Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I sometimes think, whenever "public interest" is discussed, that there's misunderstanding about what the term means.
Mikaere made this point upthread, but in C.
Never? What about, for example, Ted Haggard?
Now there's a poser. I guess you got me. Perhaps outing publicly homophobic homosexuals is a tiny bit in the public interest. Blatant hypocrisy does rather undermine the talking points, is kind of relevant. Technically it's a Tu Quoque, but I've said before that logical fallacies don't necessarily crush real world arguments.
-
Well said, Craig. Philip, no, outing homosexuals is never in the public interest, unless they do it themselves. This particular member of the public remains determinedly uninterested.
-
No, I meant I find the question of the lesbianism interesting. The media's interest in trivial shite is not, it's long established, and easily explained - gossip sells copy. I guess it just flashed through my mind "how would I feel if details of my sex life were made public that I didn't particularly want to be?". The answer was "not very good". I don't want to be part of doing something not very good to someone innocent of anything.
For sure, my contribution to that harm is tiny. But it's also no effort to avoid. It's about as hard as not staring at a woman's breasts.
-
Who makes these guest posts on Kiwiblog? Not even under a pseudonym.
-
Where I come from, that deserves nothing but a yawn and a reach for the remote.
Never let a lesbian get hold of your remote, especially when you're yawning?
-
or can I not bother and we can all pretend I did?
I'm feeling pretty relaxed about your strategic headquarters management style too, although I'm ambitious that the cake will run out and my imagination won't need so much taxation.
-
Difference is interesting for all humans, but yes it provokes some damned interesting social dances as you work out where to look. The models would probably be annoyed you didn't stare.
Could be. But they can always just do something to attract attention, then (other than just being pretty).
I don't think my attitude is "right". It's a question of style. People are perfectly within their rights to stare at hotties and read all about the private lives of minor celebrities.
Yes, but with Mau, it was because I couldn't give a fat rat's arse about her or whoever shares her bed.
I do find it interesting. But not interesting enough to violate my own ethic on the matter, which is that giving attention to such news encourages it.
I used to get the Herald "free" too, when I delivered them. This was considered a perk, although as a 12-15 y.o, I'd just as soon have had the cover price back. I was meant to sacrifice my one if I accidentally damaged a customer's one, which sometimes happened. On such days I would get bitter recriminations from my parents - I think the manager liked it that way, saved him the hassle of chewing me out for such an outrage.
-
Nothing will change unless the public stops consuming it.
And the other media. And it's really hard not to be hypocritical. Personally I haven't read anything about Mau or this murdering kid's private lives because I don't think it's news, and I do actually respect their privacy. It's not really my business. But that just makes me ignorant. Did anyone else do the same?
But I have an attitude to celebrity which is that it's good manners to treat them like everyone else, unless they make it known that they want to be treated differently. So if I chance to be sitting next to one in a cafe, I'm not going to intrude in any way at all, not even with so much as a look (any more than I'd look at the other people in the cafe anyway). This has happened dozens of times. The hardest part about it is that you don't expect to see celebrities, so you tend to double take, because you recognize them, and they could be some old acquaintance.
This is especially hard with very minor celebrities because it takes longer to work out who they are. I had an embarrassing moment recently when two very attractive girls sat at a table next to me. I knew that I knew them, but really couldn't work out where from, and would hate to be snobbing someone when it turned out I'd coached them, or fixed their computer or something. Then the penny dropped, they were the first and second placers in NZ's Top Model. Back to breakfast.
I have much the same attitude to beauty, too. Beautiful people aren't asking to be stared at. Really hard not to sneak a peek, though. Weird looking is the same as well. By the very same token, ugly people aren't actually harmful to the eyes, it's respectful to look at them when it's appropriate to do so. Making these things instinctual is the work of a lifetime.
-
meh...if we're going to discuss stuff in the open, then let's be right out in the open. I'm about done hiding behind pseudonyms and giving a shit who i offend anymore, but dont quote me on that :)
Heh, I'll believe it when I read it.
Well, now I want to know the pseudonyms that preceeded your other 66 posts :) Just curious. :)
Shall we take bets on it? I reckon I know two of the previous ones. Style leaves fingerprints...
-
but to suggest anyone could do this is sometimes more subjective than objective
Indeed, if I was to man up and grow a pair I'd be twice the man I already am. Easier said than done.
I guess, technically, women are the ones who are typically growing a pair, any time they have a boy child. And the world ends up one man up too!
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 789 790 791 792 793 … 1066 Older→ First