Judgement day for Maria Bailey.

ohnonotgmail

givyjoe wrote: »

Hang on, you think that the root of the discussion here is misogyny..?!

that seems to be the allegation. She wouldn't have received the response she has if she was a man. It is white incels in the their mommys basement going after her. I'm pretty sure one poster said almost exactly that.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the attacks on Maria Bailey are sexist, what do you call the attacks on Phil Hogan?

Politician doing something immoral and f*cking stupid gets absolutely roasted online. It's a story as old as the internet itself, and gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Female politicians and public figures get a much harder time on this site than male politicians.

Maria Bailey, Mairia Cahill, Mary-Lou McDonald, Frances Fitzgerald are all examples of that. There is a definite undercurrent of misogyny at play with certain posters and certain comments, though not all.

A couple of exceptions to the rule. Leo Varadkar probably comes in for more abuse than any other politician but that only confirms that you don't have to be a misogynst to be homophobic and racist.

It is low-level dog-whistle stuff, in the area of plausible deniability if you were a decent honest person saying it. That defence doesn't apply to the vast majority of people hurling it out.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

Female politicians and public figures get a much harder time on this site than male politicians.

Maria Bailey, Mairia Cahill, Mary-Lou McDonald, Frances Fitzgerald are all examples of that. There is a definite undercurrent of misogyny at play with certain posters and certain comments, though not all.

So what say you to the Phil Hogan comparison? Or Barrey Cowen? These are examples from just the last year. Memed and roasted to oblivion, and rightly so.

A couple of exceptions to the rule. Leo Varadkar probably comes in for more abuse than any other politician but that only confirms that you don't have to be a misogynst to be homophobic and racist.

Oh come on. People do not dislike Leo for being either gay or of foreign heritage, they dislike him for being economically right wing and elitist.

It is low-level dog-whistle stuff, in the area of plausible deniability if you were a decent honest person saying it. That defence doesn't apply to the vast majority of people hurling it out.

I've never agreed with this kind of argument though, it allows people to frame non bigoted arguments as bigoted just because they either disagree with them, or haven't got a decent argument against them, and often veers into "thoughtcrime" territory.

Can you cite any recent examples of dog whistles used against Leo?

salmocab

blanch152 wrote: »

Female politicians and public figures get a much harder time on this site than male politicians.

Maria Bailey, Mairia Cahill, Mary-Lou McDonald, Frances Fitzgerald are all examples of that. There is a definite undercurrent of misogyny at play with certain posters and certain comments, though not all.

A couple of exceptions to the rule. Leo Varadkar probably comes in for more abuse than any other politician but that only confirms that you don't have to be a misogynst to be homophobic and racist.

It is low-level dog-whistle stuff, in the area of plausible deniability if you were a decent honest person saying it. That defence doesn't apply to the vast majority of people hurling it out.

Just nonsense I see politicians and public figures being lambasted constantly. This calling out things as racist, misogynistic or homophobic is horse ****. It’s being used a shield, her actions were her own and she should have just owned it but decided to play the victim which most see through except clapping seals.

McMurphy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can you cite any recent examples of dog whistles used against Leo?

Does this count?

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1293663127809204233?s=19

WrenBoy

blanch152 wrote: »

Female politicians and public figures get a much harder time on this site than male politicians.

Maria Bailey, Mairia Cahill, Mary-Lou McDonald, Frances Fitzgerald are all examples of that. There is a definite undercurrent of misogyny at play with certain posters and certain comments, though not all.

A couple of exceptions to the rule. Leo Varadkar probably comes in for more abuse than any other politician but that only confirms that you don't have to be a misogynst to be homophobic and racist.

It is low-level dog-whistle stuff, in the area of plausible deniability if you were a decent honest person saying it. That defence doesn't apply to the vast majority of people hurling it out.

What a load of twaddle.
Politicians get criticised. Im not shedding a tear for a TD getting a bit of stick on a message board. A politician claiming sexism/racism/homophobia when they are called out for their speeches or actions are unworthy of the role imo.

hatrickpatrick

McMurphy wrote: »

Does this count?

https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1293663127809204233?s=19

That's just straight-up bigotry, definitely not a dog whistle as Blanch was alluding to - Blanch was also talking about Boards posts as opposed to Dáil comments, or so I presumed?

There's no question that SF tried to tap in to SJW-"woke" sh!te in particular during the time of last year's election and again during the summer (remember Mary Lou's cringe "mansplaining" moment? ) but it backfired spectacularly and I don't think they'll be trying it again any time soon.

Itssoeasy

blanch152 wrote: »

Female politicians and public figures get a much harder time on this site than male politicians.

Maria Bailey, Mairia Cahill, Mary-Lou McDonald, Frances Fitzgerald are all examples of that. There is a definite undercurrent of misogyny at play with certain posters and certain comments, though not all.

A couple of exceptions to the rule. Leo Varadkar probably comes in for more abuse than any other politician but that only confirms that you don't have to be a misogynst to be homophobic and racist.

It is low-level dog-whistle stuff, in the area of plausible deniability if you were a decent honest person saying it. That defence doesn't apply to the vast majority of people hurling it out.

I don’t care what gender/race/or sexual orientation any of the politicians in this country are. It has no bearing on whether I agree or disagree with their point of view. A politician making stupid public comments is a politician making stupid comments in my opinion. Any label is secondary and doesn’t mean they should be more or less open to legitimate criticism for their public statements.

beakerjoe

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I don’t care what gender/race/or sexual orientation any of the politicians in this country are. It has no bearing on whether I agree or disagree with their point of view. A politician making stupid public comments is a politician making stupid comments in my opinion. Any label is secondary and doesn’t mean they should be more or less open to legitimate criticism for their public statements.

I'm not anti Bailey or FG, I'm just pro swing. The poor oul swing is getting awful abuse in the media, people claiming its defective or "slippery" without any basis for these unfounded allegations.

There is such an anti-swing agenda in this country. Would their be the same outrage if it was a slide or a sea-saw?

Itssoeasy

beakerjoe wrote: »

I'm not anti Bailey or FG, I'm just pro swing. The poor oul swing is getting awful abuse in the media, people claiming its defective or "slippery" without any basis for these unfounded allegations.

There is such an anti-swing agenda in this country. Would their be the same outrage if it was a slide or a sea-saw?

Well who isn’t pro swing ? It’s a relatively easy bit of kit to operator that even young kids can use. You don’t fall off a swing unless you’re not adhering to the very simple rules of using a swing. I mean this isn’t Peace in our time lads.

givyjoe

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that seems to be the allegation. She wouldn't have received the response she has if she was a man. It is white incels in the their mommys basement going after her. I'm pretty sure one poster said almost exactly that.

Sorry, i thought that's what you believed.

ohnonotgmail

givyjoe wrote: »

Sorry, i thought that's what you believed.

Dear god no. *makes sign of the cross*

Muahahaha

Im beginning to wonder if within the Fine Gael Manual for Online Debating (FGMOD) does there exist a rule that says 'When you are not able to debate the topic at hand then just tell everyone else that they are really misogynists/racists/homophobes and that they are really the problem'

Isnt this phenomena of FG posters throwing out the misogyny/racism/homophonbic accusations when they are unable to debate the topic at hand really just what the Americans call gaslighting and a recognised technique in psychological abuse?

Here is a definition of political gaslighting from the Medical News

Political gaslighting
An article in a forthcoming issue of Buffalo Law Review states that political gaslighting occurs when a political figure or group uses lies, denials, or manipulates information to control people.

Examples include downplaying or hiding things their administration has done wrong, discrediting political opponents based on mental instability, or using controversy to divert attention from important events.

Diverting: With this technique, a person changes the focus of a discussion and questions the other person’s credibility instead. For example, they might say, “that is just another crazy idea you got from your friends.”
Stereotyping: An article in the American Sociological Review states that a person using gaslighting techniques may intentionally use negative stereotypes of a person’s gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, nationality, or age to manipulate them. For example, they may tell a female that people will think she is irrational or crazy if she seeks help for abuse.

I think the gaslighting on this thread is clear and obvious and it needs to be called out. How are we supposed to have a civil discussion on the matter when several Fine Gael posters in a row now are using gaslighting techniques to tell us all that we're wrong because we're really just angry white men who all hate women?

Dav010

Personally, I don’t hate women, in fact I think they are very nice people. I do intensely dislike anyone who feigns injury and then tries to profit from their own stupidity. Raking this story up again by claiming people don’t understand the severity of her injuries was ill advised, not nearly as bad as her first interview, but bad all the same. She should have known her audience, at a time when people are pissed off about the cost of insurance, her pleas for understanding will not be well recieved.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Female politicians and public figures get a much harder time on this site than male politicians.

Maria Bailey, Mairia Cahill, Mary-Lou McDonald, Frances Fitzgerald are all examples of that. There is a definite undercurrent of misogyny at play with certain posters and certain comments, though not all.

A couple of exceptions to the rule. Leo Varadkar probably comes in for more abuse than any other politician but that only confirms that you don't have to be a misogynst to be homophobic and racist.

It is low-level dog-whistle stuff, in the area of plausible deniability if you were a decent honest person saying it. That defence doesn't apply to the vast majority of people hurling it out.

This comment is the biggest pile of dishonest hog manure. I'd say it nearly killed you having to add MLMD to try give it some legitimacy.

You've never supplied examples to back up your many many claims of such behaviour. You use these people and others to try score points. It's obvious you have no care for anyone suffering abuse other than for you to use most often made up and inferred abuse to try shut down or talk over critical points raised.
You should apologise to Maria Cahill IMO.

I don't know where you get the cheek in this comment to claim others are engaged in low level dog whistle stuff when you engage in it constantly, this comment being only the most recent. You were caught out lying point blank regarding this very topic last time you raised it in Feedback. Pretending you didn't know the context.
You are constantly engaging in the abuse of the gay community, ethnic minorities and victims of sexual abuse. It should not be allowed IMO.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I've never agreed with this kind of argument though, it allows people to frame non bigoted arguments as bigoted just because they either disagree with them, or haven't got a decent argument against them, and often veers into "thoughtcrime" territory.

Can you cite any recent examples of dog whistles used against Leo?

Come on, we had the notorious example of someone using Leo's partner's name as their username and claiming it was all a bit of fun. That meets the classic definition of dog-whistle homophobia.

Search boards for Lord Kilclooney and Leo and you won't find posters criticising the Lord, you will find posters critical of Leo referencing it. Again, classic dog-whistle stuff.

The thing is, this will correctly pass without sanction from the mods, because when viewed in isolation, there is deniability. It is only when you look at the pattern you see the wood from the trees.

Odyssey 2005

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the attacks on Maria Bailey are sexist, what do you call the attacks on Phil Hogan?

Politician doing something immoral and f*cking stupid gets absolutely roasted online. It's a story as old as the internet itself, and gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Justified !

beakerjoe

Any outrage directed at Bailey in this thread, has not been based on her gender, her age, her race..... its all been based her actions.

If it was Simon Harris, Gerry Adams, Jack Stephens, Paul Murphy, (any straight white male in politics) would I be sexist? homophobic? Racist?

If any of them pulled the stunt Bailey did and then do the recent interviews, Id be calling this situation the same : I'd be calling them chancers and Id agree that all their own actions lead to their own downfall. They would be rightly ridiculed and they would get zero sympathy from me.

Bailey is no different.

She could have drifted away into obscurity, but no she wants the spotlight again to fuel her own political career. I dont want her in politics.

I will vent my displeasure at her regarding her actions. I have not, nor will I be sexist or misogynistic because thats unfair and wrong. I will judge her on her actions though.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Come on, we had the notorious example of someone using Leo's partner's name as their username and claiming it was all a bit of fun. That meets the classic definition of dog-whistle homophobia.

If I used Michael D Higgin's partner's name would that be something for you to get upset about? What grounds would you use there?

Once again your own up-tightness about Varadkar's sexuality is revealing you.

Dav010

beakerjoe wrote: »

If it was Simon Harris, Gerry Adams, Jack Stephens, Paul Murphy, (any straight white male in politics) would I be sexist? homophobic? Racist?

Personally I think Paul Murphy deserves a new adjective, gob****ist, punyist, something along those lines.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If I used Michael D Higgin's partner's name would that be something for you to get upset about? What grounds would you use there?

Once again your own up-tightness about Varadkar's sexuality is revealing you.

Not forgetting his 'traditional family' crack because of LV's ethnicity.

beakerjoe

Dav010 wrote: »

Personally I think Paul Murphy deserves a new adjective, gob****ist, punyist, something along those lines.

Most politicians awful. I hate voting personally as its usually a case of voting for the lesser of 10 evils.

Each party has its down falls, independents usually cant do enough. Plenty of people who don't deserve to be in office.

Bailey has been fairly exposed as a most likely an insurance fraud. She doesn't deserve to be in office based off her actions.

Necro

James Brown wrote: »

This comment is the biggest pile of dishonest hog manure. I'd say it nearly killed you having to add MLMD to try give it some legitimacy.

You've never supplied examples to back up your many many claims of such behaviour. You use these people and others to try score points. It's obvious you have no care for anyone suffering abuse other than for you to use most often made up and inferred abuse to try shut down or talk over critical points raised.
You should apologise to Maria Cahill IMO.

I don't know where you get the cheek in this comment to claim others are engaged in low level dog whistle stuff when you engage in it constantly, this comment being only the most recent. You were caught out lying point blank regarding this very topic last time you raised it in Feedback. Pretending you didn't know the context.
You are constantly engaging in the abuse of the gay community, ethnic minorities and victims of sexual abuse. It should not be allowed IMO.

Mod:


I guess you didn't want to take my advice in my previous mod warning.

Do not post in this thread again

1874

beakerjoe wrote: »

I'm not anti Bailey or FG, I'm just pro swing. The poor oul swing is getting awful abuse in the media, people claiming its defective or "slippery" without any basis for these unfounded allegations.

There is such an anti-swing agenda in this country. Would their be the same outrage if it was a slide or a sea-saw?

When I read "FG, I'm just pro swing" I genuinely read that as Spin for a second, even though I know you were saying it in jest. Whenever Ive seen what Leo has said in defence of some position, it seems he usually jumps to blaming someone else/usually a specific group almost immediately instead of dealing with or responding to the actual problem or criticism.
I am still waiting for when Leo will come out in defence of MB and basically take up the mantle of blaming someone else or berating online criticism of her for something which has nothing to do with the original situation (deflecting).

jmreire

1874 wrote: »

When I read "FG, I'm just pro swing" I genuinely read that as Spin for a second, even though I know you were saying it in jest. Whenever Ive seen what Leo has said in defence of some position, it seems he usually jumps to blaming someone else/usually a specific group almost immediately instead of dealing with or responding to the actual problem or criticism.
I am still waiting for when Leo will come out in defence of MB and basically take up the mantle of blaming someone else or berating online criticism of her for something which has nothing to do with the original situation (deflecting).

Well if any of the FG handlers / minders are reading the MB saga here on Boards. and using it as a kind if dipstick to test the water's...her reintegration will be a long way off !!!!

punisher5112

Are swings in playground now safe?
Will she be ok to let out into the real world again especially when pubs etc open again.

markodaly

beakerjoe wrote: »

Sure Simon Harris had a lynch mob outside his house two years ago. Im sure no angry white men were involved as it was a cervical check debacle that angered the public:pac:

A classic example of whataboutery.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/simon-harris-says-protesters-followed-his-wife-to-their-house-1.3796694

They were protesting the Cervical Check Scandal, while Vickey Phealen herself thought the protest was wrong? Riiiiiiiight.

I guess if people think protesting outside someones home, with their family inside and in Simon's case a newborn baby, then work away. It shows us all what type of human you are. Most people think such protests are beyond the pale.

beakerjoe

markodaly wrote: »

A classic example of whataboutery.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/simon-harris-says-protesters-followed-his-wife-to-their-house-1.3796694

They were protesting the Cervical Check Scandal, while Vickey Phealen herself thought the protest was wrong? Riiiiiiiight.

I guess if people think protesting outside someones home, with their family inside and in Simon's case a newborn baby, then work away. It shows us all what type of human you are. Most people think such protests are beyond the pale.

You missed the point.

Did ai condone what happned to Harris? No. It was wrong.

I am comparing the situation in terms of the reaction.

No one is hoping on Bailey because of her gender or race or sexual preference, the same why no one hoped on Harris for those reasons.

They hoped on Bailey because of her actions.

But sure, twist my point to suit your agenda.

markodaly

McMurphy wrote: »

You can't "rest a case" you haven't exactly made, I mean you just came into the thread accused folk of "having a macabre fascination" on her, and then insinuated it was "angry males"

This thread has over 1600 posts and the previous one to that almost reached 10,000 posts, but was closed by a mod as it was done to death,

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showthread.php?t=2057982304

Yet here we are re-hashing it all again...why?

Criticism of her is valid.
Abuse of her is not valid.

It is that simple.

People are perfectly free to criticise her but after a while, if that criticism is daily, week after week, month after month, are you telling me that that is coming from a genuine place of civic duty holding politicians to account or something deeper, more sinister and unconscious? That is where it turns into abuse.

Anyone in the original thread who opined about her on a constant basis week after week, for months at an end certainly do not come off well, if the accusation is misogyny. It certainly doesn't look good.

You're implying it's only males discussing her, as if it's some kind of thinly veiled misogyny in doing so.

Never said that.

As already stated, if it was Leo - you'd be insinuating people were racist and or homophobic.

Leo has received plenty of racist and homophobic abuse, even from SF TD's and councillors. Approx 10-20% of the stuff written online on social media under this FB and Twitter accounts would fall under this category.

Are you saying that on social media, online and in life, Leo has never suffered racist and homophobic abuse? Quite a claim!

Neale Richmond, they'd be sectarian..

Well it depends. If people constantly bring him up as some target practice ala FG then perhaps the fact that he isn't a Catholic certainly is warranted to discuss his religion.

You telling me that there are not people in society and social media who are NOT sectarian?

Amazing that these people in society never manage to figure out how to use a boards.ie account.

beakerjoe

markodaly wrote: »

This thread has over 1600 posts and the previous one to that almost reached 10,000 posts, but was closed by a mod as it was done to death,

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showthread.php?t=2057982304

Yet here we are re-hashing it all again...why?

Criticism of her is valid.
Abuse of her is not valid.

It is that simple.

People are perfectly free to criticise her but after a while, if that criticism is daily, week after week, month after month, are you telling me that that is coming from a genuine place of civic duty holding politicians to account or something deeper, more sinister and unconscious? That is where it turns into abuse.

Anyone in the original thread who opined about her on a constant basis week after week, for months at an end certainly do not come off well, if the accusation is misogyny. It certainly doesn't look good.




Never said that.



Leo has received plenty of racist and homophobic abuse, even from SF TD's and councillors. Approx 10-20% of the stuff written online on social media under this FB and Twitter accounts would fall under this category.

Are you saying that on social media, online and in life, Leo has never suffered racist and homophobic abuse? Quite a claim!




Well it depends. If people constantly bring him up as some target practice ala FG then perhaps the fact that he isn't a Catholic certainly is warranted to discuss his religion.

You telling me that there are not people in society and social media who are NOT sectarian?

Amazing that these people in society never manage to figure out how to use a boards.ie account.

Whos abused here? Ive seen nothing but fair criticism on here.

Oh and why are we 'rehashing' this subject?..... eh, 2 recent interviews in which she doubles down on her claims and continues to play the victim.

Shes no victim