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

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Jonathan Pie with an analysis of Opression Olympics.

Such a shame the shadow from his nose while he talks about anti-fascism makes him look like Hitler (or is this delieberate you think?!)

hatrickpatrick

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Anyone been noticing how quickly the allegations of groping by Justin Trudeau are being ignored by the usual 'believe her' people?

Instead it was all the 'look at his outfit-he looks like an N Sync member'.

Very quick to ignore allegations against someone they deem 'handsome'...even if he's more handsy'.

It's not because he's attractive, it's because he's on their side of the political aisle. Partisanship among SJW types is insane, in terms of the values they're willing to compromise for the sake of their favoured politicians.

Hector Savage

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Jonathan Pie with an analysis of Opression Olympics.

Spot on !

Surprised he wasn't arrested for wrongthink ... is he in the UK ?

RabbleRouser2k

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Such a shame the shadow from his nose while he talks about anti-fascism makes him look like Hitler (or is this delieberate you think?!)

Possibly-a very subtle joke, which he includes from time to time.

Another time he 'goose stepped' outside the home office regarding how a 'joke' led to racism charges against a 'Count Dackula'.

He includes these little 'nods' as a homage.

I wonder who Lou is following in the world cup?..

py2006

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder who Lou is following in the world cup?..

Unfortunately most of the teams left over are largely white males,

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

py2006 wrote: »

Unfortunately most of the teams left over are largely white males,

She could go for a Brazilian, maybe?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder who Lou is following in the world cup?..

Saudi Arabia probably

Jim Bob Scratcher

Louise only watches the womens world cup

MikeyTaylor

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Louise only watches the womens world cup

Don't know, don't care.

Pug160

I surprisingly hadn't heard of her until I listened to her and other panelists having a discussion with Jordan Peterson. One of them mentioned that ''humans are not animals'', which was interesting.

Oh, and I forgot to add: as for O'Neill herself, she just sounded like a troubled soul. Sad more than anything else really.

Sprinter Sacre

She definitely hates Uruguay anyway

Omackeral

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

Don't know, don't care.

You're banned are you not?

RabbleRouser2k

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

She could go for a Brazilian, maybe?

Naw man-I'd say she prefers a full 70s bush down there-unshaven armpits, the lot.

RabbleRouser2k

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Naw man-I'd say she prefers a full 70s bush down there-unshaven armpits, the lot.

Modernist 60s/70s style hippy man. He'd be down with her standing up to the "man", and seeking protection for her sisters against the evils of the system. Being stoned or on LSD would probably also help him not to get annoyed at her BS.

The Rape of Lucretia

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/this-attempt-to-invalidate-me-highlighted-a-growing-phenomenon-where-right-wing-people-hold-those-who-identify-as-liberal-up-to-almost-impossible-standards-472647.html


Not a subscriber, so cannot read the full article, but the gist is clear : the government attempted to invalidate Louise as a person, by scheduling the referendum on repealing the 8th on a day that she had a work commitment in London. This is scandalous behaviour by our government, and shows at the same time, how right is the fight that LON is battling for, and how the dominant right wing of Irish politics is trying to silence her. But she will not be beaten so easily. You go girl.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/this-attempt-to-invalidate-me-highlighted-a-growing-phenomenon-where-right-wing-people-hold-those-who-identify-as-liberal-up-to-almost-impossible-standards-472647.html


Not a subscriber, so cannot read the full article, but the gist is clear : the government attempted to invalidate Louise as a person, by scheduling the referendum on repealing the 8th on a day that she had a work commitment in London. This is scandalous behaviour by our government, and shows at the same time, how right is the fight that LON is battling for, and how the dominant right wing of Irish politics is trying to silence her. But she will not be beaten so easily. You go girl.

LOUISE O'NEILL: This attempt to invalidate me highlighted a growing phenomenon where right wing people hold those who identify as liberal up to almost impossible standards




Saturday, July 07, 2018
By Louise O’Neill
When I realised the date of the referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment might clash with a work commitment in London, I immediately set about organising a postal vote, writes Louise O’Neill.


I reasoned that if I wasn’t eligible to vote in this way, then I would simply fly over and back to Cork on May 25.

One thing was certain - I was going to vote.

This was too important. Fortunately I managed to get a postal vote but I was not expecting people to start tweeting to me after the referendum, asking if I had voted, and how I had voted, and what a hypocrite I was for not voting, after I had been so vociferous in my support for the campaign.


They then went on to accuse me of not bothering to turn up for of the Marches for Choice, and that my postal vote ‘only happened in my head’ and why didn’t I take any photos? I thought taking photos of your ballot rendered it invalid? And I had the bloody thing signed by a Commissioner of the Peace, and then a local guard.

I wanted to shout at them. I’ve been going to the marches since 2013 and had to miss last year because of work!

I didn’t say any of that. There was no point. But when I started to think about it in greater detail, I realised that this nonsense attempt to invalidate me highlighted a growing phenomenon where right wing people hold those who identify as liberal up to almost impossible standards, standards they don’t bother to apply to themselves.

When Ewan McGregor dropped out of an appearance on Good Morning Britain last year because he disagreed with derogatory comments the presenter, Piers Morgan, had made about the Women’s March, Morgan derided him as a ‘paedophile-loving hypocrite’ for working with Roman Polanski in 2010. (Polanski pleaded guilty to the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1977).

While McGregor’s decision to work with Polanski was deeply regrettable, there were no allowances given for the fact that people change, they evolve; that perhaps McGregor would have made a different decision in 2018 than he had eight years previously. McGregor had spoken out for women’s rights, and it stood to reason he should have lived an entirely blameless existence in order to do so.

At the end of May, Roseanne Barr sent a racially charged tweet comparing a former White House adviser to an ape and the backlash was swift, with her eponymous sitcom axed. A week later, Samantha Bee, the presenter of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, described Ivanka Trump as a “feckless c**t”, and there were demands that she be fired too, with Donald Trump taking to Twitter to call it a ‘total double standard’ and Fox News debating the situation with barely concealed glee.

There was an uneasy sense that Bee played into the Republicans’ hands, that she had given them the ammunition they needed to launch an attack not just on her, but liberals as a whole.

Whatever you think about the choice of language, there was a complete false equivalency at play. One white woman calling another white woman a ‘c**t’ might be distasteful to you, but it is not the same as describing a woman of colour as akin to what would happen if the “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby”.

The moral outrage on the right was almost comical, given their silence when President Trump was accused of sexually assaulting numerous women, or Roy Moore, the Republican candidate for Alabama Senate was accused of serially harassing teenage girls. The depiction of Ivanka as a delicate flower who cannot be criticised seems especially ironic given the manner in which Chelsea Clinton was treated during her father’s presidency, with Rush Limbaugh calling her ‘the White House Dog’ when she was 12 years of age.

The right claims critiques of Melania Trump are tantamount to bullying, even memes about her enormous hat or refusing to hold her husband’s hands, while blithely ignoring that Michelle Obama was subjected to vicious abuse, most of it racist, for the eight years Obama was in office. We saw something of this false equivalency closer to home during the referendum, with people saying that ‘both sides’ behaved badly, even though I don’t remember the Pro-Choice side running a campaign based on scare-mongering and misinformation. But, as always, we on the left are expected to be infallible. If you proclaim you are interested in social justice and equality, then you must be ‘perfect’.

That if you want to fight for a society that is fairer, more compassionate, and kinder, everything you say and do will be scrutinised, and any inevitable mistakes used to punish you. It’s absolutely exhausting.

The former host of the Daily Show, Jon Stewart, summed it up perfectly when he said:

Please understand that a lot of what the right does, and it’s maybe their greatest genius, is they’ve created a code of conduct that they police, that they themselves don’t have to, in any way, abide... Don’t get caught up in a trap of thinking you can live up to a code of integrity that will be enough for the propagandist right. There isn’t.

What do we do next? When they go low, we go high, as Michelle Obama famously said? But what if we can never go high enough to please them?

Maybe we simply need to, as Stewart said, create our “own moral code to live by.” “Don’t,” he warns, “be fooled into trying to make concessions that you think will mollify them.”

She's stuck in a left/right dichotomy that dominates US politics. I criticise her, I am not "right wing". It bothers me that she compares herself to John Stewart.

I didn't like how people on here criticised her for being abroad while voting. I don't doubt she would go out of way to vote. There was no proof that she didn't vote. It was kinda pathetic tbh.

The Crowman

Deleted User wrote: »

She's stuck in a left/right dichotomy that dominates US politics. I criticise her, I am not "right wing". It bothers me that she compares herself to John Stewart.

I didn't like how people on here criticised her for being abroad while voting. I don't doubt she would go out of way to vote. There was no proof that she didn't vote. It was kinda pathetic tbh.

Shes trying to give the impression that her critics are all right wing and its purely a political/gender thing

retalivity

Jesus christ she's completely delusional

Ulysses Gaze

The message is clear then.

No criticism of Louise's views is allowed.

Sunny Disposition

Completely delusional! Like feminists don’t jump all over celebrities who make missteps or express themselves in a clumsy way! For example John McEnroe when he said Serena Williams wouldn’t beat the top men’s players. The fact he was telling the truth made no odds.

Her references to American politics and celebrities are a bit odd. Think Louise should stick to the fiction, (which she is apparently genuinely v good at) opinion columns really aren’t her thing, her arguments are always half baked. There is never any research behind them either, beyond maybe a bit of googling to check what a celebrity said or did.

ancapailldorcha

MikeyTaylor banned. Again.

HandsomeBob

Jesus lads would you ever give it a rest.....embarrassing how many pages this thread has.

Omackeral

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Jesus lads would you ever give it a rest.....embarrassing how many pages this thread has.

You bumping it has made it go on even longer...

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She's stuck in a left/right dichotomy that dominates US politics. I criticise her, I am not "right wing". It bothers me that she compares herself to John Stewart.

I didn't like how people on here criticised her for being abroad while voting. I don't doubt she would go out of way to vote. There was no proof that she didn't vote. It was kinda pathetic

You’re right. It wasn’t pathetic when people assumed she hadn’t voted.

But where did she compare herself to John Stewart. She basically quoted him as a means of agreeing with him.

If I quote Gandhi for instance, am I comparing myself to him?

LLMMLL

The Crowman wrote: »

Shes trying to give the impression that her critics are all right wing and its purely a political/gender thing

It is purely a political/gender thing, and there are a lot of right leaning people in this thread. There’s a few posters who I see in other threads who would be heavy on law And order for instance.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

It is purely a political/gender thing, and there are a lot of right leaning people in this thread. There’s a few posters who I see in other threads who would be heavy on law And order for instance.

It's a she's full of hot air, bull****, double standards and hypocrisy thing.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

It's a she's full of hot air, bull****, double standards and hypocrisy thing.

Nah it’s not. That article was perfectly reasonable. Your over the top emotional response is telling.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nah it’s not. That article was perfectly reasonable. Your over the top emotional response is telling.

Reasonable enough alright. Though I would have a few questions on some points.

Whatever you think about the choice of language, there was a complete false equivalency at play. One white woman calling another white woman a ‘c**t’ might be distasteful to you, but it is not the same as describing a woman of colour as akin to what would happen if the “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby”.

I wonder what her stance might be if a "woman of colour" made the same comment? I suspect she'd get more leeway. More victimhood by scale going on.

The moral outrage on the right was almost comical,

What I find priceless about both sides of this imported from the US utter fuckology, is the monumental lack of self awareness that is in play. "Moral outrage" is not just the remit of the eejits on the right, those "on the left, interested in social justice and equality" as she self describes herself are just as bad and on top of that given are far more airtime and outside of the United States of WTF also have more ears of the press and politicians.

as always, we on the left are expected to be infallible. If you proclaim you are interested in social justice and equality, then you must be ‘perfect’.

This is the case with everyone who puts themselves forward proclaiming anything as a social activist and commentator, regardless of their position(unless there's WeDon'tGiveaFuck party I'm unaware of). If anyone is claiming to hold a high standard of political and social and philosophical thought, they can't whine when that standard is questioned or their motives are questioned. Again the monumental lack of self awareness is evident. I could say the above about any of the sociopolitical "activists" out there. They all exist in their own little bubble and woe betide anyone who might burst it.

Sunny Disposition wrote:

Her references to American politics and celebrities are a bit odd.

Hardly SD. This mass importation and interest in the various yahoos and factions of every stripe from across the Atlantic is very prevalent in Ireland. So Irish people like her will go on about "moral equivalence", "social justice", "rape culture" etc, buzzwords of American college courses in social studies feminism, while their detractors will fart out American right buzzwords like "SJW", "liberals", "Cucks" and all that daftness. Often aping a strangulated mid Atlantic accent while doing so. To her credit at least she can't be accused of the latter.

Plus a cynic might say she's now got her eye on that market over there. One she would surely do well enough in.

Ulysses Gaze

as always, we on the left are expected to be infallible. If you proclaim you are interested in social justice and equality then you must be ‘perfect’.

Pretty much yes.

If you are going to go and take the moral high ground, deal in moral absolutes and excoriate and demonise those that say something you disagree with or that you find morally repugnant, then expect a firestorm right back at you if you display ANY sort of hypocrisy.

And you won't just get it from the Right either. There will plenty on the Far-Left just itching to do the same.