A thread to discuss how Jacinda will make NZ Choice again

Thread Rating: 11 votes, 3.73 average.
(11 votes)
Results 4,851 to 4,875 of 5596

  1. Post
    You’re a soycuck snowflake and you don’t even like shooting stuff.

  2. Post
    Yall a bunch of cuck anti white anti male anti guns SJWs, the culture war is here.

  3. Post
    Buzzword bingo is superfun mang and both sides can play!

  4. Post
    bradc wrote:
    Yes, the intent of this proposal (and proposal mind, so like an idea and not a definite thing) is to cripple small towns who choose to subsidize an educational institute.

    The government already carriers a huge chunk of the cost so they get to have a say. As a taxpayer, if there's a better, more effective way to educate people than the status quo, you'd be mad to not even look into it.
    Or you could just deal to those that aren't performing? What a novel idea - If it ain't broke, why try fix it? A good chunk of SITs funding also comes from the community (Licensing Trust etc.), but unsure of the specific breakdown.

  5. Post
    Mutton wrote:
    snowflake.
    You know I was trying to think of that word you use when you're being hilariously and unintentionally ironic but it wasn't coming to me.

  6. Post
    Indigo1 wrote:
    Or you could just deal to those that aren't performing? What a novel idea - If it ain't broke, why try fix it? A good chunk of SITs funding also comes from the community (Licensing Trust etc.), but unsure of the specific breakdown.
    If it's like a regular uni the state pays around 75%.

  7. Post
    How is wanting equality for all racist?

    Ramza wrote:
    So many things reveal your general lack of education on the topic Mr sika.

    - Deliberately calling it the NZ Maori Wars rather than The New Zealand Wars serves to push blame for the wars onto Maori who were merely defending their own land and were punished for their temerity by having most of it confiscated.
    - Referring to Maori in plural as Maoris. This is a minor quibble but still smacks of uneducated bogan racism.
    - Citing a blatantly racist organisation as if this lends you any credibility.
    - Weakly attempting to discredit the United Nations of all things.
    A great deal of it was sold.

    Well the more you know. An S makes all the difference.

    As per above wanting equality for all isn't racist.

    The UN should stick with peace keeping failed states and sanctions. Not internal affairs of functional countries.

    frio wrote:
    Er, it's a site put together by a published author with a PhD in history who actively lectures at Victoria University.

    You're welcome to take shots at me for pointing out he's formed opinions from a novel too.
    So you're saying that a historical novel has never influenced your thinking. Maybe you should read 1984.

  8. Post
    bradc wrote:
    On their vagina soapboxes.

    I feel like I need to fit the word "cuck" in, but don't know how it works. Anyway, it's good to try and emasculate yourself on the internet. Women want to be me and men want to be with me.
    LOL you are bitter. Why so much virtue signalling, getting tired of the livestock down there?

  9. Post
    Ohh virtue signaling, that's a good one I forgot about that.

    Grape vines aren't livestock either, they're plants.

    Wait now say Chardonnay socialist.

  10. Post
    Mr sika wrote:
    Well the more you know. An S makes all the difference.
    Did you honestly not know what the plural of Maori was or is it just a coincidence?

    When someone refers to "Maoris" with no ill will I don't think anything of it but it's part of a pattern in your case. I bet you really slam the 'a' sound and ignore the 'o' when you say it as well.

  11. Post
    Bloody marrys.

  12. Post
    Mr sika wrote:
    How is wanting equality for all racist?



    A great deal of it was sold.

    Well the more you know. An S makes all the difference.

    As per above wanting equality for all isn't racist.

    The UN should stick with peace keeping failed states and sanctions. Not internal affairs of functional countries.



    So you're saying that a historical novel has never influenced your thinking. Maybe you should read 1984.
    Fiction about the 1800s from the 1980s will tell you more about the 1980s than it will the subject matter. If you’re serious about reading a book, read the Penguin History of New Zealand by Michael King.

  13. Post
    I did 7th form history which was only NZ history. I would not subject myself to such misery again.

  14. Post
    Mr sika wrote:
    How is wanting equality for all racist?

    As per above wanting equality for all isn't racist.
    Of course equality isn't racist, but that's not what you're arguing for. You're arguing for textbook cultural assimilation which is essentially cultural destruction done slowly. That is what the colonial government attempted on Maori following the theft of their land and displacement of their people. Cultural assimilation was the official policy of essentially every colonial government until roughly the mid 20th century.

    Its essentially inarguable that Maori got royally ****ed over in every way by colonials. The fact that you refer to this as a "great deal" shows just how much disregard for your fellow human beings you really have and demonstrates your basic lack of morality. Why not try thinking of all of the whanau that were displaced, women raped and/or murdered and young men sent off to die alone in prisons on imaginary charges so that their land could be confiscated? There is no sweeping this under the rug. Until you fully grasp exactly what happened in New Zealand's history, you have no right to claim that Maori need to move on from it.

    If you really want true equality than you should be advocating for everything that was stolen from Maori to be returned, and Maori interests, youth, culture and language to be nurtured and promoted "equally."

  15. Post
    Ramza wrote:
    Of course equality isn't racist, but that's not what you're arguing for. You're arguing for textbook cultural assimilation which is essentially cultural destruction done slowly. That is what the colonial government attempted on Maori following the theft of their land and displacement of their people. Cultural assimilation was the official policy of essentially every colonial government until roughly the mid 20th century.

    Its essentially inarguable that Maori got royally ****ed over in every way by colonials. The fact that you refer to this as a "great deal" shows just how much disregard for your fellow human beings you really have and demonstrates your basic lack of morality. Why not try thinking of all of the whanau that were displaced, women raped and/or murdered and young men sent off to die alone in prisons on imaginary charges so that their land could be confiscated? There is no sweeping this under the rug. Until you fully grasp exactly what happened in New Zealand's history, you have no right to claim that Maori need to move on from it.

    If you really want true equality than you should be advocating for everything that was stolen from Maori to be returned, and Maori interests, youth, culture and language to be nurtured and promoted "equally."
    Ka pai!

  16. Post
    Ramza wrote:
    Of course equality isn't racist, but that's not what you're arguing for. You're arguing for textbook cultural assimilation which is essentially cultural destruction done slowly. That is what the colonial government attempted on Maori following the theft of their land and displacement of their people. Cultural assimilation was the official policy of essentially every colonial government until roughly the mid 20th century.

    Its essentially inarguable that Maori got royally ****ed over in every way by colonials. The fact that you refer to this as a "great deal" shows just how much disregard for your fellow human beings you really have and demonstrates your basic lack of morality. Why not try thinking of all of the whanau that were displaced, women raped and/or murdered and young men sent off to die alone in prisons on imaginary charges so that their land could be confiscated? There is no sweeping this under the rug. Until you fully grasp exactly what happened in New Zealand's history, you have no right to claim that Maori need to move on from it.

    If you really want true equality than you should be advocating for everything that was stolen from Maori to be returned, and Maori interests, youth, culture and language to be nurtured and promoted "equally."
    Your arguing 21st century standards being applied to the 19th century. Maori were far from innocent themselves, NZ was not some sort of Garden of Eden.

  17. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Your arguing 21st century standards being applied to the 19th century. Maori were far from innocent themselves, NZ was not some sort of Garden of Eden.
    It was primitive tribalism at it's purest. Can't expect that to change at it's core in 200 years. Whether it's actually cultural or at some DNA level I'm unsure.

  18. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Your arguing 21st century standards being applied to the 19th century. Maori were far from innocent themselves, NZ was not some sort of Garden of Eden.
    swazi wrote:
    It was primitive tribalism at it's purest. Can't expect that to change at it's core in 200 years. Whether it's actually cultural or at some DNA level I'm unsure.
    You're both ****ing gross.

    And embarrassing. Shit at English and genetics both. Behold the master race!

  19. Post
    what does 'innocent' even mean? innocent according to who?

  20. Post
    GaR wrote:
    You're both ****ing gross.

    And embarrassing. Shit at English and genetics both. Behold the master race!
    Speak for yourself and your own shit grammar, master cuck

    - - - Updated - - -

    sorceror wrote:
    what does 'innocent' even mean? innocent according to who?
    No race is innocent. You'd be a fool to suggest otherwise.

  21. Post
    who's suggesting that? I just want the word defined because it's 100% meaningless without context, like the word good or bad

    inb4 bible

  22. Post
    swazi wrote:
    It was primitive tribalism at it's purest. Can't expect that to change at it's core in 200 years. Whether it's actually cultural or at some DNA level I'm unsure.
    It was "primitive" tribalism much like most of the history of Europe - differing groups fought for land, dominance, revenge, they formed alliances, they negotiated peace.

    Although unlike the Europeans, none of them deliberately set out to exterminate an entire people. So you know, "primitive" is sounding a bit better than "civilised".

  23. Post
    Edward Diego wrote:
    It was "primitive" tribalism much like most of the history of Europe - differing groups fought for land, dominance, revenge, they formed alliances, they negotiated peace.

    Although unlike the Europeans, none of them deliberately set out to exterminate an entire people. So you know, "primitive" is sounding a bit better than "civilised".
    Not really, They did a pretty good job of deliberately enslaving and wiping out the Moriori not to mention other smaller Maori tribes. In this case primitive is not without bloodshed.

  24. Post
    GaR wrote:
    You're both ****ing gross.

    And embarrassing. Shit at English and genetics both. Behold the master race!
    Yeah you're... giant whoops oh dear how sad never mind.

    Behold the hysterical spelling nazi Gar!

  25. Post
    sorceror wrote:
    what does 'innocent' even mean? innocent according to who?
    Innocent as in Europeans did some bad shit, as did Maori.

    That ok?