Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[wizard of Tauranga]

Don't attack libraries

Sorry, I live in the internet era…

Once upon a time people complained when they took away the stone tablets and got those paper things as well.

 

[John Nick]

Sorry, I live in the internet era…

Once upon a time people complained when they took away the stone tablets and got those paper things as well.

A lot of people don't have those capabilities.

 

[Inruin]

Ridicule the topic to deflect. Btw not funny no matter how many laughing emojis is your go to.
We see your true colours shining thru

Yeah I will. Because it's the same stuff ad nauseum. No answers to any actual questions. And who are you to tell people what they find funny or not? Get over yourself mate. It's just a politics thread.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

A lot of people don't have those capabilities.

Yep, we’ve lost the ability to use stone tablets now!

 

[Inruin]

Authoritarians/Fascists/Wiz don't like educated folks and don't like people to get educated. They'd rather keep them in slavery

And this is the person complaining about misrepresenting what he says.

 

[Rick O’Shay]

‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌
‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌Some perspective from Chris Trotter ‌ ‌‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

	Are You A leftie? ​ THERE WAS A TIME when a leftist’s definition of “leftism” corresponded pretty closely to everybody else’s definition. The term identified a coherent worldview – to the point where knowing where someone stood on one issue enabled them to predict with surprising accuracy where they stood on a host of others. If a person was opposed to the death penalty, then the chances were high they were in favour of free speech. If they believed in the closed union shop, then they probably also believed in the public ownership of natural monopolies like power and water. It wasn’t easy being a left-winger – especially during the Cold War – but it was remarkably easy to define one. Today, the term “left-winger” is applied to persons holding an impossibly diverse and self-contradictory set of beliefs. From the traditional leftist who insists that the content and direction of politics should be dictated by science; to the contemporary “leftist” who insists that: “Trans women are real women.” From left-wing parties determined to reinvigorate the public sector; to “left-wing” parties with neoliberal economic agendas indistinguishable from those of their right-wing competitors. From leftists who stand firm on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; to “leftists” who insist that “Hate Speech” be criminalised. The use of scare quotes is, of course, intended to communicate the author’s rejection of the term leftist being applied to any person or party guilty of rejecting science, endorsing laissez-faire capitalism, or favouring the ideologically-driven restriction of their fellow citizens’ freedom. There is one more test for determining whether or not one is a leftist – the History Test. If the study of history is reduced to little more than a search for evidence of the crimes of pre-ordained “enemies” and “oppressors”, then by no means can the “historians” doing the searching be accurately described as left-wing. Indeed, those attempting to harness history to ideology are much more likely to be radical nationalists than radical democrats. Always remember that another name for radical nationalism is “fascism”. Leftists underserving of scare quotes regard history as a teacher, not a prosecutor; as a well, not a syringe. Ideology retreats before history in the way that contaminated judgement retreats before the advance of uncontaminated evidence. Nothing gives away fake “leftism” more irretrievably than its deliberate falsification of history in the name of “social” or “national” justice. And word or two needs to be inserted here to distinguish “leftism” from its numerous component ideologies: social-democracy, socialism, communism and anarchism. In brief: social-democracy seeks to significantly restrict the size of the capitalist marketplace; socialism attempts to extinguish the capitalist marketplace altogether; communism promotes a state dedicated to operationalising the principle “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”; and anarchism seeks to eliminate the state altogether. As the world discovered, socialism and communism, precisely because they both sought to replace the economic and social structures with which most human-beings were familiar, provoked a great deal of resistance. In crushing that resistance, the socialists and communists were increasingly driven to rely on state-directed repression and terrorism. Consequently, the states which emerged from these struggles, although proudly describing themselves as socialist democracies, were in fact the cruellest of tyrannies, far removed from the emancipatory well-springs of the radical-democratic project called leftism. That word, “emancipation” is crucial to a proper understanding of leftism. In societies where power and wealth are distributed in such a way that huge numbers of people are rendered economically, socially and politically defenceless, freeing the oppressed naturally takes political priority. The working-class, whose subsistence depends upon permitting the tiny capitalist minority who pays them to appropriate the “surplus value” of its labour. Women, denied their rightful share of life’s bounty by the systemic and oppressive violence which characterises societies dominated by men. Diverse ethnic communities, economically and culturally subjugated by those who claim superiority over all other ethnicities and who have shaped their societies to reward their prejudices. LGBTQI+, discriminated against because their behaviour challenges society’s gendered norms. One way or another, all these groups seek emancipation. Leftists are committed to making a world fit for free people to live in. But, the emancipatory movement cannot accommodate those who are only able to celebrate one group’s freedom by taking it from another. The expectation, always, among leftists, is that liberty enlarges us. That striking-off a person’s shackles not only frees the person who wore them, but also the person who fastened them in the first instance. A fair redistribution of wealth and power ultimately liberates the capitalist as well as the worker. By ceasing to be men’s slaves, women make it possible for men to cease being their masters. The emancipation of the queer marches hand-in-hand with the liberation of the straight. Only by freeing the oppressed can the oppressors themselves become free. Slavery invented the whip, only freedom can make it disappear. Applying these ideas to the salient political issue of the hour – how best to protect and/or give expression to Te Tiriti o Waitangi – where are the leftists to be found? Are they located at the side of those Māori who insist that Te Tiriti is sacrosanct, and must remain inviolable? That the descendants of those who signed the document 184 years ago – Māori and Pakeha – have no right to interrogate its meaning and relevance in the Twenty-First Century? The answer can only be “No.” To treat Te Tiriti in this way is to fetishise it and, by doing so, eliminate its power, as a living document, to serve the New Zealand people. It would also entail ignoring the historical fact that notions of the Treaty of Waitangi’s intentions have changed radically over the years. Even worse, it would require leftists to turn a blind eye to the blatant revision of the Treaty’s meaning and purpose by Māori-aligned historians and jurists to facilitate the ideological aims and objectives of Māori irredentism. If the leftist’s goal is emancipation, then the leftist’s role in this issue is to open up the space for a respectful, but open-ended, national debate on Te Tiriti – beginning, ideally, with the ideas contained in Margaret Mutu’s and Moana Jackson’s “Matike Mai Aotearoa”, and the controversial “He Puapua Report”, and expanding outward from there. To attack the idea of progressing a national debate on New Zealand’s “foundation document” is to expose oneself as someone who elevates ethnic identity above democracy, and, in the context of the current “official” understanding of Te Tiriti, honours the concept of “rangatiratanga” (chiefly leadership) above the democratic rights of individual citizens. Set within the context of the last 100 years of world history, these beliefs could not be defined, even vaguely, as left-wing – quite the reverse in fact. ​ ​

‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

 

[John Nick]

Yep, we’ve lost the ability to use stone tablets now!

Your lack of empathy for disabled people and those who have lost the ability to use the internet etc etc. is not actually putting you in a good light.
I know heaps of people from my time in Thames that the local library was their main focus on information.
Legal advice health systems..
Etc etc

 

[Juno]

Sorry, I live in the internet era…

Once upon a time people complained when they took away the stone tablets and got those paper things as well.

Echo chambers and rabbit holes are not education Wiz.
Just read a study ( sorry don't have the link atm but will find it) that comprehension relies on the written word not reading on a screen. Sounds odd when you think you read the written word on a screen but the point was comprehension goes beyond reading words.
The eye has a complex relationship with the brain - it doesn't just recognise words but it photographs whole pages as a unit and in your brain that gives you a wider context as to what is being said, a bigger picture that relates to the story, the whole book etc.
What screens do is make scrolling a part of people not being able to see or comprehend the whole picture, idea, or concept in its entirety. Same with math.
I actually agree with Luxon's proposal to have dedicated time (offscreen) in schools to turn that around...go figure!

 

[Inruin]

Yep, we’ve lost the ability to use stone tablets now!

Did you have books or ipads in your ECE centre?

 

[John Nick]

Did you have books or ipads in your ECE centre?

Just parchment

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Your lack of empathy for disabled people and those who have lost the ability to use the internet etc etc. is not actually putting you in a good light.
I know heaps of people from my time in Thames that the local library was their main focus on information.
Legal advice health systems..
Etc etc

What did I say about disabled people?

And i was joking about library’s! Close the council owned swimming pools instead there’s heaps of beaches!

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Did you have books or ipads in your ECE centre?

Books but my kids at school use devices.

 

[Juno]

What did I say about disabled people?

And i was joking about library’s! Close the council owned swimming pools instead there’s heaps of beaches!

Yeah, what beaces are safe to swim at?

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Echo chambers and rabbit holes are not education Wiz.
Just read a study ( sorry don't have the link atm but will find it) that comprehension relies on the written word not reading on a screen. Sounds odd when you think you read the written word on a screen but the point was comprehension goes beyond reading words.
The eye has a complex relationship with the brain - it doesn't just recognise words but it photographs whole pages as a unit and in your brain that gives you a wider context as to what is being said, a bigger picture that relates to the story, the whole book etc.
What screens do is make scrolling a part of people not being able to see or comprehend the whole picture, idea, or concept in its entirety. Same with math.
I actually agree with Luxon's proposal to have dedicated time (offscreen) in schools to turn that around...go figure!

We’re all reading this on a screen!

It’s no wonder we all struggle to comprehend the opposite sides point of view!

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Yeah, what beaces are safe to swim at?

Sorry, I don’t live in Auckland. The toilet bowl city can keep their public pools then.

 

[John Nick]

What did I say about disabled people?

And i was joking about library’s! Close the council owned swimming pools instead there’s heaps of beaches!

Typically your response is limited.
Plenty of disabled depend on libraries.

 

[Juno]

We’re all reading this on a screen!

It’s no wonder we all struggle to comprehend the opposite sides point of view!

Especially when they're just soundbites or selected words from a whole treatise on a subject

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Especially when they're just soundbites or selected words from a whole treatise on a subject

We lose context on devices as well.

I’m in a jovial mood and others on here are taking everything so literally and seriously

 

[John Nick]

We lose context on devices as well.

I’m in a jovial mood and others on here are taking everything so literally and seriously

We lose context on devices as well.

I’m in a jovial mood and others on here are taking everything so literally and seriously

True. Unfortunately devices aren't very good in the explanation of your mood

 

[MrFrankWhite]

If they are doing productive jobs, even just doing jobs the councils or govt currently do, you could save money. Could be clearing bush for DOC; working for charities in food kitchens; extra set of hands as teacher aides in schools; etc. win/ win. And compliance would be minimal, don’t turn up don’t get paid

Lel.

Cool so now you’ve distorted the work for hire market, the bush cutting businesses, hospitality workers. All for what? To penalise people so you can feel better.

The shallowness of the calculations always shows cost as a cover for punishments. Also again with the contradictions. You love claiming govts just waste, but then claim govt could run a labour hire company on top on administration and enforcement?!? Mate tell em they’re dreaming.

Next you have all the second order effects. What’s the school and health outcomes for kids with both parents committed this forced labour? How many generations to break the welfare cycle?

It might not be palatable but it’s the facts.