Comments by "John Donwood" (@johndonwood4305) on "Q+A with Jack Tame"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The level of decision making in terms of what constitutes hate speech or free speech has shifted from the public arena to big tech. Now any opinion or view that is contrary to the dogma of the msm and big tech is deplatformed or censored e.g. Alex Jones and Infowars. Without any kind of dialogue with the public, the more the determining of what exactly constitutes hate speech and free speech becomes arbitrary in favour of the msm and big tech. In this gap between the public and big tech is the contested ground between those who have the monopoly of information and those who are voiceless; and those with the money and the means to propagate their dogma will always win. Thus what big tech and politicians decide as being hate speech is entirely different from what the public understands hate speech to be. Consequently, the problem is that the more "hate speech" becomes regulated and scrutinised, the less hateful "hate speech" actually becomes e.g. "I'm uncomfortable with drag queens reading books to children in public libraries about how Timmy has two dads," that kind of stuff. However at the same time, the language becomes more obfuscated, vague, empty, and meaningless that the process of locating exactly where free speech ends and hate speech begins is just as obfuscated, vague, empty, and meaningless that the only solution to get around this problem is to turn New Zealand into a nationwide prison.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Faafoi is finding himself overwhelmed. That's understandable because it shows how neglected the public broadcasting sector is under the last government compared with the private sector. National shut down TVNZ 6 and 7 and this reflects the National party's attitude towards democracy, the public, and New Zealand as a nation. The fact that New Zealand culture does not have much presence in the media is symptomatic of the globalist framework of the previous government. National refused to accomodate local players in the sector (Sommet Sports, Stratos Television) in favour multinational corporate television networks (Bravo). However, this is not about what people watch or how they watch certain media content, but the ideas and impressions formed by that content. Thus public broadcasting no longer has the monopoly of public opinion which is now held by private corporate media which Faafoi concedes. However, I sense that Faafoi wants to empower the people within a corporate environment by refocussing state assets in order to make the public actual participants in the media to reflect their own lives in search or a genuine existence and not as bystanders passively accepting the big tech, big media, PSYWAR/ MINDWAR brainwashing. Corporate broadcasters have access to money, technology, brand trust that state broadcaster doesn't usually have. New Zealand's sovereignty is being dissolved slowly from the inside. Why does Dann criticise the lack of regulation of the insurance industry and then criticise Faafoi for having to seek Winston's approval? That is how MMP works, Dann. What is this nonsense of Winston having gone rogue? If anything, Shipley went rogue on Winston AND democracy. The three parties in the coalition keep each other in check which is a far better than one party calling all the shots without public consultation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The point is to understand how men are perceived by women. Feminism has provided women with a kind of public relations service through which women are told that they can do anything. At the same time, men are seen as holding women back also known as the patriarchy even though there are more women occupying CEO, managerial, and even parliamentary positions. There's a reason for this and that is because feminism cannot exist on its own or else it wouldn't achieve anything. The slogan "The Future is Female" as a statement of the Hegelian dialectic of historical progress of gender illustrates how necessary feminism relies on hostility towards men which is why women enjoy certain freedoms, e.g. women avoiding serious jail terms. That's why "rape culture" and the "rape stare" exist, because feminism cannot succeed without males as enemies. This is nothing personal to men, because feminism only works as a MOVEMENT. Feminism's progress depends on antagonism which is why equality is impossible because the very movement IS HOSTILE that anything which seems neutral will be forced to take either the side of feminists or the patriarchy e.g. "male feminists". Then there are women who reject feminism. ALL women are feminists. Sure feminism can exist in the abstract sense, but they don't want equality. They want to smash the glass ceiling which is a nice, obvious symbol of the ILLUSION of their personal flaws and imperfections only to CONTINUE their demand for more rights and freedoms which the state happily complies in order to get more votes. There will NEVER be a moment in time when feminists declare their purpose fulfilled because it is a self-serving system for professional women only. The typical female contract cleaner or nurse is ignored. Now feminism does have a legitimate cause, which is to empower women, not to compete with men, but to fully develop their abilities, potential, and self-worth as women. But this has been corrupted by female bureaucrats who form this particular panel, and globalist bankers. Without hostility towards men, feminism drifts towards self-parody by trying to appear intellectual with such terms as "intersectionality" etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2