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

Omackeral

Mr.H wrote: »

I like your post but

Wtf does this mean though?

It means she's bae which is shorthand for babe and is said to stand for before anyone else. Woke AF (as fuck) means she's enlightened and is what she said about Tupac Shakur. Now, let me categorically state I don't believe either of those things for a second but am just having a bit of craic. One poster here doesn't seem to catch the sarcasm dripping off the posts though.

Period.

Omackeral

its_steve116 wrote: »

That last point is obviously sarcastic.

I stand corrected!!!!!!!! You finally got it!!!!!!

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

Killer retort.

You'll probably notice it actually was a retort which yours wasn't.

You offered a rubbish analogy and run away when faced with a realistic one.

Don't feel too bad. For some reason LON brings the bonkers out in her detractors.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You'll probably notice it actually was a retort which yours wasn't.

You offered a rubbish analogy and run away when faced with a realistic one.

Don't feel too bad. For some reason LON brings the bonkers out in her detractors.

Don't see too many folks agreeing with your analogy to be fair.

How you make anything I said out to be bonkers is bemusing. Almost as though you're looking for a reaction. You wouldn't do that surely?

Everyone else can see what the article is, LON's latest attempt to appeal to similarly hypersensitive, perma offended whinge bags. I think most rational folks see her and her articles for what they are.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

Don't see too many folks agreeing with your analogy to be fair.

How you make anything I said out to be bonkers is bemusing. Almost as though you're looking for a reaction. You wouldn't do that surely?

Everyone else can see what the article is, LON's latest attempt to appeal to similarly hypersensitive, perma offended whinge bags. I think most rational folks see her and her articles for what they are.

You don't get the analogy? Asking for someone's relationship status and assuming their sexual orientation. It's what actually happened and LON noticed it and wrote about it. No big deal. It's an example of the kinds of bias we all have and the resistance to even acknowledge is amusing at least.

The lengths you need to go to discredit the simple and accurate fact she points out is amusing. But what would be the worst case scenario if people didn't assume sexual orientation?

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You don't get the analogy? Asking for someone's relationship status and assuming their sexual orientation. It's what actually happened and LON noticed it and wrote about it. No big deal. It's an example of the kinds of bias we all have and the resistance to even acknowledge is amusing at least.

The lengths you need to go to discredit the simple and accurate fact she points out is amusing. But what would be the worst case scenario if people didn't assume sexual orientation?

What exactly is the problem with someone assuming you're in the overwhelming cohort of hetero people. Why exactly is that offensive? Why the need to write a moany article droning on about something so inoccuous...

As for bias, it isn't. That infers some kind of preferential treatment. There is zero evidence of that here. Speaking of evidence, odds on this never actually having happened, high I'd say.


Your inability to read a clearly worded post, is most definitely not amusing. Resorting to twisting words and looking for meaning that isn't there. My opinion on her articles and her is simple, she's simply trying to appeal to similarly weak minded moaners. See it as discrediting if you wish,

As for analogy, I was referring to the RUBBISH one relating to petrol cars. I also never said I didn't get it, I said I don't see many people agreeing with it. Please read my posts more carefully rather than misquoting me.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

What exactly is the problem with someone assuming you're in the overwhelming cohort of hetero people. Why exactly is that offensive? Why the need to write a moany article droning on about something so inoccuous...

As for biasz it isn't. That infers some kind of preferential treatment. There is zero evidence of that here. Speaking of evidence, odds on this never actually having happened, high I'd say.


You're inability to read a clearly worded post, is most definitely not amusing. Resorting to twisting words and looking for meaning that isn't there. My opinion on her articles and her is simple, she's simply trying to appeal to similarly weak minded moaners. See it as discrediting if you wish,

As for analogy, I was referring to RUBBISH one relating to petrol cars. I also never said I didn't get it, I said I don't see many people agreeing with it. Please read my posts more carefully rather than misquoting me.

LOL. The cars analogy was RUBBISH and is wasn't mine. Utah triangle came up with it. So too was the people asking for directions analogy RUBBISH. If it's OK with you I'll probably not white anymore words in all caps. You do as you please.

I didn't say bias infers preferential treatment. It doesn't have to do so to be an interesting point. You seem to assume loads of subtext into what I've said. The fact that heterosexuality is assumed is an interesting point especially given the change in acceptance of other sexual orientations.

It always takes people time to catch up with changes in culture. I don't assume any negative intention (nor did LON mention any such assumption). The logical step is to not assume sexual orientation unless someone actually mentions it. Its just normal politeness really (though it's a slightly new area because people can now safely discuss sexual orientations apart from heterosexual). I can't for the life of me figure out why that's so threatening to you.

its_steve116

I think this thread should be moved to the County Cork forum maybe?

Omackeral

its_steve116 wrote: »

I think this thread should be moved to the County Cork forum maybe?

Maybe this one from you should have been moved to the Dublin forum?

You've also had quite a few of your threads moved to the Celeb and Showbiz forum. Hardly one to talk.

Look, stop being a hater on Louise.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

LOL. The cars analogy was RUBBISH and is wasn't mine. Utah triangle came up with it. So too was the people asking for directions analogy RUBBISH. If it's OK with you I'll probably not white anymore words in all caps. You do as you please.

I didn't say bias infers preferential treatment. It doesn't have to do so to be an interesting point. You seem to assume loads of subtext into what I've said. The fact that heterosexuality is assumed is an interesting point especially given the change in acceptance of other sexual orientations.

It always takes people time to catch up with changes in culture. I don't assume any negative intention (nor did LON mention any such assumption). The logical step is to not assume sexual orientation unless someone actually mentions it. Its just normal politeness really (though it's a slightly new area because people can now safely discuss sexual orientations apart from heterosexual). I can't for the life of me figure out why that's so threatening to you.

His was fine, yours not so much. I can't for the life of me understand why you keep twisting words into something that isn't true? I find this bollocksology threatening?! Not as threatening as you find.... CAPS LOCK! ROFL.

Ps, I suggest you look at the definition of bias.

El_Duderino 09

Floridacircle wrote: »

You haven't explained why it's ok to assume someone is not blind when speaking to them on the telephone, but not ok to assume some's sexual orientation as heterosexual. What is your reasoning?

Nobody asked up to now. Who said I think it's OK to assume someone's not blind? I certainly didn't offer an opinion either way. My main point would be that analogy is crap but I'll answer your question anyway.

The first and most simple answer is that I don't even know how to give directions on the phone without using visual cues. I'm not equipped to give directions to a blind person because I'm ignorant of how blind people navigate. So if I were asked to give directions I could only do it using visual cues. If I assumed the person isn't blind it's probably because of a bias I hold.

In the absence of any other Information like the person on telling me that they're blind so they need specific instructions, then I probably would assume they're not blind. That might be something for me to think about but I don't think I'm equipped to give directions

On the other hand If someone said they were dating I could easily imagine alternative scenarios except heterosexual relationship.

If anyone wants to tell me how to give directions to a blind person, I'd be interested to know.

I hope that answers your question.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobody asked up to now. Who said I think it's OK to assume someone's not blind? I certainly didn't offer an opinion either way. My main point would be that analogy is crap but I'll answer your question anyway.

The first and most simple answer is that I don't even know how to give directions on the phone without using visual cues. I'm not equipped to give directions to a blind person because I'm ignorant of how blind people navigate. So if I were asked to give directions I could only do it using visual cues. If I assumed the person isn't blind it's probably because of a bias I hold.

In the absence of any other Information like the person on telling me that they're blind so they need specific instructions, then I probably would assume they're not blind. That might be something for me to think about but I don't think I'm equipped to give directions

On the other hand If someone said they were dating I could easily imagine alternative scenarios except heterosexual relationship.

If anyone wants to tell me how to give directions to a blind person, I'd be interested to know.

I hope that answers your question.

Wow.. I must have really gotten under your skin for you to put THAT much effort into the above.

You were calling me bonkers earlier.... Hmmm.

its_steve116

Omackeral wrote: »

Maybe this one from you should have been moved to the Dublin forum?

You've also had quite a few of your threads moved to the Celeb and Showbiz forum. Hardly one to talk.

Look, stop being a hater on Louise.

I'm not obliged to like her, but a lot of people on here talk about her non stop like she's the most important person on Ireland. Only for Boards I would never have heard of her. And I won't believe she's going to Mars until NASA say so.

If this was in the Cork forum I wouldn't have to see it on the first page of After Hours. She's just a writer. Period. Why the big deal about her? She's nothing special. End quote.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

Wow.. I must have really gotten under your skin for you to put THAT much effort into the above.

You were calling me bonkers earlier.... Hmmm.

Answering a question honestly and with consideration is bonkers in your opinion? I wasn't accusing you of answering any questions with honesty and thought BTW. Quite the opposite.

Feel free to address any of the points from my post if you can. Your repartee isn't nearly as entertaining as you think it is. Amusing sometimes though.

its_steve116

This thread really has run its course.

Omackeral

its_steve116 wrote: »

I'm not obliged to like her, but a lot of people on here talk about her non stop like she's the most important person on Ireland. Only for Boards I would never have heard of her. And I won't believe she's going to Mars until NASA say so.

She's not actually going to Mars. You sound like you're on another planet yourself, all the same. It's the mods having a bitta fun with the thread title. Remember it took that poster MikeyTaylor a few weeks to figure it out? Same craic here.

its_steve116 wrote: »

If this was in the Cork forum I wouldn't have to see it on the first page of After Hours. She's just a writer. Period. Why the big deal about her? She's nothing special. End quote.

Do you know that the full stop itself suffices as a period. It also suffices as an end quote. Period. End quote.

Omackeral

its_steve116 wrote: »

This thread really has run its course.

You're not obliged to post in it.

its_steve116

Omackeral wrote: »

She's not actually going to Mars. You sound like you're on another planet yourself, all the same. It's the mods having a bitta fun with the thread title. Remember it took that poster MikeyTaylor a few weeks to figure it out? Same craic here.



Do you know that the full stop itself suffices as a period. It also suffices as an end quote. Period. End quote.

It's very, very annoying.
"In today's Herald, some bird called Louise from clonakilty gives us her boring feminism thread. The Herald - every side of Cork."

Omackeral

its_steve116 wrote: »

It's very, very annoying.
"In today's Herald, some bird called Louise from clonakilty gives us her boring feminism thread. The Herald - every side of Cork."

Then ignore it. Period.

El_Duderino 09

Floridacircle wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobody asked up to now. Who said I think it's OK to assume someone's not blind? I certainly didn't offer an opinion either way. My main point would be that analogy is crap but I'll answer your question anyway.

The first and most simple answer is that I don't even know how to give directions on the phone without using visual cues. I'm not equipped to give directions to a blind person because I'm ignorant of how blind people navigate. So if I were asked to give directions I could only do it using visual cues. If I assumed the person isn't blind it's probably because of a bias I hold.

In the absence of any other Information like the person on telling me that they're blind so they need specific instructions, then I probably would assume they're not blind. That might be something for me to think about but I don't think I'm equipped to give directions

On the other hand If someone said they were dating I could easily imagine alternative scenarios except heterosexual relationship.

If anyone wants to tell me how to give directions to a blind person, I'd be interested to know.

I hope that answers your question.

The vast majority of people aren't blind it would be ridiculous to ask someone if they are blind before giving directions. If it turns out they are blind they'll let you know.

Is your response anything to do with my post? Did I suggest anyone should ask people if they're blind?

I doubt you're asking in,good faith but I'll respond in good faith anyway. I'd tend up agree that the onus is on a blind person to say they want directions in a particular way. I'm ignorant of how to direct a blind person so I would need that information to direct anyone except people with sight.

On the other hand I am not ignorant of how someone could be in a relationship without being heterosexual. Do you follow?

Tikki Wang Wang

I hear she has a new book out? Be nice to see her on the Telly again!

Hammer89

Not the worst in the world, is she? My perception of her used to be based on what I'd read about her here. There was a thread with most of the posters calling her a sap for about 90 pages, but I listened to her on a podcast and she's just a normal girl really, a normal girl with anxiety about what people think of her and insecurities about her work.

She's far more relatable than I first thought. The way people slag her off on this I thought she was like a sort of Katie Hopkins type, but she seemed very pleasant, funny and down to earth.

I don't know a great deal about her work or her politics, but as a personality I found her quite endearing. You can't really doubt her success either. Good on her I say.

That's all really.

Thelonious Monk

I have no idea who she is. Is she the one who bought a flat in the docklands years ago and then was moaning in the indo every week because the price went down?

HamSarris

Louise O'Neill wants manholes to be changed to womanholes

py2006

Hammer89 wrote: »

Not the worst in the world, is she? My perception of her used to be based on what I'd read about her here. There was a thread with most of the posters calling her a sap for about 90 pages, but I listened to her on a podcast and she's just a normal girl really, a normal girl with anxiety about what people think of her and insecurities about her work.

She's far more relatable than I first thought. The way people slag her off on this I thought she was like a sort of Katie Hopkins type, but she seemed very pleasant, funny and down to earth.

I don't know a great deal about her work or her politics, but as a personality I found her quite endearing. You can't really doubt her success either. Good on her I say.

That's all really.

Ah yea, she has a boyfriend now...

Roadtoad

(deleted)

D'ya know..I won't even bother..

Muahahaha

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I have no idea who she is. Is she the one who bought a flat in the docklands years ago and then was moaning in the indo every week because the price went down?

No, not Louise o@neill, that was different person. Forget the name of her but she spent €500,000 on a two bed apartment as the crash was well under way, She was a journalist for the Indo.

James Brown

HamSarris wrote: »

Louise O'Neill wants manholes to be changed to womanholes

I think if a person wants a sex change that's none of my business

retalivity

Muahahaha wrote: »

No, not Louise o@neill, that was different person. Forget the name of her but she spent €500,000 on a two bed apartment as the crash was well under way, She was a journalist for the Indo.

It was Niamh Horan wasnt it?