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

El_Duderino 09

humberklog wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

“He also went around doing his 'Don't call Theresa May a 'C**t because it demeans women'...

....yet months prior people screengrabbed a tweet of his where called Theresa May a c**t...

What a plonker.”

It’s in the post I quoted.

What's in the post you quoted? Wife?

Actually, you’re right. I misread where for wife.

Haha..classic..

BeerWolf

I am confused between the title and OP...

sydthebeat

BeerWolf wrote: »

I am confused between the title and OP...

You may read the whole thread

DEFTLEFTHAND

Hector Savage wrote: »

indeed it is, one of the best satire twiiter accounts there is.
He reached legendery status when he trolled the guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-right-online-poison-racist-bigot-sam-harris-milo-yiannopoulos-islamophobia

They're such assholes the way they don't allow user comments. Terrified of a discussion breaking out.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

They're such assholes the way they don't allow user comments. Terrified of a discussion breaking out.

It;s because they can't be arsed moderating. Have you seen the state of affairs where newspapers DO allow comments and don't moderate?! Makes AH look like the Shangri La of enlightenment.

RabbleRouser2k

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It;s because they can't be arsed moderating. Have you seen the state of affairs where newspapers DO allow comments and don't moderate?! Makes AH look like the Shangri La of enlightenment.

It's Sharon Gri La-la now, after transition.

The Rape of Lucretia

This is where people with a public profile and platform get too carried away. She should stick to what she knows intead of coming out with this sort of nonsense. Has she any science background at all, let alone one in space exploration ? The difficulties involved in getting to Venus are way higher than the already tough challenge of getting to Mars. Rein it in love.

The trip to Venus will be womanned

TheValeyard

I'd be really interested in a trip to Venus.


Just to recreate that manga film 'Venus Wars'

RabbleRouser2k

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

I'd be really interested in a trip to Venus.


Just to recreate that manga film 'Venus Wars'

It's anime-anime is the animation, Manga is when its a comic book.

somefeen

This thread seems rather jovial.

What the fcuk?

RabbleRouser2k

somefeen wrote: »

This thread seems rather jovial.

What the fcuk?

Come for the joviality, stay for the coffee...

Foweva Awone

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-o39neill-what-is-it-about-me-that-you-hate-so-much-472764.html

She is taking a break from you haters apparently!

Outlaw Pete

She has a lot of enablers in her life, that's all I can say, and gathering more and more as each day passes.

Yes, it's everyone else, Louise, couldn't be anything to do with the nonsense you espouse on the daily of course, perish the thought.

Wibbs

To be fair if she's getting hate mail on the regular that's well out of order. However she does something extremely common these days with those who publicly holding forth with opinions - no matter what they are - and that is; they lump in genuinely nasty bitter stuff that should be ignored with genuine questions and rebuttals to their opinions that shouldn't, at least if one wants to have an open mind. Using the former to silence the latter.

People just want to be supported in their beliefs, to feel they're Right™ and bend reality around that. Which is fine, work away, but then don't have the hard neck to claim an open mind, when all you're peddling is a credo not up for debate.

py2006

If you put yourself in the public spewing delusional misandry you are going to get a response from rational people. Hopefully LON learns from this.

Outlaw Pete

If she's getting hate mail, sure, that's pathetic, but she says what she refers to is happening "particularly online" and cites threads that "run to hundreds of pages tearing me apart, limb by limb" (wherever could she mean) and so it's clear that what really riles her is people disagreeing with her and having the audacity to say she's wrong.

She asks why do people hate her so much when she gives to charity and is nice to strangers. I mean ffs, not even for even a second does she speak about her views and ponder on how perhaps they are the reason why her articles get such a negative reaction.

I support her doing whatever she needs to do to feel well but sweet baby jesus, fashioning a bubble where the assumption is made that everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and all detractors are just trolls, is hardly conducive to one having a healthy mindset, long term at least.

Maybe the avoidance of debate is something she needs to do as to have her contentions exposed face to face may very well be too much for her to cope with. Is that other people's fault though? I mean those who attack her views rather than her as a person? Of course not.

Maxpfizer

Foweva Awone wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-o39neill-what-is-it-about-me-that-you-hate-so-much-472764.html

She is taking a break from you haters apparently!

Urgh. How depressing.

I'm sure Trump could use a similar approach. Actually he kind of already does.

It's not that he's wrong about anything just that his critics are all deranged and biased and have been suckered in by Fake News.

Same deal here. Valid criticisms can be lumped in with "haters" and summarily dismissed.

She used her article the other week to take the opportunity to criticize the Right. This week she uses Trump tactics to smear her opposition.

No need for self awareness, no need for self reflection, no need for self improvement.

I'm right and if you think I'm wrong then I guess you're just a bad person.

DISCLAIMER: Mindless abuse is wrong no matter who it is directed towards. Conflating criticism with mindless abuse is not the solution, however.

Wibbs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If she's getting hate mail, sure, that's pathetic, but she says what she refers to is happening "particularly online" and cites threads that "run to hundreds of pages tearing me apart, limb by limb" (wherever could she mean) and so it's clear that what really riles her is people disagreeing with her and having the audacity to say she's wrong.

It might have an even simpler explanation. Namely that some people assume/feel an attack, even questions about their positions and beliefs is a fundamental attack and questioning of them as a person. To take the Boards mantra of "attack the post, not the poster", some see them as nigh enough the same, particularly if they're much invested in a particular belief or position.

I would say in my opinion that while common enough across the board this is more common among women in debates. Men tend to be much more competitive, even adversarial in debate, have a need to "win" the argument as it were. Women tend to be more about nudging consensus one way or the other. Both methods have their positives and negatives. The latter approach quite naturally finds the adversarial approach discordant at best and aggressively personal at worst and if exposed to more of it tends to disregard any debate points being raised as attacks. It would go double if someone is actually being personally attacked. It would make anyone feel a low level of threat around their opinion and themselves and naturally make them reckon the best bet is to ignore all debate and anyone who doesn't give them unwavering support. It also seems to support any position that has threat or victimhood sewn into the fabric of the position. "Feminism" is a charm for that, but it's not alone. The Right/Left/Whatever you're having yourself positions are equally sensitive to this.

We very much see this online in the last few years. Forum formats like this that are general and linear are fading in favour of locally more exclusive , even dogmatic spaces, where any dissent, no matter how measured is down voted, or never invited in the first place.

Though I would say that this is more a reflection of human nature itself, rather than any interwebs trend. Few people chose to surround themselves with others with very different views to their own, or people who will question them too much and too often. They get "down voted" in life, or are never invited into the social circle. Birds of a feather and all that. If anything the open generalised forum for debate model, the environment where you meet different opinions and reply to them, is the outlier.

Maxpfizer

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

She asks why do people hate her so much when she gives to charity and is nice to strangers. I mean ffs, not even for even a second does she speak about her views and ponder on how perhaps they are the reason why her articles get such a negative reaction.

It's almost an admission that she knows her views are garbage, at the very least questionable, to be honest.

Look, I know I've said X, Y and Z but I'm actually a very nice person so could you maybe just let me have my opinions.

It's a weird defense.

Like you might see it in a creationist vs evolution debate where the creationist highlights the good aspects of religion to counter the idea that evolution is a fact.

It's an admission that they can't win the argument really hidden behind a plea to just let them have the win because that's the morally correct thing to do.

In a way kind of anti-feminist in that it asks us to treat women as somehow unsuitable for participation in debate.

Like you wouldn't go all in on a child for claiming that The Phantom Menace is the best movie ever. "HAHA everyone knows the prequels suck jesus don't you even know about storytelling and what about Lucas and all these CGI effects and don't even get me started with Jar Jar"

People would say to you "come on they are just a kid, they don't know any better, leave them be".

She's doing that here. Sure, she's just a vulnerable, tearful, woman and a good person too... leave her be. Let the silly women have their silly opinions, right? Leave them be.

I know you might think her views are awful and irrational and they shouldn't go unchallenged but she can't handle that criticism so just leave her be.

Next Week: "Men can't be sexist towards women and you can't argue because I sometimes cry and am nice to strangers".

_Kaiser_

Sending the woman hate mail and just posting or tweeting to hurl abuse is wrong, no doubt or excuses about it.

But. If she's going to trade on a platform of social media commentary then she doesn't get to complain if people call her out on it or counter it with opinions of their own.

I'm getting really tired of this section of the online community and society who whinge and cry bullying whenever their often outlandish remarks are questioned. Oh for the days when using the Internet meant having some cop on, a thicker skin, and the awareness not to take it too seriously. Social media is generally attention-seeking, virtue-signalling, approval-needing nonsense anyway.. It's not supposed to be taken as life or death ffs!

If you can't handle criticism, then the Internet (or putting yourself in the public eye) probably isn't for you.

The more of this sort of crap that I read on this forum every week, the more I'm convinced that more and more of Western society is consuming itself and regressing to something equivalent to a childlike state.

And this is "progress"??

DickSwiveller Returns

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Sending the woman hate mail and just posting or tweeting to hurl abuse is wrong, no doubt or excuses about it.

But. If she's going to trade on a platform of social media commentary then she doesn't get to complain if people call her out on it or counter it with opinions of their own.

I'm getting really tired of this section of the online community and society who whinge and cry bullying whenever their often outlandish remarks are questioned. Oh for the days when using the Internet meant having some cop on, a thicker skin, and the awareness not to take it too seriously. Social media is generally attention-seeking, virtue-signalling, approval-needing nonsense anyway.. It's not supposed to be taken as life or death ffs!

If you can't handle criticism, then the Internet (or putting yourself in the public eye) probably isn't for you.

The more of this sort of crap that I read on this forum every week, the more I'm convinced that more and more of Western society is consuming itself and regressing to something equivalent to a childlike state.

And this is "progress"??

I think you sum it up very well. I do wonder how much of the 'hate mail' was legitimate criticism of her social and political views.

LLMMLL

Ah here you can hardly paint this thread as being full of debate. It’s pretty laughable.

There’s plenty of full on nastiness and even more just taking random stuff from her personal life and making fun of it.

If you see this thread as being some sort of refuge of intellectual activity then you’re viewing it through just as slanted a prism as you accuse of her of seeing it. Though instead of seeing it as full of haters you see it as full of reasoned debate.

Like that stuff about her new boyfriend was a real interesting debate.

LLMMLL

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I think you sum it up very well. I do wonder how much of the 'hate mail' was legitimate criticism of her social and political views.

Going by this thread....... not much

retalivity

Nice typo (or sub-editor slip?) in the gratuitous plug at the end of the articl, lousie says indeed...

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Going by this thread....... not much

Oh boo hoo.. as usual. There is plenty of it.. of course you/LON view ALL of it as it a personal attack.

LLMMLL

Maxpfizer wrote: »

It's almost an admission that she knows her views are garbage, at the very least questionable, to be honest.

Look, I know I've said X, Y and Z but I'm actually a very nice person so could you maybe just let me have my opinions.

It's a weird defense.

Like you might see it in a creationist vs evolution debate where the creationist highlights the good aspects of religion to counter the idea that evolution is a fact.

It's an admission that they can't win the argument really hidden behind a plea to just let them have the win because that's the morally correct thing to do.

All this is a huge leap from what she actually wrote.

She complained that she got hate mail and opined that as a decent person she doesn’t deserve it. Well then she MUST be admitting she’s wrong there’s no other explanation.

Clearly people on this thread are incapable of showing any sympathy towards someone they disagree with. Rather than admit she probably does get hate mail/internet abuse which everyone knows is pretty common for people who are in the public eye on controversial issues, they have to pretend that actually people are sending polite letters to her house. Sure that’s super believable.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Oh boo hoo.. as usual. There is plenty of it.. of course you/LON view ALL of it as it a personal attack.

No there’s a little bit, mainly from klaz and Wibbs, outlawpete, rabble rouser. Most of the rest is pure nonsense.

Zulu

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ah here you can hardly paint this thread as being full of debate. It’s pretty laughable...

So, for clarity, your point is that we should throw the baby out with the bath water - is that it? Now that is laughable.