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

Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

[Deleted User]

She's permanently on twitter now tweeting links to wacky stories from a few years ago and every single conspiracy theory she can get her hands on

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Kimsang

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If i was black, in fact if i was with a black person and someone said the word N***er to them i would see it as both an insult and offensive.

Would you?

No. There is not enough information. If it was said by some stranger- most definitely.

What if the person shouting n****r was his the black person's brother shouting affectionately? Who gets to decide the context of what is said?

For example, in London among football teams the word yid is used both as an insult, and as an endearingly affectionate term. Who gets to decide who uses the word in what way?

batgoat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Excuse me?

You are advocating that it is ok to offend some people but not others?

Who defines that criteria?

The Irish human rights and equality commission would in the legal sense... Protected groups are pretty well established and are bash on groups that are traditionally subject to bigotry. If the president were Jewish for example and subject to anti semetic rhetoric then that would be an issue of hate speech. (Although don't believe hate crimes exist in US under their constitution so while not criminal, it would be pretty fine to call it hate speech)

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/law_and_rights/irish_human_rights_commission.html

Timberrrrrrrr

Kimsang wrote: »

No. There is not enough information. If it was said by some stranger- most definitely.

What if the person shouting n****r was his the black person's brother shouting affectionately? Who gets to decide the context of what is said?

For example, in London among football teams the word yid is used both as an insult, and as an endearingly affectionate term. Who gets to decide who uses the word in what way?

Who uses yid as an affectionate term? And to answer your question, the person who is being called Ni**er gets to decide hence why they can report said use of the word.

In ireland i would be greeted by my friends using the word cùnt, "ah ya happy cùnt, where you been?"

That wouldnt be offensive to me.

Random stranger says "**** me you're an ugly cùnt"

That's offensive.

Kimsang

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Who uses yid as an affectionate term? And to answer your question, the person who is being called Ni**er gets to decide hence why they can report said use of the word.

Tottenham Hotspurs' supporters. Its an interesting story, from reclaiming the word yid much like the gay community did with words in the 90's. Although they are coming from incoming pressure from the FA to ban the word, in this current climate they could never do what they have done.

To your part in bold, don't you think people misunderstand things all the time? Especially in the face of a perceived attack? If you viewed an Australian calling you c*** as offensive you might be wrong, they often use it in an affectionate way

Shouldn't there be an objective standard by which to measure it?

Stop moaning ffs

Guy is **** posting and contradicting himself.
Reported.

Imreoir2

Kimsang wrote: »

No. There is not enough information. If it was said by some stranger- most definitely.

What if the person shouting n****r was his the black person's brother shouting affectionately? Who gets to decide the context of what is said?

For example, in London among football teams the word yid is used both as an insult, and as an endearingly affectionate term. Who gets to decide who uses the word in what way?

In 99.9% of cases the person who is the subject of the potential abuse will determine if the language used is appropriate or not. People don't normally tend to make a formal complaint about friends of family using what is in context a term of affection. As a result, very rarely will a comlaint be made when the language used was clearly not abusive.

For those cases where complaints are made, we have a police force to invistigate those complaints and a courts system where both parties can make their case, the evidence is presented and a professional judge can decide if a complaint has merit. It all works fairly effectivly.

Odhinn

The latest from Gemma - The tuam babies is a hoax.

Harvey Weinstein

Odhinn wrote: »

The latest from Gemma - The tuam babies is a hoax.

It was absolutely a hoax, a story was featured all over the globe which said that 800 babies bodies were dumped in a septic tank...complete bullsh1t.

Also the implication was that the babies were abused, mistreated and even hints of murder...again total bullsh1t.

ohnonotgmail

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

It was absolutely a hoax, a story was featured all over the globe which said that 800 babies bodies were dumped in a septic tank...complete bullsh1t.

Also the implication was that the babies were abused, mistreated and even hints of murder...again total bullsh1t.

so they didnt find the bodies of babies then? I dont suppose you have anything to support that?

Odhinn

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

It was absolutely a hoax, a story was featured all over the globe which said that 800 babies bodies were dumped in a septic tank...complete bullsh1t.

Also the implication was that the babies were abused, mistreated and even hints of murder...again total bullsh1t.

So there were no bodies found in the sewage works/septic tank/whatever?

batgoat

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

It was absolutely a hoax, a story was featured all over the globe which said that 800 babies bodies were dumped in a septic tank...complete bullsh1t.

Also the implication was that the babies were abused, mistreated and even hints of murder...again total bullsh1t.

You really should read the archaeological report cause it was found to be accurate. Page 64, it was likely for sewage or waste water treatment. So misrepresented?

https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/mother_and_baby_homes/20190416Mother&BabyHomesBurials5thInterimReport.pdf

jackboy

Odhinn wrote: »

So there were no bodies found in the sewage works/septic tank/whatever?

It seems the bodies were found but not in a septic tank. There is a lot of conflicting information about this issue but as far as I have read the septic tank part was not true.

batgoat

jackboy wrote: »

It seems the bodies were found but not in a septic tank. There is a lot of conflicting information about this issue but as far as I have read the septic tank part was not true.

You should read the report I posted above, all indications are that it was for waste water treatment or sewage treatment. So effectively a septic tank... So an acceptable burial?

Odhinn

jackboy wrote: »

It seems the bodies were found but not in a septic tank. There is a lot of conflicting information about this issue but as far as I have read the septic tank part was not true.

Septic tank/sewage system....they weren't buried in the ground as one would expect, were they.

Harvey Weinstein

When news of the common grave on the grounds of the former State-regulated home run by the Sisters of Bon Secours in Tuam, Co. Galway, was first reported in the media in 2014, when newspaper reports claimed up to 800 children who died at the home had been buried in a septic tank. The story quickly circled the globe and caused a wave of anger and revulsion.

However, in an interim report published on Wednesday, the Commission of Investigation of the Mother and Baby Homes said “in the light of a great deal of inaccurate commentary about the Tuam site, the commission considers it important to emphasise what it has established and what it has not established,” the report says. It goes on to point out that the “human remains found by the Commission are not in a sewage tank”.

The storey that went around the world was that 800 bodies were dumped in a septic tank...not true

No matter how much you want it to be its not true.

Stop moaning ffs

No records kept of any of their names either let’s not forget.

Inhuman way to treat babies remains

Odhinn

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

When news of the common grave on the grounds of the former State-regulated home run by the Sisters of Bon Secours in Tuam, Co. Galway, was first reported in the media in 2014, when newspaper reports claimed up to 800 children who died at the home had been buried in a septic tank. The story quickly circled the globe and caused a wave of anger and revulsion.

However, in an interim report published on Wednesday, the Commission of Investigation of the Mother and Baby Homes said “in the light of a great deal of inaccurate commentary about the Tuam site, the commission considers it important to emphasise what it has established and what it has not established,” the report says. It goes on to point out that the “human remains found by the Commission are not in a sewage tank”.

The storey that went around the world was that 800 bodies were dumped in a septic tank...not true

No matter how much you want it to be its not true.

So because it was a sewage system and not a septic tank everythings cushty?

kunst nugget

jackboy wrote: »

It seems the bodies were found but not in a septic tank. There is a lot of conflicting information about this issue but as far as I have read the septic tank part was not true.

The commission of investigation into Mother and Bay Homes discovered a significant number of human remains found in a long tank that appeared to be related to the treatment/containment of sewerage and/or waste water.

https://www.thejournal.ie/human-remains-found-baby-home-tuam-3268465-Mar2017/

kunst nugget

Odhinn wrote: »

So because it was a sewage system and not a septic tank everythings cushty?

Yeah, it's strange thinking.

Stop moaning ffs

He went from ‘never happened! hoax’ to ‘sewer not a septic tank!’
Quite quickly

jackboy

Odhinn wrote: »

Septic tank/sewage system....they weren't buried in the ground as one would expect, were they.

Fair enough. Do we know why they were buried there and why they were buried in that way. There seems to be a lot of gaps in the story. I think the narrative that the nuns just dumped the bodies in a septic tank without any care is a bit unbelievable. Maybe it is true, but I have some doubts.

Harvey Weinstein

The remains of 800 babies were not dumped in a septic or sewage tank simple as that.

kunst nugget

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

The remains of 800 babies were not dumped in a septic or sewage tank simple as that.

So what was the structure where they found a significant number of remains?

ohnonotgmail

jackboy wrote: »

Fair enough. Do we know why they were buried there and why they were buried in that way. There seems to be a lot of gaps in the story. I think the narrative that the nuns just dumped the bodies in a septic tank without any care is a bit unbelievable. Maybe it is true, but I have some doubts.

they didnt even bother to register the births. they didnt give a monkeys for the children they were caring for.

Stop moaning ffs

And the sheer amount is so far outside the infant mortality rate there are serious questions about how long the space was being used and how often a baby was dumped in there.

And of course there are no records.

Can’t inagine why that might be

batgoat

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

The remains of 800 babies were not dumped in a septic or sewage tank simple as that.

Have you looked at the report? What does it say on page 64? You are being incredibly dishonest right now or incredibly ignorant...

Odhinn

jackboy wrote: »

Fair enough. Do we know why they were buried there and why they were buried in that way.

They weren't buried, the remains were just left there.

jackboy wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of gaps in the story. I think the narrative that the nuns just dumped the bodies in a septic tank without any care is a bit unbelievable. Maybe it is true, but I have some doubts.

Why? The whole Irish church covered up horrendous abuse for decades - putting childrens bodies in a sewer is one of their smaller sins.

Many of these children were seen as a product of sin, and thus "lesser".

jackboy

Odhinn wrote: »

They weren't buried, the remains were just left there.

Why? The whole Irish church covered up horrendous abuse for decades - putting childrens bodies in a sewer is one of their smaller sins.

Many of these children were seen as a product of sin, and thus "lesser".

Well if the story is true it is horrific and those nuns were appalling human beings with no empathy. That is why we need the full story, before we label them as such.

knipex

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Random stranger says "**** me you're an ugly cùnt"

That's offensive.

Well............... I would need to see a picture..

Stop moaning ffs

Surprised to see Gemma taking this tack on this topic.
The government and previous ones have dragged their heels and possibly even blocked any proper investigation into this.
So many people and orginisatjons involved including gardai clergy and TDs

You’d think she’d be going for this angle