the stupidity of the woke (and kiwis)

[Ken Gargett]

i think anyone who has read pretty much anything i have written will know i am no fan of either extreme in politics and would  see the extreme right as hugely dangerous but there are times when the stupidity of the woke drives me insane.

no, this is not that imbecilic woke PM of the kiwis - so concerned about emissions that she found it necessary to fly to Antarctica for some ceremony (and then her NZ air force plane apparently broke down and so they had to send a second - no unnecessary emissions there - although the big question is probably why the hell does NZ even have an air force). 

Just saw a piece which drives me utterly insane. This is how stupid and precious and beyond woke some imbeciles have got.

Kiwi bloke had his horse win some race last week. I have no interest in racing but apparently a big one (not the Melb Cup). apparently $5.2 mill in prize money. 10% of that goes to charity. He wanted to give it to a children’s hospital in Orcland.

Thanks but no thanks. Racing is associated with gambling so no way (although the morons missed the fact that they have actually accepted other donations along the exact same lines in the past). So instead of receiving A$520,000 to assist kiwi kids, they receive… ZERO. Not a cent. A charity for diseases in NSW had no issues. They took the lot. Now if from an illegal activity, fair enough. But none of this is illegal.

If I had a kid in that hospital, I'd want huge answers. And if my kid died, I would tear the head off whatever tosser made that decision.

Humanity is beyond help.

 

[JohnS]

You know I'm very much looking forward to the next time you and Rob catch-up, Ken. You are in fine form!

[Ken Gargett]

37 minutes ago, JohnS said:

You know I'm very much looking forward to the next time you and Rob catch-up, Ken. You are in fine form!

tomorrow. 

 

42 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

no, this is not that imbecilic woke PM of the kiwis - so concerned about emissions that she found it necessary to fly to Antarctica for some ceremony (and then her NZ air force plane apparently broke down and so they had to send a second - no unnecessary emissions there - although the big question is probably why the hell does NZ even have an air force).

my apologies. it has been pointed out to me that i am not correct in respect of the actions of bambi at the bottom of the world. it seems that the second plane sent to bring her home did not do so. apparently, it broke down as well (again, nz, why bother with an air force?). she was left to hitch a ride on an italian plane. 

hell of a lot of emissions for a ceremony, but the actions of a politicians are like calories in ice-cream when watching sport. they don't count. 

[SirVantes]

It's not wokeness, it's just business.  They did the sums, and the money from sponsor-partners with ESG policies was worth more.

"We are extremely proud to have partnerships with a range of sponsors who make substantial contributions in support of our national children’s hospital. While we are grateful to accept contributions outside of our established partnership programme, providing the Starship Foundation’s branding and promotional material is not always possible in order to uphold our existing partnership obligations. In this instance, we were unable to be the nominated charity due to these considerations.”

https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/11/02/cure-kids-weigh-in-after-starship-rejects-570k-donation/

 

 

[Ken Gargett]

49 minutes ago, SirVantes said:

It's not wokeness, it's just business.  They did the sums, and the money from sponsor-partners with ESG policies was worth more.

"We are extremely proud to have partnerships with a range of sponsors who make substantial contributions in support of our national children’s hospital. While we are grateful to accept contributions outside of our established partnership programme, providing the Starship Foundation’s branding and promotional material is not always possible in order to uphold our existing partnership obligations. In this instance, we were unable to be the nominated charity due to these considerations.”

https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/11/02/cure-kids-weigh-in-after-starship-rejects-570k-donation/

 

 

my understanding is that they were pissed about for some time. couldn't get relevant people involved. and the donation was not seeking promotion or branding. the PR blurb was simply a way of some tosser justifying refusing the money. does anyone really believe another charity to a children's hospital would be so petty as to insist that the hospital not accept half a mill so they could hog the spotlight? and if they did, how long would it take to come out? this is not sponsoring a sports team or an art exhibition or whatever. it is saving kids. are they really going to claim bureaucratic crap takes priority over that? 

[dominattorney]

9 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

my understanding is that they were pissed about for some time. couldn't get relevant people involved. and the donation was not seeking promotion or branding. the PR blurb was simply a way of some tosser justifying refusing the money. does anyone really believe another charity to a children's hospital would be so petty as to insist that the hospital not accept half a mill so they could hog the spotlight? and if they did, how long would it take to come out? this is not sponsoring a sports team or an art exhibition or whatever. it is saving kids. are they really going to claim bureaucratic crap takes priority over that? 

It does strike me as stupid, yet not surprising. I don't know how hospitals work down there, but in the US they run just like any other major business, with a finger wagging HR team and a nightmare mass of beurocratic tape to wade through to get anything done. Ordering hospital records is a headache, figuring out what a service will cost in advance is a headache, etc. I would not be surprised in the least I'd an American hospital did something like this. 

[SirVantes]

51 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

my understanding is that they were pissed about for some time. couldn't get relevant people involved. and the donation was not seeking promotion or branding. the PR blurb was simply a way of some tosser justifying refusing the money. does anyone really believe another charity to a children's hospital would be so petty as to insist that the hospital not accept half a mill so they could hog the spotlight? and if they did, how long would it take to come out? this is not sponsoring a sports team or an art exhibition or whatever. it is saving kids. are they really going to claim bureaucratic crap takes priority over that? 

Or, possibly, they have agreements with other donors with stipulations that, as a condition of being on their donor list, they refrain from any association (broadly defined, by the donors) with a list of prohibited businesses, directly or indirectly, whether or not such association is made public.  Including without limitation, gaming.  You know the language.  A big money donor got in first, and set the terms.  They don't want to be associated with charity-washing, and the charity, being, well, a charity in need, signed on.  Maybe they dallied because their lawyers spent all day and night trying to get round the contractual restrictions, to no avail.  Possibly, I have no idea.

 

[Chibearsv]

Would Cedar Sinai turn down a donation from Ye?  Would the size of the donation factor into the decision? 

From my tiny world, it seems pretty stupid to turn away donations from legal entities, engaging in legal activity, as long as there aren't any attached conditions that are unreasonable.  I don't consider the receipt of a donation to be an endorsement of the donor's character or activities.  It's just money, take it.  But that's just me.

[Ken Gargett]

4 hours ago, Chibearsv said:

Would Cedar Sinai turn down a donation from Ye?  Would the size of the donation factor into the decision? 

From my tiny world, it seems pretty stupid to turn away donations from legal entities, engaging in legal activity, as long as there aren't any attached conditions that are unreasonable.  I don't consider the receipt of a donation to be an endorsement of the donor's character or activities.  It's just money, take it.  But that's just me.

and me.

 

[MrBirdman]

Honestly I’m very much not onboard with wokeism at all costs but I don’t see this as woke, at least not how we use the term in the US. Whether it’s good business is another question, but as someone who has seen gambling quietly growing into my country’s next major front of addiction, I respect the principle. 

[Ken Gargett]

one of the reasons that this resonates at the moment is that it is not the first time this sort of stupidity has happened down under (and can't blame the kiwis for this one).

if memory serves, some years back, the brother of our then treasurer, a high profile priest of some sort, was head of a local childrens charity or world vision or something and was he was well known as an opponent of gambling (in fairness, he did a great deal of good work). TAB, which was then our legal quasi-govt betting company, offered a very sizable donation and he knocked it back. copped a lot of criticism. if i recall, he later said he got it wrong, but by then, the dosh was gone. beggars belief that someone could impose their own values on a donation like that.

we also have the spotlight on sports sponsorships at the moment. was a really good opinion article by an old mate of mine pointing out no sportsman is bigger than the their game and the dangers of sportsmen taking stands involving legal entities. we had a fuss about a mining company sponsoring aussie netball (apparently people care). owner of the company got sick of it and pulled the money and now tax payers are forking out. plus the captain of our cricket team - a position often described as even more important than that of the PM - opposed certain sponsorships and that has created issues. 

[MrBirdman]

5 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

owner of the company got sick of it and pulled the money and now tax payers are forking out. plus the captain of our cricket team - a position often described as even more important than that of the PM - opposed certain sponsorships and that has created issues

Again, your complaints are more about stupidity than wokeness (which is seen as being about punishing people for non-conforming speech; that’s different than people refusing to be pressured into shilling for companies they disagree with). 

[Ken Gargett]

3 minutes ago, MrBirdman said:

Again, your complaints are more about stupidity than wokeness (which is seen as being about punishing people for non-conforming speech; that’s different than people refusing to be pressured into shilling for companies they disagree with). 

i was using the examples of the netball and cricket merely to identify why this is a big issue downunder at the moment. personally, i don't really care about either. 

i would argue to the contrary of your suggestion that refusing the donation because of some personal virtue signalling is the epitome of 'woke', but it depends how you want to define 'woke'. you say "at least not how we use the term in the US", but you don't define that. and it takes about ten seconds googling the definition to see that there is a very wide discrepancy between the left and right as to how it is to be defined and indeed, whether describing someone as woke is a positive or negative (and i suspect that if either of us discuss it any further, much as i'd be interested in that, we'd find ourselves transgressing certain rules and i'm trying to get through an entire year without a suspension so i might bail out now). 

[MrBirdman]

15 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

i was using the examples of the netball and cricket merely to identify why this is a big issue downunder at the moment. personally, i don't really care about either. 

i would argue to the contrary of your suggestion that refusing the donation because of some personal virtue signalling is the epitome of 'woke', but it depends how you want to define 'woke'. you say "at least not how we use the term in the US", but you don't define that. and it takes about ten seconds googling the definition to see that there is a very wide discrepancy between the left and right as to how it is to be defined and indeed, whether describing someone as woke is a positive or negative (and i suspect that if either of us discuss it any further, much as i'd be interested in that, we'd find ourselves transgressing certain rules and i'm trying to get through an entire year without a suspension so i might bail out now). 

Fair enough - the term has so many meaning now - all that they share is being not flattering. Virtue signalling is a huge part of being woke, though it's been around since looong before that. 

[BoliDan]

Can anyone explain the origin of NZ being kiwis? 

Also, is the feud mostly sports oriented or is it like a big brother little brother rivalry?

[Ken Gargett]

26 minutes ago, BoliDan said:

Can anyone explain the origin of NZ being kiwis? 

Also, is the feud mostly sports oriented or is it like a big brother little brother rivalry?

kiwi being the flightless bird which scurries around in the dark is an unofficial symbol of NZ and they have been known as that (and more) since i can remember and long before. 

both nations big on sports so a natural rivalry as we basically play the same games and sports. the minor variation is that rugby is huge for them and has always been our third or fourth most important football code (and getting less and less important) although that is complicated because rugby is very much the most international of our major codes, bar soccer of course. so it really is complicated. also difficult as all nz is besotted with rugby whereas in australia both rugby and rugby league (different games) are very much centred on NSW and Qld while the other states have aussie rules, many aussies could not give a toss about rugby (and it is bizarre to see a kiwi try and drag those people into a discussion on it and getting nowhere - i swear that some genuinely believe that the aussies concerned are simply pretending) but even that these days is blurry as aussie rules sides have been very successful in NSW and Qld (the Lions sides from Brisbane early this century would be seen as one of, if not the greatest sides of all time). even though i'm from Brizzy, i grew up in an area that played aussie rules. summer sees cricket which both nations play though other than a rare blip, they have never got close to our level. that is also blurred as there are now three forms including two shorter versions. true fans really only take notice of test cricket which is the long version and don't really care much about the shorter versions though many love them. kiwis tend to do a lot better at the short forms. 

the big/little brother thing is much more of an issue for kiwis than aussies. if you asked americans if there was a big brother/little brother issue with canada then i suspect you'd get 90% plus wondering what you were talking about. ask that in canada and you'll get a different response. same over here. the truth is very few aussies spend two seconds thinking about nz unless for a specific reason (which will really only be rugby, some wines, some skiing, trout fishing, criminals). otherwise, they are not on our radar. much as i suspect that most americans don't spend a lot of time thinking about canada. kiwis, on the other hand, do have a rather unhealthy obsession with their "big brother". they get much more pleasure out of their occasional sporting wins over us than the reverse (we would get much more pleasure from beating england at something than we would from beating nz). there is a real chip on the shoulder with many (we know this because about half of them live here). 

[BoliDan]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

kiwi being the flightless bird which scurries around in the dark is an unofficial symbol of NZ and they have been known as that (and more) since i can remember and long before. 

both nations big on sports so a natural rivalry as we basically play the same games and sports. the minor variation is that rugby is huge for them and has always been our third or fourth most important football code (and getting less and less important) although that is complicated because rugby is very much the most international of our major codes, bar soccer of course. so it really is complicated. also difficult as all nz is besotted with rugby whereas in australia both rugby and rugby league (different games) are very much centred on NSW and Qld while the other states have aussie rules, many aussies could not give a toss about rugby (and it is bizarre to see a kiwi try and drag those people into a discussion on it and getting nowhere - i swear that some genuinely believe that the aussies concerned are simply pretending) but even that these days is blurry as aussie rules sides have been very successful in NSW and Qld (the Lions sides from Brisbane early this century would be seen as one of, if not the greatest sides of all time). even though i'm from Brizzy, i grew up in an area that played aussie rules. summer sees cricket which both nations play though other than a rare blip, they have never got close to our level. that is also blurred as there are now three forms including two shorter versions. true fans really only take notice of test cricket which is the long version and don't really care much about the shorter versions though many love them. kiwis tend to do a lot better at the short forms. 

the big/little brother thing is much more of an issue for kiwis than aussies. if you asked americans if there was a big brother/little brother issue with canada then i suspect you'd get 90% plus wondering what you were talking about. ask that in canada and you'll get a different response. same over here. the truth is very few aussies spend two seconds thinking about nz unless for a specific reason (which will really only be rugby, some wines, some skiing, trout fishing, criminals). otherwise, they are not on our radar. much as i suspect that most americans don't spend a lot of time thinking about canada. kiwis, on the other hand, do have a rather unhealthy obsession with their "big brother". they get much more pleasure out of their occasional sporting wins over us than the reverse (we would get much more pleasure from beating england at something than we would from beating nz). there is a real chip on the shoulder with many (we know this because about half of them live here). 

Lol. That was a fun explanation. Thank you, Ken