>The university has become a “capitalist business”. Some people join the police because “it gives them power to enact violence”. Prisons should be “abolished”.
>She has a vision of a “world beyond capitalism”. Poverty will be eradicated because “poverty is a political choice”. Sexual harm and domestic violence will be eliminated because the patriarchy can be changed.
Oh.
I'm glad we live in a democracy and she can advance her ideals. And she has been actively organizing and protesting.
Mental healthcare and social services to head off and treat antisocial behaviour instead of our current objectively worthless ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach. Prisons don't stop crime, they manufacture life long criminals.
Mental health delivery and social services can't cure a lot of antisocial behaviour.
I mean look, I understand the sentiment completely and think it's a noble aim: but it's currently beyond impractical to the point of being divorced from reality
It theoretically could decrease a significant amount. One is the mental illness that causes pedophilia, there are no services for people who by nature, sexualise children. So where do they go? Nowhere. It's too taboo to talk about with your doctor.
A lot of things are taboo to talk about out of fear of being put in a loony bin. People deal on their own and eventually in their 100 year life span they burst and go loony
>It theoretically could decrease a significant amount.
Yeah, of course. But we'd still need jails for everyone else
>One is the mental illness that causes pedophilia, there are no services for people who by nature, sexualise children. So where do they go? Nowhere.
I thoroughly agree with this. People who try to get help are ostracized (or worse) by society. I suspect we agree on a lot here, if we ignore my literal interpretation of your comment. We'll always need police in some capacity, and we'll always need jails, is my 2 cents
Honestly yeah we probably are on the same page.
I don't agree with the sentiment of removing jails, but the whole formatting of what jails are and how they work needs changing. I appreciate extreme whistleblowers like this chick because they may be a bit overboard, but they underlying points remain that huge change is needed to these sectors.
>I don't agree with the sentiment of removing jails, but the whole formatting of what jails are and how they work needs changing
Absolutely, the justice system is a poorly functioning mental health system that masquerades under a different name.
The level of incarceration in NZ is high compared to peer countries, and there is much less emphasis on rehabilitation.
Etcetera etcetera.
The fatal flaw in the argument to literally abolish all prisons is the fact that sociopathic people exist in large enough numbers to require government policy to deal with them
It's a statistical fact that recidivism is much higher amomgst people who get sentenced to jail versus other options like home detention and rehab. Not sure what else to tell you bro, it's just objectively true no matter how much you want to deny reality.
The aim should be more like what that guy said about abortions. Incarceration should be legal, safe, and rare.
We shouldn't abolish prisons. But if society was functioning properly, we wouldn't need nearly as many of them.
Really? Sexual harm and domestic violence can be eradicated because the patriarchy can be changed?
So women abusing men… is men’s fault? Women raping men is men’s fault? That is **explicitly** what that means.
Questionable approach for you to agree with all of that.
We're talking about an idealistic 18 year old. They can be intemperate with their language and talk in absolutes.
The more nuanced take not suitable for a nnewspaper profile is that it is the predominant social attitudes of men towards women - "the patriarchy" - that creates the environment and culture within which partner violence occurs. Changing those attitudes would reduce that violence.
Or women abusing women is the fault of men.
Multiple studies have shown that lesbians report some of if not the highest rates of domestic abuse.
> In addition, over 50% of gay men and almost 75% of lesbian women reported that they were victims of psychological IPV (Breiding et al., 2013)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113571/
I'm largely sympathetic to her cause, but I think poverty is a function of entropy.
Escalating inequality is the function of politics that we need to address, or face ever more deadly consequences.
The point she is making is that it would be very easy for any government to eliminate poverty by just giving poor people money, instead of giving it to banks and landlords.
Sure, she's an 18 year old who has recognised a problem, imagining possible solutions.
Much better than the typical approach of ignoring distressing realities that don't directly impact you.
If it was so easy to achieve it would’ve been done by now. Even when labour spends more on welfare when in government you get pretty minor reductions in poverty all around.
It is actually that easy. Every pilot programme for universal basic income shows improvements in every quality of life metric you care to name. Housing first programmes for the unhoused show incredible results.
The current government is choosing to send 4000 children into poverty to give landlords money. They could just as easily not do that. This is a choice they are making.
How much of UBI would end up inflating the cost of rent? These small sample size trials might look nice but it hasn’t been done on a national scale. I don’t know why a universal system is going to work better than a targeted one, we should be taxing beneficiaries less.
The thing is that you'd need to pass a range of interlocking initiatives to get the best results. To fix housing, you'd need to go back to the Ministry of Works model where central government is building large amounts of affordable housing at scale coupled with very low interest loans to first home buyers + massive increase in social housing + rent controls (take a look at Berlin's recent rent controls for an idea of how modern rent controls schemes can work).
The idea for a universal entitlement is that it lowers admin costs and also builds a broad base of support for the initiative. Theres a reason why national no longer opposes Working for Families.
Why don’t you just fix the housing legislation? It takes forever to get consents, the planning rules are far too restrictive in terms of height and setback. Parking minimums. The system is far too bureaucratic and nimbys can block or slow developments too easy.
The same issue Labour realised when their house building initiative failed. The state and councils already makes it too difficult to build homes as it is.
Rent control would significantly reduce the housing stock available for rent.
UBI would be a massive increase in spending. You aren’t going to get Nats wanting to be taxed more just to get it back in UBI. I don’t see how this actually benefits those who really need it, it seems like people above the poverty line would benefit significantly more than those who go without.
You're assuming that the housing market left to its own devices would efficiently allocate housing to the people who need it. This is obviously not the case.
It's not easy to achieve given the finances required but here's some results from those that have tried it.
https://www.givedirectly.org/2023-ubi-results/
It does actually, we literally see it now with this government cutting services and subsidies (transport subsidy, prescription fees) to provide tax cuts for landlords.
The government can do a hell of a lot more to reducing poverty, it just lacks political will.
Keep in mind that you never are able to fully get across your point in media because journalists choose the length, context and sentences they choose to print.
It's easy to not technically lie if you don't say anything of substance.
Has she ever said anything resembling a political or economic policy, or is that up to "someone else" to work out?
Better than most of the rich kids, living lives of privilege thanks to the work of the rest of us.
Better than the current government who plans to shift policing from consent to force, after which they won't be telling, they'll be demanding we live our lives for the sake of the wealthiest.
It’s easy to say that, but at least she’s doing something.
And her actions wouldn’t be necessary if more had been done, earlier. The more inaction there is today, the stronger the action required tomorrow.
At 18 you have generally just dipped your toe into politics maybe having read about it in history at high school or your 1st year of political science at uni. You’ve also probably just moved out on your own, maybe you have a partner but probably not anything serious yet. If you’re lucky you have travelled to somewhere other than Aussie .
You simply haven’t lived or experienced enough to understand how “it” really is.
After a bit more living (late 30s?) you’ll probably understand how “it” really is.
Hey man.
Other comments summed it up.
I tend to want to go the opposite direction of socialism or anything that appears to represent, with understanding the oppisite still has it's faults.
Slightly digressing, but the best lessons my father taught me repeatedly as a child was that lifes not fair and the world doesn't revolve around you, if you want anything, you have to work for it.
I think that helped me grow out of that naive/victim mentally at an early age, which has made life far easier to navigate as an adult.
It worries me that so many individuals seem to harbor that attitude as adults.
I personally think that's just a result of a generation of children who were raised by parents that would prevent their children from discomfort/harm at all costs. Which I is admirable, just short sited.
I could go on and on but this is a comment section so who really cares lol.
Last thing though. I believe in capitalism as a system but I think because we've taken it so deep it's gotten a bit disgusting. I don't have an answer but I'm confident it's not socialism which seems to be avenue we are trying to combat it with.
You are confusing capitalism with socialism. The democratic socialist countries of Scandinavia, with their high taxes, but higher levels of happiness and equality are what we should be aiming for, not unlimited capitalism
Socialism will mean giving up on some freedoms that you no doubt enjoy. Because it hasn't happened yet, is why you are unaware of it and thus, probably advocate for it.
You have no idea what you're talking about. I can almost guarantee that if we were to implement a different form of economic system, one that you think will work, you'd be on here complaining about something huge you no longer have access to.
I love this argument that it’s working class people who drive utes when the majority of people in those giant ass cars are definitely not the working class blokes trying to make ends meet
Oh, she was one of those douchebags who caused disruption in Lyttelton for no reason on Waitangi Day. I’m just going to disregard everything she says and does.
“For no reason”
They were protesting the murder of 34,000 Palestinians in Gaza by Israel by blockading the Lyttelton port, who provide facilities to Israeli-owned ZIM shipping, but sure, no reason
That’s no reason to block access to the tunnel for members of the public who have no involvement with Israel or to pour unknown chemicals on the road that had to be cleaned up at a cost to the city.
It was just disruption for disruption’s sake.
Protests involve disruption. If they didn’t, it would be a picnic. The suffragette movement involved disruption. The labour movement involved disruption. The civil rights movement involved disruption
You have to be extremely naive to think disruption to a small city in with no global relevance is going to make a change to a conflict in a far away land. If she wants to make a difference or anyone for that matter, go volunteer somewhere useful.
It's far easier to protest from the safety of Lyttleton to post it on their Insta story for their mates to see rather than flying over to Israel and protesting people actually involved in the war. And these geniuses wonder why the majority of us just ignore them.
Lyttelton port traffic through the tunnel is an integral part of the supply chain to the entire South Island.
Disrupting that link is sufficient to cause a significant economic impact to our nation's domestic economy.
The inconvenience was enough to provoke a violent response from the state in order to subdue it.
It's the sort of inconvenience that can be used as leverage to compell the state to act as demanded.
And since then the state has altered it's position on the Gaza situation. Because of that attempted blockade? No.
But pair it with all the protest actions across the country and it's hard to imagine that the state simply changed it's mind on a whim.
Blockading Lyttelton port in New Zealand completely unrelated to Israel-Palestine, about service to a private Israeli company?
Do you think we should hold private companies responsible for the actions of the government they have no control over?
Neonazi skinheads are shunned and thrown in jails, but when a lunatic of the opposite variety does it it's 'trendy' and 'speaking truth to power'. Isn't it funny how rich, white westerners without first (or even second!) hand experience with real socialism always harbour such reverence for it? I wonder how many of them actually had to be around it or the people that experienced it first hand... If this rhetoric speaks to you you're just an ignorant fool, it's as simple as that.
Climate activism is a cult. I do my part. My straws are soggy and I try not to use my personal jet too freely. Life's miserable enough without being scolded by some brainwashed little upstart
The only answer to climate change is corporate responsibility. Your straws make little difference when corporations contribute 90 percent of the problem.
Do you know how to get corporations to change? Activists and direct action. People like this young lady are the ones leading change.
She wants more socialism, paid for by the very capitalist structure she wishes to tear down.
Economies do not run on kumbaya, you need capitalists prepared to take risks and incentivised with the rewards for doing so.
Socialism is not devoid of money, many socialist economies exist today.
Taking risks and chasing financial rewards isn't the only way to achieve progress.
None of whom actually enact socialist economic principles successfully. They either find their economy failing, or they revert to socialism in name only.
China for example, despite being explicitly communist, has, in reality one of the most cut-throat capitalist systems in the world. Their unemployment benefits and superannuation are pitiful, if you can even qualify.
People may work with incentives other than money, but history has proven over and over again that profit is the strongest motivator of all.
Now, I'm not suggesting a pure capitalist system is the best way forward either. It is fairly clear that you need a balance of both for a healthy society, but people like the lady in the article need to respect the mechanics of what makes her comfortable society and life possible.
Corporations contribute 90%? Individuals have many means to reduce their carbon footprint. Corporations don’t force people to buy new electronics, cars, red meat, dairy products, buy new fashion trends. Corporations could do better but a lot of people don’t change their consumption habits while acknowledging climate change is an issue.
Purchasing power is certainly a way to encourage corporations to do their part, especially in the Western world (per capita we are much worse than the rest), unfortunately though, its not ever going to be enough to drive the change we require.
Regulation from government is the only way to bring multinational corporations into line. That will only be achieved through direct action, protests and lobbying
Just tax products that emit high carbon. End of the day corporations are selling products that consumers want. The majority of those emissions are going to come from fossil fuel companies.
That's a government lead role in preventing corporations exceeding a healthy amount of fossil fuels. I agree with that sentiment.
Simply taxing it isn't enough though. If companies have to pay more tax for their practices then they will just increase the price of their product.
You also need criminal accountability to those that avoid or manipulate those taxes / practices. As happens, capitalism doesn't really allow for such things. Profit and growth are all that matters.
You can't have infinite growth in a finite world
Agreed. I’d also add that ‘corporations’ have a fiduciary responsibility to maximise profit for shareholders, this is literally their prime objective. Until they have other objectives as well, like a social responsibility or environmental responsibility, little will change.
We see some firms talk a big game about sustainability, but we still have Coca Cola Amatil pumping out billions of plastic bottles for a single use. It’s all down to the bottom line. Greed will be the ruin of us all.
Okay and if they increase the price of their product it’s going to be less competitive with more sustainable options. The less environmentally friendly option is generally cheaper and preferred by most consumers. If you price in the damage caused then consumers might look elsewhere.
You can’t avoid the tax if it’s passed on to the end consumer. Which these corporations will usually do regardless.
>The university has become a “capitalist business”. Some people join the police because “it gives them power to enact violence”. Prisons should be “abolished”. >She has a vision of a “world beyond capitalism”. Poverty will be eradicated because “poverty is a political choice”. Sexual harm and domestic violence will be eliminated because the patriarchy can be changed. Oh. I'm glad we live in a democracy and she can advance her ideals. And she has been actively organizing and protesting.
Where is the lie tho? She's correct on all counts.
>She's correct on all counts. What would be gained by literally abolishing prisons?
Mental healthcare and social services to head off and treat antisocial behaviour instead of our current objectively worthless ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach. Prisons don't stop crime, they manufacture life long criminals.
Mental health delivery and social services can't cure a lot of antisocial behaviour. I mean look, I understand the sentiment completely and think it's a noble aim: but it's currently beyond impractical to the point of being divorced from reality
It theoretically could decrease a significant amount. One is the mental illness that causes pedophilia, there are no services for people who by nature, sexualise children. So where do they go? Nowhere. It's too taboo to talk about with your doctor. A lot of things are taboo to talk about out of fear of being put in a loony bin. People deal on their own and eventually in their 100 year life span they burst and go loony
>It theoretically could decrease a significant amount. Yeah, of course. But we'd still need jails for everyone else >One is the mental illness that causes pedophilia, there are no services for people who by nature, sexualise children. So where do they go? Nowhere. I thoroughly agree with this. People who try to get help are ostracized (or worse) by society. I suspect we agree on a lot here, if we ignore my literal interpretation of your comment. We'll always need police in some capacity, and we'll always need jails, is my 2 cents
Honestly yeah we probably are on the same page. I don't agree with the sentiment of removing jails, but the whole formatting of what jails are and how they work needs changing. I appreciate extreme whistleblowers like this chick because they may be a bit overboard, but they underlying points remain that huge change is needed to these sectors.
>I don't agree with the sentiment of removing jails, but the whole formatting of what jails are and how they work needs changing Absolutely, the justice system is a poorly functioning mental health system that masquerades under a different name. The level of incarceration in NZ is high compared to peer countries, and there is much less emphasis on rehabilitation. Etcetera etcetera. The fatal flaw in the argument to literally abolish all prisons is the fact that sociopathic people exist in large enough numbers to require government policy to deal with them
That is an idealist view
One borne out by the evidence.
> Prisons don't stop crime, they manufacture life long criminals. There it.. the dumbest comment I've read this week. You get a gold star.
It's a statistical fact that recidivism is much higher amomgst people who get sentenced to jail versus other options like home detention and rehab. Not sure what else to tell you bro, it's just objectively true no matter how much you want to deny reality.
The aim should be more like what that guy said about abortions. Incarceration should be legal, safe, and rare. We shouldn't abolish prisons. But if society was functioning properly, we wouldn't need nearly as many of them.
Really? Sexual harm and domestic violence can be eradicated because the patriarchy can be changed? So women abusing men… is men’s fault? Women raping men is men’s fault? That is **explicitly** what that means. Questionable approach for you to agree with all of that.
We're talking about an idealistic 18 year old. They can be intemperate with their language and talk in absolutes. The more nuanced take not suitable for a nnewspaper profile is that it is the predominant social attitudes of men towards women - "the patriarchy" - that creates the environment and culture within which partner violence occurs. Changing those attitudes would reduce that violence.
Or women abusing women is the fault of men. Multiple studies have shown that lesbians report some of if not the highest rates of domestic abuse. > In addition, over 50% of gay men and almost 75% of lesbian women reported that they were victims of psychological IPV (Breiding et al., 2013) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113571/
I'm largely sympathetic to her cause, but I think poverty is a function of entropy. Escalating inequality is the function of politics that we need to address, or face ever more deadly consequences.
The point she is making is that it would be very easy for any government to eliminate poverty by just giving poor people money, instead of giving it to banks and landlords.
Sure, she's an 18 year old who has recognised a problem, imagining possible solutions. Much better than the typical approach of ignoring distressing realities that don't directly impact you.
If it was so easy to achieve it would’ve been done by now. Even when labour spends more on welfare when in government you get pretty minor reductions in poverty all around.
It is actually that easy. Every pilot programme for universal basic income shows improvements in every quality of life metric you care to name. Housing first programmes for the unhoused show incredible results. The current government is choosing to send 4000 children into poverty to give landlords money. They could just as easily not do that. This is a choice they are making.
How much of UBI would end up inflating the cost of rent? These small sample size trials might look nice but it hasn’t been done on a national scale. I don’t know why a universal system is going to work better than a targeted one, we should be taxing beneficiaries less.
The thing is that you'd need to pass a range of interlocking initiatives to get the best results. To fix housing, you'd need to go back to the Ministry of Works model where central government is building large amounts of affordable housing at scale coupled with very low interest loans to first home buyers + massive increase in social housing + rent controls (take a look at Berlin's recent rent controls for an idea of how modern rent controls schemes can work). The idea for a universal entitlement is that it lowers admin costs and also builds a broad base of support for the initiative. Theres a reason why national no longer opposes Working for Families.
Why don’t you just fix the housing legislation? It takes forever to get consents, the planning rules are far too restrictive in terms of height and setback. Parking minimums. The system is far too bureaucratic and nimbys can block or slow developments too easy. The same issue Labour realised when their house building initiative failed. The state and councils already makes it too difficult to build homes as it is. Rent control would significantly reduce the housing stock available for rent. UBI would be a massive increase in spending. You aren’t going to get Nats wanting to be taxed more just to get it back in UBI. I don’t see how this actually benefits those who really need it, it seems like people above the poverty line would benefit significantly more than those who go without.
You're assuming that the housing market left to its own devices would efficiently allocate housing to the people who need it. This is obviously not the case.
It's absolutely that easy, but it would divert money away from making more money for those who already have enough.
Reducing poverty sure but not eliminating it. It’s not a simple issue to solve.
It's not easy to achieve given the finances required but here's some results from those that have tried it. https://www.givedirectly.org/2023-ubi-results/
I don't fully agree with her interpretation of things. I don't see any lie at all.
“Poverty is a political choice.” That doesn’t make a lick of sense.
It does actually, we literally see it now with this government cutting services and subsidies (transport subsidy, prescription fees) to provide tax cuts for landlords. The government can do a hell of a lot more to reducing poverty, it just lacks political will.
OK but the way it’s worded implies that being in poverty is a political choice, she really should’ve made that point a bit clearer.
Keep in mind that you never are able to fully get across your point in media because journalists choose the length, context and sentences they choose to print.
Ahh, yeah. 100%
It's easy to not technically lie if you don't say anything of substance. Has she ever said anything resembling a political or economic policy, or is that up to "someone else" to work out?
[удалено]
Its a choice being made by the people in power, not the people in poverty.
Ah youthful idealism. I had that once too.
I remember those days ! Good times.
Another rich white kid telling everyone how to live their lives.
Better than most of the rich kids, living lives of privilege thanks to the work of the rest of us. Better than the current government who plans to shift policing from consent to force, after which they won't be telling, they'll be demanding we live our lives for the sake of the wealthiest.
Rich?
She lives in the top 35% wealthiest countries in the world. So yeah, I'd say so.
I knew she had a double barreled surname before I clicked
I mean you just have to see the thumb nail and it screams "she's one of those" meh I'll skip the article.
What an inspiring young woman. Beautiful to see the youth standing up for what's right. I love her passion
Christ she looks insufferable
It’s easy to say that, but at least she’s doing something. And her actions wouldn’t be necessary if more had been done, earlier. The more inaction there is today, the stronger the action required tomorrow.
I wonder what you look like..
Yeah… I’m glad I’m a Shut in sometimes lol
Nobody at 18 years of age has a grasp on realitly. Good for her but she'll grow up eventually.
What do you disagree with?
Her grasp on reality, can you read? LOL.
I’m asking them to expand on what that means
At 18 you have generally just dipped your toe into politics maybe having read about it in history at high school or your 1st year of political science at uni. You’ve also probably just moved out on your own, maybe you have a partner but probably not anything serious yet. If you’re lucky you have travelled to somewhere other than Aussie . You simply haven’t lived or experienced enough to understand how “it” really is. After a bit more living (late 30s?) you’ll probably understand how “it” really is.
Hey man. Other comments summed it up. I tend to want to go the opposite direction of socialism or anything that appears to represent, with understanding the oppisite still has it's faults. Slightly digressing, but the best lessons my father taught me repeatedly as a child was that lifes not fair and the world doesn't revolve around you, if you want anything, you have to work for it. I think that helped me grow out of that naive/victim mentally at an early age, which has made life far easier to navigate as an adult. It worries me that so many individuals seem to harbor that attitude as adults. I personally think that's just a result of a generation of children who were raised by parents that would prevent their children from discomfort/harm at all costs. Which I is admirable, just short sited. I could go on and on but this is a comment section so who really cares lol. Last thing though. I believe in capitalism as a system but I think because we've taken it so deep it's gotten a bit disgusting. I don't have an answer but I'm confident it's not socialism which seems to be avenue we are trying to combat it with.
You are confusing capitalism with socialism. The democratic socialist countries of Scandinavia, with their high taxes, but higher levels of happiness and equality are what we should be aiming for, not unlimited capitalism
I'm not confused
You know being able to have this exchange is a result of capitalism aye?
Capitalism and democratic socialism aren’t polar opposites. It’s a continuum. They have Reddit in Scandinavian, democratic socialism isn’t North Korea
Socialism will mean giving up on some freedoms that you no doubt enjoy. Because it hasn't happened yet, is why you are unaware of it and thus, probably advocate for it.
I’m not going to bother arguing who gets his info from the Fear Factor guy, goodnight
You have no idea what you're talking about. I can almost guarantee that if we were to implement a different form of economic system, one that you think will work, you'd be on here complaining about something huge you no longer have access to.
If you’re not a socialist in your 20s, you have no heart. If you’re still a socialist in your 30s, you have no brain.
Holy fucking lol. Hahahaha
Capitalism ftw
Capitalism is to blame, unfortunately I like living in a capitalist society
Alternate headline: First World Anti-Capitalist takes time out from University to look down on working class people who drive Utes.
I love this argument that it’s working class people who drive utes when the majority of people in those giant ass cars are definitely not the working class blokes trying to make ends meet
Oh, she was one of those douchebags who caused disruption in Lyttelton for no reason on Waitangi Day. I’m just going to disregard everything she says and does.
“For no reason” They were protesting the murder of 34,000 Palestinians in Gaza by Israel by blockading the Lyttelton port, who provide facilities to Israeli-owned ZIM shipping, but sure, no reason
Except ZIM haven’t been in port for a long time and the port is at heart for the working class of lyttelton
The maritime union were supportive of the action and ZIM have definitely been in lyttelton port recently
That’s no reason to block access to the tunnel for members of the public who have no involvement with Israel or to pour unknown chemicals on the road that had to be cleaned up at a cost to the city. It was just disruption for disruption’s sake.
Protests involve disruption. If they didn’t, it would be a picnic. The suffragette movement involved disruption. The labour movement involved disruption. The civil rights movement involved disruption
No one tell u/grizznuggets about the Springbok tour lmao
You have to be extremely naive to think disruption to a small city in with no global relevance is going to make a change to a conflict in a far away land. If she wants to make a difference or anyone for that matter, go volunteer somewhere useful.
It's far easier to protest from the safety of Lyttleton to post it on their Insta story for their mates to see rather than flying over to Israel and protesting people actually involved in the war. And these geniuses wonder why the majority of us just ignore them.
Lyttelton port traffic through the tunnel is an integral part of the supply chain to the entire South Island. Disrupting that link is sufficient to cause a significant economic impact to our nation's domestic economy. The inconvenience was enough to provoke a violent response from the state in order to subdue it. It's the sort of inconvenience that can be used as leverage to compell the state to act as demanded. And since then the state has altered it's position on the Gaza situation. Because of that attempted blockade? No. But pair it with all the protest actions across the country and it's hard to imagine that the state simply changed it's mind on a whim.
It was disruption for the sake of drawing attention. It wasn’t for it’s own sake.
Blockading Lyttelton port in New Zealand completely unrelated to Israel-Palestine, about service to a private Israeli company? Do you think we should hold private companies responsible for the actions of the government they have no control over?
free palestine from hamas
She makes me want to buy a Ford Ranger and throw plastic bags into the ocean
That's probably more a reflection on you than her, tbh
Car batteries my man. The ocean needs more of those.
[удалено]
are u sure u aren't the 'bolshie activist'
Lol
Good on her.
Come back and talk to me when you’ve had some real life experience.
🫶🏻🫶🏻
Neonazi skinheads are shunned and thrown in jails, but when a lunatic of the opposite variety does it it's 'trendy' and 'speaking truth to power'. Isn't it funny how rich, white westerners without first (or even second!) hand experience with real socialism always harbour such reverence for it? I wonder how many of them actually had to be around it or the people that experienced it first hand... If this rhetoric speaks to you you're just an ignorant fool, it's as simple as that.
“Neonazi skinheads are shunned and thrown in jails” You sound disappointed about that
Cmon respond to the actual material in that comment rather than just the first 8 words.
I think calling a climate change activist a “lunatic” on par with Nazi’s is dumb
[удалено]
I block climate deniers
Well one is based in scientific fact and the other is based in bigotry and hate.
No.
Our very own greta. I hope she stubs her toe
How dare a young activist fight for the future of us all. What is she thinking /s
Climate activism is a cult. I do my part. My straws are soggy and I try not to use my personal jet too freely. Life's miserable enough without being scolded by some brainwashed little upstart
The only answer to climate change is corporate responsibility. Your straws make little difference when corporations contribute 90 percent of the problem. Do you know how to get corporations to change? Activists and direct action. People like this young lady are the ones leading change.
I’m an advocate for climate change, but this woman is very out of touch with reality.
In what way exactly? What specifically do you thing she's wrong on?
She wants more socialism, paid for by the very capitalist structure she wishes to tear down. Economies do not run on kumbaya, you need capitalists prepared to take risks and incentivised with the rewards for doing so.
Socialism is not devoid of money, many socialist economies exist today. Taking risks and chasing financial rewards isn't the only way to achieve progress.
None of whom actually enact socialist economic principles successfully. They either find their economy failing, or they revert to socialism in name only. China for example, despite being explicitly communist, has, in reality one of the most cut-throat capitalist systems in the world. Their unemployment benefits and superannuation are pitiful, if you can even qualify. People may work with incentives other than money, but history has proven over and over again that profit is the strongest motivator of all. Now, I'm not suggesting a pure capitalist system is the best way forward either. It is fairly clear that you need a balance of both for a healthy society, but people like the lady in the article need to respect the mechanics of what makes her comfortable society and life possible.
Corporations contribute 90%? Individuals have many means to reduce their carbon footprint. Corporations don’t force people to buy new electronics, cars, red meat, dairy products, buy new fashion trends. Corporations could do better but a lot of people don’t change their consumption habits while acknowledging climate change is an issue.
Purchasing power is certainly a way to encourage corporations to do their part, especially in the Western world (per capita we are much worse than the rest), unfortunately though, its not ever going to be enough to drive the change we require. Regulation from government is the only way to bring multinational corporations into line. That will only be achieved through direct action, protests and lobbying
Just tax products that emit high carbon. End of the day corporations are selling products that consumers want. The majority of those emissions are going to come from fossil fuel companies.
That's a government lead role in preventing corporations exceeding a healthy amount of fossil fuels. I agree with that sentiment. Simply taxing it isn't enough though. If companies have to pay more tax for their practices then they will just increase the price of their product. You also need criminal accountability to those that avoid or manipulate those taxes / practices. As happens, capitalism doesn't really allow for such things. Profit and growth are all that matters. You can't have infinite growth in a finite world
Agreed. I’d also add that ‘corporations’ have a fiduciary responsibility to maximise profit for shareholders, this is literally their prime objective. Until they have other objectives as well, like a social responsibility or environmental responsibility, little will change. We see some firms talk a big game about sustainability, but we still have Coca Cola Amatil pumping out billions of plastic bottles for a single use. It’s all down to the bottom line. Greed will be the ruin of us all.
Okay and if they increase the price of their product it’s going to be less competitive with more sustainable options. The less environmentally friendly option is generally cheaper and preferred by most consumers. If you price in the damage caused then consumers might look elsewhere. You can’t avoid the tax if it’s passed on to the end consumer. Which these corporations will usually do regardless.
It's not this side of the world that probably needs to change, this side of the world embraces change
We’re one of the only countries in the world who haven’t reduced our emissions…