The Green Party

[xor]

Ironic that the co-leader of the Greens party using the word 'authoritarian' to describe another member in a negative manner.

Anyways...

Originally Posted by Ian Wishart

Greens co leader James Shaw has listed a bachelor's degree from Victoria University on his LinkedIn page that he never earned, having dropped out part way through. He has admitted this previously, so why has he added a BA on LinkedIn that he doesn't have?

https://twitter.com/investigatemag/s...15713130868749

[Ab]

Wonder how long it'll take for these images to get scrubbed:

[Lightspeed]

Hopefully they'll be bold.

You have to figure a lot of the ongoing responses are all pre-planned, well laid out, current events being long anticipated.

[xor]

No coming back from this one.

[fixed_truth]

Yeah, because this Israel Palestine conflict is something new.

[xor]

What i mean is, things will not go back to the status quos.

[Lightspeed]

It's been interesting? I'm not sure the word? In any case, watching the very well rehearsed pile on in response to various atrocities committed in this particular event, from those completely silent about the daily atrocities that go on in Palestine.

There's no shame, no need for pretence. Just a insistent demand to call out this evil. Of all the horrors of the world, this is the one to speak up about.

I kinda think it's great. I think it's so exposing of the nature of the status quo. How some people are somehow fair game, and others are the most precious, most innocent and any behaviour is acceptable in their protection.

[xor]

Do you believe that the state of Israel should exist?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Yeah, because this Israel Palestine conflict is something new.

I'm not seeing anything new. Just the usual trading of atrocities. Traumatising the next generation to perpetuate further atrocities.

There is no reasonable way to be shocked or puzzled about why this is happening.

[Ab]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...with-six-words

[Lightspeed]

Taking her time to be on the right side of history.

[Ab]

I presume a grownup in the Greens comms team has been going crazy this morning:

"The Green Party has refused to back MP Chloe Swarbrick after the AKL Central MP delivered a speech at an AKL rally on the weekend which has been widely condemned as unnecessarily inflammatory & offensive to the Jewish community."

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/na...matory-speech/

[Lightspeed]

They seemed competent enough when handling the commercially generated outrage at Marama's utterances.

On the world stage there are a lot of forces very eager to signal their outrage at the suggestion of the extermination of the Jews. Because, y'know, of all the extermination they got up to.

Israel has a lot of interest in turning any support for Palestine against it. They will pull every lever they have in disruption of that support. They have strong incentive to frame any support for Palestine as anti-Semetic.

As we know, crazies are going to be crazy, we know it's not reasonable to dismiss the majority view because of extreme elements taking advantage of the situation. The many anti-Semetic voices that do exist aren't an excuse to kill children. To kill families trapped in circumstances not of their making.

It's fascinating how bullying and abuse tactics play out so similarly on the world stage as they do in the home.

[xor]

Originally Posted by xor

Do you believe that the state of Israel should exist?

Hey Jeremy, m8. Do you believe that the state of Israel should exist?

[Ab]

“I apologise to those who have felt as though it has offended them,” Swarbrick told Newstalk ZB this afternoon.

[Cyberbob]

"I'm sorry you feel that way." is the oldest shitty apology in the book.

[Lightspeed]

Perfect for ZB.

[Lightspeed]

James Shaw resigns as Green Party co-leader

I can't imagine he's off to get paid in a lobbying role. Altho probably wouldn't be too bad for us if he did.

[Ab]

The Greens are about to invoke their "two women as co-leaders is diversity" clause and anoint Swarbrick as co-leader.

[Ab]

(Shaw's) party is no longer interested in environmental issues. They are engaged in performative theatre. Tearing down the only member of their party who is genuinely passionate about environmental issues over his failure to denounce Zionism, or whatever is the cultural touch-stone of the week, will generate the only thing his colleagues are passionate about: attention.

And to drive home the exquisiteness of his predicament, he cannot become an independent. In 2018 Shaw, when he still had the power to command discipline, dragged a reluctant caucus to back an updated waka-jumping law. This was the deal done with Ardern and Peters in 2017 and, well, if he jumps expect his party to enforce its provisions.

The Green Party has become a vehicle for minor celebrities indulging in the pantomime of radicalism. It is no place for someone of Shaw’s integrity and mana; which is why they will destroy him. His continued existence is a hand-brake on their excess.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/3010...nmental-issues

[Lightspeed]

Look how the last election was won. With money. Money won the last election.

Our inability to address climate change is a consequence of escalating inequality. We can't attend to the climate when our primary struggle is keeping up with the wealthiest.

Those most committed to living their environmental values are people we'll never hear from. If they can afford it, they're living away from it all, patting themselves on the back, while it all still gets worse. Otherwise what are they doing? How does one live those values without economic independence?

Politics is no place for anyone with integrity and mana. That's why the few the subject themselves to it anyway are so commendable.

Business owners like the author are thrilled right now. They want the Green party focused solely on the environment, because that leaves no one concerned about the vulnerable they're eager to exploit.

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Look how the last election was won. With money. Money won the last election.

No, I'd say the last election was lost, not won, as per Ab's claim. It's not that money won. It's that people were sick of Labour's shit (ideological nonsense perhaps?). A lot of money was spent/collected - and maybe the winning parties spent/collected more - but again, throwing more money at something does not imply better results. It's just money.

Emma Vitz did the analysis. Not every dollar spent has an equal outcome.

For example, Greens had more money than Labour, but got less votes? Why is that? Because people don't like them. It's not about money. ACT had 3x more money than both Labour and the Greens, and both parties still beat ACT. Because most people don't like ACT that much either, obviously.

You keep stating opinions as truths, but they're not truths, they're opinions. Our inability to "address climate change" is both economic and technological. Inequality has nothing to do with it - but again you introduce it into the argument like it's this pervasive thing. It's a symptom, not a cause. If we all had equal amounts of excess cash, and all threw our money at "climate change", we might still not have the technology required (or the environmental policy to allow nuclear power plants everywhere) to come up with solutions. If you look at how oil is used in the world, it's simply massive. It's not just "electric cars" and the problem is solved. There are huge industries requiring a massive amounts of energy that is not available from shitty wind turbines and a few solar panels.

Air travel, container ships, concrete, steel, plastics/textiles, military, beauty, electronics, agriculture.... all of these things we take for granted, but are not easily replaced if we turn off the oil tap. And while that tap flows, we may as well use it efficiently by not wasting it (after all, it required energy to extract). It's not oil producers who are to blame - it's the consumers who burn it. Every time you start your car, upper cut yourself. You are the problem here. Ride your bike G. Stop buying anything produced with oil inputs. I bet you can't. Even if you tried.

Complex problems aren't simple to solve, so you can't reduce the lack of progress to simply "money and inequality". You may as well blame colonization and trauma. It's just as effective, because no one cares about those arguments either.

[_indigo1]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

You keep stating opinions as truths, but they're not truths, they're opinions. Our inability to "address climate change" is both economic and technological. Inequality has nothing to do with it - but again you introduce it into the argument like it's this pervasive thing.

Yeah its a bit tiring. The ideological pontification has real MAGA energy to it.

[Lightspeed]

Grow up. I'm not going to preface everything I say with "I think" or "IMO".

Either bring something of your own, or don't.

When someone has something to say other than "you're wrong and stupid" then I'm interested.

Escalating inequality is the dominant force of our age. The people most blind to this are those least able to grieve the loss of the future they dreamed of where they'd be able to catch up with wealth.

[Ab]

How's this: increasing inequality isn't the problem. Decreasing possibility of social mobility is the problem.

What's harming society is not that there are rich people, it's that it's almost impossible to become rich - and it used to be possible.

[fixed_truth]

A big part of the last election was people felt poorer ( & a chance to put the maaries in their place)

Our tax system is heavily skewed towards income and consumption with fuck all on assets, land and capital. Until this is changed (like it used to be) things are gonna keep getting worse, especially with AI technology accelerating.

I'm not holding my breath. NZ has a socialist underbelly, but also a stubborn conservative streak. see cannabis referendum

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

How's this: increasing inequality isn't the problem. Decreasing possibility of social mobility is the problem.

What's harming society is not that there are rich people, it's that it's almost impossible to become rich - and it used to be possible.

Decreasing possibility of social mobility is a problem. A symptom of the deeper problem.

Harm isn't caused by rich or poor people. It's our economic system that's been stripped of the governors on wealth accumulation.

The consequence is that each day those producing value have less resources to maintain their capacity to produce value.

Being poor, lacking social mobility doesn't cause harm if you're adapted to your circumstances, if you can raise your kids teaching them how to get by with just enough.

But tomorrow the poor person will have less. They'll either have to come up with new innovations, or succumb to disorder. And then the day after, they'll have to come up more new innovations again.

However everyone is impacted. The richer person growing slightly less rich also has to deal with the stress of having less, arguing with themselves and their loved ones over what has to be given up. Perhaps finding ways to keep up with the richest, further exacerbating the wealth transfer. Or becoming disordered, accelerating their loss of wealth, exacerbating their disorder.

And so disorder is accumulating in our economic system.

This is entropy. That's all it is. We can't story tell our way around entropy. There's only a single thing we can do, and that's what biological systems always do in the face of disorder: become more sophisticated.

If entropy is ideology then I'm an ideologue, guilty as charged.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

This is entropy. That's all it is. We can't story tell our way around entropy. There's only a single thing we can do, and that's what biological systems always do in the face of disorder: become more sophisticated.

I should say, biological systems that survive. Extinction is always on the cards.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Ab

The Greens are about to invoke their "two women as co-leaders is diversity" clause and anoint Swarbrick as co-leader.

Because of course she did.

Swarbrick to announce co-leadership bid tomorrow, 1News understands

[Lightspeed]

Alex Foulkes To Stand For Green Party Co-Leader

[xor]

Oh goodie, another socialist...

[Lightspeed]

Don't worry mate, cheeky socialists got nothing on the capitalists. You'll be handing over the value of your work to wealth, with a minimum left for you and yours for a long time yet!

Lucky!

[xor]

Yes, yes. I better not steal any grain from the railroad tracks eh comrade.

[Lightspeed]

RIP Fa'anānā Efeso Collins

That's a huge loss for the community.

[Ab]

Oh wow. That's sad news. He seemed to be the sort of person Auckland and NZ needs in leadership roles.

[Ab]

Does someone want to tell her

[Lightspeed]

Perhaps the first step for LGBT freedom in Palestine is freedom in Palestine?

[_indigo1]

Once you see Chloe's butt-head mouth (of Beavis & Butt-head), you can't unsee it.

[Lightspeed]

Chlöe Swarbrick will replace outgoing Green Party co-leader James Shaw

[fixed_truth]

Shame Shaw is gone but Swarbrick is easily the most passionate & youth inspiring politician in NZ.