Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
111 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 84


  Reply # 2051954 9-Jul-2018 13:26
4 people support this post
Send private message

I’m disappointed by the reaction of many here to this story.

I find rape or death threats (online or otherwise) to be cowardly and despicable behaviour.
(And yes, i include Homebrew’s lyrics, Jeremy Elwood’s “barb wire dildo” tweet and Hayley Sproull’s “seduce Simon Bridges just to have the chance to abort his baby” gag in that category.)

But let’s take a breath shall we?
Firstly, there’s no evidence of Mariana Davidson’s claim other than her say so. No one has been able to find the offending tweets, and she claims to have deleted the direct messages. There’s no indication from the Police that they’re investigating the claims. This may well come to pass, but right now we have nothing but innuendo.

Now consider the reaction here in contrast to the topic covering multiple actual sexual assaults, which the Police have actually arrested someone for. The difference is stark.

You’re cheerleading a commentator and enabling/encouraging their own despicable trolling.
Referring to Winston’s aging and diminishing faculties is deemed trolling and ban-worthy, yet referring to Sourhern as “Barbie” (classic patriarchal oppression BTW) is just fine?

Calling people “snowflakes” is also banworthy, but calling people “tiny dicks” and making sweeping proclamations regarding their sexual performance is applauded?

You really should take a look at what level you’ve let the evil in this world drag you down to.
Disappointing.

11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2051957 9-Jul-2018 13:31
2 people support this post
Send private message

freitasm:

 

@Wiggum:

 

There are people in this world with very different views to our own. Its how the world works. It's not all about you, and what you want. Deal with it.

 

 

When their view promotes hate between people then it's about everyone. Promoting tension based on a racial profiling is not what we want for us now or in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that the Royal We? Clearly, some people do want that tension because otherwise they would not think that way. Aren't you simply saying that "the opposing view is the winner, so shut up now" in effect?

 

 

 

After all, preventing people from saying things won't prevent them from thinking the same things or talking to other people about those things in other spheres etc.

 

 

 

Surely it is more constructive to engage in debate and defeat ideas with good argument than simply paper over the cracks and hope it just goes away?






11831 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3836

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2051959 9-Jul-2018 13:34
One person supports this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

I would remind everyone that this thread is not about people expressing unpalatable views. It is about anonymous men with very tiny dicks threatening to rape and murder someone because of an opinion she stated on Twitter. There can be absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for the cowardly cretins who engage in this sort of practice.

 

Of course I am making an assumption here. These days women are no longer exempt from the kinds of behaviours that used to be thought of as exclusively male. It is certainly not impossible that a female person was behind the rape threat, but I don't think so. This is definitely small dick behaviour. 

 

As far as free speech goes, no society in the world allows truly free speech. What matters is that our society allows the kind of free speech that is important to healthy debate. Tolerance for extremists who want to abuse free speech privilege to spew their poison to the easily influenced should be limited at best. I have no problem at all with sending Barbie packing. She has no business coming here in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Being paranoid, one might suggest that a woman making those threats might do so secure in the knowledge that most people would automatically assume a man was at fault.






7194 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3752


  Reply # 2052014 9-Jul-2018 13:58
One person supports this post
Send private message

Reciprocity: 
Referring to Winston’s aging and diminishing faculties is deemed trolling and ban-worthy, yet referring to Sourhern as “Barbie” (classic patriarchal oppression BTW) is just fine?

 

The original reference there to Southern was mine - and here it is:

 

 

At risk of being accused of being sexist - given that the neo-fascist evolution seems to be targeting young angry white male recruits, using a young superficially attractive and somewhat articulate white blonde barbie clone to spread the message is something for which the devil himself would be proud.

 

 

Patriarchal oppression?  You must be kidding.  She's a loathsome intolerant individual - thoroughly deserving of all the contempt and ridicule poured on her personally - and her evil cause.


1201 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472


  Reply # 2052015 9-Jul-2018 13:59
Send private message
7194 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3752


  Reply # 2052021 9-Jul-2018 14:02
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

I think we have the balance about right in NZ. 

 

I think our hate speech laws are a reasonable limitation on absolute free-speech, as are laws about not using obscene language in public.  Our censorship laws are reasonable (if a little ineffective in the internet age).

 

Beyond those there are few practical fetters on our free speech.

 

There is a lot of shrill overreaction to trivial things, but outrage is a global phenomenon now.

 

 

 

 

I agree that we seem to have it "about right".

 

We do need to revoke the Crimes Act Part 7 Section 123, "Blasphemous Libel" as a "Crime Against Religion".  It's IMO not consistent with NZ being a secular state.

 

A humanist perspective:

In the distant past, blasphemy laws were introduced to protect monopolistic religions from all dissent, to prevent apostasy, to maximise the number of believers, and to maximise the income of a religious group and its priests or clerics. Blasphemy was punished variously with death by stoning, burning at the stake, hanging or beheading, lashing, piercing of the tongue and other barbaric and inhumane punishments. Now, blasphemy laws are largely restricted to Islamic countries. Over 125 non-Islamic countries have no blasphemy laws at all. Such laws are out of place in a modern secular and multicultural society. New Zealand is now one of a very small number of western countries with an archaic, medieval, and anachronistic law against blasphemous libel and an even smaller minority with a prison sentence for this dubious offence. In the modern world, blasphemy laws incite hatred and violence.

 

As it happens to be now, this archaic law isn't really causing any problems because AFAIK there aren't any prosecutions - but it's not solving any issues either.  The fact that it could cause problems (and a threat to secularism) in the future justifies getting it way the hell out of our statute books.  Times change - and not always for the better.

 

The ineffectiveness of general censorship laws is a problem, unfortunately plugging the gaps would be incredibly draconian - unless someone can think of a non-draconian way to do it.

 

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


1201 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472


  Reply # 2052026 9-Jul-2018 14:05
Send private message

Fred99:

 

Reciprocity: 
Referring to Winston’s aging and diminishing faculties is deemed trolling and ban-worthy, yet referring to Sourhern as “Barbie” (classic patriarchal oppression BTW) is just fine?

 

The original reference there to Southern was mine - and here it is:

 

 

At risk of being accused of being sexist - given that the neo-fascist evolution seems to be targeting young angry white male recruits, using a young superficially attractive and somewhat articulate white blonde barbie clone to spread the message is something for which the devil himself would be proud.

 

 

Patriarchal oppression?  You must be kidding.  She's a loathsome intolerant individual - thoroughly deserving of all the contempt and ridicule poured on her personally - and her evil cause.

 

 

And you have the right to that opinion. Some will disagree with you. I think Simon nailed it on the head when he said he thinks they should still be allowed to come to NZ, and say what they want to say. Those that oppose them, can roll up their sleeves and also have a chance to say what they want to say. Its about opening the door to constructive debate. Not putting a plug on anybody.




Glurp
7990 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3716

Subscriber

  Reply # 2052029 9-Jul-2018 14:08
Send private message

Reciprocity:  

I find rape or death threats (online or otherwise) to be cowardly and despicable behaviour.

 

I'm glad you find rape and death threats as abhorrent as I do. That is something we can agree on.

 

But are you suggesting that Marama Davidson has fabricated the threats she says were made against her? Accusing her of lying, especially with no substantiation, is fairly serious. The innuendo seems to be coming entirely from you. And if you are going to impugn her credibility, the least you could do is spell her name correctly.

 

Do you think I am trolling? I stated my scorn for creeps who hide in the shadows and threaten people with rape and murder. I thought you said you agreed with that.

 

In the context of this thread, 'Barbie' is a term of derisory contempt. It is fully deserved. As is calling people who leave anonymous threats “tiny dicks” and making sweeping proclamations regarding their sexual performance. 

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


7194 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3752


  Reply # 2052036 9-Jul-2018 14:21
2 people support this post
Send private message

Wiggum:

 

Simon Bridges says banning speakers coming to NZ is a step too far.

 

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/simon-bridges-says-banning-far-right-speakers-coming-new-zealand-step-too

 

 

 

 

Bridges is somewhat out of touch - although to be fair, he didn't say that not allowing them to use Auckland council facilities was a wrong decision.  He did say that he would not ban them from entering NZ (presumably on a speaking tour - but he didn't define it as such).  I assume if they'd wanted to visit "on holiday" - then that's a separate issue.

 

I think Bridges is wrong. 

 

She was banned from entering the UK, she's now had her visa declined and won't be visiting Australia either.  Good thing.

 

It's a privilege - not a "right" to visit a foreign country as a tourist, you can be declined a visa for all kinds of obscure reasons.  It's ludicrously hypocritical for the alt-right - who focus so much on restricting border access - to be suddenly demanding access to other sovereign nations under the guise of exercising a right to free speech - when their objective is absolutely and totally to go there to lobby against the established social order in that country - not to enjoy the sights.

 

 


7194 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3752


  Reply # 2052038 9-Jul-2018 14:22
2 people support this post
Send private message

Wiggum:

 

Its about opening the door to constructive debate. 

 

 

There's no constructive debate possible when you're dealing with fascists and the alt-right.

 

They weren't coming here to "debate".  They were coming here on a money-making recruiting mission, and would or should not have been able to enter to do that on a "tourist visa" / visa waiver.

 

They're correct - we need to be more careful who we let in through our borders - people intending to visit on speaking tours can be denied a visa if "you don’t meet our character requirements".  Being on a mission to undermine our liberal social democracy isn't an indicator of "good character" IMO.  

 

 


BDFL - Memuneh
61192 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 11974

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2052047 9-Jul-2018 14:42
3 people support this post
Send private message
1201 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472


  Reply # 2052048 9-Jul-2018 14:45
Send private message

Fred99:

 

Wiggum:

 

Its about opening the door to constructive debate. 

 

 

There's no constructive debate possible when you're debating with fascists.

 

 

Perhaps you can highlight why you believe they facists? I certainly do not know enough about this duo to come to that conclusion yet. In fact, prior to today I had never heard of these two.


4952 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2011


  Reply # 2052059 9-Jul-2018 14:49
3 people support this post
Send private message

Fred99:

 

We do need to revoke the Crimes Act Part 7 Section 123, "Blasphemous Libel" as a "Crime Against Religion".  It's IMO not consistent with NZ being a secular state.

 

 

You'll be pleased to know that a bill repealing s123 is at the select committee stage at the moment.

 

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_77614/crimes-amendment-bill

 

Long overdue.





Mike

4952 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2011


  Reply # 2052060 9-Jul-2018 14:52
6 people support this post
Send private message

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

 

I'd argue there is no space for constructive debate with extremists of any ilk - including some of those on the left, some Maori activists (Sonny Tau comes to mind) and some feminists.





Mike

7194 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3752


  Reply # 2052070 9-Jul-2018 15:03
Send private message

Wiggum:

 

Perhaps you can highlight why you believe they facists? I certainly do not know enough about this duo to come to that conclusion yet. In fact, prior to today I had never heard of these two.

 

 

I've edited to add "alt-right" where I've remembered, I do tend to agree that defining "fascism" is fraught, even though I tend to use it synonymously with "alt-right".

 

Here's an example:

 

Actively supporting a (failed) mission using a boat full of alt-right extremists to disrupt missions (by Médecins Sans Frontières and others) to save the lives of drowning refugees at sea.  When detained she argued that "if the politicians won't stop the boats, we'll stop the boats" - something she'd do with no regard for national or international laws.  If she'd succeeded - she should have been locked up for crimes against humanity.  What she attempted was close to deliberate murder/genocide, vigilantism of the worst kind, and is no way to deal with the issue.  She is remorselessly evil. 

 

 

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.