After reading his responses to people, this may have been a "taken out of context" kind of thing, intentionally or unintentionally with double meaning. He apparently meant to say that abuse victims themselves make good art, rather than abusing children makes for good art.
Jesus Christ. Let me spell it out: (a) Victims resort to art forms because no one believes them and no one hears them. (b) That was sarcasm aimed at the casual activists who’ve arrived for a fuel break at this issue as a cause
INSENSITIVE? Yeah. But proof of being involved in a darker, more sinister world? Maybe, maybe not.
Can't disagree, in fact that's how I read that particular statement anyway. The rest of his tweets are also of concern, though - especially with current affairs in Pakistan... reeks of a malicious agenda, which is further concerning given his position as a media editor... If we then consider the London connection and, for example, (London Mayor Sadiq Khan* and that incident with the US embassy there...
view the rest of the comments →
HugoWeaving ago
After reading his responses to people, this may have been a "taken out of context" kind of thing, intentionally or unintentionally with double meaning. He apparently meant to say that abuse victims themselves make good art, rather than abusing children makes for good art.
INSENSITIVE? Yeah. But proof of being involved in a darker, more sinister world? Maybe, maybe not.
argosciv ago
Can't disagree, in fact that's how I read that particular statement anyway. The rest of his tweets are also of concern, though - especially with current affairs in Pakistan... reeks of a malicious agenda, which is further concerning given his position as a media editor... If we then consider the London connection and, for example, (London Mayor Sadiq Khan* and that incident with the US embassy there...