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

Will I Am Not

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Terrified, unable, unwilling. The result is the same. The last few pages are testimony to that.

I think you’re confusing terrified with people not subscribing to your particular brand of bullsh*t. It’s hilarious how you are telling people to go read a forum that you have derailed and shat all over, like you are doing in this thread, as some kind of proof to back up your position.
God help the woman tasked with popping that cherry...

El_Duderino 09

Will I Am Not wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Terrified, unable, unwilling. The result is the same. The last few pages are testimony to that.

I think you’re confusing terrified with people not subscribing to your particular brand of bullsh*t. It’s hilarious how you are telling people to go read a forum that you have derailed and shat all over, like you are doing in this thread, as some kind of proof to back up your position.
God help the woman tasked with popping that cherry...

Grand. But you’re still skirting the issue and instead taking a side swipe at me.

The issue is important to men and women and it’s being discussed by others including LON. That much is just observation of reality. You don’t need to subscribe to my particular brand of bullsh1t to see that much.

Ush1

She debated Jordan Peterson? Is that online anywhere?

Maxpfizer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well it’s a play so it won’t exactly be either a discussion or a sermon. You could buy a ticket and see it, then you’ll know.

I don't really know what opposing views would be, but they probably should get their message out there.

What if they simply can't get their message out there?

Why does one side of the argument get a national platform to put forward their points but the opposing view is confined to message boards etc?

This thread is growing all the time and some posters have some great points.

What would it take for one of those posters to be given a chance at an article in the Irish Examiner, for example?

I feel like it doesn't happen because randomers online are written off as crazies but the downside of that is that there is no real mainstream, accessible, challenge to the narrative.

That's why I'd say the point of view that, by simply "creating content" and "starting a discussion", she is doing something good is wrong because you don't see any challenge to her views.

If there's no robust challenge then how do we separate the useful good stuff from the unhelpful garbage?

the purple tin

Ush1 wrote: »

She debated Jordan Peterson? Is that online anywhere?

It wasn't really a debate between them. I think it was 4 or 5 people. They only had one brief exchange; LON was talking about an author and Peterson said she had no clue what she was talking about (the author that is) so LON quickly changed the subject rather than try to defend the author. She's very clever like that, avoids direct confrontaion and always falls back to the same generalities no matter how relavant they are to the actual point being discussed.

DickSwiveller

What was the podcast with Blindboy like?

Rory28

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What was the podcast with Blindboy like?

Like seeing Cthulhu with your own eyes it will drive you insane.

2smiggy

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What was the podcast with Blindboy like?

don't want to listen to it, i'd imagine my ears would bleed listening to them two

Outlaw Pete

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s actually an important men’s issue but the men aren’t interested in forwarding their concerns. Too busy setting up threads about how stupid and terrible LON is. Meanwhile LON is writing books and plays and taking part in the national discussion.

Where are you getting this nonsense from?

There are multiple examples that men have aired (and are airing) their concerns regarding sexual consent laws. There have been threads here on Boards started on the issue in fact. Started one myself recently enough. What you refer to as a national discussion is not really a discussion at all, but more the constant festering of a nonsense narrative.

Even in Louise docu on "rape culture" she was pretty much told her views are incorrect by someone who knows what they are talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaO76M81c_c

But yet, despite the above, look at how she behaved during, and after, the rape trial in Belfast. Safe to say that what was said to her above went in one ear and out the other. She has no interest in the truth or fairness. She only has interest in portraying women as perpetual victims of a patriarchy. Hence her obsession with writing victim porn. Even going so far as to moan on TLLS about male orgasams being prioritized by society. She's off her rocker.

But's that's the way society is now. Liberals are the new church and the media it's pulpit where they get to dictate what is and isn't acceptable for people to think or say. George Hook gets castigated for an extreme view on one side and an extreme view on the other is lauded. There is no balance anymore. Logic replaced by idealism. Express a conservative view these days and you'll be quickly categorized as a bigot. Express a liberal one and doors will open. Blindboy the perfect example. Was pretty much seen as a lout while singing about horses and banging fat chicks. Talks about feminism being positive and he's suddenly a best selling author.

Any other time in history these two fools would be laughed at for spouting incredulous nonsense but today we have people paying to hear them speak waffle.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Where are you getting this nonsense from?

There are multiple examples that men have aired (and are airing) their concerns regarding sexual consent laws. There have been threads here on Boards started on the issue in fact. Started one myself recently enough. What you refer to as a national discussion is not really a discussion at all, but more the constant festering of a nonsense narrative.

Even in Louise docu on "rape culture" she was pretty much told her views are incorrect by someone who knows what they are talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaO76M81c_c

But yet, despite the above, look at how she behaved during, and after, the rape trial in Belfast. Safe to say that what was said to her above went in one ear and out the other. She has no interest in the truth or fairness. She only has interest in portraying women as perpetual victims of a patriarchy. Hence her obsession with writing victim porn. Even going so far as to moan on TLLS about male orgasams being prioritized by society. She's off her rocker.

But's that's the way society is now. Liberals are the new church and the media it's pulpit where they get to dictate what is and isn't acceptable for people to think or say. George Hook gets castigated for an extreme view on one side and an extreme view on the other is lauded. There is no balance anymore. Logic replaced by idealism. Express a conservative view these days and you'll be quickly categorized as a bigot. Express a liberal one and doors will open. Blindboy the perfect example. Was pretty much seen as a lout while singing about horses and banging fat chicks. Talks about feminism being positive and he's suddenly a best selling author.

Any other time in history these two fools would be laughed at for spouting incredulous nonsense but today we have people paying to hear them speak waffle.

In fairness, there is zero connection between his opinions and his book.

2smiggy

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, there is zero connection between his opinions and his book.

maybe he should take the stupid bag off his head and speak in his real accent ?

2smiggy

2smiggy wrote: »

maybe he should take the stupid bag off his head and speak in his real accent ?

It is his real accent. The bag allows him to live a normal life outside of what he creates rather than being recognised as a Z-list Irish celebrity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU0mnjXYqDY

El_Duderino 09

Maxpfizer wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well it’s a play so it won’t exactly be either a discussion or a sermon. You could buy a ticket and see it, then you’ll know.

I don't really know what opposing views would be, but they probably should get their message out there.

What if they simply can't get their message out there?

Why does one side of the argument get a national platform to put forward their points but the opposing view is confined to message boards etc?

This thread is growing all the time and some posters have some great points.

What would it take for one of those posters to be given a chance at an article in the Irish Examiner, for example?

I feel like it doesn't happen because randomers online are written off as crazies but the downside of that is that there is no real mainstream, accessible, challenge to the narrative.

That's why I'd say the point of view that, by simply "creating content" and "starting a discussion", she is doing something good is wrong because you don't see any challenge to her views.

If there's no robust challenge then how do we separate the useful good stuff from the unhelpful garbage?

Is there a problem getting their message out? Jordan Peterson has no problem getting his messages out. And he’s very popular. So I do t really buy the idea that you can’t get the men’s side of the argument out there.

Just look at the reluctance to discuss the issue in this thread. A couple of posters have actually discussed the topic. Most have either flippantly said don’t rape anyone, or said it doesn’t need to be discussed, LON is discussing it all wrong, LON is irrelevant, LONs play and books aren’t art, El D is all wrong.

The one thing that hasn’t been discussed is what men would like to contribute to the discussion. LON and her peers are getting their message out. So far I can’t even see what the men’s message would contain.

Now I know I’m a terrible eejit for asking what men would like to contribute to the discussion because it’s oh so fcuking obvious. But humour me. What would you like to contribute to the discussion that isn’t being said?

2smiggy

Deleted User wrote: »

It is his real accent. The bag allows him to live a normal life outside of what he creates rather than being recognised as a Z-list Irish celebrity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU0mnjXYqDY

no it's not his real accent , I'm much the same age as him, and know plenty of lads who were in school with him

Boom_Bap

2smiggy wrote: »

no it's not his real accent , I'm much the same age as him, and know plenty of lads who were in school with him

Generally if people are doing public speaking or if their voice is being broadcast, they will pronounce things differently and be more articulate.
I imagine that this is what he is doing and it accentuates the accent.

2smiggy

2smiggy wrote: »

no it's not his real accent , I'm much the same age as him, and know plenty of lads who were in school with him

Fair enough. I listen to all most of his podcasts. The question came up towards the end of one. I can't find a clip of it. He said its his real accent. He said since the podcast became so popular, random people in the pub started recognise his voice which he wasn't delighted with. I'm gonna choose to believe his anecdote over yours.

Gravelly

Deleted User wrote: »

The bag allows him to live a normal life outside of what he creates rather than being recognised as a Z-list Irish celebrity spout any 'oul shïte he wants on his carefully controlled platforms, safe in the knowledge that he will never have to defend his arguments face to face with the great unwashed.

FYP

fiveleavesleft

the purple tin wrote: »

It wasn't really a debate between them. I think it was 4 or 5 people. They only had one brief exchange; LON was talking about an author and Peterson said she had no clue what she was talking about (the author that is) so LON quickly changed the subject rather than try to defend the author. She's very clever like that, avoids direct confrontaion and always falls back to the same generalities no matter how relavant they are to the actual point being discussed.

That's because she peddles gombeen feminism. We have gombeen politics, economy, sports etc... It was only a matter of time before we gombeenified feminism. LON was the "cute hoor" to do it.

She's created a nice little earner for herself peddling lies, half-truths & obfuscation but with enough gumption not to leave herself exposed when it really matters.

Her actions over the women's march & referendum show shes just a gouger on the take. Yet her reputation has been enhanced. A cute one is our Lou;).

Yeah_Right

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is there a problem getting their message out? Jordan Peterson has no problem getting his messages out. And he’s very popular. So I do t really buy the idea that you can’t get the men’s side of the argument out there.

Just look at the reluctance to discuss the issue in this thread. A couple of posters have actually discussed the topic. Most have either flippantly said don’t rape anyone, or said it doesn’t need to be discussed, LON is discussing it all wrong, LON is irrelevant, LONs play and books aren’t art, El D is all wrong.

The one thing that hasn’t been discussed is what men would like to contribute to the discussion. LON and her peers are getting their message out. So far I can’t even see what the men’s message would contain.

Now I know I’m a terrible eejit for asking what men would like to contribute to the discussion because it’s oh so fcuking obvious. But humour me. What would you like to contribute to the discussion that isn’t being said?

What needs to be discussed? Consent? What actually needs to be discussed? Seriously. I don't understand what the issue is. Don't force people to do things they don't want to do and if you don't want to do something then don't do it. If you did it but then regret it well tough ****.

You keep going on about this "discussion" that is taking place and needs to make place and that men need to be a part. You've called me clueless so help me out. What are we discussing? What is the issue?

I dunno. I think some people are missing the point here. To take the Paddy Jackson trial, if all parties were fully educated on the nature of consent and seeked clarity, if Paddy and Stuart made sure of consent and the girl made sure that her lack of consent was made abundantly clear, that whole trial would have never happened. People will claim its unnatural and ruin the mood, but we have seemed to take to condoms fairly easily. They're an enormous buzz kill and we've adapted to them. El_dude has a point, Ireland and the world is evolving and this needs to happen. Perhaps we need outliers like LON spouting her nonsense to move the midpoint of opinion in Ireland. Divorce used to illegal in Ireland and people were forced to stay in abusive relationships. Ireland will slowly change its opinion of consent.

Yeah_Right

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno. I think some people are missing the point here. To take the Paddy Jackson trial, if all parties were fully educated on the nature of consent and seeked clarity, if Paddy and Stuart made sure of consent and the girl made sure that her lack of consent was made abundantly clear, that whole trial would have never happened. People will claim its unnatural and ruin the mood, but we have seemed to take to condoms fairly easily. They're an enormous buzz kill and we've adapted to them. El_dude has a point, Ireland and the world is evolving and this needs to happen. Perhaps we need outliers like LON spouting her nonsense to move the midpoint of opinion in Ireland. Divorce used to illegal in Ireland and people were forced to stay in abusive relationships. Ireland will slowly change its opinion of consent.

But what needs to change? If you're hooking up with someone and they try to do something you're not into, say it. It really is that simple.

HappyAsLarE

The way Lou and Co. go on it is as if rapes happen by accident.

A rapist doesn’t give a fcuk about consent you gob.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yup. Gray areas. And at the same time, women will complain that men are too timid, too gentle, too shy in the dating scene. That they want men to take control, to be assertive, and to "sweep them off their feet". That feeling of adventure, excitement and impulsiveness. That only the A.Holes and Bstards ask them out, with them never meeting nice guys. I wonder why?

Genuinely never heard a woman complain that men are too timid or want to be swept off their feat except for tv shows.

Maybe you’ve met these women and think then there’s a contradiction with women giving out about assholes.

But here’s why it’s not a paradox:

Different women want different things. I would assume the women who complain to you that they want an assertive man would not complain to you about him ordering the drinks.

You’re never going to get your detailed guidelines on what women want from the men they date. They’re not a monolith with exactly the same opinions.

I’ve seen posts of yours before where you say you’re into the whole gentlemanly thing. Why don’t you just keep doing that? The women who don’t like that aren’t suitable for you anyway. I fail to see a problem there.

The problem with LON or the Feminist scheme is that it seeks to remove womens voices. It encourages the belief that women can't say no.

No it doesn’t. Take the PJ case for instance. The victim claims she said no. LON, whether right or wrong about this case, believed her account. So from their point of view a woman said no and was ignored. I see no inference that women can’t say no.

DickSwiveller

LLMMLL wrote: »

Genuinely never heard a woman complain that men are too timid or want to be swept off their feat except for tv shows.

Maybe you’ve met these women and think then there’s a contradiction with women giving out about assholes.

But here’s why it’s not a paradox:

Different women want different things. I would assume the women who complain to you that they want an assertive man would not complain to you about him ordering the drinks.

You’re never going to get your detailed guidelines on what women want from the men they date. They’re not a monolith with exactly the same opinions.

I’ve seen posts of yours before where you say you’re not into the whole gentlemanly thing. Why don’t you just keep doing that? The women who don’t like that aren’t suitable for you anyway. I fail to see a problem there.



No it doesn’t. Take the PJ case for instance. The victim claims she said no. LON, whether right or wrong about this case, believed her account. So from their point of view a woman said no and was ignored. I see no inference that women can’t say no.

But why does she believe her? Does she know her?

LLMMLL

Yeah_Right wrote: »

But what needs to change? If you're hooking up with someone and they try to do something you're not into, say it. It really is that simple.

In reality an initial no is often met with either wheedling/whining, directly ignored, or initially accepted followed a few minutes later by trying again. I really wish it was as simple as you make out.

Maxpfizer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Now I know I’m a terrible eejit for asking what men would like to contribute to the discussion because it’s oh so fcuking obvious. But humour me. What would you like to contribute to the discussion that isn’t being said?

I'd like to contribute rebuttals to some of the absolute BS that gets published uncontested. Probably just start with LONs latest article about women taking mens names and work backwards from there. Or maybe focus on consent. I don't know. ANYTHING to challenge the nonsense that gets to go unchallenged. THEN maybe we could work forward from that point.

Feminists aren't simply contributing to discussions on consent or the pay gap or any other gender related issues. They are controlling the discussions. They've controlled the discussions (in mainstream media at least) for so long that the best anyone could hope to contribute at this point is just to clean up the mess.

Now please stop playing dumb. You know what men would like to contribute to the conversation. You've read this thread and others, haven't you?

"Oh I just don't know what men would like to contribute". Riiiiight. This thread is almost up to 5000 posts now but you just somehow don't know what points people want to get across?

There's obviously a debate to be had here. People would be contributing if they had the opportunity but they don't so they aren't.

So why does one side of the argument get a national platform to put forward their points but the opposing view is confined to message boards etc?

LLMMLL

DickSwiveller wrote: »

But why does she believe her? Does she know her?

I believed the victim in that case as the testimony of the men were demonstrably bags of lies with one defendant actually telling the wrong version of events that had been designed by another defendant.

I’m sure other people have their own reasons for why they believe either the victim or the defendants.

RabbleRouser2k

LLMMLL wrote: »

In reality an initial no is often met with either wheedling/whining, directly ignored, or initially accepted followed a few minutes later by trying again. I really wish it was as simple as you make out.

There was a trial, there was a verdict reached-Jackson was found not guilty, but LON, who never set foot in that courtroom, wanted mob justice.

And much of the verdict rested on a woman's testimony as to what she witness-so LON didn't like what another woman said, despite having been at the party...

Similar to the solicitor, LON only believes 'certain' women-she doesn't believe women when they don't agree with her.

Ush1

LLMMLL wrote: »

I believed the victim in that case as the testimony of the men were demonstrably bags of lies with one defendant actually telling the wrong version of events that had been designed by another defendant.

I’m sure other people have their own reasons for why they believe either the victim or the defendants.

The jury were in the court, you weren't.

LLMMLL

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

There was a trial, there was a verdict reached-Jackson was found not guilty, but LON, who never set foot in that courtroom, wanted mob justice.

And much of the verdict rested on a woman's testimony as to what she witness-so LON didn't like what another woman said, despite having been at the party...

Similar to the solicitor, LON only believes 'certain' women-she doesn't believe women when they don't agree with her.

Do you really believe that LON is saying she believes all women about all things they say? You can’t really think that’s what she’s saying?

She clearly means that she believes rape victims don’t make up their rapes.

If the PJ victim was telling the truth, that doesn’t mean the other woman was lying. The other woman basically said that from a brief viewing she did not believe it was non consensual. It’s possible she was mistaken and I’m sure she’d agree with that.