This is not Tu Quoque, it is not, it is not

10 Mar

The ad hominem argument known as “tu qouque” or “you too” goes like this:

She cannot sue me for libel because she was just successfully sued for libel.

It’s clear this is fallacious: the fact that she has been found guilty of libel doesn’t mean she can’t claim she’s also been libeled. While we can exclaim at the hypocrisy we may see in such a situation, hypocrisy in no way negates claims that are deserving of attention whether she has committed the same offense or not.

My post of January 10 that caused Melinda Tankard Reist to threaten defamation action has understandably been subjected to a great deal of scrutiny and commentary. A consistent criticism is that I didn’t have the “facts” on which I based my allegations about Reist’s religious influences, that I made knowledge claims without the knowledge. I’ve pointed out that I used information available uncontested in the public domain for a long time, that I watched and read interviews with Reist by journalists, and that I have sources dating back to 2006 questioning Reist’s religious motivations.

For some two years now, I’ve been contesting what I consider outrageous claims made by Reist (and others, but so far nobody else has threatened to sue me), and outrageous attacks on public figures that are supported by nothing other than Reist’s opinion. Why nobody has threatened her with defamation action I don’t know. I do know from correspondence with some of these people that they’ve considered, and in a couple of cases are still considering taking action against her. The cost of such action is a major obstacle for many who might otherwise resort to it, however this does not seem to be a consideration for Tankard Reist.

What’s remarkable is that those who have developed an intense interest in my post of January 10 have shown absolutely no interest at all in the injustices perpetrated by Reist in her savage personal attacks on men and women whose lifestyles and opinions she does not care for.

For example, this crusade against a singer whose song she finds objectionable doesn’t stop with him: Reist attacks his girlfriend for failing to prevent him writing it. This is what I wrote at the time:

MTR also holds Delta Goodrem partially responsible. Why didn’t Delta check the lyrics before allowing Brian to record them, she asks. Is Delta so inured to sexual violence that she didn’t even notice what Brian was on about?

This would be unfortunate, MTR suggests, as Delta is a spokeswoman for Avon Voices, a group that raises awareness of violence against women.

I guess the sexual conservatives also hold women responsible for what the men they live with do.

Personally, I think that’s a pretty low and unnecessarily malicious swipe.

Indeed on ABC’s The Drum the article title is: “New song from Delta’s man feeds rape myth.” Delta’s man?

Then we have this attack on Tasmanian DPP Tim Ellis. Reist continued to post this article on her website when other sites such as On Line Opinion took it down, after being advised by the DPP that it contained references to a case currently underway, and risked incurring charges of contempt. The article and Reist’s commentary make no reference to the extraordinary decision by the DPP to publish his reasons for not proceeding with prosecutions in the Hobart Mercury. They simply attack him personally and professionally.

Then we have this gem, Reist’s interpretation of a video she doesn’t like:

Women are slaves and bitches who can service a man’s sexual needs, even in death. Men are brutal and dominant, and have no empathy for women. Men enjoy dead women as sex and entertainment. The female body is to be devoured, reduced to the same status as meat. Female bodies should be displayed before men as a great feast for their consumption.

Beside which my allegedly lurid interpretation of the virgin birth looks quite inadequate.

Then we have this vicious tirade, directed against Shaune Metcalf seven, yes seven years after he committed an appalling crime, had been found guilty, and punished. Reist also attacks a defense of Metcalfe by Celia Lashlie. I’ll post in full the observations of commenter Bruce Thombo Jefferson on Reist’s article, because it’s worth it:

Bruce Thombo Jefferson :

15 Apr 2011 12:43:05pm

I think the point of this article as I read it is that Ms Tankard Reist feels betrayed because Ms Lashlie has allowed a balanced and educated approach to dealing with a criminal who commissioned a crime when he was a 16 year old several years ago. My guess is the actual assault is a secondary matter being used a vehicle by Ms Tankard Reist to go to war with those ostensibly of her faction that do not tow her party line. 

The theme seems to be the righteousness of her anger and her right to indulge it freely when that sort of approach is being questioned by Ms Lashlie. It appears, from the little I have managed to find out, that Ms Lashlie is a person who worked with male prisoners as a warden in the NZ system and she seems to dedicate herself to the notion of rehabilitation and the possibility of positive outcomes. Ms Tankard Reist seems to enjoy more punitive approach. 

Now the punishment after the fact orientated sort of republican Southern Baptist style of rhetoric so fashionable in the USA is a good vote catcher over there but we have to ask ourselves if it is really effective in making a better society? Clearly they have been a total failure in lowering the number of abortions, one of Ms Tankard Reists pet projects, sex crimes or even teenage pregnancy. The reason for this is that is outed by Ms Tankard Reist herself. The object is not rehabilitation , its not prevention, it is the revelling in the feeling of righteous anger and self justification. 

Is this type of self indulgence worth supporting? I would argue not. These people may like to keep their kids as their play dolls by hiding any hint of human sexuality from them They may resurrect the lynch mobs of the fifties but they can even establish repressive, even in extreme cases genocidal regimes lasting decades but they wont actually achieve a better society.

Ms Lashlie appears to represent the other side. One is reminded of Victor Frankl who after years of incarceration in German Concentration camps felt it was his duty upon release to work with ex guards and other Nazis to help them come to terms with what they had done and move on. I always like the notion that the aim of life was to heal a fractured world rather than drive a wedge deeper in but that’s just me.

I notice that most of Ms Tankard Reists supporter entourage here are concentrating on the side issue of the horror of the crime rather than on Ms Tankard Reists theme of her right to tantrum. Perhaps that is because even to them its hard to see the point of it. 

I would argue that all round Ms Lashlie’s constructive engagement approach is better because it will lead to a better outcome for all parties, the ruby player , the mother and the child than Ms Tankards Reist’s approach which will lead to third parties having an indulgent anger fests but nothing else really.

It really is most interesting that my January 10 post should attract such attention when articles such as Reist’s (and there are many, many more that I haven’t noted) go entirely unremarked by my critics.  If one is honest about striving for a media in which knowledge claims are supported by knowledge, and in which people are not singled out for unfair criticism, the work of a writer such as Tankard Reist is a good place to start your critique and offers far more examples of what offends than does my insignificant post.

Which is not to claim that I should be left uncritiqued, or that Reist’s complaints and threats are invalid because she has also committed offenses. This is not tu quoque, it is not, it is not.

More like a question of balance.

45 Responses to “This is not Tu Quoque, it is not, it is not”

  1. Ray (Novelactivist) March 10, 2012 at 9:52 am #

    Precisely. As you know Jennifer, I’ve been exposing the ‘righteous indignation’ and fallacious arguments of MTR and her cohort on my blog. They do not shy away from vilification and slander.

    Much of her argument is based on her personal dislike and as is usual with common opinion, the louder you shout, the more convincing you sound.


  2. Hypocritophobe March 10, 2012 at 11:12 am #



    The(n) we have this vicious tirade,


  3. paul walter March 10, 2012 at 11:12 am #

    I revisited the site on a link and found the superficiality uninspiring, also.


  4. DontSueMeMTR March 10, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    I’ve had a read through everything you’ve linked to. Like most of what I’ve seen from MTR, I agree with some of her points and reject others (mainly her conclusions). But the fact remains that I would fully stand behind her right to say each and every word.

    Just as I would stand behind your right to say each and every word from Jan 10.

    And I think the hypocrisy here is a very big deal. Someone who puts themselves forward as a moral crusader, fearlessly turning over stones to reveal ugly truths that wider society would rather stay hidden — but runs to the law when someone attempts to turn over a stone in her backyard.

    The fact that almost nobody else seems to think that it’s a big deal is infuriating.


  5. Hypocritophobe March 10, 2012 at 11:36 am #

    Are you saying your support for free speech begins at Jan 10,or that this point is where you pick up on the issue?

    Are people not also interested in her (MTR and those in the Network she tours with etc)position (being evidence based or at least accurate) as given to thousands of people in her audiences?
    Especially the vulnerable teen and pre-teen students?
    If her content is questionable what does that say of the system and the institutions who allow such intrusions.

    Parents would be of the belief that the school/principal knows best.

    And why the laundering of the internet?
    Interesting times.


    • DontSueMeMTR March 10, 2012 at 12:07 pm #

      Sorry Hypo, not sure I follow 100% what you’re asking.

      Before Jan 10, MTR, to me, was just another person advocating positions I didn’t agree with (anti-porn, pro-life, etc). I’m not aware of her ever having threatened another critic with legal action. Once I found out that she had done this, she became something much, much worse in my eyes. I find the use of the law to bully and silence opposition appalling at the best of times. But when it comes from someone whose whole schtick is supposed to be about “speaking out” I find it downright sickening.

      If you’re asking whether MTR should be allowed to lecture at schools, I don’t have an easy answer to that one. I don’t believe that free speech is the same as free reign to preach a political/religious ideology to school children under the guise of sex education or whatever she sells it as; but if informed parents actually want to send their kids to listen to her, am I in a position to object? As you point out, there are serious questions about how informed the average parent is. I suppose at this point I can’t fully answer that one.

      “And why the laundering of the internet?”

      I don’t know what that means. Was it rhetorical?


  6. Hypocritophobe March 10, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    I get you now.

    Best (if you have time to skim through previous blogs here,to get the context of the amazing digital evaporation outbreak of 2011/2012)Wiki had a massive miscarriage,for starters.No sorry, it was aborted.

    As for teaching/lecturing at public venues,schools town halls etc, I have no problem,but at a minimum if anyone(not just MTR) is dishing out BS as fact, to impressionable children she is to be held accountable to her content and must prove its validity.(Minimum)
    For 2 reasons.
    1 Because that is right thing to do.
    And 2 because it goes to the big HYPOCRISY issue.
    She is repeatedly telling us that adverts,billboards,TShirts,music,film etc is melding impressionable minds (yours,mines,everyones) with toxic pfaff.
    What she chooses to replace what she calls ‘bad’ stuff, she must prove is good.
    She must also prove why the bad is bad.
    And prove her good is good, and the status quo must go, openly, honestly.Her ‘proof’ should be available to full scrutiny.It must be based on this society,not a failed mess like the USA.
    This is OUR country.Our community.

    And I vehemently disagree with anyone who says that her affiliations do not matter.
    If she is overtly of covertly contributing to policy debate by way of liaisons with the Churches,the ACL or similar lobby groups the public has a right to know.
    Again,because that is the correct procedure.(And more so because she has presented material to government committees before.)
    If we don’t have the right to know, I want to hear from the law makers and independent judiciary and our government as to why we are not entitled to know, not from her screeching muppets.

    Faceless men doncha know?


  7. DontSueMeMTR March 10, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

    Yes, the core of my belief is that MTR (or anyone) should have the right to preach her message far and wide, but it should also be the right of anyone who hears it to stand up and say “Hey everyone, that lady is full of crap, and she’s really a shill for the religious right”.

    The fact that this right of opposition is gradually being lost to those of us who cannot afford to defend ourselves in a court of law makes me want to scream. More so since, for those who do have the means to pursue litigation, easy access to the internet has made effective rebuffing of criticism trivial. It seems the more people have, the more they want to take away from others.

    And I now get what you mean by the laundering of the internet. I’ve said before that if someone wants to delete material from their blog or website that should be up to them. But it should also be okay for critics of such people to repost this material on their own websites in order to support that criticism.

    Wikipedia is something of a special case in that nothing ever really gets deleted from an article. It just gets moved into the history section. People can still access it if they care to.


    • Ray (novelactivist) March 10, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

      So you don’t think people have a responsibility to keep to the facts? Personally I place telling the truth very high on my ‘moral’ list. Often freedom of speech, especially these days, is taken to mean ‘freedom to make shit up’.

      I don’t think people have a ‘right’ to express uninformed opinion. But I think they do have a right to make an ‘informed’ and considered argument.

      Is there a right to lie?


      • DontSueMeMTR March 10, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

        I think being honest and informed are moral responsibilities and those who ignore them are rightfully open to mockery and criticism. But as far as the law is concerned, I do believe everyone should have the right to lie, express uninformed opinion and make shit up if they wish.

        Of course I am only talking about public debate here. There are plenty of times when it should be illegal for someone to lie. Like when someone is under oath or negotiating a contract; companies who sell food shouldn’t be able to lie about the ingredients; etc, etc.


        • Hypocritophobe March 10, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

          “But as far as the law is concerned, I do believe everyone should have the right to lie, express uninformed opinion and make shit up if they wish. ”

          Even in a court room?


          • DontSueMeMTR March 10, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

            I addressed that in my second paragraph.


          • Hypocritophobe March 10, 2012 at 5:33 pm #

            I re-read it again.’Public debate’ lies.
            The court room is out,I see.

            It is a can of worms,though.(“Core” lies etc)
            Where the acceptable lies in public debate can begin and end.
            Where the line in the sand is drawn,and by whom.

            I think in this case the fact we have a person/s,groups and subgroups who have (and wish to continue) input/design of public policy implementation, the standards must be far more accountable.I can see why legally it would be very prudent of MTR to wish to be ONLY known as a social commentator so that all her previous works could push her to a position a little further away from possible legal actions from those she publicly lambasted herself.
            (Jennifer touches on few, above)

            MTR has taken the position of moral crusader,and I doubt many people would deny that.
            Her various bios may call her many things,but she has obviously taken on a role well above a social commentator.She has a website,speaking tours etc.She has influence/interests far beyond this site.In media,government,education and yes,religion.
            Her lawyers have scrutinised JWs words.
            Who scrutinises the legality accuracy of her(MTR)works? Her public talks, her ‘based on studies’?
            Can ‘she’ delete any suspect content after damage may have been caused?
            Is that morally OK?

            Social commentating and lobbying are two completely different things.
            Q & A is a forum for commentary, the senate committee environment (and politicians offices) are not where Lobbyists go for casual chats.
            Organised political strategies for social change based on personal/religious preferences are not public debate. Lobbying is not talking,it’s anywhere between asking and demanding.The latter is something a Senator with the balance of power can command.
            Her behaviour as far as lobbying has been (and I presume still is),is that of a political lobbyist etc, and her standards ( and those of her staff) must surely reach the appropriate level of scrutiny and accountability.

            I don’t even know why everyone would not already accept this as the norm?
            And here is an even bigger question,asked many a time previously.

            Who is funding,co-funding or recommending her legal advisors?
            What connections are there to political parties,media companies,religious Groups etc.
            Interesting times

            Faceless men again?


            • DontSueMeMTR March 10, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

              “Her lawyers have scrutinised JWs words.
              Who scrutinises the legality accuracy of her(MTR)works? Her public talks, her ‘based on studies’?
              Can ‘she’ delete any suspect content after damage may have been caused?
              Is that morally OK?”

              Is it morally OK? I would say no. But I don’t believe that everything I find immoral should be against the law (something which I guess separates me from MTR and her ilk).

              And who scrutinises MTR? If libertarian and other such groups lack the will or the resources, I guess that unfortunately leaves it up to people like yourself and Jen. That’s why I feel that it is imperative that there is not a legal barrier to people like yourselves from shouting about it when you find something rotten.

              The question of lobbyists, which is much broader and deeper than MTR alone is very tricky. On the one hand, of course everyone should be allowed to put their views to politicians and politicians should have the right to have private conversations outside the bounds of their official duties; but the influence that some of these people can wield is disturbing and proving when there is corruption can be extremely difficult. It worries me and I have no solution to this problem.


        • Ray (novelactivist) March 11, 2012 at 8:36 am #

          So, it’s okay for the tobacco and carbon industries to spend millions of dollars on a deliberate strategy of lies and misinformation to protect their profits? And it’s okay for them to bribe scientists and journalists to lie for them?

          Remember corporations have millions of dollars in their PR war chests and you argue it should be legal for them to lie and make shit up?


          • DontSueMeMTR March 11, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

            Again, I’d break it down into moral obligations and consequences and legal obligations and consequences.

            Just like with contracts and food ingredients, I think if you’re selling something that you know (or suspect) carries a hidden danger, the law should compel you to inform the buyer of those risks.

            Should it be legal for corporations to pay scientists and journalists to produce propaganda? I would say yes, provided nobody was breaching any oath or contract in doing so (eg: secretly doing the bidding of one party when you are supposed to be working for another). However, corporations, scientists and journalists who engage in these practices run the risks of having their reputations permanently shredded. Any journalist or scientist who produced material in this day and age that claimed that tobacco or asbestos were harmless would rightly be pilloried for the rest of their lives. I think it’s only a matter of time before climate change deniers find themselves in the same boat.

            It’s a shame that people don’t make better use of their purchasing power to punish corporations whose practices they do not like.


            • Ray (novelactivist) March 12, 2012 at 9:14 am #

              The problem of course, is that whilst they are allowed to lie people die. The tobacco industry was able to lie for decades.

              We are not talking about abstract consequences but real consequences. And the danger with climate scepticism is that it might cause a critical delay in taking action.

              I think we need to look at the way the right is using the freedom of speech argument to spread propaganda. Bolt is but one example.


  8. Hypocritophobe March 10, 2012 at 6:03 pm #

    Jennifer,I notice over at RawRoar they have a protected area called Lady Cave where a password must be used.
    Not sure how that works but perhaps to get passwords, punters must provide much firmer traceable ID up front.
    Perhaps in this era, that is the way to go for some of your discussions,and have a public venue as well.Food for thought.

    There is also a way where a webpage can be setup to disable right click,thus stopping direct cut and paste.More food.

    Also please consider following up on the issue raised about security settings etc, as raised twice by ForrestGump, (ASAP.)
    (If you have not already done so)


  9. paul walter March 10, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

    I like the way Dont Sue Me has engaged with and got to the nitty gritty of this situation. Observing thought processes and their progress can be a wonderous, fascinating thing.
    As Dont Sue says in the 4.48 post people, will lie, right or wrong and others can choose to remain lazily asleep at the wheel or keep their eyes open, spot a lie, then expose it if they want and that’s fine.The price of freedom is vigilance.
    Life isn’t static, it unfolds, who knows what’s round the corner. People as varied as Dr. Jennifer Wilson and Julian Assange are caught up in this process, but when whistle blowers alert their fellows to a changed situation that has become of benefit or comfort to others, these may well attempt to prevent exposure. Don’t forget, it’s likely MTR was once herself a whistleblower, exposing the willingness of capitalism, for want of a better word, in psychologically conditioning or commodifying young people, which is itself no new idea.
    In turn, she’s been critiqued by others for possible inadequacies in her own thinking. For example, maybe she’s gone so far but not been able to join up the dots as to a complete picture,
    in possibly reducing male behaviour to a sort of intrinsic bestiality rather than some thing that is subject to social processes that can warp an instinct or some thing that can behave in unpredictable ways in a given set of circumstances.
    As a man, I have to say that am glad of Jennifer Wilson’s defence of men, within the context of an appreciation that women, or any civilised people for that matter, are going to be concerned with the depth and frequency of certain male behaviours; sometimes, some of us are just going to have get clobbered, to deter certain traits.
    But Wilson merely points to something that morphs from observation to Manichaeism, coloured by disgust, at certain creature behaviours.
    Its doubly surprising when you think about it . JW has a lot less to be thankful for as to male behaviours than some others, yet some how a scientific objectivity has held firm.
    Some in their subjective disgust demand a rageful zero tolerance.
    Others will say, no. If certain things could be changed eg less crap and more David Attenborough on teev and in the education system and less conditioning by advertising technicians on behalf of privileged sponsors, dickering around with the complex dynamics of the as yet incompletely understood mind, eg changes in the architecture, could produce healthier and more rational citizens. Both MTR and JW I think more or less agree with the commencement notion.
    Hence it turns political. If you think society is based on theft and deception and remains primitive for that, you are less likely to blame individuals malfunctioning in such a millieu. If you think society is good or unchangeable, you will say no, it’s only a discipline issue. (altho the question then is, who is entitled to judge; who has power and if the guardians are not up to the job, the things stays a nasty mess, complicated by reaction)
    Perhaps the issue won’t go away any time soon because, as that great sage of Republicanism, Donald Rumsfeldt, pointed out, there too many “known unknowns and unknown knowns” to finally decide, “who judges”.


  10. Hypocritophobe March 10, 2012 at 6:12 pm #

    I would like to see a lobby registers set up for all tiers of govt,

    Where any citizen can search a public website and find out who a politician is meeting and the reason.
    Or maybe groups like getup could set something up which tells the public who met who,where and when after the fact,so at least questions could be asked,and accountability/explanations sought.

    It’s good to dream.


    • DontSueMeMTR March 10, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

      Part of me thinks that all conversations between politicians and lobbyists should be recorded and made available to the public. Politicians are of course elected spokesmen for the public, so why shouldn’t the public know exactly what they are saying in that official capacity? However, I’m sure there are issues with this that I haven’t considered.

      It would also no doubt cause an explosion in “unofficial”, “not quite” or “I can’t believe it’s not” lobbying.


  11. Doug Quixote March 10, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    An interesting exchange, Hypo, Don’t Sue Me and Paul Walter.

    Some way of monitoring just what lobbyists are saying to politicians and what politicians are saying to lobbyists would seem like a good idea.

    The electorate have an obvious interest in knowing just what is involved in these exchanges; if anyone has a contrary view, I for one would like to hear it.


    • Hypocritophobe March 10, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

      There are still enough holes for the sleazoids to slip through,but if we make the penalties very harsh,we can make in roads.WA has a Lobbyist register and Guidelines for State Parliament, which has followed WA Inc and the Premier Brian Burke et al,goings on.
      A Lobbyists register is the starting point.(ASAP)
      I actually think that the High Court needs to have an expansion of powers so that they can actually develop systems to deliver more honest and open accountable govt.
      That should be the main thrust of our society.
      Fair,open and honest government.Without that there is no point in any form of self regulation in anything because if the only umpires we have can be bought or bullied,democracy is toast.

      I am definitely not convinced of the universal merits of a single person having the balance of power either.Blackmail and bribery runs a close second to bullying,IMHO.
      In most instances I can recall,that power has been abused (at some point) at state and federal level.
      That abuse damages any worthwhile contributions the Senators concerned made.


  12. Hypocritophobe March 10, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    And something far more distasteful from the methodology used in campaigns by MTR is the bullying aspect.That’s just how it *looks* to me.
    Threatening to sue?
    Is a threat not a bullying tactic?

    What words/style has she used in her campaigning on her site,the ABC and elsewhere?
    Are they positive and conciliatory?
    Does she gives ultimatums, then ramp up her vitriol?

    Just looking at the song lyrics issues and the Deltas man scenario, it sure doesn’t appear to be a very ‘passive’ approach.

    Where’s the proof that McFaddens song caused, or causes, any sexual violence.
    Does it provoke any more fervour/violence than a football theme song,or AC/DC at closing time at bogan pub central?
    How so?
    Is Madonnas Like a Virgin not taboo?
    Kate Ceberano’s classic cougar anthem? (Young boys)
    The Captain and Tenille? (Do that to me one more time)
    REO Speed Wagon(kiss you all over)

    What about Jimmy Buffett with “Why don’t we get drunk and screw?”
    Could he be another great *date rape inspirer* under the ‘Terms and Conditions of the same applied methodology?

    Given the institutionalised child sex assaults within the Catholic church,what is the defence their?
    Can we please see the predators playlists
    Could Hymns be the culprit?

    If Tankard Reist has an issue with abuse of the power of ‘some’ men and sexual predation, of children she does not need to look to rock and roll, and populist music,for a clean-up campaign.


    • Jennifer Wilson March 10, 2012 at 10:00 pm #

      I have no doubt that defo threats are a bullying tactic. And refusing to either act on them or withdraw them, thus keeping them viable for 12 months, well that’s a bullying tactic too.


      • Hypocritophobe March 10, 2012 at 10:47 pm #

        Just as well your ‘sin free’ adversaries are totally squeaky clean and don’t live in glass houses,JW.


        • Hypocritophobe March 10, 2012 at 11:06 pm #



        • Jennifer Wilson March 11, 2012 at 7:45 am #

          we’re all in glass houses, Hypo! Some can afford the bullet proof version!


    • DontSueMeMTR March 10, 2012 at 10:54 pm #

      Yes, I too believe that is exactly what it is. It’s a deplorable abuse of the law that is intended to make the subject feel frightened, anxious and powerless.

      As for MTR’s view on popular media:

      To be perfectly honest I’m actually with her in holding the opinion that there is a lot of popular media that celebrates and/or reinforces sexist and misogynist attitudes. I am also concerned about what effects, if any, the consumption of such media has on impressionable people — especially youth. I completely support anyone who wishes to express their own concern and revulsion in this (or any other) matter.

      What I most assuredly do not do is support the notion that these concerns or revulsions should be a basis for preventing anyone else from consuming this media if they so choose.

      I do not support censorship.

      And I agree that anyone who wants to discuss attitudes in popular media while simultaneously arguing that it’s unfair to apply similar scrutiny to organisations such as churches is a hypocrite.


  13. Hypocritophobe March 10, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

    Speaking of bullies.


  14. Hypocritophobe March 11, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

    Of course with the McFadden song,thing one could simplify it this way.

    MTR passed judgement and questioned the motivation behind his lyrics and the ethics/morality of the man himself.
    *What ‘process’ / beliefs drove him to write this song.?*

    While she was happy to do this using at ‘least’ two web platforms to do this (fully aware of it’s consequences – one would assume) , why is the same process not applicable to MTR?
    Where does this immunity come from?
    Is it self imposed?
    Is her ‘perceived authority’ on morality also self imposed?

    And where is her vocal indignation to be found when women are abusive to children?
    Has she ever publicly decried female teachers/aids etc, engaging in sexual assaults etc?
    Has she ever publicly broached/acknowledged in any commentary,anywhere, that women can be violent, or perpetrators of sexual assault?

    These questions have been asked before,but never answered.


    • DontSueMeMTR March 11, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

      Exactly. What’s good for the goose and all that.

      And selectively ignoring, or disproportionately focusing on things for the sake of an ideological narrative basically makes a person a bullshit artist.


    • Jennifer Wilson March 11, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

      That too is a good point, Hypo. Her attacks on her assumed motivations of others can be quite savage.


  15. Hypocritophobe March 12, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

    And it appears Barnaby Joyce has ben caught red-handed,sending letters to Rineharts litter,asking them to stay away from the bright lights of public scrutiny,
    Here’s the big chance for all faux-media (and the pseudo-ABC) to do their jobs and find out why he did that,whether it was a favour for Abbott etc.

    I smell a very big rat and a very big electoral donation.

    This will sort out whether we need a media watchdog.If we don’t have Joyce nailed to a mast by this time next week,we need ten watchdogs, and a Royal Commision.


    • Horse March 12, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

      Gina has taken Barnababy J overseas, too.

      I smell hope of electoral, religious and other* donations

      * eg. regional, industry, sporting, etc


      • Julia March 16, 2012 at 5:54 pm #

        Makes me wonder how his hero status is going among the NSW New England farmers fighting to keep the coal corps off their land
        Poor Barnaby….they DID soooo love him.


  16. StaggerLee March 12, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    Jennifer Wilson: sorry to do this on your blog, but just a quick message to someone who may be here.
    To “SamTomRawRoarTotem” and “NotRob1966”: if you have a question to ask, ask it.
    If not, then crawl back into your Dull Hole.


    To Jennifer Wilson, though we have argued on this issue for almost a year now….it is my wish that Reist’s action be dropped immediately.
    For two reasons.



    • Jennifer Wilson March 12, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

      Hello StaggerLee. Thanks for that.


    • Doug Quixote March 13, 2012 at 12:21 am #

      It was not me. I agreed with your posts under the recent Drum article. I saw the trolling, and thought it very silly. I repeat, I agreed with your posts.

      On many issues we see eye to eye; I regret that our recent exchanges were so sharp. Perhaps we should mutually refrain from comment, unless to agree? Life is too short to have enemies.


  17. lola March 16, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

    I note that the kiddie site has no capacity for comment. Or critique. I wonder how long before they all start to withdraw from sites where they may be challenged? MTR is so over protective of her site, as are many of the members of her choir.
    There are so many areas where their energy could be used for good, not evil.


  18. paul walter March 16, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

    Lola, so it is a an american-style indoctrination site rather than a site for the examination and exchange of ideas between free people?


    • lola March 16, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

      It most certainly is. Another person who wants to sing “oh, the children, the children” for their own glory.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: