Standard negativity post-Key

John Key’s resignation is Labour’s best opportunity in eight years to turn things around and look like a better governing option.

But going by reactions at The Standard left wing negativity is entrenched.

It’s understandable that there will be some jubilation about Key’s exit from Government, but most of the reaction at The Standard has been an attack on Key and his legacy and his party.

They’re dancing on Key’s grave before he has checked into the political hospice.

Before Key’s announcement it Labour and Green and Mana had been on virtual life support at The Standard, with only an occasional beep from the heart monitor – there was some joy after the Mt Roskill by-election win on Saturday.

But come Monday, before Key’s announcement, he was the only post focus:

Since then the Standard posts have been:

Even their two Daily Review posts featured Key images.

Absolutely nothing on Labour, Greens and the door opened to their opportunities next year.

Ironically ex-Standard author Te Reo Putake, a Labour supporter and Andrew Littler promoter and fan, asked to post a positive Labour/Little/Opposition here – Key to the Kingdom. He has been banned from The Standard following a civil war.

Key’s resignation is the best gift to Little and Labour (and the Greens) for a decade.

But the Greens and especially Metiria Turei have put most of their efforts into criticising and attacking Key, when he is no longer a political threat. Winston and other NZ First MPs have attacked Key. This sort of negativity is reflected at The Standard.

National are vulnerable. The public will have an extra  look to see who they think can run Government competently.

And I see mostly see Opposition mud flying, still.It seems like a particularly stupid first impression post-Key to present to the public.

If opposition parties, and supporting online forums like The Standard, want to take advantage of National’s current vulnerability surely they can at least try to look better, rather than worse.

Is the left capable of being positive?

Debating Castro’s legacy

There have been contrasting responses to the news of the death of Fidel Castro. A hero who stood up to the US, or a brutal dictator? Both.

Wikipedia:

Castro is a controversial and divisive world figure.

He is decorated with various international awards, and his supporters laud him as a champion of socialism and anti-imperialism whose revolutionary regime secured Cuba’s independence from American imperialism.

Conversely, critics view him as a totalitarian dictator whose administration oversaw multiple human-rights abuses, an exodus of more than one million Cubans, and the impoverishment of the country’s economy.

Through his actions and his writings he has significantly influenced the politics of various individuals and groups across the world.

In Browning can’t understand why Cuban exiles are celebrating Castro’s death David Farrar points out  a Facebook comment of Green MP Stefan Browning.

I’m saddened by the death of Fidel Castro. He represented so significantly the battle against the worst of the forces of capitalist greed and the tyranny of oppression by the USA industrial military complex. Cuba has problems but its achievements and humanitarian reach have been significant too, especially considering the blockades and measures against it. I was disappointed by this Stuff announcement that has so much about those celebrating Fidel’s passing, when millions will be mourning.

Fans of socialism have turned a blind eye to some appalling un-democratic, authoritarian and brutal leaders.

Farrar comments:

I’m saddened by the fact an MP who has never had to live under an authoritarian dictatorship praises it so much and can’t understand who the hundreds of thousands who actually lived under it despised it.

Castro imprisoned gays, killed political opponents, tortured prisoners, censored the Internet, banned trade unions, made strikes illegal etc etc. But because he was an enemey of the US, Browning thinks he was a great guy.

Browning is attracting huge negative feedback on his Facebook page for his tears of sadness at the death of an authoritarian dictator.

Even on the left there has been a very mixed reaction to Castro’s death.

The Standard: Fidel Castro has died

Cuba is a unique place with some weaknesses and problems but with other features that are outstanding.

RIP Fidel Castro.

That was under the authorship of ‘Notices and Features’ so someone chose not to put their own name to it. There was some support and also harsh criticism of Castro’s legacy.

Martyn Bradbury: Rest in Revolution Fidel Castro

2016 has been a shit year, and it continues to find ways to keep killing off all my heroes, this time 2016 has managed to wrestle life from the Godfather of the Revolution, Fidel Castro…

…and the World lost an idea that common people could join together and fight the forces of Capitalism with weapons if need be.

A revolutionary hero just turned up at the pearly gates demanding a meeting with the workers – Rest in Revolution Fidel.

That must be the workers Castro didn’t torture or murder. It’s odd that Bradbury should suggest castro has arrived at the ‘pearly gates’ when thought that religious beliefs were backward and viewed the Roman Catholic church as ” a reactionary, pro-capitalist institution” (however Castro ended up organising a visit to Cuba by the Pope in 1998).

Is a Castro type revolution what Bradbury keeps trying to talk up for New Zealand?

Comments at The Daily Blog were also a mix of praise and condemnation.

 

 

 

CV’s ideal Labour

Colonial Viper has been under fire at The Standard lately because he is prepared to challenge the Labour status quo, and  establishment Labour activists don’t like their boat being rocked. CV has had his author rights removed and there have been a number of calls to shut him up at The Standard altogether.

CV is a past Labour candidate (2011 in Clutha/Southland), and as a party member has clashed with Clare Curran in Dunedin South.

His disillusionment with the current version of Labour is obvious.

Last night he summarised his ideals:

I’ll support Labour 100% and Andrew Little 100% if he:

1) States that it is time to turn NZ away from free market neoliberalism and apologises for the role the 4th Labour Government played in wrecking the country.

2) Says that there will be a total clear out of the no-hopers out of caucus, Labour Parliamentary staff and consultants who have led Labour to electoral losses over and over and over again.

3) Commits to transitioning the nation to a livable UBI and/or living minimum wage within Labour’s first term in government.

Give me a call when it happens.

It is actually common to see those ideals expressed by current and ex Labour supporters, although not usually together like this.

This is a similar sort of leaning to Jeremy Corbyn’s UK Labour, and to Bernie Sanders’ preferred style for US Democrats.

I see one big problem with this in New Zealand. If Andrew Little and Labour took this path they would only be representing a part of Labour, and that would struggle to be a half of the party.

The CV type Labourites want to ditch their centre and focus to the left. Another comment at The Standard yesterday, swordfish on ex Labour member Nick Leggett’s possible move to National:

Yep, absolutely a Blairite. Along with his good chum, Phil Quin, Leggett’s a core member of the extra-Parliamentary wing of the old ABC brigade, very close to Shearer, Goff and Shane Jones, has written for the on-line presence of the lavishly-funded Blairite ginger group, Progress, and so on. Utterly opposed to anything resembling true Social Democracy.

Some in Labour have been happy to see Jones, Goff and Leggett  leave the party, and want Shearer out too. They try to drive away any suggestion of centrism from their discussions.

But it’s more complicated than this. Colonial Viper has been labelled a Right Wing Nut Job because he has been challenging the Labour establishment.

Some in Labour seem to want to paper over the cracks, or chasms, and pretend they are a united major party.

Andrew Little seems to be caught in no person’s land. He has managed to dampen down public dissent in the Labour caucus, but not at The Standard – Little supporter Te Reo Putake was recently banned from The Standard in what looks like an uncivil war.

Little’s uncertainty and lack of confidence is hurting Labour, but so is the fractious bickering amongst the troops.

Can Labour continue as a single party? If they do and ditch their centre they are likely to continue to shrink.

Civil war at The Standard

There has been a civil war amongst authors at The Standard today, escalating to the extent that one moderator has banned another – which is kind of funny to me because both of them were happy to have me banned a week ago for doing nothing but participating civilly.

Censorship on ideological grounds and on personal grounds has been common as long as I have been a Standard watcher but I’ve never seen then turn on each other like this before.

Colonial Viper has been ruffling a few feathers there for a while, especially with his pro-Trump, anti-Clinton stances, and that seems to have got a bit too much for some on top of Trump’s win.

I’m not quite sure how it all came about today but weka’s feathers have waggled more draconially than usual, slapping a ban on fellow author and moderator Te Reo Putake after he clashed with her over a post of his that weka deleted.

It seems to have blown up from about here and went on to:

Te reo putake:

Thanks for destroying the post forever, chief censor weka. TS readers should not have filth like that put in front of them. And on a political blog, too!

What’s the world coming to when sensible right wing posts about why President Pussy is Really a Good Thing can’t be published on a left wing blog without being attacked satirically? I feeling faint just contemplating the horror of it all.

Better to burn a billion books than let people make up their own mind. Better to shoot a few cartoonists than let people smirk at the pompous and the precious having their vanities pricked in print.

Yes, there are some posts that are too tricky for the likes of TS readers. Sadly, there are a few of us who are sufficiently sophisticated to make the big calls. You’re doing wonderful work, weka. Pip pip!

[you are welcome TRP. But seeing as how you have brought this to the front end, let’s just be clear about what has happened today. There are now 6 authors in the back end who are in general agreement that both yourself and CV have been causing serious problems for the site over a long period of time and that something needed to be done about that. At this stage I will leave it to Lynn to explain what action has been taken if he wants to.

I didn’t censor your post, and I didn’t destroy the post forever. I removed the post off the front page until such time as the authors could decide if it was going to cause further problems. A copy of the post was and still is available. No-one thought that post should be published, that’s why it hasn’t been.

Please don’t tell lies about me again, it’s against the site rules to do so. Given that I started the day wanting to write a post about the quake and one about the deep sea oil exploration off the East Coast that is happening as we speak, and instead spent the afternoon running round putting out fires you and CV had set, I’m in no mood to have my time further wasted. We can do better than this. Thanks – weka]

Stephanie Rodgers:

I deleted the most recent version you attempted to post, not weka.

CV’s behaviour has been dealt with through the appropriate channels, which you refuse to engage with. It did not need to have gasoline poured on it, which was the only thing your “satire” was going to achieve.

Te reo putake:

You removed the post. That’s censorship. I have never lied about you. Nobody asked you to censor the post. That was all your own work.

You’ve removed the only extant copy of the post, so for all practical purposes, you have destroyed it.

However, you say a copy exists. I’d like a copy of the post. Can you please email it to me? Thanks.

[I deleted the post after you reinstated it to the front page from its Private status, and I offered a copy of the post in the back end. Banned 2 months for telling further lies about me and wasting moderators time at a time when we have all got more than enough to deal with. I’m not going to hash this out in the front end any further, you still have access to the back end and the authors forum, so you can use that if you want to. – weka]

Lanthanide (who posted a link to an archive copy of the deleted post:

[deleted]

[Two month ban for such flagrant stupidity] – Bill

Te reo putake:

To avoid the wrath of Bill, readers might like to pop over to https://tereoputake.wordpress.com/ where the matter can be discussed without ban hammery consequences.

Cheers, y’all. The Standard is broken. But it can be fixed.

It looks like it could take a lot of fixing given how intent on message control and commenter banning some of those involved are.

Related post and comments: I’m a Muslim, an Immigrant and I voted Trump

Another related post: I’m a Racist, a Hater of Women and a Bigoted Troll. But I didn’t vote Trump. Here’s Why.

This is all quite a sad look for The Standard, but not really surprising considering how they have long established history of moderator supported censorship and personal attack against anyone deemed a risk to their comfy bubble.

If ‘NZ’s leading left blog’ can’t handle some discussion amongst themselves, let alone allowing the free flow of a wide variety of views and inputs, then the left in NZ will continue to find a way to lead.

It appears that Colonial Viper has been “demoted from being an author on this site now” – by the collective he used to be a part of.

Standard abuse, same old

Only at The Standard – yesterday I engaged in a bit of discussion (with a Standard moderator) there about the Roy Morgan poll, and OAB jumped in with a typical and deliberately disruptive attack, a game they play often.

One Anonymous Bloke 

🙄

Not fucking your pet goat would be a start.

I quoted site rules “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.”

That intolerance is very selective.

One Anonymous Bloke

Step away from the goat and pull your pants up.

It’s a metaphor for your relentless weasel negativity and rank nauseating hypocrisy.

Typical irony, given OAB’s record of weasel negativity and hypocrisy.

Then Weka stepped in as moderator and gave OAB some advice on being attacking better.

[I know you see yourself as the frontline rapid attack dog against the RW trolls, but when you start scaring away the cats who are here for the debate (or to play with the mouse), or when you are leaving your dogshit lying around, then there is a problem. You are quite capable of ripping apart RW arguments, so how about you put some effort in.]

And I was told off for responding…

[did you see the moderator warning to you yesterday? By all means engage in escalating a fight with OAB (or anyone) and see how I feel about wasting moderator time – weka]

..and got blamed for ‘escalating a fight’. So I replied:

Weka – I saw your ‘moderator warning’ and responded. So you are blaming me for “escalating a fight” because I pointed out the site rules you asked me to check out yesterday?

Are you suggesting that if attacked here people should do nothing about it?

“in escalating a fight with OAB”, warned about wasting moderator time “don’t escalate esp in ways that require moderators to spend their time sorting it out” and banned for a day. OAB was also banned for a day but had achieved their objective with weka’s support they have both openly discussed baiting and banning people they don’t like.

Te Reo Putake also tacitly endorsed OAB’s attacks and put the blame on me:

[Give it a rest, Pete. You’ve been around long enough to know you’re heading rapidly toward self martyrdom. No more, please. TRP]

And weka went further, banning me.

[no Pete, I’m saying don’t escalate esp in ways that require moderators to spend their time sorting it out. If you don’t know what that means then err on the side of caution. You can now take the rest of the day off – weka]

I thought The Standard may have improved a bit but this shows their selective moderation is as bad as ever – some of their moderators are a part of the game. They’re enforcing a ‘don’t complain about being harassed or we’ll ban you’ rule.

TRP is a Labour supporter, weka is a Green supporter. They seem to have a Memorandum of Understanding with OAB that personal attacks are moderator supported behaviour at The Standard, and if you react you will be blamed and may be banned.

This had followed me commenting the previous day on Labour’s conference and their use of social media. Again I had engaged in a discussion with a Standard moderator when weka stepped in.

[There seems to be an implication there that The Standard is connected to the Labour Party organisation. As you well know it’s not, and I don’t care what you now assert about your comment, the implication is still there. Given your substantial history of asserting that there is a connection, and your history of walking the edge of the commenting rules here, I’m going to err on the side of caution and make this a warning. Have a think about the site rules, including the bit about wasting moderator time. – weka]

I responded:

Weka – you are reading something into my comments that wasn’t there. There are usually posts here about Labour conferences so I thought there might be something here about it – as there later was.

There are often posts here about specific Labour Party matters, like conferences. Some of the authors and some of the regular commenters have obvious and open links to Labour. That doesn’t make this a Labour Party website, it’s not, but it’s well known as one with some Labour content. And Green content, and Mana content, and other content.

If a moderator chooses to waste their time they can pretty much pick on anything they like to warn or ban. That’s your call of course. To clarify, are you warning me to not mention Labour here in case someone interprets it as something more than it is?

After yesterday’s exchange weka came back to this:

[no, I’m suggesting you grow some social intelligence and understand that your long history here affects how people interpret your comments, including your history of implying and/or telling lies about the connections between the authors, the site and political parties. IME, you are an expert in riding the edge of the rules to avoid bans but still manage to substantially disrupt the community. But thanks for pointing me back to this from the other thread, more than happy to moderate on the basis of self-martydom so I don’t have to deal with this shit for another week (and a day on top of the other ban) – weka].

Social intelligence – funny.

She accuses me of telling lies but makes things up. I don’t intend to ‘disrupt the community’. There is a history of ‘the community’ – of which weka has been a prominent player – creating disruptions as an excuse to give moderators an excuse to ‘waste their time’ so they can justify a ban. She’s a bit vague but that looks like an extended ban.

Petty and pathetic but that’s how some of them keep playing  it. And the credibility of The Standard as a serious political forum suffers, as does the credibility of the parties associated with those nasty and exclusionary practices.

Standard practice at The Standard.

I think that the bans are, in part at least, preventing any defence of their attacks. Weka is  making things up, and doesn’t have to courage to allow any challenges.

Standard gang bans CV 2/2

Yesterday Colonial Viper was singled out by  Standard moderator TRP to comply with ‘;site rules’ despite them often being ignored by regulars – see Colonial Viper’s “extreme right wing views” 1/2.

Tensions must have risen there later in the day. Apparently a pro-Trump post by CV has been deleted, and there is a claim on Clinton vs Trump: Debate 3 that “much of the thread has been removed”. And on that thread CV has been banned.

Leading up to it:

Colonial Viper 27.3

Hey Sabine, the US kept selling arms and Treasuries to Saudi Arabia during the Obama/Hillary Clinton years, and is providing military support in their war against Yemen. What’s the Saudi record on abortions and the treatment of women?

Sabine 27.3.1

Go away Colonial Viper.

go the fuck away. Go have your Donald Fucking Trump make America Great again just like Hitler made Germany great for a while.

In the name of all those that perished during the great fucking time of the third reich Fuck off.

In my books you are useless, you serve no purpose, you have no champion and that is why you want to see the world burn.

And just for what its fucking worth, the US American Women and girl have as much value as any other Women and Girl on this planet.

Fuck off.

Only a select few get away with that sort of attacking at The Standard. It is somehow seen as acceptable but expressing a different opinion is ‘bad behaviour’.

marty mars 27.3.1.1

+ 1 well said – Kia kaha

rhinocrates 27.3.1.1.1

Exactly. Don’t play his game. Call him out on his trolling and derailing.

weka 27.3.1.1.1.2

+1, 2, 3

Great response Sabine.

Some of the usual mob joins in.

Colonial Viper 27.3.1.2

Do you think Clinton will return the tens of millions of dollars that horribly misogynistic women stoning Gulf States like Saudi Arabia have donated to the Clintons (like Trump suggested), or will she keep all that money?

weka 27.3.1.2.1

Go the fuck away, man who supports and promotes a sexual predator and rapist into a place of power and then tries to make out he cares about women being abused in other places so that he can score political points.

Your constant derails are really, really obvious, CV. You have no answer for the fact that your preferred candidate is a vicious bully, a sexual predator, a liar, and an unrepentant misogynist.

Literally no one is saying, “Hillary is the best person in the whole wide world and has no flaws.”

But on the issue of protecting the rights of women, there is absolutely no fucking contest between Clinton and Trump.

Stop exploiting other women as meat shields to deflect attention away from that fact. You’re just making it more and more clear that fundamentally, your problem with Hillary Clinton stems from her gender.

Someone dared defend:

fender27.3.1.4

That’s just nasty abuse. CV may have been a loud Trumpet lately but he doesn’t deserve that.

But

weka 27.3.1.4.1

He’s trolling, repeatedly. And his politics are vile. I’m not talking about him thinking Trump should be president, I’m talking about the weeks of rape apology, support for fascism and oppression and then misusing women’s pain to score political points as he has just done in this subthread. If any RWer was doing this people would be all over them with far worse.

At some time during that CV copped his ban (that isn’t time stamped):

Colonial Viper 23.2.1.2.1

The Clintons and their big money donors use exactly the same tax write offs available in law as Trump’s companies do. They’re such hypocrites.

[No they don’t. Different parts of the US tax code as has previously been pointed out.

CV, you were asked to substantiate some other bit of bullshit earlier today and you ignored the request. The policy around responding to requests for cites was pointed out to you as was the section covering trolling. However, you seem relentlessly intent on posting provocative bullshit as often as possible, presumably to troll and start flame wars.

You posted earlier today that Hitler made Germany great again, which is either a sad admission of how far you’ve fallen or the most epic bit of trolling seen here at TS for yonks. Either way, it’s offensive, deliberately provocative and not conducive to civilised discourse.

Trolling, ignoring moderation, starting flame wars, wasting mod time. Lets call it a week. Come back next Friday. TRP]

That’s what can happen if you challenge Standard group think and dare to raise controversial issues.

Some discussion followed, which included some defence of CV.

In Vino23.2.1.2.1.4

TRP – he said Hitler BRIEFLY made Germany great again. I suggest you go look at a map of who held what in Europe in 1942, and see if CV was right.

There is nothing offensive about this, except in your eyes for some obscure reason. CV did not directly praise Hitler – yet you leap eagerly to the conclusion that he did so.

An impartial moderator should be impartial. You appear to have lost the ability to be dispassionate.

[CV didn’t get banned for a single instance. It was multiple issues, and he had already been warned about them. That is clear in the moderator’s note, please reread it – weka]

In Vino

Sorry Weka, but much of the thread has been removed, and in the note you refer me to, which, conveniently, is the only one left on the thread, TRP still makes this unjustified assertion:

“You posted earlier today that Hitler made Germany great again, which is either a sad admission of how far you’ve fallen or the most epic bit of trolling seen here at TS for yonks. Either way, it’s offensive, deliberately provocative and not conducive to civilised discourse.”

CV’s word ‘briefly’ is omitted. I hold that entire assertion in contempt, regardless of whether it has been uttered by a moderator.

Of course TRP won’t be required to retract and apologise.

weka

I’m not sure if anything has been removed. Most of the moderation before the ban happened in the Daily US discussion thread.

https://thestandard.org.nz/the-us-election-daily-discussion-post-2/

If you can be more specific about deletions please do so.

Irrespective of what one might think about TRP’s moderation style (and I have my own reservations), CV has been causing a problem, and IMO it was only a matter of time until he got a ban. He’s had one before for similar behaviour (in the winter?). I agree the omission of the word ‘briefly’ misrepresents what CV said and was a mistake for the moderator to say that. However even if a moderator got that one paragraph wrong, there are still enough other reasons to issue a ban.

Commenters pointing out mistakes is useful IMO, thanks for that. I disagree with your assessment of the overall issue with CV. As bad as his politics are to many, it’s his behaviour that has copped him the ban (IMO).

I have seen some fairly bad behaviour given a free pass over the years at The Standard, including from Weka and TRP. Especially when getting into mob attacks and trying to exclude views they want to gag. They and others have blatantly broken their own rules.

Bizarrely I was brought into the conversation.

rhinocrates

Nope, I’m not playing. Your trouble is that like your idol saying “Nobody respects women more than me”, you don’t make a very convincing feminist. The insincerity sticks out enough to be a hazard to aviation.

People see what you’re saying as trolling and deliberate distraction from the actual point that anyone’s trying to make.

You’re not actually trying to have an honest discussion, you just want to continue your narcissistic and spiteful little martyr’s game. Pete George lives in Dunedin. Call him and the two of you can have a pity party together. Take lots of chocolate.

weka

I was just thinking about PG and what happened when it got to this point with him as a troll and someone who was damaging the community. Methinks it’s time to adopt the same response.

They still obsess about me and I rarely bother commenting there now.

It’s sadly ironic for Weka to say “a troll and someone who was damaging the community” given how much she has been involved in shutting out opinions she disagrees with. She has been a prominent part of the mob censorship that the Standard is well known for.

I only have to comment once there for “the community” to pile in and disrupt the thread, and then blame me for it. Much like CV has been blamed, shamed and banned for annoying the perpetually annoyed.

I see The Standard as a symptom of the intolerance of the left, Labour and the Greens to anyone deemed an enemy of their group think and therefore labelled extreme right. One of the few things I have in common with CV politically, condemned and labelled because we express views beyond their narrow and bitter alleyway.

While the mob rules at The Standard they will fly a flag of discontent, intolerance and abusiveness.

A late comment:

weka

“When CV makes comment on social policy, I see them as left wing, not extreme right.”

His views on identity politics, and rape and rape culture suggest is he alt-right. His views on Trump suggest he is in some weird no-mans land, but I definitely wouldn’t call it left wing. His views on the political spectrum in NZ suggest he is centrist (hence his praise of Peters). And yes, some of his views are left wing. I actually think it’s not possible to know what he thinks now, because his naked hatred of the left clouds most of the things he says. It’s not him challenging the centre-left, it’s him burning bridges with every natural ally he has who doesn’t see the world in the way he does.

The recent accusations of him being right wing are a lot to do with his promotion of Trump. As I’ve said, it’s possible to have a left wing analysis of the groups of people in the US who’ve been disenfranchised and thus vote Trump, but CV insists on throwing others under the bus as he tries to do that and he actively supports the right at times.

In case that’s not clear, there is the problem with his political shift in the past year, and then there is his behaviour. I think we’ve reached the point of intolerance for both because of how they intersect.

“We’ve reached the point of intolerance” may be telling.

Colonial Viper’s “extreme right wing views” 1/2

Colonial Viper has been one of the most frequent and prolific commenters at The Standard for as long as I have been observing there. He has been quite provocative at times and has ruffled feathers often. Alternative views are often dumped on there.

Yesterday he was accused of having “extreme right wing views” and ended up copping a ban. He has been an author at The Standard but either may not have had moderation rights, or never exercised them. Regardless, he has been dumped on then dumped.

I have met CV once, during the 2011 election when he stood for Labour in Clutha. He seemed nice enough and was easy to talk to. Our political views are quite different but he has seemed willing to debate on a wide range of issues – and that is something that ‘The Standard’ has often been uncomfortable with from what I have seen.

CV has been annoying a few of the Standardistas lately due to his support of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. He has been more of a Sanders fan, but Bernie is now out of the running.

CV has strongly condemned Clinton on a range of issues – there is quite a lot that Clinton can be justifiably criticised for. But this and CV’s preference for Trump as the least worst candidate blew up at The Standard yesterday, with moderators Te Reo Putake (TRP) and Weka dumping on CV and ending up banning him.

Apparently a post by CV has been deleted, as have a number of comments. As far as i can see this is where it started.

Colonial Viper 6

Scott Adams: People who believe Trump is the new Hitler, have fallen for a Mass Delusion

Here’s a little thought experiment for you:

If a friend said he could see a pink elephant in the room, standing right in front of you, but you don’t see it, which one of you is hallucinating?

Answer: The one who sees the pink elephant is hallucinating.

Let’s try another one.

If a friend tells you that you were both abducted by aliens last night but for some reason only he remembers it, which one of you hallucinated?

Answer: The one who saw the aliens is hallucinating.

Now let’s add some participants and try another one.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152024526021/i-wake-you-up-for-the-presidential-debate

TheExtremist 6.3

Your other buddy in the Philippines is the one who likes to compare himself to Hitler

Colonial Viper 6.3.1

You still pushing for regime change in the Philippines? You should look up how many people the US sponsored Marcos got rid of during his term in power. And stop being so gullible to the corporate/imperial MSM.

TheExtremist 6.3.1.1

Yesterday I told you “no” when you asked if I supported regime change in the Philippines yet today here you are lying through your fucking teeth about what I said.

As to me “being so gullible to the corporate/imperial MSM” it was fucking Duterte himself, in his own words, that compared himself to Hitler.

So in one comment you flat out lied followed by smearing me as gullible for reporting on what someone actually said.

Can a mod please reign CV’s lies in? Isn’t flat out lying about someones POV, when they know they are lying, against policy somehow?

[It’s reasonable for a commenter to be asked to substantiate a claim. In this case, CV should do so or withdraw and apologise. TRP]

It’s not common for Standard commenters, especially regulars, to be asked to ‘withdraw and apologise’.

Colonial Viper 6.3.1.1.1

Oh, so now you now finally accept that Duterte is the legitimate and democratically elected head of the Philippines Government?

Good to hear. Last thing we need is the US starting destabilising regime change/colour revolution operations in the Asia Pacific.

TheExtremist 6.3.1.1.1.1

Please point to any comment where I a) supported regime change in the Philippines and B) refused to accept Duterte is the legitimate and democratically elected head of the Philippines Government.

It was only yesterday in a single place where I discussed Duterte so it should be easy for you. If you can’t you should withdraw. Otherwise you are just a liar.

(EDIT: Thanks TRP for the above)

Colonial Viper

I apologise and withdraw my comment – but believe that TheExtremist should also withdraw his BS about Duterte being my “buddy” unless he can substantiate some kind of friendship between Duterte and myself.

[Cheers, CV. Appreciated. I think it’s obvious that the friendship line is hyperbole rather than a claim of fact. Given that you’ve just stated your belief that Hitler made Germany great again, there’s probably no way you can be slandered now anyway 😉 TRP.]

TheExtremist

Now you’re just being silly.

Colonial Viper

Just as long as you are seen to be applying your rules equally to everyone TRP…

[Quite. But then, they aren’t my rules, they are the site rules. And your regular ad homs and unsubstantiated claims need to be seen in the light of some the first words in the Policy:

But TRP and others at The Standard have a long record of not applying ‘the site rules’ evenly. A few regulars there get away with break the rules frequently without repercussion.

The rules tend to be applied to remove opinions that challenge or oppose their group speak. And the rules are ignored when resident trolls try to abuse, discredit and drive away opinions and people that are deemed to be unwelcome.

“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.”

You are generously tolerated here, despite your extreme right wing views, but that doesn’t mean you have carte blanche to abuse the rules or, indeed, other commenters. TRP]

Labour people like Andrew Little and TRP seem to have something in common – if they disagree with people, especially ex-Labour party members and supporters, they label them things like “extreme right wing“. From what I have seen in general CV is far from extreme right wing, in fact he is closer to the opposite.

 

Post-truth and posting lies

‘Post-truth’ is contradicted on blogs which which often seem to post distortions and lies.

This is sometimes as the agents of political parties, or as volunteer lie posters who think they are helping a cause.

This can  be through deliberate attempts to mislead, but sometimes may be through ignorance, and some could be through an inability to interpret without prejudice.

Post-truth politics has been mentioned recently in the UK with the Brexit campaign and also in the current US presidential campaign where blatant lying has reached new lows.

lies

RNZ Toby

Wikipedia:

Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. Post-truth differs from traditional contesting and falsifying of truth by rendering it of “secondary” importance.

It has also come up in in a New Zealand context over the last few months.

  • Andrea Vance at 1 News: Opinion: A post-truth era in politics
    The campaigns of Donald Trump and the Brexiteers have been a triumph of emotional populism over cold, hard facts. In this distorted reality there are imaginary MSD squads flying in to help the homeless, and new emergency beds that already existed.
  • RNZ: Is a ‘post-truth’ era upon us?
    The government has shrugged off events and evidence contradicting claims made by ministers recently, frustrating many journalists. Are we really in a “post-truth” period where the facts don’t matter any more? If so, do the media share the blame?
  • RNZ: Toby & Toby on… post-truth politics
    The condition has also been observed in lands as distant as the Pacific paradise of Aotearoa New Zealand.
  • Stuff: Are NZ politicians joining the international tide of post-truth politics?
    But are we any different down here on the edge of the world? Is the New Zealand body politic keeping itself trim on a stern diet of facts and evidence, or are we, too, choosing the sugar-rush of anecdata, the greasy mouthfeel of a racist porky, the finger-licking goodness of unsupported rumour?

Is it getting worse in New Zealand? Politicians have probably lied since politicians. The Stuff article looks back:

As long as there’s been politics there have been lies. In Ancient Greece the Athenians talked about “demagogues” – rabble-rousers who appealed to emotion and prejudice rather than fact and reason.

In his deranged autobiography Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler spoke of the propaganda value of the “big lie”: saying blatantly untrue things so loudly and often that the populace can’t believe you’d have dared make it up.

In the past decade though commentators have been picking a new trend – not so much that lies are being told, but that the old counterbalances, research, empirical evidence – were losing their corrective power.

The immediacy of Internet reporting plus it’s reach and lack of checks and balances and commenting has contributed to lie spreading.

Jonathan Swift (1710): “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…”

Thomas Francklin (1787): “Falsehood will fly, as it were, on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps, though sure, are slow and solemn, and she has neither vigour nor activity enough to pursue and overtake her enemy…”

‘A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on’ and variants were used through the 1800s, and since.

Lying in New Zealand politics is more than suspected, with Winston Peters’ ‘NO’ sign from 2008 still being mocked. Surprisingly this isn’t mentioned on his Wikipedia page but the Parliamentary censure is: The Privileges Committee returned a report on 22 September recommending that Peters be censured for “knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests.

Posting lies on political blogs is a common accusation. A high profile case between Colin Craig and Cameron Slater is due in court next year to test claims of lies.

Whale Oil is well known for making claims that will never be substantiated, like:

And so it begins…

By Cameron Slater

Make no mistake, this is a deliberate undermining of Andrew Little by Twyford.

Post-truth in relation to blogging came to mind over the last few days with a string of questionable posts at The Standard.

Racist Nats Attack Chinese Grannies Shock!

Written By:

National have slammed the door shut on the parents of already settled migrants who wish to move to NZ to complete the family unit. Minister Michael Woodhouse accuses elderly Asians of bludging off the NZ taxpayer. You won’t believe the howls of outrage from the right!

The crime spike

Written By:

Who would have thought that a surge in homelessness would result in a spike in crime, and that a dramatic increase in the number of people with no or compromised housing situations would cause an increase in burglaries, robberies and assaults.

I see a poverty of ideas and a poverty of Government responsibility

Written By:

Judith Collins yesterday said that child poverty is the fault of parents and not the fault of her Government.

Housing Corp is running out of money

WrittenBy:

It seems that the strip mining of Housing Corporation so that the Government could declare a surplus is reaching its logical conclusion.  Treasury is forecasting Housing Corp to be out of money by next February.

There is no surplus

Written By:

In Year Eight of this National government, the idea of a budget surplus is a joke. They’ve promised it for nearly a decade. They’ve fiddled the books. The truth is, there is no surplus.

The truth is that Rodgers is is wrong, either deliberately or out of ignorance. And most of the comments on her post continue the misconceptions and misinformation.

It’s difficult to know when the lies are deliberate, and when they are repeated so often amongst their political peers they come to believe they are true.

Regardless, there may never have been an era of truth in politics but in the Internet age the perpetuation of lies has become far more obvious.

New Zealand surely can’t slide to the lying lows of the US presidential campaign but the signs of untruthfulness look ominous for the political future.

Is there any chance that democracy can avoid self destruction?

No surplus?

Stephanie Rodgers claims that the surplus announced yesterday is not actually a surplus – because, she says, the Government should have spent more so there wouldn’t be a surplus.

There is no surplus

In Year Eight of this National government, the idea of a budget surplus is a joke (and not just because it’s been completely engineered by the catastrophic Auckland housing bubble). They’ve promised it for nearly a decade. They’ve fiddled the books to make the numbers come out OK. They even declared a surplus in the middle of the financial year – that’s how desperate Bill English has been to pretend that everything’s going along just fine in New Zealand.

That shows an alarming lack of understanding of how how a Government budget works, and why the surplus was announced now.

“Finance Minister Bill English has today presented the Crown accounts for the year to June”.

It’s normal to announce financial results a while after the end of the financial year, like about now.

The Government is required to announce crown accounts, even when the timing isn’t too Rodgers’ liking.

The truth is, there is no surplus.

This surplus isn’t a success for our government. It is a sign of their failure. It shows they do not understand what their job is: to look after the people of this country. To govern us – not bean-count.

There is no surplus – not if you care about people more than money.

So Rodgers doesn’t want a surplus because she wants more money spent, probably a lot more money than Crown revenue, which means a deficit. She would probably complain if a deficit was announced at this time of year too.

‘Most effective’ Prime Minister

Advantage at The Standard has ranked what they think is the effectiveness of all New Zealand Prime Ministers since 1940.

Our most effective Prime Minister

  • RANK: 1 Peter Fraser PM 1940 – 1949
  • RANK: 2 Sidney Holland PM 1949-1957
  • RANK: 3 Helen Clark PM 1999-2008
  • RANK: 4 John Key PM 2008-
  • RANK 5: Robert Muldoon PM 1975-1984
  • RANK: 6 Jim Bolger 1990-1997
  • RANK: 7 David Lange 1984-1989
  • RANK: 8 Keith Holyoake PM 1960-1972
  • RANK: 9 Norman Kirk PM 1972-1974
  • RANK: 10 Jack Marshall PM 1972
  • RANK: 11 Geoffrey Palmer 1989-1990
  • RANK: 12 Jenny Shipley 1997-1999
  • RANK: 13 Walter Nash PM 1957-1960
  • RANK: 14 Mike Moore 1990
  • RANK: 15 Bill Rowling 1974-1975

Reasons have been given for these rankings. It has stirred up a bit of debate, especially about the current Prime Minister.

I’m surprised by Muldoon being so high unless effectively bankrupting the country counts for something. Holyoake may deserve better too.

Anyone here want to do their own ranking?