They are upset because David Seymour has published a 'Victim of the Day' on social media, and he seems to be doing it reasonably regularly. It's featuring academics who are upset about the Regulatory Standards Bill - and then it's mocking them for that.
Now, they're not happy. They're accusing him of breaching the Cabinet Manual. They say that his posts are unethical, unprofessional, potentially dangerous to those who are targeted, and that he's trying to silence them.
Thereby proving his point that they really are victims, aren't they?
Now, I'm surprised at how thin-skinned these academics are. Let's be honest about it, none of us like to be skewered. It can sting. But it kind of comes with the territory, doesn't it?
If you are in public, and especially if you choose to put yourself in public - which these academics are doing by choosing to, for example, pen opinion pieces criticizing the bill - then they are inviting a response, and they cannot dictate what that response is.
And actually, I could be wrong, but what I've seen doesn't seem that harsh. It just seems like a right of reply, but tongue in cheek.
Context is important here as well, because this David versus academic spat has actually been going on a fair bit.
David Seymour, in my personal opinion, has been given a bit of a rough time by some academics - one in particular who I think is the worst offender.
She has, in the past, said that she hopes he doesn't have kids, and then called his Government a fascist white supremacist Government, which certainly makes his response look adult.
Now, if academics - and I'm not saying it's the same academics here by any stretch - but collectively, if they want to hand it out, they have to also be prepared to suck it up.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show HERE - where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
Of course academics are thin skinned! Most publish (and then re-package multiple times, claiming even more publications) no-big-ideas material nobody really cares about--and they, deep down, know it. Hence why many academics are basically Uhhappy People, and very petty and thin-skinned and spend their time being activists.
Plenty of them have sent their barbs and slurs Seymours way but also Prebble and other with whom they disagree.
These are the same people who are revisionists of both history and the treaty, want to decolonise the country and probably still think Ardern saved 80,000 people.
You are right Heather if you put yourself in harms way, harm will find you.
This is a pot/kettle situation and some concrete pills are needed for these lefties to harden up a bit......
Well, remember a few years back when that silly Massey woman fell apart in a call into Sean Plunket on The Platform. She got caught on the back foot, got defensive, and then cried about it to University managers. The University response was ‘we need to tighten rule around free speech/academic freedom to PROTECT our academics from such ‘abuse’.’ When your ‘academics’ are DEI appointments or 3rd raters, chosen so as not to offend the incompetent senior university leaders — that is, when your academics are NOT disciplinary experts and internationally competitive — then they are weak, able to be bested, and able to be publicly outed as incompetent nincompoops. Such people, as shown in the Platform interview, believe they are ‘special’, ‘elite’, and that they should be ‘protected’ from a public who still thinks that university hires must be made on merit. There are armies of nincompoops in the universities today. There’s going to be a lot of this. These are people who have everything to lose.
Oh, the ivory tower trembles!
How dare any minister respond when our sainted scholars—keepers of objective truth and government-funded outrage—lob public criticisms from their taxpayer-subsidised podiums?
It’s not a debate if someone talks back, right?
Academic freedom, after all, means freedom from consequences, scrutiny, or rebuttal—especially from government ministers who bear the butt of their criticism.
Hallmarks of the "nutty" woke ( including academics):
.only I can comment or criticize - and all must agree with me;
.no debate on any subject -only my (erroneous) statements;
.only I can be a victim - but I can viciously attack others;
MPs and other people in politics have to grow a thick skin and David Seymour gets more than his fair share of unfair vitriol. I feel that New Zealand needs more leaders like him, but "Patient of the Day" and "Victim of the Day" do not help his cause and will be perceived as more than tongue in cheek; i.e. unnecessarily rude. Of course, what is dished out to him is much worse, but better simply to argue the details about Bills and policies and let the people decide. David Lillis
Excellent article (again !!) Heather.
CONGRATULATIONS on your well deserved award for broadcaster of the year.
WELL DONE. You certainly earned it !!
I am delighted to see so many commentators here showing that they see through the bullshit that now characterises what used to be academe.
Thin skins come with incompetence and intellectual shallowness, and those in turn come about through affirmative action/DEI/call it what you will when appointments and promotions are based more on race and sex politics than on competence.
Like Seymour, I too enjoy baiting them. They're of such comedy value when they invariably rise to the bait. They also panic very easily and start saying and doing things that they have good reason to regret later. Keep it up, Dave!
Post a Comment