Open Mike 26/05/2017

60 comments on “Open Mike 26/05/2017 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. chris73 1

   26 May 2017 at 7:30 am

   Well on the one hand National will win a fourth term but on the other WFF has been strengthened

   Not entirely sure how i feel about this
   • Nick 1.1

     26 May 2017 at 8:31 am

     You know Natz will win?…I think you are wrong
2. Adrian Thornton 2

   26 May 2017 at 8:01 am

   “What if All Victims of War Received the Media Attention of Manchester Victims?”
   
   • Tautoko Mangō Mata 2.1

     26 May 2017 at 8:43 am

     This video needs to be viewed widely.

     Note the use of the words “collateral damage” in the brief report of the deaths of more than 100 civilians killed by the US in Mosul in the last month on RNZ this morning.
     Listen from 5:26 for the brief report.

     http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201845240
   • ianmac 2.2

     26 May 2017 at 9:35 am

     Heartbreakingly so true Adrian.
     “They” are Terrorists. “We” are Freedom Fighters.
     “They” are Snipers. “We” are Sharpshooters.
     Our Innocents are victims of Vicious Cowardly Terrorist Attacks. Their Innocents are just Anonymous Collateral Damage. (Operation Burnham?)
   • Molly 2.3

     26 May 2017 at 11:32 am

     Thanks Adrian. Well worth the watch, just to know that some media do point out the anomalies in reporting violence and the effect that has.
3. Sanctuary 3

   26 May 2017 at 8:17 am

   Joyce on RNZ this morning said they’d basically spent the lot on their middle class tax cut election bribe. They will have a few hundred mill stashed away for fire-fighting and electioneering hullabaloo, but nothing significant. So DOC, health, housing, PT in Auckland? Yeah… Nah.

   Both the Greens and NZ First have apparently signed up to support the government tax cuts. NZ First, fair enough. But the Greens??? WTF have they been smoking??? DOC funding was cut AGAIN. Nothing for PT. Under James Shaw they’ve drifted down in the polls and are probably going to end up third, which on this decision is about one place above what they deserve. I’m picking they won’t be bothering double figures in September. The stupidity of Shaw astounds me. He behaves like he is a 1990s Blairite – shit on your base because you think it has nowhere else to go and get into bed with the enemy for the sake of power as an end unto itself. Amazing. Amazing because the Greens have no game on the ground to speak of to mobilise their base of new agers, stoners, apathetic students and forest dwelling troglodytes so they need to be aspirational as hell to get them to the polls. The Green base HAS got somewhere else to go – they’ll just go to bed. Someone in the Greens needs to tell Shaw it is 2017 not 1997 and he is leader of a smaller party in an MMP environment, not the fricking UK Labour party under FPP.

   So that means that leaves Labour as the only party which isn’t committed to automatically locking in this governments spending commitments into the medium term. If you want change, you are going to have to vote Labour.
   • saveNZ 3.1

     26 May 2017 at 8:56 am

     @Sanctuary – the Greens and Labour are trying to win probably by taking the wind out of Natz budget by agreeing it. If they say they don’t agree, and want to tax more, harder for them to win. Will be like last time, Labour and Greens promised tax increases but did not make the numbers they should off. Nobody likes Austerity.

     I’d like to see a new bracket of zero tax under $10k – that would help the minimum wage workers and unemployed boost their incomes – that would be fairer.
   • DoublePlusGood 3.2

     26 May 2017 at 9:49 am

     Wait, is it confirmed that the Greens supporting the government tax cuts?
     Because if they are, I’m swapping to Labour until the Greens sort their shit out.
     • weka 3.2.1

       26 May 2017 at 10:22 am

       they’re not supporting the tax cuts. They’re opposed to what National are doing. They’re voting for the bill because they want the people doing the hardest to have the small amount that National are throwing their way instead of nothing, but they are very clearly criticising the tax cuts and the way that National has mis-targeted the budget. There is a post up now about the Greens response to the budget.

       Sanctuary’s comment was a piece of anti-Green/pro-Labour propaganda.
       • Sanctuary 3.2.1.1

         26 May 2017 at 12:15 pm

         Riiiiight…. so they are opposed to the bill that are voting for, and they support the tax cuts they are criticising?

         Christ on a bicycle, what sort of genius thought that up?

         Lets be clear. Voting for something you say you oppose is trying to have both ways and it amounts to arrant bullshit.

         Saying you are criticising something you are supporting so that makes it OK and doing it with a straight face is just lala land nonsense, Alice in Wonderland stuff that those out voter land and away from the land of Castalia where the Greens seem to think they are playing their glass bead game of politics will rightly scoff at.
         • weka 3.2.1.1.1

           26 May 2017 at 12:22 pm

           I don’t know why political parties do that, the voting for bills they oppose. Labour does it too. But you said the Greens support the tax cuts with the implication that they agree with what National are doing, and that’s a lie. They don’t support the tax cuts, and they’ve said so clearly.

           Maybe I misunderstood. Maybe you didn’t really mean to mislead people about where the Greens stand on the budget and instead meant to just say that voting for the bill while being opposed to the package and its intent and direction as a whole is a mistake politically. But let’s not forget that the bill will pass without the Greens, so this is about something else.
   • weka 3.3

     26 May 2017 at 10:20 am

     “Both the Greens and NZ First have apparently signed up to support the government tax cuts.”

     Shaw said the Taxation (Budget Measures: Family Incomes Package) Bill is flawed and taking things in the wrong direction but that because families are doing it so hard they need the pittance that National is giving them, hence the Greens voting for the bill.

     https://www.parliament.nz/en/watch-parliament/ondemand?itemId=181918

     The Greens are still to the left of Labour on most things, including taxation. Pretty much everything I’ve seen from them in the past day is them saying that they want govt resources via the budget to be targeted to people in need instead of giving tax cuts to the middle classes, and they’ve directly addressed DOC funding as well as most of the things their membership and voting base would want them to. I suggest you go look that up.

     I also liked this from Shaw, in response to one of the National MPs telling porkies about the Greens in parliament yesterday,

     Now, this is a debating chamber, so Mr Hudson is largely entitled to say what he wants, but he should try and stick to things that have some factual basis rather than just making crap up just because he’s gotten hot under the collar and has a political point to make.
     • DoublePlusGood 3.3.1

       26 May 2017 at 1:26 pm

       I know that theoretically the Greens are to the left of Labour, but if they go around voting in favour of shitty legislation in the house, how am I supposed to have confidence in them?
       • weka 3.3.1.1

         26 May 2017 at 2:31 pm

         What you are concerned about? Is it the principle? Because the bill will pass without the Greens, right? So them voting for it isn’t about enabling the bill, it’s about sending a message to people affected by the bill i.e. poor people. I’m still in two minds about that as a strategy, but it is an entirely different thing than the Greens agreeing with National. They simply don’t and Sanctuary is lying about that, for pretty obvious reasons.

         Is the lack of confidence because you think that the Greens will support a National govt? (they won’t). And what will you do the next time Labour does something that you think is wrong? There is literally no-one else in this election to party vote for if we want to change the govt. It’s Labour or the Greens.

         Labour also vote for bad legislation btw, so when it comes down to it, it’s about policy and competency. I look forward to a L/G govt but I think it will be a better one of the Greens have more MPs than they do now. The more support they have the more they will follow up on what their polices intend.
         • DoublePlusGood 3.3.1.1.1

           26 May 2017 at 2:42 pm

           Yes, it’s principle. Don’t vote for bad legislation. Ever.
           And it’s about having confidence in the message – they go around rightly bagging the budget, but then they vote for it? Wait, so it was ok? What bits were good about the budget then? Oh, so it was bad?
           • weka 3.3.1.1.1.1

             26 May 2017 at 3:09 pm

             pop over to the Green budget post and read Marama Davidson’s blog post on it. I hear what you are saying, and like I say I’m not convinced it’s a good thing to do when either the Greens or Labour do it. But I also think that what they are doing makes sense, and I’m curious about where that comes from. They may feel that compassion trumps politics in this instance.

             edit, makes sense for them i.e. it’s coherent with their kaupapa.
   • Robert Glennie 3.4

     26 May 2017 at 2:22 pm

     Labour, whilst having made plenty of mistakes and having many problems, I do not think actually deserve entirely the bad rap that they are getting. I think they will pick up more seats than anyone is willing to admit.

     Labour needs to stick to Labourite principles: supporting railways, partially buying back the electricity generating assets – these are the kind of things that would make me vote Labour.
4. Wayne 4

   26 May 2017 at 8:42 am

   Sanctuary,

   I think you mean Greens on fourth, being overtaken by Winston. I am pretty sure that would have happened with or without James Shaw.

   Winston is on fire at the moment. Pike River, Auditor General just to mention two things that he has led in recent weeks. But it matters less about the specific issue, and more about the fact that Winston is often leading the political news, and has been for some time.

   So I do expect NZF to be the third party, and perhaps surprisingly close to Labour. I am am picking NZF being north of 15%, which would mean Labour under 30%. Winston will pick up most of the vote that went to Craig last time.

   So picking up your last line. Voting Labour won’t actually change much, not unless you expect Labour to get 40%.

   The key changes of the Budget (tax thresholds and WFF) are now locked in with the vote of the Greens and NZF, and that uses up most of the available money.
   • Jason Warrington 4.1

     26 May 2017 at 8:47 am

     Speaking of Winston we fully expect more to come of this;

     “If you think there is no drug and gang problem in Northland, you haven’t been talking to police, teachers, health workers, social workers, forestry workers, local contractors, prison warders or rental owners. So Mr Reti, you seriously need to get out more.”

     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503447&objectid=11814421

     One nasty guy is Reti. The columnist got fired after this recent opinion piece was published in the local paper. Very inconvenient a columnist having a crack at you closing in on a general election. Plenty of local tories whispering about this latest incident. Cannon fodder for opposing candidates, be watching with interest what develops given he has prior form.
     • Jason Warrington 4.1.1

       26 May 2017 at 9:02 am

       And with stinging cracks against the National Party like these gems appears panic mode set in;

       “You always know when you’re dealing with OWG muck-ups when they roll out the doyenne of the National Party machine. Ponytail pulling? No problem.”

       “A housing misstep with Bill English or an embarrassing Saudi sheep farm that no one but the guys we gave it to thought they needed?”

       “Michelle will wave her magic wand of wonderful words and soothe it into a palatable paste of the master plan of happiness and good times for all.”

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11780488
     • ianmac 4.1.2

       26 May 2017 at 9:40 am

       Was she fired – really Jason? That would be akin to whistleblower mistreatment.
       • Jason Warrington 4.1.2.1

         26 May 2017 at 10:04 am

         Yip she got dismissed.

         Over 100k in spending in a small local paper struggling in the new digital world of media wields a lot of power in what is scribed and by whom.

         A first term MP that hasn’t really fired by living up to expectations, under siege already by a strong local Labour voice and the speculation Shane Jones will soon enter the race. A risky call given Muir’s popularity. Timing as a result is bad luck with Alfie threatening Jackson not long after the dismissal. I doubt any other media will dare take the issue on, it acts as a clear message ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you’. One could expect RNZ to tone things down with being critical of the Govt since they were big winners (muzzled) in the budget.
   • Bearded Git 4.2

     26 May 2017 at 9:35 am

     @Wayne You are forgetting what is actually happening. My rolling average of the last 4 Roy Morgan’s from a month ago showed:

     Lab/Gr 41.3
     Lab/Gr/NZF 50.0
     Nats 45.1
     Nats/ACT/MP 47.8
     Nats/ACT/MP/NZF 56.5

     If Winnie goes as part of the 4-headed monster it’s 56.5 versus 41.3

     If Winnie goes with the Lab/Gr bloc it’s 50.0 versus 47.8

     Both would give safe majorities, especially as Hone will probably win TTT.
     • ianmac 4.2.1

       26 May 2017 at 9:48 am

       Or if NZF went with Nats but refused to accept MP or Act. Over 50%. Would give Winston much greater clout.
     • Treetop 4.2.2

       26 May 2017 at 10:51 am

       You have not factored in Morgan, he just might take some of the marijuana party votes.
       • Bearded Git 4.2.2.1

         27 May 2017 at 11:45 am

         agreed…..TOP could get say 3%, most of this coming from the Left, and hand the election to the Nats.
         • Treetop 4.2.2.1.1

           6 June 2017 at 10:24 am

           See my comment on Open Mike 6 June 2017 @9.

           Do you think your 3% could get to 5%?

           Handing the election to the Nats would put me in a spin….
5. swordfish 5

   26 May 2017 at 10:10 am

   First poll since Manchester terror attack on Monday – shows Tory lead cut by 4 points to just a five point gap (43% CON – 38% LAB).

   This compares to the previous YouGov poll – for last weekend’s Sunday Times – that showed the Tories on 44% and Labour on 35% (9 point gap) and the first post- election-announcement YouGov (18–19 Apr 2017) which suggested a whopping 24 point lead to the Tories

   To put this in context – it’s the smallest gap since July last year (in any poll) and since April last year (in a YouGov poll)
   and
   Cameron won his majority in 2015 with a 6.5% lead over LAB.
   • weka 5.1

     26 May 2017 at 10:24 am

     Would the Manchester attack have influenced that poll?
     • mauī 5.1.1

       26 May 2017 at 11:55 am

       Should have done. The poll was conducted on 24-25 May a couple of days after the attack.
       • AB 5.1.1.1

         26 May 2017 at 12:11 pm

         Also Corbyn is due to give a speech on the Manchester bombing on Friday UK time.
         The “IRA-supporting friend of terrorists” smears on him in the Tory press are in overdrive.
         • weka 5.1.1.1.1

           26 May 2017 at 12:41 pm

           That will be one to watch.
       • weka 5.1.1.2

         26 May 2017 at 12:24 pm

         My understanding is that changes in voting intention take a couple of weeks to show up after an influencing factor. I’m not sure if that applies to something like a terrorist attack though.
   • james 5.2

     26 May 2017 at 10:56 am

     Got to say – I always enjoy and appreciate your commentary on the polls swordfish.
   • Stunned Mullet 5.3

     26 May 2017 at 11:50 am

     How do you rate the YouGov polling Swordfish ?

     I was under the impression they used similar methodology to the likes of Horizon in NZ.
     • swordfish 5.3.1

       26 May 2017 at 12:54 pm

       SM

       YouGov = highly reputable – one of the UK’s leading Pollsters

       Thing is – most Brit Pollsters now use Opt-in web panel methodology (not just YouGov)
       – YouGov
       – Survation
       – Opinium
       – Populus
       – Panelbase
       – TNS

       Phone Pollsters in minority
       – ICM
       – ComRes
       – Ipsos-MORI

       On-line Panel-based Polls were closest in EU Ref
       and
       YouGov pretty much spot-on with very-difficult-to-sample LAB leadership contest

       Oh and … cheers james
       • McFlock 5.3.1.1

         26 May 2017 at 3:56 pm

         and interestingly enough, looking at the wikipedia graph of polls, UKLab were on such a steep slope up that the yougov thing is high, but not outlandish.

         Tragedies aside, this election really is quite interesting.
   • Bill 5.4

     26 May 2017 at 12:33 pm

     Maybe – just maybe, people have had a gutsfull of the “tough on terror” bullshit. Maybe – just maybe, people are realising, that not only doesn’t it work, but that it’s counterproductive.

     If that’s the case (and I’ve commented to that effect on the post I just put up) then May’s finished.

     Corbyn’s speech is going to be very interesting on that front. Is May scheduled to be coming down off her scripted, tele-prompter podium any time soon?
     • swordfish 5.4.1

       26 May 2017 at 1:52 pm

       Quite worried about Jezza’s up-coming speech … I largely agree with his reasoning … but that doesn’t mean most Brits will …

       … potential for backlash and plunge in polls if he handles it badly – eg … with tin ear to almost inevitable heightened popular hawkishness on combating terrorism
       • AB 5.4.1.1

         26 May 2017 at 2:45 pm

         Yep – particularly given that anything he says will be deliberately distorted by the popular press to reinforce the “soft on terrorism” and “friend of Britain’s enemies” hogwash they are peddling.
         He needs to unconditionally condemn all acts of terror and political violence and all those who commit them – from the outset.
         Very risky and high-stakes.
         • swordfish 5.4.1.1.1

           26 May 2017 at 3:37 pm

           Precisely … ruthless, systematic “soft on terror” smears inevitable … highly emotionally charged atmosphere … young girls have, after all, died horribly, senselessly …

           MSM – Tories = “He’s too spineless to defend us … stockholm syndrome !!! …
           Cowardly Corbyn !!! … blaming us !!! … blaming the victims !!!
           Just like he did with the IRA !!!” …

           not too difficult to imagine the cold calculated ruthlessly-delivered spin
           • AB 5.4.1.1.1.1

             26 May 2017 at 4:30 pm

             If Corbyn was a really cynical political operator he’d use it as a chance to outflank the Tories on the right – promise more resources for the security services and police (blame Tory cost-cutting), implement some form of preventative detention for terror suspects (quietly hedged around with the need for judicial sign-offs) and a review of immigration policy for the post-Brexit world. Then throw in support for the local military forces who actually have a record of defeating ISIS on the ground (rather then direct British intervention), beefed up anti-radicalisation programmes at home, etc.
             If his prime objective is ending Tory austerity, he needs to be in power and so has to think about swallowing this dead rat in the least painful way (head-first, quickly and without looking too closely).
       • swordfish 5.4.1.2

         26 May 2017 at 2:51 pm

         From the same post-Manchester-attack YouGov Poll …

         How much, if at all, would you trust Theresa May
         to make the right decisions about
         keeping Britain safe from terrorism?

         TRUST … 55%
         NOT TRUST … 30%

         Jeremy Corbyn

         TRUST … 33%
         NOT TRUST … 51%

         _________________________________________________________________________

         Banning British citizens who have visited Syria
         without offical permission from returning to the
         UK

         Would be the right thing to do … 66%
         Would be an over-reaction … 15%

         ______________________________________________________________________

         Introducing internment – that is, imprisoning
         people who are suspected of having extremist
         sympathies but who have not committed any
         crime

         Would be the right thing to do … 41%
         Would be an over-reaction … 36%

         _________________________________________________________________________

         Introducing the death penalty for people
         committing murder for the purpose of terrorism

         Would be the right thing to do … 56%
         Would be an over-reaction … 30%

         ________________________________________________________________________

         Thinking about how the rest of the world deals
         with the threat from ISIS/Islamic State,
         which of the following best reflects your view?

         Ultimately, the threat from ISIS/Islamic State is
         more likely to be solved through the use of military force
         than through dialogue and peace talks … 46%

         Ultimately, the threat from ISIS/Islamic State is
         more likely to be solved through dialogue and
         peace talks than through the use of military force … 18%

         ______________________________________________________________________

         Thinking about the rise of extremist threats like
         ISIS/Islamic State in recent decades, do you
         think this is mainly the result of western
         countries interfering in the Middle East, or
         mainly the result of social, religious or political
         issues in the Middle East itself?

         Is mostly the result of western countries interfering
         in the Middle East … 18%

         Is mostly the result of with social, religious or
         political issues in the Middle East itself … 25%

         Both equally … 41%

         _______________________________________________________________________

         The latter provides at least some sort of encouragement I guess … # nuanced
       • Sanctuary 5.4.1.3

         26 May 2017 at 3:48 pm

         What is there to worry about? Labour entered the campaign 24 points behind, riven with a PLP neo liberal fifth column, led by a man subjected to the worst media smear campaign since the war and completely written off. On the back of a return to roots, nothing to lose manifesto,old fashioned campaigning and an offer of hope they’ve surged to within striking distance of power. There is nothing for Corbyn to lose by laying out his alternative to endless imperialist wars and terror, because it also holds out what the current electorate craves – hope of change for the better.
         • McFlock 5.4.1.3.1

           26 May 2017 at 3:53 pm

           pretty much.

           Whatever he says he’ll be slammed for, so he might as well keep stating it like it is.
           • Bill 5.4.1.3.1.1

             26 May 2017 at 4:03 pm

             I’m quietly thinking there’s been a sea change, and pointing to the blow-back from foreign wars etc will only accelerate support for UK Labour.

             Remember that millions marched against the invasion of Iraq and that the security services warned of precisely the blow-back that has been occurring. Also, a parliamentary vote to allow an air campaign in Syria fell over and I’m also picking people are less than impressed with the aftermath of Libya.
             • weka …

               26 May 2017 at 7:16 pm

               Here’s the favourability ratings for the two leaders and two parties over the past month as a chart.

               https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-05-25/chart%201.png

               From https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/25/are-tories-losing-ground-or-regaining-it/
6. esoteric pineapples 6

   26 May 2017 at 11:24 am

   Something to keep in mind in regards to Britain and terrorism

   “Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world, official government figures show – with most of the weapons fuelling deadly conflicts in the Middle East.

   Since 2010 Britain has also sold arms to 39 of the 51 countries ranked “not free” on the Freedom House “Freedom in the world” report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government’s own human rights watch list.

   A full two-thirds of UK weapons over this period were sold to Middle Eastern countries, where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West.”

   http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-is-now-the-second-biggest-arms-dealer-in-the-world-a7225351.html
   • joe90 6.1

     26 May 2017 at 11:59 am

     Stockholm based Peace Research Institute interactive charts the who and where of arms supply.

     https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2017/state-major-arms-transfers-8-graphics

     http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/toplist.php
7. mauī 7

   26 May 2017 at 12:32 pm

   It’s messed up:

   The British government operated an “open door” policy that allowed Libyan exiles and British-Libyan citizens to join the 2011 uprising that toppled Muammar Gaddafi even though some had been subject to counter-terrorism control orders, Middle East Eye can reveal.

   Several former rebel fighters now back in the UK told MEE that they had been able to travel to Libya with “no questions asked” as authorities continued to investigate the background of a British-Libyan suicide bomber who killed 22 people in Monday’s attack in Manchester.

   http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/sorted-mi5-how-uk-government-sent-british-libyans-fight-gaddafi-1219906488
   • Bill 7.1

     26 May 2017 at 12:50 pm

     It’s reported that the father of Salman Abedi fled Libya in the 1990s. He got political asylum in the UK because the Gaddafi government was ‘after him’ for leaking operational matters to fanatics who were the subject of state investigations.

     He went back to Libya after Gaddafi’s death and is now high up in the UN supported alternative government or some such.

     Anyway. My point is that in the ’90s, no-one would have given much of a second thought to offering asylum to the likes of Ramadan Abedi (the father), but…

     well, all this extremism was ‘contained’ by the security forces in countries like Libya, Iraq and Syria. They were the ones with skin in the game who kept tabs on shit, and western governments used their intel.

     What I can’t figure is why ‘the west’ chose to overthrow the governments of those countries and bomb them back to the stone-age. They absolutely were (how to say?) providing a service – no matter how unintentionally. Fuck, when the US were using ‘black sites’ off the back of their rendition stuff, which countries were people sent to for interrogation? Libya and Syria and possibly Iraq. Why? Because the authorities in those countries knew the lie of the land – knew their shit. They had to insofar as they were defending their secular states against the very same forces we now see running riot all over Libya, Iraq and Syria.

     I’d be thinking that Saudi Arabia has played a not insignificant role in shifting western policy in the region. And yes, Israel too.
8. joe90 8

   26 May 2017 at 1:29 pm

   heh

   https://media.giphy.com/media/xUPGcpC28G9SwQbjwc/giphy.gif
9. marty mars 9

   26 May 2017 at 2:09 pm

   Exactly fucked up PEOPLE not headchopper not subhuman not nonpeople. People who are fucked up.

   [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
   
   • marty mars 9.1

     26 May 2017 at 2:19 pm

     Fair enough yet it exactly pertains to the point of the post where blame is attached to groups for no good reason just ignorance. And that blame which is attached to groups supports tgem getting unfairly treated because of labelling and othering.
   • Bill 9.2

     26 May 2017 at 2:19 pm

     Sorry marty. But if you want to ride your hobby horse against me on the basis you simply don’t like some of the things that I say, then you’re doing it over here.

     We’ve been through this and you’ve singularly failed to rise above the level of personal abuse.

     If you don’t like people being ascribed a label based on what they do, then offer up some reasonable argument as to why. If you think chopping peoples heads off is sub-human or indicative of being a non-person, then fine. I can’t follow why that would lead to objections over them being called by what they either do or condone. Maybe you could enlighten me on that front?
     • marty mars 9.2.1

       26 May 2017 at 2:35 pm

       I havent abused you. I have put up a reason as to why using that term could be counter productive. You ignored that reason and didn’t offer up any alternative apart from ‘coz I wanna’ . The only reason I raised it again is because I thought it pertained to your comment. I am very happy to consider the subject closed – as to your final question – you answer it yourself – what people do is not what people are.

       Edit anyway I don’t want you to have to waste time with me so I’ll pull my horns in.
       • Bill 9.2.1.1

         26 May 2017 at 2:41 pm

         I haven’t said it encapsulates all that they are.

         But just like (as I explained yesterday) “Jones the postman” allowed the particular Jones to be identified in a community awash with the surname Jones, so “headchopper” allows identification in a region awash with warring factions.

         edit – the term “daesh”, widely used in the region, plays a similar role insofar as it robs those identified as “daesh” of any respectable veneer of religion they try to construct.
10. North 10

    26 May 2017 at 2:32 pm

    My reading of Marty’s comment says he supports the view of the post from which his comment was moved. I’m assuming that post to be “Islam Incidental”.
11. Robert Guyton 11

    26 May 2017 at 4:17 pm

    NoRightTurn: I/S writes:
    “There’s been a landmark decision from the Court of Appeal today, one which lawyers are saying changes the New Zealand constitution. The decision? The Court has ruled that the High Court was right to declare that National’s 2010 prisoner voting restrictions (the ones which were so shabby and shoddily passed that they brought Parliament into disrepute) were inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.”

    This tawdry stuff grinds on and on. National’s disgraceful actions are hidden from view only by the lag it takes to have them officially exposed.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS