-
@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 donât see one at all.
Other parts seem very narrow minded. There has to be a balance in society between what people âareâ and what opportunities they have (Or could have).
Iâm 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 âsidesâ. It may sometimes not be as balanced as I might see it but this current adversarial political climate of definites and fear of âthe other sideâ 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 reallyđ.
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.
-
@Siam cheers.
A bit more to the thread topic. I think Adern has achieved a bit more than good PR.
It may have been luck but the results have been quite good.
Now she needs to show that they have the ideas and ability to undo as much damage as possible.
IMO they deserve that chance so far Muller and team have talked up a good game but I will wait to see some substance before anointing them as our saviors -
@voodoo said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@voodoo NRL starts tomorrow night I think. If love to watch but not friendly times for NZ
Even in these dire times, I'm struggling to care about NRL
I briefly thought to myself the other day "shall I get back on the Warriors bandwagon?". Dire times indeed, to even be asking myself such an insane question shows how bad things have got.
-
@No-Quarter said in NZ Politics:
@voodoo said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@voodoo NRL starts tomorrow night I think. If love to watch but not friendly times for NZ
Even in these dire times, I'm struggling to care about NRL
I briefly thought to myself the other day "shall I get back on the Warriors bandwagon?". Dire times indeed, to even be asking myself such an insane question shows how bad things have got.
This warriors team will be poor by comparison to recent teams. And that's saying something
-
This article isn't absolutely sure if it was suicide but more recent Japanese articles are drawing that conclusion now. Hana Kimura was a Japanese pro wrestler who died in what is now being considered suicide following 100+ daily suggestions online that she should take her own life.
Yes, people have freedom of speech (the NZ term is freedom of expression so that it covers more than speech e.g. cartoons, written opinion etc.), but it comes with the responsibility of not misusing it. Some speech is already illegal - conspiracy, threats, incitement. Some formerly illegal speech is now legal e.g. criminal (and blasphemous) libel, sedition. Where those lines have been drawn has moved over time, but there are still lines, and they are still evolving today. I think the right to free speech is important, but it isn't and has never been absolute. New Zealanders who want those lines moved to include hate speech are usually doing so from the best of intentions, to find a way to minimise harm.
Our understanding of mental health and psychosocial harm has progressed leaps and bounds, and a question arises - how much mental suffering is it legal to deliberately cause? There are certainly physical limits in criminal law e.g. assault.
Also, despite beliefs to the contrary, Jacinda is not the reincarnation of Stalin or Mao any more than SJK was the reincarnation of Hitler or Mussolini.
-
@Godder that's a lot of certainty regarding possible exposure to " hate speech" definitely causing a suicide.
I'd suggest the attempts and reasons for committing suicide are more complex than " remove hate speech, remove a significant number of suicides".
For example Father's day suicides aren't a reaction to name calling.
And straight white men commit suicide 4 times greater than women, yet all hate speech assessments are never in favour of straight white men. Ergo the hate speech laws would have to cater for abuse of straight white men. I haven't seen that version, but it must surely include the slur " white privilege ". And what do we do with the hate speech about Donald J Trump? That's all on public record.
Can we please verify that hate speech causes suicide first? and can we also have a solid definition of hate speec, before we make more laws that are adjudicated solely on the victim's perception. (The Scottish version of what you propose has the perception of a witness enough to bring a conviction of hate speech!)
Or could we look into child custody related suicides first? It looks pretty urgent, before we censor on a whim.
Where's the evidence that being told what we can and can't say, will prevent suicides? Why so sure?
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
I'm more relaxed about what people believe frankly.
I'm pretty open about that sort of thing too
thinking about this more, I will skew my position even further 'out there'. I think it is really healthy to have people challenging our concept of 'normal'. This applies on all sides - it is as good to have Act there articulating libertarian economic freedoms, as it is to have Greens advocating for animals to have the same rights as humans. It's healthy to have dissension and different viewpoints ... you could even call it 'diversity'.
Someone above was making disparaging comments about judging Muller as he believes in sky fairies. I'd note that while that view is now acceptable, it's not acceptable to disparage the Maori animism (and I'd note for balance that we still start Parliament with a prayer to a god - I think a Christian god, but hey).
And the key concern here is 'who decides what is OK and not OK to express'. Because if the answer is 'politicians', I'm deeply troubled.
I judge Muller (and others) based on being part of a cult that preaches certain ideals simply because I know that will affect his decision making in certain matters that I may hold different views on.
He is totally free to be a member of that cult though and I respect that freedom. It is acceptable for me to criticise him because of his views but illegal for me to directly discriminate against him. (Although you could make a convoluted argument that not voting for him because of his religion is discrimination?)Then there is the position where I struggle to understand why anyone can claim intelligence but also believe in a 'sky fairy'. I guess that in the interests of freedom of thought I can come to terms with that.
Surely you can do better than this Crucial
-
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Godder that's a lot of certainty regarding possible exposure to " hate speech" definitely causing a suicide.
I'd suggest the attempts and reasons for committing suicide are more complex than " remove hate speech, remove a significant number of suicides".
For example Father's day suicides aren't a reaction to name calling.
And straight white men commit suicide 4 times greater than women, yet all hate speech assessments are never in favour of straight white men. Ergo the hate speech laws would have to cater for abuse of straight white men. I haven't seen that version, but it must surely include the slur " white privilege ". And what do we do with the hate speech about Donald J Trump? That's all on public record.
Can we please verify that hate speech causes suicide first? and can we also have a solid definition of hate speec, before we make more laws that are adjudicated solely on the victim's perception. (The Scottish version of what you propose has the perception of a witness enough to bring a conviction of hate speech!)
Or could we look into child custody related suicides first? It looks pretty urgent, before we censor on a whim.
Where's the evidence that being told what we can and can't say, will prevent suicides? Why so sure?
Trump is in favor of free speech. And hes an example of taking the vile hate that's been thrown at him and responding like a warrior. Not a wimp. This is the way forward for the West regarding free speech rather than pandering to the overly soft and sensitive. If we go this latter route (as we seem to be) then free speech will be an idea only that no longer applies in the West,
-
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Godder that's a lot of certainty regarding possible exposure to " hate speech" definitely causing a suicide.
I'd suggest the attempts and reasons for committing suicide are more complex than " remove hate speech, remove a significant number of suicides".
For example Father's day suicides aren't a reaction to name calling.
And straight white men commit suicide 4 times greater than women, yet all hate speech assessments are never in favour of straight white men. Ergo the hate speech laws would have to cater for abuse of straight white men. I haven't seen that version, but it must surely include the slur " white privilege ". And what do we do with the hate speech about Donald J Trump? That's all on public record.
Can we please verify that hate speech causes suicide first? and can we also have a solid definition of hate speec, before we make more laws that are adjudicated solely on the victim's perception. (The Scottish version of what you propose has the perception of a witness enough to bring a conviction of hate speech!)
Or could we look into child custody related suicides first? It looks pretty urgent, before we censor on a whim.
Where's the evidence that being told what we can and can't say, will prevent suicides? Why so sure?
Telling people to commit suicide has been illegal in NZ since the 1800s (counselled, procured or incited) as long as they committed or attempted suicide. The recent addition is that it's now illegal to tell them to commit suicide regardless of whether they commit or attempt suicide.
Likewise racial disharmony, racial harassment and sexual harassment is in the Human Rights Act as unlawful and has been since enactment in 1993. The recent addition there is to add digital media to radio and television.
Guess it's moot - already happened decades ago, the world didn't end, and we carry on.
-
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
I'm more relaxed about what people believe frankly.
I'm pretty open about that sort of thing too
thinking about this more, I will skew my position even further 'out there'. I think it is really healthy to have people challenging our concept of 'normal'. This applies on all sides - it is as good to have Act there articulating libertarian economic freedoms, as it is to have Greens advocating for animals to have the same rights as humans. It's healthy to have dissension and different viewpoints ... you could even call it 'diversity'.
Someone above was making disparaging comments about judging Muller as he believes in sky fairies. I'd note that while that view is now acceptable, it's not acceptable to disparage the Maori animism (and I'd note for balance that we still start Parliament with a prayer to a god - I think a Christian god, but hey).
And the key concern here is 'who decides what is OK and not OK to express'. Because if the answer is 'politicians', I'm deeply troubled.
I judge Muller (and others) based on being part of a cult that preaches certain ideals simply because I know that will affect his decision making in certain matters that I may hold different views on.
He is totally free to be a member of that cult though and I respect that freedom. It is acceptable for me to criticise him because of his views but illegal for me to directly discriminate against him. (Although you could make a convoluted argument that not voting for him because of his religion is discrimination?)Then there is the position where I struggle to understand why anyone can claim intelligence but also believe in a 'sky fairy'. I guess that in the interests of freedom of thought I can come to terms with that.
Surely you can do better than this Crucial
In what way. Please tell.
-
@Winger said in NZ Politics:
@Siam said in NZ Politics:
@Godder that's a lot of certainty regarding possible exposure to " hate speech" definitely causing a suicide.
I'd suggest the attempts and reasons for committing suicide are more complex than " remove hate speech, remove a significant number of suicides".
For example Father's day suicides aren't a reaction to name calling.
And straight white men commit suicide 4 times greater than women, yet all hate speech assessments are never in favour of straight white men. Ergo the hate speech laws would have to cater for abuse of straight white men. I haven't seen that version, but it must surely include the slur " white privilege ". And what do we do with the hate speech about Donald J Trump? That's all on public record.
Can we please verify that hate speech causes suicide first? and can we also have a solid definition of hate speec, before we make more laws that are adjudicated solely on the victim's perception. (The Scottish version of what you propose has the perception of a witness enough to bring a conviction of hate speech!)
Or could we look into child custody related suicides first? It looks pretty urgent, before we censor on a whim.
Where's the evidence that being told what we can and can't say, will prevent suicides? Why so sure?
Trump is in favor of free speech. And hes an example of taking the vile hate that's been thrown at him and responding like a warrior. Not a wimp. This is the way forward for the West regarding free speech rather than pandering to the overly soft and sensitive. If we go this latter route (as we seem to be) then free speech will be an idea only that no longer applies in the West,
Ah, the good old interpretation that free speech means you can say what you like, when you like, to who ever you like.
I have the freedom to own and drive a car, I think thatâs great. But I have to do so within rules. The rules donât remove my freedom they just set boundaries so I donât t harm others.
-
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
New Zealanders who want those lines moved to include hate speech are usually doing so from the best of intentions, to find a way to minimise harm.
Just to be clear, if I could demonstrate that the abuse long suffering Blues fans experienced here led to mental harm (for supporting a team that hasn't won anything of note recently), you'd be in favour of stepping in and stopping that?
-
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@Godder said in NZ Politics:
New Zealanders who want those lines moved to include hate speech are usually doing so from the best of intentions, to find a way to minimise harm.
Just to be clear, if I could demonstrate that the abuse long suffering Blues fans experienced here led to mental harm (for supporting a team that hasn't won anything of note recently), you'd be in favour of stepping in and stopping that?
To be fair, up until this season, Blues supporters probably suffered more psychological damage from watching their team play
NZ Politics