Open Mike 21/09/25
Open Mike 21/09/25
Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, September 21st, 2025 - 48 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
CommentsOpinions
Today's Posts (updated through the day):
Joseph Mooney cosplays as alt-right hypocrite
A 'good' (i.e. apt, and food for thought) cartoon on how to speed-wreck an economy.
Keep calm and carry on – the sorted will be OK – thanks NAct and Nicky No-Boats.
The Captains of yore, often elected to go down with the ship. As the good ship NACT1 settles lower..and lower, will their Captains also bravely go down with it ? I'm joking of course…lifeboats to Hawaii, well remunerated Board positions etc, etc….
Sorted futures are rosy – I didn't get where I am today by going down with the ship!
Blast from the past…..(who exactly deserved this?)
trump. Small hands, small mind, just…small.
Small man syndrome embiggened with big power….
NAct1 – CoC govt by the sorted, for the sorted – they are creating so many opportunities.
Solar Power. So many reasons why.
Article also on Solar Recycling..which was one of my concerns
Science and Kiwi Tech…this sounds very interesting/promising.
And I link this for Shame Jones and fellow NACT1 dummies, knowing they will neither read…or be interested. As to much loot in Fossil.
And final words of, IMO, great sense….
+10 Billion Psych.
AI tells me "In the first half of 2024, rooftop solar systems generated 11.3% of Australia's total electricity" whereas in NZ it is bugger all.
Having said that AI also says "rooftop solar is growing rapidly in New Zealand, with installations doubling in recent years. While the adoption rate is still low compared to other countries, the sector is experiencing significant growth driven by the economic benefits, dropping panel prices".
A large solar power station was granted consent for Helios OTA by the Central Otago District Council last week near Naseby "consisting of approximately 550,810 solar panels." (That is copied from the decision-I like the approximately).
So things are starting to happen
It would be encouraging to hear a couple of euphemisms used by opposition MPs when describing this government and their actions. Just a couple but repeated at every opportunity.
Words like extremist. The lack of a position they have taken in the horrors in Gaza is kowtowing to extremism. Looking at you Gordon Brittas.
Denying, retrospectively, Pat Equity settlements is extremist.
The fabrication of a financial disaster to justify Willis steering the economy onto the rocks is extremist.
Extra tax-cuts for the already well-off (landlords) is extremist. In fact Willis's austerity economics is extremist. A Year 10 accounting student could tell you that putting money into the hands of the poorest will stimulate the economy better than giving a further subsidy to rentiers.
The riding rough shod over the environment in favour of 19th century extraction economics is extremist.
Come to think of it, incompetence could replace extremist and still do the job.
A chocolate fish every week to the MP that uses extremist or incompetent to describe this flailing and failing regime.
Don't have to release a policy but you can create a narrative.
I think a short sentence is better. Extremist is already a highly weaponised word, and can be used against the left as well. Let's not give that more fuel. I like incompetent, and think it would be better used with a short explainer (because again, it can be used against the left and the right are better at this than us).
Something like this,
or a bit shorter. Not sure if Labour are going to say that. But the rest of us can.
Yep, down with the sentence idea. Repeating it is what matters. Then the essence – incompetence or extreme is stays in the mind of voters.
Surely there are staffers that are qualified in this sort of thing…
I think there’s a fine line between extreme incompetence and incompetent extremism. Both are dangerous and inflict harm and such people & actions cannot and must not be trusted. The question to ask is if they were becoming more competent suddenly, e.g., by using AI or taking onboard specialist advice based on evidence, would the outcome be better or more (or less) of the same (or worse)? If so, then they were extremely incompetent, if not, they were incompetently extreme. I’d like to think we/you can work it out without the help of staffers 😉
Sadly there is evidence of both extreme incompetence (the ferry cancellation when it's obvious to everyone it was the landbased development that needed pulling back) and incompetent extremism (the prevarication on meaningful response regards Israel).
According to our Foreign Minister on Seymour "A statement was made by someone who's got no authority to make it and that's why we're putting the record straight now."
followed by "The Minister's office has since clarified his use of loco juventus referred to the "general inexperience of youth"."
But hoping for that was plain foolish of me. Anyone with half a big brain could see the big money behind the CoC wanted to drive NZ onto the rocks the moment Nicky No-Boats ('We're saving so much money!') pulled the plug on the iReX ferry project.
Wrecks create opportunities for the sorted – NAct1 is govt by the sorted, for the sorted.
Another approach could be relentless repetition of an absurdly inappropriate word or phrase of commendation – " …. and Brutus is an honourable man!" kind of stuff. But maybe no. The sheeple seldom appreciate irony, and are most likely to think the speakers are playing it straight.
The word "extremist" has pejorative overtones so it could hardly be called a euphemism.
euphemism: from Greek, eu (good) + phema (something said or spoken)
Yr right.
I kinda meant euphemism as 'another word for'. The pejorative rules it out.
Epithet would have been a better word.
Edit. Full disclosure, I thought the word was epiphet. My brain must be starting to calcify…
Sunday reading.
Claims of pure bloodlines? Ancestral homelands? DNA science says no.
Geneticist explains analyses made possible by tech advances show human history to be one of mixing, movement, displacement
[…]
“The big perspective change from ancient DNA study is that people living today are almost never the descendants of the people in the same place thousands of years before,” Reich said.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/09/claims-of-pure-bloodlines-ancestral-homelands-dna-science-says-no/
Interesting, thanks. The fact of all that mixing and mingling helps to evaporate the idea that there is some biological basis to the concept of 'race'. It suggests that 'race' is a social invention that pops up at certain times and in certain places to serve particular political or economic agendas. All that the idea of 'race' now has to hang its hat on is skin colour differences, which are most likely a recent evolutionary adaptation to latitude and the need to balance UV radiation absorption – but with no deeper significance.
And even less relevant when you stick religion in the mix and try and pretend it is an ethnicity.
Oversold.
It is really a story of conquest/migration.
The introduction of a new dominant male group. That bred with those there before them. The part that undermines the concept of race purity (as does inter-marriage and new population inflow since).
c60,000 years ago a male line left Africa and became dominant (in the male line) settlers outside of Africa.
The rest is subplot – regional reprise. The out of the steppes waves across Europe supplanting the hunter gatherers and Anatolian farmers there etc.
Thus the Yamnaya R Y chromosome dominates Europe.
But some areas such as Han Chinese have a longer settlement – more so in the case of the indigenous in the Americas.
That said "ethnic" peoples is a thing. It is cultural, continuing identity or area based.
Often based on descent (such as Maori iwi).
Not so relevant to nations based on immigration (Americas/Australasia) though.
It is a current live political issue in Europe (and in the immigration nations – when right wingers talk about their Christian white race identity nation heritage).
Every statistic about how bad the US economy is getting is being buried or cooked.
/
Paul Atkins, chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, said his agency will propose a rule change following President Donald Trump’s call to switch quarterly earnings reports to a semiannual schedule
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/19/sec-to-propose-rule-change-on-trumps-call-to-end-quarterly-earnings-reporting-says-chair-atkins.html
The Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday postponed the release of a key annual report central to future inflation data.
https://archive.li/l25SR (axios)
The Trump administration announced Saturday that it was canceling an annual US food insecurity survey, claiming it had become "overly politicized," its latest attack on government data gathering.
https://www.barrons.com/news/trump-administration-cancels-us-hunger-survey-77e86fd8
The reduction to food stamps (SNAP) increasing food insecurity.
Dear leader has set the tone.
.
In an undercover operation last year, the FBI recorded Tom Homan, now the White House border czar, accepting $50,000 in cash after indicating he could help the agents — who were posing as business executives — win government contracts in a second Trump administration, according to multiple people familiar with the probe and internal documents reviewed by MSNBC.
[…]
Undercover FBI agents posing as contractors communicated and met several times last summer with a business colleague who introduced them to Homan, and with Homan himself, who indicated he would facilitate securing contracts for them in exchange for money once he was in office, according to documents and the people familiar with the case.
On Sept. 20, 2024, with hidden cameras recording the scene at a meeting spot in Texas, Homan accepted $50,000 in bills, according to an internal summary of the case and sources.
FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors took no further investigative steps in the final months of 2024, the people said, and expected to keep monitoring Homan to determine if he landed an official role and would make good on steering contracts in a future Trump administration.
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/news/tom-homan-cash-contracts-trump-doj-investigation-rcna232568
The week ahead at the UN when western nations fall into line on the recognition of Palestine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp9848kxp2go
Starmer is to get ahead of the issue with a statement on their Sunday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce800enrglzo
No, nothing to do with the handling of the pandemic, although that matters too in what I am about to say. I was talking about people who have been cancelled by the liberal left. The most obvious example is people who have taken gender critical views, including progressive gender critical views, and been sacked for it. Literally lost their jobs because people who call themselves left think it's appropriate to take away people's means of making a living.
I will give UK examples, in part because I don't want NZ GC lefties to have another target painted on their back. Liberals have run No Debate and cancel culture against sex realists for a decade, and many people have been harrassed, lost their jobs or careers, been arrested or 'visited' by the police for non crime hate incidents for saying things like trans women are men (albeit rudely or offensively). I've been naming this on TS for probably 6 years.
Now populist and proto-fascist Reform is polling higher than either the Tories or Labour, and there is a sea change against liberals. Hence 100,000 people at the far right rally headed by Tommy Robinson. That happened in the same week that Kirk was murdered, and one of the scariest things I've seen politically is the number of otherwise progressive women take the side of the right over how Kirk is being memorialised. Women disgusted at see the glee from liberals over a political assassination.
The UK now has an entrenched problem with two tier policing, actual and perceived, and more and more people are turning away from liberal values because the policing is tied into liberal cancel culture.
Meanwhile the left this week is falling out over the new Your Party, with Zarah Sultana trying to wrest power from Corbyn and basically fucking the newly forming party.
I cannot emphasise how much the right are making currency from all of that. In the US there's a massive open goal whereby every mindless and often abhorrent thing a liberal says on tiktok or IG is being amplified across social media and blamed on the left and used to undermine the left while the US presidency is literally advancing the fascism playbook.
And the left here seems largely oblivious, or still thinks we can force people to think like us by ostracising people who don't think like us, or seems to think it's got nothing to do with us even while the same dynamics are unfolding.
I'm not writing posts about all of that because I don't want a target on my back atm. But I have to say I'm disappointed in TS, of all places, that even in comments we can't have this conversation (but apologies to MT for going off topic, although obviously it's related).
[TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
there are academics in NZ not able to speak freely, because of the liberal left. That’s why some of us in this conversations are pissed.
Ah, my bad. The liberal left hushing up Kiwis being sacked for their GC views, and the sackings themselves, is scandlous – not to mention no debate. GC views seem to get a semi-regular airing in comments on TS – maybe the NZ mainstream media is to too short-staffed to do their job?
I remember you writing that you're classed as a bigot because you believe in women's sex-based rights, so I understand where you're coming from.
The Centrist seems to have a smattering of articles related to GC views, although they won't all be everyone's cuppa tea.
One thing is certain – it's a(nother) polarising (no-)debate.
I don’t want to force people to think like me – how would I even do that? But it’s nice when they do (think like me) – I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t. And I am a lefty, it’s true, so maybe I don’t see and/or understand the force I’m applying.
I moved our comments to OM, because we're getting well off topic.
If you want left wing or progressive sex realist/GC views, here are some to try,
https://womensliberationaotearoa.org.nz/
https://tewharewhero.blogspot.com/
https://theministryhasfallen.substack.com/
https://womensrightsparty.nz/
Also useful to understand the sex/gender politics in NZ
https://blog.fullyinformed.nz/
https://genspect.org/international/new-zealand/
https://www.speakupforwomen.nz/
https://www.publicgood.org.nz/
https://www.lava.nz/
Thanks weka. I wasn't after GC views as such – rather, it would help me to understand the nature (if not the magnitude) of the problem in NZ if I could see a couple of (anonymised) examples of the many Kiwis who "have been harrassed, lost their jobs or careers, been arrested or 'visited' by the police for non crime hate incidents for saying things like trans women are men…"
Because if that sort of anti-GC activity is widespread (and even one person losing their job because of their GC views is unacceptable), then this needs to be brought to light – there are too many unemployed Kiwis as is. Tbh, I'm surprised NZF isn't all over it – even one example of a GC-related sacking would surely bolster its political fortunes.
I did a cursory search of the four websites you kindly provided links for, and found a possible example, although I'm not sure what issue the apparently problematic comment was addressing – perhaps a waste of resources?
If it's rare in NZ, then perhaps there are examples among the GC Kiwi diaspora?
Google's AI answer is not much help:
as I said, I'm not willing to talk about NZ gender critical people, because I don't want to put more of a target on their back. I can give you many examples from the UK, which is what my comment focussed on.
(I can tell you about the time I watched NZ twitter organise to try and prevent a well known GC woman from getting a rental in the new city she was moving too. That one played out in public. Very liberal /sarc)
Non hate crime incidents are a particular reference to the UK. You can look up Helen Joyce's recent post on this if you want. The concern for NZ is if we are heading in the same direction the UK went. Looking at the Law Commission's review of the HRA re gender for example, which if taken up by parliament would fundamentally alter women's rights and freedom of expression in NZ.
This is why I gave you the reference list. Those people are talking about these issues all the time. But also I felt the need to redress the balance with the Centrist links. We get accused of being RW enough as it is.
Thanks weka. If NZ & UK cases of GC Kiwis getting sacked for expressing GC views are qualitatively similar, then I will look to the UK examples.
It could also be helpful to put the magnitude of the problem in NZ into perspective. Might it be a fairly small problem, as a percentage of total unfair dismissals – 1%; 0.1%; 0.01%? That can probably be discussed without putting a target on anyone's back, and perhaps information about the scale of the problem is available in the US/UK, since people are talking about these issues all the time? However big or small the problem is, it's likely bigger than the problem of sacking transgender people for being trans, because in NZ that constitutes unfair dismissal for this small group.
It's good to have positive dialogue between gender critical and gender inclusive folk here – it gives me hope for the future of my trans relatives. Maybe self-ID-related gender issues will come to matter as much in NZ as they (seem to) matter in the US/UK. For now, however, imho they are niche issues – relatively or completely unimportant to most Kiwis, in spite of the efforts of several political parties and organisations for or against self-ID.
I think your last sentence is both incorrect and a tactical mistake that’s made by the liberal left. And the wider left actually. We’re at the point in New Zealand with the deputy prime minister can use the gender sex wars to advance his populist agenda. If we don’t stop and deal with this now by the time it hits the mainstream the damage will have been done. That damage is to trans rights, you can see how that works in the US. And it’s also to women, you can see that in the law commission report. It’s to children because we don’t get to have an open discussion about medical ethics. And it’s to the wider society because most people are sex realist and when push comes to shove the evidence shows that they move to the right. In the case of the UK they actually side with fascists. The left’s response to that is to say oh well they were never left in the first place. And thus our numbers shrink because that’s obviously a completely nuts position to take.
Another way to understand this is that NZ is some years behind the UK. This is why I have such strong concerns, because I’ve seen what’s played out in the UK and I fear what would happen if we go down that track further than we already have. I understand that people who haven’t been following their issues internationally may see this is niche issue that doesn’t really have any relevance. But that’s a consequence of no debate not of there being no issue.
Regarding quantifying the impacts on people, of cancelled culture and no debate in this particular area, consider this. If somebody got sacked for saying things like I’d like female only toilets, or even something like people can’t change sex, do you think that they are more likely to a) go public with what’s happened to them, or b) stay silent find another job and keep their head down because they need the income?
Even in the UK where there is a now a very strong movement of support for people that have been badly affected, I doubt that we have a true sense of how many people have been affected. The people that have stood up and gone public have done so at great cost. But they did so within the context of a movement that was building. In New Zealand we don’t have that to anywhere near the same extent, and what we do have is a public debate that is currently being driven by the right, simply because left-wing and progressive voices have been so successfully suppressed. Consider that we nearly lost the Standard over this.
I’m also reluctant to frame this and a quantitative way of trans versus gender critical people. I strongly believe that trans people need protections and society so that they don’t get fired for being trans. It doesn’t matter how few there are. It’s a basic principle that the left should be upholding for all people. You don’t get fired for who you are and you don’t get fired for your beliefs. We actually have this in law.
It’s also my genuine belief that trans people will be served better by allowing progressive gender critical voices. We can look to the US for the example of what happens when the right gets to determine the narrative. Progressive gender critical people want trans people to have their human rights upheld as well as those of women and children. Unfortunately, what is happening in both the US and the UK is a backlash against trans people because of the excesses of the identitarian left.
I got your point. Kiwis will vote for NZF for any number of reasons, e.g. being "sick of the identitarian left", and Peters is a wily politician. So, voters who are "sick of the identitarian left" may swell NZF's vote, but imho they're unlikely to be crucial to Peters (Winston First) getting in again – we can agree to disagree.
Might explain why it's a niche issue in NZ politics – groups such as the NZ Women's Rights and New Conservative parties, who understand the issues and are "sick of the identitarian left", are passionate about highlighting and broadening the appeal of GC views – maybe they will get what they wish for.
I feel that I understand at least some of the issues, and that's without being "sick of the identitarian left". The principles embodied in BDMRR appeal to me, and debate outcomes seldom please everyone.
Thanks Google (hitting the ‘maximum number of links’ limit):
The 'No Debate' rages
I'm not debating them either, at least not any more – they are something for me – happy to share in the interests of understanding.
Not sure how you got that from my comment – perhaps re-read?
I'm a lefty, and I've made many, many mistakes (who hasn't), but surely the (political?) damage was done when the 'self-ID bill' was passed by unanimous vote of Parliament on 9 Dec 2021 – perhaps even earlier.
Our current PM and two deputy PMs all voted 'aye'. Imho, self-ID has been mainstream in NZ for years now – the last general election was contested by multiple niche political parties (Women's Rights Party, New Conservatives Party, Vision New Zealand) who oppose self-ID.
Populist NZF and other (political) actors will continue to bang on about the risks of self-ID, and that may garner political parties a few votes, but my concerns have ebbed as I've seen trans relatives become healthy, well-adjusted young adults. They don't see themselves as 'damaged', and believe me I did make repeated ham-fisted efforts to convince them otherwise. Still, we live and learn – everyone's different. And the damage I did to my relationship with them is nearly repaired – they may even come to trust me again, in time.
Me to; I’d rather see it as gender critical people
versusand gender inclusive people, with transgender people as a subset of ‘gender inclusive’. Both groups have recourse to legal protections in NZ law, and should ideally abide by those laws, even while they seek change.consider that the votes needed to get Peters in again might be held by people who won't vote left over gender ideology.
I don't know what you mean by teh damage having been done by the BDMRR. Do you mean no more damage can be done? Or that the battle was lost then?
Have you looked at the law commission review? There are many more battles to be had and that's a major one if National tries to advance it.
That's great your trans rellies are doing well. Do you have any concerns about the lives of detrans people?
If Peters campaigns in the 2026 election, then imho it's likely NZF will get in. People who won't vote left over gender issues have several GC parties to choose from – that's NZ (MMP) democracy in action.
Was thinking fewer votes for parties supporting BDMRR, particularly on the left, as illustrated by your Peters example. We face many risks, and some Kiwis perceive the risks of principles embodied in BDMRR as overriding, but I couldn't trust any party that routinely traded principles for votes.
Hadn't looked at the Law Commission's recommendations – thanks.
Isn't it though, and a relief tbh. I'm aware of detransitioning (a potentially tough decision and process), and advanced detransitioning and other concerns in my initial dismay and subsequent remonstrations several years ago. Most of these are of less concern to me now.
I think you've missed my point. If NZF are marginal, swing voters sick of the identitarian left might choose Peters over Labour, thus bringing him back in. I mentioned that because you seemed to be saying that banging on about GI might get a few votes. Those 'few' votes might determine who forms government.
All parties currently in parliament voted for the BDMRR changes. NZF is the only party committed to opposing GII atm (I don't trust them on that though).
Most Kiwis don't understand the issues around GI vs sex, because No Debate means we've never had a public debate. This tracks very well with the UK, where initially it wasn't on the public agenda and politicians were doing what they wanted. GC people, esp women and grassroots orgs forced their hand, both Tories and Labour and smaller parties.
There's been a clear shift in UK opinion polls from 'sure, trans people have rights' to 'yes, trans people have rights, but draw the line at women's spaces and sports'. I would expect similiar-ish in NZ if we had a public debate. That's why No Debate exists, because open discussion changes people's minds. NZ is more liberal than the UK, but even so most people in NZ aren't going to accept men in women's toilets once they know what that means.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/topic/Transgender
Because you're unconcerned about detransitioners, or because you don't believe detransitioning is such a big deal?
btw, I'm not debating your personal choices with your family, that's something for you. I am surprised to see you arguing your personal view without regard to the wider social good though.
Here's an example of attempted venue cancellation.
https://www.franksogilvie.co.nz/news/case-brief-whitmore-v-palmerston-north-city-council
I'm sure you already know about Albert Park.
The LAVA case is about whether lesbians could be excluded from a Pride event because of their gender critical views that only women can be lesbians, and that trans-identified males aren't lesbian.
The tide is turning.
Charles MacKay, in his book that examines historical events where mass delusion and irrational behavior led to widespread folly and disaster.
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”
To clarify Men in the above context is talking about mankind.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-mean-of-the-sentence-Men-it-has-been-well-said-think-in-herds-in-Men-it-has-been-well-said-think-in-herds-it-will-be-seen-that-they-go-mad-in-herds-while-they-only-recover-their-senses-slowly-one-by-one
Now we have a new language issue
is a “trans man” a male who is a transsexual and is now a woman, or is it a woman who is now a man?
same goes for “trans woman”. Is it a woman who is transsexual and is now a man, or is it a man who is now a woman?
the prefix “trans” puts one in the “other” category. If you’ve transitioned, why the need to point out one is “trans”, particularly for transexuals noting transexuals are absolutely different from transgender people which usually arise from unresolved mental health issues.
I don't actually know how the term trans woman came about.
I saw someone on twitter earlier calling a trans woman a trans man, and pretty sure it was not because he didn't know but because he refuses to obscure physical reality. It's why so many now use the term trans identified male, but it must still be confusing to many. Have to admit, when people start using trans masc etc I have to go look up what they mean.