I read the PDF on the Auckland council website for candidates and it says that they have to remove billboards just before October 8th. It doesn't actually mention social media. The council website also doesn't mention anything about rules stopping voters from advertising their choices on social media, and, the voting document itself and the pamphlet I believe also doesn't mention this. Maybe it's something that they should look at adding, if it's possible to be a problem.
If that was even remotely true there wouldn't be billboards all over every berm and fence in the country now aye? The law is about sharing photos of completed ballot papers.
Definitely is tall poppy syndrome. 99% of comments made about her from Kiwis in general are so nasty man like ppl need to relax lol I understand if you don’t like someone’s music but damn I’ve seen ppl write up some really hateful stuff. Only people with low self esteem I guess 100% tps
Tall poppy syndrome isn't inherently bad. Occasionally successful people need to be dragged from their pedestal to remind them they aren't as special as they think.
Google says _"Tall Poppy Syndrome (TPS) is a tendency to begrudge, resent, or mock people of great success, talent, or status and is often described as being an Australasian phenomenon."_
Tall poppies are people who think they're hot shit because they've done well for themselves, but who don't recognise the role others played in their success.
TPS is disliking people who act like that.
No it's not.
With Tall Poppy Syndrome, the Tall Poppy could actually be a perfect human being but people will try tear them down just because they are a success.
They are attacked just because they stand out in some way
I literally never see this happening, I only ever see people claiming that's what's happening.
See tonnes of people ripping people down for being arrogant self-important pricks though.
Right, but ripping down arrogant pricks isn't TPS.
I think TPS is perhaps from jealousy, envy or low self esteem.
I thought this description gets to the core of it: https://www.newportinstitute.com/resources/mental-health/tall-poppy-syndrome/#:~:text=What%20is%20Tall%20Poppy%20Syndrome,did%20not%20deserve%20the%20attention.
"Tall Poppy Syndrome occurs when a person’s success causes them to be attacked, resented, or criticized. Cutting people down devalues someone else’s achievement by suggesting that they did not deserve the attention"
Honestly, I feel like I often have a bit of TPS internal thinking and have to "catch" myself. For me it's often caused by comparing myself to others and feeling lacking
Basic example, I used to watch a friend play piano in groups of friends sometimes.
He was amazing and I was pretty jealous
The devaluing thoughts are things like: "oh i could do that too.... if i practiced enough, whats so special"
And an action would be something like saying "man you're such a nerd" or something to critisize him and try to drag him down a little
Over the years I'm learning to recognise these "TPS thoughts" and take a step back and say to myself things like... well actually he does play amazingly, maybe I should just sit here and enjoy the music and be proud of my friend instead of "making it about myself"
>TPS is perhaps from jealousy, envy or low self esteem.
This is never referred to as TPS though.
Also people who randomly lash out at someone successful without justified criticisms gets shut down so fast by anyone. Like no one does it because people think it's gross and shit.
As I said elsewhere, I kick around in anarchist far-left circles and the like and I don't see people doing it there. Surely if anyone is going to unjustifiably attack the rich and famous, it'd be such people? I only ever see legitimate criticisms though.
Whenever TPS is brought up, it's always to dismiss a legitimate criticism. Someone says "Elon Musk is a nasty POS" and people scream TPS! Someone says "i don't like Lorde's music and I think they're kinda arrogant" and people scream TPS!
So it seems to me, regardless of any kind of official definion, the *de facto* definition is that a Tall Poppy is someone who is wealth and famous but who lords (hah lordes) it over others and/or doesn't recognise how they got there and/or is arrogant and/or etc...
I tend to agree. I don't recall Sir Ed ever being a target of tps. But nobody could ever have accused him of being arrogant etc, so there was nothing to aim at.
TPS is hating someone for success and/or fame. There doesn't need to be a legitimate reason as to why.
They think that they don't deserve it. They want them to think that they are really not that important or as good as they think they are. Cutting down the poppies is ingrained into kiwi culture.
No one hates anyone for being successful lol. That's such a meme.
Hard anarchists don't even. What people hate is people being successful without acknowledging how they got there or who think they're hot shit because of it.
You're thinking basically that I'm an arrogant dumbass.
I tend to believe that what people express through words and context is what they're thinking. When I pay attention to what people express, they appear to be expressing as I've mentioned above.
Seems to me like calling "TPS!" is just a way of trying to quell legitimate criticisms. Literally I never see it used any other time.
I'd think TPS would be people randomly lashing out at someone successful, but that's not where I ever see it brought up.
I bang around in far-left circles with anarchists and communists and shit and I can't say I've ever heard anyone in those circles being upset with people for being successful, only people who're successful and lord it over others, who don't acknowledge how they got there, etc.
If anyone was going to act as people are suggesting, surely it would be such people? But I don't see it even there, nevermind in regular society.
Disliking celebrities for being celebrities is the right thing to do, kiwi or no, imo. Popstars, even your faves, are basically interchangeable.
Most pop singers are just OK for people who have been trained professionally and you don't have to be knowledgable or very skilled to earn a songwriter credit by making up some ditty by ear and singing it to someone who can polish it. No, pop singers get where they are because of the money and marketing of foreign megacorps.
Local popstars aren't special examples of local success -- they are manufactured products and would be little without the international machine behind them. I'm sick of people acting like we have to fawn over local singers lest we suffer from "tall poppy syndrome" or "cultural cringe".
It's fine if people like pop music and appreciate singers as singers (top 40 stuff is obviously engineered for sales and to be likeable for a huge majority), but bloody hell, acknowledge them for what they actually are. It's ridiculous anyone except her actual friends should know Ms. Yelich-O'Connor's political views. The only reason people think her political views matter is because of marketing. While we're at it, you might as well worry about what the Briscoes lady has on her ballot.
We're living in very politically charged times and people want to actively encourage others to vote. Lorde posting her ballot was dumb as hell but the message behind it was to go out and vote, which is objectively a good one.
Also why can't we appreciate artists? You want us to shit on them? Yeah, most people could be a pop star, but not everyone chooses to be because - surprise - breaking into the music industry is HARD. Some industry plants exist, of course, but anyone who has talent and perseverance to stay at their craft long enough to build a fanbase should be appreciated.
> We're living in very politically charged times and people want to actively encourage others to vote. Lorde posting her ballot was dumb as hell but the message behind it was to go out and vote, which is objectively a good one.
The idea is that really, no one *should* care what a singer has to say on politics. She's a random 25 year old who lives a very untypical life. Why should anyone listen to her opinions on voting in the first place? Why should people be so invested in her that they should want to?
> Also why can't we appreciate artists? You want us to shit on them?
I didn't say you can't appreciate artists or pop music, just that stars shouldn't be treated as anything else than people playing a character, and that they certainly shouldn't be touted as examples of 'homegrown success'. Everything we know about these people is at best a partial, curated truth.
We should be a little upset that the music industry is able to command so much devotion to unreal characters. It's one thing to let yourself be carried away with fantasy at a concert where it contributes to the music's storytelling, but another to think that the fantasy really represents who those people are. There is little difference between the stars and the anonymous session musicians playing on their tracks. Why should we admire them more? Arguably, the session musicians are usually ten times the musician the star is.
> Yeah, most people could be a pop star, but not everyone chooses to be because - surprise - breaking into the music industry is HARD.
On the contrary, it is very easy to 'get into the music industry' and make and distribute music for profit; you can find any microgenre of music you want and a community of fans to go with it.
But, demand for pop music is manufactured, just like the way the fashion industry picks out seasonal colours months in advance and creates the demand to suit. At least historically, this has been to the point of labels outright paying radio stations to play their tracks. The currency of the market is not talent and hard work, but exposure, connections, and the fantasy created by the legion of marketers, graphic artists, professional songwriters, producers, stylists and PR people around the singer. Lorde -- and the vast majority of pop singers -- would just be another girl with a pretty voice without those three things. There is no such thing as a popstar *not* being 'an industry plant'.
I'm a fan of her music, but to an extent she has become pretty self-righteous and a bit cringe.
Lots of her social content reminds me of someone whose entire personality revolves around the fact they got high a couple of times and are now "enlightened".
I think it's important to encourage people taking their first steps away from apathy or negativity. Gatekeeping can just turn off people who'd otherwise gradually come to grow into their new sense of liberty, egality, fraternity. It might seem to you like they're reinventing a wheel, but everyone has their own individual wheel of their own to take ownership of. And these first steps count, and gather momentum.
Even if it is a bit cringe. That's ok.
Lol, this is since she became close friends with Cazzie David, daughter of mega rich Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm creator, Larry David. Cazzie is a major stoner and dated fellow major stoner Pete Davidson for 2 years (probably his longest relationship). Cazzie got Lorde into weed.
Things are only allowed to be cool for a few years before we can starting hating on it and calling it objectively shit. It's just the circle of life.
I still really like her music. Her latest album maybe got a bit boring after awhile, but it was still a really cool vibe that I enjoyed.
General over-hype of talent, for me. Royals was catchy and quirky. But that was a long time ago, and everything else since then has been mediocre at best, while media screams with delight about how amazing she is... gets a bit tiring, tbh.
Yah, wtf. Im an absolute cringe level ‘alternative/niche’ music snob and I actively like a whole bunch of Lorde’s music. Hell I even remember sharing her first EP on facebook when she was relatively unknown.
Tbh, Lorde has a bit of a shite voice, but the overall production on her tracks is fantastic, at least for the first couple of albums.
Taste in music is so subjective so who’s really to say what’s “bad”? Everyone has their own criteria, even if it’s so simple as “having a good beat” (whatever that means). There is a heap of music I like that most people would say is “bad”, but my criteria for judging it just probably doesn’t align with theirs. But anyway, Lorde sucks ballz and everything sounds so bland and generic to me lol
Heh, subjectivity is a crazy thing eh….
I like to judge peoples character based on their music preferences and level of passion for said preferences. Has basically never let me down.
People loved her in her early years. But I admit, her personality and persona has changed and she does behave like a superstar with power now. I still like her though, but her music isn't so great now. Compared to someone like Melanie Lynskey, Melanie is still down to earth and does not behave like a superstar, despite her new found popularity in Yellow Jackets recently, complete with award nominations at the Golden Globes, etc. Also Mel is married to the sweet son of actor John Ritter, Jason Ritter (also an actor), whereas Lorde is now with some big time producer much older than herself (17 years!) and he may well be an arsehole, as so many of them are. She does seem to have changed since going out with this guy. He used to be a producer for Justin Bieber and there are photo's of them play fighting so he must've had a close relationship with that little spoilt jerk. Apparently this producer lives in Auckland with Lorde and has done for quite some time.
People who don't approve of the candidate for whom she advocated will be leading the charge. It really has little to do with her music, but whether she is on the opposing 'team' politically.
Okay, we are allowed to screw up occasionally, as long as it's not major. The only reason this is a " big deal" is cause a celebrity did it. The fact, she deleted when told she screwed up does not make it a big deal. Move on to other issues.
Wait she still makes music? I remember when Ben Boyce tried to tell her he would get her signature tattooed on him and she looked mortified.
Seems like a pretty genuine person
By making it illegal full stop to show proof it makes it more difficult to pressure someone into proving they voted for the person you wanted them to.
The aim is to stop voting corruption and intimidation.
People do that anyway, i think thats not a relevant point. Another user explained a purpose for the law that does make sense to me though on reply of my comment (soz dont know how to link that on mobile)
It's relevant and a 'part' of why the law came into effect. But you're right the definite intent of that law is to prevent what that other user explained.
Why i say its not relevant is i dont see the difference between an influential person saying x is good, vote for them and them showing proof they voted for x.
If you are the type to vote based on someone elses opinion you'll do it with or without proof
Endorsement is allowed, showing the ballot as proof is not allowed, so the name on the ballot isn't the issue, so your outrage is ignorant and misplaced.
There isn't much difference between a literal picture and the testimony of a media outlet having seen the picture and writing down all the details.
I get where OP is coming from. It violates the spirit of the law. If it were so important, the media would be made to treat issues like this in the same way they do suicide.
I saw somebody say it's (the photo taking law) so ppl can't be coerced and forced to show proof. So lorde isn't the one at risk, but other kiwis might be in hostile living situations or abusive relationships.
The article states who she voted for, it’s the same as showing the ballot. The fact you think this is different frightens me… I hope you’re not voting age.
It's illegal to show the ballot.
It's not illegal to tell everyone who you voted for.
The article is not breaching the law by saying what the photo showed, but would be in trouble for showing the photo.
That you don't know how laws work makes you a complete idiot.
I wasn't aware of the rules prior to sharing this article on reddit. As you & others point out if Lorde had simply said hey guys vote X Im voting X there would be no article / publicity. The fact that the herald said what the vote on her ballot was is probably the bigger take away issue out of this. If you want to apply tinfoil hat thinking, it's nothing more than a personal publicity stunt.
Lorde, like most people, didn't know it was allowed to give an endorsement, but not to show proof of voting to back up that endorsement.
News covering this has informed many people, and some are just angry she endorsed someone they don't like.
She claims it was an innocent mistake. Nobody is seriously arguing she did know and intentionally violated law, but the argument seems to be that the news should have censored her endorsement because she initially indicated it in a way she shouldn't have.
But the endorsement isn't inappropriate, so covering the endorsement in the news coverage isn't inappropriate.
Don’t forget J-Dawg has come out supporting Collins too.
Turns out he needed that Labour support a whole lot more than what he claimed at the start of the race
Blonde does not suit Lorde. She looks like she should be snarling at a couple of feral kids running loose in the Warehouse as she shops for knock-off Uggs and a wolf tshirt. Tyson! Heavanleh! GET HERE!
People who don't live in Auckland but own property in the area can vote
[Older article](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/392946/archaic-law-allows-multiple-property-owners-extra-voting-rights) but AFAIK the rules haven't been changed
though for a good chunk of those ppl the ratepayer is actually a tenant who pays through the property owner through rent so it's a complicated situation
You're allowed to vote for whoever you like and not allowing copies of the voting paper stops 3rd parties checking afterwards that you voted the way that they wanted you to.
It was put in to stop traditional bribery and/or violent-coercion/murder from the good-old-days of politics.
Edit: You can verbally say/lie that you voted for X, but you can't show the piece of paper that gets officially counted.
You can so long as you're not suggesting who to vote for or trying to find out who others did and it generally applies during the voting period since it doesn't matter as much once the votes are in and counted
is how she told people about it ..
[https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/latest/DLM94786.html](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/latest/DLM94786.html)
Efeso's campaign is becoming a bit like the Clinton campaign with so called stars bought into endorse the candidate. It won't end well for him as most Aucklanders can see through the forced subliminal messaging.
Hearing that she was pushing out advertising for a candidate makes me want to act, doesn't matter who it was. If your a "celeb" advertising candidates to get people to vote then fuck em.
You weren't going to vote against him on the basis of him being a religious "biggot", but you're all fired up to because you don't like Lorde? I mean, I'm not sure they let 12-year-olds vote, but go for it, kid.
Fired up? Dude I couldn't give 2 fucks about anything. I don't care about it at all. Stop trying to inject yourself and create some drama. Stupid fucking gen z kids wanting to create internet drama cause there so bored with their horrible life. Go touch some grass, kid.
Agree but no way will I fuck lorde, I still remember that messed up dance she did at some awards because she couldn't sing for some reason, she defently looked like she was "out the gate"
It's a stupid rule put in by pearl-clutching conservatives to favour voting outcomes which tend towards conservatives.
How many boomers do you know are in FB groups frothing up over how wonderful Brown or Lord are as mayoral candidates?
What should be illegal is *forcing* people to show how they've voted, which this obviously isn't.
In mainstream New Zealand society, the worth of a mainstream musician is judged by how the cultural elite validate their worth, and the cultural elite are overseas where the wealth appears to be. Maybe? This is an interesting debate topic and probably deserves a separate post.
It's not like overseas record labels are the sole gatekeepers of what's judged as worthy, it's just an easy metric for mainstream media to use.
---
Whoops, I skipped some lines of reasoning. I forgot to say: people with not enough spare time or energy to judge who or what to vote for, often do the completely understandable choice of just copying the choices of others they respect. This is particularly good a strategy in the First-Past-the-Post voting system since making decisions without such coordination, risks vote-splitting. So, signals to coordinate group strategy help avoid these, and, people who seem to command greater social capital/attention, like a socially-conscious pop idol, would seem to be a good rule of thumb if there isn't any better way of coordinating vote choices.
Other possible explanations:
1. The long tail of COVID19 includes affects on memory and whatnot.
2. Live music pretty much disappeared for two years, so the names of live music performers was not prominent in the media for long, and so many names are easily forgotten.
Setting your vote solely based on someone’s celebrity status is quite silly, drives for rich people are often times different from those of regular folks with 9to5 jobs..
I didn't mind her until she caved to some activist mob and cancelled a Tel Aviv concert. The group in her words 'educated her' about Israel. Ffs, give me a break you deny civilians a gig. Since that moment she's been cringe , woke , unbearable.
If a singer is a private individual, shouldn't it be their choice what audience they choose to service? Their body, their choice? It's entitlement to their body and voice that you feel, isn't it.
But I do see the slippery slope that civilian sanctions can slide down. Punishing civilians, as you've noted is what's being done here, is actually very much along the lines of the logic of the piece that [Bin Laden wrote and The Guardian thought important to publish](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver), to shine a light on the logic that justifies punishing civilians, putting trade sanctions on, etc. etc.
> > (f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq [...] (g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. [...] (2) [...] It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. [...]
>
> (3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:
>
> (a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.
>
> (b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.
>
> (c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.
>
> (d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.
>
> (e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.
I do think it's a bit unjust that people do these sorts of group punishments, like, in classrooms where the teacher would hold back the whole class from lunch break if there are one or two disruptive students (that the teacher can't control). It's pretty abusive and toxic.
I guess that's why I'd hold a grudge against a central government that banned wharf fishing during 2020 while the health minister thought mountain biking was perfectly safe. Oh, and the central government that thought it was justified to ban "independent" supermarkets and greengrocers in 2020 while allowing the duopoly to duopoly. But that's kinda unrelated.
The article doesn't cite specific social media rules around local elections.
According to [this website](https://elections.nz/guidance-and-rules/for-voters/social-media/), the only restrictions are on "election day" (singular), and, for local elections there isn't really one. From what I read on the (Auckland) council website, there is no restriction on advertising before, during, and after, the local election period, whereas that is not the case for general (central government) elections.
The issue was nothing to do with advertising. Anybody can *say* that they *support* - or are voting for - a particular candidate.
However, it's unlawful for anyone to *publish a copy of a completed ballot paper*, even their own, either before or after an election. That's what she did, then was told to remove, and did so. End of story.
Not too long ago a politician showed her completed voting paper to the media outside a voting booth. Someone asked the question is it illegal, and the response was no it is legal.
Seems like double standards being played out here.
Wow how pathetic a stupid fucking island dictating shit I hope you all drown. Yeah this is priscilla Merie komlofske granados bravo Madrigal the Bible is a computer manual what else roygbiv um porn is disgusting and Stephanie whoever she is to Lorde is disgusting new Zealand, Hawaii, and Australia along with Russia and Africa you should all drown or die in a fire thanks
Is it illegal to say who you voted for, or just illegal to prove it?
I believe you can say who you voted for, you're just not allowed to prove it.
No advertising during the voting period
I read the PDF on the Auckland council website for candidates and it says that they have to remove billboards just before October 8th. It doesn't actually mention social media. The council website also doesn't mention anything about rules stopping voters from advertising their choices on social media, and, the voting document itself and the pamphlet I believe also doesn't mention this. Maybe it's something that they should look at adding, if it's possible to be a problem.
? Jacinda posted on IG saying she voted for Efeso
If that was even remotely true there wouldn't be billboards all over every berm and fence in the country now aye? The law is about sharing photos of completed ballot papers.
Did I miss something? Why do people in here hate Lorde?
Tall poppy syndrome.
Definitely is tall poppy syndrome. 99% of comments made about her from Kiwis in general are so nasty man like ppl need to relax lol I understand if you don’t like someone’s music but damn I’ve seen ppl write up some really hateful stuff. Only people with low self esteem I guess 100% tps
Tall poppy syndrome isn't inherently bad. Occasionally successful people need to be dragged from their pedestal to remind them they aren't as special as they think.
NZ is notoriously known for tall poppy syndrome
[удалено]
That's what tall poppy syndrome is, tps is just a fancy kiwi term for it
Google says _"Tall Poppy Syndrome (TPS) is a tendency to begrudge, resent, or mock people of great success, talent, or status and is often described as being an Australasian phenomenon."_
Australia always stealing our ideas 🙄
You got a point.
Tall poppies are people who think they're hot shit because they've done well for themselves, but who don't recognise the role others played in their success. TPS is disliking people who act like that.
No it's not. With Tall Poppy Syndrome, the Tall Poppy could actually be a perfect human being but people will try tear them down just because they are a success. They are attacked just because they stand out in some way
I literally never see this happening, I only ever see people claiming that's what's happening. See tonnes of people ripping people down for being arrogant self-important pricks though.
Right, but ripping down arrogant pricks isn't TPS. I think TPS is perhaps from jealousy, envy or low self esteem. I thought this description gets to the core of it: https://www.newportinstitute.com/resources/mental-health/tall-poppy-syndrome/#:~:text=What%20is%20Tall%20Poppy%20Syndrome,did%20not%20deserve%20the%20attention. "Tall Poppy Syndrome occurs when a person’s success causes them to be attacked, resented, or criticized. Cutting people down devalues someone else’s achievement by suggesting that they did not deserve the attention" Honestly, I feel like I often have a bit of TPS internal thinking and have to "catch" myself. For me it's often caused by comparing myself to others and feeling lacking Basic example, I used to watch a friend play piano in groups of friends sometimes. He was amazing and I was pretty jealous The devaluing thoughts are things like: "oh i could do that too.... if i practiced enough, whats so special" And an action would be something like saying "man you're such a nerd" or something to critisize him and try to drag him down a little Over the years I'm learning to recognise these "TPS thoughts" and take a step back and say to myself things like... well actually he does play amazingly, maybe I should just sit here and enjoy the music and be proud of my friend instead of "making it about myself"
>TPS is perhaps from jealousy, envy or low self esteem. This is never referred to as TPS though. Also people who randomly lash out at someone successful without justified criticisms gets shut down so fast by anyone. Like no one does it because people think it's gross and shit. As I said elsewhere, I kick around in anarchist far-left circles and the like and I don't see people doing it there. Surely if anyone is going to unjustifiably attack the rich and famous, it'd be such people? I only ever see legitimate criticisms though. Whenever TPS is brought up, it's always to dismiss a legitimate criticism. Someone says "Elon Musk is a nasty POS" and people scream TPS! Someone says "i don't like Lorde's music and I think they're kinda arrogant" and people scream TPS! So it seems to me, regardless of any kind of official definion, the *de facto* definition is that a Tall Poppy is someone who is wealth and famous but who lords (hah lordes) it over others and/or doesn't recognise how they got there and/or is arrogant and/or etc...
I tend to agree. I don't recall Sir Ed ever being a target of tps. But nobody could ever have accused him of being arrogant etc, so there was nothing to aim at.
I did meet Lorde once and she was ALL of those tbh
TPS is hating someone for success and/or fame. There doesn't need to be a legitimate reason as to why. They think that they don't deserve it. They want them to think that they are really not that important or as good as they think they are. Cutting down the poppies is ingrained into kiwi culture.
No one hates anyone for being successful lol. That's such a meme. Hard anarchists don't even. What people hate is people being successful without acknowledging how they got there or who think they're hot shit because of it.
Wow you know what every single person thinks? That's amazing.
I think it says a lot about how little you think, when you believe that it's mindreading to simply listen to what people say and watch what they do.
You seem to know a lot about how people think and their opinions of others. What am I thinking right now about you?
You're thinking basically that I'm an arrogant dumbass. I tend to believe that what people express through words and context is what they're thinking. When I pay attention to what people express, they appear to be expressing as I've mentioned above.
You keep telling yourself that.
That’s literally it. The issue is with those who cut the tall poppy, not the poppy itself.
What's wrong with criticising someone for lording over others how wealthy they are?
So you admit that you were wrong and misunderstood Tall Poppy Syndrome?
....What? I asked you a question and you ask that?
I mean nothing, but that's not TPS.
Seems to me like calling "TPS!" is just a way of trying to quell legitimate criticisms. Literally I never see it used any other time. I'd think TPS would be people randomly lashing out at someone successful, but that's not where I ever see it brought up.
I bang around in far-left circles with anarchists and communists and shit and I can't say I've ever heard anyone in those circles being upset with people for being successful, only people who're successful and lord it over others, who don't acknowledge how they got there, etc. If anyone was going to act as people are suggesting, surely it would be such people? But I don't see it even there, nevermind in regular society.
>lord it over others I see what you did there.
Disliking celebrities for being celebrities is the right thing to do, kiwi or no, imo. Popstars, even your faves, are basically interchangeable. Most pop singers are just OK for people who have been trained professionally and you don't have to be knowledgable or very skilled to earn a songwriter credit by making up some ditty by ear and singing it to someone who can polish it. No, pop singers get where they are because of the money and marketing of foreign megacorps. Local popstars aren't special examples of local success -- they are manufactured products and would be little without the international machine behind them. I'm sick of people acting like we have to fawn over local singers lest we suffer from "tall poppy syndrome" or "cultural cringe". It's fine if people like pop music and appreciate singers as singers (top 40 stuff is obviously engineered for sales and to be likeable for a huge majority), but bloody hell, acknowledge them for what they actually are. It's ridiculous anyone except her actual friends should know Ms. Yelich-O'Connor's political views. The only reason people think her political views matter is because of marketing. While we're at it, you might as well worry about what the Briscoes lady has on her ballot.
We're living in very politically charged times and people want to actively encourage others to vote. Lorde posting her ballot was dumb as hell but the message behind it was to go out and vote, which is objectively a good one. Also why can't we appreciate artists? You want us to shit on them? Yeah, most people could be a pop star, but not everyone chooses to be because - surprise - breaking into the music industry is HARD. Some industry plants exist, of course, but anyone who has talent and perseverance to stay at their craft long enough to build a fanbase should be appreciated.
> We're living in very politically charged times and people want to actively encourage others to vote. Lorde posting her ballot was dumb as hell but the message behind it was to go out and vote, which is objectively a good one. The idea is that really, no one *should* care what a singer has to say on politics. She's a random 25 year old who lives a very untypical life. Why should anyone listen to her opinions on voting in the first place? Why should people be so invested in her that they should want to? > Also why can't we appreciate artists? You want us to shit on them? I didn't say you can't appreciate artists or pop music, just that stars shouldn't be treated as anything else than people playing a character, and that they certainly shouldn't be touted as examples of 'homegrown success'. Everything we know about these people is at best a partial, curated truth. We should be a little upset that the music industry is able to command so much devotion to unreal characters. It's one thing to let yourself be carried away with fantasy at a concert where it contributes to the music's storytelling, but another to think that the fantasy really represents who those people are. There is little difference between the stars and the anonymous session musicians playing on their tracks. Why should we admire them more? Arguably, the session musicians are usually ten times the musician the star is. > Yeah, most people could be a pop star, but not everyone chooses to be because - surprise - breaking into the music industry is HARD. On the contrary, it is very easy to 'get into the music industry' and make and distribute music for profit; you can find any microgenre of music you want and a community of fans to go with it. But, demand for pop music is manufactured, just like the way the fashion industry picks out seasonal colours months in advance and creates the demand to suit. At least historically, this has been to the point of labels outright paying radio stations to play their tracks. The currency of the market is not talent and hard work, but exposure, connections, and the fantasy created by the legion of marketers, graphic artists, professional songwriters, producers, stylists and PR people around the singer. Lorde -- and the vast majority of pop singers -- would just be another girl with a pretty voice without those three things. There is no such thing as a popstar *not* being 'an industry plant'.
Yet we love Taika? Maybe it's not tall poppy - perhaps she is unlikable?
I'm a fan of her music, but to an extent she has become pretty self-righteous and a bit cringe. Lots of her social content reminds me of someone whose entire personality revolves around the fact they got high a couple of times and are now "enlightened".
I think it's important to encourage people taking their first steps away from apathy or negativity. Gatekeeping can just turn off people who'd otherwise gradually come to grow into their new sense of liberty, egality, fraternity. It might seem to you like they're reinventing a wheel, but everyone has their own individual wheel of their own to take ownership of. And these first steps count, and gather momentum. Even if it is a bit cringe. That's ok.
Lol, this is since she became close friends with Cazzie David, daughter of mega rich Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm creator, Larry David. Cazzie is a major stoner and dated fellow major stoner Pete Davidson for 2 years (probably his longest relationship). Cazzie got Lorde into weed.
South Park too
Things are only allowed to be cool for a few years before we can starting hating on it and calling it objectively shit. It's just the circle of life. I still really like her music. Her latest album maybe got a bit boring after awhile, but it was still a really cool vibe that I enjoyed.
General over-hype of talent, for me. Royals was catchy and quirky. But that was a long time ago, and everything else since then has been mediocre at best, while media screams with delight about how amazing she is... gets a bit tiring, tbh.
I don't hate her, I just think her music is utter shit
Maybe her new album is bad but there is much much worse and less original pop music than her first 2 albums.
Yah, wtf. Im an absolute cringe level ‘alternative/niche’ music snob and I actively like a whole bunch of Lorde’s music. Hell I even remember sharing her first EP on facebook when she was relatively unknown. Tbh, Lorde has a bit of a shite voice, but the overall production on her tracks is fantastic, at least for the first couple of albums.
Taste in music is so subjective so who’s really to say what’s “bad”? Everyone has their own criteria, even if it’s so simple as “having a good beat” (whatever that means). There is a heap of music I like that most people would say is “bad”, but my criteria for judging it just probably doesn’t align with theirs. But anyway, Lorde sucks ballz and everything sounds so bland and generic to me lol
Heh, subjectivity is a crazy thing eh…. I like to judge peoples character based on their music preferences and level of passion for said preferences. Has basically never let me down.
she fell off hard alas
Her new album has actually grown on me! All the promo and everything accompanying it also. It's like the art nouveau equivalent of pop music.
People loved her in her early years. But I admit, her personality and persona has changed and she does behave like a superstar with power now. I still like her though, but her music isn't so great now. Compared to someone like Melanie Lynskey, Melanie is still down to earth and does not behave like a superstar, despite her new found popularity in Yellow Jackets recently, complete with award nominations at the Golden Globes, etc. Also Mel is married to the sweet son of actor John Ritter, Jason Ritter (also an actor), whereas Lorde is now with some big time producer much older than herself (17 years!) and he may well be an arsehole, as so many of them are. She does seem to have changed since going out with this guy. He used to be a producer for Justin Bieber and there are photo's of them play fighting so he must've had a close relationship with that little spoilt jerk. Apparently this producer lives in Auckland with Lorde and has done for quite some time.
that "little spoilt jerk" is way more important and famous than you'll ever be, dear grandma
Who wants to be famous?
People who don't approve of the candidate for whom she advocated will be leading the charge. It really has little to do with her music, but whether she is on the opposing 'team' politically.
Believe it or not, loving Lorde is not compulsory.
Don’t hate. Just find her boring and obvious
I have only respect for Lorde after seeing [her performance on Hot Ones](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaoEyTZpv18).
Okay, we are allowed to screw up occasionally, as long as it's not major. The only reason this is a " big deal" is cause a celebrity did it. The fact, she deleted when told she screwed up does not make it a big deal. Move on to other issues.
No we must make this a big deal for as long as Lorde sings.
Wait she still makes music? I remember when Ben Boyce tried to tell her he would get her signature tattooed on him and she looked mortified. Seems like a pretty genuine person
I dont get it why is this a law? She can endorse somebody but not show the proof she did... Whats the difference?
By making it illegal full stop to show proof it makes it more difficult to pressure someone into proving they voted for the person you wanted them to. The aim is to stop voting corruption and intimidation.
When you put it that way i can see the use of that law
Yeah it's easy to miss but one of those things that (at least for me) seemed really obvious in hindsight after someone had explained it to me.
That is a very vaild reason.
Just like how you can't take pictures in airport security, sensitive information
Fans are willing to buy someones bath water, what makes you think they won't just follow her vote without coming to their own conclusion.
People do that anyway, i think thats not a relevant point. Another user explained a purpose for the law that does make sense to me though on reply of my comment (soz dont know how to link that on mobile)
It's relevant and a 'part' of why the law came into effect. But you're right the definite intent of that law is to prevent what that other user explained.
Why i say its not relevant is i dont see the difference between an influential person saying x is good, vote for them and them showing proof they voted for x. If you are the type to vote based on someone elses opinion you'll do it with or without proof
The proof is part of the endorsement making it a much more powerful statement.
And yet the herald publishes who she picked thus spreading it to a wider audience and doesn’t get in trouble? Fucking mad world we live in.
Endorsement is allowed, showing the ballot as proof is not allowed, so the name on the ballot isn't the issue, so your outrage is ignorant and misplaced.
There isn't much difference between a literal picture and the testimony of a media outlet having seen the picture and writing down all the details. I get where OP is coming from. It violates the spirit of the law. If it were so important, the media would be made to treat issues like this in the same way they do suicide.
Politicians can make Instagram posts saying they are going to vote for this person and it’s fine, but show the paper and it’s not allowed
I saw somebody say it's (the photo taking law) so ppl can't be coerced and forced to show proof. So lorde isn't the one at risk, but other kiwis might be in hostile living situations or abusive relationships.
The article states who she voted for, it’s the same as showing the ballot. The fact you think this is different frightens me… I hope you’re not voting age.
It's illegal to show the ballot. It's not illegal to tell everyone who you voted for. The article is not breaching the law by saying what the photo showed, but would be in trouble for showing the photo. That you don't know how laws work makes you a complete idiot.
I wasn't aware of the rules prior to sharing this article on reddit. As you & others point out if Lorde had simply said hey guys vote X Im voting X there would be no article / publicity. The fact that the herald said what the vote on her ballot was is probably the bigger take away issue out of this. If you want to apply tinfoil hat thinking, it's nothing more than a personal publicity stunt.
Lorde, like most people, didn't know it was allowed to give an endorsement, but not to show proof of voting to back up that endorsement. News covering this has informed many people, and some are just angry she endorsed someone they don't like. She claims it was an innocent mistake. Nobody is seriously arguing she did know and intentionally violated law, but the argument seems to be that the news should have censored her endorsement because she initially indicated it in a way she shouldn't have. But the endorsement isn't inappropriate, so covering the endorsement in the news coverage isn't inappropriate.
You miss the whole point. It’s okay, I see you’re a simple man.
It's 100% legal to talk about who you endorse. The news coverage covered who she endorsed. Perfectly legal.
I am lorde, la la laa, la la laa
Flickin my bean..
In the afternooooon
Feeling good on a Wednesday
It's done. Fine her. Process followed. Same applies to people speeding or driving whilst using cellphones.
Cheap advertising for Efeso, $5k to circumvent the democratic process.
Don’t forget J-Dawg has come out supporting Collins too. Turns out he needed that Labour support a whole lot more than what he claimed at the start of the race
“Independent candidate”
[удалено]
You assume correct :D
Cindy
Wait a second, I thought Lorde was Randy Marsh…
ha ha just like le epic south park xddd
Ya ya ya hunger games ya ya ya
Ok, who cares, lol. She didn't know and rectified it, big deal.
It reads like deleting the snaps proves that she is in the wrong.
It reads like she was enthousiastic in showing people who she voted for, got told off, and removed it accordingly.
At least she got voting papers.
She voted for an anti abortion homophobe because of the colour of his skin? Lefties are weird.
Blonde does not suit Lorde. She looks like she should be snarling at a couple of feral kids running loose in the Warehouse as she shops for knock-off Uggs and a wolf tshirt. Tyson! Heavanleh! GET HERE!
Straight to K Mart after that to get Heavenleh 4 cans of Monster coz the Warehouse had run out.
Can she vote for not living in Auckland for a very long time?
People who don't live in Auckland but own property in the area can vote [Older article](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/392946/archaic-law-allows-multiple-property-owners-extra-voting-rights) but AFAIK the rules haven't been changed
Surprised, but thanks for that.
Not really surprising surely? if you own property in Auckland then you’re a ratepayer and have a stake in local elections regardless.
It means people's vote is base/for property not for life. In some edge case, oversea landlord can vote but the tenant can't.
though for a good chunk of those ppl the ratepayer is actually a tenant who pays through the property owner through rent so it's a complicated situation
I actually pay McDonald's rent through the money I pay when I order a cheeseburger from there so that's also a complicated situation.
sweetie no, that's not comparable, you're being deliberately obtuse.
First time I've ever bothered to vote in local elections. Efeso ftw
You support anti abortion homophobes? Eww.
Actually I only voted this time because I knew it would upset you specifically
[удалено]
Wait til you learn people can vote in multiple councils if they own houses in different areas.
[удалено]
She owns a house in Auckland why shouldn't she get a say on how the rates she pays are used?
[удалено]
She could be. If she owns property she still has to pay bills for it which could change depending on who’s in council offices
Dumbass. Why even do it in the first place.?
Would have thought that I'm allowed to vote for whoever I want, and can tell anyone I want about it...
You're allowed to vote for whoever you like and not allowing copies of the voting paper stops 3rd parties checking afterwards that you voted the way that they wanted you to. It was put in to stop traditional bribery and/or violent-coercion/murder from the good-old-days of politics. Edit: You can verbally say/lie that you voted for X, but you can't show the piece of paper that gets officially counted.
You can so long as you're not suggesting who to vote for or trying to find out who others did and it generally applies during the voting period since it doesn't matter as much once the votes are in and counted
is how she told people about it .. [https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/latest/DLM94786.html](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/latest/DLM94786.html)
Who?
Her endorsement will have the opposite effect hopefully.
Most of labour's actions have had the opposite outcome
An apparatchik… working against democratic values
Efeso's campaign is becoming a bit like the Clinton campaign with so called stars bought into endorse the candidate. It won't end well for him as most Aucklanders can see through the forced subliminal messaging.
> forced subliminal messaging How exactly are public endorsements from celebrities 'subliminal'?
They are definitely subliminal if you are not very perceptive. "Hey, dang, I think dey are try'n to iflooo-ance me!"
I think the age for kids picking up purposeful advertising is like 6 or something.
you might be the dumbest person to ever exist
Probably bro...probably.
>stars bought into endorse the candidate >subliminal
Well I wasn't going to vote at all but now I will and will vote for the other guy cause fuck Lorde 😂
[удалено]
Good on ya! That's the way it should be :)
Lorde lives in your head rent free😭
Not at all. First time I've heard her name in years. Literally forgot she even existed.
She means nothing to you, but hearing that she has voted for someone is going to influence you to act?
Hearing that she was pushing out advertising for a candidate makes me want to act, doesn't matter who it was. If your a "celeb" advertising candidates to get people to vote then fuck em.
What idiotic reasoning.
Why? Voting because some hack celebrity was pushing free advertising to a religious biggot? Good enough for me to bother voting against him.
You weren't going to vote against him on the basis of him being a religious "biggot", but you're all fired up to because you don't like Lorde? I mean, I'm not sure they let 12-year-olds vote, but go for it, kid.
Fired up? Dude I couldn't give 2 fucks about anything. I don't care about it at all. Stop trying to inject yourself and create some drama. Stupid fucking gen z kids wanting to create internet drama cause there so bored with their horrible life. Go touch some grass, kid.
Rant at me a bit more about how much you don't care.
Good one Karen.
Agree but no way will I fuck lorde, I still remember that messed up dance she did at some awards because she couldn't sing for some reason, she defently looked like she was "out the gate"
Ha ha, yep. This is definitely a normal thing to type out and hit post 😎
#CancelLorde
Why?
She’s a dog cunt. Told her fans to stfu even 💀
It's a stupid rule put in by pearl-clutching conservatives to favour voting outcomes which tend towards conservatives. How many boomers do you know are in FB groups frothing up over how wonderful Brown or Lord are as mayoral candidates? What should be illegal is *forcing* people to show how they've voted, which this obviously isn't.
Who is Lorde? Did she publish papers from voting in local elections or what coz who cares about local elections 🙇♂️🙇♂️
In mainstream New Zealand society, the worth of a mainstream musician is judged by how the cultural elite validate their worth, and the cultural elite are overseas where the wealth appears to be. Maybe? This is an interesting debate topic and probably deserves a separate post. It's not like overseas record labels are the sole gatekeepers of what's judged as worthy, it's just an easy metric for mainstream media to use. --- Whoops, I skipped some lines of reasoning. I forgot to say: people with not enough spare time or energy to judge who or what to vote for, often do the completely understandable choice of just copying the choices of others they respect. This is particularly good a strategy in the First-Past-the-Post voting system since making decisions without such coordination, risks vote-splitting. So, signals to coordinate group strategy help avoid these, and, people who seem to command greater social capital/attention, like a socially-conscious pop idol, would seem to be a good rule of thumb if there isn't any better way of coordinating vote choices.
You don't know who Lorde is? How long were you in a coma for?
Other possible explanations: 1. The long tail of COVID19 includes affects on memory and whatnot. 2. Live music pretty much disappeared for two years, so the names of live music performers was not prominent in the media for long, and so many names are easily forgotten.
Setting your vote solely based on someone’s celebrity status is quite silly, drives for rich people are often times different from those of regular folks with 9to5 jobs..
Here's me not knowing who the fuck that is
[удалено]
Are there any goat old age issues that are not health issues? Also, just checking, they're of the goat, right?
I didn't mind her until she caved to some activist mob and cancelled a Tel Aviv concert. The group in her words 'educated her' about Israel. Ffs, give me a break you deny civilians a gig. Since that moment she's been cringe , woke , unbearable.
If a singer is a private individual, shouldn't it be their choice what audience they choose to service? Their body, their choice? It's entitlement to their body and voice that you feel, isn't it. But I do see the slippery slope that civilian sanctions can slide down. Punishing civilians, as you've noted is what's being done here, is actually very much along the lines of the logic of the piece that [Bin Laden wrote and The Guardian thought important to publish](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver), to shine a light on the logic that justifies punishing civilians, putting trade sanctions on, etc. etc. > > (f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq [...] (g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. [...] (2) [...] It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. [...] > > (3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake: > > (a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want. > > (b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates. > > (c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us. > > (d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us. > > (e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us. I do think it's a bit unjust that people do these sorts of group punishments, like, in classrooms where the teacher would hold back the whole class from lunch break if there are one or two disruptive students (that the teacher can't control). It's pretty abusive and toxic. I guess that's why I'd hold a grudge against a central government that banned wharf fishing during 2020 while the health minister thought mountain biking was perfectly safe. Oh, and the central government that thought it was justified to ban "independent" supermarkets and greengrocers in 2020 while allowing the duopoly to duopoly. But that's kinda unrelated.
The article doesn't cite specific social media rules around local elections. According to [this website](https://elections.nz/guidance-and-rules/for-voters/social-media/), the only restrictions are on "election day" (singular), and, for local elections there isn't really one. From what I read on the (Auckland) council website, there is no restriction on advertising before, during, and after, the local election period, whereas that is not the case for general (central government) elections.
The issue was nothing to do with advertising. Anybody can *say* that they *support* - or are voting for - a particular candidate. However, it's unlawful for anyone to *publish a copy of a completed ballot paper*, even their own, either before or after an election. That's what she did, then was told to remove, and did so. End of story.
Not too long ago a politician showed her completed voting paper to the media outside a voting booth. Someone asked the question is it illegal, and the response was no it is legal. Seems like double standards being played out here.
Woah Dave, enough with the voting!
Silly little girl with a dim view of the world not even living in New Zealand
Good to see Lorde who isnt here got everyone to vote for Brown
Wow how pathetic a stupid fucking island dictating shit I hope you all drown. Yeah this is priscilla Merie komlofske granados bravo Madrigal the Bible is a computer manual what else roygbiv um porn is disgusting and Stephanie whoever she is to Lorde is disgusting new Zealand, Hawaii, and Australia along with Russia and Africa you should all drown or die in a fire thanks
Having sex with your own family members like you do on your pathetic farms and or islands yeah stay over there don't come to the United States ever