Hard News: It's not OK to just make stuff up
430 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
"It's saying it isn't okay to brush off domestic violence as something that only happens in some "other" part of society."
Steve, that is exactly what you and Russell have been trying to do.
Show me the instance where I said it was okay to dismiss domestic violence if it took place in another part of society.
What I'm saying to you is: If you watch the ad with an open mind, you'll see that it is not about demonising men as Ralston and you have portrayed. It has maybe two lines aimed specifically at men; it has stats about violence against men; it is mostly gender neutral. The message is: It's not okay - Ever.
By the standards of a television campaign, it's remarkably even handed and non-preachy. If you and Ralston could watch it without your ideological filters on, you'd see that.
-
This whole debate started because Russell was trying to minimise the amount and extent of domestic violence initiated by women against men.
Seriously? If you're capable of that level of reasoning, then I guess "she asked for it" isn't much of a stretch.
Chuck, go back and read Ralston's column, read Russell's post, then come back and quote the parts of the advert or any other material you want to reference that back your argument. If you can't do that then kindly go away.
-
This whole debate started because Russell was trying to minimise the amount and extent of domestic violence initiated by women against men.
I think the idea of the ad campaign is indeed to minimise - or eliminate - domestic violence initiated by anyone against anyone , but I suspect that's not what you meant.
If this is something you feel strongly about from personal experience, then I'd like to echo steven crawford's sympathies, but it seems all you're projecting here is anger, and if that's as good as it's going to get, could you please try somewhere else? Thanks.
-
Hey Sacha and Sam, You may want to give me a beat down on this, but I have ever really got into the whole; we don't like what you have to say, please leave campaign,The internet is a pretty noninvasive way to voice 'opinions', I don't know, maybe I'm too jaded by years in the gulag, but it seems an affront to the whole concept of freedom of speech,and sounds no less angry than the protaganist's own drivel, Sure what Chuck is saying is erroneous, and misguided, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we were inviting him to embarrass himself more, than that.
-
Sure what Chuck is saying is erroneous, and misguided . . .
Attention slut. Bit of a shrew, too.
-
another pie thrower...
who me, Chuck or you? be as you need to be Joe, but unless someone sucks it in and is prepared to tolerate the hardship of reading through crap that people like me write, the aggression and endemic violence epidemic you guys are surrounded by and pay taxes to advertize against is never going to dissipate.
For one so politically buffed, Joe, you've obviously noticed that democratic machines primary vent for societal frustration is the right to protest, and when you're all protested out, the government does exactly what was being protested against. It's a perfect system. unless you prefer the system they have here, where they just shut you up.
If i can handle your antagnistic bullshit Joe, I'm sure we can all handle Chuck's
-
Mark, thank you for speaking up. It's certainly not my place or intention to annoy people here. You'll note that Chuck brought up the matter of leaving, which is probably why both Sam and I responded the way we did.
For me, it's not that I disagree with what Chuck says so much as the way he is arguing which seems to be in bad faith.
Given the title of the thread I thought it's not too much to ask that people discuss actual stuff rather than making shit up. I do appreciate that some references were provided. However subsequent discussion has been beyond "erroneous and misguided" after several posters have gone to the trouble of pointing out the flawed logic. I admit that my tolerance for wilful ignorance is even lower than it used to be, after other threads. Sorry.
Anyway, an informed discussion about family violence is welcome and I'm generally very interested in gender roles and the position of men over the last couple of decades. Actually, I suppose that's one reason why I don't want to see Chuck make more of a dick of himself and undermine the whole topic. Still, you're probably right that's the way to go, and thanks for prompting some reflection on my part. It's a lovely day out there.
-
Went right over my head Mark.
-
Joe, surely Mark is saying "Disagree with Chuck, but be polite about it"?
-
the name is mark, you're welcome inside the theme park when you feel the love Joe...oxo
Yeah I understand Sacha, thanks for replying, lovely day here too despite being cold as, last day of the Pig, fireworks sporadically echoing around the buildings. I agree, Chuck's been pulling all shades of shit out of his ass, almost as if his brain gets reformatted after every post. my only misgiving was the 'please leave' motif, and it's not as if, it hasn't been said before or won't be said again to other posters.
I'm not sure if Chuck could undermine the whole topic, when he writes like that, he does himself no favours. He's a couple of drops in an ocean of what seems to me to be another valid, sensible, relevant and interesting discussion.
I can't really talk, I take the bait worst than most, not helped by the fact that there's always a certain number of posters who are always easy pickings, when I'm looking for a bitchslap.
On returning to NZ in 1991 fom the UK, I was always surprised by the anger exuded by my pubescent classmates in that slice of paradise. I found it even more interesting upon coming to this fine totalitarian state, and find these people, poor as socks, oppressed as pressed pants, surrounded by pollution, but in remarkably good spirit, compared to the paradisians back home. Less cliquey, more collectively optimistic and happy to listen to one another without recourse to the shuddup, always making new friends.
I often wonder why NZ has this latent aggression, I in part attribute it to our origins, recalling the recordings made detailing woman arriving on boats, being selected as wives as they marched down the gangplank to begin their lives, living the next 7 years in a tent on a gold field near Arrowtown. It's a long time ago, but that anger and pain hs been passed from father to son, that need to put down. Teh rage. Can't help but feel the mildest sense of guilt, at my ancestor, working for the NZ company offering people the world, but ultimately providing a chance to compete in Survivor New Zealand.
Another theory (and this is hair brained stuff) is the idea of the lost paradise, the notion of our ancestors coming in search of the promised land, and having to share it with a whole lot of other no hopers, I was always surprised at the way people walk down the street in NZ, and don't say hi to people they recognize, though may never have conversed with, This is something more obvious in the cities, and to be fair to the country as a whole, I spent a number of years in that rank stench of a city, slapped on the Canterbury plains, which obviously coloured my perception.
I remember feeling the rage, back there. But over the years, I've been fortunate enough to observe different environments, and isolate what I identify what i perceive to be quintessential NZ elements, and ultimately I feel a lot of the pain and aggression seems to stem from the old adage coined in that familiar Fred Dagg favourite.
-
Thanks Ben.
-
mark, I remember a girl in ozzie who told me of her travels in Africa. She was of the opinion that the happiest people she had ever met were in Africa, that she would meet people living in the direst poverty who had a very cheerful outlook. It gave her a new perspective on rich Australians who managed to be highly depressed despite having a life the cheerful Africans only dreamed of.
-
Ben, reminds me of that Alanis Morisette song, I can't recall the name. The whole idea of keeping up with the jones' seems to be the such a hindrance in the quest for a better 'quality of life'. For my part I'd like to find some stats correlating domestic violence, and other violent crime with the weather and in particular sunlight. Seems the two best times for the NZ government to push through controversial legislation are either when it's just coming into summer or in the cold of winter.
-
urm, mark taslov - you're speaking of the origins of Pakeha anger, right?
Because quite a few of us posting on PAS have different origins, or multiple ancestry- and I'm not sure I'd agree with your suggestions anyway-annnd, a note about sunshine: *most people* in our archipelago who live south of about Auckland have less vit. D in their systems than they should. That lack can abet depression - but not necessarily anger.
-
so that's what causes 'South of the border' syndrome. It's been the vitamin D all along? Not population envy, as I'd previously thought.
-
Heh. Yeah.
Many of my whanau suffer from SAD (and a very unfortunate few, from severe clinical depression as well.) Vit. D capsules - specifically
Cholecalciferol (D3) are what we gulp with our morning coffees (or whatever.)There are 2 who - o the irony of it all! - who are also allergic to sunlight!
-
I agree, Chuck's been pulling all shades of shit out of his ass, almost as if his brain gets reformatted after every post.
Heh. Sometimes, mark, sometimes, you're so spot on....
But yeah, Chuck shifts the goal posts every time he gets cornered.
my only misgiving was the 'please leave' motif,
That would usually bring agreement from me, but as Sacha said, Chuck was the one that went with the "I won't post here anymore" tantrum.
Joe, surely Mark is saying "Disagree with Chuck, but be polite about it"?
I don't know about that, Ben. Sacha asked Chuck a reasonable question, and Chuck's reply was to brush Sacha off as a "flack" who was not worth responding to. While I don't think deliberate impoliteness helps any debate, I see no reason why anyone should feel any need to be careful about being polite to Chuck.
-
Man that's really unlucky.. Islander,yeah just some of the unfortunate early pakeha, although I imagine having the country settled by a whole bunch of shortchanged Eurotrash wouldn't have done much for the orignals' state of mind here either. Mainly I'm just proposing that these early frustrations have still not been adequately appeased and have been allowed to permeate the culture as a whole.
-
I've asked Bird - perfectly politely - to define what he meant by "slut". My request was ignored. I believe that indulging someone who habitually uses the term "feminazi" elsewhere, and smarmily moderates his language at PA, is an exercise bordering on intellectual vanity.
In the unlikely event that Bird were to read The Handmaid's Tale he'd find it to be a blueprint for the kind of repressive society he fantasises about. If the old attention slut had the courage to speak plainly of his bigotry I might accord him a touch of respect. He doesn't, so I don't.
-
I don't know about that, Ben. Sacha asked Chuck a reasonable question, and Chuck's reply was to brush Sacha off as a "flack" who was not worth responding to. While I don't think deliberate impoliteness helps any debate, I see no reason why anyone should feel any need to be careful about being polite to Chuck.
Yeah, obviously politeness wasn't so much my bent as the ostracism. And not so much the instance, but the trend, Ghandi had some neat tricks up his sleeve for getting people to leave.
-
Oh, no, so you weren't actually getting at me Joe, you were getting at Chuck? I was on the brink of getting domestically violentI guess it explains why what I wrote went over your head (or the pie), and serve me right for being an actual attention slut. Or am i a racist bigot?
apologies Joe.
-
Or am i a racist bigot?
(Yawn). If you must know, as far as I'm concerned you're a rather tedious non-event. I'm sure it's mutual. Nothing personal.
-
Interesting observations mark but I'd say it's way, way more complicated than that (and what you put forward is well thought and isn't exactly simple). There's a fair degree of domestic violence in NZ that can't be put down to white people arriving on white boats and having a hard time of it. Namely Maori, Pacific Island, and Asian DV. Then there's all those Europeans who came a fair way after the NZ Company did their thing. And still now we have Europeans coming to live here. Everybody brought their own swearwords and things to biff at each other.
In Korea DV is a big, big problem but is swept under the carpet much more and this is a society which goes back many thousands of years locked to pretty much the same spot.
It happened in ancient society, it happens in modern times. Maybe in the past it occured due to more of an influence by religion, or other beliefs or by the perpetrators committing it believing it was their 'right'. In fact in many societies it was a right.
In modern times it may be more connected to keeping up with the Joneses and the pressures that come with it. I suspect a bit more of a mixture of the two depending on what house your living in. My family came late last century on my fathers side and as he often points out, his rellies are either tee-totallers or wild boozers, and not unknown to spend a bit of time behind bars.
Incidentally yesterday my neighbours had a screaming match, somebody (not them) called the police and they came and took the bloke away though as far as I know (and I can form a very well educated guess in this case) there was no physical violence whatsoever. I wonder how that gets recorded statistically? "Domestic incident"?
I guess it will always be a bit of a mystery, some genetics, some circumstance, some societal issues at large.....
Peace Out.
The End.
-
Steve I was only saying what I thought Mark was on about, which seemed pretty clear. He was preaching tolerance towards Chuck. Which was actually given, until he started showing the side of himself I met on Kiwiblog some years ago, and disliked intensely. Then people started being intolerant. Mark's just got a longer fuse for people like Chuck, perhaps because he hasn't met him elsewhere, and doesn't know what to expect. If this were Kiwiblog I'd know exactly what to expect, which would be Chuck and a dozen other people carrying on an argument for the express purpose of offending anyone who disagrees with them, getting steadily nastier and nastier, descending from mere abuse to veiled threats, until only trolls or trollbait are left. But this isn't Kiwiblog, and Chuck doesn't have support, so perhaps he wouldn't do that here. As Mark says, let him hang himself, you don't need to troll the troll, that will only encourage him.
-
Yamis - that is a really intriguing point you make about religion & violence...
That, for me (& I've studied, and indeed, practised "religions" for over 30 years before realising I was being a nitwit & abusing my brain) is the (sorry) crux of the matter.
Religion is a huge driver of violence within ANZ.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.