Jump to content

Congratulations Stu Peters


Max Power
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

IMO the cartoon is suggesting flowers and nibbles are more of a feminine touch, the underlying message could be it will make the HOK a nicer place as a result of more female MHKs being elected.

Agree with all of your post, especially the above. Hopefully there'll also be an inclusion of various wicker baskets overflowing with fragrantly delightful Pot-pouri to help rid the edifice of any remaining stench which has accumulated in the last few decades.

Let there be light. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Not sure when you last watched TV, but gender stereotyping has been banned in adverts for a few years now. Almost all the women I know who've seen it think the cartoon is sexist.

OK let’s turn to local radio. What about the poor chap who is screeched at by his female partner “ I told you, we/ (you) should have gone to Athol”

Or the gormless Geoffrey in the Spectrum Window ads

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

OK let’s turn to local radio. What about the poor chap who is screeched at by his female partner “ I told you, we/ (you) should have gone to Athol”

Or the gormless Geoffrey in the Spectrum Window ads

No idea, I avoid local radio. Wouldn't surprise me if those adverts breach regs though.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, quilp said:

Yeah, but in reality it was also a subtle attempt to run a smear on Stu because of his personal comments, present and historical. Casting roundabout aspersions was also the intention. Like the other poster, 'Lost Login' who started a post commenting on what he thought about Stu's alleged transgressions and thought it clever to liberally use the terms homo/trans/islamophobia, BLM, diversity, white privilege, etc. Do you see the subtlety in association there? The terms are exemplifiers and they were used to colour the post against SP. Fanning the flames. 

What does this actually mean?  Are you suggesting that this dull and slightly odd[1] cartoon was an evil attempt to trick Stu into making a dull and slightly odd comment?  Or did masked feminists break into Peters Towers and hold a gun to his head till he had written something silly on Facebook?  Apparently the poor man is never responsible for his own actions - a big boy always made him do it.

Why this is damaging to Stu is that it suggests he isn't going to spend his time as an MHK helping his constituents, examining legislation, helping reform government, finding out and explaining what has gone wrong.  He's just going to spend his time starting stupidly 'controversies', going "Look at me! Aren't I anti-Woke!" and expecting everyone to cheer him.  At best it's rather sad attention-seeking but It comes across as fabricated as a Josem photo-op and I suspect that even his fans will tire of it rather quickly.

 

[1]  Even in Sexism World are nibbles seen as a female thing?  It was men who were arguing over crisp flavours on another thread. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of what you suggest, Roger. It was the deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Stu's response which triggered me. The exaggerated construct behind it and the unfounded inferences directed his way.

It's a ridiculous situation, blown out of all proportion. The rest of your post is irrelevant. The last paragraph is telling. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

[1]  Even in Sexism World are nibbles seen as a female thing?  It was men who were arguing over crisp flavours on another thread. 

Well as sweeping generalisations go, I personally think females do tend to make much more effort when it comes to anything celebratory, even down to the small details such as nibbles.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, quilp said:

It was the deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Stu's response which triggered me. The exaggerated construct behind it and the unfounded inferences directed his way.

Stu must be expecting this to happen, he surely knows he has a target on his back, so why give the ammunition? If anything Stu’s comment was just as pointless as all the others, I can’t possibly see what he gained by posting it in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

Stu must be expecting this to happen, he surely knows he has a target on his back, so why give the ammunition? 

Did he realise that a simple trite comment made would be used against him as such by the virtue-vultures? Ha, maybe he's deliberately courting controversy, I never thought of that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect SP will not moderate/ modernize his views, unfortunately. But can Alf Garnett get along with Alan from Rising Damp? I hope the answer is Yes, for the good of the Island; otherwise, what is the point of being an MHK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, quilp said:

Did he realise that a simple trite comment made would be used against him as such by the virtue-vultures? Ha, maybe he's deliberately courting controversy, I never thought of that.

 

He posted here very recently in reply to the many good luck posts to say he knows there are just as many others watching and waiting for him to fail (and that he hopes to prove us wrong) that suggests to me he knows he’s under scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The joke seems to be that when women enter toxic male dominated work places they have a civilising effect rather than suggesting women are into superficial things like flowers and nibbles and therefore not up to the job of MHK. The cartoon may not be funny or that well executed, but that's just my aesthetic taste.

2. People interpret art differently. Who's to say I'm right? And if people perceive something challenges that my reading of it fine. I try to approach my own "art" that way. I haven't seen many OTT comments on facebook until the cartoon's defenders reacted and then gets more aggressive. 

3. Stu's post is just another opinion in the mix. Fairly bland. Maybe it would be better if public figures didn't amplify the debate when it's fairly innocuous but you can say the same for Watterson, Moorehouse and the perma-offended Juan Turner. 

4. Some people are over-reacting to the mild criticism of the cartoon because it stokes the myth that there's some sort of sinister Woke Agenda.  

Bit of a storm in a tea cup / sports direct mug of builders tea, if you ask me.

Edited by Declan
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...