Open mike 29/10/2022

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, October 29th, 2022 - 124 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 …

124 comments on “Open mike 29/10/2022 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Visubversa 1
    29 October 2022 at 9:31 am

    When they show you what they are – believe them. NSFW.

    https://odysee.com/@Skirt_Go_Spinny:7/Wrong-Ans-Only-1:b

    • Molly 1.1
      29 October 2022 at 10:11 am

      It'll be good to see if the TWAW crowd will bring themselves to watch and come to the realisation current definition of transwomen includes these men.

      The irony of criticising Act (for beingAct) when Golriz Ghahraman and the Green Party have succeeded on dismantling women's rights and hounding out heretics from the party to do so.

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018711720/green-member-s-transphobic-article-sparks-outrage-among-party

      A veteran Green Party feminist and lesbian activist has sparked a storm among party members by warning that MPs' attitudes to transgender issues risks undermining women's rights.

      Jill Abigail wrote an article for the party's online newsletter Te Awa in response to comments by MP Jan Logie that the party was trying to resist a backlash against trans people.

      Party co-leader Marama Davidson says the article put the right of trans people to exist up for debate, and should never have been published.

      It's since been removed and the party says the newsletter editor has apologised for publishing it. But Jill Abigail rejects claims it was transphobic or hateful.

      For those who can handle reading an article so hateful, it was republished (without self-righteous erasure) on the Public Good website:

      https://www.publicgood.org.nz/2019/09/02/solutions-that-are-fair-to-everyone/

      I am writing a personal response to Jan Logie’s words in the last Te Awa, where she says: “We continue to push for progress on LGBTQI+ freedoms, and resist the backlash that’s trying to undermine our trans and gender diverse whanau and roll back their hard-won rights”.

      Who is the “we” in this statement? Is it the Rainbow Greens? I am a lesbian, supposedly under their umbrella, but I am part of the backlash. Is it the whole Green Party? I am a long-time Greens member, but I am part of the backlash. If the Greens caucus is acting on policy that feelings of gender identity over-ride biological sex, then some of us older feminists in the party have strong concerns about its implications….

      …Many feminists are concerned to protect the sex-based rights of women and girls, whose disadvantaged position under patriarchy is based exactly on our biology and whose primary problem is male violence. Hence sex-based rights include the right to female-only spaces and activities. But feminist analysis of patriarchy seems to be completely lacking in gender ideology. Indeed, feminists who have worked for decades to achieve the rights now enjoyed by younger women are being vilified.

      So, criticism of David Seymour is shooting fish in a barrel – enjoy the amateur sport if you like.

      The Green Party has been no friend to women and girls. A slippery target, but a foe to females because of gender ideology in many countries – including ours.

      (Also, lacklustre on climate change, but that's another discussion)

      • Visubversa 1.1.1
        29 October 2022 at 10:19 am

        Unfortunately, Labour is no better. I was interested to see that the "celebrations" of 25 years of Rainbow Labour were cancelled recently through "lack of interest". As Rainbow Labour (which I helped establish) now is totally committed to gender ideology and has turned its back on the same sex attracted people it was formed to promote and serve, it is no wonder that many of us were not going to put ourselves through the exercise.

        • Molly 1.1.1.1
          29 October 2022 at 10:26 am

          The co-opting of the LGB community is one of the many egregious acts of gender ideology.

          The LGB support is a thin facade, it has been cannibalised from within.

        • Molly 1.1.1.2
          29 October 2022 at 10:41 am

          Visubversa, I've got a very small project with an Australian woman, collating NZ specific links regarding the impact on women's rights of legislation and policy changes.

          If you are interested, just reply in the affirmative, and I'll ask weka to connect us.

      • weka 1.1.2
        29 October 2022 at 11:07 am

        (Also, lacklustre on climate change, but that's another discussion)

        Since you mentioned it 😉 they're not. They have a really good suite of policies on climate aimed at shifting the Overton Window, and they're culturally committed to transition. They're also stymied by the Labour vote, because Labour are dragging the chain the climate. If the Greens had serious governmental powers, we'd be in a completely different position and we could be leading the world on transition.

        I find it odd when people diss the Greens' performance or policies (not sure which you were doing here). But it's like the realities of parliament don't exist and they almost never factor into the criticisms. Meanwhile Shaw and his team, and the other Green MPs, with the small amount of power they have, have been changing government culture from the inside. This is gold. In government departments, the thinking and policies are being changes to prepare for transition.

        It's not enough obviously, and Shaw says this frequently. He also says that they/we need people outside of parliament to act strongly and boldly as well.

        • Molly 1.1.2.1
          29 October 2022 at 11:27 am

          I know we disagree on this weka. I don't have the same perspective as you, and have articulated why a few times. I keep up with the Green policies, and when offered by their surveys – submit my opinions directly to them on proposed or current policies.

          I think that's all I can reasonably do as a member of the public in terms of the focus and the policies of the Greens.

          To bring the conversation back to the issue of Green Party policies in various countries, it is worth noting that the meeting this week in NSW, reported by Catherine Karena between parents of ROGD children and politicians, was not attended by any Green Party politicians. They declined to attend.

          https://twitter.com/KatKarena/status/1585236938143199233?s=20&t=FyfMZD5PZPVKHGGLyOQcJA

          • weka 1.1.2.1.1
            29 October 2022 at 12:11 pm

            I know we disagree on this weka. I don't have the same perspective as you, and have articulated why a few times.

            I you believe the GP are lacklustre on climate, but I don't know why, and certainly not in the context of the issue I raised about the realities of parliamentary process and power.

            • Molly 1.1.2.1.1.1
              29 October 2022 at 12:22 pm

              I could search my comments on this and repost, but TBH don't really see the necessity.

              Sabine often has the same criticisms I do of the Greens, so if you really want to know, I am often in accord with her thoughts as well.

              If the Green Party take note of their survey results they will already have my input. Despite previous voting choices, they are presently not the party for me. That loss is no doubt compensated by the increase in party votes by those to whom they now appeal, so it's probably not much of a loss in terms of the Green Party representation.

              That’s a sound political Green Party position to be in.

              • weka …
                29 October 2022 at 12:37 pm

                I'm not bothered by you not voting for them, nor that they are not the party for you. What interests me here is the running of anti-Green lines, on climate, when they are the leading edge for NZpol on this. It's not that they're perfect, it's that they're what we have and we don't have much else, at a time when we're entering of the biggest crisis any of us will ever face.

                Critiquing the Greens is important. But I'm not seeing that. Certainly Sabine's position doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I know she doesn't like the Greens, and the reasons are probably legitimate for her (so again, don't vote for them, they're not the party for her).

                But the politics matter a great deal, people exploring what their antipathy means in real terms in the real world. If people are going to run ant-Green lines without an analysis or debating it, I can't see how this is much different from GI allies doing what they do in the gender wars.

                • weka …
                  29 October 2022 at 12:45 pm

                  eg, this from a month ago.

                  Attitude towards those that are adversely affected by their proposals or policies. Failure to spark public interest or discussions. Supporting knee-jerk National Policy Statements on productive soils, but not strongly advocating for one on climate change – which will have immediate effect on all local government planning documents, sending emails celebrating divisive policies or implying credit for other's achievement, performative political posturing, throwing feminists out of the party…etc.

                  Let me break that down,

                  Attitude towards those that are adversely affected by their proposals or policies.

                  What attitude? Which people? Which adverse effects?

                  Failure to spark public interest or discussions.

                  They vary on this a fair bit, they used to do it more, they got gun shy after Turei's ousting, they're visibly upping their game since Shaw was challenged over the co-leadership.

                  Supporting knee-jerk National Policy Statements on productive soils, but not strongly advocating for one on climate change – which will have immediate effect on all local government planning documents,

                  This is a deeper political point that's worth looking at, but needs an explanation. I'll be wondering how much of it is them spread too thin, or what other explanation there might be.

                  sending emails celebrating divisive policies or implying credit for other's achievement,

                  such as? 🤷‍♀️ They get criticised for not showing how they are different from Labour, and then when they do, they get criticised.

                  performative political posturing,

                  such as?

                  throwing feminists out of the party…etc.

                  this one we agree on

                  I'm not saying you have to put any energy/time into this. I'm saying that while you believe you are giving a clear political analysis for your position that the GP are lacklustre, what I see is comments that reaffirm your antipathy and dislike (and disdain), but without explanations or political analysis.

                  • weka …
                    29 October 2022 at 12:52 pm

                    same in this comment,

                    .https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-27-09-2022/#comment-1912500

                    Which was in a thread I started about what would happen if the GP went full Turei.

                    Both you and Sabine didn't engage with my opening question, but instead spent time talking about your dislike of the Greens. Bugger all analysis of the problems with the GP, lots of declaratory statements that they are wrong and/or wanting.

                    • Molly …
                      29 October 2022 at 1:24 pm

                      I thought both Sabine and I did respond in essence to that post, but also see that we responded to other comments to that thread that may have redirected away from your original question.

                      So, in regards to the Green Party going full Turei.

                      I repeat what I said in the thread.

                      I can't see it happening, if I consider their actions in this regard, rather than their words:

                      "I agree. Also voted in support of Metiria Turei, even while thinking to myself, it looks like the Green Party supported the policy behind the public statement, and then collectively all took several steps back, when the pushback was immediate and negative.

                      Leaving her isolated, undefended and ultimately, ejected.

                      Looking back, I should've taken more note of this incident. The integrity of the organisation was shown here. Good political strategy no doubt, but not appealing to me."

                      I continue to think this was a direct response to your question. (Moreso than many others on the thread.) If you don't agree, then write it off as irrelevant.

                      Just because it remains my opinion, doesn't make it either a convincing or relevant one for others. I'm OK with that.

                    • weka []
                      30 October 2022 at 10:20 am

                      I don’t think it’s irrelevant at that time, people can diverge from topics. But I didn’t ask in that tweet thread if it would happen, I asked what would happen if they did go full Turei. Which is relevant here, because it’s the same issue of playing out people’s ideas to see how they might work in the world, in this case in parliament and nzpol.

                      (I wrote posts during the 2017 election and Shaw was completely beside Turei all the way through. He stood up repeatedly and said he supported her. I don’t know what happened inside the party away from the public eye, but in public the party didn’t abandon her (apart from the two Mps who went rogue on caucus)

                    • Visubversa …
                      29 October 2022 at 4:07 pm

                      What sank Metiria was not the policy – it was the absolute political bungling that accompanied its' delivery. Imagine the difference if Ann Hartley (the child's paternal grandmother) had been standing on that stage beside Metiria and had backed her up her by saying something like "yes, we supported Metiria and we would have given our last dollar to help her with our first grandchild, but the punitive clawback regime of Social Welfare means that she would have been no better off". The media focus than would have been on the policy, not on the benefit "fraud".

                      As it was, the Hartleys were absolutely blindsided and as every journo in the country knew about the connection, they were persecuted for days. This also led to the Election "fraud" charges as the media pack were digging into the living arrangements at the time which led to the fact that Metiria had registered to vote at a place where she was not living. It was the house in New Bond St that the Hartleys had actually purchased for Metiria and Paul to live in – but the relationship did not survive.

                      It was basic political bungling – absolute amateur hour stuff, and how any Party could let their co-leader do it is beyond belief.

                • Molly …
                  29 October 2022 at 1:03 pm

                  OK. My opinion is that they are lacklustre. My opinion of their policies can be dismantled.

                  Because I don't want them to fail, I refrain from more than a cursory discussion on one or two points, on this left wing site.

                  Climate change as a priority means that ALL decisions and policies need to consider the impact on every other policy and issue.

                  As someone pointed out the other day, transition requiring the use of mined minerals, means that a blanket opposition to mining is no longer able to be supported, because the priority of climate change means that sometimes mining is the cost.

                  This disconnection regarding climate change impacts, continues where it suits.

                  One example of a feted policy that I don't support is the Clean Car rebate:

                  https://www.greens.org.nz/transport_to_drive_down_emissions

                  "Kiwi families will be supported to make the transition to low-emission alternatives through the establishment of the Clean Car Upgrade, a scrap-and-replace trial, with funding from the Climate Emergency Response Fund.

                  Transport to drive down emissions

                  • Rolling out the Clean Car Upgrade programme, supporting lower- and middle- income families transition to low-emission alternatives through a new scrap-and-replace trial
                  • Helping low-income households lease low emission vehicles
                  • Supporting the rapid development of urban cycleway networks, walkable neighbourhoods, healthier school travel, and increased accessibility and reliability of public transport through our transport choices initiative
                  • Accelerating the decarbonisation of the public transport bus fleet"

                  A frankly middle-class initiative that ignores the reality of lower-income households, and their financial and alternative transport options. And consequential time poverty.

                  In terms of climate change, the NZ built environment and housing affordability crisis, means that an assumption that walkable neighbourhoods and urban cycleway networks provide a commuter or required transport option, rather than a recreational asset, is not evidenced.

                  Supporting the rapid development of urban cycleway networks, walkable neighbourhoods,

                  A considerable amount of transition resources and project proposals relate to this, but in many cases, this is not a transition project. It is a community asset for recreation and well-being – but not transition.

                  The hard choices that face us all with regards to climate change, are not being faced at all by an approach that treats transition as a supplementary issue, not the overriding priority. Climate change is either THE overriding policy consideration, or it is not.

                  Their failure to propose, or even publicly discuss a National Policy Statement on Climate Change that would have an immediate effect on local and regional planning documents and decisions, is acceptable for the National party but can be critiqued for an environmental one.

                  That's about all I wish to comment on, as an example of my withdrawal of support. If you want to raise a particular policy that you find good, I can comment on whether I agree or not.

                  • weka …
                    30 October 2022 at 10:39 am

                    thanks for this, this gives me a better idea of what the issues are for you, cheers.

                    Much of what you say in this comment I agree with.

                    As someone pointed out the other day, transition requiring the use of mined minerals, means that a blanket opposition to mining is no longer able to be supported, because the priority of climate change means that sometimes mining is the cost.

                    Not sure if you mean all mining, or mining under conservation land. But here’s where I am at: We should already have a moratorium on all mining (not just conservation) except for that needed for essentials. We should be reclaiming metals from landfill and other dump sites, and we should be building expert level and subsidised systems for reuse, upcycle, recycle, as well as dropping demand.

                    How many people in NZ do you think believe what either of us just said?

                    What do you think would happen if the Greens released such a policy? I think the first thing that would happen would be a bunch of MSM articles quoting David Seymour and such that the GP are cranks and have lost the plot. Some MSM would attempt some analysis of the policy, and I think it would help shift both understanding and the Overton window on resources use a bit. It probably wouldn’t lose the Greens their place in parliament next year. But if they released a suite of policies like that, they might.

                    Which brings me to this: do you believe that political parties should develop policy independent of what is politically viable in NZ? Because that’s kind of what it sounds like, that the Greens should on principle develop policy that is true to climate action even if NZ isn’t on board and it means they leave parliament in 2023.

                    And if it’s not that, if it’s more a grey area, where the Greens should be realistic about the politica situation but should speak out more strongly, I agree. Hence my Full Turei question.

                    Climate change as a priority means that ALL decisions and policies need to consider the impact on every other policy and issue.

                    Which party has a policy of having all government departments consider climate in their policy development?

      • Visubversa 1.1.3
        29 October 2022 at 11:24 am

        The "not all men" crowd slide effortlessly from "this never happens" to "that is only one person, you can't judge them all by that", to "do you spend all day trawling the internet over this – you must be obsessed".

        • Molly 1.1.3.1
          29 October 2022 at 11:33 am

          A good but long (1 hour) interview was recently posted between Helen Joyce and Winston Marshall.

          (Didn't realise till after the interview he gave with Richard Dreyfus, that he was a member of the band Mumford & Sons, that had to leave after causing a Twitter storm with a book recommendation.)

          It's worth a watch, or a listen if you have the time:

          https://youtu.be/o8b6b2i_LH0

          • Shanreagh 1.1.3.1.1
            29 October 2022 at 5:47 pm

            What a fantastic interview.

            I loved how Helen Joyce summed up the toilet issue, which is always downplayed by trans activists. Women need privacy, dignity and safety …then as another cleanliness! True to life examples of helping an elderly person in a toilet which means the door is open and this is not regarded as problematic except now it will be as men are able to use the toilets. The happenings of periods happening suddenly and the sad one that I did not really know and that is that many miscarriages occur in toilets. Plus the hiding out example.

            Then there is ghastly link from Visubversa. So many wrong answers. So much truth in the headings.

            Helen Joyce made mention of the male sex drive that meant that they want to call themselves women, many of the examples in the wrong answers link would be very frightening to many women using female toilets. They look dressed up, threatening and clearly obviously still men, who shouldn't be in women's toilets.

            To me it is men who should be more welcoming to these men who choose to dress as women. Or if that is unsafe then make toilets that these men can use. Just don't force women to use them as well. I have seen urinals (for men) and then a unisex toilet for men and women. So where is the privacy, dignity and safety there?

          • Shanreagh 1.1.3.1.2
            29 October 2022 at 8:28 pm

            Winston Marshall also did a great interview with James Dreyfus who was cancelled from Dr Who because he supported JK Rowling.

            A great watch with an excellent interviewer and great actor & person of integrity.

            i am most likely biased towards quiet, thoughtful, well educated people able to debate but I have not seen, in all the time of following this issue this kind stuff from the other side.

            There the debate is as we know 'no debate', yelling and picketing and being obscene at the SUFW meetings, lots of 'lady dick' and other stuff to get you on side,

            Is there anyone for the trans issue who can explain quietly about why they should be able to go to female toilets, compete against born females in sport therefore potentially wiping out born women's sport etc?

            Perhaps Winston Marshall could do an interview?

      • CAnker the pig fucker 1.1.4
        29 October 2022 at 7:09 pm

        100 % Molly.

        Greens and Labour have thrown women and girls under a bus

    • Molly 1.2
      29 October 2022 at 11:38 am

      Women is now purported to be a "right wing" term, intended to alienate – impregnatable people from their bodies, Harper Magazine, October 2022 issue:

      No impact, my impregnatable friends, no impact.

      https://twitter.com/ripsintolabels/status/1586080458835922944?s=20&t=kvKsMmfjDeg7Cv4JopO3ww

      • SPC 1.2.1
        29 October 2022 at 11:52 am

        And in riposte "denying women their identity (as a voting majority) is designed as a trojan horse to divide and conquer (into diverse self-interested individuals) resistance to right wing authoritarianism".

        The first stage was to equate the social gospel as socialism to promote prosperity religion – making idols of a wealthy elite class as inequality grew.

        • Molly 1.2.1.1
          29 October 2022 at 12:10 pm

          Pull your head in, SPC.

          This excusing of the dismantling of women's rights by referring to "right-wing" rhetoric is not convincing or persuasive.

          The word woman is taken. The word women is taken.

          Keep your cervix havers, menstruators, impregnatable people, and non-males in your lexicon if you wish. They indicate a complete disregard for women, and by your words you will be known.

          • SPC 1.2.1.1.1
            29 October 2022 at 12:18 pm

            In your haste to react you have both misunderstood and misrepresented my post.

            • Molly 1.2.1.1.1.1
              29 October 2022 at 12:26 pm

              Apologies for that.

              Can you be clearer? Your riposte came across as dismissive of a concern that the current left political position is not supportive of women's rights.

              … and a redirection into class analysis, in terms of inequality…

              • SPC …
                29 October 2022 at 12:51 pm

                There have been two obvious moves by the American political right in recent decades.

                1. to attack the social gospel as socialism, to promote prosperity religion – making idols of the wealthy elite (including some pastors, aka Brian Tamaki bling here) as inequality grew.

                2. and of course to promote self-interest (libertarianism, economic and otherwise) rather than group/class/community solidarity.

                This includes undermining unity among women – given women are a voting majority. Thus each effort to divide and conquer solidarity/here women is a trojan horse to weaken resistance to right wing authoritarianism.

                So I saying that the claim made in the magazine article is wrong in fact.

                It is in common cause as women that resistance to right wing agendas for social control can best be made.

                • Molly …
                  29 October 2022 at 1:07 pm

                  "It is in common cause as women that resistance to right wing agendas for social control can best be made."

                  So, wasn't too far of the mark in my comment, which was about left-wing support for women's rights being focused on dismissal of right-wing rhetoric.

                  The same can be said in regards to the left-wing:

                  It is in common cause as women that resistance to left wing agendas for social control can best be made.

                  Of course, that is predicated on women being able to retain the right to accurately name themselves as a political and distinct class, and be allowed to organise without left-wing censure and dismissal.

                  • SPC …
                    29 October 2022 at 1:31 pm

                    The Harper article claimed the identification of those capable of bearing children as women was part of a right wing agenda for social control. And I said no, given unity of a group/class was essential to avoid being subject to such social control. It is not in the identification as women but their promise keeper mentality and desire to determine women’s fertility (access to health care/family planning/lack of concern for poor families etc).

                    If bitterness between women (over womens ID) undermines common cause, the political right will the ones that take advantage.

                    • Molly …
                      29 October 2022 at 1:38 pm

                      "If bitterness between women (over womens ID) undermines common cause the political right will the ones that take advantage."

                      I see… bitter women not understanding political class which will result in the political right benefitting.

                      Let's ignore the complete disregard of the other consequences for women, and consider that your comment is the sole focus.

                      What do you think the response of the political left should be to this threat?

                    • SPC …
                      29 October 2022 at 1:53 pm

                      I see… bitter women not understanding political class (my emphasis) which will result in the political right benefitting.

                      I cannot make sense of the part in italics. And I said bitterness between women on the ID issue.

                      The political left have a problem. If they go by the polling the strongest support for transgender rights comes from women. Until this changes what can they do?

                    • Molly …
                      29 October 2022 at 2:05 pm

                      @SPC

                      "The political left have a problem. If they go by the polling the strongest support for transgender rights comes from women. Until this changes what can they do?"

                      Well, perhaps don't rely on outcome directed polling of the deliberately mis or un informed, but on the 73% that submitted to the self-id legislation that were ignored. The number of submissions was well into the thousands.

                      (Unfortunately, I can't find the Facebook link to this data by SUFW as I am not a Facebook user. But they undertook an analysis of the submissions received and this figure was against the legislation as proposed.)

                      And, you know, they always have the choice of doing the right thing – even on the left.

                    • SPC …
                      29 October 2022 at 2:35 pm

                      Submissions were against civil unions etc. They are not indicative, apart from how many are motivated to make a submission against a proposed change – to demonstrate a strongly held position.

                      Even on the left ..

                      Don't put that bit in when campaigning for change.

                      I've seen no indication that any of the parties in parliament will review the decision to go with self-identification. Locally it's for now a matter of flow on effect, as to prison policy etc (and the impact of decisions made by the NHS on local practice)..

                    • Molly …
                      29 October 2022 at 4:20 pm

                      "Submissions were against civil unions etc. They are not indicative, apart from how many are motivated to make a submission against a proposed change – to demonstrate a strongly held position."

                      Yet surveys are?

                      "I've seen no indication that any of the parties in parliament will review the decision to go with self-identification. "

                      So?

                    • Visubversa …
                      29 October 2022 at 4:59 pm

                      The removal of the words describing the reproductive capabilities of females is required to uncouple the reproductive process from the concept of "womanhood". Men who demand we call them women can perform "femininity" – some well, some appallingly badly, but what they cannot perform are women's reproductive functions. Therefore, those functions must be separated out from the concept of womanliness in order that these men can completely occupy and own the word "woman".

                      This is not left or right – it is Gender Ideology.

                    • SPC …
                      29 October 2022 at 5:42 pm

                      One could quibble that not all women can have children, but sure those born female are of the biological form for doing so.

                      Originally it was women's groups who called for gender equality (they women can and should be able to do anything/whatever career etc). So they are on the back foot on the issue, and while generally support gender ID, they must have concerns about the consequences of self ID and the "assertive" dick on two legs – opportunity for women and women's safety has been their thing.

                      The British slow process for adult ID system screens that out to some extent. Maybe there should be a campaign to end self ID for those who abuse it.

                    • Molly …
                      29 October 2022 at 6:08 pm

                      "One could quibble that not all women can have children, but sure those born female are of the biological form for doing so."

                      Not really seeing how "one could quibble", it is a material fact that not all women can have children. Of those that do, they are unquestionably women.

                      Originally it was women's groups who called for gender equality (they women can and should be able to do anything/whatever career etc).

                      And the problem with this is?

                      "So they are on the back foot on the issue, and while generally support gender ID, they must have concerns about the consequences of self ID and the "assertive" dick on two legs – opportunity for women and women's safety has been their thing."

                      There's a series of assumptions here:

                      1. Women are a hive mind,
                      2. Feminists who fought for equal opportunity, equally supported men as women,
                      3. Women who are informed support gender ID – because… surveys…
                      4. That lesbians and feminists who retained a degree of sanity have not been fighting against this co-option of woman for decades. Their voices are not amplified, so perhaps you are unaware.

                      "The British slow process for adult ID system screens that out to some extent. Maybe there should be a campaign to end self ID for those who abuse it."

                      The conflation of sex, with an arbitrary gender identity IS in itself an abusive process.

                      How gracious of you to suggest that women begin a campaign to reintroduce the notion that women is not a costume for just any man, but only the nice ones. I'll ponder that – but have a couple of suggestions of my own.

                      Why not begin a campaign for men to accept non-conforming males in their spaces and protect them from abuse, so that women don't have to invest energy in reclaiming legal and policy protection for women's single sex spaces.

                      And while you are at it, find another term for transwomen.

                      The word woman is taken. The word women is also taken.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      29 October 2022 at 6:17 pm

                      Excellent Molly. I too think that men should fix the problem that other men, when they are dressed/identifying as women have with access to toilets. I said just up the thread a little

                      "To me it is men who should be more welcoming to these men who choose to dress as women. Or if that is unsafe then make toilets that these men can use. Just don't force women to use them as well. I have seen urinals (for men) and then a unisex toilet for men and women. So where is the privacy, dignity and safety there?"

                      SPC the Helen Joyce interview is worth watching for clarity. Women do not stop being women because they have or never have used their biological evolutionary reproductive apparatus they are born with. Just as men do not stop being men ditto.

  2. arkie 2
    29 October 2022 at 9:34 am

    It’s grim reading. It’s almost as if those who’ve been demanding immediate action are motivated by the inaction of our supposed leaders of our society:

    There is “no credible pathway” to keep the rise in global temperatures below the key threshold of 1.5C, according to a bleak new UN assessment.

    Scientists believe that going beyond 1.5C would see dangerous impacts for people all over the world.

    The report said that since COP26 last year, governments’ carbon cutting plans had been “woefully inadequate”.

    Only an urgent transformation of society would avoid disaster, the study said.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/477621/climate-change-un-warns-key-warming-threshold-slipping-from-sight

    Just Stop Oil

    • bwaghorn 2.1
      29 October 2022 at 9:43 am

      It's an almost unsolvable problem, we are so dependent on the system that allows our planet to support most of use in a reasonable civil functioning society, that massively cutting carbon with out collapsing this society is so far eluding our leaders,

      Get it wrong and a decent in to the brutal barbaric societies of old is not far a away.

      • arkie 2.1.1
        29 October 2022 at 9:52 am

        The descent is locked in, only changing our societies priorities now will prevent barbarism. If our society wasn’t purely motivated by the pursuit of profit, more action would be happening. Inaction is justified as preserving the ‘economy’.

        New Yorker cartoon

        • Bearded Git 2.1.1.1
          29 October 2022 at 10:35 am

          Great cartoon.

          Perhaps the government should implement a windfall tax on ANZ's $2.3 billion profit where the proceeds are tagged specifically for CC measures and nothing else?

          The same for the other banks too.

      • mikesh 2.1.2
        29 October 2022 at 10:03 am

        Bring back the horse and buggy.

      • Anne 2.1.3
        29 October 2022 at 10:07 am

        "Get it wrong and a decent in to the brutal barbaric societies of old is not far a away."

        The 'descent' has already started. It just gets worse from here.

        • weka 2.1.3.1
          29 October 2022 at 10:41 am

          it definitely will get worse if we're fatalistic about it and give up. We have a choice instead to act to create something better.

          • bwaghorn 2.1.3.1.1
            29 October 2022 at 3:10 pm

            I prefer realistic, ever cent of carbon tax should be going to solving fusion power and carbon capture, shit if you could find away to remove carbon while turning in to a profitable resource, capitalism would solve the problem.

            • arkie 2.1.3.1.1.1
              29 October 2022 at 3:21 pm

              Don’t you think if there was a profitable way of doing it they’d be doing it already? Capitalism created the problem, there is no incentive within capitalism to solve it.

              Carbon capture is only profitable with a globally enforced carbon price that rises and a falling cap on emissions. This requires governments to implement.

              Technological research is best performed by government funded universities and crown labs that are not restrained to commercial applications.

              Our system of global capitalism enforces artificial scarcity, waste and unequal distribution of the resources of the world. There are superior ways of distribution than pure profit motivation.

              • bwaghorn …
                29 October 2022 at 3:24 pm

                “”There are superior ways of distribution than pure profit motivation.

                Care to enlighten me?

                Most things couldn't be done right up until they could be.

                • arkie …
                  29 October 2022 at 3:57 pm

                  Distribution by need for one.

                  Capitalism requires external pressures to constrain and direct it (read regulation) at the very least, and certainly cannot solve the problems of unequal distribution that it is fundamentally responsible for. This is demonstrated with the wealth of the world being concentrated into the hands of smaller and smaller groups of people year on year.

                  Those with extreme wealth have often accumulated their fortunes on the backs of people around the world who work for poor wages and under dangerous conditions. According to Oxfam, the wealth divide between the global billionaires and the bottom half of humanity is steadily growing. Between 2009 and 2018, the number of billionaires it took to equal the wealth of the world’s poorest 50 percent fell from 380 to 26.

                  https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/

                  • bwaghorn …
                    29 October 2022 at 4:12 pm

                    I have no problem with regulating capitalism, it's just tool after all.

                    It also needs balancing with socialism,

                    I just see so much danger in dismantling it for some untried system,

                    • arkie …
                      29 October 2022 at 4:36 pm

                      Capitalism over the 20th century has managed to free itself of it's traditional constraints. Organised labour and socialist politics has been stifled and undermined for the last 50 years. The untried system is eco-socialism.

                    • weka …
                      29 October 2022 at 9:11 pm

                      best we get on with testing other systems then, pronto. Because no-one who is taking climate collapse seriously believes that the capitalist global economy will survive what’s coming if we don’t change.

                      https://time.com/5930093/amsterdam-doughnut-economics/

                      Raworth had the imagination to see how it could be different. She’s far from alone, but if you want a system that looks like something to leap to from where we are, this isn’t too shabby.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_(economic_model)

            • weka 2.1.3.1.1.2
              29 October 2022 at 9:02 pm

              that's not realistic though. We're nowhere close to having CCS tech available on the scale that would be needed and with sufficient testing and safety built in.

              Just as important, that conceptual approach to the problem is the same kind of thinking that got us in this shit in the first place. It comes from the idea that humans are separate from nature and that the world is basically a resource bank for us to use as we please. We're hard up against the reality that this is not true, that in fact we are deeply embedded in the natural world and everything we have comes from that and is dependent upon it. Hence the solutions are also embedded in nature.

              Nature is as realistic as it comes. There are whole sectors now working with nature, because it stops us shitting in our own nest, but also because it's easier and more efficient. Using very expensive (in $, carbon, ecology terms) infrastructure and inputs to grow dairy in hot, dry climates is working against nature. Instead we can grow things in those climates that do well there. Likewise, shipping tomatoes to the other side of the world is just fucking daft because it works against the natural flow of energy inherent in seasons and distance, when we could eat local and seasonal instead. These are not difficult things to understand or do.

      • weka 2.1.4
        29 October 2022 at 10:52 am

        It's an almost unsolvable problem, we are so dependent on the system that allows our planet to support most of use in a reasonable civil functioning society, that massively cutting carbon with out collapsing this society is so far eluding our leaders,

        This is largely a social/political/psychological problem. We have the methods to drop GHGs and create sustainable societies that give us good lives. Our lives will look very different, but they don't have to be bad.

        Most mainstream leaders lack the imaginative skills to see a different path than BAU or collapse. There are other people doing this work though, for a long time, creating processes and structures that will help with the transition. When we listen to them, we see hope rather than hopelessness, and we see a pathway for actions that we can all take instead of getting stuck in powerlessness and despair.

        It’s not close to being unsolvable, we have the social tech to change our minds.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 2.1.5
        29 October 2022 at 12:49 pm

        The evidence makes me fatalistic about death & global warming, but I won't give up.

        Correlates of belief in climate change: Demographics, ideology and belief systems [October 2022]
        Climate change is clearly more an ideological issue than anything else. Liberal as opposed to politically conservative people accept the idea that climate change is real and primarily man made whilst conservatives reject this view. As a consequence, the former advocate a range of radical changes in society while the latter strongly reject them. Perhaps it is this factor that accounts for the finding: that is, because the “solutions” to climate change are so radical, conservatives find it easiest to reject the possible cause. This hypothesis may be tested by asking people about the beliefs in the efficacy and indeed morality of climate change interventions.

        Clumsy solutions and climate change: A retrospective [27 October 2022]

        According to the theory, the near-endless sociocultural variety that characterizes human life across time and space is in part produced by interactions among adherents to four “elementary” ways of organizing, perceiving, justifying, and experiencing social relations, labeled egalitarianism, individualism, hierarchy, and fatalism. Each of these “ways of life” consists of a particular mode of organizing social relations and a supporting cultural bias, including views of nature, human nature, time, space, risk, technology, etc. Douglas derived these ways of life by assigning “high” and “low” values to two fundamental social dimensions: “grid” (i.e., the extent to which ranking and stratification constrain the behavior of individuals) and “group” (that is, the extent to which an overriding commitment to a social unit constrains the thought and action of individuals).

  3. Belladonna 3
    29 October 2022 at 9:51 am

    Big puff piece in the media about the National candidate for Rangitata.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130268530/timing-is-everything-the-rise-of-aspiring-politician-james-meager

    What's interesting is the up-front-ness about problematic issues in his past (being an idiot at uni, alcohol abuse, etc.).

    This looks like the Uffindell legacy – hiding issues from the media/public (even suppressing them at the selection committee level) *will* come back to bite you.

    Also, the clear change in candidate selection (in what is a pretty white-bread rural electorate) from the 'boys in suits' Tauranga line-up.

    • Peter 3.1
      29 October 2022 at 10:50 am

      All the details can be got out of the way now I suppose. When James Meager is elected a backgrounder on his part of the 'swathe of newbies in the House' won't be needed.

    • joe90 3.2
      29 October 2022 at 12:12 pm

      A self-described obnoxious, loud-mouth libertarian lawyer who cut his political teeth in Bennett's office. Nope, no red flags there.

    • Patricia Bremner 3.3
      29 October 2022 at 12:13 pm

      Woodhouse!! Birds of a feather….???frown

    • Muttonbird 3.4
      29 October 2022 at 1:19 pm

      It's National's attempt to brown-wash their caucus. Only got it half right.

      • Belladonna 3.4.1
        29 October 2022 at 5:59 pm

        Well, it looks like a straw-in-the-wind towards increased diversity in their caucus.

        Hamilton selection will show if it's an isolated instance, or a trend.

        While I recognise that you despise anything coming from National – we will, at some point, have a National-led government again – and surely it's a good thing if their representation is broader, rather than narrower.

        • Shanreagh 3.4.1.1
          29 October 2022 at 6:25 pm

          I agree about the eventuality of a Nact Govt at some stage.

          However John Key. like this candidate, James Meagher, also came from State house and one parent family and it did not seem to imbue him with an especial knowledge and sympathy for life's battlers. There are a group of people who, once 'getting there', want to pull the ladder up so others cannot follow them.

        • Stuart Munro 3.4.1.2
          29 October 2022 at 6:36 pm

          we will, at some point, have a National-led government again

          Although that is the conventional wisdom, as the quality of their policies and personnel continues to plummet, a series of resounding defeats could force an evolutionary change to a more competent and charismatic party – a kinder, gentler bunch of lying cryptofascists.

          • Belladonna 3.4.1.2.1
            29 October 2022 at 9:12 pm

            Well, it could – but record level defeats for either National or Labour have historically been followed by a rebuilding, rather than an extinction.

            Given the neck-and-neck polling ATM – (the party is scoring well, even if the leader isn't) it doesn't seem at all likely that National is going to curl up and die.

            • Stuart Munro 3.4.1.2.1.1
              29 October 2022 at 9:25 pm

              Their voting demographic have grown-up grandchildren by now; perhaps, like a particularly noisome fart, they will (excruciatingly slowly) fade away to being merely an unpleasant memory, as toxic and invisible as bovine eructation.

        • Muttonbird 3.4.1.3
          29 October 2022 at 8:06 pm

          Nice try. Broader representation is about just that, representation. Meager offers none of that because, in the words of the writer;

          He doesn’t feel defined by his whakapapa, on either his mother or his dad’s side.

          So, for Meager and the National party, a little bit of brown is enough to pretend those who they pretend to represent are represented.

          Sucked you in, though. Which is clearly not difficult!

          • Belladonna 3.4.1.3.1
            29 October 2022 at 9:09 pm

            Ah, yes, the Willie Jackson and Kelvin Davis theme – you're only 'real' Maori if you agree with us politically.

            • Muttonbird 3.4.1.3.1.1
              29 October 2022 at 9:19 pm

              No, you said representation was broader with the selection of Meager. I pointed out with evidence that Meager eschews such representation. He actively dismisses it.

              Your position illustrates the Nats' idea that any brown face will do. Actual representation does not come into it for them, or for you.

              • Belladonna …
                29 October 2022 at 10:14 pm

                Meager also comes from a solo-parent family, state-house background, and some pretty significant experiences of poverty.

                Diversity isn't just racial.

                Though, I think that he probably represents a hefty chunk of urban Maori – many of whom are also not connected with their whakapapa.

                Or, do you honestly think there is no difference between Meager and Uffindell and the 3 other candidates from the Tauranga by-election?

                • Shanreagh …
                  29 October 2022 at 10:29 pm

                  Meager also comes from a solo-parent family, state-house background, and some pretty significant experiences of poverty.

                  Yes but as I said further up John Key had these life circumstances and his time/leadership in the Nats did not seem to be different as a result. In fact in the olden day Nats there would have been a caring for the underdog more than you see now – thinking Duncan McIntyre, Ralph Hanan, Jack Marshall.

                  • Belladonna …
                    29 October 2022 at 11:05 pm

                    So, do you also, see no difference between Meager and the National candidate quartet in Tauranga?

                    • Shanreagh …
                      30 October 2022 at 7:41 am

                      Not really as his work history and contacts with Paula Bennett, Chris Bishop and Michael Woodlouse are evidence of current and recent work, and generally you try to move on from an environment, or at least don't stress it in word picture of oneself. So it seems to me that these are proud moments where he learned much to help him on his journey.

                      The Bennett/Woodhouse/Bishop links are troubling to me and put him fairly and squarely into the standard Nat selection regime.

                      His view of a safety net could be taken as meaning bare minimums, reluctantly given by an intrusive Govt Dept with the slack picked up by philanthropists (a la Nicola Woods) giving to the ‘deserving poor’.

                  • Anne …
                    30 October 2022 at 10:57 am

                    " In fact in the olden day Nats there would have been a caring for the underdog more than you see now – thinking Duncan McIntyre, Ralph Hanan, Jack Marshall."

                    I would add Tom Shand to that list. A conservative minister who was controversial from time to time, but who also showed compassion for the 'working class'. My old Dad, a long time Labour supporter certainly seemed to think so.

                    I also think past National ministers like Brian Talboys and Don McKinnon were principled political operators and even old 'Kiwi Keith' despite his affectations, was an even handed prime minister.

                    • Shanreagh …
                      30 October 2022 at 5:59 pm

                      Yes Tom Shand, yes I knew there was a Minister of Labour in there too but could not remember his name. Agree about Brian Talboys, Don McKinnon and Keith Holyoake too. Different breed from the current crowd but as someone said on here MMP has meant that the more liberal side of the Nats have gone elsewhere…..

        • Drowsy M. Kram 3.4.1.4
          29 October 2022 at 9:13 pm

          – we will, at some point, have a National-led government again –

          Still, no hurry eh?

          • Belladonna 3.4.1.4.1
            29 October 2022 at 10:18 pm

            According to Stuart Munro, above, all is not lost. We may never again see a National-led government.

            • Drowsy M. Kram 3.4.1.4.1.1
              29 October 2022 at 10:34 pm

              According to Stuart Munro, above, all is not lost.

              And according to Belladonna @3.4.1, all is lost?

              – we will, at some point, have a National-led government again –

              Still, no hurry eh?

  4. KJT 4
    29 October 2022 at 10:49 am

    Interest rates up.

    Bank profits up.

    But it wasn't long ago there were people on here claiming they "were not connected".

    • bwaghorn 5.1
      29 October 2022 at 3:15 pm

      So he profits from carbon credits!!all you need to know about the usefulness of carbon credits right there

      • SPC 5.1.1
        29 October 2022 at 3:24 pm

        Yeah I'd prefer a tax on carbon, one on carbon used in producing tradeable goods would "incentivise" a decarbonisation. The money going to fund renewables in the developing world.

    • joe90 6.1
      29 October 2022 at 7:27 pm

      More than a million dead Americans and the partisan effort to divert from Trump and the Republican party's disastrous response continues.

      But the findings published on Thursday, while interim, bore only Mr. Burr’s signature. And in relying largely on existing public evidence, rather than new or classified information, the report came as something of a letdown even to those who supported its conclusions.
      “One can only conclude from the circumstances that they met an impasse,” said Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, referring to his disappointment that Republican and Democratic staff members working on the inquiry have not yet released a more complete, bipartisan report.
      https://archive.ph/GBfDW (nyt)

      • mauī 6.1.1
        30 October 2022 at 11:20 am

        With an unhealthy population America was going to be hit hard no matter who was in charge.

        Early on, responses from blue states like New York seemed to be left wanting, and Trump was used to point the finger at. Hard to know how warranted that was.

        The public health response was also led by high profile dem scientists, not Trump. If you are to blame Trump then you must also blame them.

    • weka 6.2
      29 October 2022 at 9:14 pm

      got a tl;dr?

    • pat 7.1
      29 October 2022 at 8:00 pm

      How confident are you that it will be operational in 2033?

      • Poission 7.1.1
        29 October 2022 at 8:38 pm

        Well within the frame of similar builds in UAE,

        https://www.enec.gov.ae/barakah-plant/

        • pat 7.1.1.1
          29 October 2022 at 8:53 pm

          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-nucle-idUSKBN17Y0CQ

          "Overwhelmed by the costs of construction, Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy on March 29, while its corporate parent, Japan’s Toshiba Corp, is close to financial ruin [L3N1HI4SD]. It has said that controls at Westinghouse were “insufficient.”

          • Poission 7.1.1.1.1
            29 October 2022 at 9:17 pm

            Still it will be operating by 2023,despite delays and overuns and the higher cost of electricity in the US will shorten the payback.

            It would make a big difference to Poland emissions which at present is mostly coal for electricity and combined heat,and is the worst in Europe (followed now by czech,netherlands and germany as the sad 4 polluters)

            • pat 7.1.1.1.1.1
              29 October 2022 at 9:28 pm

              Going on past performance of nuclear construction it is highly unlikely it will be operational by the initial projected date…the cost is also guaranteed to blow out….and it is unlikely to impact coal and lignite power peoduction in any meaningful or timely manner, but that is not a problem that Poland is alone in facing.

              And then there is the problem of future energy demand for mitigation, Im of the opinion that nuclear is whole of life energy net negative

              • Poission …
                29 October 2022 at 9:41 pm

                Yes and no,this time the US government is behind it,as is the canadian government with their small reactor programme which was announced this week.

                Germany has spent 1/2 a trillion dollars replacing nuclear with solar,wind and biomass (which still emits co2 at a higher then coal rate) and now has significant issues with energy costs rising 42% and food 20% in the last 12 months.It has moved from a current account creditor to a debtor very fast,so all subsidies are now debt funded.

                It will take (estimated) 10 trillion euro to replace gas and coal in Germany alone,as well as a significant investment in transmission,and problematic issues with getting peakload generation.

                Nuclear is only a part of a solution,and it does provide good baseload,where in use.

                • pat …
                  29 October 2022 at 9:52 pm

                  No denying its base load capability, but it is slow and energy intensive to construct (not to mention highly technical, with a dearth of capability), maintain and with at best 70-80 year operational lifespan exceedingly energy intensive for decommission and mitigation…the fact the US gov is supportive solves none of those issues.

  8. joe90 8
    29 October 2022 at 7:00 pm

    Quite the opener to a great read.

    You fucked up real good, kiddo.

    Twitter is a disaster clown car company that is successful despite itself, and there is no possible way to grow users and revenue without making a series of enormous compromises that will ultimately destroy your reputation and possibly cause grievous damage to your other companies.

    I say this with utter confidence because the problems with Twitter are not engineering problems. They are political problems. Twitter, the company, makes very little interesting technology; the tech stack is not the valuable asset. The asset is the user base: hopelessly addicted politicians, reporters, celebrities, and other people who should know better but keep posting anyway. You! You, Elon Musk, are addicted to Twitter. You’re the asset. You just bought yourself for $44 billion dollars.

    […]

    What I mean is that you are now the King of Twitter, and people think that you, personally, are responsible for everything that happens on Twitter now. It also turns out that absolute monarchs usually get murdered when shit goes sideways.

    https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/28/23428132/elon-musk-twitter-acquisition-problems-speech-moderation

  9. Stuart Munro 9
    29 October 2022 at 8:52 pm

    In the spirit of Ambrose Bierce,

    ADVICE, n. The smallest current coin.

    "The man was in such deep distress,"
    Said Tom, "that I could do no less
    Than give him good advice." Said Jim:
    "If less could have been done for him
    I know you well enough, my son,
    To know that's what you would have done."

    Andrew Mitrovica has some advice for that nice Mr Putin: Here’s what Putin needs to stop losing: A good columnist | Russia-Ukraine war | Al Jazeera