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

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

if I took some thing you had put in the public domain (and I’m sure there’s plenty you’ve put on boards) and made fun of you about that, well I don’t call that debate.

What I would have been trying to do in that case is humiliate you as a person so I wouldn’t have to actually debate you.

If what I put in the public domain was relevant to the topic at hand and I had used it as a supporting point in the context of that topic, just as LO'N did with her primal screams and grandad/ex BF musings among other things, I would frankly be shocked if someone didn't bring it up. I would fully expect them to, because I brought it up.

OK imagine if I went off on a negative rant about Irish Women©, sadly an all too common and daft a topic around here, about how they were X and Y. And you found a post of mine that detailed how I had been recently dumped and she was a bitch who never cared about me and took all my stuff while cheating with my best friend and I was worrying did all Irish Women© think an act like this, even my granny. Did she think when I was a boy in her lap that I was a weak man ripe for being taken advantage of. You'd be remiss not to call me on that level of bullshit about a nation and gender and see it for what it was my wholly subjective, self indulgent and bitter worldview because of one bad experience.

In essence if someone doesn't want to be shot at, may I suggest it would be prudent to not hand out so much ammunition willy nilly?


Though I reserve my disappointment for her editors and bosses. They know this kinda thing gets clicks and sells papers and books over more measured thought out stuff and they're all too happy to egg it on.

Why does that excuse the extreme harassment by paparazzi? It doesn’t. It’s just an excuse.

Every interaction doesn't require one party to be the victim and another the victimiser. I get that this is a popular viewpoint, but it's more complex than that. There can be "two of them in it". One can blame one party for one thing, while blaming the other for their own thing, especially when one feeds the other.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Is literally quoting exactly what you say misquoting now?

Fyi I was quoting your made up statistics.

Nope I said 20-50 and you quoted 50. Not sure you get what quoting is either.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

If what I put in the public domain was relevant to the topic at hand and I had used it as a supporting point in the context of that topic, just as LO'N did with her primal screams and grandad/ex BF musings among other things, I would frankly be shocked if someone didn't bring it up. I would fully expect them to, because I brought it up.

OK imagine if I went off on a negative rant about Irish Women©, sadly an all too common and daft a topic around here, about how they were X and Y. And you found a post of mine that detailed how I had been recently dumped and she was a bitch who never cared about me and took all my stuff while cheating with my best friend and I was worrying did all Irish Women© think an act like this, even my granny. Did she think when I was a boy in her lap that I was a weak man ripe for being taken advantage of. You'd be remiss not to call me on that level of bullshit about a nation and gender and see it for what it was my wholly subjective, self indulgent and bitter worldview because of one bad experience.

In essence if someone doesn't want to be shot at, may I suggest it would be prudent to not hand out so much ammunition willy nilly?


Though I reserve my disappointment for her editors and bosses. They know this kinda thing gets clicks and sells papers and books over more measured thought out stuff and they're all too happy to egg it on.

Every interaction doesn't require one party to be the victim and another the victimiser. I get that this is a popular viewpoint, but it's more complex than that. There can be "two of them in it". One can blame one party for one thing, while blaming the other for their own thing, especially when one feeds the other.

I would be well within my rights to question your views on Irish women, to question the application of your experience with one woman as a generalisation.

Constantly bringing up that story you told to make fun of you would not be debate though. It would just be me making fun of you.

And sometimes there is just a victim. And if someone follows you around all day while you try to do some shopping then you are the victim.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope I said 20-50 and you quoted 50. Not sure you get what quoting is either.

I quoted you saying up to 50.. pot kettle..


And you say others are incapable of intelligent debate.

LLMMLL

Ah givy, you can’t even quote yourself properly:

givyjoe wrote: »

Whatever you say Louise. You do love a good bit of irony in your posts don't you.. So what did you say on your 50-60% out of your arse stat.. that it was 50-60% of men that have harassed women? like i said much better

I don’t see the words “up to” there do you?

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ah givy, you can’t even quote yourself properly:




I don’t see the words “up to” there do you?

I'm sure you'll find it if you keep looking. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands.

I'm sure I can dig out you misquoting me, calling me a liar, dishonest and subsequently getting a ban. But why bother.

the purple tin

LLMMLL you're just in time, they're recruiting space cadets for the mission to Venus.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

I'm sure you'll find it if you keep looking. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands.

I'm sure I can dig out you misquoting me, calling me a liar, dishonest and subsequently getting a ban. But why bother.

Nope I won’t find it because it’s not there.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope I won’t find it because it’s not there.

You won't by simply quoting one of the dozen or so posts, made in reference to your make believe stats, that didn't mention it.

Anyway, back on topic. I reckon purple tin is onto something.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

You won't by simply quoting one of the dozen or so posts, made in reference to your make believe stats, that didn't mention it.

Anyway, back on topic. I reckon purple tin is onto something.

It’s not in any of them.

Foweva Awone

Wibbs wrote: »

I certainly don't doubt she's getting hate male.

LOL Freudian slip

Blazer

She's away with fairies and talk about playing the victim card.
Maybe we should stop talking about her, close the thread and hopefully she will fade away into obscurity once there's no one reading her drivel online.
I imagine a good share of those clicks on her articles come from here??
The worst thing I think is giving people like her a platform to spout nonsense on.

LLMMLL

Blazer wrote: »

She's away with fairies and talk about playing the victim card.
Maybe we should stop talking about her, close the thread and hopefully she will fade away into obscurity once there's no one reading her drivel online.
I imagine a good share of those clicks on her articles come from here??
The worst thing I think is giving people like here a platform to spout nonsense on.

But where do you expect people to go to “debate” her transport options?

Blazer

LLMMLL wrote: »

But where do you expect people to go to “debate” her transport options?

maybe we should create a sub-forum for people like her, all the snowflakes etc and just lock them all away down there and they can talk ****e away to their hearts content

LLMMLL

Blazer wrote: »

maybe we should create a sub-forum for people like her, all the snowflakes etc and just lock them all away down there and they can talk ****e away to their hearts content

But if their opinions were locked away the guys on this thread wouldn’t have anything to get angry about. How do you expect them to fill their time?

Blazer

LLMMLL wrote: »

But if their opinions were locked away the guys on this thread wouldn’t have anything to get angry about. How do you expect them to fill their time?

Well we still have the following
a) female drivers
b) female timekeeping
c) welfare scroungers
d) travellers
e) policitians
and so on

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Is the above ironic or totally lacking in self awareness?

She shouldn’t be getting hate mail said i a thread dedicate to LON hate discussion (very different to hate mail, I’m quite sure. Probably because it’s just published publicly for all to see rather than just sent to the individual specifically). LOL.

If these characters were able to get a relationship, I can’t help thinking they would express much less hatred towards LON. But hate on in lieu.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is the above ironic or totally lacking in self awareness?

That you of all people would come out with that. Your statement is irony encapsulated. Then again I've long contended such position holders like yourself have had an irony and self awareness bypass and again and again you seem all too eager to prove and display this to the world.

She shouldn’t be getting hate mail said i a thread dedicate to LON hate discussion (very different to hate mail, I’m quite sure. Probably because it’s just published publicly for all to see rather than just sent to the individual specifically). LOL.

Oh sure pick on some muppets "hating" to ignore the valid points raised. Same tactic I noted earlier.

If these characters were able to get a relationship, I can’t help thinking they would express much less hatred towards LON. But hate on in lieu.

You seem obsessed with this relationship thing(along with referencing that Canuck Kermit's "clean your room" meme ad nauseam). A dismissal not far off "you smell, what woman would have you" vainly passing for an argument. Never mind that most of the most vocal WTF posters in the thread are actually in one. It's right up there with those who claim feminists are "ugly women who can't get a real man"(whatever the fcuk that means). But of course you'd be oblivious to this, or more, avoidant of it. And so it continues... At least your consistency in deflection, misrepresentation and ego is well... consistent. Tide goes in, tide goes out. Please feel free to rebut with a cogent argument, if you can can come up with one. You've yet time. *holds breath, scans the horizon for porcine aviators*

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is the above ironic or totally lacking in self awareness?

That you of all people would come out with that. Your statement is irony encapsulated. Then again I've long contended such position holders like yourself have had an irony and self awareness bypass and again and again you seem all too eager to prove and display this to the world.

Ha. Completely avoid the point and go for an ad hominem. Typical of your responses to me.

So was your point ironic or at a near autistic level of lacking self awareness?

Sweetemotion

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!

I honestly think a break would be good for her. She has been sucked into this online bubble of all men are bad and it's us against them.

Which can easily happen when you're stuck in an echo chamber of like minded people and being promoted and hyped by the media as a figure head for this imagined injustice. When they don't care about you and publicise anything you write knowing full well it will only create more hate towards you.

Go on your holiday, get away from that bubble and enjoy life

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ha. Completely avoid the point and go for an ad hominem. Typical of your responses to me.

Ahhh, you are the gift that keeps on giving...

So was your point ironic or at a near autistic level of lacking self awareness?

You even broached your right on limits to go and label me an autistic? Pardon me while I sperg out.

Me. Earlier. Trying to get into a relationship.



Naughty naughty boy. The coven of easily offended won't like that I'm sure.

DickSwiveller Returns

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is the above ironic or totally lacking in self awareness?

She shouldn’t be getting hate mail said i a thread dedicate to LON hate discussion (very different to hate mail, I’m quite sure. Probably because it’s just published publicly for all to see rather than just sent to the individual specifically). LOL.

If these characters were able to get a relationship, I can’t help thinking they would express much less hatred towards LON. But hate on in lieu.

Let me defend this thread for a second. If you are in a public position, and have influence, then you should not be immune from a bit of stick. I'm not talking about personal abuse but a bit of slagging. I haven't seen any evidence of alleged 'hate' in this thread. It's mostly good-natured ribbing. Louise O'Neill has made a career, and lots of money, out of being an insufferable windbag, demonising men at every turn and then crying in her national column when anyone dares to pull her up on her nonsense. I'm glad a thread like this exists to counter her fawning sycophants on twatter. You do realise it is not compulsory for you and LLMMLL to engage with this thread. You seem to have a huge issue with it but continually come back. Why is that??

Wibbs

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I honestly think a break would be good for her. She has been sucked into this online bubble of all men are bad and it's us against them.

Which can easily happen when you're stuck in an echo chamber of like minded people and being promoted and hyped by the media as a figure head for this imagined injustice. When they don't care about you and publicise anything you write knowing full well it will only create more hate towards you.

Go on your holiday, get away from that bubble and enjoy life

Quoted for fucking truth SE. Bloody good advice with it. And FWIW advice I would echo.

Nonoperational

To be honest I'm just absolutely flabbergasted that she has managed to make a career out of this nonsense. Her examiner columns are borderline unreadable.

DickSwiveller Returns

Nonoperational wrote: »

To be honest I'm just absolutely flabbergasted that she has managed to make a career out of this nonsense. Her examiner columns are borderline unreadable.

Good point. Outside of twatter, does anyone take her seriously? Anyone I've spoken to thinks she's borderline mental.

DickSwiveller Returns

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Let me defend this thread for a second. If you are in a public position, and have influence, then you should not be immune from a bit of stick. I'm not talking about personal abuse but a bit of slagging. I haven't seen any evidence of alleged 'hate' in this thread. It's mostly good-natured ribbing. Louise O'Neill has made a career, and lots of money, out of being an insufferable windbag, demonising men at every turn and then crying in her national column when anyone dares to pull her up on her nonsense. I'm glad a thread like this exists to counter her fawning sycophants on twatter. You do realise it is not compulsory for you and LLMMLL to engage with this thread. You seem to have a huge issue with it but continually come back. Why is that??

apparently being seen virtue signalling and being a male feminist is desirable to the opposite sex

Wibbs

Nonoperational wrote: »

To be honest I'm just absolutely flabbergasted that she has managed to make a career out of this nonsense. Her examiner columns are borderline unreadable.

The joke is she can write and write well, if a tad overwrought for me, though to be fair I'm not the audience. But like I said earlier her editors and bosses actively want her momentary private musings and ramblings to get out there unhindered and the more personal and naked the better. It creates "controversy" and gets clicks and interest and attention and most of all it generates cash. For them. They give two hoots about how it might impact on her.

DickSwiveller Returns

Wibbs wrote: »

The joke is she can write and write well, if a tad overwrought for me, though to be fair I'm not the audience. But like I said earlier her editors and bosses actively want her momentary private musings and ramblings to get out there unhindered and the more personal and naked the better. It creates "controversy" and gets clicks and interest and attention and most of all it generates cash. For them. They give two hoots about how it might impact on her.

mmmmmmmmm not sure about that. Her columns look like they've been written by a leaving cert student

Wibbs

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

mmmmmmmmm not sure about that. Her columns look like they've been written by a leaving cert student

I had a read of her novel "Only Ever Yours" and while it isn't certainly not aimed at me as an audience it's well crafted and personal. A good litmus test for a novel. Very different to her opinion pieces.

Ulysses Gaze

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

mmmmmmmmm not sure about that. Her columns look like they've been written by a leaving cert student

She can write fiction very well.

It's the half-baked, half-thought out feminism that she can't write because she does not really understand the topic beyond the memes and social media distortions of feminism.