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

pilly

pjohnson wrote:

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 Has their gender card been revoked now and they are to be called "men"?

Hmm, just went and checked to be sure and no you're wrong there.

Yer Da sells Avon

Dakota Brave Carrot wrote: »

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

No, I think you should watch it again (the conversation with the barrister is 31 minutes into the video). The barrister was explaining that rape should be hard to prove, and that the standard of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt, even if, on the balance of probability, it's obvious that they did it. O'Neill certainly seemed frustrated at the idea of a person who is probably guilty being acquitted, and the complainant - who in 97% of cases that go to trial is not lying - being branded a liar as a result.

Pero_Bueno

py2006 wrote: »

Was it Louise or Una Mullally who wrote an article pretty much stating that even if a man isn't a rapist, he is just as bad as one because he knows a rapist and is doing nothing about it to stop them.


i.e all us men hang around with rapists and turn a blind eye to it because they are our pals or colleagues!

Like LON thinking Tupac (convicted rapist) is a hero ??

Will I Am Not

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.

And then you have the thread about the woman who got a suspended sentence for falsely accusing someone of rape. First reply made reference to it being the op’s first post, cue some thanks from the ladies...

Sky King

https://twitter.com/Lana_Richardson/status/972851355743412224

https://twitter.com/Lana_Richardson/status/972852389018513408

https://twitter.com/Lana_Richardson/status/973185773238411264


Wouldn't it be a really interesting scenario if Lana Richardson's boyfriend was wrongly accused of rape by a third party?

Obviously I would never ever like to see a real person actually wrongly accused like that. Be an interesting situation if it did occur though.

Hector Savage

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Ok, here's something else he tweeted at her (in response to a photo that included her boyfriend)...



Is that an acceptable 'backlash' for someone whose only 'crime' is that she expressed an opinion that some misogynistic idiot didn't like?

Wow, didn't expect such a response!!! So I'm a misogynist !!
This person has no problem with innocent men's lives ruined, she
states the bullcrap that all men are "privileged" - she has 1k+
followers, impressionable people ... she is doing damage!
My tweets are attacks yes - but they are absurd at the same time,
exaggerations, but at the same time touching on the truth.

If she is going to spout such misandric bile she should be prepared for
some quips - even if they aren't exactly highbrow.

Hector Savage

givyjoe wrote: »

I seriously think you could do with checking a dictionary. In your rather loose opinion, you think that's misogyny, when in reality the reference someone being a poor sod isn't because of his or her gender, it's because of the persons barmy views.

Again, more irony. Nothing is ever misogyny to some, just as EVERYTHING is misogyny to others.

At this point it seems certain posters who don't like the fact a thread exists on LON and her crazy views, are simply seeking to derail it.

Exactly!
How the hell is calling him a 'poor sod' misogyny ?
It's the VIEWS she's posting thats bad !

Imagine what she says in private if this is what she says in public ??

Also I didn't trawl through her tweets, I saw her profile and immediately under media I saw that pic ...

givyjoe

py2006 wrote: »

Easily offended gentlemen? Seriously??

It's the double standard and hypocrisy...

Shouldn't need to spelled out, seemingly it does for some :rolleyes:

Zulu

givyjoe wrote: »

Shouldn't need to spelled out, seemingly it does for some :rolleyes:

Of course it does. It's really difficult to see the wood from the trees when your head is buried in the sand.

Outlaw Pete

Sky King wrote: »

Wouldn't it be a really interesting scenario if Lana Richardson's boyfriend was wrongly accused of rape by a third party?

Aye, there all full of the #IBelieveHer BS when it's nobody they know, but when it is you see a different side of them. Lena Dunham is a good example of that when after all her hashtagging she came out in support of a male writer she knew who was accused of sexual assault. There was immediately a huge backlash against her from the far left flock and so she deleted the tweet and apologized.

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/lena-dunham-apology-girls-writer-murray-miller-1202618404/


This from Xiaxue illustrates it beautifully:

Will I Am Not

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Aye, there all full of the #IBelieveHer BS when it's nobody they know, but when it is you see a different side of them. Lena Dunham is a good example of that when after all her hashtagging she came out in support of a male writer she knew who was accused of sexual assault. There was immediately a huge backlash against her from the far left flock and so she deleted the tweet and apologized.

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/lena-dunham-apology-girls-writer-murray-miller-1202618404/


This from Xiaxue illustrates it beautifully:

I lolled :pac:

LLMMLL

Another ridiculous criticism. Firstly, her bf has not been accused of anything, so you've no idea how she would react. "I wonder how shed react if her boufroend was accused" does not make her a hypocrite.

Yer Da sells Avon

LLMMLL wrote: »

Another ridiculous criticism. Firstly, her bf has not been accused of anything, so you've no idea how she would react. "I wonder how shed react if her boufroend was accused" does not make her a hypocrite.

It'd be a bit like asking some of the regulars on this thread, "How would you react if a woman close to you was raped?" I mean, would they instinctively take the side of the accused, or would they break the habit of a lifetime and believe a woman?

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Another ridiculous criticism. Firstly, her bf has not been accused of anything, so you've no idea how she would react. "I wonder how shed react if her boufroend was accused" does not make her a hypocrite.

Except, we clearly do know how she'd react . She said she would believe the accuser. Fairly simply if you read her tweets.

the_pen_turner

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It'd be a bit like asking some of the regulars on this thread, "How would you react if a woman close to you was raped?" I mean, would they instinctively take the side of the accused, or would they break the habit of a lifetime and believe a woman?

it would make the situation a lot trickier when the person is right beside you

il put it this way. if she said she was raped would you stop there and accept it as fact or would you ask what happened.

soiseztomabel

Hector Savage wrote: »

Exactly!
How the hell is calling him a 'poor sod' misogyny ?
It's the VIEWS she's posting thats bad !

Imagine what she says in private if this is what she says in public ??

Also I didn't trawl through her tweets, I saw her profile and immediately under media I saw that pic ...

What a total softco.ck

drugstore cowboy

I would wince every time I looked at social media, confronted by people who seemed to hate me for no apparent reason other than that I was a woman with an opinion.

Yeah, that's why. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

https://www.refinery29.uk/louise-o-neill-author-personal-essay

Wibbs

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It'd be a bit like asking some of the regulars on this thread, "How would you react if a woman close to you was raped?" I mean, would they instinctively take the side of the accused, or would they break the habit of a lifetime and believe a woman?

Wut daftness is this before me? As the_pen_turner said I'd obviously support her(or him), but at some point I would enquire as to what happened. If nothing else to see if it could be taken further as far as criminal charges go. I wouldn't just go "there there, here's my shoulder to cry on". That of course has emotional value, but alone isn't worth much. Same for any crime against the person that might befall someone close to me. I don't throw out common sense based on the gender of the person in front of me. I would treat them equally. Mad eh?

freshpopcorn

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It'd be a bit like asking some of the regulars on this thread, "How would you react if a woman close to you was raped?" I mean, would they instinctively take the side of the accused, or would they break the habit of a lifetime and believe a woman?

It would depend on the person to be honest.

Wibbs

drugstore cowboy wrote: »

Yeah, that's why. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Her pronouncements on Twatter and the like are more than a bit cringeworthy. Her work appeals to a certain demographic of overwrought "sensitive" inwardly obsessed individuals, mostly young women, who find adult responsibility in emotions and deeds a bit of a strain. It's pure ChickThink™ and like BroScience™ it has and finds an audience. TBH I'd give two hoots about that. Hardly a crime and hardly uncommon.

My issue is the unopposed and mainstream platform she and similar seem to get for those same cringeworthy pronouncements. There is no debate. Her points of view exist in a vacuum, never tested in the crucible of discourse or opposition.

Then again all ideologues have a very strong self preservation trait and avoid such discourse. The latest incarnation of "feminism" is particularly prone to sticking their fingers in their ears while shouting from their echo chambers. The block feature in much of social media is catnip to them. All dissent however studied or measured is at first banally ridiculed - e.g. "only a man would say that" - and when that doesn't work the block option is hit in double quick time.

Common among the overly self involved is conflating their ideology with themselves(well, the type do that with most everything) and any debate that strays from that ideology is seen as an attack and a personal one with it. You can't introduce debate into that arena. Like Facebook support pages or even threads on Boards on occasion. You know the ones; support threads. Tell your story and let following posters write variations on the theme of "there there". Which is again fine and sometimes such one way conversations are needed, but they can't be and shouldn't be confused with anything like debate.

johnnyskeleton

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It'd be a bit like asking some of the regulars on this thread, "How would you react if a woman close to you was raped?" I mean, would they instinctively take the side of the accused, or would they break the habit of a lifetime and believe a woman?

You would take her side. But you wouldnt start up a social media campaign trying to convince society that if they dont automatically believe her they are a bad person.

And if before she was raped you were carrying out a campaign to say that people should always believe the accused in rape cases, you would definitely realise how nonsensical that argument is.

Turing to the point at hand, when people ask how she would react if it was her boyfriend, they are not seeking to have an answer to that specific question. They already know the answer. They are pointing out the fact that these campaigns dehumanise a group of people and seek to deny them their right to a fair trial. By pointing out that she would take an inconsistent view if someone she knew personally was accused, posters here are doing no more than highlight the absurdity of taking absolutist postions when it comes to people they dont know.

Ultimately a jury trial is the best form of justice we have, and people should respect it, regardless of the outcome in individual cases.

mcmoustache

This thread has taught me a lot but the biggest lesson here for me is that there is a lot of nutty drama on social media and I am right to stay clear of it. Sure, I follow journalists, scientists and comedians on twitter but the odd "Like" is the extent of my interaction. The thought of having these nobodies filling my news feed with what can only be described as drivel followed by drama disgusts me. Is facebook more of the same? Say what you want about boards but you can at least challenge nonsense here.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

Wut daftness is this before me? As the_pen_turner said I'd obviously support her(or him), but at some point I would enquire as to what happened. If nothing else to see if it could be taken further as far as criminal charges go. I wouldn't just go "there there, here's my shoulder to cry on". That of course has emotional value, but alone isn't worth much. Same for any crime against the person that might befall someone close to me. I don't throw out common sense based on the gender of the person in front of me. I would treat them equally. Mad eh?

I think he meant that someone who typically believes the man where there's a rape accusation with little physical evidence would most likely believe the woman if she were a friend or relative.

This was to counter the frankly silly criticism that a random woman on twitter would believe her boyfriend if he was accused of rape whereas she said she would always believe women in rape cases. It would be understandable if she dropped her principles to support someone close to her and it would be understandable if she stuck to her principles regardless of who was involved.

Either way its irrelevant as there's no way to know which side shed take unless it actually happened.

I'm pretty sure the poster you're responding to didn't mean that you'd have to believe the woman regardless of any facts that you might find out later.

py2006

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It'd be a bit like asking some of the regulars on this thread, "How would you react if a woman close to you was raped?" I mean, would they instinctively take the side of the accused, or would they break the habit of a lifetime and believe a woman?

Repulsive

suicide_circus

Can we stop feeding this goon's ego and let this thread die? All you're doing by posting here is giving more publicity to this boring and vacuous narcissist.

Water John

Great programme on TG4 last night on Ashling Thompson. Ashling would be the first to say she isn't perfect, but a great role model esp for young people who have mental health issues. Trying as most people, to handle life.
Invite her into your school.

drugstore cowboy

Vlad gets one over on LON:cool:

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/974217597725093889

Jim Bob Scratcher

drugstore cowboy wrote: »

Vlad gets one over on LON:cool:

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/974217597725093889

The poor thing, hopefully she's alright :rolleyes:

RabbleRouser2k

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

The poor thing, hopefully she's alright :rolleyes:

'You OK hun, txt me babes, we'll have our favourite guys over...Ben and Jerry's.' *heart shaped emoji, kisses emoji, etc*

DEFTLEFTHAND

drugstore cowboy wrote: »

Vlad gets one over on LON:cool:

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/974217597725093889

Jaysus, she does have a bit of a sense of humour after all.