francois wrote: » I'll go with the latter-She's seen how to monetise hate. She needs to make a bit of cash now that she is unemployable. Looks like there is a hashtag starting to trend #deletegemma
one world order wrote: » snip>
gmisk wrote: » Lets hope she goes the way of that tit Paddy Manning. His stunt going to the twitter head office in Dublin demanding a meeting with the CEO was comedy gold, what a clown.
TaurenDruid wrote: » No, it was cringeworthy. It wasn't even original. It was copying GO'D's previous stunt, "occupying" google HQ the day before her YouTube ban expired. "The Garda Armed Response Unit are here!" - camera pans to a bemused looking Garda on a bike...
Joeytheparrot wrote: » She isnt unhinged or crazy. She is deliberately hatemongering to make profit from the death of 49 people. I hope the Cork Hotels she is supposed to speak at do cancel her bookings. This isnt a free speech issue. She is deliberately causing hatred to be unleashed.
Maurice Yeltsin wrote: » It absolutely is a free speech issue. Freedom of expression should be allowed to all unless they are actively promoting violence or the advancement of totalitarian, undemocratic government. Let her spread her nonsense to her hearts content- the amount of people actively influenced by her is in the low thousands if even that. Few if any of them are contributing members of our society. Indeed, after they failed to support her presidential run she seems to have swept up plenty of former PBP AAA types who somehow never previously realised the parties views on immigration and Islam were so wildly at odds with their own. If Gemma O'Doherty wants to preach conspiracy theories to a handful of jobshy wasters let her knock herself out. It's precisely by giving the likes of Paul Murphy and Ruth Coppinger "enough rope" that over 98 percent of the population see them for the morons that they are. Same rule applies to Gemma. She's a comedian and I enjoy reading her ramblings for the lolz. If you find her content offensive it's your own fault for taking her seriously rather than what she is, a comedy act.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » ^ Naive in the extreme.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » And yet G'OD blocks anyone who doesn't agree with her on FB & Twitter :pac:
Maurice Yeltsin wrote: » Naive how? Her content is funny and is not to be taken seriously. The people she influences can't get a job never mind lead a revolution. If anything people like Coppinger and Murphy are far more dangerous, they seek to influence public policy, non platform people, lead a campaign that drove George Hook out of a job and the rugby lads out of the country. They are the real danger. Gemma doesn't even have a coherent manifesto, just vague ramblings about corruption and RTE.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Do you think racism and transphobia are funny? The 1970s called and want Bernard Manning's audience member back.
Remember when Trump and Brexit were regarded as laughable notions that could never happen?
sydthebeat wrote: » Funny???? No. To be taken seriously. Absolutely. She's a hateful spiteful evil person for the message she spreads.
Maurice Yeltsin wrote: » She is funny. She appeals to a permanently angry rage against the machine freeman on the land type. She is light hearted comic relief and by getting so worked up about her rather than laughing at the content you are truly giving her too much credit. I'd actually like to see her in the Dail as an independent. For the lolz.
KikiLaRue wrote: » There's a lot of legitimately good comedy out there. Gemma does not fall into this category.
Maurice Yeltsin wrote: » You seem to have a problem with democracy.
batgoat wrote: » She said the murder of fifty people was a false flag... That is not funny. YouTube and twitter are under the no obligation to host her content. They are private businesses so not a freedom of speech issue.
Maurice Yeltsin wrote: » She's entirely entitled to her demented batshyt opinion. As long as she doesn't go harassing victims calling them crisis actors it should be treated as the comedic sideshow that it is. No, youtube isn't duty bound to host her, but they host thousands of videos on other daft conspiracies so why wouldn't they. How exactly is Gemma talking nonsense affecting you personally? Legislate against these people and you only make it look like they have legitimate views that the government want to silence. Give them every platform available to make a fool of themselves publicly.
Maurice Yeltsin wrote: » Probably my last word on the issue.
Billy86 wrote: » Whenever I read someone posting in the style Maurice Yeltsin currently is, this quote springs to mind:Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." That Sartre quote is from 1944, 75 years ago, and has never been more true than over the last few years.
francois wrote: » This is from batshyte's twitter feedhttps://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1106477075731570689
