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

If posts here were confined to LON on a professional level, thats one thing. When posts start to speculate on her mental health, her living arrangements (though it's been stated she lives with her parents while she recovers from a serious eating disorder), her clothes, appearance, relationships, and even what she spends her own money on, then it's not surprising people see it as petty and sometimes spiteful. As also in the case of the Twitter person being targeted. It's frequently been 'helpfully suggested' to anyone pointing out they have a problem with that that they unfollow, so criticism of the style of some of the commentary obviously isn't welcome. People want to be left alone to say what they like and obsess over minute details of this womans life.

It's ironic that the term 'Echo Chamber' is used disparagingly when it apparently applies to the 'other side', yet that appears to be exactly what the more prolific posters on this thread seen keen to cultivate by 'encouraging' anyone questioning the style of commentary to stop posting their opinions.

Just to re-iterate what I feel I must again, I'm not a fan of LON or of any of her work. I'm just not a fan of this kind of stuff.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

There hasnt been one valid counter argument in defence of O'Neill on this thread. Not one.

Actually that's a point. I would say, or at least it would be my opinion that her argument and that of most current third wave feminists is extremely hard to defend. It is an argument that is predicated on believing and agreeing with the central tenets of the politic. Central tenets that are at best more nuanced, mostly shaky and at worst demonstrably wrong. To defend it against debate that points this out in measured ways is nigh on impossible. It would be akin to a debate about theism where the existence of a deity itself is questionable. The only real recourse such a position has is to deflect, ignore or walk away from.

py2006

Candie wrote: »

If posts here were confined to LON on a professional level, thats one thing. When posts start to speculate on her mental health, her living arrangements (though it's been stated she lives with her parents while she recovers from a serious eating disorder), her clothes, appearance, relationships, and even what she spends her own money on, then it's not surprising people see it as petty and sometimes spiteful. As also in the case of the Twitter person being targeted. It's frequently been 'helpfully suggested' to anyone pointing out they have a problem with that that they unfollow, so criticism of the style of some of the commentary obviously isn't welcome. People want to be left alone to say what they like and obsess over minute details of this womans life.

It's ironic that the term 'Echo Chamber' is used disparagingly when it apparently applies to the 'other side', yet that appears to be exactly what the more prolific posters on this thread seen keen to cultivate by 'encouraging' anyone questioning the style of commentary to stop posting their opinions.

Just to re-iterate what I feel I must again, I'm not a fan of LON or of any of her work. I'm just not a fan of this kind of stuff.

Nonsense. Similar men are referred to as misogynistic neanderthal pigs etc.

We have a right to discuss and highlight her delusions and misandry because she spews them in the media.

Mental health may be the cause, who knows. Men don't get the same sympathy when they print vitriol

Wibbs

Candie wrote: »

If posts here were confined to LON on a professional level, thats one thing. When posts start to speculate on her mental health, her living arrangements (though it's been stated she lives with her parents while she recovers from a serious eating disorder), her clothes, appearance, relationships, and even what she spends her own money on, then it's not surprising people see it as petty and sometimes spiteful.

I'd agree with that. Though the mental health angle is at least understandable. Part of this kind of personal exposition writing is the revelations of mental health issues. Issues which she herself has put out in the public domain. Add in articles where she describes emotional outbursts that are more than a little outside the norm and you can see why some would be asking WTF. Especially when there is peddling of a political message.

More I'd ask WTF is her agent/editor/publisher thinking? Well I know what they're thinking. Ker-ching!. No doubt the same handlers will roll out the usual BS of "awareness" and "important message", but I don't buy it for a second. Like I said this kinda writing, the personal of the artist as art, the unbridled outpouring of feelz, teenaged angst beyond those years is very popular. Both among those who buy into it and more than a little of the freak show point at them aspect to it. I'd say that's at least half of the interest in such public figures. This thread is almost entirely of the latter form. Humans do love a good freak show and pointing. When you point it's harder to hold up a mirror to oneself.

Candie

Candie wrote: »

If posts here were confined to LON on a professional level, thats one thing. When posts start to speculate on her mental health, her living arrangements (though it's been stated she lives with her parents while she recovers from a serious eating disorder), her clothes, appearance, relationships, and even what she spends her own money on, then it's not surprising people see it as petty and sometimes spiteful. As also in the case of the Twitter person being targeted. It's frequently been 'helpfully suggested' to anyone pointing out they have a problem with that that they unfollow, so criticism of the style of some of the commentary obviously isn't welcome. People want to be left alone to say what they like and obsess over minute details of this womans life.

It's ironic that the term 'Echo Chamber' is used disparagingly when it apparently applies to the 'other side', yet that appears to be exactly what the more prolific posters on this thread seen keen to cultivate by 'encouraging' anyone questioning the style of commentary to stop posting their opinions.

Just to re-iterate what I feel I must again, I'm not a fan of LON or of any of her work. I'm just not a fan of this kind of stuff.

I dont think anyone should be commentating on her living arrangements either or her appearance.

I do however think that some of the stuff she is coming out with is beyond insane and to be fair its not all down to her. She is being cheerleaded by the worst type of spoilt ignorant muppet from the sidelines. She does strike me as a brat but she is an indulged brat because she represents an Ireland which the ruling classes want to inflict upon us.

Mainstream media across Europe is rapidly becoming a controlled Soviet-like gulag on the whim of Governments where an alternative left reality is constantly being rammed down our throats and as a result there is dangerous right wing nuts that are capitalising on this

This week Louise is welcoming the rise of multiculturalism in Ireland because

(As an aside, one can only hope that the concept of what it even means to ‘look Irish’ will broaden as we become more diverse and multi cultural. It’ll make for a markedly more attractive nation of people, at the very least. Please note that when I suggested this on Twitter, fury rained upon my head from usernames such as ‘White Power’ and ‘Hitler Wasn’t That Bad, Now Was He?’)

Hmm. Interesting :rolleyes: Firstly what an ironic statement considering her article was entitled 'Why i'm proud to be Irish'. Id really hate to see her ashamed if this is her pride. A markedly more attractive nation of people? :rolleyes:

Im assuming she is also in a bubble about the rise of rape cases across Central Europe due to the vast influx of unscreened migrants? Of course she will have no opinion on rape culture in this scenario no doubt.

Will I Am Not

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually that's a point. I would say, or at least it would be my opinion that her argument and that of most current third wave feminists is extremely hard to defend. It is an argument that is predicated on believing and agreeing with the central tenets of the politic. Central tenets that are at best more nuanced, mostly shaky and at worst demonstrably wrong. To defend it against debate that points this out in measured ways is nigh on impossible. It would be akin to a debate about theism where the existence of a deity itself is questionable. The only real recourse such a position has is to deflect, ignore or walk away from.

I’m pretty sure some posters here would love to be able to defend her. She really is that bad that there’s nothing anyone can get behind without looking silly so they have to target her detractors instead.

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, i dont agree with some of the personal remarks about her looks, etc, but i take great exception to the fact an author and journalist accusing me and all other men, of being a rapist without basis or fact. The national media should be held to account also. They have an obligation to print news in a responsible fashion.

What exactly are you on here to argue about?

Ok. She never said that. It was more something along the lines of "all men are guilty of colluding" in rape (or something to that effect). But she never said "all men are rapists."

In the interests of full disclosure, I too, thought she said it after seeing it attributed to her in different places. But, as far as I can tell, she never said it, not as far as I'm aware anyway.

Here is this weeks mess. To quote the character Bunk from the Wire ''Makes me sick muthaf*cker how far we done fell"

WHEN I was growing up, I never gave much thought to my ‘Irishness’. It was just the standard. I was Irish, everyone I knew was Irish, and those who weren’t Irish seemed almost intoxicatingly exciting. True story — I once trailed American tourists around Clonakilty because I thought they must know Leonardo diCaprio and would introduce us.

It was only when I moved abroad that I began to think about my national identity in a more deliberate fashion. I was told that my accent was “adorable”, and I was “so Irish looking!” on a daily basis in the States.

At first I wasn’t sure if “so Irish looking” was a nice way of saying “hideous” and “your eyes are too close together because of years of marrying third cousins, gross,” until I realised it actually meant “corpse-level pale” and “red hair”.

What hope did I have of competing with all the eye-wateringly beautiful women of New York who were “a quarter Swedish, a quarter Indian, and half Korean, and that’s only on my mother’s side!”

Spoiler alert — None. (As an aside, one can only hope that the concept of what it even means to ‘look Irish’ will broaden as we become more diverse and multi cultural. It’ll make for a markedly more attractive nation of people, at the very least. Please note that when I suggested this on Twitter, fury rained upon my head from usernames such as ‘White Power’ and ‘Hitler Wasn’t That Bad, Now Was He?’)

But besides feeling like a troll on a daily basis while I lived in the US, it did make me appreciate certain things about the Old Country. And since St Patrick’s Day is supposed to be a celebration of all things Irish, I have decided to use this as an opportunity to consider why I’m proud to be from here.

1. It’s a cliché but I like how friendly we are. I went to visit my friend Angela in Brooklyn and arrived to her apartment 40 minutes before she left work. By the time she came home, I was sitting on the couch in her neighbour’s house, drinking iced tea. “Louise,” she said. “I’ve lived here two years and I’ve never met those people before. Why are you like this?”

2. I love how highly Irish people value humour, and how we prioritise having the craic. When friends in New York would tell me about their new boyfriends, they would usually open with something like, “yeah, he has an amazing apartment. Roof top terrace, you know?” I found this baffling because at home people would say “he’s hilarious” or in dire straits, they might say “and you won’t believe this, but he’s on the Cork team,” as the height of achievement.

3. Irish people are excellent story-tellers, something I feel was not appreciated by colleagues in an American clothing store I worked at. “Wow,” they’d say. “That’s funny.” (Is there anything more off-putting than someone saying “that’s funny” rather than, I don’t know, laughing?) As an author, I feel proud of the quality of fiction that is being produced by my peers. There’s an appreciation for language that is deeply embedded into our national psyche, and that goes a long way to explaining why we punch well above our weight on a cultural and artistic level.

4. I loved New York on a bone-deep level — I loved the diversity and the energy and the relentless ambition that is its very back bone — but I was constantly hungry for the open spaces of Inchydoney Beach or the breath-taking horizon of the Beara Peninsula. I wanted a night so dark that I could stare at the stars unencumbered by street lights, and I wanted a sleep so silent and deep that it felt as if I was drowning in it. Ireland is one of the most beautiful places I’ve ever been to and the countryside feeds my soul on some primal level.

Of course there are many things I don’t like about Ireland. It can feel too small at times, and insular. The growing divide between wealthy and poor worries me, as does the dehumanisation of those from lower socio-economic backgrounds as ‘less than’ and ‘scumbags’.

We have a growing problem with racism; one that shouldn’t be surprising given the historic demonisation of the travelling community but it is a problem that seems to be dismissed far too readily.

We drink too much, we don’t talk about our feelings enough; the importance of mental health is still a nascent issue in our public consciousness. Our rape conviction rates are dismally low, and 12 women a day are still forced to take a plane or a ferry to avail of basic reproductive healthcare.

And yet — I still have hope. I have hope that most Irish people are fair, and decent.

I believe that we all want to work towards a kinder, compassionate, more inclusive, and progressive Ireland. I feel we are ready to do that. So today, on St Patrick’s Day, I have one question for you:

What do you want Ireland to look like in 2018 and beyond? What does being Irish mean as we move forward?

Of course a woman who demonises all men including her grandfather is now preaching to us about racism, demonising travellers and labelling those from low socio economic backgrounds as 'scumbags'. Of course she failed to mention that it was the act of 8 morons damaging a store where people earn a living that was the context of the term where scumbags was used.

the_pen_turner

Will I Am Not wrote: »

I’m pretty sure some posters here would love to be able to defend her. She really is that bad that there’s nothing anyone can get behind without looking silly so they have to target her detractors instead.

i will state it out right.
nobody here is stopping anyone defending her or the things she says.
i will also say that if you can support her hypothisis with any kind of facts we would all like to hear them
fire away , defend her if you can

It's funny how, as a feminist, she still feels compelled to compare herself looks wise to these other women..

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

Ok. She never said that. It was more something along the lines of "all men are guilty of colluding" in rape (or something to that effect). But she never said "all men are rapists."

In the interests of full disclosure, I too, thought she said it after seeing it attributed to her in different places. But, as far as I can tell, she never said it, not as far as I'm aware anyway.

Collusion is worse then the act. She is accusing all men of being oversexed deviants and claiming all women to be victims. while she has never used those terms she has implied them on many occasions

the_pen_turner

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is this weeks mess. To quote the character Bunk from the Wire ''Makes me sick muthaf*cker how far we done fell"




Of course a woman who demonises all men including her grandfather is now preaching to us about racism, demonising travellers and labelling those from low socio economic backgrounds as 'scumbags'. Of course she failed to mention that it was the act of 8 morons damaging a store where people earn a living that was the context of the term where scumbags was used.

thats not that bad an article. there is actually a lot of good stuff to it.

the parts about being hidious and you highlghed arts are crazy though

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's funny how, as a feminist, she still feels compelled to compare herself looks wise to these other women..

You REALLY don't understand what feminism is about.....

LLMMLL

the_pen_turner wrote: »

thats not that bad an article. there is actually a lot of good stuff to it.

the parts about being hidious and you highlghed arts are crazy though

It's crazy that someone thinks Ireland is getting more racist? There's been a few high profile news stories a out black people being racially abused in Ireland over the last few years.

Can understand you disagreeing with her but it's hardly a crazy opinion. Just different to what I assume your opinion is.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You REALLY don't understand what feminism is about.....

I don't think Louise does either..

the_pen_turner

the_pen_turner wrote: »

thats not that bad an article. there is actually a lot of good stuff to it.

the parts about being hidious and you highlghed arts are crazy though

Her articles are loaded with pious, self righteous preaching and this one is no different. Alot of fluff throughout the article to be honest but of course she got her regular preaching slot in.

She did have a go at the Catholic Church and some of the messages it sends out weekly a weeks ago which I actually did agree with for a change.

the_pen_turner

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's crazy that someone thinks Ireland is getting more racist? There's been a few high profile news stories a out black people being racially abused in Ireland over the last few years.

Can understand you disagreeing with her but it's hardly a crazy opinion. Just different to what I assume your opinion is.

im not talking about the racist part. im talking about the traveler and scumbag parts. those are true.

we have a small issue with racism but i dont think its getting worse. there always was and probably always will be idiots that abuse people based on race, colour, sexual orientation, religion etc.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It's crazy that someone thinks Ireland is getting more racist? There's been a few high profile news stories a out black people being racially abused in Ireland over the last few years.

Can understand you disagreeing with her but it's hardly a crazy opinion. Just different to what I assume your opinion is.

Whats the actual numbers though? is it widescale or just as in 'rape culture' are we all guilty of this phenomenon?

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

Collusion is worse then the act. She is accusing all men of being oversexed and claiming all women to be victims.

Just to clarify, it was somebody else that came out with the "all men collude" (there was a thread here a good while back about it but it wasn't LON). My point is, she never said "all men are rapists" or "all men collude", however, going by the RTE documentary, her own position would not be a million miles away from the collude line of thinking. The difference being that it would be colluding in rape culture, and not rape itself. Like I said, not a million miles away, but different at the same time.

the_pen_turner

Deleted User wrote: »

Her articles are loaded with pious, self righteous preaching and this one is no different. Alot of fluff throughout the article to be honest but of course she got her regular preaching slot in.

She did have a go at the Catholic Church and some of the messages it sends out weekly a weeks ago which I actually did agree with for a change.

i really should have said that its a lot better than i thought it would be.
she is obviously blowing her own trumpet

there are parts of it that i wouldnt bat an eylid at if i didnt know who wrote it. like disliking being in a city and dreaming of being back home

Outlaw Pete

Candie wrote: »

It's ironic that the term 'Echo Chamber' is used disparagingly when it apparently applies to the 'other side', yet that appears to be exactly what the more prolific posters on this thread seen keen to cultivate by 'encouraging' anyone questioning the style of commentary to stop posting their opinions.

Ah, Candie, Alanis Morissette gave us more genuine examples of irony than that

Nobody is trying to cultivate an echo chamber here. Sure there's even been lots of comments made complaining that there's not enough users posting on the thread expressing opposing viewpoints, ones which would support Louise's views. What you cite as evidence of cultivation of an echo chamber is just people fed up with some users who seem to only want to comment on people commenting, as they know all that will result in is a shitstorm that would invariably get the thread locked.

_Dara_ wrote: »

There’ll be threads relating to him every so often, sure. But they tend to peter out after a few days or maybe a week. He’d never inspire a megathread.

He's had rakes of threads about him, some which went on for six months. They used to ate him alive around here and me for defending him. Seriously, here's just the AH threads about him (there was many more throughout the site) and in these alone there's over 4000 replies and around 347 insults aimed at him. Approximately.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

Just to clarify, it was somebody else that came out with the "all men collude" (there was a thread here a good while back about it but it wasn't LON). My point is, she never said "all men are rapists" or "all men collude", however, going by the RTE documentary, her own position would not be a million miles away from the collude line of thinking. The difference being that it would be colluding in rape culture, and not rape itself. Like I said, not a million miles away, but different at the same time.

Just a few weeks ago she claimed that girls that she gives talks to in schools are afraid to ask her questions while the boys are in the room because they feel intimidated. She gave no indication as to the context of the actual questions and made yet another completely baseless statement

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

Just a few weeks ago she claimed that girls that she gives talks to in schools are afraid to ask her questions while the boys are in the room because they feel intimidated. She gave no indication as to the context of the actual questions and made yet another completely baseless statement

She is far from an outlier, most opinion columns feature some kind of anecdote (that most likely never happened) that backs up the writers POV.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

She is far from an outlier, most opinion columns feature some kind of anecdote (that most likely never happened) that backs up the writers POV.

I agree and ive said that she is encouraged by her superiors and her peers within the media. All handpicked lefty idiots with a very insulated view of the world. The thread shouldnt really single this one out alone.

Will I Am Not

mzungu wrote: »

She is far from an outlier, most opinion columns feature some kind of anecdote (that most likely never happened) that backs up the writers POV.

I’d be surprised if even half of that clichéd rubbish about her Irishness is true.

Yer Da sells Avon

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps the real objection here is that Louise represents a wider problem of modern skewed mass media coverage not just in Ireland, but worldwide, where these stupid leftist idiots and their flawed morals seem to be hand picked by the media tycoons to represent a different reality then what is actually happening on the ground and carry out government propaganda.

I literally laughed out loud when I read that. It's more batshit than anything Louise O'Neill has ever written. Proper tinfoil hat stuff.

Outlaw Pete wrote:

What you cite as evidence of cultivation of an echo chamber is just people fed up with some users who seem to only want to comment on people commenting, as they know all that will result in is a ****storm that would inevitably get the thread locked.

This paranoiac nonsense again. Two mods have already said that the thread is not going anywhere. And yet here you are, still baselessly moaning about people trying to get it locked. I think people should just admit that they want the thread to be a nice little circle-jerk echo-chamber.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He's had rakes of threads about him, some which went on for six months. They used to ate him alive around here and me for defending him. Seriously, here's just the AH threads about him (there was many more throughout the site) and in these alone there's over 4000 replies and around 347 insults aimed at him. Approximately.

You are joking, right? That's 17 threads over 13 years, the longest of which is around half the length of this one. Unlike Louise O'Neill, he wrote for the 'paper of record' and then for Ireland's largest selling daily newspaper, which had, until recently, a circulation of well over 100,000. She writes for her local paper in Cork. Her articles aren't even accessible unless you can be arsed registering.

Incidentally, the thread about Kevin Myers that "went on for six months" actually went on for less than two weeks, until it was bumped six months later (after which, it went on for less than a day).

manonboard

Candie wrote: »

When posts start to speculate on her mental health, her living arrangements (though it's been stated she lives with her parents while she recovers from a serious eating disorder)

I didnt know she was recovering from a serious eating disorder. I would implore her for her own well being to quit the large social movement that has her surrounded and attacked so aggressive. Eating disorders can be detrimental (i have one). Being around something that increases stress to the levels she has to endure is a very self damaging decision in such conditions. I hope she takes better care of herself.

mzungu

Will I Am Not wrote: »

I’d be surprised if even half of that clichéd rubbish about her Irishness is true.

As a general rule, opinion columns will feature a lot of padding. That is just the nature of the beast. There is only so much stuff you can write about Irish society, especially when it would be through the lens of postmodern gender and critical race theory. Every now and then, when it comes to some big issue, there is a chance to take a nice big swing at it and get stuck into it, but otherwise it's a case getting the words off to the editor and collecting the paycheque.

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree and ive said that she is encouraged by her superiors and her peers within the media. All handpicked lefty idiots with a very insulated view of the world. The thread shouldnt really single this one out alone.

There are other op-ed's in the Examiner. They do try and put the left and right wing view forward. This goes for all the main Irish papers . They pick them from across the spectrum. For eg, in the Times you would have Una Mullally and Breda O'Brien. Both coming from very different viewpoints and sometimes (more so now with the referendum on the way) writing about the same topic.

It would not be a left wing thing or a right wing thing IMO.

Sweetemotion

mzungu wrote: »

There are other op-ed's in the Examiner. They do try and put the left and right wing view forward. This goes for all the main Irish papers . They pick them from across the spectrum. For eg, in the Times you would have Una Mullally and Breda O'Brien. Both coming from very different viewpoints and sometimes (more so now with the referendum on the way) writing about the same topic.

It would not be a left wing thing or a right wing thing IMO.

Not for the radio or television though.

Louise has been on the radio a lot recently promoting her new book. Every single interview was on her side. Congratulating and praising her for her views and how great she is. On the television, Ryan on the late late show told her to keep doing what she is doing. I don't see the same for Breda do you?