Open mike 13/01/2024

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, January 13th, 2024 - 141 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

141 comments on “Open mike 13/01/2024 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pat 1
    13 January 2024 at 7:06 am

    It takes two to tango

    No country is immune from this kind of politics. After the 2020 election in New Zealand, for instance, when Labour won an absolute majority, the government engaged in unilateral decision-making that accentuated existing social cleavages – central vs local government, rural vs urban communities and Māori vs other New Zealanders, for instance.

    In their turn, other political agents played upon these divisions. One can see this in the virulent social media and other attacks upon a once popular Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, fuelled by male-female and urban-rural polarities (in elements of the Groundswell campaign, for instance), or ‘Iwi vs Kiwi’ polarities in relation to Te Tiriti.

    Cui bono?

    In a process described by scholars as pernicious polarisation, self-interested elites generate Us and Them perceptions by deliberately activating, exploiting or distorting latent social cleavages.

    And who dosnt?

    In our small, intimate society, we would be wise to hold fast to mutual goodwill and a sense of decency, recognise genuine grievances and do our utmost to address them, and look for the best in each other.

    As I learned in 1993, when countries fly apart, there are no safe places to hide.

    Dame Anne Salmond imparts some well founded fears.

    https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/01/13/dame-anne-salmond-how-to-split-a-society/

    • Dennis Frank 1.1
      13 January 2024 at 8:43 am

      A valid concern for sure, but I suspect alarmism works better when made more specific: generalities wash over readers, giving them no more than a vague sense of something wrong somewhere.

      Ordinary citizens also need to be astute, and recognise when they are being played by self-interested political agents, whether domestic or international.

      Ordinary citizens have never been astute. Nor can one blame them for being sheeple. It's innate human nature creating masses & driving democracy. Dame Anne fingers the causal agency: self-interested elites. Yet social norms produce these groups. They are a functional part of the body politic, since forever. A social reformer would have to specify a technical improvement to the design of democracy to eliminate the problem. Liberals merely complain & expect someone else to do something about it. Not fair to put her in that category though:

      deliberate strengthening of the middle ground through bi-partisan policymaking, wide civic engagement and well-moderated, inclusive conversations about divisive matters, in citizens’ assemblies, for example.

      More centrism is indeed a viable antidote to polarising forces. Re engagement inclusion, it just requires us to be radical enough to actually make it happen rather than just want it to (the classic liberal limp wrist). Re citizen's assemblies, you bet. A centrist organiser ought to make these happen asap: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/505616/how-citizens-assemblies-could-resolve-new-zealand-s-toughest-debates

      There's no shortage of divisive issues in Aotearoa: euthanasia, cannabis, Covid-19 mandates and, most recently, issues raised over the Treaty of Waitangi are among the latest hot-button topics. But New Zealand has been slow to join the citizens' assembly party – the first few have only been carried out at a local council level this year.

      Earlier this year, a group of eminent scientists at Auckland University warned Aotearoa's social cohesion is "straining at the seams". The looming general election would only highlight the country's "political fault lines", the researchers at the Koi Tū Centre for Informed Futures wrote in a paper, as we experienced increased polarisation fuelled by distrust in institutions, government and increased mis and disinformation.

      Could be we're in a weather lull before another winter of discontent. Would make sense for some enterprising politician to demonstrate leadership, recruit a few relevant professors to co-design a collaborative public assembly. Would also need professional organisers to incorporate suitable guidelines & conditions to manage group process productively – sideline fringe nutters & screwballs who disrespect rules. https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/01/13/dame-anne-salmond-how-to-split-a-society/

      • Pat 1.1.1
        13 January 2024 at 10:59 am

        You are of the opinion that Dame Anne is an alarmist?

        That the problem can only be solved by politicians , professional organisers and professors? (the very groups that have led us here)

        That the current situation is a lull?

        Thats one take I guess.

        • Dennis Frank 1.1.1.1
          13 January 2024 at 11:06 am

          Pragmatic folk will just wait to see what kind of shit emanates from the new govt & how much of each kind. However I share your cynicism re centrist do-gooders.

          I don't see her alarmism as unworthy – I prefer better direction. Perpetuating malaise is poor public service so we need a proactive stance. Call me naive but I do have faith in the wisdom of the crowd. Just needs to be catalysed…

    • weka 1.2
      13 January 2024 at 9:44 am

      mod note. I will reinstate your comment when you supply a link.

    • Anker 1.3
      13 January 2024 at 1:41 pm

      Identity politics seeks to divide us based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc.

      One issue I would disagree with AS about is the coalition and women. Peters made part of his election campaign protecting women's spaces , eg public bathrooms and change rooms, while providing alternatives for transgender people. He also got across the line the protection of the women's sports category.

      • Anker 1.3.1
        13 January 2024 at 1:48 pm

        Opps disregard this. I didn't think it had posted. I re-read AS and she mentions the women's ministry, not women.

      • Pat 1.3.2
        13 January 2024 at 5:25 pm

        Unfortunately Anker, rational thought is the first thing to disappear when the pressure goes on,,,and there is no doubt the pressure is on…as AS noted with her experience in Bosnia.

        How the world works is complicated enough without adding the stressor of increasingly restricted resources….it makes for bad decision making and easy (and erroneous) targets….weve had both of late.

  2. Dennis Frank 2
    13 January 2024 at 8:10 am

    Green capitalism is making a big stink: https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/01/11/the-town-thats-had-a-gutsful-of-nzs-biggest-worm-farm/

    An inspection has found the worm farm operation to be non-compliant with resource consent conditions. “The whole town’s had a gutsful,” Burrell said. “I was talking to a young woman who was pregnant down at the supermarket, and she was dry-retching."

    When worthy Green enterprises make locals want to throw up, we got a problem needing a solution.

    He had been told the worm farm did not require public notification or consultation. “They don’t need to consult the public. That’s where it fails right there. We don’t even get to put in a submission in regards to having a s*** farm anywhere near our town. We don’t even have a say in it. It’s just a real slap in the face,” Burrell said.

    Blame the Labour/Green govt for slack law-making? The report gives us no apparent basis for doing so – seems like Sir Geoffrey's old RMA did it, but don't blame him. That prescription designed in compliance methodology…

    The regional council’s acting compliance manager, Trudy Richards, said a compliance officer visited the site on Tuesday and found it to be non-compliant with its resource consent for discharges to air. “The officer found uncovered windrows that were likely generating odours and confirmed non-compliance,” Richards said. “We are working with site staff to improve their management practices and odour mitigation in accordance with the resource consent, and further compliance action is being considered.”

    No Enforcement Commissar?? The problem's been happening long enough:

    Burrell said the smell had been noticeable in town for years. "This has been going on too long. It’s more prevalent when you’re closer to it, obviously, …whenever the wind comes through town it’s pretty fierce… Enough already. How much more do they want us to tolerate?”

    • Visubversa 2.1
      13 January 2024 at 9:33 am

      The enforcement is through the Environment Court. However, as it is expensive to take such cases, Councils will only use the Ratepayers $$$$$ to do it as a last resort.

      • Dennis Frank 2.1.1
        13 January 2024 at 9:41 am

        Quite clever neolib design, eh? Polarise locals against local authorities. Escalate hostility on purpose so as to breed subversive ethos amongst sheeple. I could almost applaud the sleight of hand, if yawning weren't a better option…

  3. Adrian Thornton 3
    13 January 2024 at 8:52 am

    Here is a taste of the "democratic" Ukraine state defended by the West so vigorously….

    American Journalist Gonzalo Lira Has Died While Imprisoned In Ukraine

    "Lira’s father, Gonzalo Lira Sr., provided a statement on his son’s death to The Grayzone, saying, “I cannot accept the way my son has died. He was tortured, extorted, and incommunicado for 8 months and 11 days, and the US Embassy did nothing to help my son"

    • Morrissey 3.1
      13 January 2024 at 9:03 am

      …defended by the West….

      In fact, Adrian, "the West" (i.e. Washington and London) are not defending Ukraine at all, they're supplying them with arms and insisting they keep sacrificing young men in this doomed proxy war. Zelensky was about to sue for peace in March 2022; that democratic champion Boris Johnson was despatched to Kiev to browbeat him out of such foolish behaviour.

      The rest is blood-stained, and U.S./U.K.-funded, history.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.1.1
        13 January 2024 at 10:31 am

        Only russian propaganda sources make such claims about a March-April 2022 peace deal.

        The Ukrainian side says that the discovery of mass russian war crimes against civilians in occupied territories made all negotiations null and void.

        According to a May report from Ukrainska Pravda, the Russian side was ready for a meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin, but it later came to a halt after the discovery of War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in particular the Bucha massacre.

        The Ukrainians know that abandoning your citizens to russian torturers and murderers is immoral, and such peace deals only give russia time to prepare for their next invasion.

        • Morrissey 3.1.1.1
          13 January 2024 at 12:52 pm

          That's a nice simple explanation for everything: Russian propaganda. That explains everything, of course.

          Why did Boris Johnson fly post-haste to Kiev again?

        • Vitto 3.1.1.2
          14 January 2024 at 7:40 am

          Neftali Beneth ex Israeli prime minister literally started saying that about the peace deal in which he was a mediator…

    • Dennis Frank 3.2
      13 January 2024 at 9:48 am

      Trump card to be played: "This All-American Hero died because Biden refused to help him. I would have sent a squad in to rescue, told the clown it was a goer & dared him to get in the way. Rambo 1.01!

      But what the hell was this guy meant to be doing in there anyway?? Being pro-Russian makes him seem a fool in the wrong place, but maybe there's more to it.

      • Adrian Thornton 3.2.1
        13 January 2024 at 10:22 am

        "But what the hell was this guy meant to be doing in there anyway??"…oh I don't know…being a war reporter in a supposed western backed democracy…..but then as we know, the West have no interest in democracies…and Ukraine sure as hell isn't one.

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.2.1.1
          13 January 2024 at 10:37 am

          the West have no interest in democracies…and Ukraine sure as hell isn't one.

          Ukraine has free and open elections, with vigorous opposition and a free press. Zelenskyy and other government officials are widely criticised and discussed in the Ukrainian media. Ukraine has changed government and president at almost every election since they left the USSR.

          Russia on the other hand imprisons, outlaws or murders all political opponents, imprisons people for 7 years for writing "no war" on supermarket labels, and has the one tsar returning again and again after every presidential election….There is no free media whatsoever tolerated within russia.

        • Incognito 3.2.1.2
          13 January 2024 at 10:57 am

          … but then as we know, the West have no interest in democracies …

          Who or what is your imaginary “the West”? Is New Zealand [in] it? Are we, as Kiwis, [in] it? Didn’t we just have a General Election?

          Do you intend to continue making these dumbfuckery claims here on this site? BTW, that’s a rhetorical question.

      • joe90 3.2.2
        13 January 2024 at 10:51 am

        But what the hell was this guy meant to be doing in there anyway?

        Draw your own conclusions about what coach red pill was doing in Ukraine.

        • Dennis Frank 3.2.2.1
          13 January 2024 at 11:18 am

          So a stroppy bugger…

          He’s also gained a slew of new followers—his Telegram has about 45,000 followers, up from 20,000 on March 1, and seems to be gaining hundreds more every day. Many people seem to view him as a valuable source, and have taken to signal-boosting his content.

          But his “fair-and-balanced” accounts often involve wild claims

          Having myself attempted fair & balanced stances accompanied by wild claims I'm tempted to sympathise. No reason to off him but looks like locals weren't inclined to tolerate his input.

          • Dennis Frank 3.2.2.1.2
            13 January 2024 at 11:26 am

            everybody who works at the mainstream media is by definition a piece of shit.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/gonzalo-lira-is-a-pro-putin-shill-in-ukraine-and-a-sleazy-manosphere-dating-coach

            Rather a gross generalisation. Might have to pursue the search diligently awhile, but I'm confident one could eventually identify a few exceptions to that rule!

            • Morrissey 3.2.2.1.2.1
              13 January 2024 at 3:09 pm

              Like who, Dennis? Name one "journalist" at the BBC or the New York Times or CNN or Radio New Zealand that is an exception to that rule.

              I can name one: Phil Pennington at RNZ. The rest are mere stenographers at best, and (in the case of the failing New York Times and CNN) shills for genocide.

              • Dennis Frank …
                13 January 2024 at 3:38 pm

                Hmm. I suspect you have in mind those who cover international stories while my comment was general. Re RNZ, there's insufficient persona attached to the names to impact upon me, so I can only cite the general impression I get – that they try diligently to cover the public interest aspects to any story & mostly do a reasonable job.

                Ever since its website put a tabloid front up I haven't taken the BBC seriously enough to focus on any of their crew & likewise the US news media although I did like Matt Taibbi's style a few years back (vampire squid on Wall St). A few who started in the TVNZ newsroom when I was there are exceptions – Simon Mercep, for instance, always had the right attitude & instincts. At TV3 Gower did ok & some others too…

                • Morrissey …
                  13 January 2024 at 5:11 pm

                  Fair comment, Dennis, as always!

                  • Dennis Frank …
                    13 January 2024 at 5:37 pm

                    Thanks, I'm okay with getting my resilience tested. smiley Have been feeling my age noticeably more in recent years. Your question was worthwhile. I'm always interested in the interplay between a journo's professionalism & conscience. When a formula political story is the day's task, hewing to conventional diagnosis is the norm which tests the character of the pro: to clone or not to clone, that is the question…

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 3.3
      13 January 2024 at 10:20 am

      Some background.

      Firstly, in Ukraine, even under martial law, freedom of speech is respected, and there is no and cannot be any criminal liability for criticizing the president. Therefore, the accusation that Lira or someone else was “jailed for criticizing Zelensky” is an outright manipulation.

      Secondly, Gonzalo Lira is accused not of “criticizing Zelensky,” but of justifying Russian aggression against Ukraine (Article 436-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The investigation found that Lira:

      ● publicly justified the Russian invasion by claiming that a 'neo-Nazi regime' had allegedly been set up in Ukraine;

      ● denied the facts of Russian missile strikes on Ukrainian cities, massacres of civilian Ukrainians by Russian invaders in Bucha and other cities;

      ● in spring 2022, Lira personally filmed the Ukrainian military, tried to expose their faces, and insulted the soldiers. He published the video on YouTube, Telegram, and the-then Twitter.

      Thirdly, Gonzalo Lira is currently in custody only because he violated the terms of his bail and tried to escape Ukrainian justice. The blogger was supposed to remain under house arrest in Kharkiv, but he was detained in another part of Ukraine: in Zakarpattia region, where Lira attempted to cross out into Hungary.

  4. Anne 4
    13 January 2024 at 10:07 am

    Nick Korero's latest epistle:

    https://nickrockel.substack.com/p/congrats-jacinda-and-clarke

    It's in the sidebar but worth emphasising due to subject matter – plus his usual humour. I used to know 'the scarecrow' well. I doubt she will mind coming from Nick Korero. Its not Jacinda btw.

    I agree with his analysis of the Herald newspaper. They are sinking into the gutter.

  5. Dennis Frank 5
    13 January 2024 at 10:28 am

    Yesterday on the Democracy Project:

    Chris Trotter wades into the culture wars today, and argues that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon should too, highlighting the latest transgender free speech battle in his column today: “An elderly woman, wearing a T-shirt testifying to the reality of biological sex differences – ‘Men aren’t women, even if you squint’ – incurred the wrath of a transgender member of the Ōtaki New World staff, who allegedly prevailed upon the supermarket manager to eject the elderly shopper and have her trespassed from the only supermarket in the small Kāpiti Coast town” – see: When something’s not quite right (paywalled)

    Trotter argues that it’s the sort of incident that the populist PM Rob Muldoon would have jumped into, and that by contrast, although Luxon was elected on a populist wave he is yet to act in a populist manner on such issues.

    This is how Trotter believes Luxon should have responded to the Ōtaki New World culture war issue: “While reaffirming that all citizens, regardless of their station in life, are entitled to be treated with courtesy and respect, Luxon should also reaffirm emphatically the individual’s right to give voice to their opinions – or have them printed on a T-shirt – even if, by doing so, those opinions strike other citizens as wrong and/or offensive.

    He should take the opportunity to remind us all that there is no legal right to shut down speech that does not contravene the law. There is no right NOT to be offended.”

    Yet the employer, discriminating against the elderly consumer, tacitly concedes that right to the offensive employee. Perhaps trans nazi would be ott?

    As for Luxon failing the Trotter populism test, I imagine his reaction: "Culture war in Otaki, eh? Bit of a laugh, what? Not me mate, I'm in holiday mode. No old boomer needs me mouthing off on their behalf. Call in Age Concern or something."

    https://democracyproject.substack.com/p/nz-politics-daily-12-january-2024

    • Molly 5.1
      13 January 2024 at 11:01 am

      Plainsight have got an article written by someone close to the customer, which is not paywalled:

      https://plainsight.nz/jaccuse-new-world-otaki-vs-phillippa-landy-from-a-friend/

      • Dennis Frank 5.1.1
        13 January 2024 at 11:13 am

        smiley Jeez, talk about in-depth!! Great to see such passionate advocacy but too much for me at the moment (busy) so I just did a scan. I got a sense of activist solidarity which was heartening…

        • weka 5.1.1.1
          13 January 2024 at 1:23 pm

          it's badly done activism. If they wanted to do this well, take someone to film it or at least take notes in real time and observe what is happening.

          Reading the letter from the NW owner, she didn't get banned for the Tshirt, she got banned for expressing her views to staff (multiple) at different times (multiple). On TS we call that a pattern of behaviour, and it's one of the main reasons we moderate.

          To me it looks like Landy was flaming. She was acting in specific ways designed to provoke a reaction. She got one and didn't like it and is now trying to make political capital out of it.

          So sure, freedom of expression. But it's possible and likely she crossed over a line into harassment, in which case the owner was within their rights to ban her. That she gave him the excuse to do so is on her. If she had been banned instead for simply wearing a GC t-shirt, now that would have been useful activism.

          But we don't really know what happened so unless this goes to court and/or there is CCTV footage released, there's not really any good way to judge.

          What I can comment on is that No Debate by liberals and the left mean that GC action in NZ is currently largely done by people that have no commitment to the left or progressive politics. Those people aren't going to to away, but they don't appear to give a shit about the wellbeing of trans people. Own goal from the liberal left.

          • Dennis Frank 5.1.1.1.1
            13 January 2024 at 1:49 pm

            I did wonder at how she managed the group resonance interface & I suspect your analysis is accurate. As someone often inclined toward passionate advocacy on the past with only a moderate capacity for tolerating different views, I had quite an experiential learning curve – had no real clue about the power of context in those earlier decades. However we all must learn from our activist experiences so I hope she's doing that…

          • Molly 5.1.1.1.2
            13 January 2024 at 3:55 pm

            It's interesting you assume it was activism, rather than someone wearing a t-shirt.

            It's also of interest that you take the ambiguous statement from New World at face value.

            If that is the case, then your interpretation will be unlikely to change.

            The possibility that the store employee harassed the customer, with support from the manager is also a possibility. One that would be confirmed or dismissed by release of the CCTV.

            • Robert Guyton 5.1.1.1.2.1
              13 January 2024 at 4:24 pm

              Just a good woman, wearing a good t-shirt, for a good cause, eh, Molly.

              • Pat …
                13 January 2024 at 5:54 pm

                Do you wear your heart (views) on your sleeve (t shirt) Robert?…and should you do so, would you object to being targeted because so?

                • Robert Guyton …
                  13 January 2024 at 6:45 pm

                  I have a "Tree Hugger" t-shirt, Pat; I wear it rarely but when I do, I hope for feedback.

                  🙂

                  • Pat …
                    13 January 2024 at 7:44 pm

                    Let us hope your local supermarket isnt owned by a logger…with attitude.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      13 January 2024 at 7:51 pm

                      Few supermarkets are, in my experience.

                      Safe to wear my "Kermit" t-shirt in there as well, I reckon. Probably get a laugh.

                  • Pat …
                    13 January 2024 at 8:03 pm

                    You never know Robert…your Kermit T shirt may have you trespassed.

                    Though one would hope not, but in the current environment who could say.

              • Anker …
                13 January 2024 at 6:15 pm

                Witch

                B…tch

                Sl.t

                Terf

                Woman.

                This on a tee shirt (and I own one) is what I call good activism.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  13 January 2024 at 7:28 pm

                  Weka called it well:

                  "Reading the letter from the NW owner, she didn't get banned for the Tshirt, she got banned for expressing her views to staff (multiple) at different times (multiple). On TS we call that a pattern of behaviour,"

                  • Pat …
                    13 January 2024 at 7:53 pm

                    And yet in the post by Molly that sequence of events is disputed….who is correct?…the jounalist or the (close) friend?…it is apparent that pre existing 'beliefs' determine who is to be believed.

                    My experience of journalism is it is never entirely accurate, sometimes negligently so.

                  • Pat …
                    13 January 2024 at 8:10 pm

                    An 'asserted' pattern of behaviour…unverified and disputed.

                    Of course the woman may have worn the t Shirt on more than one occasion…to her shame.

                    Obviously she is not a supporter of fast fashion and believes in wearing clothing to its maximum so as not to needlessly trash the environment nor unnecessarily exploit those who produce the garments.

              • Squirrel …
                13 January 2024 at 7:21 pm

                I wear my favourite one as a form of activism. It's the "woman, adult human female" one and I get plenty of positive feedback, nothing negative so far.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  13 January 2024 at 7:30 pm

                  You mean, "Woman: adult human, female", right?

                  Is is your t-shirt a grammar-fail?

                  (My correction may be also: grammar’s a b*tch sometimes 🙂

                  • Squirrel …
                    13 January 2024 at 7:59 pm

                    I was just describing it roughly – it actually says:

                    woman

                    women (with weird characters that I can't replicate here)

                    noun

                    adult human female

                    It's been the subject of an ASA ruling in the form of a billboard – https://cdn.asa.co.nz/backend/documents/2021/08/10/21378.pdf

                  • Molly …
                    14 January 2024 at 9:19 am

                    While many would prefer "adult female human", making female the subject of the description works as well. The "adult" and "human" become adjectives. Even more clunkily, female human adult would work.

                    Despite your personal grammatical and lyrical preference, the three interchanging adjectives and subjects provide an accurate and complete definition for woman however they are applied:

                    Adult – post-puberty (we'll ignore a previous very strange conversation we've had in the past);

                    Female – sex that produces the large gamete for reproduction purposes;

                    Human – member of the Homo sapien species.

            • Anker 5.1.1.1.2.2
              13 January 2024 at 6:19 pm

              Yes, like with Golriz, we need to see the video fortage to know what happened before we can be absolutely certain.

              If good activism involves getting publicity, then wearing the tee shirt has worked.

              I posted below my favourite tee shirt but for those who missed it…

              Witch

              B..tch

              Sl.t

              Terf

              Woman.

              I have had great feedback when I wear it. Its targeting the mysogyny of the term Terf

              • weka …
                13 January 2024 at 9:37 pm

                the tshirt isn't the problem. Although personally I think it's unnecessarily flaming as opposed to something like Adult Human Female, or your one. There's a difference between making statements about our rights as women, and going hard against trans women in the context of transphobia.

                If good activism involves getting publicity, then wearing the tee shirt has worked.

                Yeah, but there are prices to pay as well. Publicity in and of itself isn't inherently good. I don't particularly blame women for how this is playing out, because our backs have been against the wall. But that doesn't mean there aren't better ways to approach this.

                • Molly …
                  14 January 2024 at 9:25 am

                  "There's a difference between making statements about our rights as women, and going hard against trans women in the context of transphobia."

                  Going hard? Transphobia?

                  And can we have your definition of "transphobia"? Because I am loathe to point out your use of it seems to follow the usual practice of throwing it out in order to smear or derail discussion. I would like to have your definition before making up my mind.

                  "Publicity in and of itself isn't inherently good. I don't particularly blame women for how this is playing out, because our backs have been against the wall. But that doesn't mean there aren't better ways to approach this."

                  A woman has been excluded – without provision of evidence of behaviour – from a local foodstore in a small(ish) community. The discussion is whether the response was appropriate, and whether the wearing of such apparel is permitted.

            • weka 5.1.1.1.2.3
              13 January 2024 at 9:26 pm

              It's interesting you assume it was activism, rather than someone wearing a t-shirt.

              It's also of interest that you take the ambiguous statement from New World at face value.

              If that is the case, then your interpretation will be unlikely to change.

              The possibility that the store employee harassed the customer, with support from the manager is also a possibility. One that would be confirmed or dismissed by release of the CCTV.

              sounds like you are making fair few assumptions yourself (including about my position and views).

              I am def doubtful that the tshirt alone was the issue. From having read a number of accounts now it sounds to me like she has been into that store and engaged with that particular staff member a number of times. Her own account is that heated words were exchanged. If you want to wear a tshirt like that and engage with people that the tshirt is designed to confront, then expect situations like this to happen. It's human nature and politics /shrug.

              I also agree it's likely that the staff harassed the customer. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

              And I agree it's not necessarily activism, although wearing that tshirt in that store is def a political act. I was responding to Dennis' comment, but also watching how it's playing out since, which looks like activism to me. I just think there are problems with doing activism this way. It reminds me of the UK where this kind of activism ends up being what happens because of No Debate. It's effective in its way, but it create problems too.

              • Molly …
                14 January 2024 at 9:03 am

                " …am def doubtful that the tshirt alone was the issue. From having read a number of accounts now it sounds to me like she has been into that store and engaged with that particular staff member a number of times."

                … So far, I have read the email from Matthew Mullins as referencing the store's explanation, and the article I have posted which are close to the original sources along with third-party articles in stuff etc.

                What other accounts are you referencing?

                It is – given that New World is the local store – very likely that she has been into that store and engaged with that particular staff member a number of times. That's commonplace for local customers.

                What you imply is that she has deliberately antagonised a staff member without provocation. That is not implicitly claimed, or been proven.

                'And I agree it's not necessarily activism, although wearing that tshirt in that store is def a political act."

                Buying the t-shirt – if often a political act – as it often supports the organisation that supplies it.

                Wearing it, cannot be assumed to be so. And even if it is – it is not an offensive act.

                “If you want to wear a tshirt like that and engage with people that the tshirt is designed to confront, then expect situations like this to happen. It’s human nature and politics /shrug.”

                A T-shirt “like that”? I’m shaking my head at this comment, weka.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  14 January 2024 at 9:08 am

                  "Buying the t-shirt MAGA hat is often a political act – as it often supports the organisation that supplies it.

                  Wearing it, cannot be assumed to be so. And even if it is – it is not an offensive act."

                  fify

                  • Molly …
                    14 January 2024 at 9:30 am

                    ""Buying the t-shirt MAGA hat is often a political act – as it often supports the organisation that supplies it.

                    Wearing it, cannot be assumed to be so. And even if it is – it is not an offensive act."

                    fify"

                    Robert, you "fixed it for you" …smiley

                    Resorting to implying Trump adjacent perspectives, by the action of wearing a t-shirt.

                    All good. As long as you gain some satisfaction from this type of comment, why would I want to change you?

                    But it is unlikely that I will admire you for it, or choose to engage very often.

                    I'm sure you'll live.

                    [please stop with the negative personalised comments. They’re unnecessary, and last time there was a major flame war that led to someone being banned. Stick to the politics, thanks – weka]

                • Robert Guyton …
                  14 January 2024 at 4:12 pm

                  Molly wrote:

                  "Then – did you have a salient point that relates to the conversation?"

                  Well, yes, I did. To borrow (and adjust slightly) weka's words:

                  “If you want to wear a hat like that and engage with people that the hat is designed to confront, then expect situations like this to happen. It’s human nature and politics /shrug.”

                  If Luxon was to wear a MAGA hat (in public – he can do what he wants at home) then your comment,

                  "Buying the t-shirt – if often a political act – as it often supports the organisation that supplies it.

                  Wearing it, cannot be assumed to be so. And even if it is – it is not an offensive act." (emphasis mine) sounds wrong, imo.

          • Squirrel 5.1.1.1.3
            13 January 2024 at 7:38 pm

            My experience is that there are some very active GC women who are committed to the left, in fact many of the gains made by SUFW have been made by these women. The HC judgement Whitmore vs the Palmerston North CC and section 79(2) in the BDMRR Act 2021 spring to mind. These women do not wish transgender people any harm at all, they just don't believe that it is possible to change sex.

            There are certainly some loud voices coming from the right in terms of GC women and I agree that many of these people do not care about trans people or gay people.

            • weka 5.1.1.1.3.1
              13 January 2024 at 9:28 pm

              Yep. This is the liberal left's own goal. Had GCFs been allowed our voices, we'd be doing it differently.

            • Molly 5.1.1.1.3.2
              14 January 2024 at 9:06 am

              "There are certainly some loud voices coming from the right in terms of GC women and I agree that many of these people do not care about trans people or gay people."

              This is an interesting comment.

              Are you suggesting this particular woman is right-wing, and does not care for those with gender identities or gay people?

              Or do you have some other NZ GC women in mind? Can you provide their names?

              • weka …
                14 January 2024 at 9:44 am

                Kellie Jay Keen is the exemplar of someone who is right wing and who communicates in such a way as to imply contempt for trans women.

                I'm not going to name NZ GC women because I think the KJK example suffices to get the point, and because I'm not interested in making this personal.

                Do you dispute that some gender critical women are homophobic and/or dislike trans women?

                • Molly …
                  14 January 2024 at 10:51 am

                  I can't think of a right wing gender critical woman in NZ that is homophobic.

                  I don't believe KJK has expressed homophobic views – OR – any particularly politically right economic perspectives.

                  The varying understandings of the words "gender critical", "transphobic" and "right-wing" lead to communication difficulties, so I try to avoid them, and only use them now to query the intent of the user so that conversation can move forward.

                  "Do you dispute that some gender critical women are homophobic and/or dislike trans women?"

                  That would be a strange position to take, given the undefined group of women who may be called – or refer to themselves – as gender critical. Given the number, I'm sure there are women in there who are guilty of the most heinous crimes, and those that kick dogs. But I haven't been exposed to the homophobia, and I follow a lot of women's rights accounts.

                  As for the "dislike of trans women"… IF you are aware of the harms of gender ideology, then the tolerance level for men who call themselves women does often diminish.

                  Given the move away from the already vague DSM-5 diagnosis (https://twitter.com/KnownHeretic/status/1724448571787972885) , the relevance of sex based differences in motivation, intention and impact becomes more important. The likelihood of paraphilias is much higher for men as a motivator, and some women recognise this more than others – whether gender critical or not.

                  So, I would agree that some women are dismissive of men who call themselves women. I have heard it expressed as akin to people (of all colours) objecting to blackface. It is the idea of blackface that is rejected. Also, when individuals are mentioned, it is usually in reference to a perspective they have expressed, or a boundary violation that has been made. Unfortunately, this is part of the wider discussion and has to be addressed, otherwise we participate in a lesser form of No Debate.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    14 January 2024 at 11:13 am

                    "I have heard it expressed as akin to people (of all colours) objecting to blackface."

                    That's ridiculous.

                    People who wear blackface don't yearn to be black, devote their lives to behaving as a "black person", undergo surgery to align physically with a black person, wear their blackface day in and day out, commit to political and social activism to establish credibility as a black person and so on.

                    • Molly …
                      14 January 2024 at 11:20 am

                      The only universal experience of women – is inhabiting a female body.

                      "People who wear blackface don't yearn to be black, devote their lives to behaving as a "black person", undergo surgery to align physically with a black person, wear their blackface day in and day out, commit to political and social activism to establish credibility as a black person and so on."

                      All this is selection of regressive stereotypes, and secondary sex characteristics and ASSUMING this is the fundamental aspect of women.

                      Which is incorrect.

                      The politicial and social activism is necessary to coerce, shame and bully those who do not indulge in harmful belief systems, where women (and men) are reduced to these secondary characteristics.

                    • weka …
                      14 January 2024 at 11:41 am

                      People who wear blackface don't yearn to be black, devote their lives to behaving as a "black person", undergo surgery to align physically with a black person, wear their blackface day in and day out, commit to political and social activism to establish credibility as a black person and so on.

                      and not all trans women yearn to be women, devote their lives to behaving as a "woman", undergo surgery to align physically with a woman, wear their womanface day in and day out, commit to political and social activism to establish credibility as a woman and so on.

                      In fact, the number of trans women that surgically transition is quite small. Some of that will be access/cost, but I think it's also to do with the degree of disability that goes with surgery (pain and dysfunction). It's also because many trans identified males do in fact want to play at it.

                      I suspect you are thinking of transsexual males with serious gender dysphoria. The trans umbrella is much broader than that.

                      In addition there are non-binary males who want to be included in women's space/culture. In the years I have been involved in this debate I've not once seen an explanation for why NB males should have access to women's space and culture.

                      I don't like the term womanface, and there are good arguments against its use, just not the one you made.

                      Because what you have just done is such a common dynamic, I'm going to spell it out. Many liberals who have taken a pro-trans politics position against women's rights, have a poor understanding of the politics involved. In this case, the idea that trans women are transexuals with gender dysphoria, rather than understanding that trans now is a very, very broad term, and there is pressure to include all the trans-identified males in the category of women.

                      When I say that self-ID means any man can say they are a woman at any time and must be accepted as such, this is what I am talking about. It is false to argue that trans-identified males are what you described. What you described is in fact a very small proportion of TIMs.

                      Further, the reason you don't know this is because of No Debate, and the habitual response of liberal trans allies who simply don't listen to what left wing and other women have been saying for years.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      14 January 2024 at 11:52 am

                      Yes, thanks, weka, I expected a response along the lines of what you've written (well).

                      "I don't like the term womanface, and there are good arguments against its use, just not the one you made."

                      Then I defer to those good arguments. I feel the "blackface" comparison is a poor one.

                      "and not all trans women yearn to be women, devote their lives to behaving as a "woman", undergo surgery to align physically with a woman, wear their womanface day in and day out, commit to political and social activism to establish credibility as a woman and so on."

                      This is doubtless true; there are always exceptions to a rule 🙂 I was generalising, and knew it.

                      "In fact, the number of trans women that surgically transition is quite small." That "number" is still greater, I believe, than the number of whites who undergo surgery to become black.

                    • Molly …
                      14 January 2024 at 3:05 pm

                      @weka

                      Your question was: "Do you dispute that some gender critical women are homophobic and/or dislike trans women?"

                      Not a question about MY personal perspective, and I don't usually atttempt to answer in the place of others, but I thought the question was in good faith and attempted to answer it as such. Without excusing or making apology for perspectives that I don't share.

                      "I don't like the term womanface, and there are good arguments against its use, just not the one you made."

                      Neither do I, (and again I understand you are talking to Robert here) but I want to be clear that you asked whether I had seen other women do so, and I have. I can understand their perspective without utilising their use. A labour politician has been stood down in the UK for the crime of "liking" a social media post, making this specific reference, so it was close to hand when looking for examples of women who express distaste with men who declare themselves women:

                      https://x.com/skippy_0h/status/1746133749019050082?s=20https://x.com/skippy_0h/status/1746133749019050082?s=20

                      We can discuss whether this is an appropriate response to a trivial action.

                    • weka []
                      14 January 2024 at 3:23 pm

                      “I don’t like the term womanface, and there are good arguments against its use, just not the one you made.”

                      Neither do I, but again you asked whether I had seen other women do so, and I have.

                      Did I? Is there reply confusion happening here? My comment about womanface was a response to RG.

                      I can understand their perspective without utilising their use.

                      Same. As with much of the war, including the actions of Landy and the person who wrote the article, I see the… tenor or character of much of the current debate as being a result of No Debate and left wing gender critical feminists in particular being excluded from public discussion.

                      It’s also a consequence of women being abused and ostracised and having their backs against the wall regarding women’s rights.

                      So I’m not usually surprised and my criticisms of Landy have been more about strategy as much as anything. But again, we have the Landy sisters doing what they do because the NZ GCFs got taken out of the game.

                      A labour politician has been stood down in the UK for the crime of “liking” a social media post, making this specific reference, so it was close to hand when looking for examples of women who express distaste with men who declare themselves women:

                      https://x.com/skippy_0h/status/1746133749019050082?s=20https://x.com/skippy_0h/status/1746133749019050082?s=20

                      We can discuss whether this is an appropriate response to a trivial action.

                      See I think she should have been stood down for political ineptitude (on the face of it, I haven’t looked past your link). If she’s going to be so stupid as to not understand how that tweet would play out politically, she’s a liability to UK Labour. Much the same way as Kerekere became a liability to the Greens, because she couldn’t read the room and her comms were causing problems.

                      There are ways to push back against gender identity ideology without using hugely problematic tropes like in that tweet.

                      The standing down because of transphobia causes problems for GC women, who then react against the anti-terfery and ignore the political ineptitude, and that takes us back to the hands we have been dealt and how women will do what they need to irrespective of the damage done along the way.

                      And of course, it’s entirely possible that the candidate is in fact transphobic. I haven’t had time yet to reply to your comments on that from this morning, but there are a chunk of GC people who simply can’t stand trans women because they can’t stand them. We can see it in the US most obviously with those of the religious right who want transness and gender non-conformity to not exist.

                    • Molly …
                      14 January 2024 at 3:39 pm

                      @weka

                      I edited, probably before your reply to make clear my reference was in regards to your question, and that I understood that you were replying to Robert.

                      "There are ways to push back against gender identity ideology without using hugely problematic tropes like in that tweet."

                      Problematic is another word I'm avoiding, so I'm guessing we are going to be in disagreement.

                      I don't use the blackface analogy, because the two instances are not analogous. Not because it is "problematic".

                      I can both understand the reasoning behind those who choose to use it, and agree that there are examples of men who absolutely do perform their idea of women in a demeaning way.

                      I can maintain sympathy for people who have difficulty accepting their sex, without colluding with the delusion that it is possible for them to change their sex.

                      I can also understand the frustration of women who are confronted with men – who are neither distressed or vulnerable – but gleeful about being able to demonstrate their misogyny or paraphilia in society not only without censure, but with full support of those who consider themselves progressive.

                    • weka []
                      14 January 2024 at 4:07 pm

                      but I want to be clear that you asked whether I had seen other women do so, and I have.

                      Do so what? Can you please quote me and link to where I said the thing you are referring to, because I’m lost.

                    • weka []
                      14 January 2024 at 4:11 pm

                      So maybe don’t assume my use of ‘problematic’ is the same use you don’t like?

                      I don’t use the blackface analogy, because the two instances are not analogous. Not because it is “problematic”.

                      Same. Also, in GC circles (as in all of politics) there is actual racism. Using womanface makes things messy and the current debate is not only incapable of dealing with that, it’s also caused a lot of damage and division.

                    • Molly …
                      14 January 2024 at 5:14 pm

                      @weka

                      "Do so what? Can you please quote me and link to where I said the thing you are referring to, because I’m lost."

                      Your question was here:

                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13-01-2024/#comment-1984607

                      … and it was:

                      "Do you dispute that some gender critical women are homophobic and/or dislike trans women?"

                      And my reply clarifying my recognition of that fact with an example was here:

                      https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13-01-2024/#comment-1984727

                      If this is getting too bogged down then I am happy to let it go.

                      However, I will make note of the fact that while aware of such women, I am also very aware of men who declare themselves to be women, expressing perspectives that both denigrate and demean women and girls. These men not only are not censured for it, they often receive accolades, financial rewards and positions of authority over women or women's advocacy.

                      There are many such examples. One recent one was the appointment of Munroe Bergdorf as the UN Champion for women. The comments they have made are mild compared to others but show little awareness about women, and disparagement for women who believe sex recognition matters:

                      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12932435/munroe-bergdorf-unchampion-british-women-hate-women.html

      • Robert Guyton 5.1.2
        14 January 2024 at 11:02 am

        From the (extremely long) letter:

        "Let’s be clear about something.

        Phillippa was trespassed from New World Ōtaki because she is suspected of being a Terf.

        She is a Terf.

        I am a Terf.

        Many, many, thousands of women around the world are Terfs."

        Quite strident in her beliefs.

        • Molly 5.1.2.1
          14 January 2024 at 11:15 am

          Are you excusing the trespassing women for "stridency" now?

          "Men aren't women – even if you squint" is a statement of fact.

          "Men are women" – is a unfounded belief – an article of faith.

          • Robert Guyton 5.1.2.1.1
            14 January 2024 at 11:20 am

            You posted a link to a letter: "an article written by someone close to the customer"

            That woman is quite strident.

            • Molly 5.1.2.1.1.1
              14 January 2024 at 11:42 am

              "That woman is quite strident."

              So?

              How do you determine stridency?

              What do you propose should be the consequence of stridency?

              When you've cleared that up, will you then address the truth of the first statement, and the disconnection from reality that is required to consider it offensive?

              • Robert Guyton …
                14 January 2024 at 11:46 am

                Have you not read the letter?

                Strident as.

                • weka …
                  14 January 2024 at 11:47 am

                  what's wrong with a woman being strident?

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    14 January 2024 at 11:55 am

                    Who said being strident is wrong?

                    • weka …
                      14 January 2024 at 12:09 pm

                      perhaps you are unaware that strident is a negative term used about women, especially in politics, to undermine them and their words/actions/mana.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      14 January 2024 at 12:27 pm

                      Is it?

                      I had no idea it had picked up/been assigned a particular value when used to describe women!

                      How odd!

                    • weka []
                      14 January 2024 at 1:00 pm

                      Not so much odd as everyday sexism

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      14 January 2024 at 1:15 pm

                      I can see that "hysterical" can be, but "strident"? There's nothing (that I can see) intrinsic in the word that might trigger anguish.

                      Must be an insider-thing.

                      Is "intense" everyday sexism?

                    • Morrissey …
                      14 January 2024 at 1:22 pm

                      I think, Robert, that both strident and hysterical are equally potent words when it comes to unfairly attacking an opponent.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      14 January 2024 at 1:30 pm

                      With regard the use of inflammatory terms, Anker says:

                      "I have had great feedback when I wear it. Its targeting the mysogyny of the term Terf"

                      but Molly's letter-writer and supporter of the t-shirt-wearer says,

                      "Let’s be clear about something.

                      Phillippa was trespassed from New World Ōtaki because she is suspected of being a Terf.

                      She is a Terf.

                      I am a Terf.

                      Many, many, thousands of women around the world are Terfs."

                      Has consensus been arrived at here on TS regarding the word?

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      14 January 2024 at 1:35 pm

                      I understood "hysterical" to be particularly inflammatory and can see why.

                      Strident:

                      presenting a point of view, especially a controversial one, in an excessively forceful way.

                      "public pronouncements on the crisis became less strident"

                      Not really seeing how that's offensive but accept weka's advice that it has taken on that quality in some circles (is "circles" okay?)

                    • weka []
                      14 January 2024 at 2:51 pm

                      These last three comments from you Robert again speak to your lack of knowledge in the area. It’s kind of like a conventional farmer trying to have a conversation about growing trees without understanding soil microbia.

                      Let me break it down.

                      I can see that “hysterical” can be, but “strident”? There’s nothing (that I can see) intrinsic in the word that might trigger anguish.

                      Must be an insider-thing.

                      Is “intense” everyday sexism?

                      The problem isn’t that the words trigger anguish. The problem is that they are used as tools by people, usually men, to put women in their place. That’s the difference between personal insult and politics. In class analysis, biological sex is one of the three axes of oppression (along with race/ethnicity and socio-economic class). Sexism is part of the system of oppression of females on the basis of sex, it’s not something that can be understood primarily through a lens of triggering anguish.

                      The words aren’t intrinsically sexist, the sexism is in the usage. Calling a poem strident has a different implication than calling a woman strident. Most feminists know the sexist used of the word strident. That you don’t see anything sexist about the word is an indication of your lack of awareness.

                      Thus, you could have called the post intense and not invoked a sexist trope.

                      Not really seeing how that’s offensive but accept weka’s advice that it has taken on that quality in some circles (is “circles” okay?)

                      The sexism isn’t when women take words in a certain manner, it’s when people, usually men, use words in a certain manner.

                      Again, it’s not about offence taken, or even given, although some people use words to be both sexist and offensive.

                    • weka []
                      14 January 2024 at 3:08 pm

                      The word terf was coined a long time ago by a trans woman. It’s an acronym: trans exclusionary radical feminist. That in and of itself is a relatively neutral albeit somewhat inaccurate descriptor. But since the gender/sex wars of the last decade, it’s been taken up and used by some liberals, trans activists, trans allies (TA), and Men’s Rights Activists, as a term of abuse.

                      This equating of terf with a woman bigot/nazi/evil doer, was an intentional strategy, widely promoted. It’s also been used to direct violent misogyny at women online, and the TAs and gender identity ideologists have largely sanctioned this. That’s often left wing men, sanctioning online violence against women because they object to the women’s feminist politics

                      A lot of women reclaimed the word terf, in the same way that black men reclaimed nigger, or gay men reclaimed queer.

                      Again, the meaning and intend of the usage of the word itself depends on who is using it and how.

                      There is no consensus on words on TS that I’m aware of. I moderate the word terf as a term of abuse when I see it, but there is no ban on the word itself, which is why today’s use on TS is fine.

                      You can probably see the same thing with the word nigger. A black man using the term in the rap song is quite different from a KKK member using it a term of abuse towards black people.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      14 January 2024 at 3:58 pm

                      "These last three comments from you Robert again speak to your lack of knowledge in the area. It’s kind of like a conventional farmer trying to have a conversation about growing trees without understanding soil microbia."

                      If your conventional farmer-who-lacked-knowledge-about-soil microbia was discussing trees, I'd regard it as an opportunity to increase her knowledge, for the betterment of all, rather than lambast her for her ignorance. Not saying that's what's happening here, but there's a hint of it in the air…

                    • weka []
                      14 January 2024 at 4:05 pm

                      ok. I’ve seen farmers react to reasonable explanations as if they were being lambasted. Criticism can be hard to take for sure. This is a political blog with an ethos of robust debate. I can change how I communicate more than I already am, but you’d have to give me some clues. I’ve been feeling I have to really spell it out because I’ve observed a fair amount of missing the point from you on this topic. Too blunt?

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      14 January 2024 at 4:25 pm

                      "Most feminists know the sexist used (sic) of the word strident. "

                      Do they?

                      There's certainly no clue in the word itself, as there is with "hysterical".

                      I guess it's the responsibility of all people who are not feminists, to research words to determine if they are sexist.

                      "The sexism isn’t when women take words in a certain manner, it’s when people, usually men, use words in a certain manner."

                      Given I was unaware of the sexist nature of the word, "strident", how can what you say be true? Do you genuinely feel I was intentionally using it in a sexist manner? Or could it be that it was just taken that way?

                    • weka []
                      14 January 2024 at 5:08 pm

                      rereading the thread, here’s what happened.

                      1. Molly linked to the piece about Landy and NW, the context of which is women’s rights
                      2. You said the person who wrote the piece was “Quite strident in her beliefs”
                      3. Molly responded with her thoughts about the use of the word stridency
                      4. You said that the letter was “strident as”
                      5. I asked you what was wrong with being strident
                      6. Instead of answering directly whether there was anything wrong with being strident, you replied with an indirect question “Who said being strident is wrong?”
                      7. I then said “perhaps you are unaware that strident is a negative term used about women, especially in politics, to undermine them and their words/actions/mana”. I said this because my guess was that you were unaware of that. And that if you became aware, then you might rethink what you were arguing in a conversation about women’s rights.
                      8. You then engaged in a somewhat drawn out conversation about the semantics of the word
                      9. I explained at length what the issues are with the word strident, terf, and other words, as well as understanding sexism via a class analysis rather than personal insult.
                      10. You implied that there was a hint of me lambasting you for you not being unaware (but you didn’t point to anything specific)
                      11. I said ok, what would be better, and also, it’s a robust debate political blog.
                      12. You’ve now asked “Given I was unaware of the sexist nature of the word, “strident”, how can what you say be true? Do you genuinely feel I was intentionally using it in a sexist manner?”, despite my having said early on that I suspect you were unaware of the sexist use of term
                      13. You also said “Or could it be that it was just taken that way?” despite my having explained at length that sexism is what the person using the word does, it’s not what the woman on the receiving end does.

                      FWIW, no, I don’t think you used the term in an intentionally sexist way. If you look back you can clearly see that I have not at any time said you were being sexist. What I did was point out that the term has a sexist usage, because I thought you were unaware of that and you might want to be aware of that in a conversation about women’s rights.

                      If I think someone on TS is being overtly, intentionally sexist, I usually say so up front.

                      What would be useful right now is if you would clarify if you accept that the term has a sexist history (despite you not knowing that earlier and not having used it that way).

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      14 January 2024 at 7:27 pm

                      Jesus wept!

                      Yes, I can see the term has "the term has a sexist history" – what in God's name would cause you to think I hadn't?

                      🙂

                      The intensity that develops around these issues is what interested me; what happened to batting ideas back and forward, for the sake of it?

                      Sooo serious, we are, here on TS.

                    • weka []
                      14 January 2024 at 7:35 pm

                      tbh, I struggle with your conversational/debate style sometimes. I didn’t see you acknowledge that the term has a sexist history. Your questioning rhetoric often comes across as questioning the validity of what people are saying. It was strange to me that we spent so much time talking about concepts of political language that I think are common place on TS.

                      As for batting ideas back and forth, maybe for you this is a lighter issue. For some of us it is incredibly serious. For me personally, GC politics is the most important issue we face after climate/ecology (for complex reasons to do with the suppression of women’s knowledge and way of thinking about climate/ecology, and I don’t think it’s coincidence there are very strong pushes to remove women-centre politics at this time). Although the Treaty issues arising are up there too. Same deal.

                      Yes, TS is a serious place. There’s fun and different kinds of exchanges as well, but pays to pick the topic I think.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    14 January 2024 at 7:44 pm

                    "Yes, TS is a serious place. There’s fun and different kinds of exchanges as well, but pays to pick the topic I think."

                    So, avoid the feminist stuff, eh!

                    No fun to be had there!

                    Got it!

                    • weka …
                      14 January 2024 at 9:31 pm

                      You are welcome to talk about feminist issues, and GC pol doesn't just affect women. But you can't expect other people to talk about it with the fun vibe you seem to want, if they don't want to.

                      I had some great fun with GC feminists last year, and there were times when it was incredibly serious. I really don't see the problem other than maybe you misreading the room or wanting other people to act in a certain way.

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    15 January 2024 at 8:14 am

                    "tbh, I struggle with your conversational/debate style sometimes."

                    You're not alone in that, weka 🙂

                    Thanks for the reminder (I forget about that).

          • Robert Guyton 5.1.2.1.2
            14 January 2024 at 12:00 pm

            "Men aren't women – even if you squint" is a statement of fact.

            No, it's not a fact. "even if you squint" indicates that it's a visual perception issue. That means seeing a man or a woman is the issue. If you squint and see a woman, you see a woman, whether the subject of your attention is or isn't (it might even be a mannequin).

            • weka 5.1.2.1.2.1
              14 January 2024 at 12:10 pm

              it's a weird tshirt, the slogan doesn't work very well in that you have to think about it rather than getting it immediately.

            • Molly 5.1.2.1.2.2
              14 January 2024 at 1:26 pm

              Might "indicate" a perception issue – but still a statement of fact.

              However, people have a problem with the concise and accurate three word descriptor – adult human female – so I don't think clarity improves that cognitive issue.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 5.1.2.2
          14 January 2024 at 12:07 pm

          She is a Terf.

          I am a Terf.

          Maybe an example of an individual/group claiming and using a word to 'defang' it?

          At the PYO blueberry farm where I pick, ~10 years ago the unpretentious roadside sign "Blueberries, 9 – 2 pm" had been altered to read "Blueberries are Gay".

          That’s funny (to me) to this day – perhaps you had to be there.

  6. Dennis Frank 6
    13 January 2024 at 10:59 am

    Trotter's diagnosis of Labour's mistakes:

    The footpaths laid down by Labour in the direction of co-governance, the curbing of free speech, and the erasure of biological sex differences were not, however, trod by the masses. Indeed, they appeared to most New Zealanders to be leading them into wild and unknown territory. Not only did they not want to go there, but they became increasingly suspicious of the motives of those who kept insisting that they should.

    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2024/01/where-people-walk.html

    What the Left still doesn’t seem to have got its head around is that the defeated Labour Party is not the innocent victim of reactionaries…

    Labour lost because, after 2020, Jacinda’s political skills deserted her and, following her departure in January 2023, Chris Hipkins and his colleagues were exposed as a pretty hopeless bunch of politicians. What those Labour MPs celebrated as “progressive”, a great many voters considered either loopy, or dangerous, or a volatile mixture of the two.

    Hang on, he oughta already know that Labour always blames any semi-plausible scapegoat. Not in their genes to acknowledge their mistakes – still silent, laying low.

  7. joe90 7
    13 January 2024 at 11:33 am

    An eastern US event rarer than Halley's comet.

    2024 is a special year for periodical cicadas:

    • For the first time in 9 years, a 13 year brood will emerge in the same year as a 17 year brood.
    • For the first time in 16 years, adjacent 13-and 17-year broods will emerge in the same year.
    • For the first time in 221 years, Brood XIX and XIII will co-emerge.

    The next co-emergence of any kind will not happen for another 13 years!

    https://cicadas.uconn.edu/

  8. Anker 8
    13 January 2024 at 1:50 pm

    Actually despite my change of heart politically, congrats to Jacinda and Clarke. And frankly the protesters should bugger off.

    Protest any other day, knock yourself out, but its their wedding ffs.

    I might add, protesting about Jacinda is a little close to trying to punish her. So I am not endorsing their protest of her

    • Belladonna 8.1
      13 January 2024 at 1:52 pm

      Haven't been keeping up with the news (really not very interested in other people's weddings) – but if there are protesters there – they should be ashamed of themselves.

    • Robin The Goodfellow 8.2
      13 January 2024 at 5:05 pm

      Yes agreed, good riddance to her and the damage she's done to NZ will take years/decades to undo

      But she's left office so it's over, let her enjoy her wedding in peace

      • Jilly Bee 8.2.1
        13 January 2024 at 5:53 pm

        no Ummm – I for one am very grateful to our former PM as I had covid nearly 2 years ago which affected my heart, which I gather would have been far worse if I hadn't been vacinated (I continue to keep up to date with my boosters) and take extra care as Covid is back with us with avengeance and quite rampant in our area. Just glad I'm still alive and sort of kicking.

        • Robin The Goodfellow 8.2.1.1
          13 January 2024 at 6:39 pm

          That's nice

        • Robert Guyton 8.2.1.2
          13 January 2024 at 6:48 pm

          If anyone responds in a smarmy manner, JillyBee, just ignore them 🙂

        • Rolling-on-Gravel 8.2.1.3
          13 January 2024 at 9:17 pm

          I know what you mean, Jilly.

          Ardern did a great deed in declaring a lock down or two and protecting the most vulnerable amongst us the best she could have done and that was all anybody could have asked for in that time.

          I am grateful that she was there when the first outbreaks were around.

          It could have been worse. :O

  9. Anker 9
    13 January 2024 at 6:20 pm

    Thats good to hear Jilly Bee.

  10. Anker 10
    13 January 2024 at 8:18 pm

    Actually without wanting to use Jacinda's special day, it does take us back to Pats original piece on here about Dame Anne Salmond column. We were united under the initial phase of Covid, "team of 5 millon". Then quickly became divided. What happened?

    IMO ideology took over the Govt agenda. I found it alarming the ideas in the He Puapua report, followed up by things like the Rotorua amendment Bill, the gender self ID select committee, where women were raising very valid concerns and were treated with contempt by mostly Labour women MPs. As there was imo no mandate for these policies (gender self Id, trans in women's sports in particular have very poor support in political polls. What are you supposed to do when the govt you have supported are pushing through legislation that they have not campaigned on? This is a geniune question. I think the coalition might be blamed for pushing the division, but actually they were responding to policy being brought in by Labour. Someone said it takes two to tango. But if someone starts something, sometimes the best option is to push back

    • Robert Guyton 10.1
      13 January 2024 at 8:31 pm

      " We were united under the initial phase of Covid, "team of 5 millon". Then quickly became divided. What happened?"

      Nothing to do with gender, all to do with Covid.

      The Covidiots created the divide.

      • weka 10.1.1
        13 January 2024 at 9:39 pm

        "it's all their fault"

        • gsays 10.1.1.1
          13 January 2024 at 10:15 pm

          It's funny, when reading Dame Anne Salmond's article and she spoke of divisions and the need to heal them, I thought of Robert and the attitudes behind cookers, now covidiots.

          Just kinda pulling the scab off and having a poke at the wound just for the sake of it.

    • Robert Guyton 10.2
      13 January 2024 at 8:34 pm

      "Protest any other day, knock yourself out, but its their wedding ffs."

      Then this:

      "Actually without wanting to use Jacinda's special day, it does take us back…"

      Both from Anker, in the space of an evening.

    • Dennis Frank 10.3
      13 January 2024 at 8:36 pm

      pushing through legislation that they have not campaigned on

      Tbh I didn't really notice they were doing so until quite late. I'm so used to their bumbling style I guess, I did point out quite a few times onsite here that it seemed peculiar they were doing what the media called co-governance without explaining themselves to the public, but it never actually occurred to me that it was cynical.

      I did read it as timidity, but that's just usual Labour. I think I may have even given them credit for being progressive about it once or twice. But stealth politics does have an anti-democratic whiff about it. There's a reasonable basis for co-governance, if you view the Treaty as a social contract, so I guess I indulged them on that basis.

      The opposition to it also seems reasonable if you see the Treaty as merely history though, and I doubt Dame Anne has explicitly supported Labour's strategy.

  11. Rolling-on-Gravel 11
    13 January 2024 at 10:50 pm

    May you all have a good day.