UGH, I can't express how much I dislike most of that women's opinions. I am thankful she seems to have given up on being the Voice of Queerdom in light of her one(?) female affair umpteen squillion years ago.
But for the narcissism and jumping on every other bandwagon with the big mouth blaring... nothing much changed there. And still somehow considered to be representative of all (most, average?) feminist views, as the UK media seems to continue paint her...? No words.
Unfortunately this doesn't much help those of us who wouldn't touch Bitcoin with the blunt end of a rusty 100 m pole.
I like the idea of services like Gittip, but since their top earner gets @US$600, it's not good enough to rely on paying bills with yet.
All agreed. I didn't get a sense of maliciousness from Hill Cone's remarks either - poorly expressed, very poorly timed, and yes, too much self-projection.
As for golden rules, I think "be kind to each other" is a good one too. I'm fortunate that I default to ascribing the best possible motives to others by default, even when I disagree with them.
Being the unevolved person I am, though, I do want to unleash the hounds of Hades pretty quickly if I feel that my respect and tolerance are having the piss taken out of them. But I try for kindness first.
Oooh, I like that. Not just because of locusts.
Great piece of social history.
As far as I can tell, the so-called "ad hominem" remarks are describing the publicly-stated political views of these people. (Ok, with a side gloss on their crackpottery.) Frankly, if someone is participating in a political arena, their own views are fair game.
If someone said "Penny Bright is stupid and fat and picks her nose in public, therefore she shouldn't comment", that would be more of an issue.
The only quibble I have is with the statement that members of Parliament are not representative of the population as a whole. Sure, in the socio-economic sense, but we elected the buggers.
I'm not sure why Flores is being glossed as "the feminist", when her critique was based on racial commentary (which I didn't agree with, btw). Seems unnecessary.
If anyone thinks NZ-homed companies aren't doing tax avoidance and other financial jiggerypokery via offshore banks (or places like Ireland and London that might as well be termed "offshore"), then they are being stupidly naive.
If Labour formulated a plan for cracking down on our businesses first, then they might have a prayer of tackling the others. As Craig says, dismantling the entire "grey" edifice that a huge amount (in terms of value) of world financial transactions run through is incredibly complex and will require international buy-in.
A local financial tax wouldn't be likely to solve this issue by itself. NZ has lots of double taxation treaties around the world, including with Ireland. This means revenue "earned" there will be taxed at the Irish rate, and additional tax cannot be applied in NZ. This is one technique Bear Stearns used before they went down the gurgler (with the fun fact that the Irish regulator at the time believed he didn't need to regulate "foreign" companies). Maybe a financial transaction tax wouldn't be subject to the usual rules - it's an appealing idea to me too.
See Treasure Islands by Nicholas Shaxson for lots more infuriating detail. He does have suggestions in the final chapter for tackling the problem.
I feel pretty much the same, and I've been out over 25 years. I think because I remember the insistence on a twin room back then (Raetihi in the summer - it wasn't the only room available) that I'm not eager to repeat the experiences. Yes, different cultures are different, and it's probably be fine travelling with just a friend.
Even in places like the US and UK, I won't stay in BnB-type accommodation unless I know it's queer-friendly. I'll stick to an anonymous Ibis hotel if that's the available option.
Regarding unreconstructed restaurants and the like, if it's a table of all females, the wine/bill is presented to either the largest or the butchest woman. Just amazing how some things persist.