Book SA

Recent comments:

• 
  Fiona
  January 20th, 2010 @09:31 #
   
  
  

  Few things have annoyed me as much as that Hoffman article did. Thank goodness it's been taken down. But, yes, the damage it did in the short time it was up must have been incalculable.

  
  
• 
  Fiona
  January 20th, 2010 @09:37 #
   
  
  

  An early version of the article contained a sentence that read something like "lawless mobs of disenfranchised blacks run rampant". But it was changed when people went nuts in the comments thread.

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  January 20th, 2010 @10:08 #
   
  
  

  The original quote is:

  “Most would agree that three of the major venues, Johannesburg, Durban, and Capetown are cities where lawless mobs of disenchanted blacks run rampant and threaten both classes on a regular daily basis.”

  Source is MarkLives:

  http://www.marklives.com/wordpress/?p=973

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 20th, 2010 @12:19 #
   
  
  

  This is jawdropping stuff. Good for MarkLives. But truly, how can someone do this (citing a non-existent newspaper, for heaven's sake) and get away with it?

  Right, off to Rondebosch for a cappuchino. But wait, I can't leave the house because a lawless mob is taking its daily canter down my street. And the coffee shop is no doubt burning down... oh wait, that's in Capetown, a city that exists only in Hoffman's fevered imagination. I live in Cape Town, so that's all right then.

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  January 20th, 2010 @12:31 #
   
  
  

  Helen, I just looked out the window, and the lawless mob has moved over to Sea Point, so you should be safe for at least an hour. But hurry, the mob has started trending southerly, at about, oh, I reckon 7mph, so it might be back on your side by afternoon.

  
  
• 
  Rustum Kozain
  January 20th, 2010 @12:39 #
   
  
  

  Good luck Helen. I just had to pick my nervous way through several groups of roaming bandits to get some stick cinnamon at the Spar. Strange, though, they were neither disenchanted nor black. They had American accents and swarmed all over the sidewalk.

  Oh, they're students?

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 20th, 2010 @13:06 #
   
  
  

  Of course! American students! This explains why they all look the wrong way as they rampage into the streets. But you are wrong about the disenchantment. They're marching on my local coffee shop because there is no fat-free soy hazelnut latte.

  (Sorry, dearest Ben-E, couldn't resist it.)

  
  
• 
  Edwin
  January 20th, 2010 @13:15 #
   
  
  

  You are missing the point, Hoffman facts is desirably incorrect. If he applied more time to research and interviews, he would have found that crime is in order of the day. Any South African, will be able to tell you that crime is part of our lives. It is high time that the world see what is happening in SA. Didn't you watch the e.TV interview on Friday? Just in Mondays Burger (4), Beeld (6) and the Argus (6) murders over the weekend. And this is the ones that were published. And if you look and understand that they murder because they can, and for as little as a cell phone or R10 ($1.30 +/-), for the SA Police is close to useless catching criminals, and the justice system is close to break down. Prisons are over populated, and the crooks are synonyms with police corruption and assistance. Hoffman must be praised for his effort, this is not negative publicity, and this is reality. It is a pity that the Soccer World Cup is threatening with this type of hurdle.

  
  
• 
  SarahM
  January 20th, 2010 @13:41 #
   
  
  

  *LOL*
  Oh dear you lot are such a wheeze. 20000 ppl killed in SA last year, BWAHAHAHA! Fiona is quite right, good on them for taking the article down. Never let fact stand in the way of liberal posturing. Well done you all.

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 20th, 2010 @13:54 #
   
  
  

  Can anyone tell me what "Hoffman facts is desirably incorrect" means? And I see someone is calling me (or is it Fiona?) a "liberal" again *sighs*. I thought we were all clear by now that I'm a radical, Rustum is an anarchist, and Fiona is PINK (very).

  PS: Wouldn't mind Hoffman writing conservative doom-mongering so much if he had actually done any research. Heaven knows there is data that supports his view of the universe, so here he was undone by spectacular laziness.

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  January 20th, 2010 @13:54 #
   
  
  

  BOOK SA welcomes all readers of the Johannesburg Times. *LOL* indeed!

  
  
• 
  Louis Greenberg
  January 20th, 2010 @14:14 #
   
  
  

  Well, kudos to SarahM for expressing her opinion in a pithy and effective way. I was quite moved. Reactionaries often let their side down with their derigible, uh, desirable, um, derisible, er, sucky expression.

  
  
• 
  Rustum Kozain
  January 20th, 2010 @15:22 #
   
  
  

  I've been to several conservative blogs and sites due to an inability to avoid rabbit holes. Some are good - the writing crisp and clear, presenting actually existing sources; most are hysterical and invent sources. My problem with the Hoffman article is not that his facts are undesirable; it's that he paints a social problem in hysterical tones: "lawless mobs of disenchanted blacks run rampant and threaten both classes on a regular daily basis." (He clearly hasn't been to any of these cities; another cross against Huffington editors for accepting this.)

  Crime rates are alarmingly, objectionably high, but that statement by Hoffman is not fact. It is melodrama. And I would venture to say that the author is aware of it, because he slips in 'both classes' in order to try and temper the hysteria, as if his recognition of this fact will provide balance.

  That he then invents a source shows either his hysterical intent or his hurried hysteria in getting this down (by the way, originally posted on his blog in January 2008) and failing to check the proper name of his source.

  
  
• 
  WinnieTheAngel
  January 21st, 2010 @11:58 #
   
  
  

  About the little "Oh look he invented a source" orgy that's going on here:

  This is the paper he was talking about:

  http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/

  And if you go into your local CNA, in the little comfy zone next to your Spar, you will note that on the front page, it says only "THE TIMES".

  I would have thought that it is important to differentiate between The Times of Swaziland, The Times of India, The Times of Zambia, The F@%$ing London Times, The New York Times, The Times of Hermanus or F%$@ing Madagascar.

  Yes, they do all actually exist.

  Was it badly put? Absolutely. But to go on this little "he invented a source, and therefore the 20,000 plus people killed last year are alive and well" delusional little "look I'm liberal" cover-up campaign, is quite hypocritical I feel.

  As is the fact that it is perfectly OK to call the Huffington post "uber-blog-slash-aggregator-slash-hotbed-of-what-passes-for-liberal-thinking-in-the-USA", but it's not OK for Hoffman to say that "Johannesburg, Durban, and Capetown are cities where lawless mobs run rampant and threaten both classes on a regular daily basis". Even though you only have to open ANY local paper, whatever it's name, (oh, and be able to read) to see that it's true. Even though I also object to the word "mobs". It should have been "gangs".

  Yes, go read some papers, crime gangs are common in SA. Former police commissioner even ran some of them. (probably still runs them). It's not a right wing conspiracy theory, I promise you. Gangs do exist.

  Re Fiona's approval of taking the post down. Is your brand of censorship better than Apartheid censorship? Or is your liberal, sorry, pink/radical/superiority-complex-dressed-as-politics brand of intellectually bankrupt infallibility better than Apartheid infallibility? Or are you really just the same creatures wearing PC masks for GOOD little girls?

  There is clearly a very worrying and strange obsession with suppressing free speech around the issue of crime/security and the world cup.

  e-tv editor receiving subpoena for documenting the intentions of crime gangs:

  http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article271249.ece

  I find this very fishy...

  
  
• 
  Fiona
  January 21st, 2010 @12:20 #
   
  
  

  Is this my old friend aquahelix, or a new sparring partner come to join the fray? Either way, welcome, WinnieTheKiller. The Very Pink movement will never be silenced. Never, I say. We will be free to express our pinkness in all public forums, and promote freedom of pink assembly. And the dress code shall be pink.

  
  
• 
  WinnieTheAngel
  January 21st, 2010 @12:31 #
   
  
  

  Eh, no Fiona. I don't want to silence you, you're good for a laugh. I just don't want you to silence everyone else so that you can keep your pink delusions in one piece.

  
  
• 
  Louis Greenberg
  January 21st, 2010 @12:40 #
   
  
  

  Yeah, we all know that pink-think has the might and majority to silence everybody else. Just check out comments on all the other blogs on the internet... liberals falling over each other, so much that the poor little neocons can't be heard.

  
  
• 
  Kathryn
  January 21st, 2010 @12:41 #
   
  
  

  I find the name WinnieTheKiller upsetting - what is the intention behind that? i think most ppl agree (?) that she was behind the Stompie murder but WinnieTheKiller as a name -- what are you saying by using that as a moniker?

  
  
• 
  Rustum Kozain
  January 21st, 2010 @12:43 #
   
  
  

  Deep breaths, Winnie, deep breaths.

  1) The melodrama/hysteria in Hoffman's opening paragraph shows an agenda; it's not about whether gangs exist or not; it's about how the writer infects his argument with over-statement. He is basically trolling.

  If you disagree that the description of mobs is hysterical or melodramatic, then you have a problem in judging truthfulness in writing. All writing is coloured by the writer's perspectives and prejudices, but these are matters of degree. Hoffman's is off the reasonable scale. By doing this he actually alienates any reasonable reader, and people who live in SA cities or who have visited same. But he knows he is playing to an audience - i.e. trolling. There's something desperate in the writing, a characteristic of prophesies of doom. (Note that the piece first appeared 30 Jan 2008 on two of Hoffman's blogs)

  2) The 'invented' source is pointed to because it shows either intent or shoddy journalism, which harms Hoffman's agenda. I stated earlier that he may also have got the details of that source wrong. But if you are a serious journalist and care about your writing, you would check a detail like that, especially if you are writing about an issue that is serious and close to your heart, and especially if you are going to use that detail in an opening paragraph that FRAMES the rest of the piece. And his readers who would want to follow up are immediately confounded because they can't find the evidence that he holds up. Not a recipe for success.

  Your argument that he was trying to distinguish The Times (SA) from other newspapers with similar titles all over the world does not cut mustard. Hoffman is internet savvy and would/should know to google it and at least provide a link.

  In any case, whether he invented the source or was hasty in writing the story and thus couldn't be bothered to get that detail right, it mars his credibility and that of his story.

  3) Given that the opening paragraph raises two red flags, why should a reader then pay further attention to the body of his piece, which is a crime story? By order of his first paragraph, he shows that he is merely interested in grinding an axe, and a reader wonders whether the writer actually cares about the details of the rest of his story. I would say he doesn't, otherwise he would have been careful to get source details right.

  4) Finally, the story was eventually taken down by the HuffingtonPost due to 'factual inaccuracy' and 'inflammatory language'. Make of that as much of a conspiracy against freedom of speech as you want.

  
  
• 
  Kathryn
  January 21st, 2010 @12:47 #
   
  
  

  I heart Rustum

  
  
• 
  Louis Greenberg
  January 21st, 2010 @12:50 #
   
  
  

  Tsk, once again Rustum's (almost sociopathic) calm balance and thoughtful rationality trumps my kneejerk one-liners. Damn you Rustum, for raising the bar, damn you.

  Speaking of razing bars...

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 21st, 2010 @13:12 #
   
  
  

  Rustum's response is the perfect example of why: 1) it's critical to actively teach scholars logic, reason and debating skills; 2) why critical analysis/close reading of texts is just about the most valuable skill acquired at university (for English and other humanities students, IF they're lucky, and have good teachers); and 3) why intelligence trumps emotion, sarcasm, rhetoric etc etc etc. But intelligence can't be taught or acquired. Only admired. Long-winded way of waying I heart Rustum too.

  
  
• 
  WinnieTheAngel
  January 21st, 2010 @13:18 #
   
  
  

  Kathryn, I find it upsetting that a woman who burnt people alive to intimidate them into following her agenda, is posing as a "liberator" at the same time. And as to "what's the intention behind it?" - Ingrid was taken.

  What am I saying? I'm saying she's a killer.

  And Rustum, I don't disagree with you that the article was badly written. In that regard, quite frankly, it sucks. I totally agree with you. But the central point, that SA have a huge crime problem, and that there is a high risk for visitors to the event, is still valid.

  20,000 plus people murered and 50,000 plus raped last year, doesn't just disappear because he got the name of a paper wrong, or because he's being melodramatic.

  And the Huffington Post could have distanced themselves from the views he expressed, listed the "inaccuracies" and left it up. Instead, they censored. And here at home, the police/government are trying their best to do the same.

  And yes Helen, you're so right. Intelligence certainly can't be taught.

  
  
• 
  Louis Greenberg
  January 21st, 2010 @13:32 #
   
  
  

  What are you saying, Helen? There's nothing wrong with one-liners, okay. I know many an unconfident schoolboy who used them to boost his, er, their ego.

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  January 21st, 2010 @13:44 #
   
  
  

  Louis, ha ha.

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 21st, 2010 @13:48 #
   
  
  

  Nefair mind, Louis, I'm just jealous because I'm incapable of saying anything in less than 100 words.

  Winnie, I also think the former Mrs Mandela is a killer (or at the very least, ordered a killing), but she didn't burn anyone alive. You could be thinking of her horrendous "With our matches" speech of the late 80s, from which an appalled ANC promptly distanced itself. By then, the abhorrent practice of necklacing had been in practice for 3 or 4 years. Your moniker is also somewhat open to misinterpretation. At 1st glance, it looked like the thread had attracted a wannabe psychopath...

  
  
• 
  Louis Greenberg
  January 21st, 2010 @14:00 #
   
  
  

  Ooohhhhh! I thought Kate was talking about AA Milne's bear, and didn't know which arcane story she had got her hands on. I was like, Winnie's a boy bear, okay.

  
  
• 
  Louis Greenberg
  January 21st, 2010 @14:04 #
   
  
  

  Where's Winnie? Has he been run out of town by the pinkos? I hope not, and that he's just changing his user name.

  
  
• 
  Rustum Kozain
  January 21st, 2010 @14:12 #
   
  
  

  @Winnie

  yes, we can talk about the crime statistics, and I doubt anyone here would disagree about almost all of its dimensions: index of incompetent policing, effects on society at large, effects on SA's international image, index of poverty, index of dehumanisation, index of greed (corporate and politicians') at all costs and how it effects criminal mentality, and so on.

  But the departure of this thread was 1 article and the reasons for it being pulled. That's 1 article in a sea of similar articles. And no one here will imagine that those statistics are meaningless or will disappear because of the pulling of that article.

  Furthermore, the central point you raise and feel is being suppressed - SA's huge crime problem - is not an original point, and 1 Hoffman article is not going to add to the point. Hoffman's original article is about Sheldon Cohen's murder in 2008, which Hoffman offers as an example of 'lawless mobs'. I.e. it is a story of one crime - one murder too many, yes, but Hoffman's story does not even attempt to provide convincing evidence of his 'lawless mobs'. He doesn't list any statistics, he doesn't mention other murder stories, etc etc. He describes one murder in detail, but he does not describe the lawless mobs. (The story is easily cribbed from numerous online SA newspapers).

  My point here is that HOFFMAN'S story does not seem serious about raising awareness of SA's huge crime problem, except through the opening paragraph, which is hysterical. So I would NOT hold his story up as trying to bring SA's crime problem to the world's attention. If he was trying to do that, he wouldn't have repeated a 2 year old blogpost. He would have googled the topic and found any number of blogs dedicated to just that: raising awareness of crime in SA (whatever the motives). He may even have found statistical evidence of ridiculously high crime rates. He would have found that his one, old story doesn't quite cut it as 'raising awareness of crime in SA.'

  But Hoffman is clearly an opportunist. He wrote the piece in January 2008. His twitter reveals how he came to repost it at Huffington. Jan 2010, he's hanging with a fellow football fan, who is South African. Talk turns to the Worldcup and crime. He decided to repost, without any reframing or updating. As I said, had he googled, he would have found far more horror stories to increase the impact of his article. Then one could have said he was trying to bring crime to the attention of an American audience. As is, he just reposted an old story, hoping to score hits at Huffington.

  I think then that you're being disingenious in suggesting that, because some have criticised his article for its hysteria, those critics wish to ignore the crime problem. You're shifting the posts. I wouldn't worry about this particular article disappearing. Its existence adds nothing to your campaign; its disappearance from Huffington won't harm your campaign. It exists still at Hoffman's blogs.

  As to censorhip here in SA, I dunno. There's a plethora of blogs, some hosted elsewhere, but written from here, who have an explicit agenda about crime in SA, and expressed in language far more colourful than Hoffman could ever muster. And they post daily - not an index of censorship in SA.

  P.S. your nic is familiar to me. Do you comment at MySASucks?

  
  
• 
  Kathryn
  January 21st, 2010 @14:20 #
   
  
  

  Alas, Winnie has taken to the sidelines, mistaken out frippery for NOT CARING THAT THE COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL!

  Herewith the point again - http://thoselegends.blogspot.com/ This one re "Shoot a Tourist Day".

  
  
• 
  Rustum Kozain
  January 21st, 2010 @14:27 #
   
  
  

  @People

  thanks for the applause, but I wouldn't want Winnie to think that we're mobbing.

  @Louis: I've had a recent 'engagement' with a poster on another forum and I had an epiphany off sorts regarding how one responds. Often, of course, posters bait with deliberately inflammatory posts; and they want you to respond with same, so that they can then start a favourite game. It is a popular genre, no matter the topic. I decided then to seek the Zen of my masters, Edward Said and Noam Chomsky, and analyse the mechanics of the writing, rather than engage directly with what the writing is about.

  
  
• 
  Richard de Nooy
  January 21st, 2010 @14:30 #
   
  
  

  Don't prod the big bear when he's just out of hibernation. Nice re-entry there, Mr. Kozain. But what happened to our policy to not respond to those who come screaming without giving their full name? I always like to know who I'm taking abuse from.

  
  
• 
  Rustum Kozain
  January 21st, 2010 @14:40 #
   
  
  

  Hi Richard, yes, long time.

  But, how do you know it's me?

  Which reminds me, @people, if you recently received an odd "My Friend" email from me, about three weeks ago, my gmail account had been hacked. Hope no one clicked through. Gmail account secure now, I hope and think.

  
  
• 
  Louis Greenberg
  January 21st, 2010 @14:53 #
   
  
  

  Nice link, Kate - Arthur Goldstuck's urban legend studies are a lesson in amusing, accessible and popular discourse- and narrative-analysis. (But speak for yourself re the country going to HELL. I don't believe in hell. I believe the country is going to Australia at a rate of 7 cm per annum.)

  
  
• 
  Richard de Nooy
  January 21st, 2010 @14:53 #
   
  
  

  My faith in your existence is much the same as other people's belief in god. I need no proof to worship you.

  Okay, that came out all funny, but you know what I mean.

  
  
• 
  Louis Greenberg
  January 21st, 2010 @14:55 #
   
  
  

  From the Goldstuck debunking: "Since there were a mere 844,245 victims of crime in London from April 2008 to March 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8002195.stm), surely crime will have no impact on the Olympic Games? In fact, with those kind of statistics, the world should be terrified of sending its athletes to London.

  But South Africa? That's different. There, all urban legends must be true."

  
  
• 
  Louis Greenberg
  January 21st, 2010 @15:02 #
   
  
  

  Aah,that's sweet, Richard. I'm going to invite you to my party.

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  January 21st, 2010 @15:04 #
   
  
  

  Today is a day for "ha has". Rustum, "@people", ha ha!

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 21st, 2010 @15:11 #
   
  
  

  Ben-E, also laughing at "@ People", also Richard's Louis-worship and Louis's continental drift...

  
  
• 
  Richard de Nooy
  January 21st, 2010 @15:26 #
   
  
  

  I like parties, Louis, thank you. Had I mentioned that I'm planning a whirlwind visit to Joburg and the Drakkkensberg in early February?

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 21st, 2010 @15:36 #
   
  
  

  Richard, are you cold-shouldering Cape Town again? *sulks*

  
  
• 
  Richard de Nooy
  January 21st, 2010 @15:47 #
   
  
  

  Not intentionally, Helen. My sister's getting married in the mountains and mom's in Jozi and I don't want to blow my carefully constructed e-mage among Capetonians any sooner than is strictly necessary.

  
  
• 
  Kathryn
  January 21st, 2010 @15:52 #
   
  
  

  @Richard, Will u b able to whirl into a bar for a catch up?

  
  
• 
  Richard de Nooy
  January 21st, 2010 @15:54 #
   
  
  

  That would be just lovely. Will send dates/times/parsley as and when.

  
  
• 
  Rustum Kozain
  January 21st, 2010 @16:10 #
   
  
  

  Por que? Sorry, did I offend any of the people?

  /ignores Richard for ignoring Cape Town

  
  
• 
  Richard de Nooy
  January 21st, 2010 @16:12 #
   
  
  

  You deliver a mean slash, Mr. Kozain.

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 21st, 2010 @16:32 #
   
  
  

  Well, we have to meet one day, Mr Annoy. Even if you do smoke.

  
  
• 
  Louis Greenberg
  January 21st, 2010 @16:40 #
   
  
  

  Lovely, @Kate, @Richard, I've been itching to wet mine throat.

  
  
• 
  Kathryn
  January 21st, 2010 @16:57 #
   
  
  

  In the interest of exploring our crumbling society we should go to the Flamingo and eat prawns and drink beer. There might actually be some mobs there.

  
  
• 
  WinnieTheAngel
  January 21st, 2010 @17:05 #
   
  
  

  Eh, No Kathryn, I haven't "taken to the sidelines". Since my previous posts have been deleted, I see no point in continuing any discussion. But thanks for proving my point though. It certainly is a day for ha has.

  You're of course right. Censorship is totally unrelated to this topic. Lol!

  Let's rather talk about getting drunk soon.

  
  
• 
  Fiona
  January 21st, 2010 @17:13 #
   
  
  

  Ben ... step away from that delete button. We've had to speak to you about this Stalinist habit before :-)

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 21st, 2010 @17:19 #
   
  
  

  Good heavens, how did Winnie's posts go AWOL? Is it because he/she changed her moniker? Or were they legally dodgy? Our editor (a free-speechist) usually only nukes comments if (a) they're spam; or (b) they constitute slander and could get the site into legal trouble.) But changing names can cause posts to dematerialise, I seem to remember.

  
  
• 
  Ingrid Andersen
  January 21st, 2010 @17:26 #
   
  
  

  Richard - any way you can make our BookChat picnic in Emmarentia 31st Jan??? <hopeful grin>

  
  
• 
  Ingrid Andersen
  January 21st, 2010 @17:26 #
   
  
  

  (very hopeful grin)

  
  
• 
  Kathryn
  January 21st, 2010 @17:33 #
   
  
  

  Winnie - I am sure there was a bug and that it was not intentional at all. Am v glad u did not move away - everyone is entitled to stand by their opinion and many of us would not do (or comment) what we do unless we believed (deep down) that our opinions held some merit. Welcome to the "we", to the banter, but be warned - many of the liberals are also WASPs (surprise!) and alcohol is often mentioned in tandem with politics, and that should be respected.

  
  
• 
  Richard de Nooy
  January 21st, 2010 @17:49 #
   
  
  

  Sorry to erase that hopeful grin, Ingrid, but I'll only be arriving the following weekend. It'd be great if you could join us for drinks and/or dinner.

  
  
• 
  Rustum Kozain
  January 21st, 2010 @18:23 #
   
  
  

  Ingrid, Richard is a troll. Have you never noticed how he always derails threads in the name of clever punning?

  Just ignore him, i.e. don't feed the troll.

  [sorry Ed., just testing]

  
  
• 
  Richard de Nooy
  January 21st, 2010 @18:27 #
   
  
  

  's true - always trolling for puns.

  
  
• 
  WinnieTheAngel
  January 21st, 2010 @18:46 #
   
  
  

  Well, Fiona, Helen, Kathryn, the thing is, I couldn't post under my old name because the account has been deleted. I didn't change my moniker, I had to create a new one to comment. I'll reply to the latest posts if my old ones are reposted. Otherwise, I see no point.

  Not that I want to engage in a ping-pong match. I've pretty much said what I wanted to say. But I'll give it one more go.

  Lol Kathryn! Point taken. Politics drove me to alcohol on numerous occasions!

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  January 21st, 2010 @18:47 #
   
  
  

  Hi All

  Quick note from the network editor - I certainly didn't delete any comments on this thread, am looking into the issue now. If I can, I'll restore them.

  Thanks

  Ben

  
  
• 
  Rustum Kozain
  January 21st, 2010 @18:54 #
   
  
  

  Now I am terribly confused.

  Winnie, you say your account was deleted? That sounds nefarious.

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  January 21st, 2010 @18:57 #
   
  
  

  Ok, a bit of investigation shows that WinnieTheKiller's account was accidentally deleted during a spam sweep (it was one of several hundred non-legit accounts deleted today; the word "Killer" might have caused the issue).

  His/her original comments are in our backup, however:

  http://book.co.za/bookchat/topic/media-watch-the-huffington-post-retracts-jeffrey-hoffmans-2010-disaster-scenario-article#post-24913

  http://book.co.za/bookchat/topic/media-watch-the-huffington-post-retracts-jeffrey-hoffmans-2010-disaster-scenario-article#post-24934

  http://book.co.za/bookchat/topic/media-watch-the-huffington-post-retracts-jeffrey-hoffmans-2010-disaster-scenario-article#post-24941

  Sorry about that, WinnieTheKiller. I'm going to now try and have those posts associated with your new (very amusing) username, after which they'll reappear on the main thread here.

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  January 21st, 2010 @19:00 #
   
  
  

  Ok, done - I think all has been restored now. WinnieTheAngel, your account has been marked as "safe". Let me know if there's anything missing in the thread. Thanks - B

  
  
• 
  Rustum Kozain
  January 21st, 2010 @19:08 #
   
  
  

  Ooh, Kathryn's going to enjoy this.

  
  
• 
  ar
  January 21st, 2010 @19:53 #
   
  
  

  Nooit. I am going to have to study this thing in depth, and it's going to be one of those, isn't it? As a friend of mine said recently, “I seem to have missed the causal comment, missed the crucial episode in the saga. You westerners are inscrutable”. I walk away for 24 hours, twenty four HOURS, and look what happens around here. Does this thread have frayed threadlets or have I slipped into a Pixies song by mistake? I have questions, so many questions. Please, who or what is Winniethekiller and where did it go? Does Rustum really have a submarine? It’s me, ar, truly it is even though I know that’s no name to stand up and be counted by, but look, you can tell by the Buzz Lightyear pic. Help me, help me...

  
  
• 
  ar
  January 21st, 2010 @19:56 #
   
  
  

  Oh. God. Ignore me, please, while I make friends with the Refresh button. And while I re-study the thread.

  
  
• 
  Rustum Kozain
  January 21st, 2010 @20:43 #
   
  
  

  ar, herewith your shibboleth: WinnieTheAngel formerly known as WinnieTheKiller.

  
  
• 
  ar
  January 21st, 2010 @20:51 #
   
  
  

  I heart Rustum too. Bring out the silver, Mr Ben, and put that man’s OBE on him, or however one says it :)

  
  
• 
  Ingrid Andersen
  January 21st, 2010 @21:51 #
   
  
  

  Every time someone hearts Rustum, I read 'Red Heart Rum'. I think I've been around BookChat too long - I'm clearly corruptible.

  Notwithstanding, thank you for the Richard Troll alert, Rustum. Everything has now been thrown into complete clarity.

  Richard - Nooit, man. How can you come to Jozi one whole week later than the picnic? Bad planning. Not to mention the diversionary punning tactics.

  
  
• 
  ar
  January 21st, 2010 @22:02 #
   
  
  

  I know what you mean, Ingrid. Every time Richard says “I need no proof to worship you”, I read, “I need no woof to pro-shop you”. Challenging, to say the least. See you at the picnic hey.

  
  
• 
  Ingrid Andersen
  January 21st, 2010 @22:22 #
   
  
  

  Ar, that was disturbing on SO many levels. You'll be at the picnic! Great!! Looking forward to it.

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 21st, 2010 @22:24 #
   
  
  

  Buzz Lightyear, can't you teach me to teleport so that I can come to the picnic? And whip up a week later to shake de Ou Nooi by his paw?

  
  
• 
  ar
  January 21st, 2010 @22:56 #
   
  
  

  Sometimes, the only appropriate response is ROTFLAGTBH. Do you know, I have a feeling this might all be Fiona’s fault. Things started getting weird the moment she mentioned sacred cows.

  
  
• 
  Fiona
  January 22nd, 2010 @12:32 #
   
  
  

  Moo.

  
  
• 
  WinnieTheAngel
  January 22nd, 2010 @13:12 #
   
  
  

  @ the Editor

  Thanks for sorting out the problem so quickly.

  @ Rustum

  I understand the departure point of the thread was "1 article and the reason for it being pulled". I acknowledged those reasons, if you'll look back, and agreed with you that they are real. I simply questioned the need to remove the article because of that.

  It's melodramatic, it's bad journalism, so what? There is plenty of bad journalism happening on the internet. Why does this one HAVE to be taken down? Why could't they just list the "inaccuracies" and distance themselves from the "inflammatory language", and leave it up? That is my point. Which you avoided.

  SA's crime problem not an original point? Well, I wasn't aware that I'm breaking a rule by brining up another point, even though I don't feel it's an unrelated or new point as you argue.
  I thought that since I already agreed with the original point, that it would make for pretty lame discussion if I just kept on doing that.

  You haven't addressed my point/question. You've simply declared it irrelevant, and tried to paint me with an extremist brush ('do you comment on MySASucks') because you saw me daring to cast comrade Winnie in a bad light, as a weakness that you can exploit without having to argue my question: Why censor that article? Just because it's badly written and researched? Do we then ban all badly written articles from the web, or only ones that deal with crime in SA with reference to the world cup? Why get a subpoena against e-tv for documenting the intensions of crime gangs during the world cup?

  (* BTW on the topic of my nic: it wasn't my first choice. As I said before, the name I wanted was taken. I wasn't being sarcastic…)

  But then again this is hardly surprising I guess. I mean you do mention to "analyze the mechanics of the writing, rather than engage directly with what the writing is about" as something to be proud of. Let's not discuss what was said, but rather how it was said. THAT, is a popular genre my friend. Yay! I avoided an issue. Good on you.

  So keeping that in mind, me repeating over and over "why ban this article specifically" is pointless. Oh, wait, it's not censorship, it's still available on his blog… right… Go have your free speech in your free speech zone.

  Yes, there are numerous other blogs that write very damning stuff about crime in SA, and those who can be safely and comfortably squeezed into the right wing extremist/ racist box are ignored. It's when the publication doesn't quite fit into that box comfortably that we get subpoenas against them, like with the current e-tv matter.

  But I'm repeating myself. As stated before, I've said what I wanted to say. I'm out on this one. I've asked what I wanted to ask: Why ban/censor this specific article? Bad journalism? Bad research? Yeah right!

  I'll put a comma or two in, completely the wrong, place, so you can have something to talk about.

  
  
• 
  WhiteRefugee
  January 22nd, 2010 @14:44 #
   
  
  

  For Your Information:

  Your article states:

  Of course, the full text of the original offending article is still very much alive in the Google cache, but why bother with all that technical stuff? Hoffman has since disseminated his spewings far and wide, including on Scribd:

  Jeffrey Hoffman’s 2010 HuffPo article in full

  10-01-14: Huffington Post: Could the 2010 World Cup Be A Disaster in the Making

  I posted Hoffman's article to scribd, not Hoffman. Furthermore at the Scribd page, you will see that I made the statement:

  Evidentiary document for: [More Journalists Wondering: “Is the 2010 World Cup a Disaster in the Making? (http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-journalists-wondering-is-2010.html)]

  What is also interesting is how Media Watchdogs, or at least who like to think of htemselves as 'Watchdogs' are ignoring, the following issue:
  http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2010/01/facebook-deletes-boycott-2010-world-cup.html">Facebook Deletes Boycott 2010 World Cup Campaign; subsequent to High Profile media campaign against the Boycott 2010 World Cup Campaign, by various high goverment and media officials (2010 Local Org. Comm, Brand SA, etc):
  See:
  » » [http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/12/pro-sa-campaign-on-facebook.html">Pro-SA “Boycott 2010 World Cup” Campaign on Facebook]
  » » [http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/12/ioltechnology-violatepresscode.html">Notice to IOL.co.za Technology Editor; c/o & via: Independent News & Media PLC Board of Directors: RE: Violations of Press Code Allegations]

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 22nd, 2010 @14:54 #
   
  
  

  Now this looks rather like spam. It's always a fine line, folk using comment threads to direct traffic to their websites. I kinda think one web push is fair enough (unless it's to FreeHotGirls.com), but four is a bit much.

  
  
• 
  Ingrid Andersen
  January 22nd, 2010 @15:00 #
   
  
  

  Sorry to say this, but this is looking more and more like the negative, reactionary reader comments on News 24.

  
  
• 
  Sven
  January 22nd, 2010 @15:13 #
   
  
  

  You have no idea what it took me to come post a comment on this thread as I effectively had to overturn a ban I placed on myself from accessing this site.

  I couldn't find a way to effectively lock my hosts file so that ultimately provided the loophole to get back. The reason I blocked myself was the exactly due to the sort of exchange I am about to enter. This will be draining, probably serve no point whatsoever, and will waste time I desperately need to be productive.

  However, I read through this thread and want to say some things that need to be said. Hopefully I can manage to do this in good grace.

  There are two separate issues here. The HP article is a load of crap from a journalistic point of view, everything that's been said about it is right from the way it caricatures crime in SA to the lazy pinning of a single crime story to the argument. If you think that's bad, or ridiculous, check this out: http://www.protektorvest.com/default.aspx.

  Articles like that do, however, have a right to exist, and that's a separate point. As atrocious as it is, it has a right to be up there. If you were to take every misinformative badly written article out of the mainstream media every day you'd be left reading the weather for the next 15 minutes and the occasional piece of sports news.

  A mature person would deal with that article by making fun of it, as also happened here. The hyperbole sets it up perfectly for this. That's how we can deal with things we don't like in the world around us, critique them, debunk them, debate them, lampoon them.

  What we don't want to do is blot them out. See Fiona's first comment and the way the article is presented with Ben putting a 'no' sign over the author's visage. I may be wrong, but I think that’s what other posters took exception to.

  What it appears to be is a case of a piece of information being aired which has implications that make the members of this forum uncomfortable. As a result, some people applaud this piece of information being exorcised from the HP.

  To me this is symptomatic of the political left's enthusiasm for creating a thought-world that they find aesthetically and emotionally safe and appealing by shutting everyone else up. I also think it's part of a broader social trend towards censorship in society at large that plans to eradicate intolerance by... being completely intolerant.

  Go check out what the ADL gets up to in its spare time for more proof.

  This viewpoint doesn't make me a right winger (or write winger), and I think it shows both limited imagination and bad taste to try position everyone who disagrees with the generally liberal book.co.za politics as some sort of right wing radical. This may, I suggest, be one reason why so few people post here.

  I don't think most people would find a bunch of people congratulating one another on their politically correct liberal sensitivities very exciting. I just spent a rather interesting 4 weeks watching how people behave on a British right wing blog. The similarities between the two blogs outnumber their differences. They're both equally intolerant, and both are infused with an air of superiority. Do you have any idea how silly back-slapping looks?

  Before I get painted into the right wing corner, I’ll say that individual freedom trumps any political viewpoint for me, so if forced to pick a label I'd call myself a libertarian. I'm happy for you to have the right to anything you want under common law if you're happy to allow me the same privilege.

  I don't want any kind of totalitarianism intruding on my life, be it religious totalitarianism, right wing totalitarianism, left wing totalitarianism or greys from Rigel totalitarianism.

  There’s an interesting line that I’d like to put out here, it’s from the Tao te Ching:

  ‘Do you think you can improve the world?
  I don’t think it can be done.
  The world is scared, it can’t be improved.
  If you tamper with it, you’ll ruin it.
  If you treat it like an object you’ll lose it.’

  And Helen, I’m sorry, but I find the second part of this quote a bit preposterous:

  1)it's critical to actively teach scholars logic, reason and debating skills; 2) why critical analysis/close reading of texts is just about the most valuable skill acquired at university (for English and other humanities students, IF they're lucky, and have good teachers); and 3) why intelligence trumps emotion, sarcasm, rhetoric etc etc etc. But intelligence can't be taught or acquired.

  I went through 5 years of liberal arts/humanities studies. It doesn’t teach people to think critically or logically, it steers them on a critical analysis of existing social structures in line with a collectivist agenda (I invite you go take a look at how groups like Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace have pursued an aggressive agenda of fostering a collectivist mindset in academia, the humanities in particular).

  As far as my experience goes, if I want rational, non-emotive, critical thinking, I speak with an engineer. They actually need those skills to function in their jobs and make effective decisions and generally haven’t been exposed to intensive collectivist brainwashing courtesy of their studies - they’re rewarded for competence, not repeating and thinking the ‘right’ things.

  The only thing I agree with is that “it's critical to actively teach scholars logic, reason and debating skills” as this clearly isn’t happening.

  In fact, the likes of Noam Chomsky have pointed out that the educated classes are most susceptible to state propaganda and social engineering. Going back to oriental philosophy, maybe that’s because being seen to have a full cup is more important than knowing who filled that cup.

  
  
• 
  Rustum Kozain
  January 22nd, 2010 @16:03 #
   
  
  

  @Winnie

  re nic. My apologies; yes that was sneaky. But now where may I have come across that nic... ThoughtLeader?

  As to the rest: Look at the tone of your first comment and read my comments as a response to that.

  Hi Sven, long time. To many points to respond to, sorry. But I agree with many of your sentiments.

  
  
• 
  Byron
  January 22nd, 2010 @16:09 #
   
  
  

  Sven, interesting you bring up Protektorvest, I was busy preparing a post about this when I refreshed and saw your comments. Here's what I was thinking, (although it's much more elementary to your concerns and perhaps I should step aside for Helen):

  Here's an article on Protektorvest by a seasoned and highly respected South African journo which treats the same theme (personal security risks for World Cup in South Africa). It might make a good point of camparison, Rustum, Sven? I'd be interested in a critique of this one as a piece of writing and its author's intentions. Journalistically, does it present the same 'story', but in a better way; or does it equally raise the ire of the pro-2010 camp? Note the comment on this article: "THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS RUBBISH - NO STAB VESTS ARE REQUIRED IN SA FOR THE WORLD CUP" - an opinion that also therefore effectively argues that it's the concerns that should be censored, not so much the manner of their presentation, since the article itself seems fair?

  Stab proof vests for World Cup fans

  Raymond Joseph

  A British company is cashing in on security concerns around the World Cup and is marketing “stab proof” vests branded with the flags of competing countries, to soccer fans heading for South Africa in June.

  Football fan Sascha Cutura, the founder of Protektorvest, says he hit on the idea after reading a story about how the German team’s World Cup team security consultants had advised players and support staff to wear bullet proof vests when they ventured out of their hotel.

  http://westcapenews.com/?p=1273

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  January 22nd, 2010 @16:11 #
   
  
  

  WhiteRefugee, I've amended the article to say, effectively, "has been disseminated" rather than "has disseminated". Nothing like the ol' passive voice to help one out of a bind. Helen's right, though: too many links make the reader go blind. You're basically a spammer.

  Sven, you altered your hosts file because of BOOK SA?! It brings a tear to my eye. If this is what we get when the prodigal returns, then it was worth the wait.

  
  
• 
  Sven
  January 22nd, 2010 @16:57 #
   
  
  

  Byron,

  My opinion is that anyone dumb enough to buy one of those vests could probably survive a direct gunshot wound to the head (in these cases one must assume the head performs a purely ornamental function), so it makes sense to allow them to purchase a vest to protect the threat to their vitals.

  I think money would be better spent on a pair of military grade earplugs, because you don't know the meaning of pain until you've sat next to an uvuvuzela.

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 22nd, 2010 @17:07 #
   
  
  

  Ah but Sven, I didn't teach you :)))) Not sure I agree with your assessment of those educated in liberal arts, but then any blanket classification is going to crumble on examination.

  I can only speak for myself when I say that I certainly didn't brainwash my students or teach collectivist thinking -- I tried (not always successfully) to do the opposite. I asked my students to ask why and how words and phrases evoked emotional responses, which opens the door to logic. I certainly found (and still find) myself dancing down a tightrope whenever I teach: caught between groupthink on ALL sides, from popular culture and capitalist branding, to social cliques, academic gatekeeping and discourse insiderism. Etc. I might have quoted Joanna Russ to you before, when she says (and I'm citing from memory) that "a certain measure of our cultural and social environment has to be accepted per se; it becomes too exhausting to analyze and scrutinize every single fact, attitude and opinion in the sea of information that swamps us daily. The trick lies in knowing when we need to stop and pass certain information through a critical filter." I've found this handy as a guide. Or is that a cop-out?

  But you are absolutely right about scientists (which is specifically why I limited my remark to the humanities side of the campus). Here's what I say in a piece soon to be published: "Don Pinnock, a former criminologist, once said that he became a nature writer because he found scientists so much more interesting than his usual peers: they were passionate, engaged, absorbed in the world around them. They were the ones who became genuinely excited and enthused by new ideas. I knew exactly what Don meant: this was my experience of working with the scientist [Tim Noakes] and the coach [Bob Woolmer] who believed in science."

  But you deserve a proper response, although Rustum has already summed up my main one in a nutshell. To be continued in person -- come to tea!

  Byron, the Protektor vest question is a fascinating one, not least because there is part of me that thinks the concept is quite a good one -- not for lager-lout tourists, but I'd imagining them issued to women who are forced to use public transport in crime-infested areas, for e.g. Or children who have to go out onto the street in gang areas. But that doesn't address your question of analysis/comparison. Which I am going to leave to Rustum. *further cop-out*

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 22nd, 2010 @17:10 #
   
  
  

  Sven, our posts crossed. I am now weeping with laughter at the notion of heads for decorative functions only.

  
  
• 
  moi
  January 22nd, 2010 @17:17 #
   
  
  

  @ Helen: knife-proof vests for women and children in our crime/gang infested areas!? Nope... it's more like it's penis-proof panties are needed

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 22nd, 2010 @17:31 #
   
  
  

  Moira, don't start me! Have you seen my stuff on sexual violence, btw? So not as to look like a spammer, I'll supply just one link (http://helenmoffett.book.co.za/blog/2009/01/23/the-red-button-word-writing-about-rape/), but if you want more, write to me offlist. Or Google my name plus Womankind UK and/or UN-INSTRAW.

  
  
• 
  moi
  January 22nd, 2010 @18:23 #
   
  
  

  Thanks Helen, I've skimmed about the above link but don't have the guts to engage. About 10 years ago I wrote a weekly column on Women Abuse for an outfit called Suite101.com and after a year and 52 columns I'd not run out of material but I had got pretty very jaded.

  One thing I've never been able to figure is the gender balance of people who examine/write/protest this kind of stuff? Like, we all have precious mothers, sisters, daughters, grandmothers, nieces who comprise the majority target for gender-based violence yet it seems it's mostly women who really engage with it as a problem?

  When I was very jaded I mooted it was because men were ashamed of their 'proximity' to the perps (actually, I thought worse stuff too) but now I wonder if they just don't have as much stomach as women do. Or maybe I should take off my jade-coloured specs and I'd find there is actually no imbalance after all 8-)

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 22nd, 2010 @18:43 #
   
  
  

  Moira, you don't live in anywhere within tea-drinking distance of me, do you?

  Here (in SA) there is a pretty big gender imbalance (although there are men like Kopano Ratele and others who engage with gender violence at an academic level, and many more who work as activists and commentators). Part of the problem is that some women's NGOs actively discouraged men from joining their ranks during the 80s and 90s (for reasons I sympathise with, but don't agree with). I found in the US that there was much less of a gender imbalance in tackling these issues, with some male journos doing prize-winning work. Colorado-based Miles Moffeit -- no relation -- has won awards for his brave and continuing exposes of rape and domestic violence within the US military, for instance. Jeremy Kohler is another US journalist I admire for his incisive writing on violence against women and children -- he manages to be balance thoughtfulness and anger.

  But I also argue in my writing that the proximity issue is a very valid one. I can't generalise, but some of my male friends have told me that they feel incredibly uncomfortable, guilty and defensive about the GBV stats in SA.

  
  
• 
  Helen
  January 22nd, 2010 @18:46 #
   
  
  

  PS: I totally, totally sympathise with the jaded/burnout issue. I realised this morning as I tackled this project again in the company of two fellow writers (and Book SA members) that this kind of work requires enormous support. I salute all activists who manage this day in, day out. OBEs all round.

  
  
• 
  Byron
  January 22nd, 2010 @18:50 #
   
  
  

  Sven, nice one, ha! But honestly, my impression on reading about stab proof vests was similar to Helen's - desparate times call for... I wouldn't buy one (I think I would personally choose to be [legally] armed and willing to fight if attacked), but I don't find the idea ludicrous?

  Even if it's (often vastly) overstated in the blogosphere/media, the possibility of a violent personal attack is an everyday reality in South Africa, or not so? Isn't that the point we are debating, and how best to present/argue that 'reality', if it is one, and find solutions?

  (Moi, I think this applies to talking more openly about violence in general and in particular that towards women and children, which is the worst kind. I think you'll find there are many men who have the stomach for it, but I concede that they might be the exception. Why? It's worth you raising the debate.)

  [Don't worry, Rustum, my question looks to me now like one in an undergrad essay! I think the point about what constitutes a good argument in a piece of writing has been made along the way here.]

  
  
• 
  SarahM
  January 28th, 2010 @21:20 #
   
  
  

  Busy bees!
  Proper LOL for 'it's penis-proof panties that are needed' but thumbs down for 'Sorry to say this, but this is looking more and more like the negative, reactionary reader comments on News 24.'
  - You mean people being honest about what they see and feel? Terrible thing to do.

  
  
• 
  Ingrid Andersen
  January 29th, 2010 @08:49 #
   
  
  

  @SarahM,the discussion has gone a lot further since then, and that comment was made specifically at one post that looked a lot like spam at the time. My problem with some of the reactionary News24 comments is that there are people who do not wish to listen, to learn or to challenge their established worldview. They repeat the same negative, ill-informed hate speech on a daily basis and have no interest whatsoever in dialogue.

  Freedom of speech is a gift and a right, but it can be used to destroy as much as it can be used to build up. As with any right, it comes with its responsiblities. A lot of damage has been done in the name of 'honesty'. Hitler was honest about what he felt about the Jews, as was Verwoerd about his wondrous plan for our country.

  
  

Please register or log in to comment

» View comments as a forum thread and add tags in BOOK Chat