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

Sweetemotion

Sweetemotion wrote: »

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?

You'd bet your ass if they had Katie Hopkins or the like on theyd be challenging her but no-one had the grapes to challenge old Lou Lou on her nonsense

Haha..you can imagine Ryan alright..

"Thanks Katie..keep doing what you're doing..white power."

mzungu

Sweetemotion wrote: »

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?

I think her views should be open for critique and debate. However, she is on TV and radio to plug her book and make a few quid. Hence, the book is the topic of conversation. Light entertainment shows are awful places for any kind of meaningful discussion. Maybe on the LLS of Gay Byrnes day when they had proper debates every now and then, but now it's all style and no substance. They are mainly promotional slots and you just will not get anything heavy hitting. It will be a mutual backslap, then off you go, now, who's on next?

If Breda wrote a book that had nothing to do with christianity or abortion, she would have a slot on the chat shows. But she would not be asked hard questions. Only if she went on Claire Byrne or Prime Time would that happen.

the_pen_turner

mzungu wrote: »

I think her views should be open for critique and debate. However, she is on TV and radio to plug her book and make a few quid. Hence, the book is the topic of conversation. Light entertainment shows are awful places for any kind of meaningful discussion. Maybe on the LLS of Gay Byrnes day when they had proper debates every now and then, but now it's all style and no substance. They are mainly promotional slots and you just will not get anything heavy hitting. It will be a mutual backslap, then off you go, now, who's on next?

If Breda wrote a book that had nothing to do with christianity or abortion, she would have a slot on the chat shows. But she would not be asked hard questions. Only if she went on Claire Byrne or Prime Time would that happen.

thats fair enough to a point. its not a debate program anymore. they really need to get her on prime time

givyjoe

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.

She specifically said, all men are potential rapists and also need to be taught not to rape. Harmless stuff really.. yeah, it's a mystery why some folks have questioned her mental health.. amazing how some posters think such a reasonable conclusion is unfair.. but don't seem to have such concerns about such barmy statements, of which there's lots more.

darkdubh

In the same article she mentions inbreeding and marrying cousins then goes on to talk about discrimination against travellers.

mzungu

the_pen_turner wrote: »

thats fair enough to a point. its not a debate program anymore. they really need to get her on prime time

Primetime is really only politics and current affairs, same with Claire Byrne. To get into stuff like gender or critical race theory, it would need to be a bit more mainstream. For example, if people are sitting down hoping to get the latest on the trolley crisis, the last thing they would want (or expect) is to have two talking heads on debating whether man or women is a social construct!

the_pen_turner

mzungu wrote: »

Primetime is really only politics and current affairs, same with Claire Byrne. To get into stuff like gender or critical race theory, it would need to be a bit more mainstream. For example, if people are sitting down hoping to get the latest on the trolley crisis, the last thing they would want (or expect) is to have two talking heads on debating whether man or women is a social construct!

i agree. nobody would watch
but what do you do . the late late has no backbone anymore and couldnt do a serious interview to save it .

mzungu

givyjoe wrote: »

She specifically said, all men are potential rapists

I don't mean to bring us on a merry-go-round here, but did she really say that? All I can find is this:

LON wrote:

"I don't think that all men are rapists"

Link: https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/i-dislike-that-i-have-to-proclaim-repeatedly-that-no-i-dont-hate-all-men-and-no-i-dont-think-all-men-are-misogynists-391837.html

At this point, I think the "all men rape" or "all men are potential rapists" stuff and its variants should be dropped. She never said it. It is a strawman argument.

givyjoe wrote: »

and also need to be taught not to rape. Harmless stuff really.. yeah,

The above rings a bell. Was this around the time of when consent classes were being touted as a thing? I have a problem with that line of thinking. Mainly because I think like most people that commit crimes, rapists know exactly what they are doing and no amount of classes would change that. To suggest it would is naive in the extreme. That said, I would support consent classes as part of an overall sex education strategy for all young people as I think they would benefit from it.

givyjoe wrote: »

it's a mystery why some folks have questioned her mental health.. amazing how some posters think such a reasonable conclusion is unfair.. but don't seem to have such concerns about such barmy statements, of which there's lots more.

The statements are indeed barmy and I do not agree at all with the stuff she comes out with. But there is no point bringing up her mental health as it is nobody else's concern and serves no purpose IMO.

mzungu

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i agree. nobody would watch
but what do you do . the late late has no backbone anymore and couldnt do a serious interview to save it .

They should get back to the panel style debates of old. Use that as a way to thrash out some of societies burning questions. Allow a fair bit of time for it too so everybody gets a say and can expand on their points. Might give the LLS the kick in the rear it needs!

the_pen_turner

im in favor of consent classes but only if they are done fairly and un biased.
they need to drop the whole men are the problem and women are victims crap.

Ulysses Gaze

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im in favor of consent classes but only if they are done fairly and un biased.
they need to drop the whole men are the problem and women are victims crap.

But that would undermine the central tenet of Third-Wave Feminism.

You can see the bind they're in.....

the_pen_turner

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

But that would undermine the central tenet of Third-Wave Feminism.

You can see the bind they're in.....

thats the problem. if they used facts and evidences instead of fiction and propaganda they would have to conceed that their side is talking rubbish and that they have acieved equallity and in some cases more

um7y1h83ge06nx

I find it strange that she is heterosexual and has been in at least one relationship with a male from what I have read. Either she is full of **** with her very negative opinion of men or else being in a relationship must really mess with her head.

yerwanthere123

A woman can be prejudiced against men but she cannot be sexist

I mean, any thread about Louise O' Neill should start and end with this quote. No one can expect to be taken seriously if they spout factually incorrect nonsense like this.

Hapax Legomenon

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

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.
.

Really how so? Care to actually back it up with facts or actually debate it? No didnt think so. Just another troll. :rolleyes:

All over Europe at this present time, we have mainstream media who are promoting lefty virtue signallers like O'Neill, Mullaly, etc. Anyone who offers different views from their little sad world view are dismissed as racist, classist, and what have you.

givyjoe

mzungu wrote: »

I don't mean to bring us on a merry-go-round here, but did she really say that? All I can find is this:

At this point, I think the "all men rape" or "all men are potential rapists" stuff and its variants should be dropped. She never said it. It is a strawman argument.



The above rings a bell. Was this around the time of when consent classes were being touted as a thing? I have a problem with that line of thinking. Mainly because I think like most people that commit crimes, rapists know exactly what they are doing and no amount of classes would change that. To suggest it would is naive in the extreme. That said, I would support consent classes as part of an overall sex education strategy for all young people as I think they would benefit from it.


The statements are indeed barmy and I do not agree at all with the stuff she comes out with. But there is no point bringing up her mental health as it is nobody else's concern and serves no purpose IMO.

She did say it, it was on her documentary. Im really struggling to understand why it's so.hsrd to believe when she's said equally disturbed things numerous times. As I've said before, I'd never heard of her until that point, and that was the only thing that made me take notice of her.

I'm also equally at a loss as to.why questioning her mental health isn't reasonable.. when it's quite possibly a reason why she is making such off the wall statements, it's not rocket science. When Donald trump makes his insane ramblings, his mental health is understandably called into question.

It is most definitely others concern when such people are given a public platform to influence. The constant 'leave her alone' type guff is really getting tiring. She's a 'big girl', if shes going to continually make deranged statements, then obviously her state of mind is going to be called into question. Reminiscent of the hysterical Chap on YouTube crying over Britney at this point.

Completely agree on the consent classes.

givyjoe

givyjoe wrote: »

She did say it, it was on her documentary. Im really struggling to understand why it's so.hsrd to believe when she's said equally disturbed things numerous times. As I've said before, I'd never heard of her until that point, and that was the only thing that made me take notice of her.

I'm also equally at a loss as to.why questioning her mental health isn't reasonable.. when it's quite possibly a reason why she is making such off the wall statements, it's not rocket science. When Donald trump makes his insane ramblings, his mental health is understandably called into question.

It is most definitely others concern when such people are given a public platform to influence. The constant 'leave her alone' type guff is really getting tiring. She's a 'big girl', if shes going to continually make deranged statements, then obviously her state of mind is going to be called into question. Reminiscent of the hysterical Chap on YouTube crying over Britney at this point.

Completely agree on the consent classes.

Not alone that she is getting paid (id imagine a decent wage too) to write this shíte.

Omackeral

Louise is lovely and anyone who edits her Wikipedia page is a bad person. This is her page. Don't edit it unfavourably anyone ok.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_O%27Neill

Outlaw Pete

manonboard wrote: »

I didnt know she was recovering from a serious eating disorder.

Yeah, from a young age. In this post I quoted the few times in interviews where she has discussed it.

givyjoe wrote: »

She specifically said, all men are potential rapists and also need to be taught not to rape. Harmless stuff really.. yeah, it's a mystery why some folks have questioned her mental health.. amazing how some posters think such a reasonable conclusion is unfair.. but don't seem to have such concerns about such barmy statements, of which there's lots more.

I think you're right about some who have an issue with certain things that are said about her here but yet hardly ever seem to condom some of that crap she comes out with, and for me that would be suggestive of them perhaps agreeing with a large chunk of what she says, but still and all, I don't see the point in questioning her mental health really. It's much too lazy and I feel it would be far better if people just stuck to rebutting the nonsense she comes out with than attacking her on a personal level. That's what we have to do on Boards when debating with other users anyway and so why not do that with the likes of her too, that would be my view and if nothing else it would make it far more difficult for her (and those who agree with her) to dismiss those here speaking out against her.

mzungu

givyjoe wrote: »

She did say it, it was on her documentary. Im really struggling to understand why it's so.hsrd to believe when she's said equally disturbed things numerous times. As I've said before, I'd never heard of her until that point, and that was the only thing that made me take notice of her.

A lot of stuff was said in that documentary but I don't recall that being said. Maybe my memory is failing me, I don't know. Unless somebody wants to give it another look and confirm what exactly was said. I do recall something along the lines of colluding in rape culture, but the potential rapists part leaves me with a blank. At at guess, I would say that this has a touch of the Mandela Effect about it.

givyjoe wrote: »

I'm also equally at a loss as to.why questioning her mental health isn't reasonable.. when it's quite possibly a reason why she is making such off the wall statements, it's not rocket science. When Donald trump makes his insane ramblings, his mental health is understandably called into question.

Lets put it this way, if I was to call into question your mental health because of what you believe, what would your answer be?

It's a total diversion from the topic at hand and is nobody's business. If the only rebuttal is calling into question ones mental health then the argument is lost.

givyjoe wrote: »

It is most definitely others concern when such people are given a public platform to influence. The constant 'leave her alone' type guff is really getting tiring. She's a 'big girl', if shes going to continually make deranged statements, then obviously her state of mind is going to be called into question. Reminiscent of the hysterical Chap on YouTube crying over Britney at this point.

The "leave her alone" stuff means critique what she says, not who she is.

givyjoe

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, from a young age. In this post I quoted the few times in interviews where she has discussed it.



I think you're right about some who have an issue with certain things that are said about her here but yet hardly ever seem to condom some of that crap she comes out with, and for me that would be suggestive of them perhaps agreeing with a large chunk of what she says, but still and all, I don't see the point in questioning her mental health really. It's much too lazy and I feel it would be far better if people just stuck to rebutting the nonsense she comes out with than attacking her on a personal level. That's what we have to do on Boards when debating with other users anyway and so why not do that with the likes of her too, that would be my view and if nothing else it would make it far more difficult for her (and those who agree with her) to dismiss those here speaking out against her.

Why is questioning her mental health deemed to be an attack?! It isn't, it's a reasonable question to pose, based not on only her disturbed world view, but also because of the details she's posted on her personal life publicly, therapy etc etc.

givyjoe

mzungu wrote: »

A lot of stuff was said in that documentary but I don't recall that being said. Maybe my memory is failing me, I don't know. Unless somebody wants to give it another look and confirm what exactly was said. I do recall something along the lines of colluding in rape culture, but the potential rapists part leaves me with a blank. At at guess, I would say that this has a touch of the Mandela Effect about it.




Lets put it this way, if I was to call into question your mental health because of what you believe, what would your answer be?

It's a total diversion from the topic at hand and is nobody's business. If the only rebuttal is calling into question ones mental health then the argument is lost.


The "leave her alone" stuff means critique what she says, not who she is.

Im getting a little tired of the disbelief at simply re quoting her bizarre utterings. If you don't believe it, fine. Go have a look at her Twitter ramblings for more gold.

Again, stating that her mental state isn't relevant is just plain daft. I call her mental health into question because of what she believes, I mean, for Christ sake, look at the stuff she comes out with! Again, referring back to Donald Trump, many psychologist commentators have questioned his mental health based on his Twitter ramblings, is that unfair? It's merely a logical question to ask when an individual makes the statements that LON does in the public domain. It's a possible explanation for her baseless views.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Why is questioning her mental health deemed to be an attack?! It isn't, it's a reasonable question to pose, based not on only her disturbed world view, but also because of the details she's posted on her personal life publicly, therapy etc etc.

Nah it's just a way of dismissing her. It's funny how all the people who give out the most about her "silencing" their intelligent debate have to resort to blaming her views on mental illness.

Apart from being a crap debating tactic it doesn't make any sense. I can't think of any of the standard mental health issues that lead to relatively complex political/moral positions.

It's a very lazy "I find her views "crazy" as in outrageous, therefore she must "crazy" as in mentally ill".

pjohnson

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nah it's just a way of dismissing her. It's funny how all the people who give out the most about her "silencing" their intelligent debate have to resort to blaming her views on mental illness.

Apart from being a crap debating tactic it doesn't make any sense. I can't think of any of the standard mental health issues that lead to relatively complex political/moral positions.

It's a very lazy "I find her views "crazy" as in outrageous, therefore she must "crazy" as in mentally ill".

‘The hardest place to maintain my feminism is in a relationship with a straight man’......This is a complex political/moral position?

mzungu

givyjoe wrote: »

Im getting a little tired of the disbelief at simply re quoting her bizarre utterings. If you don't believe it, fine. Go have a look at her Twitter ramblings for more gold.

Again, stating that her mental state isn't relevant is just plain daft. I call her mental health into question because of what she believes, I mean, for Christ sake, look at the stuff she comes out with! Again, referring back to Donald Trump, many psychologist commentators have questioned his mental health based on his Twitter ramblings, is that unfair? It's merely a logical question to ask when an individual makes the statements that LON does in the public domain. It's a possible explanation for her baseless views.

There is no requoting going on here. Nobody (yet) has been able to point out where she said it and back it up. Just because she came out with other stuff, doesn't mean it should be open sesame to attribute anything and everything to her. I know she has come out with some head scratching howlers and loads of them to boot. There is no question about that. But is it really fair to attribute comments to her that she never made? I don't think so, anyway. There is plenty she does say that should be critiqued, but saying she said/believes all men are rapists, or potentially rapists is a straw man.

Commentators have had discussions on the mental health of POTUS because his decisions carry a lot of weight and have an impact on people further afield than America. People that oppose Trump have more to rely on than a psychologists assessment in a TV studio, they go instead for attacking his policies.

You say that it is possible explanation for her "baseless views" but could the same be said for repeating that she said the "all men are potential rapists" line? That is also baseless, so would I be within my rights to question the mental health of anybody that repeats it?* That's what happens when you go along the line of equating mental health issues with opinions you don't like.

*As I stated before, I used to believe that was what she said, and more than likely made posts to that effect. I have since come to believe it was a Mandela Effect thing.

LLMMLL

pjohnson wrote: »

‘The hardest place to maintain my feminism is in a relationship with a straight man’......This is a complex political/moral position?

Relatively. In that it's clearly something she thought about and not "crazy" in some sort of lazy characterisation of mental illness.

pjohnson

LLMMLL wrote: »

Relatively. In that it's clearly something she thought about and not "crazy" in some sort of lazy characterisation of mental illness.

Wow

kumate_champ07

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nah it's just a way of dismissing her. It's funny how all the people who give out the most about her "silencing" their intelligent debate have to resort to blaming her views on mental illness.

Apart from being a crap debating tactic it doesn't make any sense. I can't think of any of the standard mental health issues that lead to relatively complex political/moral positions.

It's a very lazy "I find her views "crazy" as in outrageous, therefore she must "crazy" as in mentally ill".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder#Signs_and_symptoms

py2006

Surely attributing peculiar behaviour and beliefs, that are so strong she puts them on the media, to some form of mental illness is far kinder and sympathetic than name calling?