OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus
965 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 29 30 31 32 33 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
Jeremy Eade, in reply to
The uber dick of his age.? OK. In what regard?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Email Web
I'm glad you finally got from "I'm entitled to be difficult" to "I’m sorry if I appeared difficult".
That's a hard one to untangle. I think that on occasion it's both okay and fitting to be difficult. Simply because otherwise we never get to go the the places where we are made uncomfortable, or we challenge each other, and if keep not going there we harden boundaries and reinforce our biases. That said, I'm sorry if I was needlessly difficult. And if I didn't get my point across, which is a problem I've had on PAS for at least a year, to my constant regret and occasional puzzlement.
But Usenet's a public square. The Trade Me forums are a public square. Yahoo.co.nz is a public square. They're frequently horrible. I began discussing on Usenet in 1993, but withdrew, like a lot of the the people here, because I got sick of it. Not-turning-into-Usenet is a motivation.
Some usenet groups at their best might have been a public square, briefly, in the sense that I mean - which is the diametric opposite of a TradeMe forum - of places of civic (and not just civil) discourse. I think PAS at its best can be that and that it doesn't involve rejecting moderation. But yes there would be trade-offs I imagine, and it's really up to you as much as as to the community where it goes. The wholly convivial and collaborative model works magnificently in the Capture posts and threads, where you have reaped the results of years of work growing the community - I wouldn't dream of faulting you there. I think when it comes to politics, in the broad sense, the discussions have become very limited/limiting, and it may be where the model works less well.
If I recall rightly (don't make me go and look) I said that while it might not have been your intention, the appearance was that you were picking fights.
Emma tore into me, as is her prerogrative, but I still think the analogy with sexual orientation is fairly valid. If PAS were insensitive to it to the extent that (in my view) it is insensitive to socioeconomic privilege, its vocabulary and its nuances, I submit that people who came up against that barrier time and time again would also easily give the impression of picking fights.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
The uber dick of his age.? OK. In what regard?
As author of Poor Richard's Almanac. Richard. Dick.
Even had a ship named after him, or at least his nom de dong. -
Steve Parks, in reply to
Email Web
That said, I'm sorry if I was needlessly difficult. And if I didn't get my point across, which is a problem I've had on PAS for at least a year, to my constant regret and occasional puzzlement.
Having just caught up with this whole thread, I tend to agree with George Darroch, and I am a bit surprised at some of the harsher criticism directed your way (such as that comment from Emma Hart). If you have a fault, in general, when arguing about politics, it might be that you can seem a bit grouchy (for lack of a better word). I understand what you say about the need to be difficult sometimes, to challenge the boundries etc, but the downside is that it can make the people you're arguing with defensive. Usually, as Russell says, that is unproductive, and may contribute to not getting your point across. That said, you've done nothing here to warrant 'fight baiting', that I can see. To me, 'fight baiting' would better apply to some of Tom Semmens recent comments.
I also note that the salient example of Gio's supposed dickishness is his comment to Damian about being middle class. Yet Damian indicated more than once that that wasn't what bothered him; it was the tone in the lead-up. I can’t see anything wrong with the tone or content of the lead-up.
The context of this exchange between the two was about the matter of putative media bias towards the Right. Giovanni, perfectly civilly, explained to Damian that it wasn’t some nefarious newsroom conspiracy, but a structural issue within society (a la Chomsky) that favoured the Right. Rich chimed in with a comment basically supporting Gio’s view.
Damian responded to that with a comment that included...
I’m not trying to be glib, but it is worth pointing out that Labour ran the country for 9 years until quite recently, and that the media hasn’t changed a lot in that time. So it’s not that stacked against the left.
... clearly still referring to the issue of media and bias. Gio pointed out that Damian is relying on an assumption that Labour are squarely “Left”. Therefore the media are not biased against the Left, because Labour have got a fair deal from them over time. This assumption is crucial to the effectiveness of Damian’s counterargument about media bias, so it’s perfectly reasonable and relevant to point it out.
The alternative theory is that Labour aren’t really all that Left, so it’s no surprise that they get fair coverage from the media, regardless of the bias. It’s not shifting the goal-posts or fight-baiting to suggest this point. (And in light of that, to respond that you just meant Labour are Left in a New Zealand context compared to National is begging the question.)
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Email Web
Danyl coming in and being dickish by PAS standards, on the subject of, IIRC, the value of an Arts degree.
I missed that one, but I have thought on other occasions Danyl could be a bit “dickish” or seem to be deliberately trying to go against the grain in a somewhat contrived way.
I think moderating on the basis of arguing in good faith is a better aim than avoiding dickishness in general. There may still be borderline calls, but it’s a more specific criteria. But it wouldn't always be easy. What do you do with the person who usually comments in good faith, but occasionally lets their contrariness get the better of them? Russell and co here seem to be pretty generous, in that they rarely resort to baning or deleting. Moderating this type of forum as to allow for maximum freedom of expression, even of very controversial ideas, while making sure that it doesn't become like Kiwiblog, must be quite the balancing act.
I'd invite people to reflect upon times that they have felt unable to say something on PAS that seemed quite reasonable to them, and what that felt like. For myself, the worst case was around the time of the referendum about smacking, in which I suggested that it was a very bad idea to ignore something felt so strongly by the population, even if the population is actually wrong. Essentially, I was placing democracy over my personal morality (which is that smacking is the wrong thing to do). But I felt vilified for saying this, conflated with saying smacking was OK, and generally made to feel like an arsehole.
I remember that a little, and was one of those arguing against you. I didn't realise you actually left the forum for a while because of that. The way I look at it is that there may be occasions where one says something that happens to be disagreed with by the vast majority of those who regularly post here. You happened to pick that moment when the subject was also a very topical matter. The likes of DCB Cauchi post some pretty unorthodox views sometimes, but they tend to be somewhat digressive, so it doesn't get picked up on in the same way by the majority of the more regular contributors.
I find you to be one of the bravest posters here - do you still self-censor?
-
rjal, in reply to
I can't sleep so I thought I'd make my first comment on Public Address:
Steve, I think you're being a bit unfair to Damian there. My take on that comment was that it was about the Left and Right in the parliamentary and electoral context, as framed by the blog post and following discussion. It's possible to have a discussion about media bias within that context without question begging, just as it's possible to talk about the Left/Right positions of Shearer and Cunliffe within the context of the Labour party without question begging.
If, for example, in the middle of a discussion about the relative differences between Shearer and Cunliffe, I was told that there was little to no difference between Shearer and Cunliff, and the reason I believed there was was because I was a middle class professional who would be served quite well by both men, my ire would have been raised. I would also note that in the broader context this is actually true -- the bit about me being quite well served by both men, that is.
I think Russell was refering to Giovanni's comments to Damian later on in the disscussion when referring to baiting. To me at least, Giovanni seemed to be interpreting Damian's comments to mean the opposite of what Damian was trying to say. Though I don't believe it was intentional.
On a more general note, I'm a huge fan of Public Address and have been reading it for years It has had a big affect on how I see New Zealand and the world. The reason why I don't comment is that heated argurments really wind me up! I've lost sleep just reading this one. I can't imagine the affect it would have on me if I was an actual particpant!
Night all.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I can’t sleep so I thought I’d make my first comment on Public Address:
It was a good one! Do come back, now.
And, er, nek minnit we're in danger of being back on topic ...
David Parker is expected to receive a high place and possibly the finance spokesmanship previously held by Mr Cunliffe. That leaves five spots on the eight-strong front bench to be filled from a field which is likely to include Mr Cunliffe, his running mate Nanaia Mahuta, Jacinda Ardern, Shane Jones, Maryan Street, Sue Moroney and Clayton Cosgrove.
If they have created that anti-Joyce role for Cunliffe that I've been banging on about, I shall be expecting a chocolate fish.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I can't imagine the affect it would have on me if I was an actual particpant!
Heh. too late :)
-
Sacha, in reply to
insensitive to socioeconomic privilege, its vocabulary and its nuances
Practical request: can you please link to a forum that you reckon does a good job with that.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Email Twitter
The reason why I don't comment is that heated argurments really wind me up! I've lost sleep just reading this one. I can't imagine the affect it would have on me if I was an actual particpant!
Only one way to find out. Thanks for your comment too, it's heartening to see this particular discussion irks a reader.
-
Email
Cunliffe, a [wealthy] former business analyst
I wish you'd posted that 31 pages ago. It would have saved me thinking about who should be Labour leader. A BA running the country? Come on?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Email Twitter
You happened to pick that moment when the subject was also a very topical matter.
Yes, that's usually the time I try to pick.
I find you to be one of the bravest posters here - do you still self-censor?
Yes, a lot. I'm curious what you think is brave about my writing? Is it brave because I take personal risks that are just foolish on the internet, or because I fight quite hard against peer pressure and write about controversial things, risking to seem a fool in this forum? Or something else?
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
Is it brave because I take personal risks that are just foolish on the internet, or because I fight quite hard against peer pressure and write about controversial things, risking to seem a fool in this forum? Or something else?
Mostly it's because of that one time you rode a motorcycle over a swimming pool full of electric eels to save a school of orphans from Godzilla. Don't think we've forgotten.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Email Twitter
You're confusing me with my brother.
-
Email Web
I want the permalink to this comment etched on my tombstone. Ta.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Email Twitter
A BA running the country? Come on?
Indeed. Why go by halves? We've got M&A guys instead.
-
Some thoughts:
First up, a big wave to rjal. I hope you might comment again from time to time... It doesn't seem right to welcome you to the community, because it seems you have been here for a long time.
On Self-censoring: I do it all the time here. There's a heap of stuff I won't say, or opinions I won't venture, because I feel that they simply won't be heard. A bit like Ben's opinion re the anti-smacking legislation. I *do* think that PAS is sometimes not all that good with respect to listening to dissent. This thread has been pretty uncomfortable for anyone who doesn't buy into the Anyone But Cunliffe meme. Much like back in the day PAS was pretty uncomfortable for people (including me) who didn't buy into the Obama=Good/Clinton=Bad meme. Sooner or later you learn to just shut up.
On "Don't be a dick about it". I like your reframing of it, Russell, as "show good grace to each other". The latter emphasises reciprocity, but the former doesn't. The former is one group of people telling another group of people how to behave, and it comes from a position of power.
On the current argument: I've had some pretty intense disagreements with Giovanni, and there's one issue in particular where I feel as though we are just talking past each other. I've been able to move on and say, "Okay, we disagree on this one" because it has never been attended by ad hominem/feminam comments. I felt that there was a bit of needless personal stuff coming into this conversation, which didn't help.
On class in New Zealand: All been said, really, but by way of summation: it isn't defined by money, 'though money is a contributor. It isn't defined by family status, 'though family status is a contributor. It isn't defined by education, 'though education is a contributor. It intersects with culture and race: from the outside I can see that there are class hierachies within Maori groups, but I don't understand them, nor how they work, nor how power is transmuted within them. I suspect that thinking about the power to effect change, and the power to withstand government intervention, and the power to access government services (very broadly understood), might be a more useful way to analyse class structure in New Zealand, but I don't know, because it's not an area I've given much thought to, nor am I trained in that area. Maybe one of the difficulties in this discussion has been because the language of class, and Left and Right, doesn't serve us all that well. Actually, this turns out not to be a summation at all...
I'm going to put another comment up in a moment that is back on topic, but I think that there is something that people here might turn their minds to over the next few weeks, and that is the extent to which PAS is a bit of a closed shop at times, and if you don't hold the same views as the main grouping here, then it can be difficult.
And yes, this comment has been self-censored. There's a lot I'm not saying, because it won't progress things at all, and it will only hurt people. However, one thing I must not self-censor is this: I do think that a fair amount of the opprobrium that was directed at Gio was unfair.
-
Back on topic: Describing David Cunliffe as a 'business analyst' is like describing Grant Robertson as a 'student politician'. Robertson has put together an effective career as a student politician, a diplomat, a political aide - all very useful skills as a politician and hopefully one day, a minister. David Cunliffe has put together a very useful career as a lawyer (I think), a diplomat, a business analyst, and a minister - all very useful skills for a politician. Focusing on just one aspect of either man's career does not do them justice, at all.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
David Cunliffe has put together a very useful career as a lawyer (I think), a diplomat, a business analyst, and a minister – all very useful skills for a politician. Focusing on just one aspect of either man’s career does not do them justice, at all.
Oh god ... I only used it in an example of how someone could be characterised in a particular way based on a limited number of data pieces. I did make it clear that wasn't what I thought.
-
Deborah, in reply to
I'm sorry. I misread your comment.
-
Email Twitter
The alternative theory is that Labour aren’t really all that Left
Labour's leftness seems to be one of those working assumptions. It's easy to find evidence that they are. Yet it's also easy to find evidence against, large gaps in which there is little to distinguish either way, and lethargy when it comes to implementing real or rhetorical stated goals. In the last decade I've been challenged quite vocally when trying to untangle this mess. Only in the last year have such criticisms been received without challenge by Labour insiders, and it is this realisation that many hope will guide their reformation from within. However, the Obama-like emptiness of the Labour leadership selection is the most recent iteration of a process that spans at least the last decade (and previous ones, but I'm happy to leave those to history for present purposes).
-
Heather Gaye, in reply to
I suspect that thinking about the power to effect change, and the power to withstand government intervention, and the power to access government services (very broadly understood), might be a more useful way to analyse class structure in New Zealand
OH PLEASE can someone pick this up and run with it. Of the whole conversation I’ve read, this one sentence jumped out as the most illuminating/interesting observation so far. Worth unpacking further.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
On “Don’t be a dick about it”. I like your reframing of it, Russell, as “show good grace to each other”. The latter emphasises reciprocity, but the former doesn’t. The former is one group of people telling another group of people how to behave, and it comes from a position of power.
The full phrase is "don't be a dick" and I always thought it meant what I said above. Gio's been holding forth recently (here and in other venues) about what a ghastly concept it is and I've tried to take it on the chin. But I honestly think it works pretty well. The evidence being the large and active community of people who, usually pretty successfully, debate here. I'm not aware of any other local site that operates as well.
Example: Emma's Slutwalk thread. That topic turned into a clusterfuck pretty much everywhere else, but it didn't here -- in part because Emma and I took turns hovering over it as moderators. I had to utter the odd admonition, which didn't always go down well, but I had an idea of what we needed to avoid.
I’m going to put another comment up in a moment that is back on topic, but I think that there is something that people here might turn their minds to over the next few weeks, and that is the extent to which PAS is a bit of a closed shop at times, and if you don’t hold the same views as the main grouping here, then it can be difficult.
Feel free to let me know what to do about that. I do try and weigh in on behalf of someone who's being pilloried (to some extent I thought that was the case with Damian, who I could see was upset), but there's always the risk there of others thinking that person is getting special favours (that's a fairly common accusation too).
I've been briskly informed in this thread about what's incumbent on me -- not that I have any idea how I might go about much of it. I've had personal emails from people taking completely different views of what's gone down here. (including Damian, who says he won't be participating in any further in discussions here and will not open comments on any further blog posts he makes). I've lain awake questioning my own judgement, and feeling pissed off. And I'm just really, really tired.
So, everyone, I would regard it as a Really Fucking Big Christmas Favour if you could all just show good grace to each other.
-
merc, in reply to
And yes, this comment has been self-censored. There's a lot I'm not saying, because it won't progress things at all, and it will only hurt people. However, one thing I must not self-censor is this: I do think that a fair amount of the opprobrium that was directed at Gio was unfair.
I self censor as well, alot, because of reasons, though as I am learning. Gio copped quite a bit of unfair flak, and what a strength of character that he hung in there. I love Gio's views (and others here), they expand my world.
-
merc, in reply to
Definitely!
Oh and on the don't be a dick thing, my test, try saying that down at the pub at G.I.
bar patron, whatthefukareya?
merc; don't be a dick
It is an active thing. Whereas - excuse me and a smile - works wonders because it's a passive thing. As for the word grace, that is far too holy for me ;-)
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.