Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm actually quite pissed off that Bart can declare that me speaking about someone on the basis of experience does me "no credit".
I'm sorry for offending you Russell.
I believe neither you nor Damian would knowingly support a bully. The problem with bullying in general, and I think it is worse in NZ because of our "man up" culture, is that it's hard to see bullying for what it is and how much damage it does.
Yes Russell you pointed out how bad some of Paul Henry's behaviour was, inexcusable even. But then you did something very typical in New Zealand and in respect of workplace bullies. You said that sometimes he can be fun and you and Damian complimented his technical ability. Both of those things are commonly used to defend a bully's behaviour. It becomes OK to do the bad thing because the bully is somehow good in other ways.
No I don't want my villain to be monochrome. But that's one of the most difficult parts of dealing with bullies, they are not monochrome. Many of the people they deal with may never see their bullying. They are often "effective" in the workplace. They are often fun and funny. They may be good parents or good friends. Unless you become their target.
Again my apologies for upsetting you Russell. My reaction to this stuff is coloured by my own experiences. I no longer really accept that a bully can be excused (and you may not have intended to do that) because of some other worthwhile trait because I've seen the damage they can do.
I won't apologise for connecting workplace bullies and suicide. Sure I didn't see the cat's wee joke, I don't watch Paul Henry if I can avoid it any more. I accept that in context it may have been funny and much lighter than it read in text. But this isn't a fun or funny issue.
-
Lighten up... hmmm yeah Ok.
That's a great plan. Until you happen to be the victim of a workplace bully and then folks tell you it's all just fun and you should lighten up.
And yeah it may be that Ali doesn't mind, but that's not the issue. These guys are on TV displaying a pattern of behaviour that is really damaging. There are people who commit suicide over this kind of stuff. And those that are more resilient just quit and find another job or stop putting in the effort, great for productivity.
You may not like my criticism of you but to respond with "lighten up"??
Seriously Damian do some research on workplace bullying in NZ and the damage it does and then come back and look at Paul Henry.
-
laughing at how he could smell cat wee and it couldn't be Ali ...
Damian you should read some literature about bullying in the workplace. The above quote could pretty much be used as a textbook example.
-
As for spoofing Breakfast TV.
I get your point Damian. You're right the joke wasn't that funny and the target was too easy.
But the flip side is that most of us are kind of saddened that we don't have a stronger media that really has good journalists with the resources to do what society needs journalists to do.
We lack the power to change the MSM. We can support those journalists who do a good job by reading and paying attention to them but it's hard to see how that helps much. Does making fun of less good journalism help? I'm not sure.
To some degree having more options help, good journalists who blog can create an audience that responds to them directly in a measurable way. That allows to Journalist to say "here look and see how many follow me specifically maybe my bosses in the MSM should let me do this on air". Does that in the end work? It seems not because you'd expect people like Henry to be gone from the air if it did.
-
and [Paul Henry] was good fun
I could leave it at what Sacha said but I won't.
Paul Henry is a bully. He uses his power and position to hurt and belittle those who either are simply unimportant to him or who threaten him. It is a pattern of behaviour all too common in New Zealand and all too often defended as "good fun". It should not be tolerated in any environment. The fact that it is displayed on our national television channel and supported by management is disgusting.
And that Russell and Damian defend him is no credit to either of them. He may well have positive character and professional traits but his bullying is an overwhelming negative and you guys ought to come out and oppose it. It's not OK.
-
it sounds horrible
heh don't worry I'm not emotionally scarred by it at all. I didn't mean to make it sound so bad :).
My biggest memories of it come from primary school in Palmerston North. Where "gangs" of Maori would insult white geeks like me. Yes almost certainly derived from their own feeling of oppression which certainly existed at that time. Also experienced it quite frequently when playing sports as a teenager. Sometimes it was gamesmanship, sometimes it was significantly more threatening. Sometimes from opponents sometimes from the crowd. I also experienced as a teenager riding my bike around Auckland randomly and finding myself in hmmm neighbourhoods where my skin colour was unusual.
As an adult I've experienced it a only a few times, once when meeting the local iwi to talk about GE and being put down in no uncertain terms as a Pakeha and therefore unable to discuss intelligently or learn the issues at hand. Again that may stem from a position of being threatened because ultimately we scientists knew a shit load more about GE than they (well duh we had been studying it for decades). However, one reason for the meeting was so we could pass on our knowledge, /shrug.
The above said I have had many many more positive engagements with Maori than anything else*. And I'd hate to give the impression that those are my only memories of engaging Maori, far far from it.
However, my negative experiences have left me feeling that Pakeha, rightly or wrongly, is a derogatory term and hence I'd prefer not to be labelled as such.
*except for being asked to sing, I deeply hate being forced to sing.
-
I have no probs with being referred to as pakeha or palagi ...
Which is great for you. Some people also apparently have no problem with being called Darkie. Yet I'm pretty certain that trying to get "Darkie" instituted as the official name for an ethnic grouping might raise some ire.
For me having my ethnicity defined as Pakeha is unpleasant as a result of my experiences of the term being used negatively about me or as a derogatory term.
I find the terms Human/New Zealander/kiwi and at a stretch New Zealand European to be much more neutral in tone than Pakeha.
Now you might argue that I'm wrong to believe Pakeha is an insulting word and technically you might be correct. However this isn't about technically being right it is about the feelings a word invokes. In the same way that my belief about whether using the word deaf to describe people with hearing impairment is pretty much irrelevant, it is their feeling when the word is used to describe them that is relevant.
-
Sacha growing up and being called a Fucking Pakeha back when fuck was a real swear word kinda covers my experience.
It happens less now. But now it is more along the lines of "what would a Pakeha know about ..." which is more subtle and reliant on tone to deliver the full insult. Because you know there are no white people in New Zealand capable of understanding ... X, Y or Z topic.
I don't necessarily believe my experience is universal, but for me, it is enough to not really want to have anyone define me as Pakeha.
Not sure why you have trouble imagining it. The history of having words twisted into insults is long and storied, eg all the words I've used over the years to describe differently abled humans have become insults and now not really the kind of words I want to use nor that those humans want to hear.
-
Except any word can be used as an insult. So for me, most times I've been referred to as a Pakeha it has clearly been meant as an insult.
As a result my view of the word is that it is an insult and intended as such. Hence I am reluctant to be classified by anyone as Pakeha.
Instead I call myself human, for which there is rarely a box. Alternatively I call myself a New Zealander or kiwi and if pressed will note my European extraction (two dutch parents and a EU passport counts).
-
the ability to translate specialist jargon for the lay-person without dumbing it down is rare and precious indeed.
So as one caught on the other side of this dilemma ... Sometimes the problem is not that I can't explain the concepts in English that the listener understands. But instead that the listener is unwilling or unable to let me know where I lost them.
As the resident evil genetic engineer (TM, patent pend.) in my circle of friends I've found myself having "the discussion" many times at parties, sometimes with people I've only met 30 seconds before (usually because someone I know has said come and talk to Bart he will explain it to you ...). This usually results in a long (and very boring) discussion of science, ideology and the meaning of life.
Over time I've learned to ask two key things, first did they really want to have this discussion or would they rather talk about cricket ... and second where do they want me to start.
That second question is key because I need to know if I have to explain what a gene is (which I can do and which most folks think they understand but probably don't really) or if I need to describe how breeding really works (as opposed to how 5th form science says it works).
I know I can't assume people will understand the jargon we use but it's no use translating that jargon into words that aren't understood anyway.
Essentially the only way I can explain the technical language involved in my science is if the listener is willing to engage in the conversation as well. If I say something they don't understand (likely) then they need to stop me and get an explanation.
Assuming they care at all, in which case we should have just talked about cricket.*
*Note I should add that I don't resent discussing this science stuff at all ... it is after all my passion :). I just know that not everyone shares that passion.**
** had to use a footnote, because apparently they are cool again.