Weka and naming bullshit

One of the most irrelevant and stupidest references I’ve seen to me, seeming to imply I have ‘set up’ an abrasive thread on Open Mike at The Standard (I haven’t commented there for nine months).

Weka:

FFS you lot, is it going to be like this all day? Really?

Muttonbird:

I called out abusive language directed at another member.

Public service innit?

Weka:

Looks like you want to fight RWNJ and/or trolls rather than discuss politics. I think there are better ways to do that if you want it to also be a public service.

Perhaps Weka has changed her approach, she has been involved in a quite a bit of fighting over the years. Good on her if she has decided to try and promote less vitriolic discussions.

But her references to Right Wing Nut Jobs and trolls (typical tactic at The Standard to try and shut unwelcome visitors out of discussions) suggests she hasn’t changed much.

b waghorn:

I seem to remember it getting like this last year at about the same time, its caused by the lack of fresh meat to feed them.

Weka:

It did seem like a bit of a feeding frenzy this morning.

Plus I suspect the sexual offending one is a set up. Cue post from Pete George saying that the standard supports child pornography watchers.

Having just frowned on the quality of discussion Weka suggests it was caused by a set up and implies it could have been me , and then makes a stupid suggestion, even by her standards.

I note that anyone deemed a RWNJ or troll by Standard vigilantes who  posted ‘the standard supports’ there risks being attacked, abused and threatened with a ban, but Weka seems exempt from moderation.

Later Weka said:

I don’t have a problem with calling out bullshit. It was more just that I came onto OM this morning and it was full of bickering. Naming bullshit is one thing, arguing about it endlessly is another. I know how easy it is to get sucked into that, do it myself, but it was just a bit much and I thought it might be good to name it and see if it changed.

At least she acknowledges “I know how easy it is to get sucked into that, do it myself”.

But things haven’t changed much when she tries to blame it on RWNJs and trolls and then dumps on me.

So I’m calling out her bullshit.

If she really wants a better way of doing things she could try apologising for making a shitty insinuation about me knowing that I have no right of reply at The Standard – I’m banned from naming their bullshit there.

Leave a comment

23 Comments

  1. Pickled Possum

     /  14th January 2016

    Clicking onto a post at the standard feels like you have just come across a heated domestic dispute between so called friends that really just hate each other and all the sane people and there are a few, with sane views are lost in the fog.
    The moderation is like teachers trying to mark their students papers with helpful story length comments in bold lettering just in case you don’t get the hint that you are as thick as a brick.
    The put downs are just never ending rubbish and why they are called left leaning I will never know they do more harm to the LP than any RWNJ will ever do.
    Being banned from there is good for your health

    Reply
    • Kevin

       /  14th January 2016

      I’ve been banned at least four times there so my health must be great!

      The last time I got banned there was for something I didn’t even write but what a judge wrote. I could just imagine the world’s greatest sysop and legal expert sitting on his fat ass thinking he’s calling me stupid, ignorant and liar when all the while he’s talking to a judge.

      The thread that his thread refers to is as funny as hell (apart from the subject matter of course). Kiwiblog a hate site? FFS.

      Reply
      • Missy

         /  14th January 2016

        Kevin, over at TS they are like those indoctrinated animals that have certain reactions to specific stimuli – they see one word (in this case Kiwiblog) and immediately jump to their indoctrinated / pre-programmed response, which means that they actually don’t really look at the contents of what is being debated. What they have done with their stupid attacks is divert the discussion away from something that is more serious.

        Reply
  2. Robbers Dog

     /  14th January 2016

    “I’m banned from naming their bullshit there.”

    And the irony of that Pete is that despite that you allow Prentice an opportunity to voice his opinions here. Something that would lost on the rude, shouty types that haunt the confirmation bias echo chamber that ‘The Standard’ is.

    Reply
  3. Missy

     /  14th January 2016

    This comment from Weka is very interesting: “Plus I suspect the sexual offending one is a set up. Cue post from Pete George saying that the standard supports child pornography watchers.”

    A couple of points on that.

    1. it is almost like a ‘get in first’ attitude – she is setting up the idea that Pete will do a post, so if he does she can point the finger and say ‘told you so’ and start playing at them all being victimised and bullied, and so on – Pathetic really.

    2. It is interesting that she thinks the thread on the child pornography was a set up, I would be interested in how it was a set up, it was TS ‘non RWNJ’ regulars who showed the most support for the inadequate sentencing of the man convicted of having thousands of images of child sexual abuse – MS even referred to him as a ‘poor sap’ and indicated that having the images was less than if he had conducted the abuse.

    3. By implying Pete would do a post saying that TS supports child pornography it looks to me like Weka appears to be acknowledging that some at TS reacted in a way to this that most normal people on the street would be surprised at. She really needs to look at what was written, and think about it. Though she is wrong I don’t think TS supports child pornography, but I do believe some at TS don’t see child pornography as being child abuse – but there are always victims, and the children in the images are being abused and exploited, and those viewing those images are perpetuating that abuse and exploitation, and some at TS do not equate that with being the abuser.

    Overall this looks to me like a pathetic attempt to try and divert attention from comments that minimised the possession of thousands of images of child sexual abuse, but is she trying to divert because she agrees with MS and his views, or because she knows he is wrong and doesn’t want too much attention drawn to it.

    Reply
  4. kittycatkin

     /  14th January 2016

    These are sad, sick people with not enough to think about; they are piteous. These sites seem to attract society’s misfits (stating the obvious here, I know) -heaven knows what they did before computers were invented. Or what they do when there are outages. I wonder what they’re like in real life, if they have one, but am glad that I don’t have to know any of them.

    Reply
    • Kevin

       /  14th January 2016

      They drive out and ban people like NorthShoreDoc and Gormless yet allow nut jobs like Chooky +100 and bullies like OAB free reign, lol.

      Reply
  5. kittycatkin

     /  14th January 2016

    If you haven’t been there for that long, Pete, these people are going look like fools if anyone tries to track your supposed remarks and finds that they don’t exist.

    Any volunteers to ask innocently where these are, as they can’t find them ? (gutlessly keeps own hands down)

    Reply
    • Pickled Possum

       /  14th January 2016

      @ KCK oh why even bother going to the most boring site in cyber space to ask a question we already know the answer to
      as Benjamin the wise one often says
      “Life will go on as it has always gone on—that is, badly.”

      Reply
  6. Are you banned, Pete? I may be out of the loop, but I thought you were welcome back if you were contrite about some bullshit or other you posted on TS ages ago.

    Weka was suggesting you might post here YourNZ about the ‘child porn’ thing, not that you instigated that specific debate on TS’s open mike. To be fair, you do like cherry picking comments from TS and turning them onto posts here, so it’s not a particularly off beam suggestion.

    Kevin, as I recall, you actually were banned for what you wrote on that occasion . If I remember correctly, you wrote quoting a judge talking about a legal issue that TS (and Your NZ) have to be very, very careful about.

    Reply
    • Kevin

       /  14th January 2016

      Lolz, all I did was organise passages from a judge’s decision under headings. If you want to call that writing something, be my guest 🙂 And I purposefully didn’t add my own comments because I knew the world’s greatest sysop and legal expert would cut and burn it anyway. I mean he does have a habit of banning anyone who says anything even remotely negative about Kim Dotcom or haven’t you noticed?

      The point is I got banned for something that somebody else said. And that person was a judge!

      As for being careful, yeah nah. The laws regarding defamation are quite clear. Truth is an absolute defence and so is honest opinion so long as you can back it up (e.g. a reasonable person could form the opinion). But anyway is The Standard really that scared of Kimble? Whaleoil certainly isn’t. Or is there something else going on?

      Reply
    • Yes I’m banned, and I’m not going to be contrite about “some bullshit or other I posted. And you know well enough what happens when I comment there, I get swarmed and then get accused of disruption.

      “To be fair, you do like cherry picking comments from TS and turning them onto posts here”

      Ah, that’s how many blogs work. It’s called quoting. If I didn’t cherry pick I’d be accused of copying and pasting everything.

      “so it’s not a particularly off beam suggestion” – yes it is a particularly off beam suggestion. If someone deemed a troll or RWNJ suggested something like that about an author at The Standard without any evidence it would typically be demanded or a ban would be dished out.

      Reply
      • Kevin

         /  14th January 2016

        “To be fair, you do like cherry picking comments from TS and turning them onto posts here”

        It wasn’t even you who originally highlighted the thread – it was a commentator here who did, as was their right to do so.

        Reply
      • Hey, fair enough. Withdrawn. As I said I appear to be out of the loop on that banning.

        “If I didn’t cherry pick I’d be accused of copying and pasting everything.”

        Mind if I cherry pick that one for later? 😉

        Reply
        • No problem. Cherry picking, or quoting pertinent bits rather than whole threads (that Open Mike is currently 199 comments) is normal. If you link to the source people can make up their own minds whether the cherries are fair or not.

          Reply
  7. kittycatkin

     /  14th January 2016

    If you’re banned, how did you make remarks there ? Or have I missed something ?

    Reply
  8. Timoti

     /  14th January 2016

    Get with the play or stay away, Kittystein.

    Reply
  9. kittycatkin

     /  16th January 2016

    I was under the impression that Pete was being abused for non-existent remarks. That’s why I said that about supposedly making remarks.

    Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  16th January 2016

      I made a lapsus linguae that I corrected as soon as I realised that I’d made it.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s