Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Public Address Word of…, in reply to JessicaRose,
Clictivism?
I have to admit, I initially misread that.
-
Speaker: Need, in reply to TracyMac,
Yup, which city, please, so I can direct my shout-out.
Yeah, it's Auckland.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Megan Wegan,
maybe have a think about why that is.
But that's just research. Two sides to every argument, and how dare we privilege the fact-based one over the one that's Total Fucking Bullshit?
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Let’s swap inboxes!
I'll warn you, people are going to say some pretty confusing things about your tits.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I suppose I could have started my attempt to persuade people not to engage in speech designed to decrease the speech of others with an article about Into the River, or about about misogyny in politics, but that’s low-hanging fruit around here.
None taken. It's particularly easy when people email me personal abuse for doing it.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Danielle,
Because I think we’ve pretty clearly established that some people are taking much longer, louder turns than others when it comes to talking about rape.
And they're the people with the least skin in the game. So the discussion in its "natural" (ie socially-constructed) form supports the side of the argument with the least validity and the least experience. "Teaching women how to protect themselves from rape" (aw, bless 'em) is basically climate-change denial, except it's the dominant discourse.
Every time we get close to changing the balance of the conversation, to getting our point, and the evidence, a tiny bit across, suddenly we're bullying, and shrieking of course, and apparently trying to shut down every comedian in Britain...
-
This question puzzled me for a while. I went to Icehouse in the Chch Town Hall in 1991, but in memory it doesn't feel like my first concert experience. Was it just sneaking under-age into Dance Exponents pub gigs?
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Thomas Beagle,
What I did see was more of a “Do you really want your company to be associated with these people’s ideas?” and the advertisers responding, either out of cowardice or principle, “Actually, no, we don’t want to be associated with this.”
This. Of course advertisers think about associations when they choose where to advertise. We do make connections between two things we hear or see right next to each other, and advertisers have every right to decide what associations they want their potential customers to have. This was like the people who take screens shots of ads next to hate-speech on Facebook, send them to the advertisers and say, "Okay with this? Because if you are I have a right to know that too."
The assertion that victim-blaming (look! no scare-quotes!) is generational is so astonishingly wrong I don't think it needs countering.
Free speech is not a level playing field. People ringing a radio station, who are as a matter of course either not let through or cut off when the hosts have had enough, do not have the same power as those hosts. Well, except right now, when Willie and JT have exactly as much free speech as I do.
-
Up Front: To the Letter, in reply to nzlemming,
I mean, it’s nice having the physical artifact, but it’s the information I want.
Both is nice, physical and electronic. One of the seemingly-oddest things I ever did was copy out a long, fraught conversation that had happened over DM onto a piece of paper, with a pen, at three in the morning, so I'd have it forever.
-
Up Front: To the Letter, in reply to James Butler,
How Shakespearean
Oh, and this. Because yeah, every time I think about the "second-best bed" thing, but it seems a bit wanky to be all, "See? Just like Shakespeare!"