Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

The Strange Case of Ella Whelan
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Seiat Gwragedd - Women's Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:31 pm    Post subject: jess Reply with quote

The Labour MP Jess Phillips was on Question Time with the anti-woman Conservative politician Phil Davies. She laughed in his face when he made some pompous and ridiculous remark.

Since then she has received hundreds if not thousands of rape threats online. Some take a slightly different approach and say, ''I wouldn't even rape you. You're not worthy of it because ...[fill in the blank].''

She has had other insults and threats, some of which are extremely disturbing and show a necrophiliac bent. She was thinking of giving up her Twitter account.

But now she's decided to tough it out. She's come up with strategies for a fightback which could give succour to others targeted by trolls.



Ella Whelan has an article I don't recommend called 'Jess Phillips is not my hero.' She disapproves of standing up to trolls although to do so is an example of freedom of speech.

Remember Ella Whelan does not support freedom of laughter. Jess Phillips had all this trouble after she was seen laughing on TV.

Ella thinks trolls are 'saddos' and their contribution to online literature is 'gross', yet she'll support them to the end. As she has a whole site trolling Kate Smurthwaite, she is a self confessed saddo.

She accuses people who are upset by trolls of being weak. She castigates feminists for allegedly trying to weaken women up, something for which she has no convincing evidence. Then when Jess Phillips acquires a bit of backbone and shows that she is strong, Ella trashes her for that.

I have yet to see anything that Ella has written that makes any sense however you look at it.

A male MP who became the victim of attempted murder by a deranged constituent, mentioned that certain individuals will hold MPs responsible for their misfortunes even when the MP doesn't know them from Adam, and could not possibly have done anything about the situation. It is amazing to find out how many mentally ill people there are out there.

As a thought experiment, think of this. Just before the turn of the millennium,a schizophrenic man tried to stab the ex Beatle George Harrison to death. He was convinced that Harrison was a witch.

Before the event, he had been boring his acquaintances but also freaking them out by harping on all the witches who had it in for him, and reiterating that Harrison was the head of the coven.

What if he'd put all this crap online? What if instead of stabbing Harrison himself, he'd incited someone else to do it?

Ella would have stood up for his absolute right to do that, even though it was not only dangerous but was based on insane drivel, the outpourings of a disturbed mind. She would have said that this is the price of freedom.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:19 pm    Post subject: breitbart Reply with quote

It was not all his own work, but Milo and Breitbart were instrumental in winning the election for Trump. Breitbart is a fake news outlet.

It ran, for instance, a false story that a Mexican immigrant in the US was running a people trafficking racket.

Milo muddies the waters by accusing everyone else of lying. He celebrated the Trump victory by saying that the left should be glad that this was the worst that had happened after they had been lying to and about everyone for ages.

He crowed,''We won!'' He rejoiced that the 'corrupt media' ie the mainstream media, couldn't take the election from Trump.

I wonder if it was Milo who first put into Trump's weak mind the idea that the official media is his enemy and also the enemy of the American people.

If so he's created an Orwellian fantasy world for the president to inhabit. Most presidents wouldn't constantly remind us that they didn't win the popular vote and the turn out at their inauguration was nothing special, by constantly telling us defensive lies.

They'd be thankful to have won on a technicality, and would get on with the job. Trump behaves like a sore loser even when he wins.

He's hell bent on silencing the responsible media, especially when it calls him out for being a pathological liar and and a mentally unstable idiot.

It's not character assassination. Unfortunately, he really is both those things.

In trying to close down the 'very bad people' in the media who really do tell it like it is, he is behaving like a dictator manque.

This is what Milo calls defending freedom of speech. In our post truth world, it doesn't even sound strange.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:03 pm    Post subject: tranny Reply with quote

A woman on a law course with me felt uneasy abut transsexual people. She said seriously, ''I wouldn't want one driving my daughter's school bus!''

This struck me as absurd and rather funny. An ex-man who no longer has a penis is surely less of a threat to a little girl's safety and innocence than he was before. Or should that have been 'she?'

I thought this was a personal quirk peculiar to this law student. But I was wrong. This patently ludicrous nonsense is quite widespread.

There are transphobic hate crimes. I thought Milo hated gayness while being gay.

But he thinks that even gays should distance themselves from trans folk, He says we should drop the 'T' from the LGBT initials. He complains of 'screeching, bullying, authoritarian' trannies.

Milo's complaining about bullying now? What a nerve!

On the Bill Maher show Milo told us that Trans people couldn't be trusted in public toilets, and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near little girls.

Warming to his theme, Milo let us know that transsexuals are vastly, disproportionately involved in sexual assaults.

They are too - as victims.

It's an ancient reflexive instinct, to accuse minorities in your own community and other national groups of sexual depravity. That's why the word 'buggery' is derived from 'Bulgar' the old word for Bulgarian.

Bill Maher was soft on Milo. But Larry Willmore, another guest, wiped the floor with him. It wasn't the first time Milo was detected spouting bullshit in a public debate, and had it pointed out to him.

But it was the first time his glittering, giggling insouciance was breached. He emerged worsted and battered, a sign of things to come as it turned out.

Hmm - Milo is a liar and a fake, and he accuses everyone of lying. He hates everything gay and he is gay. He accuses other people of being a sexual threat to children.

An alert viewer might ask, ''I wonder what the next revelation about Milo will be. Could I make an educated guess?''


Last edited by marianneh on Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:35 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:39 pm    Post subject: cynara Reply with quote

Certain right wing circles are very keen on hate speech and bullying. But to make themselves look noble, they say they are all out defenders of freedom of speech. But they do draw the line at advocacy of paedophilia.

They didn't mind Milo claiming that no rapes occurred on campuses and that any such allegations were made up. But now Milo has crossed a line, even for them.

Milo is subdued and claims to be sincerely 'contrite', something I do not believe. He has resigned form Breitbart and a certain Conservative group. His book deal with Simon and Shuster has been cancelled.

Let's be thankful we won't see an autobiography called 'Dangerous' on the shelves of bookshops.

But what has reduced Milo to such a state that he is feigning 'contrition' of all things, a word you wouldn't expect to be in his vocabulary? Documentary evidence has emerged - and he wrote the text himself -that in his 20s, he attended Hollywood parties awash with drugs where very young boys had sex with grown men.

He didn't say he participated, but he said 'I saw things that beggar belief.' Yes, the word was beggar.

He has also written favourably of 13 year old boys having full on sex with older men. He said that was one of the reasons he hated the left.

Left wing people wanted to have an age of consent that was set in stone, not fluid. The left can't win. Not long ago, the right wing Daily Mail was taking pot shots at the leftie Harriet Harman and posthumously at Roy Jenkins.

Why? Because in the 70s, they wanted to lower the age of consent to 14 as in many continental countries.

Of course there is a tiny grain of truth in what Milo says. I remember a TV host blasting a politician with claims that MPs had had sex with underage kids in the 70s.

But I believe the host may have had a one night stand in the 80s with a friend of mine who was then underage. That's what the friend told me.

I believe him. And I don't hold it against the TV presenter at all.

My friend was 20. That was underage then.

When homosexuality was decriminalised in 1967, the age of consent was set at 21. It was ridiculous, but it was unavoidable. The feeling against homosexuality was so strong, that without a lot of caveats, the bill would have been thrown out.

At the time of the millennium, you could have a night of passion with a girl of 16. You could even marry her.

But if you took the ferry to Northern Ireland and had a bit of fun with a local girl of 16, you could go to prison for it. In Northern Ireland, the age of consent was then 17, although it was part of the UK.

Of course there is something necessarily arbitrary about the age of consent. But that's inevitable. The law has to choose one age and stick to it.

It is not as rigid as it looks. Under the 'Gillick Competence' guidelines, doctors are allowed to give contraceptives to kids under 16 if they appear to be mature for their age.

Until 2003, the police recognised 'a young man's defence.' They would not arrest a man under 24 for having sexual experience with a girl in her teens even if she was under 16.

A friend used to have a boyfriend who was a real Romeo. He would appear at her bedroom window at night when they were older schoolkids.

He climbed up at some risk to himself. They did the things that people in love do in bedrooms. Then he departed the same way he came.

One day my friend's mother saw him lurking outside the house and let rip.

She said, ''I've wanted to talk to you for a long time. You're ruining my Virginia creeper! Look how it's coming away from the wall! Why don't you come in through the front door like everyone else?''

He gazed open mouthed as if she was mad. Neither he nor his girlfriend would be 16 for a few months yet. Even he thought her mother had her priorities wrong.

But maybe she was right. When it's people of the same age, why make a fetish of their 16th birthdays? We don't want to criminalise young lovers, still less arrest little kids for playing doctors and nurses.

But I don't really think it's a good idea if they're not even 15. I've heard of a little girl who died of internal injuries at 13 in a country which had child marriage.

And I've heard of a married girl of 14 in Batman in Turkey who died after becoming pregnant, but not for reasons you might expect. Because she was physically immature, she couldn't cope with the physical changes. Something exploded in her head and killed her.

I've never been a boy, but I understand that their physical maturation is about two years slower than with girls. If even girls are too immature for sex at 14, I can't believe that boys of 13 should be having sex with older men.

Mutual masturbation between schoolboys might not matter. But penetrative sex with an old man? That must be beyond the pale.

Why would any adult want to do such a thing unless he was an exploitative randy old pervert? Why isn't he interested in mature partners?

You would probably be deceiving yourself that a kid could give valid consent to a much older person at that age. The imbalance in power, age and experience suggests that it would be impossible.

Let kids experiment between themselves by all means. But no one of mature years should be fooling around with children and pubescents.

So Milo is rightly exiled from the world of celebrity. I can't say he's fallen from grace as he was never in a state of grace.

Think how he's persecuted Kate Smurthwaite and Leslie Jones, and be glad he's had his come-uppance.

There are rumours that the mask of contrition has already fallen from Milo's face, and he's hoping to make a come back.

I hope it will fail. I'll be thankful if we've seen the last of Milo. It would be good to see the back of Ella too.


Last edited by marianneh on Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:54 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:36 pm    Post subject: doo Reply with quote

Milo thinks gayness is an awful aberration which you should pray to be cured of. But only when it's between consenting adults.

If it is combined with paedophilia he will defend it. It sounds just like the Catholic church doesn't it?

You might think Milo owes his perspective to his Catholic upbringing. You'd be right.

He now hangs out in the US. The most usual and lowest age of consent for the unmarried in the USA is 16 which is now pretty standard in the western world. He finds this a drag.

He conceded for the sake of argument that it might be the best age for most people. But 'there are definitely people who are capable of giving consent younger.' He says he was one of them.

As a 14 year old he acted out an 'aggressive' passion for older men. ''Believe me, I was the predator.''

He fondly remembered what others might consider abuse by a Catholic priest. He reminisced, ''I'm grateful for Father Michael.'' Without him, ''I wouldn't give nearly such good head.''

In a video with the comedian Joe Rogan he tried to put himself in the other person's shoes, never easy for him, while continuing to push his own point of view belligerently.

Taking into account that Joe was straight, he demanded, ''Have you never seen a 15 year old girl you thought was hot?''

''Yes, when I was 15!'' shot back Rogan, ''I'm not retarded, dude.''

I've heard of a former classmate who allegedly forced a male friend of mine to do things that Milo alluded to above. All the while, he was bragging that he had first had sex with a man when he was 12. He was proud of it.

Some would categorise him and Milo too as victims who had identified with the abusers, and also become abusers. Be that as it may, it's hard not to think that Milo is one mixed up saddo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:17 pm    Post subject: the cost of free speech Reply with quote

Owen Jones writes 'The case of Milo Yiannopoulos is indeed a parable of our time.' His associates are racists and neo-fascists.

He enabled them to 're-package their hatred...as trendy, edgy, cool.' Simon and Shuster hadn't cared that they were giving him 'a platform to menace and incite hatred against already besieged minorities.' He 'was 'controversial they would say with a glint in their eye. ''Provocative' even.'

He 'incited his audience:''Never feel bad about mocking a transgender person.'' '
Jeremy Scahill refused to appear on Bill Maher's show with Milo. He said ''Milo Yiannopoulos is many bridges too far.''

Sam Sedgeman referenced the classic example of going beyond free speech, which I also mentioned above but which Rod Liddle and Noam Chomsky haven't heard of, viz shouting ''Fire!'' in a packed theatre. But I have consulted a book on civil liberties, and it gives other examples.

Shouting hateful abuse for the sake of it is not covered by the defence of freedom of speech. Sedgeman may not be aware of this, but he has now come to the conclusion independently that disgusting abuse is not a form of free speech but a threat to it.

He writes that Milo's enablers 'make it even harder for people to speak freely - not least because the idea of speaking freely has been co-opted by people who mistake it for ''I should be able to shout ''Free speech'' at you until you stop talking'' '

Whether Milo is calling transgender people 'mentally ill', saying 'gay rights have made us dumber' or calling rape culture 'fantasy', 'it was always something pathologically awful.'

Sedgeman articulated what I feel when he said, 'Hate speech is not compatible with reasoned debate. You can't talk to it. When you try, it talks over you and ignores you or calls you a fat ugly whore and publishes your address online.'

He added:

'If you're not scared out of engaging with it for fear of reprisal, chances are you'll die of exhaustion. How many times do you have to explain that 'racism is bad' or 'women are not worse than men' before you give up because it's not worth the bother?

'These are not discussions worth having. They shouldn't even be discussions.'

Dafydd was once a member of a left wing group. They resolved that if they heard anyone using racist language, they would reprove them.

After this, Dafydd was in a taxi. The taxi driver shot out a hail of racist epithets one after the other: ''Eye-ties, Pakis, Argies, Jocks, Taffies'' and many others I won't mention because Dai would delete them.

Dafydd just listened dumb struck. He could not say a word.

As the guy was not stating an opinion or making an argument, and was not even speaking in sentences, it was not possible to argue with him. There was nothing to get a grip on.

Dafydd took the resolve he had taken literally. He resigned from the left wing group as he felt he had failed.

It would not have been possible for anyone to succeed. The taxi driver was just using unconnected nouns like bullets. It was using words as a weapon.

That is what hate speech is . And it is not free. It's extremely expensive.

If you shouted out racist hate speech against Zulus in front of a gathering of six foot Zulu boxers, you would have to pay for it.

Often, though, the hate filled fascists pick soft targets, gentle and sensitive people - and it is the victims who have to pay.

Ella and Milo are free speech fundamentalists. They take the concept of free speech in a crude and literal way as fundamentalists do the Bible.

They have totally misunderstood what it means, perhaps wilfully. They are just behaving like unpleasant children.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:07 pm    Post subject: wildly in all directions Reply with quote

I don't accept that anyone has a right to persecute others with an uncalled for stream of hate speech. But even if we conceded that it was a right, we would have to ask,''Why would you ever want to do it?''

What ails you that you need to harm a multitude of strangers who have done nothing to offend you? Could it be that you are a wounded beast lashing out in all directions?

An article on the 96 hours that brought Milo down, attracted an interesting comment. Meredith Fane was too nice to Milo in writing:

'I have always held Milo Yiannopoulos in disdain. I watched a few minutes of the notorious interview where he talks about how he was raped by priests as a teen, and I am filled by an overwhelming sense of sadness and pity.

'If he was not lying about what happened to him, I can't help but see a horribly broken person who has reacted to what was likely years of abuse by lashing out at everyone and everything for which he could see a vulnerable place to inflict pain. I only hope that he recognizes his brokenness and seeks help.'


Last edited by marianneh on Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:42 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2639

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mmm ... Interesting ... I am not sure if I can draw a simple sense out of that ... surely in a general sense this is about how people react to difference and why they react ?

This sort of puts me in mind of my Dad aged ( 17 ? 16 ? ) walking either up or down Bute Street for the first time ( perhaps he failed to get off the train at Cardiff's Queen Street station ? ) ... He described it to me when I was about thirty or so and I think that it might have been in response to my questioning him about an incident ten years previously when ... er ... well at this far remove thirty five years later I think that the rather flash gentleman in a Mercedes was probably a Pakistani but very western in dress and a brisk manner, probably sort of East of Essex ... perhaps he was a Suffolk Sufi ... now my dad was a rigidly fair man : the rules apply to every body, nobody is above them and nobody is below them and nobody can stand outside of them etc - and you were beaten fair and square Dai Bach so no pleading for your pocket money back because you asked me to show you how to play poker and pleaded that you were old enough - and you certainly should have already learned this lesson before you got to this age : dear dear me - your teachers will not be moved by all of this blubbing when you start school you know ...

... I think that my Dad was very sure of himself because his conceptions of the world were never challenged : it was not as if his family were limited in their conceptions of the world because Tadcu lectured them each evening from the children's and family's encyclopedia and presumeably Dai Mawr would have lectured Tadcu whilst his Dad sagely nodded at his elder brother's remarks whist solemnly pronouncing Biblical quotations whose unstated implications were that Dai Mawr should tone down the politics because he was sounding dangerously like a Unitarian .. It must have been like some scene that ought to have been in the sequel to How Green Was My Valley ... Good sound Welsh Common Sense : Asquith is God and he has Lloyd George sitting on his right hand and his left hand is firmly gripping the seat of The King and ... but they are soon both shooed off to work whilst Tadcu is focibly marched off to the school gate by his Aunt : a journey comparable to no less than Chairman Mao's Great March through The Wotsit Mountains but of course this being Wales these things have to be kept in due proportion : less than fifty yards up ... Llanfair Hill ? ...

... ( I have just consulted Google Streetview : the trouble is that the way that the Rhondda is going many of the people in the more impoverished places like Gelli can no longer even afford to have addresses and so in order to not to add embarassment to their impecunity Rhondda Cynon Taff have stopped bothering to send them any bills themselves and have also taken down the street signs so that nobody need find these addresses and be upset by the differences between the rich and poor in Wales ... certainly the name of the street is to be found neither on Streetview nor on any maps that I can Gloggle.) ... Anyhow that place which I can not find on the map but which I can assure you was sometime and somewhere in and around Treorchy, Pentre, Ystrad, Gelli, Ton, Ancient Rome, Wembley Stadium, Cardiff Arms Park, Even More Ancienter and Very Old Druidically Speaking Porth Grammar School ... it was the place from which my Dad was on a train from when he failed to get off at Queen Street Station - possibly deliberately ? - but he did get off at Bute Street Station and found himself in a place which simply did not exist in the family encyclopedia - and the difference made him jittery.

I know my Dad : take it from me that he was not only not a racist but also he was extremely prickly around anybody who expressed unfounded prejudices ... perhaps that is where his prejudices towards others were to be found : when he found evidence upon which to found his disapproval - hence it was never racist per se because I never witnessed him being either being disturbed by other people's race, colour etc i.e. things over which they had made no personal decisions he would never express any disapproval of ... but differences ... What my Dad remembered about his walk down Bute Street back circa 1950 was his being shocked that men sat directly on the pavement, on the door steps, and played dice and - you know - actually lolled around and just watched him as he passed by and they did not say hello but then again they were not exactly unfriendly ... I think that what my Dad was experiencing and worrying about as being " racist " was that - as for many - he experienced " difference " as a " critical " question which he put to himself, something like - " This person is thinking and behaving differently from me, therefore one of us must be wrong ... is it me - or her ? " - and to be honest I think that my parents shared this anxiety about difference and who was right or wrong.

A close friend of mine who could not cope with the differences between the way that we think declared that my point of view was " racist " and that my failure to agree with his point of view was because of my family and schooling which had resulted in my being " institutionally racialised " or some such idea which he got out of a book ... He progressively would not engage with me thereafter and you can either read it as neuroticism on his part or a cold calculating antipathy towards my not agreeing to be a racist in order to please him ... and to be honest I do not think that he ever genuinely thought that I was a racist of any sort - exactly why would he want to hang out with somebody so vile ? - it was just that he found out that having pitched the idea to me that I might be " unconsciously racist " ( an oxymoron surely ) he recognised that I was willing to give it some serious consideration and to reflect upon the differences between us and as to whether I was doing anything - consciously or unconsciously - that might hurt or offend or just be clumsy and ... well as I offered to try to understand and learn the allegations multiplied and the lectures increased but he had no actual interest in resolving the supposed hurt or offence : he had other grievances about other hurts which he could not express - genuine hurts - and he basically tormented others as a way of expressing himself emotionally ...

... and that is probably just one of the varieties of behaviour which we label " racism " - it is the result generally of children being unable to escape an adult abuser - " Babes - if you do no stop crying I will not stop hitting you : you are only making it worse for yourself, because not only have I lashed out at you because Mummy hit me because Daddy hit her because he was too scared to tell her that his Boss sacked Daddy and made him want to cry but he can not cry because if he does somebody will hit him so he came home and hit Mummy to try to make her cry so that she can understand that he wanted to cry but she can not cry so to tell me that she wanted to cry she hit me to make me cry but I did not cry so she hit me harder and told me how worthless I am for not crying, how unfeeling and disgusting and degraded I am for enjoying being hit by her and then finally I cried when Mummy broke her arm as she kept on hitting me and so then she turned on me in fury because I cried because she broke her arm hitting me and told me how nasty I was and so full of self pity that I only ever cried for myself when Mummy had just broken her arm on me beating me for my own good to teach me how to learn to care about how other people feel and so Mummy fell upon me with her other arm and beat me twice as hard and I not only cried but I screamed as well and Mummy said to Daddy that I am an utterly ungrateful little wretch because Mummy had just broken her other arm in her fury and several teeth as well as she bit my ears off and so Daddy rescued Mummy from me and beat me soundly black and blue and broke every bone in my body and ... " ... " Look : first of all - will you stop calling me " Babes " - and secondly - C'mon - this is " Bambi " - and thirdly - NO : I am not going to watch " Pinnochio " with you because I started screaming in the middle of it last time and my Dad had to be called to carry me out of the children's matinee screening of it and the cinema management swore that they would never have me back - not even for Star Wars - and ...

... HEY !!! WHY ARE YOU HITTING ME ANYWAY - I AM NOT BLACK !!! "
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:50 pm    Post subject: racism and the rest Reply with quote

I've never seen anyone sitting in their doorway or on the pavement playing with marbles on a tray but I have read in a novel of this happening in Tiger Bay.In another novel it happened in Liverpool and the players were white.

It's impossible to ascertain from this if your father was being racist or snobbish or justifiably aggrieved that the people were causing an obstruction.

I agree with the findings of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry about institutional racism in the police .The one thing I do not agree about is that an incident can be judged to be racist if someone feels subjectively that it is.

There are often misunderstandings. Jo Brand the comedian 'died' on stage when she joked that she'd been given a worse dressing room than 'that bloody Sooty.' She meant the celebrated glove puppet of that name who was on the bill. The audience wouldn't laugh as they thought she meant the Zimbabwean comic who had immediately preceded her.

Trevor Noah's book 'Born a Crime' recounts how through childish unawareness he was not mentally scarred just because his existence was an offence in South Africa. He had had a Bantu mother and a Swiss-German father.

The laws of the time were a pain for the adults around him though. He spoke sensitively about race.

My son was amazed that a Bantu politician had the first name Morgan. And Trevor Noah is called Trevor. Both Welsh names! Have they graciously forgiven us for the Zulu War then?

It's not that.Black South Africans have a first name that Whites can pronounce, a second given name that is more 'ethnic' and then a surname. Their parents often choose a public first name from a historical or newsworthy character from Europe.

But because they were often too poor to go to the cinema, the names really have no meaning for them beyond an imposing sound. So Trevor knew a boy called Hitler for instance. He was not the only Hitler on the block.

Trevor thought nothing of it. They were invited to a cultural event at a Jewish faith school. To Trevor, Jews were white folks. He knew nothing about their history.

His friend Hitler sprang on the stage and launched into a spontaneous dance influenced by Bantu norms. It involved an unusual amount of pelvic thrusting.

Trevor was caught up in the spirit of the thing, yelling, ''Go, Hitler! Go, Hitler!'' He was indignant when a woman who appeared to be a teacher came up and accused him of being 'disgusting.'

He thought she was being racist, labelling a Bantu dance primitive and obscene because of her stuffy Afrikaner morality. When she told him how nauseated she was by 'people like you', he said ''You can't talk to me like that now because we have Nelson Mandela.''

They were talking at cross purposes all the way along. I was thankful when I read it to know I was not the only person who makes terrible gaffes on this planet.

Some of the more stupid people who have read the book have branded Trevor Noah anti-Semitic. One reason for this is that he said he had not heard as a small boy of what Europeans call the holocaust.

But he had heard of King Leopold's genocide in the Congo. He said it might have been just as bad, but most African cultures didn't have written languages. It is also a bit difficult to write memoirs when your right hand has been cut off I suppose.

There were no books from the Congo called 'If This is a Man.' Mark Twain and Roger Casement did write accounts from the point of view of outsiders. The only reason they did not call it genocide is because the word didn't yet exist.

I do not accept that it is racist to say that King Leopold's genocide may have been as bad as the holocaust or even worse. Of course the Nazi Judeocide may have been the worst genocide in the world's history. But it is hard to judge.

There are no shortage of comparable events. After all, it is going on now.

We knew the most objectionable Burmese girl. She took part in a picket of Barclay's Bank because it had dealings with South Africa under apartheid. She described herself as not being racist.

As we later found out, she thought people were put on earth for her to exploit and steal from. She was a material girl to a psychopathic degree.

She would say in dreamy tones, ''I'm going to marry a banker!'' I thought, '''Why don't you marry the bank?''

She delineated the kind of man she would find acceptable as a husband. He would have to be a graduate. Ideally he should belong to the Chakma tribe like herself. Failing that she would accept another Asian but not an Indian. If all else failed she would accept a White but not a Jew, and nothing below a White.

I exclaimed, ''What do you mean, nothing below a White?'' The objection to Jews was based on the consideration that 'my father doesn't like them.'

When her white boyfriend had a one night stand with a West Indian, she said in disgust,'' Frank's had it off with a niggah!''

She never knew that a white man she had designs on was anxious to have nothing to do with her as he said, ''I could never take her home. My mother's very racist, and so am I.'' He also noted that she had a horrible personality but said he wouldn't mind having a one night stand with her if he could be a hundred per cent sure that no one would ever find out.

Some of my relatives were amazed to hear about her. One of them yelped, ''But she's not white!'' as if racism was a white privilege.

A mixed race person in Cardiff thought so. He said, ''I can't be racist. It's impossible. I'm black!'' That can be read as an extremely racist statement, but he's just easily confused.

A white British woman became excited when she saw civil rights marches in the States covered on the BBC news. She rushed upstairs to tell her white American tenants about them.

She was on the side of the marchers, accused her tenants, for no obvious reason, of being racist, and finished up, ''Mind you, I wouldn't let them in the house.''

Leo Abse said he could take racism as a Jew. He was strong. But we should never tolerate racism against Blacks. They were weak.

I remember somebody telling me I was the least racist person he'd ever met. I said, ''I'm flattered you think so, but you're wrong. I was brought up by racist parents in a racist environment. I knew they were wrong even at the time, but on a visceral sub rational level, I have been influenced by them. I've overcome it on a rational level and mainly emotionally, but if I was wired up to a racistometer, I might register as very racist.''

It may be worthwhile discussing whether a certain action or statement is racist. I think it's a bit futile discussing if certain people are racist. Almost everyone is at some level. It's part of the human condition.

All we can do is not act on it and strive to overcome it. Incidentally, I don't see the point of arguing whether Jade Goody was being racist in bullying Shilpa Shetty on Big Brother.

Who cares? It was definitely bullying and that's just as bad. Why make a fetish of racism? It's terrible but it's not worse than any other kind of bigotry. It's no worse than plain old bullying.


Last edited by marianneh on Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:10 pm    Post subject: brights and Muslims Reply with quote

Elke, a German member of one of my Welsh classes, tells me that Breitbart has put out fake news that Muslims had set fire to an old Gothic church in Germany, and this sparked off attacks on Muslims in Germany.

There have definitely been reports of physical assaults on Muslims in Germany in recent weeks. This is one of the many things that makes me temper my enthusiasm for people like Douglas Murray who writes for the Spectator and appears to be keen on Milo. Issues are more complex than Murray or Ayaan Hirsi Ali will acknowledge.

I will stick up for secularists who mock religion. We need blasphemy. We don't need assaults based on lies.

It's the difference between wearing a 'Je suis Charlie' t-shirt and wearing a 'Je suis Charles Martel' t-shirt. So now these innocent people are paying the terrible cost of what Ella calls free speech! Why isn't Breitbart closed down altogether?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:24 pm    Post subject: ga Reply with quote

Trump has just accused Obama of wire tapping Trump Tower during the election campaign. He calls Obama a 'bad (or sick)man', and says this is like Watergate.

This was in a tweet. He has offered no evidence to support the allegation. A spokesman for Obama has denied it. He says presidents have no power to order wire tapping. He added 'This restriction was put in place to protect citizens from people like you.'

I thought this was a delusion, self generated by an addled mind. But he may have picked it up from Breitbart, the false news site which is one of the few sources he trusts.

Maybe Breitbart is not all bad. This kind of incident indicates that Trump is unfit for office, and should be removed gently but firmly.


Last edited by marianneh on Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:43 am    Post subject: bonkers Reply with quote

Edwina Currie was a guest on the BBC news channel this morning. During a discussion of the wire tapping controversy, she hesitated for a while and then spat it out.

''Donald Trump is totally bonkers!'' It showed the calibre of the man that he went from tweeting this extraordinary allegation to discussing Arnold Schwarzenegger on 'The Apprentice.'

It is of course possible that Trump Tower was wire tapped, but Obama would not even have been told. It is not something that requires permission from the president.

Trump is clearly paranoid, not living in the real world. But that he's so worried about bugging suggests he has something to hide. If it is about Russia, he should cool down. No one was in the dark about that anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:50 am    Post subject: emma not ella Reply with quote

Emma Watson has been accused of being anti-feminist for posing for a magazine in a see through top. She says she is confused by the accusation.

She says feminism is not a stick to beat women with. It is about liberating them, about giving them choice.

I mention this to show that Ella Whelan's definition of feminism is erroneous. I don't know what Milo thinks it means when he says that it is less desirable than cancer, but the poor darling thinks that to make women happy, we need to 'uninvent' the contraceptive pill and the washing machine.

He thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant - and not have any clean clothes until they get to work with a washboard, wooden dolly and mangle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 10:28 am    Post subject: Ella and child porn Reply with quote

On 'The Big Questions' this morning, a discussion is now going on about whether porn should be available in schools. Ella Whelan is on the show.

I expected her to say that we have no right to say that children should not be exposed to porn. That would be censorship. I was wrong.

She thinks that parents have a right to withdraw their children even from ordinary sex education classes. She says children should not be treated like adults. Parents should have as much control as possible over their children.

Ella doesn't agree with the principle in the Gillick Competence guidelines that 'a child is a person not an object of concern.' She thinks controlling parents are great, that children are their parents' property, that they should be treated like things.

She also thought teachers had no right to give children lessons on why sexual harassment and assault are bad, if the parents don't want the children to attend. Someone said children need to know these things. Sexual harassment and assault happen in schools.

Ella said there was not much of this sort of thing in schools. She didn't say how she knew.

I can remember as if it was yesterday being subjected to sexual assault in school. And we had no idea how to deal with it. Teachers then weren't bothered, thought it was funny or joined in.

So much for the teachers' right to freedom of speech. So much for the children's right to hear helpful words that could give them a good start in life.

Don't believe Ella Whelan. She does not advocate free speech in reality. She is an authoritarian wannabe Victorian mum and she is in favour of censorship.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2639

PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Confused

Whenever I hear about parents who do not want children to learn that our planet is spherical or about the theory of evolution I wonder after the welfare of their children : these kinds of aversion to children being exposed to ideas which may lead to them questioning their parent's pretensions to authority usually go with other kinds of psychosis like racism ... I have said it before that I have come to distrust the motives of those home schooling because although I have seen some very good results I can not think of a better excuse for a paedophile to use to prevent anybody else to get close to the children which they are teaching to believe that Daddy expresses his love in this way, that his little girls love Daddy back by giving him the loving gift of having Daddy's babies in order to give him more little girls to love and after all is it not really exciting and a privilege to be pregnant at ten years old - and with your very own sister ? ... That being said I am not happy about the way in which the educational machine has developed over the past one hundred and forty years : schools began as private educational institutions which developed children's understanding but surely when the state became involved it was for the purpose of rounding up the children of factory workers with fines for the parents for not sending their children off to school to be abused with canes, straps, finger stocks etc not to mention The Welsh Knot ... to be taught dis-obedience to the true authority of real things such as 1+1=2 - and to be miseducated into thinking that authority is founded upon the concept of Sovereignty i.e.. "our right to proclaim our authority to use violence against those who disagree that 1+1=3." ...

... Has Ella Wheelan been claiming Sovereignty yet ?

... Modern educational establishments are of course slightly better than than their 19c predecessors but the whole educational system has now been redesigned to serve the interests of those for whom this non-political system called The United Kingdom exists i.e. The Aristocracy whose interest is served by having a docile workforce not only trained at their own expense but enslaved in debt to those who are exploiting and abuse them ... Now : how much information do we not know ? ... Whilst The Aristocracy dominate The United Kingdom we have still have The Hierarchy but now transformed from friars publishing The Word for a few minutes once a week at the medieval market cross into journalists publishing Their Words every few minutes every hour, from dull static pictures in churches to colourful moving pictures in everybody's home ... Television would be the medieval clerics' wet dream - as is shown by teevee evangelists - and whilst it provided people with images and ideas which they took to be both normal and real when there was only one channel - and The BBC used to be much more careful about ensuring both diversity and balance in its debates - what people do with televisual offerings today from the hundreds of sources of images and ideas is to treat them as items for consumption as in a supermarket i.e. things are " true " if you like them, " trustworthy " if you are addicted to them, " good " if they are advertised to be so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:42 pm    Post subject: a new low for Ella Reply with quote

In the above mentioned show, children were not about to be shown pornography at school for the sake of it.They were to be given the chance to discuss cyberbullying, pornography online and other worrying things as part of a new initiative in sex education from the age of three or four.

It was part of a much wider programme about sex and relationships. This was an addition to the curriculum, announced by Justine Greening.

Clare McGlynn said the current curriculum was 16 years old. It was totally out of date,and didn't take into account sexting and other emerging phenomena.Sexual violence and harassment of women and girls were things that happened in schools as well as in the wider world.

Nicky Campbell put it to a conservative woman Jill Robbins that we have to deal with the world as it is, not as it should be. Jill belonged to a Christian pressure group.

She said parents would not be allowed to opt out. They might have religious objections. Nicky Campbell thought these might be the very parents who would be less likely to talk about sexual issues with their children themselves.

Jill said that parents want to have these conversations but needed to be empowered. Often their children were more media savvy than they were. She seemed to be admitting that some parents didn't know which end was up, but still thought they had a right to be entrusted with teaching what they did not understand.

She said we needed to make stronger families. '' Stronger traditional families?'' queried Nicky Campbell. Jill parried this by saying she meant stronger loving families where children were loved and trusted and learned to love and trust.

Clare said this was for the children. Parents shouldn't be able to opt out. Children had a right to be forewarned about sexual abuse and harassment.

Ella Whelan, who was wearing make up for a change, said that you absolutely had to have an opt out. Parents should have absolute control over their children. It was frightening that the state would have more control over children than their parents had.

Clare said there was sexual violence and harassment in schools. Ella opined that there was a great panic about sex. There definitely wasn't as much sexual harassment at schools as we have been told. She didn't say how she knew this.

She said we were doing harm by scaring kids. We were 'problematizing' sex.

Dr Caspar Hewett who was quite wild in his mannerisms, agreed. There should be an opt out. The whole thing was degrading. This was telling kids that men were a danger. He was so impressed with the inelegant verb Ella had just coined that he used it himself.

We were problematizing men. Children would see everyone as a threat. It was unhealthy.

Nicky Campbell laughed, ''Problematizing! That's a wonderful verb! I'll have to take it away with me!''

He alluded to the sexual abuse inquiry now going on. It was enough to make any right minded person weep to think what children had to go through in the recent past. He didn't want to say it was all the fault of the Catholic Church but it largely was.

This was aimed at the Catholic apologist Dan Hitchens. Dan managed to appear to agree and disagree at the same time. He then went on to say that parents had a right to an opt out.

It was disturbing that some of this literature mentioned, as if it was acceptable, kids of 13 having sex with those of a similar age. Like Milo, he would probably have thought it more appropriate for 13 year olds to have sex with 80 year old priests.

A soignee young woman with a Northumbrian accent said she found it amazing that 'a young girl like myself' could say there was no sexual harassment in schools. There definitely was. This was dangerous talk.

She meant Ella. Another female voice shouted out that we can't educate ourselves out of a social problem. I thought this was an extraordinary counsel of despair.

How did the voice's owner know this? Hasn't education cured social problems in the past?

Ella was shaking her head with apparent sorrow. Her face is always vinegar sour. Her face somehow is that of an illegal immigrant from the Victorian age. But now in addition, she was trying to look saddened and upset.

Nicky Campbell asked her with some asperity what she was looking so horrified for. I think he only just managed not to append an insult to the end of the question.

Ella complained that this was a terrible intrusion on children's innocence. Children should play doctors and nurses instead.

Clare said nothing could take away children's innocence.

Ella said children should be able to work it out for themselves. This sex education was damning parents.

Ella did not want the same thing as Jill. Jill wanted parents to tell children about sex. Ella wanted parents to be able to prevent their children knowing about sex.

Ella looked and sounded insincere to me. I thought it was possibly a transparent act, presenting an indefensible argument for fun.

Karin from Norway took her seriously. She could hardly believe that Ella really wanted to deny children the ability to protect themselves. Parents weren't being deprived of anything.

Just because schools gave sex education, it didn't mean that parents couldn't also discuss the subject with kids at home. Ella just wanted parents to be able to say, ''I don't want my child to know this.''

Ella said that a three year old couldn't protect himself from a predator anyway. A man near her, had the patience to explain that it wasn't about fighting a grown up off. It was about understanding what had happened, and being able to tell a responsible person.

Jill wanted family values. Why was there nothing in the curriculum about moral red lights, abstinence and fidelity and exclusivity in marriage?

Lynette, a sex education teacher, could just about tolerate Jill but she was shifting agitatedly in her chair when forced to listen to Ella's nonsense. She said that parents were often alarmed to hear that three and four year olds would be learning about pornography, but when they saw the age appropriate material, they cooled down, and even became enthusiastic.

While Ella was making a fool of herself, John Gibbons from Ireland could not prevent himself from grimacing. Nicky Campbell asked him if he would like to explain why he was pulling faces. He apologised if it was unconnected to Ella's discourse.

John Gibbons had similar colouring to Enda Kenny who also has much to say about clerical child abuse. He said children had rights quite separate from parents. They were separate individuals.

Nicky Campbell asked him what it had been like for him growing up in Ireland. He laughed as he said he personally had been happy enough.

But he added that Ireland had had tremendous problems with abuse, religious control of education, and children who were disabled from reporting it. The country had a whole generation of broken adults.

Nicky Campbell said, ''Knowledge is power?'' ''How can knowledge be power?'' burst out Caspar explosively as if Nicky had said something ridiculous. But he sounded ridiculous himself or at least perverse to me.

He grumped that we were giving children a terrible view of adults. Clare said that young girls spontaneously asked for this information anyway. If they were denied it, they would go online and would often find deeply sexist and deeply racist pornography sites.

Caspar burst out ''Who decides what children learn?'' Ella complained that we were seeing a form of parent bashing. It was disturbing that we were saying,''I'm a good parent, and I can have these conversations with my children, but other parents are not good. They don't tell their children anything. ''

It was insulting to religious parents and other parents who might want to hang back and let their kids be kids for a while. It was really damaging, intruding on the important family unit where parents have total control over their children.

Nicky Campbell let a pro- sex education woman have the last word. She said it was not just adults who could be a sexual threat to children. Kids were frequently sexually assaulted by other kids. I can confirm this from personal experience.


Last edited by marianneh on Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:00 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:30 am    Post subject: Ella is dead wrong Reply with quote

Ella says that women and girls are the big losers from sex education. What a ridiculous statement!

In the past, parents often couldn't or wouln't tell their children the first thing about sex. They told them babies came from cabbage patches or were brought by storks.

In televised retrospectives just before the turn of the millennium, old women said they didn't know how to have sex when they married. They didn't even know it was supposed to happen.

The interviewer would say, ''So how come your marriage was ever consummated?'' The woman would laugh and say, ''My husband knew more than I did.''

But often he didn't know much more. In the fifties Chad Varah produced manuals on 'Don't start your marriage with a rape.'' Men often plunged in with painful directness, not out of malice but because they had never heard of foreplay.

One woman said that she developed a terrible anxiety in her first pregnancy. It was about the birth.

Her problem was basic. She didn't know where the baby was going to come out!

For all she knew, it could be the anus or the navel. She said it was a terrible thing; it was frightening not to know that.

She asked her doctor to tell her. He said, ''All I can tell you is it comes out the same way it went in!'' I don't think that was a very clear explanation.

Only half the baby comes from its father's sperm. I'm not sure she was any the wiser.

I've seen a letter in a problem page from a girl who had just begun to grow breast buds. But that's not what she thought. She thought she had cancer.

Chad Varah set up the Samaritans after hearing of a girl who killed herself, convinced she had some awful disease, after she began bleeding from her private parts.

In the unlikely event that Ella means what she says, she is condemned out of her own mouth. She thinks parents should have total control over their children.

Children who are brought up like this become depressed in later life. It is as bad for emotional well being as being bereaved in childhood.

Children are people, not property. Why do we call ignorance of sex innocence? Should we not tell children that cars or fire can be dangerous in order to preserve their innocence?

Ella doesn't want chidren to be able to discuss their queries and feelings about sex in a safe place. She wants to deprive them of freedom of speech. She wants to censor teachers who have sensible things to say.

Parents should no more be allowed to withdraw their children from sex education lessons than they can withdraw them from maths or geography lessons.They have no right to disadvantage their children in this way.

In the 70s, Jimmy Savile was given an award by Mary Whitehouse's organisation for his wholesome family entertainment. The whole family happily watched Rolf Harris' rendition of 'I'm Jake the Peg with the Extra Leg.'.

But when 'Grange Hill' began in the late 70s with an honest depiction of bullying, racism and sexual issues - though not the swearing endemic in comps - parents thought it was a corrupting influence.

It was terrible when children were slapped for playing with themselves, were preyed on by adults, and had no idea what it was about.

The public and tabloids took it for granted that no child abuse had happened in Cleveland in the 80s as no one wanted to believe it. But one of the kids involved later had the following conversation with a teacher:

''Daddy put a toy in my bottom.''

''What toy was that?''

''An extra leg on Daddy.''

With sex education from three or four, the child would know that was no toy, and that this shouldn't be happening.

Ella says kids should work it out for themselves. In effect, they should have playground conversations about how you can get stuck together during sex and will have to be rushed to casualty to be prized apart.

They should repeat the lore about how you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex or if you do it standing up. A friend of mine fell for the latter myth.

She did become pregnant. Her mother said she would throw her out of the house if she didn't have an abortion.

Perhaps it's just as well she miscarried naturally. But all this could have been avoided.

By the way, even mature adults usually think you can't get pregnant during a period. This is a myth too.

One reason parents are not always up to delivering sex education is that they don't know much themselves. It's pointless for Ella to whinge that it is offensive to say this. It's just a fact.

My adoptive parents couldn't talk about sex at all. They just gave you the impression it was disgusting.

My natural father once said condoms were a bad form of contraception. You couldn't feel anything. Women didn't like them either!

He said the best form of contraception was pregnancy. Once it's happened, you can't conceive again.

I thought, ''If you're trying to use contraception and you achieve pregnancy, you've failed, haven't you? It's no comfort that it can't happen again for another nine months.''

But what am I complaining about? If it wasn't for my father's eccentric views on contraception, I wouldn't be here!


Last edited by marianneh on Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:04 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2639

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do not know whether this is truly about sex education in the sense that you are discussing above but ... I was thinking about my gripe about men - or women - getting bigger boobs on the NHS : I do not buy the idea that a person can stand outside a hospital demanding a penis or they will kill themselves - being female is not a life-threatening condition per se except in the presence of mysogynists ...

Two friends of mine cut off their bits_Exchanging them : he got her tits_And in return she got his cock -_But then in making love she got a shock_Because he was still on top ( and in orgasmic fits.)


Two friends of mine cut off their bits_
Exchanging them : he got her tits_
And in return she got his cock -_
But then in making love she got a shock_
Because he was still on top ( and in orgasmic fits.)

dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : the author asserts his moral right - not to sue for copyright !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marianneh



Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 1935

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:59 pm    Post subject: kat Reply with quote

What offends me is that parents have to fight to force hospitals to keep their sick children alive, cancer patients are denied drugs that do exist because the patients are deemed unworthy, but you can get cosmetic surgery on the NHS. We have our priorities wrong.

Perhaps people should go to confidence building classes rather than splash out on surgery or apply for it as a freebie. For every few women having their breasts enlarged, there'll be some having them reduced. It's a pity they can't swap.

Jack Monroe has been slagged off for being a single mother. Now she or they wants to have a sex neutral pronoun without having gender re-alignment surgery - allegedly. Douglas Murray, a gay writer whose first book - on Lord Alfred Douglas the sidekick of Oscar Wilde - was published when he was 19, has more recently become an implacable opponent of Islam.

He called Jack Monroe 'a useless waste of space.' She - I mean they - could take that. But when the self styled psychopath Katie Hopkins accused them in print of defacing war memorials, they did do her for libel.

It looks as if it might have been a genuine error, but Katie Hopkins is a vile and callous individual who had it coming anyway. She makes Ella Whelan look benign.

Katie Hopkins is not a great columnist. She has no particular talent for writing, and has nothing to say that is worth reading. She is just given newspaper space because insults and bigotry are cool these days.

I noticed an online debate by surfers who found it disturbing that her latest scandal might lead to her being given the sack. What would happen to freedom of speech if she wasn't allowed to call Gypsies 'ferel (sic) humans' and say all fat people should be exterminated?

I don't say she shouldn't be allowed to show herself up. But I don't see why any newspaper should be obliged to pay her for exposing her character flaws.

Katie Hopkins has now discovered that you can't lie about everyone with impunity under the shield of free speech. Opening her mouth without engaging her mind or her heart has been expensive on this occasion.


Last edited by marianneh on Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:06 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2639

PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( Was that this case concerning two randomly jigged up tweets recently ? ... I really think that the only place left where anybody can safely lie their heads off now is in those court rooms conducted under English Law ... um ... what is this thread about again ? ... I am just looking in on one of these links sent to me along with this new New Republic subscription : do you want to see some paper copies some time ? )

Just thinking a little about what " Free Speech " should mean in Republican political systems ... surely the whole point is that The Public Discourse should be directed towards promoting The Public Interest ... so on the one hand fictions are admissable in works of the imagination which pose questions about society e.g. a piece of paper architecture which depicts a building which defies the laws of physics and can not be built is a fiction - until I assert that it can be built, or already exists etc - at which point then the product of my imagination becomes a lie because my motive has become knowingly harmful to others ... Am I guilty ? ... Perhaps : I usually spin out a fiction to illustrate an argument to subvert the established order of things to get people to question their conventions - but I usually carry the matter further in order to subvert my own fictions, to question my questions ... but I do not see Ella Whelan doing this : her definition of " Free Speech " is purely gratuitous and knowingly harmful of others, she does not understand that the Right to Free Speech is directed towards the objective of De Res Publica - hers is the pursuit of a personal interest which places others outside of the boundary of her consideration and therefore in essence is a refusal to enter into discourse and is fundamentally anti-social and logically not " Free Speech " at all - ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://twitter.com/ella_m_whelan?lang=en-gb

https://twitter.com/bakkiesdavies/status/840285457124585473

Richard Davies‏ @bakkiesdavies

@Ella_M_Whelan @KTHopkins @MxJackMonroe " free speech doesn't mean you have the right to literally say anything you want no matter how wrong! "

Ella Whelan‏ @Ella_M_Whelan 5h5 hours ago - Ella Whelan Retweeted Richard Davies

" Actually, that's a perfect definition of what freedom of speech means."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://newrepublic.com/tags/politics

https://newrepublic.com/article/141233/case-taking-trumps-tweets-seriously

The Case for Taking Trump’s Tweets Seriously - By Jeet Heer
March 9, 2017 - New Republic

Ignoring the president's Twitter tantrums won't make them go away. His words have real-life consequences, no matter how he delivers them.

" ... As president, Trump has not only kept up tweeting, he’s done so with a new level of venom and destructiveness, amplified beyond measure by the fact that he’s now the most powerful man in the world. Since assuming the presidency, Trump has used Twitter to go after a former president (Barack Obama is a “Bad (or sick) guy” on par with “Nixon/Watergate”), companies that irk him (Nordstrom was “very unfair” and “terrible” when it stopped carrying Ivanka Trump’s wares) and the media (with the “failing” New York Times spreading “FAKE NEWS”). ...

... Vox’s Matthew Yglesias argued recently that Trump’s tweets are part of a circus that’s “irrelevant” compared to his governance. “The real-world consequences of Trump’s governance matters enormously, and so does the pushback Trump is getting,” Ygelesias contended. “But the Trump Show itself— the series of tweets, speeches, interviews, and provocations undertaken by the president of the United States in lieu of governing—is tedious and irrelevant. It’s time to start learning how to tune it out.” ... Writing from a very different ideological perspective, conservative Ben Shapiro came to the same conclusion in National Review. “Instead of treating Trump’s rhetoric seriously, wouldn’t America be better off if we did ignore it?” Shapiro asked. ...

... [ BUT ] ... The idea that Trump’s tweets can be ignored is based on a facile distinction between words and action. But a president’s words are themselves a form of action, because words spoken in high office carry great weight. This is perhaps even more true of an unconventional leader like Trump, whose words set his agenda because he’s not driven by party orthodoxy or a coherent ideology. As Trump’s former campaign manger, Corey Lewandowski, told The Washington Post, “Donald Trump’s Twitter account is the greatest bully pulpit that has ever existed. In 140 characters, he can change the direction of a Fortune 100 company, he can notify world leaders and he can also notify government agencies that business as usual is over.” ... Like them or not, Trump’s tweets are consequential. ... "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://twitter.com/HeerJeet

https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/840350253479940097

There's a school of thought that thinks Trump's betrayal of his base on economics won't matter. I think that's wrong.

http://www.tcj.com/a-conversation-with-jeet-heer/

The Comics Journal - A Conversation with Jeet Heer - Alex Dueben = Oct 13, 2014

" Jeet Heer is one of a small group of writers and critics about comics who have been enrichening the discussion of comics in the 21st Century. A regular contributor to TCJ, Heer is the author of In Love with Art, about Francoise Mouly, and has co-edited books including Arguing Comics, A Comics Studies Reader, and The Superhero Reader. He’s also written introductions to many collections of comics including Little Orphan Annie, published by The Library of American Comics/IDW. ... " ... [ I THOUGHT THAT I MIGHT MAKE SOME COMIC QUOTES FROM THIS BUT ACADEMIC AMERICANS ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP A STRAIGHT FACE AT ALL TIMES : I THOUGHT THAT I WAS A DROLE PROLE BEFORE I MET WITH THIS GUY ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Seiat Gwragedd - Women's Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 :: 
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games