Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…227228230232233

Comments

  • Options
    #6872
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    How about Una Mullally? I'd be amazed if anyone hasn't heard of her - unless of course they're part of the growing demographic who simply don't read newspapers anymore because so many of them have gone to sh!te in recent years.

    And FYI I agree with a lot of what Una writes on political issues, but she's another hypocrite who's bought into the "it's perfectly ok to sh!t all over men as a 'bloc', but say one bad thing about women and you're literally Hitler" bandwagon.

    Same. I hear about her on these threads. But the threads insulting her have also gone quite recently.

    Re newspapers. I haven’t bought a physical newspaper in years. I didn’t think people below retirement age bought physical newspapers. I’ve a subscription to the FT through work and LON and UM aren’t featured heavily.

    Do you support the journalists you dislike by buying their newspapers?


  • Options
    #6873
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    SJW Lover wrote: »
    But you've pointed that out. A number of times. Do you think anyone cares? Are you repeating yourself until you get a reaction? You profess ignorance so maybe sit the thread out.

    I said it -as did a couple others. Posters including yourself kept going on about it (and getting it arseways in some cases).


  • Options
    #6874
    py2006
    Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    For those out of the loop, who's Tanya Sweeney and what's her current claim to clickbait?

    She's had a couple articles recently, the most recent being the gender imbalance in school kids cycling to school. Girls don't cycle and it's men/boys fault.

    Girls don't cycle because ALL men must be educated to stop standing in the street sexually harassing them.


  • Options
    #6875
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I said it -as did a couple others. Posters including yourself kept going on about it (and getting it arseways in some cases).


    The only person who keeps "going on about it" is you and your professed lack of interest on the subject coupled with your mocking of those who have an interest in the subject. You're derailing the thread with your nonsense and no one is interested in your lack of knowledge on the subject.

    Yet, despite you professing not knowing anything about Louise, here you are in June 2018 on this thread giving away that you do know something about Louise.
    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Heaven forbid you discuss anything of substance about what LON is actually doing.

    Back to the ‘LON is such an eejit’ circle jerk.

    I’ll get you started, ahem.

    Gawd lads LON is such an eejit. She’s out there discussing culturally relevant issues and creating art on the topics, adding to the discussion and shaping the culture. What an eejit.

    Bit of a long time to be asserting that you know nothing of her. You're completely disingenuous and are clearly continuously attmtping to derail this thread. Why so? Are you Louise?


  • Options
    #6876
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    SJW Lover wrote: »
    The only person who keeps "going on about it" is you and your professed lack of interest on the subject coupled with your mocking of those who have an interest in the subject. You're derailing the thread with your nonsense and no one is interested in your lack of knowledge on the subject.

    OK. You're the only one talking about it now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6877
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    SJW Lover wrote: »
    The only person who keeps "going on about it" is you and your professed lack of interest on the subject coupled with your mocking of those who have an interest in the subject. You're derailing the thread with your nonsense and no one is interested in your lack of knowledge on the subject.

    Yet, despite you professing not knowing anything about Louise, here you are in June 2018 on this thread giving away that you do know something about Louise.



    Bit of a long time to be asserting that you know nothing of her. You're completely disingenuous and are clearly continuously attmtping to derail this thread. Why so? Are you Louise?

    Ah, an even longer post with you going on about it.

    As you've half understood a few times now, I hear nothing of her in real life. I only hear about her through her dedicated readers in these threads. So I do know some things about her - all stemming from these threads.


  • Options
    #6878
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Ah, an even longer post with you going on about it.

    As you've half understood a few times now, I hear nothing of her in real life. I only hear about her through her dedicated readers in these threads. So I do know some things about her - all stemming from these threads.


    As i said, completely disingenuous. Listen Louise / Louise' friend/ Louise's family member / Louise's biggest fan etc, no one is fooled by you. She writes puerile manure and deserves to be castigated. What she says is extremely divisive and damaging. And she will continue to be called out on it so i'd suggest giving it a rest. Everyone can see what you're at.


  • Options
    #6879
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

    As you've half understood a few times now, I hear nothing of her in real life. I only hear about her through her dedicated readers in these threads. So I do know some things about her - all stemming from these threads.


    As you have been saying for two years on this thread. We know. We've assimilated the information you are repeating. Now, adios.


  • Options
    #6880
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    SJW Lover wrote: »
    As you have been saying for two years on this thread. We know. We've assimilated the information you are repeating. Now, adios.

    Ah. Good to see you've finally got it. I don't claim to know nothing about her. What I do know about her stems from these threads. Good to see you got it in the end.

    If her stuff is do dreadful there would probably be more comment on it directly rather than vague insults about her. Instead her detractors area scraping the bottom of the barrel for old reasons to get cross again. Hadn't she done anything to get cross about recently?


  • Options
    #6881
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Ah. Good to see you've finally got it. I don't claim to know nothing about her. What I do know about her stems from these threads. Good to see you got it in the end.

    If her stuff is do dreadful there would probably be more comment on it directly rather than vague insults about her. Instead her detractors area scraping the bottom of the barrel for old reasons to get cross again. Hadn't she done anything to get cross about recently?


    Great. You dont know her (you do). Got it. Now, allow people to discuss it without repeating the same schtick over and over in an attempt to derail. You talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel yet here you are, for years, engaging in something you profess to know nothing of. Shakespeare had a phrase for this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6882
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    SJW Lover wrote: »
    Great. You dont know her (you do). Got it. Now, allow people to discuss it without repeating the same schtick over and over in an attempt to derail. You talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel yet here you are, for years, engaging in something you profess to know nothing of. Shakespeare had a phrase for this.

    Ah no. I thought you had it. One more time...
    I don't claim to know nothing about her (this seems to be the part where you get confused). Anything I know about her comes through these threads. It's jot a difficult concept.

    The thrust of it is that I'd probably never even heard of her if not for these threads (except once when she did an interview on a podcast I was listening to). I hope this helps you understand.


  • Options
    #6883
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I don't claim to know nothing about her (this seems to be the part where you get confused). Anything I know about her comes through these threads. It's jot a difficult concept.


    The above isnt true though, is it? You have spent years on this thread saying the above. Why do you think you need to repeat it? Do you think that gives you a justification for mocking people who have an interest in the subject?

    I dont see you doing this elsewhere on Boards. I mean, you arent in the Airsoft forum telling people you have no interest in Airsoft, are you? So, why Louise?


  • Options
    #6884
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    SJW Lover wrote: »
    The above isnt true though, is it? You have spent years on this thread saying the above. Why do you think you need to repeat it? Do you think that gives you a justification for mocking people who have an interest in the subject?

    I dont see you doing this elsewhere on Boards. I mean, you arent in the Airsoft forum telling people you have no interest in Airsoft, are you? So, why Louise?

    The above is true.

    If you went over to the airsoft thread and asked me the same questions if probably have similar answers. I don't know any airsoft writers either. They don't come up in my life.


  • Options
    #6885
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    The above is true.

    If you went over to the airsoft thread and asked me the same questions if probably have similar answers. I don't know any airsoft writers either. They don't come up in my life.


    Who asked you to come in and derail this thread?


  • Options
    #6886
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    SJW Lover wrote: »
    Who asked you to come in and derail this thread?

    I said I don't come across her in real life. You went on and on and on about it and accused me of detailing the thread. Lol.


  • Options
    #6887
    SJW Lover
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 322 ✭✭SJW Lover


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I said I don't come across her in real life. You went on and on and on about it and accused me of detailing the thread. Lol.


    I have first posted in this thread today. You said today on this thread what you have repeated over and over since at least mid-2018. Why is that? Are you so arrogant that you think we need your point of view rammed down our throats continuously?


  • Options
    #6888
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I said I don't come across her in real life.

    Just in your fantasies? :P


  • Options
    #6889
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    Just in your fantasies? :P

    I'm everyone's fantasies. Gets crowded with all the boardsies 😜


  • Options
    #6890
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Mariokart wrote: »
    So El Duderino is trying to tell us for two years on this thread that he doesn't know who Louise O'Neill is and doesn't want to discuss her. :D

    Seriously ED, other people do want to discuss her, why is this such a problem for you? Go and start a different thread about people you don't want to discuss. I'll try to be polite when I say this, but you're not really wanted on this thread, leave.

    Ah, my old pal is back. How do you keep thinking of new usernames to rereg?


  • Options
    #6891
    lleti
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 271 ✭✭lleti


    So it turns out the law society whatsapp didn't mention any female students, it was just your run of the mill pornsharing whatsapp.

    Disgraceful carry on to report this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6892
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    lleti wrote: »
    So it turns out the law society whatsapp didn't mention any female students, it was just your run of the mill pornsharing whatsapp.

    Disgraceful carry on to report this.

    In my view it wouldn't have mattered if it was, but that's just me. People have a right to be sexually attracted to others and talk about that amongst their friends. The fact that modern communication is more text based than voice based doesn't change that. If I found out that a group of women (or men, indeed) was sharing a photo of me or a close male friend or relative and making lewd and lascivious remarks about what they'd do to us or whatever, I'd honestly just shrug and say "Yeah, that's what adults talk about in private. Pass the cornflakes."

    Anyone who thinks that people shouldn't discuss such things in private is, in my view, just on a different planet to most of humanity. Sex is something which is front and centre to many peoples' lives and they're going to discuss that with like minded people. We pretend otherwise for some archaic and asinine reason in "polite company", but in reality most people, male and female, fantasise about their peers on a regular basis and share those fantasies with their mates. Sure, seeing it written down with an actual message from "Claire" or "Mick" saying "I'd like to bend Paddy over and stick my strapon/dick [respectively for the names I've given as examples)] up his hole" written down would be an odd experience, just as odd as overhearing it in a pub or restaurant, but at the end of the day who cares? They're sexual fantasies. Everyone has them. Having and discussing a sexual fantasy does not in any way imply that anyone is intending to do anything without someone else's consent, FFS.

    Honestly, the criticism of such talk among mates is very, very similar to the moronic saying in Christianity that "if you look at a woman and lust after her, you've already committed adultery with her in your mind" or whatever the phrase is. It's thought-crime and nothing more, and I find it very disturbing that the focus of this conversation has shifted to whether or not such a group for discussing others existed or what its contents were or were not, rather than the more pressing issue of private conversations between friends no longer being considered above public critique. F*ck that. I don't want to live in that kind of society and I strongly suspect that most people do not, so why are we just accepting it as a new paradigm? Private conversations are private conversations, if you have a problem with what people talk about amongst themselves then mind your own f*cking business.


  • Options
    #6893
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Let's start investigating female what's app groups. Women are far worse than men nowadays, men are scared sh1t less.

    Objectification is such bull****. Men and women like looking at and fantasising about fit members of the sex they are attracted to, but feminists are SO intolerant they can't bear the thought of some man they deem unattractive rubbing one out while thinking about them so they stigmatise normal healthy human behaviour.


  • Options
    #6894
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Let's start investigating female what's app groups. Women are far worse than men nowadays, men are scared sh1t less

    Objectification is such bull****. Men and women like looking at and fantasising about fit members of the sex they are attracted to, but feminists are SO intolerant they can't bear the thought of some man they deem unattractive rubbing one out while thinking about them so they stigmatise normal healthy human behaviour.

    And are you personally scarred sh1tless? What of, exactly?


  • Options
    #6895
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    And are you personally scarred sh1tless? What of, exactly?

    Being in a what's app group where some idiot says something "inappropriate" for one. Then you all get tarred with the same brush. If there was one comment like "Mary in court 2 has a fine body" their careers were finished.


  • Options
    #6896
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,362 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Being in a what's app group where some idiot says something "inappropriate" for one. Then you all get tarred with the same brush. If there was one comment like "Mary in court 2 has a fine body" their careers were finished.

    And being scarred sh1tless of WhatsApp groups you mentioned above, what do you do differently from someone who isn't scarred sh1tless?


  • Options
    #6897
    DexyDrain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 254 ✭✭DexyDrain


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    And being scarred sh1tless of WhatsApp groups you mentioned above, what do you do differently from someone who isn't scarred sh1tless?

    Can’t speak for the other poster but I presume the issue is that men now have to frame all written private conversations, even between friends and colleagues, as if Twitter Feminists are reading them too. Women have no such concern. That’s a problem for a lot of people, naturally.


  • Options
    #6898
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Let's start investigating female what's app groups. Women are far worse than men nowadays, men are scared sh1t less.

    Objectification is such bull****. Men and women like looking at and fantasising about fit members of the sex they are attracted to, but feminists are SO intolerant they can't bear the thought of some man they deem unattractive rubbing one out while thinking about them so they stigmatise normal healthy human behaviour.

    Hardcore feminists are just secular hardcore nuns

    Same authoritarian manner and controlfreakery


  • Options
    #6899
    Sittingpretty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,872 ✭✭✭Sittingpretty


    If it hasn’t already been said, I wish Louise O’Neill was on a manned mission to Mars so I wouldn’t have to listen to her. If she could take Roe McDemott as her +1 that would complete the circle for me.


  • Options
    #6900
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Sittingpretty wrote: »
    If it hasn’t already been said, I wish Louise O’Neill was on a manned mission to Mars so I wouldn’t have to listen to her. If she could take Roe McDemott as her +1 that would complete the circle for me.

    Surely it would have to be called a Womanned Mission to Mars? Or with all the "gender doesn't exist lmao" crap going on today, an "Xered Mission to Mars"?

    Also, again for those of us out of the loop, what has Roe McDermott done to merit a mention here? I know her name from "around" the media in general but can't place it to a particular style of column or egregious incident.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6901
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    lleti wrote: »
    So it turns out the law society whatsapp didn't mention any female students, it was just your run of the mill pornsharing whatsapp.

    Disgraceful carry on to report this.

    Nope

    It was literally just memes and chatter. The entire rumour stemmed from the name of the group and it just snowballed following the law society’s statement and some extremely lax reporting from the media.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement