Too true MaryE, other permutations are...

Someone uses the phrase 'How Sexist', and another just blindly takes that as 'You're Sexist' and runs with it.

And what about Forest... 'Stupid is as stupid does'. If you say that someone has said something sexist are you saying they are sexist?

Now the original poster could have been deliberately using the term to be abrasive with an easy 'out' as you say, but it's just as possible that the author chose the words quite deliberately, and the reader is looking to take offence, or is just over-sensitive, or just has preconceived ideas about the author.

In the end, I think we should just have to take the words as read. What's the point of language if you're not allowed to use certain words because someone will decide to take it the wrong way.

What's wrong with asking?

'Are you saying I'm racist?'
'Oh no. I just think that phrase is racist'.

but then what if the answer is sarcastic...

'Are you being sarcastic?'.
'Oh No'.

Then what if he's not being sarcastic, but the reader decides he is?

'Do you understand? I'm honestly not being sarcastic'
'I understand.'

Then what if he believes she is now being sarcastic...

I think you get the idea now

Which brings us back to Alexei Sayle...
"Are you being sar-carstic or something, my son? That's one of my least favorite things, that happens to be. Sar-carsm. I was walking a dog, and this bloke, he comes to me and says, "Nice day, innit?" But it wasn't. It wasn't a nice day. It was a little bit cloudy. Which makes him very sar-carstic. So acting as if nothing would happen, I took his head, right, put it in me mouth, right, acting dead casual-like, clamped me teeth, and BIT HIS HEAD OFF!! Cause I hate people being sar-carstic."

Of course, if someone makes comments that are vile and/or creepy repeatedly and over an extended period of time, then reasonable readers can infer that the person who makes such comments is probably vile and/or creepy.

Less enlightened types can infer, of course, that such a vile creep is an "excellent fellow".

Presumably an 'enlightened', 'reasonable' person is one who applies offensive labels to opponents and follows them from thread to thread, dog whistling for the pack as he goes.

It follows that the "less enlightened types" are those who regularly wonder why anyone would waste hours playing such negative little parlour games in cyberspace.

Getting back to the subject, it is unfortunate but probably true that the community needed the extra jolt offered by the rape comment to finally complain in large numbers. Sometimes it takes something outrageously awful to remind the community that the envelope has been stretched too far already.

It is not unusual for young people, some probably minors under Australian law, to be quizzed on television about their sexual, drug and other experiences and all for public titillation and entertainment. Anybody who has ever watched daytime television must have seen programs where children, forced to participate by parents and carers are interrogated, admonished and 'advised' by pop psychologists and 'experts' promoting their books. Yet there are presumably few complaints because the shows (usually US in origin)keep coming.

It did not happen, but it would have been much better the critics who attacked Sandilands had aimed their best shots at the show's producers instead, because that is the appropriate level of accountability to get some lasting change in policy.

It is interesting that The Chaser's critics knew where to aim. Maybe Sandilands copped the full magazine from so many critics because he was 'due for it' for other reasons. Not defending Sandilands but there were better targets.

Foxy:"the manipulation
of a child even with a parent's permission is
something that most people would feel is wrong."

Parents manipulate children all the time. So do teachers, so do advertisers, so do other children, so do all sorts of adults in contact with children.

What I think you're trying to say is that manipulating people who are not in a position to resist the manipulation carries responsibilities for the one doing it.

I would argue that the people who wanted to believe this girl's story and who tried to jump on the rape claim were being just as manipulative as Kyle and JackieO, perhaps even more so. The girl was no doubt induced to appear and knew what would be coming up on the show, whereas she likely had little clue about the furore that would be created by the bandwagon-riders and no choice about being part of it.

Those people, like Melinda Tankard-Reist notably and a few of the other hanger's-on used the girl's outburst for their own self-serving purposes, ascribing motivations to her and trying to make her into the sort of pre-packaged victim they're so expert at marketing. That's the real disgrace - that these people have so conditioned people to thinking in certain ways that any other thought must be "vile"

Foxy:"What's more important? Losing your face,
or losing your integrity?"

Loss of face follows lack of integrity. I regret very few of the things I post because I generally think about them properly before i post and I phrase them as exactly as I can to convey the meaning I intend. It never ceases to amaze me that seemingly intelligent people can still so misread my perfectly clear words.

I think that if anyone was sufficiently motivated to go through my posting history here and elsewhere (easily if time-consumingly done) they'd find no contradictions in what I have said. That's integrity.

Houellebecq I too am a great fan of Alexei Sayle.

I wish he posted here .... more interesting than some of the sad cases we have to contend with

and I see CJ Moron is into the foray...

"Of course, if someone makes comments that are vile and/or creepy repeatedly and over an extended period of time, then reasonable readers can infer that the person who makes such comments is probably vile and/or creepy."

confirming what Houellebecq said from forest G "'Stupid is as stupid does'."

and Anti yes "Melinda Tankard-Reist" is just a megaphone for fairy floss and political niceness all round...

I wonder where she stands on the mothers responsibility for her raped child?

Well according to her OLO listed article old "One-Eye" said

"Suffering the forced violation of her body, her abuser walking free for the past two years, what is she given? An on air mauling on the Kyle and Jackie Oh No show; forced sex followed by a forced confession; her human rights violated a second time.

It didn’t matter that she was scared. Nothing should stand in the way of a young girl’s public shaming."

but managed to hold back on any criticisim of the girls mother....

so I guess thats it

so long as you are a low life skank but a "social victim", prepared to put your child through hell for a couple of Pink tickets... you are alright by our bastion of "righteousness indignation" (what M.T-R accused Sandiland of for his "punch" comments - see M.T-R article here at OLO).

M.T-R - What a load of b**locks

Dear Antiseptic,

I'm pleased that you acknowledge that the young girl
was indeed manipulated - and that this was wrong.

I wasn't questioning your integrity. As I stated -
it is important to be conscious and compassionate
and act with great civility - but not to forget
your own wisdom because you fear you will lose something.
Then I added - What's more important? Losing your face,
or losing your integrity? I didn't mean to imply that
you'd lost yours.

Right or wrong people acquire a reputation.
And I remember someone at work a few years ago,
saying I was difficult to work with. When I heard
what he'd said, I thought I was going to die.
It wasn't just a question of mudslinging, but
a little bit of who I am too. I suppose in my wish
for things to be the best they can be, I didn't play
the game well.

As a child, I was shy, I wasn't comfortable with
my own ideas, never believing they were worthy of
being heard. As I grew older, I was afraid of my
own strength and worried that if I came on too strong
it would make me less attractive to men, and a threat
to women. But now after all this time - I've come into
my own. I realize that the only path to happiness is to
really be all that I can be. The more we can feel
emotionally liberated, the more whole we can be as
people.