-
@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 that’s great. But I have to do so within rules. The rules don’t remove my freedom they just set boundaries so I don’t 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
-
@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?
No
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@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?
No
why not? isn't the causal route the same? As a Blues fan, if I feel like I'm suffering harm, why shouldn't that be categorised as 'hate speech' and controlled?
I'm obviously only mildly serious about this, but it comes back to the heart of the issue. Hate speech depends on who perceives it, and the big question is always 'who gets to decide if this is OK to articulate or not'.
There is a line somewhere between incentivising to suicide, and banter on a sports forum. Who gets to decide where that line is?
-
Ok, ok, ok. Whose paying you lot off to chase rabbits down the gender identity rabbit hole while the Nats stumbled on day one in the house!!
Goldsmith is Maori! Nicola Willis still thinks Bridges is running the ship, and Paula was laughing her ass off! Some amusing memes rolling around and things are just getting started.
@Winger are you disappointed that Muller has already put his MAGA memorabilia in storage 🙂
-
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@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?
No
why not? isn't the causal route the same? As a Blues fan, if I feel like I'm suffering harm, why shouldn't that be categorised as 'hate speech' and controlled?
I'm obviously only mildly serious about this, but it comes back to the heart of the issue. Hate speech depends on who perceives it, and the big question is always 'who gets to decide if this is OK to articulate or not'.
There is a line somewhere between incentivising to suicide, and banter on a sports forum. Who gets to decide where that line is?
Should have put a smiley face. It was a joke.
I have no sympathy for the Blues.
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@nzzp said in NZ Politics:
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@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?
No
why not? isn't the causal route the same? As a Blues fan, if I feel like I'm suffering harm, why shouldn't that be categorised as 'hate speech' and controlled?
I'm obviously only mildly serious about this, but it comes back to the heart of the issue. Hate speech depends on who perceives it, and the big question is always 'who gets to decide if this is OK to articulate or not'.
There is a line somewhere between incentivising to suicide, and banter on a sports forum. Who gets to decide where that line is?
Should have put a smiley face. It was a joke.
I have no sympathy for the Blues.
as a Counties man, we're kind of your Ex from a few years back ... if we get fit and hot, you can always come home
Slightly more seriously though, this sort of thing is the kind of discussion that shows how hard it is to define hate speech, and (in my opinion) why the threshold for 'harm' should be very high for the state to step in. Merely demonstrating a link isn't enough.
There's also the whole issue about intent. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that criminal acts require mens rea , which is basically the intent to cause harm. Hate speech gets so caught up you wind up with trans activists de-platforming feminists wanting to discuss what the limits are for self-identification of gender.
and, in all of this, we're not talking about what we can do to get our country moving again. It's pretty brutal out there - pay cuts, job losses, there are tough times here for a number of folk, and it's going to be a long winter unfortunately.
-
@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,
Now I have heard everything.
Trump is about as far removed from an advocate of free speech as I can possibly imagine in a democracy.
-
@Crucial said in NZ Politics:
@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 that’s great. But I have to do so within rules. The rules don’t remove my freedom they just set boundaries so I don’t t harm others.
If we went the car example as we have with free speech. We would have everyone driving at 30kml max on motorways. As some sensitive soul who might or might not exist is (or might be) traumatized by fast driving. And a slow driving policy would save lives but destroy the economy but so what if we protect people
My view with free speech is it should have certain levels.
The police and criminal courts should almost never be involved. Unless someone is promoting a seriously and real criminal offense then let then stay out of heated discussions. One example of how bad the West is now is the ridiculous case bought against Andrew Bolt. The laws covering this case shouldn't exist.
Another level would cover the big social media sites. This would give these sites more options to remove certain types of speech but would be governed to stop what's going on now.
Civil (as opposed to criminal) actions would be another level etc
-
@Paekakboyz said in NZ Politics:
Ok, ok, ok. Whose paying you lot off to chase rabbits down the gender identity rabbit hole while the Nats stumbled on day one in the house!!
Goldsmith is Maori! Nicola Willis still thinks Bridges is running the ship, and Paula was laughing her ass off! Some amusing memes rolling around and things are just getting started.
That Newshub summary story yesterday made my day like you wouldn't believe.
Muller will try to hold his own but mark my words, Nikki Kaye's arrogance will be a stumbling block for this duo.
NZ Politics