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

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 03:05PM

givyjoe wrote: »

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.

I'm not mad in the slightest.

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.

You're seemingly capable of using the internet since you're posting here. Why should I be required to educate you on an issue which you seemingly are posting here about whilst not knowing what it is?

If it helps end this dumb conversation, fine.

a practice that legitimizes powerful men's dominant position in society and justifies the subordination of the common male population and women, and other marginalized ways of being a man.

If you'd like a more standard "street" definition, urban dictionary defines it as

A social science term that describes narrow repressive type of ideas about the male gender role, that defines masculinity as exaggerated masculine traits like being violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth. Also suggests that men who act too emotional or maybe aren’t violent enough or don’t do all of the things that “real men” do, can get their “man card” taken away.

Many people confuse the difference between Masculinity and toxic Masculinity. However, one can be masculine without having toxic Masculinity.

Some beliefs of toxic masculinity is that:

-interactions between men and women always has to be competitive and not cooperative.

-men can never truly understand women and that men and women can never just be friends.

-That REAL men need to be strong and that showing emotion is a sign of weakness... unless it’s anger, that is considered okay.

-The idea that men can never be victims of abuse and talking about it is shameful.

-The idea that REAL men always want sex and are ready for it at any time.

-The idea that violence is the answer to everything and that REAL men solve their problems through violence.

-The idea that men could never be single parents and that men shouldn’t be very interactive in their children’s learning and development and that men should always be the dominant one in the relationship or else he’s a “Cuck.”

-The idea that any interest in a range of things that are strictly considered feminine would be an emasculation of a guy.

Gravelly · 21-01-2019 03:05PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sorry, where did I say that?

I wouldn't blame you for chickening out of backing it up in fairness.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

My kids are adults now, and seem to have survived my influence quite well

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 03:09PM

Gravelly wrote: »

I wouldn't blame you for chickening out of backing it up in fairness.

It's not a case of chickening out of backing anything up. I factually did not make that statement and you can't provide any evidence of where I said that.

givyjoe · 21-01-2019 03:10PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not mad in the slightest.

You're seemingly capable of using the internet since you're posting here. Why should I be required to educate you on an issue which you seemingly are posting here about whilst not knowing what it is?

If it helps end this dumb conversation, fine.

If you'd like a more standard "street" definition, urban dictionary defines it as

Ha, quality. You felt the need to condescend to others and you're posting a 'definition' from the urban dictionary. What's the source for your first definition.. is it the oxford dictionary

.

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 03:10PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sounds like you're triggered.

Triggered? Into what? Continuing to calmly ask questions and debate the issue at hand without getting personal and asking questions about the topic at hand and the inherent bias on a show?

Did you miss the part about you attempting to bully me (into not posting on the thread again) whilst commenting that "bullying is bullying" in the same post? Do you perhaps find that ironic in hindsight? Though I may disagree with you on your style or your points, I'm not telling you not to post here.

Gravelly · 21-01-2019 03:11PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not a case of chickening out of backing anything up. I factually did not make that statement and you can't provide any evidence of where I said that.

So are you saying that your statement that there is no female equivalent to toxic masculinity was an error on your part then?

Good.

goochy · 21-01-2019 03:11PM

too many feminazis / ciara kelly lovers on here for me - i am out of here

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 03:12PM

givyjoe wrote: »

Ha, quality. You felt the need to condescend to others and you're posting a 'definition' from the urban dictionary. What's the source for your first definition.. is it the oxford dictionary .

Classic - you're too lazy or incapable of looking up the definition, so when I go out of my way to pull down the top 2 definitions (which I remind you, you were incapable of doing yourself) you complain.

Source of first definition: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W8h1h8wa2yQC

As an aside, what's your problem with the OED?

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 03:15PM

Gravelly wrote: »

So are you saying that your statement that there is no female equivalent to toxic masculinity was an error on your part then?

Good.

You're obviously taking the piss. I made no errors. Let's review what you said shall we?

** You know this stuff you write other people can see? **

Gravelly wrote: »

What a remarkable statement.

Men = Bad
Women = Victims

As I said - show me where I said this.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 03:16PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Triggered? Into what? Continuing to calmly ask questions and debate the issue at hand without getting personal and asking questions about the topic at hand and the inherent bias on a show?

Did you miss the part about you attempting to bully me (into not posting on the thread again) whilst commenting that "bullying is bullying" in the same post? Do you perhaps find that ironic in hindsight? Though I may disagree with you on your style or your points, I'm not telling you not to post here.

What I said was that if you don't like it you don't have to post here. Nobody is forcing you.

I'm sorry you feel "bullied" but I would suggest you run off and look up bullying first.

Gravelly · 21-01-2019 03:18PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're obviously taking the piss. I made no errors. Let's review what you said shall we?

** You know this stuff you write other people can see? **

As I said - show me where I said this.

You seem to be remarkably angry - is this an attempt to bully people out of debating with you, or are you on something?

You possibly realise (or maybe not) that I didn't say you said that, I demonstrated the practical meaning of what you did say.

But I think you know that, and are trying your usual tactic of shouting down anyone who disagrees with you rather than addressing any points raised.

Gravelly · 21-01-2019 03:20PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What I said was that if you don't like it you don't have to post here. Nobody is forcing you.

I'm sorry you feel "bullied" but I would suggest you run off and look up bullying first.

There you go again with the anger.

It's remarkable that you can get away with shouting down other posters, refusing to back up any of the drivel you post, and repeating the same stuff over and over again, yet several posters have been thread banned for taking you on.

givyjoe · 21-01-2019 03:21PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Classic - you're too lazy or incapable of looking up the definition, so when I go out of my way to pull down the top 2 definitions (which I remind you, you were incapable of doing yourself) you complain.

Source of first definition: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W8h1h8wa2yQC

As an aside, what's your problem with the OED?

Do you think you could perhaps refrain from attempting to insult folks while attempting to make a point?

I tend to prefer sources such as the dictionary for my definitions.

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 03:25PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What I said was that if you don't like it you don't have to post here. Nobody is forcing you.

If you knew anything about bullying you'd know it's how the behaviour is received, rather than the intent. And I find your aggressive posting style and being told directly - and I quote - "Don't post here again" to be of the bullying kind. I won't include a definition (though you are so fond of them), but your attempt/threat to intimidate me into not posting is bullying behaviour.

The Bishop Basher · 21-01-2019 03:25PM

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.

A bit like you and this thread then..

You obviously have a gripe with some posters on here.

Every now and again you pop in to slag them off and call them incels.

For some reason today you seem a lot more aggressive then usual.

Maybe just call us all incels and move on like you normally do ?

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 03:26PM

Gravelly wrote: »

There you go again with the anger.

It's remarkable that you can get away with shouting down other posters, refusing to back up any of the drivel you post, and repeating the same stuff over and over again, yet several posters have been thread banned for taking you on.

Can you cite one example of this?

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 03:29PM

Gravelly wrote: »

You seem to be remarkably angry

I'm not angry in the slightest.

is this an attempt to bully people out of debating with you, or are you on something?

Ah definitely great example of how to debate - suggest someone is "on something"! Really leading by example I see.

You possibly realise (or maybe not) that I didn't say you said that, I demonstrated the practical meaning of what you did say.

You extrapolated a nonsense "practical meaning" which is in no way reflective of what I actually said. You know that, I know that - so just admit it and we can move on and address whatever point you're actually trying to make instead of putting words in people's mouths.

But I think you know that, and are trying your usual tactic of shouting down anyone who disagrees with you rather than addressing any points raised.

My usual tactic? I'd be interested to see where else you claim this has occurred.

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 03:30PM

Gravelly wrote: »

There you go again with the anger.

It's remarkable that you can get away with shouting down other posters,

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Can you cite one example of this?

Exhibit A:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 03:32PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

If you knew anything about bullying you'd know it's how the behaviour is received, rather than the intent. And I find your aggressive posting style and being told directly - and I quote - "Don't post here again" to be of the bullying kind. I won't include a definition (though you are so fond of them), but your attempt/threat to intimidate me into not posting is bullying behaviour.

1) I never said "Don't post here again"
2) I'm not a mod so it's nothing to do with me and I think you know that
3) I apologise if you don't understand the above or what I said was actually that if you don't like the way I post you're free not to post here. Hopefully that clarifies the situation.

I'm sorry you perceive yourself as so vulnerable that me telling you that you're free not to post here if you don't like it is bullying you into not posting here. I've pulled up the definition for you here:

Verb
gerund or present participle: bullying

seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 03:33PM

Rennaws wrote: »

A bit like you and this thread then..

You obviously have a gripe with some posters on here.

Every now and again you pop in to slag them off and call them incels.

For some reason today you seem a lot more aggressive then usual.

Maybe just call us all incels and move on like you normally do ?

More than one poster has called men (presumably) who don't sip the CK Kool Aid "incels" recently on this thread with no action. I wonder would such an insult be tolerated were it thrown the other way?

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 03:35PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Exhibit A:

Who was thread-banned for responding to that?

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 03:38PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1) I never said "Don't post here again"

Apologies for misquoting you, it was in fact "Don't post here".

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 03:41PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Apologies for misquoting you, it was in fact "Don't post here".

I've now clarified what I meant no less than 3 times; either accept it and move on or don't - I don't really care either way.

I'll edit the post for clarity to:

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

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 03:43PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've now clarified what I meant no less than 3 times; either accept it and move on or don't - I don't really care either way.

Can you please stop with the aggression/passive aggressiveness? There really is no need.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 03:50PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Can you please stop with the aggression/passive aggressiveness? There really is no need.

I've never come across someone so sensitive on this or any other website.

redbuck · 21-01-2019 04:07PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've never come across someone so sensitive on this or any other website.

Tell me How maybe?

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 04:09PM

redbuck wrote: »

Tell me How maybe?

Just checking you want me to tell you "How" [sic] I've never come across someone on this or any other website more sensitive than ButtersSuki?

I guess I'm not sure... how?

meeeeh · 21-01-2019 04:20PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've never come across someone so sensitive on this or any other website.

He is not so sensitive. He is just making sure he can claim in Dispute Resolution forum that he was unfairly victimized next time when he is banned from this thread. There is nothing more to it.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 04:22PM

Speaking of sensitive, I thought some of the reaction to today's discussion about teens getting jobs was hyperbolic in the extreme. Now, I think many people were obviously level-headed about it, but we can't let extreme examples skew the view of the whole.

Yes, there probably are some 15 year old youths that need to work to help support their families; yes, there are probably some young people that are too focused on work to the exclusion of education... but I think the vast majority of young people working are doing so go get extra spending money - that's what I did when I was 15, got a part-time job to supplement the money I got from my parents.

That being said, so long as it doesn't impact on their education, social development and physical health, I don't have a major issue with parents telling their 15 year old that they need to get a part-time job.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 04:24PM

Rennaws wrote: »

Maybe just call us all incels and move on like you normally do ?

Don't recall ever calling you an incel to be honest, if you're projecting my statement in this regard on yourself that's hardly my business; but the amount of people making false statements to feign victim-hood on this thread is incredible.

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

Comments