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

Galwayguy35

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Who's "we"? Why do you think the majority of men in Ireland either have no clue who this woman is, or even if we do, don't care?

And whilst it can be perfectly reasonable to be angered by another person's opinion, the most effective response is usually to be reasonable. I'm talking instead about grown adults going spare when LON talks about the importance of consent, and then when they don't have enough grist for the outrage-mill, they'll come here and muse that she must have gone quiet because she's "getting the pipe" from some guy.

Don't try and suggest this kind of stuff is reasonable criticism. Or that LON is peddling hate speech. She seems like an ordinary person who occasionally makes some interesting points, and occasionally puts her foot in it.

She's far from an ordinary person just making a point, everything she comes out with is man hating radfem sh1te.

hatrickpatrick

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Who's "we"? Why do you think the majority of men in Ireland either have no clue who this woman is, or even if we do, don't care?

I think a lot of us were brought up with the idea that sexism against men doesn’t exist and that our role is to grin and bear it if it does.

And whilst it can be perfectly reasonable to be angered by another person's opinion, the most effective response is usually to be reasonable. I'm talking instead about grown adults going spare when LON talks about the importance of consent, and then when they don't have enough grist for the outrage-mill, they'll come here and muse that she must have gone quiet because she's "getting the pipe" from some guy.

Don't try and suggest this kind of stuff is reasonable criticism. Or that LON is peddling hate speech. She seems like an ordinary person who occasionally makes some interesting points, and occasionally puts her foot in it.

She is regularly pedaling hate speech, and in this article, she uses newspeak identity politics crap to justify and excuse it. As such, she deserves just as much ridicule and condemnation as the likes of Steve Bannon or Gemma O’Doherty. Equality is not compatible with double standards, no matter how much bigoted assholes like her try to twist simple concepts such as sexism or racism to exclude their own personal type of bigotry from falling under those umbrellas.

Arghus

Just to confirm that this thread is still really boring.

py2006

Arghus wrote: »

Just to confirm that this thread is still really boring.

Bye

Will I Am Not

Arghus wrote: »

Just to confirm that this thread is still really boring.

https://streamable.com/1xown

theguzman

A Louise O'Neill v Gemma O'Doherty deathmatch would be some fun, the lolz of it.

py2006

theguzman wrote: »

A Louise O'Neill v Gemma O'Doherty deathmatch would be some fun, the lolz of it.

Dont forget Una Mulally and the newest member Tanya Sweeney.

Yer Da sells Avon

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

She's far from an ordinary person just making a point, everything she comes out with is man hating radfem sh1te.

How sheltered to you have to be to regard such a bland journalist as 'radical'?

Will I Am Not wrote: »

I would know sweet fa about Gemma O’Doherty if it wasn’t for the boards thread about her but I don’t hang around the thread proclaiming it at every opportunity.

There's no comparison between the two. One is a hate-filled nutjob who dedicates her life to inciting hatred against some of the most vulnerable people in the country. The other is Gemma O'Doherty.



I actually resent how much I know about Gemma O'Doherty. I followed her on Twitter years ago, before she completely lost the run of herself. The signs were very much there though. Even back then. Mad as a brush. A lot of people on Twitter are obsessed, showering undeserved attention on her every day.

Professor Genius

I thought this one had calmed down a bit since she started getting a regular length from some Newstalk journo ?

Muahahaha

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

I know there's a long running thread about her on the People's Republic of Cork forum, not sure about elsewhere.

Yeah Ive seen the thread on her over there but have not read it. Moderation is less strict on that site so would imagine some of the stuff said is not nice. Its a good site though when theres a interesting court case on as they allow discussion while the trial is on going. The Ana Kriegel and Patrick Quirke threads over there were very interesting as those trials progressed.

The_Kew_Tour

Underground wrote: »

First time posting on this thread. I always find myself surprised at how this thread continues to pop up on the front page. Almost 600 pages long(on the app), mostly pointing out how silly the things that LON says are.

As someone said a page or so back, she is deliberately inflammatory, herself and Katie Hopkins are two sides of the same coin. You are being played by rising to the bait. If she annoys you or you find yourself irritated reading about something that she said, just ignore her. Move on with your day, you'll be happier for it and it's a really easy thing to do.

Threads like this provide her with ample victim points to put in the bank, by continously posting on this thread you are exacerbating her exposure (which I have no issue with).

Well said.

JRant

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Who's "we"? Why do you think the majority of men in Ireland either have no clue who this woman is, or even if we do, don't care?

And whilst it can be perfectly reasonable to be angered by another person's opinion, the most effective response is usually to be reasonable. I'm talking instead about grown adults going spare when LON talks about the importance of consent, and then when they don't have enough grist for the outrage-mill, they'll come here and muse that she must have gone quiet because she's "getting the pipe" from some guy.

Don't try and suggest this kind of stuff is reasonable criticism. Or that LON is peddling hate speech. She seems like an ordinary person who occasionally makes some interesting points, and occasionally puts her foot in it.

So peddling bare faced lies about male Agri students in UCD was just putting her foot in it, then when it was found to be completely baseless doubling down on it is reasonable?

I mean, this is a life changing accusation to throw at any man, never mind a whole cohort of students that she knew absolutely nothing about. It was a shameless act and should have seen her removed from any decent newspaper, not promoted and made an unofficial representative of all things wrong with men in society. The examiner and rte should be ashamed of themselves giving such an individual any sort of public credence.

Jmsg

Promotes sexual licentiousness then complains about it's effects in a single breath. She's a silly character to say the least.

Will I Am Not

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

How sheltered to you have to be to regard such a bland journalist as 'radical'?



There's no comparison between the two. One is a hate-filled nutjob who dedicates her life to inciting hatred against some of the most vulnerable people in the country. The other is Gemma O'Doherty.



I actually resent how much I know about Gemma O'Doherty. I followed her on Twitter years ago, before she completely lost the run of herself. The signs were very much there though. Even back then. Mad as a brush. A lot of people on Twitter are obsessed, showering undeserved attention on her every day.

I wasn’t comparing them at all. Just saying I wouldn’t know much about either if it wasn’t for boards. Gemma is on another level of craziness.

Ken.

Mod-Moved to CA. Read the local charter.

py2006

:rolleyes:

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Underground wrote: »

First time posting on this thread. I always find myself surprised at how this thread continues to pop up on the front page. Almost 600 pages long(on the app), mostly pointing out how silly the things that LON says are.

As someone said a page or so back, she is deliberately inflammatory, herself and Katie Hopkins are two sides of the same coin. You are being played by rising to the bait. If she annoys you or you find yourself irritated reading about something that she said, just ignore her. Move on with your day, you'll be happier for it and it's a really easy thing to do.

Threads like this provide her with ample victim points to put in the bank, by continously posting on this thread you are exacerbating her exposure (which I have no issue with).

That does seem to be it. And are people running searches for her periodically to see if she has said anything daft lately? Because I’m a Twitter and Facebook user and she never darkens my feed on either. I’ve had a few public figures that I was sick of hearing about so I’d just hide posts mentioning them whenever I’d spot them. They soon disappeared completely from my social media feeds. Can’t people do the same with her? I think they get enjoyment from reacting to her articles.

Why do people allow themselves to be baited like that?

freshpopcorn

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That does seem to be it. And are people running searches for her periodically to see if she has said anything daft lately? Because I’m a Twitter and Facebook user and she never darkens my feed on either. I’ve had a few public figures that I was sick of hearing about so I’d just hide posts mentioning them whenever I’d spot them. They soon disappeared completely from my social media feeds. Can’t people do the same with her? I think they get enjoyment from reacting to her articles.

Why do people allow themselves to be baited like that?

I think I first came across her when the Irish Examiner started sharing her articles online.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think I first came across her when the Irish Examiner started sharing her articles online.

I sometimes read Irish Examiner articles. Thus far, none that I’ve clicked on have been written by her. I’m just amazed really at her being zeroed in on so much.

Will I Am Not wrote: »

And so what if you’re saying so what if people mention it :rolleyes:

Whoa, the rolly eyes have been deployed. That’s me told.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Will I Am Not wrote: »

https://streamable.com/1xown

Many people, me included, have Unfollow as their default setting and follow no threads. They can still see threads titles using their eyeballs. Of course, we don’t have to enter the thread but we can see how many comments each thread has and in the case of O’Neill, curiosity is piqued over why she crops up quite regularly and why her thread is quite hefty.

If people are asking with regularity why she gets so much attention on boards.ie, maybe there’s a reason for that?

freshpopcorn

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I sometimes read Irish Examiner articles. Thus far, none that I’ve clicked on have been written by her. I’m just amazed really at her being zeroed in on so much.

There was a time when she wrote controversial stuff and it caused a bit of a discussion.
People has lost interest in her until she popped up again last night.
She was the one who also mentioned message boards so I'm not surprised the thread was going to pop up again.

El_Duderino 09

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That does seem to be it. And are people running searches for her periodically to see if she has said anything daft lately? Because I’m a Twitter and Facebook user and she never darkens my feed on either. I’ve had a few public figures that I was sick of hearing about so I’d just hide posts mentioning them whenever I’d spot them. They soon disappeared completely from my social media feeds. Can’t people do the same with her? I think they get enjoyment from reacting to her articles.

Why do people allow themselves to be baited like that?

They must be doing as you said. Looking for things to be outraged about. The complete lack of anything specific she's done to upset them recently is reflected in the thread. It's all very general at the moment. Nothing specific.

lleti

She was on about the dirty whatsapps again wasn't she?

I'm afraid that's what single lads in groups talk about.

Outlaw Pete

Professor Genius wrote: »

I thought this one had calmed down a bit since she started getting a regular length from some Newstalk journo ?

That's not why she went quiet. It was shortly after this article appeared:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/50b13298-74ac-11e8-a95e-4d8f3c5d626c

She tweeted an apology, then deleted it - so effectively she fulfilled her legal obligations.

In the following weeks she began bulk deleting thousands of her tweets.

Haven't seen it yet, but I take it none of this was brought up in her interview?

SJW Lover

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They must be doing as you said. Looking for things to be outraged about. The complete lack of anything specific she's done to upset them recently is reflected in the thread. It's all very general at the moment. Nothing specific.

Sure you've never heard of her, as you have said. So what are you doing in here then? Maybe take your own advice and stop coming into threads whose subject matter you know nothing about to snipe at those who do know. Maybe the irony is lost on you.

El_Duderino 09

SJW Lover wrote: »

Sure you've never heard of her, as you have said. So what are you doing in here then? Maybe take your own advice and stop coming into threads whose subject matter you know nothing about to snipe at those who do know. Maybe the irony is lost on you.

We'll, as you half read, I would never hear about her if it weren't for her dedicated readers who post snout her in this thread.

hatrickpatrick

py2006 wrote: »

Dont forget Una Mulally and the newest member Tanya Sweeney.

For those out of the loop, who's Tanya Sweeney and what's her current claim to clickbait?

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We'll, as you half read, I would never hear about her if it weren't for her dedicated readers who post snout her in this thread.

How about Una Mullally? I'd be amazed if anyone hasn't heard of her - unless of course they're part of the growing demographic who simply don't read newspapers anymore because so many of them have gone to sh!te in recent years.

And FYI I agree with a lot of what Una writes on political issues, but she's another hypocrite who's bought into the "it's perfectly ok to sh!t all over men as a 'bloc', but say one bad thing about women and you're literally Hitler" bandwagon.

SJW Lover

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We'll, as you half read, I would never hear about her if it weren't for her dedicated readers who post snout her in this thread.

But you've pointed that out. A number of times. Do you think anyone cares? Are you repeating yourself until you get a reaction? You profess ignorance so maybe sit the thread out.

Ulysses Gaze

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For those out of the loop, who's Tanya Sweeney and what's her current claim to clickbait?

Tanya Sweeney is a journalist that had an article in the Indo a few weeks back that said men (not all mind - just Non-Feminist, Non-Woke men) lied, or at least spoke in half-truths, about the type of women they like.

For instance, when a man says he likes a real, curvy woman he is talking about a woman who has a figure like Christina Hendricks (she referenced her specifically) rather than someone with a figure like Alison Spittle (my example based on what she was trying to intimate).

These men are bastards apparently.

Also men that go for cute, nerdy women are only doing so so that they can talk about their nerdy hobbies to said cute, nerdy women without boring them to tears.

Again, those men are bastards apparently.