The floggings will continue until polls improve

‘One Anonymous Bloke’ had seemed to have reduced their targeted harassment at The Standard for a while but they are back to their practice of repeated abuse and smears, with little or no attempt made to address arguments other than attempting to discredit people deemed to be from the wrong political tribe.

Not a good look for (I think) a Labour Party activist.

From one thread on Who is behind the New Zealand Initiative? – many aimed at one person, but also generally against liberalism and the ‘right wing’.

Yes, even her closest victims noticed the massive gulf between Libertard and Earth.


To argue against it, all you have to do is notice that the closer to Libertarianism any country gets, the more slaves there are: the actual real world effects of your fatuous notions are the exact opposite of the rhetoric you espouse.


In North Korea, the Soviet Union and China, the weak prey upon the strong just as they do in New Zealand Singapore and Hong Kong.

Libertarianism favours the strong, and right now, in New Zealand, the number of children living in poverty – comparing apples with apples, has doubled since 1984.

In so many ways you have utterly failed to grasp, poverty is violence. Whom will you inflict your vile creed upon next?


Witless gimps mouthing platitudes such as “no intelligent company director would kill their own workers”. Flailing incompetence in possession of dogma and a ministerial warrant.


Why are voluntary activity and trade your cherry-picked benchmarks, when I specifically mentioned health and safety? Your opinions – and the incompetence they foster – depend on you never knowing the “ins-and-outs”.

The real world doesn’t conform to the crackhead’s twisted vision. Pay it no mind.


It was trash like you. Own it, get some personal responsibility then fuck off to Randistan.


This is one of the reasons you’re known as trash: poverty doesn’t offend you, but harsh language! Oh! The humanity.

Weka defends this string of abuse (so her understanding of the toxic nature of this behaviour was short lived):

“is abuse not moderated here?”

Only where it’s pointless or flamming. Read the Policy (at the top of the page).

OAB again:

I’d remembered it as 2.7%. It makes no difference to the basic point: poverty is violence, imposed upon the poor, and your rote-learned dogma blames the victim.


Nope, just one you disagree with, and that’s the extent of your contribution.

Meanwhile, if Ayn Rand bludges on Medicare while snorting crack in a forest, will a Libertarian ever have anything other than empty rhetoric to show for it?


Empty rhetoric, and flaccid ad hominem tantrums. Meanwhile, my life is fine: warm house, good relationships, rewarding work,

Got anything substantive to say, trash?

Full of irony – it’s common for online bullies to accuse others of what they are guilty of.

Imitation: not merely the sincerest form of flattery, also the only weapon in a Rand-parrot’s arsenal 😆


Nobody forced her to choose the USA over Somalia.


How does someone ‘harm’ another person through peaceful exercise of economic power?

By switching off their electricity, for example. By raising the rent. By attacking the incomes of lowest paid workers. By espousing Objectivist gibberish while holding the office of Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

By not realising that Grey’s Law is talking about you.


And then, the next thing you know, the Talley’s employed practical Libertarian principles and put the ethical competition out of business.

Paging Dr, McGrath, it’s time for your reality check.


No. Surely you’re familiar with the admiring tones of your beloved crackhead’s paean to William Hickman.


Wonder no longer: they pretend poverty is a result of poor choices because they’re pretending their personal good fortune is a reflection on their character and competence.

It’s self-serving confirmation bias parroting the ravings of a crackhead. Interesting from an anthropological perspective and that’s it.


There really is no equivalent progressive think tank.

Quite true: the Left has peer review.

I’m peer reviewing OAB’s behaviour because the left seem to be remiss.


Universities, scientists, and other reality-based researchers.

A rare non-attacking comment. Then on to some TS infighting.

Putting words in mouths and thoughts in minds. Stop projecting your feeble misanthropy: you’re boring.

Yes dear.

“The worst possible system apart from all the other ones” – does that phrase ring a bell in this context, Weka? It should, because I’ve employed it in answer to CV’s feeble projections enough times.

Another non-attacking response, but a general attack on ‘the right wing’.

That isn’t quite what I meant.

Right wing “think tanks” exist solely because fact-based research invariably debunks right wing reckons, so they need to invent a bunch of bullshit to avoid saying “make our donors richer now!”. What use is such distorted sophistry to the Left?


patients and much of the media will never have access.

Depends what you mean. The Lancet, for example, is free. That isn’t the significant barrier to most, though: the barrier is study, or to put it another way, ignorance. Railing against ignorance is futile: no-one can know everything.

Anyone can apply the scientific method, though, or how would right wing lies ever get debunked?


The reason the Right needs think-tanks is that they can’t handle the truth: I’m quite happy to derive left-wing facts from peer-reviewed journals, thanks.

At a time when the Rights’ attacks on education are doing serious harm, the left’s job is to first defend, and then repair our schools and universities, not compete for funding.


The same as for anyone else: great leaps forward have occurred and some steps back.

25 comments on a thread of 200 – standard tactics of abuse and  attempts to discredit until they drive away views deemed to be alternative, followed by generalised attacks on the right.

OAB’s resident trolling is typical of the left’s stepping backwards. This is why the left and The Standard are not taken very seriously.

An intolerance of any non-tribe contributions, critical thinking or debate, with sustained harassment a common tactic supported by others openly (as per Weka) and supported by a lack of intervention by site moderators.

But it looks is unlikely to change. One Anonymous Bloke has been doing this unrestricted for years.

The floggings will continue until polls improve.

OAB abuse and harassment continued

The Standard Rules begin:

We encourage robust debate and we’re tolerant of dissenting views. But this site run for reasonably rational debate between dissenting viewpoints and we intend to keep it operating that way.

What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others. We are intolerant of people starting or continuing flamewars where there is little discussion or debate.

But ‘One Anonymous Bloke’ seems to be exempt from rules there. This is from just one thread yesterday:

Norway, you tiresome fuckwit.


Yes: social democracy is the most successful political system that has ever been tried. Your flaccid attempts to smear say something about you and nothing whatsoever about your targets.

It’s worthless and tiresome and a perfect expression of everything the National Party represents.


Your allegation is a smear, motivated by hate, which has left you so twisted by bias you can’t even find a list of social democracies.

Irony that OAB may be oblivious to.

That’s funny, coming from someone whose fatuous smears are copied directly from Gosman.

More irony.

When did you stop pashing Augusto Pinochet’s corpse?

You see how this works? Shall we have a “debate” according to your witless point-scoring wank system? You seem to think you can demand answers of people, and I’m here to tell you that Pinochet pashers like you deserve jack shit.


How typical of a Pinochet pasher to hate a system that increases literacy and decreases child mortality. I guess literate healthy people are harder to abduct and torture to death.


It’s very simple: do you support throwing people out of helicopters into the sea? And when did you stop fucking your pet pig?

Is this witless pigfucker argument the best you can do, Pinochet-pasher?

Speaking of cancelling election results, ECAN. Do you support the anti-democratic actions of the NZ Prime Minister? You do, don’t you: so you’re in no position to be looking askance at Venezuela, because you support a government that appoints cronies, cancels elections, and can’t even get literacy and child mortality right. You poxy hypocrite.

Meanwhile, the NZ Left has lots in common with social democrats the world over, and you haven’t got an answer to that other than to support torturers.


I’ve got nothing to say to a Pinochet pashing, election cancelling torture lover like you.

And the targeted harassment spreads across multiple posts. Also from yesterday:

One Anonymous Bloke

Possibly you’re a delusional lying piece of shit who thinks nothing of casual defamation.

This type of persistent harassment and abuse from OAB is typical, with impunity from the site rules. “What we’re not prepared to accept are pointless personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others” – except that they are prepared to accept this behaviour on an ongoing basis.

But perhaps OAB attacks aren’t pointless – the whole point of their presence at The Standard seems to be to with the intention of “excluding others”.

That’s sad, particularly as The Standard is one of the most prominent left wing forums.”We’re tolerant of dissenting views” is contradicted by regular behaviour to the contrary, particularly from One Anonymous Bloke.

It’s a bad look for left wing politics in New Zealand.

A pseudonym protection fallacy

There’s various reasons for maintaining a degree of anonymity online by using a pseudonym but there’s also some far fetched claims about the protection it provides.

One Anonymous Bloke at The Standard claims:

Once authors identities were known, they would be attacked physically and by other means. Abusive mail, phone calls, intimidation, and assault. Attacks on their employers and places of business.

Pseudonymity provides a measure of protection against centre-right thugs.

Lanthanide points out:

Given that a good number of the authors are already publicly known, surely if your claim here is correct, they will already have been suffering physical attacks, abusive mail, phone calls, intimidation and assault?

So, r0b, Lynn, Micky, ever had any of the above happen to you, or is OAB just takings things too far, as usual?

I’ve had more personal abuse and attempts at character assassination from OAB and others hiding behind pseudonyms than from people who openly identify themselves.

I think there’s far more of a problem online from anonymous and pseudonymous abuse than there is of people who’s identities are known.

It’s ironic considering OAB’s record of extensive harassment, lying and attempts to discredit people who comment openly under their identity while they hide behind their pseudonym.

A suggestion to OAB or anyone using a pseudonym – respect the privilege of reasonably free speech and conduct yourself as  you would if writing under your own name.

Be aware that at some stage your identity may become known and that your history could be linked to you.

And don’t be a hypocrite claiming you deserve protection while blatantly attacking others.

OAB follow-up

A follow-up to Dirty politics Standard style.

Even though his lying and abuse has been exposed One Anonymous Bloke hasn’t given up trying to have the last word, although it gets more and more lame.

  • Pete George

    OAB – so you either made a false assumption or dishonestly made up an accusation, then in any case turned it into a lie with a series of lies when challenged, and then you resorted to making dirty insinuations.

    Not a good look is it. You couldn’t get much lower or dirtier, but knowing you you’ll try.

  • One Anonymous Bloke


    You can lash out angrily as much as you like, Petty (although puce and beige don’t really mix), my position won’t change :lol:

His position is he made an accusation against John Key, David Farrar and NZ Herald and refused (aka couldn’t) backn itn up with any proof.

The rolling eyes emoticon is a lame attempt at dissing me that’s been tried for a year or two.

Bullshitting bullies always seem to have trouble dealing with being calmly held to account and exposed.

Expect him and others to start grizzling about me posting about it here. But it’s what I do and there’s nothing he can do about it.

He lies and abuses under protection of Standard management, knowing that responses are under threat of being censored or of responders being banned. Standard gutlessness of blog bullies. And then whinges when alternate guns are fired.

If OAB doesn’t like being exposed they shouldn’t lie and abuse so much.