Open mike 23/01/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, January 23rd, 2025 - 61 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

61 comments on “Open mike 23/01/2025 ”

  1. Ad 1

    And this is multiple decades of reporters humiliating citizens and families, in order to make a profit:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/22/prince-harry-says-sun-publisher-made-historic-admission-as-he-settles-case

    Just Harry and one ex-MP held out and forced Murdoch's group to apologise.

    For every foreign correspondent moral star like Robert Kapan and Robert Pilger and Carl Bernstein, there are thousands and thousands of reporters working to rip the guts out of your privacy and your family, for year upon year upon year.

    Thankfully I don't need to welcome the death of network news when it's well on its way.

    • Anne 1.1

      From the link:

      The two are now calling for a police and parliamentary investigation into “not only the unlawful activity now finally admitted, but the perjury and cover-ups along the way”, their legal counsel, David Sherborne, said in a statement outside court.

      “Today the lies are laid bare. Today, the cover-ups are exposed. And today proves that no one stands above the law. The time for accountability has arrived,” Sherborne said.

      Congratulations to Lord Watson and Prince Harry. They deserve the accolades.

      Something a bit similar was going on in NZ during the Muldoon years in particular. It was nothing like to the same degree, but sufficient to destroy the reputations of numerous people. There was also a cover-up of course.

      • tWig 1.1.1

        I read Harry's book 'Spare'. His ghost-writer, who helped Agassi in his bio, writes about the sheer media crap around producing the book, and has said he enjoyed working with Harry, and respected him as a person. The Spare stuff is about halfway through the article. Murdoch's press has an enormous responsibility for much of the shit that followed, and still follows Harry, who seems like a nice, friendly person, based on his own words.

  2. dv 2

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360553285/live-trump-demands-apology-bishop-inaugural-prayer-service-over-call-show-mercy

    Poor delicate TRUMP

    Referencing Trump’s belief that he was saved by God from assassination, the Right Reverend Mariann Budde said, “You have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now.”

    • Tiger Mountain 2.1

      What the…unbelievable, apology requested by Trump from a Bishop for stating the obvious–but then not unlikely at all–the US is an actual authoritarian state at the moment as millions of very worried Americans probably realise. They are being told who they can be, gays, trans, and half the population (women) are under attack from the fundamentalists. Handmaids Tale scenarios are well underway.

      Hope enough can hang in for the mid terms, though more gerrymandering and voter suppression will no doubt be underway right now to negate voting.

      • Bearded Git 2.1.1

        What few seem to have noticed is that the Republican HOR majority was reduced from 9 to 5 in the election. The Democrats could easily take this in 2 years which would help stymie Trump.

        (And as I keep posting Trump won 49.9 to 48.4….he is not that loved in the USA.)

      • tWig 2.1.2

        Some background on her comments at The Guardian. She criticised Trump for his flashy Bible stunt in his first term.

    • tWig 2.2

      Free speech for me but not for thee.

  3. tWig 4

    And in Australia, the government thinks that vandalism and car fires in the last week, aimed at jewish organisations and the homes of those heading pro-Israel organisations, could be the work of 'paid actors'.

    • Binders full of women 4.1

      "Could be" is def grounds for investigation which may lead further evidence…or not. If there is coordination in the attacks then they need to arrest or deport perps.

      • tWig 4.1.1

        Although the crimes caused damage to property, they seem to be about intimidation rather than attacks aginst people. There looked no attempt at arson of buildings, just car fires.

        So, therefore, apart from the racist nature of the attacks, I'd be careful about whether the vandals deserve deportation. And even question whether it is truly terrorism.

        After all, Oz is the country where youtuber Friendly Jordies, who exposed 'Pork Barillaro' as a corrupt NSW Liberal politician, had his home firebombed after Barillaro lost his seat.

    • Muttonbird 4.2

      But why not paid actors? Anti-Islamists appear to be coordinated and have the support of the very richest white men in the world.

      https://www.webworm.co/p/tommyrobinson

  4. joe90 5

    Segregation is back.

    /

    @chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

    BREAKING: In a new executive order sent out by the White House, Donald Trump has revoked the federal contractor nondiscrimination executive order, EO 11246, that was signed by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and has protected employees of businesses seeking federal contracts from discrimination ever since.

    https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lgcivsavps2h

    Potential Relevance to the Private Sector:

    • Revocation of Executive Order 11246. The Order revokes Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965—the longstanding order that prohibits discrimination in federal contracting and requires federal contractors to develop affirmative action plans and ensure equal opportunity.5 Contractors “may continue to comply” with Executive Order 11246 and its existing regulatory framework for 90 days from January 20, 2025.

    https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/client-alerts/20250122-president-trumps-second-term–anti-dei-executive-orders

    • adam 5.1

      Only tools and nazis are following trumps executive orders. This was a law passed by congress, they have to put up a revoke.

      That said it is wise anarchist belief – to pinch off the head of fascistic states.

  5. joe90 6

    Remember, it’s offensive to call this apartheid:

    //

    JINSAFUT, West Bank (AP) — Shortly after suspected Jewish settlers stormed Palestinian villages in the occupied West Bank late Monday, setting cars and property ablaze, U.S. President Donald Trump canceled sanctions against Israelis accused of violence in the territory.

    […]

    Biden’s executive order against the settlers marked a rare break with America’s closest Middle East ally, and signaled his frustration with what critics say is Israel’s leniency in dealing with violent settlers.

    Rights groups say that impunity has deepened since Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz exempted settlers from what is known as administrative detention — Israel’s practice of detaining individuals on security grounds without charge or trial — which is routinely used against Palestinians.

    Katz, who freed all Israelis held in administrative detention just last week, said those behind Monday’s attack should be held accountable in Israel’s more transparent criminal justice system.

    Palestinian residents, meanwhile, are tried in Israeli military courts.

    https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-west-bank-settler-sanctions-trump-668119732c77e083baa4a12c194df7ef#

  6. joe90 7

    Because what the world really needs is a resumption of open air nuclear testing!

    /

    Stephen Schwartz

    ‪@atomicanalyst.bsky.social‬

    The Heritage Foundation’s Bob Peters now recommends that if the US cannot develop the ability to conduct an underground nuclear test in Nevada within 3-6 months of an order to do so, it consider withdrawing from the 1962 Limited Test Ban Treaty and resuming open-air testing in Nevada or the Pacific.

    https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:iwbebt5r65c67xl5vy5iviwj/post/3lge7y5atb22s

  7. arkie 8

    Congratulations to the First "female" President, Donald Trump:

    Did Trump define all Americans as women?

    According to his executive order, "female” means a person belonging at conception to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell, whereas "male” means a person belonging at conception to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

    Biologically, however, all fetuses at conception are female until about six or seven weeks of gestation.

    The sexual organs (gonads) of a fetus remain undifferentiated up until this point, meaning that all fetal genitalia are female until 6-7 weeks post conception.

    https://www.jpost.com/omg/article-838803

    • Tabletennis 8.1

      Sorry Arkie "meaning that all fetal genitalia are female until 6-7 weeks post conception"

      No that is not what "undifferentiated" means: Zachary (from the Paradox institute) explains it well:

      Zachary Elliot: 23 .01.25
      https://x.com/zaelefty/status/1882123932066615697?mx=2

      or
      "During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female." – this is logically incoherent. Undifferentiated genitalia are not phenotypically female, they are undifferentiated.

      • arkie 8.1.1

        There was some dispute about the application of the science online. Some users raised the issue that the order discusses 'large reproductive cells' vs 'small reproductive cells,' referring to eggs and sperm. It does not allude to x and y chromosomes, or genitals.

        Scientifically, since no fetus has egg or sperm cells at conception, the order could also mean that no-one has a gender.

        https://www.jpost.com/omg/article-838803

        The point being, in 'clarifying' Trump and his ilk only demonstrate a lack of biological and linguistic understanding as does quoting a fellow traveller to prove your own point. Zachary Elliot, founder of the Paradox Institute.

        • Karolyn_IS 8.1.1.1

          But the EO doesn't say that a foetus has egg or sperm cells at conception. It says that at conception females belong to the sex that produces large reproductive cells. So, it can mean, as I understand it, that the sex is already encoded in an embryo's DNA at conception.

          Female foetus's start producing eggs in utero, so that must surely come from their DNA code….?

          Around the time the female foetus is 4 months old, they produce their peak amount of 6-7 million eggs. They decline after that. So, by the time a female is born they already have all the eggs they will produce throughout their life.

          I have read some people claim they are already on board at conception. I don't know what they mean by that.

          Anyway, I'm sure all of this EO will be contested in courts before too long, and maybe for long after that. I'll be interested in how that plays out.

        • weka 8.1.1.2

          There was some dispute about the application of the science online. Some users raised the issue that the order discusses 'large reproductive cells' vs 'small reproductive cells,' referring to eggs and sperm. It does not allude to x and y chromosomes, or genitals.

          Scientifically, since no fetus has egg or sperm cells at conception, the order could also mean that no-one has a gender.

          Good lord, who wrote that hot mess?

          I mean, ffs, the reason there are no eggs because at conception there are no ovaries.

          They patently don't understand the EO nor what the gender critical argument even is.

          Let me spell it out, again. Humans reproduce via the sex binary. There are only two sexes: female and male. There is no third sex. It's not possible for conception to occur without those two sexes, and there is no other sex that can be combined to take part in that process. Why is this so hard to understand?

          What the JP staff appear to be doing is trying to define sex as how individuals vary according to chromosomes and genitalia (how very neoliberal of them). But whatever configuration any individual has, they are still either female or male, or have a DSD and are still either female or male. Again, there is no third sex, and there is no in between sex that can somehow help make a baby ('intersex' is a misnomer, Differences of Sexual Development is clearer).

          This is very basic science, and it's been well canvassed in GC debates.

          Also worth pointing out that there are progressives who hold a progressive view on sex being binary, which is quite different from the conservative view. The GC feminist view for instance, says gender non-conformity (eg being trans, or having a DSD, but not limited to those) is normal and should be treated as normal in society. Understanding the sex binary and supporting the rights of GNC people are completely compatible. Bearing in mind that many of the rational and progressive GC people are GNC lesbians.

          • lprent 8.1.1.2.1

            Good lord, who wrote that hot mess?

            That I agree with. But it really does highlight the difficulties of writing language about biological gender into legislative instruments.

            I am just glad that in NZ, the legislation has only a few very residual attempts to map a rapidly changing biological sciences into legislation. Because otherwise they'd wind up with this kind of fugwittery as well.

            Someone should point this out to the people who'd like to change our legislation and policies for similar social reasons.

            Why do you think I keep asking to see draft attempts at legislation – because I think that what the NZWP talk about as (largely undefined) objectives about will look very similar. A gaping void of clear thinking will typically result in rat ship legislative results – just like this.

            • weka 8.1.1.2.1.1

              Sure, and I think having the NZ context made more clear in respect of law would be excellent. It is a large amount of work and complex.

              Sisterhood is global, so feminists are always going to be looking at what is happening internationally, because we care about what happens to women in other countries, and because their experiences do in fact inform our politics here. Just like with the labour movement's grounding in international perspectives.

              I probably know more about the UK situation than I do the NZ law, because in the UK grass roots feminists have been working on this for more than a decade. Substantial, policy and law changing work.

              When I've look at various NZ legislation at different times, I see much confusion around the terms sex and gender, with the term gender being used for sex or gender identity. This is a problem and from memory law makers have acknowledged this but it hasn't been resolved. It's a hang over from the time before gender identity culture, when 'gender' was often used to means 'sex'. Gender Identity activists would push to remove biological sex, GC feminists would push to have biological sex established in law (before it was just inherently understood)

              The social side is of paramount importance, because the shift away from women's spaces for instance, has been a large social shift in a short space of time with inadequate public discussion. That's why there is a backlash against trans people. The right have jumped on this of course, and the liberal left still largely insists on No Debate, so we don't get the kind of progressive resolution that will work across mainstream NZ. That's very unhelpful.

              As an example, it appears that Rape Crisis organisations in NZ no longer provide single sex services. I say appears because I am going off the Dunedin website, and No Debate means there isn't really any public discussion about this.

              What should have happened is RC retained its female only spaces/services, and added in spaces/services designed for trans women and trans men. Instead we have a situation where a woman who has just been raped can't know if she can access services from other women or not.

              I may be wrong about the service delivery, it may be that the Dndn RC website reads like it does because that's how you get funding now (mixed sex services), and in reality they still offer single sex services. But women in need cannot tell from looking at the website. That's appalling.

              In the UK there are now places where there are no female only RC services. None. There is a woman taking one RC service to court because she couldn't access female only services. She wasn't saying ban trans people, she was saying provide parallel services. She wants trans women to have access to services as well. But in the current social climate, providing female only RC services is considered transphobic because trans women feel excluded. Not because there aren't any services for them, but because some TW simple cannot stand the idea that women have our own needs. This is highly ideological, and it's why the social side is just as important at the legal side.

              There is another case in the UK where a RC worker took her employer to court and won. From memory she was dismissed for raising single sex issues at work. This is where we are at in the UK, women having to take orgs like RC to court. It's bizarre.

              Happy to provide some reading on both those cases from legal and feminist perspectives, just running a bit short of time this morning.

              I don't know if in NZ the solution is legislative or social or both. The biggest problem we have is No Debate, which means having these conversations in an even handed way is almost impossible.

              • Karolyn_IS

                I have heard that some NZ rape crises services accept males but put them up in motels and don't house them with women survivors. Don't know how true that is.

                I think the solution includes legal, public policy, more open public discussion of the issues, an end to the anti-democratic, suppression of critique.

                • weka

                  Here's Dunedin RC's website. What I see is statements like "five safe and comfortable spaces accessible to all clients"

                  https://www.ocasa.org.nz/our-story/

                  Google search by site returns no results for the word "women" for the whole site.

                  Here's the list of services, all of these should include the option of female only (no male clients or staff present).

                  • Crisis Support – includes police interviews, forensic exams, connecting with other supports/resources and developing coping strategies to manage the impacts of trauma.
                  • Court Support – this specialised service provides wrap around support for survivors and their supporters to navigate court trials, victim impact statements, restorative justice, meetings with police, crown prosecutors, and to connect to therapeutic supports as needed before, during and after criminal justice events.
                  • Counselling – Trauma Brief Intervention Counselling 6 – 8 sessions.
                  • Therapeutic Groups – Please speak to one of our team to learn more.
                  • Education – We provide specialised sexual violence prevention education programmes for young people aged 14 years and over. We also provide advice and training to other professionals.
                  • 24/7 Crisis support is available for acute cases via the police or Sexual Assault Assessment Treatment Service, who will contact our on-call crisis service if they determine immediate support is needed

                  https://www.ocasa.org.nz/our-services/

                • weka

                  I think the solution includes legal, public policy, more open public discussion of the issues, an end to the anti-democratic, suppression of critique.

                  Yes. We're going down a very dark path as long as the debate remains this murky and distorted.

          • Karolyn_IS 8.1.1.2.2

            Weka: "who wrote that hot mess? "

            Apparently it was a lawyer from a right-leaning group: Independent Women's Forum and White House attorney, and a White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor. As I recall, none of these are viewed very favourably by left wing gender critical feminists I know.

            I do think recent political and social policy developments mean we need to somehow define human sex and differentiate it from 'gender identity', legally.

            • weka 8.1.1.2.2.1

              completely agree on that last point. Lprent is laying down the challenge, maybe we could do some work on that this year. Compiling clear analysis of the issues in the NZ context. I think Lynn doesn’t yet understand the GCF position and is relying on the populist stuff. The gap in starting points makes the debate here doubly difficult.

              The hot mess was the JP article.

              • Karolyn_IS

                Yes. Agree on the definition. I was looking at this last night in preparation for a response to LPrent's comment to me yesterday afternoon on the Open Mike of a couple of days ago. I'll put this here, because a full reply to LPrent, with sources, will take more time.

                I think the Trump EO one is not that bad. I don't think it's saying that embryos have egg or sperm cells at conception, but that sex can be determined by DNA: ie via a chromosome test, which correctly identifies the sex, most of the time ( I think over 99.9% of the time, as does a presence of a penis correctly identify males at birth over 99.9% of the time.) Sex tests are done a few days after fertilisation for IVF in some places overseas for sex selection, but in NZ it's restricted to testing for sex-based genetic diseases that are sex-specific. I understand they don't test til a few days after fertilisation, because testing immediately after would kill the embryo.

                It's some DSD embryos/babies (AKA Intersex people) whose sex may be inaccurately recorded at birth or by in utero scans.

                I was looking at NZ legislation where sex is important. The main one I think, is the HRA. And last year the Law Commission called for submissions about proposed changes to protected categories to include transgender, non-binary, and innate sex variations as protected categories under the act. Speak Up For Women did a submission, which included a definition of biological sex. I can see where they are coming from, but I'm not sure the wording in their submission is that great. It says,

                Add a clear biological definition to the ground of sex:
                the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes.

                I think they are right to want to include a clear definition of sex (and to keep sex) as a protected category.

                I also think they are correct about the problems with subjective definitions of gender identity. Definitions of GI in NZ and abroad claim gender ID is an internal feeling. The problems in defining sex objectively are infinitesimal in comparison with the problems with the definitions of GI objectively. In comparison, sex is a much more stable and objective category.

                Sex does come into NZ laws here and there. But, I think part of the problem is that in the past, no one thought it was necessary to define sex (or man or woman, boy or girl) because it was assumed to be obvious.

                I also looked at the NZ Crimes ACT.

                It refers to "pregnant woman", and that rape involves penetration of a person's genitalia with another person's penis. As far as I'm aware the phalloplasties some transmen get are not very convincing. They don't function as the ones natal male's have – have a plastic tube that requires being hand pumped, I think. Most transmen don't opt for them but take testosterone.

                Somewhere on the NZ Crimes Act web page I found that references to indecent acts by a woman on a girl, and by a man on a boy, etc were omitted from the act in 2005. Also in the current act there are the use of sex-based family terms like aunt, uncle, brother etc plus the use of "him or her".

                It's interesting that gender identity activists and lobbyists, don't want to get rid of all sex-based terms in law eg in the BDMRR Act re self ID, want to be able to have legal documents referring to their sex/gender markers. And very often the unspoken inference is natal sex-based categories.

                Speak Up for Women rightly recommend that the definition for "variations in sex categories" be defined to include only those who have altered their external appearance with hormones or surgery, and people who have DSDs. These are objectively verifiable.

                Many people don't realise that today, many men who self ID as trans women, or gender fluid are basically heterosexual transvestites who have no intention or desire to transition surgically or medically. And we often only know someone is non-binary or gender fluid, etc because they tell us. Darlene Tana, for instance, became 'non-binary' and then dropped that gender ID without any obvious external changes.

                SUFW argue that other "gender diverse" IDed people who have surgically or not medically or surgically transitioned are already covered by the HRA's protections against sex discrimination.

                It's a weakness of Trump's EO that they do not provide any protections against discrimination for medically and surgically transitioned males and females.

                The inclusion of gender ID in law in ways that over-write natal sex with gender, have made it necessary to develop a clear legal definition of sex, especially for females.

                And it's not just becoming an issue in NZ and the US. Other places are attempting definitions. Thist has impacts for some of the international documents NZ has signed up to eg CEDAW that is against discrimination against women by sex.

                The Council of Europe has also attempted a definition, and quotes the WHO definitions of sex and gender. The link also says some languages don't have a word for gender, and sex can be used instead.

                The World Health Organisation summarises the difference between sex and gender in the following way:
                Sex refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc.
                Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. The concept of gender includes five important elements: relational, hierarchical, historical, contextual and institutional. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places. When individuals or groups do not “fit” established gender norms they often face stigma, discriminatory practices or social exclusion – all of which adversely affect health17.”

                Council of Europe's definition is a bit confusing:

                Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define humans as female or male. These sets of biological characteristics are not mutually exclusive, as there are individuals who possess both, but these characteristics tend to differentiate humans as females or males.”

                But some definitions internationally include male, female, and intersex/DSD as the 3 sex categories. eg as the Council of Europe does in reference to "other definitions". Gender is usually defined as a social construct. They include another definition that incorrectly claims transgender people can change sex medically and surgically.

            • Tabletennis 8.1.1.2.2.2

              So Karlyn_Is – the hot mess is created by Arkie putting links up that are a total waist of our times.
              He might as well have said storks brings babies…
              The OE can be can be read here in full,

              https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/

              This from Kara Denski, what the EO can do and doesn't do:and its little history how it came to be (e.g. it went 1st to the Democrates, who rejected it outright).
              https://karadansky.substack.com/p/defending-women-from-gender-ideology

              May Mailman was one of the writers and she has "Independent Law Centre"

              • Karolyn_IS

                No. He's not wasting our time. It's all part of the discussion.

                • Tabletennis

                  Well you're welcome, I however getting really annoyed with people who lower themselves to 'Trumpion' standards by posting stuff that can be proven to be clearly disinformation.

                  We have hard enough time to keep up with the same exact playbook, from ACT/National, as the new Trump administration.

                  The OE on defending women from extreme GI will be the ONLY good thing. Its extraordinary it came through this Trump government bunch. A very sour apple to eat.
                  We can look forward to 4 years of turning back any fair and equal opportunities, including for women.
                  The website on abortion info and contraception is already down..

    • Karolyn_IS 8.2

      Posted this in the wrong thread – redoing it.

      I've seen that said before. At the very least that claim is disputable: ie the coding to develop as male or female is present in the earliest cells after conception.

      Plus, this research shows that it requires a specific protein sets in motion female development, and that protein already exists in the female embryo

      Other people are concerned with the apparent claim in the EO, that it labels the cells immediately after conception as "persons", thus apparently inscribing in law, the apparent claim that embryos are persons from conception, which would be in keeping with the conservatives anti-abortion views.

      • lprent 8.2.1

        …the coding to develop as male or female is present in the earliest cells after conception.

        Sure. But there are a lot of tissues to build and assemble after that. Processes which sometimes gets quite confused in the non pure genetics world of protein transcriptions, protein emplacements, and environmental conditions which carries on for a lot longer than just after the fertilisation.

        Not to mention the various artificial interventions and tweaks that are likely to crop up over the coming century. Remember that we didn't even have a model of the structure of DNA until 1953. We can barely can operate at that level even now. That started systematically with CRISPR CAS9 in 2012.

        • Tabletennis 8.2.1.1

          Sure but, etc…… still doesn't change the human / mammal concept that male and female are present from conception.

          The model of structure of DNA was always there, it just took time to develop the technology to see with the eye.
          Environmental factors doesn't change that concept, however if you take alcohol and or drugs you might give birth e.g. to a handicapped F/M child.

          • Karolyn_IS 8.2.1.1.1

            As well as foetal alcohol syndrome, there are some research reports mentioned in the Cass Review on puberty blockers, that say male and female hormone balance in utero, while not changing the sex of the foetus, maybe can result in gender non-conforming behaviour. From my memory, I think Cass said this has shown up in research on some people with DSDs.

            I think probably this probably happens with Klinefelter syndrome, a syndrome that impacts males and the sex chromosomes are XXY. They have a low level of testosterone than is usual in males. The syndrome is often not picked up til puberty.

            They have a male reproductive system, but can may have some breast growth, as also happens with other men with low T, including as men age.

    • Psycho Milt 8.3

      Rhetoric doesn't trump reality. Male fetuses are male at conception because they have XY chromosomes. Also, zygotes and embryos are undifferentiated until sex organs start to develop – that's not the same thing as being female.

  8. joe90 9

    Nice.

    .

    @radicalgraffiti.bsky.social‬

    Italian leftists hung an upside down effigy of Musk, filled with garbage, at the square where Mussolini was strung up in 1945

    https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:ylawnodfqiijqq56tco3g3uq/post/3lgeo6md5pc2n

    • tWig 9.1

      Read a bio of Edda Mussolini (his daughter) recently, which gave a sense of Italian life under his ideas. A big push to sequester women in the home; plus, worst of all, a standardised, censored school curriculum, which taught the most narrow propaganda possible. A fettered cultish press.

      Mussolini developed many of the concepts and tools of fascism.

      Interestingly, he was an admired socialist thinker and journalist before swerving to the dark side.

  9. ianmac 10

    A comet was expected from last Thursday visible just after sunset or just before sunrise.

    I have seen no reports of it being sighted. Has anyone?

    • weka 10.1

      I've seen photos on social media. Didn't take much notice though sorry.

    • tWig 10.2

      "You’re going to see a really bright planet which is Venus, and if you look below that to the right, you might see this little fuzzy patch in the sky. That’s the comet,” from the Herald a few days ago. Sounds like you'd need binoculars and a dark sky to catch it.

  10. SPC 11

    The right believe that because the preponderance of expertise about disinformation is with academics of the left that fact checking is biased.

    Apparently self-awareness on the right is somewhat lacking – it is because their approach is not in accord with "the greatest good for the greatest number" that they have to mislead voters.

    https://x.com/dpfdpf/status/1877056554270109871

    • tWig 11.1

      As was seen at TS when more than one commentator ran down The Disinformation Project.

      Here. Article from 2022 about NZ conspiracy believers.

      "Last month, researchers working under the collaborative Disinformation Project published a major analysis showing how a deluge of Covid-19-linked social media activity exposed thousands more Kiwis to what they called "splintered realities" – while also helping push them toward racist and violent ideologies.

      They said the Parliament protest had created a "tectonic shift" in New Zealand's disinformation landscape – and laid new foundations ahead of next year's general election."

      Just see how far we've come in the last two years. I betcha that Herald article wouldn't be published today.

    • Muttonbird 11.2

      Farrar is the master of stats manipulation and using that knowledge for political gain. This is why RANZ have expelled him. He is a political activist first and a pollster second.

      • Ed1 11.2.1

        I think Farrar has claimed that he resigned rather than defend himself – I cannot guarantee it, and have now forgotten what he was accused of. It is a shame that there are not mandated rather than voluntary standards – it is not easy to ensure a lack of bias in polls. The NZ Taxpayer Union has plenty of money to commission polls – it is also a shame that the Curia polls are the most frequent, presumably for that reason.

        • Muttonbird 11.2.1.1

          I think Farrar has claimed that he resigned rather than defend himself.

          This is the same as expelled.

          Farrar is a shyster, a manipulator of data for gain. Here's one example I remembered from late last year:

          https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/10/did_labour_break_trust_in_government.html

          He uses official data from StatsNZ to create two graphs of his own design maximising visual effect to promote his pet political cause. The official graph and table was a mean rating from 0 to 10 but Farrar presents his own graphs with ratings just 4 to 6 and 6 to 8.

          He'd do this and similar hundreds of times a year. This is why he was expelled and it only a matter of time before political punters and media accept this.

  11. Muttonbird 12

    Expect a lot more of this shit at NZME with the savage job cuts they are employing.

    Headline states:

    Falling net migration will ‘erode support for housing market’

    So fucking what, you might ask, I mean why does the housing market need support, ffs?

    But read on and the body of the article is just a list of stats with no analysis let alone the supposed quote, 'erode support for housing market'.

    • gsays 12.1

      NZME are just doing their master's bidding.

      Legacy media would have been gone yonks ago if it weren't for real estate advertising.

      And folk wonder why trust in the media (authorized misinformation) is in the toilet.

  12. adam 13

    3 reasons this government sucks. lettuce is almost $5, petrol is our biggest tax – straight to a transnational corporation, and landlords have profited better than a sex worker at a pastoral conference.

Leave a Comment