Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, December 29th, 2023 - 39 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
Following up on a couple of recent comments, a lucid interview with Helen Joyce has just been posted on YouTube regarding her journey from The Economist to author of
TRANS: When Ideology Meets Reality
https://www.amazon.com.au/TRANS-When-Ideology-Meets-Reality/dp/0861540492
https://youtu.be/scYnh_e4cwE?si=jyjOSlbPL8qUJ7GE
so so good. She's always on form and this was no exception. He was interesting too, haven't seen his podcast before.
I could write 20 posts off that 1 hour. Every new theme they talk about is spot on. I'd start with the hands and strength differential. Or the stats one, and how many things get broken once the initial false premise is accepted.
Had to laugh when Gold talked about wanting to be a woman for a few days, and it turns out he meant having tits and a vagina and it's about being attracted to oneself (good on him for being honest). Then Joyce pointing out that women don't think about themselves like they (because are a woman), and what's with thinking woman = tits and a vagina anyway.
It does relate to a couple of posts talking about the dynamics involved in political conversations at the moment, not just on issues of gender ideology.
She interviews well, and noticeably listens and considers before answering.
yes, I particularly appreciated the differentiation between liberal values and progressive politics. Her point that liberal values can be shared by conservatives and progressives is something often missed. Her framing of conservative as good when it's about conserving good things, juxtaposed with the regressive/progressive dynamic.
Thanks Molly, that was awesome.
Helen Joyce always is worth the time.
Thanks Molly.
Clear communication from Helen Joyce of the issues while mowing the lawns yesty.
In regards the Economic Institute of London debate, the way Helen described Freda's demeanour and appearance in a recent meeting was insightful. Not until she pointed out the aggressive and overtly sexual behaviour was male in it's nature did it click with me.
The narrative seems to be shifting, John Boyne, a couple of months back apologised to Graham Linehan.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/05/author-john-boyne-apologises-to-graham-linehan-trans-debate/#:~:text=Author%20John%20Boyne%20has%20apologised,right%2C%20I%20was%20wrong.%E2%80%9D
It has been a good year.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4df3b3eb-27c5-4f22-95f0-36f1d505c877?shareToken=9c79f16bfae71900ad0c3e5d2861a6cf
"Once again, grassroots women organised — despite efforts by LGBT Labour to silence, even expel them — while MPs like Tonia Antoniazzi, Shabana Mahmood and Diana Johnson told Sir Keir Starmer that unless Labour dropped self-ID, every election interviewer would ask him what percentage of women have a penis."
So, bullying.
He could just answer, "I don't know".
That'd hang in the air…
since when does journalists asking the person who wants to be PM topical questions constitute bullying?
Or were you referring to women working on women's rights issues as bullying?
That's an absolutely incredible piece. Hell hath no fury like a woman who sees her rights being stripped away. The conclusion at the end is one of the most hopeful things I've read in a while.
Archive.ph link. Token no longer working:
https://archive.ph/y7CsP
Metro headline writer doesn't hold back.
https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/28/man-made-billions-death-killing-dies-age-94-20033355/
Does "Māori" need to be defined?
Does, "New Zealand's Constitution"?
Does "man"
Does "woman"?
no
yes
no
no*
(*except it does for the people that are currently confused about biological reality)
Dame Anne Salmond with a new year's wish (?)
"In a complex world, though, such simplicities lack conviction for all but the most ideologically minded. Most New Zealanders find themselves in a sceptical middle ground, mistrusting the fanatics and looking for leadership that avoids the extremes."
An observation that reflects those with whom I interact
It may however be based on an erroneous assumption (and it may not, difficult to know)
"MMP was supposed to deliver this kind of outcome, a balance of powers that thwarts political excesses."
I recall my own motivation (s) for supporting MMP and they were to redress the (to me) obvious unfairness of a Gov elected with less votes than the opposition and the marginal representation of a party (Social Credit, 2 seats) that attracted over 20% of the vote….political extremism never entered the equation, indeed I recall those 2 facts being widely promoted as the raison d'etre for the reform.
"According to the origin stories, these first settlers were driven from their homelands or went exploring to see what was across the horizon. Often their home societies were relatively hierarchical, and some left to make new lives for themselves and their families.
Much the same is true of the settlers who arrived from Europe some 600 years later. They also came from homelands with plants, animals, climates and landscapes very different from those in New Zealand, and had to adapt in ways based on ancestral precedents, but in response to new challenges and conditions."
While acknowledging some commonality of adaptation, Dame Anne misses a key difference….Maori retained their hierarchical culture whereas the pakeha were in the main seeking to escape such hierarchies, hence our egalitarian philosophy (whether real in practice or not)….and further neglects the fact that over a quarter of our population are recent arrivals whose motivation could largely be described as 'economic refugees'.
"As a New Year’s resolution for a new Prime Minister, it would be great to see evidence of good outcomes the key driver for policy in New Zealand. Most Kiwis want a peaceful, creative and prosperous country; flourishing waterways and landscapes, and infrastructure and institutions that work well, not radical disparities of wealth and power, divisive posturing and populist rhetoric."
It is difficult to disagree with such sentiment, but I fear that in a world of overshoot we are destined to behave as the rest of the world's societies are indicating….after all, folk are folk.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/12/30/anne-salmond-in-praise-of-the-middle-ground/
"folk are folk"
Is it in our nature, to be this way, or in our culture?
There's nowt so queer as folk….
Lol…aint that the truth
Considering it spans culture it must be inherent
Every culture faces the challenge, but different cultures respond differently – have we (our culture) responded in a life-promoting, or a life-denying way, do you think?
That will depend upon how you determine 'our culture'….the problem is global and the responses myriad, both between and within cultures.
You are living proof Robert….you exist within a culture that operates at odds with your own philosophy, as do others within their own.
The question I ask you is do you think you should be required to conform with the (currently) dominant culture on pain of exclusion/penalty…or in extreme cases banishment or death?
Yes.
So do some authoritarians/ fascists….let us hope they (and you) never end up running things.
Democracy appears the best method (though not infallible) for ensuring that.
I will never, so, all good!
But only "some"?
What about the others?
Actually, I meant, "no".
Of course you did Robert….nevermind.
The word democracy is a broad term/concept. What do you mean by it when you use it?
In addition, do you think we’ve identified and properly considered all the possible and alternative variants of democracy as we know it (as in: tried and experienced)?
Democracy (to my mind) is the ability to (s)elect our representatives on a one person, one vote basis….the only exclusion which I believe permissible is on the basis of age, though personally i'd advocate no age restriction.
As to possible alternatives , obviously all possible alternatives have neither been identified or tested, however those that have been are inferior (in totality) imo.
That is a challenge/opportunity for us to create…..but should one be so created it would need to be accepted by democratic means and not imposed.
May be a growth-related evolutionary glitch – wishing you and yours a happy 2024.
"though personally i'd advocate no age restriction."
Liking this from Pat!
There's a natural "pinch point" where young people won't vote. However, their parents might like to dummy-vote on their behalf 🙂
Yes they may, just as occurs now in certain circumstances….however once a child is capable of filing their own ballot they have the same freedom of secret ballot as everyone else.
A child may be capable, at age 2, of ticking a box, but "filing their own ballot", Pat?
Are you serious??
Very serious….are children not also citizens?…and ones likely to be more impacted by the future?
Not only does it ingrain a sense of belonging and civics it would also likely increase voter participation and political engagement long term…and the argument that they are 'too young to understand' can be applied at any age.
Sure, but who will cast their vote, is my question…
I voted for 16 year olds to vote in local body elections. Others didn't.
If they’re old enough to do Jury Service, sit on Citizens’ Assemblies, and procreate and independently raise their offspring, for example, then I’d say they’re old enough to vote.
Id suggest that parental voting on behalf would largely reflect the proportion of vote uin any case…but once a child can physically mark and place their ballot in the box there is no need for parental/caregiver assistance….remembering this is the ability to vote, not the requirement…there would be no element of compulsion, but Id suggest most children would take the opportunity.
It could be perhaps the case that you could vote at the next election but one from your birth, that would essentially make the youngest eligible voter around 4 years old with current term.
Only if you don't understand the basics of human growth and development. I suspect you do, because nearly everyone knows the difference between a new born and a teenager in terms of the ability to think and parse meaning.
Do we preclude the mentally impaired, drug affected, those with dementia?
Part of human growth and development is understanding and participating in the world we live in
Incarcerated psychopaths would be sure to vote ACT.