Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

I like this quote from them to be fair.

"2014 is the year of getting offended to give the illusion of having an interesting opinion."

and this one:

"I've a feeling that people get fake offended on the internet nowadays just so someone will like or favourite the status or tweet."

Lash Into The Pints

M Night Shyamalan plot twist: the Rubberbandits are a send up of the sjw twats.

http://www.historyofmasks.net/famous-masks/theater-masks/

Sal Butamol wrote: »

We're talking about an eejit with a bag on his head. Not Martin Luther King.

This might help

hetuzozaho

Sal Butamol wrote: »

We're talking about an eejit with a bag on his head. Not Martin Luther King.

Why does the bag bother people so much.. I've never given it much thought, and then heard his reasons for it, kinda makes sense.

Always reminded me of John Lennon's whole Bagism thing, which I'm game for. Focus on the words and not the person.

In a way it's a little bit like Sal Butamol on boards.ie

Dannyriver wrote: »

I don t like getting personal but Im sure a tough thick skinned anti SJW virtue signaler like yourself can take it, but your contributions to this debate have managed to be consistently emotional/vacuous/lacking in any rational or intellectual thought and only 2 steps removed from some of those snowflake types that give the left a bad name.

We're talking about an eejit with a bag on his head. Not Martin Luther King.

hetuzozaho

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Not an original word out of him that hasn't been directly lifted from some purple haired outrage warrior from the US.

Surely this is inaccurate, one of his biggest success stories is a book of original short stories, from what I hear. Why is this thread full of misinformation?

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Blindboy is fair game when his spiel is literally the word for word playbook of a right on SJW.

Not an original word out of him that hasn't been directly lifted from some purple haired outrage warrior from the US.

I don t like getting personal but Im sure a tough thick skinned anti SJW virtue signaler like yourself can take it, but your contributions to this debate have managed to be consistently emotional/vacuous/lacking in any rational or intellectual thought and only 2 steps removed from some of those snowflake types that give the left a bad name.

listermint wrote: »

Still hitting all those markers I see outlaw .

Same key words you deploy in various threads from here to politics.

Pc
Brigade
Sinister
Moaning
Virtue signalling

The irony of your deployment of these terms in your outrage is delicious and has eating and drinking in them.

Can't get enough of it.

Must get to call house everytime you hit all the markers.

Nothing more laughable than the extremes of either spectrum trying to out-outrage the other

Blindboy is fair game when his spiel is literally the word for word playbook of a right on SJW.

Not an original word out of him that hasn't been directly lifted from some purple haired outrage warrior from the US.

listermint

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

LOL. Talk about twisting things. Blindboy is part of today's PC Brigade. Moaning about objectification and how men are projecting misogyny and showing their privlegde. That's why it was pointed out earlier how ironic it is that someone who apparently set out to challenge the system is now helping to propagate a new more sinister one. People are not citing their non-pc lyrics out of puritanism, they're citing them to highlight how full of it they are how this new woke virtue signalling version of Blindboy is insincere.

Still hitting all those markers I see outlaw .

Same key words you deploy in various threads from here to politics.

Pc
Brigade
Sinister
Moaning
Virtue signalling

The irony of your deployment of these terms in your outrage is delicious and has eating and drinking in them.

Can't get enough of it.

Must get to call house everytime you hit all the markers.

Nothing more laughable than the extremes of either spectrum trying to out-outrage the other

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If I said that then I misspoke and apologise. I had of course HEARD of him before. I just had never heard any of their music, read any of their stuff, or listened to any of their podcasts until this thread.

Then I wandered into this thread and the link to the late late show appearance was the first thing I ever saw/heard from them I think.

I have lived in Germany for 11ish years now. This is one of the reasons I do not really hear stuff from local Irish personalities really.

THIS thread was the first time I heard anything from the mouth or pen of Louise ONeill too. Which is, I am told, also hard to believe.

You never know But nah, that is just how I roll If I get stuck into a conversation I stick with it, until I feel I am not getting anything from it any more. Which is, actually, today.

So I am now in "wind down mode" for this thread in that from this point on I will only be replying to things about me, or to me, and not engaging with posts in the way I have been.

So if I am still on this thread tomorrow, you have only yourselves to blame

In fairness to you you are a seriously good debater Nozz and genuinely have amazing patience in that you stuck to what you were saying steadfastly and rewrote the same point in different English numerous times in the alas forlorn hope that you d be understood. At no stage did I feel you were defending Blindboy per se but rather calling out those that were misrepresenting him by putting thoughts/ideas beliefs in his head to suit how they feel about him.

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh I have difficulty believing nozzferatoo has only heard of Bb due to this thread..

If I said that then I misspoke and apologise. I had of course HEARD of him before. I just had never heard any of their music, read any of their stuff, or listened to any of their podcasts until this thread.

Then I wandered into this thread and the link to the late late show appearance was the first thing I ever saw/heard from them I think.

I have lived in Germany for 11ish years now. This is one of the reasons I do not really hear stuff from local Irish personalities really.

THIS thread was the first time I heard anything from the mouth or pen of Louise ONeill too. Which is, I am told, also hard to believe.

Deleted User wrote: »

If that really is the case I'd nearly suggest going to talk to a mental health professional about the possibility of having OCD*.

You never know

But nah, that is just how I roll

If I get stuck into a conversation I stick with it, until I feel I am not getting anything from it any more. Which is, actually, today.

So I am now in "wind down mode" for this thread in that from this point on I will only be replying to things about me, or to me, and not engaging with posts in the way I have been.

So if I am still on this thread tomorrow, you have only yourselves to blame

Fairly bizarre but only if you believe him

[Deleted User]

Jaysus lads..That blind lad better be getting ye a few pints after this..

Tbh I have difficulty believing nozzferatoo has only heard of Bb due to this thread..

If that really is the case I'd nearly suggest going to talk to a mental health professional about the possibility of having OCD*..

Either that or you must be three days into a crystal meth binge**..

*I'm not sure if Blindboy would qualify..

**Not sure if Blindboy would encourage crystal meth use..

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I get that you're not - I have explained it but clearly I must ask again.

I am asking what basis does he or his character(s) have to make such an argument, provide valid evidence and data and where does the scientific reasoning come from ?

Why - as you posted yourself and I happy to go back and link to - get to say what drugs are safe and should be legalised, without it being a stupid, ill-informed and uneducated idea ?

At this stage the only thing I can up with is that you feel free speech should be limited to certain people due to the fact that society cannot be trusted to make responsible decisions.

Sal Butamol wrote: »

You seem to think I care?

You seem to think that was implied?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Lucky I am so politically incorrect then isnt it

You seem to think I care?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And the fact that he's supporting another Limerick boy doesn't come into it ?

Plus you might need to further Google the Goldsmith's award. A Man Booker it is not.

Hilarious, ignore the point I was making by having a pop at his prize and then claim parochialism. What do you think the reason for Danny Boyle and the lad from Interpol have for loving his art. I love a good conspiracy theory

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I am asking what basis does he or his character(s) have to make such an argument, provide valid evidence and data and where does the scientific reasoning come from ?

The same basis ANY of us have. By evaluating the data around us, available to all of us, coming to a conclusion, presenting that conclusion, and discussing your substantiation for that conclusion.

Any of us can do it. Any time. Observe all the posts I have made on the subject of Marijuana for example. I have NO formal training on the subject of that drug at all. But I have eduated myself enough to make informed, substantiated claims and statements on the subject.

Why is he somehow precluded from doing it if I can?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Why - as you posted yourself and I happy to go back and link to - get to say what drugs are safe and should be legalised, without it being a stupid, ill-informed and uneducated idea ?

Because until a person tells us what they are basing their idea on, we can not evaluate whether it is an ill informed idea. I will withhold judgement until A) A personal makes a statement AND

the person explains their substantiation for the statement.

What I will never do, and have never done, is dismiss a persons claims..... without listening to their reasoning....... for no other reason than they lack the requisite letters after their name.

Nor do I see as yet why I should.

PlaneSpeeking

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Wow, you really are not getting this for some reason.

No..... I would first wait to see what argument, evidence, data and reasoning he offers to SUPPORT the claim that "Cocaine is safe, we should legalise it tomorrow. Tax it, and sell it in Boots" and THEN I will decide whether it is a viewpoint I think the Government should take on board.

I really.... and I do not mean this personally but REALLY..... am not sure what part of that you are struggling with.

I get that you're not - I have explained it but clearly I must ask again.

I am asking what basis does he or his character(s) have to make such an argument, provide valid evidence and data and where does the scientific reasoning come from ?

Why - as you posted yourself and I happy to go back and link to - get to say what drugs are safe and should be legalised, without it being a stupid, ill-informed and uneducated idea ?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

So he says "cocaine is safe, we should legalise it tomorrow. Tax it, and sell it in Boots", you think that is a viewpoint the Government should take on board ?

Wow, you really are not getting this for some reason.

No..... I would first wait to see what argument, evidence, data and reasoning he offers to SUPPORT the claim that "Cocaine is safe, we should legalise it tomorrow. Tax it, and sell it in Boots" and THEN I will decide whether it is a viewpoint I think the Government should take on board.

I really.... and I do not mean this personally but REALLY..... am not sure what part of that you are struggling with.

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Nail on head. Blindboy has become part of the politically correct liberal establishment.

Lucky I am so politically incorrect then isnt it

PlaneSpeeking

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are asking, and I am answering. We should NOT "take his word" at all. What we SHOULD do is listen for the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning he offeres WHILE giving us that word.

Which has NOTHING to do with Blindboy. It is what should be done when anyone is telling you anything is useful or true. Be it priests in churches, purveyors of woo medication like homeopathy, scientists, politicians, or anyone else.

The letters after a name do not make a bad point good, or a good point better. Only the substantiation they offer with the point does that.

So he says "cocaine is safe, we should legalise it tomorrow. Tax it, and sell it in Boots", you think that is a viewpoint the Government should take on board ?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

LOL. Talk about twisting things. Blindboy is part of today's PC Brigade. Moaning about objectification and how men are projecting misogyny and showing their privlegde. That's why it was pointed out earlier how ironic it is that someone who apparently set out to challenge the system is now helping to propagate a new more sinister one. People are not citing their non-pc lyrics out of puritanism, they're citing them to highlight how full of it they are how this new woke virtue signalling version of Blindboy is insincere.

Nail on head. Blindboy has become part of the politically correct liberal establishment.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You misunderstand. He can SAY whatever he likes.

I'm asking why we should take his word on the safety and legalisation of narcotics when he has no chemisty or pharmaceutical/pharmacology background. None.

You are asking, and I am answering. We should NOT "take his word" at all. What we SHOULD do is listen for the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning he offeres WHILE giving us that word.

Which has NOTHING to do with Blindboy. It is what should be done when anyone is telling you anything is useful or true. Be it priests in churches, purveyors of woo medication like homeopathy, scientists, politicians, or anyone else.

The letters after a name do not make a bad point good, or a good point better. Only the substantiation they offer with the point does that.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You misunderstand. He can SAY whatever he likes.

I'm asking why we should take his word on the safety and legalisation of narcotics when he has no chemisty or pharmaceutical/pharmacology background. None.

Ah so you think someone is suggesting that we should all take his word on it rather than making our own minds up. Direct me to the person who s being saying that I haven t seen that post.

jh79 wrote: »

Clinical trials and meta analysis are quite complicated so qualifications are obviously important.

They can help but they are not required. There are many paths to knowledge and skills other than formal training.

Again, the validity or utility of a persons point(s) comes from the substantiation (arguments, evidence, data and reasoning) they offer with the point(s). Not from the letters after their name.

jh79 wrote: »

If people had a better understanding of science we wouldn't have things like transactional analysis.

You will get less argument from me on that one. That the methodologies of science, epidemiology, knowledge of the fallacies, and much more are not drummed into us from some of the earliest points in our school curriculum............. is tragic to my mind. If I became dictator of Ireland tomorrow the first thing I would turn my hand to is a massive restructuring of what we teach, how we teach it, and why in our school system.

PlaneSpeeking

Dannyriver wrote: »

I doubt anyone is suggesting people 'should listen' but I think people s objections are to the ones on here who are advocating shutting down free speech just because he is a successful artist.

You misunderstand. He can SAY whatever he likes.

I'm asking why we should take his word on the safety and legalisation of narcotics when he has no chemisty or pharmaceutical/pharmacology background. None.

Ush1

Some people seem to take the "gospel" according to blindboy fairly seriously...

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Speak for yourself. I evaluate what people say based on the substantiation they offer while saying it. Not based on some qualification they have, claim to have, or want to have.

I would not recommend putting too much stock in qualification. They are nice to have, and worth pursuing, but they do not validate the words out of anyone's mouth, or devalue the words from people who do not have one.

Indeed? So the claims on the thread that he advocates the use of glue are solely and wholly based on a 7 year old song of parody?

Well color me unsurprised.

Clinical trials and meta analysis are quite complicated so qualifications are obviously important.

If people had a better understanding of science we wouldn't have things like transactional analysis.

You're on the medical marijuana thread so you should know how fake news from lay people has exaggerated its modest benefits.