Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Don't know how to feel about this thread at this stage. On one hand a huge amount of modern 'feminist' nonsense has been thoroughly taken apart and ripped to shreds. But on the other a thread like this provides tons of the negative oxygen that Louise O'Neill's career desperately seeks.

me_right_one wrote: »

But certain things SHOULD be censored based on family value grounds. Nothing wrong with that.

Such as? Why should one person's, or one group of peoples' personal values restrict what other people can publish or consume in terms of content?

To be honest HP, I think its YOU who needs to elaborate.

No problem, tell me what to elaborate on and I'll do just that

On one hand, you say you hate censorship - while at the same time, regarding some peoples views you say "they have no place in any left ideology". Thats the very definition of censorship! So which is it?

That is not censorship. I am not saying that those people cannot hold their own opinions or that their opinions are even wrong - merely that the definition of "liberal" is logically opposed to "authoritarian", and so that therefore one cannot simultaneously advocate for restricting personal freedom and claim the label of "liberal".

SJWs are not liberals, but they are co-opting the term. If they are going to do that, then perhaps actual liberals need to splinter and coin an entirely new term to distinguish themselves. But it's pretty clear that there's simply too much fundamental disagreement between liberal leftists and regressive leftists for them to share the same banner without causing confusion and pointless infighting. There has to be a split at some point.

At the same time, you whinge about SJW's, whinging about non-issues! I think you left the iron on too long there.

I have no problem with SJWs, or indeed anyone, whining about anything. Whining is stating that you don't approve of something. It is not contacting advertising companies and asking them to essentially financially blockade any company which allows content you disagree with (to take one example of regressive left tactics)

Then you go on to champion "moral relativism" - you do realise that is what these "cultural wars" bullsh1t is all about? As in, its ok for the KKK to hate black people because it has always been their culture?

There's a fundamental difference between holding an opinion and acting upon it. The former as a victimless action falls under moral relativism. The latter as a definitively NOT victimless action (victim-ful?) does not.

Or the Israeli army to mass murder the Palestinians after what the Nazi's did to the Jews? Eh, no.

.......That is in no way a cultural issue. The term cultural libertarianism vs authoritarianism is restricted to words, not actions.

And most importantly, you state that censoring things based on family values, such as not allowing minors to watch porn, for example, is

Even though I vehemently disagree with a restriction on minors watching porn, this is actually a separate issue. Restricting content at the audience-end is not censorship. Censorship is saying that it cannot be published at all. An example would be Alan Shatter's work of fiction a few years back - that wasn't simply restricted from minors, that was banned from being published in any manner whatsoever, and that I find utterly insidious. Nobody should have the right to dictate what written works an adult can or cannot consume in the privacy of their home. I specify written because obviously, if you're dealing with something filmed, then there's of course the issue of consent on the part of the actors involved, which includes child porn as minors cannot consent.
But I would go on to say that anything in which all the participants consent and are able to consent, there are no rightful grounds for censorship on the grounds that some people find what has been produced "tasteless" or "sick". Who are they to tell others what they can or cannot publish or watch?

How do you feel, for instance, about the UK's recent ban on the production of BDSM porn, even when it's fully consensual among all of the actors / actresses involved? That, to me, is a perfect example of moralistic censorship, and that's what I'm saying is vile and insidious.

I just dont know! I consider myself a centerist, I like some right wing ideas, some left wing ones, some authoritarian ones, and some liberal ones. Context is the key, and common sense is the filter. And to me as a centerist, you sound exactly like the SJW's you are berating.

It is YOU who has some explaining to do!

Given that the entire basis of the SJW is ideological policing, whereas I advocate for a complete absence of ideological policing, I honestly can't see how anyone would come to this conclusion. Could you elaborate on this?

me_right_one wrote: »

Hold on here a minute:



This sentence right here discredits everything else you have said. So, buried in your pile of hair splitting arguements, you "vehemently disagree with a restriction on minors watching porn"?

That statement sums up your ideological position entirely. That is why you are not being taken seriously, and you are seen as just as bad as the SJW's.

Before we go any further, I'll ask you again to clarify this - why do you think its not ok to put restrictions on children watching porn?

First of all, I said that this was my personal opinion and not something I am trying to advocate for, so I don't see how it undermines my argument.

Second of all, I would definitely draw a distinction between prepubescent and pubescent minors for the purposes of this conversation.

Thirdly, why should such restrictions exist? Society has hangups around sexuality which I simply don't agree with - I don't agree that it should be taboo in any way. I would not, for example, wait until my children were a particular age before explaining where babies come from using the truth rather than innuendo, if they asked - what exactly is the point? Sex is just sex. The taboo aura humans have put around it is unique in the animal kingdom and in my view does far, far more harm than good to people psychologically.

Finally, I would credit my own discovery of erotica and porn when I was hitting puberty and discovering that I related to sex differently to other lads as having prevented me from spiralling into misery and becoming incredibly repressed. And I've had it said to me by multiple girlfriends that I was one of the most open minded and easy to open up to about 'embarrassing' kinks and fantasies of any guy they'd been with. I would again credit that to my discovery of online erotica communities based around my own kink long before anyone had a chance to try to convince me that certain things can be objectively wrong even if everyone involved consents to them.

Crucial difference between myself and the SJWs - I would not demand that moderators or companies ban people for expressing an opinion diametrically opposed to this one. SJWs do that routinely. Look at their attempts to shut down any conversation around immigration in Europe for example - there's an example of where I, as a liberal, agree with their argument but not method. In other words, I fully believe in multiculturalism like they do. But I fully oppose censoring or banning people for expressing a nationalistic viewpoint, like they do.

Again, this culture war is not about actions but about words, and more specifically, one's freedom to air unpopular opinions.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Porn is bad for you in large amounts. It causes ED, depression, lowers drive and ambition, causes neurological damage

Citation? And also, nobody in this thread has specified "large amounts" or otherwise.

increases the probability of sexual deviance.

What the f*ck does "sexual deviance" mean?

The idea of showing it to a fùcking kid is just wrong.

Again, are you including pubescent minors in this, AKA teenagers?

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Go to yourbrainonporn.com. Good place to start. I'd post some stuff here but I'm not chancing hitting the porn filter at work.

Porn's effect on the brain works in the same way drugs do. Overuse of porn leads to an increased demand for more extreme stimulation, which can go pretty far. People's sexual tastes are surprisingly malleable in relation to a lot of this stuff.

Also when you said minor=I think kids.

Teenagers is at least some bit acceptable.

I'm aware of the aforementioned theory, I still don't see how that justifies censorship. Exposure to plenty of things influences people's tastes - should minors be prevented from listening to music because it might influence what kind of music they enjoy later in life...?

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Model professional woman, done wrong by an evil male, shows gumption, superiority of wit and resourcefulness compared to the other males around her (even the law), and rises above it all to self actualisation success and the realisation that she is better alone than succumbing to the control and oppression of a male dominated family business.

Who wouldnt break their social media cover to endorse that ?

So it's Ally McBeal then...? But without the dancing baby?

This is excellent and from someone who has been raped themselves.

The absolute sh!t storm over the Irish Times article explaining the Alt-Right in an objective (IE, not bashing or promoting) manner is a perfect example of the sort of no-platforming quasi-censorship advocated by SJWs.

The article in question: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-alt-right-movement-everything-you-need-to-know-1.2924658

Una Mullally going absolutely ballistic over the fact that somebody with an offensive (to her) opinion was allowed to speak in a newspaper: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-why-the-irish-times-should-not-have-published-nicholas-pell-1.2926726

And finally, a bit of common sense from an author who talks about how dangerous it is to give any movement the power to say that certain other ideologies should not be allowed a voice: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/angela-nagle-what-the-alt-right-is-really-all-about-1.2926929

The online culture wars of recent years have become ugly beyond anything I could have ever imagined. The seemingly sociopathic levels of amoral cruelty found in comment threads wherever Pepe memes lurk suggests an unpleasant answer to the question posed long ago by Plato’s Ring of Gyges – would we behave morally if we could be invisible and thus consequence free?

And this doesn’t apply exclusively to the Alt-right. A new generation of liberal left-identitarians display chilling levels of pack pleasure when conducting career-ending, life-destroying hate campaigns against people for minor infringements against the liberal moral code such as off-colour jokes. Some examples were chronicled in Jon Ronson’s So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. I think what has led so many young white men in the US in particular to openly flirt with the Alt-right online is a sense that one may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. Why grovel when you can join an anonymous army of trolls to fight back with pure offensiveness. This is what the Alt-right offers.

But like the US socialist writer Shuja Haider recently argued: “It should go without saying that left-liberal identity politics and Alt-right white nationalism are not comparable. The problem is that they are compatible.” Tumblr needs 4chan just as neo-masculinist misogynists need a perpetual supply of listicles about man-splaining, and the Alt-right needs finger wagging “Dear white people” liberal commentary to denigrate ordinary white people at every opportunity. None of them would make sense without the other. While Spencer’s plans are unlikely to catch on any time soon, the emergence of the Alt-right should warn us of a now imminent nightmare vision of what the coming years might hold – a public arena emptied of any civility, universalist ideas or openly competing political visions beyond a zero-sum tribal antagonism of identity groups, in which the boundaries of acceptable thought will shrink further while the purged will amass in the fetid forums of the Alt-right.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Why do I get the feeling that if Martin Luther King were alive and well today, Una would be condemning him for 'promoting a dangerous ideology'?


She really is getting no love on the Irish Times website at all-most are plainly disagreeing with her.

They'll probably be blocked and/or torn apart in a follow up article for doing so.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The absolute sh!t storm over the Irish Times article explaining the Alt-Right in an objective (IE, not bashing or promoting) manner is a perfect example of the sort of no-platforming quasi-censorship advocated by SJWs.

The article in question: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-alt-right-movement-everything-you-need-to-know-1.2924658

Una Mullally going absolutely ballistic over the fact that somebody with an offensive (to her) opinion was allowed to speak in a newspaper: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-why-the-irish-times-should-not-have-published-nicholas-pell-1.2926726

And finally, a bit of common sense from an author who talks about how dangerous it is to give any movement the power to say that certain other ideologies should not be allowed a voice: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/angela-nagle-what-the-alt-right-is-really-all-about-1.2926929

The hypocrisy of Una DooLally wanting her own fascist left wing opinions to have ''an uncontested platform'' and claiming that's what the Irish Times have given the Alt Right.

Also, what is she hammering on about Muslims and Jews in post-election America, for? I thought many high profile cases of discrimination and race based crime attributed to Trump's win, have turned out to be faked?

Comments on Una's article are great.

Was watching the news the last few days-and Arlene Foster stood out-obviously. Her craziness now is just beyond absurd.

She lost a ton of money, has done a crap job as NI Prime Minister, and then claims misogyny when calls for her to resign start flooding in.

Any other politician would have realised they were crap, and stepped down. She seems to be a deluded person. (I don't care if the IRA tried to put a bomb under her school bus-that has about as much relevance to her 'cash for ash' scheme as the price of tea in China.)

Gotta love how we have so many people who are 'tough' but as soon as they screw up their job, they play the victim.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Was watching the news the last few days-and Arlene Foster stood out-obviously. Her craziness now is just beyond absurd.

She lost a ton of money, has done a crap job as NI Prime Minister, and then claims misogyny when calls for her to resign start flooding in.

Any other politician would have realised they were crap, and stepped down. She seems to be a deluded person. (I don't care if the IRA tried to put a bomb under her school bus-that has about as much relevance to her 'cash for ash' scheme as the price of tea in China.)

Gotta love how we have so many people who are 'tough' but as soon as they screw up their job, they play the victim.

They are picking on me because I'm a woman. Not because I cost the North 400 Million

Back on topic-this...

http://www.thejournal.ie/louise-oneill-twitter-interview-3151701-Dec2016/?utm_source=shortlink

And this doozy...keep in mind this is MONTHS after it was proven completely false, but she calls it 'trolling'...yeah, providing evidence that a story was false is trolling...

What’s your favourite post of yours?
I go on political rants every now and again, especially on my Facebook page, and I enjoy them. I’m not so sure how everyone else feels about them though…. I wrote about the UCD 500 story in February and the amount of people reading, liking, and re-sharing that post was unprecedented for me. It did generate a lot of trolling but that seems to be the price many women have to pay for daring to be political on social media.

So by her logic proving someone is not guilty is providing evidence that they 'are' guilty?

Come on LON, you're 31, not 16.