Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If a person speaks on any given issue I tend to evaluate their suitability based on what they actually say.... not who they are, or are pretending to be, while they say.

I would not agree with that at all. It's a completely different character to the one we are talking about here, but it is a character all the same.

Regarding the first part, this isn’t a “person” speaking on an issue. It is a character. A character that talks about drinking, drugging and fighting out of one side of its mouth, then waffles about mental health out of the other.

The “character” is a social drop out. Dave Chambers went to colleges, blindboy (the character) did not.

I am not seeing the distinction. A person in character is still a person.

Also I am not seeing a disparity either between talking about mental health, and talking about drink and drugs. The majority of people who engage with drink and drugs have no mental health issues at all.

[Deleted User]

Cienciano wrote: »

I don't think it's any secret that exercise helps against depression.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/depression-and-exercise/art-20046495
Getting motivated is the thing which he goes into a bit more detail in addressing.

If you don't like the guy, fair enough and I can understand why, I unsubscribed a while back and think he talks ****e on plenty of things and comes across as condescending on others. But comparing his stance on helping people with depression with antivaxxers is not only stupid and disingenuous, but proves you never actually listened to his show and have just made up your mind about him. Again, I'll stand to be corrected if he does this outside his podcast, because apparently the guy is "paraded all over the media". I haven't bought a newspaper in about 15 years, don't listen to the radio and don't watch RTE, so he could be all over those for all I know.

Was i correct in saying he promotes transactional analysis, a form of pseudoscience?

Unless he has changed his mind on this in some poodcast i'm not aware of its a valid comparison.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The majority of people who engage with drink and drugs have no mental health issues at all.

At all, at all...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not seeing the distinction. A person in character is still a person.

Also I am not seeing a disparity either between talking about mental health, and talking about drink and drugs. The majority of people who engage with drink and drugs have no mental health issues at all.

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

His "character" espouses taking drugs yet advocates for mental health care. Has he investigated the links between stronger weed available and increased psychosis ? Is he not concerned that someone with a minor worry may take him at his word, coke up a storm and end up with a serious mental health crisis ?

There's a problem in this country where someone achieves a certain amount of fame or notoriety even and we ask them to make serious documentaries. Vogue Williams, prime example.

As an example from the UK, whilst I don't know whether Steve Coogan is a good man, or not - as I don't know him - they certainly wouldn't let take Paul Calf (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW1q1GjUdkA) do a documentary on students' concerns nor let Pauline Calf (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8pZkvoZM3E) deliver a talk on sex to young girls!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not seeing the distinction. A person in character is still a person.

Also I am not seeing a disparity either between talking about mental health, and talking about drink and drugs. The majority of people who engage with drink and drugs have no mental health issues at all.

So you see Christian Bale and Batman as one and the same? Stallone and Rocky/Rambo (that one must be confusing for you)

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.

weldoninhio wrote: »

So you see Christian Bale and Batman as one and the same? Stallone and Rocky/Rambo (that one must be confusing for you)

Where did I use the phrase "one and the same"? What I said was that a person in character is still a person. So your analogy is as off par as the snide and uncalled for dig you closed it off with.

But if you espouse a message while playing a character, you are still a person, and you are still espousing a message.

I have to quit following this thread - I really can't decide between "hopelessly devoted Belieber level fanboys" - or "actually Blindboy himself".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

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

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: »

Well that was cogent. Not.

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.

Lily Allen has a "platform" - she's still a brain dead bint with the political acumen of Sooty.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well that was cogent. Not.

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.

So you’ve no problem with him using his “platform” to advocate huffing glue, whilst at the same time talking about mental health?? Laughable.

Does Blindboy see himself as a voice of the "yoof"

A working class hero. With a bag on his head?

weldoninhio wrote: »

So you’ve no problem with him using his “platform” to advocate huffing glue, whilst at the same time talking about mental health?? Laughable.

Apparently doing drugs has zero to do with mental health and the two viewpoints can exist simultaneously!

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Lily Allen has a "platform" - she's still a brain dead bint with the political acumen of Sooty.

Well your attempt to stop following the thread did not last long did it.

I am not sure how your post here replies to what I said though. Lots of people have a platform and use it. That was my point.

So just naming one of them..... I am not seeing what you're trying to say?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Apparently doing drugs has zero to do with mental health and the two viewpoints can exist simultaneously!

It would seem so. Or at least no one, least of all yourself, is moving to explain why it can't.

weldoninhio wrote: »

So you’ve no problem with him using his “platform” to advocate huffing glue, whilst at the same time talking about mental health?? Laughable.

I have yet to hear him discuss "glue" to be honest, as I have only heard 4 of his podcasts. And I only listened to those ones because they were brought up here. If you cite me something specific I would happily go and digest it though?

But no, as I said above, I have no issue in general with someone who advocates drugs and mental health at the same time. I do it myself.

And typing "Laughable" and running away does not appear to actually contest that stance in any cogent way.

Outlaw Pete

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.

Glue sniffing, yoke dropping, unemployed dropout suffering from depression seeks to turn his life around.

Buys latest Louise O'Neill book to embrace feminism and edumacate himself. In between dropping yokes, sniffing glue and living off the dole.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well your attempt to stop following the thread did not last long did it.

I am not sure how your post here replies to what I said though. Lots of people have a platform and use it. That was my point.

So just naming one of them..... I am not seeing what you're trying to say?

It would seem so. Or at least no one, least of all yourself, is moving to explain why it can't.

I have yet to hear him discuss "glue" to be honest, as I have only heard 4 of his podcasts. And I only listened to those ones because they were brought up here. If you cite me something specific I would happily go and digest it though?

But no, as I said above, I have no issue in general with someone who advocates drugs and mental health at the same time. I do it myself.

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.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well your attempt to stop following the thread did not last long did it..

Decided to stay till I'm sure - 75% leaning to deluded fanboy but I'm still deciding.

optogirl

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.

optogirl wrote: »

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.

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

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.

So Blindboy is slagging off the people he wants to help?

optogirl

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.

optogirl wrote: »

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.

So I sniffed some glue, to clear my head
Then rode her rotten on her mothers bed
A bag for me, a bag for you
Let's get wrecked on bags of glue!

Ush1

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...

Sal Butamol wrote: »

So Blindboy is slagging off the people he wants to help?

Don't try to follow them down that rabbit hole without a light!

[Deleted User]

Just listening to the new podcast. He goes on a rant about Tony McGregor's satirical video without realising its satire. Whoops.