Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Ush1 wrote: »

His latest podcast is an interview with Louise O Neill. It's the sh*tshow you would expect.

Interestingly I did not "expect" anything as I know literally nothing about Louise ONeill at all other than I have seen a few thread titles and random mentions around boards that suggest she is generally not liked on here.

Everything I know about her I just learned from that podcast. Never knew she wrote books. Never knew she wrote for young adults. Never knew she wrote a book about rape. Never knew she had been raped or something similar herself. Never knew she was feminist or spoke often on that subject.

Vaguely suspected she was a journalist of sorts which was 100% of everything I knew about her. Literally 100%.

So I thought I would listen to the podcast today as a kind of introduction to her. And to be honest I can not find anything much wrong with it. Is there a particular aspect that made it a "sh*t show" for you? As I can find little in there to take exception or objection to.

I do agree though that....

Ush1 wrote: »

He also said the material made some men in the audience so uncomfortable they walked out, is he sure they didn't just walk out 'cause it was a load of sh*te?

... that was blatant assumption by "blindboy" indeed. He saw people leave and assumed he knew why they were leaving because it fit a narrative he holds.

He made a joke however in the podcast at one point like "So I hope you are all enjoying the COMEDY festival" when he realized that the discussion was serious and not comedy at all.

THAT is likely more the reason people got up and left. They were at a comedy festival. Perhaps they felt they simply were not getting what they were there for so decided to leave. Perfectly valid and justifiable thing to do..... not that justification is required. Perhaps given the number of people who are victims of sexual assault and rape and worse.... men and women..... they topic was too close to the bone for them and they left for their own sake. Also perfectly valid a thing to do and does not require justification.

That or they needed another beer or the toilet or something else in the festival was starting at that time. Thats the thing about festivals after all.... staggered starting times across the stages meaning people often leave one act in the middle to catch the starting time of another act. Hardly earth shattering stuff.

Other than this blatant narrative driven assumption however I can not find exception to anything either he or she said on stage.

Ush1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Is there a particular aspect that made it a "sh*t show" for you? As I can find little in there to take exception or objection to.

It was utterly banal to be honest. Soft ball questions and a strange preoccupation with victimhood.

Ah ok, that sounds very different as an evaluation.

"banal" and "sh*t show" are quite different to my mind though. The former suggests you merely were bored by the content. The latter (dictionary: a situation or event marked by chaos or controversy.) suggests that something really bad was there, something you took quite some exception to or found problematic or harmful.

Perhaps you and I merely use those phrases much differently and I was left with the impression there was more problematic there than mere boredom on your part. It is clearer now, thanks. I thought I had simply missed something totally obviously egregious and was questioning my own sanity

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah ok, that sounds very different as an evaluation.

"banal" and "sh*t show" are quite different to my mind though. The former suggests you merely were bored by the content. The latter (dictionary: a situation or event marked by chaos or controversy.) suggests that something really bad was there, something you took quite some exception to or found problematic or harmful.

Perhaps you and I merely use those phrases much differently and I was left with the impression there was more problematic there than mere boredom on your part. It is clearer now, thanks. I thought I had simply missed something totally obviously egregious and was questioning my own sanity

Think about Louise, and Una, is that I've heard them both speak and they come across well, and pretty sound. And I'd say if most people knew them casually they'd think they were cool, and sound. And people who I'd regard as well read thought Asking For It was quite a decent book.

It's just the columns they write...
God awful ill thought out much, always a sense that they were written really quickly and close to the deadline such is the absence of any critical thought and self challenge, and almost exclusively based upon what is trending in their twitter circles. Usually unrelated to Irish context or nuance.

They could be much better advised.

I will have to take your word for it

As I said 100% of what I know of the woman came from this podcast today. And the user called it a "sh*t show" despite me not finding a single thing wrong with it. So I was confused.

Anything else she might have said or done elsewhere I can not comment on at all. No idea who "Una" refers to either. Most stuff in our news papers fits the description you just gave for me to be honest. So I do not tend to read much of them any more.

Ush1

Piss show? As in they both should have been blasted with.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I will have to take your word for it As I said 100% of what I know of the woman came from this podcast today. And the user called it a "sh*t show" despite me not finding a single thing wrong with it. So I was confused.

Anything else she might have said or done elsewhere I can not comment on at all. No idea who "Una" refers to either. Most stuff in our news papers fits the description you just gave for me to be honest. So I do not tend to read much of them any more.

Very true regarding newspapers today. Twitter is such an easy tool for inspiration seems to promote laziness, as far as writing columns is concerned

kubjones

Christ.

I like a lot of what Blindboy does. He's obviously an intelligent chap with a good heart and tries his best to talk about important topics in a way that is interesting to a younger audience.

... In saying that, he has a hard time hiding his ego in a lot of what he does also, and despite being intelligent, misses the point in a lot of what he talks about. A lot like Russel Brand.

With the matter of him wearing a bag over his head and putting on a character, I absolutely understand why he does it with the amount of venom and vitriol people on here are talking about him with.

It's fairly endemic of the Irish to just give out about something they don't really feel very strongly about one way or another.

Please any of ye giving out, have the same mental wherewithal to put a podcast together, bring interesting guests on and put on a better show than him, instead of just giving out.

Cienciano

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... that was blatant assumption by "blindboy" indeed. He saw people leave and assumed he knew why they were leaving because it fit a narrative he holds.

He made a joke however in the podcast at one point like "So I hope you are all enjoying the COMEDY festival" when he realized that the discussion was serious and not comedy at all.

THAT is likely more the reason people got up and left.

Definitely agree with that. I mean, I listen to the podcast, I deleted last weeks because I heard it was shíte, and looks like I'll be deleting this one too. He can record what he wants, but no one is under obligation to listen if the subject doesn't interest them. That goes for the live show in person and the audio podcast on your phone. Live podcasts totally depend on the guest as it dictates the subject. I thought the one with the 2 gay lads was boring as fúck too, deleted it after half an hour in. It was something like 1hr40m long. I'd have walked out if I was at the live recording of that.
Finn Dwyer and Belfast tour operator were good.

The Black Oil

Ush1 wrote: »

His latest podcast is an interview with Louise O Neill.

It's the sh*tshow you would expect. Thought it was endearing that he mentioned boards.ie as a cesspit.

And yet, both use Twitter which probably has the worst reputation of any current 'platform'.

s7ryf3925pivug

Ush1 wrote: »

His latest podcast is an interview with Louise O Neill.

It's the sh*tshow you would expect. Thought it was endearing that he mentioned boards.ie as a cesspit.

He also said the material made some men in the audience so uncomfortable they walked out, is he sure they didn't just walk out 'cause it was a load of sh*te?

'endearing' eh. Over a thousand posts here mainly discussing how he's a twonk. What do you expect

Cienciano wrote: »

Definitely agree with that. I mean, I listen to the podcast, I deleted last weeks because I heard it was sh, and looks like I'll be deleting this one too. He can record what he wants, but no one is under obligation to listen if the subject doesn't interest them. That goes for the live show in person and the audio podcast on your phone. Live podcasts totally depend on the guest as it dictates the subject. I thought the one with the 2 gay lads was boring as fúck too, deleted it after half an hour in. It was something like 1hr40m long. I'd have walked out if I was at the live recording of that.
Finn Dwyer and Belfast tour operator were good.

Surely that's not how you should form your own opinion on someone/something though.. Agreeing with criticism of podcasts you haven't listened to?

Cienciano

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely that's not how you should form your own opinion on someone/something though.. Agreeing with criticism of podcasts you haven't listened to?

Any podcast Blindboy stays on one subject for the entire show was terrible imho. The ones on disco and art I found uninteresting, boring and fairly pretentious. I'm not interested in listening to another one like that. I could listen and be bored for another hour, but tbh, I'm more than happy to just delete it and listen to something else. I've plenty of other podcasts to listen to.
He said he got great feedback from them, so I assume that's the direction he'll go in. Grand, I'll unsubscribe then. I liked his podcast and listened to almost all of them, I unsubscribed just after the second disco one and resubscribed because I heard they were back to normal. It's simple, if they're entertaining to me, I'll listen.

In fairness who hadn't called Boards or parts of it a cesspit at some stage :pac:

Cienciano wrote: »

Any podcast Blindboy stays on one subject for the entire show was terrible imho. The ones on disco and art I found uninteresting, boring and fairly pretentious. I'm not interested in listening to another one like that. I could listen and be bored for another hour, but tbh, I'm more than happy to just delete it and listen to something else. I've plenty of other podcasts to listen to.
He said he got great feedback from them, so I assume that's the direction he'll go in. Grand, I'll unsubscribe then. I liked his podcast and listened to almost all of them, I unsubscribed just after the second disco one and resubscribed because I heard they were back to normal. It's simple, if they're entertaining to me, I'll listen.

Oh yeah sure no issues with that, each to their own and all. Boards can be a bit of an echo chamber at times, so I was just referring to you agreeing with criticism of the recent podcasts but then in the same breathe you said you hadn't listened to either of them. Not having a go or anything - it's all grand like.

Moving away from that I wouldn't agree with absolutely everything he says or how he says it but I think he's a great voice when it comes to mental health within Ireland as we still don't talk about it enough. The Louise O'Neill podcast was good I thought, though again, I wouldn't outright agree with everything she says or how she says it.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Moving away from that I wouldn't agree with absolutely everything he says or how he says it but I think he's a great voice when it comes to mental health within Ireland as we still don't talk about it enough.

What? For a subject that apparently isn't being talked about, we can barely avoid hearing and talking about mental health. Social media is full of talk of it. As is the media itself. Go to a GP's office with an itchy arse and in the waiting room you'll find endless leaflets and posters on the subject and unless you're careful with some GP's you may leave with a script for SSRI's cos you happened to mention you have trouble sleeping sometimes(that actually happened to an ex of mine*). A person would have to be living under a remote rock in the Blaskets for the last few years to not have "awareness of mental health". It's bloody everywhere. How much talk from the same tired ego heads talking the same tired cliches do you think we need? Serious question by the by. Never mind that this Blindboy character has promoted the idea of feminism as a therapy for young men. A notion as utterly, bewilderingly moronic as one could muster. We may - and I say may - need more talk of mental health issues, but from mental health professionals with an education in the subject, not the usual conga line of ego headed "celebs" pushing for more attention.

*one of the single most mentally and emotionally together human beings I've ever known. Fuck knows what she was doing with me.

Yet after a 20 minute "consult" with a new patient this quack is pushing antidepressants? But I digress

Ash.J.Williams

That's a great point... Mental health education is everywhere, I bet most of the mental health hipsters would run a mile if somebody went to them in distress.

s7ryf3925pivug

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

That's a great point... Mental health education is everywhere, I bet most of the mental health hipsters would run a mile if somebody went to them in distress.

Education about mental health is sh!t though. People usually understand what depression and anxiety is. Notso bipolar or schizo conditions. Most people won't have a clue what's up with a manic person for example, or recognise there's something up if they develop it themselves.

Not aware of bbbc doing anyrhing to address that aspect of things mind.

Ash.J.Williams

Raven Rancid Slime wrote: »

Education about mental health is sh!t though. People usually understand what depression and anxiety is. Notso bipolar or schizo conditions. Most people won't have a clue what's up with a manic person for example, or recognise there's something up if they develop it themselves.

Not aware of bbbc doing anyrhing to address that aspect of things mind.

A mate had a bad episode recently, he met random people of all ages on his walkabout and everyone of them knew something was up and called his home. He was hospitalised that day.

Ulysses Gaze

riffmongous wrote: »

In fairness who hadn't called Boards or parts of it a cesspit at some stage :pac:

Didn't some TD describe Boards as a hornets nest of Terrorism?

Wibbs wrote: »

Never mind that this Blindboy character has promoted the idea of feminism as a therapy for young men. A notion as utterly, bewilderingly moronic as one could muster.

I recall a conversation I once had with an evolution denier once upon a time. During it he said something like "You believe in the ultimate fairy tale of all, that a lump of sludge turned into humans".

What is wrong with that statement is that PEDANTICALLY it is 100% true. That is essentially what we believe happened. There was something we could fairly call sludge, or similar, and over uncountable iterations over barely imaginable periods of time.... it basically turned into humans.

So his statement was a reduction to absurdity, but still essentially correct, description.

I fear something similar is possible here. If you write just the line "feminism as a therapy" you are probably describing accurately what he said but in a way that makes it sound absurd when it is not.

I can only assume you are talking about this and if you drop the trigger word feminism out of it, what he said there is perfectly cogent and coherent. It is basically saying that ANECDOTALLY he has known lads suffering from the idea that their self worth is measured by their opinion of how much they have to offer a woman.

And they are probably suffering needlessly given we are more and more heading towards equality, or many are trying to at least, where the dynamic of them having to provide is outdated and their suffering COULD be alleviated by a world view where everyone is giving equally.

So basically all he actually said, and he could have said it without a word like "feminism" that triggers so many people, is that people suffering from the idea they have to provide might have that suffering alleviated in a more balanced view of what the sexes can and probably should be bringing to a relationship.

The only problem I see with any of that is the anecdotal part of it. I simply do not know how many people he means. Or how many people are suffering due to that. Maybe no one actually is. But for those that are (if any) what he said is perfectly cogent even if a descriptor like "feminism as therapy" is far to effete to capture what he said.

Wibbs

Raven Rancid Slime wrote: »

Education about mental health is sh!t though. People usually understand what depression and anxiety is. Notso bipolar or schizo conditions. Most people won't have a clue what's up with a manic person for example, or recognise there's something up if they develop it themselves.

Not aware of bbbc doing anyrhing to address that aspect of things mind.

I would reckon that's down to the "soft" mental illnesses being more palatable. Before someone has a fit, I am NOT saying depression and anxiety can't be truly terrible conditions, even fatal for sufferers to go through. What I mean by "soft" is that they're not as obvious and hardcore compared to a disease like schizophrenia. Someone suffering from that terrible illness appears more "mad" to the layman. It's a more disturbing and messy condition. One might also suggest that depression and anxiety are more "fashionable" conditions and far more individuals suffer from them. The rates of schizophrenia are stable over time too, whereas depression and anxiety appear to vary over time.

Wibbs

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can only assume you are talking about this and if you drop the trigger word feminism out of it, what he said there is perfectly cogent and coherent. It is basically saying that ANECDOTALLY he has known lads suffering from the idea that their self worth is measured by their opinion of how much they have to offer a woman.

And they are probably suffering needlessly given we are more and more heading towards equality, or many are trying to at least, where the dynamic of them having to provide is outdated and their suffering COULD be alleviated by a world view where everyone is giving equally.

So basically all he actually said, and he could have said it without a word like "feminism" that triggers so many people, is that people suffering from the idea they have to provide might have that suffering alleviated in a more balanced view of what the sexes can and probably should be bringing to a relationship.

I see what you're saying N, but I would respectfully disagree in large part because what passes for his "message" is all over the place.

1) how many men, particularly young men, think they have to provide for a woman, a la the 1950's? Bugger all.

2) He conflates "providing for" and having "something to offer" a woman. They're two very different things. Nobody is suggesting that men are the head of the household and breadwinners. Even if men wanted to be. It's simply not doable anymore in the West(unless the man is wealthy and have a guess how much wider his potential dating pool is). It requires two to tango and build a life, home and kids. Men and women know this.

3) However: While it's all great in fantasy land that Women™ aren't too pushed by financial security in potential partners, the reality and one backed up by acres of research across the world is that Women™ on average seek out Men™ slightly older, taller and more successful than them. They certainly don't on average seek out younger, shorter poorer men. So some young lad on minimum wage or the dole, far more likely to be less educated than women his age and yes earn less(no doubt yer man also believes the wage gap in it's entirety) and that gap is widening year on year, how is he likely to fare in the dating game?

4) His parting shot about letting a woman pay for the meal on a date an extension to the above and an example of his fantasy land thinking. 9 times outa 10 it's men who do the overt pursuing and asking women out on dates. That's how it is on the ground. Man A asks out 10 women on dates and lets them pay the dinner bill. Man B asks out 10 women on dates and pays the dinner bill. Get back to me with the results on that one... And these young lads know it, because they're not idiots, they see that this "inequality" he speaks of comes just as much from women in their circle - something he didn't address at all, not a shock as Women™ are always blameless to feminists - and these guys are not living in some twitter "feminist" right on bubble in Montrose, twitter and organic coffee pop ups.

5) Feminism is a "trigger word"(I fucking hate that term, but anyway) and for good reason. He repeats the notion easily dismissed that modern feminism is about equality. It is not. The clue is in the name. When was the last time a talking head feminist addressed areas where inequality goes against men? And I'd not expect them to. On the rare occasions they might skirt the issue, it's down to like the placcy bagman said "patriarchal thinking" and still somehow men's fault.

6) and yes he does claim that feminism is a therapy for young men. That if they were feminist in their thinking their worries and stresses would somehow be alleviated.

I would agree with you regarding the anecdotal aspect. Seems a bit too much like a story to fit the narrative he has bought into in his head. Young men who may feel outa step and suffer mental illnesses from that is a bloody wide topic and not one explainable in thumbnail sketch by one politic and certainly not one solved by unrealistic platitudes.

Sal Butamol

Is he still bigging up his Masters degree

:D:D:D

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh yeah sure no issues with that, each to their own and all. Boards can be a bit of an echo chamber at times, so I was just referring to you agreeing with criticism of the recent podcasts but then in the same breathe you said you hadn't listened to either of them. Not having a go or anything - it's all grand like.

Moving away from that I wouldn't agree with absolutely everything he says or how he says it but I think he's a great voice when it comes to mental health within Ireland as we still don't talk about it enough. The Louise O'Neill podcast was good I thought, though again, I wouldn't outright agree with everything she says or how she says it.

People never stop talking about it. Do we live in the same country??

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I recall a conversation I once had with an evolution denier once upon a time. During it he said something like "You believe in the ultimate fairy tale of all, that a lump of sludge turned into humans".

What is wrong with that statement is that PEDANTICALLY it is 100% true. That is essentially what we believe happened. There was something we could fairly call sludge, or similar, and over uncountable iterations over barely imaginable periods of time.... it basically turned into humans.

So his statement was a reduction to absurdity, but still essentially correct, description.

I fear something similar is possible here. If you write just the line "feminism as a therapy" you are probably describing accurately what he said but in a way that makes it sound absurd when it is not.

I can only assume you are talking about this and if you drop the trigger word feminism out of it, what he said there is perfectly cogent and coherent. It is basically saying that ANECDOTALLY he has known lads suffering from the idea that their self worth is measured by their opinion of how much they have to offer a woman.

And they are probably suffering needlessly given we are more and more heading towards equality, or many are trying to at least, where the dynamic of them having to provide is outdated and their suffering COULD be alleviated by a world view where everyone is giving equally.

So basically all he actually said, and he could have said it without a word like "feminism" that triggers so many people, is that people suffering from the idea they have to provide might have that suffering alleviated in a more balanced view of what the sexes can and probably should be bringing to a relationship.

The only problem I see with any of that is the anecdotal part of it. I simply do not know how many people he means. Or how many people are suffering due to that. Maybe no one actually is. But for those that are (if any) what he said is perfectly cogent even if a descriptor like "feminism as therapy" is far to effete to capture what he said.

He said "young men need feminism". You are over-complicating things. He's a tool, and probably said it to get a good review in the Irish Times

Wibbs wrote: »

What? For a subject that apparently isn't being talked about, we can barely avoid hearing and talking about mental health. Social media is full of talk of it. As is the media itself. Go to a GP's office with an itchy arse and in the waiting room you'll find endless leaflets and posters on the subject and unless you're careful with some GP's you may leave with a script for SSRI's cos you happened to mention you have trouble sleeping sometimes(that actually happened to an ex of mine*). A person would have to be living under a remote rock in the Blaskets for the last few years to not have "awareness of mental health". It's bloody everywhere. How much talk from the same tired ego heads talking the same tired cliches do you think we need? Serious question by the by. Never mind that this Blindboy character has promoted the idea of feminism as a therapy for young men. A notion as utterly, bewilderingly moronic as one could muster. We may - and I say may - need more talk of mental health issues, but from mental health professionals with an education in the subject, not the usual conga line of ego headed "celebs" pushing for more attention.

*one of the single most mentally and emotionally together human beings I've ever known. Fuck knows what she was doing with me. Yet after a 20 minute "consult" with a new patient this quack is pushing antidepressants? But I digress

Well in fairness I didn't say we don't talk about it, I don't think it's being talked about enough, and certainly not always in the right ways (I'd agree with your comment on the pushing of anti-depressants). I also didn't say it needs to be exclusively from any particular group of people, certainly not looking for that group to be celebrities.

Some of what Blindboy says resonates with me, some of it doesn't. Looks like you disagree with him mostly, that's grand - each to their own. What I said above is just IMHO.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I recall a conversation I once had with an evolution denier once upon a time. During it he said something like "You believe in the ultimate fairy tale of all, that a lump of sludge turned into humans".

What is wrong with that statement is that PEDANTICALLY it is 100% true. That is essentially what we believe happened. There was something we could fairly call sludge, or similar, and over uncountable iterations over barely imaginable periods of time.... it basically turned into humans.

So his statement was a reduction to absurdity, but still essentially correct, description.

I fear something similar is possible here. If you write just the line "feminism as a therapy" you are probably describing accurately what he said but in a way that makes it sound absurd when it is not.

I can only assume you are talking about this and if you drop the trigger word feminism out of it, what he said there is perfectly cogent and coherent. It is basically saying that ANECDOTALLY he has known lads suffering from the idea that their self worth is measured by their opinion of how much they have to offer a woman.

And they are probably suffering needlessly given we are more and more heading towards equality, or many are trying to at least, where the dynamic of them having to provide is outdated and their suffering COULD be alleviated by a world view where everyone is giving equally.

So basically all he actually said, and he could have said it without a word like "feminism" that triggers so many people, is that people suffering from the idea they have to provide might have that suffering alleviated in a more balanced view of what the sexes can and probably should be bringing to a relationship.

The only problem I see with any of that is the anecdotal part of it. I simply do not know how many people he means. Or how many people are suffering due to that. Maybe no one actually is. But for those that are (if any) what he said is perfectly cogent even if a descriptor like "feminism as therapy" is far to effete to capture what he said.

Besides, let's say you're right. Why in Gods name would feminism be an answer to their problems? Feminism nowadays consists largely of middle class right on hipsters patting each other on the back on twatter. I'm not sure they'll be able to relate to a young lad from Moyross or Southill.

Wibbs wrote: »

6) and yes he does claim that feminism is a therapy for young men. That if they were feminist in their thinking their worries and stresses would somehow be alleviated.

I've listened to his podcast and interviews, has he actually said that young men being feminist in their thinking would alleviate their worries and stresses? Did he say it might help instead? Those would be two pretty different statements. He did say that "young men in Ireland need feminism", now whether you or I agree with that or not isn't the point. The point here is I don't think he said what you are claiming he said - though I'll hold up my hands if I'm wrong.