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

meeeeh

BPKS wrote: »

I can just imagine Susan, after another day of reading the 5 at 5 and the 6 at 6 on The Last Word, dreaming of having her own show on her way home from work. "Please let me have my own show so I can do some virtue signalling and make a name for myself in this new, progressive Ireland".

She has her show.

Fan of Netflix

BPKS wrote: »

I can just imagine Susan, after another day of reading the 5 at 5 and the 6 at 6 on The Last Word, dreaming of having her own show on her way home from work. "Please let me have my own show so I can do some virtue signalling and make a name for myself in this new, progressive Ireland".

She wants to be another Ciara Kelly. That's all we need. But she had to say this on twitter because nobody listens to her on radio :pac:

splinter65

meeeeh wrote: »

Ah come on. RoT is a version of Ireland that is dead. It might be great to sell it to Americans who call themselves Irish because someone in their family 6 generations ago was Irish but it's about as representative of Ireland as Leprechaun and a pot of gold. I don't think the competition is ignoring minorities but it is ignoring any woman who wants to have an opinion on anything more than lamas shagging the sheep (that is the only parts I saw last night).

I do like one of Rose contestants. The Australian a few years ago who caused the scandal for daring to state a political opinion. She is good writer and I enjoy her articles when they appear in IT. Safe to say the contestants after that scandal were told to shut up and smile.

It really isn't controversial to roll your eyes at the whole thing, there are plenty of people who do.

1000s of women enter the Rose of Tralee every year. Are you saying they’re all empty headed bimbos ?

Fan of Netflix

meeeeh wrote: »

Ah come on. RoT is a version of Ireland that is dead. It might be great to sell it to Americans who call themselves Irish because someone in their family 6 generations ago was Irish but it's about as representative of Ireland as Leprechaun and a pot of gold. I don't think the competition is ignoring minorities but it is ignoring any woman who wants to have an opinion on anything more than lamas shagging the sheep (that is the only parts I saw last night).

I do like one of Rose contestants. The Australian a few years ago who caused the scandal for daring to state a political opinion. She is good writer and I enjoy her articles when they appear in IT. Safe to say the contestants after that scandal were told to shut up and smile.

It's not my cup of tea, but it's not dead at all, it's very successful and it has far higher viewing figures and interest than anything on Newstalk. It's made for an Irish audience not Irish Americans, but nice of you to attack them too.



Funny you mention the Australian Brianna Parkins. She also put the Keogh woman back in her box.


https://twitter.com/parkinsbrea/status/1166446311064965122

Fan of Netflix

splinter65 wrote: »

1000s of women enter the Rose of Tralee every year. Are you saying they’re all empty headed bimbos ?

Yeah I don't think they realise how offensive their remarks are to the Roses and people involved. Most of the Roses are highly educated and intelligent.

Funny thing is, those that attack it so much are probably the same types that sit watching Love Island every night and claim it is oh so progressive with the vacuous empty heads on there. Ciara and Roisin Keogh are big fans of it of course, so empowering and modern.....:D

meeeeh

splinter65 wrote: »

1000s of women enter the Rose of Tralee every year. Are you saying they’re all empty headed bimbos ?

I'm saying that they are keeping their opinions to themselves and smiling like good little girls should.

nullzero

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm saying that they are keeping their opinions to themselves and smiling like good little girls should.

What should they be doing then?

meeeeh

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Yeah I don't think they realise how offensive their remarks are to the Roses and people involved. Most of the Roses are highly educated and intelligent.

Funny thing is, those that attack it so much are probably the same types that sit watching Love Island every night and claim it is oh so progressive with the vacuous empty heads on there. Ciara and Roisin Keogh are big fans of it of course, so empowering and modern.....:D

The only reality horror show that I follow at the moment is Brexit. Why is it so desirable for women to hide their intellect. We either celebrate stupidity like Love Island or smart women who stay quiet and smile.

meeeeh

nullzero wrote: »

What should they be doing then?

As riveting as lamas shagging sheep is I think women are able to discuss a bit more. Well at least they are not hoping for world peace so that is something.

When the likes of Ciara Kelly or Susan Keogh voice an opinion is not about what they say (or Ivan Yates thread would have has many replies as this one) it's that they dare to say it.

nullzero

meeeeh wrote: »

As riveting as lamas shagging sheep is I think women are able to discuss a bit more. Well at least they are not hoping for world peace so that is something.

When the likes of Ciara Kelly or Susan Keogh voice an opinion is not about what they say (or Ivan Yates thread would have has many replies as this one) it's that they dare to say it.

That's complete nonsense.

People comment on this thread because the show is chocced full of "controversial opinions" for the sake of drumming up interest in a flagging time slot.

It has nothing do with gender, even if you constantly have to boil everything down to some pathetic SJW diatribe.

If Ivan Yates (a reprehensible character and a man City fan,) was to talk the same nonsense as is spouted on this show he'd be pulled up on it.

Jesus, George Hhok was hung out to dry for a reasonably tame comment and more people were involved in that discussion than have ever even looked at this thread.

Not everything boils down to patriarchal oppression.

Tell me how

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

It's not my cup of tea, but it's not dead at all, it's very successful and it has far higher viewing figures and interest than anything on Newstalk.

Wow.

Rose of Tralee viewing figures (a 2 night show once year) are better than anything on Newstalk? Well, duh, Newstalk is a radio station. Do you think because the All Ireland Final gets more viewers than Sunday sport on Radio 1 that both shows could be compared

Try putting the Rose of Tralee on all year, 5 times a week for an 2 hours at a time and then see what figures are like.

It's fine supporting the Rose of Tralee festival but your posts read like you are hell bent in having a dig at Newstalk in general and Susan in this case.

meeeeh

nullzero wrote: »

That's complete nonsense.

People comment on this thread because the show is chocced full of "controversial opinions" for the sake of drumming up interest in a flagging time slot.

It has nothing do with gender, even if you constantly have to boil everything down to some pathetic SJW diatribe.

What controversial opinions? There are plenty of us who don't watch Rose of Tralee, I completely agree with her in first part of her statement. Daithi was talking bull****. And I don't find the second part any way controversial. In the same way as I don't find last year's Rose's response controversial. It's all pretty tame stuff and different opinions which are only 'controversial' in August.

I see we are back to whining about George Hook. Build the bridge.

Tell me how

splinter65 wrote: »

1000s of women enter the Rose of Tralee every year. Are you saying they’re all empty headed bimbos ?

The poster literally gave an example of a Rose of Tralee contestant whose opinions they valued.

I mean, it got it's own paragraph.

nullzero

meeeeh wrote: »

What controversial opinions? There are plenty of us who don't watch Rose of Tralee, I completely agree with her in first part of her statement. Daithi was talking bull****. And I don't find the second part any way controversial. In the same way as I don't find last year's Rose's response controversial. It's all pretty tame stuff and different opinions which are only 'controversial' in August.

I see we are back to whining about George Hook. Build the bridge.

I'm not talking about the Rose of tralee comments in isolation. I think that was reasonably obvious, but don't allow that to stop you going off on a tangent.

I mentioned Hook as you alluded to Ciara Kelly and Susie Keogh only being picked on because they are women when the biggest controversy they've dealt with in Newstalk came from comments made by a man who was commented on by more people than the two aforementioned women put together, a point which makes a mockery of your victim complex argument.

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

Wow.

Rose of Tralee viewing figures (a 2 night show once year) are better than anything on Newstalk? Well, duh, Newstalk is a radio station. Do you think because the All Ireland Final gets more viewers than Sunday sport on Radio 1 that both shows could be compared

Try putting the Rose of Tralee on all year, 5 times a week for an 2 hours at a time and then see what figures are like.

It's fine supporting the Rose of Tralee festival but your posts read like you are hell bent in having a dig at Newstalk in general and Susan in this case.

I'd still prefer it over Newstalk (feminazi fm), Lunchtime live with Ciara Kelly is dire, well I assume it still is, turned the dial a while ago and I ain't turning back.

Tell me how

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I'd still prefer it over Newstalk (feminazi fm), Lunchtime live with Ciara Kelly is dire, well I assume it still is, turned the dial a while ago and I ain't turning back.

Well, not being smart, but why would you post on a thread about something you have no knowledge of given, as you say, that you don't listen?

I don't watch Fair City, I therefore see no need to discuss it on Boards.

Fan of Netflix

meeeeh wrote: »

When the likes of Ciara Kelly or Susan Keogh voice an opinion is not about what they say (or Ivan Yates thread would have has many replies as this one) it's that they dare to say it.

Cringe. Ciara is that you? :pac:

It's probably because Ivan rails against political correctness stuff, while the likes of Ciara like to enforce it and preach a very staunch feminist agenda.

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, not being smart, but why would you post on a thread about something you have no knowledge of given, as you say, that you don't listen?

I don't watch Fair City, I therefore see no need to discuss it on Boards.

I used to listen a lot, but stopped. However I still very briefly listen in the mornings, but I usually don't last very long.

It's dire far left rubbish.

Fan of Netflix

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I used to listen a lot, but stopped. However I still very briefly listen in the mornings, but I usually don't last very long.

It's dire far left rubbish.

You can't criticise it on here or you will be banned.

meeeeh

nullzero wrote: »

I'm not talking about the Rose of tralee comments in isolation. I think that was reasonably obvious, but don't allow that to stop you going off on a tangent.

I mentioned Hook as you alluded to Ciara Kelly and Susie Keogh only being picked on because they are women when the biggest controversy they've dealt with in Newstalk came from comments made by a man who was commented on by more people than the two aforementioned women put together, a point which makes a mockery of your victim complex argument.

I think you should stop using heavy terms like victim complex until you manage to understand them.

George Hook comments went way deeper and pointed to some attitudes in society that still blame victims for the crimes committed to them. Comparing that to an opinion about pageant is frankly insulting. And no I didn't think he should be fired.

Huntergonzo

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

You can't criticise it on here or you will be banned.

Why are the mods here fond of Newstalk?

nullzero

meeeeh wrote: »

I think you should stop using heavy terms like victim complex until you manage to understand them.

George Hook comments went way deeper and pointed to some attitudes in society that still blame victims for the crimes committed to them. Comparing that to an opinion about pageant is frankly insulting. And no I didn't think he should be fired.

I'm not arguing the George Hook sacking here. I'm merely stating that a man was the subject of a lot more attention than the two women you have cited as being subjugated for being women who dare to express opinions.

I think you should stop posting replies until you take the time to understand the context of what people are saying, but who needs context when you can employ your "being offended" super powers?

To simplify my point; You stated that Ciara Kelly and Susie Keogh are only being picked on because they are women who dared to express an opinion.

I pointed to the fact that the largest controversy in the history of Newstalk centred around the comments of a man.

Clearly men and women on Newstalk are being judged by the opinions they express rather than their gender, a fact that doesn't sit will with your victim complex of women being picked on when they express an opinion.

Clearly your argument is based on an opinion you hold which is absolute nonsense.

Fan of Netflix

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Why are the mods here fond of Newstalk?

It's Ireland, they probably work on the station or someone in their family does....:pac:

Huntergonzo

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

It's Ireland, they probably work on the station or someone in their family does....:pac:

Haha well this is true, Ciara Kelly herself will probably read our comments and blame 'the patriarchy' for us not liking ber show.

splinter65

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm saying that they are keeping their opinions to themselves and smiling like good little girls should.

Which, if that is what they’re doing, is their decision to make, their CHOICE if you will...and that is to be criticized in your opinion because .......?!? It’s not the choice that you would make?

meeeeh

nullzero wrote: »

I'm not arguing the George Hook sacking here. I'm merely stating that a man was the subject of a lot more attention than the two women you have cited as being subjugated for being women who dare to express opinions.

I think you should stop posting replies until you take the time to understand the context of what people are saying, but who needs context when you can employ your "being offended" super powers?

To simplify my point; You stated that Ciara Kelly and Susie Keogh are only being picked on because they are women who dared to express an opinion.

I pointed to the fact that the largest controversy in the history of Newstalk centred around the comments of a man.

Clearly men and women on Newstalk are being judged by the opinions they express rather than their gender, a fact that doesn't sit will with your victim complex of women being picked on when they express an opinion.

Clearly your argument is based on an opinion you hold which is absolute nonsense.

The thing you don't understand is that this is not being a victim. I was merely stating that it riles certain people, usually the ones who feel their position in society is under threat. Opinionated women are not victims but they are threatening to people who were not used of being challenged and whose opinions were not questioned in the past. George Hook was hounded out by opinionated women, they were not victims. You might agree their actions or not but it's a proof social dynamics are changing.

nullzero

meeeeh wrote: »

The thing you don't understand is that this is not being a victim. I was merely stating that it riles certain people, usually the ones who feel their position in society is under threat. Opinionated women are not victims but they are threatening to people who were not used of being challenged and whose opinions were not questioned in the past. George Hook was hounded out by opinionated women, they were not victims. You might agree their actions or not but it's a proof social dynamics are changing.

Saying women are subjugated for expressing opinions is displaying a victim Complex. It is not evidence of you or women being victims, it rather displayd the fact that you feel women will be the victims of unfair judgment.

All the other stuff about social dynamics changing is just bog standard SJW rhetoric spouted by people who want to make men feel like their place in society is suddenly under threat. Its complete nonsense, men and women have existed in a very equal environment in western society for a long time, yes some intolerance has been addressed in the recent past but women have had the same rights as men for decades. Current feminist rhetoric would have you believe women have only been unchained from the kitchen sink in the last few years. Complete fantasy nonsense.

meeeeh

nullzero wrote: »

Saying women are subjugated for expressing opinions is displaying a victim Complex. It is not evidence of you or women being victims, it rather displayd the fact that you feel women will be the victims of unfair judgment.

You misunderstand again. I'm saying women voicing opinion will cause hysterical overreaction. People will start using therms like femanizis, far left (really? What donkey would think anything Ciara Kelly says is far left), SJW, victim complex and similar. The opinion Susan Keogh expressed was not controversial at all. You and some others might not agree with it but that doesn't make it controversial.

Mad_maxx

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

She played the virtue signalling, SJW bingo card to the point of being a carracature of a PC Liberal

It was as lame as it was boring and unoriginal, gormless rather than cynical, more proof that all one needs today for a broadcasting gig in media is to be clone like in your right on views and parrot the aprooved line accordingly

Yawn

Mad_maxx

meeeeh wrote: »

splinter65 wrote: »

1000s of women enter the Rose of Tralee every year. Are you saying they’re all empty headed bimbos ?

I'm saying that they are keeping their opinions to themselves and smiling like good little girls should.

So you want a sort of womens council parade of women who get up on a soapbox and opine about various progressive causes?

We have that every day of the week in media, must the left infest every single thing in the country?