And I assure you, this column is not an outlier.
If I'm feeling down about my writing I read one of Soper's columns and quickly start believing I'm Nadine fucking Gordimer.
The tedious tit-for-tat columns that Judith Collins and Phil Goff get their staff to write in the Sunday Star Times are, similarly, funded from your tax dollars, rather than the paper's editorial budget.
Correction: Judith Collins gets paid by the SST, and donates the money to the Totara South Auckland Hospice. Goff hasn't made a similar declaration for the register of pecuniary interest, but it could be a simple oversight - I've asked Jonathan Milne on Twitter.
I would be similarly interested to know if Bob Jones actually wrote for free or donated his fee.
Whether its subtweeting is surely about whether they follow you, rather than whether you follow them?
No sorry this is madness. A bunch of politicians follow me, I don't feel compelled to tag them if I want to comment in public about something they do. I reserve my right of choosing when I want to talk about someone instead of to someone. It's not rude - it's rude to think everyone is entitled to demand that you address them directly. I was accused of "talking behind Grant Robertson's back" once on this very ground. Bizarre.
Subtweeting, to me at least, is when I have a relationship with someone - ie we follow each other, and habitually talk to each other - to the point when talking about them without tagging them would be a departure from the normal conversation. And possibly a rude one although not necessarily.
I'm happier when there's plenty of debate and no snark, but I'm not going to be too exercised by snark either way.
I was just a bit confused about the "subtweeting" bit. Surely one can snark on Twitter in response to a patronising article without having to tag the author, who happens to also be on Twitter (probably) but whom one doesn't follow. I mean surely!
fairly loud chorus of snarking and subtweeting
Also known as "criticism".
I don't think it means nothing. It just doesn't mean the same as what you mean.
Do you care about others? Yes = Left, No = Right.
and it definitely doesn't mean that.
Almost everyone thinks they care, even Roger Douglas. In fact, the declaration that he cares is the subject of chapter one of all his books. And if you think you care, well, you probably do care.
Neither of those two make Rob Salmond's short list of Labour poster people, who seem chosen more for being unlikely to frighten the chooks than for any proven ability to advance a progressive agenda:
Yeah, that list of "X is better than Y" was the most depressing thing about the post. I don't personally know what any of those people stand for. They appear fairly confused about this point themselves. But it's a telling misdirection, to turn a discussion about political orientation into one about which party's MPs are seemingly nicer or more decent.
I recall one poll while Labour in government which had a surprisingly high number of self-professed Green voters taking a pretty harsh stance on beneficiaries – more than Labour voters, from memory.
I think it was this one from near the end of National's first term.
You notice how disaffected National factions DIDN'T do that with Don Brash?
No although they did leak his emails.
Just like Aussie Labor?
Aussie Labor is voting in favour of the ban on reporting cases of abuse of imprisoned asylum seekers, including children. New Zealand Labour is not quite that monstrous at present.