Hard News: Democracy Night
773 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 23 24 25 26 27 … 31 Newer→ Last
-
The concern trolling I'm seeing most often at the moment is coming from National, telling Labour how it ought to reform. I don't have any advice for National myself, other than fuck off.
-
Exactly. Yeah, thanks so much for your "help", dudes.
-
...The concern troll posts in Web forums
I would strongly suspect that Peters has never posted anything on the web in his long and chequered life. I'd even suspect that he hasn't actually touched the keys on a computer.
Do you just mean that he's being insincere or using sophism in his statements?
-
Good propaganda doesn't talk about the other team's policies. "Tax" is National's word. "Tax and spend", even.
Labour should be good houses, good education, good health, good jobs.
National says too many taxes? Reply "but we need good education and health, that's where it all goes, that keeps people right for good jobs".
National says you spend too much? Quote by the thousands of millions on education and health, inform people that cuts of tens of millions (a tiny amount, eh) would end the good health of *factual number* people, or higher education of *factual number* people. Isn't that what Labour's about?Eventually, people ask hard questions about your soundbites. That's when the policy highlights come out. Good propagandists look like they're bursting to expand on the basics, and will do whenever time allows. Got an hour? Great, give the whole policy, unfold the message into the highlights, and from there into the detail, back to the highlights, and back to the message.
Then your election campaign is action words. Build houses. Fix schools. Fund ambulances. Raise incomes. Why? Good houses, good education, good health, good jobs.
First, of course, Labour would have to figure out what they can represent, because propaganda works better if it's basically true. -
TracyMac, in reply to
While the term originated in web forums, it is not exclusive to them - I use it in real life all the time, and so do many people I know.
While the term can most definitely be about insincerity and sophism, it can also be about people who quite genuinely think that people who are doing X should really be doing Y instead, to "help themselves" (without bothering to expend any braincells on speculating WHY people might prefer to do X). So the advantage of using it is that you don't have to speculate about someone's motivations - it's about the effect the concern troll is having on their audience.
(I'll let Craig answer as to what he might think is underlying Winston's so-helpful comments)
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
But there are many other instances of governments around the world using taxes to the detriment of civilisation.
But that is a problem with who is spending the taxes and not with taxation itself.
For what it's worth my view on taxes is as follows.
If I could afford a personal physician I would interview and hire one - but I can't.
If 5 of my friends an I could pay for a personal physician between us we'd probably interview and hire one - but we can't.
But between 50 or so of us we can hire a personal physician so we all pitch in together and do that...
But I need an orthopedic surgeon - so I now need to find another 300 friends to group together and hire one...In the end it just seems more sensible to get everyone to pitch in and hire a whole health system.
The difficulty comes in two places for me.
First, defining things we should pitch in together and contribute as a group towards. Some things are easy, education, health care, fire dept etc. Some are harder.
Second, should individuals be allowed to opt out? My personal answer is no.The kicker for me is when you look around the world at high and low taxation societies, I much prefer the societies that are high taxation and high service versus those that are low taxation.
For me, that is the thing that I think should define Labour. The idea that having the government use (high) taxes for the benefit of New Zealand is the way we want our society to progress. Because when you look around the world that approach achieves the kind of goals I think New Zealand actually wants.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
The concern trolling I’m seeing most often at the moment is coming from National, telling Labour how it ought to reform. I don’t have any advice for National myself, other than fuck off.
Just between us, Ben, apart from some mild mischief from the Prime Minister (in response to a question and entirely aware, I think, he’s not got a lot of pull in the Labour caucus) nobody in National cares right now.
Now, if that spit ball was directed at me I’ll repeat what I’ve said before. As a citizen, not a partisan, I actually need a competent non-bugfuck opposition every bit as much as a competent non-bugfuck government. It’s the optimal setting for a House of Representatives/
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
So the advantage of using it is that you don’t have to speculate about someone’s motivations – it’s about the effect the concern troll is having on their audience.
I've always understood it to indicate a certain amount of insincerity, or at a minimum a lack of caring about their audience outside of the issue they are concern trolling on (hence the "troll" part.) Otherwise it's just called "being annoying", which lacks the same punch.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
It’s the optimal setting for a House of Representatives
I not too unhappy with how its looks for the next week-and-a-half, myself.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
I mostly meant the US. But there are many other instances of governments around the world using taxes to the detriment of civilisation.
I'm inclined to counter-argue, but I realise in forming it that my argument, like civilisations and empires, sows the seeds of it's own destruction in it's creation.
I was going to argue that quite a few major civilisations emerged from periods of sustained/semi-permanent warfare - Greece, Rome, China, Germany, Britain, the current US empire. Monetary or manpower taxes sustained their externally-focussed military forces, allowing internal stability and the development of peaceful arts.
But then on the other hand, in most of those examples, the military became the end itself, rather than the means to the end, and also fetishised internally. Eventually, as the military-industrial complex grew, all internal industry became geared to sustaining it, and the civilisation collapsed under the unsupportable weight.
But then again, mankind is generally in a state of perpetual warfare. As one empire collapses, another rises, takes the ideas and tech of the old one, and carries on. We're like a perpetual Ouroboros.
And, cutting through all that waffle, it probably boils down to your particular definiton of 'civilisation'.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I’ve always understood it to indicate a certain amount of insincerity, or at a minimum a lack of caring about their audience outside of the issue they are concern trolling on (hence the “troll” part.) Otherwise it’s just called “being annoying”, which lacks the same punch.
That is Red Alert if one cares to pop over there and read the comments from "used to be a Labour Voter but not now because you really need to blah blah blah"
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
That is Red Alert if one cares to pop over there and read the comments from “used to be a Labour Voter but not now because you really need to blah blah blah”
Because the signal-to-noise ratio isn’t particularly high, it’s increasingly difficult to sort out the genuine turncoats from the concern trolls. Which leads RA’s creators to haul out the scorched earth approach, playing into the hands of the trolls.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
How do I speak a capital “D”?
On tiptoes? Falsetto?
Billy Connelly does this great routine mocking people who use finger gestures to imitate quote marks, extending it to all other punctuation such as commas and full stops – and Victor Borge came up with a way of vocalising punctuation even earlier.
Of course the inestimable (not to mention inimitable) The Chap has, as part of it Chap Olympiad, an event, “Shouting at Foreigners” (fez on one side – cos’ they’re cool – and monocle on the other), which is adaptable as Shouting at Deaf People. Of course it’s done ironicially, and bless them, True Englishpeopleoids understand and will use without provocation irony (and I mean that without irony),
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
Yes most definitely. Sad because it ends up being a bitch fight instead of valid discussion. What gets me is the energy required , which having lived through death throes and came out the other end, seems like such a waste of time.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
Concern trolls […are] enforcing their norms on others.
And here I was thinking that concern trolls were simply disingenuous bastards trying to derail the opposition. Thanks for that. It’s the “norm” as subtext, as well as the more obvious derailling that I should be looking out for. Thanks (also without irony).
"The real thing we should be concerned with" fits very nicely under "who defines the terms wins the argument".
-
Hi Chris, this is interesting… is there a pattern to the types of words or syllables that are the most difficult for you to interpret; or can it depend on the speed, accent, etc that define the actual speech-pattern?
And is this type of hearing affliction relatively common?(Apologies if this sounds trite or patronising – certainly not meant in such spirit.)
Hi - no worries at all and it's not patronising at all. I haven't analysed if there is pattern to the words, that is, I've not paid attention to that aspect of the problem, as I am more worried about the fact that I can't 'hear' the word (which sends me off on all sorts of cognitive workstreams til I can figure out the word).
It would be an interesting study to undertake (the study design would be awsome to figure out). I suspect there is a pattern there. There are particular consonants/vowel sounds that come across as simply 'noise' to me, and I presume other deaf / hard of hearing people. Usually this is indicated by barks of 'what?!' (meaning, what did you say/mean?).
I find myself concentrating more on enunciation because I figure the usual kiwi mumble is probably harder to lip read, also trying to position myself so the hearing impaired person in the discussion can see my lips.
Thankyou!!
Good propaganda doesn’t talk about the other team’s policies. “Tax” is National’s word. “Tax and spend”, even.
and
Eventually, people ask hard questions about your soundbites.
So, if the soundbite (i.e. frame) is not Taxes pay for Civilisation, then can you suggest an alternate frame that encapsulate what taxes paying for civilisation is? Genuinely curious here...
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I not too unhappy with how its looks for the next week-and-a-half, myself.
That would be where a caretaker government follows well-established constitutional norms (no declaring war on Australia, Johnny!) while the specials are counted and the final results declared? Yup, works for me too - but not for three years. :)
-
TracyMac, in reply to
Well, with neologisms like these, I hardly want to say I'm an authority (see above for some variations on shades of meaning other people get from the term), but it's certainly the feeling I get : "X should be like this; you're being (wilfully) ignorant if you think or act otherwise".
@Lucy, I don't disagree these people don't actually care so much about their audience, and it's definitely more about them, albeit dressed up as "concern". Although, again, I do think some do genuinely think what is best for them is best for other people.
The "trolling" part, other than people being deliberately vexatious (definintely the most obvious troll), I would also interpret as people who persistently and uncompromisingly seek to impose their opinion on others, even in forums where they have been told it's not welcome. People who refuse to listen or "agree to disagree" and keep banging their drum about their "concern", particularly when whatever-it-is has no actual impact on them personally. This is of course beyond the point of people having disagreeing points of view, but who can actually discuss them in a productive way beyond "I'm right and you're wrong".
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
So, if the soundbite (i.e. frame) is not Taxes pay for Civilisation, then can you suggest an alternate frame that encapsulate what taxes paying for civilisation is? Genuinely curious here…
One of the Greens’ slogans for 2011 was ’no environment, no economy’.
How about an upbeat variant of that – ’Strong Society, Strong Economy’. Added emphasis could also be placed on the costs of inequality vs the costs of reducing it.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
Apologies for the butchery of your original...
People who [...] “agree to disagree” [...] when whatever-it-is has no actual impact on them personally.
No problem with that in particular, since I do it often enough myself. I interpret (and intend) it as "I won't/can't myself, but I acknowledge that I won't/can't stand in your way and won't press the point just to salve my ego... and besides, even if I won't/can't myself, the world would be a poorer place if you wouldn't/couldn't."
Emphasis on the "couldn't", I suppose.
Definitely though, I do appreciate that the "let's agree to disagree" is often a passive-aggressive version of "let's not discuss it so that the established norm can continue by default."
-
And while I very much respect Brian Edwards, especially after what he has done for Phil Goff lately, ew.
That post is by Judy, not Brian.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
Well, doesn't that present a dilemma for a white male liberal? ;)
-
I've often thought Labour should have released a receipt:
Thank you for your support of your country.
For every $10 of taxes you got....
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
Definitely though, I do appreciate that the “let’s agree to disagree” is often a passive-aggressive version of “let’s not discuss it so that the established norm can continue by default.”
This.
Too often I get frustrated by most NZers fear of conflict leading to no decisions being made, no change happening. Both politically and in the workplace, agreeing to disagree leads to everything staying the same or worse, stagnating because we're not making the changes we need to, to keep up with a changing world.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Just between us, Ben, apart from some mild mischief from the Prime Minister (in response to a question and entirely aware, I think, he’s not got a lot of pull in the Labour caucus) nobody in National cares right now.
I very much doubt that.
Now, if that spit ball was directed at me
It was not. You voted Green, didn't you? Oh, and the irrelevant electorate vote for National (no more irrelevant than my casting for Shearer, who would have got in anyway).
As a citizen, not a partisan, I actually need a competent non-bugfuck opposition every bit as much as a competent non-bugfuck government. It’s the optimal setting for a House of Representatives/
It's an interesting reason to vote against the party you've supported for years. I presume something about the purported centrism of Key didn't wash with you?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.