Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 12:11PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Hi - quotation marks can be explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

Oh so you were4n't here when there was selective editing of my posts occurring?

I'll amend it for you then.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 12:12PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Oh so you were4n't here when there was selective editing of my posts occurring?

I'll amend it for you then.

Maybe try using your words instead of having me try to guess wtf you're talking about?

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 12:13PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What the **** does this even start to mean? Are you talking about that dumb video posted earlier in this thread? Did CK even discuss this on her show?

Which one?

Did CK discuss it? I don't know. Given her previous though there's an infinitely better chance of her discussing the masculine toxicity ad than the feminine one.

Eric Cartman · 21-01-2019 12:13PM

Tell me how wrote: »

There seems to be a strong correlation between those who post here about how bad CK and those who are offended by the ad.

But no, they definitely don't hate CK (or judge her differently) just because she is a woman. No way. Definitely no evidence of that.

I dont think theres any of that really, CK sits in a political belief sphere thats at odds with reality and just blames men for all the worlds ills, its a viewpoint held majoritally by women but it doesnt mean that anyone who disagrees with it is doing so because shes a woman. Believing that in itself is one of that groups main pillars, it allows any criticism or demand for critical analysis to be brushed off by that group as an attack on women and thus 'not deserving' of investigation or reply.

It allows people like CK to shut down arguments as 'you agree with me or you hate women' , which funnily enough is a common theme with her and the reason most people hate her debate tactics, but in a circular loop she believes thats because they hate women.

jeremyj1968 · 21-01-2019 12:14PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Most curious thing about the Gillette ad experience is that many who are freaking out on behalf of men have spent the last couple of years laughing at "easily triggered snowflakes"

So you don't think that males should be annoyed that they are all portrayed as bullies and rapists? I can't imagine any company portraying all Travellers as criminals, all women as weak, or all Muslims as terrorists, so why should they be allowed to portray me as a bully and a rapist, cos I'm neither.

I don't think it is snowflakery to challenge this false representation. If you want snowflakery, Newstalk between 7 and 9am, a lad named Cuddihy. He's not upset about the Gillette advert but then he's only short of handing back his penis at this stage.

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 12:17PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Maybe try using your words instead of having me try to guess wtf you're talking about?

Maybe try being less aggressive in your request? It was perfectly clear to anyone who follows the thread what I was getting at.

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 12:20PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Hi - quotation marks can be explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

I know and understand how they work, but thanks for the link.

Btw, the first poster I posted said "mentioning"; are you going to disagree that the second poster mentioned the word in their quoted post? I'm sure you don't need a link to the word so I won't include one.

Gravelly · 21-01-2019 12:31PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Btw my husband didn't like the ad, her he managed to get over it in about 30 seconds. I like strong men.

:rolleyes:

Tell me how · 21-01-2019 01:16PM

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

So you don't think that males should be annoyed that they are all portrayed as bullies and rapists? I can't imagine any company portraying all Travellers as criminals, all women as weak, or all Muslims as terrorists, so why should they be allowed to portray me as a bully and a rapist, cos I'm neither.

I don't think it is snowflakery to challenge this false representation. If you want snowflakery, Newstalk between 7 and 9am, a lad named Cuddihy. He's not upset about the Gillette advert but then he's only short of handing back his penis at this stage.

FFS. That. Did. Not. Happen.

Honestly, you are seeing what you want to see if that is the direction you are going in.

meeeeh · 21-01-2019 01:20PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Which one?

Did CK discuss it? I don't know. Given her previous though there's an infinitely better chance of her discussing the masculine toxicity ad than the feminine one.

That's because most normal people would just roll their eyes at that video and get on with whatever they were doing before. I suspect there won't a mass outrage about it. The Gillette add was discussed everywhere because so many were so upset by it they are still talking about it a week later. Not because it was about masculine toxicity.

Anyway it's interesting nobody commented yet about a woman who was harassed all over social media because someone didn't like her opinion on the ad. Am I the only one who finds that ironic.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 01:52PM

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

So you don't think that males should be annoyed that they are all portrayed as bullies and rapists?

Honestly, as I said earlier, if that's how you subjectively perceived that advert, it says a lot more about your views about men and yourself.

I, for one, didn't take "men should be better" so personally as I haven't done anything which would make me believe that the ad was directed at me. Even so, can I do more to ensure that women aren't subjected to the wave of **** that they are? Probably... so I can be better.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 01:54PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Maybe try being less aggressive in your request? It was perfectly clear to anyone who follows the thread what I was getting at.

Given you're still avoiding the query, I take it you don't know really what you're talking about.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I know and understand how they work, but thanks for the link.

Evidently not by the explainer you get here

Btw, the first poster I posted said "mentioning"; are you going to disagree that the second poster mentioned the word in their quoted post? I'm sure you don't need a link to the word so I won't include one.

That's nonsense - they were clearly saying it as a person who uses that phrase. It's patently clear to even the most obtuse.

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 02:11PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Honestly, you are seeing what you want to see if that is the direction you are going in.

An ironic post if I've ever seen one.

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 02:17PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Given you're still avoiding the query, I take it you don't know really what you're talking about.

Evidently not by the explainer you get here

That's nonsense - they were clearly saying it as a person who uses that phrase. It's patently clear to even the most obtuse.

Not avoiding anything.

It's not nonsense. It's pretty black and white. If you were in a court of law and under oath and you were asked:
"Did the first poster say they considered anyone who "mentioned" snowflake was an idiot?"

The answer is "yes".

"Did the second person mention 'snowflakes'?"

The answer again is "yes".

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 02:19PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Honestly, as I said earlier, if that's how you subjectively perceived that advert, it says a lot more about your views about men and yourself.

I, for one, didn't take "men should be better" so personally as I haven't done anything which would make me believe that the ad was directed at me. Even so, can I do more to ensure that women aren't subjected to the wave of **** that they are? Probably... so I can be better.

I'm not offended by the ad at all. A lot of assumptions going on here by you and others. It's clearly not aimed at me because I don't behave that way.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 02:25PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Not avoiding anything.

It's not nonsense. It's pretty black and white. If you were in a court of law and under oath and you were asked:
"Did the first poster say they considered anyone who "mentioned" snowflake was an idiot?"

The answer is "yes".

"Did the second person mention 'snowflakes'?"

The answer again is "yes".

I would not. The context is key here; any competent lawyer answering the second question would not say yes.

EDIT: I see you've gone ahead and edited your post to remove all context.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 02:26PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I'm not offended by the ad at all. A lot of assumptions going on here by you and others. It's clearly not aimed at me because I don't behave that way.

For someone not offended by it, you certainly seem overly concerned about it and its discussion on a radio show which you, seemingly, love to hate.

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 02:36PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

For someone not offended by it, you certainly seem overly concerned about it and its discussion on a radio show which you, seemingly, love to hate.

I've commented very little on it actually.

I was interested to see however if Ciara dared to discuss the Feminine Toxicity take on the ad., in the interests of balance - which is an altogether different point than being concerned or indeed overly concerned about an ad I have stated I'm not offended by.

My main criticisms of the ad would be from creative and aesthetic perspectives; but they'd be nothing to do with the core messaging.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 02:38PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I've commented very little on it actually.

8 of your 9 posts today have been about this.

I was interested to see however if Ciara dared to discuss the Feminine Toxicity take on the ad., in the interests of balance - which is an altogether different point than being concerned or indeed overly concerned about an ad I have stated I'm not offended by.

My main criticisms of the ad would be from creative and aesthetic perspectives; but they'd be nothing to do with the core messaging.

You expect her to air some obscure video posted on boards.ie in response to a global advertising campaign by a massive multi-national?

Aside from the fact that the response video makes zero sense - like wtf is "feminine toxicity" - what the **** do you actually expect here?

meeeeh · 21-01-2019 02:39PM

I see ButterSukki took it upon himself to explain everyone what exactly I meant in that post. I know of nobody less suited to explain what I meant.

jeremyj1968 · 21-01-2019 02:46PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Aside from the fact that the response video makes zero sense - like wtf is "feminine toxicity" - what the **** do you actually expect here?

Well I guess you could probably start with bullying, the particularly brand of non physical bullying that young girls are so adept at. They could probably get Niamh Horan to speak about the subject. She had a really bad time in school because of it, I remember hearing her talk about it on TV before. And she's certainly not the only one. I guess that could be classed as feminine toxicity.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 02:49PM

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Well I guess you could probably start with bullying, the particularly brand of non physical bullying that young girls are so adept at. They could probably get Niamh Horan to speak about the subject. She had a really bad time in school because of it, I remember hearing her talk about it on TV before. And she's certainly not the only one. I guess that could be classed as feminine toxicity.

That's not "toxic femininity" that's just toxic. I think there is an abject failure to understand what is meant by toxic masculinity which leads to this false equivalence that there is an opposite side of the coin. Toxic masculinity refers to a specific type of man on woman violent behaviour; bullying in school is not a gendered issue.

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 02:49PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Oh so you were4n't here when there was selective editing of my posts occurring?

I'll amend it for you then.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You expect her to air some obscure video posted on boards.ie in response to a global advertising campaign by a massive multi-national?

Aside from the fact that the response video makes zero sense - like wtf is "feminine toxicity" - what the **** do you actually expect here?

Such an aggressive questioning style. Really no need for that at all.

The video wasn't posted on boards.ie, it was posted on YouTube and linked to from boards.ie. I haven't checked user numbers in a while but I'd be pretty confident YouTube has more users than boards.ie.

Do I expect her to comment on the video? Not necessarily. Would I like if she addressed the issues contained within the video such as female to female bullying in the workplace (as one example) in the wider context of any debate about bullying or Masculine Toxicity. It would be nice if she watched it for an alternative view/perspective. Or are we to believe all women are perfect and behave impeccably at all times?

You know perfectly well that Feminine Toxicity is the female equivalent of Masculine Toxicity. If you're suggesting that the former doesn't exist, then I can only assume you're suggesting the latter doesn't either?

The Bishop Basher · 21-01-2019 02:52PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I, for one, didn't take "men should be better"

"Bullying, the me too movement, masculinity, Is this the best a man can get ?"

"You can’t hide from it, it’s being on far too long"

"To say the right things and act the right way"

"Some already are, but some is not enough"

How you could take any other meaning from that is beyond me..

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

can I do more to ensure that women aren't subjected to the wave of **** that they are? Probably... so I can be better.

So go be better whatever that entails..

There's no need to involve others in your self improvement plans,

Gravelly · 21-01-2019 02:53PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's not "toxic femininity" that's just toxic. I think there is an abject failure to understand what is meant by toxic masculinity which leads to this false equivalence that there is an opposite side of the coin. Toxic masculinity refers to a specific type of man on woman violent behaviour; bullying in school is not a gendered issue.

What a remarkable statement.

Men = Bad
Women = Victims

I hope you don't have kids to pass your warped views on to.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 02:56PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Such an aggressive questioning style. Really no need for that at all.

I'll post how I deem fit. If you don't like it, I don't care; don't post here.

The video wasn't posted on boards.ie, it was posted on YouTube and linked to from boards.ie. I haven't checked user numbers in a while but I'd be pretty confident YouTube has more users than boards.ie.

The video wasn't posted on boards.ie today at 09:34? Ok.
Pedantry aside, you expect CK to scour YouTube to find a video posted in Australia with 500k views? Get a grip :rolleyes:

Do I expect her to comment on the video? Not necessarily. Would I like if she addressed the issues contained within the video such as female to female bullying in the workplace (as one example) in the wider context of any debate about bullying or Masculine Toxicity. It would be nice if she watched it for an alternative view/perspective. Or are we to believe all women are perfect and behave impeccably at all times?

You know perfectly well that Feminine Toxicity is the female equivalent of Masculine Toxicity. If you're suggesting that the former doesn't exist, then I can only assume you're suggesting the latter doesn't either?

Ah I understand now. You haven't a ****ing notion what you're talking about; about toxic masculinity or seemingly anything coherent in relation to this issue.

Bullying is bullying - it's not a gendered issue. There is no yang to toxic masculinity's yin.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 02:57PM

Gravelly wrote: »

What a remarkable statement.

Men = Bad
Women = Victims

Sorry, where did I say that?

It probably would be a remarkable statement, had I made such a statement.

I hope you don't have kids to pass your warped views on to.

If I were you I'd be more concerned about my own house.

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 02:58PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'll post how I deem fit; if you don't like it, I don't care. Don't post here.

Bullying is bullying

I think that says it all really. After twice commenting on your aggressive style you tell me not to post in the thread again, whilst claiming bullying is bullying.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 02:59PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I think that says it all really.

Sounds like you're triggered.

givyjoe · 21-01-2019 03:01PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'll post how I deem fit; if you don't like it, I don't care. Don't post here.

The video wasn't posted on boards.ie today at 09:34? Ok.
Pedantry aside, you expect CK to scour YouTube to find a video posted in Australia with 500k views? Get a grip :rolleyes:

Ah I understand now. You haven't a ****ing notion what you're talking about; about toxic masculinity or seemingly anything coherent in relation to this issue.

Bullying is bullying - it's not a gendered issue. There is no yang to toxic masculinity's yin.

Your aggression is quite bizarre to be honest. You're hopping mad at a lad who has calmly explained why he has a beef with a patronising, sexist, double standard ad.

As for this guff re: toxic masculinity, can you please point us to a definition of what toxic masculinity is, that backs up your assertion that women aren't guilty of the same kind of behaviours or actions.

Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

Comments