Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If he has something to say - then say it. But "creating a character" is not working.

Given he has a platform, and you and I do not, I would suggest that statement is not convincing.

Further the character he creates may be of a type/class/level that he feels might be more accessible to the people who he most hopes receive his message. After all school drop out types, lower class types, and so forth do not tend to spend a lot of time listening to preachy messages from highclass suits and labcoats. So perhaps he feels he can be a communicator by creating a bridge via his character.

You would have to ask him though, I have no idea.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

His "character" espouses taking drugs yet advocates for mental health care.

As do I. I am someone who believes in the legalization and regulation of many drugs. I am also someone who advocates many things I believe support or would support improved levels of health care.

I am not seeing the contradiction therefore that you apparently do. I see the two things as being perfectly congruent in fact.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Has he investigated the links between stronger weed available and increased psychosis ?

I can not answer for him on that one, ask him. I can answer for me. And my answer is that one of the reasons I would like to see weed legalized and regulated is BECAUSE the stronger "skunk" variant we get on the streets is an issue. Further I have seen little evidence that the drug causes such issues so much as it only triggers and exacerbates issues that were already there.

Sal Butamol wrote: »

At all, at all...

Well that was cogent. Not.

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Not sure a posh art school boy taking the piss out of Limerick council estate types is the best way to go about it

Clearly you are not. But as I said above, he has a platform with the people he seems to want to address. And we do not. So I am not sure your evaluation of it tracks with the reality.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No, I am arguing that if someone says "X is a problem and Y is a solution and by Y I mean....." then the definition of Y offered there is the ONLY one that can be validly used to parse the statement. To use any other definition of Y is to mistakenly (or in some cases we have seen on the thread, willfully) misrepresent what the person is saying.

What you are saying is patently ridiculous...

According to you, if someone gives an interview and says X is a problem and Y is the solution, then when considering the statement 1) the negative affects which X has had on society is irrelevant and 2) so also is how that person has previously defined X.

But by that logic if, for example, Dave Miscavige went on TLLS and said that he personally feels what depressed people need is Scientology, we should all only consider his statement based on how he goes on to define Scientology whilst on the show and not consider his previous definitions of it, nor take into account many of the negative effects which it has clearly had on people previously. Laughable.

Of course how Blindboy has defined feminism previously is relevant. It it is also very much relevant to consider how the particular brand of feminism he regularly espouses has, and is, effecting young people today. You're trying to narrow down the parameters by which people should be judging his statement as you know full well that what he said was contemptible.

weldoninhio wrote: »

He literally has a song called “Bag of Glue”.

It’s one thing recreationally using drugs oneself, but to advocate it from your “platform” towards impressionable young people is a step too far. As you have acknowledged yourself, it can trigger, sometimes extremely dangerous deep lying issues.

He is not advocating it! The sentiment behind that song is slagging off the protagonist, not endorsing glue sniffing ffs. You might as well say that Sacha Baron Cohen advocates toddlers carrying guns.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What you are saying is patently ridiculous.

Except no it is not. It is perfectly cogent and clear. If someone says something and uses a word, and THEN they say what they mean by that use of the word, what is ridiculous about saying that you should probably parse that statement in that way?

Nothing ridiculous at all. Patently ridiculous is YOUR approach of parsing his statement through YOUR definition of the word, and ignoring his own. Laughable.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

According to you, if someone gives an interview and says X is a problem and Y is the solution, then when considering the statement 1) the negative affects which X has had on society is irrelevant and 2) so also is how that person has previously defined X.

No that is not "according to me" at all because YOU just made up all of that and shoved it in my mouth. I certainly said nothing even remotely of the kind. Laughable.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

But by that logic if, for example, Dave Miscavige went on TLLS and said that he personally feels what depressed people need is Scientology, we should all only consider his statement based on how he goes on to define Scientology whilst on the show and not consider his previous definitions of it, nor take into account many of the negative effects which it clearlh has had on people previously. Laughable.

No, what is laughable is A) your constant need to put words in my mouth and your constant reference to words like "not consider his previous definitions of it" while in post.... after post..... after post..... ignoring me asking you to CITE that very thing. You keep telling us all how much you know about him and his position. But when asked about it..... you run.´Laughable.

Hand waving "I got the knowz" at us while revealing not a single quote, citation, link or reference is making you the laughable one here, not me. Laughable.

But until you get with diong that your vague smoke screen references to "the particular brand of feminism he regularly espouses" is just you spewing imagination at us. Nothing more. Laughable.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're trying to narrow down the parameters by which people should be judging his statement as you know full well that what he said was contemptible.

Except I know no such thing at all. You just want to pretend that is true, so now you have to pretend to know things you do not about me. Lies piles on lies to justify the original lies. Laughable.

I have listened to the statement multiple times now and I see nothing contemptible about it. Nor have you moved to show anything contemptible about it. Rather you simply ignore everything in it and make vague references to other things you claim to know, but refuse to substantiate.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Yeah his target audience has that level of nuance. I think not.

Who are his target audience? The majority of people I know who bought the book or listen to the podcast are in their 30s/40s.

Raoul wrote: »

I thought he was. Was he taking the piss out of Conor then?

Taking the piss out of himself and gullible numpties like Blindboy who believed him.

He was trolling and it was gas. Taxi driver from Crumlin, coinage, I mean c'mon...