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

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You think el duderino is a troll? Care to show any particular trolling post with reference to the definition of trolling?

I find debating with you frustrating. Does that make you a troll?

Trollish behavior. As for me, I tend to stick to certain core points and back up my posts where requested. I don't tend to shift around much, and acknowledge when I'm incorrect on a subject. I also don't tend to go around seeking buttons to press. Still.. you can describe me (or my posting style) any way you please... you already have numerous times on this thread alone.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

God no. I have my own form of sarcasm that I wheel out. I've been on boards long before you, and developed my own attitude when needed.



I'm beginning to think you're much younger than me if you think there wasn't much change in Ireland regarding gay men during that period. The difference was the change in social perception. For all your dismissal of the importance of the law, recent times have simply brought about the legal changes and official recognition for gay people.

There wasn’t and as I said I’ve been involved in gay rights since 2002.

The change in social perception came about relatively quickly. And while it’s hard to date these things. It started around 2010-2012 and increased very quickly after that.

And this is the reason why distinguishing between Ireland and other countries is so important. The manner in which Gay people gained acceptance in other countries came about in a different manner. The Gay pride display finally found acceptance in Ireland much later compared to the general acceptance of homosexuality by the common person.

Do I know better? I wonder. At the beginning of this thread, I would simply have considered us to have different experiences... but considering the way you argue these points, I am starting to question your direct knowledge of how Ireland became more accepting of gay people and their choices.

Are you talking about other countries? Weren’t you living abroad for a long time? I think we did have different experiences. I’ve been in Ireland the entire time and involved with the gaybrights movement. Can you say the same?

You keep talking about the SSM. The distinguishing change in Irish society was the ability for gay people to express their behavior (and love) in public, without public condemnation or physical assault. The ability to be openly gay in the workplace without losing their jobs. Many other examples of Irish society becoming more accepting. The SSM was a wonderful step towards complete equality, but there have been far more important changes in Irish society.

That was not the distinguishing thing pre the ssm referendum. That was a characteristic OF the ssm referendum.

In fact I remember many expressions of surprise in census years that there were that many gay couples and that they would dare declare it on their census forms. The people expressing this surprise were certainly not popping around to Michael and Barry next door for a cup of tea of the afternoon.

This is getting out of hand lads..



(LLMMLL is definitely LON..)

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Trollish behavior. As for me, I tend to stick to certain core points and back up my posts where requested. I don't tend to shift around much, and acknowledge when I'm incorrect on a subject. I also don't tend to go around seeking buttons to press. Still.. you can describe me (or my posting style) any way you please... you already have numerous times on this thread alone.

That is not how I’d describe your posting style at all. You’ve plenty of sarcastic posts. And admitting when you’re wrong is completely a matter of perception. There’s been plenty of times you’ve been shown up on this thread and shifted tack.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Tongue.. in cheek.. will I get out the finger puppets for you? :rolleyes:

But while you're checking the definition of trolling, have a check on the definition of vigilantism.

My example of non legislative action was consent classes. To respond with the idea of vigilantism is hilarious.

LLMMLL

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Yes I was using that as one example of laws in the US that disproportionately affect black people.

You equated it to changes to policies around single parents, stay at home parents and carers. I don't know enough about these policies as they have never really affected me. I do know my OH got a nice rebate from the taxman every year as she was a single parent. She also got grants/funding from the government to pay for her son to go to uni. Can you tell me what it is/was about these policies that was sexist and oppressed women?

For example when there are cuts in carers allowance. Don’t these disproportianetly affect women?

RabbleRouser2k

The change started much sooner than 2010 or 2012- I'd argue the 90s were when we saw a shift, amid more gay characters and gay relationships on tv.

Both home and abroad. Societal acceptance was where it started-that's where it always starts.

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

For example when there are cuts in carers allowance. Don’t these disproportianetly affect women?

What were these cuts? Who did they affect and when were they brought in? I have know idea what you are talking about. Like I said I know nothing about these allowances so you need to explain them and give me details if you are going to ask my opinion on them.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yup... although perfectly clear wouldn't be my first description. It's taken this long to finally understand where you're coming from.

That’s because the guys on this thread read my posts in a fugue of rage.

If they can’t understand “legal equality is not full equality” with examples from black and gay rights and need MULTIPLE step by step explanations to get what I’m saying then Iran not really me that has the problem.

You gave five vague examples which needed to be discussed before we understood what they referred to. And even then, they weren't examples relating to the original question.

That’s because the original question was bogus. It would only make sense if legal equality was full equality. Which it isn’t.

LOL. (no, not LON) You. OMG. Hilarious.

Yes you really do have core points that you always back up when asked. I can see that now.

The_Kew_Tour

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I think that we have already established on the thread that she doesn't have to cover every single incident involving a female, which is fair.

Which is fair enough.

Just that she never misses a beat with anything else.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

There wasn’t and as I said I’ve been involved in gay rights since 2002.

You seem to be involved in a lot of movements.

I've never been involved in gay rights. I had gay friends. I had a gay lover. hmm.. I partied with gay people. I fought with paranoid gay men. I defended gay friends from aggressive skinheads. I fended off the advances of gay men, and had wonderful munchies in cafes late at night with lesbian couples.

so... what do I know about gay people? I know the manner in which they lived, I know about the secrecy, the loss of family or friends, the forced isolation pushed upon them. I know of the suicides, and assaults within the community, and I know of the inspiring love between two people in spite of all odds.

The change in social perception came about relatively quickly. And while it’s hard to date these things. It started around 2010-2012 and increased very quickly after that.

Okie dokie. We've reached that circular point. Complete difference of opinion.

Are you talking about other countries? Weren’t you living abroad for a long time? I think we did have different experiences. I’ve been in Ireland the entire time and involved with the gaybrights movement. Can you say the same?

I left Ireland when I was 30 to live in Australia, and then moved to Japan/China. Every 2-3 years, I'd return to Ireland and live here for a year.

Nope. Never been part of any gay rights movement. Never wanted to be. However.... I still have many gay friends who I spent a lot of time with both daily and at nights. I saw the lifestyle and was part of their discussions in their homes.

But I guess your experiences are far more 'relevant' than mine.

That was not the distinguishing thing pre the ssm referendum. That was a characteristic OF the ssm referendum.

Your timeline is rather wacky. But, I'm done arguing this with you. We've both said our pieces on the subject.

In fact I remember many expressions of surprise in census years that there were that many gay couples and that they would dare declare it on their census forms. The people expressing this surprise were certainly not popping around to Michael and Barry next door for a cup of tea of the afternoon.

Whereas I can remember in Cork around 2005, the house style nightclub having special nights where gay couples got in for free, and straight people paid full price.

Just as I can remember my new manager in EsatBT (Dublin) in 2001 who was openly camp, but truly excellent at his job. I can also remember the negative reaction of one team member who was quickly transferred to another department. Previously, the gay man would have been the one transferred out.

But hey! we can share personal experiences all day. It's not getting us any closer to any form of agreement. You simply have a vastly different perception of the situation than me.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

My example of non legislative action was consent classes. To respond with the idea of vigilantism is hilarious.

I'm referring to LON.. the subject of this thread.. remember? Finger puppets on the way...

Boom_Bap

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Which is fair enough.

Just that she never misses a beat with anything else.

As much as I like throwing a hand grenade into this thread, or some general mockery, we are just talking about 1 person here who some people think needs to cover every situation. I wouldn't expect that of anyone.
But I'm still curious if she even needs a new toaster.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

That’s because the guys on this thread read my posts in a fugue of rage.

****s and giggles. TBH. Minor annoyance sometimes but usually I'm in the absolute giggles at most of what you write.

If they can’t understand “legal equality is not full equality” with examples from black and gay rights and need MULTIPLE step by step explanations to get what I’m saying then Iran not really me that has the problem.

Well, naturally, you're not the problem. You're female and a feminist. That's the double whammy of perfection. You would never make a mistake or assume personal responsibility for either the content of your posts or the reactions of the posters here. Gosh. Don't worry. It's fine. All male posters are definitely incorrect, stupid, sexist and racist.

That’s because the original question was bogus. It would only make sense if legal equality was full equality. Which it isn’t.

It's only bogus if you argue such a point. Whereas if you actually answered the question without placing such a qualifier... then the question would have been perfectly valid. For most people. Alas...

Yes you really do have core points that you always back up when asked. I can see that now.

Ahh, more sarcasm. Lovely. Not to worry though... I'm returning to dealing sarcasm right back at you.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You seem to be involved in a lot of movements.

I've never been involved in gay rights. I had gay friends. I had a gay lover. hmm.. I partied with gay people. I fought with paranoid gay men. I defended gay friends from aggressive skinheads. I fended off the advances of gay men, and had wonderful munchies in cafes late at night with lesbian couples.

so... what do I know about gay people? I know the manner in which they lived, I know about the secrecy, the loss of family or friends, the forced isolation pushed upon them. I know of the suicides, and assaults within the community, and I know of the inspiring love between two people in spite of all odds.

Another assumption I’m afraid. I’m not involved in any feminist campaigns. So only been involved in one movement. Sorry to disappoint.

I left Ireland when I was 30 to live in Australia, and then moved to Japan/China. Every 2-3 years, I'd return to Ireland and live here for a year.

What year did you leave? You’re in your 40s right? So you left pre or around 2008? You’ve lived here what 2-3 years in the last 10-12?

And you’re informing us of your experience of the gradual change in gaybrights in Ireland? Ok

Nope. Never been part of any gay rights movement. Never wanted to be. However.... I still have many gay friends who I spent a lot of time with both daily and at nights. I saw the lifestyle and was part of their discussions in their homes.

But I guess your experiences are far more 'relevant' than mine.

Given you’ve been abroad for much of the period we’re discussing then yeah my experience probably is more relevant.

Your timeline is rather wacky. But, I'm done arguing this with you. We've both said our pieces on the subject.



Whereas I can remember in Cork around 2005, the house style nightclub having special nights where gay couples got in for free, and straight people paid full price.

Well I’ve never heard underground clubs being used as a measure of mainstream social change. There were also great gay friendly clubs in the 90s. And I assume there were earlier too but I’ve no experience of them. Hardly a big change.

Just as I can remember my new manager in EsatBT (Dublin) in 2001 who was openly camp, but truly excellent at his job. I can also remember the negative reaction of one team member who was quickly transferred to another department. Previously, the gay man would have been the one transferred out.

Openly camp or openly gay?

I can give you plenty of examples of workplace discrimination against gay people in the noughties. Countless actually.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

That’s because the guys on this thread read my posts in a fugue of rage.

I read your posts with more a symphony of bemusement, confusion and bewilderment..

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

****s and giggles. TBH. Minor annoyance sometimes but usually I'm in the absolute giggles at most of what you write.



Well, naturally, you're not the problem. You're female and a feminist. That's the double whammy of perfection. You would never make a mistake or assume personal responsibility for either the content of your posts or the reactions of the posters here. Gosh. Don't worry. It's fine. All male posters are definitely incorrect, stupid, sexist and racist.



It's only bogus if you argue such a point. Whereas if you actually answered the question without placing such a qualifier... then the question would have been perfectly valid. For most people. Alas...



Ahh, more sarcasm. Lovely. Not to worry though... I'm returning to dealing sarcasm right back at you.

.......

[Deleted User] wrote: »

rAs for me, I tend to stick to certain core points and back up my posts where requested. I don't tend to shift around much, and acknowledge when I'm incorrect on a subject. I also don't tend to go around seeking buttons to press.

Outlaw Pete

LLMMLL wrote: »

Sleeping around. Oh dear. I have a feeling you’re going to claim that men who sleep around are viewed just as negatively as women are.....

Well, it's true........

Promiscuity Frowned Upon By College Students

According to a new study presented at the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, around 50% of all male and female college students display a negative attitude towards their male and female peers with a similar sexual history to themselves, and judge them as hooking up 'too much'.

The study's co-author, Rachel Allison, a doctoral candidate in the University of Illinois at Chicago's Department of Sociology, said: "Men and women are increasingly judging each other on the same level playing field. But, gender equality and sexual liberation are not synonymous. While we've come a long way in terms of gender equality, it seems that a large portion of both college men and women lose respect for individuals who they believe participate in too frequent casual sexual activity."

The findings revealed that around 48% of the participants were egalitarian conservatives, i.e. judging their male and female peers with similar sexual histories by the same standard and lose equal respect for those who they believe hook up too much, whilst around 27% were egalitarian libertarians, meaning they lose respect neither for their male or female peers irrespective of their amount of hook ups.

Almost 12% held a traditional double standard, meaning they lose respect for women who hook up too much, yet not for men, and around 13% held a reverse double standard, meaning they lost respect for men who hooked up too much but not for women.

Risman remarked: "Women who hold to this reverse double standard are invoking a kind of gender justice. They are critical of men who treat women badly and they do not accept a 'boys will be boys' view of male sexuality."

"You have to remember how far the sexual revolution has come. Before, sociologists would study stigma directed toward sexually active unmarried women. Now, we are looking at whether stigma still exists toward men and women who too often engage in purely recreational sexual activity outside the confines of a dating relationship. That's a sea change in attitudes towards sex."

And my own experiences over the last 20 odds years of how society acts in this context would absolutely back that up as I have never, not once, heard a man being referred to as a stud when he is promiscuous. Expect maybe in an ironic mocking way, but otherwise they'd more likely be spoken about in a somewhat negative fashion, with comments such as 'He'd get up on anything' or 'He must be riddled' etc. Men can also quite often be shamed for exhibiting certain sexually overt behaviours and (sometimes justifiably) get called creeps, sleazy, desperate etc, and so the stud/slut narrative you'd have us all believe is an apt one, is far from the truth of how things in actual reality are. Things are much more complex than that, but ultimately, more balanced than ever before, with regards to the positive and negative ways people can be seen today when it comes to their sexual choices.

MikeyTaylor

So is her new TV station with L.W. still going ahead?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Another assumption I’m afraid. I’m not involved in any feminist campaigns. So only been involved in one movement. Sorry to disappoint.

Um... where did you get feminist campaign from? I didn't even suggest it.

What year did you leave? You’re in your 40s right? So you left pre or around 2008? You’ve lived here what 2-3 years in the last 10-12?

Pretty much. And... what? Ohh I get it! I wasn't here, and you were. ahh... it's okay, petal... I had friends... who I spoke regularly with. And I attended their celebrations, returning to Ireland for short periods when they asked me.

Gosh. Boggles the mind.

And you’re informing us of your experience of the gradual change in gaybrights in Ireland? Ok

Nope. That would be you, informing us. I've repeatedly said I have no involvement in Gay rights movements. Do you want me to repeat it again? Perhaps put it in CAPS? or Bold it?

My experience is entirely based on knowing gay people, and spending time with them. But yes, you've just confirmed that I needed to be part of a rights movement to understand anything.

Given you’ve been abroad for much of the period we’re discussing then yeah my experience probably is more relevant.

Well no... since you've focused on that period and ignored every reference I've made previous to it. Selective goggles and all that.

Well I’ve never heard underground clubs being used as a measure of mainstream social change. There were also great gay friendly clubs in the 90s. And I assume there were earlier too but I’ve no experience of them. Hardly a big change.

Not even slightly an underground nightclub.

Openly camp or openly gay?

I can give you plenty of examples of workplace discrimination against gay people in the noughties. Countless actually.

I know you could. I could do the same. But I could also point how those incidents pushed society to change... But I'm not going to bother, as you've pretty much ignored everything else I've said on the subject except for when it relates directly with your own opinions.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

I'm referring to LON.. the subject of this thread.. remember? Finger puppets on the way...

Ah givy you make this too easy. Here’s your quote:

Interesting choice of words to be honest.. that legislation isn't necessarily a way to address these inequalities. Sounds a lot like vigilantism.

So you criticise my choice of words but say you’re referring to LON and not me.

You were directly referring to me. I’ll have those finger puppets back now.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I read your posts with more a symphony of bemusement, confusion and bewilderment..

We could start a remedial thread for those struggling. Would that help?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

rAs for me, I tend to stick to certain core points and back up my posts where requested. I don't tend to shift around much, and acknowledge when I'm incorrect on a subject. I also don't tend to go around seeking buttons to press.

Deleted User wrote:

Ahh, more sarcasm. Lovely. Not to worry though... I'm returning to dealing sarcasm right back at you.

LLMMLL wrote: »

.......

Bolded and underlined the important part since you seem to have missed it.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ah givy you make this too easy. Here’s your quote:



So you criticise my choice of words but say you’re referring to LON and not me.

You were directly referring to me. I’ll have those finger puppets back now.

You are LON, remember?

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

We could start a remedial thread for those struggling. Would that help?

Sign yourself.. and to some self awareness classes.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Um... where did you get feminist campaign from? I didn't even suggest it.

What other campaign were you referring to then? Is this classic klaz where you heavily imply something then Retreat to saying you didn’t literally say it?

Pretty much. And... what? Ohh I get it! I wasn't here, and you were. ahh... it's okay, petal... I had friends... who I spoke regularly with. And I attended their celebrations, returning to Ireland for short periods when they asked me.

Uh huh. You really think the experience of someone living in Ireland and someone who returned every few years are even close. You really think you are in a position to make definitive statements on the supposedly gradual pace of change in gay rights in Ireland because you had friends there? And you came back for the odd party?

Gosh. Boggles the mind.

It really does.

Nope. That would be you, informing us. I've repeatedly said I have no involvement in Gay rights movements. Do you want me to repeat it again? Perhaps put it in CAPS? or Bold it?

My experience is entirely based on knowing gay people, and spending time with them. But yes, you've just confirmed that I needed to be part of a rights movement to understand anything.

I didn’t say you were part of a movement. I was talking about your experience of changing gay rights. Do only formal campaigners have experience of changes in rights? That’s kind of bizarre.

Well no... since you've focused on that period and ignored every reference I've made previous to it. Selective goggles and all that.

What year did you actually leave. You haven’t said yet. I’m pretty much focussed on 2000-present which is what I have experience of.

Not even slightly an underground nightclub.

Well if you want the experiences of some of my friends in noughties mainstream gay clubs I’d be happy to oblige. It’s a bit different to that once club that gave discount to gay people.

I know you could. I could do the same. But I could also point how those incidents pushed society to change... But I'm not going to bother, as you've pretty much ignored everything else I've said on the subject except for when it relates directly with your own opinions.

Yes and if horrible incidents are needed to progress rights and attitudes then this idea that it was a nice gentle liberal curve of acceptance is nonsense.

upandcumming

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I think that we have already established on the thread that she doesn't have to cover every single incident involving a female, which is fair.

No, just verdicts in rape cases in different countries.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Bolded and underlined the important part since you seem to have missed it.

Highlighting the hypocrisy. You basically
Just underlined my whole point. Thanks.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

You are LON, remember?

Right then so you are referring to me and your response about vigilantism was in response to my suggestion of consent classes.

MikeyTaylor

givyjoe wrote: »

You are LON, remember?

Genuinely?