Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

monstermag

Ciara had a guest on today discussing the appalling attack on the young muslim girl, l thought he was a rather odd choice given his views on female genital mutilation.

Mad_maxx

Holy crap, this replacement presenter makes ciara look like Mary Whitehouse

Must have been reared on a diet of man hate

UsBus

Susan Keogh...
If nobody texts in, she has nothing to say

Mad_maxx

UsBus wrote: »

Susan Keogh...
If nobody texts in, she has nothing to say

Yes and all she does is tell those texters with an opposing view that they are idiots, the female Moncrief

Dreadfully intolerant woman, anyone who thinks something as utterly harmless as the rose of tralee needs to be torn down has serious anger issues

nullzero

UsBus wrote: »

Susan Keogh...
If nobody texts in, she has nothing to say

I was listening recently when she was talking about climate change, or more specifically about the "Green New deal" (and how wonderful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is) when she said we have ten years to sort things out or "the planet will explode", she didn't even say she had exaggerated in any way, she stated this as fact. Made me pine for Ciara Kelly.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

I was listening recently when she was talking about climate change, or more specifically about the "Green New deal" (and how wonderful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is) when she said we have ten years to sort things out or "the planet will explode", she didn't even say she had exaggerated in any way, she stated this as fact. Made me pine for Ciara Kelly.

I think most people listening would be able to understand the context of what she was saying. She was not implying that the planet would literally explode in to x number of pieces.
Same way as people say 'If one more person annoys me today, I'm going to take the head off of them'. They don't mean it literally.

We need action on climate change. Those that deny that at this point are using similar logic as anti-vaxxers.

whisky_galore

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Yes and all she does is tell those texters with an opposing view that they are idiots, the female Moncrief

Dreadfully intolerant woman, anyone who thinks something as utterly harmless as the rose of tralee needs to be torn down has serious anger issues

Uncomfortable truth for the dyed hair and nose ring wearing cohort, at the end of the day, a sizeable number of the female population still want their Disney princess moment, be that the R of T or their own wedding.

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Yes and all she does is tell those texters with an opposing view that they are idiots, the female Moncrief

Dreadfully intolerant woman, anyone who thinks something as utterly harmless as the rose of tralee needs to be torn down has serious anger issues

are you being serious?

If you object to a Lovely Girls Pageant, you must have anger issues?

The actual...?

pinkyeye

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

are you being serious?

If you object to a Lovely Girls Pageant, you must have anger issues?

The actual...?

No, I actually agree with this one.

There is no need for such anger over it. No-one is forced to take part, no-one is forced to watch. Why the need for such outrage?

pinkyeye

And actually as a female I'd go so far as to say the stand in presenter today showed total disrespect for the women who do take part.

What is she calling them all bimbos? I totally support all women whether they want to take part in something like this or not. There is no force involved in this.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

I think most people listening would be able to understand the context of what she was saying. She was not implying that the planet would literally explode in to x number of pieces.
Same way as people say 'If one more person annoys me today, I'm going to take the head off of them'. They don't mean it literally.

We need action on climate change. Those that deny that at this point are using similar logic as anti-vaxxers.

I understood the context I merely disagree with the sensationalist language she used.

Without turning this thread into a debate on climate change, some of the rhetoric people use in relation to it is laughable,kind of like your statement about anti vaxxers in relation to it. There is a massive problem in western society in which people cannot accept a person's right to hold an opinion that is contrary to their own and Newstalk has become the unofficial home of that type of mindset in recent times.

nullzero

pinkyeye wrote: »

And actually as a female I'd go so far as to say the stand in presenter today showed total disrespect for the women who do take part.

What is she calling them all bimbos? I totally support all women whether they want to take part in something like this or not. There is no force involved in this.

They're wrong because they don't fit into her idea of what a woman should be.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

I understood the context I merely disagree with the sensationalist language she used.

Without turning this thread into a debate on climate change, some of the rhetoric people use in relation to it is laughable,kind of like your statement about anti vaxxers in relation to it. There is a massive problem in western society in which people cannot accept a person's right to hold an opinion that is contrary to their own and Newstalk has become the unofficial home of that type of mindset in recent times.

Check on the thread in CA on the issue and see how people are talking about the fallacy which apparently climate change is.
Real head in sand stuff.

On the opposing opinions. They are absolutely fine, they spur conversation and advancement of ideas generally but, particularly with online anonymous forums, they too often are dominated by one side.
But, offering an opinion means that it can be challenged, that is not the same as saying you are not entitled to your opinion in the first place. This is a discussion forum after all.

I've seen NT categorised both as ultra-liberal and as mouthpieces for FG on this website, a sure sign they are probably a bit of both and not much of either.

jeremyj1968

Tell me how wrote: »

We need action on climate change. Those that deny that at this point are using similar logic as anti-vaxxers.

I want to see where this chart goes before I conclude that a) climate change is the "most serious threat to mankind" or b) anti-vaxxers are the "most serious threat to mankind".

meeeeh

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

I want to see where this chart goes before I conclude that a) climate change is the "most serious threat to mankind" or b) anti-vaxxers are the "most serious threat to mankind".

Did you update chart from 2012 that claims one in 40 in 2016 is diagnosed with autism?

pinkyeye

pinkyeye wrote: »

No, I actually agree with this one.

There is no need for such anger over it. No-one is forced to take part, no-one is forced to watch. Why the need for such outrage?

Oh, outrage is a completely different matter. "Anger" at the Rose of Tralee, although perhaps merited, is also a different issue.

I was responding to the claim that anyone who wanted to tear-down this bizarre beauty pageant had 'anger issues'. You'd get a slap on the wrist if you tried to switch the station to the Lovely Girls in my (mostly female) home-house. I assume a lot of households are similar. Maybe my sisters have anger issues, maybe they're just representative of most young, ordinary Irish women who don't see themselves as dancing mannequins.

Tell me how wrote: »

I've seen NT categorised both as ultra-liberal and as mouthpieces for FG on this website, a sure sign they are probably a bit of both and not much of either.

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

I am pretty certain we could come up with a dozen or more neo/classical liberals in Fine Gael -- I can think of 12 in Dublin alone -- that's about one-quarter of their Dail members. There's a cigarette paper, to misquote a former propagandist, between classic liberalism and contemporary, urban Fine Gael.

Newstalk is undoubtedly a haven for classic liberalism. Whether or not that outlook is necessarily contiguous with Fine Gael is probably immaterial.

Tell me how

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Oh, outrage is a completely different matter. "Anger" at the Rose of Tralee, although perhaps merited, is also a different issue.

I was responding to the claim that anyone who wanted to tear-down this bizarre beauty pageant had 'anger issues'. You'd get a slap on the wrist if you tried to switch the station to the Lovely Girls in my (mostly female) home-house. I assume a lot of households are similar.


Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

I am pretty certain we could come up with a dozen or more neoclassical liberals in Fine Gael -- I can think of 12 in Dublin alone -- that's about one-quarter of their Dail members. There's a cigarette paper, to misquote a former propagandist, between classic liberalism and contemporary, urban Fine Gael.

Newstalk is undoubtedly a haven for classic liberalism. Whether or not that outlook is necessarily contiguous with Fine Gael is probably immaterial.

Ivan Yates might have a thing or two to say about that.
I don't know if Pat Kenny would necessarily fall in to that category either.
Two of the big hitters there.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Ivan Yates might have a thing or two to say about that.
I don't know if Pat Kenny would necessarily fall in to that category either.
Two of the big hitters there.

You don't think PK is a classical liberal?

The atomisation of society at the family level, the espousal of free markets, the promotion of civil liberties, and of limited government? That's classic Pat. He's more of a classic liberal than probably anyone else at that station, including Ciara Kelly or Bobby McInsomnia.

Yates doesn't have a philosophy beyond his own garden gate, which makes him the perfect classical liberal.

Moncrieff, Ciara Kelly, and Shane Coleman are neo-classicals, fine; but once you get into these subtleties you might as well be debating the minutiae of the Bristol Scale.

Tell me how

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You don't think PK is a classical liberal?

The atomisation of society at the family level, the espousal of free markets, the promotion of civil liberties, and of limited government? That's classic Pat. He's more of a classic liberal than probably anyone else at that station, including Ciara Kelly or Bobby McInsomnia.

Yates doesn't have a philosophy beyond his own garden gate, which makes him the perfect classical liberal.

Moncrieff, Ciara Kelly, and Shane Coleman are neo-classicals, fine; but once you get into these subtleties you might as well be debating the minutiae of the Bristol Scale.

I mistook you and thought you were describing neo liberals earlier.

Wonder is Pat fully on board with classical liberalism.:rolleyes: He is pretty anti-cyclist which is an indicator although maybe the pro-cycling liberal has a neo hat.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I mistook you and thought you were describing neo liberals earlier.

Wonder is Pat fully on board with classical liberalism.:rolleyes: He is pretty anti-cyclist which is an indicator although maybe the pro-cycling liberal has a neo hat.

Is Pat anti-cyclist? I remember him cycling from Dalkey to Marconi Towers once, specifically to do a bit that was always going to be sympathetic to cyclists, cataloguing the various deterrents, encumbrances and obstacles -- including that bit where the cycle lane vanishes in Donnybrook quite unexpectedly, just past the Eglinton Road junction.

I cycle most days myself, never detected any antipathy from Our Man in Digges Lane.

In any event, cycling is somewhat tangental to the classic liberal. So long as someone else is paying proportionately higher taxes, and provided he can do most of the things he wants, the classic liberal doesn't really care what anyone else is doing.

jeremyj1968

meeeeh wrote: »

Did you update chart from 2012 that claims one in 40 in 2016 is diagnosed with autism?

Just heard that coincidentally that Miram is having an item on the "overdiagnosis of autism" later on the radio.

1 in 10000 to 1 in 40 one of the greatest mysteries. Could imagine the reports we would be seeing if those were rates of increase in cancer, suicide, road traffic accidents?

sydthebeat

If you've ever gone through a sequence of having a child diagnosed you'd see that's it not a mystery at all.

The spectrum is very wide and varied and it's only in contemporary times that this realised. In truth I would suggested that it's even smaller than 1 in 40 people on the spectrum.

Absolutely nothing to do with vaccinations anyway

Tell me how

Very interesting conversation for most of the first hour today on students today and the potential for dealing with anxiety and so on.
Lots of very vocal callers suggesting that they have been raised to not be able to deal with having to put in effort to succeed and the negative impact which social media has on them in limiting their capacity to have basic interpersonal skills.

I largely agree with this view, but, I would also say that they haven't necessarily chosen to be like this, that they have been to some extent victims of the technology which they have been exposed to.

Would we (60's, 70's, 80's kids) have known at 6 or 7 not to spend all evening on a smart phone if it had been given to us? Of course we wouldn't.

5555555555

Tell me how wrote: »

Very interesting conversation for most of the first hour today on students today and the potential for dealing with anxiety and so on.
Lots of very vocal callers suggesting that they have been raised to not be able to deal with having to put in effort to succeed and the negative impact which social media has on them in limiting their capacity to have basic interpersonal skills.

I largely agree with this view, but, I would also say that they haven't necessarily chosen to be like this, that they have been to some extent victims of the technology which they have been exposed to.

Would we (60's, 70's, 80's kids) have known at 6 or 7 not to spend all evening on a smart phone if it had been given to us? Of course we wouldn't.

I think we were very lucky to have grown up without smartphones and social media

Tell me how

5555555555 wrote: »

I think we were very lucky to have grown up without smartphones and social media

Most definitely.

It is chilling to think of an unfortunate child who is being bullied and how unrelenting that must be in today's world. Even if they aren't being bullied, the whole thing of liking messages, being invited in to group chats, tagging people in pictures. An absolute minefield.

My smartphone is kaput at moment so using an old Nokia. Still have calls and text's obviously. Not joking, am seriously considering moving back to this type of phone solely. Way less distractions with it, haven't charged it since Friday, and its small and neat.

pinkyeye

Some of the Roses hit back at our stand in presenter today and I'm delighted for her.

Of all the pageants to attack I actually think Rose of Tralee is the least offensive.

I work in a nursing home so saw some of the Roses today and all seemed to be ordinary girls. No perfect teeth, lip fillers, fake boobs etc.

Those are the girls we should be encouraging our daughters to aspire to, not the "Influencers".

dominatinMC

pinkyeye wrote: »

Some of the Roses hit back at our stand in presenter today and I'm delighted for her.

Of all the pageants to attack I actually think Rose of Tralee is the least offensive.

I work in a nursing home so saw some of the Roses today and all seemed to be ordinary girls. No perfect teeth, lip fillers, fake boobs etc.

Those are the girls we should be encouraging our daughters to aspire to, not the "Influencers".

I had a quick look on Twitter, and there she (Susan) is playing the victim, complaining of a "personal attack" by the outgoing rose on her. Pathetic stuff really. She can give it out, but can't take it. I read some of the comments underneath her Twitter posts too, and she must be taken aback by the backlash, she was probably expecting a cyber backslap in the echo chamber, but it appears as if most disagree with her comments, and are in favour of the competition.

I wonder if she even truly believes what she said, or just spouted the same tired old cliches, with a few buzzwords thrown-in, in order to garner some attention for herself whilst she's in Ciaras hotseat.

meeeeh

I was staying out of Rose discussion because it's harmless but it's so so dated. Clothes that were fashionable somewhere in the 1980's when more was more, too much jewelry, plastered in make up (I saw s couple and it seems mske up artists were on a mission to draw the thickest and darkest eyebrows) and banter that probably won't be out of place at Ploughing in couple of weeks time.

I certainly wouldn't want my kids to look up to Kardashians but going through Rose of Tralee event and tolertaing Daithi does seem very high price to pay to travel the world for a year.

Tell me how

dominatinMC wrote: »

I had a quick look on Twitter, and there she (Susan) is playing the victim, complaining of a "personal attack" by the outgoing rose on her. Pathetic stuff really. She can give it out, but can't take it. I read some of the comments underneath her Twitter posts too, and she must be taken aback by the backlash, she was probably expecting a cyber backslap in the echo chamber, but it appears as if most disagree with her comments, and are in favour of the competition.

I wonder if she even truly believes what she said, or just spouted the same tired old cliches, with a few buzzwords thrown-in, in order to garner some attention for herself whilst she's in Ciaras hotseat.

It truly seems impossible for anyone on radio to express an opinion without getting absolutely slated.

This is an incredibly cynical view of the presenters motivations.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

It truly seems impossible for anyone on radio to express an opinion without getting absolutely slated.

This is an incredibly cynical view of the presenters motivations.

To be fair, radio presenters know that when they make controversial comments there will likely be a social media storm to accompany them.

This woman's name has been mentioned more times since her comments then ever before.

You do realise that most radio presenters train for their job? That being responsible for what comes out of your mouth is your own responsibility being something they are more than familiar with. It may appear cynical to make observations like the previous poster but unfortunately it's accurate. She knew well what she was doing when she made the comments about the rose of tralee (something I personally couldn't care less about) and she went ahead and did it and now she's making national news.