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

_Dara_

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Not at all. If someone is constantly being a d*ck in the public eye, people are going to discuss it. No different to Katie Hopkins or someone like that.

She will have her white knights though...

Dunno if that’s aimed at me but if it is - I’m female.

White knighting charges though - have I stumbled onto a Red Pill site? When will ‘cuck’ be wheeled out?

um7y1h83ge06nx

_Dara_ wrote: »

Dunno if that’s aimed at me but if it is - I’m female.

Women can be knights too.

professore

meeeeh wrote: »

Right because the referendum is about getting one over her. Not about the fact that this will affect many women and men. Because making life easier for those who have to go through to hoops because their baby has fatal fetal abnormalities or those who have to bring a child to term after being raped are insignificant in comparison to you managing to piss Louise O'Neill off. I hope you are proud of yourself.

I agree with you that voting a particular way to piss off LON in this referendum is ridiculous. I think (or hope) the original poster was being a bit tongue in cheek in poor taste.

kumate_champ07

_Dara_ wrote: »

Dunno if that’s aimed at me but if it is - I’m female.

White knighting charges though - have I stumbled onto a Red Pill site? When will ‘cuck’ be wheeled out?

are you saying 'white knights' dont exist?what would be a better term to use in order to disassociate oneself from an alt right label

fake news is a loaded term too. but it exists, you just have to be careful how you call it out so you dont get labeled as a trump supporter

professore

mzungu wrote: »

I doubt they make much of an impact either way. Both campaigns have their eejits and people expect that, but when it comes down to it, people will vote on the issue and not the celebs attached to the cause.

You are giving a LOT of people far too much credit.

professore

_Dara_ wrote: »

Yeah, I'm inclined to think that anyone who says they'll vote a certain way to spite someone was always leaning that way anyway.

I could never vote against what I believe in to spite someone (and it's so lame anyway - the person you're spiting isn't going to know!). I found some of the Yes campaign stuff in the lead up to the MarRef nauseating but it didn't make me want to vote differently. Well, I didn’t vote in the end as I was reeling from a life-changing diagnosis. But you get what I mean.

Maybe they would on a less emotional issue.

_Dara_

Garrett Incalculable Schoolgirl wrote: »

Women can be knights too.

Well, either way, it's forever a moronic accusation.

Zulu

Whoop, whoop, that's the sound of da (thought) police!

Good to see the usual contingent have arrived to dismiss the thread and its posters while derailing it into oblivion. Again. Go sisters!

_Dara_

professore wrote: »

Maybe they would on a less emotional issue.

I don't see why that would make a difference. I'd say most people lean one way or another on the subject. Maybe experiencing someone disagreeable like her can crystallise in one's mind how they feel about a topic. That's fair enough.

Of course, nobody can stop someone voting a certain way to stick it to someone but, jaysus, what a weak handshake of a protest that would be. Would anyone even admit out loud to others that they voted a certain way to spite someone?

Zulu wrote: »

Whoop, whoop, that's the sound of da (thought) police!

Good to see the usual contingent have arrived to dismiss the thread and its posters while derailing it into oblivion. Again. Go sisters!

Everyone seems to be getting their viewpoints across here. Is saying something in opposition a form of censorship? I wouldn't have thought so.

What do you care if someone says something you don't like in the thread? You have the ability to type and argue so what's the problem?

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, either way, it's forever a moronic accusation.

It's a silly label used to shut down someone's argument without debate. Like claiming someone is virtue signalling. It's as if it's unthinkable that some people might actually hold these opinions. For the record, I think LON is a complete twat and is everything that's wrong with modern feminism.

_Dara_

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a silly label used to shut down someone's argument without debate. Like claiming someone is virtue signalling. It's as if it's unthinkable that some people might actually hold these opinions. For the record, I think LON is a complete twat and is everything that's wrong with modern feminism.

Me too. She's a knob!

I totally agree with your whole post. That's what I hate about those phrases because it's accusing people of dishonesty and subterfuge and not for a second considering that they might be a person's true opinions. And those throwing out phrases such 'white knight' and 'virtue signalling' would be the first to whinge that others are 'shouting me down' despite blatantly trying to do the same.

Zulu

And dismissing posters opinions as "whining" is any better?
Really?

Careful up there on that horse of yours.

Will I Am Not

_Dara_ wrote: »

Dunno if that’s aimed at me but if it is - I’m female.

White knighting charges though - have I stumbled onto a Red Pill site? When will ‘cuck’ be wheeled out?

Wasn’t aimed at anyone in particular. She could say anything, literally the worst thing that anyone has ever said in history and there would still be people defending her because she’s “on our side”

_Dara_

Zulu wrote: »

And dismissing posters opinions as "whining" is any better?
Really?

Careful up there on that horse of yours.

White knights? Horses? What will be the next equine-related metaphor that someone will come out with?

Giving out about people saying things in opposition to you in a thread isn't an opinion. It's giving out. Or, in other parlance, whining.

_Dara_

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Wasn’t aimed at anyone in particular. She could say anything, literally the worst thing that anyone has ever said in history and there would still be people defending her because she’s “on our side”

Well yeah, some people support eejits. It's an unfortunate fact of life. People defend Katie Hopkins all the frickin' time and she, like LON, is an obvious clickbait hire for publications. Or was, until she went too far recently.

meeeeh

Zulu wrote: »

And dismissing posters opinions as "whining" is any better?
Really?

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck...

The Rape of Lucretia

What did we think of her dress ?

Pretty nice I though,though not sure the pendant did much for it. It needed something, or it would have been a little plain at the front. The choice of a flash of blue looked well though. Just a hint of a sailor dress, and what man doesnt like a woman in a sailor dress? Possibly, just a wide belt with a little colour in it instead would have looked a little more conventional, and classy ?

Shoes werent a great choice all right as she acknowledged. I think pumps would have gone better with the dress. Tiny blue bow or trim would have matched the blue flash belt if she had gone with it.

7/10. A good effort Louise, but improvement can be made with a little more thought and effort.

Zulu

meeeeh wrote: »

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Could it possibly be a societal construct designed by boogie men to oppress women? Check your privilege and prepare to be triggered folks, it only a goddamn Mallardarchy, isn't it.

Water John

Lucretia, your apparall analysis is good on detail, but I don't think it was a dress, cullottes perhaps?

meeeeh

Zulu wrote: »

Could it possibly be a societal construct designed by boogie men to oppress women? Check your privilege and prepare to be triggered folks, it only a goddamn Mallardarchy, isn't it.

Calm down dear...

Yeah there is plenty of people being triggered in this thread. It would be hilarious if people weren't actually serious but I think it's just manifestation of impotence of modern man (metaphorically speaking of course).

The Rape of Lucretia

Water John wrote: »

Lucretia, your apparall analysis is good on detail, but I don't think it was a dress, cullottes perhaps?

Always something dodgy about a woman in cullottes. There's that nagging 'but why isnt she wearing a dress' thing overhanging it.

professore

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Always something dodgy about a woman in cullottes. There's that nagging 'but why isnt she wearing a dress' thing overhanging it.

Definitely a way of subtly saying "Dungarees aren't appropriate so will wear the next best thing"

Water John

LON was hindered in what she wore, by the message she was keen to deliver. Pippa had no such hinderance. Just go for a good old thigh slash and lather on the fake tan, ha.

drugstore cowboy

Tubridy mentioned her social media presence but didn't ask her to explain the many daft things she has said such as gushing over that 'woke bae' who was convicted and sent to jail for sexual assault.

Total softball interview as we all expected it would be.

mzungu

Zulu wrote: »

Whoop, whoop, that's the sound of da (thought) police!

Good to see the usual contingent have arrived to dismiss the thread and its posters while derailing it into oblivion. Again. Go sisters!

TBF, nobody has done that. Thread still seems robust enough with all viewpoints being catered for.

Boom_Bap

The best thing about this thread is where it turned into an homage to It's Always Sunny

mzungu

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

What did we think of her dress ?

Pretty nice I though,though not sure the pendant did much for it. It needed something, or it would have been a little plain at the front. The choice of a flash of blue looked well though. Just a hint of a sailor dress, and what man doesnt like a woman in a sailor dress? Possibly, just a wide belt with a little colour in it instead would have looked a little more conventional, and classy ?

Shoes werent a great choice all right as she acknowledged. I think pumps would have gone better with the dress. Tiny blue bow or trim would have matched the blue flash belt if she had gone with it.

7/10. A good effort Louise, but improvement can be made with a little more thought and effort.

I think jeans and a hoodie should be standard for everybody*, everywhere, no matter what the situation. The moment we started analysing fashion and paying for Jean Paul Gaultier dresses made of discarded DVDs was when western civilisation started to go into decline**. Same with paying 70 euro for half a fish*** in some "trendy" Dublin restaurant.

*Full disclosure, I don't wear jeans or hoodies.

** It's not really in decline.

*** These people really do need to ask themselves if this is really a good way to spend money.

Duckworth_Luas

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The best thing about this thread is where it turned into an homage to It's Always Sunny

On that note, have any of these feminists considered

Boom_Bap

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

On that note, have any of these feminists considered

jpm4

This thread watching last night: