Posts by Chris Waugh
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: TPP: Nearing Endgame, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
...to own their product until the end of the planet.
or at least until we have another world war.
;- (May well amount to the same thing.
-
Capture: Travels Without a Map, in reply to Ross McA.,
Don’t leave home till you’ve seen the country…
...and been threatened with a rather messy execution. Although I think I may have posted that before... Oh well.
-
Capture: Spring Breaks, in reply to Nora Leggs,
Precisely. My daughter's favourite English-language book is Hop on Pop, and it was the "Three Tree Three fish in a tree. Fish in a tree? How can that be?" that put me on to "carp in tree".
-
Borrowing from my daughter's favourite English-language book, if carpen doesn't work, why not carp in tree?
-
Capture: Spring Breaks, in reply to Nora Leggs,
best place to keep cool on a hot day
Oooh, yes! It's really damn hard to beat the shade of mature trees! My favourite place to read, when it's warm enough.
-
There was a call for more photos...
-
Capture: Two Tone, in reply to JacksonP,
Decided we need more photos, and less banter round here.
Thank you, Jackson. But tell me - were you travelling through a Dr Seuss book?
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to A O,
that allowing for all points of view is far more in the spirit of free speech than attempting to silence opposing views.
Ok, a little grammar. English, like every language I've ever studied and I presume every language in the world, has the active voice and the passive voice. In the active voice, the grammatical subject of a sentence is the same as the real world agent or actor who performed the action* being described. For example:
"Radio Live decided to forbid its presenters from discussing rape on the air."
In the passive voice, on the other hand, the grammatical subject is the real world recipient or, dare I say it, victim of the action being described. For example:
"Victims of sexual violence are silenced."
Oh, and did you notice that in the passive voice, the agent or actor does not even need to be mentioned in order to write a complete sentence? Try again:
"Victims of sexual violence are silenced by a culture that allows people to blame the victims for the crimes committed against them."
And you do see the difference, don't you? In the active voice, the emphasis is on the actor and what the actor did - Radio Live made a decision to not allow discussion of rape. In the passive voice the emphasis is on the victims and what was done to them - the prevailing culture makes it extremely difficult for the victims of sexual violence to talk about what was done to them to the point where they feel they are not allowed to speak.
In other words, no. It is not Radio Live or Willie Jackson or John Tamihere who have been silenced. Nobody is censoring them in any way. Radio Live could allow its presenters to discuss rape - but hopefully with some of the editorial oversight that seems to have been lacking of late so that people with a variety of opinions on and experiences of the subject feel safe to call in and put forward their views.
Or did you not notice the comments upthread by Jackie, Lilith, Danielle and probably a few others whose names have slipped my mind about the sheer number of people they know who would like to contribute to this discussion, but feel unable to do so because they do not feel safe here?
*It's a common misperception that verbs are action words. They are not. Many, the most obvious being the verb "to be", describe states rather than actions. But that's neither here nor there.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to A O,
the events that led to its silence on Radio Live
But what, precisely, led to its silence on Radio Live? Two men lost their radio show, but they're still free to discuss whatever they like in any other forum or medium. Nobody stopped Radio Live allowing its presenters, guests or callers from discussing rape - advertisers withdrew their ads because they didn't want to be associated with those two men and their behaviour. Radio Live could allow its presenters, guests and callers to continue discussing rape if they wanted to. They could continue to allow rape apology, or they could allow any other view of these issues to be broadcast. If Radio Live has gone silent on rape, then that is Radio Live's choice.
How many times does this have to be said? Neither Willie Jackson nor John Tamihere nor Radio Live has been silenced.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Jackie Clark,
Thank you, Jackie. I've learnt a hell of a lot by listening to the women who hang out here, and I really appreciate it, not least because I'm trying to raise a daughter.
And in light of your comment.... Graeme went and wrote something that pushed me from irritated to pissed off, but last night I couldn't respond coherently. I think I'll go do my shouting somewhere else, like perhaps my own much neglected blog. I have no desire to add to the noise here.
Oh, and Lilith:
I want to mention how many women have told me that they’ve been reading here but didn’t feel they could comment.
Ouch. I'm definitely going to go elsewhere to do my shouting.
