SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The state of Victoria, Australia has banned broadcasting of Sky News from the underground loop stations in Melbourne's train network.
The ban comes after Sky (owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp) broadcast an interview with far-right activist Blair Cottrell. Cottrell, the leader of the United Patriots Front, has convictions for arson, burglary and racial vilification, has advocated violence against women and has called for portraits of Adolf Hitler to be hung in school classrooms.
Victoria's transport minister, Jacinta Allen, has defended the decision against claims of censorship, stating that "Hatred and racism have no place on our screens or in our community." ... "If people want to watch Sky News in their own homes, they can do that to their heart's content," she said. "Any material that uses our public transport assets to promote itself needs to be appropriate."
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:12PM (6 children)
Yes, I didn't mean to mischaracterize the tweet, and I don't think I made him "sound worse" -- sure, he said he "might as well have" raped her rather than he "should have" raped her... But then he followed up (as you noted) by saying she would have enjoyed him raping her. Either way, it's pretty bad.
I'm all for accuracy, but I don't think that detail makes mucj difference here. My point simply was that everyone who is rational already knows who this guy is and what he stands for, so continuing to have an interview posted online that shows him as more sympathetic is likely counterproductive in terms of informing the public of his views.
Note that this thread (about whether Sky News should take down their interview rather than archive it for public interest) is separate from the question of whether Sky News should be removed from train stations completely for this. (As I noted in a post below, there are some very odd aspects to the government decision.)
(Score: 2) by schad on Friday August 17 2018, @12:22AM (1 child)
The problem is that any inaccuracy will be seized on by his sympathizers and used to paint his opponents as unfair, biased, liars, etc. And you can't ever protest as strongly as they can, because you actually want to tell the truth. So when you get caught in a "lie" you'll admit it. They, however, will never admit to a lie, no matter how blatant. To people who aren't actively following the issue, it will look like you are the liar.
We have plenty of experience with this exact phenomenon in the US with President Trump.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 17 2018, @06:34PM
And I don't care. I wasn't trying to have some sort of debate with "his sympathizers." I don't assume there are a huge amount of sympathizers for this guy even here on this site, so I doubted I was going to get into any sort of nuanced debate with any of them.
I was trying to make a separate point, which basically most people here seem to agree with.
So that leads to the question -- why the hell are so many people worried about the details of meaning in his tweet about rape??
He's a troll. I don't believe he literally meant that he might as well have raped her or whatever. I don't think he was being serious. He was trying to be offensive.
And you've fallen into the trap of debating with a troll -- except you're not even debating a troll. You're debating someone who is annoyed by the troll and bizarrely you are worrying about representing the troll accurately.
This is PR 101. And he won with you. Because here we are, instead of having a discussion on his actual bad political ideological ideas, he has us talking about raping a journalist. That's what trolls want you to do.
It's because people are feeding the troll. They have from the beginning with Trump. He's not always a troll -- by the strict definition -- but a lot of times he either is one (deliberately being hyperbolic to get attention) or something akin to one (maybe it's just his demeanor... there's nothing false about his hyperbole -- he literally doesn't understand the difference between accuracy and hyperbole).
Anyhow, debating the nuances is a losing battle, as you point out. And even if you quote him exactly accurately, it DOES NOT MATTER. Supporters of a troll will defend him regardless. Your error is thinking that accuracy is going to matter at all here, when you're fighting people who don't believe truth exists. Logically, that's never going to work. You can take one of two strategies: (1) try to avoid debating the trollish elements and try to get supporters to engage in a meaningful discussion, avoiding the hyperbolic nonsense talking points that often don't even make sense -- in other words, just ignore the troll, or (2) try to "out-troll" the troll by being hyperbolic in return. Either way, it's a hard battle to win.
But hanging out and having a detailed debate about whether exactly a particular statement was about actual rape or really wanting to rape or maybe just a metaphor or deliberate hyperbole -- the problem is now you're spending time talking about RAPE rather than substantive discussion. Again, it's brilliant PR, and if you're actually serious about what you say, realize that by trying to be nuanced about this, you're actually feeding the trolls.
Trump did the EXACT same thing from day 1, announcing his campaign and calling immigrants rapists. Instead of having a substantive discussion about immigration, it immediately turned into parsing precisely what he meant by "rapists" -- who were they, what was he referring to, what we the real stats, etc., etc. THAT's the problem. You fall into the trap of debating something stupid and ridiculous because you've accepted the terms of the troll for discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @10:07AM
> I'm all for accuracy, but I don't think that detail makes mucj difference here.
Of course it doesn't, because you misrepresented (in a negative way, naturally) someone you don't like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 17 2018, @10:19AM (2 children)
> But then he followed up (as you noted) by saying she would have enjoyed him raping her
And again, you are saying he said something he didn't. He said (according to an news article reporting on it):
> I might as well have raped Laura Jayes on the air, not only would she have been happier with that, but the reaction would've been the same.
He didn't say she would have enjoyed it. He may be saying she'd have been happier with it. Perhaps because she could then have him jailed for it?
I get it. You don't like him. If what I've read in this story are indicative of his views (I don't know anything about him outside of this story yet), I don't either.. but you don't have to make him look worse than he is, if he is actually that bad.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 17 2018, @06:04PM
Jesus Christ. Are you kidding??
Yes, if you want to play semantic games and try to force the MOST sympathetic reading of an incredibly vile tweet, I'm sure one can admit it's logically possible that he meant "she might like it better because she could put me in jail after I raped her on air."
However, most reasonable people who understand the normal uses of the English language will read a quote like his tweet and assume he meant what he most likely meant (given his tendency toward being offensive in most of his dealings), i.e., if I had raped her on air, she'd have liked it. In case you're unaware, that's a common expression among tough guy "rapist" types: i.e., "I raped her, but she wanted it/liked it."
Now, whether he was actually saying that seriously or not is a separate issue. I don't think he actually believes a statement like that -- I think it's more likely he was just trying to be offensive and provocative. But nevertheless, what I stated is what most readers would understand if they read his tweet -- not some bizarre edge-case like you postulate.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 17 2018, @06:11PM
And by the way, the tenor of my posts has nothing to with whether I "like" the guy or not. I don't know him. I don't really care to know him.
What I do know is that in public he's an ass and a jerk and says offensive things. When someone doesn't respect others and deliberately acts uncivil, they lose their right to be treated with decorum and respect.
Bottom line: he may believe vile things and may also be a bad person, but he's also a troll, as exemplified in this tweet.
When you're a troll and deliberately say offensive things to get a rise out of others, you lose the right to complain if others don't parse your words with care.. because by trolling you have indicated you also don't use your words with care.