Posts by Lucy Telfar Barnard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I read that piece, and I just can’t follow her logic at all. As Stephen also refers to above, I simply can’t believe, and find it pretty darn offensive to suggest, that it’s not possible to find some awesome representative of working class, Maori men, who isn’t a raving misogynist.
And yes, I do think being a raving misogynist should disqualify people from representing the Labour Party in Parliament.
Mind you, I also think raving misogynists don’t deserve to be represented in Parliament at all. Call that anti-democratic if you like.
I’ve never really been a fan of that “if someone has views you don’t like, don’t ban them, argue them down” approach. One of the ways society deals with unacceptable behaviour is through ostracism. Also, I’m reminded of one of Emma’s posts from long ago with some gaming analogy. I can’t remember or find the post now, but the relevant point was something to do with the mental and emotional toil and toll of having to argue down such people over and over again. When you’ve had to do that too many times, and got to the point when you’re thinking you really shouldn’t have to be having to make these same points again, after all this time, ostracism starts looking like very much the best option.
Plus there’s the additional point that if the Labour Party did take him on again, his presence would be so deeply anathema to so many members that the party as a whole would exclude from representation more members than he personally might include.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to James Knuckey,
I urge everyone to go find the page and do the same. Report it to Facebook.
http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-narcissists-and-bullies/?i=525#
Well, that was an interesting exercise. I got the same swift decision to leave the page active. But the process was pretty poor.First, how do I categorise what’s wrong with the page? It’s not harassing me personally, nor anyone I personally know. It’s not spam or a scam. It’s not duplicated or miscategorised. I don’t want to report a post rather than an entire page. That leaves “I just don’t like it” or “I don’t think it should be on facebook”. But I have to pick one of these, not both. I’m going with “I don’t think it should be on facebook”, on the grounds that there are probably a bunch of things I just don’t like but that’s not enough to justify removing their facebook pages.
The next choice is why. My options are “Spam or scam”; “Hate speech” (and if you click that you have to choose what type – I tried that the first unsuccessful time, as hate speech on grounds of gender). The other options are “sexually explicit content”, which doesn’t apply because there isn’t any yet; or “Violence or harmful behaviour”.
Violence or harmful behaviour sounds reasonable, but the options you get for that are “credible threat of violence”; “self-harm”; “suicidal content”; “graphic violence”; “theft or vandalism”, or “drug use”. Where on this list is “promoting or glorifying rape”? Again, there’s nothing actually on the page yet. So which of these am I meant to choose?
This time I’ve decided to try “credible threat of violence”. I doubt it’ll be any more successful than the last complaint, but one has to try.
ETA: And sure enough, the second attempt was just as unsuccessful as the first.
-
Helen, I feel for you.
Not exactly on point, but: I've taken one positive lesson from this whole series of events, and the stories of Helen and others.
For a long time I'd been suspicious of the motives of the commune in deciding not to report the paedophile to the police. I couldn't help but suspect that they were at least as scared of the attention to their chosen lifestyle, the possible scandal and suspicion it would throw on hippiedom, as they were worried about what their or their friends' daughters would experience in the justice system.
Now, I can see just how justified those worries were, and that even if any more selfish fears were part of their decision, the decision was likely (for the commune girls, though I guess not for his subsequent targets) a good one: in fact, public perceptions of hippiedom would only have contributed to the likelihood that we would be mistreated and come out with secondary scars.
There's some peace in that realisation, and certainly a whole lot more sympathy for those now older adults. Basically, they didn't have any good options, and they did the best they could in the circumstances.
-
Well yes, can't say but I agree with you there Miche, though I don't think it entirely undermines the original point.
Also, ditto to what nzlemming said to Matthew Hooton. And I read that "he said he was going to make a scene" line as probably untrue or a misquote, and a pathetic attempt to trivialise what you'd said, after the fact.
-
That was a reply to Steven Crawford's "Writing fuck, is not actually an all that intelligent way to express angor.", right? Rather than "Fuck silly old men", for example.
-
Nice work on the advertisers by Giovanni Tiso link here - thought someone had already posted it here, but can't see it now.
I’ve sent an email to Countdown letting them know I won’t be shopping there any more until they can do better than a “non-committal” response. Would be nice to know who the other advertisers were without having to actually listen to the recording (which I’d rather not).
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Yes, I understand that's the way the police work now. But is there a reason why they have to work that way? Particularly since the current system clearly isn't helping produce a culture that adequately protects half the population in the event of a particularly traumatic crime?
-
Well yes, derail I grant you. But certainly relevant to the whole question of “what things might help change police culture from being a bunch of lying shitwads, to keeping the peace faithfully and diligently … without favour or affection, malice or ill-will?” On that front, have to say I much prefer the UK oath to ours. Where does ours mention fairness, integrity, diligence, human rights or respect?
-
{ETA: This is pretty much what Ben said more succinctly above while I was typing…]
Have the Police considered having different entry avenues for different parts of the police force?
I remember nurses once arguing for pay equity with police. I’d extend that analogy to the health sector in general. When you go to a hospital, there are nurses, orderlies, radiographers and radiologists, phlebotomists, doctors (and all the specialties of doctors), psychiatrists, physiotherapists, midwives… a whole range of different professions and specialities within the broader category of medical professions. They have different roles in treatment, and different training to match. Some of their skill sets cross over – most of them can probably take a blood sample, for example. But lots of them don’t overlap. Yet we don’t expect all medical professionals to start out as orderlies or nurses.
Couldn’t the same be said about the police? Yes, you might have to have physical presence/strength/confidence if you’re going out on Saturday night patrol on the main st (orderlies); or responding to a callout (paramedics). But why do you need that same physical fitness if you’re visiting a burgled home the day after the event? Or taking witness statements?
Maybe there is a good reason for having a single entry point, but I’d need to have someone explain it to me.
ETA2: I can’t see why you’d need to have a sworn/non-sworn distinction. You could have specialties and still have them all sworn.
-
Also, behind the suggestion of a quota for women in the police is perhaps some suggestion or assumption that those women will somehow provide a civilizing influence (sorry if that's not what you meant, Pops). But would they? Or will they feel the need to be more blokish than the blokes in order to ensure they have a career? Will they, like male officers, come from part of society that thinks that the standard of consent for women or girls who wear short skirts and/or drink alcohol is lower than for sober women in loose denim coveralls? These views are by no means restricted to men.