Fascist death threats in New Zealand

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Fascist death threats in New Zealand

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2052075 9-Jul-2018 15:21

Fred99:

I'm not sure about "shrill overreactions". Depends what you decide to call "trivial" - it's subjective.

That's my point - people fail to recognise their values are subjective (all values are) and can't tolerate others having different values. Such people often overreact to others who don't conform to their values.

By trivial I mean person-X makes an offhand remark, not-targeted at anyone ...

By shrill I mean a large group of people claim to be grievously offended and all pile into person-X on social media or in the press and take offence. The harm done by the bullying and mob-rule inherent in the reaction exponentially outweighs the initial 'offence'

As an example: A mate of mine pointed out on Twitter, that a pay gap report published by the MoW in 2017 actually showed that the standard deviations of male' and females' pay rates overlapped (i.e. at first glance there is no gap). He got lambasted. People from all over the world who didn't know him form Adam and some prominent NZrs were piling in - not to attack his reasoning, but to attack him. Mostly by calling him misogynist and/or sexist (he is neither), but also with some really nasty personal stuff.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2052111 9-Jul-2018 16:36

MikeAqua:

Fred99:

I'm not sure about "shrill overreactions". Depends what you decide to call "trivial" - it's subjective.

That's my point - people fail to recognise their values are subjective (all values are) and can't tolerate others having different values. Such people often overreact to others who don't conform to their values.

Where rights of the individual are threatened by "intolerant values" then in the end, clear and objective "bottom line" shared values and rules must be enforced - or there'll be chaos.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2052149 9-Jul-2018 17:50

I find anything reported from social media to be mostly fake. The best way to avoid trolls is not to use social media. If you do use it, you shouldnt be upset when you see something you dont like.

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 456
Inactive user

#2052169 9-Jul-2018 18:54

Pumpedd:

I find anything reported from social media to be mostly fake. The best way to avoid trolls is not to use social media. If you do use it, you shouldnt be upset when you see something you dont like.

Ain't that the truth!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2052187 9-Jul-2018 19:20

Parting thought - seeing as this thread seems to be destined to be forgotten except by backup servers on the net:

How come NZ turned this issue into a "thing"?

Did we as a country end up in paroxysms, conflicted debate about the rights and limits of "free speech", stirred up by "virtue signalling" from fascist shills suggesting that NZ could (or the Mayor of Auckland did as it turns out) reject something as morally benign as facilitating a fascist? WTF was there to talk about?

The Opposition leader (very unwisely in my opinion) suggesting that it's ok - we should let people like Southern in - regardless of the fact that she's a nasty fascist or "alt-right" piece of scum and with a history of taking inhumane fascist "direct action" - which rather negates any possible defensive argument that "it's only words and debate and ideas we can talk about". Utter BS it is.

Where was Winston? As acting PM, then perhaps he had something to say? Oh wait... immigration, refugees etc come into it.

Meanwhile, Australia just denies her a visa as the UK had already done. In a matter of fact manner with little fuss. It's hardly made the news - and IIRC she had 5 bookings over there.

WTF is wrong with NZ? Trying too hard to be some influential global moral compass - we're a leader as far as "free speech" goes, so much so that we'd welcome anybody- fascist scum included? Trying to shame less "liberal" nations who don't facilitate fascists?

Extremists *promoting intolerance* should not be granted visas to enable them to propagandise / recruit in NZ. It should be easy.

Pumpedd

1759 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887
Inactive user

#2052189 9-Jul-2018 19:23

Fred99:

Parting thought - seeing as this thread seems to be destined to be forgotten except by backup servers on the net:

How come NZ turned this issue into a "thing"?

Did we as a country end up in paroxysms, conflicted debate about the rights and limits of "free speech", stirred up by "virtue signalling" from fascist shills suggesting that NZ could (or the Mayor of Auckland did as it turns out) reject something as morally benign as facilitating a fascist? WTF was there to talk about?

The Opposition leader (very unwisely in my opinion) suggesting that it's ok - we should let people like Southern in - regardless of the fact that she's a nasty fascist or "alt-right" piece of scum and with a history of taking inhumane fascist "direct action" - which rather negates any possible defensive argument that "it's only words and debate and ideas we can talk about". Utter BS it is.

Where was Winston? As acting PM, then perhaps he had something to say? Oh wait... immigration, refugees etc come into it.

Meanwhile, Australia just denies her a visa as the UK had already done. In a matter of fact manner with little fuss. It's hardly made the news - and IIRC she had 5 bookings over there.

WTF is wrong with NZ? Trying too hard to be some influential global moral compass - we're a leader as far as "free speech" goes, so much so that we'd welcome anybody- fascist scum included? Trying to shame less "liberal" nations who don't facilitate fascists?

Extremists *promoting intolerance* should not be granted visas to enable them to propagandise / recruit in NZ.

media...

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2052207 9-Jul-2018 19:33

Pumpedd:

media...

I don't agree. Australia had no problem giving them a very prompt single digit salute "no thanks - don't come" before it hit the media as an "issue" there.

Immigration NZ seemed to want to turn a blind eye - despite the fact that Southern had been a fascist activist - had been denied a visa to visit the UK, and fails to meet any "good character" test.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2052210 9-Jul-2018 19:40

Pumpedd:

I find anything reported from social media to be mostly fake. The best way to avoid trolls is not to use social media. If you do use it, you shouldnt be upset when you see something you dont like.

Again, I remind that this thread is not about allowing extremists of any kind to speak publicly in New Zealand. It is not about extremist views or 'free speech'. It is about unknown thugs threatening someone with rape and murder. Anyone who uses social media and has this happen to them, has every right to be upset. Norms of behaviour are already being corrupted enough. Don't make it worse by minimising the actions of these scum. It is not something to be laughed off or shrugged away. Social media monsters have driven more than one person to suicide, such as that journalist in Australia. In no way should this kind of thing be made to seem less odious than it is.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8469

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2052328 9-Jul-2018 22:09

freitasm: I think it should be clear that there is no possible constructive debate with alt-right and fascists.

Presumably you also include the hard left, animal activists and so forth in that?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41086

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2052335 9-Jul-2018 23:01

Presumably I also run the site. I am against extremists. I have seen some comments here that make me think quite a few people are spending too much time defending this scum of humankind to be on this community.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2052426 10-Jul-2018 09:37

Fred99:

Where rights of the individual are threatened by "intolerant values" then in the end, clear and objective "bottom line" shared values and rules must be enforced - or there'll be chaos.

I agree with that. But, often moral-outrage-pile-ins aren't triggered by bottom lines being breached, Rather, by controversial views being expressed.

For example Kevin Robert's comment about difficulties in getting female managers to apply for top roles. He was lambasted (and ultimately sacked) for expressing an honestly held belief based on experience. He didn't breach any bottom lines - he just suggested an alternate mechanism for the glass-ceiling theory (and used the naughty word that rhymes with truck).

Mike

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MikeAqua

8032 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3822

#2052449 10-Jul-2018 09:47

freitasm: defending this scum of humankind to be on this community.

Defending scum and defending their right to legal freedom of speech are two different things.

If promulgating discord and division are the thresholds for denying freedom of speech (Goff's position) then several sitting and former MPs should not be allowed to speak. Goff was never afraid of sowing seeds of division himself. Come to think of it a few musical acts would be denied entry as well. pehaps there is difference between being occasionally divisive and being consistently divisive. Then again, maybe being opportunistically divisive for political expedience is worse than expressing an honestly held belief.

No skin off my nose about those alt-right speakers not being allowed to speak here - I find them repellent. But freedom of speech is IMO close to sacrosanct.

One approach is to let them speak and if they engage in hate speech, arrest and prosecute them.

Mike

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2052454 10-Jul-2018 09:55

@freitasm I've stayed out of this up to this point, and I defer entirely to the "your house, your rules" ethos. But I'm wondering if you may have misinterpreted some of the commentary here with tensions being high as they are?

I'll admit, I haven't ready every single post in this thread, but my impression has not been that anyone is defending either the scumbags making death threats, nor the views of Southern/Molyneux.

I'm sure that I'll be corrected by the individuals concerned if I have got this wrong, but I believe the objection is to the banning of the speakers, rather than necessarily being in support of their views.

For myself, I believe that banning speakers is an exceptionally poor decision. I feel that it gives unmerited legitimacy to whatever hateful/extremist material was in question. i.e. The government (Council in this case) is effectively saying that their message was going to be so compelling, so powerful and so ironclad that there is a real risk that the general population would be unable to see through it, unable to debate and ultimately refute it's claims. That the only way to prevent the ideology from spreading/infecting New Zealand is for the speakers to be silenced. For the books to be burned. For the Internet to be filtered.

In my opinion, extremist viewpoints should not be silenced - they should be exposed. Their flaws and fallacies revealed, their ideas and ideals debated and consigned to the garbage bin of history on their lack of merit. Silencing them simply confers to them a gravitas that they have not earned, and a mystique that it more likely to draw attention to them that might otherwise be the case.

(Of course, I might have completely misconstrued your comment?)

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80662 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41086

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2052455 10-Jul-2018 10:01

I do not think the city should provide a platform for these people to speak. They could just find a private venue for that.

However, in this discussion (which went widely off topic), the point was hinted that this pair were not in fact spousing or promoting hate, despite their previous engagements and actions.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2052465 10-Jul-2018 10:08

6FIEND:

@freitasm I've stayed out of this up to this point, and I defer entirely to the "your house, your rules" ethos. But I'm wondering if you may have misinterpreted some of the commentary here with tensions being high as they are?

I'll admit, I haven't ready every single post in this thread, but my impression has not been that anyone is defending either the scumbags making death threats, nor the views of Southern/Molyneux.

I'm sure that I'll be corrected by the individuals concerned if I have got this wrong, but I believe the objection is to the banning of the speakers, rather than necessarily being in support of their views.

For myself, I believe that banning speakers is an exceptionally poor decision. I feel that it gives unmerited legitimacy to whatever hateful/extremist material was in question. i.e. The government (Council in this case) is effectively saying that their message was going to be so compelling, so powerful and so ironclad that there is a real risk that the general population would be unable to see through it, unable to debate and ultimately refute it's claims. That the only way to prevent the ideology from spreading/infecting New Zealand is for the speakers to be silenced. For the books to be burned. For the Internet to be filtered.

In my opinion, extremist viewpoints should not be silenced - they should be exposed. Their flaws and fallacies revealed, their ideas and ideals debated and consigned to the garbage bin of history on their lack of merit. Silencing them simply confers to them a gravitas that they have not earned, and a mystique that it more likely to draw attention to them that might otherwise be the case.

(Of course, I might have completely misconstrued your comment?)

That has worked really well in America, hasn't it? As in 1930s Germany, the good guys are playing by the rules while the enemies of freedom use the system against itself to subvert and take over. Not everyone has your ability or willingness to sift through the manipulative crap to assess what it is really saying, or to look ahead to the consequences of taking it at face value. I think it needs to be called out and seen for what it really is.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7