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

RabbleRouser2k

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Agreed-allow one to scrutinise the shallow points and lack of validity of their argument. I hate many tv shows and books, doesn't mean I want em banned-as Louise did with Milo's book. (I edited my above post a bit late).

They do love to promote the Islamic 'Sharia law' narrative as a positive, don't they?

razorblunt

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

It's almost summer time, let's see if she cops on to the "Sweat - a la la la long" song, it's almost 30 years old now but Tupac never sampled it so she may have missed it.

Gravelly

Please suggest a suitable car for Louise O'Neill

Louise should show her disdain for the patriarchy, and her support of women in engineering by driving one of those models of car designed and engineered entirely by women.































Oh right, yeah I forgot.

razorblunt

razorblunt wrote: »

It's almost summer time, let's see if she cops on to the "Sweat - a la la la long" song, it's almost 30 years old now but Tupac never sampled it so she may have missed it.

Hey.... even books from 1837 aren't safe from scrutiny

Count Down

Please suggest a suitable car for Louise O'Neill

Anything with 'Wagon' in the name would be appropriate, i.e. Space Wagon, Station Wagon etc.;)

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

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

That's what I want to see. Actual examples of hypocrisy rather than the flights of fancy a lot of people on here engage in.

givyjoe

kunst nugget wrote: »

That's what I want to see. Actual examples of hypocrisy rather than the flights of fancy a lot of people on here engage in.

kunst nugget

givyjoe wrote: »

Haven't a clue what you're the trying to say there, buckaroo.

Boom_Bap

givyjoe

kunst nugget wrote: »

Haven't a clue what you're the trying to say there, buckaroo.

There's definitely a workable new thread title in there..

Gravelly

Whatever about the car, I know what car sticker she should get:

kunst nugget

Wibbs wrote: »

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].

That's how I've always felt about it. Censorship does nothing but make something more alluring. I know it did for me in terms of the video nasties of the eighties. Allowing opinions it in the open gives them the scrutiny that they deserve.

cantdecide

kunst nugget wrote: »

That's how I've always felt about it. Censorship does nothing but make something more alluring. I know it did for me in terms of the video nasties of the eighties. Allowing opinions it in the open gives them the scrutiny that they deserve.

And this is the Streisand effect in action.

I think LON and her ilk are more a symptom of a sanctimonious, shouty minority and their hangers on and critics that create this false sense of 'right on' popularity. As many point out on-thread - no one really cares in wider society. I think that anyone who would pay LON for her opinions is doing our world no good.

cantdecide

Please suggest a suitable car for Louise O'Neil!

Dodge Avenger ftw. Perfect in name, at least!

kunst nugget

cantdecide wrote: »

And this is the Streisand effect in action.

I think LON and her ilk are more a symptom of a sanctimonious, shouty minority and their hangers on and critics that create this false sense of 'right on' popularity. As many point out on-thread - no one really cares in wider society. I think that anyone who would pay LON for her opinions is doing our world no good.

So are you saying, like O'Neill says about Milo, that she shouldn't be published?

Also, I'd be of the opinion that like O'Neill represents a shouty minority involved in identity politics, this thread represents a shouty minority on the right that creates a false sense of a silent moral majority. And you're right, nobody in the wider world gives two figs. Most people just get on with their lives completely unaffected.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

That's what I want to see. Actual examples of hypocrisy rather than the flights of fancy a lot of people on here engage in.

Which have been already pointed out to you with example of Mullally saying an article in the times should never have been printed. Rabble rouser also pointed out about O'Neills exception to the fact Yannapoulos is given a platform. These are the same gobshítes who block anyone they don't agree with at will on twitter

cantdecide

kunst nugget wrote: »

So are you saying, like O'Neill says about Milo, that she shouldn't be published?

There are lots of opinions that should be the preserve of blogs and obscure websites and not regularly handed a platform with massive reach (even if they're just going to be ignored). My criticism always comes back to the same point - I'm a grow-up and can take it. Boys and vulnerable young men are subject to these hateful and divisive opinions too publicly too often all in the name of giving these publications a means of virtue signaling. There is harm being done and there is no means of hearing the counter-argument without wading into obscure websites, blogs and youtube channels and that's wrong.

cantdecide

kunst nugget wrote: »

...this thread represents a shouty minority on the right that creates a false sense of a silent moral majority.

I'm firmly left of centre, btw. I don't know about anyone else here.

kunst nugget

cantdecide wrote: »

I'm firmly left of centre, btw. I don't know about anyone else here.

I'd imagine the likes of tipp_gunner and his railing against libtard feminists would be on the right there somewhere…

I'd be left of centre as well (socially liberal with a cynical view on identity politics as they are pushed on Twitter and slightly fiscally conservative but with a desire to maintain a social welfare system that benefits all if you want to have a summary of my beliefs) and I'd find the attitudes of O'Neill and others annoying.

I just find it fascinating the rabid frothing her and her ilk inspire in some of the posters on here the odd time I look at this thread out of morbid curiosity. They probably do more to keep her profile raised than any PR company could possibly do for her.

cantdecide

kunst nugget wrote: »

I just find it fascinating the rabid frothing her and her ilk inspire in some of the posters on here the odd time I come on here out of morbid curiosity. They probably do more to keep her profile raised than any PR company could possibly do for her.

I see rabid frothing on both sides of the argument but both sides are not represented prominently in mass media. Ignoring it does not make it go away because the IT have a box to tick and aren't interested in the counter-points because they are 'problematic' and too easily re-labelled as bigotry.

Wider society can safely ignore this but I believe this background drone harms vulnerable groups and I believe the propaganda must be subjected to a playing field. I don't condone censorship but I don't support weaponised propaganda.

kunst nugget

cantdecide wrote: »

I see rabid frothing on both sides of the argument but both sides are not represented in mass media. Ignoring it does not make it go away because the IT have a box to tick and aren't interested in the counter-points because they are 'problematic' and too easily re-labelled as bigotry.

Wider society can safely ignore this but I believe this background drone harms vulnerable groups and I believe the propaganda must either be stopped or the playing field equalised.

I don't know enough about the Examiner as I wouldn't be bothered reading it but the Irish Times makes space for the likes of Una Mulally and Breda O’Brien and every opinon inbetween. David Quinn, Ian O'Doherty, Rónán Mullen, Mary Kenny and Cora Sherlock are also all very visible on the Irish media landscape with regular columns and/or regular guest slots on TV and radio will they decry the lack of representation of their views in Irish media. I think it's disingenuous to suggest that there is no representation of right wing or conservative opinion in Ireland.

Zulu

kunst nugget wrote: »

... this thread represents a shouty minority on the right that creates a false sense of a silent moral majority.

That's a bit of a leap. Whats your basis for it? because people have voice a problem with 3rd wave feminists?

I'd lean left (and I'd rarely shout) and am egalitarian. I see no evidence that feminism supports or is conducive with the later.

cantdecide

kunst nugget wrote: »

I think it's disingenuous to suggest that there is no representation of right wing or conservative opinion in Ireland.

LON's musings go mostly unchallenged. I thought that should be clear given the context of the thread.

kunst nugget

cantdecide wrote: »

LON's musings go mostly unchallenged.

So would Breda O'Brien's or David Quinn's. Occasionally they'll cause a bit of stir but most of the time they are ignored just like O’Neill's.

Zulu

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'd imagine the likes of tipp_gunner and his railing against libtard feminists would be on the right there somewhere…

I'd be left of centre ....

Sorry only seeing this now; I'd be much the same.

kunst nugget

Zulu wrote: »

That's a bit of a leap. Whats your basis for it? because people have voice a problem with 3rd wave feminists?

I'd lean left (and I'd rarely shout) and am egalitarian. I see no evidence that feminism supports or is conducive with the later.

Are you one of the ones talking about libtard feminists? There's plenty of reasonable voices on here but there are some that are completely OTT imo - I would have thought it would be easy enough to spot the posters I'm talking about.

Zulu

"Libtard" is a fair give away alright.

Wombatman

[/Louise O'Neill: Top; trousers, both Jennifer Byrne; earrings, Capulet & Montague, all Om Diva. Shoes, River Island.

Now that she has fulfilled here dream of becoming a glorified clothes horse, she probably doesn't have any qualms about promoting businesses known to exploit women in low wage sweat shops.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/news/a49049/channel-4-dispatches-fashion-new-look-river-island/

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Wombatman wrote: »

Now that she has fulfilled here dream of becoming a glorified clothes horse, she probably doesn't have any qualms about promoting businesses known to exploit women in low wage sweat shops.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/news/a49049/channel-4-dispatches-fashion-new-look-river-island/

Ugh... manspreading....

Gravelly

Wombatman wrote: »

At least she looks really sad about it.