Wibbs wrote: » . However the worldview behind all that is a worrying one for men and women and one that should not be encouraged for anyone, or society in general IMH. The world has increasingly become divided along ever more hard lines behind ever more histrionic and hysterical barricades and we need less of that not more.
pumpkin4life wrote: » Avoid facts and figures for the most part, stick to rhetoric and persuasion. Appeal to people's innate need to feel important and part of something bigger. Your campaign should be trying to appeal to people in a way that people think: this is the next big thing, the next big step for equality of all people, that I was there in 2018 and it was barry. This is one of the reasons why the gay marriage referendum worked so well. It has to be done well though. If it is too blatantly obvious, then people will know they're being manipulated. You could go down the appeal to authority route (Irish people love authority) or the scare people, this is a backwards society route (probably won't work as well) as well. Next, you need a big slogan. You need a Make America Great Again, Yes we can! Hope! or a Yes to Love, Yes Equality! Make Love the law line to throw out. Usually something that you can't really refute (who doesn't want love or America to not be great? that kind of thing), that is catchy and chanty with as few syllables as possible. Then for both sides, you have an image problem: Pro life: You've been successfully smeared with the "right wing massive Christian bellend who hates everyone" stereotype. Pro choice: You've been smeared with the "fat feminist with blue hair who hates everyone" stereotype. You need to work to dispel that. That's why dressing up in lgbt rainbows or in black won't work for example. The former: can't take seriously. The latter: people associate black with depression, darkness. People feel down watching a video like that. The opposite emotions you want to conjure up in people. You need to push the message that "the vast majority of people support abortion but in secret" and that "they are normal, everyday people". The in/out crowd bias.
Wibbs wrote: » and/or… this is her stall and this is what she's selling and this is what pays her bills. No way would she or any of the other professional victims change their tune. Not unless it was economically viable to do so and it isn't. They're in too deep and have too much invested in it. Hell she's got a regular column for her troubles and a documentary and now a film in development and loads of the twatterati and acolytes of the Church Of The Perpetual Victim supporting her in their bubble. Would you change your tune in the face of that? TBH a part of me hopes she and her ilk are cynical trolls and are milking it for all it's worth(like that Milo gobshíte). Not exactly morally defensible, but less a worry than if they actually believe the majority of this worldview.
TheDavester wrote: » http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/will-you-take-a-day-off-work-on-march-8th-to-strike-4-repeal-1.2958268 Will Miss O'Neill take a day off from scribbling her nonsensical 12 year old rants/ramblings/white straight men are the devil, for the Examiner to go to this
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » Exactly. They simply choose the best regardless. And by and large, rather than a 50-50 ish split one might expect, they dont consider women good enough. But thats democracy. Even women, in general, whether feminist or not, predominantly vote for men when it comes to choosing someone to best represent them.
orubiru wrote: » As someone who is pro choice I would say that stuff like this does not help the cause at all. The abortion laws in Ireland are disgraceful, in my opinion. No abortion in cases of rape or foetal abnormality? I am sorry but that is shameful. However, the way to change public opinion is through education and rational discussion. This "give us what we want or we won't be doing domestic chores" is pathetic. It's not even clear really what they are looking for in terms of the law. Are they looking for abortion on demand up to 24 weeks or are they just looking for abortion to be allowed in specific cases? The "repeal" campaign doesn't really do a good job of explaining what they are actually after and they don't really seem interested in changing minds. It looks to me like a bunch of women who already all agree that abortion should be legal patting each other on the back for having such progressive views. Again, personally I would be in favor of bringing Irish law into line with UK law but other people may not feel the same. They should be trying to win over people who might be on the fence. Instead they act like obnoxious children (and what's with the terrible haircuts). How many people in Ireland will actually participate in this "strike"? If the goal of the strike is to force a referendum then what happens when they inevitably lose said referendum? When you consider the wording of the 8th amendment, "the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn", there is actually quite a struggle there to win people over because you are effectively arguing to take rights away from the unborn. Sure, maybe the unborn ought to not have that right in the first place but this is where we are. I'm sorry but "boo hoo we have to take time off work and travel to the UK to have the procedure" just isn't going to work. You are basically admitting that you can get the procedure elsewhere but you aren't willing to get on a flight and pay up for what is, in most (I said MOST) cases, not an urgently necessary procedure. This is what you are presenting in opposition to "the right to life of the unborn". The wording itself presents a massive challenge and this sort of aggressive and "edgy" approach is unlikely to win people over.
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » True-like, Ivana Bacik ran plenty of times, for example, and got nowhere as a TD. Her policies were limited to one thing, and one thing alone-abortion in Ireland. Okay, fine-but what else?
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Hmmm... Suggesting that women should get lesser sentences for the same crimes as men, because it was probably a man who pressured them into a life of crime. She's exactly the kind of vile, pseudo-feminist scumbag who is actually a female exceptionalist and sees nothing wrong with anti-male double standards. She's done this kind of thing a whole pile of times - she once created a committee for gender equality and banned men from sitting on it. I'd imagine that she would be the type to defend that rapist-murderer psychopath who spoke at the womens' march and is now causing all kinds of drama over it, probably on the grounds that she committed her crimes because a guy told her to (implying, ironically, that women can't think for themselves and are easily brainwashed). Women are always victims with no agency who need protection and it's always men's fault
pumpkin4life wrote: » Avoid facts and figures for the most part, stick to rhetoric and (...) "they are normal, everyday people". The in/out crowd bias.
Ivana Bacik: No, of course I don’t. Nobody does. That’s utter nonsense…I support the sort of sensible time limits that you have in every other European jurisdiction.Cora Sherlock: But you know, there are many jurisdictions which allow abortion up to birth, so do you support that?IB: No there aren’t, Cora. You know it, and I know it…No Cora, there aren’t. Just stop lying. Guest host Jonathan Healy pressed Sherlock on which countries allowed abortion up to birth, and this exchange ensued:CS: I don’t have the list of countries, here, where that happens.IB: No of course you don’t, because it just doesn’t happen.http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-up-to-birth-law-around-the-world-2905518-Aug2016/
widdershins wrote: As always I can't take part in any action for anything that isn't clearly defined. How can I, if I don't know what exactly I would be endorsing/supporting? They need to be coherent about their goals.
mzungu wrote: » Any debate I have seen so far (one was Ruth Coppinger and Cora Sherlock on Vincent Browne, the other was Ivana Bacik and Cora Sherlock on Newstalk) more or less followed those lines. However, as a date hasn't been announced yet it is safe to assume they were merely testing the waters. This bit is a bit off topic, but it is interesting you mention facts. There was an exchange in one of the interviews where Bacik accused Sherlock of lying about abortion being allowed up to 9 months in some countries. When the fact check was done, it was found that 54 jurisdictions in 22 countries allowed abortion up to birth. Although, even in those countries, late term abortions are extremely rare. The exchange was as follows: What surprised me was that Bacik has been campaigning for this for decades, surely she above all would know that it does take place in some countries? After all, it is common knowledge that it does happen, albeit not to often. The question is why did she feel the need to deny it? It wasn't as if Sherlock had her on the ropes or anything. My only guess is that Bacik may support late term abortions and didn't want to go down that road so early in the campaign for fear of alienating the middle ground? Methinks there will be a shedload of "alternative facts" being thrown about whenever the referendum gets in full swing. +1. I would really like to know exactly what the main aims are. Slogans and adverts are grand and all, but something a bit more detailed would be good.
Wibbs wrote: » FYP HP. Sadly that phrase almost never fails to fit current "feminist" rhetoric like a bespoke suit.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » I don't necessarily disagree, but IMO this downplays how vile Bacik is. She's not just your average sexist pseudofeminist, she's a female supremacist / exceptionalist who uses emotive buzz words in an attempt to mask that.
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » Well you have to wonder what kind of mindset she has, tbh. Remember, when she was a kid, her mom often stood with pro-abortion signs, and abortion information, as well as advising folks on how to procure contraception (before freely available contraception, when back in the day one could only go on the pill if married). Bacik was present at these, and there must have been no greater insult than 'don't want one of these kids standing right next to me? - take my advice and I'll make sure it never happens'. So something like that has to mess up your thinking. (Keep in mind, no issue with a peaceful campaign-just be wary of how your message comes across). She's so 'immersed' in feminist theory-she's practically blinkered to any flaws it has. And even more blinkered in how incredibly undemocratic she can be.
Wibbs wrote: » If someone like that was even at half that mark I'd pass decent muster as a new viral meme for "shocked". There is usually the assumption that Professional Public Eye Person = Loaded and in many cases it is far from the truth. Yes many journalists/writers are doing well enough for themselves, some may even be "loaded" and fair play on both counts, but they are most certainly the minority, especially in a very small local market like Ireland. Now a similar writer in the US, syndicated all over the place and showing up on the talk show/lecture circuit would be making nice money thanks very much, but local Irish writers with local(small) audiences? It would be like comparing Madonna with an Irish country and western singer doing the rounds of bars and clubs beyond the Pale. Might keep a roof over their heads but studio apartment in Manhattan it is not.LON is well placed to make the jump to the US market and its financial returns. Young enough and presentable enough(but not threateningly so) and writes for the victim market very well(with her own victimhood stories with it), comes across as clever, but not too clever and makes all the right noises in her "quaint brogue" so could go over well with that sector of the US market(even her craziest stuff would be middle of the road in that potential audience). Which no doubt her agent is angling for and the flic could be the breakout avenue for that. And TBH I say fair bloody play to her if she can crack that for however long it lasts(fickle market that it is). However the worldview behind all that is a worrying one for men and women and one that should not be encouraged for anyone, or society in general IMH. The world has increasingly become divided along ever more hard lines behind ever more histrionic and hysterical barricades and we need less of that not more.
Widdershins wrote: » How old would she have been at the time she was taken along with her mother?
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » The US market is a shark tank though. She's almost TOO middle of the road for that market. She'd need to amp up the victim-hood another 50%/60% And if she said even one little thing wrong on Twitter, something innocuous that could be taken out of context, she'd be excoriated over there.
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » Literally a small child, pre pubescent. So yeah-lovely childhood memory there. ( I remember her discussing it on the panel, then Ed Byrne ribbing the silly ness of it). .
Widdershins wrote: » Explains a lot :mad: Not something a little girl should have to be exposed to.
pumpkin4life wrote: » Distant mother/father relationship/a lack of parental bonding. Was raised when she was a kid in a creche possibly. Manipulated on an emotional level when she was a kid. Relationship with boyfriend is emotionally very distant/disparate. Smart but not smart smart. Education system with no proper differentiation between right and wrong. Ended up in fights but had to dull emotions in relation to this. Exposed to porn/hypersexualised at a young age. Constructed a false self to align with her parents wishes. This is what attracts a lot of smart but not smart smart women to feminism because its easy to grasp, but easier still to make sound intellectual/profound. This achievement, grandiose false self personality means that when her second book or whatever flops, she'll have a meltdown. How do you trigger meltdowns in people like this? Pity them.
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » The US market is a shark tank though. She's almost TOO middle of the road for that market. She'd need to amp up the victim-hood another 50%/60%
Dravokivich wrote: » "I think some men are afraid to ask for consent becuase they might say no"
Red Kev wrote: She was badly miffed when Tommy Tiernan said he didn't know who she was.
Red Kev wrote: » She's on RTE 1 with Tommy Tiernan right now. I've never seen her or heard her on TV or Radio before. She's not coming across well. She was badly miffed when Tommy Tiernan said he didn't know who she was.
Alf Stewart. wrote: » She was even more miffed when Tommy laughed her out of it:D Your woman reckoned asking for consent should come pretty much from the get go, on a first date. Tiernan stated sniggering. So he asks her to clarify. "Do you really mean, fella should ask the woman at the start of the date, is it ok if I have sex with you?" She reckoned that, that was a fair enough thing to expect on a first date and one of the first things that should be discussed on a date. But that wasn't all..... Oh no..... She said that applied to both genders, that equally a woman should ask a lad, on their first date, if a lad wanted to have sex with her too. Tiernan nearly fell outta his chair.
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » Talk about jumping the shark.....
Alf Stewart. wrote: » Would kinda ruin the big Mac and fries alright. (20 year old me) Alf, would you like to have sex with me later? *two meals fcuked in bin, the Corsa screams off*
