Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Poor Choices, in reply to Russell Brown,
Yes, this. Which is why I've been quite surprised to see it rationalised away here.
We must still discriminate among our behaviours, though, surely. You had pretty strong words for Willie and JT after their Amy interview last year. A lot of other people did afterwards. At what point did it become a pile-on? What made it okay, if it was okay? Or the DHC column. Was it okay to be among those who pointed out early on that it was, at the very least, in very poor form? Does the fact that people piled on in the evening, turning the dribble of criticism into a progressively more abusive avalanche, mean that the original tweeters were bullies? Should the content and form of our criticism matter regardless of who else is piling on?
I think it's not a matter of explaining things away so much as teasing out behaviours that aren't alike. Critique is critique. Abuse is abuse. One can turn into the other by sheer force of numbers, but I think it would be dangerous to limit the former for fear of the latter.
-
Quick poll: is it bullying of me to periodically remind people - including his handle in my tweets - that John Pagani writes on behalf of the oil and gas industry on Twitter for money but makes no disclosure of it?
-
Hard News: Poor Choices, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
That's still what their website says, and no one seems to really care about it anyone.
How or why would you suggest that people care about it, until such time as the company makes its revised intentions public?
-
Hard News: Poor Choices, in reply to Emma Hart,
And I know she makes those points in that column, but she goes on calling it "intersectionality".
The attacks on intersectionality for what it never was - including from my political corner - are increasing at an alarming rate.
-
Hard News: Poor Choices, in reply to Russell Brown,
Some of the responses to Goldberg's essay really did prove her point too. She was immediately vilified and demonised.
Really don't want to reopen the whole discussion on Golberg's piece, which I found very poor, but the reaction proves no such thing, insofar as a lot of people felt vilified and demonised by her framing of the issue, and were entitled to say so. We should be careful not to excise the right of criticism when expressing our distaste for pile-ons, nor to lump all reactions to the lowest trolling denominator.
-
Hard News: Poor Choices, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
Remember a couple of weeks ago when everyone was angry that Air NZ were asking for people to write for their blog without payment? There were heaps of tweets and blog posts and commentary and Air NZ said they'd offer something to their writers, then a couple of days later everyone forgot about it. Oh.
Hang on a minute: that was a highly justified response to what was an outrageous attempt at exploitation by a major corporation. It was successful, too, as Air NZ backtracked. So people moved on. What's wrong with this picture exactly?
-
Another thing about Twitter is how it instantly turns you into a celebrity so you can then become fair game for the kind of criticism that is traditionally reserved to people in a position of power. By the time I caught up with the Justine Sacco thing, mid-pile on, I figured she must be some sort of high-powered individual, the way everyone seemed to know who she was. And obviously, her tweet was awful. But then people were going through her timeline, looking for past indiscretions, and when I cottoned on she was just a PR person I really couldn't quite figure out what the point of the whole thing was. It seems to me that the punishment for a racist tweet - the whole world suddenly hates you - didn't fit the crime.
Along similar lines, I've unfollowed people for taking pleasure in making fun of Liz Shaw, once I figured out she was just this woman who wanted to be a star.
-
I had the cricinfo ball-by-ball commentary on pretty much the whole game and it wasn't delayed.
-
Hard News: Unscripted Drama, in reply to Russell Brown,
Most people can't spare a whole weekday to attend the match
Especially if you have kids. Taking my 11 year old to see half the game's play on the Sunday against England last year set me back $30.
-
"At a guess, the Board of Control for Cricket in India misread the market and insisted on the higher price"
Don't know about that. Basin prices were lifted to $45 against England last year, along with the scrapping of free entry in the last hour of play, or any discount for afternoon attendance, and I thought it was because it was England, but sure enough it's the standard price now - it was applied for the match against the West Indies.