Tuesday, 24 April 2012
It isn't dishonest if no one notices!
Well, it finally happened: I’ve been banned from posting on Martyn ’Bomber‘ Bradbury’s Facebook wall.
What action was it that caused me to be banned? Was it swearing and rabid abuse? Did I make some kind of racial slur? A tasteless comment regarding someone’s mother?
No, I pointed out that he had made some disingenuous and intellectually dishonest comments.
Sure, I might have made a pain of myself. But if you’re going to make demonstrably false claims, hypocritical statements and dishonest commentary in a public space – and expose yourself to public scrutiny by describing yourself as a media personality – you can expect others to counter you, investigate your claims and call foul when you say something less than honest … particularly if you have a history of calling foul on people yourself.
For the record: when engaging those with whom I have a difference of opinion I never swear, I try to avoid being condescending, I provide sources for my claims and consider opposite opinions carefully. Above all, however, I am prepared to be wrong.
In this particular case it was claimed that Roy Morgan polling data is flawed; that it manipulates – rather than represents – public opinion in order to promote John Key’s popularity. Whenever one of these polls shows Key or National at 50 percent or higher, Bradbury calls foul – claiming that themethodology is flawed, the mainstream media wants you to believe Key isunbeatable, and on it goes. However, that same poll – using the same methodology that Bomber had claimed was “bullshit” – recently gave the Greens 17 percent. In that instance Bomber was a little more forgiving and accepting of a result that played nicely into his ideological beliefs.
It stands to reason that if you accept that a methodology is poor and flawed, then you must also accept that the poll based on that methodology must also be poor and flawed – as must any outcome of that poll. My personal view is that no poll can accurately capture the mood of the populace and, in this case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle – ie National and Key are still popular, but the Green Party is rising to become an electoral force in its own right.
The first time Bomber did this, I pointed out the discrepancy – only to be sworn at, called a few names and generally berated by a few of his acolytes. This second time, however, I was banned and all my comments were deleted – and not just on the update in question but, rather, over the entire page. Bomber has made it clear that inconvenient truths shall not be tolerated. He has recreated his page as an echo chamber where he can always be right and there is, and has, never been any dissent.
It strikes me as counter-productive – not to mention dishonest – to ignore and delete comments that either disagree with you or raise valid points that you may have not considered before. Equally so to ignore polite dissent, but let others berate the dissenter in your name; or to accuse those who disagree with you of hypocrisy and dishonesty, but then display those very same flaws yourself.
People might say – usually while defending said rude behaviour – that you can write whatever bullshit you want on your own page. That may be true – but if you proclaim yourself to be a political pundit and media personality, then you can expect people to follow your posts and question your comments when they see something they know to be false. Even more egregiously bullshit was when Bomber claimed the Green Party walked away from the National Party when his linked article said the exact opposite.
So … who do you think you’re kidding, buddy?
Maybe tomorrow I’ll tell you about the other rude and nasty individuals who moderated me today and actually told me, with all sincerity, that “ when I tried explaining that rational and logical debate means it is incumbent on the person making a claim to provide the evidence for said claim.
Jesus, I’m stirring up all types of ire today.