Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

No there’s a little bit, mainly from klaz and Wibbs, outlawpete, rabble rouser. Most of the rest is pure nonsense.

Ha, whatever you say LON superfan.

The irony.. Christ.

LLMMLL

Zulu wrote: »

So, for clarity, your point is that we should throw the baby out with the bath water - is that it? Now that is laughable.

Not sure how you got that from what I said but OK......

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Ha, whatever you say LON superfan.

The irony.. Christ.

Ah the robust intelligent debate of the LON thread.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ah the robust intelligent debate of the LON thread.

Do you have another tactic other than to persistently make pathetic jibes at other posters intelligence? As I said.. irony.

DickSwiveller Returns

LLMMLL wrote: »

All this is a huge leap from what she actually wrote.

She complained that she got hate mail and opined that as a decent person she doesn’t deserve it. Well then she MUST be admitting she’s wrong there’s no other explanation.

Clearly people on this thread are incapable of showing any sympathy towards someone they disagree with. Rather than admit she probably does get hate mail/internet abuse which everyone knows is pretty common for people who are in the public eye on controversial issues, they have to pretend that actually people are sending polite letters to her house. Sure that’s super believable.

She's a decent person because she says she is?

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree. That and the stuff about her looks earlier. Not on.

However I strongly suspect you would label any debate that challenged your/her particular brand of "feminism" and its claims as equally "interesting". One reason I dislike the personal appearance/boyfriend stuff that has crept into this thread(never mind the obvious that it's bloody bad manners and has no bearing on the matter) is that it gives way too easy an excuse to dismiss any actual questions and avoid debate. Indeed and by way of illustration, like you've just done.

I strongly suspect that you would label the nonsense about her mother driving her places, and packing for her etc. As debate.

See we can all play the strongly suspect game.

LLMMLL

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

She's a decent person because she says she is?

Nope I said that was her opinion. I personally don’t think anyone deserves hate mail and internet abuse. Even people I don’t like.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Do you have another tactic other than to persistently make pathetic jibes at other posters intelligence? As I said.. irony.

Sure. I take part in debates all the time when there’s an intellectual point to respond to. It’s probably my main tactic.

DickSwiveller Returns

LLMMLL wrote: »

I strongly suspect that you would label the nonsense about her mother driving her places, and packing for her etc. As debate.

See we can all play the strongly suspect game.

Oh boo hoo. She lives a very privileged life, doing a job most of us can only dream of. If you're in the public eye then you should expect to get abuse, especially on the internet, and especially when you are more or less a glorified troll posing as a social critic.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Sure. I take part in debates all the time when there’s an intellectual point to respond to. It’s probably my main tactic.

More of the same. Can't help yourself can you?

You say that, yet you contributed nothing of the sort when LON'S barmy views are what's being criticized.

_Kaiser_

I only dip in and out of this thread out of curiosity really and certainly don't follow her on twitter or her columns, but pieces like the one linked to on the last page suggest to me that she should be looking for a new career to be honest.

She has a particular worldview that seems to be influenced by other similar "personalities" and commentary online (most of it from the USA which has very little relevance here) with parents who seem to only enable her (based on the comments she says her mother makes on the criticism) and others who similarly validate her worldview, and this all results in someone who probably genuinely cannot understand where the criticism comes from - because no-one in her "real life" seems to question or challenge her, only anonymous "haters" on the same social media she lives through.

To be fair to her, in that context who is really at fault?

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

Clearly people on this thread are incapable of showing any sympathy towards someone they disagree with. Rather than admit she probably does get hate mail/internet abuse which everyone knows is pretty common for people who are in the public eye on controversial issues, they have to pretend that actually people are sending polite letters to her house. Sure that’s super believable.

I certainly don't doubt she's getting hate male.

Me. Earlier wrote: »

To be fair if she's getting hate mail on the regular that's well out of order.

And again wrote: »

It would go double if someone is actually being personally attacked.

Do I have sympathy for her? Actually yes. I do think it naive of her to not expect shite from actual trolls and muppets when you expose yourself to social media. To be fair it's a naivethat's extremely common and completely understandable. People of all ages and backgrounds forget that the interwebs is like opening a door to your life and anybody, good, bad and indifferent can have an oul poke about and the more you open the more exposed you will be. Most people are either indifferent or good, but the bad resonates far more of course.

The lure of social media - and it's a purposely driven marketing lure - is a very strong one. It makes people feel better about themselves with likes and upvotes and followers, plugs into our very humanity and that dopamine hit is a strong if temporary one(again all deliberate). This all ramped up from the early days of social media(like this forum) of anonymous avatars to "real people" being in the mix. Again better for profit and keeping people coming back. I do think that in years to come we'll look back and collectively ask ourselves WTF were we thinking? LO'N's experience could well be a good example of this.

I do think that LO'N grew up somewhat cosseted, again not exactly unusual a situation for a girl in middle class Ireland and the world didn't do her many favours with her own demons with an ED that she has discussed and honestly with it - though choosing to go into fashion of all things in New York is akin to moving to Bogata for a potential coke addict. Still, we all screw up, that's why we've a delete key on our keyboards. I get the sexual assault subject too. It's too damned prevalent, though not nearly so prevalent as the loudhailers of feminism claim.

My main issue is that she has become one of the local mouthpieces for this imported extremist feminism - in her case picked up in the office of her psychologist who was tasked with helping her, which in my humble is a serious breach of ethics. This feminism that paints men as among other things potentially "toxic" by the very virtue of their gender(not prejudiced at all...) and paints women as delicate near constant victims of these toxic men and male society. That needs to be questioned and loudly and often, because it labels and demeans all of us, men and women equally.

LLMMLL

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Oh boo hoo. She lives a very privileged life, doing a job most of us can only dream of. If you're in the public eye then you should expect to get abuse, especially on the internet, and especially when you are more or less a glorified troll posing as a social critic.

Well at least you’re honest about it, which is a bit better than the “oh hate mail is terrible but I’m sure those people who went to the effort of getting her home address were actually sending lovely reasoned debate letters”.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

More of the same. Can't help yourself can you?

You say that, yet you contributed nothing of the sort when LON'S barmy views are what's being criticized.

I don’t view them as barmy.

You do know that debate usually involves opposing sides right...... it’s generally not just people agreeing with each other.

Could you maybe google “debate”? Do you need me to post the definition for you?

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

I certainly don't doubt she's getting hate male.





Do I have sympathy for her? Actually yes. I do think it naive of her to not expect shite from actual trolls and muppets when you expose yourself to social media. To be fair it's a naivethat's extremely common and completely understandable. People of all ages and backgrounds forget that the interwebs is like opening a door to your life and anybody, good, bad and indifferent can have an oul poke about and the more you open the more exposed you will be. Most people are either indifferent or good, but the bad resonates far more of course.

The lure of social media - and it's a purposely driven marketing lure - is a very strong one. It makes people feel better about themselves with likes and upvotes and followers, plugs into our very humanity and that dopamine hit is a strong if temporary one(again all deliberate). This all ramped up from the early days of social media(like this forum) of anonymous avatars to "real people" being in the mix. Again better for profit and keeping people coming back. I do think that in years to come we'll look back and collectively ask ourselves WTF were we thinking? LO'N's experience could well be a good example of this.

I do think that LO'N grew up somewhat cosseted, again not exactly unusual a situation for a girl in middle class Ireland and the world didn't do her many favours with her own demons with an ED that she has discussed and honestly with it - though choosing to go into fashion of all things in New York is akin to moving to Bogata for a potential coke addict. Still, we all screw up, that's why we've a delete key on our keyboards. I get the sexual assault subject too. It's too damned prevalent, though not nearly so prevalent as the loudhailers of feminism claim.

My main issue is that she has become one of the local mouthpieces for this imported extremist feminism - in her case picked up in the office of her psychologist who was tasked with helping her, which in my humble is a serious breach of ethics. This feminism that paints men as among other things potentially "toxic" by the very virtue of their gender(not prejudiced at all...) and paints women as delicate near constant victims of these toxic men and male society. That needs to be questioned and loudly and often, because it labels and demeans all of us, men and women equally.

That’s all well and good but I personally would concentrate my criticism on the saddos who send hate mail or internet abuse, not the potential naïveté of the receiver.

I’ve never really had much truck with the paparazzi excuse for harassing celebs “they knew what they were getting into”.

These kinds of arguments just diminish the perpetrators of **** behaviour.

LLMMLL

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

To be fair to her, in that context who is really at fault?

Clearly the people sending her hate mail are at fault.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

I strongly suspect that you would label the nonsense about her mother driving her places, and packing for her etc. As debate.

See we can all play the strongly suspect game.

You don't quite get how this works do you? The two hardly equate.

That "nonsense" she brought up and set free in the world. Along with the stuff about how she was worried that maybe her grandfather thought of her as a mere girl and maybe exes laughed at her in the nip and all that. And the primal screams on the way to some yoga retreat(naturally) and how Mammy™ is writ as a bit of a joke and Daddy™ a saint. Nobody picked that out of the ether. If one chooses to expose one's life and write it like that, while in the midst of an article on a slut shaming website in an Irish university, that never happened, then of course it's part of the debate. She made it part of the debate. She makes herself part of the debate all the time and yet she is surprised if people note this? Like I say naive or oddly self absorbed. Una Mulally was well able to talk about it and other matters and well enough without all the teenage primal screaming and inner demons guff.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don’t view them as barmy.

You do know that debate usually involves opposing sides right...... it’s generally not just people agreeing with each other.

Could you maybe google “debate”? Do you need me to post the definition for you?

Would you mind googling irony too? You seem to be looking for an ott reaction with the repeated intelligence jibes, you're not going to get one. You must still be sore after range gate?



What's to be debate with someone who thinks LONS views are perfectly reasonable? Have you forgotten the bonkers crap she said about her grandfather.. suppose you think that one wasn't barmy either?

DickSwiveller Returns

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well at least you’re honest about it, which is a bit better than the “oh hate mail is terrible but I’m sure those people who went to the effort of getting her home address were actually sending lovely reasoned debate letters”.

I'm realistic. If you hold strong opinions then you should expect to get flak. Look at Conservative journalists like David Quinn who gets dogs abuse on twatter. I've never heard him crying about it.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

You don't quite get how this works do you? The two hardly equate.

That "nonsense" she brought up and set free in the world. Along with the stuff about how she was worried that maybe her grandfather thought of her as a mere girl and maybe exes laughed at her in the nip and all that. And the primal screams on the way to some yoga retreat(naturally) and how Mammy™ is writ as a bit of a joke and Daddy™ a saint. Nobody picked that out of the ether. If one chooses to expose one's life and write it like that, while in the midst of an article on a slut shaming website in an Irish university, that never happened, then of course it's part of the debate. She made it part of the debate. She makes herself part of the debate all the time and yet she is surprised if people note this? Like I say naive or oddly self absorbed. Una Mulally was well able to talk about it and other matters and well enough without all the teenage primal screaming and inner demons guff.

I do get how it works. I think I get it more than you do.

Firstly you’re using debate in some strange way.

For example, there’s a few times me and you have actually debated. We had a back and forth on a particular topic where we both responded to each other’s points.

Now if I took some thing you had put in the public domain (and I’m sure there’s plenty you’ve put on boards) and made fun of you about that, well I don’t call that debate.

What I would have been trying to do in that case is humiliate you as a person so I wouldn’t have to actually debate you.

That’s how it works.

LLMMLL

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I'm realistic. If you hold strong opinions then you should expect to get flak. Look at Conservative journalists like David Quinn who gets dogs abuse on twatter. I've never heard him crying about it.

LOL are you serious?

Members of the Iona Institute complain about abuse they get from young liberal people.

They do it ALL the time.

And by the way I don’t think they should get the abuse they get. Even though I completely disagree with them.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Would you mind googling irony too? You seem to be looking for an ott reaction with the repeated intelligence jibes, you're not going to get one. You must still be sore after range gate?



What's to be debate with someone who thinks LONS views are perfectly reasonable? Have you forgotten the bonkers crap she said about her grandfather.. suppose you think that one wasn't barmy either?

Range gate? You mean you persistently misquoting me?

DickSwiveller Returns

LLMMLL wrote: »

LOL are you serious?

Members of the Iona Institute complain about abuse they get from young liberal people.

They do it ALL the time.

And by the way I don’t think they should get the abuse they get. Even though I completely disagree with them.

I haven't seen David Quinn writing a self pitying whinge in a national newspaper.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

That’s all well and good but I personally would concentrate my criticism on the saddos who send hate mail or internet abuse, not the potential natf the receiver.

I’ve never really had much truck with the paparazzi excuse for harassing celebs “they knew what they were getting into”.

These kinds of arguments just diminish the perpetrators of **** behaviour.

A good example of broadly speaking two approaches to life and matters like this: One sees the reality, the other asks why isn't the world perfect. The latter is a both laudable if one is trying to make actual changes or and sadly in most, a very childish worldview. Especially if someone paints themselves as a victim of it. Which of course any debate on this usually rounds off with accusations of "victim blaming".

The reality is that the world isn't full of rose petals and love(though it's not exactly a hardship if you're middle class and western). The paparazzi in your example are pricks, but they simply couldn't exist without a) a public who will spend lots of their hard earned on the results of their trade and b) people in the public eye needing, even encouraging them when it suits, who then have a fit when it doesn't. Plus for most in the public eye they can choose to avoid most of that paparazzi stuff. When was the last time you saw Tom Hanks or Bob DeNiro or many in a long list of public figure men and women being "papped"? Nine times outa ten when someone appears in the red tops or gossip magazines(almost entirely aimed at women BTW. Is that "toxic femininity"?) it's not a shock to see them. And for a few calling "victim" is just yet another way to get attention and column inches. That's the reality of it.

LLMMLL

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I haven't seen David Quinn writing a self pitying whinge in a national newspaper.

I’ve seen so many self pitying whinges from DQ and other members of the II.

Even a basic google search of David Quinn and hate throws this up immediately.

https://mobile.twitter.com/davquinn/status/923794509149933568

DickSwiveller Returns

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’ve seen so many self pitying whinges from DQ and other members of the II.

Even a basic google search of David Quinn and hate throws this up immediately.

https://mobile.twitter.com/davquinn/status/923794509149933568

I think you are stretching a bit. She wrote an entire column

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

A good example of broadly speaking two approaches to life and matters like this: One sees the reality, the other asks why isn't the world perfect. The latter is a both laudable if one is trying to make actual changes or and sadly in most, a very childish worldview. Especially if someone paints themselves as a victim of it. Which of course any debate on this usually rounds off with accusations of "victim blaming".

The reality is that the world isn't full of rose petals and love(though it's not exactly a hardship if you're middle class and western). The paparazzi in your example are pricks, but they simply couldn't exist without a) a public who will spend lots of their hard earned on the results of their trade and b) people in the public eye needing, even encouraging them when it suits, who then have a fit when it doesn't. Plus for most in the public eye they can choose to avoid most of that paparazzi stuff. When was the last time you saw Tom Hanks or Bob DeNiro or many in a long list of public figure men and women being "papped"? Nine times outa ten when someone appears in the red tops or gossip magazines(almost entirely aimed at women BTW. Is that "toxic femininity"?) it's not a shock to see them. And for a few calling "victim" is just yet another way to get attention and column inches. That's the reality of it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2923056/Tom-Hanks-proves-everyman-rides-subway-New-York.html

Even if certain celebs are papped less often, they most likely have some curtailments on their freedom that we don’t have which allows them to go about their day without being papped.

And I wasn’t blaming the paparazzi and excusing the public. I blame the public far more than the paparazzi.

And the classic example I always hear of celebs engaging with the public when it suits them but complaining about the paparazzi is when they have a film to promote and go on talk shows.

This makes zero sense to me. They own their private lives. They can choose to go on a talk show and reveal some aspects of they so choose. Why does that excuse the extreme harassment by paparazzi? It doesn’t. It’s just an excuse.

LLMMLL

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I think you are stretching a bit. She wrote an entire column

I think you’re stretching it. That was just the first thing I’ve found. I’ve read so many whinges from DQ that I actually find it laughable you used him as an example.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Range gate? You mean you persistently misquoting me?

Is literally quoting exactly what you say misquoting now?

Fyi I was quoting your made up statistics.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

if I took some thing you had put in the public domain (and I’m sure there’s plenty you’ve put on boards) and made fun of you about that, well I don’t call that debate.

What I would have been trying to do in that case is humiliate you as a person so I wouldn’t have to actually debate you.

If what I put in the public domain was relevant to the topic at hand and I had used it as a supporting point in the context of that topic, just as LO'N did with her primal screams and grandad/ex BF musings among other things, I would frankly be shocked if someone didn't bring it up. I would fully expect them to, because I brought it up.

OK imagine if I went off on a negative rant about Irish Women©, sadly an all too common and daft a topic around here, about how they were X and Y. And you found a post of mine that detailed how I had been recently dumped and she was a bitch who never cared about me and took all my stuff while cheating with my best friend and I was worrying did all Irish Women© think an act like this, even my granny. Did she think when I was a boy in her lap that I was a weak man ripe for being taken advantage of. You'd be remiss not to call me on that level of bullshit about a nation and gender and see it for what it was my wholly subjective, self indulgent and bitter worldview because of one bad experience.

In essence if someone doesn't want to be shot at, may I suggest it would be prudent to not hand out so much ammunition willy nilly?


Though I reserve my disappointment for her editors and bosses. They know this kinda thing gets clicks and sells papers and books over more measured thought out stuff and they're all too happy to egg it on.

Why does that excuse the extreme harassment by paparazzi? It doesn’t. It’s just an excuse.

Every interaction doesn't require one party to be the victim and another the victimiser. I get that this is a popular viewpoint, but it's more complex than that. There can be "two of them in it". One can blame one party for one thing, while blaming the other for their own thing, especially when one feeds the other.