The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
Thai guy wrote:Southern and Robinson, Milo and Peterson represent the death throes of Western hegemony. It's becoming increasingly difficult for the US in particular to act with impunity in foreign countries because their record has been so terrible in the last 60 years and this troubles far right people greatly. They also represent the worst of Western media culture. Selling offence and division for Youtube money.
Indeed. Odd that they gravitate to the US (Robinson aside - he's in jail) to make their money by encouraging extreme views among the still very large market of prejudiced people there.Sonny Blount wrote:Thai guy wrote:Southern and Robinson, Milo and Peterson represent the death throes of Western hegemony. It's becoming increasingly difficult for the US in particular to act with impunity in foreign countries because their record has been so terrible in the last 60 years and this troubles far right people greatly. They also represent the worst of Western media culture. Selling offence and division for Youtube money.
None of them are even from the US.
that's what you get for wanting to cull all the cats Gareth.The Opportunities Party (TOP) founded by Gareth Morgan will not contest the next election and its board has asked the Electoral Commission to cancel its registration as a political party.
The party was formed in 2016 and polled 2.4 per cent at last year's election.
Morgan said he was proud of the policy manifesto and was the strongest on offer to improve incomes, business productivity, social fairness and environmental sustainability.
But voters had demonstrated that best practice, evidence-informed policy was not of significant concerns when deciding elections, he said, citing Labour's surge in support after Jacinda Ardern took over the leadership.
"When 20 per cent of the vote moves in 48 hours simply on the back of a change of leader, with no improvement at all in policy being offered, what makes the New Zealand voter tick is clear," he said.
"TOP was formed to improve the policy options on offer. Too few voters supported our policies. That's reality and we accept that.
"With no inclination to compromise policy for political ambition, or to de-emphasise best practice policy for the promotion of whatever else attracts people's votes, it's pretty obvious what the appropriate course of action for this party should be."
He thanked all those who had been involved with TOP and more than 60,000 who had voted for the party.
Cry me a river.Enzedder wrote:that's what you get for wanting to cull all the cats Gareth.The Opportunities Party (TOP) founded by Gareth Morgan will not contest the next election and its board has asked the Electoral Commission to cancel its registration as a political party.
The party was formed in 2016 and polled 2.4 per cent at last year's election.
Morgan said he was proud of the policy manifesto and was the strongest on offer to improve incomes, business productivity, social fairness and environmental sustainability.
But voters had demonstrated that best practice, evidence-informed policy was not of significant concerns when deciding elections, he said, citing Labour's surge in support after Jacinda Ardern took over the leadership.
"When 20 per cent of the vote moves in 48 hours simply on the back of a change of leader, with no improvement at all in policy being offered, what makes the New Zealand voter tick is clear," he said.
"TOP was formed to improve the policy options on offer. Too few voters supported our policies. That's reality and we accept that.
"With no inclination to compromise policy for political ambition, or to de-emphasise best practice policy for the promotion of whatever else attracts people's votes, it's pretty obvious what the appropriate course of action for this party should be."
He thanked all those who had been involved with TOP and more than 60,000 who had voted for the party.
Yeah agreed. Once Winston First goes we'll be back to National, Labour and the Greens.deadduck wrote:Our MMP is broken. It's not unforeseeable that in 2023 only three parties will be returned to parliament
Like any true artist your work is unmediated by thought. I salute you.Thai guy wrote:Meh. I won't be protesting but there'll be plenty of noise if these two do manage to slither into NZ.
RWNJs must be conflicted when protecting cake makers for denying service because of their beliefs, and attacking local government for denying service because of theirs.
An interesting point because all the defenders of Southern's "right" to spout racism and division wherever she pleases claim they find her views abhorrent (I suspect they are lying). I absolutely agree that her views should be crushed and that is exactly what APA and the muslim leaders in this country have done.Seneca of the Night wrote:Nazism happens when good men go 'meh'. Just let that rest on your conscience.Thai guy wrote:Meh. I won't be protesting but there'll be plenty of noise if these two do manage to slither into NZ.
RWNJs must be conflicted when protecting cake makers for denying service because of their beliefs, and attacking local government for denying service because of theirs.
While I don't disagree with the bottom point, and as Sen's clip has highlighted she's actually already been given at least one platform for her rhetoric (Radiolive) and she actually has not been banned from entering the country anyway.deadduck wrote:I think as long as they pay a venue hire they should be able to do what they want, unless it is clearly illegal or directly inciting violence.UncleFB wrote:What’s that got to do with my point that he hasn’t disallowed them coming to NZ.deadduck wrote:UncleFB wrote: He hasn’t really disallowed them from coming here. They’re still free to book at a private venue, if Immigration have no issues with them?
The problem with what Goff has done is that he's politicised the council venues. Now it seems they are only available to mayoralty-approved groups. Who will be the next group he evicts because he doesn't like them? Young Nats? Family First? Pro life groups? It's not his role to be the moral arbiter of the city.
There are plenty of groups that use public spaces that also have associated religions, political or social agendas.
You’ve made this point in the thread twice now, is there any group you don’t think should have access to council buildings?
As evidenced by the alleged death threats against Marama Davidson, these sorts of extremist views already exist in NZ and the best way to combat them is with public debate and reason -that requires an open forum. Shutting down the conversation drives them underground and only further reinforces their world view.
Gordon Bennett wrote:Very interesting the different latitude you’re willing to give to this demagogue compared to your regular, scathing assessments of the PM.
Having only one real choice on each side for a start totally devalues the minor party unless they are centrist and willing to swing both ways which the Greens are not. But if the minor party is, like NZF, then that gives them too much policy influence due to their kingmaking position.Sonny Blount wrote:Our elections will always between 2 different PM options.
Whether under FPP or MMP.
If Goff had come out with a demonstrable security concern then that would be fair enough. I would still ask the question who is the risk? The speaker? Or the protestors? Because if it's the latter it's not reasonable to deplatform the speaker.However to your first point, if the council, or any owners of a building think that the last part of your sentence is a possibility then it's understandable they wouldn't allow someone to speak at that venue. So theoretically, if Goff had attached - "and we worry that her rhetoric will incite violence" at the end of his statement then you would have not have an issue? (Well, I assume you'd still have an issue because you didn't believe him ... but that's by the by).
Have they come up with an alternate venue?
Well if you've managed to get Kiwiblog, Stephen Franks, Chris Trotter, and No Right Turn all lined up against you then you've done an excellent job in bringing liberal champions together!deadduck wrote:It's interesting to follow the media on this issue. The first opinions published on the weekend were very supportive of the decision, with the likes of Oscar Kightley perfectly happy to have Southern refused entry and silenced
The worm seems to be turning though, especially with the news that a bipartisan coalition of backers have launched legal proceedings against Auckland council . Who knew Don Brash and Chris Trotter had anything in common. I hope they win the case, the principle is important to protect.
Seneca of the Night wrote:
This is your best post ever.Yeah, that's why I said theoretical.deadduck wrote:If Goff had come out with a demonstrable security concern then that would be fair enough. I would still ask the question who is the risk? The speaker? Or the protestors? Because if it's the latter it's not reasonable to deplatform the speaker.However to your first point, if the council, or any owners of a building think that the last part of your sentence is a possibility then it's understandable they wouldn't allow someone to speak at that venue. So theoretically, if Goff had attached - "and we worry that her rhetoric will incite violence" at the end of his statement then you would have not have an issue? (Well, I assume you'd still have an issue because you didn't believe him ... but that's by the by).
Have they come up with an alternate venue?
But Goff didn't take this angle, he weighed in on the presumed content, labelled the views repugnant, and declared they would never be allowed to use council venues due to the content of the event. That's inappropriate.
Thai guy wrote:Southern and Robinson, Milo and Peterson represent the death throes of Western hegemony. It's becoming increasingly difficult for the US in particular to act with impunity in foreign countries because their record has been so terrible in the last 60 years and this troubles far right people greatly. They also represent the worst of Western media culture. Selling offence and division for Youtube money.
I doubt he will answer why he thinks that or why Jordan Peterson is considered right wing. Thai Guy isnt dumb so I am interested why.deadduck wrote:What on earth does Peterson's criticisms of postmodernism have to do with US imperialism?
If Southern talks in te reo Maori during the presentation, you can be sure that Don Brash will be running on stage to deliver a Frank Bunce tackle.deadduck wrote:It's interesting to follow the media on this issue. The first opinions published on the weekend were very supportive of the decision, with the likes of Oscar Kightley perfectly happy to have Southern refused entry and silenced
The worm seems to be turning though, especially with the news that a bipartisan coalition of backers have launched legal proceedings against Auckland council . Who knew Don Brash and Chris Trotter had anything in common. I hope they win the case, the principle is important to protect.
Is hate speech free speech?Seneca of the Night wrote:Russell brown aka The Biggest Fckwit in New Zealand is having a meltdown on twitter.
You have to admit that without setting foot in new Zealand southern has done an amazing thing in igniting a debate on free speech.
Enzedder wrote:Is hate speech free speech?Seneca of the Night wrote:Russell brown aka The Biggest Fckwit in New Zealand is having a meltdown on twitter.
You have to admit that without setting foot in new Zealand southern has done an amazing thing in igniting a debate on free speech.
Seneca of the Night wrote:Allah is gay.deadduck wrote:I'm interested to know what exactly she's said that's considered hate speech.
I don't hear about this subject being spoken about anywhere TBF. It's only when I log on to PR.Wilderbeast wrote:She’ll be loving all this publicity. A bit f**ked off we’re giving it to her.
There was a discussion on it on the project tonight.Tehui wrote:I don't hear about this subject being spoken about anywhere TBF. It's only when I log on to PR.Wilderbeast wrote:She’ll be loving all this publicity. A bit f**ked off we’re giving it to her.
Seneca of the Night wrote:What does the first amendment have to do with new Zealand? I suspect the truth is we don't really know what free speech means in new Zealand.
The wizard used to say stuff on feminism in the town square in Christchurch that would get him into all sorts of hot water today.
That's a particularly funny one for all the Kiwi cultural relativist globalists who somehow argue for the virtues of cultural diversity within a single politity but deny the possibility of cultural incomensurability.Seneca of the Night wrote:Southern is going to say things like 'feminism makes women depressed' and 'Islam is incompatible with western values' and molyneux will say 'female hypergamy causes a collapse in fertility rates' and 'there are differences in average group iq' and people in NZ are seriously going to lose their rag. Big time.
It's the vibe of it.Seneca of the Night wrote:I don't know what that means.Sonny Blount wrote:Seneca of the Night wrote:What does the first amendment have to do with new Zealand? I suspect the truth is we don't really know what free speech means in new Zealand.
The wizard used to say stuff on feminism in the town square in Christchurch that would get him into all sorts of hot water today.
Its not about the First Amendment. It's about The Spirit of Free Speech.
Seneca of the Night wrote:I don't know what that means.Sonny Blount wrote:Seneca of the Night wrote:What does the first amendment have to do with new Zealand? I suspect the truth is we don't really know what free speech means in new Zealand.
The wizard used to say stuff on feminism in the town square in Christchurch that would get him into all sorts of hot water today.
Its not about the First Amendment. It's about The Spirit of Free Speech.
Coming back to this and the ability to discuss these topics I think some people ate guilty of jumping the gun a little. Take group iq: there are actually several discussion so be had:Seneca of the Night wrote:Southern is going to say things like 'feminism makes women depressed' and 'Islam is incompatible with western values' and molyneux will say 'female hypergamy causes a collapse in fertility rates' and 'there are differences in average group iq' and people in NZ are seriously going to lose their rag. Big time.
Can you please explain this using plain English?Santa wrote: That's a particularly funny one for all the Kiwi cultural relativist globalists who somehow argue for the virtues of cultural diversity within a single politity but deny the possibility of cultural incomensurability.
It's contradictory to say that people have different cultural values on one hand while on the other saying there is no incompatibility between cultural values. Because if cultural values are different but not so different that they are incompatible then they don't appear to be that different at all.Tehui wrote:Can you please explain this using plain English?Santa wrote: That's a particularly funny one for all the Kiwi cultural relativist globalists who somehow argue for the virtues of cultural diversity within a single politity but deny the possibility of cultural incomensurability.
I find it droll, that the "freedom of expression" - loving promoter, banned from Auckland Council venues by Mayor Phil Goff, employs the same sort of censorship tactics they're berating the mayor for using against them.
The "Australia is at a Crossroads" tour brochure, which has the Auckland event tagged onto the end of a list of Australian state capitals, includes the terms and conditions for those paying $86 plus to attend.
The first is that promoter, Axiomatic Media Pty Ltd "reserves the right to refuse entry to anyone." Then to make doubly sure only like-minded groupies attend, it adds "if someone is deemed to be a risk or disturbance and is asked to leave who has already entered the event, they shall not be entitled to any refund."
In other words, even for organiser, Australian Christian fundamentalist, Dave Pellowe, who is now calling for lovers of free speech "to stand up and fight back, before it is taken away for ever," such rights are not absolute. Not when he's hiring the hall for his Alt-Right circus act at any rate.
He, rather sensibly, doesn't want mayhem to break out in his meetings. So he's signalling he'll toss any dissidents out who might want to exercise their freedom of expression and heckle, or otherwise enter into debate.
The official Auckland Council line is the show was cancelled due "to security concerns around the health and safety of the presenters, staff and patrons" at the Bruce Mason Centre venue.
Goff was more upfront. He's not going to hire out publicly-owned halls in his multi-cultural melting-pot of a city, to those with divisive and "repugnant" views.
He said council venues "shouldn't be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions." He's not banning this touring circus from speaking in the city. He doesn't have that power. If they can find a church hall, or empty paddock somewhere, he couldn't stop them. Of course with one-half of the act, Canadian Lauren Southern now banned from entering Australia by the Department of Home Affairs and Immigration, the issue is hypothetical.
The tour seems cancelled – as was the British one it was to replace - with no visa applications having been submitted for Southern or her fellow traveler, Stefan Molyneux to visit New Zealand.
Well I'll be dipped in dogshit !Enzedder wrote:To quote an opinion from Brian Rudman
I find it droll, that the "freedom of expression" - loving promoter, banned from Auckland Council venues by Mayor Phil Goff, employs the same sort of censorship tactics they're berating the mayor for using against them.
The "Australia is at a Crossroads" tour brochure, which has the Auckland event tagged onto the end of a list of Australian state capitals, includes the terms and conditions for those paying $86 plus to attend.
The first is that promoter, Axiomatic Media Pty Ltd "reserves the right to refuse entry to anyone." Then to make doubly sure only like-minded groupies attend, it adds "if someone is deemed to be a risk or disturbance and is asked to leave who has already entered the event, they shall not be entitled to any refund."
In other words, even for organiser, Australian Christian fundamentalist, Dave Pellowe, who is now calling for lovers of free speech "to stand up and fight back, before it is taken away for ever," such rights are not absolute. Not when he's hiring the hall for his Alt-Right circus act at any rate.
He, rather sensibly, doesn't want mayhem to break out in his meetings. So he's signalling he'll toss any dissidents out who might want to exercise their freedom of expression and heckle, or otherwise enter into debate.
The official Auckland Council line is the show was cancelled due "to security concerns around the health and safety of the presenters, staff and patrons" at the Bruce Mason Centre venue.
Goff was more upfront. He's not going to hire out publicly-owned halls in his multi-cultural melting-pot of a city, to those with divisive and "repugnant" views.
He said council venues "shouldn't be used to stir up ethnic or religious tensions." He's not banning this touring circus from speaking in the city. He doesn't have that power. If they can find a church hall, or empty paddock somewhere, he couldn't stop them. Of course with one-half of the act, Canadian Lauren Southern now banned from entering Australia by the Department of Home Affairs and Immigration, the issue is hypothetical.
The tour seems cancelled – as was the British one it was to replace - with no visa applications having been submitted for Southern or her fellow traveler, Stefan Molyneux to visit New Zealand.
