OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus
954 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 28 29 30 31 32 … 39 Newer→ Last
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
But that doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong. Individually one can get to wherever they want. Why not? Go for it. Get passionate. Disagree to agree or don't. I find political issues one of my biggest interests ,I think because it is my being. At the moment I am bummed the Govt. is worse. I'm not judging here. I was just trying to give the rule a simple suggestion if indeed we need one. I am not interested in going around in circles. :)
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Why would I want to do that?
It would play havoc with my lifestyle.
-
am not interested in going around in circles. :)
Show me the posters who are. It's probably not so much a circle but a return to what are usually hot political battlefields.
-
Jeremy Eade, in reply to
I'm not thinking about you :) , it's a smile comment.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Benny Franklin's "don't be a dick" list
Fascinating. Thanks for that.
-
Virtue, he wanted to know what virtue meant.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I am not trying to police the discussion of class. I’d be delighted if someone wrote a post about it and other people discussed the post, or if this discussion continued.
For me the issue is not about writing one post or having one discussion about class. It's being able to include that perspective in the discussions in which it is relevant without generating olympic levels of puzzlement or making people sad. Which has either become harder to do on PAS, or perhaps it's just that I've become more aware of it or less able to handle it, or all of these things. At any rate I find it very frustrating and when one is frustrated (because obviously I care about the place, 7,000+ comments say I'm not exactly here to sneer at the towels) then one is also more likely to act like a dick, perhaps. If so, I'll cop that.
I did feel completely frustrated by trying to discuss it with you. I thought that he did state an admirable political purpose in his maiden speech, and others pointed out his longstanding and sincere engagement with disability issues.
I'm sorry if I appeared difficult. I certainly wasn't trying to shift the goalposts. To me the fact that I couldn't locate Robertson's political compass was and remains a problem. Like I said, I found him quite slippery on disability issues. His maiden speech in Parliament praised a leadership of the party that did absolutely nothing for beneficiaries or disabled people and that midway through a nine year stint in government abandoned even the pretence of wanting to close the income and equity gaps, concentrating all its efforts into making life better for the middle class. Then his name became associated with the Parker camp, and sorry, but Parker? Really? There was a rumour that his defection to Shearer was in fact what scuttled the Parker bid, but I think the question in the context of the topic of this blog was relevant. Throughout the leadership contest there had been, to reiterate, almost no attempt at all to define the political differences between Cunliffe and Shearer. So maybe we could try with one of ours, Robertson. But it seems that even by raising the issue I was painting him as "a hollow man". Really I don't think I was being that offensive. And maybe the discussion was so uncomfortable for reasons that weren't entirely down to me.
As a veteran of usenet, I know only too well how gut-wrenchingly unpleasant it is to raise these sort of meta-issues, but in my defence every time I try to leave the conversation somebody addresses me directly and so I feel like I would make matters worse by not responding.
-
Jeremy Eade, in reply to
"Bring the Facts" here . I vote on the facts. Gio has abused me in the past to an irrritation but because I have no idea who Gio is it lasts ten minutes, you get past 500 posts and expect debate, it's quite thrilling and I like Gio's posts so he gets a pass in the blind stumbling world of the most reasonable political threads of New Zealand. (Maybe by default).
-
Islander, in reply to
Hang in there friend-
-
Jeremy Eade, in reply to
Possibly we all need to edit more and realise that typed discussions are a new phenomina, and not the greatest forms of discussions. Any discussion that thinks lol is a substitute for a response is limited in a way.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
quiet days in ... Franklin
6. “Industry. Lose no time; be always employ’d in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.”
7. “Sincerity. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.”
+
11. “Tranquility. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.”By combining the merits of 6, 7 & 11, Ben was able to proactively weather any insult, so when told to 'go fly a kite', he got quite a charge out of it...
-
Jeremy Eade, in reply to
C'mon Ian, no one disses the Ben. Not in public.
and it makes us all look bad with Gio and Russell bickering. Think of the P.A.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Really I don’t think I was being that offensive.
Neither did I. But after I made one mild comment to you, you flew off the handle and described that as "bordering on the obscene"
And maybe the discussion was so uncomfortable for reasons that weren’t entirely down to me.
It certainly wasn't. Damian can be a bit snarky, I might have handled it differently in places and I'm sorry for that -- but you seemed to be taking some pride in what you were doing. I'm glad you finally got from "I'm entitled to be difficult" to "I’m sorry if I appeared difficult".
As a veteran of usenet, I know only too well how gut-wrenchingly unpleasant it is to raise these sort of meta-issues, but in my defence every time I try to leave the conversation somebody addresses me directly and so I feel like I would make matters worse by not responding.
You ventured upthread that this was a lounge with occasional pretensions to be being a public square, and that that placed additional obligations on me as its moderator. I don't know, really. I do what I can to make it good and that's quite taxing when I'm here all the time.
But Usenet's a public square. The Trade Me forums are a public square. Yahoo.co.nz is a public square. They're frequently horrible. I began discussing on Usenet in 1993, but withdrew, like a lot of the the people here, because I got sick of it. Not-turning-into-Usenet is a motivation.
If I recall rightly (don't make me go and look) I said that while it might not have been your intention, the appearance was that you were picking fights. (Emma did put that more strongly than me.) I honestly think the same conversation could have been had differently.
I think I'll blame Keith.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
maxim millionaire…
This is Benny Franklin’s “don’t be a dick” list.
…no one disses the Ben. Not in public.but, but, but he wrote & published Poor Richard’s Almanack!
He was the Uber-’Dick' of his age,
and adages…
;- ) -
Islander, in reply to
are a new phenomina, and not the greatest forms of discussions. Any
???
-
Jeremy Eade, in reply to
The uber dick of his age.? OK. In what regard?
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I'm glad you finally got from "I'm entitled to be difficult" to "I’m sorry if I appeared difficult".
That's a hard one to untangle. I think that on occasion it's both okay and fitting to be difficult. Simply because otherwise we never get to go the the places where we are made uncomfortable, or we challenge each other, and if keep not going there we harden boundaries and reinforce our biases. That said, I'm sorry if I was needlessly difficult. And if I didn't get my point across, which is a problem I've had on PAS for at least a year, to my constant regret and occasional puzzlement.
But Usenet's a public square. The Trade Me forums are a public square. Yahoo.co.nz is a public square. They're frequently horrible. I began discussing on Usenet in 1993, but withdrew, like a lot of the the people here, because I got sick of it. Not-turning-into-Usenet is a motivation.
Some usenet groups at their best might have been a public square, briefly, in the sense that I mean - which is the diametric opposite of a TradeMe forum - of places of civic (and not just civil) discourse. I think PAS at its best can be that and that it doesn't involve rejecting moderation. But yes there would be trade-offs I imagine, and it's really up to you as much as as to the community where it goes. The wholly convivial and collaborative model works magnificently in the Capture posts and threads, where you have reaped the results of years of work growing the community - I wouldn't dream of faulting you there. I think when it comes to politics, in the broad sense, the discussions have become very limited/limiting, and it may be where the model works less well.
If I recall rightly (don't make me go and look) I said that while it might not have been your intention, the appearance was that you were picking fights.
Emma tore into me, as is her prerogrative, but I still think the analogy with sexual orientation is fairly valid. If PAS were insensitive to it to the extent that (in my view) it is insensitive to socioeconomic privilege, its vocabulary and its nuances, I submit that people who came up against that barrier time and time again would also easily give the impression of picking fights.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
The uber dick of his age.? OK. In what regard?
As author of Poor Richard's Almanac. Richard. Dick.
Even had a ship named after him, or at least his nom de dong. -
Steve Parks, in reply to
That said, I'm sorry if I was needlessly difficult. And if I didn't get my point across, which is a problem I've had on PAS for at least a year, to my constant regret and occasional puzzlement.
Having just caught up with this whole thread, I tend to agree with George Darroch, and I am a bit surprised at some of the harsher criticism directed your way (such as that comment from Emma Hart). If you have a fault, in general, when arguing about politics, it might be that you can seem a bit grouchy (for lack of a better word). I understand what you say about the need to be difficult sometimes, to challenge the boundries etc, but the downside is that it can make the people you're arguing with defensive. Usually, as Russell says, that is unproductive, and may contribute to not getting your point across. That said, you've done nothing here to warrant 'fight baiting', that I can see. To me, 'fight baiting' would better apply to some of Tom Semmens recent comments.
I also note that the salient example of Gio's supposed dickishness is his comment to Damian about being middle class. Yet Damian indicated more than once that that wasn't what bothered him; it was the tone in the lead-up. I can’t see anything wrong with the tone or content of the lead-up.
The context of this exchange between the two was about the matter of putative media bias towards the Right. Giovanni, perfectly civilly, explained to Damian that it wasn’t some nefarious newsroom conspiracy, but a structural issue within society (a la Chomsky) that favoured the Right. Rich chimed in with a comment basically supporting Gio’s view.
Damian responded to that with a comment that included...
I’m not trying to be glib, but it is worth pointing out that Labour ran the country for 9 years until quite recently, and that the media hasn’t changed a lot in that time. So it’s not that stacked against the left.
... clearly still referring to the issue of media and bias. Gio pointed out that Damian is relying on an assumption that Labour are squarely “Left”. Therefore the media are not biased against the Left, because Labour have got a fair deal from them over time. This assumption is crucial to the effectiveness of Damian’s counterargument about media bias, so it’s perfectly reasonable and relevant to point it out.
The alternative theory is that Labour aren’t really all that Left, so it’s no surprise that they get fair coverage from the media, regardless of the bias. It’s not shifting the goal-posts or fight-baiting to suggest this point. (And in light of that, to respond that you just meant Labour are Left in a New Zealand context compared to National is begging the question.)
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Danyl coming in and being dickish by PAS standards, on the subject of, IIRC, the value of an Arts degree.
I missed that one, but I have thought on other occasions Danyl could be a bit “dickish” or seem to be deliberately trying to go against the grain in a somewhat contrived way.
I think moderating on the basis of arguing in good faith is a better aim than avoiding dickishness in general. There may still be borderline calls, but it’s a more specific criteria. But it wouldn't always be easy. What do you do with the person who usually comments in good faith, but occasionally lets their contrariness get the better of them? Russell and co here seem to be pretty generous, in that they rarely resort to baning or deleting. Moderating this type of forum as to allow for maximum freedom of expression, even of very controversial ideas, while making sure that it doesn't become like Kiwiblog, must be quite the balancing act.
I'd invite people to reflect upon times that they have felt unable to say something on PAS that seemed quite reasonable to them, and what that felt like. For myself, the worst case was around the time of the referendum about smacking, in which I suggested that it was a very bad idea to ignore something felt so strongly by the population, even if the population is actually wrong. Essentially, I was placing democracy over my personal morality (which is that smacking is the wrong thing to do). But I felt vilified for saying this, conflated with saying smacking was OK, and generally made to feel like an arsehole.
I remember that a little, and was one of those arguing against you. I didn't realise you actually left the forum for a while because of that. The way I look at it is that there may be occasions where one says something that happens to be disagreed with by the vast majority of those who regularly post here. You happened to pick that moment when the subject was also a very topical matter. The likes of DCB Cauchi post some pretty unorthodox views sometimes, but they tend to be somewhat digressive, so it doesn't get picked up on in the same way by the majority of the more regular contributors.
I find you to be one of the bravest posters here - do you still self-censor?
-
rjal, in reply to
I can't sleep so I thought I'd make my first comment on Public Address:
Steve, I think you're being a bit unfair to Damian there. My take on that comment was that it was about the Left and Right in the parliamentary and electoral context, as framed by the blog post and following discussion. It's possible to have a discussion about media bias within that context without question begging, just as it's possible to talk about the Left/Right positions of Shearer and Cunliffe within the context of the Labour party without question begging.
If, for example, in the middle of a discussion about the relative differences between Shearer and Cunliffe, I was told that there was little to no difference between Shearer and Cunliff, and the reason I believed there was was because I was a middle class professional who would be served quite well by both men, my ire would have been raised. I would also note that in the broader context this is actually true -- the bit about me being quite well served by both men, that is.
I think Russell was refering to Giovanni's comments to Damian later on in the disscussion when referring to baiting. To me at least, Giovanni seemed to be interpreting Damian's comments to mean the opposite of what Damian was trying to say. Though I don't believe it was intentional.
On a more general note, I'm a huge fan of Public Address and have been reading it for years It has had a big affect on how I see New Zealand and the world. The reason why I don't comment is that heated argurments really wind me up! I've lost sleep just reading this one. I can't imagine the affect it would have on me if I was an actual particpant!
Night all.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I can’t sleep so I thought I’d make my first comment on Public Address:
It was a good one! Do come back, now.
And, er, nek minnit we're in danger of being back on topic ...
David Parker is expected to receive a high place and possibly the finance spokesmanship previously held by Mr Cunliffe. That leaves five spots on the eight-strong front bench to be filled from a field which is likely to include Mr Cunliffe, his running mate Nanaia Mahuta, Jacinda Ardern, Shane Jones, Maryan Street, Sue Moroney and Clayton Cosgrove.
If they have created that anti-Joyce role for Cunliffe that I've been banging on about, I shall be expecting a chocolate fish.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I can't imagine the affect it would have on me if I was an actual particpant!
Heh. too late :)
-
Sacha, in reply to
insensitive to socioeconomic privilege, its vocabulary and its nuances
Practical request: can you please link to a forum that you reckon does a good job with that.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
The reason why I don't comment is that heated argurments really wind me up! I've lost sleep just reading this one. I can't imagine the affect it would have on me if I was an actual particpant!
Only one way to find out. Thanks for your comment too, it's heartening to see this particular discussion irks a reader.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.