Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
That’s another term. But you might want to direct your correction to people who were referring to others as “rape enablers”, not those whom they accused.
I've used both, and feel that they're perfectly accurate. If Messers Tamihere and Jackson wish to point a defamation lawyer in my direction, I'm not hard to find. But see above for why I'm not terribly inclined to sit still for a morals lecture from that quarter.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Apparently, it is. I’m told Jana Rangooni has never taken the simple step of gathering all the hosts together and talking to them about what’s acceptable and what isn’t. You can’t operate in that kind of editorial vacuum without things going seriously wrong at some point.
And it has to be on-going as well. As others have pointed out, its not as if JT and Willie don’t have previous form when it comes to slut-shaming rape complainants. After all, Jackson gave Clint Rickards an hour on Radio Waatea in December 2007 to repeatedly (and without challenge) call Louise Nicholas a malicious, mentally unstable stalker. If that wasn't a red flag, what the hell is?
-
Quoted from Twitter:
This fucking intellectual exercise shit is real simple when it's not your LIFE. Blah.
Oath.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Tom Semmens,
[Redacted -- because I'm just feeding a distract troll.]
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Lilith __,
This is not what banning a book looks like. It’s still freely available , it’s just not stocked in some stores.
And as I noted in my post on Breaking Silence it would be physically and financially impossible for any bookstore to stock everything, so of course choices are made. Just because I thought the choices some booksellers made in this specific case were... eccentric doesn't mean they're a hair away from building a bonfire of degenerate literature.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Paul Campbell,
I’m in 2 minds, obviously these two oinks needed educating, and I suspect they have – on the other hand they did represent two of the few Maori voices in mainstream Pakeha media who I think spoke to both Maori and Pakeha and by losing that we’re all diminished –
Speaking for myself, I feel more diminished by casually homophobic, misogynistic rape culture enforcers being presented as the voice of Maori. There's plenty of Maori out there who can -- and do -- elevate the discourse rather than drowning it in the nearest sewer. Instead of throwing a pity party for Willie and JT, perhaps its time to move on and lift our game.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Some bookstores have pulled Into the River.
Yes - and the one highlighted in the initial coverage didn't do so because of any kind of boycott threat, but because the owner/manager thought it was decadent and depraved trash.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to BenWilson,
Yup, Danyl made this point beautifully on Chris Trotter’s earlier version of what Graeme has written here.
Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but this is the same Chris Trotter who got spectacularly pissy when he got some flack (OK, a lot of flack) for comparing criticism of Winston Peters to “media gang rape” and “a lynching.” Trotter really had his privilege-blinkers on in his failure to be even open to the possibility that it was astonishingly tone-deaf and downright trollish coming from the bully pulpit of a high-profile straight white dude pundit. Blargh…
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to BenWilson,
It’s got plenty wide enough currency. It doesn’t need to get currency from advertisers who don’t want anything to do with it.
No – and the other side of that equation is (to paraphrase Emma) why the fuck do rape surviviors have to be responsible for filling in that missing stair every fucking time? I can actually see the point Graeme’s making, even agree with a lot of it, but let’s be honest with ourselves that these arguments very often come from a place of epic (and often unexamined) social, economic and political privilege. It is possible to use that position for meaningful change, but not if you're floating face down in the River Denial.
-
There are several aspects to this. I do not think that advertisers should exercise control – even indirectly – over content.
Josie Pagani ran a similar argument over on Pundit (and I'm not inclined to link for reasons of tangentially related privileged arse-hattery), and you know what? I'm not buying it.
Regulars will remember our host used to do a magazine show for Radio Live called Public Address Radio, to which I contributed. Russell can speak for himself, but I had all kinds of "controls over content" -- none of which were advertiser-related.
I was (quite reasonably) expected not to get anyone sued for defamation, charged with contempt of court and if I could tone my *cough* salty language down to a paler shade of blue that would be wizard. Beyond that, Russell and the line producers and I did have some back and forth on matters of tone and taste (but a lot fewer than you might think), but it worked out.
Honestly, my freedom of speech felt surprisingly unmolested.