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

Sal Butamol

Deleted User wrote: »

Limerick hurling?

Yeah that's the one

Ash.J.Williams

I encountered a serious dose of depression this week and realised how much bull**** we have to listen to. The depression I witnessed is a potentially terminal illness that can only be treated by medicine. You don't cure cancer by becoming a feminist or talking to your mates.

Outlaw Pete

Just listened to his latest podcast and absolutely the portion about 'begrudgers' was a reaction to this thread, particularly to comments made in the last two weeks or so as he mentions so many things which were touched upon here then, even stuff like him associating with Russell Brand. Says his detractors are only annoyed with him as he uses the word Feminism (where have I just been reading that over and over) and that their anger stems from them being "unconsciously" frustrated with themselves for never having had the guts to try and create like he did. They're all too afraid to accept this and get furious with him instead.

Christ, about as narcissistic as it gets. Doesn't even consider that people might be annoyed with him as they genuinely feel that something he has said is wrong / harmful. Nah, just a bunch of begrudgers.

Interesting stuff about Gin though. Hopefully he'll stick to pondering about stuff like that in future.

DickSwiveller Returns

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just listened to his latest podcast and absolutely the portion about 'begrudgers' was a reaction to this thread, particularly to comments made in the last two weeks or so as he mentions so many things which were touched upon here then, even stuff like him associating with Russell Brand. Says his detractors are only annoyed with him as he uses the word Feminism (where have I just been reading that over and over) and that they're anger stems from them being "unconsciously" frustrated with themselves for never having had the guts to try and create like he did. They're all too afraid to accept this and so get furious with him instead.

Christ, about as narcissistic as it gets. Doesn't even consider that people might be annoyed with him as they genuinely feel that something he has said is wrong / harmful. Nah, just a bunch of begrudgers.

Interesting stuff about Gin though. Hopefully he'll stick to pondering about stuff like that in future.

Seems to think he's beyond criticism. Maybe it's the twitter effect, where most of the idiots on there will massage his ego.

Sal Butamol

The ego on him.

Imagine how painful he'd be if his "art" was actually of any significance.

The_Kew_Tour

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

I am really shocked to see so many negative opinions of blindboy. I’ve listened to most episodes of his podcast and he is an interesting, well read, humourous, and above all decent person.

I don’t agree with him on a lot. I cringe when he blows smoke up Louise ONeills hole, and when he talks about masculine toxicity.

But there is nothing wrong with that. He genuinely comes across as not being rigid on his opinions and obviously has a vast curiosity that he loves feeding.

He is entitled to his opinion.

But as the tweets from few years show he can't talk about Feminism and thinking men have to embrace it when he himself made some very low remarks about women in past.

He is just a hypocrite

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Seems to think he's beyond criticism. Maybe it's the twitter effect, where most of the idiots on there will massage his ego.

The majority of the criticism of him on here isn’t criticism of his work, it’s criticism of him as a person. Mostly baseless, may I add.

The Crowman

That's not his natural accent surely?

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

The majority of the criticism of him on here isn’t criticism of his work, it’s criticism of him as a person.

Says the chap who thanked a post calling users "angry loopers".

And you're wrong anyway as the vast majority of the criticism of Blindboy on this thread has been focused squarely on the comments that he made.

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

The majority of the criticism of him on here isn’t criticism of his work, it’s criticism of him as a person. Mostly baseless, may I add.

I think people have been mainly attacking his so-called work, mainly his cosying up to the right-on crowd with his endless preachy nonsense. There has been some ad hominem attacks but you have to expect that on an online forum where people are anonymous.

HappyAsLarE

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

He is entitled to his opinion.

But as the tweets from few years show he can't talk about Feminism and thinking men have to embrace it when he himself made some very low remarks about women in past.

He is just a hypocrite

So he is wrong about feminism, or specifically, the faux oppression of women in the modern day. So what?

Edit: anyone listen to Bill Burr's podcast where he constantly takes the mick out of his wife, women, and snowflakes?

HappyAsLarE

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Seems to think he's beyond criticism. Maybe it's the twitter effect, where most of the idiots on there will massage his ego.

In fairness, we post anonymously so don't get our ego tested. It must be hard seeing yourself getting torn to shreds.

Maybe Im too nice, but he seems like a sound chap.

HappyAsLarE

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I encountered a serious dose of depression this week and realised how much bull**** we have to listen to. The depression I witnessed is a potentially terminal illness that can only be treated by medicine. You don't cure cancer by becoming a feminist or talking to your mates.

So you don't give CBT much credence? Worked wonders for me.

DickSwiveller Returns

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

In fairness, we post anonymously so don't get our ego tested. It must be hard seeing yourself getting torn to shreds.

Maybe Im too nice, but he seems like a sound chap.

Anybody who is in the public eye, and who is given a platform by media outlets has to expect that. It comes with the territory. If he's too sensitive that's his problem.

HappyAsLarE

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Anybody who is in the public eye, and who is given a platform by media outlets has to expect that. It comes with the territory. If he's too sensitive that's his problem.

Too sensitive by what measure? He will continue to do his thing...no harm sticking up for yourself.

I fully agree that you have to take stuff on the chin if you put yourself in the public eye by the way... but I think some people are quick to dismiss his more interesting musings because of some marxist bull views.

DickSwiveller Returns

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Too sensitive by what measure? He will continue to do his thing...no harm sticking up for yourself.

His response that was quoted above seemed a little petulant. But I agree, he should defend himself. Why not.

I fully agree that you have to take stuff on the chin if you put yourself in the public eye by the way... but I think some people are quick to dismiss his more interesting musings because of some marxist bull views.

Perhaps. I haven't read or listened to much of what he has said. What I have heard/read has been underwhelming to say the least.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I think people have been mainly attacking his so-called work, mainly his cosying up to the right-on crowd with his endless preachy nonsense. There has been some ad hominem attacks but you have to expect that on an online forum where people are anonymous.

The last few attacks have been on his accent, his wearing a plastic bag, the cover of his book and his lack of knowledge of GAA. Do you think that’s fair criticism? I certainly don’t.

J Mysterio

Brian? wrote: »

The last few attacks have been on his accent, his wearing a plastic bag, the cover of his book and his lack of knowledge of GAA. Do you think that’s fair criticism? I certainly don’t.

lol, aren't you precious! Not the fiercest of attacks really are they?

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

The last few attacks have been on his accent, his wearing a plastic bag, the cover of his book and his lack of knowledge of GAA. Do you think that’s fair criticism? I certainly don’t.

Meh, I'm not that bothered by it. As I said, you have to expect it online. Conservative media figures get much worse abuse.

[Deleted User]

That he says all the criticism is personal is kind of funny really..

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Says the chap who thanked a post calling users "angry loopers".

.

So what. Some of the criticism on here is absolutely ridiculous. The cover of his book? So what.

And you're wrong anyway as the vast majority of the criticism of Blindboy on this thread has been focused squarely on the comments that he made.

No, it hasn’t. It’s been mostly petty insults. He’s been called a hypocrite, a spoofer etc. . That’s not criticism of his work.

DickSwiveller Returns

Also, he is playing a character who wears a bag on his head and has a ridiculously exaggerated accent so he has to accept some stick

Brian?

J Mysterio wrote: »

lol, aren't you precious! Not the fiercest of attacks really are they?

I’m precious? How so, I’m hardly upset in any way. There’s a lovely warm echo chamber forming here with the same posters validating each other’s opinions. I’m simply challenging that.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Meh, I'm not that bothered by it. As I said, you have to expect it online. Conservative media figures get much worse abuse.

That doesn’t make it right. Hold yourself to a higher standard.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That he says all the criticism is personal is kind of funny really..

Who said that?

[Deleted User]

Brian? wrote: »

The majority of the criticism of him on here isn’t criticism of his work, it’s criticism of him as a person. Mostly baseless, may I add.

Apologies..you did..

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

That doesn’t make it right. Hold yourself to a higher standard.

I don't mind him getting a bit of slagging. He's in a privileged position so he should grow a thicker skin if he's that bothered. And this is Boards, not the Vienna Academy. You have to expect this sort of stuff.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Apologies..you did..

Quote it so.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I don't mind him getting a bit of slagging. He's in a privileged position so he should grow a thicker skin if he's that bothered. And this is Boards, not the Vienna Academy. You have to expect this sort of stuff.

Is he that bothered though? It’s annoying to see pages of purile criticism. I

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

Is he that bothered though? It’s annoying to see pages of purile criticism. I

the ad hominem is usually backed up with valid criticism. I don't see much of a problem.