“Farrar, Slater and George form the dark-triad of NZ blogging”

When you become known around political blogs some weird stuff pops up, but this would have to be one of the more bizarre  comments at The Standard from RedLogix:

Farrar, Slater and George form the dark-triad of NZ blogging.

Every interaction I’ve had with them confirms that essentially we are dealing with very real and harmful personality disorders.

Having lived with one for many years I can testify how very baffling, manipulative and damaging these people are. Normally over time they simply burn off so many people that their reputation is tattered and they are ‘ring-barked’. Isolated so as to cause the least harm, to others and ultimately themselves.

But to make matters much worse there are other people willing to use these damaged individuals for their own ends, which has only amplified and exacerbated matters. This story will not have a happy ending.

I’m puzzled about which people he thinks might try and use me for their own ends.

From the ‘dark triad’ link:

The dark triad is a group of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. The use of the term “dark” means evil and reflects the perception that these traits have interpersonally aversive qualities:

  • Narcissism is characterised by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy.
  • Machiavellianism is characterised by manipulation and exploitation of others; a cynical disregard for morality, and a focus on self-interest and deception.
  • Psychopathy is characterised by enduring antisocial behaviour, impulsivity, selfishness, callousness, and remorselessness.

All three traits have been associated with a callous-manipulative interpersonal style. A factor analysis carried out at the Glasgow Caledonian University found that among the big five personality traits, the trait of agreeableness is strongly absent in regards to the dark triad, while other traits such as neuroticism and a lack of conscientiousness were associated with some.

“Every interaction I’ve had with them” – I’ve had very occasional interactions with RedLogix online as far as I’m aware, and I doubt he has ever met me in person.

I find this blog diagnosis both amusing and puzzling. I won’t try to diagnose RedLogix but it makes one wonder where the heck  this bizarre post came from.

When blogging produces comments like this it’s just as well most of the public have no idea what goes on in the dark depths of political discourse. It’s often got little to do with democracy.

And here I am thinking all I am doing in my own small way is contributing to better political discussion and doing politics better.

PS: and being associated with Slater and Farrar like this is weird, I’m on a different blogging planet to them, my politics is quite different to Slater’s in particular, and I have strongly opposed Slater’s dirty approach to doing politics.

17 Comments

  1. kathy maddren

     /  November 3, 2014

    Gosh Pete !!! I am shocked to hear this.
    I thought you seemed pretty normal.
    What does that say about me ???

    • You’ll have to ask RedLogix, I’m not a psychologist (I’m not sure that he is either but hey, blogs are full of political experts so why not a few mental health experts.

  2. Mike C

     /  November 3, 2014

    This comes as no surprise to me, because I have always been a poor judge of peoples character. LOL.

  3. kaykaybee

     /  November 3, 2014

    Hehe – the insightful analysis of the perplexing pop psychologist. You have to admit though Pete that some of these more demented commentators in the echo chamber give us a damned good laugh. While I’m sure there are aspects of the broader narcissistic spectrum that may apply to any fanatical blogger , I fear it’s far too simplistic a label. I can’t speak to psychopathy, but a working knowledge of the arts of Machiavelli is practically a necessity for any successful politician,public servant or blogger for that matter to acquire.

  4. davestonyer

     /  November 3, 2014

    I’m wondering whether RedLogix was being autobiographical, chickened out of acknowledging it and picked some names at random!

  5. Take it with a grain of salt Pete.. your blog is fairly balanced.
    Some of the comments ?

  6. Ian McKinnon

     /  November 3, 2014

    Who would give a stuff what some deadbeat left-wing leech thinks?

    • I don’t really care about it but when there’s a concerted effort on the left to paint “the right” as “Dirty Poliitics” and the left is wonderful but underexposed to voters then I think it’s appropriate to put some of the dirtiness and shirtiness of the left on record.

      • kaykaybee

         /  November 3, 2014

        The activist left can frame “dirty politics” how they like Pete, they can try and “own the language”, they can blog emotively about it until their fingers blister – but the VOTERS know BS and hypocrisy when they see it, and we know how that worked out didn’t we. I’ve always felt the left underestimate the people’s discernment and intelligence. The left seem to be of the opinion people are ignorant and lack common sense. Most of us aren’t stupid and cynical language framing does not alter the fact we can spot BS and hypocrisy when we see it. What a surprise bloggers and journos talk to politicians and guess what – they even try to influence public opinion to match their own politics and ideology! The great unwashed decided that despite the book launch and the sea of fawning media lackeys that it was really just business as usual. Was it dirty politics? Perhaps it was – but even filthier were the:

        1):hacker/thief,
        2):the author Mr “Balance” Hager
        3):the hypocrites across the media baying for blood and shedding crocodile tears.

        Most voters had lived through 9 long years of H1 and H2 available on speed dial to their media pets. They’d seen deceit and cunning, endless Labour ministerial scandals and our socialist ubermeisters gouging expense accounts for personal satorial splendour, bouquets of flowers and 5 star rooms for lovers, porno movies, Paris side trips, tens of thousands of dollars spent on taxis – a government literally bleeding the taxpayer at every turn. We’ve seen them spending taxpayer money to take dig the dirt on Key, destroying the careers of leaders on the sniff of an affair and saying Nationla was run from Washington. Hell, we’ve even seen them ignore usual cross party democracy and amend electoral law to feather their nests and deprive Nats of funds.

        People know that at the same time Jason Ede was feeding Cam Slater info, his Labour equivalents were feeding their own stooges. As for thestandard, lprent and mickeysavage – they run a website that exists only to serve up propaganda on behalf of the Labour movement. We hear that some of their writers were public servants and that they wrote/write for a website which for a long time was even hosted on the Labour server.

        So, keep up your daily dose of hypocrisy over at thestandard, we’re watching your sanctimony and we’re much amused by your snivelling piety.

  7. Truly bizarre. I ran into RedLogix at the Standard ages ago, and he seemed pretty reasonable, nothing like some of the bottom feeders over there.

    I don’t see any of the dark triad characteristics in Pete, and if he was a narcissist I very much doubt that he’d put up with me arguing with him the way that I do.

  8. Brown

     /  November 3, 2014

    I can’t work this out but its nice to be noticed. You endorsed gay marriage so what on earth can the problem be? Is there another cause that we are unaware of?

  9. coffee_now

     /  November 3, 2014

    @Pete George – “…when there’s a concerted effort on the left to paint “the right” as “Dirty Politics”…”

    There certainly is.

    What gets me is the *hypocrisy* of people like Nicky Hager. He obtains hacked (stolen) information and writes a book using it (making lots of money from a criminal act) and yet when the *police* search his home perfectly legally (with a warrant) he gets all grouchy and tetchy and whiny!

    What sickens me even more is that people have donated tens of thousands of dollars to the guy. Unbelievable.
    It’s a strange world, it really is……

    • What I’m not sure about yet is whether Hager was a willing participant or if he’s been used by whoever was behind the campaign.

      And I think there’s doubts over whether the hacker chanced upon some interesting emails or if it was a premeditated and targeted attack.

      I’m more inclined to believe it was at least partly planned but they wouldn’t have been certain about what they would find. One reason for thinking this is in the foreword of his book Hager says “The origins of this book can be traced to a political event in October 2013” (the Len Brown story). The hacking (of Slater) was in late January this year.

      • Mike C

         /  November 3, 2014

        So Hagars book foreword, was kind of a “Hat Tip” to the Mayor of Auckland.

        The plot is definitely thickening Pete 🙂

    • In defence of Hager, the information wasn’t stolen (Slater didn’t lose posession of it) and IMO the police were acting under a false warrant – witnesses have no obligation to assist the police in a prosecution. Hager was a soft target and in his case the system made a pig of itself.

      • coffee_now

         /  November 3, 2014

        “In defence of Hager, the information wasn’t stolen.”

        That may well be so. That still seems to leave receiving and violation of privacy.

        Receiving – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0039/latest/DLM200200.html

        Quote –
        “246 Receiving

        “(1) Every one is guilty of receiving who receives any property stolen or **obtained by any other crime**, knowing that property to have been stolen **or so obtained**, or being reckless as to whether or not the property had been stolen or so obtained.”

        I’m sure “any other crime” includes hacking. That just leaves the question of whether data is “property”.

        I’m sure “violation of privacy” is a crime too but I’m too lazy to look up the statutes for that.

        • For Hager to be guilty of receiving under the Act there has to be a crime. Although hacking is described in the Crimes Act, this doesn’t make it a crime. The Crimes Act doesn’t define what crime is, it defined acts (which are mostly crimes) that are prohibited by the state.

          In Slater’s case the the hacker managed to defeat Slater’s security and copy his emails & other messages, which didn’t directly cause Slater any injury. If the hacker violated Slater’s rights then the police violate people’s rights whenever they are searched without consent.

          Privacy isn’t a natural right. It may be a civil right, but that doesn’t mean anything unless the hacker was bound by the legislation, which shouldn’t be assumed.

          Also, data typically isn’t property because an essential quality of property is exclusive possession.