Hanson and Henson? Besides the obvious similarity in names, I agree that both Hanson supporters and Henson attackers have attracted the ire of many intelligent, educated and honourable Australians - deservedly so, I'd say.

As far as I can glean from Ginx's posts, she's peeved that her views about "Hensonart" - and her way of putting them - haven't been well received by some people with whom she usually agrees at OLO. I'm in the poo with her because I pointed out that it's not good enough in a debate to aggressively voice an opinion and then refuse to discuss it.

The position that Henson's portrayal of nude adolescent models is somehow intrinsically and self-evidently "wrong", "pornographic" or "perverted" is one that requires a strong supportive argument, particularly given that those who promote it wish to change our current standards - under which Henson's artworks have been shown to be none of those things, legally speaking. However, Ginx is one of those who has aggressively attacked Henson and those who support his art, but who hasn't deigned to provide a jot of supporting argument or evidence.

The comments about group dynamics at OLO are quite interesting. The Henson controversy has certainly shown how disparate and varied are the views of those who post here regularly. I have to say that I've been variously surprised, delighted and disappointed by their comments on this issue.

As my kids say (too often), it's all good :)

Dear Bronwyn.....while you are sinking the boots and all into Hanson....
and writing letters to the editor condemning her..

I wonder if you saw the show on Current Affair showing the Asian man in a bus full of Asian tourists, where he was telling them as follows:

"Make sure you goto THIS mall/shop.. as it's owned by Asians.. but don't goto 'that' one, which is owned by White people/Australians"

I saw it.. and I'm sure many 10s of 1000s of others did.

Now.. just out of curiosity.. did you? and if you did, did you write to the travel company involved or the media..and OUT this overt blatant racism which was what the heart of Hansons platform was against?

So.. if Hanson exposes blatant racism and 'ethnic networking' which is deliberately and maliciously and in a racist manner working against the interests of justice, fairness and free trade.. she is a 'racist'?

Now.. I don't particularly wave the flag for Hanson, but on this issue, she was completely justified in what she said..which was "TREAT ALL AUSTRALIAN EQUALLY" only a warped mind could interpret that as 'racist'.. and thats why some of us (not you notably) have spent about 170+ posts back and forth on the issue of INTERPRETING things.

To some twisted minds "Black"="White" and 'EQUALITY'= UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.

So..that then results in me sinking the verbal boot in you, because I'm a believer in equality before the law irrespective of race.
Hate crimes are the same for me or for anyone else. If I say "Bash up all red headed people" its a hate crime. If red headed people say "Bash up all people named 'BOAZ'" its equally a hate crime.

Usual Suspect "There is a certain group within OLO (with quite a high opinion of themselves) that will always ignore personal attacks against others by those inside the group, while vigorously policing anyone outside the group who dares to do the same"

Thats not the impression I have of those involved. I will admit I'm more inclined to notice the excesses of those I disagree with than those I agree with, I suspect that I'm not alone in this. From my perspective I try and stay out of tiffs between those who appear fond of an online tiff but do sometimes step in if I think someone is being unfairly attacked. Thats always a judegment call based on time, posting limits, emotional energy and impressions of those involved and the reaction the attack triggers in me.

I've made the point to steel that I think huffnpuff is the wrong target, there are some people on these forums with ideas that do bring their grip on reality into question. Some who spare no chance to express their contempt for those who don't agree with them. huffnpuff had a really bad start to life and stuggles with his written expression, I happen to disagree with him on this issue but don't think any of that justifies the attack steel made on him.

I think though that the point I made still stands, some of those supporting artistic freedom stepped in when they considered an attack on someone with a differing view to be uncalled for.

In my view the debate has not been as one sided, not the behaviour of those on the side loosely described as supporting Henson as bad as it has seemed to Ginx.

R0bert

I too did not like some of the vitriol on the Henson threads. Reading through the posts again, it appears we are all paedophiles regardless of what side of the debate you stand.

The Henson debate certainly did bring out some fire and passion on both sides. I found I was in opposition to people who I might agree with on other issues. Religion, pornography and gender issues appear to bring out the worst (and occasionally the best) of people.

Human nature is a funny animal. There probably was a pack mentality to some extent on the Henson threads. In general, people tend to behave like that when perceptions of one's 'moral stature' is put into question. Perhaps it is a survival mechanism we have not quite grown out of.

I was guilty too and found after a while I avoided the Henson threads because I was getting angry that anyone could believe that these images were anything other than sexualising children.

Where you find humans you will find the 'usual' human emotions and failings.

Ginx and Vanilla don't stay away for too long. I appreciate your directness and well reasoned debating skills. :)

I can clearly recall the first time another commenter savagely attacked something I'd said. It went something like:

You mustn't be able to see clearly through all that smoke.

Horrendous isn't it? I was so stung I stayed away for ages. Stung at the ad hominem attack and, stupidly, that 'chainsmoker' was taken to refer to fags rather than fish. What else were people supposed to think? In retrospect my response was ridiculous, but at the time I felt awful.

Several years later I take the blood letting for granted and can mostly pick which topics will cause a ruckus. The July feature on religion should produce some doozys.

It's the nature of what we politely call public debate. 'Robust debate' is code for carnage. 'Mainstream majority' often means lynch mob. 'Evidence' can mean pretty much anything.

It's nasty sometimes, yes, but would we rather be gagged as we were in the internet-free past? Would we rather be stuck yelling at the telly with nobody to hear and respond? That's the choice as I see it - either jump in and wrestle with your fellow hoi polloi and cop a hiding sometimes or switch off somewhere comfy, quiet, safe and detached.

pelican, I'd like to take a light hearted look following reflection on a point you made which has been a common theme of the discussions. I'm not having a go at you with this, it's intended to help us step back a bit and maybe have a laugh at ourselves (on both sides).

You made the point "I was getting angry that anyone could believe that these images were anything other than sexualising children."

That aspect of the debate from both sides reminds me of the old story of the man being shown inkblots by the psychiatrist. For each inkblot shown the man claimed he saw an image of something sexual. After a while the psychiatrist comments that the man is obsessed with sex to which the man replies "You are the one with all the dirty pictures".

Each of our worldviews, life experiences and a whole buch of other things will impact on how we see this and other issues. I've been in a similar boat to you on other issues where I've been very frustrated that others can't see something that seems so obvious to me. It's a hard place to be.

R0bert