Open mike 18/02/2019

200 comments on “Open mike 18/02/2019 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. lprent 1

   18 February 2019 at 7:31 am

   Added a duplicate post plugin this morning that will help in making these morning posts get more timely.

   Did the next weeks of Open Mike to test it.

   I can commend a Greater Auckland post on a proposed intensification at Smales Farm. It starts with :-

   The Northern Busway has been one of Auckland’s most successful transport investments. In the 11 years since it opened it has become the best and most used public transport corridor in probably all of the country. AT peak times in the peak direction there are now buses, mostly double deckers, every minute or two and off-peak and counter-peak there are buses every 5-10 minutes. While post new network we’re still working through a change in how the numbers are reported, the indications are the busway is also carrying more passengers than any of the rail lines in both Auckland and Wellington.

   It’s become so busy that at peak times we’re probably at the limit for how man buses can effectively operate on it until the extension to Albany is completed in a few years and fixes the Constellation Station bottleneck, as we found out when the New Network launched.

   Perhaps even more importantly, it has hugely extended the life of the harbour bridge by massively increasing its people-carrying capacity. This has removed the need for another road crossing of the harbour saving us $5 billion or more. Although given its success, the busway will need to be upgraded to light rail in the coming decades and it will need a dedicated harbour crossing – but providing that is much cheaper than providing a road crossing.

   The biggest single problem with the northern busway was simply that the short-sighted fools of the right vehemently opposed it and in their process of being irrelevant dimwits prevented in getting the kind of park and ride that would have made it even more useful. But I guess you can’t stop these kinds of fools being conservatives.
   • KJT 1.1

     18 February 2019 at 7:38 am

     Not the right wing, Iprent. They call themselves, “centrists” , these days.
     • lprent 1.1.1

       18 February 2019 at 7:42 am

       “Conservative fools” is a much better label – less hypocritical, more accurate, and generally way less costly for us all.
       • KJT 1.1.1.1

         18 February 2019 at 8:03 am

         You could say “conservative” is a misnomer also.
         After they removed or sold just about everything in our society, that worked!

         Hardly conservative.

         Which is why I prefer right wing, or Neo-liberal.

         And they prefer “Centrists” or “centre right” , ” centre left” to pretend they are, in some way, rational.

         Greedy short sighted fools. Works for me.
       • Jenny - How to get there? 1.1.1.2

         18 February 2019 at 10:05 pm

         “Right Wing” is their time honoured and most fitting descriptive nomination. It is also the title they most try to distance themselves from.
   • Wayne 1.2

     18 February 2019 at 9:13 am

     Iprent,

     You are making stuff up again.

     Actually no-one opposed the Northern Busway. All the MP’s in the North Shore area and all the North Shore Council supported it.

     As for the size of the Smales Farm station, the only people who may have opposed would have been the owners of the Smales Farm owners, since it was their land that had to be used for the station. But I suspect not. They wanted the Station but for it not to be a park and ride, which also suited the designers of the station.

     I know that right from the get go, there was concern the Albany station was too small.
     • marty mars 1.2.1

       18 February 2019 at 9:39 am

       How rude Wayne – there are many alternatives to calling someone a liar, or as you put it “making stuff up again”. You should be ashamed imo
     • lprent 1.2.2

       18 February 2019 at 12:25 pm

       Bullshit. There were a lot of conservatives who opposed the Northern Busway.

       Two come to mind – NZ Herald editorials (especially those written in the distinctive style of John Roughan), columns like this, innumerable posts and comments on Kiwiblog and the sitting members of C&R across several councils.

       I have no idea what the National MPs thought of it because they were damn near invisible on the subject. For instance have a look at google on your views on the search terms of ‘”wayne mapp” busway’ from 2000 to 2009.

       google search

       Of course there may have been private support – but who in the hell would know?

       What I remember about the period from 2000-2008 was a litany of complaints and whining about why Labour and councils had put money into the extremely sensible and economically rational busway rather than building more motorways further out (that happened anyway) or putting in a totally unnecessary second harbor crossing.
       • KJT 1.2.2.1

         18 February 2019 at 5:53 pm

         I remember, living in Auckland at the time, the derision, and lack of support, from the National party front organizations in the council, for any form of public transport.

         Wayne is either forgetful, or being, “economical with the truth”.
     • Sabine 1.2.3

       18 February 2019 at 5:20 pm

       you must be living in an alternate universe cause there literally is no one in the No mates Party that championed public transport, advocated for it, provided funds for it .
   • Jenny - How to get there? 1.3

     18 February 2019 at 10:01 pm

     The most limiting “bottleneck” of all in the Busway, is the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

     The Busway needs to be carried over the bridge. Taking two lanes of traffic away from cars will be a further incentive to take the bus instead of the car, and again exponentially increase the commuter carrying capacity of the Harbour Bridge.

     The two outside eastern lanes, now dedicated to cars be given over to buses, the south bus lane exiting on to Fanshaw Street, and the northbus lane entering at Pt. Erin on the existing flyover.

     It couldn’t be simpler.
2. WeTheBleeple 2

   18 February 2019 at 7:43 am

   Sweet sweet rain falling on my roof right now. Not a lot but everything is actually wetted down as opposed to sprinkle followed by total evaporation.

   Wishing rain on all your parades. Have a nice Monday. 😉
   • patricia bremner 2.1

     18 February 2019 at 8:15 am

     Glad for you WTB, there is nothing like gentle steady rain to speed up growth in the garden and on the land. However it means more lawn mowing by the “Keep it neat” crowd.
3. Adrian Thornton 3

   18 February 2019 at 8:17 am

   This is a quite funny take on the self help guru Jordan Peterson who seems to have entranced lots of people (mainly young men I believe) with his mumbo Jumbo spun like some sort of half smart philosophy.. and who is visiting NZ this week.
   A disclaimer here that this pod cast is also a bit annoying at times, but worth enduring as they actually do a pretty good job unpacking the core of Peterson’s popularity nicely IMO.
   • Chris T 3.1

     18 February 2019 at 8:43 am

     With opponents like this lady, I don’t think Peterson has too many worries
     • Adrian Thornton 3.1.1

       18 February 2019 at 9:04 am

       That is true, but then Peterson would never debate someone who could easily expose and dismantle his mostly regressive fruitloopery.

       So Peterson initially agreed then declined to debate Douglas Lain, publisher of Zero Books because he apparently wasn’t popular enough, declined to debate Richard Wolff for less than $50,000.
       Now the only debate that might happen is one between Peterson and Slavoj Zizek, which will be a complete waste of time.

       No peterson’s handlers (and Peterson himself) are far too smart, and making way to much money to let him go on stage with anyone who will expose his tomfoolery for what it is, mystical bullshit with some commonsense self help, and bit of anger thrown at people who make you feel uncomfortable (in this case woman and transgender and cool Socialists) and a little more self help.
       Just something for disenfranchised young (and not so young) men to believe in and hold on to in a world that feels very unstable and moving to fast, so not unreasonable from their point of view, but lots of good energy wasted IMO.
       • Gosman 3.1.1.1

         18 February 2019 at 9:39 am

         What Tom Foolery does Peterson promote exactly?
         • Muttonbird 3.1.1.1.1

           18 February 2019 at 9:31 pm

           Lobsters.
       • Chris T 3.1.1.2

         18 February 2019 at 9:44 am

         “fruitloopery.”

         So you are saying fruit is evil and taking over the world?
         • Incognito 3.1.1.2.1

           18 February 2019 at 9:48 am

           Ye shall know them by their fruits.
         • Adrian Thornton 3.1.1.2.2

           18 February 2019 at 10:14 am

           Ha, no friutloopery is what we term the spiritualist section in out secondhand bookshop, you know…crystals, magic, religion, palmistry etc, just all the stuff people turn to when they lack direction, meaning in their own lives, feel disenfranchised, disconnected and just want something bigger than themselves to believe in and work for, which is fair enough, I guess, just mostly a fruitless quest for nonexistent answers IMO.

           I can’t remember the exact quote, but Freud (and I am not advocating Freudianism btw,) said something like…and don’t quote me here.. you are already fucked if you have already begun searching for the answers (to life).
           • Gosman 3.1.1.2.2.1

             18 February 2019 at 10:29 am

             You haven’t explained what about Peterson’s ideas are so wacky and way out. Most of what he puts forward is what used to be known as common sense. In that regard I could understand if you described his ideas as banal and lacking in originality. I don’t see how it can be classified as BS.
             • Wensleydale …

               18 February 2019 at 10:51 am

               Another fishing expedition, Gossie? Don’t you have anything better to do?
             • Stuart Munro …

               18 February 2019 at 11:03 am

               Peterson’s negative stuff – critiques of postmodernism and callout culture are pretty sound. His constructive work is nothing special however.
               • Gosman …

                 18 February 2019 at 12:01 pm

                 Quite possibly accurate but then the question becomes – “Why get upset with someone whose constructive work is nothing special?”
                 • McFlock …

                   18 February 2019 at 12:24 pm

                   Because a whole bunch of his readership somehow end up with the impression that women owe them sex.
                   • Gosman …

                     18 February 2019 at 12:40 pm

                     He is not responsible for people misinterpreting his ideas. He has pointed out on numerous occasions that is not how he expects people to behave.
                   • McFlock …

                     18 February 2019 at 12:45 pm

                     Bullshit. He’s supposedly a teacher. He knows that if a large chunk of his students consistently get the wrong idea from what he says,over many years, that’s on him. We’re not talking a couple of fools from one talk he gave while tired. He’s had more than enough time to identify the consistent misinterpretations and walk them back, but he doesn’t.
                   • RedLogix []

                     19 February 2019 at 10:45 am

                     By complete contrast we have people in the same thread arguing how Marx wasn’t responsible for people misinterpreting his works…
                   • Muttonbird …

                     18 February 2019 at 9:36 pm

                     Totally, McFlock. I’d imagined teachers were supposed to elucidate rather than complicate. But he has ceased being a teacher and is now a showman.

                     Peterson has long been defended by the spotty white youth as being misunderstood, but he’s happy with that because the controversy adds to his coffers.

                     He’s a troll and knows his time as a troll is limited so he’s going do what he can when he can to maximise revenue.
                   • McFlock …

                     19 February 2019 at 1:08 pm

                     By complete contrast we have people in the same thread arguing how Marx wasn’t responsible for people misinterpreting his works…

                     Well, I’m not sure teaching people was Marx’s profession. Nor am I sure that some of the more objectionable interpretations of his philosophy were evident prior to his death. And if they were, I’m not sure whether such misinterpretations were prevalent and well publicised in a manner that should have made him totally aware that this was a common problem.

                     Other than that, the supposed misinterpretations of the two authors are completely comparable.
               • McFlock …

                 18 February 2019 at 12:15 pm

                 lol there’s always this:

                 Simon Wilson
                 ‏ @simonbwilson
                 14h14 hours ago

                 OK so here’s something. First thing Tuesday morning Jordan Peterson will be doing interviews at NZME. First Hosking at @NewstalkZB then me for @nzherald then Leighton Smith for his podcast. Yes, thank you, I am totally relaxed.
                 34 replies . 5 retweets 82 likes
                 vincent heeringa
                 ‏ @vheeringa
                 Replying to @simonbwilson @NewstalkZB @nzherald

                 Can you ask him why, when his message is pretty banal and kind of self-helpy (stop whining, man-up and develop some classical virtue), why his followers are such fuck-muppets? And why doesn’t he condemn them for such fuck-muppetry? You’re welcome.
                 35 Likes
                 4 replies . 0 retweets 35 likes
                 • Gabby …

                   18 February 2019 at 5:37 pm

                   I’m betting Leightonbut nooneathome Smiff will manage to irritate him.
               • swordfish …

                 18 February 2019 at 4:11 pm

                 Stuart Munro

                 Peterson’s negative stuff – critiques of postmodernism and callout culture are pretty sound. His constructive work is nothing special however.

                 Yep … that’s pretty much my view.

                 He’s also on a firm footing where he cites a broad or universally held consenus among Psychologists / Evolutionary Biologists and so on (which often undercut the passionately-held (indeed aggressively-held) views of the Intersectionals). (Although I’d add that he certainly gets some aspects of Gender/Sex wrong … usually via too simplistic an understanding of the relevant literature).

                 He’s weak / wrongheaded / ideologically biased elsewhere however.

                 So far, though, most critiques of his work have comprised little more than relatively crude hatchet-jobs.

                 Need someone of the stature of Noam Chomsky to demolish his range of weaker claims and beliefs.
             • Molly …

               18 February 2019 at 11:11 am

               “Most of what he puts forward is what used to be known as common sense.”
               Why don’t you put forward some of his “common sense” ideas, so that you can engage with some kind of detail?

               I have watched some of his videos, read several articles and skim read a book or two – skim, being the only requirement because the ideas expressed are not profound.

               I didn’t find anything of merit, and the only reason why I did so, was to understand the appeal to a young man living with us at the time.

               If you are so certain of his worth, then bring forward a concept of his that can be discussed, instead of your amorphous abstract comments.
               • Gosman …

                 18 February 2019 at 12:02 pm

                 You didn’t think cleaning your room was of merit?
                 • Sabine …

                   18 February 2019 at 12:20 pm

                   you need to spend money on a book or on some geezer speechifying to know that you should clean your room?

                   ok then.
                   • Gosman …

                     18 February 2019 at 1:52 pm

                     No – I don’t. Others may feel the need to do so. That is THEIR right.
                 • Molly …

                   18 February 2019 at 6:42 pm

                   Oh, Gosman….

                   Out of all the concepts that Peterson espouses, you chose “cleaning your room” as worthy of nuanced discussion?
                   • Gosman …

                     19 February 2019 at 6:27 am

                     Care to choose another one?
                   • RedLogix …

                     19 February 2019 at 6:41 am

                     So I went away and checked what Peterson was talking about on the ‘clean your room’ concept.

                     Of course the phrase itself is a symbol for an idea more complex that this; in essence he is saying that you need to get your own life sorted before you start trying to reorganise the world. And in practical terms the best way to start the process is to deal with what you can control immediately in front of you … your room.

                     Once you have established the basic discipline to do this routinely, you can expand on this order and habit. Figure out what you can fix next and take one small step at a time, growing your competency and assuming more responsibility, each step building on the one before.

                     He then points out that if you don’t have your life, your family, your income, your community life sorted … you have no damn business pretending you know how to govern a city or a nation. I have to say I’ve seen more than a few people here falling into that category, and seems a reasonable piece of advice for younger people especially starting out in their adult life.

                     But if you’re determined to erase it of all nuance the I can see how ‘clean your room’ gets simplified down to a convenient caricature.
                   • Incognito …

                     19 February 2019 at 7:39 am

                     No, but it could be worth a show on Netflix; decluttering is all the rage!
                   • Molly …

                     19 February 2019 at 8:37 am

                     “He then points out that if you don’t have your life, your family, your income, your community life sorted … you have no damn business pretending you know how to govern a city or a nation. I have to say I’ve seen more than a few people here falling into that category, and seems a reasonable piece of advice for younger people especially starting out in their adult life.

                     But if you’re determined to erase it of all nuance the I can see how ‘clean your room’ gets simplified down to a convenient caricature.”

                     Thanks RedLogix for expanding the idea, which Gosman, typically failed to do. I’m not going to waste more of my time going back to look for ideas, so I expect his supporters – such as Gosman and Shadrach – to bring his concepts to the discussion table.

                     What I took away from the ‘cleaning your room’ idea, was another restriction on allowing people to be heard. Eg. unless you have your life in order, you are not permitted to speak up on issues.

                     This is a level of arrogance that as a proponent of true social democracy that I disagree with.

                     People can/and should be able to have input into the systems that govern their lives, even while not meeting Peterson’s “clean room” standards.
                   • RedLogix []

                     19 February 2019 at 10:02 am

                     Peterson is also a strong advocate for free speech which suggests that he means you have to be silent unless you have your life sorted is not consistent.

                     I’d argue though that if you want to turn talk into action you’d better know what you’re doing.
                   • RedLogix []

                     19 February 2019 at 10:15 am

                     Grammar garbled there…
                   • Molly …

                     19 February 2019 at 10:11 am

                     “Peterson is also a strong advocate for free speech which suggests that he means you have to be silent unless you have your life sorted is not consistent.”
                     The “is not consistent” is something I agree with. And his inconsistencies seemed to me to be easy to find.

                     A way of hedging your bets – to say on one hand that people cannot have input into systems that influence their lives – and then respond to criticisms of this stance by saying that you are on record as an advocate of free speech is not only inconsistent, it is deliberately so.

                     A good example of his approach.
                   • RedLogix []

                     19 February 2019 at 10:21 am

                     It’s entirely consistent to support freedom of speech, while at the same time expecting competency of action. One does not exclude the other.

                     After all this place encourages people to explore ideas and opinions quite freely, but at the same time we expect our political leaders to have their act together.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     19 February 2019 at 10:34 am

                     What I took away from the ‘cleaning your room’ idea, was another restriction on allowing people to be heard. Eg. unless you have your life in order, you are not permitted to speak up on issues.

                     The proposed restriction is in your mind, not in Peterson’s statements.
                   • greywarshark …

                     19 February 2019 at 10:42 am

                     It is something to chase and pen from all the rampant ideas in the paddock. It is really important to isolate something verging on the trivial and likely to be populist to study in depth. The whole is too confusing, and what thinking people wish to discuss are too demanding of the thinking process, and perhaps might be essential for a livable future. RW can’t bear that sort of serious discussion – it threatens their status quo, gives them a shaky, sad feeling in their stomach and their lives seem fragile and ultimately off-beam.
                   • Molly …

                     19 February 2019 at 11:28 am

                     Reply for both RL and PM:

                     “RL: It’s entirely consistent to support freedom of speech, while at the same time expecting competency of action. One does not exclude the other.”

                     The ‘cleaning your room’ before you have a right to speak up, is a infringement on free speech.

                     It doesn’t say anything about informing yourself on the issue at hand before you speak out, it says that you must be organised in regards to Peterson’s expected virtues, before you can.

                     There are many policies that involve chaotic, complicated or unorganised situations, where those who live those lives have valuable input on to how they are resolved.

                     There are other instances where input should be gathered regarding policy from those who are not experts, but who are going to be exposed to policy changes and amendments.

                     PM: “The proposed restriction is in your mind, not in Peterson’s statements.”

                     No. He is quite clear that you have to focus on the individual before the global. When it is possible to do both at the same time. He misses that point.

                     The clarity that you see comes because he selectively excludes any other perspectives – that in the real world – need to be considered.
                   • RedLogix []

                     19 February 2019 at 12:56 pm

                     Honestly I think PM got it in one.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     19 February 2019 at 1:14 pm

                     It’s simple enough: you’ve declared that Peterson’s view that people should get their own lives in order before trying to govern others constitutes a “restriction” on free speech and a declaration that some are “not permitted” to speak up on issues. For that to be the case, there’d have to be some proposed mechanism by which the restriction were to be applied. No such mechanism is even implied in his statements, let alone explicitly stated, which means the restriction is in your mind, not his statements.
                   • Molly …

                     19 February 2019 at 2:05 pm

                     “Honestly I think PM got it in one.
                     “It’s simple enough: you’ve declared that Peterson’s view that people should get their own lives in order before trying to govern others constitutes a “restriction” on free speech and a declaration that some are “not permitted” to speak up on issues. “

                     You both provide an example of what I find problematic with Peterson. No nuance, no context.

                     He specifically advises getting your own house in order before having input into wider issues.

                     I’ve given examples of where input, regardless of the level of chaos in individual lives would result in better policy making. You’ve both chosen not to consider that, and resorted again to Peterson-splaining to give his contradictory ramblings some coherence.

                     Advising anyone that they provide no value when speaking out until they have all their ducks in a row, is not aligned with a strong advocate of free speech.

                     For example: Young people should be involved with policy decisions that impact on their lives; addiction problems and solutions are best served by including those suffering from addiction in programme design. Mental health also. The lived experience and advice on solutions is valuable in an extensive list of issues facing us today. People can be fully engaged and informative in certain aspects of their lives, while negligent in others.

                     “Cleaning your room” is a very simplistic notion, that requires the exclusion of any other factors other than individual responses to individual circumstances. In that particular context, it stands for a level of personal responsibility and empowerment.

                     The addendum that a clean room is a requirement before speaking out on wider issues is a problem, regardless. It has nothing to do with the idea of the empowered individual. It has been tacked on to that idea and not critiqued.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     19 February 2019 at 4:41 pm

                     A while back the Conversation published a piece called No, you’re not entitled to your opinion. The take-home message was “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

                     I’m a strong advocate for freedom of speech and also shared that author’s view of people who don’t offer an argument in support of their opinions. Those two things are not incompatible, because people will cheerfully continue to present their unsupported opinions regardless of how I personally feel about it. The same applies to Peterson’s view that people who generate only chaos in their own lives are unlikely to generate good governance in other people’s lives if given authority.

                     He’s egregiously wrong about enough things already that we don’t need to go making things up.
                   • Molly …

                     19 February 2019 at 5:25 pm

                     “Those two things are not incompatible, because people will cheerfully continue to present their unsupported opinions regardless of how I personally feel about it. The same applies to Peterson’s view that people who generate only chaos in their own lives are unlikely to generate good governance in other people’s lives if given authority.“

                     Peterson doesn’t specify giving people – who he considers ‘unclean room occupiers’ – authority. That is another conversation. He says until they have their lives in order, they don’t have any valuable input into decisions made by authority.

                     There is a difference.

                     I have pointed out the value of input by people whose lives may be in disarray when deciding on policy or solutions. I have also pointed out that many people can be very well informed on particular issues while the remainder of their lives are in chaos.

                     I can also think of many examples of those in authority whose lives are well-papered rooms of deceit and misdirection. (We have examples of this on TS almost every day in terms of those in authority.)

                     Once again – and this applies to you as well as Peterson – : “Advising anyone that they provide no value when speaking out until they have all their ducks in a row, is not aligned with a strong advocate of free speech.”

                     There are two concepts in play here, that he has combined:
                     1. Individual responsibility and empowerment
                     2. The right to have input into wider discussions

                     He has merged them both into one idea and conclusion – and that is where his logic fails. To do that he has to strip away the idea that people can be more than one simple category. He also has to imply that unless a particular set of standards is met, their input is not to be regarded with value. Or even considered. Probably not even offered.

                     People are more than expert or novice, uninformed or informative. It often depends on topic or situation. To advise that people with chaotic lives have no value or input is to deny them a voice – and that is suppression of people’s right to engage.
                     It is also incorrect in terms of value, and some of the examples provided above would be worthy of discussion.

                     Saying you are an advocate of free speech is not the same as being an advocate of free speech. I agree he says he is, but his actions and provisos pay lie to that statement.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     19 February 2019 at 6:59 pm

                     I believe you’re representing his views as being much more simplistic than they are, however even if we leave that aside, you’re arguing a non-sequitur.

                     Peterson argues that people who can’t bring order into even a small area of their own lives are unlikely to bring order into larger matters, and I argue that people who can’t support their opinions with arguments contribute little of value to a debate.

                     You claim that those are anti-free speech because they deny people a voice. That claim is a non-sequitur because your conclusion doesn’t logically follow from your premises: neither Peterson nor I have any means of denying people a voice and (I’m assuming in his case) no inclination to acquire such a means or apply it.
                   • Molly …

                     19 February 2019 at 7:41 pm

                     “I believe you’re representing his views as being much more simplistic than they are, however even if we leave that aside, you’re arguing a non-sequitur.”

                     Interesting – because that is the point I made above. That his encouragement on personal responsibility and empowerment, is – in this case – linked to a perspective on whether those who are not in a place of calm, have valuable insights to offer.

                     Peterson argues that people who can’t bring order into even a small area of their own lives are unlikely to bring order into larger matters, and I argue that people who can’t support their opinions with arguments contribute little of value to a debate.

                     These are two different topics, creating as you point out, a non-sequitur. As mentioned before, people can be well informed on particular topics – even while being in a state of chaos, and can provide valuable input despite it that situation. This fact must be ignored, in order for his concept to remain true. That is why I consider him to be simplistic. The scenarios he applies his reasoning to must be restricted and artificial to come to any type of conclusion.

                     It is a method of discussion that relies on amorphous, abstract concepts that can be reinterpreted by the audience in such a way that it strikes a chord. You, yourself, have reinterpreted his meaning of input to be: informed discussion, given authority, contributing little of value to debate. It shows a lack of clarity, that responds to questions with a constantly moving target. Hardly an indication of a well reasoned, clearly presented argument.

                     Do you consider that people sometimes have valuable insights or input to offer even if they have chaotic lives? Or that people may have a vast wealth of knowledge on particular topics which should be considered when creating policy and solution programmes? And if so, should they be encouraged or discouraged to do so?

                     There is a difference between asking for informed discussion on a topic, and requiring that all participants have an ordered life before they engage.
                   • RedLogix []

                     19 February 2019 at 9:25 pm

                     In my trade you start out on small scale projects and prove yourself before you’re entrusted with the big ones. It’s pretty much the same everywhere you go.

                     This doesnt mean not engaging, it just means it’s most effective to work on the problems in front of you first. Get those under control and the bigger opportunities will naturally arrive.

                     It’s called competency and it’s striking how some on the left find this a difficult concept.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     19 February 2019 at 10:00 pm

                     These are two different topics, creating as you point out, a non-sequitur.

                     No, they are two different illustrations of the same point: that arguing for a lack of merit in particular approaches to problems is not the same as denial of others’ right to speak.

                     Do you consider that people sometimes have valuable insights or input to offer even if they have chaotic lives?

                     They may well do. But then, I haven’t noticed Peterson arguing that they can’t possibly have anything of merit to say on any subject, so it’s an irrelevant question.

                     There is a difference between asking for informed discussion on a topic, and requiring that all participants have an ordered life before they engage.

                     You’re arguing the same non-sequitur. Neither Peterson nor I have any means of requiring anything from anybody who wants to participate in something, nor any inclination to seek such a means. That’s as true now as it was at the beginning of this discussion.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     19 February 2019 at 10:02 pm

                     It’s called competency and it’s striking how some on the left find this a difficult concept.

                     True dat.
                   • Molly …

                     19 February 2019 at 10:21 pm

                     “In my trade you start out on small scale projects and prove yourself before you’re entrusted with the big ones. It’s pretty much the same everywhere you go.”
                     Another example of what Peterson does, uses an analogy not to explain a concept but as evidence of his conclusion.

                     “It’s called competency and it’s striking how some on the left find this a difficult concept.”
                     No, I don’t find this a difficult concept.

                     It is enough to say that people with something valuable to contribute should be able to do so. Leave it at that.

                     It is of interest to note that your description of what Peterson is trying to say changes from comment to comment.

                     Googling to check if I could find a direct quote from Peterson’s book, I came instead upon a review of the 12 Rules – which may give others a better view of his perspective than this conversation:
                     Book review: 12 Rules for Life. An Antidote to Chaos”, published on the Psych Central website and fairly even handed with both praise and criticism.
                   • McFlock …

                     19 February 2019 at 10:43 pm

                     Molly, no need for his book – try this interview with Simon Wilson a day or two ago.

                     Especially with his comments on addressing domestic violence – apparently changing the police approach isn’t the way to go because the main problem is alcohol. When challenged, he ends up reducing that down to 50% of violent crime, but still doesn’t want to discuss anything other than alcohol.
                     Slippery when challenged, the closest he gets to acknowledging a point is “perhaps”.
                   • Molly …

                     19 February 2019 at 11:01 pm

                     Thanks McFlock. If the quotes are accurate, that is a good indication of what his true views are, given his extensive public relations experience. And they are not justifiable.

                     Two good articles that came up while looking for the cleaning the room quote, were written by a long time friend and acquaintance and give some insight into his history.

                     I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter, now I think he is dangerous.

                     Jordan Peterson toys with the truth

                     Both by the same author, and highlighting aspects of his behaviour and approach that are questionable and contradictory.

                     I also was reminded on his reliance on Christian theology, which I had conveniently put out of my mind.
             • McFlock …

               18 February 2019 at 12:36 pm

               Wasn’t he the dude who claimed he was risking jail time by not doing his students the courtesy of using their chosen pronouns?
               • Stuart Munro …

                 18 February 2019 at 12:49 pm

                 His argument was more nuanced – he would in fact call a student in his course whatever they preferred. But he would not be told by a stranger which pronoun (including non-standard pronouns) he must use. It is a matter of manners.
                 • McFlock …

                   18 February 2019 at 1:08 pm

                   Did some googling to refresh. Interesting quote on his wikipedia page where he says he will never use some particular pronouns. So no, he wouldn’t call students by some pronouns.
                   • Stuart Munro …

                     18 February 2019 at 1:42 pm

                     That’s a response to demands from strident people who he has no need to address at all in his professional capacity. He has nothing to do with them, and consequently they do not have the right to impose their pronouns demands on him. It’s a freedom of speech issue.
                   • McFlock …

                     18 February 2019 at 2:30 pm

                     not according to the source article authored by Jordan Peterson.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     18 February 2019 at 3:38 pm

                     He has my sympathy for this bit in the article you linked:

                     … I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.”

                     Fuck yes. I might conceivably be prepared to use pronouns like that with someone who was prepared to refer to me as “his imperial majesty the Great Silkie” as a quid pro quo, but even then I’d probably renege on the deal when it came to actually saying them with a straight face.
                   • McFlock …

                     18 February 2019 at 3:54 pm

                     All language is artificial. Ours lacks a gender-neutral pronouns.

                     If part of lowering the suicide rate amongst people coming to terms with their identity involves using odd words, smirk away.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     18 February 2019 at 4:02 pm

                     If someone’s at risk of suicide because I won’t call them a silly word, their life expectancy’s probably measured in days anyway.
                   • McFlock …

                     18 February 2019 at 4:13 pm

                     That depends entirely on the relationship and power dynamic you have with that person.

                     Are you joe blow at checkout? Maybe you’re right, or maybe they’re just having a bad day and you tip ’em.

                     Are you a famous educator who consistently demeans them throughout the semester? Maybe your words would have more of an effect than you think.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     18 February 2019 at 5:08 pm

                     Fortunately, universities are already well-equipped (overly well-equipped, if anything) for students to report harrassment by academic staff.
                   • McFlock …

                     19 February 2019 at 5:33 pm

                     Partially because of human rights legislation.

                     That, and student activism.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     19 February 2019 at 7:05 pm

                     Partly, sure. Of course, the fact that bullying of academic staff by students is now occurring is also partly down to human rights legislation and student activism, but there’s never an unalloyed good.
                   • McFlock …

                     19 February 2019 at 8:48 pm

                     OK, now you have my attention.

                     I can see how human rights legislation might give students legal recourse in the face of endemic discrimination by faculty, but how on earth does it enable university staff to be bullied by students?
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     19 February 2019 at 10:15 pm

                     The contribution is trivial, but then its contribution to protecting students from harassment by academics is also trivial. It’s just a small part of a general encouragement for students to imagine themselves an oppressed class who should stand up to the authority of their course controllers, when the reality for a decade or more now is that universities consider students to be paying customers and academic staff mere employees, with all the consequences that that implies for the academic staff. I hear some shocking stuff about how academics are treated by students – the reverse doesn’t come up so often, exactly because of the ubiquity and effectiveness of harassment procedures, which are only aimed at protecting students. For me, the sight of Peterson surrounded and shouted down by braying arseholes on his own campus illustrates the real power relationship involved.
                   • McFlock …

                     19 February 2019 at 10:32 pm

                     Oh.

                     “trivial”, huh.

                     Having seen student advocates actually include human rights legislation in successful attempts to e.g. make university courses more accessible to people with various disabilities, I disagree.

                     And having also seen the difference in response to students with complaints before and after they got the same advocates invovled, customers are treated a darn sight better than students.

                     Lots of students are little shits, no argument, but students protests made his career (publicity for patreon), while he can wreck careers before they start with a bad mark.
                 • greywarshark …

                   19 February 2019 at 10:58 am

                   Why can’t the pronouns be mentioned – in his article on the link provided Peterson mentioned ‘zhe’ and ‘zher’. I agree with him that the intensity of focus on gender issues and demands is OTT.

                   There is so much achieved in that area, can we come back to refugees and parents and children and let those work their way to the head of the list for some caring attention and action.

                   We have the image of Oliver holding out his empty bowl and tentatively asking for ‘more please’. That is how it is for parents and children. Can more people work themselves to a white-hot energy to love them, our most vulnerable with the most potential.
                   It is they who will live in and form the future; to be reasonably good or an abandoned lot.
               • Psycho Milt …

                 18 February 2019 at 12:50 pm

                 Nope, he’s the dude who claimed he was risking jail time by refusing to allow the government to mandate his use of pronouns. There seems to be some dispute over how real a risk it was, but the principle was sound enough.
                 • McFlock …

                   18 February 2019 at 1:10 pm

                   Does he let the government mandate what he calls ethnic minorities? Or does he habitually drop the N-bomb out of general principle?
                   • Chris T …

                     18 February 2019 at 1:23 pm

                     The govt isn’t telling him what he has to call ethnic minorities
                   • McFlock …

                     18 February 2019 at 1:29 pm

                     So you’re saying that Canadian and Ontario human rights legislation gives greater protection to transgender people than it does people of different ethnicities?
                   • Gosman …

                     18 February 2019 at 1:50 pm

                     I believe his issue is being mandated to use language not being restricted from using certain words (although I suspect he doesn’t particular think government should do the later much either).
                   • McFlock …

                     18 February 2019 at 2:32 pm

                     Being “mandated” to use term A instead of term B is a restriction from using term B.
                   • Gosman …

                     18 February 2019 at 2:42 pm

                     No, it is specifically mandating term A. It restricts using term B but also terms C through Z as well as any other terms you may want to utilise.
                   • McFlock …

                     18 February 2019 at 2:55 pm

                     Maybe terms C through Z are just as naughty as term B.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     18 February 2019 at 3:25 pm

                     His claim was that the government prescribing words that you must use goes way beyond proscribing words you’re not allowed to say in public. I read some opinions disputing whether the Canadian law genuinely did prescribe speech, but on the face of it his claim seems reasonable.
                   • McFlock …

                     18 February 2019 at 3:45 pm

                     Except this point seems to have developed because he took an addition of gender identity to pretty standard human rights legislation as an indication that refusing to use a person’s pronoun of choice would be regarded as “hate speech” for which jail would be a possible punishment.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     18 February 2019 at 3:57 pm

                     Sure, and plenty of people disagreed with him on whether the law would actually have that result. If he wasn’t inclined to wait for case law to provide a conclusive answer that could involve a prison sentence, I can sympathise.
                   • McFlock …

                     18 February 2019 at 4:07 pm

                     But he seems to me to be the legal equivalent of a hollywood anti-vaxxer: a high-profile person encouraging an irrational fear based on zero evidence except their own unqualified reckons.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     18 February 2019 at 5:02 pm

                     YMMV, I guess.
                   • McFlock …

                     18 February 2019 at 5:09 pm

                     That doesn’t really cut it in these issues, though.
                     The fact is the law got changed and he hasn’t gone to jail.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     18 February 2019 at 6:51 pm

                     When it comes to assessing the merits or otherwise of a law restricting freedom of speech, “it hasn’t put this guy in jail yet” isn’t a useful basis to assess them on. If a law could in principle put someone in jail for not using a ridiculous pronoun that someone made up for themselves, but hasn’t yet because people in the justice system aren’t fuckwits, it’s still entirely reasonable to oppose that law.
                   • McFlock …

                     18 February 2019 at 8:06 pm

                     If people in the legal system aren’t enforcing a law, the legal system has a bigger problem than adding an additional group to the already existing human rights act while giving that group no extra privileges compared to any other protected group.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     18 February 2019 at 9:40 pm

                     It sure does, but that’s a whole other argument.
                   • McFlock …

                     18 February 2019 at 9:55 pm

                     So the alternatives seem to be:
                     It is now an imprisonable offence in Canada to refer to someone by using a pronoun that they do not believe reflects their gender, but nobody has done that yet; or
                     It is now an imprisonable offence in Canada to refer to someone by using a pronoun that they do not believe reflects their gender, but the Canadian legal system is refusing to uphold or enforce that law; or
                     that interpretation of the addition of transgender people to the existing human rights legislation was just Peterson’s little wet dream.

                     I’ll take door number three, Monty.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     19 February 2019 at 7:02 am

                     You missed option four: yet again, a “progressive” government has passed bad law that won’t be properly enforced, on the basis it will “send a message.” My money’s on number four.
                   • RedLogix …

                     19 February 2019 at 7:21 am

                     If I could butt in briefly; Peterson elsewhere has said that if a transgender student personally asked him to use a non-standard pronoun he would likely comply out of courtesy and basic manners.

                     On the other hand he’s been clear that if someone confronted him, demanding he use these pronouns, he wouldn’t. And certainly he objects to legal compulsion.

                     While it leaves open the question of why one situation is different to another, I think in real life most of us would have little difficulty in determining a sincere personal request, from grandstanding an ideology.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     19 February 2019 at 10:43 am

                     Agreed. If Peterson has a student in his class who’s obviously transgender and he decides to use the wrong pronouns for them, that’s assholery of a fairly high order. I haven’t seen anything to suggest he’s that kind of asshole.

                     Gender faddists who want you to use made-up pronouns for them is something else entirely, and I personally doubt any genuine suicide risk in such faddists not having their demands met.
                   • McFlock …

                     19 February 2019 at 1:12 pm

                     Just out of interest, was his comment about how he would treat a student a walk-back after someone pointed out how previous claims about pronouns would inhibit his ability to teach?
                   • McFlock …

                     19 February 2019 at 1:15 pm

                     You missed option four: yet again, a “progressive” government has passed bad law that won’t be properly enforced, on the basis it will “send a message.” My money’s on number four.

                     “Properly” by what estimation? If discretion is left to officers and courts (e.g. s59 repeal), that’s good law. If it’s an explicit instruction to arrest wrong-pronoun users and leaving the authorities no discretion, you’d be correct.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     19 February 2019 at 4:29 pm

                     If discretion is left to officers and courts (e.g. s59 repeal), that’s good law.

                     I’d call that very bad law. S59 repeal was an example of making fairly ordinary behaviour a lot of people engage in illegal and then leaving it up to the cops to decide who they feel like collaring for it, and the bill Peterson was bothered about was an example of vaguely classing a wide swathe of behaviour as illegal and leaving it up to the cops to decide who they feel like collaring for it. Both are shitty, shitty approaches to legislation.
                   • McFlock …

                     19 February 2019 at 4:42 pm

                     I like reasonableness or significance tests and other such limited fuzziness in law.

                     Strict prescription/proscription is okay for some things with clear distinctions, but when situations, language and tech evolve, it’s good to give the people in the system discretion.
               • joe90 …

                 18 February 2019 at 1:02 pm

                 I think he’s the dude who thinks Frozen is reprehensible propaganda.

                 But Sleeping Beauty and Moana are just fine because men are portrayed as manly men, m’kay.

                 edit:

                 btw, who said it – Jordan Peterson or Islamic cleric.
             • Incognito …

               18 February 2019 at 10:08 pm

               Oh dear, a professor whose lectures are “common sense”. That sounds trivial to me and not worth any time, money, or a degree …

               Maybe Prof Peterson should start a joint venture with Tony Robbins and Kim Kardashian.
       • marty mars 3.1.1.3

         18 February 2019 at 12:20 pm

         + 1 yep, you have sussed him correctly imo
       • Bazza64 3.1.1.4

         18 February 2019 at 12:41 pm

         Cool socialists, does that mean when the heating runs out ?
         • Adrian Thornton 3.1.1.4.1

           18 February 2019 at 2:06 pm

           Yeh that to, a heavy woolen coat with a nice cut and a scarf makes anyone look pretty cool.
       • Shadrach 3.1.1.5

         18 February 2019 at 1:59 pm

         “…but then Peterson would never debate someone who could easily expose and dismantle his mostly regressive fruitloopery.”

         That’s some way wide of the mark.

         Peterson has been interviewed numerous times by members of the media, often hostile to his worldview. The best example was his now famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) interview with Cathy Newman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

         Peterson has also participated in debates involving intelligent, capable opponents. Here are three examples:

         Sam Harris (https://medium.com/words-ideas-thoughts/sam-harris-vs-jordan-peterson-the-vancouver-debate-decoded-a3e0f293d595).

         Michael Dyson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYimeaoea0) (Note – this was in a group debate, where JP is joined by Stephen Fry).

         Susan Blackmore (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jordan+peterson+debates&view=detail&mid=3EFE8B2C8091A72A1B183EFE8B2C8091A72A1B18&FORM=VIRE)

         Rather than accept what other people say about Peterson (which I find often mischaracterises what he is actually saying), there are a large number of You Tube clips featuring Peterson in interviews and debates where he gives his opinions in his own words. They are worth the watch.
         • Molly 3.1.1.5.1

           18 February 2019 at 10:12 pm

           “Rather than accept what other people say about Peterson (which I find often mischaracterises what he is actually saying), there are a large number of You Tube clips featuring Peterson in interviews and debates where he gives his opinions in his own words. They are worth the watch.”

           I have watched some of his videos, and read his book. He comes across to me as a prat.

           He has no understanding of nuance or context.

           He uses analogies not as a method of explanation, but as evidence for the concept he proposes. His thinking is clear-cut to those who are looking for black and white answers in a chaotic world. But thankfully, we live in a technicolour world despite it all.

           He – most dangerously – calls to those who feel alienation, and answers them – not with ideas of inclusion or community, but with blaming and external causation. His appeal to those that seem to like him – seems to be his certainty – the same aspect that makes him, and many like him, unappealing to me.
           • Shadrach 3.1.1.5.1.1

             18 February 2019 at 11:20 pm

             That sounds like a whinge. You obviously don’t like his opinions, and mischaracterise his followers as somehow being misfits. The reality is Peterson speaks common sense and rationality into a world weakened by irrational discourse.
             • Molly …

               19 February 2019 at 8:31 am

               “That sounds like a whinge. You obviously don’t like his opinions, and mischaracterise his followers as somehow being misfits. The reality is Peterson speaks common sense and rationality into a world weakened by irrational discourse.
               “
               Shadrach. You asked for someone to read his books, and watch his videos. I have done both. Hours of my life I won’t get back, but which I thought necessary because someone who was living with us at the time was a fan, and that connection was the impetus to inform myself.

               I don’t find his perspectives insightful or helpful, I actually find him to be divisive and without nuance or context. I can see his appeal, without finding him appealing, in the same way I can see the appeal of Trump.

               See response to RedLogix below for why I think your comment is part of a pattern.
               • Shadrach …

                 19 February 2019 at 2:30 pm

                 Divisive? That isn’t a criticism, is it? His views are controversial, but only because there are those who hold strident views on issues that defy logic. Peterson is a voice of sanity in amongst that nonsense.
                 • Molly …

                   19 February 2019 at 4:16 pm

                   I would consider your comments more if you would stop just defending the man, and discuss his ideas.

                   I find his ideas divisive, because he talks about personal responsibility as being towards the individual, with no understanding of differences in background, ability or environment. People who adopt that perspective, often fail to accommodate other lived experiences or perspectives and make judgements accordingly. Often derisive judgments, leading to division. He also fails to address issues of community or engagement that are external to those individual responsibility ideas.

                   “His views are controversial, but only because there are those who hold strident views on issues that defy logic. “
                   I don’t find him logical (deliberately stated in a moderate tone and without CAPS). I think his lack of clarity and logical progression from one idea to a conclusion is what makes him controversial. His supporters think this is because he is a voice of sanity in a world of chaos. I think it is because he is simplistic – unrealistically so.
                   • Shadrach …

                     19 February 2019 at 4:37 pm

                     I am defending his ideas. My comments have reflected that precisely.

                     “…differences in background, ability or environment” don’t negate personal responsibility. But rather than reducing his overall contributions to a single point, I’d suggest you consider his 12 Rules for Life, which make a great deal of sense.

                     “I think it is because he is simplistic – unrealistically so.”
                     I don’t believe he is unrealistically simplistic. He speaks in common sense terms. His ideas are actually fairly mainstream, however the chatter of extremism makes the value of what he says at times seem radical.
                 • Molly …

                   19 February 2019 at 6:43 pm

                   ” He speaks in common sense terms. His ideas are actually fairly mainstream, however the chatter of extremism makes the value of what he says at times seem radical.”

                   Terms like radical, common sense are amorphous and subjective.

                   The comments that I have made can be discussed within context, and with nuance. Yet you just continue to cheerlead the abstract, and the man.

                   “I’d suggest you consider his 12 Rules for Life, which make a great deal of sense.”
                   I have had the unfortunate experience of considering his 12 Rules for Life. “… a great deal of sense…” means little, unless you explain why it is beneficial – not just to the individual but to the wider community.

                   His appeal seems to be emotional rather than logical.

                   Despite the number of comments, you have not engaged in any points I have made with the issues I have with the only one of his concepts – rules for life – presented: cleaning the room.

                   I was hoping for some level of informed discussion on the concepts themselves.
                   • Shadrach …

                     20 February 2019 at 8:40 am

                     Perhaps you should take a breath, and rather than cheerlead your remarks, actually read what I have written. The reaction to Peterson reveals more about the insecurity of his opponents than it does about his ideas.
                   • Molly …

                     20 February 2019 at 8:50 am

                     Shadrach, you haven’t put forward any of your own thoughts here.
                     Only reiterated your support for Peterson’s which can be interpreted in many ways.

                     Your admonishment “take a breath” is a way of shutting down conversation. All I have done with you is disagree, and explained why.

                     I’m also not an “opponent” of Peterson. I am someone who is not persuaded by his rhetoric. I find his perspective simplistic and artificial, and in some cases divisive and damaging. Because I don’t like his ideas, doesn’t mean that I “oppose” him.
                   • Shadrach …

                     20 February 2019 at 9:23 am

                     Of course I have put forward my own thoughts. I find Peterson’s arguments, for the most part, compelling. He has a way of introducing substance into conversations so often distorted by emotion and misinformation, examples being the gender pay gap and compelled speech.

                     I don’t agree Peterson’s arguments are ‘artificial’ or ‘simplistic’. His book ‘12 Rules for Life’ is written by someone who is clearly a deep thinker, but who can articulate his ideas in straight forward terms. In an age when thoughts and speech are becoming so controlled and cautious, that is refreshing.
                   • Molly …

                     20 February 2019 at 9:54 am

                     “Of course I have put forward my own thoughts. I find Peterson’s arguments, for the most part, compelling. “
                     Actually – you haven’t. Continually saying you find someone else’s ideas compelling, is not your thoughts on what he is saying.

                     You also haven’t really presented any of his ideas with clarity.
             • Molly …

               19 February 2019 at 2:21 pm

               “and mischaracterise his followers as somehow being misfits.”
               BTW. I never did.
           • RedLogix 3.1.1.5.1.2

             18 February 2019 at 11:37 pm

             He comes across to me as a prat.

             Actually what you probably don’t like is his relatively high pitched voice … women tend react negatively to that and your choice of ‘prat’ for the put down is consistent with conveying ‘lightweight, incompetent, foolish, annoying and unattractive’.

             https://www.livescience.com/16160-women-remember-deep-male-voices.html

             https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-women-like-deep-voices-and-men-prefer-high-ones-41492244/

             There is quite a lot of literature on this.
             • Molly …

               19 February 2019 at 8:26 am

               “Actually what you probably don’t like is his relatively high pitched voice … women tend react negatively to that and your choice of ‘prat’ for the put down is consistent with conveying ‘lightweight, incompetent, foolish, annoying and unattractive’.”
               I’m more of a reader actually, and didn’t particularly note his voice. And it was his inconsistencies in his writing that I found unattractive. But it indicates the style of discourse about his ideas – which have to go through a whole analysis on the man himself. I find that a problem.

               I have no problems disagreeing with ideas put forward by people I admire. I consider that to be the normal way of life. Discussion about Peterson seems to be mainly around “fer” or “agin”, on the man. And sides become entrenched, and he gains exposure without his ideas being examined.
               • RedLogix …

                 19 February 2019 at 10:07 am

                 Which is why I find it odd that his opponents attack the man, or his style,rather than scrutinise any of his ideas in detail.
                 • Molly …

                   19 February 2019 at 2:16 pm

                   Yes, I fell into that trap above. But there is only so much life to be wasted on someone that I identify as having fuzzy logic, and I’ve spent enough time on his work. I expect his supporters and cheerleaders to be able to bring forth his ideas that have value. They often don’t.

                   Saying I found him a bit of prat, was my personal informed response to reading his book, watching some of his videos as advised by Shadrach. There is such a deluge of videos online, that following Shadrach’s advice would be soul destroying. However, I also think that amount of material and lack of nuance makes it easy for him to hold contradictory ideas, as any incidents of fuzzy logic, can be reinterpreted by subsequent videos or interviews and used as “proof” of support for free speech, or human rights.

                   I also did explain why I found him so unappealing. But the issues as you say are never discussed, because there are so many interpretations of what he has said, that I have to suspect this lack of clarity is intentional.

                   I have asked for concepts to be discussed, but that fails as he has issued so many contradictory statements in so many mediums, it is possible for his supporters to Peterson-splain away any identified problems.
   • greywarshark 3.2

     18 February 2019 at 12:24 pm

     One of Jordan Peterson’s problems would be his lack of vision in one eye; the one with a black patch in front of it. However there is much to commend in that he bravely soldiers on and on and on and on – whoops – and on…../sarc
4. veutoviper 4

   18 February 2019 at 11:09 am

   Ok, ‘fess up.

   Who hung the Russian flag from Salisbury Cathedral a week before the anniversary of the Skripal poisoning?

   Just heard this on the RNZ 11am news. No article up yet on their website, so here is a Guardian article (just to rile some people here) on what happened.

   https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/17/russian-flag-appears-on-salisbury-cathedral-year-on-from-novichok-attack
   • Macro 4.1

     18 February 2019 at 11:24 am

     Sometimes placing something inappropriate on an ancient monument can be amusing.
     I’m not so sure in this case.
     BTW it wasn’t me.
     • veutoviper 4.1.1

       18 February 2019 at 11:46 am

       Great pictures, lol – but as you say different situations.

       I also see that the Marx monument in Highgate, London has also been under attack twice in the last two weeks.

       https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47265467
       • te reo putake 4.1.1.1

         18 February 2019 at 12:50 pm

         That’s really sad (and misplaced, given that Marx is not responsible for things done in his name).

         I’ve done the pilgrimage to Highgate Cemetery. It costs a few quid to enter, but it’s a fascinating way to spend an hour or two. The section that Mr and Mrs Marx are resident in also includes the resting places of many, many other lefties. Plenty of political exiles ended up there, and there are a scattering of left wing British journos in that corner too.

         If you do visit, a few metres in from the front gate is Douglas Adams’ plot. If you’re a fan, take a pen or pencil with you. I won’t say why, but you’ll feel special afterwards.
         • veutoviper 4.1.1.1.1

           18 February 2019 at 1:55 pm

           I lived in London for seven years in the 1970s and initially stayed in Finchley with friends before moving to a flat in Gloucester Rd area where I remained for the rest of my stay in London. One of the first things I did was go to Highgate Cemetery because it was reasonably close to my friends’ place and loved it. A fascinating cemetery and used to take other people there from time to time. And yes,, a lot of things are ascribed to Marx which were not of his doing or his beliefs. Sad to see how much damage has been done in these latest acts of vandalism.

           I did not know Douglas Adams was buried there and just checked his Wikipedia page and lo and behold – a photo of his grave! Thanks for mentioning he was buried there. But fascinated as to why the pen or pencil …

           https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
           • swordfish 4.1.1.1.1.1

             18 February 2019 at 4:40 pm

             Highgate Cemetary – Not too far away from the enclave of London I know best … Holloway / Highbury / Finsbury Park / Stoke Newington.
             (Arsenal territory … for footy fans)
         • RedLogix 4.1.1.1.2

           19 February 2019 at 10:09 am

           Yes I’ve seen a wet morning there too. A remarkable spot.
   • Anne 4.2

     18 February 2019 at 11:44 am

     Doubt that was a waggish act. More like ‘someone’ was reminding other people what happens if you betray [supposedly] your country of origin. In this case, Russia.
     • Macro 4.2.1

       18 February 2019 at 12:04 pm

       Yes, most likely.
     • veutoviper 4.2.2

       18 February 2019 at 12:09 pm

       I actually saw it from the same perspective, Anne – ie as a reminder rather than a waggish act.

       I just tried to look at an article on The Times website today which headlined that Sergei Skripal’s health has deteriorated, but gave up as to read it in full, you have to sign up to a one month free trial.

       However, the whole sorry saga seems to have been in the UK news again in the last week or so as indicated by the various related articles on this Guardian page with recent results for Sergei Skipal.

       https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/sergei-skripal

       I doubt that Skripal is anywhere near Salisbury these days, and one of the Jan 2019 articles is about the dismantling of his house there; another about the UK and Bulgaria working together on a Bulgarian poisoning of an arms dealer in 2015; one about Bellingcat claiming they have identified a third GRU agent involved in the Skripal poisoning and various other related articles. Even one about Ed’s idol George Galloway being censored by Ofcom, the UK media regulator, for breaching broadcasting impartiality rules when he used his radio show to cast doubt on Russian involvement in the Skripal poisonings.

       I will probably now get hit by the anti-Guardian brigade here for the above!
       • Tuppence Shrewsbury 4.2.2.1

         18 February 2019 at 12:26 pm

         I always forget which big money outfit that the guardian is supposed to work for and can’t be trusted.

         I heard at the annual meeting of big money and deep state they spun the bottle. Russia got Facebook and corporate America got traditional media.
         • veutoviper 4.2.2.1.1

           18 February 2019 at 1:57 pm

           ROFL.
5. greywarshark 5

   18 February 2019 at 12:17 pm

   Seamus Kearney? on Radionz very informative – said Angela Merkel more hard hitting than ever before on eve of her quitting.

   https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018682957/us-eu-discord-and-snap-election-called-in-spain
   US-EU discord & snap election called in Spain
   From Nine To Noon, 9:48 am today

   From Europe, correspondent Seamus Kearney where the Munich conference has laid bare Transatlantic tensions, as the relationship between the US and the EU deteriorates. Also, a snap election has been called in Spain amid rising anger in Catalonia, and European students rally for action against climate change.
   • veutoviper 5.1

     18 February 2019 at 9:58 pm

     “… Angela Merkel more hard hitting than ever before on eve of her quitting.”

     She is not quitting anytime soon. She stood down in Oct 2018 as Leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CTU) Party after 18 years as leader with Annegret Kramp-Karrenbeuer elected as Leader in Dec 2018.

     However, while she has made it known that she will not stand again for another term as German Chancellor, Merkel will remain Chancellor probably until the next federal election in August/Sept 2021 – some two and a half years away. The only change to that is if a snap election is called between then and now, but this seems unlikely, or if health etc prevents her completing her present fourth term as Chancellor.
6. Herodotus 6

   18 February 2019 at 12:27 pm

   Monty Python before their time on Kiwibuild !!!
   Minister Twyford please listen about building houses and achieving 3 !!!
7. Chris T 7

   18 February 2019 at 1:28 pm

   Interesting development

   The UK clears Huawei to do their 5G network

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12204757
   • One Two 7.1

     18 February 2019 at 4:39 pm

     Entirely unsurprising…

     It was always a red herring… …removing this narrative clearing a path for discussions of greater significance is a positive…
8. Sabine 8

   18 February 2019 at 1:34 pm

   oh good grief.
   • rata 8.1

     18 February 2019 at 2:03 pm

     Wish we had political satire in NZ.
     Simon and Jacinda would be fun
     • Siobhan 8.1.1

       18 February 2019 at 2:30 pm

       Baldwin is himself such an objectionable, sexist, abusive, bullying, bullshitting ‘philanthropist’ its hard to really laugh at his imitation of…an objectionable, sexist, abusive, bullying, bullshitter…American comedy really is at a low and weird ebb…
       • Sabine 8.1.1.1

         18 February 2019 at 2:41 pm

         the shoe fits.
         one sexist abusive bullying bullshitting philanthropist depicting another sexist, abusive, bullying bullshitting philanthropist.

         i did not see comedy here, just raw and honest depiction of the orange shitgibbon.
         • Siobhan 8.1.1.1.1

           18 February 2019 at 3:31 pm

           But Trump is his own best send up of Trump. God, does that make sence?..you know what i mean i hope. I’m just bemoaning the lack of really good American comedians offering actual comedic insights into american politics. The Baldwin Trump thing is simply a ‘product’ of the increasingly pointless media offerings from NBC.

           You may find this interesting, I’ve had to link you to the Intercept as the original article referred to is a pay for article. Its about NBC etc taking on Trump for the CIA, the Pentagon, and the FBI in the name of #Resistance..

           https://theintercept.com/2019/01/03/veteran-nbcmsnbc-journalist-blasts-the-network-for-being-captive-to-the-national-security-state-and-reflexively-pro-war-to-stop-trump/
           • Sabine 8.1.1.1.1.1

             18 February 2019 at 5:28 pm

             personally i think he does a good job.

             i also like the paintings from Jim Carrey whom i absolutely loathed as an actor.

             sometimes the shoe fits.

             the thing is, trump could have stopped the war in Syria two years ago, he did not. he could have pulled out troops from Afghanistan two years ago, he did not, he could have pulled out troops from Iraq two years ago, he did not.
             trump is not anti war. he is not gonna make america great again, he is not giving a tax cut to the poor, he is not gonna bring back coal, he is not creating jobs ……and we know this now because he had two years of hte holy trifecta and all he did was a tax cut for the very rich, and lower withholding taxes for the rest – which funnily enough now results in lower refunds for many and ‘you owe the IRS” to the rest.

             the US is nothing more then a military state with a mercenary army that is hired out and now Trump is in on the grift.
             Anyone believing anything else needs to check their glasses for the rose tint. It is getting too strong and it does impact on the clarity of ones vision.

             and you might not like it, but this is american politics and this is a comedian offering insights.
             • Siobhan …

               18 February 2019 at 6:33 pm

               My point is he’s actually not a particularly good comedian and he’s not offering any insights. He’s doing a simple impersonation of a ridiculous man because nbc are using him to prop up their bullshit political agenda.
               Your enemies enemy is not in fact your friend.
               People seem to be willing to support anyone…literally anyone, who opposes Trump without a thought in their head about what they are being offered as an alternative.

               trump could have stopped the war in Syria two years ago…and if you had bothered to read up on nbc…you would appreciate their pro war stance…its really very simple propaganda on the part of nbc. Anti Trump the war monger…whatever…

               for starters..
               https://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/04/17/how-nbc-knowingly-let-syria-rebels-false-war-propaganda-stand-years
             • Adrian Thornton …

               18 February 2019 at 9:25 pm

               “Jim Carrey whom i absolutely loathed as an actor”
               WTF!.. Carrey has done some shit or sure, but he has done a couple of minor masterpieces in his time, Cable Guy. Truman Show come to mind…

               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0lbdPKl8hg
               • Sabine …

                 18 February 2019 at 9:51 pm

                 it may sound strange but he gives me anxiety. Like literal anxiety. I have never watched any of his movies dubbed into german so it might be a reaction to that, but i can not stomach him for a full movie. I have watched some in sequences. there are a few actors that do that to me. I did like him in Mask, the dancing scene was excellent.
                 • WeTheBleeple …

                   19 February 2019 at 7:55 am

                   Ellen made my Sister anxious. That’s when I realised the awkward schtick is not for everyone.
           • KJT 8.1.1.1.1.2

             18 February 2019 at 5:46 pm

             Difficult to lampoon Trump.

             He does such a good job of it, himself.
   • joe90 8.2

     18 February 2019 at 2:13 pm

     Hit a nerve.

     https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1097116612279316480
     • Sabine 8.2.1

       18 February 2019 at 2:42 pm

       as i said above,

       when the shoe fits. and it does fit so well.
9. millsy 9

   18 February 2019 at 2:39 pm

   Re: the discussion about Jordan Peterson.

   The guy is nothing but a jumped up homophobic prude who wants to suppress female sexuality and strip women of any and all reproductive Rights

   He is even on record as wanting contraceptives banned.

   He, and his boyfriend Milo are leading this conservative backlash against women and their rights, which see to reverse the gains that women have made in the past 50 odd years and establish a more puritanical society, where women are hanged for enjoying sex.
   • Sabine 9.1

     18 February 2019 at 2:46 pm

     Is that not what all that Maga shit is about?

     No, not going back to the 1950 but rather to go back to the 1750’s.
     Where humans not white, heterosexual males (and landowner please) knew their place, behaved appropriately and kept sweet, lest their owners kick them out of the house, stopped feeding them, or beat them into submission.

     ahhhh the good old time, when even the biggest looser was allowed at least one women to own and do with as his heart contented. After all…….the bible says so somewhere.
   • Psycho Milt 9.2

     18 February 2019 at 3:49 pm

     He is even on record as wanting contraceptives banned.

     In that case, no doubt you’ll be able to point us to that record.
     • Sabine 9.2.1

       18 February 2019 at 5:42 pm

       it falls under ‘
       abortifacts’ and yes , htere are a few that would want that banned, especially the white crowd that wants white women to bear white children to prevent the white race from dying out.

       but you asked

       in his own words

       he also does not like masturbation
       https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/987706974598041605
       but then he ‘does not really it mean it that why cause maybe women don’t want to be reduce to the status of a milk cow, err a human incubator, err a ‘mother by force if need be ‘
       https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/987567234716495873
       and here with the spawn of the orange turd
       https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/1078382175949590528
       • marty mars 9.2.1.1

         18 February 2019 at 5:53 pm

         Thanks for putting up those video of this hideous person. We must know the truth of his lies then he has no where to hide.
         • Sabine 9.2.1.1.1

           18 February 2019 at 6:22 pm

           you have at least one Supreme Court Justice who would want to do the same.
           His name? Kavanough.

           http://time.com/5389449/brett-kavanaugh-contraception-abortion-inducing-drugs/

           i mean, whats not too like, if you want women out of the work force, of the streets and out of public live you need to go back to the times where birth control depended on the husband agreeing to it.
           And besides, it can’t happen here right?

           I am past child bearing age, and had a medical hysterectomy many many moons ago, so i ended up never having children. I can tell you something, not having to worry about pregnancy or having pregnancy scares are awesome. Sex just for fun, without any responsibilities Awesome.
           Now if more men could grow up and realise that women are actually doing them a favor by taking the pill every day of the year for twenty – forty years, so that they – men – can have sex without responsibility, it would be great. Alas, we have men promoting this pinheaded fuckwits as intellectual greats.

           I am serious, this is the end game for the forced birther crowd. Not abortion, but the pill.
       • Psycho Milt 9.2.1.2

         18 February 2019 at 6:38 pm

         Yes, I’ve seen those videos. I asked millsy for the record showing that Peterson wants contraceptives banned, and those videos aren’t that record. He even explicitly states he doesn’t want the pill banned in one of them.
         • Sabine 9.2.1.2.1

           18 February 2019 at 7:34 pm

           no he back peddled. As quite a few men actually like to fuck without procreation and even some women do.

           And i would even go so far as to say this racist has no issues with preventing procreation in those that he deems not white enough.

           Cause you see, he is for procreation of the white race. that is his thing, and it is the white women whose birth rates are going down, and for good reason. And it is for those women that he deems the pill to be not beneficial. Cause you know, we get to work, we get to earn money, even ‘gasp’ more money then men, we get to have education, we don’t have to marry some bloke for a meal ticket anymore, we can buy our own dinners, heck, we have come so far that we don’t even need a man to give us access to his checkbook because we have our own. You know, that thing called feminism that created all these opportunities for women which we can partake in because we are not constantly pregnant or breast feeding, or birthing, or miscarrying.

           and you know what, the proof is in his words.

           so why don’t you show me a clip in which he states that he has absolutely no issues with women taking the pill, with men and women living together engaging in mutually satisfying sex and not having children because she’s on the pill. 🙂

           you know when men like this speak i always hear this one in my head

           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dip54axBnIs

           .
           • Psycho Milt 9.2.1.2.1.1

             18 February 2019 at 8:01 pm

             no he back peddled.

             To “back-pedal” requires that you make a claim and then try to withdraw the claim. There’s no back-pedaling in those videos because the claim is never made in the first place. There is an implied accusation by a participant in one video that Peterson wants to ban contraception and he immediately rejects the accusation. That is not “back-pedaling,’ no matter how much you might wish it were.

             And i would even go so far as to say this racist has no issues with preventing procreation in those that he deems not white enough.

             Well, sure, everyone is free to form whatever risible opinion they want about the guy. Thing is that your opinion is worth as much as mine, which has a net worth of $0.00.
             • Sabine …

               18 February 2019 at 8:11 pm

               i asked you real nice to show me a clip of the guy in which he states that he has no issues with women taking the pill, he has no issues with the birth rate of white people, and non of that is of any interest.

               nope? can’t be bothered? can’t find a thing? deflecting from the fact that this guy would remove access to the pill for white women so that they start breeding again?

               cause you see, you don’t have to ban a thing, you just make it inaccessible.

               A bit like in the old years where a women could get the pill, so as long as she was married and her husband agreed to it.

               See nothing was banned, a women could just simply not get it without permission from her owner err husband.
               • Psycho Milt …

                 18 February 2019 at 9:34 pm

                 You seem confused about burden of proof. I haven’t made any claims about Peterson’s opinions on contraception and am therefore not under any obligation to support such claims. At issue here is millsy’s claim that Peterson is on record as wanting contraceptives banned – as far as I’m aware, he isn’t, so I’d like to see some backing for that claim. Whether or not Peterson has made comments explicitly endorsing particular contraceptives or not is irrelevant.

                 deflecting from the fact that this guy would remove access to the pill for white women so that they start breeding again?

                 See, now that’s another claim. Do you have evidence to support that claim?

                 A bit like in the old years where a women could get the pill, so as long as she was married and her husband agreed to it.

                 Perhaps if Peterson had been around at the time he would have supported such abuse of human rights. Maybe he wouldn’t. Who knows? Certainly not us, which makes these kinds of accusations pointless.
                 • Sabine …

                   18 February 2019 at 10:32 pm

                   as i said, he speaks for himself. No accusations here, just his own words. 🙂 bye now.
       • Incognito 9.2.1.3

         18 February 2019 at 10:23 pm

         he also does not like masturbation

         But he doesn’t seem to mind an intellectual wank.
     • swordfish 9.2.2

       19 February 2019 at 10:31 pm

       Just a note to say I appreciate the good sense you’ve displayed in the various threads on Peterson here, PM.

       We’re thinking along the same lines (& I happen to know others on the Left who feel the same … able to systematically sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to JP & the IDW … without resorting to crude character assassination & hysteria).

       Cool, calm collected Left vs the Smeary Intersectionals (& their chums in the media)
10. joe90 10

    18 February 2019 at 3:32 pm

    Putin giving Maduro the arse?

    .
    Russian lender Gazprombank has decided to freeze the accounts of Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA and halted transactions with the firm to reduce the risk of the bank falling under U.S. sanctions, a Gazprombank source told Reuters on Sunday.

    While many foreign firms have been cutting their exposure to PDVSA since the sanctions were imposed, the fact that a lender closely aligned with the Russian state is following suit is significant because the Kremlin has been among Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s staunchest supporters.

    “PDVSA’s accounts are currently frozen. As you’ll understand, operations cannot be carried out,” the source said. Gazprombank did not reply to a Reuters request for a comment.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-gazprombank/russias-gazprombank-decided-to-freeze-pdvsa-accounts-source-idUSKCN1Q60BK
11. Poission 11

    18 February 2019 at 3:38 pm

    No difference in parties.

    https://twitter.com/RalphNader/status/1097280280140959744

    The hijacking of democracy.
    • joe90 11.1

      18 February 2019 at 4:06 pm

      So rather than gain control and then legislate against corporate finance let’s tilt the playing field in favour of the opposition by foregoing corporate finance.

      Yup, that’ll work.
      /
    • Ad 11.2

      18 February 2019 at 5:13 pm

      You dont bring a knife to a gunfight.
    • Sabine 11.3

      18 February 2019 at 5:45 pm

      oh my

      pass the smelling salts for the little dainty purists.
12. rod 12

    18 February 2019 at 4:07 pm

    Simon Bridges appears to be getting a little help from todays TVNZs midday news. Bridges seems to be reading his lines from the monitor, or maybe, someone else wrote the words for him ? Who knows ? It was quite peculiar. Just saying.
13. mikesh 13

    18 February 2019 at 4:12 pm

    I read that the BBC is about to release a documentary showing that MH17 was shot down by Ukranian military aircraft. The documentary is due for release on May 3rd.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/malaysian-airlines-mh17-brought-down-ukrainian-military-aircraft-the-bbc-refutes-its-own-lies/5521968

    This will no doubt put the cat among the pigeons.
    • joe90 13.1

      18 February 2019 at 4:19 pm

      ???

      The BBC has announced the release of a documentary on the crash of Malaysian airlines MH17, which will be broadcast on May 3 [2016]
      • Sabine 13.1.1

        18 February 2019 at 5:44 pm

        back to the future?
      • mikesh 13.1.2

        18 February 2019 at 6:34 pm

        OK. Egg on face time. I wonder why GR reposted the article.
        • Sabine 13.1.2.1

          18 February 2019 at 7:37 pm

          got nothing else to do?
          ran out of crap to post?
          click bait?
          entertain the masses who don’t check these sort of things like time stamps?
          cause a lie repeated a thousand times will eventually become the truth?
          all of the above.

          pick you box comrade.
          • mikesh 13.1.2.1.1

            18 February 2019 at 9:50 pm

            None of those options seem very likely, comrade. It’s more likely they were intent on pointing out that the BBC usually echo their political masters’ propaganda, even if goes against their better judgment.
            • Sabine 13.1.2.1.1.1

              18 February 2019 at 9:59 pm

              well you thought it was news. so something worked 🙂
            • McFlock 13.1.2.1.1.2

              18 February 2019 at 10:08 pm

              Repeat a lie often enough, someone will believe it.
              • mikesh …

                19 February 2019 at 8:30 am

                Is that true? I seem to hear it stated often enoubgh.
                • McFlock …

                  19 February 2019 at 10:55 pm

                  lol
      • Stuart Munro 13.1.3

        19 February 2019 at 10:52 pm

        The Bellingcat group mentioned something about investigating something in Malaysia to do with that country’s reaction to MH17 reports.

        Bellingcat tend to use open source material, if they’ve found something it will probably be fairly easy to verify.
14. OnceWasTim 14

    18 February 2019 at 7:32 pm

    For Wellingtonians:
    Don’t the pictures accompanying this article just say it all:
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/110674524/some-wellington-bus-services-could-be-suspended-indefinitely-because-of-driver-shortage
    And no doubt the cuts will happen to the likes of a Number 20.
    And unfortunately Darran, you’re not entirely blameless although you still have the opportunity to redeem yourself (platitudes aren’t going to cut it though)

    Shit – I’d better stop now – but for me and many others, a good system is now unusable, and when youse all manage to get your shit together, I wish you the best of British luck in enticing back customers – that is those you could have had by merely backing out the bugger’s muddle you implemented and went along with you continued to go along with and pretend minor tweaking would fix.
    It should have been evident after the first month
    • OnceWasTim 14.1

      18 February 2019 at 7:48 pm

      Christ Almighty! Stone me to death please!!!!
      I resisted listening/watching Laidlaw in that clip. Now I just did. There was all the 20/20 hindsight shit. Then 0/0 foresight should have been bleeding BLOODY obvious.
      FFS! Is this really the level of muppetry we’ve sunken to?
      Quite obviously it is.
      Again fellas – best of Brittis in trying to attract back those to your ‘visionary’ greater Wellington public transport system. Meantime, I’m thinking of driving an Uber for an earn
15. OnceWasTim 15

    18 February 2019 at 7:50 pm

    Christ Almighty! Stone me to death please!!!!
    I resisted listening/watching Laidlaw in that clip. Now I just did. There was all the 20/20 hindsight shit. Then 0/0 foresight should have been bleeding BLOODY obvious.
    FFS! Is this really the level of muppetry we’ve sunken to?
    Quite obviously it is.
    Again fellas – best of Brittis in trying to attract back those to your ‘visionary’ greater Wellington public transport system. Meantime, I’m thinking of driving an Uber or an Ola or a Zoomie for an earn
    • mikesh 15.1

      18 February 2019 at 10:09 pm

      The system will probably be OK once they have sorted out their staffing problems. It’s not perfect, but neither was the old system. Of course, everyone will tell you that things were better in ‘the good old days’, but it ain’t necessarily so.

      PS Having figured out the ins and outs of it, I find I don’t have any problems.
16. Eco Maori 16

    19 February 2019 at 9:34 am

    Some Eco Maori Music for the minute.
    
17. Eco Maori 17

    19 February 2019 at 12:43 pm

    The tipping point is here and now just the 00.1 % don’t want to beleve it because they have made heaps of money from this system that abuses mother nature and her creatures . Money cause a person to be selfcentered and un-humane they beleve what is best to keep there money . Money has to go and the currency need to have a conscience + = likes – = dislikes this currency will keep the evil people INLINE and Humane if they do to much bad thing they will go broke the good kind people will have money to gift to mother nature and the poor people it could be a hybrid of sorts ECO MAORIS thoughts on having a happy healthy humane Papatunuku and people basically EQUALITY FOR ALL
    Florida is drowning. Condos are still being built. Can’t humans see the writing on the wall?
    People tend to respond to immediate threats and financial consequences – and Florida’s coastal real estate may be on the cusp of delivering that harsh wake-up call
    I
    stood behind a worn shopping center outside of Crystal Springs, Florida, looking for the refuge where a hundred manatees were gathered for winter. I found them clustered in the emerald-colored spring, trying to enjoy a wedge of sunlight and avoid the hordes of people like me, boxing them in on kayaks and tour boats, leering over wooden decks. The nearby canals were lined with expensive homes and docks with jetskis. One manatee breached the water for a breath, and I could see the propeller scar on its back.

    Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet’s most important stories
    Read more

    2018 was the second deadliest year on record for manatees. Like many of our coastal species, they’re vulnerable to habitat loss and warming seas, which are more hospitable to algal blooms and red tide. Science has given us the foresight we need to make decisions that will reduce the future suffering of other species and ourselves, but we don’t heed it. Why?
    Studies show that humans don’t respond well to abstract projections. We overvalue short-term benefits, such as driving SUVs, burning coal and building waterfront real estate. We choose these extravagances even though they impede beneficial long-term outcomes, such as saving threatened species, or reducing the intensity of climate change.
    Humans tend to respond to immediate threats and financial consequences – and coastal real estate, especially in Florida, may be on the cusp of delivering that harsh wake-up call. The peninsula has outsized exposure: nearly 2 million people live in coastal cities. On the list of the 20 urban areas in America that will suffer the most from rising seas, Florida has five: St Petersburg, Tampa, Miami, Miami Beach and Panama City. In 2016, Zillow predicted that one out of eight homes in Florida would be underwater by 2100, a loss of $413bn in property. links below Ka kite ano P.S I know we can save OUR Mokopunas future

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/15/florida-climate-change-coastal-real-estate-rising-seas
18. Eco Maori 18

    19 February 2019 at 1:55 pm

    Some Eco Maori Music for the minute I have just figured out someone that can have the power of attorney over Eco Maori is evil and going to play into the sandflys HANDS
    
19. Eco Maori 19

    19 February 2019 at 4:39 pm

    Here you go Whanau more evedince that the system is corrupt a vital peace of evedince off the Pike river mine is stolen it would have been a inside job they needed a helicopter to fly it out who got the most to hide .??????????
    Police have tonight confirmed an inquiry is underway into whether Pike River Mine evidence has gone missing.
    1 NEWS last night revealed the door from an electrical control box was blown out of the mine in the 2010 explosion which killed 29 men.
    Police say they’re unable to speculate about the relevance of the item and are appealing to the public once again to come forward with any new information.
    The man who headed the royal commission of inquiry, Sir Graham Panckhurst, told 1 NEWS this afternoon that to the best of his recollection, that piece of evidence was never presented at the hearing.
    WorkSafe today confirmed to 1 NEWS that they don’t have it.
    The police still won’t say if they do – a question we’ve been asking for four days.
    Ka kite ano link below.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/content/tvnz/onenews/story/2019/02/18/pike-police.html?variant=tb_v_1
20. Eco Maori 20

    19 February 2019 at 6:42 pm

    Kia ora Newshub It’s good that MPI find these Fruitflys before they multiple into a huge problem.
    A capital gains tax is good for Aotearoa as for Newshubs poll on a capital gains tax well all the wealthy people you polled won’t want capital gains tax most other countries have one.???????. Poll are A tool use to sway people opinion that’s the way I see them so easy to minupulate.
    I feel sorry for the newly weds who found a camera in the house that they rent and got married in As I know my privacy is being breach all the time by the sandflys I know Alot of people have seen PHOTOS of me and my Mokopunas I know Alot of people have my pH number and track my travels I know that money can buy anything and the sandflys love making money for nothing there are other breach to my privacy to but I will use those to my advantage the sandflys are going to be paying millions for lose of Eco Maori potential earnings from the INTERNET Ana toa kai
    The Hikurangi faults zone is getting plenty of attention at the minute our beach back home is rising out of Tangaroa + All the erosion of the whenua has pushed Tangaroa out as well extra 50 metres there now from the time I lived there .
    That’s the way tell Jeremy Corby what’s the difference between Labour and the Tories nothing from what I see just 2 party’s for the Wealthy.
    Ka pai The Salvation Army moveing into the truck shop business everyone I see using the other shark rip off trucks get a frown and a lecture I like to buy second hand as its good for OUR Environment Ka kite ano
21. Eco Maori 21

    19 February 2019 at 7:18 pm

    Kia ora James & Mulls from The Crowd Goes Wild I see all te tangata whenua have nice big smiles even The Maori culture Haka teams te actors te music stars Its Ka pai to be a PROUD MAORI.
    He looks like that singer I quite like his music too but I like the one who sing Wairua better
    TE Sugar got salted guys.
    Eco Maori can not comment on Tyson Fury I would like to
    Ka kite ano P.S I see te Tau – – –
22. Eco Maori 22

    20 February 2019 at 8:24 am

    Kia ora The AM Show I know you are greedy and small minded duncan you have displayed those qualities all the time and you are a puppet I can see your strings being pulled I new that you would be crying about giving money to the Poor putting down capital gains tax . Sandy I seen in the online media Berne Sanders did not make the front page for a while Then all of a sudden he is getting air on the am show.?????? They don’t want a Wahine like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez To win the
    Presidentcy because now she is no longer on the front pages of The online media
    BULLSHIT you are just a oil lobbiest lobbying Aotearoa people to believe YOUR lies the oil industry can be replaced with green energy that gives less profit to people like you provides more JOBS that is part of the reasons unemployment in America is so low at the minute all the green jobs Created by Obama policy still flowing through their economy It is well documented of the facts I have stated everyone else but the go oil party and oil barrons are turning to green energy Crap there is no need in NZ to carry on using oil and gas. In NZ we have all the great green energy resources in Aotearoa Cameron you come out to broadcast you views about the oil and gas industry is bull what a conflict of interest like shonky tobacco lobbying MP Tod Barklay talking about the positive properties of tobacco.
    Mabe if the documentary tells the truth about the SYSTEM SOCIETY being courpted by the wealthy the laws are made for the wealthy at the expense of the common person 1 and 2 this system rewards single parent family it should reward familys with two parent familys a child needs the love of a mother and father to reach the highest rung on their ladders of life that’s reality and men respecting Wahine =equality need to be achieved to provide a humane gidence to our government policy men just want Te Money who cares about the mother earth.
    I would not let they Lady’s who went to the middle Eastern Wars and want to come back why because we cannot read there minds on there intentions basically they can’t be trusted. Wow the show is finally talking about global warming. Ka kite ano P.S you know who my next target is after I sort out the sandflys A
23. Eco Maori 23

    20 February 2019 at 9:29 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS