Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

So you read that report looking for stats to back your repeated claim, yet completely missed all the other stats that showed other angles? I mean its all one one page, so hardly a trial. At least for one absorbing, or willing to absorb the bigger picture, outside of the women are always victims credo anyway. Oh wait...

What other angles? There is no other angles in that paper on sexual harrassment. Sexual harrassment was the only thing under discussion and DV was never discussed. The DV statistics have zero impact on the sexual harrassment statistics. Why would I bring up a completely unrelated statistic Ina debate? Its completely illogical.

As you may have noticed, indeed are repeating here, just because you say or believe it doesn't make it true. When I asked you for an example of where you didn't follow the party line of women being always victims etc you struggled and came up with a half arsed qualifier. I'm not the one that increasingly looks overly adept with a shovel.

I didn't struggle to come with an example. If I believed women were always victim then I would not be open to the possibility that this is not the case with DV. So my comment was a clear example of NOT believing that women are always the victims. No matter how much you try and shift the goalposts you were just plain wrong. You said that I believe that women are always victims, that's just false and my comment shows it.

Wibbs

TBH TG(and ta for the article) I'd be more in agreement with her than not. Either the Dublin Arts Council will OK something, or they won't. It seems odd that some stuff is OK, but other stuff isn't, and all the examples she gave would be considered "progressive"(the art world know their audience), so it doesn't appear to be that. I'd like to hear their explanation TBH.

Though it would be my general opinion that art, certainly the visual arts, hasn't been usefully and widely political since Picasso's Guernica. Since then it's been either cloistered for the chattering classes who will vote as they will regardless, or a fashion statement. QV Fitzpatrick's Che pic, beloved as tee shirts and posters for middle class university kids. Reading business studies.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

What other angles? There is no other angles in that paper on sexual harrassment. Sexual harrassment was the only thing under discussion and DV was never discussed. The DV statistics have zero impact on the sexual harrassment statistics. Why would I bring up a completely unrelated statistic Ina debate? Its completely illogical.

Your post with link that you were asked for that backed your claim...

LLMMLL wrote: »

https://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

My above post outlining the DV stats are in the first findings page of your link. As I said you clearly missed that in your in depth research. Cherry picking or blinkered? Who knows?

You then went on to say...

LLMMLL wrote: »

No don't believe any of that. I said MAY because I've no idea what DV studies show. I know qualifying ones opinion until they've seen evidence may seem strange to someone who just makes up what other people Believe so he can argue against them but there you go.

Yet you must have read the condensed stats to back up your claim? Apparently only some of them. Like I said, when things suit... Maybe you should read your sources more thoroughly?

I didn't struggle to come with an example. If I believed women were always victim then I would not be open to the possibility that this is not the case with DV. So my comment was a clear example of NOT believing that women are always the victims. No matter how much you try and shift the goalposts you were just plain wrong. You said that I believe that women are always victims, that's just false and my comment shows it.

Me. Earlier. wrote: »

Don't you just love the qualifier. Now if she had said: I've no problem with studies showing that in the case of domestic violence this is not the case. Big diff, but it's a tiny step that's almost instinctively too far and like instinct is rarely self questioned.

You may need this more than me:

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

Your post with link that you were asked for that backed your claim...



My above post outlining the DV stats are in the first findings page of your link. As I said you clearly missed that in your in depth research. Cherry picking or blinkered? Who knows?

You then went on to say...



Yet you must have read the condensed stats to back up your claim? Apparently only some of them. Like I said, when things suit... Maybe you should read your sources more thoroughly?





You may need this more than me:

Crazy definition of cherry picking. So when asked to prove that women are sexually harrassed by men more than men are by women, I'm supposed to include stats on DV which is not a form of sexual harrassment? And if I don't im cherry picking? That's one of the most laughably convokuted arguments I've heard on this thread, and that's really saying something.

Blinkered? No. However you can't see that we were debating whether it was the case that men sexually harrass women more than women sexually harrass men. Your bias causes you to interpret that as an argument as to whether women are always victims and men are always aggressors in every situation. However that's not what's being argued I don't think you'll ever be able to see it to be honest. No matter what anyone posts you respond with the same tirade that tells feminists what they believe, even when the discussion has nothing to do with that. It's not me who's blinkered.

So again, I don't believe women are always victims. I never believed that. I never posted anything that said anything like that. I actually explicitly posted that I did not believe that.

If that's not clear enough for you and you want to keep claiming I believe the opposite well there's really not much I can do.

cantdecide

LLMMLL wrote: »

If that's not clear enough for you and you want to keep claiming I believe the opposite well there's really not much I can do.

I admire your stamina

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH TG(and ta for the article) I'd be more in agreement with her than not. Either the Dublin Arts Council will OK something, or they won't. It seems odd that some stuff is OK, but other stuff isn't, and all the examples she gave would be considered "progressive"(the art world know their audience), so it doesn't appear to be that. I'd like to hear their explanation TBH.

Though it would be my general opinion that art, certainly the visual arts, hasn't been usefully and widely political since Picasso's Guernica. Since then it's been either cloistered for the chattering classes who will vote as they will regardless, or a fashion statement. QV Fitzpatrick's Che pic, beloved as tee shirts and posters for middle class university kids. Reading business studies.

Its not that i disagree with her either. These feminists are part of this far left global movement of idiots who are triggered by everything. Its the hypocrisy that irks me.

LLMMLL

cantdecide wrote: »

I admire your stamina

I think the issue is that wibbs has decided long ago what all feminists believe and has probably posted a lot about that and built a lot of his thoughts around it.

So when faced with a feminist who doesn't believe what he thinks they believe, rather than accepting what they believe he does some weird cognitive dissonance thing where he think he knows what they believe better than they do.

It's actually kind of interesting as a psychological phenomenon.

Outlaw Pete

Una Mullally wrote:

"My event was about a book. It was not a campaigning event".

Would ya pull the other one.....




Dublin City Council funds the International Literature Festival and Council officials are also bound by the Code of Conduct for Local Authority Employees to remain politically impartial and therefore cannot use public funding to support any side of a referendum.

The book was funded by and written by people who are campaigning for repeal, proceeds were going to people who are campaigning for repeal and the only people invited to be part of the panel on the night were those who were campaigning for repeal..... but it wasn't a campaigning event, apparently.

What's really irritating about all this is can you imagine if a similar event was planned at that festival centered around a 'No to Repeal' book, that was funded by and written by No Vote campaigners.... there'd be bloody war. Sure look at their reaction to a few GAA players giving their views.

Nah, DCC did the right thing and I'd say the same if they'd cancelled an event on either side. Actually I'm surprised it got as far as it did but then DCC have history of cancelling things at the last minute.

Would Mullaly or any of these libtards be up in arms if an artist who painted 'Love both' on the wall was forced to cover over it??????

Like fúck they would. Hypocrites the lot of them.

Art should be uncensored they now claim, and yet they are triggered by the Little Mermaid and 'Baby its cold outside' ???? Ha

Yep, its all about the cash with these predatory b@stards!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Would Mullaly or any of these libtards be up in arms if an artist who painted 'Love both' on the wall was forced to cover over it??????

Like fúck they would. Hypocrites the lot of them.

Art should be uncensored they now claim, and yet they are triggered by the Little Mermaid and 'Baby its cold outside' ???? Ha

Yup, It's about art that they choose to be allowed...

cantdecide

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup, It's about art that they choose to be allowed...

It's simply narcissism, oblivion and absence of self-awareness. Just sheer brass-neckedness.

terryduff12

How much did that go fund me page organise for the yes campaign as have seen about 4 yes posters compared to about 13 no posters in my town. Is it just resting in there accounts.

kunst nugget

terryduff12 wrote: »

How much did that go fund me page organise for the yes campaign as have seen about 4 yes posters compared to about 13 no posters in my town. Is it just resting in there accounts.

Plenty of Yes Posters went up around the Midlands at the weekend. Hadn't seen any at all before then. Definitely a ramp up in the Yes campaign this week.

kunst nugget

[Deleted User] wrote: »

These feminists are part of this far left global movement of idiots who are triggered by everything.

Says man whose constantly triggered by feminists and the left.

MikeyTaylor

Well I don't know about Louise O'Neill but Laura Whitmore? The Ford Mustang. Doesn't get much more American than that!

kunst nugget

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would Mullaly or any of these libtards be up in arms if an artist who painted 'Love both' on the wall was forced to cover over it??????

Like fúck they would. Hypocrites the lot of them.

Art should be uncensored they now claim, and yet they are triggered by the Little Mermaid and 'Baby its cold outside' ???? Ha

You seem to follow these liberal feminists more closely than most so out of curiosity, has Una Mulally called for any of those things to be censored or called for any art to be covered up?

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

You seem to follow these liberal feminists more closely than most so out of curiosity, has Una Mulally called for any of those things to be censored or called for any art to be covered up?

If a mural for equal fathers rights or something to do with men I could see her having a meltdown and whinging to take it down

Wibbs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nah, DCC did the right thing and I'd say the same if they'd cancelled an event on either side. Actually I'm surprised it got as far as it did but then DCC have history of cancelling things at the last minute.

I agree P, though oddly and as Mullally pointed out they did back an pro one side event leading up to the marriage referendum. To be fair the arts are always political to some degree. It's hard enough to find art that isn't, though some is more overt, some quite a bit to the point of propaganda. I suppose they felt that last line was crossed in this case. Maybe that line was the fundraising part?

cantdecide wrote: »

It's simply narcissism, oblivion and absence of self-awareness. Just sheer brass-neckedness.

You've just summed up the art world of the last 30 odd years.

Wibbs

kunst nugget wrote: »

You seem to follow these liberal feminists more closely than most so out of curiosity, has Una Mulally called for any of those things to be censored or called for any art to be covered up?

I don't recall that she has myself. Now I may not agree with much of her output, but it's mostly measured with the odd swim into the deep end. Nothing wrong with that either, going rogue every so often is a good thing, especially when compared to the O'Neill's of this world who live in the deep end.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

Says man whose constantly triggered by feminists and the left.

What can I say, I guess I'm just allergic to retards.

kunst nugget

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't recall that she has myself. Now I may not agree with much of her output, but it's mostly measured with the odd swim into the deep end. Nothing wrong with that either, going rogue every so often is a good thing, especially when compared to the O'Neill's of this world who live in the deep end.

Has O'Neill ever asked for anything to be censored or covered up either though. I've seen the Baby, It's Cold Outside tweet several times but I don't recall her looking for anything to be censored.

I'm just trying to figure out if the feminists mentioned in this thread have actually been hypocritical in this regard.

kunst nugget

Dakota Brave Carrot wrote: »

If a mural for equal fathers rights or something to do with men I could see her having a meltdown and whinging to take it down

So you can totally see her being a hypocrite in your imagination. That's good enough for me!!!

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

Has O'Neill ever asked for anything to be censored or covered up either though. I've seen the Baby, It's Cold Outside tweet several times but I don't recall her looking for anything to be censored.

I'm just trying to figure out if the feminists mentioned in this thread have actually been hypocritical in this regard.

They are still publicly expressing their offence at these songs etc.

O'Neill expressed that 'baby it's cold outside' was a song about 'rape culture', a vague concept she is openly and constantly writing about and is very much against against except for the actual rape culture that occurs in the middle East of course that she never mentions

Surely such tolerant women should just accept art is art in whatever form and should be just accepted and allowed to remain in place??

kunst nugget

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They are still publicly expressing their offence at these songs etc.

O'Neill expressed it was a song about 'rape culture', a phenomenon she is openly and constantly against except for the actual rape culture that occurs in the middle East.

Surely such tolerant women should just accept art is art in whatever form and should be just accepted and allowed to remain in place??

She expressed an opinion of the song but did she call for it to be banned. I'm sure others might have but I don't recall her find that. I supposed it doesn't really matter if she did or not. If you feel like she would in a hypothetical situation that's enough for you.

What's this here ? Una Mullally objecting to free speech that doesn't fit her own narrative??

I guess it's time for their white knights and 'woke baes' on here to slink off with their tail between their legs

https://twitter.com/UnaMullally/status/817050319586820097?s=19

Wibbs

kunst nugget wrote: »

Has O'Neill ever asked for anything to be censored or covered up either though. I've seen the Baby, It's Cold Outside tweet several times but I don't recall her looking for anything to be censored.

I don't either. Though TBH KN my brain switched off from the force of the face palm at the "Baby, It's Cold Outside" rape culture stuff.

I suppose one could argue censorship takes many forms, one of which is accusing an artwork or opinion of being out of bounds socially or politically. If enough people buy into that the the artwork or opinion becomes "censored" in essence. "If enough people buy into that" being the thing of course. In the case of the above song it seems most people thought "eh... no", if they even considered it at all. Not unlike that other set of tweets by some other perpetually sensitive wing nuts accusing Friends of being akin to a Nazi party manifesto.

RabbleRouser2k

Deleted User wrote: »

They are still publicly expressing their offence at these songs etc.

O'Neill expressed it was a song about 'rape culture', a phenomenon she is openly and constantly against except for the actual rape culture that occurs in the middle East.

Surely such tolerant women should just accept art is art in whatever form and should be just accepted and allowed to remain in place??

Reminds me of the craziness years ago, when 'Beautiful Girls' by Sean Kingston was 'banned' from irish radio because the song had lyrics saying 'You make me suicidal, suicidal, when you say its over...'
They even pressured RTE to remove a Desperate Housewives promo because it used the song.

It was the Oneilllo's of the world making themselves known... in disguise, before they started using the 'male tears' mugs to mock male emotions, because men are expendable.

kunst nugget wrote: »

Has O'Neill ever asked for anything to be censored or covered up either though. I've seen the Baby, It's Cold Outside tweet several times but I don't recall her looking for anything to be censored.

I'm just trying to figure out if the feminists mentioned in this thread have actually been hypocritical in this regard.

When Milo Yiannopolis got a book deal-she went mental, claiming writings like his 'shouldn't be published'. His book did get published, tho through another publisher, then went on to sit at the top of the NYT bestseller's book list.
But yeah, she did call for censorship.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

What's this here ? Una Mullally objecting to free speech that doesn't fit her own narrative??

Well... I think its an interesting subject. For a start free speech is pretty much never entirely free. Societies and laws and cultures and individual beliefs influence it at every turn. Someone that has a deeply held political and social viewpoint sees the enemy as something to be exposed and/or silenced. Mullally - and she's not alone in this, nor are the Left alone in this - is looking much more at the silenced option.

That's the point where I fundamentally disagree. For me exposure to the full light of public scrutiny should be applied across the board on all sides of a debate. Silencing opinions nearly always increases their uptake and that uptake is much less likely to question. Perceived censorship makes a thing "sexy". The idea that you and those in your echo chambers hold the Truth™ is very appealing. Human's love the notion that their deeply held opinions are being silenced by some nebulous censor. It adds petrol to the flame. We see this in hardline Left types and hardline Right. Even if there's no real censorship true believers will see it. Look at Boards. Any thread on politics will have a near equal balance of some on both sides convinced that Boards is promoting the Right/Left[delete as applicable].

I did read the article and saw this passage. Now I would partially agree with her, but for fun I swapped out one group for another:

The radicalisation of a cohort of Muslim men who are turning to a brand of racism and fascism that is now being sold as a warped version of Islam will inevitably end in the murder of those people these Muslim don’t like. That’s how these things work.

Would she write that? I doubt it, but then I wouldn't expect her to.

Vladimir Poontang

A wagon