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

Maxpfizer

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

When I read stuff like this I wonder how much these people actually know about the Alt-Right.

The only name I see thrown around with any consistency is Richard Spencer but I'm not sure that people even have a clue about what Spencer believes.

I saw a "debate" between Spencer and the Youtuber Sargon of Akkad where some of Spencers views are on display.

They argue over everything and can't agree on anything though but you'll often see people saying that Sargon is Alt-Right. It's the same with the likes of Jordan Peterson.

My take on that is that they want to establish that "Alt-Right" is the absolute worst thing you can be (and that's true that the alt-right are pretty bad) but only so they can then label certain people as "Alt-Right".

It's like we can all agree that Nazis are bad, right?

So what about this guy over here who doesn't want gender neutral toilets or that guy over there who doesn't like the new Ghostbusters movie? They're just Alt-Right Nazis, aren't they?

I have serious doubts that people like Una Mullally are actually taking the time to sit down and figure out what people like Richard Spencer actually believe and then figure out who is and who isn't actually "Alt-Right".

razorblunt

Could someone resize that image please, my neighbour next door can't see his tv.

Outlaw Pete

kunst nugget wrote: »

..has Una Mulally called for any of those things to be censored or called for any art to be covered up?

kunst nugget wrote: »

Has O'Neill ever asked for anything to be censored or covered up either though.

Well both campaigned for Katie Hopkins to be removed as a guest on TLLS.





Una also pulled out of a Late Late panel show debate when she heard Ian O'Doherty was on it. An obnoxious bafoon by most people's standards but surely that's all the more reason for her to attend as she would then be able to slay him on live TV. Avoiding having to debate with people who have opposing views is fast becoming the standard hallmark of these people but it's not just about avoidance, as that bevahiour is about manipulation too as they know if enough of them do that, then media, social platforms etc, will soon start alienating the people they refuse to engage with.

Louise also insinuated that people should boycott the work of anyone 'accused' of sexual crimes with the following:

Powerful men, accused of crimes against women, should fail at the box office

I do not think I could go see Manchester By The Sea in good conscience. I will put my money where my mouth is and support movies such as Hidden Figures and Moonlight, movies that celebrate the artistic accomplishments of women and people of colour.

Due to recent upheavals across the world, from Trump to Brexit to the horrors in Syria, I have found it is frighteningly easy to become disillusioned and to believe that the world’s problems are insurmountable.

What difference can one person make, we think to ourselves and yet we do have choices.

It might seem meaningless, given greater societal issues at play, but by refusing to go and see Casey Affleck’s movie, I am making a tiny declaration that I find his alleged behaviour reprehensible and that I refuse to reward him with my time, attention, or most importantly, money.

How powerful would it be to see a movie starring Affleck or Mel Gibson or Johnny Depp or any of the other countless, immensely powerful men accused of heinous crimes against women, fail miserably at the box office due to a conscious boycott?

kunst nugget

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 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.

We'll aren't you a shining beacon of morality? :rolleyes:

I would pretty much doubt we are 'raising' her profile considering she is already a writer in the mainstream media. We are opposing the fact that this journalist or any journalist for that matter, isn't held to any shred of accountability any more. She can make any baseless claim she wants and no one in the media will haul her over the coals for it because they are all as biased and spineless

freshpopcorn

I'll go with her but she's paying!

the purple tin

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/

If it makes money, it makes sense.

Don't forget her perpetuating the outdated 'Irish Mammy' stereotype by treated her mother like an unpaid maid. Right on LON, hurray for 'pick n mix' feminism :rolleyes:

freshpopcorn

She's in the queue now for tickets!
I'll update how we'll get on!

pjohnson

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I'll go with her but she's paying!

She'd never see it.

MikeyTaylor

Getting sick of the constant changing of the title now.

MikeyTaylor

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

Getting sick of the constant changing of the title now.

TBH, I'm actually starting to enjoy it. Keep wondering what he's gong to think of next.

MikeyTaylor

So is Louise moving to Des Moines or what?

freshpopcorn

Cinema didn't go to well.
She wasn't happy that a man was working at the tills and a woman was cleaning the floor so she called the manager.
I got slightly more popcorn than her and she said it was because she was a woman so she called the manger.
The film also showed women in a bad light so we left early and she complained to the manager and will write about it in the future!

Owryan

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Cinema didn't go to well.
She wasn't happy that a man was working at the tills and a woman was cleaning the floor so she called the manager.
I got slightly more popcorn than her and she said it was because she was a woman so she called the manger.
The film also showed women in a bad light so we left early and she complained to the manager and will write about it in the future!

Yeah, but did you drop the hand?
Or
Did she drop the hand and rip off your manhood?

freshpopcorn

Owryan wrote: »

Yeah, but did you drop the hand?
Or
Did she drop the hand and rip off your manhood?

She had a strange looking device in her handbag so I decided not to chance it!

A Pint of Goo

Bring her on holidays to the Isle of Man.

MikeyTaylor

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

Bring her on holidays to the Isle of Man.

Too late, I've made up my mind. We're going to Des Moines.

RabbleRouser2k

Gravelly wrote: »

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

That shirt is so exclusionary towards women with MKRH (an absense of sexual organs, including uteruses, ovaries, and possibly even a vagina) as well as Trans people.
The women's council tweeted something as well regarding uteruses-and was roundly criticized for their blinkered views.

Had someone tweet this-and then Louise O'Neill responded to it...how she can link 'cancer' to 'Repeal'...I find it despicable. Abhorrent even-because so many people will not get a choice with cancer, instead they'll be told 'sorry, it's over' and be given a few months to live. A baby is not a death sentence, and the 'fears' one has with a child are often for their health and welfare. Not 'how will my loved ones cope as I die and after I'm gone'.:mad:

https://twitter.com/O_Conartist/status/988131039817224197

The commenter, who is on O'Neill's side, also made comments regarding gay men and repeal in that 'gay men should have the same choices on repeal as all other men-none'. Yes-because that's democratic, and not fascist in the slightest. Everyone was asked to vote for same-sex marriage, which didn't affect many of us, yet we were called to vote. Now gay men have a vote for women and termination, which doesn't affect them-and according to her, they shouldn't... Do these people use logic at all? Do most of em get their daily information from The Handmaid's Tale?

If any of you got stuck watching Prime Time, they had two doctor's on regarding the cervical check, which drifted onto the repeal the 8th as well as discussing the abortion case of an Irish woman who got a termination, in England, and died afterwards. The woman trotted out the usual 'Savita Halappanavar would still be alive but for the 8th' thing-ignoring that much of the reason she died was because the hospital completely screwed up-the 8th wouldn't have helped.
She also tip-toed around the death of the Irish woman who died after getting a termination in England. Similar misadventure happened there as it did to Ms Halappanavar-yet the 8th was the 'problem'...:mad:

This debate is really infuriating me-I'm trying to be pro-both sides, and I want to vote to repeal, I do...but there are some people, on both sides, who are being incredible ignoramuses. It's enough to make you not want to vote, and considering how lackadaisical people can be about voting...

hatrickpatrick

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

Getting sick of the constant changing of the title now.

Feel free to write a strongly worded letter, set fire to it, impale the now flaming letter on a rusty pitchfork, and ram the aforementioned fiery-letter-wielding rusty pitchfork up your own hole. If you find this difficult either physically or emotionally, I'm sure one (or, indeed, several) of the posters here would be happy to assist!

RabbleRouser2k

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Feel free to write a strongly worded letter, set fire to it, impale the now flaming letter on a rusty pitchfork, and ram the aforementioned fiery-letter-wielding rusty pitchfork up your own hole. If you find this difficult either physically or emotionally, I'm sure one (or, indeed, several) of the posters here would be happy to assist!

Ah come on-no need to be a jerk.

LLMMLL

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

That shirt is so exclusionary towards women with MKRH (an absense of sexual organs, including uteruses, ovaries, and possibly even a vagina) as well as Trans people.
The women's council tweeted something as well regarding uteruses-and was roundly criticized for their blinkered views.

Had someone tweet this-and then Louise O'Neill responded to it...how she can link 'cancer' to 'Repeal'...I find it despicable. Abhorrent even-because so many people will not get a choice with cancer, instead they'll be told 'sorry, it's over' and be given a few months to live. A baby is not a death sentence, and the 'fears' one has with a child are often for their health and welfare. Not 'how will my loved ones cope as I die and after I'm gone'.:mad:

https://twitter.com/O_Conartist/status/988131039817224197

The commenter, who is on O'Neill's side, also made comments regarding gay men and repeal in that 'gay men should have the same choices on repeal as all other men-none'. Yes-because that's democratic, and not fascist in the slightest. Everyone was asked to vote for same-sex marriage, which didn't affect many of us, yet we were called to vote. Now gay men have a vote for women and termination, which doesn't affect them-and according to her, they shouldn't... Do these people use logic at all? Do most of em get their daily information from The Handmaid's Tale?

If any of you got stuck watching Prime Time, they had two doctor's on regarding the cervical check, which drifted onto the repeal the 8th as well as discussing the abortion case of an Irish woman who got a termination, in England, and died afterwards. The woman trotted out the usual 'Savita Halappanavar would still be alive but for the 8th' thing-ignoring that much of the reason she died was because the hospital completely screwed up-the 8th wouldn't have helped.
She also tip-toed around the death of the Irish woman who died after getting a termination in England. Similar misadventure happened there as it did to Ms Halappanavar-yet the 8th was the 'problem'...:mad:

This debate is really infuriating me-I'm trying to be pro-both sides, and I want to vote to repeal, I do...but there are some people, on both sides, who are being incredible ignoramuses. It's enough to make you not want to vote, and considering how lackadaisical people can be about voting...

The 8th wouldn't have made a difference in the Savita case? She was denied medication that would induce a miscarriage with a consultant saying (according to the consultant themself) "Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart[beat]". Maybe you're arguing they misinterpreted the law or waited too long but it's pretty obvious that the law played a major part.

There was an article in the IT about a week ago where a woman with one lung was told while it was likely there would be a risk to her life due to the pregnancy she could not have an abortion in Ireland as there was no immediate risk. Do you think a law that says "this may kill you but we won't do anything about it until it's close to killing you" doesn't play a large part in any death that happens because of delayed intervention?

RabbleRouser2k

LLMMLL wrote: »

The 8th wouldn't have made a difference in the Savita case? She was denied medication that would induce a miscarriage with a consultant saying (according to the consultant themself) "Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart[beat]". Maybe you're arguing they misinterpreted the law or waited too long but it's pretty obvious that the law played a major part.

Everything about Savita's case was a complete screwup...doctor's could have terminated the pregnancy much sooner, as well as treating her for the sepsis.

There was an article in the IT about a week ago where a woman with one lung was told while it was likely there would be a risk to her life due to the pregnancy she could not have an abortion in Ireland as there was no immediate risk. Do you think a law that says "this may kill you but we won't do anything about it until it's close to killing you" doesn't play a large part in any death that happens because of delayed intervention?

You mean this case?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728

Hard to judge-she did have the child, and much of her comments are speculation. I think much of that article negates personal responsibility too-she had a number of health problems, and was widowed-I would have been getting all sorts of things to prevent pregnancy in her case.

And that male birth control pill can't hurry up in getting here.

LLMMLL

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Everything about Savita's case was a complete screwup...doctor's could have terminated the pregnancy much sooner, as well as treating her for the sepsis.



You mean this case?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/heart-patient-unable-to-get-abortion-as-life-not-at-immediate-risk-1.3475728

Hard to judge-she did have the child, and much of her comments are speculation. I think much of that article negates personal responsibility too-she had a number of health problems, and was widowed-I would have been getting all sorts of things to prevent pregnancy in her case.

And that male birth control pill can't hurry up in getting here.

Yes there were screwups in Savita's case but the law played a large part in those screwups.

Don't really understand your response to the second case. She was pregnant. The law affected her ability to get an abortion. Whether you think she should have gotten pregnant or not is beside the point.

hatrickpatrick

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Ah come on-no need to be a jerk.

I was being exceptionally friendly, I even offered my assistance with following my admittedly rather complicated instructions

Kimbot

LLMMLL wrote: »

She's basically a woman haters greatest fear.

Dont be silly, I only fear spiders.

Oh and as for Burgers if LON doesnt like an ould double burger I can no longer lust after her so someone tell me she still likes an ould double......

Hector Bellend

I fail to understand why tripe like this is given the oxygen of publicity by anyone

MikeyTaylor

I am going to help Iain Stirling and his other half plan their wedding in Des Moines. Would LO'N like to help out?

Omackeral

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

I am going to help Iain Stirling and his other half plan their wedding in Des Moines. Would LO'N like to help out?

What is your fascination with Des Moines? It’s about the 5th time you’ve named dropped it.

MikeyTaylor

Omackeral wrote: »

What is your fascination with Des Moines? It’s about the 5th time you’ve named dropped it.

It gave us Slipknot for starters... :-)

MikeyTaylor

New title suggestion:
"Will ITV give Louise O'Neill a show on ITV2?"

Pero_Bueno

Title suggestion, "Will Louise O Neill visit the holy stone of Clonrichert for inspiration?"