UCD Ag science banter

Andre 3000

smurgen wrote: »

Put it this way.I've a cousins chat as we have a large family and there's at max 20 members. A joke from this chat was passed on to an uncle and it caused trouble.we can't even begin to think who passed it on.people are leaving and being added to the group all the time.with 200 people it would be impossible to keep tabs so I'm calling bull****.

Again, I am only giving insight into our group. I have no idea of the etiquette of other groups. I will admit, a Facebook group is much harder to keep track of everything, but our WhatsApp group is very solid. I was added to our group when it had about 30 members and the number just continued to grow. It's been at its current figure for over 6 months now at least and it doesn't look to change. The only time it changes is if someone has gotten a new number and they're re-added. I have never heard of anyone saying "oh did you hear so and so found out about what we were talking about in our group", it's only members talking amongst themselves about things, which is fine. As I said, if someone did decide to rat and tell an 'outsider', I wouldn't mind too much as our chats are nothing too severe, but if one like the supposed UCD lad group exists, I would assume they'd be very strict about it...if not they are complete idiots, and the rats are worse. I know I wouldn't share info. unless there was that 'lad code' in place.

Red King

Jesus give it up. Like a bunch of flat earthers in denial.

Letree

Wibbs wrote: »

What you're observing here in full flow A is an actual witch hunt. If you recall the Salem witch trials were kicked of by a few hysterics that the authorities took seriously, because there was an embedded mindset. In colleges and increasingly beyond their gates(and sadly we're bring this nonsense from the US)"rape culture" and Women are perpetual victims(™) are the equivalents of spell casting and divination. All it needs is one attention seeking nutter to kick it off and here we are. And this guff can ruin individuals lives too.

Of course not, that goes way off script. It would admit too much.

Similar happened in the US of A a year or so ago, but since everything's bigger over there… Rolling Stone magazine reported on a bunch of mass rapes and a pervading rape culture in some US university or other and the craw thumpers and bleeding hearts were out in force. But... it was a nonsense, a complete fabrication of another notice box nutter. Lawsuits were pending last time I looked. At least Rolling Stone had the decency to retract the article, that Joe.ie didn't says much. Yes we've imported this hysteria from the Yanks, but as history has shown the Irish are more than capable of society wide institutionalised witch hunts and hysteria.

These witch-hunts shouldn't really do much damage on their own. The real damage is done by those in positions of power making knee-jerk decisions on the back of them. Speakers get cancelled, people get sacked, media organisations avoid people they now see as toxic etc. Those in positions of power need to grow a backbone and make sound decisions and not knee-jerk ones.

Anita Blow

How can people possibly still continue to assert that this group exists? The article itself that spurred all this claimed that the journalist spoke with several people who had heard of the group and were disgusted. Where were these people when UCD asked for confidential information?
Do people really think that a group of 200 Ag students, out of a school of 640 people could keep it that cloak and daggers? Assuming 500 of those 640 Ag students are male, that's claiming that nearly 50% of all male students in the school were in this group and it still kept secret despite all these investigations and over all these months without ever being found out.

The_Valeyard

upandcumming wrote: »

Is this fight club or something?

Class film though

Special Circumstances

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Class film though

Shhhhhhhhh!

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

(Even then, I'm not seeing how you connect masturbation with rape? Are you actually trying to make that connection? Puritanical nonsense.)

No but apparently you are. Good luck with that.

Kev W

tritium wrote: »

What you did was push the whole gender wars angle then try to belittle anyone who disagreed with you....


I wonder if you it others are even aware of the double standard you apply in your outrage filter? After the rant you went on when someone accused you of white knighting a few pages back, decrying how you think society views women, is "it sucks" really the best you can do at the prospect of a group of young men being falsely branded sexual predators to further someone's agenda?

Please explain exactly where the sweet spot between a "rant" and a sufficient degree of information so that I can speak only in those terms in future, thereby satisfying you, the most important person in my life.

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

No but apparently you are. Good luck with that.

I'm not the person who made this claim:

Kev W wrote: »

What I actually said was that joking about the story being no good without getting to see the pics (because then you can masturbate to the, hur hur get it phwoar eh lads) is an example of rape culture.

You made the point about masturbation, and then went on to suggest it was an example of this "rape culture" meme. If the "rape culture" meme isn't related to rape, then why is it called "rape culture"?

Kev W

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not the person who made this claim:





You made the point about masturbation, and then went on to suggest it was an example of this "rape culture" meme. If the "rape culture" meme isn't related to rape, then why is it called "rape culture"?

You can't honestly be this thick, I refuse to believe it. You're just pretending not to understand so you can claim that I "can't explain",as if your inability to understand simple English is somehow my responsibility.

I'm on to your nonsense and I shan't engage with it any further.

I'm sure you'll convince yourself that that's a victory and you're welcome to it.

warpdrive

I'd feel sorry for the ones who had this happen to them after a long term relationship ending and the ex sharing the pics out of bitterness.

But zero empathy for anyone who sends nudes to someone they don't know very well and entirely trust in a relationship. Try not being so naieve and easy.

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

You can't honestly be this thick, I refuse to believe it. You're just pretending not to understand so you can claim that I "can't explain",as if your inability to understand simple English is somehow my responsibility.

I'm on to your nonsense and I shan't engage with it any further.

I'm sure you'll convince yourself that that's a victory and you're welcome to it.

You're correct Kev, I'm not thick enough to buy into an ideology that suggests if I question it's validity, I'm probably too thick to understand it anyway.

When you introduce a concept into a discussion, then it absolutely is your responsibility to explain what it means.

Otherwise it's not my nonsense you have to worry about, but it should be your own inability to question an ideology that according to RAINN, actually has the opposite effect, of it's purported intent.

.

tritium

Kev W wrote: »

Please explain exactly where the sweet spot between a "rant" and a sufficient degree of information so that I can speak only in those terms in future, thereby satisfying you, the most important person in my life.

Kev W wrote: »

I'm equally ****ed if I'm explaining something to someone too lazy to Google who's only pretending to want to know anyway. I've better things to do with my Saturday night Sunday morning.

Kev W

tritium wrote: »

So now I have to explain sarcasm?

super_furry

So there has never been any evidence outside of one anonymous Yik Yak post that this group even existed?

Sonics2k

super_furry wrote: »

So there has never been any evidence outside of one anonymous Yik Yak post that this group even existed?

Absolutely none.

Is it possible a group like this exists somewhere, quite possible yes. Would it consist of 200 people and no leak ever happening, absolutely not.

tritium

Kev W wrote: »

So now I have to explain sarcasm?

Oh God, you really don't know when to put down the shovel and stop digging do you?

super_furry wrote: »

So there has never been any evidence outside of one anonymous Yik Yak post that this group even existed?

Nope, none whatsoever, Nada. That was the basic finding of the college investigation too. Of course we now have a bunch of flat earthers insisting that's just a conspiracy to protect the college, in spite of them also not presenting any evidence.....

Wibbs

Some of the logic on show reminds me of this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Buford T. Justice XIX

tritium wrote: »

Oh God, you really don't know when to put down the shovel and stop digging do you?




Nope, none whatsoever, Nada. That was the basic finding of the college investigation too. Of course we now have a bunch of flat earthers insisting that's just a conspiracy to protect the college, in spite of them also not presenting any evidence.....

It's like we've gone through the looking glass.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence NOT evidence of conspiracy.

Kev W

tritium wrote: »

Oh God, you really don't know when to put down the shovel and stop digging do you?

You keep responding to me as if you've won in some way but I'm really not sure why.

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

You keep responding to me as if you've won in some way but I'm really not sure why.

Kev we're talking about some serious accusations here that would have had serious repercussions for any students who were alleged to have been involved, accusations made with no evidence whatsoever.

Talk of 'winning' and 'losing' is incredibly immature. You're bandying around accusations there with no thought as to the severity of the consequences, like accusing people of examples of this 'rape culture' nonsense you're trying to promote.

orubiru

Kev W wrote: »

You keep responding to me as if you've won in some way but I'm really not sure why.

Why do you see it as a case of winning or losing?

Is that why people are having trouble holding their hands up and saying they got this one wrong and shouldn't have jumped in without waiting to see evidence? They don't want to "lose"?

Proving that this group at UCD didn't exist doesn't erase the fact that there are these kind problems in society. No doubt other similar situations will arise and will be exposed. Maybe when that happens we will have learned a bit and the discussions will be a bit more level headed and a bit more rational?

For the next bit I am not talking about you personally Kev W, so I don't need any snarky replies. I'm referring to folks, some who are public figures, posting accusations all over Facebook and Twitter and then refusing to back down when it's shown that these accusations are baseless

The thing highlighted by this whole situation is that people are far too willing to dive in without thinking and start pushing their rhetoric and throwing their buzzwords around (looking at you "Rape Culture").

When it is shown that jumping in in this way was premature the same people will flat out refuse to hold their hands up and admit they made a mistake.

I'm not sure how many lads are connected to UCD Ag but when 200 of them are accused then all of them are under suspicion. Is it not fair to expect the accusers to apologize?

How can someone claim to be a good or moral person when they spread false accusations and then slink into the shadows without apologizing when they are wrong?

The only thing you are losing in that case is credibility.

Kev W

orubiru wrote: »

How can someone claim to be a good or moral person when they spread false accusations and then slink into the shadows without apologizing when they are wrong?

The only thing you are losing in that case is credibility.

What false accusations have I spread exactly? I never said the group was real.

orubiru

Kev W wrote: »

What false accusations have I spread exactly? I never said the group was real.

I stated in my post that I was not addressing you specifically.

Unbelievable.

That's it. I'm out.

Kev W

orubiru wrote: »

I stated in my post that I was not addressing you specifically.

Unbelievable.

That's it. I'm out.

Apologies, I missed that part.