How will Morning Report reflect candidate comments on Steve Crow’s plan to run his Boobs on Bikes parade in Wellington on election day?
When Radio NZ called this evening I found myself resenting the attention to Crow’s stunt, and wanting to find some way to make the issue so boring that RNZ would drop the item. Before calling RNZ back I wondered whether my instinct was just envy, prompted by the lack of RNZ interest in what seem to me more important questions facing Wellington voters.
I felt my resentment was not prudery, because I could not imaging myself being offended by the parade, even if it seems tawdry. Pictures of the Auckland parade make the crowds seem curious but shortchanged more than anything else.
The Radio NZ interest shows that Crow will attract enough controversy to mix with titillation to get his crowds. I’d be very surprised if the Wellington City Council could stop the parade. I’m not sure that they should be free to stop it.
So why would I prefer Crow to fail?
I think it is because exploitation of the power to cause offence is such a cheap tactic, and because it cheapens those whose reactions make it work, yet if they do not react their values are cheapened.
Many things cause offense to some section of our community that do not offend others. For example some
Christians are deeply offended by blasphemy. Some conscience stricken liberals are upset by ethnic stereotype jokes. Some Maori are put off by people sitting on tables where food is served. None of those behaviours would upset me, except in one circumstance – that is where there are people present who do find them offensive.
In that case I feel embarrassed in anticipation of the rudeness shown by causing such offense, even where I can not feel the underlying offense.
I think we should feel vicarious offense on behalf of our fellows, where the offense is pointless, and able to be avoided with simple good manners. A civilised society has social pressures to sustain such manners. Causing pointless offence should have a cost that outweighs the benefits from challenging a taboo to gain notoriety for its own sake.
Succcess for Steve Crow’s stunt weakens those social sanctions. His parade will be offensive to some sincere people. Crow’s cause is Crow’s mercenary interest. And so, because he is likely to benefit from the media interest, and the portrayal of at least some of those who will be offended as fuddy-duddy, I hope that he falls on his face, without much expectation that it will happen.
I covered this briefly with Radio NZ. I wonder how much of this angle will be in their item in the morning?
Gee that’s smart. You don’t want Crow to get publicity, but you encourage the media to cover it for your benefit. How lame is that?
[Jason’s comments will be removed from now on, when I get around to seeing them, because he has no integrity in debate. He consistently misrepresents points to set up a straw man to burn. I’ve left them in the past because his reasoning is so wet it douses his matches. His straw men survive, looking silly.
But the Labour campaign relies on misrepresentation. When integrity in debate goes there may a kind of Gresham’s law at work (freely circulating counterfeit currency destroys reliance on the good currency as well as the fake). So I’ll start in my small corner, and reduce the circulation of their lies. For those who are wondering what straw broke this camel’s back I’ll leave this current silliness as an example]