Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: How much speech does it take?

554 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 11 12 13 14 15 23 Newer→ Last

  • Jeremy Eade,

    Little P, a guy goes in and murders kids at a labour party organised camp and he does it for his beliefs.

    And those beliefs are crazy and you have to ask how did he get there, to murder innocent kids , apparently to help western civilisation.

    How did he get there?

    auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 1112 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby, in reply to Kracklite,

    Permian Mass Extinction

    ooohhh.. is that the hydrate mass extinction? my very limited science little voice says "crap yourself with fear" when i hear about those.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • son of little p,

    dear Rob, i do thankyou for the engagement. Yes, it is true - i am trying. PA remains the only blog at which i have ever met with such naked hostility and by this am i muchly challenged and yes, aroused. (i see no point in engaging the Kracklite who appears to be one thoroughly mean-spirited, nasty, and literally sarcastic (ie flesh-eating) man! (he recalls those very monsters-of-pedagogy i encountered in private school from whom mine entire spirit fled 'instinctively' from the first) But i am muchly puzzled; for you appear to have bypassed the content of my post altogether, haven't you? That the killer is, most paradoxically, as much a product of what we call 'multiculturalism' as anything else? Why pray tell, is fearlessly looking at this wild aspect of things, ipso facto, aligning oneself with or condoning in any way his sentiments?

    Since Apr 2011 • 38 posts Report Reply

  • Yamis,

    That the killer is, most paradoxically, as much a product of what we call 'multiculturalism' as anything else?

    Why do you state that like it is a fact?

    What is 'multiculturalism'?

    What is 'culture'?

    Why does he hate things that begin with the letter 'M'?

    Where are my pants?

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report Reply

  • son of little p,

    i think there is a very workable and satisfying definition of 'multiculturalism' given in the body of my B O'N quoted-text. I state ihe thing "like it is a fact", because everything the killer proclaims fair reeks of a multiculturally-disoriented person seeking the sacrality of victimhood , now does it not?

    Since Apr 2011 • 38 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock, in reply to Che Tibby,

    ZOMG YOU LIKE REBECCA BLACK? - twenty hours of 'musical reeducation'.

    You consider twenty hours to be sufficient punishment? You must be one of those panty-waisted 'liberals' I keep hearing about.

    WTF YOU DON'T LIKE TWILIGHT?!?!!!1!! - to the iron maiden

    Ah, you like twilight. That explains it: the wimminz got you and brainwashed you with their knitting and....that...other....female type stuff that drains our essential masculinity.

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby, in reply to Rich Lock,

    female type stuff that drains our essential masculinity.

    yeah i'm not sure if anyone has actually explained the birds and bees to you yet rich.

    hot tip: let them. sayin'

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite, in reply to son of little p,

    Boo!

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 982 posts Report Reply

  • Martin Lindberg, in reply to son of little p,

    everything the killer proclaims fair reeks of a multiculturally-disoriented person seeking the sacrality of victimhood

    only in the same sense that John Hinckley Jr reeked of being a Jodie Foster-disoriented person

    Stockholm • Since Jul 2009 • 802 posts Report Reply

  • Jeremy Eade,

    What is 'multiculturalism'?

    It's something to do with yoghurt making.

    auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 1112 posts Report Reply

  • son of little p, in reply to Kracklite,

    some humour! truly i relish that. It may or may not interest you to know sir that i am never, at any known point of my career, ever less than utterly vexed and mystified by my own relationship with, and ceaseless trials in the very midst of, what is said to be my own 'native' tongue. But be off with me. I do NOT mean to draw unnecessary attention to myself. But your attack was a blistering one and.. erm, 'nuff said

    Since Apr 2011 • 38 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    <dipsinbriefly> Kracklite, you post on page 12, the 7 part definition of trolling, thank you.

    I sincerely promise to consistently acknowledge you as author of this if you'll agree to let me borrow it from time to time? I don't know what you do in the real world, but I thoroughly enjoy your contributions here. </dipsoutagain>

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • DCBCauchi, in reply to Che Tibby,

    for knee-jerk anarchism

    I'm not sure if that's a reference to me or just my paranoia.

    In case it's the former, I'll dispute the 'knee-jerk'. I'm a painter. That's all that I care about (except for certain personal relationships of course). From my point of view, 'artistic freedom' is not a meaningless or empty term (insofar as any term is not meaningless and empty). It has a direct relationship with my freedom of speech. As Renato Poggioli said in his 'Theory of the avant-garde', 'Every good artist is an anarchist.'

    The argument being presented here, as far as I can make out, is that that freedom should be encroached on by extending the definition of harm.

    Actually, maybe I do have a knee-jerk reaction to that after all.

    Since Feb 2011 • 320 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite, in reply to Paul Williams,

    Hi Paul,

    It's more of a dissection of a specific example than a universal definition, but feel free to copy and disseminate in whole or part as you please.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 982 posts Report Reply

  • son of little p, in reply to Martin Lindberg,

    i'm thinking more this old '70s movie i saw on HBO at home called 'Little Murders'. You ever see that one?

    Since Apr 2011 • 38 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby, in reply to DCBCauchi,

    nah, i'm not talking about you david.

    but some people are...

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Lew identifies a core of the conversation.

    We are presently being treated to the rather undignified and unedifying spectacle of the political right — particularly the authoritarians and liberthoritarians — crying foul because people are drawing cautious, well-documented linkages between their own rantings and those of the Norwegian killer Anders Behring Breivik.

    ...

    The argument is essentially that “civilisation” is under threat from “the perverse anti-Westernism of the cultural elite”. There are many, many more such cases in overseas forums and I trust readers will have no difficulty finding them.

    But Pascal’s Bookie, in comments at the Dim-Post, has found the nub:

    They either need to disown the claim of existential threat, or explain why an existential threat does not justify violence.

    This is exactly it. The right-wing commonplace that “Western civilisation is under threat” is at the heart of all the rhetoric being compared to Breivik’s nominal casus belli, and in many cases the similarities are more than merely cosmetic.

    ...

    The problem for the wingnuts presently whining about these comparisons is that their bluff has been called. They’ve been squawking about the existential threat posed by “others”, much as Breivik has, but he has gone one better and actually done something about it. And so they must pick a side: either “Muslims” (or “Māori”, “socialists”, “teacher unions” or the “cultural elite” or whoever “Western civilisation” is at war with this week) actually are the existential threat the wingnuts claim they are, or they are not.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19699 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to DCBCauchi,

    The argument being presented here, as far as I can make out, is that that freedom should be encroached on by extending the definition of harm.

    Freedom is "encroached on" already. Deal with it.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19699 posts Report Reply

  • DCBCauchi, in reply to Sacha,

    Freedom is “encroached on” already. Deal with it.

    Wow, way to engage with the topic.

    Since Feb 2011 • 320 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby, in reply to Sacha,

    indeed. try putting up a picture that says - for arguments' sakes

    "F*CK JEWS WITH A BAT".

    no amount of arguing "free speech" is going to make that fly.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • DCBCauchi, in reply to Che Tibby,

    nah, i’m not talking about you david.

    but some people are…

    There is always a Francis Picabia quote for every occasion:

    'To those talking behind my back, my arse is looking at you.'

    Since Feb 2011 • 320 posts Report Reply

  • DCBCauchi, in reply to Che Tibby,

    indeed. try putting up a picture that says – for arguments’ sakes

    “F*CK JEWS WITH A BAT”.

    no amount of arguing “free speech” is going to make that fly.

    Or, to use a real world example, Peter Robinson's 'Pakeha have rights too'.

    Since Feb 2011 • 320 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to DCBCauchi,

    The argument being presented here, as far as I can make out, is that that freedom should be encroached on by extending the definition of harm.

    Actually, maybe I do have a knee-jerk reaction to that after all.

    I think you mean "extending my personal definition of harm". The idea that vulnerable groups can suffer harm isn't exactly novel.

    Not all speech has the same reach, and not all responses are heard remotely as well as the original claim.

    Can you really not grasp that speeches that, say, defames an ethnic minority might have significant, even disastrous implications for that minority?

    Example: Blood libel provided a popular rationale for the murder of Jews for century after century.

    As someone noted above, we tolerate some official restriction on the content of broadcast speech, because the broadcast spectrum is a finite resource. Not everyone gets to use that big megaphone. In the case of the internet, scarcity isn't an issue -- although that still doesn't mean every voice enjoys the same reach. People with money will always be heard more clearly than people without.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22763 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to DCBCauchi,

    There is always a Francis Picabia quote for every occasion:

    ‘To those talking behind my back, my arse is looking at you.’

    Which is kinda trite. No one, to my knowledge, has ever set out at night to injure or kill any anarchist painter they can find. Other groups -- homosexuals and non-white people -- don't enjoy the same sense of security.

    The Living Word case has been talked about a great deal in this context.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22763 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Russell Brown,

    No one, to my knowledge, has ever set out at night to injure or kill any anarchist painter they can find

    Poets on the other hand, first against the wall. :)

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19699 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 11 12 13 14 15 23 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.