I don't think I'd say I'm surprised, but I'm glad that Willie Jackson is showing a well measured take here.
The brinksmanship of TPM is unfortunately what I've come to expect from the current leadership. The Party is truly in shambles at the minute, with Turia, Sharples and Flavell well in the rear view mirror by now.
Labour: 30%
National: 29%
Greens: 12%
ACT: 9%
NZF: 8%
TOP: 8%
TPM: 1%
Taking all bets.
Going to lead with a caveat here - I think the Greens' concern over data centers, while a touch hyperbolic, is reasonable. I therefore disagree with Winnie's characterisation. I don't have a whole lot of time for NZF either - Personally, they're in my bottom 2 preferred parties. I think it's interesting how little the article focuses on data centres though as opposed to Winnie's choice of language.
>“We could potentially be a world leader,” he said, before a reporter asked if ‘retarded’ was a word that he should be using.
>In the latest Broadcasting Standards research on offensive language, 51% of those surveyed identified “retard” as “totally unacceptable” in all broadcast scenarios. It ranked 11th on the list of the most offensive words.
It's honestly a bit embarrassing that anyone, much less a reporter, falls for what to me is the most obvious bait in the world.
30% of people think the n-bomb is acceptable to say in broadcasting and 66% of people think cunt is unacceptable. The Venn diagram of people Winnie wants to appeal to and people who are bothered by this specific slur is basically two circles that barely intersect.
IMO Winnie's not exactly showing a whole lot of tact with that "Make NZ Great Again" line, but does anyone else find the focus on the potential offense taken a bit basic? Do you think it's focusing on outrage bait or reasonable journalism about rhetoric that's dangerous?
My disappointment is immeasurable, bro.