Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Because they denied the existence of Amy’s rape
Well, I'm reasonably sure that didn't happen.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Deborah,
It would come from a combination of my first comment on this post:
...
and your response to it:Ah. I had intended my response to "aren't you saying 'wait your turn'"? To be read as "no, don't wait to speak until others have stopped; speak now, while others are speaking!"
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Deborah,
It would be great if you could engage with the actual harm done by rape culture enablers like JT and Willie Jackson instead of insisting that it’s all about free speech.
Free speech is what I do. I have always* opposed placing pressure on advertisers over the content of current affairs shows. I have always opposed pressuring book stores not to stock certain books.
I have written about these things before. And this was an opportunity to try to use a current event to discuss something I feel strongly about, and to draw it together with other topics I feel strongly about in the broader area of speech designed to get others to stop talking.
I could write about the harm that discussing the clothing choices of rape victims causes, or advising women not to go to parties where people who boast about rape will be in attendance, but I have no particular knowledge in that area, or any idea how to explain it in a remotely intelligent way in my voice; at best, I would just be parroting what I have heard from others. Also - and quite recently - I've been told that there are already enough white men talking about rape.
* there was probably a time where I didn't oppose it much, but I don't recall there being a time when I supported it.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Danielle,
why do you think it’s appropriate that those whose voices aren’t privileged need to “take their turn”?
Do you mean "wait their turn"? I never suggested they should. At least, I never intended to suggest that if I have. I absolutely endorse people who feel strongly about rape culture speaking out as much as possible.
Why do I think you should allow others to have their turn? Well, wouldn't it suck if the majority decided that your speech was dangerous, and shouldn't be allowed? Because there are people (thankfully not a majority) who think exactly that.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to A C Young,
What you appear to be asking is that people who don’t have a huge public platform stay quiet unless they can respond via the forms of communication that currently grant them far less power.
Well, I'm not. I'm expressing my concern about all forms of speech designed to silence others.
Referring in a derogatory way about the appearance of a female politician may be one of the few ways someone with very little power can make a point about that politician, but I'm asking them to consider not doing it anyway.
I would like to think such a person, even with very little power, could find another way to respond.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Danielle,
OK Graeme, here’s a question. Do you believe that structural inequality – of the type that privileges some voices over others – exists?
Sorry, missed it.
[Assuming I know what the term means] Yes, I do.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Danielle,
I believe the term is “rape apologists”.
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.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
I think that someone – in this case Giovanni Tiso – is allowed to respond emotionally to a situation like this and say, fuck it, I am going to try to put some pressure on the advertisers.
I agree.
And I think the marketing managers are allowed to say, wow, this is too hot, let’s pull our ads.
I agree.
And JT is allowed to attack me for going to King’s College (actually I went to Auckland Grammar so some will know how offensive that was)
I agree.
and I am allowed to raise the Clint Rickards angle,
I agree.
and Willie is allowed to say get out of the studio,
I agree.
and Matt is allowed to take a more intellectual approach.
I agree.
I don’t think people are under any obligation to be as analytical as Graeme has been in his post on this matter, or any other really.
I agree.
No obligation on anyone. I'm just asking.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
So … why should Giovanni et al do any differently?
Well, I'd like everyone to do it differently. Should I not ask at all?
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Lilith __,
[emphasis mine]
To quote you:
I do not see those quotes as being contradictory.