In recent times we have heard Winston Peters use the word “retarded” repeatedly, most recently to criticise the Green Party’s proposal to halt the consenting of new large-scale data centres for one year due to concerns surrounding escalating electricity demand and rising power prices. By using a word that’s widely considered offensive and refusing to apologize, Peters positions himself as someone who “refuses to play along” with polite political norms. The media and critical reaction gets framed by supporters as “hysteria,” while he’s cast as a man who is not afraid to speak his mind thereby turning criticism into proof of authenticity. Supporters frame the backlash itself as evidence he is one of them rather than using the language of the political and corporate elite. This flips condemnation into a badge of honor rather than a liability.

Asked whether he should be using the term, Peters doubled down and used the “r” slur again. His attitude mirrors a Trump style populist right pattern of treating apology as weakness and refusal to apologize as strength.

Using slurs against a political opponent’s policy casts critics as overly sensitive elites, appealing to people already frustrated with political correctness or media coverage generally.

This is a fairly textbook example of the “bullying and domination” dynamic of using an out-group (in this case, disabled people, indirectly, plus political opponents) as a rhetorical punching bag to signal strength and manufacture in-group solidarity against a shared “enemy” (the media, “PC” critics). It’s polarizing by design.
The most effective pushback usually isn’t “how dare you” statements from other politicians, it’s directly affected people telling their own story. It reframes the story away from “Peters vs. the media” (a fight he wants) and toward “Peters vs. real people,” which is much harder to spin as elite hysteria.

Movements that get pulled into “was that word offensive?” debates often lose, because it keeps the fight on the bully’s home turf (are you too sensitive?). More effective responses pivot to the substance being dodged, for example in the data centre case, the actual policy debate about environmental regulation gets buried under the slur controversy. Groups that keep steering back to “let’s talk about the actual policy” deny him the distraction.

Part of Peters’ tactic works because it implies “ordinary people” secretly agree and only “elites” object. Broad-based, visibly ordinary coalitions (not just advocacy orgs or opposition MPs) puncture that framing so it’s harder to dismiss as PC hysteria when it’s teachers, parents, healthcare workers and ordinary people, not just politicians scoring points.

The rise of fascism relies on hierarchy and domination as organizing principles, not just as a byproduct of power, but as the core logic holding the whole system together. Fascist ideology explicitly rejects the idea that people are fundamentally equal. Instead, it sorts people into hierarchies by nation, ethnicity, strength, loyalty, or “worthiness.” Bullying and domination are how that hierarchy gets enforced and made visible day to day. Someone has to be on top, and someone has to be seen losing.

Strength is the core value and domination is treated as proof of vitality and legitimacy. A leader or movement that doesn’t dominate is seen as weak and therefore illegitimate.

Fascist movements typically define the in-group by contrast with a scapegoated out-group such as ethnic minorities, immigrants, political dissidents, trans people. Bullying that out-group in ways that are socially, legally, or physically permitted is how the in-group’s identity and solidarity gets continuously reaffirmed. Who the target is matters less than the fact that you have a target.

Submission to authority is modeled, not just imposed under fascism. What is required is to show deference to those above you in the hierarchy and contempt for those below. This is a culture where domination and submission both feel natural because everyone is positioned somewhere in the chain. Bullying becomes a social norm reproduced at every level.

Fear and humiliation suppress dissent. A culture of intimidation makes opposition costly and isolating which means that people self-censor not necessarily out of belief, but to avoid becoming the next target.

Building solidarity from below is what matters most. Disability advocates, different ethnic groups and others targeted by similar rhetoric coordinating together (rather than responding in isolation) makes the pattern visible; it stops looking like isolated incidents and starts looking like a consistent strategy, which is a harder story to control.

There are a number of ways to show solidarity. One way is to support the rights of people with disabilities and their families and join the Nationwide Day of Action to oppose the Disability Support Services bill in its current form.

https://sites.google.com/view/killthedssbill/home?fbclid=IwY2xjawTn0i1wZG9mBWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHtq9NbmmJgk-P4c5el8GkX0_GIONSUPROkZ5_iVdlXAwa9c4IqxGhCNyTLa__aem_LuNXhUS0xSJwAOTcogn1Ag

Image by https://www.rlmartstudio.com/product/you-are-the-solid-in-solidarity/