|
|
Post by cato on Oct 31, 2017 16:23:55 GMT
There has been quite a media hysteria created after revelations of the creepy groping predator Harvey Weinstein and nearer to home Tom Humphries formerly of the Irish Times.
The same media which helped cheer on the break down of traditional morality and boundaries is now persecuting and humilating those who chose to take advantage of that situation for their own gratification. I have no problem whatsoever about prosecuting criminal behaviour but as I write the main story on BBC is a story about a British Tory minister who put his hand on a journalist's knee(and was instantly rebuffed) 15 years ago!
Last week's Irish Sunday papers carried front page stories of a former director of the Gate theatre and media luvee who made inappropriate remarks while drunk of a sexual nature. Being boorish and drunk is not a crime. What's next ? Telling us who doesn't flush the toilet or who picks her nose? By highlighting this nonsense we only devalue real suffering and the victims of abuse and violence.
The new sexual morality is in many ways much more strict than the old code. One problem with it is that if you infringe it there is no mercy or understanding. It also judges with harshness historical transgressions using our current hyper judgemental standards, standards which didn't apply at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Oct 31, 2017 16:37:54 GMT
Very true.
One thing I find interesting is the contradiction in attitudes when it comes to punishment. The consensus amongst modern people seems to be that the purpose of prison should be rehabilitation, and protecting the public from dangerous criminals. Punishment is an outdated concept. But when it comes to sex offenders, progressives always seem to demand heavier sentences and suddenly seem to believe in punishment. (Bankers, too.)
Fintan O'Toole surpassed himself by comparing Donald Trump to Tom Humphries and asserting that the root cause is "male power". I have decided I will no longer even look at a copy of the Irish Times.
|
|
|
|
Post by ClassicalRepublican on Nov 1, 2017 11:18:02 GMT
The Irish Times is an almost-newspaper. It looks and feels like a newspaper. It's financed, managed, produced and distributed like a newspaper. But it's not a newspaper. It is a narrative curation paper. It is not designed to inform opinion, it is designed to steer opinion. Most damning of all, it exists because there is demand for it to exist - demand both from those who require the narrative to be curated and from those who require their opinions to be steered for them.
As for the witch-hunting, it is my prediction that feminists' 'women require protection from men' narrative will deliver the burka sooner than Islam activism will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 1, 2017 11:29:23 GMT
And yet a good proportion of its readership must disagree with the narrative, because it gets many dissenting letters.
Then again, maybe they are simply reading the online version.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Nov 4, 2017 18:14:37 GMT
There has been quite a media hysteria created after revelations of the creepy groping predator Harvey Weinstein and nearer to home Tom Humphries formerly of the Irish Times. The same media which helped cheer on the break down of traditional morality and boundaries is now persecuting and humilating those who chose to take advantage of that situation for their own gratification. I have no problem whatsoever about prosecuting criminal behaviour but as I write the main story on BBC is a story about a British Tory minister who put his hand on a journalist's knee(and was instantly rebuffed) 15 years ago! Last week's Irish Sunday papers carried front page stories of a former director of the Gate theatre and media luvee who made inappropriate remarks while drunk of a sexual nature. Being boorish and drunk is not a crime. What's next ? Telling us who doesn't flush the toilet or who picks her nose? By highlighting this nonsense we only devalue real suffering and the victims of abuse and violence. The new sexual morality is in many ways much more strict than the old code. One problem with it is that if you infringe it there is no mercy or understanding. It also judges with harshness historical transgressions using our current hyper judgemental standards, standards which didn't apply at the time. I have never quoted myself on this site but I ll make an exception this evening. I referred above to the director of the Gate theatre in last weeks papers. From what I have learned since he was a class "A" Turd who made the lives of his female staff a misery by insulting, belittling and subjecting them to contant sexual innuendo. Sometimes a witch hunt does catch the occasional real witch. However in the spirit of gender equality I have a theory that powerful bosses of either gender can abuse their position and bully their staff. My worst bosses have been female . Several I suspect were clinically mad. The idea that either gender is uniquely prone to violence or nastiness is just plain false. |
|
