Posts by Moz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: The Up Front Guides:…, in reply to Ross Mason,
I've never been able to find one. But I have greatly enjoyed the search.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to James Littlewood*,
James Littlewood*
Also: the low turn out suggests that all parties collectively failed to provide something meaningful for many voters.I thought the Greens vote went up, both absolutely and as a percentage? If so, that suggests that they and Winston First both managed to inspire voters. Although I suspect Winston could change his name to "No Confidence" and get the same result.
My take on the "National is still a FPP Party" is that that's a cogent summary. They've managed to avoid having a credible right-wing party to split the right-wing/conservative vote, which lets them chase the centre. Fortunately I think that reduces the strength of the looney voices who are forced to operate within the party room rather than negotiating compromises as a coalition party (ie, that minority can be out voted very time).
I think Labour need to recognise that destroying the Greens has not worked for them. So rather than piant themselves into a corner where there's a clear green-brown split in parliament and they're part of it they need to hammer some kind of position that lets them ally with the Greens to oust their common enemies. And by "common enemies" I do not mean disloyal Labour members/MP's.
-
This is what I love about the libertarianz, they don't wait for someone else to satirise them. You can just see something from them and start laughing, knowing that whatever it is, it's going to be funny.
-
I’m happy with whatever term you like, I call it the “single electorate override” because it makes a nonsense of the justifications for the 5% requirement. As you have pointed out. I think any party with enough votes to get seats should get them. Isn’t that the whole point of representative democracy?
I’m undecided about allowing parties under that threshold to form coalitions in order to get over it. I think it would have some benefits in that it reduces the number of discarded votes and could be very funny (because it would encourage strange bed-partners). It would also reduce the “free extra seat to the most popular party” effect that we get now (not strictly the case, but I believe that’s the more likely outcome). The flip side is that it would probably not produce much benefit other than entertainment.
(to be clear, I'm talking about the implicit "must have a whole MP" rule, not the 5% idiocy. So two parties each having half of 1/120'th the vote could form a coalition and thus gain a single MP between them)
-
Up Front: Casual, Shallow and Meaningless, in reply to Russell Brown,
I still haven't worked out a way to say "I've got a TV show" without sounding like a wanker ...
Isn't that why you'd say "I've got my own TV show"? I can imagine using that after being regaled with wanker-stories from someone, whether of the "I'm so rich" or the "I'm such an arsehole" variety.
Whereas kiwi men just grunt
Nah, mate, we say maaaate, mate. See, mate, you just gotta find a mate and get down with his mates and you'll be great, mate. Maaaate!
With men I often do shared activities rather than huge chat, but it works for me. And if it takes 3 hours in the workshop to get to "the missus is a bit crook", so be it. I'm there, he's there, he knows I care.
-
Up Front: Casual, Shallow and Meaningless, in reply to Rich Lock,
This is a whole other debate, but anglicising, or just changing, the names of people whose birth name we have difficulty pronouncing seems (euphemistically speaking) troublesome.
For some people it's not optional. I'm told that Sinhalese uses almost the full set of known human phonemes, but then you add tonal languages to the mix and for most people actually pronouncing someone's name might require anything from a few minutes practicing to a lifetime of retraining. Even hearing the name might not be possible - apparently distinguishing some tonal shifts can only be learnt by infants.
My partner is known as Fong, Fung, Foo-ang, Foo-ong and probably other names despite her actual name being the eminently pronouncable Phuong (it's easy if you're Vietnamese, anyway). Her family usually pronounce it differently when speaking English and Vietnamese, making the question of "how it's pronounced" a bit of an open one.
I have been known to completely derail introductions by saying "how do you pronounce your name again, sorry, I didn't catch that" and then practicing until I get it right. Or the owner gives up.
-
Up Front: Casual, Shallow and Meaningless, in reply to Jackie Clark,
I can't remember peoples' names....I pretend I do know people, and I'm very good at hiding my secret shame
Names only get you so far. I am similar, and usually I can place the face and give you a potted summary of the person, but not always. Sometimes I find myself having a great chat with someone who obviously knows me then afterwards going "who was that"? I find the faking it only gets me so far, partly because I'm micro-famous so people who have talked to me once, five years ago, seem to remember me while I have NFI who they are.
Oh, which reminds me, that's one advantage of small talk - it really doesn't matter whether you know or care about the other person. Just be a little cautious about the exact questions and you're usually fine. Wait until they mention their partner/kids before asking about them sort of thing.
-
Up Front: Casual, Shallow and Meaningless, in reply to Rich Lock,
Small talk is basically filler. I have grown to favour the aspie approach of "I like you too". Much better to meet up with a friend I haven't seen for a few years, go to the pub, then spend a couple of hours talking about stuff that actually matters. Yes, we both have new hobbies. He has a new child. That's it, we've done small talk, whew! Now, is your marriage going any better? You lost 30kg, that's impressive. OMG, you can run now. No, I don't hate you for being ambivalent about gay marriage, in your situation I would be too. And so on. The best thing is that KAOS/ROI types don't even blink when I say "polyamory is much simpler than it sounds". They might argue, but they're not freaked out. My coworker on the other hand... oh dear.
-
Up Front: Casual, Shallow and Meaningless, in reply to Emma Hart,
PAS introduced me to my Wellington friends, and I came full circle...
Surely that's pushing it even for fairly close friends?
At least on PA there's no danger that it will go all quiet.
That Expression on the faces of checkout operators.
I found myself doing that the other day. The guy in front of me in the queue (express lane, even) decided that "how are you" deserved a full examination of his medical, social and legal situation. With a bit of wiggling I managed to push him around to the end of the checkout so the checkout chick could process my stuff. No offence, I came here to shop.
-
I know it's easier to just say "always use condoms" and pretend that that is all the information that people need.
Nobody said that. Seriously. Nobody said that.
Megan Weagan said:
I'd rather no kid got taught 'don't worry, 25/31 days, you can't knock her up'. ...
Aren't we asking for as much information to be given as possible?Which is the most concise example of the confusion here that I can find easily.
What I see is people consistently ignoring what I do say, not answering questions, then coming back with "no-one is saying {what moz said} and no-one is questioning {what moz questioned}". Which makes it very frustrating.
Back in the day, I asked:
So, what do you do when one kid says "condoms are not allowed by my religion, so my parents use the rhythm method. How does that work?" And do you mislead about how ovulation works so that it looks as though women are fertile more of the time, or do you just hope that kids don't put the picture together?
To which the answers were "teenagers often have irregular cycles". It doesn't even address the question, it leaps to why the imputed answer is not a complete answer for everyone. Megan Weagan's answer above was to this.
Then
And do you pretend that the STDs that can be transferred when condoms are used, don't exist? Or that condoms stop them? Do you mention that condoms can break? If you mention that, do you explain that that means STD transmission or do you just let them assume that the morning after pill also cures STDs as well? Or do you just prevaricate and change the subject, because this is all too advanced?
was met with "They are the only thing that works".
Prophylactic use of specific antivirals (PEP) in that case actually does work, but it's generally left to the person presenting to ask for them. I think it'd be handy if that was taught, but there are mixed reports of population response to those messages - sometimes risky behaviour increases as the perceived risk drops. So I suggest that condoms are not the only thing that works.
And yes, those are serious questions that I would actually like to see addressed. If you want anecdata, I have met one woman who caught HSV-2 despite using a condom and was quite unhappy about it. Unhappy enough to do some very unfortunate things (to me, as well as others). But she knew the safe-sex messages that Lucy et al promote very well.