Thread: The political culture of censoriousness

Originally Posted by Shutree

We all understand that some languages have words or sounds that can cause amusement in other cultures. The point here is that an otherwise blameless university professor is suspended because someone claimed to have taken offence.

If the PC brigade knew:

All danes my age know the:'indover til en nikker'. "kick it in(from the wing) for a header"

'nikke' means to nod, but also heading a ball.

Well it used to


I think it dissapeared, when the first coloured players came along.
(but I think many my age still remembers, and have a smile all by themself)

New Zealand: Book pulled after author criticises Maori tattoo

A New Zealand author's book has been pulled from an online store after she criticised the foreign affairs minister's traditional Maori tattoo.

Olivia Pierson had tweeted that facial tattoos on a female diplomat was "ugly and uncivilised".

Nanaia Mahuta is the first female MP in New Zealand to have a Maori facial tattoo. She was appointed as minister in a recent cabinet reshuffle.

Ms Pierson's tweet sparked anger and calls for her book to be pulled.

In response, prominent New Zealand online retailer Mighty Ape said it had withdrawn her book and "would not be making it available again".

Some New Zealanders with Maori heritage wear tattoos, known as moko, to mark their genealogy and heritage.

Men's moko tend to cover their entire face, while women's moko cover their chin.

Why this face tattoo has got NZ talking
The rise of the Maori tribal tattoo

Ms Pierson had on Monday posted a tweet linking to a story about Ms Mahuta's appointment.

"Really? The face of NZ's new Foreign Minister? Facial tattoos are not exactly a polished civilised presentation for a foreign diplomat in the 21st century," she said.

She later said facial tattoos "especially on a female diplomat, is the height of ugly, uncivilised wokedom".

Many Twitter users criticised her comments as racially and culturally insensitive, pointing out that moko is part of indigenous culture.

Ms Pierson told New Zealand news outlet Stuff that she stood by her comments, saying facial tattoos were ugly on "anybody, white, brown or black".

PM Jacinda Ardern had earlier described her new cabinet - which also includes the country's first openly gay minister - as "incredibly diverse".

Reaction to the new cabinet has been largely positive, with many praising the move.

Ms Ardern had earlier last month led her Labour Party to a landslide victory in New Zealand's general elections.
Presentational grey line
Moko kauae: a sacred tradition

Female facial tattoos, or moko kauae, have been a part of Maori culture for centuries.

They are carved into the skin using chisels and are seen as particularly sacred, denoting a person's links with their family and cultural identity.

"Maori regard the face or the head as particularly sacred, so the carvings that go on the face or head are also particularly sacred," Mera Lee-Penehira, associate professor at Maori educational institution Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi earlier told the BBC.
Maori Woman with Tattooed Lips and Chinimage copyrightGetty Images

But colonisation and the arrival of Christian missionaries, who found the tattoos distasteful, meant the tradition began dying out in the mid-19th Century.

It was only in the late 20th century that there was a resurgence in interest in moko, among both Maori men and women. Since the 2000s, moko has become increasingly seen and accepted as part of mainstream New Zealand thanks to a new generation of tattoo practitioners, according to the Museum of New Zealand.

Professor Te Kahautu Maxell of the University of Waikato says those getting moko are people "deciding to reclaim their heritage and identity".

"We have to protect the last bastions that we have as Maori to make us different."

New Zealand: Book pulled after author criticises Maori tattoo - BBC News

I think those Maori chin tattoos look awful on the ladies. They look like beards.

But some people like them. hey ho.

Why is expressing this personal aesthetic opinion worthy of having ones book banned?

Banning books is undemocratic, but a tattoo is the sign of a self-absorbed simpleton.

Originally Posted by elche

Banning books is undemocratic, but a tattoo is the sign of a self-absorbed simpleton.

No-one has "banned" this book.

An online retailer has decided it doesn't want its brand damaged by the imbecilic rantings of a gibbering racist twat.

Originally Posted by Looper

New Zealand: Book pulled after author criticises Maori tattoo

A New Zealand author's book has been pulled from an online store after she criticised the foreign affairs minister's traditional Maori tattoo.

Olivia Pierson had tweeted that facial tattoos on a female diplomat was "ugly and uncivilised".

Nanaia Mahuta is the first female MP in New Zealand to have a Maori facial tattoo. She was appointed as minister in a recent cabinet reshuffle.

Ms Pierson's tweet sparked anger and calls for her book to be pulled.

In response, prominent New Zealand online retailer Mighty Ape said it had withdrawn her book and "would not be making it available again".

Some New Zealanders with Maori heritage wear tattoos, known as moko, to mark their genealogy and heritage.

Men's moko tend to cover their entire face, while women's moko cover their chin.

Why this face tattoo has got NZ talking
The rise of the Maori tribal tattoo

Ms Pierson had on Monday posted a tweet linking to a story about Ms Mahuta's appointment.

"Really? The face of NZ's new Foreign Minister? Facial tattoos are not exactly a polished civilised presentation for a foreign diplomat in the 21st century," she said.

She later said facial tattoos "especially on a female diplomat, is the height of ugly, uncivilised wokedom".

Many Twitter users criticised her comments as racially and culturally insensitive, pointing out that moko is part of indigenous culture.

Ms Pierson told New Zealand news outlet Stuff that she stood by her comments, saying facial tattoos were ugly on "anybody, white, brown or black".

PM Jacinda Ardern had earlier described her new cabinet - which also includes the country's first openly gay minister - as "incredibly diverse".

Reaction to the new cabinet has been largely positive, with many praising the move.

Ms Ardern had earlier last month led her Labour Party to a landslide victory in New Zealand's general elections.
Presentational grey line
Moko kauae: a sacred tradition

Female facial tattoos, or moko kauae, have been a part of Maori culture for centuries.

They are carved into the skin using chisels and are seen as particularly sacred, denoting a person's links with their family and cultural identity.

"Maori regard the face or the head as particularly sacred, so the carvings that go on the face or head are also particularly sacred," Mera Lee-Penehira, associate professor at Maori educational institution Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi earlier told the BBC.
Maori Woman with Tattooed Lips and Chinimage copyrightGetty Images

But colonisation and the arrival of Christian missionaries, who found the tattoos distasteful, meant the tradition began dying out in the mid-19th Century.

It was only in the late 20th century that there was a resurgence in interest in moko, among both Maori men and women. Since the 2000s, moko has become increasingly seen and accepted as part of mainstream New Zealand thanks to a new generation of tattoo practitioners, according to the Museum of New Zealand.

Professor Te Kahautu Maxell of the University of Waikato says those getting moko are people "deciding to reclaim their heritage and identity".

"We have to protect the last bastions that we have as Maori to make us different."

New Zealand: Book pulled after author criticises Maori tattoo - BBC News

I think those Maori chin tattoos look awful on the ladies. They look like beards.

But some people like them. hey ho.

Why is expressing this personal aesthetic opinion worthy of having ones book banned?

Originally Posted by elche

Banning books is undemocratic, but a tattoo is the sign of a self-absorbed simpleton.

Looking on the bright side, the face tattoo was never going to spoil her looks.

An ideal person to apologise on behalf of the Maori for Cannibalism.

Are you saying Johny Rotten is not intelligent, creative, successful, and rich? How bigoted.
But I still wouldn't choose him as the Foreign Secretary of the UK.

Originally Posted by TheRealKW

A simple check shows she is experienced, educated and hard working.

She has been in parliament/politics for decades with no achievements and yes, there is positive discrimination here. Right or wrong.

She has no experience for the role despite Jacinda saying she's a good communicator . . . well, she can get stuffed and all. So, she is the wrong person for the job. Winston Peters was the previous FM . . . and he was good at it. He is Maori.

Moko or not, it's irrelevant. Capability and experience is key and Cindy has been criticised even within her own party for this choice as it smacks of pandering . . . just like giving your child a Maori name to be even more liked.
Having the Maori in cabinet getting together after the elections and saying they are proud to be representing Maori . . . instead of NZ.

Ardern bought the election, simple.


As for the book - storm in a teacup. No one forced them to take it off.

I personally think she would have been an intrinsically better choice as Minister of the Interior, or whatever kiwis call that. Not decrying her achievements.
If you wanted a Maori for FM, dontcha think old Winston P somehow fits the part a bit more? Because he was.
But Maori are also a minority of the NZ population, in a land of equality. Pandering is replacing objectivity, in so many arenas.
Which is rather what this thread is about, I thought.

Well too bad you don't get to decide who is / isn't qualified for the role. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Pretty telling that you can't conceive of any other possibility than it wasn't an objective choice either.

Also Winston Peters is an ass.

Of course not, I'm not kiwi. And no, I do not believe she was an objective choice (ie best person for the job)- I believe it was pandering. And I think Winston is a bit of an arse too.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

What these pompous c u n t s neglect to mention is that their waffling "debate" never actually achieves anything, and it's the fact that people are now looking elsewhere and marginalising their essentially worthless opinions that gets their backs up.

I mean seriously, wtf gives some bint who writes kids books about wizards the authority to criticise the trans community?

It's essentially none of her fucking business and it's people like her that are the problem with their bigoted views.

It's not debate, they like their little bit of imagined power.

So fuck them.

She didn't criticize the trans community

If you ever ran for office and they found posts from 10 years ago on TD, you'd be cancelled too.

Originally Posted by sabang

And no, I do not believe she was an objective choice (ie best person for the job)- I believe it was pandering.

Well you're entitled to that belief even if it's not true.

Originally Posted by sabang

The book should not have been 'removed', that is ridiculous and should be deplored.
But I wouldn't want, say, Johny Rotten to be the UK foreign secretary.

Don't be so fucking stupid. If you are an online retailer with a brand to protect, it is perfectly normal to want to disassociate yourself from rancid, whinging, racist Karens like this one.

Perhaps you personally approve of them, but no-one fucking cares.

In response, prominent New Zealand online retailer Mighty Ape said it had withdrawn her book

If you are an online retailer with a brand to protect

Mighty brand there 'arry. Kinda like you.

A bookseller sells books. Not censorship, or opinions.

Originally Posted by sabang

A bookseller sells books. Not censorship, or opinions.

Yeah and they are free to choose which books they'd like to sell. It's neither censorship nor opinion.

Why do you hate freedom, comrade?

Originally Posted by sabang

If you choose what books you will and won't sell, that is the very definition of opinion, and de facto censorship. Isn't it?

No, it isn't. Supply/demand, knowledge of customer base etc... You offer what you can sell.

And yes, it's freedom of commercial transactions. I'm a bit surprised that you'd want to take that away. That'd be censorship of the worst kind, a prelude to book-burning.

Communism/fascism . . .

Hmm . . .

So where do you get Mein Kampf these days?

Communism/fascism . . .

Not so far different, imo. An attempt at thought control, by restricting the availability of information. That includes what you or I might not like. Who decides?




Now lets think about that in the context of todays world. Yeh, that's a H'mmm.

Originally Posted by sabang

If you choose what books you will and won't sell, that is the very definition of opinion, and de facto censorship. Isn't it?

No.

It's a free-market decision and they're not preventing anyone from getting a copy elsewhere so it's not even remotely close to censorship.

Originally Posted by sabang

But it is indeed your right to open a lesbian feminist, or Nazi bookshop I suppose, Comrade.

Your copy of 'Mein Kampf' well worn is it.

Originally Posted by sabang

If you choose what books you will and won't sell, that is the very definition of opinion, and de facto censorship. Isn't it?
I suppose it is the right of a retailer to choose thus, but I would not go there.
I've always taken the viewpoint it is my right to form my own opinion, from freely available information.
But it is indeed your right to open a lesbian feminist, or Nazi bookshop I suppose, Comrade.

Any can choose what books they want to sell based on their personal like or dislike for the author, their assessment quality of the writing, or even if the colour of the sleeve doesn't match their wallpaper.

I'm sure fans of this particular Karen can still order her shit on Amazon.

^^ Das Kapital, much better. Much.