Gemma O'Doherty and her unicorns

AndrewJRenko

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

+1 I don't think she's well at all.

Do you find many people with mental health issues who turn into raving nazi conspiracy theorists playing out their battles in the public eye?

OleRodrigo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you find many people with mental health issues who turn into raving nazi conspiracy theorists playing out their battles in the public eye?

It hasn't stopped you.

AndrewJRenko

Gemma's now moved on to calling on her supporters to burn any hijabs that they see while concealing their identity, and warning judges to be 'very very careful' about what happens when she takes charge.

This isn't a mental health issue.

She's just a racist bully.

https://twitter.com/McDonaghDJ/status/1162659857130016768

Blueshoe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Gemma's now moved on to calling on her supporters to burn any hijabs that they see while concealing their identity, and warning judges to be 'very very careful' about what happens when she takes charge.

This isn't a mental health issue.

She's just a racist bully.

https://twitter.com/McDonaghDJ/status/1162659857130016768

She didn't tell her supporters to burn hijabs while concealing their identity. Tut tut.

She said hijabs should be burnt. Pause new sentence and subject. She feels her supporters should conceal their identity.
Come on now Renko.

The most ****ty editing job

AndrewJRenko

Blueshoe wrote: »

She didn't tell her supporters to burn hijabs while concealing their identity. Tut tut.

She said hijabs should be burnt. Pause new sentence and subject. She feels her supporters should conceal their identity.
Come on now Renko.

The most ****ty editing job

Look again. There are no edit jumps between 2s and 13s, where she says:

"Cover yourself up, I would say wear a hijab, but I'd rather you burn any hijabs you see, they should be burnt, just wear an Irish scarf, and sunglasses, and a baseball cap".


So she literally tells her supporters that they should burn any hijabs they see while they conceal there identity.


Now just take a step back for a minute - have a think about it. You're argueing about whether it was a full stop or a comma after the suggestion to burn hijabs. You're not argueing about whether she advised her supporters to burn hijabs or not.


Do you think that maybe you're part of the problem here?

Blueshoe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Look again. There are no edit jumps between 2s and 13s, where she says:

"Cover yourself up, I would say wear a hijab, but I'd rather you burn any hijabs you see, they should be burnt, just wear an Irish scarf, and sunglasses, and a baseball cap".


So she literally tells her supporters that they should burn any hijabs they see while they conceal there identity.


Now just take a step back for a minute - have a think about it. You're argueing about whether it was a full stop or a comma after the suggestion to burn hijabs. You're not argueing about whether she advised her supporters to burn hijabs or not.


Do you think that maybe you're part of the problem here?

Sounds more like. Don't cover your face with a hijab. Cover your face with a tricolour instead.
Burn any hijabs you see.

But whatever you want to interpret it as. That's up to you Renko. We know you are moderate and neutral in your views.

I believe the 1st of February is world "burn hijab day"
People in 140 countries participate

What problem is there and why am I part of it?

AndrewJRenko

Blueshoe wrote: »

Sounds more like. Don't cover your face with a hijab. Cover your face with a tricolour instead.
Burn any hijabs you see.

But whatever you want to interpret it as. That's up to you Renko. We know you are moderate and neutral in your views.

I believe the 1st of February is world "burn hijab day"
People in 140 countries participate

What problem is there and why am I part of it?

I'm not interpreting anything. Here words are; " I'd rather you burn any hijabs you see".


She is explicitly inciting her supporters to violent acts.


And you're playing word games to try to get her off the hook. That's the problem that you're part of.

Blueshoe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not interpreting anything. Here words are; " I'd rather you burn any hijabs you see".


She is explicitly inciting her supporters to violent acts.


And you're playing word games to try to get her off the hook. That's the problem that you're part of.

I disagree. It's a 40 min video. You have posted a mashed together segment. Cherry picking.

Anyway tell us what you will be doing to deal with it?

AndrewJRenko

Blueshoe wrote: »

I disagree. It's a 40 min video. You have posted a mashed together segment. Cherry picking.

Anyway tell us what you will be doing to deal with it?

Are you saying that she didn't say: " I'd rather you burn any hijabs you see" ?

Blueshoe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you saying that she didn't say: " I'd rather you burn any hijabs you see" ?

She did say "burn any hijabs you see"

What are you going to do though?
What's your next move?

I'm just curious

AndrewJRenko

Blueshoe wrote: »

She did say "burn any hijabs you see"

What are you going to do though?
What's your next move?

I'm just curious

Once again, I can only suggest that this might be a good time for a little self-reflection. You've confirmed that she has explicitly called for violent acts against female Muslims, and you want to play forum tit-for-tat games because you're curious.


Have a little think about that.

Blueshoe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Once again, I can only suggest that this might be a good time for a little self-reflection. You've confirmed that she has explicitly called for violent acts against female Muslims, and you want to play forum tit-for-tat games because you're curious.


Have a little think about that.

No I'm just curious as to what you are going to do to address her comments . Is it accurate to say you will do absolutely nothing?

Faux outrage

AndrewJRenko

Blueshoe wrote: »

No I'm just curious as to what you are going to do to address her comments . Is it accurate to say you will do absolutely nothing?

Faux outrage

We're a little past curiosity now. The real question is what are you going to do? Are you going to continue to support her campaign, given her explicit call for violent action?

Blueshoe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The real question is what are you going to do? Are you going to continue to support her campaign, given her explicit call for violent action?

Lol. I asked you first Andrew

King Mob

Blueshoe wrote: »

Lol. I asked you first Andrew

So what's the logic here?
Cause he's not going to do anything about it, Gemma's statements aren't racist?
She didn't tell her gullible, impressionable and racist followers to commit violent acts?
Or that those things are ok?

I'm just trying to see what the gotcha moment here is...

Annasopra

Blueshoe wrote: »

I disagree. It's a 40 min video. You have posted a mashed together segment. Cherry picking.

Anyway tell us what you will be doing to deal with it?

Where was the original?

OleRodrigo

So...was the bra burning of the 60s an incitement to violence against boobs?

Or was it a symbolic gesture, a protest against a perceived oppression..

(Note: your answer will determine how well your head is screwed on )

recedite

Women are sharing videos online burning headscarves with the hashtag #NoHijabDay in solidarity with those who are forced to wear the veil

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/women-around-world-burn-headscarves-11979107


More power to them.

MarquisDeSad

OleRodrigo wrote: »

So...was the bra burning of the 60s an incitement to violence against boobs?

Or was it a symbolic gesture, a protest against a perceived oppression..

(Note: your answer will determine how well your head is screwed on )

I really don't know what to say here. None of what you've written makes sense. None of it.

Using force to grab a hijab off someone on a street and burning it is not the same as a woman taking of her bra and burning it.

How on earth do you think those things are comparable is beyond me.

OleRodrigo

MarquisDeSad wrote: »

I really don't know what to say here. None of what you've written makes sense. None of it.

If you're incapable of rational thought, then I would agree 100%.

Stop moaning ffs

Is she encouraging her gemmaroids to attack Muslim women here?

MarquisDeSad

OleRodrigo wrote: »

If you're incapable of rational thought, then I would agree 100%.

You have no rational thought. Your previous post shows this. By the way this isn't a conversation. You've shown yourself up with your posts. Simply put, you deserve ridicule for what you've written.

MarquisDeSad

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Is she encouraging her gemmaroids to attack Muslim women here?

Yes, but it's OK because somehow in wacko land its comparable to 60s woman burning their bras.

Stop moaning ffs

MarquisDeSad wrote: »

Yes, but it's OK because somehow in wacko land its comparable to 60s woman burning their bras.

I’m no expert on the law but I’m fairly sure we have one against incitement to violence no?

Cos there’s only one reading of what she said and it’s encouraging people to attack Muslim women

recedite

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Cos there’s only one reading of what she said and it’s encouraging people to attack Muslim women

Nope, several posts before your one explained what was meant.
You chose to ignore them.

Stop moaning ffs

recedite wrote: »

Nope, several posts before your one explained what was meant.
You chose to ignore them.

‘Here’s what Gemma meant to say’

Ehhhh no. I listened to it myself and I know exactly what she meant.
I’ll keep my own counsel especially over that of some mindless hatefilled fvcknuggets who support her racism thanks all the same

recedite

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I’ll keep my own counsel especially over that of some mindless hatefilled fvcknuggets who support her racism thanks all the same

Relax, dude. The hatred is strong in you.

banie01

The race to invoke semantics and misunderstanding as a defence for what is patently and obviously apparent to any rationally thinking person as an incitement to violence IMO is laughable.

Given Gemma's prior professional career, one can only assume that she at least has a rudimentary understanding of the importance of words and in particular phrasing and their interpretations.

One is reminded of a passage of Alice in Wonderland.

Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.
"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least-at least I mean what I say-that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see'!"
"You might just as well say," added the March Hare, "that 'I like what I get' is the same thing as 'I get what I like'!"
"You might just as well say," added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, "that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing as 'I sleep when I breathe'!"
"It is the same thing with you." said the Hatter.

Are we to believe that "award winning" journalist Gemma, is now as naive in her use of language as Alice?

circadian

MarquisDeSad wrote: »

Haha haha. What on earth is this nonsense.

I think the barrel scraping has bottomed out.

Stop moaning ffs

recedite wrote: »

Relax, dude. The hatred is strong in you.

It’s our duty to hate racists. I’m plenty relaxed tho thanks for asking.