Posts by Lilith __
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Deborah,
I didn’t get a single penny, nor did my voice get amplified and heard nationally. No doubt that’s for all sorts of reasons, but one of them would have to be the systemic difficulty that confronts women when they try to get airtime. Many, many more men get to have their opinions aired widely than women do.
This makes me very sad. If people as eloquent as you don’t get heard, that’s a big loss for our society and for public discourse.
-
I have to go now, I have an appointment on Planet Earth.
I hope no one there will call me a arsehole.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Tom Semmens,
You now, so far I’ve had about five replies, all of which have sought to belittle me personally, patronise me, or bully me into silence by trying to pretend I somehow think child rape is a trivial matter .
[emphasis mine]
To quote you:
The whole Roastbusters story may turn out to be to be of much less substance than it has being portrayed or is currently supposed – I note that no one has been able to find JT & Willies now famous Amy, and nor have the police yet laid any charges despite the fact that the bosses upstairs will now be making sure no stone remains unturned. None of this lack of actual concrete evidence however has prevented our liberal elites engaging in an hysterical moral panic and a determined witch hunt
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Thanks for so fulsomely proving my point.
You're the victim here, obvs. Along with Jackson and Tamihere, who have no influence or power of their own.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I think I have. I see very little difference between what Russell thinks an advertiser boycott would include, and what I understand happened here.
I suspect we get pretty close to agreeing what the threat of an advertiser boycott involves. I just think the test is either met, or is so close to being met that the distinction does not matter in the present case. Russell disagrees.
But a boycott is about what consumers do! Not about what companies do.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Tim Hannah,
Yeah, teenage girls, always with the lying about rape. Now that that’s dealt with, shall we talk about important man stuff?
I personally think child rape is much the same as opening a hardware store.
</sarcasm> -
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to BenWilson,
Don’t play that game with a lawyer, unless you think it’s a good idea to get in a farting match with a skunk.
But I expect lawyers to use language precisely, and that clearly is not happening here.
We can't have a reasonable debate if we get to make up our own meanings for the words we use.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Tim Hannah,
Damn it, was going to mention that using a discussion about rape and misogyny to springboard to a ‘wider’ discussion about silencing people has resulted in a discussion that’s 5% women – which is maybe something to think about. But then there was a fire alarm and when I got back it had gone up to 8% women. Progress.
+1
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
No, it’s not completely banned, but that isn’t the point. If there is speech you think is important, you want as many people as possible to see it or hear it. If if people take actions that mean that fewer people will hear an important message, that is detrimental.
If we're talking about free speech, this is ABSOLUTELY the point. Getting a commercial platform from which to speak is not a right.
-
Anyone with a role in the media needs to read this excellent PDF on the reporting of sexual violence. If all journos worked with this knowledge and understanding, rape culture would take a hit. And we'd all be safer.
Thanks to Lew Stoddart for alerting me to it.