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.
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Feminism appeals to women who are smartish, but not very smart for example.
feminism ... is full of dem swiss cheese holes
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Are you a scholar of feminism?
cantdecide wrote: » Feminist research ist gut research, ja? No biases in feminist research then?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Stonedpilot wrote: » Fair enough, but If I want to whinge about him here too I'm entitled to!.
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.
cantdecide wrote: » Righto
cantdecide wrote: » 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?
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.
virtue-signalling.
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Oh dear, you've used one of those terms that damages its user's credibility.
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.
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
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!.
