Anne R. has said much more of interest than anyone else on this page, maybe this whole damn thread. Quick cis dudes, let's not acknowledge her.
(Honest, I'm going to enjoy the last of the sun, promise)
Maybe if you dropped the link to your blog in twitter a bit more you'd have more readers.
It's not fucking about you.
Now I'm done. Lovely evening.
(Apologies if this has already been said in comments, I skimmed 177 of them.)
No, I don’t think it has. And it was good, thanks.
I take your point about how easy it is for many of us cis guys to congratulate ourselves and each other on our right-on-ness.
On the other hand, it’s sometimes really hard to see these comments made by other guys and say, ah, I’ll leave it for a woman to answer that, that can be their job. Maybe especially on a post concentrating on Tamihere and Jackson’s ‘freedom of speech’, why should you have to bother? But maybe excuses.
But yeah, I’m done. Lovely evening.
– Is willie and JT being on full pay really the most important issue.
Your first engagement in this debate here (I think, could be wrong) was complaining that somebody called somebody else a rape enabler on twitter, and how terribly uncivilised that was, and you want to rag on me for making a mountain out of a molehill?
But, no. Obviously not. Jackson and Tamihere are a sideshow. The entire 'freedom of speech' argument that all of us guys are so keen on having is very very far from being the most important issue.
why aren;t people talking about the rape rather than how important it was to get rid of two people who were crap at handling a discussion about it – because its much simpler
That’s a really good question John.
(I think it’s mostly because people keep starting conversations about how terrible it was that they were stood down, for six weeks, probably on full pay, because that’s terribly important and a violation of their rights. Why do you think it is?)
[Edited to add quote and note that I realise John gave his theory for why. I think he’s wrong though.]
Agree with what? That there are rape apologists, enablers active in these conversations? Well, obviously there are. Rapists even. Are you claiming there aren't?
Or were you called a rape enabler and are you now taking the opportunity to make sure your feels aren't ignored?
Same sort of people as post on here, same sort of comments. Patronising, smug and condescending
I dunno dude, I think this whole thread is a giant derail, so not too worried about this tangent…
You start your contribution by insinuating that multiple teenagers might have lied about being raped by multiple teenagers who might have lied about being rapists (which is what you did, even if it wasn’t your intent), go on to call everybody who had already commented and everybody like them “patronising, smug and condescending”.
Maybe you shouldn’t be surprised that people disagree with you, even strongly.
And it doesn’t prove your point, it proves that people don’t like massive obnoxious derailments.
People are strange.
Yeah, teenage girls, always with the lying about rape. Now that that's dealt with, shall we talk about important man stuff?
I would also note that discussion of Roast Busters is being used by me as a springboard to a wider discussion about a variety of speech aimed at silencing (or reducing the reach) of others.
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.
Because if online voting (that is voting online from your home) can verify who the voter voted for to the voter it can also verify that to the person standing behind the voter telling them who to vote for.
Which is much less of an issue (though not completely a non-issue) in a voting booth with officials and scrutineers and other voters around.