Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Woke Hogan wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you're someone who can't separate the message from the person who delivers it, then you'll fall into that trap alright. You wouldn't be that silly though, would you?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Don't you feel a bit silly that you're stuck in his appearance rather than the content of his message?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're impressed by a salesman at the door in a suit? Sweet Jesus, I see a salesman at the door in a suit with greasy hair and I assume he's on his way to court.

Then you'd feel really silly.

Don't you though? Feel silly that you can't distinguish the message from the clothes/persona of the one delivering that message?

There have been pages of posts focusing on the costume/persona, and nothing specific by way of a counter argument. That shows the level of the opposition. It's not rational rebuttals, it's simple ad hominem. If you think it's a good argument against the content of his message, then maybe you need to have a think about that n

Vladimir Poontang

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The Blindboy devotees should have to clarify if they're from Limerick I reckon..

I'm from Limerick and I think he's an overrated clown.

Pter wrote: »

So you arent taking him seriously based on the topics he is talking about? Ok so. Is that because you think they arent worth discussing, or because he is bringing them up? Genuinely interested as to the reasons why people feel he shouldnt be taken seriously.

The fact he looks and sounds like a humongous fncking idiot is hard to get away from. However, if one can get beyond that and listen to the speel you then realise it's just populist horsesh1t that he is prattling on about. It's clickbait joe.ie / sinn fein / anti water charge type ramblings.

He went on a rant once on the Late Late iirc it was on how NONE of his peers or friends in his age group could ever hope to buy a house or have bought a house. Like, FFS, that's complete and utter crap. But loads of folk lapp it up, hence he comes out with it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Read that back to yourself and realise how daft it sounds.

The way to get people to focus on the arguments alone, and not on your appearance, is to wear a plastic bag on your head? LOL.

Indeed, madness

s7ryf3925pivug

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Peterson is not a right wing activist. He describes himself as a classic liberal. He's centrist more than left or right in my opinion.

He's a wing nut. Classical liberalism relates to lax economic controls - deregulation and free market stuff that is associated with right wing parties today such as the Republican party in the USA. It's a weird choice of words to describe himself, especially since he is far louder about social issues (about which he is extremely right wing) than economic ones.

Woke Hogan wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's an arbitrary distinction between a performers costume and their persona. Can you explain the distinction you mean?

There's nothing arbitrary about it. Blindboy could come on to the Late Late dressed in a suit or tie, or in a hoody and jeans, or with a plastic bag on his head, or in black face and I'd still think what he's talking about is crap. He's a pseudo intellectual.

Thats not what I asked you. You drew a distinction between a performers costume and their persona and I asked what you mean by that distinction because i think it's an arbitrary distinction.

Relikk

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're impressed by a salesman at the door in a suit? Sweet Jesus, I see a salesman at the door in a suit with greasy hair and I assume he's on his way to court. Maybe this is a generational thing, but Im not as impressed by suits are you are. An interesting argument is more important to me than the shininess of the suit.

I mean I could critique Jordan Peterson's appearance but the contents of his speech is of interest to me not his dowdy clothes.

You're reading too much into that. I didn't say I'd be impressed, but generally a suit would indicate more serious and business like mentalities and behaviour. It's the presentability aspect, also. I wouldn't call Jordan Peterson "dowdy". He dresses smartly. There's an air of professionalism about him.

Augeo wrote: »

The fact he looks and sounds like a humongous fncking idiot is hard to get away from. However, if one can get beyond that and listen to the speel you then realise it's just populist horsesh1t that he is prattling on about. It's clickbait joe.ie / sinn fein / anti water charge type ramblings.

He went on a rant once on the Late Late iirc it was on how NONE of his peers or friends in his age group could ever hope to buy a house or have bought a house. Like, FFS, that's complete and utter crap. But loads of folk lapp it up, hence he comes out with it.

The numbers came out for peoples chances of buying a house now compared to baby boomers and similar generations. You'd probably be shocked at how unlikely it is for millennials to buy a house or have a stable career or have a decent retirement pension compared to previous generations. Older folk have had their fun with the economy and the environment and they need the young ones to pick up the bill.

It's hardly surprising that someone who addresses those issues is saying something interesting to young people. And older folk want to listen to Peterson complain that the world's gone to pot because he has to call a transgender person by their preferred gender. Gowd old folks have it hard. They would probably prefer if nobody brought up those issues that affect young people.

Woke Hogan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Thats not what I asked you. You drew a distinction between a performers costume and their persona and I asked what you mean by that distinction because i think it's an arbitrary distinction.

A performer's persona relates to the things they say: in this case ranging from his (admittedly admirable) promotion of mental health awareness, to other more egotistical behaviour such as the affectation of the voice of his generation role in Irish society.

Examples of which would be his soapboxing on the Late Late show, referring specifically to "his" generation when discussing house prices, making statements on behalf of young Irish men and what they need ("feminism," I guess) and referring to himself as having the integrity other media sources lack over the McGregor issue lately.

Ultimately, I find it a lamentable persona because it is a supposedly comedic character but one who hasn't made any kind of joke or comedic reference in about five years. He seems to have tried to make the jump into more serious intellectual matters but from I have heard and read, he lacks the intellectual capacity to make any real impact in that field. He seems to be a bit of a lightweight.

A costume is what he wears, in this case a bag over his head.

So once he solves the mental health crisis in the country is the guy with the spar bag on his head going to tackle the housing crisis?

He should stick to taking the p1ss out of scobes..

Relikk wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're impressed by a salesman at the door in a suit? Sweet Jesus, I see a salesman at the door in a suit with greasy hair and I assume he's on his way to court. Maybe this is a generational thing, but Im not as impressed by suits are you are. An interesting argument is more important to me than the shininess of the suit.

I mean I could critique Jordan Peterson's appearance but the contents of his speech is of interest to me not his dowdy clothes.

You're reading too much into that. I didn't say I'd be impressed, but generally a suit would indicate more serious and business like mentalities and behaviour. It's the presentability aspect, also. I wouldn't call Jordan Peterson "dowdy". He dresses smartly. There's an air of professionalism about him.

Sure. He dresses to impress you. And you call it smart. Does that mean you listen more intently or are more likely to agree with his argument?

Woke Hogan wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Thats not what I asked you. You drew a distinction between a performers costume and their persona and I asked what you mean by that distinction because i think it's an arbitrary distinction.

A performer's persona relates to the things they say: in this case ranging from his (admittedly admirable) promotion of mental health awareness, to other more egotistical behaviour such as the affectation of the voice of his generation role in Irish society.

Examples of which would be his soapboxing on the Late Late show, referring specifically to "his" generation when discussing house prices, making statements on behalf of young Irish men and what they need ("feminism," I guess) and referring to himself as having the integrity other media sources lack over the McGregor issue lately.

Ultimately, I find it a lamentable persona because it is a supposedly comedic character but one who hasn't made any kind of joke or comedic reference in about five years. He seems to have tried to make the jump into more serious intellectual matters but from I have heard and read, he lacks the intellectual capacity to make any real impact in that field. He seems to be a bit of a lightweight.

A costume is what he wears, in this case a bag over his head.

So what I'm calling the content of his message is what you're calling persona. That's a confusing way of saying it. Persona to me implies the character they play rather than the contents of the message.

And he performs his comedy routines on stage as his day job. The podcast is just a sideline.

Boom_Bap

Deleted User wrote: »

So once he solves the mental health crisis in the country is the guy with the spar bag on his head going to tackle the housing crisis?

He should stick to taking the p1ss out of scobes..

I don't think he's trying to solve it. I think he is trying to raise awareness of mental health particularly in men.

Deleted User wrote: »

So once he solves the mental health crisis in the country is the guy with the spar bag on his head going to tackle the housing crisis?

He should stick to taking the p1ss out of scobes..

I get that you're making a little joke, but who said he needs to solve anything? He does raise awareness of mental health which is important which should be appreciated. But the usual story arises. People ask 'where's X service for men?' and when someone tries to do something good for men, they mock them.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you're someone who can't separate the message from the person who delivers it, then you'll fall into that trap alright. You wouldn't be that silly though, would you?

He’s delivering “messages” now bahahahaha. He’s talking pseudointellectual waffle. If you dress like a clown and talk like a clown, don’t be upset when people call you a clown.

Woke Hogan

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So what I'm calling the content of his message is what you're calling persona. That's a confusing way of saying it. Persona to me implies the character they play rather than the contents of the message.

And he performs his comedy routines on stage as his day job. The podcast is just a sideline.

I've seen a fair bit of his body of work away from his podcast and television interviews and it's honestly baffling why people like you look up to him so much. His comedy is surrealist nonsense and his efforts at adding to the nation's intellectual discourse is laughable.

That's why I commented in my first post that his fans are less than intelligent because they love a comedian who doesn't tell jokes and think someone who frankly isn't that clever is a real intellectual. It's amazing.

I don't mean you in that last part, by the way. I'm sure you're as bright as a button.

weldoninhio wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you're someone who can't separate the message from the person who delivers it, then you'll fall into that trap alright. You wouldn't be that silly though, would you?

He’s delivering “messages” now bahahahaha. He’s talking pseudointellectual waffle. If you dress like a clown and talk like a clown, don’t be upset when people call you a clown.

That's weak. I've been chatting about the content of his speech/message interchangably. And still you're focused on the clothes he wears and blanket dismissal of the entire message. Given how varied the contents is each week, I doubt you could find none of it interesting. Have you listened to many of the podcasts?

Do none of you work?

Relikk

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. He dresses to impress you. And you call it smart. Does that mean you listen more intently or are more likely to agree with his argument?

Listen more intently? Yes. More likely to agree with his argument? I'd have to have something to agree or disagree with in the first place, so it's hard to answer that question. The answer also depends on whether the first question is relevant. My initial reaction would be no.

Blindboy with a bag on his head:
Listen more intently? No
Agree with his argument? No, because he's a character and is wearing a bag on his head and I wouldn't be listening to him anyway.

The person that portrays Blindboy without the accent and the bag on his head, just being himself:
Listen more intently? Yes.
Agree with his argument? Depends on his argument.

I'm going to be hypocritical here and delve into the realms of whataboutery... There's a job vacancy. Two people show up. One wears a bag on their head. The other doesn't. They deliver the same presentation about why they should have the job, word for word. Who do you hire? I know who I would hire.

The person without the bag on their head.

Ulysses Gaze

Raven Rancid Slime wrote: »

He's a wing nut. Classical liberalism relates to lax economic controls - deregulation and free market stuff that is associated with right wing parties today such as the Republican party in the USA. It's a weird choice of words to describe himself, especially since he is far louder about social issues (about which he is extremely right wing) than economic ones.

By lumping him under that banner, you're lining him up alongside Richard Spencer, David Duke and other White Power/Supremacist individuals.
Particularly when you use the word "Extremely".

I'd really like to know why you consider him extremely right wing on social issues. What specifically has he said, from a social issue context, that would lead you to place him under that banner?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's weak. I've been chatting about the content of his speech/message interchangably. And still you're focused on the clothes he wears and blanket dismissal of the entire message. Given how varied the contents is each week, I doubt you could find none of it interesting. Have you listened to many of the podcasts?

I listened to about 10 minutes of one. It was his waffle about McGregor, painful to listen to and his complete lack of self awareness when he stated that people shouldn’t “pontificate online” whilst pontificating online was the only mildly humourous part.

Impressions count. You wouldn’t turn up to a job interview in a football jersey and jeans and expect them to take you seriously? Surely if Dave Chambers is such an advocate of mental health in young men, he’d realise that most of Middle Ireland that watches the dirge that is the LLS will tune out when an idiot in a JCs bag turns up, and dress more appropriately to actually get the message out.

Woke Hogan wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So what I'm calling the content of his message is what you're calling persona. That's a confusing way of saying it. Persona to me implies the character they play rather than the contents of the message.

And he performs his comedy routines on stage as his day job. The podcast is just a sideline.

I've seen a fair bit of his body of work away from his podcast and television interviews and it's honestly baffling why people like you look up to him so much. His comedy is surrealist nonsense and his efforts at adding to the nation's intellectual discourse is laughable.

That's why I commented in my first post that his fans are less than intelligent because they love a comedian who doesn't tell jokes and think someone who frankly isn't that clever is a real intellectual. It's amazing.

I don't mean you in that last part, by the way. I'm sure you're as bright as a button.

Ok leaving it the fact that you didn't actually address the content of my last post, you're letting yourself down with the ad hominem.

I never said I look up to him at all, that's your assumption. But for exampke I do support anyone who promotes mental health in young men. I dont know if you've heard it's kinda an important issue for young men. As a supporter of men's rights i care about things like that and Blindboy does some work to bring attention to it.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do none of you work?

On annual leave this week, but most workplaces have internet as do most phones.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The numbers came out for peoples chances of buying a house now compared to baby boomers and similar generations. You'd probably be shocked at how unlikely it is for millennials to buy a house or have a stable career or have a decent retirement pension compared to previous generations. Older folk have had their fun with the economy and the environment and they need the young ones to pick up the bill.

............

Well as someone who is a millenial, who is self employed, who is a qualified pensions advisor and who commutes from the greater Dublin area to work I can assure you I probably wouldn't be at all shocked.

Was he really raising awareness of mental health, or was he promoting a book?..

weldoninhio wrote: »

Impressions count. You wouldn’t turn up to a job interview in a football jersey and jeans and expect them to take you seriously? Surely if Dave Chambers is such an advocate of mental health in young men, he’d realise that most of Middle Ireland that watches the dirge that is the LLS will tune out when an idiot in a JCs bag turns up, and dress more appropriately to actually get the message out.

I don't know if you're of an age to appreciate this, but there are some jobs that you would only go to an interview in a hoodie, jeans and trainers. But to answer your question, no I couldn't do that in my job.

I'm genuinely struggling to believe that some people are so transfixed on the surface level stuff. Given how it's accepted that fiction can be so successfully used to explain reality, I'm shocked that people are so hung up on the appearance of a performer.

Augeo wrote: »

Well as someone who is a millenial, who is self employed, who is a qualified pensions advisor and who commutes from the greater Dublin area to work I can assure you I probably wouldn't be at all shocked.

Great then if you understand he situation faced by millennials compared to how relatively easy house buying, job stability and retirement prospects were for previous generations. Is it any wonder that some young people enjoy a message that included dealing with young people's issues?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know if you're of an age to appreciate this, but there are some jobs that you would only go to an interview in a hoodie, jeans and trainers. But to answer your question, no I couldn't do that in my job.

I'm genuinely struggling to believe that some people are so transfixed on the surface level stuff. Given how it's accepted that fiction can be so successfully used to explain reality, I'm shocked that people are so hung up on the appearance of a performer.

Psychologically first impressions matter.

http://www.businessinsider.com/first-impressions-matter-more-than-we-think-2016-12

Relikk wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. He dresses to impress you. And you call it smart. Does that mean you listen more intently or are more likely to agree with his argument?

Listen more intently? Yes. More likely to agree with his argument? I'd have to have something to agree or disagree with in the first place, so it's hard to answer that question. The answer also depends on whether the first question is relevant. My initial reaction would be no.

Blindboy with a bag on his head:
Listen more intently? No
Agree with his argument? No, because he's a character and is wearing a bag on his head and I wouldn't be listening to him anyway.

The person that portrays Blindboy without the accent and the bag on his head, just being himself:
Listen more intently? Yes.
Agree with his argument? Depends on his argument.

Most amusing. You would listen more intently to one over the other and you don't think that affects whether or not you'll eventually agree with their argument. That shows an embarrassing lack of self awareness.