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

Outlaw Pete

Exactly and that's what people that suggest this thread shouldn't be open fail to grasp. The media give her a platform regularly to air her views and so therefore it's only right that people who disagree with her get to have theirs. She does her level best to silence her critics on the likes of Twitter and Facebook (understandable of course if abuse is involved, but more often than not it's just opposing views she is actively silencing) and so message boards like this are really the only place where what she says can be rebutted.

Like most people who have tried to engage with Louise online, it resulted in her blocking me, but unlike her I have no issue with letting her have her say and so here are her recent comments on threads like this and those who post on them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0t6pP7b9OQ

Wibbs

py2006 wrote: »

Again, to those that are defending her existence, would you tolerate male writers spewing poorly written articles that are ridiculing, belittling, sexist and misogynistic? Any man that comes close to that these days tends to lose his job.

Indeed, but Always Follow The Money. Similar stuff from a man would have a much more limited audience. It wouldn't sell(this could change of course. Backlash journalism/politics*) and if it wouldn't sell then it doesn't get a platform. Victim journalism - modern "feminism" being a charm for it - sells. It sells to the true believers, it sells to those who hoover up ChickThink™, it sells to gauche teenagers with a fondness for black, it sells to those of a perpetual sadomasochistic delicateness and of course it sells to the WTF did they just write? demographic too(that's a big chunk of it). Or at least sells enough to warrant a continuing platform. It's pretty much as simple as that.




*that Canadian Peterson guy could well be an indicator of that backlash. He's getting the "likes" and column inches and of course the money. Now though I disagree with much of his stuff and quite a bit of it is IMHO overly simplistic but garbed in the faux wisdom of complexity, he is a far bigger heavy hitter than the the local LO'Ns that populate our media, Though I would suggest he'd have to be. The initial backlash standard bearers have to be of a higher quality(at least on the surface) when compared to the acceptable de jour. Much like the first and second wave Feminists had to be. Compare the likes of Steinhem, Friedan, King with today's crop of victims of intersectional womanhood. It's beyond laughable.

garbo speaks

Louise O'Neill really loves to hear Louise O'Neill talk about Louise O'Neill.

somefeen

I think, 'Louise O'Neill, snog, marry, avoid' would be a better thread title

facehugger99

py2006 wrote: »

Again, to those that are defending her existence, would you tolerate male writers spewing poorly written articles that are ridiculing, belittling, sexist and misogynistic?

I probably wouldn’t bother reading them if they annoyed me that much.

Why do you keep hanging off her every word?

LLMMLL

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Exactly and that's what people that suggest this thread shouldn't be open fail to grasp. The media give her a platform regularly to air her views and so therefore it's only right that people who disagree with her get to have theirs. She does her level best to silence her critics on the likes of Twitter and Facebook (understandable of course if abuse is involved, but more often than not it's just opposing views she is actively silencing) and so message boards like this are really the only place where what she says can be rebutted.

Like most people who have tried to engage with Louise online, it resulted in her blocking me, but unlike her I have no issue with letting her have her say and so here are her recent comments on threads like this and those who post on them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0t6pP7b9OQ

Blocking someone is not silencing them. Your tweets are still public. You're still getting to have your say. It's amazing that people link blocking someone on social media with silencing someones views. It's a bit hysterical really.

Doctor Jimbob

LLMMLL wrote: »

Blocking someone is not silencing them. Your tweets are still public. You're still getting to have your say. It's amazing that people link blocking someone on social media with silencing someones views. It's a bit hysterical really.

A bit like LoN herself, funnily enough.

Outlaw Pete

LLMMLL wrote: »

Blocking someone is not silencing them. Your tweets are still public. You're still getting to have your say. It's amazing that people link blocking someone on social media with silencing someones views. It's a bit hysterical really.

When you block someone on Twitter they can no longer @ you and so therefore you can no longer adequately take part in a discussion with them. When you ban someone on Facebook they can no longer comment in a discussion taking place on your page. LON (and her ilk) do this regularly. As I said, if someone is being abusive, fair enough, but if all they are doing is trying to take part in a conversation, and you remove them simply because their views aren't in agreement with yours, then that very much is an attempt to silence your critics and carve out little online echo chambers.

freshpopcorn

LLMMLL wrote: »

Blocking someone is not silencing them. Your tweets are still public. You're still getting to have your say. It's amazing that people link blocking someone on social media with silencing someones views. It's a bit hysterical really.

Louise often says she wants to raise subjects such rape/consent. However anybody who questions her or raises issues with anything she says she labels them as a troll and cuts of the discussion. It's her opinion or none.

The J Stands for Jay

drugstore cowboy wrote: »

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

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

I just can't get my head around how dumb she was in New York. 220v hairdryers won't work in 110v New York. The NY subway is simple, I managed it now problem when I moved there at 19.

Yer Da sells Avon

py2006 wrote: »

Again, to those that are defending her existence, would you tolerate male writers spewing poorly written articles that are ridiculing, belittling, sexist and misogynistic? Any man that comes close to that these days tends to lose his job.

These three badasses would like a word...



The man in the middle lost his job, not because of his years of misogyny, but because his antisemitism upset his bosses in London.

*Awaits a chorus of "they're not misogynists!!!11" from the usual suspects*

freshpopcorn wrote:

Louise often says she wants to raise subjects such rape/consent. However anybody who questions her or raises issues with anything she says she labels them as a troll and cuts of the discussion. It's her opinion or none.

As we've seen earlier on this thread, one of the Reasonable Men™ revealed that he got blocked by a woman on Twitter for popping up in her mentions with a fairly innocuous comment. He omitted the part where he called her a "looper" and a "mentally unhinged lunatic" and described her boyfriend as a "poor sod". There's always more to it.

Icemancometh

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

These three badasses would like a word...



The man in the middle lost his job, not because of his years of misogyny, but because his antisemitism upset his bosses in London.

*Awaits a chorus of "they're not misogynists!!!11" from the usual suspects*



As we've seen earlier on this thread, one of the Reasonable Men™ revealed that he got blocked by a woman on Twitter for popping up in her mentions with a fairly innocuous comment. He omitted the part where he called her a "looper" and a "mentally unhinged lunatic" and described her boyfriend as a "poor sod". There's always more to it.

Just curious, did you have that photo ready to rock, or did you have to go looking for it?

freshpopcorn

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

As we've seen earlier on this thread, on of the Reasonable Men™ revealed that he got blocked by a woman on Twitter for popping up in her mentions with a fairly innocuous comment. He omitted the part where he called her a "looper" and a "mentally unhinged lunatic" and described her boyfriend as a "poor sod". There's always more to it.

I got blocked by Louise because I liked a comment on facebook under one of Examiner articles. It wasn't mean or nasty just a difference of opinion. So there isn't always more to it. She can't accept anybodies opinion apart from her own.

Yer Da sells Avon

Icemancometh wrote: »

Just curious, did you have that photo ready to rock, or did you have to go looking for it?

I had to go looking for it.

Icemancometh

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I had to go looking for it.

Well done so!

Yer Da sells Avon

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I got blocked by Louise because I liked a comment on facebook under one of Examiner articles. It wasn't mean or nasty just a difference of opinion. So there isn't always more to it. She can't accept anybodies opinion apart from her own.

What was the comment? Could it have been construed as mean or nasty? Was it on her own Facebook page (because that's essentially an author's fan page, which doesn't exist so that people can go all "well, actually..." on it)? Was she getting a barrage of "differences of opinion" from Reasonable Men™ at the time?

On Twitter, I often block strangers who randomly enter my mentions to tell me I'm wrong. Usually because they're anonymous and rude and are actively seeking out people to argue with.

Outlaw Pete

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

These three badasses would like a word...

Sure you're undermining your own argument by posting a picture of Kevin Myers as there were threads on Boards about him for years, lambasting him almost every time he opened his mouth..... compared to how he was spoken about on Boards over the years, Louise is getting the kid gloves.

Yer Da sells Avon

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sure you're undermining your own argument by posting a picture of Kevin Myers as there were threads on Boards about him for years, lambasting him almost every time he opened his mouth.

I was responding to the idea that a man who writes misogynistic articles would lose his job. Of course, Myers did eventually lose his job, but not because of his misogyny.

freshpopcorn

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

What was the comment? Could it have been construed as mean or nasty? Was it on her own Facebook page (because that's essentially an author's fan page, which doesn't exist so that people can go all "well, actually..." on it)? Was she getting a barrage of "differences of opinion" from Reasonable Men™ at the time?

On Twitter, I often block strangers who randomly enter my mentions to tell me I'm wrong. Usually because they're anonymous and rude and are actively seeking out people to argue with.

It was on the Examiners page. They put up her article every Saturday. She had a mix of fans and people who didn't agree with her and I liked a comment that basically didn't agree with her. It wasn't a just men commenting or doing the liking.
As I said already it wasn't anything mean or nasty.

RabbleRouser2k

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

These three badasses would like a word...



The man in the middle lost his job, not because of his years of misogyny, but because his antisemitism upset his bosses in London.

*Awaits a chorus of "they're not misogynists!!!11" from the usual suspects*



As we've seen earlier on this thread, one of the Reasonable Men™ revealed that he got blocked by a woman on Twitter for popping up in her mentions with a fairly innocuous comment. He omitted the part where he called her a "looper" and a "mentally unhinged lunatic" and described her boyfriend as a "poor sod". There's always more to it.

I laugh at these lads, tbh. They're trying to look 'hip' but tend to look more like drips, trapped in a midlife/ quarter life crisis.
(There's not much difference).

But what you will find is that they disagree on a LOT of issues, but still enjoy debate.

O'doherty's Twitter account was shut down, however, and he's never bothered setting up a new one(impossible to not see Friends of Louise being involved). LON spouts similar dangerous comments, no twitter shutdown.

Outlaw Pete

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I was responding to the idea that a man who writes misogynistic articles would lose his job. Of course, Myers did eventually lose his job, but not because of his misogyny.

I understand that, and that's fair enough, but they also asked you (aside from suggesting such men tend to be sacked) would you (and others who appear to have an issue with the vitriol directed at Louise) tolerate similar type views from men and from my experience, you lot haven't, at all. So what's the difference? Why is it okay to have been on Myers & Co's back down the years, calling them misogynists and the like, but yet not on LON's case for the nonsense she spouts?

Will I Am Not

freshpopcorn wrote: »

As I said already it wasn't anything mean or nasty.

Totally ignored to harp on about mean and nasty tweets.

Sweetemotion

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I understand that, and that's fair enough, but they also asked you (aside from suggesting such men tend to be sacked) would you (and others who appear to have an issue with the vitriol directed at Louise) tolerate the views of those men and from my experience, you lot haven't, at all. So what's the difference? Why is it okay to have been on Myers & Co's back down the years, calling them misogynists and the like, but yet not on LON's case for the nonsense she spouts?

Ray, likes to show how woke he is to the ladies on boards.

I think he's just looking for the ride.

py2006

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

As we've seen earlier on this thread, one of the Reasonable Men™ revealed that he got blocked by a woman on Twitter for popping up in her mentions with a fairly innocuous comment. He omitted the part where he called her a "looper" and a "mentally unhinged lunatic" and described her boyfriend as a "poor sod". There's always more to it.

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Was she getting a barrage of "differences of opinion" from Reasonable Men™ at the time?

On Twitter, I often block strangers who randomly enter my mentions to tell me I'm wrong. Usually because they're anonymous and rude and are actively seeking out people to argue with.

You see....oh whatever!

darkdubh

Whod'a thunk it? The Guardian gives Lon's book a lukewarm review.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/17/almost-love-by-louise-oneill-review

Yer Da sells Avon

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It was on the Examiners page. They put up her article every Saturday. She had a mix of fans and people who didn't agree with her and I liked a comment that basically didn't agree with her. It wasn't a just men commenting or doing the liking.
As I said already it wasn't anything mean or nasty.

I can see why you find that unfair. She gets so much genuine abuse though, I can sort of understand why she might go on blocking sprees. I got blocked on Twitter by a backbench Fine Gael TD (Noel Rock) a few weeks ago. He had tweeted something stupid (for which he subsequently apologised) and I made what I felt was a reasonable comment about it. He blocked me (and lots of other people too), probably because he was wading through so much abuse, criticism and general 'noise' that it seemed like the easiest thing to do.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

O'doherty's Twitter account was shut down, however, and he's never bothered setting up a new one(impossible to not see Friends of Louise being involved). LON spouts similar dangerous comments, no twitter shutdown.

As far as I know, he shut his Twitter account entirely of his own volition.

He was briefly suspended in 2016 after tweeting this:

Outlaw Pete wrote:

I understand that, and that's fair enough, but they also asked you (aside from suggesting such men tend to be sacked) would you (and others who appear to have an issue with the vitriol directed at Louise) tolerate similar type views from men and from my experience, you lot haven't, at all. So what's the difference? Why is it okay to have been on Myers & Co's back down the years, calling them misogynists and the like, but yet not on LON's case for the nonsense she spouts?

I could be completely wrong, but I don't think a 'superthread' dedicated to Myers or any similar individual would gain a huge amount of traction. From time to time, people on here might have been 'on his back', but it was usually the result of something he said in an individual column. I can't imagine people being all that interested in his mental health, his domestic arrangements or what he had for breakfast. Personally, I 'tolerate' the views of Myers, O'Doherty and Quinn, in that I tend not to bother reading them very often.

Yer Da sells Avon

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Ray, likes to show how woke he is to the ladies on boards.

I think he's just looking for the ride.

Why would you post something so nasty? People have been thread-banned for less.

Has it ever occurred to you that people whose opinions differ from your own might hold them as sincerely as you hold yours?

Omackeral

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Ray, likes to show how woke he is to the ladies on boards.

#WokeBae #WokeRay

Bowlardo

darkdubh wrote: »

Whod'a thunk it? The Guardian gives Lon's book a lukewarm review.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/17/almost-love-by-louise-oneill-review

“Sarah never wins the reader’s sympathies. She comes across as an overgrown adolescent, whiny and morose, and it isn’t clear what she sees in Matthew, other than the ample contents of his wallet.“

Interesting quote from the guardian. It’s kind of how I see Louise.

RabbleRouser2k

darkdubh wrote: »

Whod'a thunk it? The Guardian gives Lon's book a lukewarm review.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/mar/17/almost-love-by-louise-oneill-review

A man wrote it, she'll be raging and accusing him of misogyny and being anti-Irish.

Bowlardo wrote: »

“Sarah never wins the reader’s sympathies. She comes across as an overgrown adolescent, whiny and morose, and it isn’t clear what she sees in Matthew, other than the ample contents of his wallet.“

Interesting quote from the guardian. It’s kind of how I see Louise.

I'm seeing many complaints towards the main character. That there is a certain amount of 'she's kind of an idiot'.