Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The next four years

462 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 19 Newer→ Last

  • David Hood,

    In 1967 the modern formulation of the Trolley problem (ethical thought experiment) was made. Now, fifty years later, the Trolley problem is pretty thoroughly talked out, and instead we have the "when is it ethical to punch a Nazi" problem.

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1443 posts Report Reply

  • WH, in reply to andin,

    As for any link to politics ??

    The Schutzstaffel was the force behind the development of Generalplan Ost. The name is sometimes abbreviated in Armanen runes.

    Since Nov 2006 • 783 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Jason Kemp,

    Automation is changing the landscape everywhere and the paradox is that the same reasons businesses automate ( to increase profitability) is the very reason that jobs disappear. Ok I’m over simplifying but that is an issue that has not been addressed at all. The proverbial elephant in the room.

    I can agree that automation and globalisation are here to stay. The real problems are rent-seeking and under-investment in training and repurposing the technologically under-employed. If the Future of Work is No Future (as Johnny Rotten sang it), then there are interesting times ahead indeed.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5416 posts Report Reply

  • andin, in reply to WH,

    Armanen runes.

    ???
    WTF

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1881 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    The Women's marches were very impressive, with some huge numbers barely reported here, Los Angeles seems to have something north of 500,000 - from the LA Times:

    "...The exact size of the protest was difficult to measure. Organizers put the number at 750,000.

    The Los Angeles Police Department said in a statement that “well past” 100,000 people attended but did not provide a more precise number. Officials said it appeared to be the largest demonstration since a massive 2006 immigration march downtown. The LAPD estimated that march drew 500,000..."

    http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-la-ln-womens-march-20170121-story.html

    The question is, where to from here? Were the crowds so massive because of anti-Trumpism or because they were standing up for human rights? Alison Mau notes in the spinoff:

    "...The organisers of the Washington “mother” march were making it absolutely clear this was not about partisan politics; not about the legitimacy or otherwise of the incoming President... ...It was about human rights. Simple."

    In this, these marches are similar to the gay marriage movement in the USA which a) refused to allow other political agendas to hitch their star to the same sex marriage bandwagon, and b) refused to allow itself to become a partisan political vehicle, welcoming left and right as long as they were on board for gay marriage.

    The lesson the left is a) Getting back into ascendancy is going to require building alliances on specific issues with anyone who agrees with you, rather than being a rent-a-mob who exclude everyone who fails any of a battery of tests of ideological purity and b) too many soi-disant radicals in NZ seek only elite liberal consensus - the anti-smacking legislation being the prime example of social change via attempted legislative coup. The outcome? Sue Bradford's chief political legacy has been to make the "left" unelectable for three elections. The women's march appealed to so many because Trump's culture of rampant sexism affects women of every class everywhere, be they pretty young scions of the middle class being condescended to in the law firm or a middle aged woman working in diner putting up with emboldened truck drivers. That broad appeal gave them mass.

    So we need to understand - rather than spend months agonising about the race/gender mix of your party list spend time developing policies that appeal to th broad range of the population and build alliances with anyone who wants to help on a specific issue - and stop asking for windows into peoples souls.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2212 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    ???

    It depends how you look at it, right. If you think evil has an independent existence, you'll see it in the most efficient and hateful slaughter of modern times. If you think evil is psychological, esoteric ceremonies and symbols are nothing more than team building exercises and unusual design choices.

    2016 was an unusual year. I'm not joking and I have my reasons.

    Alright, let's change the subject.

    Since Nov 2006 • 783 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to WH,

    change the subject.

    Before we do , just a thought . . . the covert filming of "esoteric ceremonies etc "(including pedophilia) has political utility (blackmail) as long as the practices are not widely socially acceptable.
    The threat of being outed as "gay" has lost its utility for the purposes of coercion : pedophilia , much less so. Arguably not at all.
    Let's see what Wikileaks has got in the archives . . .

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    The lesson the left is a) Getting back into ascendancy is going to require building alliances on specific issues with anyone who agrees with you, rather than being a rent-a-mob who exclude everyone who fails any of a battery of tests of ideological purity and b) too many soi-disant radicals in NZ seek only elite liberal consensus – the anti-smacking legislation being the prime example of social change via attempted legislative coup. The outcome? Sue Bradford’s chief political legacy has been to make the “left” unelectable for three elections.

    OK, so now we know what kind of an animal you are, Tom.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4310 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    I guess you're referring to the spirit cooking and the Comet Ping Pong episodes. It looks like there's a MOMA version of spirit cooking and another one, which you can find for yourself if you feel like getting your hands dirty.

    I take your point, but it's not what I mean.

    Since Nov 2006 • 783 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens, in reply to steven crawford,

    Huh? What are you talking about?

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2212 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    I guess in a way I have to admire your chutzpah, Tom, in not only mansplaining to women why their march worked, but somehow turning it into the antithesis of identity politics rather than an expression of it. Then again, this is a world where "rentamobs" have to pass ideological tests, so...

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    The women’s march appealed to so many because Trump’s culture of rampant sexism affects women of every class everywhere, be they pretty young scions of the middle class being condescended to in the law firm or a middle aged woman working in diner putting up with emboldened truck drivers. That broad appeal gave them mass.

    I was at the Auckland march and the range of issues aired by speakers was considerably wider than that. Tracey Barnett spoke largely about refugees, for example.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22749 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    So you think they succeeded because they were really simple-minded?

    I'm gonna guess that your reckon isn't going to be received well.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4450 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    Huh? What are you talking about?

    Sue Bradford’s chief political legacy has been to make the “left” unelectable for three elections.

    Are you only concerned with political science, or is there room for the nuanced art of humanity?

    Or put another way, are you able see how crass that statement you wrote actually is?

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4310 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    The Women's March have put out a Ten actions for the First 100 Days. Step two is:

    Write down your thoughts. Pour your heart out on any issue that you care about, whether it’s ending gender-based violence, reproductive rights and women’s health, LGBTQIA rights, worker’s rights, civil rights, immigrant rights, religious freedom, environmental justice or anything else.

    It's identity politics all up the walls.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Emma Hart,

    The Women’s March have put out a Ten actions for the First 100 Days.

    This is another big difference from Occupy, which insisted on having no defined goals.

    Well, that and the blessed absence of fucking V for Vendetta masks on the march.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22749 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to steven crawford,

    how crass

    It seems like a reasonable judgement about the "mainstream" reaction (right-wing, if you like) to what Sue achieved, which was removal of the defence of "reasonable force".
    The public view is that it was anti-smacking ; it never was that.
    The way it was portrayed in the media was largely "fake news", and the public disapproval flowed from that.
    I don't follow the attack on Tom for expressing what seems obvious.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 776 posts Report Reply

  • John Farrell,

    I've been watching other forums to see the way posts on the inauguration, and the marches, were handled. On a Genealogy forum, a thread was started by an American member, congratulating Trump, and hoping for great things. There were a number of replies, almost all from people in the UK, giving their low opinion of Trump, but without insults. The original poster then returned, and we saw the "libtard" and "snowflake" memes exercised. The mods deleted the thread soon after.

    On a Photography forum, a member started a thread, with pictures from his local march. The debate there is muted, mainly about whether posting pictures of a demonstration is a political act. That thread is here:

    http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=159480

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 485 posts Report Reply

  • andin, in reply to WH,

    It depends how you look at it, right.

    You can look at it anyway you like.
    But if humans didnt exist there'd be no human evil.
    And outside of that, we will never know.

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1881 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to steven crawford,

    OK, so now we know what kind of an animal you are, Tom.

    You were in doubt?

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming,

    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/conway-press-secretary-gave-alternative-facts-860142147643

    That's what we'll see for the next four years. Note the threat of "renegotiating" the relationship with journalists.

    See also https://umairhaque.com/three-things-america-lost-today-12e9217c523a#.1zzkjc65t

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    Are you only concerned with political science, or is there room for the nuanced art of humanity?

    Or put another way, are you able see how crass that statement you wrote actually is?

    Dude, I am absolutely Jonathan Pie furious for the art of humanity. It really amazes me how few liberals understand the scale of their defeat. I care about humanity, and I think that humanity is best served by having left wing governments restributing wealth, not a bunch of (neo)liberals arguing about identity politics and telling people how to run their family lives. In retrospect, the section 59 repeal was NZ’s “Brexit” – the moment the (neo)liberal “left” ruling class were exposed as an elitist scam, and the moment the Clintonian/Blairite third way alliance was shattered. Bradford with her lazy, arrogant and ham fisted determination to use the (neo)liberal elite consensus to try and ram through a piece of legislation that struck at the heart of society – the family – and that no one (need I remind you, a CIR vote was over 87% opposed) wanted destroyed it forever in NZ. Of all her sins, her laziness and arrogance stand out like dog balls. She made no attempt to build a civic alliance for her repeal. She made no attempt to build a political alliance. She was right come hell or high water and she just wanted to count to 61 in the parliament. And the result was your classic Pyrrhic victory that is at least a large part responsible for the election loss by the Labour government, nine years in opposition, and a falling out of fashion and loss of credibility of progressive and left wing politics that shows precious little sign of abating.

    I strongly supported section 59, to point I almost got into a fight at the beach with a bunch of asshats collecting signatures for the CIR and strained several close relationships. But I bitterly resent being made to fight the battle at all, and all by someone who was too fucking arrogant and too fucking lazy to be bothered to build a decent army first.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2212 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    I strongly supported section 59, to point I almost got into a fight at the beach with a bunch of asshats collecting signatures for the CIR and strained several close relationships. But I bitterly resent being made to fight the battle at all, and all by someone who was too fucking arrogant and too fucking lazy to be bothered to build a decent army first.

    Full-on faux socialist channels the orange guy. Given that you've been posting Pauline Hanson's talking points here for years now, I'm not surprised.

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4591 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    Nah. Just the false consensus effect in operation (i.e., we tend to think others will naturally share our own views and competences). You can expect it’s something that educated liberals will more often fall prey to, because it’s a lot easier to “build a consensus” for something communicable by emotional grunting (“USA! USA!” “Lock her up!” “Burn the witch!”) than for something that requires nuanced thought. No need to bring out the moral judgypants accusations of “laziness and arrogance” – even leaving aside that that sort of reflex judging is (i) the very thing you’re accusing your purported “(neo)liberal elite” hivemind of doing, and (ii) one of the worst features of the right’s attitudes towards “undeserving” immigrants and beneficiaries -- because it drives real laws with real negative effects on the most vulnerable members of our society. Identity politics matters a great deal.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1886 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    I care about humanity

    No you don't, dude, you care about White-manity. Otherwise you might have noticed what the poor/working class look like these days. Women get paid less than men do. Non-white people get paid less than white people. LGBTI people get paid less than cis straight people. The more socially disadvantaged you are, the more economically disadvantaged you are. Those oppressions go hand in hand.

    And you can't fix a problem until you correctly identify it.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 19 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.