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

RabbleRouser2k

Cody montana wrote: »

Sounds like you lot are jealous at her success, sorry.

She lives at home with her parents-hardly a Bill Gates' success story, is it?

Cody montana

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

She lives at home with her parents-hardly a Bill Gates' success story, is it?

A play based on her book opened to huge success last night, sounds successful to me.

givyjoe

Cody montana wrote: »

A play based on her book opened to huge success last night, sounds successful to me.

Come on now, huge success?!

Cody montana

givyjoe wrote: »

Come on now, huge success?!

Look at twitter, these are not my words.

givyjoe

Cody montana wrote: »

Look at twitter, these are not my words.

So it didn't open to huge success? Care to link us to evidence of this 'huge success'.

py2006

If anyone thinks criticism of 'feminists' in the vein of LON is down to how much money she has or how many books she has sold is either blissfully unaware or a bird of a feather...

Yer Da sells Avon

soiseztomabel wrote: »

Lads?

Surely you mean straight white males

the purple tin wrote: »

That really touched a nerve!
I put a fiver on Hapax Legomenon being Rosemary McCabe. Oh to hell with it, make it ten!

Omackeral wrote: »

Hapax is actually Alison Spittle.

Huh, well that's me proven wrong.

soiseztomabel

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Huh, well that's me proven wrong.

Welcome back Rosemar..... I mean Hapax

Omackeral

Cody montana wrote: »

Sounds like you lot are jealous at her success, sorry.

I'm jealous she gets her laundry done by her parents and gets driven around. #Highlife

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

Precisely the point others have made that is abundantly clear in your posts. You don't have experience and are offering up points which don't make sense in the real world.

I don’t agree. Of course I have experience of the issues. I just haven’t had loads of relationships. The singletons over TGC are always pontificating about women and relationships. If we discounted their opinions it would be a much quieter place.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don’t agree. Of course I have experience of the issues. I just haven’t had loads of relationships. The singletons over TGC are always pontificating about women and relationships. If we discounted their opinions it would be a much quieter place.

These singletons you speak of im sure HAVE had relationships. Just as I have. By your own admission you do not have the experience of serial dating which I assume also excludes casual sex. So really not a comparable point.as I said, the picture you paint is not one recognisable to the average guy/girl who've managed to go their entire existence without rape or sexual assault charges.

Zulu

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’d also be a good idea to cover non verbal cues. Such as if she’s lying there frozen not making eye contact then there’s probably an issue there.

Your blatant sexist prejudice aside - shouldn't we be saying "he" or "she"?

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What do you mean 'men aren't discussing it because LON isn't'? Sure the topic around women not legally being capable of rape has been raised many times on Boards and long before LON was on the scene too

Sure. You publish your thoughts on boards, she published her thoughts on national multimedia. One of you is winning that little battle.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Again, what you're saying is illogical. Go to tGC and search the threads there and you'll see many issues raised over the years before anyone had ever heard tell of the woman. You're making some quite bizarre statements.

Ah no. TGC is littered with anti feminism. The conflation of anti feminism with men’s rights is on display in TGC. There’s very little men’s issues compared to rebutting feminists.

Now these same clowns think consent is a bullsh1t feminist issue. Where I see consent as an important issue for men and women.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, that's yet another strawman from you. They don't think consent is a "bullsh1t feminist issue" they just think that the narrative which feminists like to create around consent is largely bullsh1t. There's a distinct difference there and it's only natural that you are going to see a lot of rebuttal of things such as affirmative consent discussion because they tend to lead to legislation when not challenged.

Sure. The men discuss consent from a feminist perspective. Rebutting the feminist arguments. Allowing the feminists to pick the battlefield. One poster keeps popping up saying consent is simple. So they can’t really take part in shaping the discussion because they’re not willing to discuss it beyond the very surface level. So they’re leaving the more interested parties like feminists to shape the discussion for them. As I’ve mentioned before the parliamentary committee evidence session last week. Guess whether or not they’ll be happy with the results. Lol.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The singletons over TGC are always pontificating about women and relationships. If we discounted their opinions it would be a much quieter place.

If they're such a terrible strain for you to have to deal with, then why your near obsessive posting history there? It is after all your second most visited and posted in forum on the site. where you feel somehow duty bound to wheel out your usual deflection, whataboutery, misrepresentation with the occasional not so veiled dig at those that bother you. See above for the latter. Not very inventive or accurate of course, but then again your debating rarely is. For fun you should channel your other recent obsession with Kermit the Frog, sorry Jordan Peterson and roll out the "clean your room" line again. That's always good for a giggle.

LLMMLL

Zulu wrote: »

Your blatant sexist prejudice aside - shouldn't we be saying "he" or "she"?

No

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

No

So women don't need to attend consent classes?

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

So women don't need to attend consent classes?

Where did I say that?

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The singletons over TGC are always pontificating about women and relationships. If we discounted their opinions it would be a much quieter place.

If they're such a terrible strain for you to have to deal with, then why your near obsessive posting history there? It is after all your second most visited and posted in forum on the site. where you feel somehow duty bound to wheel out your usual deflection, whataboutery, misrepresentation with the occasional not so veiled dig at those that bother you. See above for the latter. Not very inventive or accurate of course, but then again your debating rarely is. For fun you should channel your other recent obsession with Kermit the Frog, sorry Jordan Peterson and roll out the "clean your room" line again. That's always good for a giggle.

Did you look up my posting stats or something? I don’t know whether to be flattered or creeped out. Lol.

The perpetual singletons pontificating on women and relationships aren’t a burden for me. I don’t know if you can imagine any of the perpetually single characters. They don’t bother me. They’re a harmless, even if lacklustre, bunch for the most part. I wouldn’t give them tuppence for their opinions on women or relationships though. Why would I want relationship opinions from people who can’t convince anyone to have a relationship with them? Lol.

I’ve never referred to Peterson as Kermit the frog.

Anyway, Wibbs, me aul pal, fun and all as it was to have you drop by to post an OT personal message to me, do you fancy contributing to the topic at all?

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The perpetual singletons pontificating on women and relationships aren’t a burden for me. I don’t know if you can imagine any of the perpetually single characters. They don’t bother me. They’re a harmless, even if lacklustre, bunch for the most part. I wouldn’t give them tuppence for their opinions on women or relationships though. Why would I want relationship opinions from people who can’t convince anyone to have a relationship with them? Lol.

and yet you remain obsessed with "debating" with these "perpetual singletons" even though you "wouldn’t give them tuppence for their opinions" and essentially insult the members of an entire forum? Nice one by the way and against the oul Boards rules and noted.

I’ve never referred to Peterson as Kermit the frog.

Bleedin hell, even when it's not a debate point you still can't get straight and/or misrepresent what someone types. That's some skill. I often thought it low level trolling/Chick Think(c) debate tactics, but now I'm thinking I was overcomplicating it.

Anyway, Wibbs, me aul pal, fun and all as it was to have you drop by to post an OT personal message to me, do you fancy contributing to the topic at all?

I think I've contributed quite enough to the topic of Mzz Primal Scream O'Neill and her hysterical nonsense thanks very much.



Oh and lest you get more giddy about someone knowing your posting stats, they're under your username for all to see.

Yeah_Right

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Anyway, Wibbs, me aul pal, fun and all as it was to have you drop by to post an OT personal message to me, do you fancy contributing to the topic at all?

Hold on. What makes you think you have the right to demand how others post in this thread? You did the same to me and another poster. You ridiculed what I posted, called me clueless and demanded I answer your questions. Yet when I asked you some questions, you ran away.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The perpetual singletons pontificating on women and relationships aren’t a burden for me. I don’t know if you can imagine any of the perpetually single characters. They don’t bother me. They’re a harmless, even if lacklustre, bunch for the most part. I wouldn’t give them tuppence for their opinions on women or relationships though. Why would I want relationship opinions from people who can’t convince anyone to have a relationship with them? Lol.

and yet you remain obsessed with "debating" with these "perpetual singletons" even though you "wouldn’t give them tuppence for their opinions" and essentially insult the members of an entire forum? Nice one by the way and against the oul Boards rules and noted.

I’ve never referred to Peterson as Kermit the frog.

Bleedin hell, even when it's not a debate point you still can't get straight and/or misrepresent what someone types. That's some skill. I often thought it low level trolling/Chick Think(c) debate tactics, but now I'm thinking I was overcomplicating it.

Anyway, Wibbs, me aul pal, fun and all as it was to have you drop by to post an OT personal message to me, do you fancy contributing to the topic at all?

I think I've contributed quite enough to the topic of Mzz Primal Scream O'Neill and her hysterical nonsense thanks very much.



Oh and lest you get more giddy about someone knowing your posting stats, they're under your username for all to see.

Oh now Wibbs, it’s not like you to so blatantly go out of your way to misrepresent me. But to clarify, I said I wouldn’t give tuppence for their opinions ON WOMEN AND RELATIONSHIPS. I still enjoy reading their lamentations though. LOL.

I imagined the stats are public, Ive decided I’m flattered that you’ve gone through i the trouble of looking my up my state and seeing which forums I contribute to.

I’ll take it you have nothing to contribute to the discussion then. So you just came in for a drive by and s few personal swipes at me including a selective quote. Nicely done but I’m not sure if that’s within the rules of the site or not. You’ll know better than me I’m sure. Lol.

It’s been great craic having you pop in to lob a few personal barbs, but I was enjoying the on topic chat without without your personal insults. So if you’ve nothing to contribute on the topic, why don’t you drop another personal insult or 2 and leave it at that. I’ll even let you have the last word.

El_Duderino 09

Double post

El_Duderino 09

Yeah_Right wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Anyway, Wibbs, me aul pal, fun and all as it was to have you drop by to post an OT personal message to me, do you fancy contributing to the topic at all?

Hold on. What makes you think you have the right to demand how others post in this thread? You did the same to me and another poster. You ridiculed what I posted, called me clueless and demanded I answer your questions. Yet when I asked you some questions, you ran away.

I posted a detailed answer to your question about what I’d like to see in the course. I don’t know if you have seen it or not. Post #5020.

I don’t have the right to demand how others post. I asked them if they fancy contributing to the discussion beyond posting personal barbs about me directly.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

As I mentioned, there are plenty of non noteworthy published authors and columnists who produce absolute dross.

You're in the vast minority here if you believe that her work is something to be lauded, folks from both 'sides of the argument' have agreed on that.

Again, Katie Hopkins has a platform, she's also full of click bait bile that appeals to certain mob, is she 'winning her argument'?

As her profile rises she'll find it increasingly difficult to hide the bonkers beliefs that underpins it and mainstream will eventually back away slowly.

Absolutely she’s winning. As is Donald trump and Katie Hopkins. It doesn’t mean they should be lauded for their work. But to claim they don’t have an impact is ridiculous. Hopkins chooses her battles and makes her points. I think she’s a knob but she gets her point across to millions, I get my opinion that she’s a knob across to the lads down the pub. Between me and Katie Hopkins, she’s winning.

She might lose her readership over time, her readership might continue to grow. Time will tell I suppose.

RabbleRouser2k

Omackeral wrote: »

I'm jealous she gets her laundry done by her parents and gets driven around. #Highlife

Ah now-reach for the stars...

If you ask very nicely, I'm sure LON's parents would happily do your laundry, and drive you around if you needed.

Just remember to nag her mammy about not putting the colour clothes in with the whites-and get ready to defend yourself from 'racism' because it's clothes, not people.

:pac::pac::pac:

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Absolutely she’s winning. As is Donald trump and Katie Hopkins. It doesn’t mean they should be lauded for their work. But to claim they don’t have an impact is ridiculous. Hopkins chooses her battles and makes her points. I think she’s a knob but she gets her point across to millions, I get my opinion that she’s a knob across to the lads down the pub. Between me and Katie Hopkins, she’s winning.



She might lose her readership over time, her readership might continue to grow. Time will tell I suppose.

I'm glad you see the similarities between trump, Katie Hopkins and LON.

Good job on making up something I never said re: impact. What I will is she's making very little impact, she's still a relative nobody and most of those that are familiar with her work dismiss it for the click bait dross that it is.

As for your weird obsession with winning an imaginary battle..

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh now Wibbs, it’s not like you to so blatantly go out of your way to misrepresent me. But to clarify, I said I wouldn’t give tuppence for their opinions ON WOMEN AND RELATIONSHIPS. I still enjoy reading their lamentations though. LOL.

Reading their lamentations eh? Nice. Loving the passive aggressive LOL's mind you. I'd forgotten that angle. And the angling for victimhood stuff. Leading questions, whataboutery, deflection, misrepresentation, etc. I do like to be surprised, but it seems not today.

And this kinda approach is relevant to the thread and the "feminists" of the twitterati, Tumblr, Arsebook, ChickThink(c) et al like Ms O'Neill, because they sing from the same hymn sheet. It's in certain third level demographics and now it's spread to the media. Some worry it's in politics too, but in mainstream politics not so much. Politicians will grasp at anything that's trending and they think will get them ticks on the ballot papers. If those eejits in the MGTOW(men going their own way :rolleyes:) movement got traction they'd be pandering to them too.

It's not just the professional "feminists" or their devotees of course, any of the identity politics types are near guaranteed to do it. I saw it time and time again with seagull posters oddly disgruntled with the existence of the Ladies Lounge when I helped mod that. Its just some get more of an open run at it than others, depending on the outlet. So your Katie Hopkins types would get shown to the wastepaper basket in the Guardian, while the denizens of the Daily Mail await her next malodorous missive with feverish anticipation. And so it goes on.

And it sells. That's what really matters. Always follow the money. Companies and not just the media industry are all too happy to shout you go girl! or whatever so long as the tills keep ringing. If they could monetise t'other side, they would. Hell they already do, QV the aforementioned Mail(biggest online newspaper in the world), Breitbart et al. The more "isms" that are around and can be fostered the more demographics can be targeted and the more divided and isolated the better.

If Ms O'Neill plays her cards right she can ride that train all the way to America. She's very local now, but she would be a charm for the American talk show circuit. Irish colleeeeen with the lovely accent, presentable, but not too threatening for the bored pants suited couch dwellers of American suburbia who will lap this paranoid victimhood stuff up. As they do. Ohprah Winfrey got billions from it(and stories of interracial midget relationships with sad piano music). And if she does get to milk that teat then I say fair bloody play to her, but it's nowhere close to the sociopolitical debate she or her upvoters think it is. And that's OK too. That stuff plays out on an already crowded stage.

Yeah_Right

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I posted a detailed answer to your question about what I’d like to see in the course. I don’t know if you have seen it or not. Post #5020.

I don’t have the right to demand how others post. I asked them if they fancy contributing to the discussion beyond posting personal barbs about me directly.

Well seeing as how I quoted your post #5020 and commented on it, I think it's fairly obvious that I've seen it, read it and thought about it. In it you talked about how one person might have a certain view or expectation on sex from watching porn and how their partner may only be into "vanilla " sex. This was something I addressed in an earlier post when I talked about my experience with anal sex, rimming and bum play. You freaked out, refused to comment on that and admitted you lack experience in having sex with various people. Yet you see fit to talk down to me and tell me I'm clueless about what consent is.

Instead asking about anal sex, I will try to be less specific and graphic for you. Has anyone you have ever dated/been in a relationship with/hooked up with ever tried to get you to do something that you weren't comfortable with? Or have you wanted to do something your partner wasn't comfortable with? What happened? How was it approached? What was said? What was the re-action?

JohnMc1

The Ghost Train wrote: »

What makes me laugh about these feminists is they go on and on about women's liberation and while at the same thing selling out women in general to Islamists and militant transsexuals.

Funny and sad at the same time.

Tells you what a whitewashed version of Islam we're being sold when Feminists and gays, 2 groups that should be opposed to them are demanding their entry and takeover of our Countries.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

I'm glad you see the similarities between trump, Katie Hopkins and LON.

Good job on making up something I never said re: impact. What I will is she's making very little impact, she's still a relative nobody and most of those that are familiar with her work dismiss it for the click bait dross that it is.

As for your weird obsession with winning an imaginary battle..

Ah this is getting silly now. She’s winning in so far as she gets her message out on national and international, multi media platforms. The similarities I see between trump Hopkins and LON is that they get their message out in spite of lots of disagreement with them.

She has inspired over 300 pages of discussion on this thread. She’s getting her message out and men aren’t. They’re busy telling each other LON is a big eejit.

It’s funny that some posters tell me I’m wrong and LON is s big problem with their tell me im wrong and LON is irrelevant.