Tory Translation Service

Written By: - Date published: 9:39 am, December 17th, 2017 - 211 comments
Categories: making shit up, same old national, Satire, spin - Tags: , , , , ,

Crosby Texter

 

I don’t often admit that there is anything that the right do better than the left, but, credit where it’s due, there are a few things. Chief amongst them are dog whistling and wedge politics. These are calculated political silencing tactics that use language to belittle the left and make us appear alienated from the ‘mainstream’.

In all honesty though, the biggest problem I have with it is trying to keep up! The language keeps shifting from one week to the next. One minute I’m a bleeding heart pinko, the next I’m a do-gooder, and now apparently I’m something called a ‘Social Justice Warrior’ – SJW for short. Don’t get me wrong, I like a snappy acronym, but I would love to know who’s making all the calls in this movable feast so I can send them an invoice for constantly having to reprint my business cards.

In the meantime I thought, as a service for all Standard readers out there who don’t have time to swat up on the latest lingo, I’d do a bit of research and come up with a handy glossary for you to bookmark and use whenever your radio dial gets accidentally stuck on Newstalk ZB.

So here goes…

Social Justice Warrior (SJW) – A favourite amongst Trump supporters in the US, it appears to have found its way here and been picked up by people who would never admit they like Mr Orange but don’t mind using his tactics. It means someone who advocates for a just society. Apparently you don’t get a cape with it though. Sad.

Virtue signalling – Another one that appears to have originated in the US. It’s used to describe SJWs (see above) who try to encourage others to act to achieve a just society. Unfortunately it appears to be nothing like bat signalling. It should be though.

Other people’s money – This one’s a doozy. It stems from a Libertarian principle that all tax is theft, borrowed by the centre right to do a little virtue signalling (see above) of their own. They make it sound like they are far more responsible custodians of the treasury than the left because they take less of ‘your money’ than those nasty socialists who just like spending other people’s money. Of course it’s crap. The tax I pay – as my contribution to having a state to educate me, keep me safe, and treat me when I’m sick – does not belong to me any more than my mortgage repayments that keep a roof over my head do. I wonder how far I’ll get, next time the bank puts my interest rate up, telling them that they can’t because I know better how to spend my money than their communist Australian shareholders do.

Choice – When you present two crappy alternatives and let people pick which one they hate the least. Like the blue/black Kyle Lockwood flag vs the Union Jack.

Freedom of speech – A right everyone enjoys unless the speech in question happens to be in, or contain traces of, te reo.

Politically Correct (PC) – Language and actions that SJWs (see above) use and take whenever they want to virtue signal (see above) that they care about other people. Apparently caring about other people’s feelings is a jackbooted tyrannical trend sweeping the globe, oppressing non-PC types by denying them their fundamental human right to be assholes.

Proper job – Often used in contexts such as “Labour MPs don’t know what they are talking about because they’ve never had a proper job.” What they mean is they think working in Parliament is terrible preparation for being an MP. How could working in politics ever hope to prepare you for a career in politics?? Preposterous.

Bludgers – People who want something for nothing – but only if they predominantly vote Labour. Those who vote National and, for example, dodge tax while still expecting to drive on the roads the rest of us pay for, and call the cops the rest of us pay for when they get burgled, are known by a different term – ‘enterprising kiwi battlers’.

Dependency – The notion that Bludgers (see above) are are stuck on welfare because they are onto such a winner. Apparently they have discovered a get rich quick scheme so cunning that even the enterprising kiwi battlers (see above) haven’t thought of it yet. All you have to do is pop out lots of kids, then viola! The state gives you a Rolls, tennis court and swimming pool.

Cindy (Socialist Cindy) – The right’s pet name for Jacinda Ardern that has unfortunately been bought into by some on the left as well – it’s meant to belittle the PM by associating her with a Sindy doll. At least our pet names for National leaders have class. Like DonKey. Ahem… Moving right along…

Spaghetti of entitlements – A brand new term used by National during the mini-budget debate last week. Too soon to be absolutely sure, but given they appear to love tinned spaghetti on pizza so much I assume it roughly translates as “bloody awesome entitlements.”

Hard working New Zealanders deserve… – As opposed to non-hard working New Zealanders (e.g. beneficiaries, pensioners, Todd Barklay) who apparently don’t deserve anything. (See bludgers above)

Socialists – The concept that anyone to the left of Maggie Barry is basically Joseph Stalin. Most Nats are leading experts on the finer points of socialism having studied extensively on the topic via the great works of major contemporary theorists such as David Bennett, and can lecture you at great length on why the Soviet Union failed. Spoiler alert: It’s because socialism doesn’t work!

$11.7 billion hole – The dark cavern between Steven Joyce’s ears.

Anti-democratic – “Wah wah we lost! How is that possible? It’s an outrage. Nobody told us you have to get 61 seats!! That was need-to-know info, dangnabbit!!”

Biggest opposition ever – “We really mean it, give us our Beehive back!”

Shambolic management of the House – A manifestation of anti-democratic (see above) and biggest opposition ever (see above). A natural behaviour particularly prevalent in the male of the species Bastardis pettytoryis – they filibuster, flood the government with written questions, go back on deals, break parliamentary conventions then blame Labour for the mess. It’s basically the adult equivalent of punching your brother in the sandpit then bursting into tears and telling mum that he hit you.

They think they know how to spend your money better than you do – An extension of other people’s money (see above). They are asking you to accept that a $20 per week tax cut for the wealthy would be more effective spending than using the $8.4 billion worth of revenue it equates to for some virtue signalling (see above) SJW (see above) cause like lifting 88,000 kids out of poverty.

What New Zealanders really want is… – Turns out it’s actually they who think they know how to spend your money better than you do.

That’s enough from me for the time being, but perhaps, in true socialist style, you could work collaboratively on making this list as comprehensive as possible by commenting with all your favourites that I have missed out?

211 comments on “Tory Translation Service”

  1. Sanctuary 1

    LoL!

    I was listening to Joyce on the radio the other day and I was struck how much they are still in denial. He was mansplaining to the new government with the patient bemusement of an office manager explaining to the office junior how to use the photocopier. The correct govt. response to that is of course to say you don’t give a shit what he thinks so he might as well stop wasting everyone’s time.

    To be fair the denail extends to the senior members of the right wing MSM, who still interview Bill English as if he were PM.

  2. Carl Anderson 2

    Snowflake. Defn: A term implying that left wingers are delicate and weak. Usually used by a man (and face it, they are almost always men) who bursts into tears every time someone uses Te Reo Maori.

    • Enzo 2.1

      YES! And who cry that they have been piled on whenever someone gives a little bit back.

      • cleangreen 2.1.1

        Yes ENZO that was a very good list and thenks for that thought provoking translation to them as we do see the ‘thin vale’ of veneer the right wing really do have to get their point across with the most gullable amongst us but the bullshit does not fool most.

  3. Carolyn_Nth 3

    Excellent list.

    I would also add the Bill English favourite, the “average wage” or “average income”.

    As in Paul Goldsmith’s helpful info during question time on Tuesday:

    Hon Paul Goldsmith: For the Minister’s information, the average wage is nearly 60,000 a year—a 28 percent increase on 9 years ago, which is twice the rate of employment. And so, given that, what would his target be for increasing the average wage?

    Which is not to be mistaken for the median income, but probably is read as the median by many people. The average wage can go up if the salaries of the country’s top earners go up, while the lowest wages flatline, or even decrease.

    Inequality is most obvious when the top and bottom 10% of wages are compared. Which is what Willie Jackson is referring to in his answers to Goldsmith:

    Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Our target is to create real jobs with dignity amongst our communities. This is an Opposition that has forgotten a big group of people in New Zealand: the Māori nation and the Pacific Island nation. Shame on you.

    Also see the definition of “proper job” in the above post. Many Tories also refer to any job that doesn’t give a big profit to the wealthiest people, as not being a proper job: eg any jobs in the public sector.

    I do think Jackson could have answered the question better by exposing the “average wage” obfuscation.

  4. I don’t think the right are any worse than the left. I presume the irrelevant to New Zealand ‘Tory’ is intended as some sort of slap.

    A few other examples:

    “Looks like a bit of concern trolling here.”

    James Shaw: a stocktake on climate change action in Aotearoa – livestream announcement 11am

    “He’s the face of new hateful scum we can expect to see heading the national party in the not-too-distant future.”

    Doofus of the week – Jami Lee-Ross

    “Interesting that john key slithered into Parliament earlier in the week ”

    Doofus of the week – Jami Lee-Ross

    • Also already on this thread:

      “I was struck how much they are still in denial.”

      ” He was mansplaining…”

      • Sanctuary 4.1.1

        Go away. No one likes you and no you can’t come around after school.

        • Pete George 4.1.1.1

          I don’t think I want to aspire to your heights of popularity.

          “These are calculated political silencing tactics that use language to belittle the left and make us appear alienated from the ‘mainstream’.”

          As I said, it’s not just the right that do it. Thanks for illustrating my point so well.

          • Sanctuary 4.1.1.1.1

            Your welcome. I am going out to be fabulously popular for a while, but I’ll be back later to taunt you some more.

          • McFlock 4.1.1.1.2

            Pete, what makes you think you aren’t alienated from most commenters here?

            Sometimes appearances are bang on.

            • Pete George 4.1.1.1.2.1

              I don’t feel alienated from anyone here. Inclusiveness of a range of diverse opinions in political discussion is good for democracy. Trying to exclude opinions you disagree with is anti-democracy.

              Obviously a small number make a fuss if I comment here, but there’s no indication it is anything like most commenters.

              I’d say most commenters stay out of the pile ons, which are a tactic of a regular few who somehow seem to think it might achieve something useful. It doesn’t.

              • McFlock

                lol

                So you take silence as a sign of your lack of alienation? There is another possibility.

              • Stuart Munro

                It depends on how much you distract from genuine discourse Pete. It’s fair to say that you and your fellow trolls largely only degrade the signal to noise ratio.

              • cleangreen

                Pete we like what you said there,

                ‘Trying to exclude opinions you disagree with is anti-democracy.’

                Did you complain abouit national also being ‘Un-democratic”?

                Our Environmental centre sent 105 emails to PM John Key over four years before the 2014 election asking for discussions and communication with his office, and over that time not one was answered or a meeting offered and since we never got anything aback leading up to the 2014 election we sent a OIA request to the PM’s office to have them supply a copy of all documents we sent John Key over that four year time.

                Three days before the 2014 election we got a copy of all emails sent to John Key over the four years and the details all came from ‘Wayne Eagleson’ chief officer for the PM’s office.

                But sadly he failed to advise why we never ever got any replies asked from the PM John key so was that democratic Pete?

                What would you have done after sending 105 emails over four years on behalf of 2500 of our community’s people who had signed the petition’s who were ignored by the Prime Minister of NZ?

                • “Did you complain abouit national also being ‘Un-democratic”?”

                  I criticised the National government quite a lot. One example is complaining about them refusing to address the MMP threshold, which being set ridiculously high deliberately excludes not just opinions but also excludes representation. I have been very critical of not lowering the threshold.

                  I wouldn’t have sent 105 emails over four years trying to do the same thing. Ministers and Prime Ministers and parties and governments get many emails and ignore or don’t act on a lot of them.

                  If it wasn’t working and it was important to me I’d try to find other ways of getting attention. If it was on environmental issues I’d have tried the Minister of Environment. Have you tried the new Minister for the Environment? It’s Eugenie Sage.

                  • cleangreen

                    Pete,

                    You didn’t answer the question,

                    “was it democratic of the PM not to respond to even one email”

                    Then you referred to ‘all ministers recieve many emails and dont ‘act’ on any of them.’

                    So is that being democratic?

                    When you stated earlier that “Trying to exclude opinions you disagree with is anti-democracy.”

                    Never mind how many emails we sent even though they were representing many (2500) in our community we said earlier.

                    They were on different issues.

                    You seemed to conclude they were only on the same issue?

                    What made you think that?

                    Quote; Pete george,
                    “I wouldn’t have sent 105 emails over four years trying to do the same thing. Ministers and Prime Ministers and parties and governments get many emails and ignore or don’t act on a lot of them.”

        • fender 4.1.1.2

          Being right wing PG takes Tory very personally, poor wee petal.

          Tell him he’s welcome after school, just give him the wrong address.

      • Pete George 4.1.2

        “the right wing MSM” is another – it’s funny how some on the left seem to think the media is hopelessly biased right, and some on the right seem to think the media is hopelessly biased left.

        • adam 4.1.2.1

          Because some people don’t want too, or can’t understand simple things like statistics. Nor do some want to look at who owns the media – this is not a free press, indeed it is very far from a free press.

        • Obtrectator 4.1.2.2

          The ones on the right think the media should be biased even more to the right than they already are.

      • Hornet 4.1.3

        Perhaps ‘mansplaining’ is a perfect example of ‘virtue signalling‘? As well as being blatant sexism?

        • McFlock 4.1.3.1

          I’m not sure about the second point, could you please tell everyone here what sexism is and how that fits into the term “mansplaining”?

          • Hornet 4.1.3.1.1

            Sexism: discrimination on the basis of sex.

            The accusation of ‘mansplaining’ is casual sexism. It is used to shut down debate by playing on the gender of the accused.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.3.1.1.1

              No, it isn’t.

            • McFlock 4.1.3.1.1.2

              Oh wow, that’s another one:
              “tone deaf”, the treatment of a pathological inability to empathise with other people as a mere inconvenience in certain (usually optional) areas of life.

              • Hornet

                ‘Tone deaf’ – that’s another one. A bit like dismissing someone’s opinion by calling them a ‘snowflake’. It’s so much easier than actually debating the facts.

                • McFlock

                  Nah. “Snowflake” means they’re being too sensitive so you can ignore their pain or anger. “Tone deaf” means there are essential aspects of the debate that they are unlikely to ever understand.

                  See if you can find a common factor in these examples.

                  • Hornet

                    I believe the term ‘snowflake’ originates from the tendency of some groups to claim ‘offence’ or ‘triggering’ or the need for ‘safe spaces’ to avoid being confronted with concepts and ideas they may find uncomfortable. It is also a tendency to use these claims to shut down debate, and to restrict the rights of others to hear these same concepts and ideas.

                    And if you’re content with unsubstantiated anecdotes, this will scratch your itch: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-turner/mansplaining-and-womanspl_b_9995262.html

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      “They do it too” 😆

                    • McFlock

                      I’ll ignore what you “believe”, because I have friends with ptsd and know what you call “uncomfortable” includes things like flashbacks, anxiety attacks and insomnia.

                      As for “Mansplaining” and “womansplaining”, interesting. Womansplaining is the assumption that men have little knowledge of domestic chores. Mansplaining is the assumption that women have little knowledge of anything that isn’t a domestic chore (actually, that exception might be unreliable). Even when the guy knows the woman is an expert in the field he is explaining.

                      So, yeah, interesting that mansplaining and “womensplaining” are both products of the patriarchy. A bit like how men are “victims” because car manufacturers think we’ll drop another $50k on a car because an attractive woman is standing by it.

                      Unsubstantiated anecdotes (oh, “women claiming something happened to them, therefore take it with a grain of salt”). OK, how about this story about a guy telling the costume designer for Indiana Jones what inspired the costume (links to twitter thread in story). Or maybe this video where the facilitator speaks over the actual physicist to the point that the audience asks him to let her get a word in edgeways.

                    • Hornet

                      You’re avoiding answering the point I’m making.

                      The words we are discussing are constructs, frequently used to shut down dissenting opinion. They are used by the right (‘snowflake’), and the left (‘mansplaining’) to label people rather than formulate and present a reasoned argument. Your use of the expression ‘patriarchy’ is, ironically, another example, because the word is used in an attempt to demean the opinion of men by labelling them.

                      Finally, what afflicts your friends may be difficult for them, but it should not shut down free speech. And therein lies the problem. In the name of alleged ‘hurt’ or ‘offence’, people are attempting to curtail free speech, and that is a dangerous development in any free society.

                    • Hornet

                      Hi McFlock

                      Here’s a slightly tongue in cheek opinion piece that touches on what I’m referring to.
                      https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      frequently used to shut down dissenting opinion

                      [citation needed]

                      How does describing your behaviour silence you? It might convince others that you aren’t worth listening to, but that’s their freedom of expression.

                      You say that ‘mansplaining’ is used to label people. No, it isn’t – it’s a description of behaviour, like ‘boorish’ or ‘ill-mannered arrogance’ or ‘bullshit’.

                      And by the way, if your “debating” points are nothing but boorish, ill-mannered arrogance and bullshit, you’re going to get talked over, ignored and probably shouted down in pretty much every environment except therapy and television.

                      My advice is, when this happens to you, come back with a better argument. Apologising for your behaviour doesn’t go amiss either.

                    • Hornet

                      “How does describing your behaviour silence you?”
                      It doesn’t, unless the description is used to silence opinion. As it is in cases like this https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/08/01/depaul-university-bans-ben-shapiro-from-campus-for-triggering-students-n2200657.

                      “if your “debating” points…”

                      There’s the tell. Currently there is an attempt by a small elite to capture the ability to define how these debating points are interpreted, and then shut them down if they deem them to be offensive. Or ‘boorish, ill mannered arrogance’. That isn’t for you to define. If you find an opinion boorish or ill mannered, that’s your problem. But it doesn’t make the opinion invalid.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      In the pub, a smack in the mouth isn’t entirely out of the question.

                      In Iraq, they throw shoes.

                      Ben Shapiro hasn’t been silenced: he just isn’t welcome in certain venues. I expect people stained with Breitbart get that a lot. He’s free to say what he wants, and has a national platform to do so.

                      The “small elite” you speak of. Fox News, perhaps? Charles and David Koch? The orange serial rapist who’s trying to ban certain words at the CDC?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Oh, and by the way, if you don’t open your home to every Jehovah’s Witness who knocks, according to you, you’re silencing them.

                      Yeah nah.

                    • McFlock

                      Finally, what afflicts your friends may be difficult for them, but it should not shut down free speech.

                      It doesn’t. All people did, out of common courtesy, was write “trigger warning” so that people who might have traumas reopened by that content could choose to not be exposed to it. Safe spaces are the same thing, areas where people are asked not to be dickheads to other people.

                      Flipping it around and saying that person X is being oppressed because they might be excluded from the group if they decide to be a jerk in that place is one of the more abjectly hypersensitive pieces of hypocrisy from the group that coined the term “snowflake”.

                      Words have consequences. If a person can’t state their case well or without being a jerk, people tend to not like them. That’s not “silencing” them. Cancelling events isn’t “silencing” them. It’s just refusing to act as their amplifier. They have other amplifiers. That’s why people who have never met them don’t like them in the first place.

                    • Hornet

                      “Ben Shapiro hasn’t been silenced: he just isn’t welcome in certain venues. ”

                      He’s been silenced at those venues. And it just so happens that the venues people are being banned from are institutions of learning, where the free exchange of ideas is supposed to be/used to be encouraged. Now it is increasing deterred in order to protect the ‘feelings’ of those who are afraid of having their opinions subject to scrutiny. So much for enlightened liberalism.

                    • McFlock

                      And it just so happens that the venues people are being banned from are institutions of learning, where the free exchange of ideas is supposed to be/used to be encouraged.

                      And how is providing a platform to, for example, that milo guy an “exchange” of ideas? He’s not providing his audience anything new. He’s certainly shown himself unwilling to change his own view, he relishes in the alienation. There’s no “exchange”. There’s just outrageous statement and protest, so he gets headlines and increases his notoriety – and his fanbase of terminally-insecure “alphas”.

                    • Hornet

                      Here is an example of free speech being shut down by labelling people ‘fascists’ or nazis’.

                      https://www.sott.net/article/360365-Opinion-The-left-is-alienating-its-allies-by-shutting-down-free-speech

                      This type of illiberal behaviour may suit the flabby anti-intellectualism of some, but anything that removes free speech simply takes us back to the days when Catholic Bishops persecuted Galileo for holding heliocentric views.

                    • Hornet

                      “And how is providing a platform to, for example, that milo guy an “exchange” of ideas? ”

                      I’m assuming you mean Milo Yiannopoulos? Who I haven’t referred to.

                      But as you raised him, he has a point of view, and a following. It is not for you to judge whether or not he has a hearing.

                    • Hornet

                      “All people did, out of common courtesy, was write “trigger warning” so that people who might have traumas reopened by that content could choose to not be exposed to it.”
                      No, the concept of ‘trigger warning’ is used to shut down debate. Or in this case to shut down a speaking event. In the public square it is deplorable. And most likely counter-productive.
                      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/trigger-warnings-can-be-counterproductive

                      “Safe spaces are the same thing, areas where people are asked not to be dickheads to other people. ”
                      Safe spaces are being declared at the expense of the free exchange of ideas. What started out as isolated corners are being turned into permanent and imposing spaces. Here’s how that is occurring: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-furedi-safe-space-20170105-story.html.

                      “Safe space activism stems primarily from the separatist impulses associated with the politics of identity, already rampant on campus. For some individuals, the attraction of a safe space is that it insulates them from not just hostility, but the views of people who are not like them. Students’ frequent demand for protection from uncomfortable ideas on campus — such as so-called trigger warnings — is now paralleled by calls to be physically separated too. Groups contend that their well-being depends on living with their own kind.”

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Anyone who wants to know what Shapiro or Yiannopoulos thinks need only read The Daily Wire or Breitbart. Neither of them are being silenced by being denied access to any particular venue.

                      You, however, seem to think people are obliged to build them a pulpit and listen to them in silence.

                      Newsflash: they aren’t.

                      Now, I’ve read your argumentum ad nauseam three or four times now. Further repetition won’t make it any more persuasive.

                      As for your disdain for ‘safe spaces’ – who are you to impose association upon others? Try going to the reading room at a library and mouthing off sometime.

                    • McFlock

                      But as you raised him, he has a point of view, and a following. It is not for you to judge whether or not he has a hearing.

                      It is if it’s my property. He has a point of view, but you talked about an exchange of ideas. Exchange. Give and take. Debate. It’s up to the property owners to decide whether that applies in the case of specific individuals.

                      As for what you think safe spaces and trigger warnings are, your links were unimpressive. Oh, and when you’re claiming what something is and looking for links to support your random assertions, a protip is to find something other than opinion op-eds if you’ve already pulled the holier-thant-thou “unsubstantiated anecdotes” card.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Fact is, by empowering more voices, safe spaces increase the amount of free speech.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Other examples of safe spaces include Parliament, where certain types of free speech will get you ejected, and courtrooms, where certain types of free speech will get you incarcerated.

                      I look forward to Hornet’s rigorous intellectual take-down of these attacks on Liberty. Or is it only an attack on Liberty when women and minorities do it?

                    • Hornet

                      “As for your disdain for ‘safe spaces’ – who are you to impose association upon others?”

                      I’m not. But that, precisely, is what some are trying to do in the name of these ‘spaces’.

                    • Hornet

                      “It is if it’s my property.”
                      Which it isn’t.

                      “He has a point of view, but you talked about an exchange of ideas. Exchange. Give and take. Debate.”
                      Which is called Q&A, and forms a regular part of speeches by Ben Shapiro etc.

                      “It’s up to the property owners to decide whether that applies in the case of specific individuals.”
                      And they are being bullied into submission by groups who would silence free speech, such as in the examples I posted. You seem to support this, though you haven’t explained why.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      what some are trying to do

                      No, they aren’t. Nothing is being imposed at all. Your desire to impose “your” opinions upon others is being exposed, though.

                    • Hornet

                      “Fact is, by empowering more voices, safe spaces increase the amount of free speech.”
                      Impossible. Safe spaces restrict speech in those places.

                      “Other examples of safe spaces include Parliament, where certain types of free speech will get you ejected, and courtrooms, where certain types of free speech will get you incarcerated.”
                      Examples? I doubt very much you are referring to anything even remotely relevant.

                      “Or is it only an attack on Liberty when women and minorities do it?”
                      No! It is an attack no matter who does it. Remember Milo Yiannopoulos is a member of one of those minorities (he is gay). As is Ben Shapiro (a Jew). Kate Smurthwaite is a woman and a feminist. I could go on. All have been banned from academic campuses by those who don’t like what they say, rather than attempting to debate what they say.

                    • Hornet

                      “No, they aren’t. Nothing is being imposed at all.”

                      When people threaten violence to shut down an event, then yes, they are engaging in bullying to shut down free speech.

                      https://bogustimes.com/2017/09/19/middlebury-college-policy-shuts-down-free-speech/

                      https://capitalresearch.org/article/threat-of-antifa-violence-shuts-down-antifa-documentary-premier/

                      https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2849/uk-islamist-intimidation-free-speech

                    • McFlock

                      “It is if it’s my property.”
                      Which it isn’t.

                      But it belongs to someone, and what happens on it is their choice.

                      “He has a point of view, but you talked about an exchange of ideas. Exchange. Give and take. Debate.”
                      Which is called Q&A, and forms a regular part of speeches by Ben Shapiro etc.

                      And whether preaching to the choir counts as an exchange of ideas is up to the property owners.

                      “It’s up to the property owners to decide whether that applies in the case of specific individuals.”
                      And they are being bullied into submission by groups who would silence free speech, such as in the examples I posted. You seem to support this, though you haven’t explained why.

                      Bullied, now? Sounds like you’re trying to label students airing their concerns in order to silence them. Again, who’s “silencing” the breitbart crowd? Universities recognise students as stakeholders in how their campuses operate. Just as you might ask your flatmates if they want to let jehovah’s witnesses into the house.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Ah, so it started out as “the university banned Shapiro!!! !!! !!!!!!!”, but now it’s “people” and Antifa threatening violence, which has sweet f.a. to do with safe spaces.

                      Watch those goalposts very carefully.

                      Since when, pray tell, are Antifa a “small elite”? Small, sure. Elite? Pfft.

                      The opinion you’ve rote-learned isn’t serving you very well. Why not come back with a better argument?

                    • Hornet

                      “Bullied, now? Sounds like you’re trying to label students airing their concerns in order to silence them.”
                      No, I’m calling their attempts to silence others as bullying. Which it is.

                      ” Universities recognise students as stakeholders in how their campuses operate. ”
                      Yes, and these campuses should recognise their students freedom to listen to, and engage with, speakers of their choice. The free exchange of ideas has been the role of universities for centuries, but there is an elite who want to shut that down.

                    • Hornet

                      “Ah, so it started out as “the university banned Shapiro!!! !!! !!!!!!!”, but now it’s “people” and Antifa threatening violence…”

                      The references to violence were in response to your comment here /tory-translation-service/#comment-1427826. Clearly you were unaware of these examples.

                      “…which has sweet f.a. to do with safe spaces.”

                      Actually it is closely related. Safe spaces are places where people go to be protected from speech they find harmful to their feelings. When these spaces are enlarged or exploited to silence other voices, then that is an intrusion on free speech.

                      As an aside, there is compelling argument that safe spaces actually do more harm than good.
                      https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/more-mortal/201605/when-safe-spaces-become-danger-zones

                      “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      When these spaces are enlarged or exploited to silence other voices…

                      You keep asserting that ad nauseam. It’s a lie. Where safe spaces exist they enable voices to be heard. Meanwhile, your purported ‘victims’ have the entire internet and all the public spaces of the world to recite their mantra.

                      All together now:

                      Come and see the violence inherent in the system! I’m being repressed!

                      Harmful to their feelings.

                      Actually, having to constantly re-litigate and explain basic concepts of privilege, human rights and freedom of expression to butt-hurt alt-right loudmouths is harmful to the conversations people want to have.

                      Especially when having such conversations in public will get you run over on the street by the “good people” chanting “Jews will not replace us!”

                    • McFlock

                      No, I’m calling their attempts to silence others as bullying. Which it is.

                      Hang on, you said “And they [the colleges] are being bullied into submission by groups who would silence free speech,” and now you say that the silencing is the bullying? You’re having difficulty keeping your bullshit straight.

                      ” Universities recognise students as stakeholders in how their campuses operate. ”
                      Yes, and these campuses should recognise their students freedom to listen to, and engage with, speakers of their choice. The free exchange of ideas has been the role of universities for centuries, but there is an elite who want to shut that down.

                      Oh bollocks. Find me an athiest lecturing in the first years of Oxford University.

                      But more to the point, your position is that my wish to watch a live sex show in a lecture theatre overrules the university’s right to accept and decline speakers as it chooses and anyone else’s objections (purely for the intellectual merit, of course. It’s illustrative of various compositional motifs in Art History. Or practical biology. Whatever. There can even be a Q&A session afterwards).

                    • Hornet

                      “You keep asserting that ad nauseam. It’s a lie. ”
                      No it’s not. Here, this piece may help you. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/02/13/university-safe-spaces-dangerous-fallacy-do-not-exist-real/

                      “Where safe spaces exist they enable voices to be heard.”
                      No, they are places where only one voice is heard. There is no dissent, no critique allowed. That is anti-intellectual. And it damages those who it seeks to help.

                    • Hornet

                      ““And they [the colleges] are being bullied into submission by groups who would silence free speech,” and now you say that the silencing is the bullying? ”
                      Where?

                    • Hornet

                      “But more to the point, your position is that my wish to watch a live sex show in a lecture theatre overrules the university’s right to accept and decline speakers as it chooses and anyone else’s objections (purely for the intellectual merit, of course. ”

                      A live sex show is not free speech. But it may well result in a free exchange of ideas!

                    • McFlock

                      Where?

                      Dude, seriously? I linked to one and directly quoted the other. Pretending that you’re too stupid to see where you suddenly changed your mind about who was being “bullied” does not mean it didn’t happen.

                      Look, I’ll do it again, only I’ll quote and link the quotes:

                      “It’s up to the property owners to decide whether that applies in the case of specific individuals.”
                      And they are being bullied into submission by groups who would silence free speech, such as in the examples I posted.

                      And here’s the other position you gave me:

                      “Bullied, now? Sounds like you’re trying to label students airing their concerns in order to silence them.”
                      No, I’m calling their attempts to silence others as bullying. Which it is.

                      So even if we assume you’re arguing both are correct, basically your argument that colleges choosing to not have some individuals speak on their campuses it “the bullying bullies are bullying so they can bully”.

                      Grow the fuck up.

                      How are you going at finding examples to demonstrate the centuries of unrestricted speech at universities? Got any athiests lecturing in the 14th Century, maybe? Anyone at Harvard or Oxford in 1944 publicly arguing that the Nazis should win WW2?

                    • Hornet

                      You are confused. The comments you are referring to say this:

                      1. The Universities are being bullied into submission by threats of violence and property damage.
                      2. The ones doing the bullying are the students. /tory-translation-service/#comment-1427850

                      These are entirely consistent.

                      “How are you going at finding examples to demonstrate the centuries of unrestricted speech at universities? Got any athiests lecturing in the 14th Century, maybe? Anyone at Harvard or Oxford in 1944 publicly arguing that the Nazis should win WW2?”

                      So you’re argument has now reduced to ‘they did it too’?

                    • McFlock

                      But the colleges are the ones doing what you call “silencing” and what a normal person would call “not providing a forum so you go elsewhere”. The protestors are protesting.

                      So if silencing is bullying, and protesting is bullying, then the bullies [protestors] are bullying [protesting] the bullies [colleges] into bullying [rejecting/”silencing”] the angry young men and their demagogues [the breitbart crowd].

                      As for “they did it too”, you argued that something new was happening:

                      The free exchange of ideas has been the role of universities for centuries, but there is an elite who want to shut that down.

                      You can’t even provide examples within decades. Nor have you suggested that the breitbart crowd would say anything unexpected to their audience, or change their own opinions, so so much for “exchange of ideas”, anyway.

                      You can parrot lines quite well, but like any parrot you have difficulty understanding what you actually say.

                    • Hornet

                      The protestors are protesting. “
                      What you describe as ‘protesting’ is threatening violence, actual physical intimidation, and disrupting people going about their lawful business. But your euphemism is a nice sidestep.

                      “So if silencing is bullying…”
                      The actions deployed to silence are bullying.

                      “As for “they did it too”, you argued that something new was happening”
                      No, I didn’t. I said that the free exchange of ideas has been the role of universities for centuries. You seem to be arguing that because that hasn’t always occurred we should allow violence and intimation to set the agenda. That isn’t good enough. And neither is your line of argumentation.

                    • Hornet

                      “A vibrant society permits heretic views to be expressed. A country where the state – or universities for that matter – determines what is a permissible thought and what isn’t is a dictatorships, not a modern democracy.
                      History shows that it is fear and intolerance that drives suppression of free speech, rather than free speech causing fear and intolerance. Those who attempt to suppress free speech, tend to do so out of fear and intolerance. Censorship is a crude tool used to replace healthy counter-argument. ”

                      https://www.nzcpr.com/freedom-of-speech-in-new-zealands-universities-under-attack/

                      Instead of actually debating ideas that span topics from the conventional to the taboo, a generation of American students don’t engage, they just get enraged. In doing so, many students believe that they have a right to literally shut other people up. This is not only a threat to the First Amendment, but also to American democracy.

                      http://time.com/4530197/college-free-speech-zone/

                    • McFlock

                      I said that the free exchange of ideas has been the role of universities for centuries.

                      I know, I quoted you saying it, remember?

                      You seem to be arguing that because that hasn’t always occurred

                      so you admit your statement was false

                      we should allow violence and intimation to set the agenda.

                      No, just that your prissiness about unlmited free speech is factually incorrect, so the point you were trying to demonstrate with your prissiness is therefore completely unsupported.

                      That isn’t good enough. And neither is your line of argumentation.

                      My line was simply that your line about “centuries” yadda yadda was bullshit. You can abandon it or provide and example that supports it, up to you.

                      Violent movements and violent speech provoke resistance. Again, if I have a party, I might not invite the guy who always starts fights. Similarly, a campus renting out a podium to neonazis or whatever will need to fund extra security.

                      BTW, I note the discussion has gone from having “safe spaces” through to “threatening violence, actual physical intimidation”. As OAB pointed out, shifting goalposts much?

                    • Hornet

                      “so you admit your statement was false”
                      No, and you haven’t argued that.

                      “No, just that your prissiness about unlmited free speech is factually incorrect”
                      No, it isn’t. And I have posted many examples of writers bemoaning the loss of said free speech.

                      “My line was simply that your line about “centuries” yadda yadda was bullshit.”
                      You have argued the ‘they did it too’ line, which is weak. That there have been restrictions at some places and some times in the past does not make the current sad state of affairs acceptable.

                      “Violent movements and violent speech provoke resistance.”
                      So you are labelling every speaker who has been banned or disinvited as using ‘violent speech’?

                      “Again, if I have a party, I might not invite the guy who always starts fights. Similarly, a campus renting out a podium to neonazis or whatever will need to fund extra security. ”
                      Ben Shapiro, a ‘neo-Nazi’? That’s a good one.

                      Your arguments are very weak, McFlock. They seem to rely on the idea that speech that offends should not be permitted. That is, frankly, intellectually ‘flabby’.

                    • Hornet

                      Here is a short list of just some speakers who have been banned, disinvited or bullied out of speaking on Campuses in recent months:

                      Janet Mock – TV host and transgender rights activist.
                      Nicholas Dirks – American academic and the former Chancellor of the University of California
                      Emily Wong – Physician at Massachusetts General Hospital
                      Jason Riley – Journalist
                      Suzanne Venker – Author and Social Critic

                      Are any of these speakers members of ‘violent movements’, McFlock? Or guilty of ‘violent speech’?

                    • McFlock

                      skipped through your list, didn’t immediately know any of them. Rather than parroting the list, what was your source for it?

                      As for the supposed centuries of free exchange of ideas, like I say, if you can support it you are free to do so. So far you haven’t. Oh, and Shapiro comes under “whatever”. Different fuckwit, different label.

                      Your arguments are very weak, McFlock. They seem to rely on the idea that speech that offends should not be permitted. That is, frankly, intellectually ‘flabby’.

                      No, I’m sure everyone on your list still can comment on whatever issue they care. Just not on those properties where the owners choose not to give them a podium, for whatever reason. Have any actually been “silenced”? Are they mute? Imprisoned in communicado? Living in a cave somewhere, without so much as a 3g cellphone?

                    • Hornet

                      “what was your source for it?”
                      Various, but there is a summary at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/list-of-disinvited-speakers-at-colleges-2016-7?r=US&IR=T, and a ‘disinvited database’ here https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/#home/?view_2_sort=field_6asc.

                      “Oh, and Shapiro comes under “whatever”. Different fuckwit, different label.”
                      Shapiro is a Jew. No Nazi hate speech there. He is also a moral conservative. Is that why you’re content to have his opinion shut down?

                      “No, I’m sure everyone on your list still can comment on whatever issue they care.”
                      Not at an increasing number of campuses and other places where freedom of speech used to be accepted. And the reason? An increasing and alarming level of giving in to those unable to tolerate an alternative point of view.

                    • Hornet

                      “Just not on those properties where the owners choose not to give them a podium, for whatever reason. ”

                      No, not just on those properties.

                      https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/08/white-supremacists-are-waging-a-war-against-public-space/536724/
                      “The attack also threatens public space, an amenity that is both scarce and necessary for democracy. The idea of the public square is under attack. And the extremist alt-right is waging a campaign to shut down the public square, using both violence and intimidation, especially under open-carry laws. Public space as public sphere is a concept that dates back to late 19th century Britain. “

                    • McFlock

                      You say “conservative”, I say “fuckwit”. If he’s the sort of guy who requires an extra half million dollars of security, I wouldn’t want him on my property, either.

                      So now white supremacists are snowflakes wanting safe spaces? We might have gotten somewhere with the discussion if you didn’t keep moving around so much.

                      But the point remains that your conservative folk can still comment. Nobody is obliged to give them a forum.

                      And to pretend that altright fuckwits actually killing people is the same as people protesting the mouthpieces who legitimise those fuckwits is pretty fucked up on your part.

                    • Hornet

                      “You say “conservative”, I say “fuckwit”.”
                      Name calling because you disagree with someone?

                      “If he’s the sort of guy who requires an extra half million dollars of security, I wouldn’t want him on my property, either.”
                      The only reason any security is required is because of bullies who want to shut down free speech.

                      “So now white supremacists are snowflakes wanting safe spaces?”
                      You didn’t read the article.

                      “But the point remains that your conservative folk can still comment.”
                      You’re moving the goal posts. My point has been about the exercise of free speech in spaces such as college campuses. I have shown from multiple sources that is under threat. That’s simply not acceptable in a free society.

                    • McFlock

                      I call a fuckwit a fuckwit. Whether I disagree with them is another matter.

                      My point has been about the exercise of free speech in spaces such as college campuses. I have shown from multiple sources that is under threat.

                      For it to be under threat, it needs to exist. How you doing at finding those examples of 13th century athiest lecturers?

                      You have shown nothing. At best you have pasted opinion pieces from foilk who are just as shrill as you are, and yes, I did read the article that equated peaceful protest by the left with vehicular homicide by a white supremacist.

                    • Hornet

                      “I call a fuckwit a fuskwit…”
                      Because you disagree with him. It’s obvious.

                      “For it to be under threat, it needs to exist.”
                      Easy. Shapiro et al could freely speak at college campuses until the cry babies bullied these campuses to disinvite them. There you have it. It existed. Now it doesn’t. Case closed.

                      “You have shown nothing.”
                      And there your ignorance is exposed. My sources are from across the political and social spectrum. They evidenced examples of speakers being banned/disinvited from campuses. That you could support censorship of that kind is sad. Actually, no it’s disgraceful.

                    • Hornet

                      “I did read the article that equated peaceful protest by the left with vehicular homicide by a white supremacist.”

                      So you didn’t read it then. The point of the article was to give an example of a white supremist group trying to shut down free speech. So you have that in common with them. Proud?

                    • McFlock

                      [yawn]
                      you couldn’t let xmas go by without being a fuckwit? I’m not calling you a fuckwit because I disagree with you, but because you’re an idiot who’s convinced they’re a genius because they can look up altright talking points on the interwebs. Not everyone I disagree with is a fuckwit. Som, like Bill or Weka, I have serious respect for even when we disagree. You, on the oither hand, are a fuckwit whose idea of an xmas gift to themselves is to argue online. I didn’t even switch on a computer until getting home ten minutes ago.

                      BTW, cry babies can’t bully. It’s kind of the opposite of what bullies do. And you reckon that “cry babies” have something “in common” with actual murderers. That’s part of what makes you a fuckwit.

                      Great, now I’m grumpy. Merry christmas, arsehole.

                    • Hornet

                      “…you couldn’t let xmas go…”

                      So, rather than address the points I’m making, you complain that I posted on Christmas Day.

                      “cry babies can’t bully.”
                      Yes, they can. Some of the worst bullies are cry-babies.

                    • McFlock

                      Love the way you claimed I didn’t address your comment, then responded to the bit where I did exactly that.

                      The difference between a protest and how white supremacists attack free speech is that when Shapiro was barred from De Paul university, he shifted to another venue that very night. White supremacists kill people. Shapiro still speaks. Heather Heyer can’t, because she’s dead.

                    • Hornet

                      “Love the way you claimed I didn’t address your comment, then responded to the bit where I did exactly that.”
                      I said you hadn’t addressed the “points I was making”, not the comment. Now, finally, you have tried.

                      “The difference between a protest and how white supremacists attack free speech…”
                      Is only one of degrees. The principle is the same…an attempt to stifle free speech.

                      If you seriously doubt this is a real issue, I invite you to read this piece about Monash http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/monash-university-adopts-trigger-warning-policy/8390264. In particular read the comments by Marguerite Johnson about the impact these restrictions would have had on 1970’s feminists trying to get laws around rape trials changed.

                    • McFlock

                      So are your comments about bullies and crybabies without any point, then? Good to know.

                      Again, moving to a different venue doesn’t “stifle” free speech. Killing the speaker does. If you think the only difference between the two is one of degree, you’re a fucking moron.

                      And once again you link to opinions that are unsubstantiated and frankly irrelevant even to the trigger warning policy outlined in the article. As the students’ union put it, trigger warnings aren’t about stifling the content, just warning people rather than ambushing them with it. Even the professor whose opinion you agree with warns her students about explicit content. She was just cautios about codifying it into university policy – in other words, she thinks it should be done, but doesn’t want the university to think it should be done, too.

                    • Hornet

                      “So are your comments about bullies and crybabies without any point, then?”
                      No.

                      “Again, moving to a different venue doesn’t “stifle” free speech.”
                      Yes it does. At the venue where the bullies win. And when the bullies win, we all lose.

                      “And once again you link to opinions that are unsubstantiated…”
                      The ‘opinions’ in the article are opinions. The facts were substantiated.

                      “As the students’ union put it, trigger warnings aren’t about stifling the content, just warning people rather than ambushing them with it.”
                      That’s not what the Marguerite Johnson concluded.
                      As it’s clear you haven’t read the article fully, I’ll quote from it:

                      “But while she considers herself a progressive educator, she too objects to the idea of a university administration codifying when trigger warnings are to be given. For a start, she thinks Monash University’s threshold of “emotionally distressing” sets the bar ridiculously low. “Life is potentially inevitably, regularly, emotionally distressing,” she said. “The world is emotionally distressing and I find it quite absurd that the universities may see themselves as the guardians of emotionally distressing situations. “We are not preparing them for the real world.” She believes warning students about texts interrupts the way they approach and interpret works. “If we are warning them all the time, then we are creating a preconceived notion that this material is going to upset me,” Associate Professor Johnson said. While in recent years criminal law students at Harvard University have objected to the discussion of sexual assault law because it could cause victims distress, Associate Professor Johnson said it is the very fact that material might disturb students that can benefit society, pointing to the reform of sex assault laws in Australia. “Those young feminist students in the 70s who were reading law and looked at the way women were represented in the law, who studied rape cases, who then went on to be lawyers who advocated to change the legislation about rape in court — if they hadn’t experienced the horrors of reading the materials as students, how would they know what to fight against, how would they know what to kick against?” she said.”

                      “Even the professor whose opinion you agree with warns her students about explicit content.”
                      Exactly. So why the trigger warnings? Because weak minded people can’t tolerate hearing things they don’t agree with.

                      Here’s another piece, this time written by a student.

                      http://www.news.com.au/national/im-a-student-heres-how-free-speech-died-at-university/news-story/748b6979096c523fb7c8cbc89fef7102

                    • Hornet

                      Here’s a recent Guardian article on the same matter.

                      https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/dec/26/jo-johnson-universities-no-platforming-freedom-of-speech

                      How do you feel about attempts to ban a gay rights activist and veteran feminist writer because of their views on transgenderism?

                    • McFlock

                      “So are your comments about bullies and crybabies without any point, then?”
                      No.

                      Was that a “no, they had no point”, or a “no, you’re wrong, they had a point which you addressed”?

                      And it seems the aussie academic who gives trigger warnings in her own classes is apparently quibbling about the threshold set by university policy, not that the policy shouldn’t exist.

                      As for student groups wanting whatever speakers “no platformed” from their campus, that’s their right to express that opinion. And the university can agree with them or not – that’s the university’s right as property owner.

                      “Again, moving to a different venue doesn’t “stifle” free speech.”
                      Yes it does. At the venue where the bullies win.

                      The crybaby bullies, lol. What did they do at school, whinge until people gave them lunch money? The students and faculty can still say what they want. They just won’t let outsiders come in to be jerks.

                      Germaine greer hasn’t been silenced. That’ll be the day.
                      Ben Shapiro has a speaking schedule for 2018.
                      I can think of one person who hasn’t been saying anything lately, because she was murdered by a nazi while she was legally protesting. That’s the difference between “silencing” and “not providing a platform”.

                    • Hornet

                      “Was that a “no, they had no point”, or a “no, you’re wrong, they had a point which you addressed”?”
                      It was a ‘no’ there was a point.

                      “And it seems the aussie academic who gives trigger warnings in her own classes…”
                      No, she doesn’t.

                      “As for student groups wanting whatever speakers “no platformed” from their campus, that’s their right to express that opinion.”
                      It’s not their right to suppress other opinions.

                      “The crybaby bullies, lol. What did they do at school, whinge until people gave them lunch money? The students and faculty can still say what they want. They just won’t let outsiders come in to be jerks.”
                      Jerks being people you disagree with.

                      “Germaine greer hasn’t been silenced.”
                      Please don’t misquote me. I didn’t say she was ‘silenced’. I said she was ‘banned’. University campus’s are places for a free exchange of ideas. It is obvious there is a group of ‘cry babies’ who want to suppress that. You are clearly on their side.

                      “That’s the difference between “silencing” and “not providing a platform”.
                      Euphemisms are lovely, aren’t they. But let’s be clear. You stand on the side of a group of people who are attempting to suppress freedom of speech. When Germaine Greer, a lifelong feminist activist, speaks on Campus, attendance is not compulsory. No-one is forced to listen to her. Yet the very idea that she could have an opinion that challenges some of the little darlings is enough to have her banned from an academic institution. And you side with those who find that acceptable.

                    • Hornet

                      “I can think of one person who hasn’t been saying anything lately, because she was murdered by a nazi while she was legally protesting. ”

                      So you draw the line at murder? What about plain old violence (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html)? What about physically assaulting people attending an event (https://www.dailywire.com/news/3704/exclusive-csula-police-look-away-protesters-joshua-yasmeh)?

                      Your own position is philosophically bankrupt.

                    • McFlock

                      Reiterating the same statements does not suddenly make them true.

                      You have not demonstrated centuries of free speech at universities.
                      You have not demonstrated how making someone move venues stops them speaking.
                      You have not demonstrated that universities are not permitted to control who comes onto or simply gets podium time on their campus.

                      Any violent protestors will face the force of the law, but the point is that nazis actually kill people. That’s “silencing” them. Locking someone up in communicado is “silencing” them. Making someone move venue is “mildly inconveniencing” them.

                      Unless you come up with something new, I probably won’t bother responding in this thread. You’re a whiny little moron who wants to play victim so much that it’s nauseating. By your logic, I’ve been bullied into being silenced, woe is me 🙄

                    • Hornet

                      “You have not demonstrated how making someone move venues stops them speaking.”
                      Another misquote. It is an unfortunate habit of yours. And again you misunderstand. If speech is free, it must be truly free.

                      “You have not demonstrated that universities are not permitted to control who comes onto or simply gets podium time on their campus.”
                      Another misquote. (Again?) I have never claimed universities don’t have that right.

                      “Any violent protestors will face the force of the law, but the point is that nazis actually kill people. That’s “silencing” them. Locking someone up in communicado is “silencing” them. Making someone move venue is “mildly inconveniencing” them.”
                      Nazi’s aren’t the only people who kill people, McFlock. Totalitarianism has been reflected in a number of different political systems, the most deadly of which has been those from the left. And it can begin with simple, minor inconveniences. Have a read of Hannah Arendt’s ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’, or Sinclair Lewis’s ‘It can’t happen here’. Naieve, in fact foolish, appeasement such as you exhibit is how it takes hold.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Today’s white supremacists pose as defenders of free speech.

                This sentence seems appropriate for some reason.

                • Hornet

                  That is an extremely good piece, thanks. I found this comment interesting “Life After Hate counters violent extremism by helping people disengage from white supremacy or, better, never join in the first place.”. Nowhere does Picciolini advocate suppressing free speech or banning speakers from the ‘public square’. His approach is to change attitudes, not ban opinions he now disagrees with. Good on him.

                  Oh, and you might enjoy this:

                  “But I suppose Ms Roxon’s scorn for those who care deeply about freedom of speech merely reflects the spirit of an age characterised by the rise not just of an alarming new intolerance of the views of those who do not subscribe to the current preferences and values of a conceited, self-anointed cultural elite, but an intolerance of their right to express those views at all.”
                  https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2012/10/in-defence-of-freedom-of-speech/

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.3.2

          Starting a new sub-thread.

          All have been banned from academic campuses by those who don’t like what they say, rather than attempting to debate what they say.

          I doubt very much whether any of them are “banned from academic campuses”. They are welcome to enroll and join the student body I’m sure. Perhaps in doing so they might establish some credibility and some of them might become faculty members.

          However, as outsiders, if they want to book a venue and host an event, the property owners have the right of refusal. I want a church funeral with an enacted production of Io Pan* as the centrepiece, with actors and other interested parties standing in for any clergy who don’t wish to participate.

          *Io Pan, it should be noted, comes with a bunch of trigger warnings.
          I laughed at the great god Pan. I didnae, I didnae!

      • SPC 4.1.4

        Of course it is mansplaining, most right wing voters are men.

        I prefer whitemansplaining, as it is far more accurate. Old whitemansplaining even better. Given the huge numbers of white babyboomer males who vote National (or Republican).

        And the denial of old white men can/will only last so long …

        • KJT 4.1.4.1

          Us Westie, white boomer males, actually voted for a Gay Labour candidate. The first in New Zealand.

          Just saying.

    • weka 4.2

      ‘Tory Translation’ is alliteration. RWNJ Translation doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

      • Pete George 4.2.1

        I guess you’re aware that RWNJ is another example.

        Pejoratives are acceptable as long as they alliterate? That would make Socialist Cindy ok? (I don’t like that term either).

        • weka 4.2.1.1

          ‘The left do it too’ is another example of what Enzo is talking about. Because it implies that the left are just as bad as the right and therefore we can just carry on with what we are doing. But there are distinct differences between what the left and the right do (I’m guessing the distinction is lost on you, but then I seem to remember that you argued that Dirty Politics was people on the internet saying mean things to each other).

          • Sacha 4.2.1.1.1

            Timely comment from a US pundit: https://twitter.com/scalzi/status/942181682010091520

            “Folks, if you roll up with ‘both sides are equally bad’ these days, I’m gonna know you’re a fucking idiot whose understanding of political issues is about as deep as a single baked potato crisp. I literally have no time for you, Pringle pal.”

          • Pete George 4.2.1.1.2

            It’s impossible to measure who is as bad or worse, but there are plenty of examples in this post and comments that the left can hardly be smug about their purity.

            It is relevant to look at both sides of the divide sling crap at each other, because ‘if they’re doing it we should throw it back harder and dirtier’ leads to justification, retaliation and escalation.

            It’s irrelevant who does it worse at any given time, that’s not measurable anyway, but far too much shit flies in both directions, and it’s unnecessary, unhealthy and sightly for a modern democratic society.

            And given the shit I get for pointing this out it suggests the immaturity is nowhere near abating.

            • Bill 4.2.1.1.2.1

              Mrs Grundy has spoken.

            • Sacha 4.2.1.1.2.2

              Promoting false equivalences is seldom popular. But your life should surely have taught you that by now.

              • You don’t seem to have learnt about making stupid accusations.

                It’s not a false equivalence when it’s largely true. That has been well and truly proven on this thread.

                Are you aware of a ‘my shit doesn’t stink’ syndrome? That’s also prevalent on both the left and the right – to be clear, I’m not claiming it’s equal, just saying that it’s common on both sides of the political spectrum.

                • Sacha

                  Useful idiot is useful. Cui bono?

                  • No one benefits when the left and the right throw shit at each other an claim their own shit doesn’t stink.

                    No no, they are no useful idiots.

                    I was disappointed when Key didn’t set a better example as PM. I’m hoping that Jacinda Ardern, and a new generation of younger
                    politicians, will be more positive and constructive in Parliament.

                    Holding opponents to account is important, when justified, but the priority for any MP should be contributing to the greater good of Parliament and the country as they can.

                    I think that most voters don’t like political shit fights, and are likely to reward a better standard if any major party wants to show the way.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Key didn’t set a better example? A better example than whom? “It seems” that weasel words are the only ones you’ve got.

                    • RedLogix

                      This was my pivotal moment:

                      But this, I am reluctantly beginning to understand, is self-flattery. One important feature of being trapped in the Vortex, it turns out, is the way it looks like everyone else is trapped in the Vortex, enslaved by their anger and delusions, obsessed with point-scoring and insult-hurling instead of with establishing the facts – whereas you’re just speaking truth to power. Yet in reality, when it comes to the divisive, depressing, energy-sapping nightmare that is modern online political debate, it’s like the old line about road congestion: you’re not “stuck in traffic”. You are the traffic.

                      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/29/vortex-online-political-debate-arguments-trump-brexit

                      PG and I have crossed debating swords many times over the years but on this I largely have to agree with him.

                • cleangreen

                  We have been sitting watching your comments ‘pete george.’

                  Some are fairly balanced and thats fine, but you are now becoming angry and abusive using words like ‘stupid”

                  We are realising that you just may be also blogging as one or more other names, because your phrasing of words to attack others appears the some as three other attack bloggers now.

                  So we will keep monitoring your nasty responses from now on.

                  We want ‘constructive comments’ here to help our Government and collectivelly ourselves going forward, and we hope you will join us with this thought in mind.

                  We woud rather be positive rather than snipe at others here.

                  Yes we saw you mention this some time back as snipping at others being unhelpful so we hope you will keep to that thought.

                  Join the willing who are wanting real positive change for all.

                  • An odd comment.

                    I’ve openly identified myself in commenting under my own name for quite a few years now. Apart from a couple of little bits of fun using a pseudonym a long time ago (one here, one on Redbaiter’s blog) I have only posted or commented under my name.

                    What other identities did you think I used? It would be funny to know.

                    Who is the ‘we’ youre posting on behalf of?

                    I’m fairly positive about the new government, albeit with some concerns. They set an unnecessarily ambitious 100 day commitment – better to do things well than hurried, it was a huge task setting up a new government when they hadn’t expected to be in that position.

                    • cleangreen

                      Pete,
                      That was resonable response Pete,

                      Our feeling is that when you get defensive (fairly easily) you go on a attack mode very similar to three other attack bloggers, and that was what spiked our concern.

                      If you are only one blogger fine, I will accept your word.

                      I have asked you for your feedback on 4.1.1.1.2.1 on a subject you raised on ‘democracy’ thanks.

            • Stuart Munro 4.2.1.1.2.3

              In fact it’s surprising easy to find examples that demonstrate unequivocally that the right are much worse than the left.

              The illegal seizure of Nicky Hager’s computers springs to mind – the vile Tory scum whose kleptocracy has exploited NZ for the last decade have not suffered comparable harassment.

              More’s the pity.

              • red-blooded

                To be fair, I don’t think that really answers the point PG was making. He’s right that we on the left also label, denigrate and use wedge politics. All of these things happen frequently in discussions on this site, and not only when rebutting a right wing commenter.

                You’re right that the Nats and the police tried to take down Nicky Hagar and shut him up, and of course we saw the whole dirty politics machine flourish and rule for far too long under Key and Co. That’s all the more reason to try not to fall into that kind of crappy behaviour ourselves. I don’t often agree with Pete Best, but I do support his hope that a new generation of politicians, under the guidance and example of Jacinda Ardern, will maintain higher standards.

                That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push back when attacked, or identify and criticise damaging ideas, comments or behaviour, just that we should keep the focus on the ideas, comments and behaviour.

                I agree with Grey Area, below, that the politicians and commentators on the right tend to be worse than the left when it comes to lying and personal attacks, but that doesn’t mean we should stoop down to that level. It’s not the only way to win an argument – it’s not even the best way.

                • Stuart Munro

                  I am less concerned with winning the argument than with maintaining the legal principle that wrongdoing not go unpunished. There has been a great deal of wrongdoing over the last few decades, and I see no particular reason it should be swept under the rug.

                  • Incognito

                    Interesting comment but which wrongdoings would you pursue and investigate and put large effort and resources into? Assuming, of course, that legal deadlines, or whatever they’re called, have not expired. What would it achieve; justice for the sake of justice or is there more to be gained? What about wrongdoings that we don’t (yet) know about, the ‘pretty legal’ stuff that has not yet been unearthed?

                    • Stuart Munro

                      I have a feeling that injustice is a significant deadweight cost to society. We should of course pursue most of them – we have arrived at a very bad place, where criminally obtained funds are routinely secreted in NZ.

                      People talk about the sociopathic tendencies of capitalism, but these are significantly lower, almost manageable in a well-regulated society committed to justice. In the war of all against all created by the Key Kleptocracy, not so much.

    • Grey Area 4.3

      “I don’t think the right are any worse than the left.”

      At least you framed this an opinion because I think you’re wrong. The left are not blameless but the right are far worse. Enzo’s post was describing a whole language used to denigrate or undermine those on the left whereas you provide a few examples of a bit of name-calling or derogatory language to show that “look, they do it too!”

      You hear the same thing when people accuse National MPs of lying: ” Labour do it too!” or “all politicians lie!”

      Do politicians on the left lie? I’m sure some do some of the time. But some National figures seem to lie so much, especially Key in the past, that we are left wondering if they ever tell the truth. Lying just seems to be the default position for a lot of National Party MPs and I don’t think you can say the same about MPs on the other side of the House.

      As the Alt-Right Playbook clip link below says about controlling the conversation: “Everybody does this sometimes. It’s just that the Right have made it central to their entire platform”.

      • Pete George 4.3.1

        “The left are not blameless but the right are far worse. ”

        No. The left think the right are far worse. However the right think the left are far worse. It’s closer to somewhere in the middle.

        • In Vino 4.3.1.1

          How many of the Left ones need the clever translations given in the post, PG? I think you may have missed the point (again..)

        • Grey Area 4.3.1.2

          “It’s closer to somewhere in the middle.”

          No it’s not. As I attempted to say it’s a matter of degree. Who have been the biggest exponents of Dirty Politics in New Zealand PG?

          It’s National. And if you can’t or won’t see that and want to reassure yourself that “they all do it”, go ahead. I’m not saying political parties on the left are paragons of virtue but if you can’t see the difference between the National Party and the others lined up against them, I can’t help you.

          Your beige, middle of the road reasonableness doesn’t cut it. Wrong is wrong and needs to be called for what it is.

          • Pete George 4.3.1.2.1

            Being the biggest party by quite a margin then yes, National have been guilty of some dirty politics for sure. So have Labour, although some of that dirt has been internal. Remember the strife over the Shearer Cunliffe years?

            In the shit for size stakes though I’d put NZ First/Winston Peters right up there. His MO has been innuendo, claims of leaks, accusations, claiming to have evidence that never eventuates, trying to destroy political careers.

            And when someone does a dirty leak on him he races to court. He has been known to threaten defamation too.

            • Incognito 4.3.1.2.1.1

              Being the biggest party by quite a margin then yes, National have been guilty of some dirty politics for sure. [my bold]

              I recognise an understatement when I see it! A very subtle attempt to downplay National’s central role in orchestrating DP from the ninth floor in the Beehive, for example.

              Your whole comment lacks credibility and simply is a diversion to make your point about “the middle” where most things happen, according to you.

              • Sacha

                “orchestrating DP from the ninth floor”

                And no equivalent of that behaviour from the left. None. False equivalence provides succour for wrongdoing. History is littered with beige enablers.

                • Incognito

                  Well, to be fair to Pete, he did say that Labour where very busy at backstabbing within the party. At times they did resemble some kind of ‘suicide cult’ but they seem to have regained their senses. But yes, it is a false equivalence, of course.

                  • ropata

                    Again, that was the dramatic media portrayal, not necessarily accurate.

                    • Incognito

                      Yes, good point! I must confess though that I did also succumb to the media portrayal and also to the commentary here on TS, which seemed to be quite in sync with MSM …

                • “History is littered with beige enablers”

                  Is that a deliberate joke, or accidentally funny? Another example of what this post is about, but proving it isn’t the sole domain of the right. But this one is contradictory trying to claim that a beige ineffective non-entity is to blame for dirty politics from the Beehive.

                  • ropata

                    How many journalists did Labour prosecute Pete?
                    How many dirty deals with skycity, warner bros, chinese spies has Labour made?
                    How many cases of staff abuse, payoffs, and coverups has the MSM avoided?
                    How many statistics did Labour actively suppress/stop measuring/falsify?
                    How many OIA delays and redactions did Labour commit to avoid their obligations to the cizens of Aotearoa?
                    How many bullshit farms in the desert and holiday highways did Labour build?
                    How many families did Labour throw into poverty and homelessness?
                    Has Labour done anything to compare with the Nats rampant demolition of chirstchurch and failure to properly compensate their victims, and their casual dismissal of democracy at ECan?

                    But the MSM isn’t making a fuss so it’s not real eh?
                    FFS there is no comparison, you fake beige equivocator.

              • “National’s central role in orchestrating DP from the ninth floor in the Beehive”

                This is a bit off topic but is worth addressing here.

                If you have evidence that that is true, and evidence of who did all the orchestrating, please provide a link.

                I’m well aware of what Slater has done at Whale Oil, what has been labelled ‘Dirty Politics’ – I think more well informed than you probably are, I know things that are not public information.

                The involvement of Jason Ede from the Prime Minister’s office is also document. Or at least to some degree.

                It is also documented that John Key had direct communications with Slater, but I think there are scant details of to what extent.

                But as far as I’m aware there is a lack of evidence about who else other then Ede was actively involved in what Slater did to any extent.

                It’s reasonable to assume that Key and Wayne Eagleson had some knowledge of what Slater did, and perhaps some involvement some of the time, but to what extent?

                It’s well known that all past governments have run black ops. It can be assumed that most details are not made public. So it’s impossible to know to what extent they do it.

                Slater is well known as a blow hard who exaggerates the degree and importance of what he does. He also tries to hide some of what he does.

                Slater has also had political agendas quite separate to National and to the Key Government, this was very apparent when they cut off communications and he frequently complained about it and lashed out because of it.

                So i think a lot of details are unclear or unknown.

                Slater openly plays dirty, and also secretly plays dirty, that’s well exposed.

                Ede worked with Slater, but as far as I’m aware the extent of this is not publicly known. To some extent he may have gone rogue, operating without approval of his seniors. How much DP was sanctioned by or orchestrated by the PM’s office? Please provide details.

                The speed with which the PM and National cut off links with Slater after DP broke suggests that they may have been uncomfortable with the extent and type of dirt being dished out of WO. Slater’s reaction to being cut off as too toxic is well documented.

                There have been suspicions expressed, allegations and assumptions. But a lot is unknown or unproven.

                Hager was inaccurate about some things, and he was far from comprehensive.

                WO ran hit jobs, some of which were mercenary, on a wide range of targets – at times with the help of the PM and National, at times I think independent of them’

                For example it would be outrageous if the PM’s had any involvement in the Len Brown hit job, but I have seen no evidence that national were involved at all. Also WO’s attacks on businesses and business people, and academics, and probably also on Colin Craig.

                Just claiming PM=DP, or Labour dirty politics, amounts to lazy general partisan labeling and dissing.

                Please provide details and evidence of who was complicit in DP from the PM’s office not documented in ‘Dirty Politics’ – preferably of specific agendas.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  It’s well known that all past governments have run black ops.

                  Liar. You assert it ad nauseam (the only debating method you are capable of) and every time you do you’re lying.

                  • “Labour is trying to avoid the fallout from the so-called “H-bomb” it has dropped on John Key as it emerges taxpayer funds have been used in the attempt to find dirt on the National Party leader.”

                    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/696924/Labour-tries-to-dodge-bomb-fallout

                    “The Smiling Assassin: Pete Hodgson’s mastery of the dark arts of politics goes back a long way, but his latest scalp – Pansy Wong’s – was taken in a ‘sting’ operation that came pretty close to perfection.”

                    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2010/11/perfect-sting.html

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      black ops

                      Key features of a black operation are that it is secret and it is not attributable to the organization carrying it out.The main difference between a black operation and one that is merely secret is that a black operation involves a significant degree of deception, to conceal who is behind it or to make it appear that some other entity is responsible.

                      Wikipedia.

                      You have provided one two examples which don’t meet the definition. So my point stands: you are a habitual liar.

                      Edit: Hodgson’s take-down of Wong is democracy working as it should: he exposed her corruption, she had to resign. He didn’t make any attempt to hide his involvement, liar.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Re: Wong: Holding opponents to account is important, when justified.

                      The problem with being a habitual liar is that it’s hard to keep track of all your lies.

                • Robert Guyton

                  Pete George said:
                  “Ede worked with Slater, but as far as I’m aware * the extent of this is not publicly known . To some extent he may have gone rogue, operating without approval of his seniors. How much DP was sanctioned by or orchestrated by the PM’s office? Please provide details.”
                  Whaaaaaaat?

                  *My bold

                  • OnceWasTim

                    a reply to OAB
                    “The problem with being a habitual liar is that it’s hard to keep track of all your lies.”
                    And what interests and amazes me is that it has become so normal, as in the first impulse seems to be to bullshit – whether it is Prime Ministers, heads of government departments sucking up to their ministers, some members of the Rock Hopper Force, those in the media and spin doctors (although many of them are just lazy and a bit fik), or just your average recidivist crim fighting back against the world.
                    It’s what eventually takes them down.
                    Even more interesting is when you get a bullshitting Rock Hopper Force attempting to take down a bullshitting crim, or a bullshitting ‘journalist’ trying to take down a bullshitting politician, or a bullshitting member of the civil/public service not liking a change in regime.
                    Fucking interesting to watch. If it wasn’t so serious it’d be amusing, because so many of them have it down to an art. They all try it on to the bitter end as we see in so many instances

    • The Fairy Godmother 4.4

      Concern trolling is really neither left or right although I think RWNJs tend to do it more. I really can’t be bothered going on a National party aligned site and doing it but if I did it would be something like “I’m really worried about how pathetic JLR was today moaning about having to wait for his lunch. It might put people off voting for National and it takes the focus off Bill English”. If I did it would be concern trolling and it would be a lie because I really don’t give a fuck about National and I am very glad they lost and I hope they don’t win for a long time if ever. So concern trolling is lying it is not about expressing an opinion it is being deceptive and pretending you care when you don’t.

  5. weka 5

    Great post Enzo!

    ‘Social Justice Warrior’ became prominent during Gamergate and as such is associated with some of the worst misogyny on the internet. It’s broadened out since then but I think it’s worth keeping the connection clear so that people using the term disparagingly understand its genesis and context. Funnily enough it still often gets used by people who are sexist.

    • JustPassingThrough 5.1

      You do know that at it’s core Gamergate was about corruption in the gaming journalism industry right?

  6. Zorb6 6

    As I looked through Overton’s window,I asked myself,was there a binary connection between cognitive dissonance and the categorical imperative?Without engaging in virtue signalling or positive reinforcement,I found myself trapped in a void of academic oneupsmanship, that had no clear pathway to resolving the paradox of patent verbosity as opposed to latent simplicity.
    Then I realised that I was a victim,in fact I was my own worst enemy. Quantum superposition and Ockhams razor would have to put on the backburner,as I had to mow the lawns.

  7. OnceWasTim 7

    Thankfully we haven’t yet begun to hear “The New Zealand People ….. ” – as in
    “The American People” or the “Australian People …..” as a preface to anything where right wing policy is about to be pumped by politicians, spin doctors and media.

    • Wensleydale 7.1

      True. I do get awfully sick of that hoary old cliche “hard-working New Zealanders”, which usually serves as a handy precursor to an enthusiastic round of bene-bashing.

      Oh, and if you’re particularly pious “families and children” — I’m looking at you, Bob McCoskrie.

  8. cleangreen 8

    Ignore PG as these National clingons cant get over loosing can they.

    The worst thing we can do is respond to them as they are being judged how effective they are by the responses they get from us, which is showing their effectiveness in disrupting our continued comments to each issue.

    The torys they hate us discussing our issues, and contributing to our cause, and their weapon is to disrupt and divert so ignore them PG, Alwyn. James and co.

    We need to make a full list of these ‘disrupters’.

    Pity they can’t contribute to positivity but then they really can’t get over loosing can they.

  9. Graeme 9

    Proper job –

    Jamie. Lee. Ross.

  10. Ovid 10

    It’s all an attempt to control the conversation.

  11. SPC 11

    The biggest bludgers are those collecting $300 or $400 a week in super while still working (costing us $4B each year equivalent to the entire social welfare bill).

    And if National had been re-elected they would have double dipped, a $20 a week tax cut plus the bump in super derived from the said tax cut.

    • Lara 11.1

      Also those getting National Super while having plenty of private wealth and income.

      While those of us now working and paying taxes are told there will be no National Super for us when we retire.

      They seem to think it all went into a big kitty to be saved and then paid out when they retired. But it got spent. All of it.

    • Paul Campbell 11.2

      There’s a really good reason for this, basically so long as the pension is available to everyone there’s more political will for it to stay around until you’re old enough to collect it. It’s in your and my long term interest for it to be universal.

      Besides, people who are earning more are paying more tax and helping more to pay for it

      • JanM 11.2.1

        Yes, for the 5 years I was still working while being paid Super, my pension and my tax were about the same so essentially I was paying my own pension!

        • alwyn 11.2.1.1

          You were just like Winston Peters and his partner then, who by coincidence is also a Jan.
          Winston is currently getting his
          1. Salary as deputy PM
          2. His pension from his first time round as an MP, tax free of course.
          3. A very generous collection of tax free expenses.
          4. National Superannuation

          As the old song goes
          “Nice work if you can get it”

          • McFlock 11.2.1.1.1

            Well, to get that work these days you need to understand that being in government requires coalition partners.

            • alwyn 11.2.1.1.1.1

              That is certainly true.
              Winston has got two partners hasn’t he?
              He has allowed Labour a few positions but has specified what they are allowed to say and do.
              Then there are the Greens. They are allowed to look through the window but they aren’t allowed into the house.
              Done very well for himself hasn’t he?
              Pity about New Zealand of course.

              • McFlock

                lols at your use of “allowed”.

                One day you tories will understand the concept of coalition partners. Partners are people who are your equals, and have valid opinions even if those opinions differ slightly from your own. You can work with them to achieve common aims, “common” meaning that they are those opinions which you all share to a mutually acceptable level.

                To put it another way, you seem to think a coalition means someone has to go on top. Really, you can have more fun with a sort of three-way spooning arrangement. Sure, there’s only one pm, but you share different positions, rather than struggle for dominance.

                • “One day you tories will understand the concept of coalition partners. Partners are people who are your equals”

                  A partner inside Cabinet is not equal to a partner outside Cabinet.

                  Deputy Prime Minister is not equal to a Minister outside Cabinet.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    You are confusing positions with the people who occupy them; a common right wing disease.

          • Incognito 11.2.1.1.2

            Nice diversion!

      • SPC 11.2.2

        As JanM has noted, such only pay for their own super.

        Back in 1983 I advocated to Anne Hercus that super should be for those who have retired, Labour went with the surtax on other income (which is unfair on those who have saved).

        I would vote for any party that put a retirement test on receipt, there is so much good that the $4Bpa could do in public health, education and housing.

    • cleangreen 11.3

      Yep SPC,

      But I am on Super and cant live on $300 – $400 a week can you?

      When we get to 70+ our costs increase, Dental, medical as all these casts are not subsidised by a workplace insurance policy at our age so either we go and get very sick from blood poisoning from rotting teeth or ggo without medical treatment so we are screwwed if we dont find any ‘supplimental’ income.

      I only have a small income of less the $100 a week outside my $300 super a week and life is hard now believe me.

      Cheers

      • SPC 11.3.1

        The $4B pa would go some way to affording better health funding (including dental) and support for the aged which is the important thing for those who have retired.

        The $450/700 to assist with the winter power bill months will help out.

        At some point there might be a need to provide assistance for home renovation grants (interest free repayable out of the estate) to assist people to keep their homes up to standard on low incomes.

        • alwyn 11.3.1.1

          “The $450/700 to assist with the winter power bill months will help out”.
          Maybe next year. According to the MSD website you will only get about 60% of the amount in 2018.
          Just another little gap between the promises Labour made and the reality.
          You would of course have been better of next year if the current lot hadn’t cancelled National’s tax cuts.
          Well, I guess you voted for them so you will be happy at getting a lower income than you would have had under National’s policies.

  12. Incognito 12

    Very good!

    Spaghetti of entitlements – A brand new term used by National during the mini-budget debate last week.

    This is not a brand new term; Joyce used the same expression in July: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/334938/labour-s-plan-labelled-convoluted-spaghetti-of-entitlements.

  13. red-blooded 13

    Plus:
    – “won” – as in “National won the popular vote” (no they didn’t – they won more votes than any one other party, but that’s not the same thing);
    – “majority” (misused by those in denial when explaining their claim that National won the election);
    – “coalition/government of the losers” (used as an extension of the above);
    – “fiscal hole” (still being used, although the $11.8 billion tag seems to have been dropped).

  14. Ad 14

    The rightists are a lot better at sledging than the left, and have been for a while.

    The left just need to get hard, and get baiting more effectively.

    Don’t waste your breath figuring out more ways to be offended.

    Get out there and go on the offensive.

    We are in power. Use it.

    • Mister Smokey 14.1

      Oy, PETER GEORGE

      Quibbling over quotes?

      Do the heavy work.

      Have a read: “The Hollow Men.” “Dirty Politics”

      So, prove it wrong, pretty please: “National ~ Bribers, Liars, Born-to-Rulers”

      • Pete George 14.1.1

        Heavy work? I own and have read Dirty Politics. I’ve done more than most to confront WO and Slater and associates on not just dirty politics but dirty business and dirty litigation as well.

        They reacted by taking their hypocrisy to courts, and went as far as trying to imprison me for standing up to them. It was hopeless but I think they were serious. It was heavy handed for sure.

        What sort of heavy work have you done on this?

        • Mister Smokey 14.1.1.1

          Oy Pete

          Great reply, thank you.
          That would be heavy work for sure that you’ve done.
          Honour to you for your courage. Taking that stand. Go well.

          I never dreamed that was your story.

          Seeking a balance in the quotes? Maybe that’s needed

          We could disagree on this, I dunno, but the big lies and deceit seem to come largely from one side.
          Believing that’s so, I’m doing my best to fight it.
          But life is short. Best to live it, stay positive.

    • cleangreen 14.2

      very true every word Ed,

      WE are in power now so all you national clingons; – suck it up. get over it.

  15. adam 15

    What about left on left slurs.

    I’ll start with my all time favourite “purist”

    or Ad’s one ‘moist” 🙂

    As for Tory slurs “Snowflake” is the one I hear a lot now.

  16. McFlock 16

    Nice list. Very comprehensive 🙂

    • marty mars 16.1

      Lol what about Marxist Leninist – although you are a middle or unaffiliated rather than left aren’t you Adam. You’re in the new catagory like cv aren’t you.
      Anyway I may be wrong. .

      [You’re teetering right on the edge of a ban now Marty. And you can thank my current tiredness for the fact I can’t be doing with the rigmarole of processing it all as the reasaon for you merely ‘teetering’] – Bill

      • McFlock 16.1.1

        reply to wrong comment? 🙂

        left on left whistling is quite common:
        “neoliberal” = “not as left wing as me”
        “watch this youtube link” = “I can’t explain it in my own words, and it’s easier for me to drop a link to an hour’s worth of barely relevant monologues by someone who is possibly unhinged, just so you hear the twenty second soundbite I agree with from someone other than me”.
        “free thinker” = “thinks gravity is a deep state conspiracy”

      • adam 16.1.2

        marty mars making up shit again, well at least you’re consistent.

        • marty mars 16.1.2.1

          I was happy to be wrong if that was the case and you did try to insult me, a leftie, by saying I was very Marxist Leninist didn’t you which fitted in with your post so WHAT exactly is the problem? I legitamitely thought you were not aligned with conventual political labels.

  17. Bill 17

    MCWs is conspicuous by its absence.

    • cleangreen 17.1

      Yes Bill; – must be on a promise today at the annual ‘National Clingons’ xmas party?

  18. mac1 18

    “passionate” and “compassionate conservative” are two other right-wing terms. Now I know what each word means, ordinarily, but what does a right-winger mean by them, or what particular advantage is sought?

    A business writing article says this- “Saying, ‘I’m passionate…’ has become a hackneyed expression that EVERYBODY uses. It’s Numero Uno in The Hit Parade of Clichés. Straight in. With a bullet.

    Perhaps that’s the answer- it says nothing, means nothing, sounds profound.

    Compassionate conservatism as applied to Reagan and George W Bush is now dead, seen off by Trump. Bill English’s biography awards him that description in its 2016 title.

    It’s an oxymoron. Right wing rhetoric and right wing actions show this.

    As JK Galbraith wrote, “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” – John Kenneth Galbraith.

  19. Sparky 19

    I’m not sure how this govt is especially socialist? I’d be more inclined to view them as “Nat Lite”.

    The real question here is what constitutes the left these days? Strikes me a lot of what people view as the left is really the fake left represented by parties who make all the appropriate sounds and then simply continue the same policies as their supposedly “different” right wing counterparts.

    I guess keeping people tribal and fighting for their respective flags whilst being shafted by both sides is a good way of ensuring the real issues are ignored and the sheeple stay in their pens and off the streets.

    • cleangreen 19.1

      Right sparky;

      Look at our family, In 1999 we were green party voters and members, then by 2002 we were Labour voters through 2008 then we split to NZF/Labour so today we are back into backing the coalition Government.

      Back in 1996 we were national party voters.

      So you hit the nail right squarly on the head there.

      My heart is socialism always and saw Robert Muldoon as a socialist then, and now compared to the current national mob he clearly was by compassion,.

      Today we would never go near the National Party aggressive uncaring style of politics.

  20. Chris 20

    “They think they know how to spend your money better than you do –

    An extension of other people’s money (see above). They are asking you to accept that a $20 per week tax cut for the wealthy would be more effective spending than using the $8.4 billion worth of revenue it equates to for some virtue signalling (see above) SJW (see above) cause like lifting 88,000 kids out of poverty.”

    Never got this

    It’s change the lower tax brackets. Middle income people are earning more due to pure inflation etc

    Of course it captures the wealthy. But only the same amount as anyone else.

    And how is it different from rich people getting a baby bonus for a year, a winter payment and a free years tertiary for their kids?

    Which ironically works out more

    • cleangreen 20.1

      100% Chis well said.

    • ropata 20.2

      Taxing income is still inequitable when the true capitalists live off a vast pool of capital wealth that just sits around accumulating and devaluing the real work done by wage and salary earners. Tax land and capital not workers

  21. eco maori 21

    I say it’s totally acceptable to point out the faults of national people especially if they believe that there dum bigot views on how our NZ society should be is totally un humane racist unequal and because they are greedy the try an con us that racking up debt and selling all the assets is good for everyone they cheat and lie to get there way. So in my view these people have waved the right of any compassion from ECO. Ana to kai

  22. Westiechick 22

    They used to be able to say nigger lover
    Then they said politically correct.
    Then liberal.
    its hard to keep up but it is very powerful (for them).
    We say Tory, neo liberal, I don’t think it gets worse than that.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago