under treated, live shorter lives and suffer more during them. That sort of equality was more palatable to many.
- refurb 3y ago
  So rather than make them equal, you make other less equal? The argument is “we can right the wrongs of past racism, but being racist in reverse”. It’s amazing how many people buy into that argument.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    > So rather than make them equal Unsurprisingly, we did try this for a decade or two. It was an extensive and expensive failure and is widely researched and written about [1]. A minor boost to Māori in a waiting list point scoring system for list prioritisation has caused a knee jerk dismissal of the scheme as we see here. Absent from the shouting has been a solution to Māori living shorter lives with worse health [2]. The new scheme also reduces the impact of race on list priorities, as noted at the end of this article [3]. Race is a couple of points out of 100, most being clinical. The point scoring system is a small part of the large changes underway in the system at the moment. The moves are primarily towards more autonomy for Māori within the healthcare system [4]. The background to this is a recognised failure in the system after a successful court action claiming Treaty of Waitangi obligations were not being met. They weren’t and aren’t [5]. With knowledge of the situation and what’s going on, ‘apartheid’ is a pretty radical take. To my knowledge even the dog whistle politicians in an election year haven’t called new the scheme apartheid. Update: yes, our dog whistle politics have gone there. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622006219 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/20/new-zealand-starts-giving-priority-to-maori-and-pacific-elective-surgery-patients https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/20/new-zealand-st... [3] https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018895520/surgery-scoop-sparks-rows-over-equality-and-equity https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2... [4] https://www.futureofhealth.govt.nz/maori-health-authority/ https://www.futureofhealth.govt.nz/maori-health-authority/ [5] https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/report-on-stage-one-of-health-services-and-outcomes-released/ https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/report-on-stage-one-of...

by refurb 3y ago

foldr 3y ago

Comparisons with apartheid South Africa are not to be made lightly. Anyone who makes the comparison in this case is either extremely ignorant or simply trying to stir up pointless controversy. Any serious argument against the policy described in the linked article can only be weakened by such an absurd comparison.

zx8080 3y ago
Does it basically mean "don't compare because it's different"?
- foldr 3y ago
  It's like a schoolboy calling their teacher a Nazi for putting them on detention. There's an abstract point of comparison (authoritarian behavior), but the differences in scale, severity and underling motivation are so vast that the comparison is absurd. If someone seriously wants to argue against this particular form of affirmative action – and knows what South African Apartheid actually was – then they don't make this comparison. (Similarly, if you think a teacher is being too authoritarian with their students, you won't make your case any more convincing by making comparisons with crazed dictators.)
fallingknife 3y ago
You could have saved a lot of words there by just writing "your opinion isn't valid because I say so"
- foldr 3y ago
  Not really, because I wasn't arguing against the poster's opinion (as I don't know much about, or have strong opinions on affirmative action in New Zealand), but only the absurd comparison being used to support their argument. It's the sort of wild comparison that gets thrown around on hotheaded internet message boards but that would get you laughed (or heckled) out of the room in any serious discussion of the issue.
Forgotthepass8 3y ago
Calling people nazis is ok though?

lostlogin 3y ago

The approach we tried before that saw Māori under treated, live shorter lives and suffer more during them. That sort of equality was more palatable to many.

refurb 3y ago
So rather than make them equal, you make other less equal? The argument is “we can right the wrongs of past racism, but being racist in reverse”. It’s amazing how many people buy into that argument.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > So rather than make them equal Unsurprisingly, we did try this for a decade or two. It was an extensive and expensive failure and is widely researched and written about [1]. A minor boost to Māori in a waiting list point scoring system for list prioritisation has caused a knee jerk dismissal of the scheme as we see here. Absent from the shouting has been a solution to Māori living shorter lives with worse health [2]. The new scheme also reduces the impact of race on list priorities, as noted at the end of this article [3]. Race is a couple of points out of 100, most being clinical. The point scoring system is a small part of the large changes underway in the system at the moment. The moves are primarily towards more autonomy for Māori within the healthcare system [4]. The background to this is a recognised failure in the system after a successful court action claiming Treaty of Waitangi obligations were not being met. They weren’t and aren’t [5]. With knowledge of the situation and what’s going on, ‘apartheid’ is a pretty radical take. To my knowledge even the dog whistle politicians in an election year haven’t called new the scheme apartheid. Update: yes, our dog whistle politics have gone there. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622006219 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/20/new-zealand-starts-giving-priority-to-maori-and-pacific-elective-surgery-patients https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/20/new-zealand-st... [3] https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018895520/surgery-scoop-sparks-rows-over-equality-and-equity https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2... [4] https://www.futureofhealth.govt.nz/maori-health-authority/ https://www.futureofhealth.govt.nz/maori-health-authority/ [5] https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/report-on-stage-one-of-health-services-and-outcomes-released/ https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/news/report-on-stage-one-of...