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

razorblunt

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nonsense. Explain this review so


https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1007911296753393664

Ha ha ha that needs a big "this is an advert" disclaimer at the top of it.
I don't blame him though, in fact I admire him for tweeting so succinctly from his position at the time.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But I still get to be included on your 'list'. Lovely.



Ahh yes, because in 16 years on boards, I've learned nothing about my fellow posters. Right. In any case, I love how you skimmed a thread with 119 pages (I'm not even sure you read that much), and have somehow decided how much people have contributed... but then again, it comes down to you passing judgement over other posters and their activities. Very Orwellian of you.



I think she chooses what she wants to write about, and follows her own moral code regarding whats worth the effort. Some stories stand out in her mind, others don't. I can see what the other posters are referring to but I don't see it as being rare among online 'journalists'. They're still interested in drama and clickbait ideas.

You’re included on my list as you’re one of the top anti-feminist posters on this thread. You claimed that the top anti-feminist posters on this thread post in the men’s rights thread. Why would I exclude you from that analysis?

I didn’t skim the thread. I looked at the number of posts people made in the thread. There is a list of the top posters in the thread by how many posts they made. I looked at top ten or so in this thread and then took a look at their position in the men’s rights thread.

That list I created were people who have made hundreds of posts about LON and pretty much nothing to the men’s rights thread.

I’m not sure why you have such a problem with this. You said that the main posters on this thread were active on the men’s rights thread. You brought it up. Now you’re acting like it’s some crazy invention of mine.

LLMMLL

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The flaw in your logic is that the 'main posters' on this thread who have taken issue with either LON's contention that we live in a rape culture, or that there's an oppressive patriarchy, that men can't be sexist against women, or as affected by revenge porn etc etc, DON'T also have to have spoken up about men's rights issues in order for their criticisms of her on this thread to be valid, but yet that is what you are suggesting over and over again. You claim you're not, but you are. You're suggesting there is hypocrisy at play but if you tried to flesh it out you'd see that there is no

I’m simply highlighting that the main anti-feminists on this thread are not active in the men’s rights thread as klaz claimed. And while I can’t prove it, it’s pretty unlikely that they’re actively campaigning in real life.

My other point is not to say they don’t care about men’s rights. It’s to highlight the hypocrisy of those who claim that because LON doesn’t campaign about issues facing women in the Middle East (for example) then she doesn’t care about these issues. The vast majority of anti-feminists on that list I created either posted that opinion or thanked a post that expressed it.

So my posts are directed at those guys. They think that LON doesn’t care about middle eastern women. So by their own standards they don’t care about men’s rights.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn’t skim the thread. I looked at the number of posts people made in the thread. There is a list of the top posters in the thread by how many posts they made. I looked at top ten or so in this thread and then took a look at their position in the men’s rights thread.

Ahh, numbers of posts equals quality/contributions to a thread. Okay. Then, I'm perfectly happy not to agree with your scale. You see, personally, if someone posts a few times, and provides rational well-considered posts, then I'm rather happy. It all adds to the thread... as opposed to someone who posts 400 one liners looking to get reactions.

That list I created were people who have made hundreds of posts about LON and pretty much nothing to the men’s rights thread.

Okie dokie. I still don't get why that's so important to you. It isn't to me.

I’m not sure why you have such a problem with this. You said that the main posters on this thread were active on the men’s rights thread. You brought it up. Now you’re acting like it’s some crazy invention of mine.

Nope. I said that many of the posters to this thread were active on the mens rights threads on the Gentleman's forum. You focused on a single thread, and also focused on the main posters to this thread.

You declared your intention to hold us up to some kind of personal standard of yours, and then turned it to holding us up to our own standards, and yet, we really don't need you to do any of those things. I'd settle for you to look to your own posting style instead.

In any case, I'm finished with this line of argument... since it's based on your becoming judge and jury of the thread and/or it's posters... nah.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think she chooses what she wants to write about.

Like every other columnist who ever existed? Some people on this thread seem to think that makes her some kind of monster.

upandcumming

razorblunt wrote: »

I don't blame him though, in fact I admire him for tweeting so succinctly from his position at the time.

On his knees in front of her?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ahh, numbers of posts equals quality/contributions to a thread. Okay. Then, I'm perfectly happy not to agree with your scale. You see, personally, if someone posts a few times, and provides rational well-considered posts, then I'm rather happy. It all adds to the thread... as opposed to someone who posts 400 one liners looking to get reactions.



Okie dokie. I still don't get why that's so important to you. It isn't to me.



Nope. I said that many of the posters to this thread were active on the mens rights threads on the Gentleman's forum. You focused on a single thread, and also focused on the main posters to this thread.

You declared your intention to hold us up to some kind of personal standard of yours, and then turned it to holding us up to our own standards, and yet, we really don't need you to do any of those things. I'd settle for you to look to your own posting style instead.

In any case, I'm finished with this line of argument... since it's based on your becoming judge and jury of the thread and/or it's posters... nah.

Actually you didn’t say threads. You were clearly referring to the main men’s rights thread in Tgc:

klaz wrote:

There's a thread on the Gentlemen's forum, and many of the posters here, contribute there.

A thread, not threads.

And if you really believe that their 0 or 1 post the guys on this thread made to the men’s rights thread was so high quality that it indicates a keen interest in men’s rights over the 200 or so posts they make here......

Mr. Incognito

Strawman Fallacy

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes claim Y.

Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).

Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.

Therefore, claim Y is false.

Example

LLMMLL wrote: »

So my posts are directed at those guys. They think that LON doesn’t care about middle eastern women. So by their own standards they don’t care about men’s rights.

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s not my judgement it’s their own. If LON not tweeting about an issue means she doesn’t care (or is a racist as has been suggested) then surely the fact that pretty much none of the main contributors to this thread comment on men’s rights means they just don’t care.

I think I object to being called an anti-feminist..

LLMMLL

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Strawman Fallacy

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes claim Y.

Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).

Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.

Therefore, claim Y is false.

Example

Except that view has been expressed on this thread and others multiple times. Some posters have directly called feminists who haven’t campaigned on these issues racists (though I think that was on another thread). A poster on this thread, while not calling her a racist directly, said it was a form of institutionalised racism. So it’s not an exaggeration at all.

markodaly

http://www.thejournal.ie/world-premiere-asking-for-it-play-4064223-Jun2018/

Ah, shes a good troll our Louise is.

The stage adaption of Louise O’Neill’s young adult novel Asking For It has left audiences “overwhelmed by the entire experience”, with some being physically “unable to clap”, according to its author.

Maybe they were asleep?

Boom_Bap

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I object to being called an anti-feminist..

Is Uncle-feminst better? :pac::pac::D

RabbleRouser2k

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Is Uncle-feminst better? :pac::pac::D

Dangit-beat me to the punchline-though there's a 'movement' to get gender pronouns removed from things like 'Father's day'-but only father's day-so I imagine 'non-feminist-agree er' more likely. Either that or 'troll' or 'Nazi'...

Three of us went to see this last night. I thought it was simply awful as a theatre spectacle! It seemed to be a rehash of what we’ve been reading and hearing in the media for some time now and it was far too predictable. But that’s just my opinion obviously. The notion that people were too emotionally exhausted to applaud is absolute tosh and they are trying to market the play. Although it was intense! In short I found it boring, as most others there did I imagine.

The Journal has censored a number of other comments-can't even say 'rapist' now-as it's offensive language.

God, the way they're spinning this-it's a play in the back end of the back end of Cork-not even touring, and it's a 'World premiere'...

The lady handing out crisps to people coming home to vote on the abortion bill had more credibility.

(Btw, how do you see the people who post the most on these forums?)

upandcumming

markodaly wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/world-premiere-asking-for-it-play-4064223-Jun2018/

Ah, shes a good troll our Louise is.



Maybe they were asleep?

Physically unable to clap... Imagine being that deluded.

Mr. Incognito

Strawman Fallacy

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes claim Y.

Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).

Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.

Therefore, claim Y is false.

Example

Quote:

LLMMLL wrote: »

Except that view has been expressed on this thread and others multiple times.

Some posters have directly called feminists who haven’t campaigned on these issues racists (though I think that was on another thread).

A poster on this thread, while not calling her a racist directly, said it was a form of institutionalised racism. So it’s not an exaggeration at all.

Boom_Bap

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

(Btw, how do you see the people who post the most on these forums?)

On the main page of After Hours, there is the thread title, to the right of that is a number for the Replies. Click on the number and it opens a new window giving the breakdown....this is all from the legacy site, not sure how it operates in the millennial edition

RabbleRouser2k

Boom_Bap wrote: »

On the main page of After Hours, there is the thread title, to the right of that is a number for the Replies. Click on the number and it opens a new window giving the breakdown....this is all from the legacy site, not sure how it operates in the millennial edition

Ah, thank you....and with this, I have made my 200th post in this forum. (How the heck am I the second highest poster on this?)

LLMMLL

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Strawman Fallacy

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes claim Y.

Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).

Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.

Therefore, claim Y is false.

Example

Quote:

Except that view has been expressed on this thread and others multiple times.

Some posters have directly called feminists who haven’t campaigned on these issues racists (though I think that was on another thread).

A poster on this thread, while not calling her a racist directly, said it was a form of institutionalised racism. So it’s not an exaggeration at all.

razorblunt

upandcumming wrote: »

On his knees in front of her?

Did the image I added to the post not show properly?

Here it is: https://www.thelegendofq.co.uk/rope-torture-device.html

Boom_Bap

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Ah, thank you....and with this, I have made my 200th post in this forum. (How the heck am I the second highest poster on this?)

RabbleRouser and LON sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G

Zulu

Boom_Bap wrote: »

RabbleRouser and LON sitting in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G determining consent

FYP! :pac:

RabbleRouser2k

LLMMLL wrote: »

Except that view has been expressed on this thread and others multiple times.

Some posters have directly called feminists who haven’t campaigned on these issues racists (though I think that was on another thread).

A poster on this thread, while not calling her a racist directly, said it was a form of institutionalised racism. So it’s not an exaggeration at all.

Probably me-but what I said was her not condemning the actions of 'non-white' criminals, as happened with a very serious rapes in Ireland last year, as well as a series of sexual assaults in the last few weeks committed by non-white immigrants shows an inherent racism. It's a common trait amongst her ilk.
They look down on these individuals-they don't see them as equal. Then they use phrases like 'punching down' when someone mocks another race or an lgbt person-because in their eyes, that person is not an equal. If these individuals commit a crime, it's almost expected of them. Hence the racism, and inherent racism.

Paddy Jackson fuelled her 'screaming in a cottage' mentality-despite his being found not guilty. She hasn't said a thing about a convicted-rapist-black football player playing for a football club here in Ireland.
Why would she-he's part of her inherent racism.

LLMMLL

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Probably me-but what I said was her not condemning the actions of 'non-white' criminals, as happened with a very serious rapes in Ireland last year, as well as a series of sexual assaults in the last few weeks committed by non-white immigrants shows an inherent racism. It's a common trait amongst her ilk.
They look down on these individuals-they don't see them as equal. Then they use phrases like 'punching down' when someone mocks another race or an lgbt person-because in their eyes, that person is not an equal. If these individuals commit a crime, it's almost expected of them. Hence the racism, and inherent racism.

Paddy Jackson fuelled her 'screaming in a cottage' mentality-despite his being found not guilty. She hasn't said a thing about a convicted-rapist-black football player playing for a football club here in Ireland.
Why would she-he's part of her inherent racism.

Yet she also never mentioned the “rape list” written on the toilets in the cork school. And this incident is smack bang in the centre of her area of interest.

Could it be that you can’t determine what someone thinks about a topic from the absence of campaigning on that topic?

Anyway think you’ve pretty much shown that the argument I was making was not quoting people out of context so thanks.

Ash.J.Williams

search "straight white male critic" in twitter for a laugh, apparently you can't critique a "woke" movie unless you're not a straight white male critic.

I'd probably experience a backlash if I contacted one of the "non straight white critics " that reviewed supertroopers 2 and told them they were not qualified to review it

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Like every other columnist who ever existed? Some people on this thread seem to think that makes her some kind of monster.

"Some people" will always have differing opinions to you. Or me.

I wouldn't consider her to be a monster. Misguided, foolish, and a sexist, sure.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Actually you didn’t say threads. You were clearly referring to the main men’s rights thread in Tgc:

And.... by your own words, and mine, I said a thread on Tgc. I didn't specify one. You chose to do that.

And if you really believe that their 0 or 1 post the guys on this thread made to the men’s rights thread was so high quality that it indicates a keen interest in men’s rights over the 200 or so posts they make here......

And.... back to putting your own interpretation on what I wrote and then responding to your own slant... Typical. :rolleyes:

Back to ignoring you. Thought you might have changed your posting style somewhat by now, but I guess that's too much to hope for.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Some people" will always have differing opinions to you. Or me.

I wouldn't consider her to be a monster. Misguided, foolish, and a sexist, sure.




And.... by your own words, and mine, I said a thread on Tgc. I didn't specify one. You chose to do that.



And.... back to putting your own interpretation on what I wrote and then responding to your own slant... Typical. :rolleyes:

Back to ignoring you. Thought you might have changed your posting style somewhat by now, but I guess that's too much to hope for.

So when you said there’s A men’s rights thread on the Tgc forum you weren’t referring to the the long and active thread with men’s rights in the title??? Unbelievable.

RabbleRouser2k

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yet she also never mentioned the “rape list” written on the toilets in the cork school. And this incident is smack bang in the centre of her area of interest.

Could it be that you can’t determine what someone thinks about a topic from the absence of campaigning on that topic?

Anyway think you’ve pretty much shown that the argument I was making was not quoting people out of context so thanks.

No, but she went insane over a non-existent facebook 'slut shaming' group-still doesnt exist.

I imagine she didn't mention the list because of her scare mongering the last time, and if she went chasing after kids accusing them of bad s**t, she'd be the one looking bad.

And since it was in Cork, she may have gone there-so bias, perhaps?

RabbleRouser2k

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

search "straight white male critic" in twitter for a laugh, apparently you can't critique a "woke" movie unless you're not a straight white male critic.

I'd probably experience a backlash if I contacted one of the "non straight white critics " that reviewed supertroopers 2 and told them they were not qualified to review it

LON did exactly that when people hated a movie she liked called, I kid you not, 'White Girl'.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And.... back to putting your own interpretation on what I wrote and then responding to your own slant... Typical. :rolleyes:

So let’s summarise:

You say posters on this thread are active on a men’s rights thread in TGC.

You won’t confirm which thread it is but it’s definitely not the only one with men’s rights in the title.

And even if it was that thread you would say that post frequency is irrelevant and it’s kore about quality.

But you think I’m misinterpreting you by questioning whether one potentially high quality post would show more of an interest in a subject than 200 posts on another subject.

Right......

Whenever anyone interprets your point in the most clear and obvious way, you just fall back on the fact that your post, like all posts are open to interpretation. Then refuse to confirm what the interpretation should be and profess yourself too tired to go on.

Claiming that you’ret being misinterpreted by the assumption that you were referring to the men’s rights thread is one of the most outrageous things I’ve heard on this thread. And that’s saying something.

LLMMLL

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

No, but she went insane over a non-existent facebook 'slut shaming' group-still doesnt exist.

I imagine she didn't mention the list because of her scare mongering the last time, and if she went chasing after kids accusing them of bad s**t, she'd be the one looking bad.

And since it was in Cork, she may have gone there-so bias, perhaps?

But this list was confirmed by the school to exist. There would be no reason in this case to be cautious about that.

I’m pretty sure there’s more than one school in Cork. The odds that she went there are pretty low.

But hey, let’s just make up any old reason rather than acknowledge she’s not a racist.