Who is the white dude of the year?

Written By: - Date published: 9:00 am, December 28th, 2017 - 265 comments
Categories: humour, Media, Satire - Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Based on an idea from tweets by Ben Torkington.

https://twitter.com/bentorkington/status/945879075532324864

https://twitter.com/bentorkington/status/945879244126564352

https://twitter.com/bentorkington/status/945879391426326528

So who is the white dude of the year and why?

265 comments on “Who is the white dude of the year?”

  1. opium 1

    It would be hard to pick douchebag of the year from that lot.Where would you start?

  2. dv 2

    Why on earth is the Electoral commission involved in the vote count?

  3. Takere 3

    They are all in their own unique class of ‘Arsehole’ and to distinguish them apart with some kind of intelligence is difficult as most of them are pretty saavy.
    So, its btw the dummies, Richardson, Tosser & the “Prince, I’ll tow-your-car-or-pay-me-in-cash” Antique dealer guy? I’d go for the Prince.

    • Wensleydale 3.1

      Agreed. Not only is he a colossal arsehole, he’s obviously in need of either medication or psychological counselling. Possibly both. His only redeeming feature is that his delusions of grandeur are hilarious to observe.

  4. NZJester 4

    The white dude of the year has t be John Key who managed to successfully collect his private sector rewards from the people he funneled a lot of the average New Zealander’s money to.
    He was rewarded by a big well paying private sector job that likely has a nice big annual bonus package and golden parachute attached to his new job.

  5. mauī 5

    Probably need a disclaimer stating in no way is this an attack on white male privilege or older white men in general.

    • james 5.1

      which of course it is. Been a few comments on here of late “picking” on white men. Makes me laugh.

      People do not like it if all women are lumped together,
      People do not like it if all Maori are lumped together,
      People do not like it if all Gay, Bi, Trans-gendered etc are lumped together,
      But – a white male – not a problem.

      • mauī 5.1.1

        Do you want to give Bob Jones a call?

      • David Mac 5.1.2

        Majorities are the new minorities.

      • mac1 5.1.3

        All us white men know that when we lump together people in a stereotyping and generalising way that it is wrong………..

        Now, there’s somehow something wrong with that statement.

      • Molly 5.1.4

        I think you may be acutely aware of the “picking on white men”, because it is not often demographics in acknowledged positions of power get to experience what it is to be considered in terms primarily of race or gender – rather than as an individual.

        But this happens consistently for people of colour and females.

        I understand that those who use the term, often use it as a call to those in power – most usually – white males – to consider their privilege.

        When those people in power – or those who are looking to acquire it – lump all women, māori or LGBT people together, they are reinforcing their statusnot acknowledging the disparity.

        Both the intent and the consequences are different.

        A child telling their parent to go to their room, has only the words to call attention to bad behaviour. The parent carries the authority, emotional and physical power to enforce compliance.

        Therein lies the difference you seek.

      • David Mac 5.1.5

        I don’t see the white man privilege thing as a slur on me, I’m comfortable in my skin. I see it as more of a climate thing. Temperature and soil conditions that allow a white plant to thrive.

        Where I love to live it’s about a 50/50 – white/brown combo. On a couple of occasions I’ve found myself amongst interesting social experiments of my own doing. Maybe I’d get used to it but I did feel an unease when the only white person amongst a larger group of brown people. I did feel a reluctance to raise my hand and share my thoughts. The situation reminded me of school and the unspoken unease the few Maori kids in my classes may of felt.

        I think there’s a lot to be said for being comfortable in our skins. I think the white man privilege thing is about the road to getting there being less bumpy for some.

        • SPC 5.1.5.1

          Interesting point about those in the minority not making themselves heard.

          The same perception has been used as a rationale for all female schools, albeit not because they are a minority, but because of past (cultural) assumptions about male leadership and the female deferring to the male.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.6

        Stop being so PC. Ben Torkington’s just saying what we’re all thinking.

        • james 5.1.6.1

          You speak for everyone?

          • xanjo 5.1.6.1.1

            There’s only one thing worse than a privileged white male and that’s a privileged white male with a chip on his shoulder bleating about how terrible it is to be a privileged white male….just saying…..pointedly…..looking at no James in particular. Said privileged white male would be best placed to learn when to shut the hell up.

            • James 5.1.6.1.1.1

              No chip here. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of some.

              • adam

                You know it’s the worst type of delusion to think everyone is equal.

                We live in a society based squarely on power differentials, and if you can not see that, I can recommend some good books.

              • Chris

                Ain’t no hypocrisy. Your one-dimensional take has caused you to completely miss the point. Quite remarkable.

            • Stunned Mullet 5.1.6.1.1.2

              yep privileged white males are just the worstest thing in the world… 🙄

            • Tim 5.1.6.1.1.3

              Brown person: white people need to shut the hell up
              White person: brown people need to shut the hell up
              *White person gets banned*

              lol gotta love the double standards here at the standard

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.6.1.2

            Yes, obviously. The fact that I employed the typical language of a right wing white cry-baby is pure coincidence 🙄

      • weka 5.1.7

        which of course it is. Been a few comments on here of late “picking” on white men. Makes me laugh.

        People do not like it if all women are lumped together,
        People do not like it if all Maori are lumped together,
        People do not like it if all Gay, Bi, Trans-gendered etc are lumped together,
        But – a white male – not a problem.

        Yeah, because no-one ever talks about the women’s netball team, or the Māori Party, or LGBTI 🙄

        But thanks for pointing out the point you are missing.

      • SPC 5.1.8

        Why is that (older) white men dominate the voter profiles of political parties that favour tax cuts (over general availability of public services) and limited or no taxation on CG and do the least on fair pay reform and general effort to reducing inequality and remove barriers to full opportunity for all?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.8.1

          Fear and weakness. They know their privilege is a crutch and are afraid to put it down.

      • Chris 5.1.9

        But it’s not lumping all white males together. You’re ignoring the context. What do you think “white dude of the year” implies? It refers to white men who are arseholes, which also means white males who are not arseholes are excluded. Your concerns are misconceived. You need to reduce your focus on the words, and take a bit more notice of the context.

      • Tricledrown 5.1.10

        Crusty curmudgeon’s then.
        Pale stale males.
        Post colonial puppets.

  6. Takere 6

    “You” pakeha are overly sensitive ay? FFS, youre just getting to understand what Maori have been through for ages. Get over it you bunch of pussies! 🙂

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1

      🙂

    • bwaghorn 6.2

      soyou don’t get offended when some one says ”all maori ”insert something offensive?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 6.2.1

        What has “being offended” got to do with systemic prejudice, entrenched privilege and discrimination?

      • weka 6.2.2

        No-one has said ‘all men’, or ‘all white men’.

        Was there anything offensive said in the post? Because unless someone is saying that calling someone privileged is offensive, I can’t see the problem.

        • bwaghorn 6.2.2.1

          so if i put brian tamiki , sonny tau, tuku morgan in a post headed maori of the decade or something like that is it ok? (i’m not offended by this post btw just seeing where things are at)

          i find the white thing stupid though , go to china africa or turkey and the dick heads wont be white , probably mostly male but not white

          • One Anonymous Bloke 6.2.2.1.1

            Will being a “dickhead” convey unearned privilege in those counties?

            • bwaghorn 6.2.2.1.1.1

              the above dick heads dont all have unearned privilege , some of the worked there way into positions where many listen to their ravingss different to unearned,that , unearned would be royals or people put somewherein power by quota .

              as for overseas don’t know but i bet the same types will exsist

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                I’m referring to the privileges that attach to whiteness, which are indeed unearned. Shall I cite some well-known statistics for you?

          • weka 6.2.2.1.2

            it’s false equivalence b. Because there is no equivalent of ‘white dude’, which in this context has a specific meaning. It’s not talking about all white men. It’s talking about the phenomena of white male privilege.

            There’s also a difference between a white man of privilege tweeting satire about white male privilege, and a white man putting up a post about Māori that highlights Māori men who are perceived as a problem.

            Not least because the media if full of reporting of what Māori men do wrong and how great white men are. Context is everything in political analysis.

          • Sabine 6.2.2.1.3

            but we don’t live in china or somewhere else.

            We live in NZ. And over the last few years the dickheads have been in large proportion white, entitled, mediocre, lazy arsed, loud mouthed men. Our politics over the last few years have been made by – in large part – white, entitled, mediocre, lazy arsed, loud mouthed men – the National Party can try to employ some more ‘minorities’ if they want to appear diverse.

            But i agree they could have also included the images of some white women (Judith Collins would fit the bill) and it would still simply show our Power
            Structure as it is plus the women that would heartily support the politics of the mediocre white male if it where to provide them with a meal ticket.

            • Tim 6.2.2.1.3.1

              Why don’t you focus more on how entitled and mediocre these people are rather than their skin colour or sex? Your criticism of their skin colour and sex actually adds makes polarisation stronger

              • bwaghorn

                yip as soon as one uses colour or sex they are getting down to the other sides level

                • weka

                  being colour/sex blind is also a problem. If analysis of privilege actively excludes talking about ethnicity and gender, then it by definition fails to address the structural issues of racism and sexism.

          • Takere 6.2.2.1.4

            Now thats a combo! A Porcelain Atua, a thief and a failed politician walk into the bush …. one says to the other,”I just found a pigeon on the ‘ground’ fullas?” Tuku says,”Well we could eat it cause we havent eaten for days but it would probably be illegal if word gets out?” Tamaki says,”To hear a tree fall in a forest, do you have to be in that forest to hear it?” Amene.

        • james 6.2.2.2

          “No-one has said ‘all men’, or ‘all white men’.”

          By referring to “white men” – as opposed to “some white men” you pretty much are

          eg if I say “women are home wreckers” – I would assume you would take me as saying that about all women as opposed to “some women”

          “Because unless someone is saying that calling someone privileged is offensive, I can’t see the problem.”

          it can be for people who are not privileged, when you tell them they are.

          • weka 6.2.2.2.1

            “By referring to “white men” – as opposed to “some white men” you pretty much are”

            Who used the term ‘white men’ in a way that is objectionable to you?

            “it can be for people who are not privileged, when you tell them they are.”

            Are you saying that white people aren’t privileged by society? I mean if it’s simply a matter of inaccuracy (e.g. someone isn’t white), then correct the mistake.

          • McFlock 6.2.2.2.2

            Maybe the award could be renamed “Some White Dude of the Year (#notallwhitedudes)”?

            I, for one, am terrified that I might for an instant feel slightly alienated from the dominant social structures of society. I demand that my elevated expectations should be validated by providing some opportunity to exclude myself from reflections upon the nature of society and accidental privilege.

            I’m not in denial, I just feel that the rules should be changed for me so I, personally, won’t feel mocked by a joke competition about the power and conceit of some #notall of my peer group.

    • xanjo 6.3

      three cheers and I second that.

    • Sabine 6.4

      oy,
      leave pussies out of there.

      seriously, leave the felines out of these statement.

  7. weka 7

    “So who is the white dude of the year and why?”

    The Standard.

    Because let’s not make out that the issue is only those bad men over there who are obviously sexist, misogynist, racist, and holding onto their privilege for everything its worth. It’s also the good men, and the either way men, who are relatively ok with the status quo and who won’t support women via power sharing or amplifying in ways that women need and want.

    There are still no regular women authors writing about feminism and women’s politics on TS. There is a single regular woman author, and one intermittent one. TS has lost more than 3 feminist authors in recent years. Women writers and commenters here still regularly have to push back against anti-feminist arguments from left wing men, including MRA and MRA-lite lines. Since the election men have been writing posts about issues that affect women, but no women. How many here have even noticed those things? How many have wondered about why that is? How many have asked women about what is going on with that? (those questions can be applied to commenting too).

    There is good support here too at times, from admin, authors and commenters. I definitely appreciate the pushback that some of the men commenters here do against MRA lines, and there’s general support amongst most of the authors to have more women here.

    What I am pointing to is the situation whereby what women want and need to be here fully and in ways that work for them is still not being acknowledged let along enabled. There are specific things that need to change. Until the (white) men here are willing to listen to those things and take action, not just to the degree that matches their own ideas about gender, but that listens to women and heeds what they are saying, well, TS will remain a reflection of the culture at large.

    It’s great that men are getting on board with the whole privilege thing, and yes, pointing at wealthy white men in positions of power can be useful. But please don’t mistake that for the real mahi of power sharing in our own lives. Sometimes that means giving up some privilege, and the way to do that so that women benefit is to take cues from women about what is needed.

    • weka 7.1

      And much of what I just said can be applied to Māori and other groups of people whose voices aren’t enabled here. I’m fighting one battle at a time though.

    • red-blooded 7.2

      This is something I wonder about, too. There have been strong female voices here in the past, but usually only one at a time and usually they move on. Weka has stuck it out, but she’s sometimes had a lot of pushback.

      There seems to be an assumption from a lot of commenters that to be male is to be normal and to be female is to be somewhat “other”. Most people assume I’m male, even though I’ve repeatedly identified myself as female. In my case, it might be linked to my alias (the link to “red-blooded man” didn’t occur to me when I chose this name), but the fact that it seems to so many that it’s normal to be male and somehow unusual or unexpected to be female reveals something.

      Women don’t have equality in our society, and any progressive, left wing person should care about that. And putting on the label “identity politics” as a way of disparaging or undermining any discussion or struggle for change is reactionary and obstructive.

      Thanks for sticking around, Weka.

      • weka 7.2.1

        Thanks rb!

        Good point about the assumption of normal.

        I would rate the attack on identity politics as one of the bigger impediments to women writing here. There are ways to talk about class and economics without undermining other groups of people, but too often there has been overt or covert attacks on feminism or where feminism and/or women appear to be deemed acceptable collateral damage.

        • James Thrace 7.2.1.1

          From my perspective I feel like the female authors sometimes come across as a bit militant and far less accepting of any dissenting viewpoint if it even seems like it will cut across the carefully constructed persona of making out like every voice matters. For some, it seems it doesn’t.

          • weka 7.2.1.1.1

            Go on then, link to 2 or 3 of my posts where I’ve been too militant. Because the irony in what you have just said is that I rarely get to write here about what I want to and I rein in my strident voice a lot because it’s not safe.

            Also noted is another man who thinks his feelings are the important thing here.

            • James Thrace 7.2.1.1.1.1

              Well, there it goes weka. You’ve completely vindicated what I said with your nasty line about how a males feelings are less worthy than a females. It’s what you’ve done to CV and while I agree that Pete George is a winder, you’ve done the same thing to him. A males experience is equally as valid, and while it’s not the same, you discount anything from a male as it is never exactly the same viewpoint. We are all human, and regardless of male or female, our lived experiences affect us all. I’m afeared you don’t recognize that life affects everyone and our interactions with others.

              [I didn’t say that males feelings are less worthy than a females. Go read it again. If you still don’t understand what I meant, then ask.

              I also don’t discount anything from a male. You can make whatever arguments you like politically, but you don’t get to make up shit about my views, politics or comments. There are reasons why women don’t write here and that shit you are pulling right now is one of them. I draw a pretty clear line between arguing points and being misrepresented, and if you’ve been following my comments you will know that I moderate for the latter. – weka]

          • red-blooded 7.2.1.1.2

            More militant than Bill, for example? Really..?

            Perhaps a woman writing from a feminist viewpoint comes across as more militant to you, because it’s not a viewpoint that you already fully understand and feel comfortable with, James. Most people who comment here already identify as (broadly) left wing, and discussion about social class issues or the responsibilities of the state tend to be more about tactics or degree, whereas for many feminist issues are still seen as different – less important, solved already (we’ve got a female PM – what more do we want?), more personal and TBH more confrontational because they challenge us to change on a personal level as well as seeking change on a social and political level.

            That’s not a comment aimed at you personally, James – just something for you and others who feel uncomfortable when the discussion strays into feminist issues to consider. After all, part of the point of reading and contributing to a blogsite like this one is, surely, to actually challenge our own thinking, not just to argue for what we already believe.

          • adam 7.2.1.1.3

            Oh James, you’re given me a great belly laugh.

            Poor we poppet, here have some links to wake you up your little mind

            http://kunsthallezurich.ch/sites/default/files/scum_manifesto.pdf

            https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kytha-kurin-anarcha-feminism

            https://www.thefword.org.uk/2012/01/why_im_an_anarc/

            By the way, If I’m critical of weka and/or Tracy and/or anyone else, it’s the fact they are not militant enough.

          • Matthew Whitehead 7.2.1.1.4

            You don’t think being militant is itself a reaction?

            Remember, as an author you’re expected to read several days of comments for every post you write. You don’t just write the piece and run off, your job is also to moderate the comment thread.

            If every time you wrote an opinion online you had to deal with ten, twenty, or fifty blokes with highly aggressive opinions telling you why your opinion doesn’t matter, or you’re a failure, or you’re stupid, etc… etc…, you’d be militant too. That is what it’s like hitting on a hot button when you write for TS, or you write as someone openly identifying as part of an oppressed group anywhere that you’re being heard, to be honest.

            I expect most of the commenters here have no idea how reasonable, nice, and forgiving female contributors on TS have been, regardless of their perceived militancy on the issues. When I did personal blogging, I would frequently delete three to five comments for every one I approved, and I don’t get the worst of it. It’s also worthwhile remembering that only those who post under identities that can’t be cross-searched in social media, and choose a pseudonym unique to The Standard, and refuse to identify themselves on social media as the authors of those posts, are immune to “invisible harassment,” where you can’t see it in the comments threads. Most harassment is targetted this way. It’s a long-running trend for those of us asserting that our identities are valid and need to be listened to that we get sought out by trolls and harassers on every other site where they can find evidence of us.

            Identifying myself to these people with my real name is an act of radical transparency I can afford because I’m a white man. I can get away with it because I “pass,” because I’m smart, because I have family with positive public profile, and because I grew up middle-class. There has been one woman who tried that here and she got driven off the site. We’ll know TS is in good shape regarding women when they feel comfortable identifying themselves publicly here as authors again.

            • Tim 7.2.1.1.4.1

              I agree being militant can be part of a reaction to the other side… But I think by targeting people based on their skin colour/sex instead of their actual flaws you add further to polarisation and you can increase the militancy on the other side. That’s what I think stuff like this post does

              • weka

                who do you think wrote the post Tim?

              • Stuart Munro

                I concur.

                I would also say that the privilege of employing racist rhetoric that may be permissible to the victims of discrimination does not extend to non-victims who might be moved to employ it on their behalf.

    • Stuart Munro 7.3

      Though it would be good to have more woman commenters, the rhetoric of contemporary academic feminism will gain little support by applying racist labels like ‘male pale and stale’, which, despite the reinforcing assonance does not describe the problem – unrepresentative would be a better description.

      In other fora it is not uncommon for feminists to assert that men should support their position because it advocates for them – yet they are conspicuously silent on gender-linked negative employment outcomes for men like workplace death.

      Feminism often demands the status of a privileged discourse, in which it is intolerant of any dissenting positions. As long as it does so it will be divisive.

      For those of us who view feminism as a subset of humanism the more ambitious claims of contemporary feminism are a blind alley. The Left should properly concern itself with “all our dainty terms for fratricide”, of which race and gender are only some of the larger subsets. A universal pursuit of fair outcomes is surely closer to a Left aspiration, and is likely to avoid crude errors like rebuking other disempowered groups for their privilege.

      • weka 7.3.1

        I don’t see academic feminism using the term ‘male, pale and stale’. Nor do I see how that applies to TS, which is not an academic space.

        Likewise, what happens in other fora isn’t particularly relevant to what I said, but most feminists have reasonable understandings of what happens to men as a class so I have to wonder at your misrepresentation.

        As far as I can tell you are another man who thinks it’s more important to bring in your own issues around feminism than it is to engage with the women here on TS in ways that support them to be here. Which was largely the point of my comment above. So what you are saying is “I support women to be here, but on my terms”. That’s the problem. My suggestion is that you stop, and instead make some time and space to listen to what women are saying.

        • Stuart Munro 7.3.1.1

          I just get tired of being lectured by people who claim to represent me but clearly don’t.

          If that brand of ‘feminist’ feels ghettoized so much the better.

          • weka 7.3.1.1.1

            But you are using your analysis of it here to derail a subthread to suit your agenda. Again, you’re a man who thinks his own politics are more important. That was my point about the problem.

            • Stuart Munro 7.3.1.1.1.1

              Is that what I’m doing? Derailing? I had hoped you might have addressed my concerns, though I do not insist. And do you suggest I should simply abandon my positions in favour of these hypothetical absentees? There are plenty of women who do not rely on the kind of arguments I object to and are thus perfectly capable of surviving here. But frankly, those who do use the phony stuff, I’ve no time for them at all, and I will pursue their erroneous arguments in the same way I pursue the RWNJs when they try to float their disingenuous arguments.

              • weka

                and here you are *still telling a feminist and woman who writes here what feminism is acceptable and what isn’t, and doing exactly nothing to address the issues I raised about why it is so hard for women to write here.

                And now you appear to have an expectation that I address *your concerns. In other words you want to make it about you and not the issues I raised. Yes, that is derailing.

                • Stuart Munro

                  I have never yet encountered a feminist who has hesitated for a moment to tell me what is acceptable or what is not.

                  • weka

                    you say that like it’s a bad thing.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      It is bad if they reserve that privilege to themselves and deny it to others. It would evaporate any moral argument for feminism for example. Changing the composition of the oppressing group instead of addressing the wrong is no great achievement – unless one is elevated by the revolution.

              • xanjo

                Good grief! The whole point of this thread is to discuss white male privilege and mock the truly objectionable males who consistently hold themselves up as standard bearers. You have turned it into yet another opportunity to have a red hot go at a feminist or two who happen to have valid points of view. In shouting them down and attacking their stance, you’re reinforcing the very points they are making. Stupid white man. Your rhetoric and big ten dollar words won’t save you. Your fear leaches from every syllable. I wonder what women have done to you to cause you so much fear? Maybe it was the mere fact that they gave birth to you that has caused you so much angst, but far more likely the hot girl in high school wouldn’t have a bar of you. She probably spotted you for a dweeb and a boor and gave you short shrift and you’ve been punishing women on her behalf ever since. Grow up, shut up and listen for a change. The world might still be all about you and your ‘type’ but its changing and that’s SO good.

                • Stuart Munro

                  If you think that’s a red hot go you have clearly lived a very sheltered life.

                  I guess you suppose that your crude ad hominem abuse marks you as a superior individual of some description – a delusion many uneducated folk are prone to.

                  “Grow up, shut up and listen for a change.”

                  You know, I’m old enough not to have much respect for that kind of bullying. I will listen to you in the vanishingly unlikely event you contain yourself sufficiently to produce a cogent argument.

                  “The world might still be all about you and your ‘type’ ”

                  My type? If you think suppurating masses of ambulant dog-tucker like don brash, duncan garner, john drinnan, Mark Richardson, mike hosking, richard prosser, sean plunkett, steven joyce, & Todd Barclay are in any way representative of me then your only criteria is melanin deficiency.

                • Tim

                  You need to get a grip if you think what he’s doing is shouting people down..

          • red-blooded 7.3.1.1.2

            Stuart, a woman writing about feminist issues isn’t claiming to represent you. You can represent yourself – if not, then there are plenty of men and women writing about issues like workplace death. Note that it was a woman trade unionist – Helen Kelly – who led the last big push to improve workplace safety in the male-dominated field of forestry (which had feed-through to lots of other areas). It’s not like every time a woman comments she’s asking you to explore a feminist issue. However, it’s perfectly reasonable to ask men to challenge themselves over issues that limit and oppress women. If we don’t do that, how does change ever occur?

            And please don’t use quote marks when you use the word feminist. Do you know how attacking that is?

            Being a feminist just means that you want equal chances and equal respect for men and women. We’re nowhere near having that. Women shouldn’t be expected to sit down and shut up. I would have thought that a reasonable man would agree with that.

            You’re clearly angry about something, although I don’t think it’s fair to attach that something to Weka. You haven’t given any examples of what you consider to be the “phony stuff” or “erroneous arguments” and if you did, I doubt they’d come from her.

            At the moment, you’re exemplifying the kind of kickback that Weka commented on, above. Somewhat ironic, considering you claimed above to be concerned about a “universal pursuit of fair outcomes”… (Hint, if women continue to be disempowered, no outcome can be universal or fair.)

            • Stuart Munro 7.3.1.1.2.1

              Perhaps you don’t lock horns with self-styled feminists very often RB – but I have with plenty – and a great number claim to represent men also and demand my support on that basis, but are readily exposed as pursuing a rather narrower agenda.

              I use quote marks to distinguish between kinds of feminist. Those who want equality don’t get them – those who view it as a competitive discourse and are unconcerned with equality of outcomes are in my view no different from chauvinists.

              In general the Greens deal with such potential issues better than most by insisting that all voices are heard, and representation is proportionate, which means that of course men and women have equal voices.

              Being a feminist means lots of different things to lots of different people. I support the humanist position based on equality (my family was very involved in the NCW, I know all about this stuff). I do not identify as a feminist to avoid the taint of the discourse crowd.

              • weka

                it sounds to me like you are running anti-feminist lines, and that you are trying to make sure that men don’t lose privilege. There are times when men do need to be quieter and let women take the space, because that readdresses some inequity.

                • Antoine

                  > There are times when men do need to be quieter and let women take the space

                  [laughs] That is the very last thing that the likes of Stuart want to do!

                  A.

                  • Stuart Munro

                    The same could be said of you Antoine – but you of course never have anything of substance to debate.

                • Stuart Munro

                  I’m an independent thinker – of course I find the obvious flaws in contemporary feminist rhetoric. Whether that makes me anti-feminist depends how one regards those who pursue dominance instead of equality.

                  It should not be assumed however that I am the pawn of some MRA like group – though the advent of such groups shows a loss of confidence in the breadth of representation across society. Under a participatory model like that of the Greens such groups would be unnecessary because all voices are heard.

          • Carolyn_Nth 7.3.1.1.3

            I just get tired of being lectured by people who claim to represent me but clearly don’t.

            Oh the irony!

            So now you’re lecturing people about not representing you when they allegedly lecture you.

            I see a hall of mirrors around me.

      • SPC 7.3.2

        Establishment is male, it is white/pale, and if it is not stale in an age when women vote and society is becoming increasingly multi-cultural, then what is it?

        And it is not racist to say so. Nor sexist.

        • Stuart Munro 7.3.2.1

          Yes it is. It is not perhaps very racist, but it is something scrupulous persons would avoid so as not to give gratuitous offence.

          • xanjo 7.3.2.1.1

            Gratuitous offence to whom? The self-same privileged white men? You’re joking aren’t you? Alright, I get it that you’re not joking and that makes it even more sinister and perverse. Take a long hard look at yourself if your mirror can bear it. You reek condescension and superiority from every pore. I finally realised why you’re on this thread and why you have been such an active participant. It’s clear to me that you’re checking out your opposition, making sure they don’t get more votes than you. OK. You’ve won me over. My vote for White Dude of the Year goes to Stuart Munroe. Your prize is….hmm what could possibly befit the man who has everything? Aha! The sheer satisfaction of being identified as numero uno, head honcho, leader of the pack, asshole of the year. The award has the added advantage of alerting all the feminists of the world and their less informed, but still militant sisters, letting them all know upon who to aim their assorted weaponry. Hold fire sisters. He ain’t worth the effort. There are far bigger fish to fry and Stuart Little is a mere distraction, a footnote.

            • Stuart Munro 7.3.2.1.1.1

              I suppose it was only a matter of time before some buffoon tried to put me in that camp – I guess it is genuinely mysterious to unprincipled persons like yourself that racism against any group is not permissible.

              • Brigid

                And having been given the opportunity to shift the subject of discussion to you, you righteously claim indignation and absolve yourself from having to answer the question.

                • Stuart Munro

                  Do I have to spell it out to you?

                  It seems that I do.

                  Classifying people by race is not encouraged. The errors of regimes as various as the colonial British Empire, the southern states of the US, South Africa, and WWII Germany seem to have established that point.

                  Moreover, progressive people should on the whole be more resistant to casual racism than other groups – if they are to live up to their rhetoric.

                  There is no shortage of reasons to criticize the group selected by Ben Torkington, but race is not one that I would choose to employ.

                  The Human Rights Act 1993 makes it unlawful to discriminate based on: Colour, race, or ethnic or national origins, and one presumes that this includes criticism of white as well as brown people.

                  • Brigid

                    Stuart you don’t need to lecture me on racism, an astute reader may have deduced that from noticing the spelling of my Christian name.

                    Now that the discussion of racism has been had, the question put by Xanjo remains unanswered: “Gratuitous offense to whom? “

                    • Stuart Munro

                      If Xanjo wants its questions answered it would do well to cut back on the personal abuse.

                      Gratuitous offence to any person who objects to identifying people in a derogatory way by skin colour.

                      [hard to see how referring to a person as ‘it’ is anything other than flaming. Take the rest of the day off. – weka]

                    • Stuart Munro

                      I don’t know when the moderation comes off Weka – but I’m damned if I know what gender pronoun I’m supposed to apply to someone using the handle “Xanjo”.

                      I think Xanjo went to some trouble to try to start a flame war there, but you brought the ban hammer down on me. There was a time when I respected your judgment – but you are no longer meeting the standard.

                    • weka

                      Same pronoun as any other commenter here where you don’t know their gender. There are lots of them.

              • Matthew Whitehead

                This is the same old “reverse racism” canard, Stuart. Identifying systemic power possessed by white men, or older generations, or whatever, is not picking a fight. It is pointing out that someone has their boot on your throat. It is not racist to point out that when this happens, the people wearing those boots are predominantly white, male, older, straight, cis, etc… etc… It is not discriminatory to suggest that the abuse of power may have a systemic component.

                • Stuart Munro

                  I would have thought someone on here would remember that hypocrisy is the weak, not the strong moral stance to take in response to something like racism.

                  It is less about sparing the feelings the of nerveless individuals nominated for plonker of the year than establishing a double standard that turns uncommitted people away from your argument.

                  If you were serious about opposing racism you would not choose to employ it. But it seems my views are very much in the minority and hypocrisy reigns. Pathetic.

            • Tim 7.3.2.1.1.2

              Metiria Turei is the brown female of the year for her hilarious stupidity in trying to portray her lying and cheating the system as some sort of virtue… Entertaining as hell lol

        • Antoine 7.3.2.2

          > Establishment is male, it is white/pale

          I don’t think this is actually correct, if you stop to look at it.

          There are wealthy women and powerful women in this country, there are wealthy brown people and powerful brown people. Nor have all these people betrayed their origins and started acting in a white male manner.

          A.

          • weka 7.3.2.2.1

            and yet the institutions were designed by and large by white wealthy men. Think parliament. That women and non-whites are allowed access to these things doesn’t negate the nature of them.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.2.2.2

            acting in a white male manner.

            You don’t have to act in a white male manner to notice that you’re on a white male stage, in a play written by white males. I project that you already know this, but prefer to author passive-aggressive whataboutisms instead.

            • Antoine 7.3.2.2.2.1

              > You don’t have to act in a white male manner to notice that you’re on a white male stage, in a play written by white males

              This is not how I perceive society as I look around me. We are not in the 19th century.

              A.

    • Antoine 7.4

      > Until the (white) men here are willing to listen to those things and take action, not just to the degree that matches their own ideas about gender, but that listens to women and heeds what they are saying, well, TS will remain a reflection of the culture at large.

      I suspect for many Standard readers, it is simply not an objective to have more women here.

      A.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 7.4.1

        “Suspect”? Or project?

        • Antoine 7.4.1.1

          What are you doing on this thread? You are a large part of the problem with your aggressive attitude. Many women don’t like being around people who present like you.

          A.

          • weka 7.4.1.1.1

            And yet OAB is one of the men on TS that I can consistently rely on to understand and support feminist issues.

            • Antoine 7.4.1.1.1.1

              Well that is a virtue, for sure

              A.

              • Tim

                It’d be good to have more women writers here who had their head screwed on properly rather than identity politicking types who hilariously sign off their posts with ‘A.’

                • Antoine

                  The two are not mutually exclusive!

                  A.

                  • Tim

                    Alright fair enough then. I guess what I mean is why don’t we talk about how unfair it is that women do the vast majority of child rearing for no pay rather than focus on mocking people for their skin colour? Less ‘I am womyn hear me roar white male’ and more to the point

                    T.

                    • weka

                      It’s not about mocking someone for their skin colour, it’s about white privilege and the ways that people can be held to account for abusing that.

                    • red-blooded

                      So Tim, you may have noticed that it seems to be (some) men attacking the “wrong sort of feminism” and women arguing back. Why do you think that is?

                      And, BTW, I don’t particularly like the “stale, pale male” or “white dude of the year” labels, because they evoke responses like yours, but I like it even less when men try to direct me towards what they consider to be the real issues for feminists.

                    • rhinocrates

                      It’s not about mocking someone for their skin colour, it’s about white privilege

                      “I believe that all people are naturally equal and therefore as a nice guy I am absolved from considering structural privilege..”

                      (Sarcasm)

      • weka 7.4.2

        “I suspect for many Standard readers, it is simply not an objective to have more women here.”

        Why do you suspect that?

        • Antoine 7.4.2.1

          My perception is that most people come here to read posts and yak about stuff, rather than to advance any particular agenda

          A.

          • red-blooded 7.4.2.1.1

            And yet the posts and most of the yak is about a broadly left-wing agenda, and it seems other issues like environmentalism are just fine to think and yak about. Why not feminism?

            • Antoine 7.4.2.1.1.1

              Of course, it’s a great thing to talk about, I’m not suggesting otherwise.

              I’m just pointing out that some here, like Stuart above, don’t share weka’s objectives.

              Personally, my main concern is that weka and Tracey stay, as I like them. It would also be good if that Stephanie Rodgers came back.

              A.

              • weka

                I think there is a difference, probably a big difference, between the people that read here and the commentariat. If you are talking about the commentariat, I think there is a lot of support for women to write here, but there is also push back against feminism. You strike me as an inbetweener.

                • Matthew Whitehead

                  The commentariat is VERY different to the readership. I’ve met precisely one commenter IRL, (IIRC he’s an author now) and dozens of readers who’ve never replied to a single thread. The quiet readers are by and large far more supportive than the commenters both online and IRL, they simply have other priorities.

          • mpledger 7.4.2.1.2

            ROTFL

          • Ed 7.4.2.1.3

            I can tell you a lot of people here are very narrow minded about talking about some issues .
            Linking environmental concerns to suggesting people adopt a plant based diet is red rag to a bull to some here.
            Progressive? Open to ideas to solve the challenges facing the 21st century?
            Some yes.
            Some – not a lot.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 7.4.2.1.3.1

              Linking environmental concerns to suggesting people adopt a plant based diet is red rag to a bull to some here.

              Keep telling yourself that. In reality, people just don’t care much for being lectured by a hypocrite. Lose the judgemental attitude and you’ll get better responses.

            • weka 7.4.2.1.3.2

              “Linking environmental concerns to suggesting people adopt a plant based diet is red rag to a bull to some here.
              Progressive? Open to ideas to solve the challenges facing the 21st century?
              Some yes.
              Some – not a lot.”

              Really? Because I certain arguely back against the veganisation of planet earth and when I talk with you about it it’s rare to get you to address the points, esp that vegan diets aren’t inherently better for the planet/environment. You might disagree with my arguments, but I don’t think it’s valid to suggest I am closed minded on this issue. Disagreement and closed mindedness are two different things. I find you pretty dogmatic on it tbh. People eating less meat/dairy is a good thing for many (and not others), but everyone becoming vegan is hugely problematic and that’s where the dogma kicks in.

              • Tim

                Weka complaining to someone else they are dogmatic has to be one of the most inadvertently hilarious things ever written here.

                • weka

                  I wasn’t complaining. I was pointing out to Ed that I thought he misrepresented reactions to his pro-vegan comments and that one of the reasons was he was missing that many people are willing to eat less meat and dairy without becoming vegan, and that probably is because he thinks veganism is the One True Way.

                  • Tim

                    Fair enough, I’m not big on veganism, I just think that statement is funny coming from someone who thinks intersectional feminism is the One True Way

                  • Tim

                    I’m not sure if this will be a double post or if my previous reply got deleted, but fair enough. I’m not strongly into veganism either. I was more pointing out that from my perspective you seem to think intersectional feminism is the One True Way

                    • weka

                      You’re in moderation because of the comments that were trolling. It means there will be a delay before your comments appear (they have to be released manually). I looked at your commenting history and was seeing a pattern of behaviour.

                    • lprent []

                      In other words, weka is trying to see if you can learn from experience, or are simply just a stupid troll who merely thinks that they are smart rather than acting smart.

                    • weka

                      I don’t think intersectional feminism is the One True Way (not sure what that even means tbh).

                      “I was more pointing out that from my perspective you seem to think intersectional feminism is the One True Way”

                      I think almost no-one would have gotten that from your previous comment. Maybe try engaging with the debate rather than taking obscure potshots at people.

            • Psycho Milt 7.4.2.1.3.3

              Linking environmental concerns to suggesting people adopt a plant based diet is red rag to a bull to some here.

              Posting stuff people disagree with results in them expressing their disagreement? Oh no! However do you cope?

              And no we’re not narrow-minded about it, just dismissive of people who keep making assertions without being able to string an argument together (and no, posting YouTube clips isn’t “presenting an argument”). Try actually making an argument, rather than dumping assertions on the thread and then whinging about closed minds or aggressiveness when people dismiss your assertions.

              • Antoine

                And whatever your argument turns out to be, it’s unlikely that anyone wants to become vegan anyway

                A.

                • David Mac

                  How do you spot a vegan at a party?

                  Just wait, they’ll tell you.

                  I was surprised to see a few in here raise their vegan hands. They have no need to blow a trumpet, I think I’m more likely to be swayed by this type. The ‘If you find yourself at the crossroads, email me for recipes’ type.

                  • red-blooded

                    Ed has every right to promote veganism. There are plenty of reasons why people who regard themselves as environmentalists should consider becoming vegan (or at the very least cutting down on animal-based foods), and that’s before we even consider the issues surrounding animal rights.

                    You don’t have to agree with him, but how about being a bit less dismissive?

                    Oh, and David, if you find yourself at the crossroads… Actually, no need – there are lots of great websites with vegan recipes and advice.

                    • You don’t have to agree with him, but how about being a bit less dismissive?

                      Two reasons why not:

                      1. Other people telling you you’d be a better person if you followed their dietary advice is annoying.

                      2. People who make bold assertions without a supporting argument deserve to have their assertions dismissed. It helps them do better next time (or at least, it ought to – some people seem impervious to attempts to educate them).

                    • Ed

                      Thank you red blooded.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      When Ed says things like

                      Defending being a carnivore in 2017 has many similarities to defending Belsen in 1944

                      …he crosses several lines and it’s hardly surprising that he achieves a different result than the one he’s aiming for,

                    • Ed

                      I shall use less emotive language in future.

                    • stunned mullet

                      Emotive language is fine Ed, farcical comparisons, however, are farcical comparisons and will usually invite ridicule unless the site is acting as nothing more than an echo chamber.

    • mauī 7.5

      Angry and aggressive blog commentary and schoolboy tomfoolery – what women wouldn’t want to hangout here?… [sarc]

    • Sabine 7.6

      It was interesting to see over the course of the last two years just how much women can not depend on ‘left’ male allies if they want stuff to get done. Especially white male allies.

  8. Gabby 8

    Is Ben Dorkington eligible I wonder.

  9. SPC 9

    Mark, Sean and Don have to be shortlisted.

    Justifying a glass ceiling for jobs where the female applicant intends to have a child, altruism for the Jewish male abusing power, and white man’s English (control of language) in public space. Outstanding contributions to the dominance of power by white men, and the concern for a fellow male (who looks white but is not officially one of the group) is heart rending.

    Whereas Mike’s face on discovering the outcome of the election was just that of a sad loser. Not so much empathy for the shared loss that many other white men felt, just narcissism.

  10. Morrissey 10

    All white guys are not shits. This line-up (Plunket, Brash, Barclay, Hosking, et al.) is nothing but shitheads.

    There ARE good white guys, you know.

    • weka 10.1

      no-one said otherwise.

    • SPC 10.2

      White, male baby boomer myself, but facts are facts and we (all of us including women and minorities) largely vote our self interest (even If I and some do not).

    • red-blooded 10.3

      Absolutely. I’d (seriously) nominate Gareth Hughes and Andrew Little, for example.

    • Ben Torkington 10.4

      I didn’t actually set out to call the “White Dude of the Year”. I just wanted to make something counter to NZ’er of the year, and selected some of the biggest nobs of 2017. With the exception of Little Todd, they’d all done something that was solely the domain of the stereotypical old white guy.

      I’m one myself, and yes of course there are good ones. Calling out other white guys being shits something I did *to be* a good one.

    • xanjo 10.5

      Absolutely there are. But we’re not here to talk about them.

  11. Ad 11

    Donald Trump.

    The Great White Id.

  12. Tanz 12

    Winston Peters, for betraying the majority of voters and wrecking vengeance on Bill English and National, without a care for what was best for NZ. ‘Capitalism has failed’.
    Very 90’s and not true at all. For tricking people with pre-election promises and for giving second place, first. What a farce!

    • Ed 12.1

      Capitalism has failed.
      Part 1. David Harvey.

    • Ed 12.2

      Capitalism has failed .
      Part 2. Mark Blyth

    • Ed 12.3

      Capitalism has failed.
      Part 3 Naomi Klein

    • Macro 12.4

      Tanz you do know that Winston – despite his name is of Maori descent.

      And as Ed has correctly pointed out Capitalism is a failure when measured by the yardstick of whether or not it delivers to all citizens, and not just the few. Obviously you are one of the fortunate few, but just because you are doing very nicely, thank you very much, does not mean that the majority are doing well. And the statistics for fair distribution of wealth in this country (and every other country with a similar Capitalist based economy ) show increasing levels of homelessness, un-employment, underemployment, inequality, increasing personal debt, and poverty. You might do a little research sometime as to just what it is like for those who are at the bottom of the social ladder. Try volunteering at your local food bank for a while, or working at a budget advisory, you will see a different side to NZ life, than the one to which you seem to be familiar.

      • Tanz 12.4.1

        He is also half Scottish, his mother was Scottish.

      • Tanz 12.4.2

        So wage earners who battle each day for their money don’t have the right to keep that money? That’s why I don’t agree with socialism, it robs Peter to pay Paul.

        • Ed 12.4.2.1

          Capitalism has destroyed society and is destroying our planet and life on it.
          But you’re rich , so capitalism is good.

          Words fail me.

        • Macro 12.4.2.2

          You have a very queer understanding of what constitues a socialist economy.
          Here is a dictionary definition

          a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

          Pray tell how that takes away the rights of a wage earner? Socialism is a means of distribution aimed at ensuring that wage earners receive more of the benefits of their production – not less.

        • McFlock 12.4.2.3

          lol

          And yet you’re so close to socialism – against whom do wage-earners “battle” for cash? Each other, and the owners of capital. Classic marxist alienation described in a classic freudian slip 🙂

        • One Anonymous Bloke 12.4.2.4

          So we can add “Socialism” to the long long list of things Tanz is completely ignorant of.

        • UncookedSelachimorpha 12.4.2.5

          The likes of John Key get their millions by means other than wage earning.

        • Tricledrown 12.4.2.6

          Tanz you have no idea of economics just repeating the Dogma.
          Without the$20 trillion bailout of Wall st your naive comment would have some traction.
          Their is no pure free market.
          Socialism for the 1%
          Austerity for the 99%

    • xanjo 12.5

      Tanz, firstly, why are you defending the National Party on what is, ostensibly, a Labour Party forum? I’m guessing you’re a flamer who likes taking cheap shots, or, in other words, an intellectual midget. Secondly, you continue to peddle the old party line that National got the most votes. Clearly, they did not, otherwise their bums would, right now, be hunkered down in their old familiar seats in the Beehive. It doesn’t take a mathematician to figure it out and you know the numbers so either you’re attempting to start some kind of rant or you’re enjoying raising the ire of left wingers. You’ve failed on both scores so go away little boy. Peddle your silliness elsewhere.

      • Tanz 12.5.1

        Typical of the left to dislike dissenting voices! Tolerance, not, nor freedom of speech, lol. It will be a one term govt, cause Winston won’t be there to save Labour next time.

        • Stuart Munro 12.5.1.1

          Hey – you got to say it – if you want admiration you’re in the wrong place. The mental pygmies on kiwiblog lap your kind of stuff up.

  13. Tanz 13

    Socialism has failed, and the majority of voters rejected it! Numbers tell the truth. Taking off hard working people and throwing around money to those who did not earn it. Not right. And in the end, the money runs out.

    • Dv 13.1

      You mean like scf, Arab farmers, etc

    • Ed 13.2

      Socialism is growing in many countries around the world.

      Spain.
      The UK.
      Scandinavia.
      South America.
      Germany.
      Portugal.

      Even in NZ neoliberalism is on the back foot.

      • James 13.2.1

        You forgot the socialist paradise of venezuela

        • Ed 13.2.1.1

          It is in South America as is Bolivia.

          Meanwhile capitalism is wrecking the planet and destroying communities around the world.

          But James is rich.
          So capitalism is good.

          Words fail me.

          • James 13.2.1.1.1

            South America is a big place. But since you are holding it up as a shining example.

            Can you explain taking a rich democracy and turning it in to the brink of collapse is a good thing.

            Call me on comrade- what’s the good news out of Venezuela that we can all learn from ?

            • Ed 13.2.1.1.1.1

              Don’t believe what you read in the western corporate media. I’ve told you that so many times.
              Meanwhile capitalism is ruining most people’s lives.

              • James

                Ok – so all is well and good in Venezuela them and it’s all the media?

                You realise how stupid you sound? The country is In crisis but you would rather blame the media and pretend it’s not happening than say that socialism is failing there.

                Moron.

                • Ed

                  Educate yourself.

                  • James

                    Or you could educate yourself- your posting of shitty YouTube clips to try to support an unsupportable view dosnt cut it for “education”.

                    Perhaps you would believe the UN ?

                    “At the UN Human Rights Council session that ended last week, member states, including from Latin America, spoke up clearly and forcefully about the profound human rights and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, placing the issue on the council’s agenda in unprecedented ways.

                    https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/02/un-human-rights-council-confronts-venezuela

                    I’ll give you a clue when they say profound human rights and humanitarian crisis – it’s not a good thing

                    • Ed

                      Let’s agree to disagree.
                      You like capitalism.
                      I like socialism.
                      Ok.

                    • James []

                      Actually we can’t agree to disagree. Venezuela is a disaster, a crisis and as the UN said a humanitarian crisis.

                      You say don’t believe “evil western media” – you like socialism and would rather blame the media than socialism for the ruination of a country and countless lives.

                      It’s facts – and again you are just bloody wrong.

                      But hey shrug it off – all is good there and terrible in NZ – it’s all a big media conspiracy that says different.

                      You are an idiot.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      James, you witless numpty, Socialism ≠ Venezuela. I note that you are incapable of responding to the list of countries Ed actually cited.

                      Perhaps that’s because no-one has written any lines for you on the subject.

                    • Ed

                      You disagree I like socialism?
                      It was you that was determined to bring up Venezuela.
                      How about we compare countries like Denmark instead?
                      Countries with a whole heap more socialist policies embedded in it?
                      It is clear you do not know what socialism is.
                      Did Cameron give you the script about Venezuela ?

                      Venezuela is clearly having a humanitarian crisis. Does the UN blame this on socialism like you do?
                      Does it mention crashing oil prices?

                    • Stuart Munro

                      If you are genuinely interested in Venezuela you could do worse than to watch Pilger’s War on Democracy

                      It must be about ten years old by now but gives good background. It is a curiosity how an oil state should come to such a pass, given that it’s governance is no more extreme than a number of smaller gulf states.

                      The recent crisis owes more to changes in the international oil market than anything else.

            • Ed 13.2.1.1.1.2

              ‘The problem is that it continues to be targeted from the outside – by the USA, who is taking active steps on many fronts to subvert the existing government and install US-friendly puppets instead. It’s the same old game of regime change which the US has been orchestrating literally all over the world since the end of WWII.‘

              http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/venezuelan-economic-crisis-cause-not-socialism/

        • Ed 13.2.1.2

          As Macro wrote

          ‘You have a very queer understanding of what constitues a socialist economy.
          Here is a dictionary definition
          a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

          Pray tell how that takes away the rights of a wage earner? Socialism is a means of distribution aimed at ensuring that wage earners receive more of the benefits of their production – not less.’

        • Matthew Whitehead 13.2.1.3

          So… you have one country, Ed has six places listed that comprise at least eight countries. (depending on whether you want to talk about Finland or Iceland too, in which case, ten, or eleven if you split the UK into four countries and reveal some very left-wing opinions in Scotland, and a growing socialism even in conservative England. You could also argue about Northern Ireland’s political orientation, but that’s more due to the fact that Sinn Fein win seats in the UK, but refuse to sit in Westminster) Why is your one example country the one we should be talking about with regards to socialism?

          If right-wingers are going to keep harping on about venezuela they at least need some tactic to draw a line between it and EU countries that practice socialism.

    • Carolyn_Nth 13.3

      Capitalism has failed in our allegedly liberal democracy, with increasing proportions of people not voting…. and increasing numbers of people struggling to get by in this “paradise” in the Pacific.

    • eco maori 13.4

      In my view every citizen of New Zealand is owed a health happy prosperous live and those of us that are in a better financial position than OUR neighbors what is so wrong with paying an extra $20 a week to help thy neighbor . Paying a bit more will make our country safer for our mokos theirs a lot to be gained by having a more equal society .I was analyzing some of the differences with how we live now and how Maori lived in the past one thing I come up with is that we group all our elderly together away from the mokos our elderly don,t interact much with our mokos and I believe that the mokos can learn a lot of good things from there grandparents.This is what happened in tribal life. Another point is most of our elderly don,t know how the rest of the population are fairing and our elderly being housed in retirement villages limits there view on realty so they vote accordingly with out all the facts maybe we could get more of our elderly into kindys and after school care ect there was a artacil on 1 news I think about elderly teaching our children Ka pai

      • Antoine 13.4.1

        > I was analyzing some of the differences with how we live now and how Maori lived in the past one thing I come up with is that we group all our elderly together away from the mokos our elderly don,t interact much with our mokos and I believe that the mokos can learn a lot of good things from there grandparents.

        I was reflecting the other day that my kids almost never meet an old person. It’s a shame as they are missing out on a whole part of life

        A.

    • Ed 13.5

      Capitalism has failed Americans.

      ‘Shocking number of Homeless people- Downtown Los Angeles Christmas day.’

      ‘Los Angeles has an estimate 20,000 homeless people living on the street mainly in Skid Row. Downtown LA.
      Many have erected tents and tarps to form shelter.
      The area is consired to be one of the most dangerous places in LA.
      Amongst the homeless are women and children.
      It’s evident after a drive around that many have mental health problems.
      The area is home to a number of shelters and rescue missions providing shelter to the lucky few and food.
      The US is ranked as one of the wealthiest nations on Earth but also home to some of the poorest.’

      http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2017/12/on-skid-row-christmas-2017-in-worlds.html?m=1

      • James 13.5.1

        Socialism has made Venezuela a paradise. No homeless people. Plenty of food, gainful employment and held up a a shining beacon amongst other countries.

        The evil western media will tell you different but I have some obscure YouTube clips and a blog some bloke wrote for you all to educate yourselves with.

        • Ed 13.5.1.1

          Abby Martin is an excellent journalist.
          You rely on the Daily Mail and Cameron Slater.

        • NewsFlash 13.5.1.2

          Perhaps James you should take a look at the NZBS and compare the Economic differences between Labour & National for the last 40 yrs, unfortunately for you National has failed NZ nearly every time they’ve been in power, the country has taken backward steps on international standards compared to other comparable nations under National, you may want reject that, but FACTs are FACTs.

          When you compare NZ to Venezuela, you do yourself no credit, it would be the same as if I compared NZ to Nazi Germany under National, NZ is a FIRST WORLD country and has been for a long time, Venezuela has never been.

          • james 13.5.1.2.1

            Venezuela (well south America) was being put forward as a good thing at the start of this thread – which is where it came in – I was simply pointing out that it is a bloody mess – of course Ed disagrees – because “western media” etc etc etc

            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.5.1.2.1.1

              Venezuela ≠ South America.

              You’re like a stuck record: your only retort to any mention of the success of Social Democracies, mixed market economies, let alone the power of the collective is to start yapping about Venezuela.

              You can’t actually criticise Socialism because you don’t know what it is nor how it manifests in the real world you are so fond of paying lip service to. I bet you believe in one person one vote though, you Socialist. Equality before the law, you pinko menace! Human Rights? Well perhaps that’s a step too far for you.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 13.6

      “Taking off hard working people and throwing around money to those who did not earn it”

      That’s a great description of how the very wealthy get their money – by exploiting their existing wealth to extract unearned rent from those around them.

  14. Tanz 14

    New Zealand was on the right track with National, on top of the world, OECD, low unemployment, low inflation, low taxes, built up a huge surplus also. How is any of that not good? Winston even said not to blame his govt when it all turned to custard, so he must know he took the losing side! Now we are on the slide, taxes up, petrol up, jobs down, dollar down, food prices up etc. Did not take long. All the countries that embraced socialism, have failed – Greece, Venezuela, Spain, for starters.

    • Ed 14.1

      New Zealand has become a basket case under neoliberalism.
      A haven for a tiny bunch of kleptocrats.

    • mpledger 14.2

      Low employment was a mirage because it counted people who worked 1 hour per week and didn’t count people looking for work who weren’t actively looking in the last week (month?).
      Low government taxes by transferring the costs to local government, education providers, medical providers etc – away from business but on to people.
      A surplus that was illusionary.
      And all this on the back of importing people to drive wages and conditions of employment down while letting businesses exploit and degrade the environment.
      None of this is good.

      • NewsFlash 14.2.1

        Most Nat supporters have no idea, the media tells them what to believe and they believe it, regardless of what they may encounter in the real world.

  15. greywarshark 15

    Has USA failed? It is –
    On January 26, 2016, debt held by the public was $13.62 trillion or about 75% of the previous 12 months of GDP. Intragovernmental holdings stood at $5.34 trillion, giving a combined total gross national debt of $18.96 trillion or about 104% of the previous 12 months of GDP.
    National debt of the United States – Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States

    What happens if we pay off the national debt?
    It was written in the year 2000, when the U.S. was running a budget surplus, taking in more than it was spending every year. Economists were projecting that the entire national debt could be paid off by 2012. … If the U.S. paid off its debt there would be no more U.S. Treasury bonds in the world.Oct 20, 2011
    What If We Paid Off The National Debt? : Planet Money : NPR
    http://www.npr.org/sections/…/what-if-we-paid-off-the-debt-the-secret-government-report

    US Military Budget: Components, Challenges, Growth – The Balance
    https://www.thebalance.com › Investing › US Economy › Fiscal Policy
    The US military budget is $824.6 billion once you add components hidden in other budgets. Here’s the … The last component is $12 billion in OCO funds for the State Department and Homeland Security to fight ISIS. …. It’s difficult to reduce the budget deficit, and the almost $20 trillion debt, without cutting defense spending.g

    Budget Deficit: Definition, How It Affects the Economy – The Balance
    https://www.thebalance.com › Investing › US Economy › Glossary › Fiscal Policy
    Jul 25, 2017 – The U.S. can run budget deficits because it can create as much money as it needs. Photo: Mark … If the interest payments get high enough, it creates a drag on economic growth, as those funds could have been used to stimulate the economy. Second … That’s because the dollar is a safe haven for investors.

  16. McFlock 16

    I’ve got to go with Hosking – watching him become a crybaby was a highlight of an exceptionally difficult time of my year (dealing with a close bereavement).

  17. Tim 17

    It’s funny that you guys fixate on these people being white males instead of whatever it is you actually think is bad about them

    When you hear people making fun of Metiria Turei for being stupid or fat at least they don’t focus on her skin colour or sex

    • ropata 17.1

      It’s because these clowns fit the stereotype of white males so exactly. Those who object to the stereotype get to feel what other people put up with on a daily basis.

      For mine the votes are close but
      1. Don Brash for being a colossal dick who wants to impose Pax Britannia on NZ and obviously prefers other cultures over Tangata Whenua. (Not to mention his dismal grasp of economics)

      2. Stephen Joyce for shamelessly lying to the nation at election time and persisting in the lies, even after being shot down by every professional economist in the land

      3. Mike Hosking, for a long career of narcissism and thinly disguised National Party talking points, and hero worship of John Key, and blithe ignorance of the problems facing NZ.

      Runner Up: Todd Barclay, for parachuting into Parliament via the country’s safest National seat, after a plum job as a tobacco lobbyist, then acting like a spoiled brat and abusing parliamentary staff, then suckering Bill English into an illegal coverup. Almost displaces Hosking but perhaps we can put all this down to youthful indiscretion.

    • Matthew Whitehead 17.2

      Um, what world are you living on? The criticisms of Meyt have been largely sexist and racist in implication, and directly in some cases. (making fun of someone’s weight is just as silly, IMO) And the criticisms that there have been about her intelligence make no sense. At least the debate around her actions while on welfare can be put down to a difference in perspective, but if you’ve ever met, talked with, or read anything written by Meyt you are not left doubting that she is a fiercely intelligent woman who absolutely earned her success in law and politics.

      • Tim 17.2.1

        She certainly seems a bit daft for so badly misjudging what public reaction to her move would be. From what I saw most of the criticisms were above her behaviour rather than her skin colour or sex.

        • OnceWasTim 17.2.1.1

          Where the fuck did you come from? Don’t tell me I need another name change.
          Could you climb down from your high horse for a moment (in the spirit of individualism and the quest for 15 minute of fame) to advise me how we might truly differentiate ourselves?

          • David Mac 17.2.1.1.1

            Tim the First?

          • lprent 17.2.1.1.2

            I could always code him an involuntary handle change…

            • OnceWasTim 17.2.1.1.2.1

              @lprent …. it’s probably my fault. I see Tim has a history that’s probably longer than mine – often making comments I agree with, and at times so similar to my thoughts (especially his opinion of JK) I was asking myself ‘when did I write that?’
              I should have gone with the name I was christened with in India: Cheema

        • NewsFlash 17.2.1.2

          Tim not OnceWasTim

          Yes, Metiria did misjudge public sentiment, people make mistakes, are you saying that you’ve never made a mistake…….

          National poked a stick in the eye of every opposition party, and tried to gain political mileage from it, so how did that turn out for them? See, people make mistakes, especially the National party, the Greens are now part of the Govt and, well, National are on the sidelines for probably the next 3 terms.

          You know, if National had actually presented the voters with some actual policy instead of just running a negative campaign, they would perhaps have gained a little more support than just the hard right core who would have voted for them no matter what they did or said.

          The lesson here is, don’t throw stones if you live in a Glass House……

  18. David Mac 18

    I think this group of privileged white males in question is a lot more exclusive than many are allowing for. Women, Maori, yep you lot are dog tucker. So are the Asians, tattooed, heavily bearded, ex drug addicts, ex cons, long haired men, anyone with an unsavory past. The obese, poor, stutterers, one legged, Indian, people who choose to live in motorhomes and gays, you’re all excluded. I’m excluded because I don’t own 4 stylish suits and drive a 20 year old wagon. I’d be well out on the outer, I dig Jacinda.

  19. Tim 19

    Just a general question, some of the threads/comments at some stage lose the ability for me to reply to them, does that mean the moderators have closed it off for everyone or is it specific to me?

    • weka 19.1

      The moderators haven’t done anything. The system is set to stop replies when the subthread gets to a certain length otherwise the comment get too narrow.

      Just scroll back upwards and use the Reply button on the *first comment you come to. That will keep you in the same subthread.

    • lprent 19.2

      Goes to 10 deep replies and then stops. Firstly because that is a limit from wordpress. Secondly because having replies that are one word wide, 500 lines down and statistically have a high ignorant bullshit component gives me absolutely no inducement to to exert myself to recode to remove the constraint.

  20. greywarshark 20

    The Gender Wars – lots of argument. Plenty of smoke, chokes you, very little useful emerges from the fog.

    Why bother to stir up the hornets nest of entitled victims repeating their plaint? Yes they are entitled to feel victims, yes there is still a lot of put-downs for being female.

    Yes a lot of dominant females act just like some men with the same complete insensitivity towards other females and don’t want to be recognised as being female until the gender thing can be raised for their own advancement.

    The feminist thing is also a class thing. There is a pecking order. There is a tight group of all for all because ‘we deserve respect and lots of things because of all we have to put up with and don’t mess with us because we’ll all take a nip at you.’

    It doesn’t seem to fit in with my measure needed for the future, of mind control and judgment which I think can be encapsulated in the words ‘kindness and practicality’. Endless verbal sparring, and fighting doesn’t achieve much and nobody and nothing can achieve perfection.

    We all have to accept good enough and be grateful to be alive at all, such magic, and be able to tap into a still existing kindness and practicality energy wall. Beyond that there is no other way. Not there be dragons, but there be look-alike humans with circuits, even regenerative tissue, and condensed memories plus robots who step in whenever you want to assert your human nature, your individuality, express and act on your Road to Damascus* moment.

    Thinking, agreeing on what we can, and understanding our ornery human characters and making something of ourselves rather than paralleling insect aggression will be our saving.

    From quora. com –
    *Road to Damascus refers to a sudden turning point in one’s life. It’s in reference to the conversion to Christianity of the apostle Paul while literally on the road to Damascus from Jerusalem. Prior to that moment, he had been called Saul, and was a Pharisee who persecuted followers of Jesus.

  21. UncookedSelachimorpha 21

    As a white privileged male, I’d be happy to see a lot more of the world’s power and ownership in the hands of non-white, non-male people. Not that they will necessarily do a better job – but the job us white males have done leaves a LOT to be desired. Time for others to have a crack at it.

    • David Mac 21.1

      I’ve seen a meme somewhere that spoke of a woman needing to do twice the job to be seen as her male counterpart’s equal. My experience leads me to feel that this thought is exaggerated and also carries a degree of truth.

      The way I read it, women and those with a darker complexion aren’t asking to be thrown the keys.

      They’re just looking for a level playground.

      When presented in such a way, it’s hard to carry a counter argument without adopting a degree of arsehole.

  22. ST 22

    Re. Comments on ‘who is feminist enough’ and ‘dominant viewpoints’.

    I’m ok to agree to disagree on viewpoints and opinions. We can still be civil. Correct?

    In short, I am recently aware of Male Privilege (which I had internalised as normal life). My partner cannot comprehend the viewpoint where clutching keys in your fist is normal life, where you consider a walk through a park at night is risk-taking, where holding a handbag at an ATM makes you a target. And several more ‘normal life’ things which unfortunately has permeated to the next generation of females (I’ve asked my younger colleagues) regardless of size. #metoo and I’m risk-averse.

    It would be nice to read more female point of views – what have I missed because I thought male privilege is normal life?

    My usual crowd – colleagues, family, friends – are busy working, raising family, home-making, unwinding from a busy life. Being ‘woke’ is uncomfortable. It’s troublesome disturbing and draining to attain ‘woke’-hood. A lot of people have no time nor inclination for it.

    (Aside: I’m also recently aware/educated of troll farms used by some nations, which can be long-term, convincing and sophisticated. Usually recognised by their effective results in further polarising divisive opinions, rather than pursuing open-minded dialogue. TS is lovely to read due to low tolerance of trolls.)

  23. ST 23

    The ‘White Dude’? Gotta be Steven Joyce, for gloriously misreading the electorate and running a campaign which Bill English and National and ACT and Peter Dunne’s party lost.

    The ‘White Dude Attitude’? Gotta be the National Party losing their staff and how hard it is to find a good job worthy of their talents these days (cf the Stuff.co.nz opinion piece a while ago).

  24. Henry Filth 24

    Who’s the young one at the bottom left? Is it Todd Barclays?

Links to post

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