Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Could be worse, I guess bottom of the barrel is when I start advocating feminism as a solution to suicidal young men.

But if we start advocating a particular form "feminism" for people who are suffering specifically from issues that this form of "feminism" is likely to specifically address, then you are at the top of the barrel doing useful things for society.

So lets all do that, just like Blindboy did and people are pretending he did not.

Dannyriver wrote: »

As Nozz above has pointed out to you numerous times in the paragraphs that are too long for you to read, Blindboy didn t advocate feminism as a solution to suicidal young men, he mentioned feminism whilst he was discussing the bigger issue of gender stereotypes an accepted ingredient in poor mental health among young men. A more complete idea of where they stand on suicide would be their song sonny. It's a short song so you should be able to stick with it till the end.

Utter ****e. You're just parroting the latest bull**** eminating from the social justice warrior playbook.

Your embarrassing twitter page is like a Dummies Guide to being an internet activist.

Dannyriver wrote: »

As Nozz above has pointed out to you numerous times in the paragraphs that are too long for you to read, Blindboy didn t advocate feminism as a solution to suicidal young men, he mentioned feminism whilst he was discussing the bigger issue of gender stereotypes an accepted ingredient in poor mental health among young men. A more complete idea of where they stand on suicide would be their song sonny. It's a short song so you should be able to stick with it till the end.

Ok I'll bite - what was his actual wording ?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Christ almighty do you need everything spelt out for you? Watch the Oscars ceremony following Donald Trump's election and you'll see what I mean by conformist PC crap.

Well if you would spell ANYTHING out rather than just assert things all the time, that would be useful.

We are not discussing trump here, or the oscars. I was discussing people trotting out a phrase like "conformist pc crap" when they have nothing else to say. Or nothing at all to say. What YOU think you mean by it is nothing to do with my point about going to it as an empty phrase to just fling out.

Augeo wrote: »

Could see him as a politician eventually. A very left one (publicly) but a politician none the less.

I did hear him explain at some length why he wears the bag. And his reasons are good ones, some of them well thought out. But I reckon running for politics is one area where the bag would preclude his success. He would either have to run IN the bag, which would likely not work at all...... or he would have to run without it which means A) most people would not recognise him and

it would undermine many of the reasons for wearing it in the first place.

So if he does go for politics eventually, he would need to have a longer game plan in play than I suspect he does. But who knows. Dustin the Turkey got some votes once. Maybe a guy in a bag could too.

kubjones wrote: »

He's just being pedantic.

Nope, you are just doing the same as your last post, flinging out personal comments you do not even attempt (let alone are capable of) to make stick.

kubjones wrote: »

And for somebody who claims to like sources he offers none

Two reasons why that is just a disingenous lie and total error.

1) We are talking about what Blindboy believes "feminism" means for example. I DID cite a source for that. A video in which he actually says what he thinks it means. The people saying in ominous feux knowing terms "ooooo we know what he means and you do nooooooot" have yet to cite ANYTHING. So your lie is a blatant one here and easily exposed.

2) Most of the time I cite sources is when I am ASKED to. It is very easy to claim I have not done something no one has actually asked me to. If you think I have made a particular claim you would like to see me cite a source for...... ask. Simples.

kubjones wrote: »

while regularly being petty himself.

Nope, also did not happen. Still making stuff up without ever showing it to be true.

kubjones wrote: »

Don't let him get to you. :cool:

This much we agree with. It is a message forum. if you find things getting to you here, I would recommend working on that. I know nothing here ever "gets to me". In fact I struggle to even think of a single reason why it might or should.

But I do enjoy AND love when someone has got absolutely no arguments left and so has to just make a string of personal comments and nothing else with it. That tells me I have them beaten. Simple as that.

Dannyriver

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Could be worse, I guess bottom of the barrel is when I start advocating feminism as a solution to suicidal young men.

As Nozz above has pointed out to you numerous times in the paragraphs that are too long for you to read, Blindboy didn t advocate feminism as a solution to suicidal young men, he mentioned feminism whilst he was discussing the bigger issue of gender stereotypes an accepted ingredient in poor mental health among young men. A more complete idea of where they stand on suicide would be their song sonny. It's a short song so you should be able to stick with it till the end.

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Could be worse, I guess bottom of the barrel is when I start advocating feminism as a solution to suicidal young men.

It's:

Bottom of the barrel
Fifty feet of cow sh**e
That

Dannyriver wrote: »

Ill recap it for you if you like...

Basically he made **** of every point you d made up to this point.

You re welcome.

Dannyriver wrote: »

When all else fails just make **** up Brilliant

Could be worse, I guess bottom of the barrel is when I start advocating feminism as a solution to suicidal young men.

kubjones

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Christ almighty do you need everything spelt out for you? Watch the Oscars ceremony following Donald Trump's election and you'll see what I mean by conformist PC crap.

He's just being pedantic.

And for somebody who claims to like sources he offers none, strawman's all the time and calls out petty comments while regularly being petty himself.

Don't let him get to you. :cool:

[Deleted User]

Sal Butamol wrote: »

The funny thing about Dannyriver aka Blindboy is that he has become co-opted (willingly) by the establishment ...........

Could see him as a politician eventually. A very left one (publicly) but a politician none the less.

I wonder did BlindBoy buy a gaf yet, he must have the funds now surely with all his plastic bag covered work in the public domain and his private life as a well educated and successful something or other.

DickSwiveller Returns

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope. I do not. But some people do have a bad habit of throwing out accusations without evidence, reference, citation, example, or substantiation. Oh look, just like you did here. Fancy that.

And I am explaining in return why many people view your type of evaluation as meaningless. Because there is no content to them, just labels and buzz words like "conformist PC crap" that you rush to without qualification.

When I see something wrong with something someone said, I quote what they said, explain the type of thing I think is wrong with it, and then go on to explain exactly why that accusation fits.

Other people seem to think it is enough just to shout a label like "conformist PC crap" or "sh*t show" at it as if flinging the label itself is enough to make it stick.

Christ almighty do you need everything spelt out for you? Watch the Oscars ceremony following Donald Trump's election and you'll see what I mean by conformist PC crap.

Dannyriver

Sal Butamol wrote: »

The funny thing about Dannyriver aka Blindboy is that he has become co-opted (willingly) by the establishment and in the process have lost the very thing that made them a success.

It might be their greatest joke yet though

When all else fails just make **** up Brilliant

The funny thing about Dannyriver aka Blindboy is that he has become co-opted (willingly) by the establishment and in the process have lost the very thing that made them a success.

It might be their greatest joke yet though

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And? That means depressed men in Ireland need feminism? That's some leap.

Well no, it is not. Feminism, as defined by the man himself while making the point, would directly address people who's depression or other mental suffering is coming from that source.

How is that a "leap" exactly? If a thorn in your hand is causing pain is it a "leap" to suggest removing the thorn might alleviate the pain?

So if "Some men are afraid of equality while others believe that they have to live up to a specific gender role." then teaching them more about equality and why it is a good thing, and why they do not have to live up to a particular gender role......... are two things very likely to help them.

Maybe if you could stop merely moaning ABOUT that point and explain exactly what the problem is with it, you might do better.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, there are many different forms of feminism and so when someone says 'feminism is needed' one needs to consider which brand of feminism it is that they mean:

Clearly he agrees with your himself because he MADE IT CLEAR at the time, while making the actual point. You just do not want to accept that, so you appear to need to ignore it entirely and refer to other brands that have nothing to do with it, or him, or the point he made.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And? That means depressed men in Ireland need feminism? That's some leap.

Well, there are many different forms of feminism and so when someone says 'feminism is needed' one needs to consider which brand of feminism it is that they mean:
https://www.uah.edu/woolf/feminism_kinds.htm

Christine Sommers and Camille Paglia for example still identify as feminists but are highly critical of today's more radical forms of feminism (something which they touch on in the following):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXGm9kvgslc

Quite simply: it's not only feminists who have egalitarian principals, far from it, but yet you keep speaking as if that's the case. On the contrary in fact, as modern day feminists are the one group regularly pushing for non-egalitarian advantages and preferential treatment in society, and are quite often successful in such endeavours too.

When you have an idiot shouting down someone like Camille Paglia who has done more for women than 1,000 Una Mulally's and their woke male handmaidens - you know modern third wave feminist (aka "we hate men") and it's proponents have lost the plot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXGm9kvgslc

Dannyriver wrote: »

Ill recap it for you if you like...

Basically he made **** of every point you d made up to this point.

You re welcome.

Hey Boatface, you are not funny anymore. Take the bag off and lay off the preaching.

Outlaw Pete

Dannyriver wrote: »

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

And? That means depressed men in Ireland need feminism? That's some leap.

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.

Well, there are many different forms of feminism and so when someone says 'feminism is needed' one needs to consider which brand of feminism it is that they mean:

https://www.uah.edu/woolf/feminism_kinds.htm

Christine Sommers and Camille Paglia for example still identify as feminists but are highly critical of today's more radical forms of feminism (something which they touch on in the following):

...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.

I ve no idea what that sentence means.

Quite simply: it's not only feminists who have egalitarian principals, far from it, but yet you keep speaking as if that's the case. On the contrary in fact, as modern day feminists are the one group regularly pushing for non-egalitarian advantages and preferential treatment in society, and are quite often successful in such endeavours too.

kubjones wrote: »

You have a bad habit of selective quoting.

Nope. I do not. But some people do have a bad habit of throwing out accusations without evidence, reference, citation, example, or substantiation. Oh look, just like you did here. Fancy that.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I'm explaining why people view people like blindboy and other public figures who stray in to politics as 'preachy'. I'm not talking about anything he has specifically said. I'm saying, in general, these people all hold the same opinions.

And I am explaining in return why many people view your type of evaluation as meaningless. Because there is no content to them, just labels and buzz words like "conformist PC crap" that you rush to without qualification.

When I see something wrong with something someone said, I quote what they said, explain the type of thing I think is wrong with it, and then go on to explain exactly why that accusation fits.

Other people seem to think it is enough just to shout a label like "conformist PC crap" or "sh*t show" at it as if flinging the label itself is enough to make it stick.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I don't "imagine" what views it is that he subscribes to, what a bizarre thing to say. I've listened to most of his podcasts and read / watched quite a number of interviews.

So you say but frankly I have not seen you refer to things he has said or done, but talk in vague generalizations with no content whatsoever. So when you write a line like .......

"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"

........ you have said precisely and absolutely NOTHING at all. Rather you are saying nothing in ominous tones so as to attempt to make it sound like it must be bad, without investing even a modicum of effort to show anything at all about it.

So yes, it seems like so far it is all coming entirely from your imagination and this "Well we know stuff you do not know" dodge is not gonna wash.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol.Exactly, nozz, which is the problem, as most of those you are disagreeing with see his comments in the context of what he feels feminism means today

lol. Exactly, pete, which is the problem, as are (by your own admission here) seeing his comments in a context DIFFERENT to the one it was presented in using a definition of feminism DIFFERENT to the one he used while making his point.

So you are simply contriving to straw man his point by importing external definitions for it to over write the one that was contained in his point. Literally changing what he did say, into what he did no say, just to make it something you are more capable of decrying.

You might want to IMAGINE what " he feels feminism means today" but that is a separate issue as the speech we are discussing he made it abundently clear what he felt feminism meant while making that point and you are desperately running to OTHER definitions you are imagining him holding to replace the one he actually offered out of his own mouth.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, it is telling, nozz, as only a fool would do that.

Not so. If a person says "I see problem X and I see potential solution Y and by Y I mean....." then the fool is the one who parses that point through some external meaning of "Y" they have imported themselves. Only a fool would do THAT. Yet we have numerous people here doing exactly that.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Blindboy says depressed men in Ireland need feminism and so it's only natural for people to take into account just what it is he sees feminism as today when considering his comments.

Which you have neither cited, clarified, explained, substantiated, discussed, or sources in any way. But no it does not "seem only natural" for people to take anything else into account because he said AT THE TIME he made the statement about feminism what he meant by his use of that word.

So taking anything "into account" other than that is, as I keep saying, you importing external things cherry picked to make it sound like he is saying something he is not, when what he DID say is abundantly clear, concise, linked to, and there for anyone to go back and listen to again.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

To ignore that would be, as I said, foolish. It's germane.

I have explained exactly why we should ignore those external irrelevancies. To ignore THAT would be foolish and ignoring it or shouting "foolish" at it does not make those explanations go away.

However I would add again that one can not ignore what is not even there. When you write lines like "just what particular brand of feminism it is that Blindboy subscribes to" without AT ALL qualifying that statement with content, then you are said exactly nothing.... but used a lot of words to say it.

If I want to know what someone subscribes to I will listen to THEM tell me, not your contrived and cherry picked distorted version of it on their behalf. And conveniently while making the point we are discussing on the thread..... he did just that. Inconveniently for you seemingly as his giving the definition of the word WHILE using it is making a mockery of these dishonest attempts of yours to import YOUR own definition into HIS point.

DickSwiveller Returns

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We all have our hobby horse I guess. For me what gets a bit boring is when people do not actually discuss what anyone actually said. But rush to terms like "conformist PC crap" that they can throw around instead in order to look like they said something, when they actually said nothing whatsoever at all.

I'm explaining why people view people like blindboy and other public figures who stray in to politics as 'preachy'. I'm not talking about anything he has specifically said. I'm saying, in general, these people all hold the same opinions.

kubjones

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We all have our hobby horse I guess. For me what gets a bit boring is when people do not actually discuss what anyone actually said. But rush to terms like "conformist PC crap" that they can throw around instead in order to look like they said something, when they actually said nothing whatsoever at all.

You have a bad habit of selective quoting.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...and what you fail to appreciate is I am not commenting on what you IMAGINE he subscribes to.

I don't "imagine" what views it is that he subscribes to, what a bizarre thing to say. I've listened to most of his podcasts and read / watched quite a number of interviews with him.

I have only been commenting on the quote/link/video in isolation and the definition of "feminism" he offered within that point.
I know very little about the guy or anything else he has said or done.

Exactly, nozz, which is the problem, as most of those you are disagreeing with see his comments in the context of what he clearly feels feminism is today: fighting the patriarchy, recognizing rape culture, male privilege, toxic masculinity etc etc.

The inability of yourself and others to parse the point in isolation, word for word as it stands, is massively telling.

Yes, it is telling, nozz, as only a fool would do that.

Blindboy says depressed men in Ireland need feminism and so it's only natural for people to take into account just what it is he sees feminism as today when considering his comments. To ignore that would be, as I said, foolish. It's germane.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I don't mind them getting involved in politics but it's just the tedious, conformist PC crap that they all peddle can get a bit boring

We all have our hobby horse I guess. For me what gets a bit boring is when people do not actually discuss what anyone actually said. But rush to terms like "conformist PC crap" that they can throw around instead in order to look like they said something, when they actually said nothing whatsoever at all.

DickSwiveller Returns

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What little I heard of him suggests he can do but doesn't. But funny is subjective so not worth discussing really.

But what I meant about George was more that I think the divide between comedy and social commentary is not as wide as you think. Lots of people step over that divide. Like Eddie Izzard attempting to get into politics, and doing a lot of work for charity, and his insane runs for charity and political awareness...... for example.

And so they should if that is what THEY want to do with their career. This makes YOU the preacher here not him really by telling people they should stick to one thing or the other.

I don't mind them getting involved in politics but it's just the tedious, conformist PC crap that they all peddle can get a bit boring, and can definitely come across as preachy. Like Hollywood celebs whinging about trump.

Dannyriver

Sal Butamol wrote: »

TL;DR

Ill recap it for you if you like...

Basically he made **** of every point you d made up to this point.

You re welcome.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Did someone say you were? You appear to have some issues with the guy here which you are replying to instead of anything I just wrote.

All I said was that telling people to stick to one thing or another in their life makes YOU the preacher not them.

Again LOTS of people cross the divide between celebrity and engaging in social commentary. Why one particular person doing it is bugging you, when others do too, is something only introspection is going to reveal.

As for the bag comment, what has that got to do with anything? Many celebrities only work "in character". Again, why one person doing that when many others do.... is anyone's guess. But your biases are falling over each other to get on your page here.

But by all means if you think something is "bull" then explain how and why it is. Because merely shouting that word at it does not magically make it take on that characteristic.

I for one never looked at his twitter ever to my knowledge for example. Give me a moment to do so, so that I can see what bull he is all over our media spouting............

..... ok help I can not even find it. I can find the Rubberbandits one.

But the first comment on it is "Dublin is going to lose its creative class. I’ve no idea how anyone on the erratic earnings of a self employed artist of any description is paying for rent. Me staying in Limerick all these years isn’t just stubborn parochialism."

So basically he is saying here that Dublin is going to lose the creative class because the high rents are pricing those people out of living there. Hardly a controversial or bull or mega weird thing to say, now is it? Sure a few months ago I was only listening to Mark Geary express pretty much that same sentiment about areas of New York where the creative classes kept moving on to other places as they were priced out of the rental market.

TL;DR

Sal Butamol wrote: »

I'm not the one paraded all over the media spouting bull**** about young men needing feminism for their mental health while wearing a bag on my head

Did someone say you were? You appear to have some issues with the guy here which you are replying to instead of anything I just wrote.

All I said was that telling people to stick to one thing or another in their life makes YOU the preacher not them.

Again LOTS of people cross the divide between celebrity and engaging in social commentary. Why one particular person doing it is bugging you, when others do too, is something only introspection is going to reveal.

As for the bag comment, what has that got to do with anything? Many celebrities only work "in character". Again, why one person doing that when many others do.... is anyone's guess. But your biases are falling over each other to get on your page here.

But by all means if you think something is "bull" then explain how and why it is. Because merely shouting that word at it does not magically make it take on that characteristic.

I for one never looked at his twitter ever to my knowledge for example. Give me a moment to do so, so that I can see what bull he is all over our media spouting............

..... ok help I can not even find it. I can find the Rubberbandits one.

But the first comment on it is "Dublin is going to lose its creative class. I’ve no idea how anyone on the erratic earnings of a self employed artist of any description is paying for rent. Me staying in Limerick all these years isn’t just stubborn parochialism."

So basically he is saying here that Dublin is going to lose the creative class because the high rents are pricing those people out of living there. Hardly a controversial or bull or mega weird thing to say, now is it? Sure a few months ago I was only listening to Mark Geary express pretty much that same sentiment about areas of New York where the creative classes kept moving on to other places as they were priced out of the rental market.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What little I heard of him suggests he can do but doesn't. But funny is subjective so not worth discussing really.

But what I meant about George was more that I think the divide between comedy and social commentary is not as wide as you think. Lots of people step over that divide. Like Eddie Izzard attempting to get into politics, and doing a lot of work for charity, and his insane runs for charity and political awareness...... for example.

And so they should if that is what THEY want to do with their career. This makes YOU the preacher here not him really by telling people they should stick to one thing or the other.

I'm not the one paraded all over the media spouting bull**** about young men needing feminism for their mental health while wearing a bag on my head

Sal Butamol wrote: »

George could do both and still be funny. Boatface hasn't that ability

What little I heard of him suggests he can do but doesn't. But funny is subjective so not worth discussing really.

But what I meant about George was more that I think the divide between comedy and social commentary is not as wide as you think. Lots of people step over that divide. Like Eddie Izzard attempting to get into politics, and doing a lot of work for charity, and his insane runs for charity and political awareness...... for example.

And so they should if that is what THEY want to do with their career. This makes YOU the preacher here not him really by telling people they should stick to one thing or the other.