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

its_steve116

TheDavester wrote: »

what does that have to do with anything Mikey, heres a tip, you don't have to partake in every thread like you do in the radio forum ...go back to your Al Porter shrine

My name is STEVE.

its_steve116

TheDavester wrote: »

Yeah, your obsession with Dara Quilty, David Davin, Laura Whitmore, and your calling people obsessed.....

I'm not obsessed with any of them. In fact I think Omackeral is more obsessed with Laura than I am.

Billy86

Charmeleon wrote: »

Hopkins is a professional troll, that’s her function in life. As a result she occasionally says something original. O’Neill merely regurgitates dogma that others have written about months or years before. She writes like none of her readers are on the internet.

And yet we're how deep into this thread? Hopkins is a lot higher profile for sure from trolling the centre and left, but Louise I would reckon makes a decent enough living off trolling the centre and right.

Outrage and doling out derision can be addictive, and there certainly are some on here that seem pretty addicted to her.

givyjoe

its_steve116 wrote: »

*Steve

Can we please just forget about this Z-lister who I had to Google? There are a lot of sad freaks obsessed with her on here (and judging by this threads popularity, I'd say many of them are from Cork).

You seem oddly wound up over someone you just had to Google lon.

TheDavester

why you PM'ing me Mikey

its_steve116

TheDavester wrote: »

why you PM'ing me Mikey

Why are you calling me Mikey when my name is Steve?

Omackeral

its_steve116 wrote: »

I'm not obsessed with any of them. In fact I think Omackeral is more obsessed with Laura than I am.

Olly Murs is the greatest showman of all time. Period.

El_Duderino 09

Jaylen Damp Kindergarten wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

With just a few paragraphs she captured posters' imagination again. She never fails.

The LON appreciation thread had gone quiet over Christmas. Here's to another busy year on the thread. Cheers!

You post more on this thread defending her than her detractors. Pathetic.

That wasn't a defence of anything she said.

givyjoe

TheDavester wrote: »

why you PM'ing me Mikey

Get that restraining order ready.

Sonic Youth

It's not surprising that feminists and woke bros often suffer with depression and other mental disorders when you see the kind of silly nonsense they lose sleep over.

0cp71eyxkb94qf

Utah Triangle wrote: »

Why does this thread get under your skin so much?

It's his way of saving the damsals from the evil patriarchy one post at a time.

fullstop

its_steve116 wrote: »

My name is STEVE.

What's your favourite town in Iowa Mikey Steve?

The Crowman

nullzero wrote: »

It must be comforting for LGBTQ people to know that Louise O'Neill is never too busy to be offended on their behalf.

And "people of colour", and the disabled. Sure we all know they're incapable of thinking for themselves.

retalivity

its_steve116 wrote: »

Why are you calling me Mikey when my name is Steve?

I thought it was mondo?

Cant keep up with all these re-regs

El_Duderino 09

Jaylen Damp Kindergarten wrote: »

Utah Triangle wrote: »

Why does this thread get under your skin so much?

It's his way of saving the damsals from the evil patriarchy one post at a time.

That's right. One post at a time. Lol.

Gimme A Pound

Can't stand her but I think she's right that customer service advisors etc shouldn't assume that someone's partner or spouse is the opposite sex (even though it's not a terrible mistake and obviously no offence is meant, and it's not something to get particularly upset about).

I would also have been irritated by the assumption that I could only have been the older gent's wife. Such an assumption is idiocy.

razorblunt

River Ambitious Wardroom wrote: »

Can't stand her but I think she's right that customer service advisors etc shouldn't assume that someone's partner or spouse is the opposite sex (even though it's not a terrible mistake and obviously no offence is meant, and it's not something to get particularly upset about).

I would also have been irritated by the assumption that I could only have been the older gent's wife. Such an assumption is idiocy.

She assumed that the customer service agent identifies as a "he" though.

Gimme A Pound

Lol. And "person of colour" is ridiculous imo - thought highlighting difference was not ok.

AbusesToilets

River Ambitious Wardroom wrote: »

Lol. And "person of colour" is ridiculous imo - thought highlighting difference was not ok.

Such a meaningless term, wrecks my head. Was arguing with someone recently because they called Freddie Mercury a POC.

Omackeral

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Such a meaningless term, wrecks my head.

You're just not a woke bae, that's all.

El_Duderino 09

River Ambitious Wardroom wrote: »

Can't stand her but I think she's right that customer service advisors etc shouldn't assume that someone's partner or spouse is the opposite sex (even though it's not a terrible mistake and obviously no offence is meant, and it's not something to get particularly upset about).

I would also have been irritated by the assumption that I could only have been the older gent's wife. Such an assumption is idiocy.

This is almost exactly what I took from the article. It highlights the assumption that people are heterosexual unless stated otherwise. It causes her to "register" the fact that it had occurred. See below for quote from the article. It doesn't say she was outraged, upset, or lost sleep over it. Its simply a fact that people do tend to assume heterosexual is the default position.

I wondered how long it would take someone to point out that she's right on that point and it's actually an interesting point. Since acceptance of non traditional relationships has occurred, doesn't it make sense to change the assumption that everyone is heterosexual?

It's unlikely to actually cause massive offence in spite of the invective response to the article. The cartoonish responses to the article completely highlight how far from the article one needs to stray to create something to ridicule. But they are amusing.

Quote from the article: His use of the word ‘boyfriend’ registered with me. I could have been gay or bi-sexual and dating a woman. He assumed I was straight, because he assumed heterosexuality as the default position

El_Duderino 09

Utah Triangle wrote: »

Most people are heterosexual so it's not unreasonable to assume heterosexual by default.

Most cars are run on petrol or diesel, it's not unreasonable to assume that.

It's true that most people are heterosexual but why would it make sense to assume people areheterosexual?

Most cars are probably run on petrol. Does it make sense to assume cars are petrol by default? Or wait until you know what the car is run on before you assume it?

It's hardly a big deal. But to assume the default is whatever the majority is a bit daft.

King of Kings

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's hardly a big deal. But to assume the default is whatever the majority is a bit daft.

Seems a reasonable way to go about things to default to the majority position .
In the absence of any other knowledge , to do assume anything else is mad.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's true that most people are heterosexual but why would it make sense to assume people areheterosexual?

Most cars are probably run on petrol. Does it make sense to assume cars are petrol by default? Or wait until you know what the car is run on before you assume it?

It's hardly a big deal. But to assume the default is whatever the majority is a bit daft.

If someone asks me for directions, say over the phone, I assume they can see.. When the majority is so overwhelmingly vast, such an assumption is hardly daft. Only hypersensitive moan bags such as LON would feel the need to write an article whinging about it.

its_steve116

There is a better chance of Joey Essex or Scotty T going to Mars or Venus than this total Z-lister. I hate those two MTV reality stars with a burning passion but at least I didn't have to Google them.

This thread made me Google Louise O'Reilly or whatever she's called, and yet its inexplicable popularity only makes be want to have NO desire to know about her.

Rant over. Period.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

If someone asks me for directions, say over the phone, I assume they can see.. When the majority is so overwhelmingly vast, such an assumption is hardly daft. Only hypersensitive moan bags such as LON would feel the need to write an article whinging about it.

Killer analogy. Now imaging someone is asking about your relationship status (which is right next door to sexual orientation) and then assuming sexual orientation. It's not a big problem but if you can't see why is makes sense to not assume when you're literally asking about that topic, then I don't know what to tell you.
She noticed it and wrote an article about it. The rest is your interpretation which isn't based on the article content.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Killer analogy. Now imaging someone is asking about your relationship status (which is right next door to sexual orientation) and then assuming sexual orientation. It's not a big problem but if you can't see why is makes sense to not assume when you're literally asking about that topic, then I don't know what to tell you.
She noticed it and wrote an article about it. The rest is your interpretation which isn't based on the article content.

Killer retort.

Omackeral

its_steve116 wrote: »

There is a better chance of Joey Essex or Scotty T going to Mars or Venus than this total Z-lister. I hate those two MTV reality stars with a burning passion but at least I didn't have to Google them.

This thread made me Google Louise O'Reilly or whatever she's called, and yet its inexplicable popularity only makes be want to have NO desire to know about her.

Rant over. Period.

A few points to address.

-You've over a 100 posts in this thread so you know exactly who she is.

-You seem to love or be obsessed with Joey Essex as your ''hilarious'' jokes here would suggest.

-Her name is Louise O'Neill.

-Period means menstruation here.

-She's bae and is woke AF.

Mr.H

Omackeral wrote:

-She's bae and is woke AF.

I like your post but

Wtf does this mean though?

its_steve116

Omackeral wrote: »

A few points to address.

-You've over a 100 posts in this thread so you know exactly who she is.

-You seem to love or be obsessed with Joey Essex as your ''hilarious'' jokes here would suggest.

-Her name is Louise O'Neill.

-Period means menstruation here.

-She's bae and is woke AF.

That last point is obviously sarcastic.