nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Sky King

People do know this is a character right? And not an actual person?

Does it strike anyone else as strange that a made-up persona with a fake voice, parody accent and a fking plastic bag on his head is treated like a normal, regular person in debates and current affairs TV shows? And given the same credibility and respect as an actual real person?

Imagine Fr. Dougal Mcguire, Dustin the Turkey and Fortycoats appearing our incisive current affairs shows discussing mental health with Alan Partridge adjudicating.

Or discussing the 8th amendment and feminism with Mrs Brown, The Bottler and Podge and Rodge? It would be treated like a joke (obviously), but when the prank phone call making, glue-huffing, spastic hawk-toting Blindboy talks serious we all suddenly have to sit up take it seriously.

If I was asked to debate on the same show as a parody character I'd be more than a little pissed off.

By all means share your story on mental health or offer an opinion on our education system. But for fk sake would you give us and the other people on the show the respect of doing it yourself, in a real voice? Without a fking bag on your head?

Alternatively if you prefer holding on to the bag, you could try going back to... you know... being funny. And less preachy.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So how can it be "ignoring" anyone else? The statement was about who the statement was about. Not other people. I made a statement about birds today to someone. Was I "ignoring" rabbits?

Obsticating as usual, nozz.

The comments Blindboy made about the young men he has apparently spoken with was clearly him attempting to justify the broader statement he had just made, which was of course that young depressed men throughout the country need feminism...... and so whilst the anecdote itself may have been about those specific men, it was in fact being cited to give credence to his larger nonsense contention, the implication of which is that young men in Ireland are killing themselves largely because they don't have a feminist mindset.

A preposterous statement for anyone to make but particularly so by someone who seemingly has no issue with the misandrist victim hood rhetoric put forth by the particular brand of feminism Blindboy subscribes to.

DickSwiveller Returns

Dannyriver wrote: »

Dick someone who writes/plays all the instruments/and masters and produces all the records in a bedroom is a musician, that s what Blindboy does. it s not up for debate its just fact....what do you see as the requisites of being a musician if it's not the above. You say you are a musician yet don t see any merit in what Blindboy does... that s confusing to say the least.

Fair enough. I was exaggerating a bit. Wouldn't be my cup of tea.

Dannyriver

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Fair enough. I was exaggerating a bit. Wouldn't be my cup of tea.

Fair enough...what is your cup of Tea if you don t mind me asking, cos Rubberbandits cover quite a few genres in their music, Im surprised there s not some of their stuff that connects. Most musicians I know rave about what they do.

[Deleted User]

Dannyriver wrote: »

Fair enough...what is your cup of Tea if you don t mind me asking, cos Rubberbandits cover quite a few genres in their music, Im surprised there s not some of their stuff that connects. Most musicians I know rave about what they do.

They're probably just saying that to avoid a two hour monologue by you on how a guy with a plastic bag on his head is the put on voice of a generation, where they have to list every piece of music they've ever enjoyed..

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Obsticating as usual, nozz.

Telling me I did things I blatantly did not as usual, Pete.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The comments Blindboy made about the young men he has apparently spoken with was clearly him attempting to justify the broader statement he had just made, which was of course that young depressed men throughout the country need feminism......

There is nothing wrong with such a statement other than your rush to pump it full of the hyperbole it actually lacks. People talk in generalizations. This is simply common as a fact about language. To pretend off the back of that that the speaker is saying more than that are is YOUR obfuscation. So projecting as usual, Pete.

For example if lots of people were getting sick all over the country I would happily say "People need more vaccinations!". A perfectly valid and defensible statement. It would be nonsense however to act like I was saying this would cure ALL the issues, especially given there are many illnesses that are not cured or prevented by vaccination.

So the sole source of obfuscation comes from a rhetorical dishonesty of taking when people talk in generalizations and pretending through the application of nothing but extreme linguistic pedantry, that they are saying more than they actually are.

There is NOTHING to suggest the speaker in question thinks that feminism is going to address all mental issues in all young men across the country. But it WILL address the subject of mental issues across the country. Which is not the same thing.

PlaneSpeeking

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Telling me I did things I blatantly did not as usual, Pete.

There is nothing wrong with such a statement other than your rush to pump it full of the hyperbole it actually lacks. People talk in generalizations. This is simply common as a fact about language. To pretend off the back of that that the speaker is saying more than that are is YOUR obfuscation. So projecting as usual, Pete.

For example if lots of people were getting sick all over the country I would happily say "People need more vaccinations!". A perfectly valid and defensible statement. It would be nonsense however to act like I was saying this would cure ALL the issues, especially given there are many illnesses that are not cured or prevented by vaccination.

So the sole source of obfuscation comes from a rhetorical dishonesty of taking when people talk in generalizations and pretending through the application of nothing but extreme linguistic pedantry, that they are saying more than they actually are.

There is NOTHING to suggest the speaker in question thinks that feminism is going to address all mental issues in all young men across the country. But it WILL address the subject of mental issues across the country. Which is not the same thing.

How exactly will feminism, especially the current bat crap crazy incarnation "address the subject of mental issues across the country".

nozzferrahhtoo

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

How exactly will feminism, especially the current bat crap crazy incarnation "address the subject of mental issues across the country".

Well the first issue there is the "incarnation" you are asking about. To parse Blind Boys comment one would have to focus solely on HIS definition of it. Not any other definitions of it, "bat crap crazy" or not.

As to how it will help..... the speaker in question was clear on who he believes it would help specifically (which people like Wibbs and Pete want to pretend is ALL young men with mental health issues, but it is not).

He believes fighting for equality between the sexes, or acknowledging equality between the sexes will alleviate the mental suffering of people who's mental suffering stems from perceiving (real or imagined) differences between the sexes.

For EXAMPLE (which it all it is) if a young man believes it is the role of men to provide for women.... and they perceive themselves as someone who has not got much to offer in that regard...... then they will suffer emotionally for that reason.

If they realise however that the role of men is NOT to provide for the woman, but men and women should provide as equally as possible for the relationship....... or at least provide for the relationship in a way that works best for them, rather than what imaginary gender roles tell them is best..........that will likely alleviate some or all of their suffering.

That appears to be what he means by it, and how he believes it could help young men with such mental issues.

Dannyriver

Deleted User wrote: »

They're probably just saying that to avoid a two hour monologue by you on how a guy with a plastic bag on his head is the put on voice of a generation, where they have to list every piece of music they've ever enjoyed..

Nah just interested in the type of music he likes to listen to, all the other stuff you mention would be just emotional stuff you are contending with when it comes to the rubberbandits. Dont be dragging me into your issues.

Dannyriver

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well the first issue there is the "incarnation" you are asking about. To parse Blind Boys comment one would have to focus solely on HIS definition of it. Not any other definitions of it, "bat crap crazy" or not.

As to how it will help..... the speaker in question was clear on who he believes it would help specifically (which people like Wibbs and Pete want to pretend is ALL young men with mental health issues, but it is not).

He believes fighting for equality between the sexes, or acknowledging equality between the sexes will alleviate the mental suffering of people who's mental suffering stems from perceiving (real or imagined) differences between the sexes.

For EXAMPLE (which it all it is) if a young man believes it is the role of men to provide for women.... and they perceive themselves as someone who has not got much to offer in that regard...... then they will suffer emotionally for that reason.

If they realise however that the role of men is NOT to provide for the woman, but men and women should provide as equally as possible for the relationship....... or at least provide for the relationship in a way that works best for them, rather than what imaginary gender roles tell them is best..........that will likely alleviate some or all of their suffering.

That appears to be what he means by it, and how he believes it could help young men with such mental issues.

You ve the patience of a saint to be arguing with these guys, your explanation above is so obviously right yet they refuse to budge on their hysterical reaction to the word feminism.

PlaneSpeeking

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well the first issue there is the "incarnation" you are asking about. To parse Blind Boys comment one would have to focus solely on HIS definition of it. Not any other definitions of it, "bat crap crazy" or not.

As to how it will help..... the speaker in question was clear on who he believes it would help specifically (which people like Wibbs and Pete want to pretend is ALL young men with mental health issues, but it is not).

He believes fighting for equality between the sexes, or acknowledging equality between the sexes will alleviate the mental suffering of people who's mental suffering stems from perceiving (real or imagined) differences between the sexes.

For EXAMPLE (which it all it is) if a young man believes it is the role of men to provide for women.... and they perceive themselves as someone who has not got much to offer in that regard...... then they will suffer emotionally for that reason.

If they realise however that the role of men is NOT to provide for the woman, but men and women should provide as equally as possible for the relationship....... or at least provide for the relationship in a way that works best for them, rather than what imaginary gender roles tell them is best..........that will likely alleviate some or all of their suffering.

That appears to be what he means by it, and how he believes it could help young men with such mental issues.

You might want to tell women that then - I work with students 21-26 and apparently if a guy doesn't want to treat them, then they're gone.

nozzferrahhtoo

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You might want to tell women that then - I work with students 21-26 and apparently if a guy doesn't want to treat them, then they're gone.

Why would I want to tell anyone anything of the sort?

The only thing I have been doing on the thread is taking one single statement, from one single person, and trying to reach clarity on what the speaker ACTUALLY meant by his words in the face of people distorting it maliciously.

But sure, as long as there are SOME people who feel their place is to give something of value, there will be SOME people lining to up take it take it from them. This does not surprise me one bit.

But I would tell the INDIVIDUALS you observe acting that way such things, not "women" in general. As I am not really one that is quick to observe some people doing something around me and then assigning their actions to the entirety of some arbitrary grouping. Especially if I was the common denominator linking the anecdotes.

DickSwiveller Returns

Dannyriver wrote: »

Fair enough...what is your cup of Tea if you don t mind me asking, cos Rubberbandits cover quite a few genres in their music, Im surprised there s not some of their stuff that connects. Most musicians I know rave about what they do.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I listen to lots of different genres - Classical, folk, Oasis, Metallica, Radiohead etc. etc. And I play the guitar and sing myself so I like to think I have some knowledge of music. Ah but sure each to their own. If people enjoy it so be it. We won't fall out over it.

I answered this a few posts back. I like lots of genres but what I've heard of Blindboy I won't be rushing out to buy his next album.

[Deleted User]

You should write his next book for him nozzferrahtoo..

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Fair enough. I was exaggerating a bit. Wouldn't be my cup of tea.

Why didn’t you say this earlier? I was only taking issue with your language.

Huge difference between “not my cup of tea” and “trashy garbage for teenagers “.

[Deleted User]

Dannyriver wrote: »

Fair enough...what is your cup of Tea if you don t mind me asking, cos Rubberbandits cover quite a few genres in their music, Im surprised there s not some of their stuff that connects. Most musicians I know rave about what they do.

he actually posted it earlier, classical, folk, rock and metal iirc, but thinking about it now no hip hop or electronic which might actually explain it

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

Why didn’t you say this earlier? I was only taking issue with your language.

Huge difference between “not my cup of tea” and “trashy garbage for teenagers “.

Well I do think that. Just like what you said about Oasis. Doesn't mean I care if people listen to him. Each to their own and all that.

DickSwiveller Returns

riffmongous wrote: »

he actually posted it earlier, classical, folk, rock and metal iirc, but thinking about it now no hip hop or electronic which might actually explain it

No, definitely wouldn't be a fan of these. I do love jazz and blues as well - Miles Davis, Coltrane, Blind Willie McTell etc etc.

[Deleted User]

Dannyriver wrote: »

You ve the patience of a saint to be arguing with these guys, your explanation above is so obviously right yet they refuse to budge on their hysterical reaction to the word feminism.

hysterical reaction? Hardly.

My points on feminism are well noted and haven't been refuted. Instead, posters tend to skip over them to move on to easier issues to talk about.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

He believes fighting for equality between the sexes, or acknowledging equality between the sexes will alleviate the mental suffering of people who's mental suffering stems from perceiving (real or imagined) differences between the sexes.

Which is not Feminism. It isn't part of the various Feminist groups mandates. Moderates or extremists. It isn't reflected in the changes in our society or laws either.

You and Blindboy refer to feminism as seeking equality, but where's the evidence to support that stance? Oh, you'll get advertising & promotion for feminist aims with equality being linked to it, but the actual aims are purely related to women's rights

We had legal equality and anti-discriminatory laws in the workplace and generally in society. It wasn't enough. Feminism seeks women's rights and will not stop at equality.

So... how does Feminism help the mental health of men? (your rather limited example doesn't really cut it)

Now.. I don't mind if you admit that Blindboy doesn't have a clue between Feminism and egalitarianism... and perhaps he strives for an equal society. However, defending his statements on Feminism as a way to help men doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Silentcorner

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well the first issue there is the "incarnation" you are asking about. To parse Blind Boys comment one would have to focus solely on HIS definition of it. Not any other definitions of it, "bat crap crazy" or not.

As to how it will help..... the speaker in question was clear on who he believes it would help specifically (which people like Wibbs and Pete want to pretend is ALL young men with mental health issues, but it is not).

He believes fighting for equality between the sexes, or acknowledging equality between the sexes will alleviate the mental suffering of people who's mental suffering stems from perceiving (real or imagined) differences between the sexes.

For EXAMPLE (which it all it is) if a young man believes it is the role of men to provide for women.... and they perceive themselves as someone who has not got much to offer in that regard...... then they will suffer emotionally for that reason.

If they realise however that the role of men is NOT to provide for the woman, but men and women should provide as equally as possible for the relationship....... or at least provide for the relationship in a way that works best for them, rather than what imaginary gender roles tell them is best..........that will likely alleviate some or all of their suffering.

That appears to be what he means by it, and how he believes it could help young men with such mental issues.

But what if Feminism is not the answer for these young men.

What if, what we are seeing with young males is a diminished sense of self worth as a consequence of a very narcissistic society we all find ourselves in, many young women are suffering also, despite the ever spreading "female empowerment narrative" that has been witnessed over the last 20/25 years in particular.

Would it make more sense to tell young people, who are feeling vulnerable, to stay away from social media and the selfie culture? Would that not be valid also?

Feminism, is merely infusing a toxic sense of self entitlement in women today, as far as I can see, every day my social media feed is offering new ways that the "Patriarchy" are screwing women...how in gods name could that ideology help a young man?

Lash Into The Pints

The problem with the Ruberbandits is they started as a novelty act but then they hopped aboard the sjw train in a bid to stay relevant.

For many years now I've had them hidden on fb as I don't want to hear about patriarchy and white privilege.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

You should write his next book for him nozzferrahtoo..

Yeah but he should MAYBE try to AVOID typing in CAPITAL letters in EVERY paragraph or POINT he makes.

Mickiemcfist

Lash Into The Pints wrote: »

The problem with the Ruberbandits is they started as a novelty act but then they hopped aboard the sjw train in a bid to stay relevant.

For many years now I've had them hidden on fb as I don't want to hear about patriarchy and white privilege.

Actively trying not to hear about them whilst commenting in a thread where their name is in the title....?

DickSwiveller Returns

Omackeral wrote: »

Yeah but he should MAYBE try to AVOID typing in CAPITAL letters in EVERY paragraph or POINT he makes.

plus the book would be about 1000 pages long...

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with such a statement other than your rush to pump it full of the hyperbole it actually lacks. People talk in generalizations. This is simply common as a fact about language. To pretend off the back of that that the speaker is saying more than that are is YOUR obfuscation. So projecting as usual, Pete.

You suggested Blindboy's comments concerned only the men he met and not any other men (with your birds & rabbits analogy) and my point is that he referenced those men to back up his broader contention that depressed men throughout Ireland need feminism. You're ignoring that point as it shows that what you had been saying over the last two pages has been highly inaccurate.

For example if lots of people were getting sick all over the country I would happily say "People need more vaccinations!". A perfectly valid and defensible statement. It would be nonsense however to act like I was saying this would cure ALL the issues, especially given there are many illnesses that are not cured or prevented by vaccination.

1) Blindboy didn't make a "perfectly valid and defensible statement" and 2) nobody is suggesting what you claim they are. You're strawmanning.

So the sole source of obfuscation comes from a rhetorical dishonesty of taking when people talk in generalizations and pretending through the application of nothing but extreme linguistic pedantry, that they are saying more than they actually are.

There is NOTHING to suggest the speaker in question thinks that feminism is going to address all mental issues in all young men across the country. But it WILL address the subject of mental issues across the country. Which is not the same thing.

Look, when someone starts up a discussion about the male mental health crisis in this country (as Blindboy did) and then says he feels they "need feminism" that is of course suggesting (at the very least) that he believes if they did it would solve the majority of their mental health issues. Otherwise why bother saying it?

You keep saying also that the word feminism has triggered people here but you're wrong, it hasn't, as what you fail to appreciate is that the users you are conversing with here are well versed on just what particular brand of feminism it is that Blindboy subscribes to, and so it is in that context people are showing their incredulity. I among them.

No doubt had this been Christina Hoff Sommers or Camillie Paglia (whilst perhaps on TLLS discussing one of their latest books) that had said they felt it would be helpful for young men today to adopt an old school feminist mindset as it perhaps would result in making them feel less pressured about being a breadwinner in society... it wouldn't have received anything like the reaction Blindboy has, as you see the kind of feminism that the person believes in is very much relevant.

After all, this is a chap who has (insincerely I believe) been prattling on about male privilege, toxic masculinity, rape culture and the patriarchy for the past few years. Someone who said he was furious with the outcome of the Belfast rape trial also. And so when someone like thatb(in this case Blindboy) says young men in Ireland 'need feminism' it's a little different than a more level headed person saying it, who doesn't subscribe to the current bastardized incarnation of feminism.

Dannyriver

Deleted User wrote: »

hysterical reaction? Hardly.

My points on feminism are well noted and haven't been refuted. Instead, posters tend to skip over them to move on to easier issues to talk about.

Which is not Feminism. It isn't part of the various Feminist groups mandates. Moderates or extremists. It isn't reflected in the changes in our society or laws either.

You and Blindboy refer to feminism as seeking equality, but where's the evidence to support that stance? Oh, you'll get advertising & promotion for feminist aims with equality being linked to it, but the actual aims are purely related to women's rights

We had legal equality and anti-discriminatory laws in the workplace and generally in society. It wasn't enough. Feminism seeks women's rights and will not stop at equality.

So... how does Feminism help the mental health of men? (your rather limited example doesn't really cut it)

Now.. I don't mind if you admit that Blindboy doesn't have a clue between Feminism and egalitarianism... and perhaps he strives for an equal society. However, defending his statements on Feminism as a way to help men doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Of course its hysterical , he was talking about gender roles and how the traditional male gender roles can have a deleterious effect on the mental health of young men. That was essentially the point he was making but because he said the word 'feminism' and that men should embrace and not be afraid of equality among the sexes certain people are too emotional to use their rational brain to understand the point. Nozzfarratoo has ably been arguing this for the last three days on here to no avail. When something is that obvious to any rational person and is still not understood its reasonable to assume a certain amount of hysteria around the use of a word.

Outlaw Pete

Dannyriver wrote: »

Of course its hysterical , he was talking about gender roles and how the traditional male gender roles can have a deleterious effect on the mental health of young men. That was essentially the point he was making but because he said the word 'feminism' and that men should embrace and not be afraid of equality among the sexes certain people are too emotional to use their rational brain to understand the point.

Men are not afraid of equality among the sexes though, where are you getting this crap from?

Nozzfarratoo has ably been arguing this for the last three days on here to no avail.

Aye, we can see, and he's as wrongheaded as you are.

When something is that obvious to any rational person and is still not understood its reasonable to assume a certain amount of hysteria around the use of a word.

Like I said, it's not the word, it's who's saying it.

Oh and even IF that is all that Blindboy meant, he still shouldn't be saying it as there is so much wrong with feminism today that it is the last thing anyone should be advising a depressed young man to be taking on board, and feminism doesn't have the bloody monopoly on equality nor indeed having dislike of traditional gender roles being foisted upon our youth, so quit speaking as if it does.

Dannyriver

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Men are not afraid of equality among the sexes though, where are you getting this crap from?

Aye, we can see, and he's as wrongheaded as you are.

Like I said, it's not the word, it's who's saying it.

Oh and even IF that is all that Blindboy meant, he still shouldn't be saying it as there is so much wrong with feminism today that it is the last thing anyone should be advising a depressed young man to be taking on board, and feminism doesn't have the bloody monopoly on equality nor indeed having dislike of traditional gender roles being foisted upon our youth, so quit speaking as if it does.

Some men are afraid of equality while others believe that they have to live up to a specific gender role. I dont understand your logic behind 'its not the word, it's who s saying it' can you let me know what that s supposed to explain.

'and feminism doesn't have the bloody monopoly on equality nor indeed having dislike of traditional gender roles being foisted upon our youth, so quit speaking as if it does.[/QUOTE]'

I ve no idea what that sentence means.

Sal Butamol

Dannyriver wrote: »

Am no they re not they are from Caherdavin not exactly posh now is it?

Bob/Dave whichever one of ye it is, ye are fooling nobody.

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/music/jokers-unmasked-as-middleclass-lads-26607316.html

[Deleted User]

Dannyriver wrote: »

Of course its hysterical , he was talking about gender roles and how the traditional male gender roles can have a deleterious effect on the mental health of young men.

The problem here is that feminism is not seeking to remove gender roles, except as they relate to women (although motherhood is still maintained due to the inherent benefits). Men are still being told that they're responsible for women's safety. At every case regarding the safety of women (sexual, general assault, domestic abuse), feminism has been telling us that the man is solely responsible for what happens, and also, that those men who don't partake in this behavior are also responsible for the minority who do behave that way. Then throw in the belief that it is gender culture that is responsible, and that men are somehow responsible for that too.

At what stage, have I created or shaped the culture of my gender? Err... I don't. I'm getting blamed (as a male) for a culture I don't follow, but also, one I have never had any influence in guiding. So... I can definitely see why some men might be more than a bit frustrated by what's going on.

We have seen a growth in personal freedom for women across the board in their daily lives, in employment, etc, and at the same time, the responsibility for their life choices are being removed, and replaced with a passing of blame towards men.

That was essentially the point he was making but because he said the word 'feminism' and that men should embrace and not be afraid of equality among the sexes certain people are too emotional to use their rational brain to understand the point.

Point to anything particularly emotional or lacking in rational thinking in my posts about feminism. Go on.

Nozzfarratoo has ably been arguing this for the last three days on here to no avail.

Ahh... we should simply accept his misguided notions about feminism?

When something is that obvious to any rational person and is still not understood its reasonable to assume a certain amount of hysteria around the use of a word.

When something is that obvious to any rational person.....

Let me get this straight.... because I don't agree with him, Blindboy or you... I'm not a rational person? Oh my giddy aunt. :rolleyes:

Dannyriver wrote: »

Some men are afraid of equality while others believe that they have to live up to a specific gender role.

Who are these some men? Any links or statistics to show their numbers? Are they numerous? Perhaps a few articles referenced within the last, say, five years?

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You suggested Blindboy's comments concerned only the men he met and not any other men (with your birds & rabbits analogy)

Not what I said no. Again with changing what I say into what I do not. Your usual MO.

No my point is that it is a mix of the two. Not one or the other as you are pretending (as you are both pretending you think it is one, while I think it is the other).

Let us break down my actual understanding of his position in that quote, to differentiate it from your understanding AND your impression of my understanding of it.

First: He thinks there is a mental health crisis in young irish men as a whole at this time in our country. I would agree with this to a point.

Second: He then says that when he investigates this with people in his own circles he comes across one theme almost ubiquitously.

Third: He therefore thinks that this sub-section of the population as a whole could benefit from "feminism". He then explained exactly what HE means by feminism in that context, so if you are triggered by the word or have a different understanding of the word, you can at least parse his point correctly..... which people are refusing to do.

It really is that simple. What I am seeing here though is that when he says that subsection as a whole would benefit from it, people are pretending this means every individual in that group will, or it will solve every issue in that group.

Which is a ridiculous to the point of malicious straw man of his position. That is simply not how language works.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're ignoring that point as it shows that what you had been saying over the last two pages has been highly inaccurate.

You are still projecting then I see, as the only one ignoring his actual point is you, by substituting in one of your own on his behalf.

Again your failure here is one of language, and little more. Language does not work like you are pretending. For example if I was addressing data that suggested a certain subsection of the population was suffering from a vastly inflated quantity of crisis pregnancies I would say "That section needs sex education". That does NOT say that everyone in that group needs it NOR does it say that it will prevent every crisis pregnancy. It JUST says that that group AS A WHOLE would benefit from having sex education distributed in it.

Linguistically he is saying the same thing. He has identified a group of people with mental health issues. And he has suggested that group would benefit from a given proposition. And you and a couple of others are mangling simple and basic English to distort that into a point he is not, was not, and to my knowledge never has been making.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

1) Blindboy didn't make a "perfectly valid and defensible statement" and 2) nobody is suggesting what you claim they are. You're strawmanning.

1) Yes he did, which is why you are attacking one he did not make and 2) The only straw manning as I explained above is coming from yourself.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Look, when someone starts up a discussion about the male mental health crisis in this country (as Blindboy did) and then says he feels they "need feminism" that is of course suggesting (at the very least) that he believes if they did it would solve the majority of their mental health issues. Otherwise why bother saying it?

Look, when someone starts up a discussion on ANY issue in a sub-group of the population in this country (as many people do) and then says they "need X" that is actually suggesting (at the very least) that they believe giving that group X will have a large positive effect on the issues that group faces. That is why they bother saying it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You keep saying also that the word feminism has triggered people here but you're wrong it hasn't

Well yes, it has. And you are wrong. Especially given one of the people I accused of being triggered by it CONFIRMED that himself. So how can I be wrong the word has triggered when one of the people triggered by it THEMSELVES said so??? At least TRY to make sense here wouldya?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

what you fail to appreciate is that the users you are conversing with here are well versed on just what particular brand of feminism it is that Blindboy subscribes to

and what you fail to appreciate is I am not commenting on what you IMAGINE he subscribes to. Never have. Never will. I have only been commenting on the quote/link/video in isolation and the definition of "feminism" he offered within that point. Whether he subscribes to anything else in another context, in reality or in your imagination, has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I am saying here, or any point I have made. You are just bringing in your own goalposts to the pitch because the ones you want to move, don't.

I know very little about the guy or anything else he has said or done. ALL I have been doing since one of my first replies a few days ago is commenting on the single point he made in the context he made it. Others, like yourself, are importing things from elsewhere (possibly their imaginary land) to make the point mean what they want it to. Which is not an honest move to make.

The inability of yourself and others to parse the point in isolation, word for word as it stands, is massively telling. Again ALL he has appeared to say essentially is "If a disparity between the sexes, real or imagined, is causing mental health issues in young men then removal of those disparities, real or imagined, will likely alleviate that suffering". Which is about as plain and obvious a statement to make as "IF a thorn in your hand is causing you pain then removal of the thorn is likely to alleviate the pain". And you and the cohort here appear not to able to rebut that at all. So you make it into something it is not.