DickSwiveller wrote: » A lot of repealers are extremely intolerant of anyone who dares disagree with them. Maybe that's just the twitter bubble crowd, though
AnneFrank wrote: » not really, have a look at the repeal thread in after hours, if you're a no voter you get attacked and then banned
Dial Hard wrote: » I keep seeing this and it honestly, genuinely puzzles me. I hand-on-heart haven't seen anything from the Yes side even approaching the kind of tactics employed elsewhere. Genuine request here: can someone please point me in the direction of some examples of disrespectful/unacceptable campaign behaviour from any of the Yes organisations?
ligerdub wrote: » Admittedly I hadn't (I never claimed I did), but I have since. No surprise it was soft touch to be honest. Very difficult to give her praise for being so even handed and patient under such circumstances. You might as well give Real Madrid with Ronaldo & co praise for beating their under-8's team in training. There's nothing to be learned from somebody who isn't challenged. To use an example of how Dunphy laid up these points for her, he: - Spoke about the citizens assembly and why that was used to spur on the referendum. The point was about representation, which Mullaly said the CA did (it didn't), and how the Dail isn't representative (it is). Dunphy then went on to agree with her because of "the scarcity of women", a hollow point needlessly served up by Eamo. - He then made some sort of leading question about patriarchy. - He also then repeatedly answered her question for her in the sense that it wasn't really a question at all. Mullaly's colours show up very clearly when anybody gives her even the most minor of pushbacks. She pulls out of debates if she doesn't like the opponent. She has sought (and succeeded in) getting comments disabled on her articles, one must not criticise Una. Her articles are a collection of misandry. She has also used her own personal health struggles as a means to emotionally sway people or bat away opponents about why she, as a lesbian, should be permitted to get married. That's not to say she shouldn't be allowed, but let's leave the personal stuff out of it. I never claimed this to be a Waters v Mullaly point either by the way. You'll notice I haven't mentioned Waters once, think what you like about him you'll find no pushback here, however I can't stand over a viewpoint that puts Una as some sort of reasonable commentator on anything.
murpho999 wrote: » I got the impression that he was an undecided voter but leaning towards no. Nothing two faced about it. Might be a tactic for interviewing too to get more out of them.
minikin wrote: » Dunphy (and I like him hugely as a broadcaster / personality) had no problem trying to undermine Waters' fundamental belief system about when life begins. Had he done similar to Mullally (gone down the same sensationalist line of asking "aren't you supporting child murder") it would have been just as objectionable as it's attacking someones fundamental principles for a cheap 'headline'.
Arghus wrote: » So asking Waters when, in his view, did human life begin was sensationalist? How so? Surely it's a basic question in the debate. If Waters can feel so threatened by that question being put to him, what does it say about the solidity of his arguments?
minikin wrote: » Because it’s venturing into territory that quickly decends into black and white positions... backing your guest into a corner only a quarter of the way into an interview is a strange way of enlightening the debate.
Mancomb Seepgood wrote: » Black and white positions are difficult to avoid in this debate.It's a topic that is deeply personal.I didn't get a sense that Waters was being backed into a corner,the fact that Eamon brought up abortion pills seems to be something that really annoyed him and it was downhill from there.The questions were reasonable and nothing that someone who has taken a public position on these matters should have been surprised by.
Arghus wrote: » Nothing hilarious about it all. You should listen to it. The interview with Una Mullaly was a good and intelligent debate and she made her points in an articulate and passionate manner. Her reputation precedes her in many ways, but based on what she had to say in the interview, I thought she came across extremely well. Dunphy asked her the questions and she was able to engage with them and defend her points of views, without resorting to childishly stomping off abruptly. There's no comparison between the level of debate in her interview and the corresponding one with John Waters: Mullaly's is clearly and objectively far superior and to claim otherwise is totally and utterly farcical.
Arghus wrote: » Maybe, but Waters had a good five minutes at the start to, in my view, largely waffle away and by the time he started talking about The Supreme Court was already beginning to sound less and less coherent. I got the sense that Eamonn already felt at that early stage that the interview was in danger of going off the rails and tried to bring it back to the fundamentals before it got even more formless. You have to start somewhere in this debate and putting the question of when you can say human life actually begins is as good a place as any - especially so if your guest's argument is rooted in the belief of the inviolable sanctity of the unborn human life. I don't think it was a case of trying to put the guest in the corner and certainly not near to a form of "attack": Dunphy hadn't even began to properly articulate a question or explain a point of view on the matter, because Waters was immediately hot under the collar about even being asked about such a thing. A hard question is not necessarily an unfair question. We don't know how Dunphy may have continued with that line of questioning, because Waters flounced off abruptly before anything meaningful could even be discussed. Surely, if he wants to contribute to the debate he has to expect these questions and not regard them as personalised attacks; it's very petulant.
minikin wrote: » Unless, which Waters’ reaction suggests, the basis of the interview was agreed beforehand that it wouldn’t be a hitjob on a supposed friend. Looks like Dunphy acted in bad faith here in order to get Waters on his podcast... hence the reaction.
briany wrote: » Not being privy to the conversation that went on in order to get Waters on the podcast, so it's possible that Dunphy did misrepresent what tone the conversation would have. It's also possible Waters misunderstood what he was going into. Either way, it was a pretty spectacular outburst. Dunphy's line, "...but I think it's important to put this up there". I think the subtext being, "Get a load of this! Some laugh." :pac:.
groovyg wrote: » Anytime I see or hear John Waters I always think of Sinead O Connor and wonder what the hell was she thinking, talk about polar opposites.
Arghus wrote: » In a way I feel like it was a bit of a cheap-shot to leave the audio in of Waters storming out cursing like a drunken sailor, they could have totally cut that final 30/40 seconds out of the episode if they really, really wanted too: he would still looked like an ejit, but with it left in he looks like a total fucking ejit. They knew well they had comedy gold on their hands.
Hurrache wrote: » A hitjob? What interview were you listening to. Waters has been on the verge of meltdown for a longtime. He fell over the edge after being asked an unsurprising question.
PCeeeee wrote: » Eamo and Micks assessment of Paul Williams today was 'interesting'
Still Ill wrote: » I see he's finally picked up a sponsor. Surprised it took so long, but glad that the podcasts will be continuing anyway
Cartman78 wrote: » John Waters = sponsor magnet :-)
Morrison J wrote: » Only really discovered the brilliance of this podcast recently. Going back through some older episodes. Listened to Duff, Dignam and Doherty episodes this week. All brilliant. Any other must listens?
