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

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Again, did you read my post?! Christ on a bike.. I said the thread was barely being posted in over the last couple of weeks until the last few days. Check the last 10 pages and over what time frame those 10 pages were created.

If you really want be anal about it, how about you spend some time analysing the number of posts since day 1 and see if you can pick out any spikes in activity, over the last couple of days perhaps :rolleyes:

I wonder if LON was a man getting such 'abuse' would you be so concerned with fighting their corner so obsessively?

Ok so I picked a random page from over a month ago. The time difference between the first and last post on that page was 50 minutes. I looked at a page from yesterday from the same time of day as the page I checked. The time difference between first and last post was an hour and a half.

So no it doesn't look like there's been an increase in activity in the last few days. If anything it looks like a decrease.

And yes I would think the same if it was a man being criticised for stuff unrelated to his views that are supposedly upsetting people.

Will I Am Not

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Translation : Mods please lock the thread.

No, I mean it's no longer a discussion, just a feeding frenzy of people poring over every word uttered by someone they disagree with so they can find a reason to engage in hysterical outrage, catastrophism and reductio ad absurdum, while getting in as many veiled and not-so-veiled personal insults as possible.

Not of fan of LON by the way. Not a fan of this kind of thing either though.

Will I Am Not

Skylinehead wrote: »

You're the only one to have mentioned mod action. Not sure why.

Because there are people that can easily unfollow threads but decide to stay around and comment on how bad the thread is until it’s locked. Seen it play out so many times on this site.

Yer Da sells Avon

givyjoe wrote: »

The context in which she said it, was that men are potential rapists and need/should be taught not to rape, e.g. through consent classes.

Oh well, in that context, no, I don't think she was being sexist or unfair to men. I see no harm whatsoever in teaching students about consent. And if you don't think it's necessary, go take a look at basically any AH thread about a rape case and you'll find men (often the same men over and over again) taking the side of the accused, even after they've been convicted. The sad irony is that they're usually the same men who argue against the need for consent classes.

givyjoe wrote:

Again, irony in that you're not convinced about what I'm quoting from the woman herself, when the woman in question believes that any woman making a rape accusation should be believed without question.

Only a tiny, tiny percentage of rape accusations that go to trial are proven to be false. Especially in places like Ireland (or the north of Ireland), where the accuser's anonymity is rendered meaningless by the size of the country.

givyjoe wrote:

How about, women cannot be sexist towards men? In what context is that acceptable?!

I disagree that women can't be sexist towards men. However, it's like anti-white racism or 'heterophobia', in that I don't feel as sensitive about it as some others seem to.

Will I Am Not

Candie wrote: »

No, I mean it's no longer a discussion, just a feeding frenzy of people poring over every word uttered by someone they disagree with so they can find a reason to engage in hysterical outrage, catastrophism and reductio ad absurdum, while getting in as many veiled and not-so-veiled personal insults as possible.

Not of fan of LON by the way. Not a fan of this kind of thing either though.

If I don’t like something, I avoid it.

Skylinehead

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Because there are people that can easily unfollow threads but decide to stay around and comment on how bad the thread is until it’s locked. Seen it play out so many times on this site.

People are allowed to comment on the state of a thread, you know? It doesn't mean they're trying to get it closed. I think you're getting a bit paranoid over this, the threads not going anywhere.

Will I Am Not

Skylinehead wrote: »

People are allowed to comment on the state of a thread, you know? It doesn't mean they're trying to get it closed. I think you're getting a bit paranoid over this, the threads not going anywhere.

Maybe I am, maybe I’m not.

Will I Am Not

Will I Am Not wrote: »

If I don’t like something, I avoid it.

You can put me on ignore so.

freshpopcorn

I don't see any reason for the thread to be locked at the moment.
If it's not for you simply unfollow.

givyjoe

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Oh well, in that context, no, I don't think she was being sexist or unfair to men. I see no harm whatsoever in teaching students about consent. And if you don't think it's necessary, go take a look at basically any AH thread about a rape case and you'll find men (often the same men over and over again) taking the side of the accused, even after they've been convicted. The sad irony is that they're usually the same men who argue against the need for consent classes.



Only a tiny, tiny percentage of rape accusations that go to trial are proven to be false. Especially in places like Ireland (or the north of Ireland), where the accuser's anonymity is rendered meaningless by the size of the country.



I disagree that women can't be sexist towards men. However, it's like anti-white racism or 'heterophobia', in that I don't feel as sensitive about it as some others seem to.

Thanks for confirming that I may as well be talking to a wall. How you think that context makes it an acceptable comment, is mind boggling. Do you really think the same woman who says that women can't be sexist to men, didn't mean it in any kind of sexist or derogatory way? We're all potential murderers by that logic, do we need specific 'non murder classes' to ensure we never do so?! All that type of consent class teaches, is that men should avoid having sex with strangers where alcohol is involved.

What has the number of rape convictions go to do with the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty? Why even bother with a trial so?

And who says I'm offended?!

As for anonymity, its likely a tiny proportion of the 1.5 million people in the North know who this woman is. I'm all for anonymity on both sides though, then there can no argument that it's being used as a weapon to destroy someones life simply by making an allegation that gets to court/in news media.

pilly

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's not really about her views though. It's about is she going out with Tubridy? What did she say about her parents? Would you date her? Does she block people on twitter? Does she know the background of every cast member of movies she likes?

Does she put out easily?

What was she wearing the other night?

Sickening really.

Those who bring any debate down to personal abuse just make eejits out of themselves.

Yer Da sells Avon

givyjoe wrote: »

All that type of consent class teaches, is that men should avoid having sex with strangers where alcohol is involved.

It's supposed to teach students about the importance of being able to communicate effectively around sex and consent, whether alcohol is involved or not.

givyjoe wrote:

Thanks for confirming that I may as well be talking to a wall.

That can work both ways.

Will I Am Not

Candie wrote: »

You can put me on ignore so.

Ah here, I don’t dislike anyone here. We’re all just random strangers on the internet.

py2006

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

basically any AH thread about a rape case and you'll find men (often the same men over and over again) taking the side of the accused, even after they've been convicted. The sad irony is that they're usually the same men who argue against the need for consent classes.

Utter nonsense.

Yer Da sells Avon

py2006 wrote: »

Utter nonsense.

It's not nonsense at all. Far from it.

py2006

The bottom line is men should not disagree wih or question a deluded feminist. Especially this one who thinks she speaks for all women and has been given platform in mainstream media. This equates to a hatred of women, y'all.

She has a powerful position that will and has influenced young girls into a false reality.

A position a similar minded man would loose instantly.

Hapax Legomenon

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It's not nonsense at all. Far from it.

But like,

Isn't that the danger of the likes of Louise going on about a rape culture in Ireland etc.?

That it will get to the stage where reasonable people will question someone who claims they were raped?

pjohnson

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It's not nonsense at all. Far from it.

In your head yeah.

darkdubh

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Because there are people that can easily unfollow threads but decide to stay around and comment on how bad the thread is until it’s locked. Seen it play out so many times on this site.

That same poster who kept asking for both the the Ibrahim Halawa thread and the one on Clonskeagh mosque to be locked and got their wish springs to mind.

darkdubh

darkdubh wrote: »

That same poster who kept asking for both the the Ibrahim Halawa thread and the one on Clonskeagh mosque to be locked and got their wish springs to mind.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I didn't post in those threads and never asked for them them to be locked.

Similarly, I didn't ask for this thread to be locked either implicitly or explicitly.

darkdubh

Candie wrote: »

You must be confusing me with someone else. I didn't post in those threads and never asked for them them to be locked.

Similarly, I didn't ask for this thread to be locked either implicitly or explicitly.

I didn't say it was you. I was referring to a poster called Dreamliner for your info but he's not the only one to try and get threads locked on AH.

givyjoe

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It's supposed to teach students about the importance of being able to communicate effectively around sex and consent, whether alcohol is involved or not.



That can work both ways.

I'm not the one who thinks 'sufficient context' makes it ok to make blatantly sexist comments. So I'll sleep safe in the knowledge I'm not yet made of bricks.

Ironically enough putting her comment on rape in context of all of the other sexists remarks, should tell you all you need to know about the intent behind her comments. But by all means, head.. buried.. sand...

soiseztomabel

facehugger99 wrote: »

Yes, it is.

The world is not a homogenous group.

People are going to have different opinions, outlooks and morals than you do.

Accept it. Deal with it. Move on.

The hysteria generated over her every utterance is disproportionate in the extreme.

And people trying to justify it with 'won't somebody think of the children' wailings.

Please.

Notallmen

pilly

py2006 wrote:

Utter nonsense.

Have a look at the thread going at the moment about the man convicted of rape because his girlfriend said NO to sex without a condom and he went ahead anyway.

The amount of men trying to defend that is unreal.

pjohnson

pilly wrote: »

Have a look at the thread going at the moment about the man convicted of rape because his girlfriend said NO to sex without a condom and he went ahead anyway.

The amount of men trying to defend that is unreal.

On the first page is two women saying its not rape. Has their gender card been revoked now and they are to be called "men"?

mzungu

givyjoe wrote: »

Thanks for confirming that I may as well be talking to a wall. How you think that context makes it an acceptable comment, is mind boggling. Do you really think the same woman who says that women can't be sexist to men, didn't mean it in any kind of sexist or derogatory way? We're all potential murderers by that logic, do we need specific 'non murder classes' to ensure we never do so?! All that type of consent class teaches, is that men should avoid having sex with strangers where alcohol is involved.

Just to clarify, the "all men are potential rapists" line was not said by LON. That was said by somebody else (no idea who, and it was quite possibly donkeys years ago). Secondly, to the best of my knowledge, she didn't come out with the "all men are potential rapists" either. Again, there probably is a strand of thought out there that believes both of the above, but I don't recall seeing it in Irish newspapers., or here on Boards for that matter.

Somebody else (can't recall) did come out with something along the lines of "all men collude", meaning that by neglecting their duty to stop sexual harassment, all men can be held responsible in some way for rape. That was the subject of discussion in a thread here a good while ago. However, that was not LON either but from what I recall the RTE2 documentary had a line in it that was more or less down the same path as the collude line of thinking. I will add a caveat that memory fails me often and therefore I could be wrong.


TL;DR She never said "all men are rapists" or "all men are potential rapists".

Yer Da sells Avon

Because of this thread, I found and watched the Asking For It? documentary on the RTE Player. As I said in an earlier post, I'm a bit insensitive when it comes to perceiving misandry, so I might be missing out on stuff that could trigger the more... easily-offended gentleman, but it doesn't seem like a very controversial documentary. I thought it was interesting enough, especially the courtroom part.

py2006

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Because of this thread, I found and watched the Asking For It? documentary on the RTE Player. As I said in an earlier post, I'm a bit insensitive when it comes to perceiving misandry, so I might be missing out on stuff that could trigger the more... easily-offended gentleman, but it doesn't seem like a very controversial documentary. I thought it was interesting enough, especially the courtroom part.

Easily offended gentlemen? Seriously??

It's the double standard and hypocrisy...

Hapax Legomenon

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Because of this thread, I found and watched the Asking For It? documentary on the RTE Player. As I said in an earlier post, I'm a bit insensitive when it comes to perceiving misandry, so I might be missing out on stuff that could trigger the more... easily-offended gentleman, but it doesn't seem like a very controversial documentary. I thought it was interesting enough, especially the courtroom part.

Cheers. I've been looking for that. I seem to remember watching it years ago and it being grand compared to her articles and tweets.

Hapax Legomenon

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Because of this thread, I found and watched the Asking For It? documentary on the RTE Player. As I said in an earlier post, I'm a bit insensitive when it comes to perceiving misandry, so I might be missing out on stuff that could trigger the more... easily-offended gentleman, but it doesn't seem like a very controversial documentary. I thought it was interesting enough, especially the courtroom part.

In the bit where she was talking to the barrister/solicitor (its been a while since I saw it - so forgive me for forgetting her title), and she couldn't believe it was innocent till proven guilty, and seemed more to want Guilty till proven otherwise (and like the UCD AG200, she wouldn't give an apology, just throw away the key if an accusation came in)....which was an alarming thought that she and her ilk have..(and ive seen here and other fourms/sites who picked that up)and knowing the media and others not standing up to these sjw trolls, they'll try to push this imho