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

Pat Kenny..ah he kind of asked her a couple of questions, but she's just not stopping talking..

sydthebeat

jesus, that woman has some severely perverse views.

She is fukced in the head..

Outlaw Pete

_Dara_ wrote: »

YOU think it was blown out of all proportion. I disagree, as do many others.

Yes, I know.... but I'm right and they're wrong.

He deserved all the derision he received over that.

Nope, he didn't and merely saying he does, does not make it so. Again, the user said he was 'encouraging sexual violence' with what he said and so you'll need to outline exactly how and why him saying what he did was doing so in order to justify saying that he deserved all the derision he has received over it.

As Hector said above:

Hector Savage wrote: »

He was being crude and absurd - but thats it ABSURD !!! Absurd things is what makes them "funny" - not to everyones taste but still HUMOUR and NOT TRUE.

It ably demonstrated his complete lack of class.

Never said he had class. Hence indeed, my suggestion that a classless obnoxious wench like Chandler Handler was his female equivalent.

_Dara_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, I know.... but I'm right and they're wrong.

:D:D

In your opinion, you’re right and they’re wrong.

Glad to clear that up for you.

Hector Savage

I posted I hope you are never on a jury and ....




This is what you're dealing with.

Hector Savage

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Woman has boyfriend shocker. You should consider writing for The Sun.

Yes she does, and I feel sorry for the poor bastard, he probably has to jump through flaming f*cking hoops to get the ride.

Outlaw Pete

_Dara_ wrote: »

In your opinion, you’re right and they’re wrong.

Glad to clear that up for you.

Yes, Dara, that's what we're doing here, posting our opinions.

I notice you didn't address my point and so will just have to assume you have nothing to back up your claim that Trump deserves to be accused of 'encouraging sexual violence'. In future perhaps don't reply to people unless you actually have a sufficient retort for what they have said. Beyond a 'that's what you think, others think different' I mean.

_Dara_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, Dara, that's what we're doing here, posting our opinions.

I notice you didn't address my point and so will just have to assume you have nothing to back up your claim that Trump deserves to be accused of 'encouraging sexual violence'. In future perhaps don't reply to people unless you actually have a sufficient retort for what they have said. Beyond a 'that's what you think, others think different' I mean.

I never said anything about him promoting sexual violence. That wasn’t my issue with what he said and if you read my post - you know, the one you replied to - you would have seen that.

Glad that you realise that you can’t make any definitive pronouncements about who is right and who is wrong. That’s good.

kunst nugget

Hector Savage wrote: »

I posted I hope you are never on a jury and ....




This is what you're dealing with.

I presume you're the one that said this about her replying to one of her tweets…

Total mentally unhinged lunatic, I hope this looper is never allowed on a jury.

It's a travesty, Donal. All you were doing was trying to have a rational debate with her and she goes and blocks you. Typical feminist…

Outlaw Pete

Hector Savage wrote: »

I posted I hope you are never on a jury and ....

This is what you're dealing with.

It's how they carve out their little online echo chambers.


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/594864736560422912
https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/592619404527009792
https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/695643516559564801


This obviously results in so few people then being able to disagree with them online (given that they're all blocked) and eventually they have their little backslappong "discussions" in an impenetrable bubble and delude themselves that they are being open and engaging:


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/796650506886279168

pilly

Hector Savage wrote: »

Yes she does, and I feel sorry for the poor bastard, he probably has to jump through flaming f*cking hoops to get the ride.

You seem obsessed with people getting the ride Hector? Are you having difficulty yourself?

kunst nugget

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's how they carve out their little online echo chambers.


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/594864736560422912
https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/592619404527009792
https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/695643516559564801


This obviously results in so few people then being able to disagree with them online (given that they're all blocked) and eventually they have their little backslappong "discussions" in an impenetrable bubble and delude themselves that they are being open and engaging:


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/796650506886279168

If Hector's mentally unhinged looper comment is a taster of what they receive on a continual basis is it any wonder they use the block button?

pilly

kunst nugget wrote: »

If Hector's mentally unhinged looper comment is a taster of what they receive on a continual basis is it any wonder they use the block button?

I honestly don't see what the problem is with blocking people who are abusing you?

People on here are barred for personal abuse. It's unacceptable behaviour. Why should Twitter be any different.

Zulu

pilly wrote: »

You seem obsessed with people getting the ride Hector? Are you having difficulty yourself?

That's pretty pathetic; proud of yourself?

pilly

Zulu wrote: »

That's pretty pathetic; proud of yourself?

What's pathetic about it?

Hector has now accused 2 women of being frigid, that's what I call pathetic.

ohnonotgmail

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's how they carve out their little online echo chambers.


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/594864736560422912
https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/592619404527009792
https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/695643516559564801


This obviously results in so few people then being able to disagree with them online (given that they're all blocked) and eventually they have their little backslappong "discussions" in an impenetrable bubble and delude themselves that they are being open and engaging:


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/796650506886279168

calling somebody "mentally unhinged" and "a looper" goes a long way beyond disagreeing with them.

Bunny Colvin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

calling somebody "mentally unhinged" and "a looper" goes a long way beyond disagreeing with them.

The girl in question is mentally unhinged. Read her tweets - it's all there in black and white. Fair play to that poster for not pulling his punches.

givyjoe

pilly wrote: »

I honestly don't see what the problem is with blocking people who are abusing you?

People on here are barred for personal abuse. It's unacceptable behaviour. Why should Twitter be any different.

You know well that that's not what LON tends to use the block button for. As you've read the near 1500 posts on the thread, you know well that she has on numerous occasions blocked people simply for disagreeing with her and daring to question her 'logic', not for abuse.

Yer Da sells Avon

I think there should probably be a rule on Boards, where if you post a tweet made by someone who isn't a public figure, it should be a screenshot, rather than a link, and you should have to redact their username, as follows:

kunst nugget

Bunny Colvin wrote: »

The girl in question is mentally unhinged. Read her tweets - it's all there in black and white. Fair play to that poster for not pulling his punches.

Okay, so if you think she is mentally unhinged why bother engaging with her or going further and insulting her? Seems like a dick move to me…

LLMMLL

Hector Savage wrote: »

Christ she has a boyfriend ... the poor poor bastard

https://twitter.com/Lana_Richardson/status/968174877449519106

Perfect example of how silly this thread is. Woman who is not even subject of thread says something we don't like. Delve into woman's personal life to attack her. Makes the claim that she's not up for intelligent debate even more ridiculous.

pjohnson

LLMMLL wrote: »

Perfect example of how silly this thread is. Woman who is not even subject of thread says something we don't like. Delve into woman's personal life to attack her. Makes the claim that she's not up for intelligent debate even more ridiculous.

Well your input isn't providing "intelligent" debate either.

Bunny Colvin

kunst nugget wrote: »

Okay, so if you think she is mentally unhinged why bother engaging with her or going further and insulting her? Seems like a dick move to me…

Her tweets are disgusting and are posted in the public domain. Whatever her mental state, people are always going to respond. She can hardly be surprised. If she wants to use the block button, that's her prerogative.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

Okay, so if you think she is mentally unhinged why bother engaging with her or going further and insulting her? Seems like a dick move to me…

We'll have no talk of dick moves in this thread..

LLMMLL

pjohnson wrote: »

Well your input isn't providing "intelligent" debate either.

I'm highlighting that people in this thread are constantly dragging up irrelevant facts, such as the fact that a woman who is not the subject of the thread has a boyfriend. Even though it's been constantly claimed to me that this thread is about people disagreeing with LONs views.

Maybe you'd think I was more intelligent if I posted a pic of your boyfriend/girlfriend on this thread. It seems to be the level we're at.

yerwanthere123

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Whatever about Louise O'Neill, I don't think it's very fair to single out random people on Twitter whose only 'crime' is that they were retweeted by her. Actually, it's really unpleasant.

This person has over 1,000 followers on a public platform. She's posting and advocating dangerously sexist views. Fair game I think.

Yer Da sells Avon

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

This person has over 1,000 followers on a public platform. She's posting and advocating dangerously sexist views. Fair game I think.

No, it's not fair game. As a result of her tweet being posted on this thread, she had to put up with abuse from some random stranger, who then had the audacity to lie about her reason for blocking him.

pjohnson

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm highlighting that people in this thread are constantly dragging up irrelevant facts, such as the fact that a woman who is not the subject of the thread has a boyfriend. Even though it's been constantly claimed to me that this thread is about people disagreeing with LONs views.

Maybe you'd think I was more intelligent if I posted a pic of your boyfriend/girlfriend on this thread. It seems to be the level we're at.

In your head maybe

LLMMLL

pjohnson wrote: »

In your head maybe

That makes no sense