Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II **off topic discussion**

tomasrojo

ford2600 wrote: »

I think that comment explains why 20 work colleagues signed a petition more so that what he said on air last Friday. Nasty and creepy from a position of power

Yes, the stories coming out about him (not anonymously) make me dislike him much more than the mild disdain I had before.

OleRodrigo

RayCun wrote: »

So blaming rape victims is a conservative value then? Interesting.
Harassing women? That too?

No its not but practicing common sense when you're out getting drunk is something every parent wishes their kids will do. That's not ' victim blaming ' ...but its interesting, and a bit sad tbh, that you have to be very careful about how you word the difference.

I think that's where he was coming from, which is rational and fair, but chose his words badly.

ford2600

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104669788&postcount=1505

Interesting post on the controversy

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/george-hook-should-be-challenged-not-silenced-1.3219952?mode=amp

"However, the abhorrent and deeply damaging views of women and girls, articulated by Hook, teenage boys, and our Constitution alike, must be heard. They must be challenged. They must be changed. Simply silencing them will not achieve the safe, free world we want for our daughters."

tomasrojo

OleRodrigo wrote: »

No its not but practicing common sense when you're out getting drunk is something every parent wishes their kids will do. That's not ' victim blaming ' ...but its interesting, and a bit sad tbh, that you have to be very careful about how you word the difference.

I think that's where he was coming from, which is rational and fair, but chose his words badly.

It's a subject you have to be very careful about, but that isn't how he fell foul.

"The real issues nowadays and increasingly is the question of the personal responsibility that young girls are taking for their own safety."

That's the "real issue", he said. Not that a girl who has casual sex with a man she likes ended up being raped by the man's friend.

magicbastarder

i find the whole 'free speech' part of the debate interesting. he's literally paid to voice his opinions, and he's not entitled to keep a job if his opinions are substandard. i'm not entitled to keep my job if i'm doing it badly.
it's not a free speech issue.

OleRodrigo

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's a subject you have to be very careful about, but that isn't how he fell foul.

"The real issues nowadays and increasingly is the question of the personal responsibility that young girls are taking for their own safety."

That's the "real issue", he said. Not that a girl who has casual sex with a man she likes ended up being raped by the man's friend.

He's not a bad person who believes people are to blame for crimes committed against them. He's a cartoonish, caricature of himself for the purposes of entertainment, in the same vein as Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh.

He's not skilled in diplomacy - inevitably he's going to chose the wrong words because ' cutting through the pc bullcrap ' is why people listen to him.

But he offered an apology for his wrong words and a fair response would have been to accept his apology. You have to wonder why so many wont accept a sincere apology from someone who isn't a bad person to begin with, IMHO.

CramCycle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

Weepsie

OleRodrigo wrote: »

He's not a bad person who believes people are to blame for crimes committed against them. He's a cartoonish, caricature of himself for the purposes of entertainment, in the same vein as Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh.

He'd not skilled in diplomacy - inevitably he's going to chose the wrong words because ' cutting through the pc bullcrap ' is why people listen to him.

But he offered an apology for his wrong words and a fair response would have been to accept his apology. You have to wonder why so many wont accept a sincere apology from someone who isn't a bad person to begin with, IMHO.

Because it's not the first time he's done it and he's very casually written about taking advantage of intoxicated women too.

I don't believe his apology was sincere. Like the apology of a scolded child

magicbastarder

OleRodrigo wrote: »

He's not skilled in diplomacy - inevitably he's going to chose the wrong words because ' cutting through the pc bullcrap ' is why people listen to him.

there was a discussion whcih touched a little on this on the sean o'rourke show earlier - one guest commented that what happened was inevitable; if newstalk are positioning themselves as 'bloke radio' with presenters with 'robust' opinions, that something like this was bound to happen sooner or later. and that hook could have a comeback along the lines of 'you hired me specifically for my opinions, which you were not ignorant of'.

RayCun

OleRodrigo wrote: »

He's not a bad person who believes people are to blame for crimes committed against them. He's a cartoonish, caricature of himself for the purposes of entertainment

so he can **** off off the radio

who needs a cartoonish caricature who comes out with that sort of crap?

OleRodrigo

magicbastarder wrote: »

there was a discussion whcih touched a little on this on the sean o'rourke show earlier - one guest commented that what happened was inevitable; if newstalk are positioning themselves as 'bloke radio' with presenters with 'robust' opinions, that something like this was bound to happen sooner or later. and that hook could have a comeback along the lines of 'you hired me specifically for my opinions, which you were not ignorant of'.

They didn't just hire him for his opinions, they actively encourage his style of presenting - opinion driven content is part of their business strategy.

He was more mild mannered years ago. I agree he should have countered with that as a response, but perhaps hes shocked at how its all unfolded.

Also, tomasrojo...stories coming out about public figures are often more self serving than anything.

Those 20 people who signed a letter in Newstalk - Interesting that they never came forward until now, would you say? There is robust legislative protection for employees - employers treat legitimate complaints seriously. Why speak up now ? There's more to that than meets the eye, I'm guessing.

Weepsie - you've obviously never been to Copper Face Jacks! *

* drunken people taking advantage of themselves for yonks !

OleRodrigo

RayCun wrote: »

so he can **** off off the radio

who needs a cartoonish caricature who comes out with that sort of crap?

Clearly, there is a market for that kind of presentation. You don't have to tune in.

OleRodrigo

Weepsie wrote: »

Because it's not the first time he's done it and he's very casually written about taking advantage of intoxicated women too.

I don't believe his apology was sincere. Like the apology of a scolded child

OK. Thats your opinion.

But it would be fair to accept his apology, I think.

If he does it again, that a different story. It would suggest a more deeply held conviction .

RayCun

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Clearly, there is a market for that kind of presentation. You don't have to tune in.

And clearly the market has decided that there are consequences for that kind of presentation. You don't have to have a job on national radio.

It's always funny how quickly people can go from

"I'm a no-holds-barred truth-teller, puncturing your PC pretensions, and I don't care if you're offended - you can suck it up, snowflake!"

to

"What do you mean, you were offended and now you're doing something about it? That's not fair! "

rollingscone

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Clearly, there is a market for that kind of presentation. You don't have to tune in.

Clearly you haven't being paying attention to the damage this untempered propaganda marketing machine has done to political discourse across the western world.

Not to mention the direct damage to the people it targets in order to create its "product"

Harrybelafonte

Hey OleRodrigo, just wondering if you were as steadfast in your defence of him when he was spouting **** about cyclists? Kudos on your consistency if so.

OleRodrigo

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Hey OleRodrigo, just wondering if you were as steadfast in your defence of him when he was spouting **** about cyclists? Kudos on your consistency if so.

Initially, not at all, but it gave me a better insight into what he's all about.

Weepsie

OleRodrigo wrote: »

OK. Thats your opinion.

But it would be fair to accept his apology, I think.

If he does it again, that a different story. It would suggest a more deeply held conviction .

The thing is, he has done it again. This is the second time at least, and that's without mentioning the stuff he has put in writing.

Harrybelafonte

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Initially, not at all, but it gave me a better insight into what he's all about.

Interesting take. I'll watch for more of your insights on what he's all about.

magicbastarder

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Interesting that they never came forward until now, would you say? There is robust legislative protection for employees - employers treat legitimate complaints seriously.

are you serious?

OleRodrigo

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you serious?

Are you being deliberately accusatory ? Its just a discussion.

Harrybelafonte

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Are you being deliberately accusatory ? Its just a discussion.

Ah. The truth is out. It's only banter lads.

OleRodrigo

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Ah. The truth is out. It's only banter lads.

Well I guess the SJW style attack was gonna come sooner or later.

RayCun

OleRodrigo wrote: »

SJW

It's great how much three simple letters can tell you about the person who uses them.

rollingscone

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Well I guess the SJW style attack was gonna come sooner or later.

Social Justice and Warrior. Three Terrible things.

Who'd want to be accused of fighting for justice when they could just be safely and comfortably complicit in systemic wrongdoing.

Time to consider abandoning my values of human decency and fairness in favour of extenalising all my problems and personal failings taking them out on easy targets and building a self justifying fantasy world to live in.

You've won me over. Take me with you on your noble quest!

OleRodrigo

RayCun wrote: »

It's great how much three simple letters can tell you about the person who uses them.

Absolutely. You might be surprised though.

magicbastarder

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Are you being deliberately accusatory ? Its just a discussion.

it was a genuine question. i know people who have been fired after raising issues with their employers. one of them fired *after* winning cases in the LRC.

employers generally like employees not to raise a fuss.

and you made the claim that 'they never came forward until now'. how do you know? we certainly heard about it because a) there were 20 of them this time and b) it was following an active news story.

Harrybelafonte

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Well I guess the SJW style attack was gonna come sooner or later.

Well done. Slow clap. Well done. Let it all out now.

OleRodrigo

magicbastarder wrote: »

it was a genuine question. i know people who have been fired after raising issues with their employers. one of them fired *after* winning cases in the LRC.

employers generally like employees not to raise a fuss.

and you made the claim that 'they never came forward until now'. how do you know? we certainly heard about it because a) there were 20 of them this time and b) it was following an active news story.

That's a fair point. Still seems odd though. How could an organisation function when 1/3 of the people have beef with one member of staff ? Even by the standards of the entertainment industry it seems quite dysfunctional.

magicbastarder

heh. a friend of mine works in an organisation where 95% of people have a beef with one member of staff. the problem is that one member of staff is the boss.

that's a rather trite example, but i suspect that if there is a problematic member of staff in an organisation, 1/3 of the people having an issue is not unusual. but this could be an unusual case - it's possible (i've not seen the letter from the newstalk staff) that this was a 'referendum' on hook, rather than something that could constitute an official complaint.