-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial I don't either mate. And nowadays it is a stupid question.
But who made it stupid?What forces at play made such a simple question such a career landmine?
Knickers in a twist, maybe, certainly concerned that people are fearful of their favoured candidate answering a 4 year old's question about the world. What are you scared of?
Quite simply because it isn't a four year old asking the question, it is most likely someone setting up a strawman.
Is it really such a simple question? Maybe your belief of a simple answer is the only reason you think the question is simple?
It's not a strawman, the answer tells the voters if the politican has common sense or not, and if they hold extreme opinions that most of us disagree with.
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
The one that forms the basis for subsequent gender laws.
Exactly. So the follow up question is 'can you define that please?'
No, can Adern and Muller please define it. Voting decision to follow
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Replace the word offence with the word harm and the answer changes.
at the risk of going down a rabbit hole, it doens't change the way that you propose that it does.
Catholicism (and Christianity, and Mormonism, and Islam, and religions in general) have demonstrably harmed a large proportion of society. We know Catholics who were excommunicated. Should Catholicism be banned as a result?
The principle in law at the moment seems to be set quite high. I don't think it's in the wrong place frankly, and it's not triggered by 'offense'. These don't exist in a vacuum - by imposing restrictions on speech, you limit people's rights. There is a balance, and the question is where the balance should be reached. I'm opposed to widespread restriction on speech, particularly on the basis of offense.
Harm is a whole other discussion, because the question has to start being asked 'who is harmed, and how'? This is the whole Folau thing again - do people have the right to believe in their sky fairies, and in teachings that are interpeted differently by different groups? If not, who decides which are 'ok' to preach, and which are not. Note that we're not necessarily talking about employment consequences here either - the argument is that this is 'hate speech' and therefore getting to a level where the State (police) get involved.
in other good fun, I'll also note that blasphemous libel only became illegal in NZ last year.
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
A vagina, does it for me (yes I know).
A better question might be - "do you believe in a superior being that watches over all of us?"
Then we all form our opinions about the politician. Positive or negative.
I'm more relaxed about what people believe frankly. The issue starts when people start trying to push their ideology on us through law.
As for the 'hate speech' discussion, that really concerns me. There are short term benefits to suppressing speech you don't like, but the issue of defining it on 'offense' is absolutely fraught. I am offended by restriction on speech, so how does that work? Who decides what can be said, and what can't?
The other issue is suppressing speech doesn't kill it, it just drives it underground. The threshold for preventing freedom of expression (no matter how offensive that is) must be very high, and I worry that we're starting to erode that in our society,a nd erode it quickly. Don Brash, no matter your thoughts on his political views, was a mainstream politician who led a party that attracted 39% of the vote (compared to 41% Labour). To have him prevented from presenting at a University campus politics seminar makes my head explode.
We should go down the path of restricting speech very very cautiously. Freedom is easily lost, and hard to win back, and as always, those in charge can change rapidly.
So apart from sports, I ask again why it matters what a person identifies themselves as?
Prison sentences, job quotas, divorce laws, child custody laws, benefit entitlements, unisex schools, toilets, changing rooms, women only gyms women only clubs, women's support groups, girl guides, discrimination legislation... everything in the physical world that uses a distinction between male and female.
-
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
Out of interest what is the commonsense answer that you are looking for?
A vagina, does it for me (yes I know).
A better question might be - "do you believe in a superior being that watches over all of us?"
Then we all form our opinions about the politician. Positive or negative.
I'm more relaxed about what people believe frankly. The issue starts when people start trying to push their ideology on us through law.
As for the 'hate speech' discussion, that really concerns me. There are short term benefits to suppressing speech you don't like, but the issue of defining it on 'offense' is absolutely fraught. I am offended by restriction on speech, so how does that work? Who decides what can be said, and what can't?
The other issue is suppressing speech doesn't kill it, it just drives it underground. The threshold for preventing freedom of expression (no matter how offensive that is) must be very high, and I worry that we're starting to erode that in our society,a nd erode it quickly. Don Brash, no matter your thoughts on his political views, was a mainstream politician who led a party that attracted 39% of the vote (compared to 41% Labour). To have him prevented from presenting at a University campus politics seminar makes my head explode.
We should go down the path of restricting speech very very cautiously. Freedom is easily lost, and hard to win back, and as always, those in charge can change rapidly.
So apart from sports, I ask again why it matters what a person identifies themselves as?
Prison sentences, job quotas, divorce laws, child custody laws, benefit entitlements, unisex schools, toilets, changing rooms, women only gyms women only clubs, women's support groups, girl guides, discrimination legislation... everything in the physical world that uses a distinction between male and female.
The majority of those things are either adequately covered in law (benefit entitlements), don't exist (job quotas) or have the scope to work out a solution themselves. It the 'issue' is insurmountable then a solution can be worked out by a third party.
'Different' sexual identification has been around a long time and the 'problems' are few and far between.Not everything is simple and not everyone that falls outside of your definitions even want to be defined as 'man' or 'woman', but they do want a legal standing. You can't criticize or ridicule the many and varied names they have given themselves if you don't offer a solution under the names currently used.
Is it simpler to change laws and rules to categorize each and every gender identification or easier to widen the scope of the narrow ones. People can't be left outside of society.
I just try and put myself in someone else's shoes. If I was trans and in no way felt that I was 'male' I would be pretty upset and confused if told that I had to call myself one because I didn't fit their description of female.
We don't live in a binary world yet have created many laws and rules based on one. Mostly those laws and rules can be adequately interpreted to cover everyone and for those that don't we can find solutions.
You mention the often raised 'toilets and changing rooms' example. Easy solutions there in most cases as people will either use the shared 'disabled' facilities or places should just get away from the archaic setups they have and build unisex facilities in the first place.
It takes time and some will argue and demand extreme and instant change. They just need to understand that society does change but has to move a small step at a time.
These same arguments were thrown around about gay rights. Has society collapsed like the doomsayers said? -
@No-Quarter so the question is what is a female?
-
@Bones said in NZ Politics:
@No-Quarter so the question is what is a female?
and how many silly men actually want that question asked to a politician? I'm guessing you could count them on one hand. Or maybe any male that thinks they have been hard done by a judicial verdict, so maybe a couple of hands a a toe?
-
@Crucial never any details from the left. Just assurances that the situations will be managed effectively as they arise. No principles, just put out spotfires on the fly
Archaic gendered toilets? So elderly female recreational swimmers must get changed with 20 something year old males because we can't define female? How comforting for the old dears. ( pun intended)
Anyway, the context in a NZ Politics thread is what does Jacinda and Muller think, not you or I.
So to circle back, yes I would like the two pm voting options to please explain, in their words, " what is a woman?" And how will that be applied to the law?
It'll help all New Zealanders with their voting decision, then all spoils to the winner! -
@Bones said in NZ Politics:
@No-Quarter so the question is what is a female?
Yes I think so, that's the nuance that is needed today. I'm fine with people identifying as the other gender and I think it would be good if that became widely accepted in society (I think it is more and more).
But when it comes to the law and other areas like sports, peoples biological sex is extremely important.
I think trans activists pressuring sporting bodies to allow biological males to compete in female sports is having a damaging impact on the way trans people are perceived. It's important that a clear line in the sand is drawn and the activists are pushed back to the fringe where they belong.
-
@Hooroo said in NZ Politics:
@Bones said in NZ Politics:
@No-Quarter so the question is what is a female?
and how many silly men actually want that question asked to a politician? I'm guessing you could count them on one hand. Or maybe any male that thinks they have been hard done by a judicial verdict, so maybe a couple of hands a a toe?
Ah but what is a male?
-
@No-Quarter so is it different to the question what is a woman?
-
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial never any details from the left. Just assurances that the situations will be managed effectively as they arise. No principles, just put out spotfires on the fly
Just to be clear, I'm not 'the left'. No one is.
Archaic gendered toilets? So elderly female recreational swimmers must get changed with 20 something year old males because we can't define female? How comforting for the old dears. ( pun intended)
By archaic I mean ones that involve open and shared areas or the old concept that any cubicle must have gaps to and bottom. Even modern camping grounds will now have 'unisex' ablution blocks and they work fine. Each shower or toilet is contained and they usually put a few 'wash areas' for those that are uncomfortable brushing their teeth next to someone else.
Anyway, the context in a NZ Politics thread is what does Jacinda and Muller think, not you or I.
It is very much 'you or I' because you want them to answer so you can judge them on your belief.
So to circle back, yes I would like the two pm voting options to please explain, in their words, " what is a woman?"
It'll help all New Zealanders with their voting decision, then all spoils to the winner!Why their answer to this question informs an ability to lead a country is beyond me.
But I guess that is why I am continuing this debate. I am trying to understand the thinking behind why some find this topic so important.
Maybe it is just a different way of thinking or 'wiring'? Maybe a fear of the different?
It just seems to me to be looking for problems rather than solutions and/or a desire to pigeonhole politicians into view you don't like. -
@Crucial you're right about a lot of things you suggest about my argument.
What's a woman ( in a legal context) is the start of unravelling a tested and failed ideology that places more importance on immutable characteristics than actual achievements and behaviour.
I'm scared at what the New Zealand society is becoming.
Call me any names you wish, abuse my arguments with all your might but it won't dampen the unease I feel for a woman that dresses in a hajib in front of cameras.
I'm scared of the ideology behind Jacinda Adern.
I'm afraid of an ideology that values people on what they were born with in life juxtaposed by uncharitable revisions of history. White privilege. All minorities start behind all white people.
Equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity.
Immutable characteristics favoured over a meritocracy
An ideology that is dominated by oppression and generalises entire populations and individuals as mere members of groups with little or no control over their individual sovereignty.
An ideology that was demonstrated as disastrous in soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Judging people on their looks, not their behaviour.
An ideology that pits groups of society against each other and MUST have a deliberate oppressor, even in an absence of evidence. It currently relies completely on white privilege and scapegoats whites, Jews and lately Asians, oh and men.
An ideology where truth plays a back seat to anecdotal scenarios and language is warped to fit a narrative of oppression.
An ideology that demands adjudication from authorities and and a blind acceptance that the state knows what's best for any given individual's life.
An ideology that censors challenging questions and people.
An ideology that is present in NZ and was ever since we imposed jail terms for possessing a document - under the premise that if I read Michael Jordan's book, I become Michael Jordan. This was a staggering watershed moment in NZ censorship legislation.
NZ has started down that path and I want to see the ideology stand up to rigorous debate.
And, if then the ideology is accepted by the majority then all fair by the rules of democracy. Have at it.But can we please robustly discuss the power of identity politics before we get to vote on it?
If the ideology is sound, then proponents of it will welcome debate, surely.
I'd welcome my views to be proven irrational. It'd be a relief.
-
That was hard to digest but to me I could arrange almost all of that to apply to any government.
You admit a fear. I don’t see one at all.
Other parts seem very narrow minded. There has to be a balance in society between what people “are” and what opportunities they have (Or could have).
I’m all for opportunities and advancement but also very aware that not everyone has the mental or physical capacity to take advantage of those. It is a proven fallacy that opportunity plus action always equals success.
Put simply, if we worked for a position of understanding and found a balance we would be better off.
I am sick of the swinging one way then another, partisan style way of governance.
Therefore I look for those that show the best understanding of all “sides”. It may sometimes not be as balanced as I might see it but this current adversarial political climate of definites and fear of “the other side” is a waste of time and thought -
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
Call me any names you wish, abuse my arguments with all your might but it won't dampen the unease I feel for a woman that dresses in a hajib in front of cameras.
This stood out. Take the cameras away and it doesn't make you uneasy?
-
@Crucial yeah, mostly bollocks really😁.
Thanks for you participation mate.I wonder if she has the depth to lead us out of this current and worsening position.
I'd like her to prove she's more than a savvy pr operator and has the ability to build and lead rather than just order ultimatums and hastily manage hefty legislations.
I think we've only got a few months before a bloody important election in a game that's just been turned upside down.
Spitballing ideas and scenarios should be very valuable in a politics thread at this time.
Kudos to you crucial for playing the ball throughout - a compliment I can't level at myself.
NZ Politics