Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
What’s a lickspittle?
An arse-kisser in polite society.
-
Yes, Hamilton does have an arrogance about him, but his own personal backstory, his youth and the fact that he's the first black man to triumph in one of the most racially exclusive sports make him a much more likeable champion than Schumacher, and his rawness as a driver makes him more exciting than the German metronome.
Feh. He only won because the FIA has Nascar-wuss-ified the points to reward consistant mediocre placing over winning. Hamilton won less races than Massa and should not be champion.
And he is a Pom. He is a Pom in a race series dominated by Pommy teams, regulated by a kinky Pom and run by a egotistical Pom (Sir Allen Stanford looks like a shy hermit in comparison). That ain't extending diversity.
-
Really? Explain your logic.
The Peters-Dunne shenanigans in the Dom-Post date back to the last National government -- it's still a story.
The same story was just as wothy of an inquiry during 2006, 2007 or 2008. What form could the Labour Party possibly use to start demanding an inquiry in 2009 without looking like hypocrites?
And what if John Key PM were to comply? A finding of racing lobby corruption would taint the National government of 1999 and the the Labour government of 2000 - 2008. John Key was not a member of either, unlike the leader of any Labour opposition...
-
If Labour doesn't form a government, it can certainly spend the next three years demanding inquiries and quoting the racing chapter in the Hollow Men ...
The Hollow Men was published in 2006, too long ago to form the basis of any such demand by Labour.
-
The problem as fas as I can tell is not the Anguses of this world who are smart enough to see the stereotyping as excessive parody of stereotyping itself. Rather it's the surprisingly large number of people who will reflexively lol at the stereotypes just because of what they are, and only self-justify it as 'poking fun at racism' later (if at all).
Many people do find overblown parodies of stereotypical life funny, because that shit is instinctively funny and is therefore not strange behaviour at all. The characters are overblown parodies created for the point of entertainment, when people laugh they have no need to justify the lol because they are laughing at the parody.
OTOH very few pople are racists, because racist doctrine is stupid. However racists have a similar sense of humour to the rest of us and so will find parodies funny.
A doctrine that cooks up the conclusion of laughing at a parody of a subject denigrated by racism proves you are a racist is silly, because it is well known fact that people find humour humourous. Finding uses feminist doctrine, Finding's feminism is silly.
If for instance there was a doctrine that considered petunias to be the paragon of all virtue, my laughing at "On no, not again" in hitchhikers guide to the galaxy would not reveal any inherent anti-petuninista tendencies. Nor for that matter would my finding the joke completely unfunny* rule out the possibility that I did in fact hate petunias.
* not that I could, that shit is the shit.
-
You do have to wonder at the US electorate
Republican President, unpopular, bumbling idiot or worse, financial world down toilet...
Democrat Congress, unpopular, bumbling idiots or worse, financial world down the toilet...
Obama will win because he is young enough and clean enough to be the least tainted particpant in the Republocrat duopoly of incompetence. And because he has more money.
-
This paper offers a [doctrinal] critique of the UK comedy sketch show Little Britain. [...] The paper concludes that, although there are parts of Little Britain in which stereotypes are challenged, and the abusive power dynamic is inverted through humour, for the most part, Little Britain colludes with prejudice by positing an 'us' - the audience, who callously mocks 'them' - figures representative of marginalised groups already vulnerable to harm.
Hypothesis:
Finding's concludes through doctrinal reasoning that if I - an audience member - find the mocking in Little Britian funny I am a prejudiced victimiser of marginalised groups.Observation:
I know I am not a prejudiced victimiser of marginalised groups and yet I have found Little Britain funny*. Also Finding's can write with coherence and does draw logical conclusions within the doctrinal constraints.Conclusion:
Feminism (the doctinal reasoning used) is EPIC FAIL.* - funny the 1st, but tedious the 7th or 8th time the same joke ran.
-
No way that would happen, Clark has already said she sees no need for them to be entrenched
If National/Maori do a deal and this legislation is pending from a National government the wishes of ex-PM, ex-Labour leader Helen Clark will be of little or no importance. We would be reliant on Phil Goff (?) and a new caucus to decide.
-
Why? I don't get it.
Something to with fairness, having governments represent the will of the people. Which is seen to be undermined when more than half of people vote for a government only for the minority to impose a government unwanted by the majority.
Quite what this has to do with politics is beyond me, but people have these notions that democracy is meant to be fair...
-
Short term, pretty good. Longer term? Not so sure. [Act] are a declining nut-cult, dedicated to a bankrupt ideology, with a shrinking number of adherants.
Maybe enviromentalists could stage a leveraged takeover of Act when the last green holdout against the glorious socialist revolution has been turfed from the Greens.