Jun 022011
 

Cat calls and anti-feminist rhetoric in estimates. Wasn’t it good theatre too? 2152561318_b1b33b2d16

Penny Wong doing what she does best, holding misogynist males out to pee, and she does it so well. David Bushby, in the way only a third-string player from the opposition benches can play the political game making the fatal error of taking on a woman who knows the game far, far better than he. His weaselling after the fact bears this out, to the point where he admitted what he’d have known seconds, after he’d uttered his feline impression, was wrong and apologised for it. Tanya Plibersek then carrying on the good fight on behalf of women everywhere identifying what men in positions of power will do, usually without thinking, as common and unacceptable behaviour. Sophie Mirabella, with her outburst of “you feminist hypocrite” only makes the situation worse and highlights the fact that opposition benches will do & say whatever it takes to support their own come hell or highwater, or indeed ‘cattiness’ in the political game.

Yes, good theatre. Choose your villain and stand by them, whatever side of the despatch box they might sit on, it is all, sadly, part of what political life in Australia has become. Distasteful, bigoted and hateful. Not in the national interest, nor in the public interest as representatives in our Parliament. In my view, Wong is right to carry the ideal forward, identifying Abbott’s mode of speech and choices of words & phrases as overtly discriminatory towards women in general. What is evident is the choice of sides in the media. Surprise! Surprise! Caroline Overington not especially damning of Bushby’s faux pas, while Jacqueline Maley going the extra yard in identifying Abbott’s misogynism or at least passive sanction of same. At the time of writing, Auntie has yet to support writings leaning one way or the other, but I’d wager good money someone will write before the end of the day there. It’s good grist and it’s right to highlight to destruction of civility in our public debates. There is no call for one side of an argument to attempt to belittle the other as a tactic in winning the particular philosophical battle being waged. There’s a sage which states, “never argue with an idiot as he will only drag you down to his level” and equally, “it’s unwise to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent”. Both continue to hold true, yet so many in modern day society ignore their tenets.

Which brings me to another battle of wits which I’ve been having with Twitter. Refer here and here. My opinion of just who is doing what has changed somewhat, given the latest response received yesterday:

Your account was suspended because it appears you may be managing a number of Twitter accounts. Creating serial or bulk accounts with overlapping uses is a violation of the Twitter Rules; as a result, all of the accounts created have been suspended pending more information being provided.

Please respond with the following information:

a) a list of the accounts that you have created and which of these you would like to have reinstated, and
b) your planned use for the accounts.

The Twitter Rules can be found here: http://support.twitter.com/articles/18311

I would strongly urge any Twitter user who hasn’t read the linked ‘article’ to do so. I know I never did initially. In regard to the above, as my followers would know, I had to create a succession of accounts because the immediately prior account was being suspended on a daily basis. There never was ‘serial or bulk accounts’. Only ever one at a time, so I fail to comprehend where this accusation stems from. Equally, I take offence at the passage on privacy:

Privacy: You may not publish or post other people’s private and confidential information, such as credit card numbers, street address or Social Security/National Identity numbers, without their express authorization and permission.

As I have written in this tome, I have NEVER published anyone’s “private and confidential information”. Only that which is freely and openly available in the public domain. I did so as a public benefit to other users, in order that they know who the fool behind @dotnetnoobie is, and so that other users would be aware of the rampant paranoia-driven hatred behind @aj2. I note Twitter specifies ‘street address’ as something deemed to be private and confidential, which strikes me strange as everyone’s street address is public domain worldwide, by default. You live on a public street, you ARE the public, but apparently in America, you’re not. Yes, I was a naughty boy, slap on wrist and didn’t do it again, yet my accounts continued to be suspended. Naturally, I’m going to go around the obstacle & create another one, ad infinitum, if I have to. I am also still of the opinion that a certain level of account hacking was taking place and that David Thiessen is responsible. Unless and until he can adequately prove otherwise, I will continue to believe that.

Equally, I take umbrage at this response received Tuesday:

As mentioned in previous emails, your accounts have been suspended as they have been found to be abusive and violating the Twitter Rules

Please note that any violation of the Twitter Rules is cause for permanent suspension of all accounts. Your accounts will not be restored and future accounts will be suspended.

That was before the one above and from the same person, so do they really know what they’re on about? Would seem not. Further, I have NEVER abused ANY user on Twitter who didn’t abuse me first and certainly NOT to the extent that some do on an habitual basis within the #auspol hashtag. I’d go so far as to state that the Twitter ‘rules’ give every impression of being one way for some and the complete opposite for others.

Twitter is not a perfect platform, neither is it one where the user has any rights. The rules of its game are interpreted on the run, permitting, or even encouraging SPAM, overt abuse, impersonation and vilification of users by users, citing it’s own ‘rules’ as sacrosanct writ for taking or not taking action as suits an individual support person, at any given moment. Such is the imbalance in adjudication of right & wrong, the level of trolling and sheer lack of rationality among a certain bigoted collective on Twitter, that a few of us have taken to using IRC as a chat medium, rather than be continually followed around by the ideologically & socially challenged in #auspol.

Okay, so that’s end of rant, end of cattiness. We’ll see how trustworthy Twitter are with their uneven playing field and whether they honour their statements. I won’t be holding my breath. Back to IRC for me.