When did Gemma O Doherty go batshyt crazy?

Auntie Semite · 28-02-2019 07:12PM

The Nal wrote: »

One of Gemmas supporters

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/1100430390630797314

In fairness, at the very beginning Q seemed legit.

I was 'there' the very first day Q turned up on /pol/

It seemed real, trumps tweets for example were repeating words or phrases mentioned in Q 'drops' a day or two after they appeared online.

So either it was an amazing coincidence or Trump was playing along.
But It quickly (to me) became apparent that it was bu11sh1t.
The moment of realisation for me was "it will happen when the weather cools"
(anyone who followed Q will know what that means)
It's surprising and disappointing that people still believe it after numerous Q predictions failed to come to pass.
What's really interesting about it though is whether it was some person or group engaged in a massive hoax or whether it was set up (by who?) deliberately in order to placate Trump voters.

batgoat · 28-02-2019 07:14PM

Auntie Semite wrote: »

In fairness, at the very beginning Q seemed legit.

I was 'there' the very first day Q turned up on /pol/

It seemed real, trumps tweets for example were repeating words or phrases mentioned in Q 'drops' a day or two after they appeared online.

So either it was an amazing coincidence or Trump was playing along.
But It quickly (to me) became apparent that it was bu11sh1t.
The moment of realisation for me was "it will happen when the weather cools"
(anyone who followed Q will know what that means)
It's surprising and disappointing that people still believe it after numerous Q predictions failed to come to pass.
What's really interesting about it though is whether it was some person or group engaged in a massive hoax or whether it was set up (by who?) deliberately in order to placate Trump voters.

Honestly, you'd have to be incredibly deluded to believe there was ever credibility to Q ****e...

baby and crumble · 28-02-2019 07:18PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Did you just assume my gender?lol
I am actually an SAR helicopter today but that could change

Uh, you literally identified yourself as a white male in the post.

Auntie Semite · 28-02-2019 07:18PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually he's not so far wrong. Compared to the average Irish man, the average Irish woman will live longer, be better educated, earn more before kids come along, more free to reenter work after any family hiatus, have more medical and social supports, be seen as less "disposable", be less likely to be homeless, an addict, physically assaulted or murdered, die at work, or die by their own hand.

On the other hand she's much more likely to be sexually assaulted in adulthood, more likely to suffer from some mental illnesses like anxiety and the like, more likely to be judged on her appearance, age and fertility status.

In many areas it's swings and roundabouts and individuals differ in how life and society treats them and they treat society in return, but overall it can be pretty easily argued that yes, White "bourgeois" western women are one of the most(and largest) "privileged" demographics in the Western world. EG: Take two people living rough on the street. One woman, one man. Who will garner more sympathy and attention in society, in the media and personally? Bonus points if she has kids involved. Indeed the words "living rough on the street". Which gender immediately springs to mind? We'd be fibbing if a woman sprang to mind.

Very broadly speaking society values in average people in general order of preference; children, women, men. When there's a hostage situation words you will never hear from negotiators are "please release the men and children first". Word to the wise hostage takers, release the men first. Look how much world attention Boko Haram got a few years ago after they took a load of women and girls hostage. "Bring our girls home" and all that, yet they'd been happily been butchering hundreds of men and boys and releasing the girls to go home and be good little Muslims and barely made the papers.

"Valued" is often a double edged sword too mind you. Slaves were "valued" and "protected" too.

You articulated it much better than I could.

Auntie Semite · 28-02-2019 07:24PM

batgoat wrote: »

Honestly, you'd have to be incredibly deluded to believe there was ever credibility to Q ****e...

Were you following from the very beginning?
With respect If not then you have no idea what you are talking about.

skooterblue2 · 28-02-2019 07:24PM

baby and crumble wrote: »

Uh, you literally identified yourself as a white male in the post.

But I am allowed change my mind.

Auntie Semite · 28-02-2019 07:26PM

batgoat wrote: »

Honestly, you'd have to be incredibly deluded to believe there was ever credibility to Q ****e...

Explain what Q was then. Explain what it was at the beginning and how it developed and evolved. If you know anything at all about it then this will be a very simple task requiring a short paragraph.

Ipso · 28-02-2019 07:30PM

Please tell us what made Q seem genuine?

batgoat · 28-02-2019 07:31PM

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Were you following from the very beginning?
With respect If not then you have no idea what you are talking about.

With respect, the entire concept was ridiculous from day one. You can claim it initially made sense but it was the likes of The Donald subreddit and 4chan believing any old nonsense. I'm guessing you think Pizzagate made sense.. That didn't either. There is very little to differentiate from the stuff Alex Jones has spread.

Ipso · 28-02-2019 07:31PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

But I am allowed change my mind.

So what kind of mind are you now?

skooterblue2 · 28-02-2019 07:34PM

Ipso wrote: »

So what kind of mind are you now?

I havent decided. its open to change and interpretation. I will let you know by the medium of dance, when and if I decide.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 28-02-2019 07:35PM

The use of the term white here shows how colonised the Irish mind is by American ideologies.

Ipso · 28-02-2019 07:36PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I havent decided. its open to change and interpretation. I will let you know by the medium of dance, when and if I decide.

"You" won't know who "I" am by then.

skooterblue2 · 28-02-2019 07:37PM

Ipso wrote: »

"You" won't know who "I" am by then.

I will deal with that crisis when it arises

batgoat · 28-02-2019 07:38PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I havent decided. its open to change and interpretation. I will let you know by the medium of dance, when and if I decide.

Can you clarify, would you refuse a woman a job based on the possibility she may become pregnant?

skooterblue2 · 28-02-2019 07:43PM

batgoat wrote: »

Can you clarify, would you refuse a woman a job based on the possibility she may become pregnant?

I am not currently offering a job of any sort so I cannot comment on that possibility, also you havent specified what role or what sort of a work she would be doing?

If it was at a deli counter, then no I would not. I would tell go and have plenty of children and contribute to society.

Wibbs · 28-02-2019 07:47PM

batgoat wrote: »

Can you clarify, would you refuse a woman a job based on the possibility she may become pregnant?

For a large company with many hundreds or thousands of staff, no way, but TBH I can understand and see the brass tacks practical financial reasons why a small business/company of a handful of people might be reticent to hire a woman of "childbearing age" over a man, or a woman who wasn't. Maternity leave, hiring someone/training someone to cover while she's not around and all that will be a financial hit. It depends on the job in question too of course. Part time or work done from home would be far less an issue. EG say a bookkeeper who came in once a week to sort out the accounts it wouldn't even be on the horizon, old, young, man woman, pregnant or not, ditto for stuff in say the more creative fields.

Auntie Semite · 28-02-2019 07:51PM

Ipso wrote: »

Please tell us what made Q seem genuine?

At the very beginning, Q would mention some phrase or other.. Let's say "bright and sunny days ahead" this is just an example I'm using to illustrate it they were often more obscure.
Often a word o rphrase which was misspelled would feature
Then sometimes within hours or usually the next day trump would finish a tweet with "bright and sunny days ahead" or Trump would feature the same misspelled word or phrase which was misspelled in exactly the same way. And not in a way that was natural.
This was happening so much that it really seemed like someone close to trump was Q and that Trump was involved.

batgoat · 28-02-2019 07:54PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I am not currently offering a job of any sort so I cannot comment on that possibility, also you havent specified what role or what sort of a work she would be doing?

If it was at a deli counter, then no I would not. I would tell go and have plenty of children and contribute to society.

Potential to be pregnant is not a legal reason to reject a candidate and frankly I don't know how you can even make such an assessment.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/managing-pregnancy-and-maternity-workplace/help-and-support-employees/faqs-employees/during-6

Wibbs · 28-02-2019 07:58PM

batgoat wrote: »

Potential to be pregnant is not a legal reason to reject a candidate and frankly I don't know how you can even make such an assessment.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/managing-pregnancy-and-maternity-workplace/help-and-support-employees/faqs-employees/during-6

Yes B and that's great in theory, but like I said in some circumstances like I outlined above surely you can see why someone might? Let's take it a step further. Imagine an interview where the candidate shows up already pregnant.

Auntie Semite · 28-02-2019 08:10PM

batgoat wrote: »

With respect, the entire concept was ridiculous from day one. You can claim it initially made sense but it was the likes of The Donald subreddit and 4chan believing any old nonsense. I'm guessing you think Pizzagate made sense.. That didn't either. There is very little to differentiate from the stuff Alex Jones has spread.

Actually 4chan were the first to dismiss Q and call it a hoax and he/she/they were basically run out of 4chan and had to move to another platform.

batgoat · 28-02-2019 08:11PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes B and that's great in theory, but like I said in some circumstances like I outlined above surely you can see why someone might? Let's take it a step further. Imagine an interview where the candidate shows up already pregnant.

And I would say if you choose to operate a company, you should abide by the laws and not discriminate. By the very same logic, if I fell ill during my probation period in a job that would be an acceptable reason to fire me on the sly, it could take me out of commission for as long as any maternity leave.(or how about if I look like I'm prone to illness?) So regardless of if a woman is pregnant or not, I don't view it as an acceptable reason to refuse.

Child bearing age is literally decades of a woman's life. Skooter has implied that he would be less likely to employ for that reason.

skooterblue2 · 28-02-2019 08:12PM

batgoat wrote: »

Potential to be pregnant is not a legal reason to reject a candidate and frankly I don't know how you can even make such an assessment.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/managing-pregnancy-and-maternity-workplace/help-and-support-employees/faqs-employees/during-6

I made no assessment like that. Pressing these rights are actually damaging for women. I remember a women only recruitment agency opening in Dublin. I havent heard for them since. Even women managers will tell you single women or newly married women between 28 and 35 are not prefered for hiring. Why would you hire someone who is head off for 6-8 months and come back to the workplace with extra responsibilities? What if it was some role that was highly specialised or in a sensitive industry? Like pharmaceutical or computer programming? These industry employees who were highly qualified in niche industries and invest huge resources in mentoring and training. Those sort of projects and development times, you cannot be swapping out lead technicians and team leaders for.

skooterblue2 · 28-02-2019 08:17PM

batgoat wrote: »

Child bearing age is literally decades of a woman's life. Skooter has implied that he would be less likely to employ for that reason.

Peak fertility for women is at 26 everything after that you are starting on the back foot and taking your chances. 1 in 6 couples have problems with fertility (source VHI article). Most women do not realise that. You cant do everything you want in life. If you are doing EVERYTHING you want to be doing you must be neglecting something else seriously in your life.

batgoat · 28-02-2019 08:18PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I made no assessment like that. Pressing these rights are actually damaging for women. I remember a women only recruitment agency opening in Dublin. I havent heard for them since. Even women managers will tell you single women or newly married women between 28 and 35 are not prefered for hiring. Why would you hire someone who is head off for 6-8 months and come back to the workplace with extra responsibilities? What if it was some role that was highly specialised or in a sensitive industry? Like pharmaceutical or computer programming? These industry employees who were highly qualified in niche industries and invest huge resources in mentoring and training. Those sort of projects and development times, you cannot be swapping out lead technicians and team leaders for.

I'm in software, a colleague is going on maternity leave. Our company is not particularly big, we're simply prepared for the transition and we're in a niche area. Any well managed company is capable of coping with it. Btw, you're leaving yourself wide open if you hire any significant amount of people and are actively avoiding women between 28 and 35. Anyone who cares to look can spot the pattern and that does leave you open legally.

skooterblue2 · 28-02-2019 08:27PM

batgoat wrote: »

I'm in software, a colleague is going on maternity leave. Our company is not particularly big, we're simply prepared for the transition and we're in a niche area. Any well managed company is capable of coping with it. Btw, you're leaving yourself wide open if you hire any significant amount of people and are actively avoiding women between 28 and 35. Anyone who cares to look can spot the pattern and that does leave you open legally.

So how are you going to manage the transition? Are you going to get a technic in for 8 months? Unless I was starting out as a graduate or desperate or it was overly well paid I wouldnt take an 8 month contract. You are going to have to train and possibly spend extra money on training or get an experienced technician in. Or you have the rest of the team take on her responsibilites, with or without remuneration?

On the other hand a former friend (female) was training to be an accountant. There were 8 trainee accountants in the firm. There was one who was top rugby player and when he would go for training they would have to shovel his work load without remuneration. She wasn't best pleased about it.

As for the legal bit. You have to prove it and that would take a lot of work to prove it. There are loads of reasons to discriminate, as long as you dont tell the candidate. lack of experience, poor presentation skills, caught lying on the cv, poor reference. Bouncers do it all the time, just as long as you dont give the reason. You will never be told why you didnt get a job unless they actively want to sued.

batgoat · 28-02-2019 08:44PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

So how are you going to manage the transition? Are you going to get a technic in for 8 months? Unless I was starting out as a graduate or desperate or it was overly well paid I wouldnt take an 8 month contract. You are going to have to train and possibly spend extra money on training or get an experienced technician in. Or you have the rest of the team take on her responsibilites, with or without remuneration?

On the other hand a former friend (female) was training to be an accountant. There were 8 trainee accountants in the firm. There was one who was top rugby player and when he would go for training they would have to shovel his work load without remuneration. She wasn't best pleased about it.

As for the legal bit. You have to prove it and that would take a lot of work to prove it. There are loads of reasons to discriminate, as long as you dont tell the candidate. lack of experience, poor presentation skills, caught lying on the cv, poor reference. Bouncers do it all the time, just as long as you dont give the reason. You will never be told why you didnt get a job unless they actively want to sued.

In terms of how we prepare, generally software aims to be cross functional. So the team can generally function fine with a member drop. Sometimes hiring another person occurs, probably not in this case. And any competent software house or pharmaceutical company is able to deal with it.

If a company tends to hire men in that age range and is getting applications from a decent amount of women in that age range, that can be classified as suspect in own right.

In addition, I will say as a person who has worked in plenty of primarily male work environments. It can be pretty terrible working with just men. I would be less likely to take a job in a company that did so tbh.

Also FYI, as a 27 year old male I'm as likely to quit a job to go off travelling. More disposable income and less responsibilities than a married person.

skooterblue2 · 28-02-2019 08:59PM

batgoat wrote: »

In terms of how we prepare, generally software aims to be cross functional. So the team can generally function fine with a member drop. Sometimes hiring another person occurs, probably not in this case. And any competent software house or pharmaceutical company is able to deal with it.

Call someone from the LEAN manufacturing team. You have just made one of your team surplus to requirement and possibly saved about €45k in wages, tax and pension. You aren't even sure that you needed her in the first place, if you can replace her so fluidly? On the other hand it costs to either advertise a new position or to bring in recruitment agent (20% of salary?) to recruit a new person.

Wibbs · 28-02-2019 09:19PM

batgoat wrote: »

And I would say if you choose to operate a company, you should abide by the laws and not discriminate.

Again great in theory, but any business owner that doesn't consider the impact of any hiring on the bottom line is a fool. Oh and I've known a fair few women in hiring positions that felt similarly.

By the very same logic, if I fell ill during my probation period in a job that would be an acceptable reason to fire me on the sly, it could take me out of commission for as long as any maternity leave.(or how about if I look like I'm prone to illness?) So regardless of if a woman is pregnant or not, I don't view it as an acceptable reason to refuse.

Like I said before it depends on the role in question, but if I were hiring and you came in and disclosed an illness that would impact on your ability to do your job, I'd look at another candidate. If a pregnant woman came in six months in for a role ditto. I'd hire a hearing impaired lad for any job that didn't require good hearing, but not as a phone support techie. If you've eyes like Mister Magoo try applying for flight training. It can't be the level playing field you would like. And TBH I would like. In an ideal world. That's the reality.

realitykeeper · 28-02-2019 10:38PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well they served you well if you were white and straight and christian. Not so much for the rest.

In a Christian society, it is conservative to be Christian. As for the non conservative straight white people who indulge in drug taking instead of Church attendance, they are the authors of their own misfortune.

Nowadays you have people calling for the legalization of so called recreational drugs and when those who use these drugs suffer psychosis, paranoia or attempt suicide, the same people bleat on about the need for mental health services, suicide prevention quangos and so forth. What an inefficient use of money!

When did Gemma O Doherty go batshyt crazy?

Comments