Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
Are you a
This poll is closed.
homeowner 39 22.41%
renter 69 39.66%
stupid peace of poo poo 66 37.93%
Total: 174 votes
[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

 
  • Locked thread
klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

dusty posted:

:wtc:

Ready your gifs of Key touching children's hair

Is this for real?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.
I consider John keys actions to be sexual assault, especially so since he made the "tantalising" remark.

I would expect your average Joe on the street to be charged with assault after doing this. John Key should definitely be, since he has so much more power than you average Joe. By power, I mean the imposing fact that he is pm and the fact that he has 4 goons with him.

I predict that no one will give a gently caress passed tomorrow, his actions will be written off as just innocent playfulness by the louder probably old white male members of society.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Butt Wizard posted:

I mean more if getting police involved/charges laid is/was the intention, she should have and probably would have done that.

She seems like she's more interested in getting him rightfully called out for being a dick.

The manner in which police are alerted to a crime is utterly irrelevant to the discussion, and should not change their response. I expect him to be at least questioned, if not arrested. I also expect to be disappointed because that won't happen.

Edit: also, why is the headline " PM sorry for pulling woman's hair"? That isn't the story, talk about burying the lead. The headline should be "pm assaults waitress". The former headline implies a sort of finality.

klen dool fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Apr 22, 2015

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Varkk posted:

Maybe she did go to the police and he is the prominent New Zealander who is facing charges we aren't supposed to talk about.

Holy poo poo.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Slavvy posted:

I still don't think it's a sexual thing. I think he just has a bizarre OCD compulsion to gently caress around with people's hair and most men he meets don't have pig/ponytails. Also helps that women are less likely to react with uncontrollable rage.

How do you explain the "tantalising" comment? Anyway, sexual harassment often isn't a sexual thing for the perpetrator - its about power over the victim. Women are trained to not speak out, men are trained to be bold, when a man does this its inherently a sexual thing even if the perpetrator doesn't think so. In this case, there is physical intimidation as well as sexual, since he has 4 goons with him and also is described as being physically larger. Finally, there is political intimidation since he is the pm.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Slavvy posted:

I think you're dead-set on making it sexual, against all sense and reason. I very much doubt that he's both a pedophile and a wanna-be conventional rapist. It strikes me as being more like the kind of habits obsessive-compulsive people have - like he's unable to resist the urge to childishly tug on people's hair and hasn't learned to restrain himself because he's the goddamn PM. I'm not saying it's right or good but desperately trying to force it into being a sex thing against all reason doesn't really help anything.

"Tantalising" is not "titillating" and the impression I get is of him trying to imply "if you didn't want me to tug on it like an enormous child, why would you tie it up in a ponytail? :smug:"

Saying there's physical intimidation is pretty ridiculous though. He isn't an african warlord. The waitress isn't in fear of JK hitting her or committing some act of violence against her, ditto the security (who are quite literally working a government job and aren't actually super-villain henchmen who dispose of bodies).

The waitress said she was intimidated, so, she was. I am not dead set on making it a sexual thing - it is, despite what any of us want.

Edit: I never said he was a rapist or a paedophile btw

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.
I am pretty unimpressed with the headlines - they are all leaning towards casting suspicion on the waitress' motivations or Minimising the pm's motivations.

The headline should be "pm sexually harasses waitress".

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Slavvy posted:

You argue the point a lot better than klen dool; you're probably right.

Awwwww you have me a sad on my heart :( I thought I did a good job.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Butt Wizard posted:

Headlines change as stories develop. The only place that was carrying it before the apology was out was The Daily Blog. When the PM apologises, that becomes the headline. It's also when most media outlets picked it up.

Fine. Point conceded, even if begrudgingly.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Somfin posted:

You did a good job of going the next step and digging into the philosophy behind why that poo poo was definitely an abuse of power and why she didn't say anything at the time. All I had to do was establish the fundamental point of 'yes this definitely counts as sexual, or it's close enough that it doesn't matter, and it probably isn't just an OCD thing.'

All healed now :)

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:

Mr Key could also be investigated for common assault for "hostile touching" if police received a complaint, he said.

Auckland University criminology and sociology lecturer Dr Ronald Kramer said Mr Key's unwanted physical actions put the vulnerable waitress in a powerless position where she was unable to "fight back".

"You have to remember this is an older white male with a lot of power doing something like this to a woman who is presumably young, in a difficult job, and presumably on low pay."

Dr Kramer said people in powerful positions such as the prime minister's often did not think about how their actions affected others.



Doctored. :boom:

Hmmm I thought that the police didn't need someone to complain in order to investigate. Perhaps this whole law thing is a little more complicated that I previously thought.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Lancelot posted:

today I'm gonna remember the Maori jailed for objecting to being conscripted into the army of their violent colonial oppressors to fight for a foreign monarchy which invaded their land and illegally dispossessed them of it

Jesus it never even occurred to me that Maori would have been subject to the draft, but of course they were.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Vandalseed posted:

Right, point taken.

Were you there for the 10:00AM one? I was less than 10m away from the minute gun, and literally knew exactly when it would fire, but it still made me jump. KABOOM!

How about the ferals at the riverfront who literally (this is sooo overused, but actually, literally true this time ) could not stop their offspring from talking during the one minute silence?

I have never served, and obviously this all comes across as self-righteous-by-proxy.

But, that really soured the whole thing. The ferals in question are serial peaceniks from a long way back. Okay, we get it, but : A little decorum, folks, at least today?

Kids talk, you can't stop them you mental case - especially when they are like 2.

Edit: you think the soldiers who died would be annoyed that an innocent child (who they ostensibly died for) doesn't understand decorum and talked? gently caress me....

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:

I hope someone casually knifes him in the throat.

lol me too

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

WarpedNaba posted:

I can't believe it. After scandals and corruption and embezzlement and mismanagement and generally being an utter laughing stock overseas, it's ponytail pulling that sinks the PM in the public's eye.

It's like Al Capone and tax evasion, Christ.

Sexual harassment and assault are much worse than all those other things.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:

I believe you mean "horsing around"

Oh right of course. Just some innocent horse play. Its not like she was wearing pig tails, now that would be gross! Pigs are gross. Horses and ponys, noble and innocent. Pigs wallow in their own poo poo, pulling pig tails is disgusting. Now animals of the equine persuasion - brave, noble fellas always up for some light hearted play!

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Ghostlight posted:

It's also been a number of years, but at the time our local MP was key in helping my mum keep pressure on the government to negotiate my dad out of effectively being held for ransom overseas.

Can you (or do you want to) talk about it? Sounds tantalising, like the swish of a tightly bundled rope of hair

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Ghostlight posted:

It probably wouldn't dox me any more than any other information already out there, so sure.

My family spent a number of years in Riyadh as my father was deployed there by the American company he was working for. When he was done my parents decided to return to New Zealand rather than the States, and as we were all boarding the plane he was pulled aside, his passport taken, and he was told he couldn't leave because he was a spy. The rest of us left on that plane, as he was worried about what could happen if we stayed, and once back in New Zealand my mother had to work with a government that really didn't care to rock the boat in regard to demanding its Middle Eastern ally-by-way-of-all-holy-America return a citizen that was being held for national security reasons that mysteriously could all be cleared up if his company made a couple of million dollars worth of concessions/promises that it didn't feel inclined to make for a now ex-employee. It was about a year and a half of prodding the MFA to please ask the Saudi government for their citizen back before I guess the political hassle of holding him started outweighing the imagined payoff and they let him get on a plane.

Wow that's crazy. You (and your family) must have been terrified.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

This is why I like hone

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.
I was talking to a mate who works in radio while Key was out of the country during the whole waitress assault, she was convinced that there had been a shift caused by the assault in how they will portray Key - more as a buffoon, a target for derision. That doesn't seem to have happened. In fact, it seems nothing has happened. He is back in the country and as far as I know he hasn't been arrested or questioned, and everything seems to have gone back to normal.

I think he really could be caught on video shooting a kitten, and get away with it. I am starting to doubt my own intuition about the whole thing - maybe greed is good and women are playthings?

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.
This all means I am an alien in my own culture. Well, it might change, one day :)

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.
I think we should keep the flag we have now, until we decide to become a republic. Then we can get a new flag.

On the other hand, perhaps this is a step towards becoming a republic. We get a supreme court, we change the flag, then something else, then we become a republic.

I suspect this is legacy building for key though, he wants to be remembered as the guy that changed the flag not the guy that assaults wait staff.

Either way, the Maori flag is cool but also a design that keeps the southern cross is cool too because in my naive opinion the southern cross is important for Maori because sea navigation?

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

echinopsis posted:

Our flag doesn't have to disregard every aspect of our legacy. White people colonising this country have arguably made it the country it is today

We came over on boats, and the southern cross on the flag is a European design so the southern cross is our legacy as well.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Wow. Sneaky communism. Love it.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Voted

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Varkk posted:

Also ask Winston if he has stairs in his house.

Oh god he can't be a goon. Can he? No. Surely not.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Bushmaori posted:

Hold politicians to account for each and every lie they tell. Make them apologise in front of a crowd who hold rotten vegetables, after 20 lies they can no longer be a politician and their retirement benefits are cut. Also in the event they die young their bodies are stuffed and left around the beehive.

Weight votes based on if the voter actually understands the issue, rather than being a parrot of talking points. This was anyone who votes that gay marriage should be illegal based on the word of god is rightly ignored. Also put them in the stocks or something, I don't know.

Vote Bush.

Goddamn I wish this was practical.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Bushmaori posted:

Is it any less practical than the god-awful system we have now?

Vote Bush.

Yeah, determining ones knowledge on a subject in order to weight the vote bloody impossible. So its slightly less practical than the system we have now.

I am not entirely convinced that our current system is fundamentally god-awful to be honest. Like any system, it can be subverted, and I think we can claw back control.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.
Cheese rolls. There is no other finer kiwi snack.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.
I don't think we need a leader, or head of state. I view the prime minister as merely the leader of their party, and will never treat them as a head of state. They are the opposite.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Slavvy posted:

Let me tell you about humans.

Go on....

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Bushmaori posted:

Well just because Peter Dunne is human scum doesn't necessarily mean his crotch fruit is. In fact, son of Dunne might not be scum.

Disclaimer: I'm a big drama queen that thinks any politician that supports the war on drugs is dumb, and any politician in a position to fight it but who chooses not to can die in a fire.

This, but in a weird twist I am okay with banning tobacco completely - and even encourage it.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Ghostlight posted:

They're a miserable pile of secrets.

I have no secrets. One of my biggest secrets is that I do indeed have secrets.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Slavvy posted:

Every time JK goes anywhere overseas, he's referred to as meeting with other heads of state.

If I went out in the street and asked who NZ's head of state was, practically everyone will say John Key.

I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, I'm just saying that for the overwhelming majority of NZers there is no distinction between a head of state and a PM. Most people aren't even aware of the difference.

Yeah I realise all that. I wasn't describing how it is, I was describing how I want it to be.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

bobbilljim posted:

how did these youngsters get onto the Internet's only troll free forum

That's what I was just thinking. I'm 39 :corsair:

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Slavvy posted:

Long story involving americans chastising me for using THE C WORD. I'll change it back when I can be bothered.

god what a bunch on cunts.

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Exclamation Marx posted:

I'm pro flag change even though it's an obvious legacy-building exercise for Key, we probably won't get another opportunity for 50 years. I'm also really hoping for something with no fern/southern cross.

This, but non-ironically

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

:swoon::gonk:

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Cumslut1895 posted:

Anyone convicted of a vicious enough assault*, rape or murder should be executed.
Do you believe a six year jail sentence is sufficient for burning someone alive?

Acting like I'm some kind of monster just shows how loving little you care about the actual victims. Yeah, give the perpetrators light sentences, it's not like they really did anything that bad!

* Anything causing serious disability, physical or mental should be legally considered murder


You are not civilised enough to be having this conversation. If you are not under 20 years of age, please seek psychiatric help for your antisocial behaviour. I am 100% not taking the piss.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

klen dool
May 7, 2007

Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

Cumslut1895 posted:

lol okay buddy

I am serious - is there an adult or care giver with you? I'd like to chat with them.

  • Locked thread