otago massacre


Criticalwats Thursday Thing by criticalwat
March 4, 2010, 5:30 pm
Filed under: politics, student life, uni

criticalwat

Welcome First Years. If you are reading this you aren’t rioting so get to it you little shits..I’m not sure who is posting this year apart from that red cups guy. First thing I need to get out of the way is that the coffee in the link still sucks.. Go anywhere but there really unless you are into “ironically” drinking shitty coffee.

The other is Clubs and societies. If you are interested in doing stuff at university apart from pulling all night study and drinking bottles of horse urine you should probably join a club. There are four types of clubs that you can join

*Sports Clubs: In where you play sports which usually involves chasing balls around and getting really sweaty.

*Religious/Political Clubs: In where you advertise to the world how wrong you are about everything

*Hobby Clubs: In where you slowly become obsessed with your new found skill at t-shirt printing until you are found years later in a dark one bedroom apartment buried under a pile of shirts with “witty” slogans on them.

*KAOS: In where you hunt the most cunning prey of all (man)

If you are interested in joining any of those clubs you should probably become familiar with the push for the university to adopt VSM. VSM is similar to V.D. in that if you don’t take proper precautions you will likely cause your genitals to become a fertile breeding ground for all kinds of nasty organisms..you should probably oppose it unless you are cool with sharing your pants with a fungal colony.

puppies and sunshine and little bunnies



critic cavern 25/08/09 by ophalm
August 25, 2009, 10:21 am
Filed under: politics, student life, uni | Tags: , , , ,

ophalm

let’s be honest, last week of the term, who could be arsed doing a real cavern? no one that’s who. no one else lines up to do this shit. but it’s got to be done, like changing the toilet roll after it’s empty, avoiding the issue just leads to a faecal mess that you’re going to spend a long time convincing someone else to tidy up.

the OUSA elections are going this week. are you going to vote? I will and that’s all I know. the voter turn out shows us that the majority of the university are simply here to get a degree and not give a fuck. I guess that’s one way to be a successful human being. like strangelyanonymous pointed out in his hard hitting article though, the results of the voting don’t matter. maybe I don’t understand democracy, I just know I’ve been brainwashed into a voting automaton

ben from critic asked me to write a pundit like article for their magazine.. I did it purely for the free otago massacre advertising, and as an opportunity to get “ass wasting” in print, but they changed my spelling to the more correct english way and now I feel a little ripped off if not shafted..

and what else is there? an article about the digitalisation of music. I feel deeply saddened by the writers lack of commitment to the issues that really matter. there’s no discussion of DRM really, or what better solutions could be. doesn’t seem like the writer acknowledges that the music labels want desperately to hold onto their old business models, but need to get with the times..

theres also like 50 other pages in the magazine. most contain stuff not worth reading, and that fits nicely with my apathy..



Who actually cares? by strangelyanonymous
August 19, 2009, 2:52 am
Filed under: meta, politics, rant, student life, uni | Tags:

strangelyanonymous

With all this wank about about OUSA elections, I raise a question, what does it matter? The president is to perform some functional roles, yes. But I could easily do what ever it is they do. Go to a meeting, uphold what ever agreements have been made blah blah (I don’t want to that, but I could) . Essentially, I think it is a role that could held by most people. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have one, but why on earth do they expect me care who it is? As long it’s not a retarded monkey, they will do the same thing. It’s not like national government where my choice actually has an impact on outcomes affecting me. They will not lower fees, get cheaper food on campus or uncover that tunnel opposit the clocktower where you used to be able to get down to the Leith. That’s not the fault of OUSA, it’s just that the University is a multimillion dollar industry and they are not going to let a bunch of kids who have loitered around campus for a couple of years go changing things willy nilly. Of course I am willing to have my mind changed… comments…?



Welcome to Iran by criticalwat
June 16, 2009, 3:43 pm
Filed under: politics | Tags:

posted by criticalwat


(original image from Tehran Live)

Either this is going to end very well or its going to be another tienaemen..Hopefully its the former..Even though he would still be answering to the ayatollah (well ideally he’d replace him but one thing at a time I guess) this new chap would be a bit better then that snappy jacket wearing nutbar they have at the moment.

course it would of been better if they kept the guy they had before the shah thereby negating the need for the revolution that brough the ayatollah to power in the first place but there was a little too much oil involved for USA/UK.



critic cavern 27/05/09 by ophalm
May 27, 2009, 2:33 pm
Filed under: drugs, politics, student life, uni | Tags: ,

posted by ophalm

has monday passed already? it easy to tell because the sweet effluent smell of critic arrives at our nostrils once again

only this time it has something to say that’s somewhat relevant. not that it’s not overshadowed as always by the reek of the majority of the publication, but still. give credit where credits due

students fail at democrazy
this is true. we students suck. I didn’t vote either. my excuse is that I didn’t know it was on, but this is a very poor excuse, as I read the critic last week and somewhere in my head I knew there was an election, but I just didn’t click and when I got home on thursday night I had an (unhelpful) email in my student email account reminding me to vote by 5pm (I think). it was later than then so I missed out. so I can’t blame anyone in particular, so I’ll blame everyone.
the idea of doing it online though: ¡el superior! because more people could vote and if the page was made in a reasonable fashion, you’d be able to read about the candidates, and imagine if they started a message board too so people could discuss the candidates and ask them question.
that’d be far too much like democracy should be like though…

stoners need to get an attitude adjustment
this article is pretty spot on. I mean, on some level I disagree with the general notion that people should have to live up to societies expectations, but upon further thought and realisation that stoners are trying to win said societies respect, it’s a worthwhile message.
maybe if they started to realise that stoners didn’t have to be wasters, something might change. so maybe they should stop drinking woodstock (I saw this happen earlier this year!) and wear nice clothes. invite some business men down, maybe peter chin. have some nibbles, some foie gras and impress the locals. the key my friends will be this

what else is there? I’m running this critic cavern without having opened the critic since yesterday morning. due to that, I don’t remember anything else. human lefts was interesting, they wrote the article about the stoners too. an evil rant about open source software is included somewhere and the cartoon about the mother on crack, well, I didn’t find it funny. I wonder what they think about that?



freedom and darknets by ophalm
May 5, 2009, 9:03 pm
Filed under: philosophy, politics | Tags: , , ,

posted by ophalm

I’m a bit keen on freedom and liberty. not surprisingly privacy is also strongly linked in with those concepts. some people think that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide”.. those are the kind of people who are all for the cctv cameras in the octagon. it might reduce crime, but so would other methods that didn’t require making records of normal people doing normal things.

recently I read this article from here and here is some of it

The most common retort against privacy advocates — by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures — is this line: “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?”

Some clever answers: “If I’m not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.” “Because the government gets to define what’s wrong, and they keep changing the definition.” “Because you might do something wrong with my information.” My problem with quips like these — as right as they are — is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It’s not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.

Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? (“Who watches the watchers?”) and “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, “If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.” Watch someone long enough, and you’ll find something to arrest — or just blackmail — with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies — whoever they happen to be at the time.

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.
We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.

A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It’s intrinsic to the concept of liberty.

For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that — either now or in the uncertain future — patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

is this something we need to think about? surely as we grow up we need to be aware of these things, because when people don’t protest governmental decisions to do away with rights, freedom and privacy; those rights are lost.

and as part of this I’m thinking of what it would also be like for otago university to have a dark net running. something where students could anonymously log onto a darknet and share information, talk to one another, not scared of any kind of authority.. maybe I’m a bit paranoid.. I don’t think I am but it’s something that should be considered?



it happened (aka conservatives are rude) by ophalm
April 30, 2009, 11:44 am
Filed under: horrible, politics | Tags: , , , ,

posted by ophalm

I accidentally watched the news. I saw some article about boot camp and sending young children there to make tshirts for middle class white teens. in fact here are a couple from stuff here and here

but this post isn’t so much about that as it is about conservatives, those dirty fuckers. but the boot camp fiasco highlights the issue, and it’s timely with the recent posting about political correctness by an evidently uninformed young person

the gist of the boot camp article is that national in all their privileged wisdom want to sentence young offenders to boot camp for a while, help straighten them out. on the very surface this seems like a good idea I guess. but then we start getting some more opinions and facts coming through:

“We found no evidence whatsoever that it does anything other than to prepare young people to live in a military world, not be good family members,” Chief Families Commissioner Jan Pryor said. “In some instances they have been shown to increase offending.”

oh yeah..

Unicef’s Barbara Lambourn said the bill pandered to “populist and ill-informed pitchfork-and-torches mentality” and said harsher punishment increased the likelihood of reoffending. It also breached United Nations conventions. “…Children’s rights are being knowingly disregarded.”

uh huh..

Putting children in the criminal justice system also left them vulnerable to physical and sexual abuse and “put them in the company of their peer group which is just ideal for teaching criminality”.

on the news article on the ‘vision there was something along the lines of “those who work on the coalface, the youth workers say that this is a terrible idea”..

but what’s national doing? going ahead with it anyway. and this is to me what conservatism is all about. see we’ve got these priviliged white people who see a problem, and thinking back to their oppressive roots (being the oppressor) they conceive of the harshest way to deal with the problem within the realms of vaguely keeping human rights intact, because they generally believe that if something is bad people will avoid it and therefore crime will be stopped etc etc etc.

yet all the studies, evidence and opinions from those that are relevant say that’s not the way. they say we need a more reasonable approach – which probably requires more work and grace – that actually results in positive change, not just retribution. but conservatives just don’t give a fuck about any of that stuff and go ahead anyway.

and you can apply this theory to almost any attempt of social change that conservatives do. drug policies instantly jump to mind; “if we make the punishments for doing drugs harsh, people won’t do them and society will be saved” only anyone who has a clue realises that it doesn’t work. there is a problem in our society with drugs, but laws aren’t going to fix it, it’s a health issue.

I used to sum up conservatives (vs liberals) like this: conservatives want society to suit them and liberals want society to suit everybody and yes it’s a massive generalisation but it fits.

what’s most offensive of course is that the majority of the population is ignorant enough to vote conservatives into power every once in a while – and why? because the conservative approach of keeping themselves in the good and everyone else in the suck appeals to a large proportion of society who (believes) that it will keep the status quo with their privileged lifestyle.

a bit ott maybe? /rant