freitasm:

 

ROFL. Taxpayers union running a poll on Twitter. Obviously "Wellington Weirdos" is winning so far (screenshot of results as of now, 21 hours before end of poll):

 

 

Final results are in. "Wellington Weirdos" won. 

BarTender: This needs heavy rotation for the TPU.
<image>

 

I actually think the "Lower Taxes" lass in that pic is much more attractive than the subsidy one. Just saying :)
Note: I still don't like the TPU.

GV27:

 

dejadeadnz:

 

That assumes facts are a underlying concern. It was nothing more than a rant/dig. We'll be heading down to very dangerous territory if arts funding is decided based on perceived aesthetic value/artistic merit, especially when measured against a conservative and majoritarian tendency.

 

 

Agreed, we see this play out with people snarking on rugby all the time, but this is really the same thing but in reverse. It basically boils down to "The thing you like is too blue-collar therefor it is not a valid expression of culture" vs.  "The thing you like is made for chinless wonders who reside up their own arses and has no relevance to the masses".

 

I believe modern academics now argue the very fact that something exists makes it valid and worth studying, which matters more than perceived high/low-brow, audience size or relevance. 

 

Just because I personally may not feel there's a need for a sixteen act play exploring the inherent male violence in the reproductive cycle of the Upper East South Greater Western Pygmy Albatross, that doesn't mean it has no cultural value at all, nor should funding decisions be based solely on whatever appeals to the majority of the unwashed masses alone. 

 

I really have no problem with funding being criticised in an informed way. All sorts of money gets wasted in all sorts of ways, both in public and private organisations. There should be criticism of dumb stuff.

What really aggravates me is these sort of nonsense lists. There is no effort to make a serious critique of whether something should or shouldn't be funded or the decision making proces. It purely exists to undermine confidence in the process and reinforce that there is massive inherent waste.

It's always easy targets like creatives and beneficiaries who get picked on. If these people produced similar lists of tax dodgers or businesses scamming the public then it would show some honesty. They don't because then their funding would disappear.

why is the list nonsense ?

on the face of it, it simply lists the project and funding awarded.

the blogger should have copied the entire listing which named the recipients.

eg. the guy who got a grant for the alpaca novel is a well known writer, whose repertoire includes dark comedic works.

so not even a little piss taking ?

😄

It is non-sense because it is trying to influence people with clickbait-style summaries instead of providing full information.

It is giving people just enough information to enrage them and get a reaction, withholding the rest of the information that would make it just a non-story.

People need to leave their confirmation bias behind when reading these kinds of posts.

ilovemusic:

why is the list nonsense ?

on the face of it, it simply lists the project and funding awarded.

the blogger should have copied the entire listing which named the recipients.

eg. the guy who got a grant for the alpaca novel is a well known writer, whose repertoire includes dark comedic works.

so not even a little piss taking ?

😄

 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/09/creative-nz-shocked-and-disappointed-after-funding-decision-criticism.html