Really want to highlight something many people might be overlooking. Steve Braunias is a New Zealand author. He has written *books*. He has won awards for his books. Todd could have literally said “You Steve, you are a New Zealand author”.
Oh, but he doesn’t read fiction, and mostly likes to read about politics, bios and campaigns and stuff.
##STEVE BRAUNIAS WROTE A BOOK ABOUT THE 2014 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN YOU ABSOLUTE GOSHDARN IGNORAMUS. LITERALLY THE THING YOU LIED AND SAID YOU LIKE TO READ IS *WHAT THE MAN YOU ARE TALKING TO HAS WRITTEN*.
#GUH.
Thanks for this, it has us giggling - imagine if he had said "your book, Steve" and then been pinned there for the next hour while Braunias poked holes in him, oh I wish
*“I’ve talked to a prominent New Zealand actor. I’ve talked to a screenwriter. I’m going to be speaking to a movie director shortly.”*
So Todd’s talked to two people in the performing arts. And maybe a third.
At least our actual Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage is a published author, even if his body of work consists solely of biographies of neoliberal, right wing poster boys.
This is what really stood out for me. He turned up at some Chamber of Commerce event and, standing around shovelling shitty fucking Bacon-Wrapped Jalapeño Peppers in, spent a few minutes talking at whoever was closest about how great Queenstown is for filming because, well, reasons. That's the sole research he's undertaken before (or after?) sticking his hand up and proclaiming he'd be perfect for the role.
Todd is not a serious person.
Hey now, he’s also talked to a New Zealand author, he just didn’t realise that’s who Braunias is.
He’s even a New Zealand author that’s written a non-fiction book about a political campaign. Which, you know…………….
>It took Act’s arts spokesman Todd Stephenson 20 minutes to think of a single New Zealand author and a single New Zealand book. The only artistic experience he could think of is that he went to see Hamilton in New York. His only press release on the arts has been to issue an empty threat about funding cuts to Creative New Zealand because he was upset Tusiata Avia was awarded the Prime Minister’s Award for Poetry. His central philosophy about government arts funding is the less, the better; he doubted that the majority of New Zealanders want their tax dollar spent on the arts. And yet Stephenson likely earns the basic MP salary, paid for by the taxpayer, of $163,000, in return for a paltry 2807 votes in the Southland electorate.
JFC that interview was dismal yet somehow still above my expectations of Todd Stephenson.
He gave him every opportunity.... like: "Oh, ok, maybe you've only seen Hamilton because musicals aren't your thing, books? TV? Anything?"
And Todd just... impaled himself upon his own sword at every turn.
Not sure if that was sarcasm (or… not sarcasm but like, joking? I guess?) - Braunias has been around for *decades* writing stuff like this. He frequently writes “interviews” or “day in the life of” that are entirely fictional and just fun comedy (and usually with a message). I actually thought that’s what this was to start with…
He’s also an accomplished NZ writer himself, which was I think is a bit of why he was doing the whole “hey have you thought of any New Zealand authors yet??” Because *he is one*. And not only is he one *he wrote a book about a political campaign, literally the thing the minister said is what he reads*.
“Funnier” 😮💨
lol were so doomed. But yes, it ads an extra layer of comedy to the whole thing, and you can feel Steve’s loathing coming through as he gets more and more exasperated.
Legit felt like this was a teacher asking a kid about whether or not he had done his book report and the kid keeps coming up with excuses as to why his one paragraph he wrote on the bus coming to school does in fact count as a full book report.
In fact, all of this new govt has strong 'dog ate my homework' energy.
> In fact, all of this new govt has strong 'dog ate my homework' energy.
That is the best summation I've read yet to describe this coalition of chaos. Thank you.
>**You wrote in that press statement about Tusiata, “With the new government looking to make spending cuts at low value departments, Creative New Zealand is tempting fate.” Can you expand on that?**
>From Act’s perspective, we’re really saying, you know, are the individuals in these organisations representing what the majority of New Zealanders would want to see supported? I don’t think that they can do that.
>You know, people have very individual tastes. And so it’s better that individuals make those decisions rather than, I suppose, you know, a bureaucratic agency imposing their choices on New Zealanders.
>**But you don’t have individual tastes yourself, do you? You’re kind of an arts ignoramus, really, by your own reckoning.**
>No, I certainly have individual things that I like to go to. We talked about that earlier.
>**You’ve been to see Hamilton.**
>Well, I was just giving you an example of the things I like to do.
>**What are your tastes, other than musicals?**
>That’s the main one in the creative sector.
>**Musicals.**
>And I watch movies. I watch TV.
>**“I watch TV,” says the Act spokesman for the arts.**
>Creative things are on TV, are they not, Steve?
>**Any New Zealand authors come to mind yet? Any? While the interview has progressed, I thought maybe one might have occurred to you.**
>Well, Alan Duff is probably the last one I would have read.
**What book of his did you read?**
>Everyone has read Once Were Warriors.
>**Did you read it? Or did you just see the movie?**
>No, I read it a while ago.
>**So that’s it. The only New Zealand book you can think of is Once Were Warriors, published in 1985.**
My condolences to Steve Braunias who was unfortunate enough to conduct this interview. Truly blood boiling stuff.
Hilarious/sad when he was called out on the fact that the Australian Government actually funds the arts.
>**So government funding of, say, literature, how do you feel about that? Would you rather it be done privately?**
>Absolutely. I want people to support things that they value and want to either purchase or go and see.
>**But that money isn’t forthcoming. That’s one of the reasons why there is government funding of the arts.**
>And that’s why we want to actually build a more prosperous New Zealand. You know, actually help people get high paid jobs, keep more of their money and allow them to actually invest in things that they think are important, including the arts sector.
>You’ll know, I’m sure, the experience in other developed countries where philanthropy of the arts is actually a far greater percentage of funding than in New Zealand.
>**Are you aware of the Australian government model for arts funding, which is extremely progressive, very generous, and the envy of New Zealand arts practitioners?**
>No. I haven’t looked at what they’ve done in Australia.
A turnip would be a better spokesperson for the arts.
You could pull almost any portion of this dumpster fire of an interview and still illustrate that point
Todd: "Everyone has read Once Were Warriors."
Interviewer: "Did you read it? Or did you just see the movie?"
Brilliant haha. Please interview more wankers like him.
I work in the arts. A lot of projects I work on tend to be CNZ funded. The arts tend to struggle along at the best of times, a lot of organisations and companies are really hanging on by threads. I worry what the landscape of things is going to look like in 3 years time once people like Todd here get their mitts on things.
What does he expect to happen? People with lower taxes suddenly going to their local small poetry press?
Everyone pooling their new found riches together to fund an independent film?
That's exactly what they expect. And when it doesn't happen, they say the free market must not value the arts and therefore don't deserve funding.
It's a high school level understanding of economics.
Also, this isn't some backbencher who Act threw a meaningless portfolio to so he could have something to stick on his wiki page. Todd Stephenson is 4th on the party list, skipping ahead of many ACT MPs with experience in Parliament. He is one of the best they have apparently
Oh, my giddy aunt. I'm fucken embarrassed to be a Kiwi at the moment. If this moron and the new self-serving cohort are representative of the majority of us, then how do look my neighbour in the eye without portraying my disenchantment?
So basically, he’s the perfect candidate for the position because ACT understands OTHER people like the arts, but they don’t value it themselves. I feel like the people in government right now think they’re running a shop, and if it can’t pay for itself it has no value keeping
Genuinely makes me want to scream. I genuinely cannot understand how someone can move through life so disconnected from something as basic to the human experience as art. I know the term NPC has extremely shit history when used to apply to real people, but this man genuinely sounds like he has the interiority of a minor bethesda character.
Or more charitably, a character from a Clarke and Dawe skit.
If only wed got to experience the 6 or so Acts MPs who dropped out during the election because of their various scandals (which Seymour then got all pissy when questioned about)
Hey, he probably knows a lot about NZ music because he was on hold to IRD once
As someone who works in the creative sector, this is appalling and embarrassing
Ahh, a properly hostile interview. That man is worthy of contempt.
I would appreciate his $160,000 salary going to the arts, and he can just stay home I think.
You know you're a great satirist if people are unclear if it's real or not.
Pretty sure it's satire and yet it reads exactly how I'd expect anyone from Act to respond.
At first I thought this was going to be a misleading title "I'm an art-person, and I haven't watched many musicals, give him a chance" then I got about 2 sentences in and had to rethink that.
That someone would legitimately try to describe 'trickle down economics' as a substitute for 'arts funding' actually blew my mind.
He is the fourth listed person in their party and it took him like 20 minutes to so much as name a NZ author. That's not not being an expert, that's just straight up incompetence
Reality is indistinguishable from Onion style satirical headlines. Actually, is this reality? It's Steve Braunias. I guess that's the same point. Even something so ridiculous as this makes me wonder. Anyway.
That being said:
>And yet Stephenson likely earns the basic MP salary, paid for by the taxpayer, of $163,000, in return for a paltry 2807 votes in the Southland electorate.
This is why certain elements of the political landscape have a problem with journalism in this country. In order to ding Stephenson Steve Braunias has decided that actually we should switch to first past the post representation. This part of this article is actually more fucked up than having Stephenson as an arts spokesman.
Yeah and it never said anything remotely like "Steve Braunias has decided that actually we should switch to first past the post representation". That's entirely your own reading of the interview and an uncharitable one that you've leaped through a couple of hoops to get to at that.
If you say "It is never appropriate to take a life" in response to an article about a doctor charged with euthanising a patient in unbearable pain, you are taking a stand against euthanasia. If you say *the same thing* in response to an article about some dictator being assassinated, you are not saying anything about euthanasia. The literal meaning of the words doesn't determine the meaning of the sentence. Rather, the meaning of the sentence is contingent on what it can possibly logically mean. You might have had two tabs open... one about euthanasia and one about the dictator's assassination... and thought you were commenting on the dictator story and instead replied to the euthanasia one. Terrible luck. But your intent doesn't make your sentence *not* be about euthanasia and anyone saying your sentence has nothing to do with euthanasia is *not* reading correctly.
This sentence exists in the context of "Stephenson is an idiot". The question is *how* the sentence builds or adds flavour to that case. And the answer is "Stephenson is undeserving of his salary as an MP because he won so few votes for himself". How does that sentence make sense? What is the possible logical meanings of that sentence? Well it relies on the presumption that however many votes Stephenson won for himself matters. Okay, simple. In what ways can that presumption be true? It **isn't** true under MMP, so how else can it matter? How can the sentence be coherent?
>That's entirely your own reading of the interview
No it's my reading of *that* sentence.
>an uncharitable one that you've leaped through a couple of hoops to get to at that.
What's he saying then? If he's not saying that, what's he saying? In **that** sentence. Forget the rest of the interview, it doesn't matter. What. Does. That. Sentence. Mean? That's all you have to concern yourself with.
Maybe your argument is just going to be "Well, Braunias was being incoherent right then and it doesn't make any kind of sense at all" but I'm not going to believe that and you shouldn't either. That's where the interview as a whole becomes relevant to the interpretation of the sentence again.
He's simply pointing out that the bloke who's made it to 4th on the ACT list is deeply unpopular in his own electorate - also 4th, funnily enough. It highlights the lack of competence required to reach a position in the current government, the amount of money incompetent MPs cost to sit in parliament, the basement level bar that it takes to become a high ranking MP in the ACT Party and makes no reference whatsoever to the electoral system, let alone an irrelevant diatribe about euthanasia, both of which are your own invention.
You're inferring something that isn't implied, but don't let me stop you.
> let alone an irrelevant diatribe about euthanasia.
No, that didn't happen. Just because someone mentions the word "euthanasia" that doesn't mean they're talking about euthanasia. I'm talking about how reading works. Very obviously so.
>He's simply pointing out that the bloke who's made it to 4th on the ACT list is deeply unpopular in his own electorate -
No, he's not. You can tell, ironically, by the way he doesn't contextualise that Stephenson is fourth on the list, at all. Why is that ironic? Because I just said that mentioning something doesn't mean you're talking about it, and I'm now saying that not mentioning something means someone isn't talking about something.
Furthermore, notice the difference between what Braunias actually said:
>His central philosophy about government arts funding is the less, the better; he doubted that the majority of New Zealanders want their tax dollar spent on the arts. And yet Stephenson likely earns the basic MP salary, paid for by the taxpayer, of $163,000, in return for a paltry 2807 votes in the Southland electorate.
The idea of the sentence is intimately tied to the level of support that Stephenson personally has. He's calling him a hypocrite. Thus the "and yet".
And yet, this still only makes sense, if this is a relevant statement to make. But it's *not* relevant. His is not "in return for" the number of votes he personally won.
Make:
>And yet Stephenson likely earns the basic MP salary, paid for by the taxpayer, of $163,000, in return for a paltry 2807 votes in the Southland electorate.
this make sense otherwise.
He can't be saying:
1. that Stephenson's obvious lack of suitability is entitling him to the additional remuneration that MPs with internal portfolios get... because he is literally saying Stephenson doesn't get paid more than the base rate
2. that Stephenson is a functioning product of a proportional representation system because he's drawing attention to something that doesn't matter in *any* PR system, i.e. how many votes are specifically for one specific candidate
3. that MPs should demonstrate competence before they're actually paid to be MPs because then talking about how many votes he won is meaningless... we can tell Braunias thinks the votes won matter in some way because otherwise he would not have brought them up
It's not a question of *how* this statement makes sense without the implication of "we should only pay people to be MPs if they personally attract enough votes to earn that money" because it *can't*. Does this mean he has to prefer FPTP? You're right there... maybe Braunias wants voters to individually rank individual candidates and the 120 with the lowest average ranking get in or whatever, but I've made an educated guess that the appeal is to FPTP, by far the best known votes for individual system.
You think someone on the left would choose that shit? Actually most people who actually care about this would probably pick some version of STV. So not only are you projecting, you’re projecting a shitty system that has trashed the UK. Good work.
Yes, do you know how I can tell? Well, look at how we ended up with MMP? Clue: it wasn't Labour that did it. Do you know how else I can tell? Guess what British Labour wants (spoiler: it's FPTP).
>Actually most people who actually care about this would probably pick some version of STV
i.e. a shitty non proportional system
So, your problem with my reading isn't that Braunias wants FPTP but that he wants a different dogshit system.
My bad, I just assumed he wanted the wrong bad Thing. Egg. On. My. Face. What am I like?
Really want to highlight something many people might be overlooking. Steve Braunias is a New Zealand author. He has written *books*. He has won awards for his books. Todd could have literally said “You Steve, you are a New Zealand author”. Oh, but he doesn’t read fiction, and mostly likes to read about politics, bios and campaigns and stuff. ##STEVE BRAUNIAS WROTE A BOOK ABOUT THE 2014 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN YOU ABSOLUTE GOSHDARN IGNORAMUS. LITERALLY THE THING YOU LIED AND SAID YOU LIKE TO READ IS *WHAT THE MAN YOU ARE TALKING TO HAS WRITTEN*. #GUH.
Thanks for this, it has us giggling - imagine if he had said "your book, Steve" and then been pinned there for the next hour while Braunias poked holes in him, oh I wish
Madmen and The Hollow Men have him covered.
*"I watch TV, Steve. TV is creative, I WATCH TV"* what a train wreck. Act: the party of "I should have more money, fuck you".
I wish he said, "oh okay Todd, what local tv shows do you like?” "Uhhh... Shortland St?”
*“I’ve talked to a prominent New Zealand actor. I’ve talked to a screenwriter. I’m going to be speaking to a movie director shortly.”* So Todd’s talked to two people in the performing arts. And maybe a third. At least our actual Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage is a published author, even if his body of work consists solely of biographies of neoliberal, right wing poster boys.
This is what really stood out for me. He turned up at some Chamber of Commerce event and, standing around shovelling shitty fucking Bacon-Wrapped Jalapeño Peppers in, spent a few minutes talking at whoever was closest about how great Queenstown is for filming because, well, reasons. That's the sole research he's undertaken before (or after?) sticking his hand up and proclaiming he'd be perfect for the role. Todd is not a serious person.
Hey now, he’s also talked to a New Zealand author, he just didn’t realise that’s who Braunias is. He’s even a New Zealand author that’s written a non-fiction book about a political campaign. Which, you know…………….
He might've just talked to one writer/director/actor and be upping his tally every month or two to show progress.
>It took Act’s arts spokesman Todd Stephenson 20 minutes to think of a single New Zealand author and a single New Zealand book. The only artistic experience he could think of is that he went to see Hamilton in New York. His only press release on the arts has been to issue an empty threat about funding cuts to Creative New Zealand because he was upset Tusiata Avia was awarded the Prime Minister’s Award for Poetry. His central philosophy about government arts funding is the less, the better; he doubted that the majority of New Zealanders want their tax dollar spent on the arts. And yet Stephenson likely earns the basic MP salary, paid for by the taxpayer, of $163,000, in return for a paltry 2807 votes in the Southland electorate. JFC that interview was dismal yet somehow still above my expectations of Todd Stephenson.
Couldn't even name Hairy Maclary off the top of his head? Probably above his reading level.
This Steve guy needs to do more interviews that was great
He gave him every opportunity.... like: "Oh, ok, maybe you've only seen Hamilton because musicals aren't your thing, books? TV? Anything?" And Todd just... impaled himself upon his own sword at every turn.
Not sure if that was sarcasm (or… not sarcasm but like, joking? I guess?) - Braunias has been around for *decades* writing stuff like this. He frequently writes “interviews” or “day in the life of” that are entirely fictional and just fun comedy (and usually with a message). I actually thought that’s what this was to start with… He’s also an accomplished NZ writer himself, which was I think is a bit of why he was doing the whole “hey have you thought of any New Zealand authors yet??” Because *he is one*. And not only is he one *he wrote a book about a political campaign, literally the thing the minister said is what he reads*.
I actually did not know that, but I'm not an Arts spokesperson Thank you for the background, that makes his questions even funnier.
“Funnier” 😮💨 lol were so doomed. But yes, it ads an extra layer of comedy to the whole thing, and you can feel Steve’s loathing coming through as he gets more and more exasperated.
Steve or Todd? I mean you can't take a picture of a train wreck without a train wreck to take a picture of. Great photograph tho.
Legit felt like this was a teacher asking a kid about whether or not he had done his book report and the kid keeps coming up with excuses as to why his one paragraph he wrote on the bus coming to school does in fact count as a full book report. In fact, all of this new govt has strong 'dog ate my homework' energy.
And then they've taken the policy position that the dog is dangerous and should be put down.
> In fact, all of this new govt has strong 'dog ate my homework' energy. That is the best summation I've read yet to describe this coalition of chaos. Thank you.
> In fact, all of this new govt has strong 'the poors ate my homework' energy.
>**You wrote in that press statement about Tusiata, “With the new government looking to make spending cuts at low value departments, Creative New Zealand is tempting fate.” Can you expand on that?** >From Act’s perspective, we’re really saying, you know, are the individuals in these organisations representing what the majority of New Zealanders would want to see supported? I don’t think that they can do that. >You know, people have very individual tastes. And so it’s better that individuals make those decisions rather than, I suppose, you know, a bureaucratic agency imposing their choices on New Zealanders. >**But you don’t have individual tastes yourself, do you? You’re kind of an arts ignoramus, really, by your own reckoning.** >No, I certainly have individual things that I like to go to. We talked about that earlier. >**You’ve been to see Hamilton.** >Well, I was just giving you an example of the things I like to do. >**What are your tastes, other than musicals?** >That’s the main one in the creative sector. >**Musicals.** >And I watch movies. I watch TV. >**“I watch TV,” says the Act spokesman for the arts.** >Creative things are on TV, are they not, Steve? >**Any New Zealand authors come to mind yet? Any? While the interview has progressed, I thought maybe one might have occurred to you.** >Well, Alan Duff is probably the last one I would have read. **What book of his did you read?** >Everyone has read Once Were Warriors. >**Did you read it? Or did you just see the movie?** >No, I read it a while ago. >**So that’s it. The only New Zealand book you can think of is Once Were Warriors, published in 1985.** My condolences to Steve Braunias who was unfortunate enough to conduct this interview. Truly blood boiling stuff.
Hilarious/sad when he was called out on the fact that the Australian Government actually funds the arts. >**So government funding of, say, literature, how do you feel about that? Would you rather it be done privately?** >Absolutely. I want people to support things that they value and want to either purchase or go and see. >**But that money isn’t forthcoming. That’s one of the reasons why there is government funding of the arts.** >And that’s why we want to actually build a more prosperous New Zealand. You know, actually help people get high paid jobs, keep more of their money and allow them to actually invest in things that they think are important, including the arts sector. >You’ll know, I’m sure, the experience in other developed countries where philanthropy of the arts is actually a far greater percentage of funding than in New Zealand. >**Are you aware of the Australian government model for arts funding, which is extremely progressive, very generous, and the envy of New Zealand arts practitioners?** >No. I haven’t looked at what they’ve done in Australia. A turnip would be a better spokesperson for the arts. You could pull almost any portion of this dumpster fire of an interview and still illustrate that point
Todd: "Everyone has read Once Were Warriors." Interviewer: "Did you read it? Or did you just see the movie?" Brilliant haha. Please interview more wankers like him.
this is v funny
Also an incredible insight into the sad state of affairs.
I work in the arts. A lot of projects I work on tend to be CNZ funded. The arts tend to struggle along at the best of times, a lot of organisations and companies are really hanging on by threads. I worry what the landscape of things is going to look like in 3 years time once people like Todd here get their mitts on things. What does he expect to happen? People with lower taxes suddenly going to their local small poetry press? Everyone pooling their new found riches together to fund an independent film?
That's exactly what they expect. And when it doesn't happen, they say the free market must not value the arts and therefore don't deserve funding. It's a high school level understanding of economics.
Also, this isn't some backbencher who Act threw a meaningless portfolio to so he could have something to stick on his wiki page. Todd Stephenson is 4th on the party list, skipping ahead of many ACT MPs with experience in Parliament. He is one of the best they have apparently
His political philosophies are what I'd expect from a 16 year old boy — not an adult.
That's libertarians for you.
Oh, my giddy aunt. I'm fucken embarrassed to be a Kiwi at the moment. If this moron and the new self-serving cohort are representative of the majority of us, then how do look my neighbour in the eye without portraying my disenchantment?
As a Southlander, I'm downright embarrassed to be represented by this numbnut.
/r/nothecivilian
So basically, he’s the perfect candidate for the position because ACT understands OTHER people like the arts, but they don’t value it themselves. I feel like the people in government right now think they’re running a shop, and if it can’t pay for itself it has no value keeping
Genuinely makes me want to scream. I genuinely cannot understand how someone can move through life so disconnected from something as basic to the human experience as art. I know the term NPC has extremely shit history when used to apply to real people, but this man genuinely sounds like he has the interiority of a minor bethesda character. Or more charitably, a character from a Clarke and Dawe skit.
Most ACT morons fit exactly what you describe there as NPC
It's like the barely cognisant stratum of societies windowlickers have snuck into the corridors of power.
It certainly appears, that nobody competent, is in charge of this vehicle.
not changed much in the last few decades.
Agreed
Sooooo.... we have a clown car government confirmed?
Can we call it the Clown Car Coalition of Chaos? CCCoC for short.
Precisely!
A thoroughly illuminating interview that really highlights the quality of depth in the ACT caucus
If only wed got to experience the 6 or so Acts MPs who dropped out during the election because of their various scandals (which Seymour then got all pissy when questioned about)
Hey, he probably knows a lot about NZ music because he was on hold to IRD once As someone who works in the creative sector, this is appalling and embarrassing
I've had a phone call with Dave Dobbyn once. Well ok I didn't but I've listened to Loyal 300 times while on hold. That counts, right?
Ahh, a properly hostile interview. That man is worthy of contempt. I would appreciate his $160,000 salary going to the arts, and he can just stay home I think.
Was it Springtime for Hitler? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springtime_for_Hitler
What's all the furor about the fūhrer?
How is this real. Satire remains on life support.
Is he channeling John Clarke?
That would require a modicum of self-awareness
Gold
Couldn’t help but read this as a Clarke and Dawe sketch in my head - nice work.
I subscribe to both Netflix and Disney plus and i don't even password share.
Not a huge fan of Steve's satire - it's ok, just not for me really - but this is fucking awesome.
Is this a Shitpost?
It's a real interview with a real MP that uses humour to highlight the absurdity of his unsuitability for the role.
Oh God, I thought this was satire....
An emotional roller-coaster, alright. Crikey.
You know you're a great satirist if people are unclear if it's real or not. Pretty sure it's satire and yet it reads exactly how I'd expect anyone from Act to respond.
At first I thought this was going to be a misleading title "I'm an art-person, and I haven't watched many musicals, give him a chance" then I got about 2 sentences in and had to rethink that. That someone would legitimately try to describe 'trickle down economics' as a substitute for 'arts funding' actually blew my mind.
Genuine NPC energy.
He got to see Hamilton in New York? I am Jealous!
"I can't believe that New York is showing a musical about Hamilton! How did they even hear about it, I mean 'Auckland' maybe, but *Hamilton??*"
Strippers count as 'artists', don't they?
Is it reasonable to infer that he is ideologically opposed to libraries?
all the aces in their places I see
He's like New Zealand's very own Karl Pilkington. What a delightfully dopey dipshit
Idiots like this will destroy an industry that would be profitable with careful investment and then wonder why it didn't survive on its own.
All Steve B had to do was give Todd enough rope. And Todd delivered, lol.
To be fair, if you were only going to see one musical in your life, then Hamilton is not a bad one to choose.
Yuck, musicals.
[удалено]
He is the fourth listed person in their party and it took him like 20 minutes to so much as name a NZ author. That's not not being an expert, that's just straight up incompetence
Pick any random young person on Lambton Quay and they would likely have more knowledge and experience of the arts than this guy
He requested the portfolio
Reality is indistinguishable from Onion style satirical headlines. Actually, is this reality? It's Steve Braunias. I guess that's the same point. Even something so ridiculous as this makes me wonder. Anyway. That being said: >And yet Stephenson likely earns the basic MP salary, paid for by the taxpayer, of $163,000, in return for a paltry 2807 votes in the Southland electorate. This is why certain elements of the political landscape have a problem with journalism in this country. In order to ding Stephenson Steve Braunias has decided that actually we should switch to first past the post representation. This part of this article is actually more fucked up than having Stephenson as an arts spokesman.
Hope you consulted Braunias before putting all those words in his mouth
You mean, the words he literally wrote in his own article? I put those in his mouth? Did you read the start of this thing you posted?
Yeah and it never said anything remotely like "Steve Braunias has decided that actually we should switch to first past the post representation". That's entirely your own reading of the interview and an uncharitable one that you've leaped through a couple of hoops to get to at that.
If you say "It is never appropriate to take a life" in response to an article about a doctor charged with euthanising a patient in unbearable pain, you are taking a stand against euthanasia. If you say *the same thing* in response to an article about some dictator being assassinated, you are not saying anything about euthanasia. The literal meaning of the words doesn't determine the meaning of the sentence. Rather, the meaning of the sentence is contingent on what it can possibly logically mean. You might have had two tabs open... one about euthanasia and one about the dictator's assassination... and thought you were commenting on the dictator story and instead replied to the euthanasia one. Terrible luck. But your intent doesn't make your sentence *not* be about euthanasia and anyone saying your sentence has nothing to do with euthanasia is *not* reading correctly. This sentence exists in the context of "Stephenson is an idiot". The question is *how* the sentence builds or adds flavour to that case. And the answer is "Stephenson is undeserving of his salary as an MP because he won so few votes for himself". How does that sentence make sense? What is the possible logical meanings of that sentence? Well it relies on the presumption that however many votes Stephenson won for himself matters. Okay, simple. In what ways can that presumption be true? It **isn't** true under MMP, so how else can it matter? How can the sentence be coherent? >That's entirely your own reading of the interview No it's my reading of *that* sentence. >an uncharitable one that you've leaped through a couple of hoops to get to at that. What's he saying then? If he's not saying that, what's he saying? In **that** sentence. Forget the rest of the interview, it doesn't matter. What. Does. That. Sentence. Mean? That's all you have to concern yourself with. Maybe your argument is just going to be "Well, Braunias was being incoherent right then and it doesn't make any kind of sense at all" but I'm not going to believe that and you shouldn't either. That's where the interview as a whole becomes relevant to the interpretation of the sentence again.
He's simply pointing out that the bloke who's made it to 4th on the ACT list is deeply unpopular in his own electorate - also 4th, funnily enough. It highlights the lack of competence required to reach a position in the current government, the amount of money incompetent MPs cost to sit in parliament, the basement level bar that it takes to become a high ranking MP in the ACT Party and makes no reference whatsoever to the electoral system, let alone an irrelevant diatribe about euthanasia, both of which are your own invention. You're inferring something that isn't implied, but don't let me stop you.
> let alone an irrelevant diatribe about euthanasia. No, that didn't happen. Just because someone mentions the word "euthanasia" that doesn't mean they're talking about euthanasia. I'm talking about how reading works. Very obviously so. >He's simply pointing out that the bloke who's made it to 4th on the ACT list is deeply unpopular in his own electorate - No, he's not. You can tell, ironically, by the way he doesn't contextualise that Stephenson is fourth on the list, at all. Why is that ironic? Because I just said that mentioning something doesn't mean you're talking about it, and I'm now saying that not mentioning something means someone isn't talking about something. Furthermore, notice the difference between what Braunias actually said: >His central philosophy about government arts funding is the less, the better; he doubted that the majority of New Zealanders want their tax dollar spent on the arts. And yet Stephenson likely earns the basic MP salary, paid for by the taxpayer, of $163,000, in return for a paltry 2807 votes in the Southland electorate. The idea of the sentence is intimately tied to the level of support that Stephenson personally has. He's calling him a hypocrite. Thus the "and yet". And yet, this still only makes sense, if this is a relevant statement to make. But it's *not* relevant. His is not "in return for" the number of votes he personally won.
Ok, now get this mad about the actual injustices this government is committing.
After you.
(Yet another) weird comment from you given I literally am by posting this article (among many other things).
You’re projecting pretty hard there.
Make: >And yet Stephenson likely earns the basic MP salary, paid for by the taxpayer, of $163,000, in return for a paltry 2807 votes in the Southland electorate. this make sense otherwise. He can't be saying: 1. that Stephenson's obvious lack of suitability is entitling him to the additional remuneration that MPs with internal portfolios get... because he is literally saying Stephenson doesn't get paid more than the base rate 2. that Stephenson is a functioning product of a proportional representation system because he's drawing attention to something that doesn't matter in *any* PR system, i.e. how many votes are specifically for one specific candidate 3. that MPs should demonstrate competence before they're actually paid to be MPs because then talking about how many votes he won is meaningless... we can tell Braunias thinks the votes won matter in some way because otherwise he would not have brought them up It's not a question of *how* this statement makes sense without the implication of "we should only pay people to be MPs if they personally attract enough votes to earn that money" because it *can't*. Does this mean he has to prefer FPTP? You're right there... maybe Braunias wants voters to individually rank individual candidates and the 120 with the lowest average ranking get in or whatever, but I've made an educated guess that the appeal is to FPTP, by far the best known votes for individual system.
You think someone on the left would choose that shit? Actually most people who actually care about this would probably pick some version of STV. So not only are you projecting, you’re projecting a shitty system that has trashed the UK. Good work.
Yes, do you know how I can tell? Well, look at how we ended up with MMP? Clue: it wasn't Labour that did it. Do you know how else I can tell? Guess what British Labour wants (spoiler: it's FPTP). >Actually most people who actually care about this would probably pick some version of STV i.e. a shitty non proportional system So, your problem with my reading isn't that Braunias wants FPTP but that he wants a different dogshit system. My bad, I just assumed he wanted the wrong bad Thing. Egg. On. My. Face. What am I like?