Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Stonedpilot · 15-11-2017 04:02PM

Cienciano wrote: »

I like blindboy, but I agree with you. It's as if we can't dislike anyone famous, if we do it's because they're successful. Some people dislike famous people because they think they're ****, simple as that. For instance, I really dislike Ryan Tubrity. Can't stand the guy. But I like Graham Norton. Surely I would dislike Norton more because he's doing so well for himself. Begrudgery almost doesn't exist, certainly not to the extent some famous irish people make it out.

It's sheer narcissism they think they can sprout away on any hot topic and it might be absolute rubbish and pomposity (as in blindboy) and when people disagree with him or question his rationale he just goes

"ah they all hate me because of my success, begrudging my success is all it is:rolleyes:'.

I'll say one thing.

He's played the Irish public like a fiddle. Jumping from hot topic to another like a frog in heat and immediately seeing himself as a 'voice of the people' or an intellectual and playing simpletons like Ryan Tubridy on the late late. If he had a pair of balls he would ask Blindboy simple logical questions like

'Why would you assume young men need feminism over all other things Blindboy?'.

Tubs hardly do that spineless shallow yoke he is.

So instead he has a unchallenged platform to sprout his nonsense.

And accuses people of begrudging when they point out his gibberish allowing him to go on unchallenged. :rolleyes:

optogirl · 15-11-2017 04:35PM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

It's sheer narcissism they think they can sprout away on any hot topic and it might be absolute rubbish and pomposity (as in blindboy) and when people disagree with him or question his rationale he just goes

"ah they all hate me because of my success, begrudging my success is all it is:rolleyes:'.

I'll say one thing.

He's played the Irish public like a fiddle. Jumping from hot topic to another like a frog in heat and immediately seeing himself as a 'voice of the people' or an intellectual and playing simpletons like Ryan Tubridy on the late late. If he had a pair of balls he would ask Blindboy simple logical questions like

'Why would you assume young men need feminism over all other things Blindboy?'.

Tubs hardly do that spineless shallow yoke he is.

So instead he has a unchallenged platform to sprout his nonsense.

And accuses people of begrudging when they point out his gibberish allowing him to go on unchallenged. :rolleyes:

You keep putting non-quotes in quotation marks - it's misleading. We get that you don't like him but don't get all het up because others on here are saying they do like him. I don't like Brendan O'Carroll but I have to accept that there's a huge audience for him - he's tapped into something. Not something I want to be part of but then I have the great privilege of not watching.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 15-11-2017 04:49PM

I think some of his popularity is due to many people moving away from science and experts. We're living in a world now where opinions and wild assertions can be made to sound like facts without evidence to back them up. Take the vaccination debate as an example.

People like Blindboy fill the the vacuum for some and they would rather listen to him than a pyschologist or pyschiatrist (sic).

The internet too is allowing everyone have a bigger platform to air their views, which is both a good and a bad thing.

The Moldy Gowl · 15-11-2017 05:06PM

Kinsley Future Carrot wrote: »

I think some of his popularity is due to many people moving away from science and experts. We're living in a world now where opinions and wild assertions can be made to sound like facts without evidence to back them up. Take the vaccination debate as an example.

People like Blindboy fill the the vacuum for some and they would rather listen to him than a pyschologist or pyschiatrist (sic).

The internet too is allowing everyone have a bigger platform to air their views, which is both a good and a bad thing.

Dosent he say get help and to ask for it and thats ok.
Thats a big part of what he says

Stonedpilot · 15-11-2017 05:06PM

optogirl wrote: »

You keep putting non-quotes in quotation marks - it's misleading. We get that you don't like him but don't get all het up because others on here are saying they do like him. I don't like Brendan O'Carroll but I have to accept that there's a huge audience for him - he's tapped into something. Not something I want to be part of but then I have the great privilege of not watching.

Fair enough, but If I want to whinge about him here too I'm entitled to!.

Herb Powell · 15-11-2017 05:46PM

Blindboy seems to piss off the right kind of detestable cunnts (yes, you. Fucck you all) and that's badly fuccking needed in this country.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 15-11-2017 05:48PM

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

Dosent he say get help and to ask for it and thats ok.
Thats a big part of what he says

True but he also says that young men need feminism. That would only end up lowering a young man's self esteem, being told that they are inherently bad people and dangerous.

The Moldy Gowl · 15-11-2017 05:59PM

Kinsley Future Carrot wrote: »

True but he also says that young men need feminism. That would only end up lowering a young man's self esteem, being told that they are inherently bad people and dangerous.

Feminism is a bit if a dirty word. It just invokes eye rolling and images of women looking like fish shouting at white males.
Its not that at all really.

But anyway. The context it was said in was to accept that women can provide for themselves and arent helpless in life and dont need a man to dig them out of their unhappiness.
That its ok to not play up to the masculinity and kill yourself of having to provide for a girl and pay for dinner or whatever.

Im sure there is some young chap out there trying to impress a women by playing up to the traditional masculine role of being able to provide.

Thats what i took from that anyway and i agree with that. If a mott expects me to pay for her drinks all night she can jog on but there is lads out there who think they should do that. Same as some women have the opposite take on it.

Junkyard Tom · 15-11-2017 06:01PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The people that are most subject to ideologues are not dumb people (because they can't understand what you are saying) and not smart people (because they're usually less exposed to idealogues/can out-think what you are saying) but average intelligence to above average in intelligence people.

Do you mean ideologies?

Feminism appeals to women who are smartish, but not very smart for example.

Really? Do you have some sort of study that shows this to be true or is this just some randomer on the internet who hates feminists?

feminism ... is full of dem swiss cheese holes

Are you a scholar of feminism?

cantdecide · 15-11-2017 06:11PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Are you a scholar of feminism?

Feminist research ist gut research, ja? No biases in feminist research then?

*cough pay gap *cough

Junkyard Tom · 15-11-2017 06:26PM

cantdecide wrote: »

Feminist research ist gut research, ja? No biases in feminist research then?

I know very little about it. I never heard of the subject of this thread except right here in After Hours, must take a bit of energy to seek out and get all rainy-faced about someone who you could easily ignore.

Dannyriver · 15-11-2017 06:27PM

Augeo wrote: »

If he told the factual truth and didn't hop from homelessness, depression, male suicide etc etc etc depending on what was the populist speel to spout I'd find him more credible.

But he doesn't you see, the bit that you re missing is that just because you interpret someone s actions a particular way doesn't necessarily make it true.

He happens to be left wing and has an opinion I work with similar people. But the only ones who are angry with them are the conservative alt righters, not for having an opinion but for the nature of that opinion.

2 questions for you

1] Do you think he shouldn' t talk about issues he cares about?

2] Do you think people in the public eye should be discouraged from expressing opinions in the way say someone not in the public eye like you or I can rant and rave about whatever we like on here?

Dannyriver · 15-11-2017 06:29PM

OnDraught wrote: »

I’m aware of their output. I actually quite like their comedy and their songs. I’ve been to see them as well.

A couple of years ago recreational drug use was a big thing for them. I haven’t heard reference of that since then. Same with all the craic around 1916. There are still commemorations and various events happening all the time but these lads have abandoned that cash cow to move on to something else.

They are still posting support for the legalisation of recreational drugs. Do you think they are not doing it enough?

They wrote a documentary about 1916, should they have stayed talking about it do you feel?

cantdecide · 15-11-2017 06:34PM

Dannyriver wrote: »

If he told the factual truth and didn't hop from homelessness, depression, male suicide etc etc etc depending on what was the populist speel to spout I'd find him more credible.

But he doesn't you see, the bit that you re missing is that just because you interpret someone s actions a particular way doesn't necessarily make it true.

He happens to be left wing and has an opinion I work with similar people. But the only ones who are angry with them are the conservative alt righters, not for having an opinion but for the nature of that opinion.

2 questions for you

1] Do you think he shouldn' t talk about issues he cares about?

2] Do you think people in the public eye should be discouraged from expressing opinions in the way say someone not in the public eye like you or I can rant and rave about whatever we like on here?

I'm left wing (not alt right, right, centre or fascist) and I think he's talking tripe in an effort to stay edgy and relevant. He is not expert enough to propose definitive solutions ESPECIALLY when these solutions are politically and ideologically motivated.

There's a difference between speaking about issues he cares about and using vulnerable people for personal marketing goals.

OnDraught · 15-11-2017 06:36PM

Dannyriver wrote: »

They are still posting support for the legalisation of recreational drugs. Do you think they are not doing it enough?

They wrote a documentary about 1916, should they have stayed talking about it do you feel?

No I don’t think they are doing enough. If it is a topic they felt strongly about and it hasn’t progressed at all why has it taken a back seat?

The 1916 and War of Independence / Civil War stuff is only getting going. There will be years of it. Again everyone kind of got sick of it by the end of last year.

So now it’s mental health and feminism. It’ll be something else next year and so on. It’s soapboxing and it’s hard to really get excited about it.

Wibbs · 15-11-2017 06:48PM

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

Feminism is a bit if a dirty word. It just invokes eye rolling and images of women looking like fish shouting at white males.
Its not that at all really.

Oh its not the scary haired nutters with loudhailers, they're the college age(usually US based) types. I care little of them, though they are organised enough in such institutions to effectively shut down any dissent from the Correct Think. A crazy situation in a university. It's the mainstream feminism I have much more concern about and that mainstream pretty much in every single case and talking point boils down to blaming men/patriarchy for all the ills of the world. Try finding an example in the mainstream that doesn't, or find one even slightly critical of women as a group the way they are about men as a group. You will be digging a loooooong time MG. Any critique of individual women is again nearly always blamed on patriarchal influence, so it's still men's fault.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I know very little about it. I never heard of the subject of this thread except right here in After Hours, must take a bit of energy to seek out and get all rainy-faced about someone who you could easily ignore.

TBH T, as I've said before I would have happily self described as a feminist back in the day, because I assumed it was about gender equality, as most people did and do. But down the years hearing and reading more on the philosophy I noticed that while it was claiming to be about gender equality, it became very clear that only one gender was under scrutiny and considered "toxic" and it wasn't women. It also became clear that in some areas it sought for women to become preferentially "more equal" as it were. EG in the courts and the law. Where once the suffragettes fought to have women the equal of men for the same crimes, including hanging offences, these days it's more about seeking reduced sentences for women for the same crimes. And this is something that happens in a real practical sense. If you are up before the courts for a crime, it is statistically provable that you will be less likely to get a conviction and if convicted will serve a shorter sentence as a woman than if you were a man. Even the few feminists that acknowledge this as an inequality place the blame on - take one guess - the patriarchy. So it's still men's fault.

Kinsley Future Carrot wrote: »

I think some of his popularity is due to many people moving away from science and experts. We're living in a world now where opinions and wild assertions can be made to sound like facts without evidence to back them up. Take the vaccination debate as an example.

People like Blindboy fill the the vacuum for some and they would rather listen to him than a pyschologist or pyschiatrist (sic).

The internet too is allowing everyone have a bigger platform to air their views, which is both a good and a bad thing.

This. In a big way. One might argue that humans have had this tendency forever. That in the past people looked at experts, but because expertise was complex and often hard to boil down to the simplistic, they looked to superstition, old wives tales, even spirituality. These days those are much less in play in the west, but one could argue we're living in a time of the superstition of the popular and simplistic and those who promote it(not always for their own ends by the way. I wouldn't see Blindboy like another Deepak Chopra pimping nonsense to line his pockets).

pumpkin4life · 15-11-2017 06:59PM

Mental health in Ireland is deteriorating and has been doing so for a long time.

Marketing 101.

A lad makes the bad feelings go away and you hand over your cash, thank you very much sir and the bad feeling goes away. Profit.

Hence the absolute mad increase in mental health, not a stigma articles in recent times.

I think the most interesting thing about the most modern wave of feminism is that it has far more in common characteristically withe the issue of sensibility in the 18th Century than anything else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensibility

If Jane Austen was alive today, she would have been loving this shìt.

And if I was more of a sociopath, I'd be on the talk show circuit making a big pile of cash for myself.

Also, do these feminist waves develop in this patterns or waves?

If so, then the next step is a sort of prudent, Victorian era, paranoid or having a distaste of sex kind of feminism.

Which might actually be happening as Millenials are having less sex than previous generations.

Junkyard Tom · 15-11-2017 07:04PM

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH T, as I've said before I would have happily self described as a feminist back in the day, because I assumed it was about gender equality, as most people did and do. But down the years hearing and reading more on the philosophy I noticed that while it was claiming to be about gender equality, it became very clear that only one gender was under scrutiny and considered "toxic" and it wasn't women. It also became clear that in some areas it sought for women to become preferentially "more equal" as it were.

I was talking about LON as the subject of the thread rather than feminism as a whole. I'm sure feminists exist on a spectrum just like people of most political or ideological persuasions. I'd say the bat-**** crazy feminists should be largely ignored. It'd be like a extreme leftist advocating the nationalisation of Apple, better ignored.

EG in the courts and the law. Where once the suffragettes fought to have women the equal of men for the same crimes, including hanging offences, these days it's more about seeking reduced sentences for women for the same crimes. And this is something that happens in a real practical sense. If you are up before the courts for a crime, it is statistically provable that you will be less likely to get a conviction and if convicted will serve a shorter sentence as a woman than if you were a man. Even the few feminists that acknowledge this as an inequality place the blame on - take one guess - the patriarchy. So it's still men's fault.

You do realise that the judiciary is heavily male-dominated field don't you? So the claim that aberrations in judgements and sentencing are largely men's responsibility does hold water, right?

cantdecide · 15-11-2017 07:33PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You do realise that the judiciary is heavily male-dominated field don't you? So the claim that aberrations in judgements and sentencing are largely men's responsibility does hold water, right?

Well it ain't much of a patriarchy if it penalises men and forgives women based on their gender. What would be the purpose of the patriarchy's existence if it gives preferential treatment to women? If feminism truly wished to oppose the boogeyman inequality, wouldn't you see them protest over at least one blatantly lenient sentence?

So is feminism for the patriarchy after all or is it an a la carte type deal? The point is that neither the patriarchy or feminism has these men's best interest at heart but you can't let that get in the way of lazy celebrity virtue-signalling.

Dannyriver · 15-11-2017 07:37PM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Fair enough, but If I want to whinge about him here too I'm entitled to!.

Yeah but you're not allowed to attribute how you have decided he is thinking about himself as fact by putting the sentences in quotation marks as was astutely pointed out to you by optigirl. You should google the term projection as used in psychology ...then read this example....'Just because you think he thinks he is the voice of his generation doesn t mean that he thinks it himself' or that he thinks he s super smart...or that he thinks he has all the answers..or any of the other **** that s been projected on to him.

Dannyriver · 15-11-2017 07:49PM

cantdecide wrote: »

I'm left wing (not alt right, right, centre or fascist) and I think he's talking tripe in an effort to stay edgy and relevant. He is not expert enough to propose definitive solutions ESPECIALLY when these solutions are politically and ideologically motivated.

There's a difference between speaking about issues he cares about and using vulnerable people for personal marketing goals.

Oh so YOU think when he gives an opinion YOU think he believes he is an expert and that it's more than an opinion but something that he believes to be definitive...plus YOU believe he only speaks out so he can use vulnerable people.

No wonder you re angry with him.

If ever he says that he is an expert or that his opinion is definitive or give me eveidence that he s not just expressing an opinion about things like your left wing self then I promise ill be back here to call him a dick with you.

cantdecide · 15-11-2017 08:03PM

Righto

Dannyriver · 15-11-2017 08:12PM

cantdecide wrote: »

Righto

Sound..to be honest, I figured you d struggle with it

Junkyard Tom · 15-11-2017 08:21PM

cantdecide wrote: »

Well it ain't much of a patriarchy if it penalises men and forgives women based on their gender.

I don't think it's that black and white although I do acknowledge the inconsistencies in convictions and sentencing when it comes to men and women. How do we solve it? Surely you wouldn't be advocating a 50% quota for women in the judiciary, would ya? :eek:

What would be the purpose of the patriarchy's existence if it gives preferential treatment to women?

It doesn't generally.

If feminism truly wished to oppose the boogeyman inequality, wouldn't you see them protest over at least one blatantly lenient sentence?

Is that not an issue for the prosecution?

The point is that neither the patriarchy or feminism has these men's best interest at heart but you can't let that get in the way of lazy celebrity virtue-signalling.

What men?

virtue-signalling.

Oh dear, you've used one of those terms that damages its user's credibility.

cantdecide · 15-11-2017 08:24PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Oh dear, you've used one of those terms that damages its user's credibility.

Oops. Rookie error on my part

Aidric · 15-11-2017 10:08PM

panda100 wrote: »

Have gone off the Rubberbandits in a big way in the last couple of years. I find them to be very hypocritical. Blindboy proposes to be a champion of women's rights/repeal campaign yet they parade women in their underwear and treat women as sex objects in most of their videos/advertising.

They also claim to champion Limerick yet put on these ridiculous accents which neither of them sounds like IRL and think they play up to a very negative, stereotype of what a Limerick person is like.

Also not a fan of their approach to mental health. They very much frame it in a medical way and promote Pieta House a lot and I am very dubious of the approach Pieta House takes to mental health supports.

Do yourself a favor and listen to any of the multitude of interviews/podcasts with Blindboy where he articulates the misconceptions you have just outlined in your post.

I would recommend this one with Scroobius Pip.

https://www.acast.com/distractionpieces/blindboyofrubberbandits-distractionpiecespodcastwithscroobiuspip-89

Stonedpilot · 16-11-2017 12:32AM

Aidric wrote: »

Do yourself a favor and listen to any of the multitude of interviews/podcasts with Blindboy where he articulates the misconceptions you have just outlined in your post.

I would recommend this one with Scroobius Pip.

https://www.acast.com/distractionpieces/blindboyofrubberbandits-distractionpiecespodcastwithscroobiuspip-89

Thing is hes a smart guy but very arrogant and interested in his ego which prevents himself from looking at alternative views as his are Gospel to his ego, he even called his book the gospel!.

Case in point. He whinges about religion being taught in schools yet I gurantee ya he wont listen to a drug addict in Limerick who will tell him Jesus helped them massively overcome their addiction. Many many people with mental health problems turn to God, and pray to Jesus they get help. Will he listen to them?. Of course not his gargantuan ego wont allow it.

He hasnt the gumption either to see that a personal relationship with Christ can be obtained without religion. Jesus saves from religion, he in book of Matthew spoke strongly against religion and religious leaders.

Feeling Gods grace can massively help with mental health issues, sadly hes too ignorant to see religion is man made but God isnt!.

Insect Overlord · 16-11-2017 12:46AM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Thing is hes a smart guy but very arrogant and interested in his ego which prevents himself from looking at alternative views as his are Gospel to his ego, he even called his book the gospel!.

Case in point. He whinges about religion being taught in schools yet I gurantee ya he wont listen to a drug addict in Limerick who will tell him Jesus helped them massively overcome their addiction. Many many people with mental health problems turn to God, and pray to Jesus they get help. Will he listen to them?. Of course not his gargantuan ego wont allow it.

He hasnt the gumption either to see that a personal relationship with Christ can be obtained without religion. Jesus saves from religion, he in book of Matthew spoke strongly against religion and religious leaders.

Feeling Gods grace can massively help with mental health issues, sadly hes too ignorant to see religion is man made but God isnt!.

What in the name of Fuck are you shiteing on about now?

You've literally just created a whole scenario out of your imagination, based on nothing but your weird prejudices. Go away and do something worthwhile instead of wasting everyone's time posting rubbish here.

Dannyriver · 16-11-2017 12:58AM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Thing is hes a smart guy but very arrogant and interested in his ego which prevents himself from looking at alternative views as his are Gospel to his ego, he even called his book the gospel!.

Case in point. He whinges about religion being taught in schools yet I gurantee ya he wont listen to a drug addict in Limerick who will tell him Jesus helped them massively overcome their addiction. Many many people with mental health problems turn to God, and pray to Jesus they get help. Will he listen to them?. Of course not his gargantuan ego wont allow it.

He hasnt the gumption either to see that a personal relationship with Christ can be obtained without religion. Jesus saves from religion, he in book of Matthew spoke strongly against religion and religious leaders.

Feeling Gods grace can massively help with mental health issues, sadly hes too ignorant to see religion is man made but God isnt!.

I have never ever heard him give out about anyone s belief in God/Allah or whoever anyone wants to believe in ...The only thing I ve ever heard him question is the fact that the Catholic religion is written into our constitution, which is undeniably a fair point and one held by many people in this country.

pappyodaniel · 16-11-2017 12:58AM

OnDraught wrote: »

I’m aware of their output. I actually quite like their comedy and their songs. I’ve been to see them as well.

A couple of years ago recreational drug use was a big thing for them. I haven’t heard reference of that since then. Same with all the craic around 1916. There are still commemorations and various events happening all the time but these lads have abandoned that cash cow to move on to something else.

How dare they evolve from singing about glue sniffing and fingering girls in nightclubs. I'd like to think that we've all matured from the dumb sh!t we were doing ten years ago.

Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Comments