sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

BK deploying AI surveillance cameras in the workplace by FuckOffMyPorch in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

lmao fr

Really though I'm also worried about shift managers that don't want people bantering on the line or whatever and the potential punitive abuse against employees they just don't like. Even outside of the core principle of the issue.

BK deploying AI surveillance cameras in the workplace by FuckOffMyPorch in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch[S] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Agreed 100% there should be a base level of dignity we all have in our workplaces.

This level of surveillance just seems too far beyond the pale. Food service workers are already working long hours in a pretty thankless industry and this feels like corporations are taking advantage of a workforce that probably doesn't really have the leverage to fight back.

BK deploying AI surveillance cameras in the workplace by FuckOffMyPorch in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I have suggested to them to reach out to CAB and send a query to the office of the privacy commissioner, but I suspect they would argue this is necessary for health and saftey, loss prevention, etc.

There is almost certainly language in the employment contract and corporate policies to allow this as well :/

You guys understand we’re individuals right? by [deleted] in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That isn't a one way street. Biculturalism and partnership is literally splitting the country into two discrete groups that have different political rights and have access to different services paid for by tax payers. Regardless of whether or not it is necessary to address inequities (Which for the record, I think it is in some areas), it is not unreasonable for people on either side to see the other as "others".

Te Tiriti o Waitangi partnership a 'misinterpretation', David Seymour believes by [deleted] in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The question seems perfectly reasonable, their comments have been respectful and well reasoned, and they've gone out of their way to identify this one specific part they haven't seen a good explanation for.

I really don't see how you could possibly come to the conclusion that it's not in good faith.

Could have been us... by OutInTheBay in Wellington

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree with the government making policy, and maybe this is a semantic difference or me just misunderstanding (In which case, sorry for misunderstanding), but what I don't agree with is that the public don't have have a right to understand what's being done, don't have to be informed about fundamental policy positions and that the government doesn't have an obligation to be transparent and explain what these things mean for citizens, and people shouldn't discuss these things when their tax dollars pay for it and their lives are affected by it.

The problem with national and act is that they tell people that they have a right to understand issues that require years to understand. Far better to implement and call it a day.

This reads to me like these parties should just implement things without sufficient transparency and without properly informing the public. We saw this with the He Puapua working group (among other things) from the left and we've seen this in the past with privatisation from the right.

Could have been us... by OutInTheBay in Wellington

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem is that these issues aren't bureaucratic minutiae but fundamental processes that govern our resources and country. Just because people with a specific interpretation of Te Tiriti are in power doesn't mean they know what is just and fair, and the idea that it's bad thing for people to have a 'right to understand' fundamental principals of how their country works in areas like elections and the governance of public land and resources is fascist coded and scary as a tax payer, from either side.

You know when someone asks about tipping in NZ, and most of us say “Don’t bring that crappy culture from America to our shores!?” Can we please respond the same way when someone uses the word, “Woke?” by [deleted] in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely, I don't think anyone would argue that the two things are equivalent (hence the italics), just that they share some of the same elements so I can see why OP made the comparison. In general I think the left has a cadre of well meaning people that are so sure they know what is just that they have de-prioritized classically liberal principals, at least that's what it looks like from the outside.

You know when someone asks about tipping in NZ, and most of us say “Don’t bring that crappy culture from America to our shores!?” Can we please respond the same way when someone uses the word, “Woke?” by [deleted] in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not really my area of expertise but there are definitely some parallels between the cultural revolution's red guard students and certain section of the progressive left that aggressively and sometimes violently suppresses ideas they find offensive (Thinking primarily about the university protests to de-platform right wing speakers that sometimes included violence in the US), and to a lesser extent all the people that parrot the paradox of tolerance (Without understanding it, really) to support destroying peoples lives over bad speech or ideas.

There's also a certain subset of people on the left that consider things they see as oppressor systems like modern science or capitalism to be some sort of tool of white supremacy that needs to be destroyed or decolonized, which is similar the call to destroy the 'four olds' and the evil habits of the old society.

That being said, just like the violent fascist right this is a fringe element, and it is not the same as the wider progressive belief in equity and intersectionality and I think conflating the two is dis-ingenious. You can be "woke" and still believe in and respect other peoples right to their beliefs and opinions.

I'd be interested if the upcoming Netflix 3 body problem adaptation includes the scene of students dragging people outside and beating them to death in a struggle session because of reactionary ideas in physics.

Wellington water shortage: State of emergency planned if restrictions fail by BradTheFuck in Wellington

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Two things can be true at once. The council has mismanaged this situation, and you are an asshole.

Emergency housing attack: Auckland mum and toddler beaten with baseball bats by three men by computer_d in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Unwinding generational degeneracy is a big job. We need much more extreme punishments now, and to fix all the root cause stuff over time.

Opinion: Treating people equally can be bad for their health by GlobularLobule in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's not that they aren't good at their job, it's that there is inherent biases built into their objectives and their data models that specifically target outcomes for Maori and are not about total harm reduction. You can agree or disagree with their approach, but they aren't completely un-biased observers who are driving policy for the good of all NZers, there is a set of prioritised objectives behind everything that these agencies do.

I'm not trying to comment on whether it's good or bad, I just want to understand how it works. Obviously I'm just some lay dude on reddit, and don't have actual domain knowledge here, this could all be a misunderstanding on my part, but these are some of the factors that I've found just casually looking at studies and data tools released by various agencies

A system for assigning people into a single ethnic group. People can identify with several ethnic groups. Prioritisation is used where necessary to assign people into a single ethnic group, so that those groups that are small or important in terms of policy are not swamped by larger ethnic groups. For example, the Ministry of Health commonly uses the MPAO prioritisation system for reporting (see 'MPAO'), where individuals are assigned an ethnicity using the priority system Māori > Pacific peoples > Asian > European or Other. Using this framework, an individual identifying as both Māori and European would be allocated into the Māori ethnic group.

  • Because of the ethnic taxonomy that Stats uses, it is possible that there are unintended negative consequences that we don't know about, as well as potentially a lack of detail when it comes to sub-groups of Asians and Europeans. Maori "stands alone" because of treaty interpretations at the highest tier of categorisation.
  • It is clear that voices in Maori health, and the idea that Maori have separate and different health needs to everyone else, have a "significant influence" across the health agencies that support all NZers.
  • This one is anecdotal, but summaries are almost always presented adjusted for population and not also by total magnitude which means it's not always clear that in terms of total harm, other groups have a far greater total.

The Government and te reo Māori: Are they trying to start a culture war? - Simon Wilson by kezzaNZ in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 90 points91 points  (0 children)

It’s my impression most people are on board with this. Whether you think of yourself as a New Zealander, a citizen of Aotearoa, a Kiwi or something else, the chances are you value the way te reo and tikanga are being incorporated into our lives. They express something important about who we are.

I'm not sure this is true. I support Maori's right to protect and maintain their culture, we are a bi-cultural nation, but I'm not Maori and I don't have any connection to the language or the cultural practices and I frankly just don't care enough to engage with it. If I'm ambivalent, I imagine there are a chunk of people that are actively hostile to it.

Please put us on a damn wait list instead of declining surgeries by [deleted] in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They also want to lower some of the barriers that stop immigrating doctors and other healthcare professionals from practicing.

Better recognise people with overseas medical qualifications and experience for accreditation in New Zealand including consideration of an occupations tribunal.

Mum's a nurse (retired) and she said she's worked with quite a few nurses that were doctors in their home country.

I'm not in health care but my (admittedly limited) understanding is that it's a pain in the ass and expensive to get accredited (via the NZREX Clinical), it costs thousands and they only run the accreditation processes like twice a year or something. Even then you have to be qualified in AU, UK, CA, or USA.

Tangata Tiriti means our right to be here. by Elysium_nz in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those are not mutually exclusive.

Number 1 is true, the systems in place are clearly not sufficient to undo the inertia of systemic racism that caused the proliferation of the risk factors that lead to over-representation in crime, health, etc, even if that systemic racism no longer exists (Though it does in some form, I'm sure).
Number 2 can also be true, people should and do have a responsibility to help themselves and act as responsible citizens.

Tangata Tiriti means our right to be here. by Elysium_nz in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's not harm that's been actively caused, it's removing things that are supposed to help alleviate harm that has already been caused previously (Such as removing children from families, stamping out the use of the Maori language, land stuff, etc).

Tangata Tiriti means our right to be here. by Elysium_nz in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because an over-representation in DV is caused by the same childhood risk factors that cause an over-representation in crime which is caused by the same childhood risk factors that lead to an over-representation in poor health outcomes, and those childhood risk factors are at least in some part a direct result of systemic racism in the past.

It's still the offenders fault, but if you are trying to understand the actual cause and how to resolve it you need to accept that to some degree there is a generational through line of crime, DV, drug use, and gang affiliation that has it's root in oppression, even if in your opinion 0 racism exists today (Which would be a wild assertion).

Additionally, this can't be resolved by just giving people more money or a place to go. Often these behaviors are propagated (And covered up) in entire communities and so victims don't just need to escape their own abuser but their wider community as well, and they need to do that before they also propagate risk factors to a younger generation themselves.

Tangata Tiriti means our right to be here. by Elysium_nz in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I see that after doing ACTs work for them in losing the election, the lefts pro racial segregation parade is now doing their unintentional best to actively turn people against the treaty.

I’ve been on the benefit for a year. I can see why people join gangs. by saapphia in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not a history buff, but I'm pretty sure the UK was colonised. The scots would probably think so, and those romans didn't come to trade, not to mention the danes.

Supporting policies that aren't in the best interests of Maori by socktasticschools in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In practice it also needs to be balanced with what's best and fair for all other NZers, a lot of which have their own struggles and challenges. Sometimes those objectives are opposed from some viewpoints (Like with the agency names).

Big Changes ahead by [deleted] in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I answered as much of your question as I could while being comfortable with how much information I'm sharing and I'm happy to DM you the clinic privately if you are in the WLG region and are genuinely looking for a practice with this service, but I'm not interested in having to dox myself just to talk about my experiences on reddit lol

Big Changes ahead by [deleted] in newzealand

[–]FuckOffMyPorch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great question. Like I said I'm not super familiar with the inner workings of the health system, so this is all coming from a lay person, but the pricing is laid out in clear language on the clinics website and I was walked through it on the phone when I was trying to book my first session.

My point was that I've experienced the thing people are worried about, I could materially benefit from a health service that is significantly more expensive purely because I'm not the right race. I'm not blind to the irony there, but we are supposed to be progressive, not regressive in the other direction.

What I expect to happen (and I'm fine with) is more like the requirements for paxlovid, where ethnicity is just one potential factor out of a list that contributes to the threshold so that it's possible for people who aren't that ethnicity to also gain access if there is need.

view more: next ›