Excellent work. Thanks for your effort. An excellent summary of the techniques he’s been trained on as part of the Atlas network. In reality a puppet for international corporations with a veneer of the rhetoric of the stupidest political ideology in existence layered over the top. Libertarianism is a ridiculous idea. Every good thing in society comes from collectivism.
Frankly I don’t know how Seymore sleeps at night. An atrocious human being.
You make a powerful case for Seymour using a set of obnoxious techniques, for nasty ends. You present an impassioned cry by contrast, for different values that will be good for everyone in New Zealand.
I’ve read through your article a number of times. Your positive wishes are thoughtful and attractive. “no-one goes hungry on the marae”. “The hīkoi offered people a felt experience of kotahitanga—joyous, family-oriented, uplifting the mana of everyone, caring for each other, beautiful individuals flourishing within a web of collectivity and relationships, not left to fend for themselves.”
I can align with these. Oddly though I am on the right. I’m a member of the Free Speech Union for example.
I think what I like best about your article is that your sincerity comes through, and also that you paint parts of a picture of a New Zealand that looks desirable to me.
I also have an ‘ouch’ experience - that characterisation is not me, that is not the ‘right’ that I know. (I know that your focus is specifically the manipulative messaging of David Seymour, but I felt a bit battered along the way.) My experience is that people on the right similarly care about fairness, doing the right thing and finding good solutions for our community.
I have talked with a number of people on the left whom I also see as articulate, good hearted and wanting the best outcome. They are angry and fearful of what the coalition government is doing and will likely continue to do. I like their passion. They care. I’m glad that they are in the same community as me.
For me the issue is what do we want as outcomes? Disagreement is to be expected, natural, reasonable in our discussions as a community. I don’t think it is useful to try to wish disagreement out of existence. What I wonder about though is what things might we find agreement on.
Kia ora John. Thank you so much for this generous comment and for its invitation. It does not surprise me that you can align with those values and be “on the right” (tbh, I’m quite suspicious of absolutist categories of all kinds and “left” and “right” are feeling increasingly inadequate terms for a complex entangled landscape). I wrote an earlier essay called “Who do we think we are?” that made the point you make about shared values. Because, like you, I do believe that the vast majority of people believe in fairness, justice, doing the right thing, compassion, and finding good solutions for our community. (That’s not to say that those values are always top of mind for all those in positions of power, though).
I love what you ask in your last paragraph. And I too do not want to wish disagreement out of existence. That is how we learn! But I don’t think we currently have the kind of collective infrastructure to hold the kind of conversations we need to have. We default to “debate” as the form for conversations across difference, and this is never going to result in the kind of kotahitanga I refer to in my essay, nor the things we might agree on that you ask for. Debates are two-sided and are premised on rhetorical persuasion and winning points. They are, by design, binary and polarising. Yet almost all forms of public discussion comes down to these forms. Parliament being a prime example. In other cultures, such as te ao Māori, there are processes that can hold conversations across difference that do not result in only dominant voices being heard, and where relationality is maintained even in disagreement. But in our colonial society, we default to the norms of Westminster and the discursive forms from that heritage, without examining whether they are actually fit for purpose. I am interested in how we can learn from a much wider array of knowledge systems than the narrow ones of the “West”, not to replace them but to expand the scope of what and how we think and act.
I actually believe we need to become much more aware of the worldview that sits underneath our beliefs —to look honestly at it and be prepared to challenge ourselves on that (on all “sides” of the political spectrum). And by worldview, I really mean the axioms and logic that we base our beliefs on. Because within our own logic, our beliefs make perfect sense and those of others seem illogical. Then the arguments between us are really just “he said” “she said” ones—people throwing stones from one planet to another. Without being able to make our assumptions transparent to each other, and to create a space that is safe enough for us to do that, we’ll remain at cross purposes.
The issue I have with the FSU is that it does not seem to acknowledge the dynamics of power, nor the reality of what people need to be able to converse “freely”. It seems to assume all have an equal ability to speak their truth and that it is not necessary to pay attention to the freedoms of those whom that speech is about (the freedom to be safe from harm). I am deeply suspicious of anything that purports to be absolutist, as things are always context-dependent. I’m a student of complexity and I know that the world is ecological and interdependent not mechanical and discrete. Everything we do has consequences for others (both intended and unintended) and believing we have a right to ignore those consequences seems antithetical to the ecology of our interdependent world. The FSU, in its advocacy of an absolutist view of free speech, paves the way for dominating voices to prevail. And is that the way to establish common ground? Does the ability to dominate equate with what is best? I can only think about the world in non-binary ways and it seems that our systems are forcing us into the binaries of for or against, left or right, good or evil, in group or out group. Consequently, I also feel very uncomfortable about blanket censorship, and cancel culture.
I’m much more interested in looking at the systems and environments that give rise to certain behaviours than I am in vilifying individuals. David Seymour is a product of systemic forces. And while we focus on individuals we take our eyes of the systems.
I so appreciate you taking the time to post such a thoughtful response to my essay. And I hope this reply has helped bring more nuance to your understanding of my views. Your comments certainly did for me. Ngā mihi nui.
This is good - Te Tiriti is our protection against privatisation, corporatisation, and environmental degradation.
I'm interested in other short statements too, I am going to start gathering some ☺️
This is spot on. Thank you for nailing it.
A very good analysis of the propaganda techniques being carefully employed by ACT and Seymour
Thank you for your clear analysis of his techniques and hope to argue against him. Very very useful thank you.
Snap! (In the sense of cards, not crocodiles.)
An excellent analysis of Seymour. Putting into words that which I can't. Thanks.
Excellent work. Thanks for your effort. An excellent summary of the techniques he’s been trained on as part of the Atlas network. In reality a puppet for international corporations with a veneer of the rhetoric of the stupidest political ideology in existence layered over the top. Libertarianism is a ridiculous idea. Every good thing in society comes from collectivism.
Frankly I don’t know how Seymore sleeps at night. An atrocious human being.
This needs to be as wide an audience as possible!! Brilliant!!
Thanks!
Hi Rebecca
You make a powerful case for Seymour using a set of obnoxious techniques, for nasty ends. You present an impassioned cry by contrast, for different values that will be good for everyone in New Zealand.
I’ve read through your article a number of times. Your positive wishes are thoughtful and attractive. “no-one goes hungry on the marae”. “The hīkoi offered people a felt experience of kotahitanga—joyous, family-oriented, uplifting the mana of everyone, caring for each other, beautiful individuals flourishing within a web of collectivity and relationships, not left to fend for themselves.”
I can align with these. Oddly though I am on the right. I’m a member of the Free Speech Union for example.
I think what I like best about your article is that your sincerity comes through, and also that you paint parts of a picture of a New Zealand that looks desirable to me.
I also have an ‘ouch’ experience - that characterisation is not me, that is not the ‘right’ that I know. (I know that your focus is specifically the manipulative messaging of David Seymour, but I felt a bit battered along the way.) My experience is that people on the right similarly care about fairness, doing the right thing and finding good solutions for our community.
I have talked with a number of people on the left whom I also see as articulate, good hearted and wanting the best outcome. They are angry and fearful of what the coalition government is doing and will likely continue to do. I like their passion. They care. I’m glad that they are in the same community as me.
For me the issue is what do we want as outcomes? Disagreement is to be expected, natural, reasonable in our discussions as a community. I don’t think it is useful to try to wish disagreement out of existence. What I wonder about though is what things might we find agreement on.
John
Kia ora John. Thank you so much for this generous comment and for its invitation. It does not surprise me that you can align with those values and be “on the right” (tbh, I’m quite suspicious of absolutist categories of all kinds and “left” and “right” are feeling increasingly inadequate terms for a complex entangled landscape). I wrote an earlier essay called “Who do we think we are?” that made the point you make about shared values. Because, like you, I do believe that the vast majority of people believe in fairness, justice, doing the right thing, compassion, and finding good solutions for our community. (That’s not to say that those values are always top of mind for all those in positions of power, though).
I love what you ask in your last paragraph. And I too do not want to wish disagreement out of existence. That is how we learn! But I don’t think we currently have the kind of collective infrastructure to hold the kind of conversations we need to have. We default to “debate” as the form for conversations across difference, and this is never going to result in the kind of kotahitanga I refer to in my essay, nor the things we might agree on that you ask for. Debates are two-sided and are premised on rhetorical persuasion and winning points. They are, by design, binary and polarising. Yet almost all forms of public discussion comes down to these forms. Parliament being a prime example. In other cultures, such as te ao Māori, there are processes that can hold conversations across difference that do not result in only dominant voices being heard, and where relationality is maintained even in disagreement. But in our colonial society, we default to the norms of Westminster and the discursive forms from that heritage, without examining whether they are actually fit for purpose. I am interested in how we can learn from a much wider array of knowledge systems than the narrow ones of the “West”, not to replace them but to expand the scope of what and how we think and act.
I actually believe we need to become much more aware of the worldview that sits underneath our beliefs —to look honestly at it and be prepared to challenge ourselves on that (on all “sides” of the political spectrum). And by worldview, I really mean the axioms and logic that we base our beliefs on. Because within our own logic, our beliefs make perfect sense and those of others seem illogical. Then the arguments between us are really just “he said” “she said” ones—people throwing stones from one planet to another. Without being able to make our assumptions transparent to each other, and to create a space that is safe enough for us to do that, we’ll remain at cross purposes.
The issue I have with the FSU is that it does not seem to acknowledge the dynamics of power, nor the reality of what people need to be able to converse “freely”. It seems to assume all have an equal ability to speak their truth and that it is not necessary to pay attention to the freedoms of those whom that speech is about (the freedom to be safe from harm). I am deeply suspicious of anything that purports to be absolutist, as things are always context-dependent. I’m a student of complexity and I know that the world is ecological and interdependent not mechanical and discrete. Everything we do has consequences for others (both intended and unintended) and believing we have a right to ignore those consequences seems antithetical to the ecology of our interdependent world. The FSU, in its advocacy of an absolutist view of free speech, paves the way for dominating voices to prevail. And is that the way to establish common ground? Does the ability to dominate equate with what is best? I can only think about the world in non-binary ways and it seems that our systems are forcing us into the binaries of for or against, left or right, good or evil, in group or out group. Consequently, I also feel very uncomfortable about blanket censorship, and cancel culture.
I’m much more interested in looking at the systems and environments that give rise to certain behaviours than I am in vilifying individuals. David Seymour is a product of systemic forces. And while we focus on individuals we take our eyes of the systems.
I so appreciate you taking the time to post such a thoughtful response to my essay. And I hope this reply has helped bring more nuance to your understanding of my views. Your comments certainly did for me. Ngā mihi nui.
Here's one: 'Only Aotearoa make Māori - fair go Kiwis!'