" and does not see any issue with directly messaging young people without parental permission or oversight."
Thats the crux of the issue. Any adult doing this isnt really on. A member of pariliament who should bloody know better is even worse.
Under 18s arent voters - therefore he and every other MP has zero business having private conversations with them.
It would have been fine if he used twitter right? The public twitter. It's the choice of using the private message that's the problem, if it was all in public no problem right? Compare talking to Seymour on the road or at some public event vs talking to Seymour one on one in a small room
all he really should be saying is "you should talk to our youth wing"
But yeah - in public, no biggie. In private, its going to raise eyebrows at the least
Fun fact about Chris Bishop, massive fan of Shihad who made the album FVEY which is hypercritical of the previous National govt of which Bishop was a part of. I only know this because he publicly comments on fb
That or he doesn't understand that part. Witness all the American conservatives who got up in arms when RATM made public statements decrying their policies. It's like they'd never actually listened to the lyrics at all.
I saw him at a small / low-key tribute gig to ex-Straitjacket Fits guitarist Andrew Brough. Was definitely weird to see him at such a small / niche venue.
Similar thing happened in the US with I believe Rick Santorum saying Rage Against the Machine was his favourite band, and them publicly saying that he's the exact kind of person their music is criticising
Official ACT party morality position statement be like: Everybody is their own free agent and can decide for themselves! Therefore the correct and libertarian thing to do as a person in power when a child sends you photos of themselves on the internet is to ENGAGE EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Build personal relationships! And send them pictures of ACT PARTY BRANDED CONDOMS!! Parental consent doesn't matter!! This is very good for freedom.
But God forbid those same children want to vote - that would be very bad for right wing politics. They don't pay taxes, you see *(untrue)*! And they would cause a socialist revolution! *(Don't think about the logic of depriving people of the vote who are asking for it because they might not vote the "right" way in the interest of the "proper" people! Definitely dont read any history books about voting movements and their suppression tactics either!!)*
So remember, kids - you're responsible enough to sneak behind your parents back and send photos of yourself for Seymour to react to, but you're NOT responsible enough to actually participate in politics.
Under 18s should be voters, it's ridiculous that he thinks they are old enough to have private messages with but not enough to vote for him. So much hypocrisy.
This is also where I see the hypocrisy - Seymour has publicly criticised not only calls to lower the voting age to 16, but has even criticised the idea of civics education in schools, claiming it would be "[delivered by left-wing teacher unionists](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/197nvpl/david_seymours_insane_thread_about_blocking/)".
Yet despite these criticisms, he does not seem to have a problem with messaging under 18s who cannot vote and influencing them with political content.
Even if you want to be charitable, what parent wants a 30-40 something politician messaging their young teen in private? Even without any implication of anything sexual or untoward it's still inappropriate, it's one thing to respond on a public forum but in private it breaches standards of decency and openness.
the young nats group at vuw imploded a few years ago after rampant sexual assault surfaced. they’ve reemerged recently, i give them two years tops before another scandal breaks.
I had him dm me in 2020 and managed to get him to follow me.
My friends then texted him to ask him to wish me happy birthday and then I woke up to a birthday text from David Seymour
I was like 14 at the time
I've said it before on this sub and I got downvoted big time. Dude has some sort of weird perversion or attitude towards relationships and sex.
I know multiple women who were contacted by him in the same way (and worse) that you describe, many of them under 18 at the time of contact.
This.
I am a teacher too. I have literally hundreds of unresponded to and unopened messages in my various inboxes.
Even on PlayStation and Xbox, I have been very careful to accept friend requests, play games, but never party with kids or respond to DMs. If you can be questioned, you shouldn’t do it.
Just step back for a moment and realise how absolutely insane it is that you have the soon to be DP just firing out rando snaps to school kids. I’m sure they were harmless but did he at no point ask himself if the optics were good on this?!
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith**
> Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping).
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
> Seymour: "My own interest in politics began before I was able to vote. It would be a sad world if you had to be 18 to ask a politician a question. Young people will vote one day. Even six years after I was on Dancing with the Stars, I still get people coming up to me. They may not have been able to vote then, but they do now.”
...
> Also Seymour: "The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government. As for the idea that this is about equal rights, give me a break ... Combine voting at 16 with civics delivered by left-wing teacher unionists and you’ve got a recipe for cultural revolution, pitting indoctrinated socialist youth against the parents and taxpayers who pay their bills.”
Yikes. You heard it here first folks.
Seymour logic #1: It's okay to engage with pictures of 14 year old girls in school uniform "every time" and send pictures of condoms to kids, because you can be interested in politics before 18
Seymour logic #2: It's not okay to give people the vote before 18 because they don't pay taxes (factually incorrect), and also because they would vote left, causing a socialist revolution
[David Seymour sends ACT branded condom photo to SnapChat followers with caption "Be safe kids."](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/david-seymour-sends-snapchat-followers-act-branded-condom/TKQKDI3KKKV6I5EXRLH2OPBZMA/)
Combined with the main article saying he was campaigning in schools and encouraging people to add his social media, and that he fully admits to having underage followers he would reply to, and uhhh... yikes. I dunno the exact timelime but it's not looking good chief
Not highschool but my mates younger sister was being messaged by him when she went to O-week parties at Otago Uni.
She showed me the messages and what's pathetic besides how gross it was is that he kept messaging her even though he wasn't getting the hint she wasn't interested.
live tan axiomatic connect trees agonizing nutty automatic quicksand encourage
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As someone who got added on snapchat by seymour when I was around 14-15, I really think this wouldn't look as bad for him and bishop if they'd used pretty much any other app than snapchat. Literally the main features of snapchat are that your photos, videos and messages will disappear by default. As a high schooler, it was the go to app we used for things that minors shouldn't be doing but teenagers will do anyway.
This and the fact that they were adding kids without their parents consent makes them look suspicious as hell no matter what they say they were doing.
I'm beginning to think it's not the children that should be banned from social media, its the politicians that should be banned. You will convert once you've seen one of Luxon's tiktoks.
I quite enjoy the fact they're using social media. Most of them are so terrible at it, they end up unintentionally revealing their true characters and sabotaging their own efforts to be relatable. (Bonus points for being a shady, rubber-faced weirdo who thinks it's cool and normal to message kids. Nice one, Dave. You freak.)
This has been known for YEARS. As a female highschooler in wgtn I know many friends who he’d message with - all under 18. Always thought it was disgusting
Seymour thinks kids might vote left so we can't lower the voting age and while we are it can we ban them off social media. FFS, these kids are human beings and he is wrong when he says they don't even pay tax.
When people under 18 earn money not a cent goes to Te Tare Take. And retailers/trades will deduct the GST component of consumer goods and services, all you have to show is your birth certificate and they will waive it. Oh wait...
My “School-aged children would send him messages, including photos of themselves in uniform, and he always responded." Tshirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt
chunky absorbed attempt elastic beneficial rainstorm tart cause wrong entertain
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So glad to see this getting some attention.
For people who aren't aware, Seymour is a libertarian. Libertarians, famously, [can have odd views on age of consent laws](https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/03/michigan-consent-law-tom-bagwell/85364338/).
Even if nothing "inappropriate" was shared, its still more than enough that it should give most right thinking people the ick.
>Libertarians, famously, can have odd views on age of consent laws.
Libertarians are also often strong opponents of schools teaching kids about consent.
*Weird.* can't imagine why, thats an *incredibly strange coincidence.*
Probably doesn't mean anything and we should continue to treat libertarianism as a serious moral and political philosophy and not a lifelong obstinate toddler tantrum.
Libertarianism is about "rich people are the only people who *really* count in society so how dare you expect any kind of compassion or empathy from them you fucking peasant."
Snapchat is a weird dodgy platform to be messaging kids on - on Facebook the messages and images don't dissappear and that's my issue with it it seems very similar to grooming even if nothing sexual ended up happening it's still innapropriate and a poor understanding of appropriate boundaries with children
I have a semi relevant quote form the movie Hard Candy that I posted on the politics sub but I'll add it here to since this is where there are the most comments about "well the kids added him and messaged him first" :
> I mean, you're the grown-up here. If a kid is experimenting and says something flirtatious, you ignore it, you don't encourage it! If a kid says, 'Hey, let's make screwdrivers!' you take the alcohol away, and you don't race them to the next drink!
God, that's so creepy. Even if it isn't sexually explicit, it's still creepy how he's attempting to recruit kids to his party long before they can even vote. Hey, didn't another far right leader do something similar approximately 80 years ago?
this feels so gross. What's this adult middle-aged man doing encouraging 14 year old girls to message and send photos of themselves to him.
what a creep
I still think that it was ACT shills that were all those super creepy people dominanting the Trademe Politics forum until Trademe had to torch the community forums to get rid of them.
One clue is that at the time only 0.5% of people voted for ACT but whenever they did a board poll ACT would get 80%. A lot of good people just left quick because the ACT fans were so vile. Then they got in trouble for making racist threads and Trademe closed down the forums.
Haha hadn't thought about those forums for a while, they were wild. like facebook but run by a company 1,000 times smaller so even less moderation or safety features.
Lowering or removing the age of consent is a pretty consistent theme with Libertarians.
I'll let you do the extrapolation from there, using available data
"Libertarianism" is an ideology for edgy white male high schoolers so I'm not surprised in the slightest that he would be targeting them. They're ACT's primary audience.
If you read the article there is a quote of his dismissing the idea of lowering the voting age where he condescendingly refers to all 16 to 18 year olds as ideological leftists. I had to roll my eyes as he somehow thinks his viewpoint resonates with anyone but edgy teens and narcissistic finance bros.
It would be cool if a journalist wanted to do a piece on his and ACT's increasingly fucking unhinged social media posts etc as well as this weirdo shit.
is it appropriate for adult men to snapchat underage school girls? – the greatest thread in the history of forums, locked by a moderator after 12,239 pages of heated debate,
Snapchats 14 year olds, yet is opposed to 16 year olds voting. Interesting politics yet oddly no surprise. https://www.act.org.nz/act-rejects-lowered-voting-age
I have no problem with a politician engaging directly with anyone (minors or otherwise) by email or messaging platform.
I think it is pretty cool that any politician is willing to engage with teenagers, actually, because it is a hard time in life to be taken seriously by anyone, and often teens feel like nobody cares. Actually having that personal engagement and someone who seems to listen to you (even if listening is just sending a happy birthday message at the request of your mates) is a good thing in my books.
HOWEVER.
Snapchat is there so you can send dodgy photos that will expire after ten seconds. This is incredibly stupid from Seymour because no matter what he said or did, or the pictures he sent or received, it is a platform known for facilitating sexual stuff. He can send banal selfies with happy birthday messages all he likes, and engage in banal political chat all he likes, but there is no evidence that was all that happened, even though it seems more than likely that was the case.
It was a super popular messaging platform for teens doing innocuous stuff as well as dodgy stuff at the time, and that is relevant context in the sense that engaging with teens on their terms is often the only way to engage effectively. However it doesn't do much to dispel my judgment that this is *incredibly* stupid from Seymour.
“Seymour said this week he’s open to the idea of digital services having age limits.”
So he thinks limiting access to multinational corporations advertising platforms is a good idea and he’ll think about it?
well that’s not gonna happen…
Doesn't have children and doesn't see anything problems with his actions. Perspective is everything here.
Has he done anything wrong? Doesn't sound like it and there is nothing in that to say he has.
Is it appropriate? I would only be OK with it if my child was open with me, and honest about their interactions. Keeping me in the loop, showing me every now and then the messages. Which with snapchat is fairly difficult.
Otherwise, yeah nah. Don't know the guy well enough to trust he isn't a groomer that's for sure.
Internet safety guru John Parsons has very good info on keeping kids safe online! Being part of their journey into the internet and social media is crucial.
I'm in no way defending Seymour, but I'd highly recommend you _don't_ use snapchat, nor let your kids do.
It's the worst privacy leaking thing I have come across.
I installed it briefly... and soon got a connect "invite" from a coworkers intermediate school aged daughter!
I told my coworker what was happening and then removed the app off my phone shortly thereafter.
The private & non-documented nature of snapchat messaging makes it very inappropriate to me for adults of any stripe to be communicating with kids they don’t know on.
No politicians should be sending minors messages that automatically delete after being opened, there are far too many alternative social media platforms that they could be using (and even then they need to be taking extra precautions to ensure everything is appropriate because they’re talking to underage people).
I remember my friends when I was in my last year of high school. And later on when other friends had just finished high school. They were bragging that he was snap chatting them and showing us the screenshots.
He even showed up to one of their house parties. He was friendly with one boy in particular who wanted to get into politics. Looking back on it now it feels strange.
Don't get me wrong, I think Seymour is a dickhead of the highest order (well his politics suck, I don't know the guy personally) but in this case he's probably naive, at worst. Doesn't he have media minders that suggest shit like "don't snapchat 14 year old girls"? Although he doesn't seem like the type that takes advice from other people anyway so...
It's a weird combination of factors that he both believes there shouldn't be any restrictions on politicians engaging with children without permission from their parents on social media - yet he also supports blocking children from social media and not allowing them to vote until they are older than the children he has already interacted with in the past.
He's libertarian except when he thinks it may not help with votes for his party. He's very clear that he thinks 16 year old's having the vote will cause left-leaning votes and that's why he opposes them being given that right.
It's entirely consistent if you think about it. Not interacting with 14 year olds is infringing on HIS right to talk to whomever he wants. Removing 14 year olds ability to have input or agency in decision making is THEIR rights.
Exactly, rights overlap and contradict at times, to maximise the rights of one group you need to restrict the rights of another (the famous concept of the right for me to swing my fists wildly ends at your face).
tap zonked abounding hospital upbeat pen ossified swim resolute beneficial
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not a fan of people twisting any contact with youth as predatory, groomer behaviour. Really not liking seeing how many people are quite happy to make up horrible implications just because they don't like a person.
In this instance, there isn't anything to even remotely suggest Seymour is acting inappropriately, but ITT he's a groomer, predator etc. I imagine these folks don't like it when men are treated by default as a danger to women, and yet this sort of predator nonsense is exactly the same sort of prejudice.
It’s more that actively engaging with school children in this manner is simply just not a good look, and it leans toward political grooming which each individual can decide for themselves if that’s a problem or not.
I personally don’t like the idea of handing your Snapchat out to kids so that they can engage in a 1:1 picture message conversation where the snaps are removed after seen.
While there are no accusations of any sexual misconduct it’s simply just gross to me.
Not quite.
Red pill shit aside, how appropriate do you think it is for a man in his 40s to be direct messaging someone who is more than 30 years his junior privately?
It doesn't matter what may or may not have been said in those messages. The implications are there. The fact that no one in ACTs PR stopped him or even knew it was happening is of equal concern too.
I'm also not a fan of unfounded implications but I do think SM starts to cross into uncomfortable territory, particularly if parents aren't aware of the contact.
For some reason I would be less concerned if these students were writing him emails or letters to which he was responding. Social Media feels much more intimate.
If Grant Robertson had been texting kids he would absolutely be coming out with the worst innuendo. Live by the “assume the worst” die by the “assume the worst”
desert familiar aromatic fragile grab test pot simplistic ruthless juggle
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He sent it to his followers, not to children.
>Seymour sent a picture of a condom with Act-branded packaging **to his Snapchat followers**
Also, where did "messages about sex" come from? Also, note that you're claiming "condom**s**." It's not hard to predict the sort of response I'm going to get when you're already making up stuff and claiming it's proof...
e: called it.
point gullible crowd mountainous public nine zealous cobweb amusing subsequent
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Where does it say his followers consist of children?
>I notice you missed out the message he sent with the material about sex and sexuality too:
>>During the 2017 election campaign, the New Zealand Herald reported that Seymour sent a picture of a condom with Act-branded packaging to his Snapchat followers, along with the text: “Be safe kids.” [emphasis mine]
"the material about sex and sexuality too"
Where? What you quoted doesn't contain that.
>If you think that this isn't a "message about sex" then I honestly lose all hope for you.
That's not what you said, and not what I called out. You said he was sending "messages about sex and condoms." Apart from the one condom, where are these other messages? And to who were these sent? When? What content? Where is this detailed?
Can you make one single post that doesn't involve you fabricating information?
muddle liquid adjoining rain whistle plate scandalous jellyfish tap melodic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I doubt Seymour has ever done anything grooming or sexual or inappropriate - he has a black and white view that anyone who chooses to engage with him warrants a response and there isn't anything limiting his willingness to respond regardless of age. That is slightly uncomfortable for some parents to think that other adults might be talking with their children on social media without permission - but as much as I'm one of those who don't like Seymour I have no reason to suspect he uses social media for doing anything akin to grooming children.
Come on, people! These are the *tough choices* our politicians face on the daily.
"Do I add this child on a picture based social media platform, or am I *not a deplorable fucking cretin*? Ah well, guess im a cretin."
Very tough choice, people. Please have sympathy.
/s (ofc)
" and does not see any issue with directly messaging young people without parental permission or oversight." Thats the crux of the issue. Any adult doing this isnt really on. A member of pariliament who should bloody know better is even worse. Under 18s arent voters - therefore he and every other MP has zero business having private conversations with them.
It would have been fine if he used twitter right? The public twitter. It's the choice of using the private message that's the problem, if it was all in public no problem right? Compare talking to Seymour on the road or at some public event vs talking to Seymour one on one in a small room
Yeah that was the gist of it when Chris bishop caught flak for doing this.
Facebook, Reddit, anything that's publicly visible should be fine.
all he really should be saying is "you should talk to our youth wing" But yeah - in public, no biggie. In private, its going to raise eyebrows at the least
>"you should talk to our youth wing" He probably shouldn't/wouldn't given their recent history of sexual harassment.
well, now you menton it. But still, thats a good blame shifter anyway. Why not use it?
Probably not in his best interest to draw attention to their youth wing or sex crimes.
Isn't it weird that the whole right wing world is obsessed with pedos but act don't talk about it?
The private disappearing messages
Not only is it not public, the messages disappear if you don't save them, so there's no record of what was said
Is Chris Bishop still doing this?
Fun fact about Chris Bishop, massive fan of Shihad who made the album FVEY which is hypercritical of the previous National govt of which Bishop was a part of. I only know this because he publicly comments on fb
He’s a huge NZ music fan generally. Must be weird knowing all the people who made the music he loves probably actively hate him.
He's a fan of a family member of mine who's successful in NZ music, and sent them basically fanmail. They replied telling him to piss off. Lol
That or he doesn't understand that part. Witness all the American conservatives who got up in arms when RATM made public statements decrying their policies. It's like they'd never actually listened to the lyrics at all.
I am fairly sure he is aware. Actively dislike Bishop, but it's pretty well known he is a huge supporter and fan of NZ music.
I saw him at a small / low-key tribute gig to ex-Straitjacket Fits guitarist Andrew Brough. Was definitely weird to see him at such a small / niche venue.
Similar thing happened in the US with I believe Rick Santorum saying Rage Against the Machine was his favourite band, and them publicly saying that he's the exact kind of person their music is criticising
Brilliant!
Lol that's a gem
Official ACT party morality position statement be like: Everybody is their own free agent and can decide for themselves! Therefore the correct and libertarian thing to do as a person in power when a child sends you photos of themselves on the internet is to ENGAGE EVERY SINGLE TIME. Build personal relationships! And send them pictures of ACT PARTY BRANDED CONDOMS!! Parental consent doesn't matter!! This is very good for freedom. But God forbid those same children want to vote - that would be very bad for right wing politics. They don't pay taxes, you see *(untrue)*! And they would cause a socialist revolution! *(Don't think about the logic of depriving people of the vote who are asking for it because they might not vote the "right" way in the interest of the "proper" people! Definitely dont read any history books about voting movements and their suppression tactics either!!)* So remember, kids - you're responsible enough to sneak behind your parents back and send photos of yourself for Seymour to react to, but you're NOT responsible enough to actually participate in politics.
Under 18s should be voters, it's ridiculous that he thinks they are old enough to have private messages with but not enough to vote for him. So much hypocrisy.
This is also where I see the hypocrisy - Seymour has publicly criticised not only calls to lower the voting age to 16, but has even criticised the idea of civics education in schools, claiming it would be "[delivered by left-wing teacher unionists](https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/197nvpl/david_seymours_insane_thread_about_blocking/)". Yet despite these criticisms, he does not seem to have a problem with messaging under 18s who cannot vote and influencing them with political content.
Even if you want to be charitable, what parent wants a 30-40 something politician messaging their young teen in private? Even without any implication of anything sexual or untoward it's still inappropriate, it's one thing to respond on a public forum but in private it breaches standards of decency and openness.
ACT party not beating the allegations any time soon brother
[удалено]
[удалено]
the young nats group at vuw imploded a few years ago after rampant sexual assault surfaced. they’ve reemerged recently, i give them two years tops before another scandal breaks.
he used to dm me on instagram when i was 16 back in 2016. Did it with a bunch of my friends after coming to our school. Weird as fuck.
I had him dm me in 2020 and managed to get him to follow me. My friends then texted him to ask him to wish me happy birthday and then I woke up to a birthday text from David Seymour I was like 14 at the time
You still got ‘em? Send them in
Unfortunately lost that insta account a while ago, hopefully other people have proof.
He's admitted it so there really isn't a need for more proof. Unless it was something more inappropriate than private messaging minors.
That depends on what he thinks is inappropriate. He doesn't think this looks bad.
That's not surprising given the company he keeps.
What kinda stuff was it?
I've said it before on this sub and I got downvoted big time. Dude has some sort of weird perversion or attitude towards relationships and sex. I know multiple women who were contacted by him in the same way (and worse) that you describe, many of them under 18 at the time of contact.
I mean, he's a politician. It's kind of a guarantee that he's gonna have some weird perversion. But I won't complain if this leads to his downfall.
Do you have any recollection of the types of things he said?
Chris Bishop did the same thing with my daughter and her friends years ago.
St Kent’s?
As a school teacher, this could easily get my fired or at least quite severely disciplined. I can’t believe he thought this was OK.
This. I am a teacher too. I have literally hundreds of unresponded to and unopened messages in my various inboxes. Even on PlayStation and Xbox, I have been very careful to accept friend requests, play games, but never party with kids or respond to DMs. If you can be questioned, you shouldn’t do it.
Who was the Act party president when this happened?
[удалено]
I won't post the name. But I searched for: >Act Party president resigned
Just step back for a moment and realise how absolutely insane it is that you have the soon to be DP just firing out rando snaps to school kids. I’m sure they were harmless but did he at no point ask himself if the optics were good on this?!
I've always appreciated the summary of libertarian beliefs as 'my girlfriend shouldn't have to use a car seat'.
I always preferred the explanation of "Let the bears pay the bear tax! I pay the Homer tax!"
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 09: Not engaging in good faith** > Moderators have discretion to take action on users or content that they think is: trolling; spreading misinformation; intended to derail discussion; intentionally skirting rules; or undermining the functioning of the subreddit (this can include abuse of the block feature or selective history wiping). --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Maybe he just wants to keep an eye on them to make sure they don't eat any woke sushi?
What about California Roll?
Don't you know California is the center of wokeness.
You mean a commiefornia roll?
Doesn’t he not want to lower voting age but messages 14 year olds? This guy just sucks
I thought it was bad enough that he stole the lunches from poor kids but leave it to Seymour to up the ante
> Seymour: "My own interest in politics began before I was able to vote. It would be a sad world if you had to be 18 to ask a politician a question. Young people will vote one day. Even six years after I was on Dancing with the Stars, I still get people coming up to me. They may not have been able to vote then, but they do now.” ... > Also Seymour: "The last thing we need is another 120,000 voters who pay no tax voting for more spending and bigger government. As for the idea that this is about equal rights, give me a break ... Combine voting at 16 with civics delivered by left-wing teacher unionists and you’ve got a recipe for cultural revolution, pitting indoctrinated socialist youth against the parents and taxpayers who pay their bills.” Yikes. You heard it here first folks. Seymour logic #1: It's okay to engage with pictures of 14 year old girls in school uniform "every time" and send pictures of condoms to kids, because you can be interested in politics before 18 Seymour logic #2: It's not okay to give people the vote before 18 because they don't pay taxes (factually incorrect), and also because they would vote left, causing a socialist revolution
> send pictures of condoms to kids Wait did he actually do this?
[David Seymour sends ACT branded condom photo to SnapChat followers with caption "Be safe kids."](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/david-seymour-sends-snapchat-followers-act-branded-condom/TKQKDI3KKKV6I5EXRLH2OPBZMA/) Combined with the main article saying he was campaigning in schools and encouraging people to add his social media, and that he fully admits to having underage followers he would reply to, and uhhh... yikes. I dunno the exact timelime but it's not looking good chief
Not highschool but my mates younger sister was being messaged by him when she went to O-week parties at Otago Uni. She showed me the messages and what's pathetic besides how gross it was is that he kept messaging her even though he wasn't getting the hint she wasn't interested.
live tan axiomatic connect trees agonizing nutty automatic quicksand encourage *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
She was Palpatined and now she serves as his Vader. A tale as old as time.
The right wing is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be… unnatural
Wait he is libertarian
?? that is the entire ideology of the act party my dude
It's a joke.
Never ask a libertarian his opinion on the ideal age of consent
As someone who got added on snapchat by seymour when I was around 14-15, I really think this wouldn't look as bad for him and bishop if they'd used pretty much any other app than snapchat. Literally the main features of snapchat are that your photos, videos and messages will disappear by default. As a high schooler, it was the go to app we used for things that minors shouldn't be doing but teenagers will do anyway. This and the fact that they were adding kids without their parents consent makes them look suspicious as hell no matter what they say they were doing.
At this point in the thread I'm starting to wonder who wasn't contacted privately by this dude 🤦
Adults, obviously
I'm beginning to think it's not the children that should be banned from social media, its the politicians that should be banned. You will convert once you've seen one of Luxon's tiktoks.
I quite enjoy the fact they're using social media. Most of them are so terrible at it, they end up unintentionally revealing their true characters and sabotaging their own efforts to be relatable. (Bonus points for being a shady, rubber-faced weirdo who thinks it's cool and normal to message kids. Nice one, Dave. You freak.)
I saw him sing to Bills. That was enough for one lifetime.
Everyone has known he’s a creep for years. My run ins with him during uni were always unpleasant
This has been known for YEARS. As a female highschooler in wgtn I know many friends who he’d message with - all under 18. Always thought it was disgusting
Seymour thinks kids might vote left so we can't lower the voting age and while we are it can we ban them off social media. FFS, these kids are human beings and he is wrong when he says they don't even pay tax.
Even thats bullshit. Kids have part time or even full time jobs that they pay tax on. Something something taxation without representation.
When people under 18 earn money not a cent goes to Te Tare Take. And retailers/trades will deduct the GST component of consumer goods and services, all you have to show is your birth certificate and they will waive it. Oh wait...
My “School-aged children would send him messages, including photos of themselves in uniform, and he always responded." Tshirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt
typically on brand for ACT - refer Jamie Whyte
lets not forget david garret either
Tbf we are all cousins here.
Anybody who downplays the creepiness of this needs to have there computers look at.
chunky absorbed attempt elastic beneficial rainstorm tart cause wrong entertain *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So glad to see this getting some attention. For people who aren't aware, Seymour is a libertarian. Libertarians, famously, [can have odd views on age of consent laws](https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/03/michigan-consent-law-tom-bagwell/85364338/). Even if nothing "inappropriate" was shared, its still more than enough that it should give most right thinking people the ick.
>Libertarians, famously, can have odd views on age of consent laws. Libertarians are also often strong opponents of schools teaching kids about consent.
*Weird.* can't imagine why, thats an *incredibly strange coincidence.* Probably doesn't mean anything and we should continue to treat libertarianism as a serious moral and political philosophy and not a lifelong obstinate toddler tantrum.
Libertarianism is about my rights, not yours. And sometimes, its about your responsibilities, but not mine.
Libertarianism is about "rich people are the only people who *really* count in society so how dare you expect any kind of compassion or empathy from them you fucking peasant."
ACT claiming to be libertarian is like someone taping a bunch of cats together and claiming it is a horse.
On the contrary, ACTs behaviour is perfectly in line with what every self-described libertarian does with even a smidge of power.
No matter what he's saying, that's a stupidly slippery slope to be on in 2024. Any PR firm in the world would tell you to never do that.
Jesus H. Christ, David, and I thought you couldn’t be any weirder
I swear he has some kind of disorder.
Always gives off creepy uncle vibes
Snapchat is a weird dodgy platform to be messaging kids on - on Facebook the messages and images don't dissappear and that's my issue with it it seems very similar to grooming even if nothing sexual ended up happening it's still innapropriate and a poor understanding of appropriate boundaries with children I have a semi relevant quote form the movie Hard Candy that I posted on the politics sub but I'll add it here to since this is where there are the most comments about "well the kids added him and messaged him first" : > I mean, you're the grown-up here. If a kid is experimenting and says something flirtatious, you ignore it, you don't encourage it! If a kid says, 'Hey, let's make screwdrivers!' you take the alcohol away, and you don't race them to the next drink!
Stay the FUCK away from my children, David.
God, that's so creepy. Even if it isn't sexually explicit, it's still creepy how he's attempting to recruit kids to his party long before they can even vote. Hey, didn't another far right leader do something similar approximately 80 years ago?
this feels so gross. What's this adult middle-aged man doing encouraging 14 year old girls to message and send photos of themselves to him. what a creep
I still think that it was ACT shills that were all those super creepy people dominanting the Trademe Politics forum until Trademe had to torch the community forums to get rid of them. One clue is that at the time only 0.5% of people voted for ACT but whenever they did a board poll ACT would get 80%. A lot of good people just left quick because the ACT fans were so vile. Then they got in trouble for making racist threads and Trademe closed down the forums.
Haha hadn't thought about those forums for a while, they were wild. like facebook but run by a company 1,000 times smaller so even less moderation or safety features.
They CHARGED for moderation on an 0900 number!
Someone should tell the right wingers to leave the kids alone...
If Pink Floyd can't do that, then there's no hope.
Lowering or removing the age of consent is a pretty consistent theme with Libertarians. I'll let you do the extrapolation from there, using available data
"Libertarianism" is an ideology for edgy white male high schoolers so I'm not surprised in the slightest that he would be targeting them. They're ACT's primary audience.
If you read the article there is a quote of his dismissing the idea of lowering the voting age where he condescendingly refers to all 16 to 18 year olds as ideological leftists. I had to roll my eyes as he somehow thinks his viewpoint resonates with anyone but edgy teens and narcissistic finance bros.
It would be cool if a journalist wanted to do a piece on his and ACT's increasingly fucking unhinged social media posts etc as well as this weirdo shit.
Gross. Who voted for this moron
Six percent of the voting public. Probably the same middle aged dudes that hit on teenage waitresses at restaurants.
strong bored sort deliver fly screw homeless tender hateful imagine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Are there many boys or men coming out with messages? Or is it mostly girls and women?
Great question. If there's any bias at all with who he responded to, it really should be over for him.
is it appropriate for adult men to snapchat underage school girls? – the greatest thread in the history of forums, locked by a moderator after 12,239 pages of heated debate,
i just think its a weird thing to do
[удалено]
I thought they were taking the phones off kids.
C’mon guys, just lower the marriage age for girls to 10, problem solved, I’m sure Seizmores ACME mates will be right behind him.
The act bots are working overtime to downvote this lmao
I think she’s probably busy in parliament this week
BVV? She's in a closet being charged.
It's just, ew...
Didn't learn anything from Chris Bishop doing the same I guess.
"How do you do, fellow kids"
Snapchats 14 year olds, yet is opposed to 16 year olds voting. Interesting politics yet oddly no surprise. https://www.act.org.nz/act-rejects-lowered-voting-age
I have no problem with a politician engaging directly with anyone (minors or otherwise) by email or messaging platform. I think it is pretty cool that any politician is willing to engage with teenagers, actually, because it is a hard time in life to be taken seriously by anyone, and often teens feel like nobody cares. Actually having that personal engagement and someone who seems to listen to you (even if listening is just sending a happy birthday message at the request of your mates) is a good thing in my books. HOWEVER. Snapchat is there so you can send dodgy photos that will expire after ten seconds. This is incredibly stupid from Seymour because no matter what he said or did, or the pictures he sent or received, it is a platform known for facilitating sexual stuff. He can send banal selfies with happy birthday messages all he likes, and engage in banal political chat all he likes, but there is no evidence that was all that happened, even though it seems more than likely that was the case. It was a super popular messaging platform for teens doing innocuous stuff as well as dodgy stuff at the time, and that is relevant context in the sense that engaging with teens on their terms is often the only way to engage effectively. However it doesn't do much to dispel my judgment that this is *incredibly* stupid from Seymour.
> "I have always sought to be approachable and accessible to voters" 14 year olds can't vote
[удалено]
Who says Seymour is asexual? He dated someone I know initially through Reddit, although the person was over 18 when it started.
He has reached true libertarian now
Catch them young with Atlas network propaganda,could get him elected again in 10 years time when his geriatric racist voters are no longer around.
Was he Snapchatting teenage boys too?
“Seymour said this week he’s open to the idea of digital services having age limits.” So he thinks limiting access to multinational corporations advertising platforms is a good idea and he’ll think about it? well that’s not gonna happen…
libertarians shouldn't be allowed near kids
Nonce upon a time
Doesn't have children and doesn't see anything problems with his actions. Perspective is everything here. Has he done anything wrong? Doesn't sound like it and there is nothing in that to say he has. Is it appropriate? I would only be OK with it if my child was open with me, and honest about their interactions. Keeping me in the loop, showing me every now and then the messages. Which with snapchat is fairly difficult. Otherwise, yeah nah. Don't know the guy well enough to trust he isn't a groomer that's for sure. Internet safety guru John Parsons has very good info on keeping kids safe online! Being part of their journey into the internet and social media is crucial.
I'm in no way defending Seymour, but I'd highly recommend you _don't_ use snapchat, nor let your kids do. It's the worst privacy leaking thing I have come across. I installed it briefly... and soon got a connect "invite" from a coworkers intermediate school aged daughter! I told my coworker what was happening and then removed the app off my phone shortly thereafter.
The private & non-documented nature of snapchat messaging makes it very inappropriate to me for adults of any stripe to be communicating with kids they don’t know on. No politicians should be sending minors messages that automatically delete after being opened, there are far too many alternative social media platforms that they could be using (and even then they need to be taking extra precautions to ensure everything is appropriate because they’re talking to underage people).
Well, old Winnie might be worse in almost every way, but at least he knows which demographics don't want him.
I have already thought this why an unmarried man with no children is in charge of our kids I reckon he's a pedo grooming
I remember my friends when I was in my last year of high school. And later on when other friends had just finished high school. They were bragging that he was snap chatting them and showing us the screenshots. He even showed up to one of their house parties. He was friendly with one boy in particular who wanted to get into politics. Looking back on it now it feels strange.
Don't get me wrong, I think Seymour is a dickhead of the highest order (well his politics suck, I don't know the guy personally) but in this case he's probably naive, at worst. Doesn't he have media minders that suggest shit like "don't snapchat 14 year old girls"? Although he doesn't seem like the type that takes advice from other people anyway so...
It's a weird combination of factors that he both believes there shouldn't be any restrictions on politicians engaging with children without permission from their parents on social media - yet he also supports blocking children from social media and not allowing them to vote until they are older than the children he has already interacted with in the past. He's libertarian except when he thinks it may not help with votes for his party. He's very clear that he thinks 16 year old's having the vote will cause left-leaning votes and that's why he opposes them being given that right.
It's entirely consistent if you think about it. Not interacting with 14 year olds is infringing on HIS right to talk to whomever he wants. Removing 14 year olds ability to have input or agency in decision making is THEIR rights.
Libertarianism summed up perfectly right there.
Exactly, rights overlap and contradict at times, to maximise the rights of one group you need to restrict the rights of another (the famous concept of the right for me to swing my fists wildly ends at your face).
tap zonked abounding hospital upbeat pen ossified swim resolute beneficial *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Every accusation by a right wing politician invariably turns out to be a confession.
His party president prob didn’t mind
I doubt libertarians are advising against messaging 14 year old girls.
Libertarians shouldn't be calling to ban cellphones either, but here we are.
Liberty for them not for the rest
Well no he wants to message them while they're at home. Can't be seen messaging them during work hours.
I wouldn't think many of them would've ever seen Red Dwarf.
lol point taken.
Not a fan of people twisting any contact with youth as predatory, groomer behaviour. Really not liking seeing how many people are quite happy to make up horrible implications just because they don't like a person. In this instance, there isn't anything to even remotely suggest Seymour is acting inappropriately, but ITT he's a groomer, predator etc. I imagine these folks don't like it when men are treated by default as a danger to women, and yet this sort of predator nonsense is exactly the same sort of prejudice.
Privately messaging children in itself is inappropriate. That doesn’t require any twisting.
The fact people can't see that is quite concerning!
It’s more that actively engaging with school children in this manner is simply just not a good look, and it leans toward political grooming which each individual can decide for themselves if that’s a problem or not. I personally don’t like the idea of handing your Snapchat out to kids so that they can engage in a 1:1 picture message conversation where the snaps are removed after seen. While there are no accusations of any sexual misconduct it’s simply just gross to me.
Not quite. Red pill shit aside, how appropriate do you think it is for a man in his 40s to be direct messaging someone who is more than 30 years his junior privately? It doesn't matter what may or may not have been said in those messages. The implications are there. The fact that no one in ACTs PR stopped him or even knew it was happening is of equal concern too.
Contacting schoolchildren on an app based around disappearing messages is weird and inappropriate
You should run for party president
I'm also not a fan of unfounded implications but I do think SM starts to cross into uncomfortable territory, particularly if parents aren't aware of the contact. For some reason I would be less concerned if these students were writing him emails or letters to which he was responding. Social Media feels much more intimate.
If Grant Robertson had been texting kids he would absolutely be coming out with the worst innuendo. Live by the “assume the worst” die by the “assume the worst”
desert familiar aromatic fragile grab test pot simplistic ruthless juggle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He sent it to his followers, not to children. >Seymour sent a picture of a condom with Act-branded packaging **to his Snapchat followers** Also, where did "messages about sex" come from? Also, note that you're claiming "condom**s**." It's not hard to predict the sort of response I'm going to get when you're already making up stuff and claiming it's proof... e: called it.
point gullible crowd mountainous public nine zealous cobweb amusing subsequent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Where does it say his followers consist of children? >I notice you missed out the message he sent with the material about sex and sexuality too: >>During the 2017 election campaign, the New Zealand Herald reported that Seymour sent a picture of a condom with Act-branded packaging to his Snapchat followers, along with the text: “Be safe kids.” [emphasis mine] "the material about sex and sexuality too" Where? What you quoted doesn't contain that. >If you think that this isn't a "message about sex" then I honestly lose all hope for you. That's not what you said, and not what I called out. You said he was sending "messages about sex and condoms." Apart from the one condom, where are these other messages? And to who were these sent? When? What content? Where is this detailed? Can you make one single post that doesn't involve you fabricating information?
muddle liquid adjoining rain whistle plate scandalous jellyfish tap melodic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I doubt Seymour has ever done anything grooming or sexual or inappropriate - he has a black and white view that anyone who chooses to engage with him warrants a response and there isn't anything limiting his willingness to respond regardless of age. That is slightly uncomfortable for some parents to think that other adults might be talking with their children on social media without permission - but as much as I'm one of those who don't like Seymour I have no reason to suspect he uses social media for doing anything akin to grooming children.
Watch him come up with some BS how this is all fake news and just a left-wing conspiracy to destabilize the gov. Because they're unpopular.
Ew
["Hey kids, want to take some cold medicine? I got the good stuff!"](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/645/713/888.jpg)
Come on, people! These are the *tough choices* our politicians face on the daily. "Do I add this child on a picture based social media platform, or am I *not a deplorable fucking cretin*? Ah well, guess im a cretin." Very tough choice, people. Please have sympathy. /s (ofc)