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 O'Doherty and her unicorns

Infernal Racket

I see that Gemma is now mentioning unicorns in almost everything she speaks about. She even thinks the Guards will be riding around on Globalist unicorns very soon and that Avoca woolen mills are trying to indoctrinate children into their new world order by putting colourful stripes on beige jumpers. Does she not have any family or friends at all that might seek the help she needs?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

OleRodrigo

The T&C agreement argument is a weak one.

It's not like there is a lot of choice when it comes to public platforms on the internet, from where everyone should be entitled to free speech under the rule of law.

But tech companies are having their cake and eating it. They have become the defacto public platforms with all the data harvesting benefits that go with that, while at the same time dictating what can and cannot be said publicly, to suit themselves.

I don't agree with most of her politics but I disagree more strongly with the role tech companies have managed to develop for themselves.

Thrashssacre

OleRodrigo wrote: »

The T&C agreement argument is a weak one.

It's not like there is a lot of choice when it comes to public platforms on the internet, from where everyone should be entitled to free speech under the rule of law.

But tech companies are having their cake and eating it. They have become the defacto public platforms with all the data harvesting benefits that go with that, while at the same time dictating what can and cannot be said publicly, to suit themselves.

I don't agree with most of her politics but I disagree more strongly with the role tech companies have managed to develop for themselves.

I’m fairly sympathetic for the reasoning for the protest I just wish it wasn’t Gemma at the helm of it otherwise I’d be more inclined to go there myself.

[Deleted User]

OleRodrigo wrote: »

The T&C agreement argument is a weak one.

It's not like there is a lot of choice when it comes to public platforms on the internet, from where everyone should be entitled to free speech under the rule of law.

But tech companies are having their cake and eating it. They have become the defacto public platforms with all the data harvesting benefits that go with that, while at the same time dictating what can and cannot be said publicly, to suit themselves.

I don't agree with most of her politics but I disagree more strongly with the role tech companies have managed to develop for themselves.

That's just not true. There IS loads of choice - plenty of other video hosts available, and plenty of online hosting services that would allow Gemma to host her own videos.

But she's not interested in those, because they don't provide ad revenue.

This isn't a free speech issue. You don't expect every TV station and every newspaper to give her a platform for her hate speech. Why would you expect online services to host her hate speech?

OleRodrigo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's just not true. There IS loads of choice - plenty of other video hosts available, and plenty of online hosting services that would allow Gemma to host her own videos.

But she's not interested in those, because they don't provide ad revenue.

This isn't a free speech issue. You don't expect every TV station and every newspaper to give her a platform for her hate speech. Why would you expect online services to host her hate speech?

There is a lot of choice in principle, but the defacto public platform is the one most people use, which are those provided by google. And not by democratic choice BTW. Its been foisted upon us through borderline corporate oligarchies.

I've seen a few of her videos and I don't see any hate speech. I do see a lot of people smearing her with those terms because they disagree with her, though.
If there was actual hate speech she would be in trouble with the law, so that's not an argument.

The point here is that Google have twisted these issues into something that its not, to suit themselves, so that they don't have the inconvenience of providing a genuinely neutral platform, which is exactly what Google should be doing given its ubiquity, in return for our data ( and even then it would still be a bad deal for the public ). The wider issue is actually one of regulatory failure of these companies.

Just on a wider point - what is often labeled as far right, is actually just intelligent conservative points of view. But if they are bad ideas, let them be trumped with better ideas. That's how lawful free speech works. You don't shut them down by denying their right to speak and then smear them with words designed to silence them. Because that really means that your ideas are not as good as theirs.

Overheal

OleRodrigo wrote: »

The T&C agreement argument is a weak one.

It's not like there is a lot of choice when it comes to public platforms on the internet, from where everyone should be entitled to free speech under the rule of law.

But tech companies are having their cake and eating it. They have become the defacto public platforms with all the data harvesting benefits that go with that, while at the same time dictating what can and cannot be said publicly, to suit themselves.

I don't agree with most of her politics but I disagree more strongly with the role tech companies have managed to develop for themselves.

There’s a misunderstanding of the role of the internet and the nature of the freedom of speech:

A website is a bunch of files on a computer server that someone pays to operate, signals are sent and received by telecoms.

The server owner is no more obligated to give someone a platform on their server than you are to give your living room over to someone you disagree with so they can tell you how great their world view is.

The freedom of speech protects your right to tell the government or others whatever the hell you want. It doesn't protect you using the platform of others to do that. There’s a very wild misconception here on what is “public” on the internet versus “public” in meatspace. Public is a space publicly owned (usually manages by a government) that is openly available to the public. Public on the internet means anyone can visit that page and view its contents; but to be perfectly fair you need an account with the page provider to have permission to add edit or modify said content, which they host privately at their own whim.

OleRodrigo

Overheal wrote: »

There’s a misunderstanding of the role of the internet and the nature of the freedom of speech:

A website is a bunch of files on a computer server that someone pays to operate, signals are sent and received by telecoms.

The server owner is no more obligated to give someone a platform on their server than you are to give your living room over to someone you disagree with so they can tell you how great their world view is.

The freedom of speech protects your right to tell the government or others whatever the hell you want. It doesn't protect you using the platform of others to do that. There’s a very wild misconception here on what is “public” on the internet versus “public” in meatspace. Public is a space publicly owned (usually manages by a government) that is openly available to the public. Public on the internet means anyone can visit that page and view its contents; but to be perfectly fair you need an account with the page provider to have permission to add edit or modify said content, which they host privately at their own whim.

This would make sense if internet usage where not as pervasive, to the point that it's inseparable from normal life, and if weren't dominated by a handful of companies with a particular point of view.

Overheal

OleRodrigo wrote: »

This would make sense if internet usage where not as pervasive, to the point that it's inseparable from normal life, and if weren't dominated by a handful of companies with a particular point of view.

The internet, and 'normal life,' are indeed separable: shut off the computer or the phone, and you're back in your normal life. Meatspace. Reality.

The 'domination' by online content providers is a peculiar way of looking at it: the internet allows very broad and deep access to millions upon millions of electronic destinations; I struggle to think of an example of oligopoly on the internet: we have multiple options for search engines, web browsers, social media platforms, content hosts, wikis, news, message boards, etc.

A real oligopoly is one of ISPs, the telecoms who provide internet signaling. In most cases a home only has access to 1 terrestrial provider, and it would indeed be next to fascism if your sole option for ISP chose to ban you from connecting to the internet because you happened to be a racist. But ISPs don't care, the only thing they have to worry about is that you don't download pirated content or child pornography, after that you can pretty much go wherever the hell you want: connect to Stormfront, espouse white supremacy, go the dark web and buy some pot, hell make your own website and use it to platform your own wild viewpoint, like InfoWars and so many others have.

Battery Power

Overheal wrote: »

Yes at least some suggestive evidence that she’s using sock puppet accounts.

I have recently informed Google (Youtube) about this and they don't appear to care. That Hemma O'Foherty (or something like that) account has been going since 2017, but has only just had videos posted to that account. That seems a bit fishy to me.

It's making me wonder whether this isn't just a big publicity stunt, and Google are in on it. I know, that sounds crazy, but they allow those sock accounts.

Gemma's main accounts were terminated but she can still upload her bigoted/whacky diatribe on a daily basis?!

It made me laugh the other day when she said someone had "...brought [her] some bread... Irish." She tries a little too hard with her hyper nationalism.

She's absolutely nuts, or she's working for someone/ a group.

Why doesn't she just move on and stick to BITCHute? She's connected to conspiracy loon Ian R(oland) Crane, and now Infowars... seems like she's part of the conspiritard circuit who just love to make money out of gullible people who claim to be 'awake'.

Mayday! Mayday! We're all going to be vapourised by 5G!! / -:

batgoat

OleRodrigo wrote: »

There is a lot of choice in principle, but the defacto public platform is the one most people use, which are those provided by google. And not by democratic choice BTW. Its been foisted upon us through borderline corporate oligarchies.

I've seen a few of her videos and I don't see any hate speech. I do see a lot of people smearing her with those terms because they disagree with her, though.
If there was actual hate speech she would be in trouble with the law, so that's not an argument.

The point here is that Google have twisted these issues into something that its not, to suit themselves, so that they don't have the inconvenience of providing a genuinely neutral platform, which is exactly what Google should be doing given its ubiquity, in return for our data ( and even then it would still be a bad deal for the public ). The wider issue is actually one of regulatory failure of these companies.

Just on a wider point - what is often labeled as far right, is actually just intelligent conservative points of view. But if they are bad ideas, let them be trumped with better ideas. That's how lawful free speech works. You don't shut them down by denying their right to speak and then smear them with words designed to silence them. Because that really means that your ideas are not as good as theirs.

Can you explain to be how posting minors in a school photo is intelligent discourse? The fact she was doing it for a racist rant doesn't make it better btw..

Btw, you're perfectly free to host your own website if you want want and there are plenty of other platforms that will also do it. So nope, not silenced and personally, I oppose a freedom to engage in hate speech, plenty of legislatures do. Invariably they're incredibly free nations.

recedite

batgoat wrote: »

Can you explain to be how posting minors in a school photo is intelligent discourse? The fact she was doing it for a racist rant doesn't make it better btw.

The school posts its photos on the internet, therefore they can't really complain that Gemma "put a photo in the public domain".

A school which is fully funded by the state, but whose pupils seem to be mostly ethnic black Africans who are being indoctrinated into some minor protestant religion which had heretofore (almost) died a natural death in this state.
It seems like something to shine a spotlight on - why not?
It seems a peculiar situation, if nothing else. We shouldn't avoid discussing it just because it has double minority status.

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

The school posts its photos on the internet, therefore they can't really complain that Gemma "put a photo in the public domain".

A school which is fully funded by the state, but whose pupils seem to be mostly ethnic black Africans who are being indoctrinated into some minor protestant religion which had heretofore (almost) died a natural death in this state.
It seems like something to shine a spotlight on - why not?
It seems a peculiar situation, if nothing else. We shouldn't avoid discussing it just because it has double minority status.

Cool, so you're thinking using children as part of her great replacement conspiracy is acceptable behaviour? Thanks for clearing that up.

recedite

batgoat wrote: »

Cool, so you're thinking using children as part of her great replacement conspiracy is acceptable behaviour? Thanks for clearing that up.

How is she using them? If anyone is using them, its the school and its religious owners. Without children, their school can't continue to exist.
They obviously haven't been producing enough of their own.

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

How is she using them? If anyone is using them, its the school and its religious owners. Without children, their school can't continue to exist.
They obviously haven't been producing enough of their own.

She used their photos to push a narrative, a particularly racist one. If you are choosing to ignore that and to treat it as acceptable, it's more a reflection upon yourself.

recedite

You don't see anything strange about the school at all?
A school deep in rural Ireland, which is full of black protestants (literally)

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

You don't see anything strange about the school at all?
A school deep in rural Ireland, which is full of black protestants (literally)

Wjy does colour/religion matter to you? You see black kids.....i just see kids.

Overheal

recedite wrote: »

You don't see anything strange about the school at all?
A school deep in rural Ireland, which is full of black protestants (literally)

That's kind of like complaining there's a school full of white Amish people in rural Pennsylvania. You act as if the school conspired to only enroll students of a particular demographic

recedite

Overheal wrote: »

That's kind of like complaining there's a school full of white Amish people in rural Pennsylvania.

Not really, that's exactly where I'd expect the Amish to be.

If the school full of African protestants was in Lagos, nobody would bat an eyelid. But in Longford??

Overheal

recedite wrote: »

Not really, that's exactly where I'd expect the Amish to be.

If the school full of African protestants was in Lagos, nobody would bat an eyelid. But in Longford??

Consult the Census data.

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

You don't see anything strange about the school at all?
A school deep in rural Ireland, which is full of black protestants (literally)

Not particularly, I'm imagining you'll find each year of the school varies. So you think it's okay to use minors to promote a particularly racist agenda. Most would not hence it being a bit of scandal when she did so, even more telling was that Neo Nazis and white supremacists lapped it up.

recedite

Overheal wrote: »

Consult the Census data.

Census confirms that they exist, presumably. Relevance?

banie01

recedite wrote: »

Not really, that's exactly where I'd expect the Amish to be.

If the school full of African protestants was in Lagos, nobody would bat an eyelid. But in Longford??

Aye, Black Protestants in Connaught!

Tis a long game Catholic revenge plot for the Children of the Commonwealth!

They thought telling us back in 1691, "To hell or to Connaught" was funny...

Well who's laughing now eh!

Seriously GO'D used that photo in a horribly sectarian and racist manner, attempting to present her use of it as anything else is disingenuous in the extreme.

recedite

batgoat wrote: »

I'm imagining you'll find each year of the school varies.

No need to imagine. [snip]

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

No need to imagine. [snip]

Seriously creepy post.

recedite

banie01 wrote: »

Aye, Black Protestants in Connaught!

Tis a long game Catholic revenge plot for the Children of the Commonwealth!

They thought telling us back in 1691, "To hell or to Connaught" was funny...

Well who's laughing now eh!

Seriously GO'D used that photo in a horribly sectarian and racist manner, attempting to present her use of it as anything else is disingenuous in the extreme.

Kind of funny that you allude to the plantations alright, because that's exactly what it is. Again.
But who is the mastermind this time, and why?

Dr. Bre

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Wjy does colour/religion matter to you? You see black kids.....i just see kids.

I see black people

Overheal

recedite wrote: »

Census confirms that they exist, presumably. Relevance?

Self-explanatory: they live in the area.

banie01

recedite wrote: »

Kind of funny that you allude to the plantations alright, because that's exactly what it is. Again.
But who is the mastermind this time, and why?

If that is honestly what you believe is at play here, you and your kind are actually deluded.

Even leaving aside any claims for asylum or refugee status that may open.

Are you seriously claiming that even economic migration should be halted if the migrants don't fit in with your colour chart?

[Deleted User]

OleRodrigo wrote: »

There is a lot of choice in principle, but the defacto public platform is the one most people use, which are those provided by google. And not by democratic choice BTW. Its been foisted upon us through borderline corporate oligarchies.

I've seen a few of her videos and I don't see any hate speech. I do see a lot of people smearing her with those terms because they disagree with her, though.
If there was actual hate speech she would be in trouble with the law, so that's not an argument.

Why would Gemma be so insistent on 'the defacto public platform'? If it is a free speech issue, why wouldn't she just set up her own video hosting facility?

And it's not correct to say that hate speech would get her in trouble with the law. There is no law against hate speech in Ireland.

recedite wrote: »

The school posts its photos on the internet, therefore they can't really complain that Gemma "put a photo in the public domain".

Yes, they can complain - and the law is on their side;

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/eu-copyright-photos

recedite wrote: »

A school which is fully funded by the state, but whose pupils seem to be mostly ethnic black Africans who are being indoctrinated into some minor protestant religion which had heretofore (almost) died a natural death in this state.
It seems like something to shine a spotlight on - why not?
It seems a peculiar situation, if nothing else. We shouldn't avoid discussing it just because it has double minority status.

Funny how she didn't have any complaints about the 90%+ of Irish schools indoctrinating kids into Catholicism. Is she (and you) really concerned about school indoctrinations?

batgoat

recedite wrote: »

Kind of funny that you allude to the plantations alright, because that's exactly what it is. Again.
But who is the mastermind this time, and why?

Please do explain, who is this mastermind? Btw, posting a primary schools photo pages to gauge the skin colour of students is truly the creepiest thing I've seen a user in an effort to justify their racism.

recedite

banie01 wrote: »

Are you seriously claiming that even economic migration should be halted if the migrants don't fit in with your colour chart?

No.

I believe the "offending" part of Gemmas tweet was that it contained the words "the changing face of Longford in rural Ireland".
Do you object to that on the basis that it was inaccurate, or on the basis that she mentioned that which is unmentionable?