pumpkin4life wrote: » Brilliant. Fucking brilliant and I probably wasn't even alive when this aired. Skip to 1:49 for Eamon Dunphy ranting about dolphins. Wish we had comedians who could match this or nail this lol.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Danny as I said to IO, I could have phrased that better, but it's not coming from a place of anger at all, more frustration. I freely admit that his whole presentation and his message pisses me off, because it does nothing whatsoever to address the issues he has not only acknowledged, but has happily made a living off the negative stereotype which has long been held about young men living in certain areas of the city. In order for me to be angry about that, I'd have to take him seriously, which I don't, because I know better. Like I said, I have no doubt he's sound and all the rest of it in private, but I can only judge him on what he presents as his public persona, and I have made no criticism of him as a private citizen, as I simply don't know him in that regard. No I can't direct you to where he stated that any of what he says about things is a new idea. My point is that he presents the idea that young men experiencing difficulties with their mental health need feminism, as though that is the new idea that men in those circumstances weren't aware of before. Presenting those men with an ideology that is entirely centred around the welfare of women, is missing the whole understanding of the experiences of those men as men entirely. He's speaking from a place of privilege as opposed to demonstrating any genuine understanding of the issues experienced by the men he purports to represent, and that's why to him, feminism would appear to be the most obvious ideology through which to parse those men's experiences that aren't his. That's why I could never take him seriously, it was never just the plastic bag. It was that his public persona has no authenticity, and when something has no authenticity, it's going to inherently have a credibility problem.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Danny when you start to feign ignorance of the whole basis of his public persona, I really think we're done here as I simply won't waste either my time or your time entertaining that level of disingenuous.
Dannyriver wrote: » Which men is he purporting to represent? I dont understand where you are coming from there. He is speaking of all men who feel pressure to live up to the male stereotype of being the provider regardless of background surely and is merely stating that in the modern world this isn t good for mental health and an acceptance of equality between the sexes would be a more functional approach to take. Im repeating myself here but he doesn t present anything 'as though it is a new idea' that s just your interpretation, that view has been espoused by mental health professionals and indeed the WHO. As so many have explained on here [to your deaf ears] many young men feel under pressure to provide and be 'bread winners' due to gender stereotypes. Nothing new here nor have I ever seen him espouse that its a new way of looking at things.
david75 wrote: » Gotta correct you there. He’s from limerick. He has mental health issues and is very open about it. In fact it pretty much is the platform he’s on. To say he has no understanding of the issues is just flat out incorrect. I think you have a bias or worse an axe to grind with the guy. It’s definitely affecting your ability to be subjective about it.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Danny as I said to IO, I could have phrased that better, but it's not coming from a place of anger at all, more frustration. I freely admit that his whole presentation and his message pisses me off, because it does nothing whatsoever to address the issues he has not only acknowledged, but has happily made a living off the negative stereotype which has long been held about certain areas of the city. In order for me to be angry about that, I'd have to take him seriously, which I don't, because I know better. Like I said, I have no doubt he's sound and all the rest of it in private, but I can only judge him on what he presents as his public persona, and I have made no criticism of him as a private citizen, as I simply don't know him in that regard. No I can't direct you to where he stated that any of what he says about things is a new idea. My point is that he presents the idea that young men experiencing difficulties with their mental health need feminism, as though that is the new idea that men in those circumstances weren't aware of before. Presenting those men with an ideology that is entirely centred around the welfare of women, is missing the whole understanding of the experiences of those men as men entirely. He's speaking from a place of privilege as opposed to demonstrating any genuine understanding of the issues experienced by the men he purports to represent, and that's why to him, feminism would appear to be the most obvious ideology through which to parse those men's experiences that aren't his.
Dannyriver wrote: » You can level away and of course you are entitled to assume my motives that s the limitations of the written word. I dont know you either and clearly you disagree with him and what he s about [mind you the one advantage I do have is I actually do know him but you re not to know whether Im a doe eyed fan boy so that s fair enough] but I do know that when people speak in absolutes such as he s full of **** and those that follow him are the same, tend to be coming from an irrational place of anger. See As you correctly pointed out about his bag not shielding him from public criticism your one eyed jack avator and my Danny River does not shield us in the same way And on here we are judged on the tone and use of our language for others to decide whether we are angry and in my book yours suggests anger and resentment.
Also can you direct me to where he stated that any of what he says about things is a new idea, I ve never heard him suggest that ever.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » That's not entirely true. Marie Stopes is a feminist icon because she advocated for free contraceptives for working class people. Though it did appear that after her death she was really doing so because she believed in eugenics and wanted to reduce the family size of the "lower classes". She's very different to other great feminists like Emily Pankhurst, who worked tirelessly to get the vote for women....until WWI broke out when she stopped to shame men who didn't voluntarily enlist into fighting and dying in the trenches as part of the white feather campaign.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Danny you're reading too much into it if you think I'm angry. I'm pissed off at the idea that this guy has an opportunity that the people he purports to represent will only ever dream of, and what does he do? He squanders it by telling the people he's talking to exactly what they want to hear. He undoubtedly has the intelligence, the intellect and most importantly the education to know that he is playing the role of the jester in the Court of Public Opinion. That's exactly why the likes of Tubridy love to have him on their shows and love to have him talk at conferences on mental health and so on, because he presents a juxtaposition of a member of the underclass who is actually well educated! This is where most of his comedy is derived from - presenting a stereotype of the underclass, but with the unexpected education which one wouldn't normally associate with them. It's how he has chosen to make his living and fair play to him, and for a time I thought he was worth listening to, but it's only because I have listened to him, and I have read his book, and I have listened to his talks, that I've decided his USP is the plastic bag on his head. That's the only thing that makes him unique from the many, many artists and social commentators who have gone before him. It's because he's not saying anything that hasn't been said before is the reason I don't think he's worth entertaining. I know he's your mate and all and you grew up with the guy and I have no doubt he'd be alright to go for a few pints with, but plastic bag or no plastic bag, when he'd come out with the shìte he does, rather than spend an evening entertaining him, I'd simply say we're having a few drinks mate, time and a place and all that. It's neither arrogance nor a lack of critical thinking to suggest that if someone is dropping bullshìt cliches as though they are new ideas, then it's everyone's responsibility to examine the source of those ideas. If those ideas are coming from someone who is presenting a fake representation of themselves, then you can expect people not just to be skeptical, but also cynical of their motives, as that is the basis of objectivity and critical thinking. I could have levelled the same accusation at you that because you're his mate it clouds your objectivity and critical thinking, but I don't, simply because I don't know you at all as a person, so I don't know whether you're friends with him because you agree with him, or whether you agree with him because you're friends. There are certain circumstances where an ad hominem is valid, and in circumstances where a persons arguments are based upon how they present themselves, then it is essential that in order to evaluate their arguments, we must evaluate the source. Otherwise Rachel Dolezal would still be taking the piss out of people by misrepresenting herself as someone she isn't by hiding behind a mask which she presented to the public, or in Blindboy's case at least, a plastic bag. It may shield him from public recognition, but it isn't a shield from public criticism when he puts his opinions out there to be critically evaluated.
Insect Overlord wrote: » Is there really any need for a comment like that?
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » I'm suggesting nothing of the type. The article is from an well known author who has experience of what happens in terms of quotes being placed on the front covers and that includes publishers making them up. Yes. But not on the Late Late Show when he stated that Young Men needed to embrace Feminism. That was it. He probably needed to be clear that all of that bolded text was added into such a statement as well . That is the problem with making such glib and dangerous statements on a TV show. Dangerous in the sense that the most visible strands of feminism that exist in the digital domain, where a large number of young people aged 18-30 live a lot of the time now, is the most toxic form of third/fourth wave feminism. Blindboy is an articulate fellow in his podcasts, but he has a much longer time and larger space to develop these ideas in that format.
david75 wrote: » Ps what’s wrong with embracing feminism? This especially seems to be rattling your cage.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » At the behest of a few users on the thread I did work through his podcasts. I even broke one down on an earlier post and found nothing at all wrong with it. Listened to the rest over the last few days too and again it was all not only ok, but all stuff I ENTIRELY agree with and often say myself. I was genuinely trying to find out what it is people here have an issue with about him. He comes across as someone who takes stuff seriously without taking himself too seriously. And I was struggling to find anything I disagree with him on at all. At most I found a few things I think I could enter into dialog with him on and add a good bit of depth and nuance to his position, but without really altering it much. The most recent podcast however is well outside my comfort / knowledge zone. Because he is talking about things I admit having zero knowledge about, I genuinely do not know how to parse or judge any of it. It all sounds conspiracy theory stuff, from some things going on in Irish History, to how cannabis is being grown by Chinese Triad gangs in Ireland inside all the Chinese Take aways as part of a Chinese take away protection racket. And so on and more. It is so far outside stuff I involve myself with and have educated myself on, that I can not even judge the podcast and point to which bits are factual (if any) and which is just total conspiracy theory nonsense (if any). Someone more informed on Irish history and/or the current situation of cannabis production in Ireland will have to listen to this recent podcast and parse it for me if they have a moment.
Dannyriver wrote: » Its hard to know from this are you angry at his mention of the word 'feminism' 'the plastic bag on his head' or that an artist should have the temerity to develop a persona, because one thing is obvious you ve certainly decided he is beyond listening to and that anything he says is without worth.
Its also obvious that you have never been able to look at his work objectively without said anger feeding your bias. All the points you made about unemployment/Dubs and or vulture funds buying up properties/neo liberalist politics/inequality and its effects on mental health and suicide/he has addressed at some stage or another. And for you to say ' He's full of shìt, which is why he's popular amongst other people who are themselves, also full of shìt.' displays an arrogance, sweeping assumption and lack of critical thinking that is truly remarkable. But I do agree with one point you made, you are entitled to your opinion and because you are anonymous here doesn t make it less valid in any way. In fact its obvious from the points you make that you feel very strongly indeed about it.
david75 wrote: » Wow. Sounds like an irrational hatred thing going on. If a guy in the media is making your blood boil that much perhaps he’s touching a few raw nerves and speaking some truths you don’t want to admit to yourself? Ps what’s wrong with embracing feminism? This especially seems to be rattling your cage.
One eyed Jack wrote: » No he isn't. He's full of shìt, which is why he's popular amongst other people who are themselves, also full of shìt.
Dannyriver wrote: » So you are suggesting that the Kevin Barry and Danny Boyle didn t read the book or give these quotes and the publishers just made them up and stuck them on the cover Yeah?
Dannyriver wrote: . Its hard to know from this are you angry at his mention of the word 'feminism' 'the plastic bag on his head' or that an artist should have the temerity to develop a persona, because one thing is obvious you ve certainly decided he is beyond listening to and that anything he says is without worth. Its also obvious that you have never been able to look at his work objectively without said anger feeding your bias. All the points you made about unemployment/Dubs and or vulture funds buying up properties/neo liberalist politics/inequality and its effects on mental health and suicide/he has addressed at some stage or another. And for you to say ' He's full of sh which is why he's popular amongst other people who are themselves, also full of sh' displays an arrogance, sweeping assumption and lack of critical thinking that is truly remarkable. But I do agree with one point you made, you are entitled to your opinion and because you are anonymous here doesn t make it less valid in any way. In fact its obvious from the points you make that you feel very strongly indeed about it.
One eyed Jack wrote: » 80,000 subscribers on iTunes is nothing, seriously. He's talking about what he knows, no question there, but clearly he doesn't know a whole lot about much else, let alone where he pretends he's from, or wants people to think that's where he's from. If he were talking about where he's from, then he wouldn't be adopting a persona from the other side of the city. If you'd said an extreme unemployment problem in some areas of the city among young men under 30, I'd have said fair enough, but an extreme suicide problem among young men under 30 across the city itself is an exaggeration. No he isn't. I've been working with them and talking with them every day mate for the last 40 years, not just in Limerick but in the town where I grew up which became a dead town with no employment prospects and not a snowballs chance in hell of ever owning a house when Dubs moved down and bought up all the shoebox housing pricing the people who grew up in the town out of the market. I'm not surprised you don't know where I'm coming from, but the young men who struggle to get into education, stay in education, get employment and stay in employment, certainly know where I'm coming from. It's an awful shìtty feeling for a lot of young men that they imagine their prospects are so poor and of course that's going to affect their outlook on life and their perception of their value to society and their place in society. Feminism is going to do fcukall for those young men. What's with this "particularly on the internet" and "internet warriors" stuff from earlier in the thread, as though because we are somewhat anonymous, our opinions shouldn't be taken seriously? Yet isn't that the very expectation you're asking of people when they're presented with a guy who is somewhat anonymous by virtue of the plastic bag on his head? If you're suggesting that the opinions of anonymous randomers shouldn't be taken seriously, then why would you expect a different standard to apply to some anonymous randomer with a plastic bag on his head? That's the kind of behaviour we discourage in children, why would we encourage it in adults?
Stonedpilot wrote: » Nah rather whinge about him online pal.:cool:
david75 wrote: » As of last week he has 80,000 subscribers on iTunes and the analytics showed him the demographics. He’s been at the top of the iTunes podcasts chart for about three or four weeks.
He’s talking about what he knows and where he’s from.
A city with an extreme suicide problem among young men up to 30.
And he’s speaking to them in a language they understand.
If it seems idealistic or doesn’t work for you personally that’s grand. Leave him to it. You don’t know what those young lads mindsets are like luckily and they wouldn’t understand where you’re coming from with it at all. Nor do I tbh. If it works for them leave them and him to it.
If you can’t contribute don’t get in the way of someone who is. Snarking from the sidelines doesn’t achieve anything. Particularly on the Internet.
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » Ahem.. From Anthony Horowitz....https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2012/may/11/cover-blurb-book-recommendation
Deleted User wrote: » Meh, tbh I don't necessarily not like the guy..I thought a couple of his early videos were funny ish..He got annoying then though, as most of them do that seem to hit the spotlight playing a character, and then get stuck in some kind of loop playing the same character ad finitum..same as happened to blindboy in a sense..but yeah, my comment was more in relation to releasing a book being the done thing by certain minor celebrities.. I actually checked Amazon to see how many books roz Purcell had released after making that comment, and I'm seeing her face in ads here and on Facebook since..you see..some of us suffer for our art..
One eyed Jack wrote: » The problem with blindboys suggestion that men of that mindset adopt feminism and view themselves as equal to women is that it goes against their very nature. It's fake, it's about as authentic as blindboys persona. It still doesn't address their underlying issue that they feel they aren't able to provide, and telling them they shouldn't feel like they have to provide isn't going to change their perception of reality where Emma Watson who championed the He4She campaign, says that she still prefers a man to pay for dinner. Of course it's a basic example, and it's one that is just no reflection of reality for those men, it's too basic as it tries to encourage men to externalise their problems rather than examines what they can do to put themselves in the position of being capable of being a provider. First of all, let's not exaggerate. He doesn't have a huge following in 18 - 30 year olds all over the world, his persona is barely recognised in Ireland, let alone outside of Ireland. Secondly, the problem with what he's suggesting is exactly what you've just described - the ideology he's promoting encourages young men to view their masculinity as toxic. What's toxic about wanting to be in a position to be able to provide for someone or to be able to provide for a family? Because that's exactly what someone means when they say they have nothing to offer a woman. Telling them that they shouldn't think of themselves as a provider you might as well cut their balls off and be done with it, you still won't come close to actually providing them with any sort of a solution to their issues, which are often caused.by the lack of employment prospects and support. Blindboy is surely contradicting himself when he complains that among his friends, none of them can afford to buy a house. If he truly believed the nonsense he was spouting about how young men should adopt feminism and we've all bought into neoliberalism and all the rest of it, then one would expect the last thing he should be worried about is ownership of property? He could simply rid himself of toxic notions of materialism and I dunno, the State will provide... but that brings us back to the issues faced by the young men he's purporting to represent with his adopted persona, that of the underclass in society, who are dependent upon the State to provide for them, because they aren't even in a position to provide for themselves, and that's why they feel they have nothing to offer a woman, and yes, that is depressing. That's why adopting an ideology which is based purely upon idealism and is no reflection of reality, isn't going to address what those young men see as their reality.
Stonedpilot wrote: » May I ask why are you telling us about yourself pal?. Over 4,500 whinging posts that's a lot of projecting. I agree. Here's a hug. God bless.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » She's very different to other great feminists like Emily Pankhurst, who worked tirelessly to get the vote for women....until WWI broke out when she stopped to shame men who didn't voluntarily enlist into fighting and dying in the trenches as part of the white feather campaign.
david75 wrote: » As to the meal aspect I think you missed the point. Your typical lad in that situation would no way never allow a woman pay for his meal. He used that example as a simple one to talk to lads in that’s situation andxlet them know it’s ok to not be dominate male / classic stereotype of the man being provider.He’s using fairly simple examples to unlock it for lads on a basic level. You’re bringing a high mindedness to it and that’s ok but the lads he’s speaking to and trying to reach don’t think in those terms or In your view of it.
He has a HUGE follwowing in 18-30 year olds all over the world. And he’s trying to do his bit to open their minds a bit and disarm them of some possibly toxic notions of their own masculinity. What harm in that?
