Ok, I always have the dilemma that one shouldn’t add to the publicity of someone like Germaine Greer or Andrew Bolt by responding to what they’re saying when it’s clearly designed to provoke people into commenting and thereby giving them the sort of publicity that enables them to be widely reported when they say stupid things.
Personally, I’ve said nothing but intelligent things for years and it’s never been splashed across the media, and I certainly haven’t been offered my own show on Triple M! (Ok, that “nothing but intelligent things” may be a little open to dispute – I was just seeing if it worked for me too!)
The alternative is to let the remarks stand and there are two problems with that. It makes people think that nobody disagrees with them, and it marks the Andrew Bolt’s of the world saying even more ridiculous things in the hope of attracting a fight.
Perhaps part of the trouble is that the media feeds off conflict and, as I’ve said many times, one of my aims is to be asked onto one of the current affairs shows where they have someone with a diametrically opposed view just so that, when I’m asked to respond, I can say: “Wow, I’ve never actually thought about it like that before. In fact, I’ve never even considered anything you were saying. I must say I have to change my opinion. Yes, it’s much better when people sit down and have a sensible dialogue and I wish I’d actually looked at the other side before I started expressing my opinion so forcefully with such ignorance. Thanks!”
Anyway, Mark Latham has been given a one-off show on Triple MMM, but I suspect he won’t be able to say much because, well, free speech has been shut down. Why, well according to the radio station, he’s “one of most divisive political and social figures of our times”.
Awesome, just what this country needs: Divisiveness… (Should that be division? I’ve wondered why people say “agreeance” when “agreement” would work much better.)
Although topics for “Lathamland” (that’s the offiicial title, but from hereonin, I’ll abbrieviate to La-la-land), will include political correctness, “men being ‘broadly’ victimised” and “boat people policy”.
In the official statement for “Lala-land” we’re told:
“Latham stands firm that the right to free speech is being violated by everyone from ‘lefty feminists’, ‘political elites’ and even ‘the ABC’ and Australians are tired of being told how to think, speak and act.”
“He also believes a culture of outrage and offence has stifled language to the point you can’t, eg, call someone who is fat fat without a barrage of offence and outrage. And Australians have had enough.
“Some say he’s a loose cannon; others agree with him and think he’s just what this country needs. No matter what side you sit on Lathamland will be a must-listen broadcast.”
Now I could wonder about how being told that something is a “MUST-LISTEN” broadcast fits with the idea that we’re “tired of being told how to think, speak and act”. Evidently being told what to listen to is ok, though.
But that’s not the point. The point is that it’s really only a problem when the ABC, “lefty feminists” (is that a tautology… I mean when was the last time anyone said, “righty feminists”) and political elites stifle free speech by telling people how to think, speak and act. That’s only ok for commercial radio stations and shock jocks to tell us what we should do. Or when certain politicians tell us that we all need to embrace certain Australian values, except where they conflict with government policy.*
It’s got so you can’t call someone fat, without someone saying “Mark Latham you’re a boring fool who lost an election by being an aggressive, pompous twat without someone becoming outraged and getting really cross and saying that they wish you would say things like that.” I’m sure that’s what Mark would tell me, if I pointed it out to him. He’d say thanks for not being stifled by political correctness and exercising your free speech by suggesting that maybe I could join Tony Abbott in a therapy session where we lament how Australia didn’t appreciate us and, in particular, those women thingies just thought we were too aggressive.
Yeah, freedom of speech shouldn’t apply to people getting outraged by what people say, it should only be allowed for people who wish to say offensive things but anyone offended shouldn’t be allowed to say that they’re offended.
Yeah, those political elites and feminists should just SHUT UP, because they keep stifling poor Mark’s freedom of speech and when “Lala-land” talks about it, Latham is sure to explain that free speech means that he has a right to say what he likes and people who don’t like it have no right to express their outrage, because he’s the angry one.
And actually he looks pretty fat these days too!
* For example, when we say Australians should all believe in “fairness”, this only applies in the most abstract sense, or in the sense that we can fit it with government policy so that the government can do something like eliminate the school kids bonus because it’s not fair that people without children can’t get it, or reduce unemployment benefits because it’s not fair that working people don’t get them. And while we all believe in freedom of speech, it has its limits which include criticising government policy or releasing information about the conditions on Nauru or Manus Island.
P.S. In breaking news, it’s been announced that ICAC have announced that they have no recollection of any evidence damaging to Arthur Sinodinos and therefore they won’t be pursuing the matter any further.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
