Luxon

[Olive]

Interesting piece by Gordon Campbell, especially the second footnote.

http://werewolf.co.nz/2022/03/gordon-cam...bPydozapjs

[king1]

like most nats, completely out of touch with most New Zealanders reality

[reigns]

How is it so impossible for National to find a leader who doesn't spend their time hiding how big of a piece of shit they are?

Bridges, Collins and now Luxon?

God, I wish Key was back to be fair.

[an amniote]

Arrogant; egocentric; devoid of empathy.

Sounds a tad sociopathic to me.

[Lilith7]

"Let’s be clear just who it is that Luxon is writing off here. His “bottom feeding” category includes the people who stack the supermarket shelves and run the checkout tills, the nurses who care for the aged, the cleaners, the security guards, the people who drive ambulances, the baggage handlers, the teacher aides, the people who take out the rubbish and the people who serve him his coffee. Plus every solo parent trying to raise a child on a benefit, everyone on a sickness benefit or everyone suffering with mental health problems."

Dear Jaysus! HOW the devil can anyone - even a National party leader - be so ignorant & out of touch? The damned fool hasn't the least idea just how difficult it is for most people - & has the cheek to label them 'bottom feeders' when surely even he must have heard just how vital cleaners, nurses & the others he merrily labels were to NZ & virtually every country affected by covid; & still are.

That second footnote is horrifying; not only does he not know how things are for many people now, he doesn't want to know.

And as for Nicola Willis being 'liberal' - I'd say she's likely to be every bit as liberal as Ruth Richardson was.

[Magoo]

ummmm, i dont want to break up your little shit kicking party here, but i skim read the article.[
its not mr luxon that referred to supermarket stockers and nurses as bottom feeders. that would be the writer mr campbell.

Gordon Campbell
Let’s be clear just who it is that Luxon is writing off here. His “bottom feeding” category includes the people who stack the supermarket shelves and run the checkout tills, the nurses who care for the aged, the cleaners, the security guards, the people who drive ambulances, the baggage handlers, the teacher aides, the people who take out the rubbish and the people who serve him his coffee. Plus every solo parent trying to raise a child on a benefit, everyone on a sickness benefit or everyone suffering with mental health problems.

that assessment of who 'bottom feeders' are was kindly provided by the writer, who then goes on to lambast him for saying it.
when i read it i saw 'bottom feeding' as being benefit spongers and ferals and the unemployable. it certainly didnt conjure up images of barefoot, raggedy arse dental assistants with prison tatts or dope smoking wastrels driving the bus.

that was as far as i got before i was distracted by the praying mantis thats died midstep on one of the shutters.
but im sure the rest of it is just as fanciful?

[Lilith7]

I think its pretty clear what Luxon is saying with this comment:

"‘If you want to have a go, and you want to make something of yourself — we don’t just do bottom feeding and just focus on the bottom. We focus on people who want to be positive and ambitious.’"


He's insinuating that those on low incomes have no ambition, no positivity & that just isn't true at all. Then there's also his brand of Christianity, which according to the article, is very close to the American pentecostalists who see wealth as a blessing bestowed on the deserving.


"As this column has noted before, Luxon’s Pentecostal beliefs appear to have a lot in common with the US “prosperity gospel” tele-evangelists, such as Joel Osteen. Wealth is taken to be God’s blessing on the righteous, while poverty is a sinful state that’s largely of one’s own choosing. It’s a very popular attitude within the US Republican Party.

The Bible though, would suggest otherwise. Think Proverbs 28.3 ( “The ruler who oppresses the poor is like the driving rain that leaves no crops.” ) Or Psalms 82: 3-4 (“Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

[Magoo]

he is insinuating no such thing, you are putting words in his mouth as well as the writer..
prosperity gospel is what the bish preaches. i dont see any parallels between the two at all, none.
in fact to even make the comparison shows a mind set happy to make the several jumps it needs to, to justify a narrative.
quoting from the bible is like quoting from tolkien, complete with wizards and orcs.

i did not have to skim more than two paragraphs (glad that was all i devoted to it) to know exactly what sort of journalism mr campbell practices.
Tucker Carlson would be proud.

[Lilith7]

Then we disagree. I don't think Luxon has the least idea how difficult its become for a good many people here.

[Magoo]

personally i think hes an overbred pompous ass
and he might think all those things about the illiterati and the shiftless.
but he said nothing of the sort

but the person who did say them knew this to be at the very least pure speculation, and worst a targeted vitriolic political smear job for the party faithful to gnaw on for a few days while jacinda catches her breath from her recent beatings.

but its ok to start threads decrying the vitriolic venom directed against the pm.
look both ways before crossing the road.

[king1]

the problem for Luxon as I see it - the term Bottom Feeders is derogatory and clearly meant the scum at the bottom of the figurative economic barrel...

The problem in using such a term (other than general perception) is no-one other than Luxon knows just how far off the bottom of the aforementioned scummy barrel one has to be in Luxons view, to not be considered a bottom feeder...

Therefore a lot of people further up the barrel, clearly not the Fendalton end but still in spitting distance of the scum, might consider that he is referring to themselves...

[Wainuiguy]

ummmm, i dont want to break up your little shit kicking party here, but i skim read the article.[
its not mr luxon that referred to supermarket stockers and nurses as bottom feeders. that would be the writer mr campbell.

Gordon Campbell
Let’s be clear just who it is that Luxon is writing off here. His “bottom feeding” category includes the people who stack the supermarket shelves and run the checkout tills, the nurses who care for the aged, the cleaners, the security guards, the people who drive ambulances, the baggage handlers, the teacher aides, the people who take out the rubbish and the people who serve him his coffee. Plus every solo parent trying to raise a child on a benefit, everyone on a sickness benefit or everyone suffering with mental health problems.

that assessment of who 'bottom feeders' are was kindly provided by the writer, who then goes on to lambast him for saying it.
when i read it i saw 'bottom feeding' as being benefit spongers and ferals and the unemployable. it certainly didnt conjure up images of barefoot, raggedy arse dental assistants with prison tatts or dope smoking wastrels driving the bus.

that was as far as i got before i was distracted by the praying mantis thats died midstep on one of the shutters.
but im sure the rest of it is just as fanciful?

Exactly Magoo - the writter believes those people to be bottom feeders not Luxon.
Then there is the story, third hand, about the flight attendant sitting next to Luxon on the plane.  The entire "article" was a hit job, and a shit one at that.

[Magoo]

when he speaks of the bottom feeders in this context i think he refers to the 20% that absorb 80% of of our social services.
he is saying that there are other places and people that need help, as opposed to the labour governments pandering to to the usual suspects all the time.
people be hurting, working parents, and other taxpayers need help as much as tax absorbers.

but i would only be guessing, and unlike mr campbell not driven to dress it up as political discourse to hide what was a pretty shallow attempt at a hit job.
'
i thought labour was all about parity, why have they left it to national to seek?

[Wainuiguy]

Interesting piece by Gordon Campbell, especially the second footnote.

http://werewolf.co.nz/2022/03/gordon-cam...bPydozapjs

I guess interesting in that it was full of fairly large assumptions driven by the authors own political leanings and bias.  And funny that certain posters on here are presenting it like Luxon actually said these things in this story when he never said anything if the sort.

---

the problem for Luxon as I see it - the term Bottom Feeders is derogatory and clearly meant the scum at the bottom of the figurative economic barrel... 

The problem in using such a term (other than general perception) is no-one other than Luxon knows just how far off the bottom of the aforementioned scummy barrel one has to be in Luxons view, to not be considered a bottom feeder... 

Therefore a lot of people further up the barrel, clearly not the Fendalton end but still in spitting distance of the scum, might consider that he is referring to themselves...

Bottom feeders Is derogatory you are right.  But then he is referring to that small section of NZ society who prey on others.  And that just isn't the poor - in fact in most instances isn't the poor at all. Payday loans companies, shopping trucks, businesses who bring in foreign workers and then treat them like slaves (and worse they often bring in their own people to do it to), criminals, gangs.  These are the bottom feeders people know and recognise.  The author tried badly to lump in working poor into that and worse nurses who would likely be more middle class workers.  That shows how the author thinks- not Luxon.
Then he  starts quoting the Bible in an effort to make out Luxon isn't a "real" Christian.

[Lilith7]

The other obvious point is that any politician should at least in theory, know better than to use a derogatory term without defining clearly who he means. Failing to do so isn't likely to endear them to anyone.
He may have been referring to everyone in NZ on a low income; he might be referring to beneficiaries, or he may have meant those working as cleaners, nurses etc. etc. - he wasn't clear who he was referring to, which enables some to start pointing the finger - perhaps in an effort to make it clear they they themselves are above suspicion of being 'bottom feeders'.

Selecting one group of a population to put the boot into isn't the cleverest idea, so perhaps Luxon will learn at least that, from this.

His particular brand of Christianity tends to suggest though that that's unlikely.

[Wainuiguy]

The other obvious point is that any politician should at least in theory, know better than to use a derogatory term without defining clearly who he means. Failing to do so isn't likely to endear them to anyone.
He may have been referring to everyone in NZ on a low income; he might be referring to beneficiaries, or he may have meant those working as cleaners, nurses etc. etc. - he wasn't clear who he was referring to, which enables some to start pointing the finger - perhaps in an effort to make it clear they they themselves are above suspicion of being 'bottom feeders'.

Selecting one group of a population to put the boot into isn't the cleverest idea, so perhaps Luxon will learn at least that, from this.

His particular brand of Christianity tends to suggest though that that's unlikely.

If you heard the term Bottom Feeders- tell us all HONESTLY what do you think of?

Funny after reading that article I would class the writter as a bottom feeder if the highest caliber.

[Magoo]

if you have a job you are not a bottom feeder, all work is noble.
if you are a senior citizen you are not a bottom feeder, youve done your bit
if you are learning you are not a bottom feeder, you are going to add value to society.

to me a bottom feeder is not someone at the bottom, a bottom feeder is someone who preys on those at the bottom.

[Lilith7]

if you have a job you are not a bottom feeder, all work is noble.
if you are a senior citizen you are not a bottom feeder, youve done your bit
if you are learning you are not a bottom feeder, you are going to add value to society.

to me a bottom feeder is not someone at the bottom, a bottom feeder is someone who preys on those at the bottom.

The term is used so widely, it can be difficult to work out who is meant. When a politician uses it though, that generally means that yet again a politician who has never known a day's hardship in his/her life, is targeting those on low incomes.

[king1]

---

the problem for Luxon as I see it - the term Bottom Feeders is derogatory and clearly meant the scum at the bottom of the figurative economic barrel... 

The problem in using such a term (other than general perception) is no-one other than Luxon knows just how far off the bottom of the aforementioned scummy barrel one has to be in Luxons view, to not be considered a bottom feeder... 

Therefore a lot of people further up the barrel, clearly not the Fendalton end but still in spitting distance of the scum, might consider that he is referring to themselves...

Bottom feeders Is derogatory you are right.  But then he is referring to that small section of NZ society who prey on others.  And that just isn't the poor - in fact in most instances isn't the poor at all.  Payday loans companies, shopping trucks, businesses who bring in foreign workers and then treat them like slaves (and worse they often bring in their own people to do it to), criminals, gangs.  These are the bottom feeders people know and recognise.  The author tried badly to lump in working poor into that and worse nurses who would likely be more middle class workers.  That shows how the author thinks- not Luxon.
Then he  starts quoting the Bible in an effort to make out Luxon isn't a "real" Christian.

That's just bollocks Wainuiguy... you're seriously trying to spin this as if he were referring to less than reputable businesses?

we don't just do bottom feeding and just focus on the bottom, we focus on people who want to be positive and ambitious and aspirational and confident, right?"   
National leader - Christopher Luxon

I think the reference to "PEOPLE " makes it very clear he is NOT referring to businesses , but PEOPLE - basically all those who are NOT a poster child for the National Party enrolment campaign (that would be the "positive and ambitious and aspirational and confident")

If anything, that description probably describes better than anything the very people running those  "Payday loans companies, shopping trucks, businesses who bring in foreign workers " - you could also add in, predatory to mix for that lot though... 

If I was to have a guess at what he intended, it was a dig at Labour and their support base that went spectacularly wrong...

[Olive]

Bottom feeder = an opportunist who seeks quick profit usually at the expense of others or from their misfortune.

My take on it is that Luxon, while having many media advisors and speech writers, is badly tone deaf when it comes to slang and metaphors. He's used to getting away with vague meaningless talk, and in this instance was trying for a dogwhistle and it has backfired.