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

Omackeral

givyjoe wrote: »

Where did you pull these numbers from?!

If you go on the main AH page, it shows how many posts and views each thread has. If you click the number of posts, it brings up a list of everyone who has posted from most to least.

um7y1h83ge06nx

The big question is would you ride her? I wouldn't give her the satisfaction the headwrecker.

Hapax Legomenon

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

More than a few. Some of them have even described her as "dangerous".

Omackeral wrote: »

Exhibit B:

User Name Posts

LLMMLL 143
freshpopcorn 107
Will I Am Not 95
Hapax Legomenon 94

Come on Ray, you're nearly in the medal positions. Louise herself will shout you out on her next twitter meltdown if you get on the podium!

Its interesting that two of the people on the list are those objecting to... posters commenting on LON. :rolleyes:

As for her being dangerous... I don't consider her to be dangerous. I do consider her message/agenda to be short-sighted and dangerous simply because she will bear no responsibility for those followers of hers who do actually believe in her message of Misandry.

And it is misandry. She goes out of her way to be insulting towards the male gender with the assumption that her crusade for feminism gives her the right to be sexist, and frankly, rude.

I don't often use this word. Never really liked using it, but LON is a bitch. Not dangerous... just an ignorant rude and sexist bitch. Is that Better?

Yer Da sells Avon

Deleted User wrote: »

Its interesting that two of the people on the list are those objecting to... posters commenting on LON. :rolleyes:

I've never objected to the thread (it amuses me), but I do get the impression that some people would prefer if it was an echo-chamber.

Deleted User wrote:

As for her being dangerous... I don't consider her to be dangerous. I do consider her message/agenda to be short-sighted and dangerous simply because she will bear no responsibility for those followers of hers who do actually believe in her message of Misandry.

And it is misandry. She goes out of her way to be insulting towards the male gender with the assumption that her crusade for feminism gives her the right to be sexist, and frankly, rude.

I don't often use this word. Never really liked using it, but LON is a bitch. Not dangerous... just an ignorant rude and sexist bitch. Is that Better?

Oh no, not misandry!

Ulysses Gaze

Garrett Incalculable Schoolgirl wrote: »

The big question is would you ride her? I wouldn't give her the satisfaction the headwrecker.

Her loss, I guess.

LLMMLL

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I've never objected to the thread (it amuses me), but I do get the impression that some people would prefer if it was an echo-chamber.



Oh no, not misandry!

I mostly object to the analysis of her everyday life. Apparently she expects her mother to give her lifts or something. It's a real in depth criticism of her feminism. Also does she like the inbetweeners?

Nice that some posters twist that into us being angry that there's a thread on her at all.

RabbleRouser2k

py2006 wrote: »

I was listening to todayfm the other day. The female presenter was talking about the so called wage gap. She took calls from women who agreed with her and referrered to texts from men who questioned it. She refered to all the texts, dismissively, as "strawMEN" arguments .

She did however acknowledge that women make different choices. But instead of taking ownership of said choice she was asking, "what can companies do to make women make better choices?"

It wasn't Muireann o' connell, was it? She who replaced Al Porter? She was talking, before, about how she's no intention of having children-and how women are 'expected' to have kids. And she didn't know it was expected.

Okay, she's older than me-but I can remember many women and girls, ages 20 to 40+ being all like 'ah, sure when you have kids...' etc to me, and while it is flattering, fer sure, I've no intention of having children. That's sort of a pre-supposed thing, tbh. It's not gender exclusive. It's just...a thing, tbh.

I have a sneaking suspicion Louise O' Neill, if she had a kid, would raise her kid as gender neutral-if he was a boy, and female if a girl. Then be horribly disappointed if her son was the absolutely straightest of men, and her daughter was the girliest of girls, and also straight.
She'd be praying for a gay kid, honestly.

Grainne Seoige noted that nobody at RTE is 'reinventing the wheel' with women news anchors. She uses the example of TG4, where there were two women anchors, herself included, who were helming the news. And that was the 90s.

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/rte-isnt-reinventing-the-wheel-with-female-anchors-grainne-seoige-36806092.html

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

I mostly object to the analysis of her everyday life. Apparently she expects her mother to give her lifts or something. It's a real in depth criticism of her feminism. Also does she like the inbetweeners?

Nice that some posters twist that into us being angry that there's a thread on her at all.

I think it's pretty hilarious that you were moaning about this thread still going just a few weeks ago, and it turns you're it's biggest 'contributor'. Priceless.

garbo speaks

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

She'd be praying for a gay kid, honestly.

There is nothing worse to a fundamentalist liberal than having a normal, straight, white, male child.

py2006

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

In fairness, this thread is full of humourless lads eagerly looking to take offence at everything she writes.

You still dont get it do you?

Guys usually take very little offence at this kind of stuff. ITS THE DOUBLE STANDARD!

professore

LLMMLL wrote: »

I mostly object to the analysis of her everyday life. Apparently she expects her mother to give her lifts or something. It's a real in depth criticism of her feminism. Also does she like the inbetweeners?

Nice that some posters twist that into us being angry that there's a thread on her at all.

Just had a horrible thought - LLMMLL looks vaguely similar to Louise O'Neill...

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

I think it's pretty hilarious that you were moaning about this thread still going just a few weeks ago, and it turns you're it's biggest 'contributor'. Priceless.

As I've said I've no issue with there being a thread on a public figure's views.

I have a problem with the majority of the posts being saddos obsessing over what little personal info they can glean from stalking her Twitter account.

I'm happy to continue being the top contributor to this thread and keep pointing out the saddos.

Starting with your post which sadly is completely intellectually deficient. I mean you can't tell the difference between someone objecting to a thread existing and someone objecting to certain posts within a thread.

Woohoo 1 more post to add to my score.

professore

professore wrote: »

Just had a horrible thought - LLMMLL looks vaguely similar to Louise O'Neill...

I called her out on it earlier..it's definitely her..

LLMMLL

py2006 wrote: »

You still dont get it do you?

Guys usually take very little offence at this kind of stuff. ITS THE DOUBLE STANDARD!

This thread is filled with guys taking offense. I guess that means the guys in this thread are not normal?

professore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I called her out on it earlier..it's definitely her..

I doubt it now. Surely a best selling author would know that it should be "offence" and not "offense" in the statement below?

LLMMLL wrote: »

This thread is filled with guys taking offense. I guess that means the guys in this thread are not normal?

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

I have a problem with the majority of the posts being saddos obsessing over what little personal info they can glean from stalking her Twitter account.
.

Sorry but whatever info you put on twitter is fair game since you know the whole world can see it.

Offense is the American spelling..

So someone that used it would presumably have spent time in America..

Hmmmm..

I reckon I should get a free book or something for figuring out who she was..

LLMMLL

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

It wasn't Muireann o' connell, was it? She who replaced Al Porter? She was talking, before, about how she's no intention of having children-and how women are 'expected' to have kids. And she didn't know it was expected.

Okay, she's older than me-but I can remember many women and girls, ages 20 to 40+ being all like 'ah, sure when you have kids...' etc to me, and while it is flattering, fer sure, I've no intention of having children. That's sort of a pre-supposed thing, tbh. It's not gender exclusive. It's just...a thing, tbh.

I have a sneaking suspicion Louise O' Neill, if she had a kid, would raise her kid as gender neutral-if he was a boy, and female if a girl. Then be horribly disappointed if her son was the absolutely straightest of men, and her daughter was the girliest of girls, and also straight.
She'd be praying for a gay kid, honestly.

Grainne Seoige noted that nobody at RTE is 'reinventing the wheel' with women news anchors. She uses the example of TG4, where there were two women anchors, herself included, who were helming the news. And that was the 90s.

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/rte-isnt-reinventing-the-wheel-with-female-anchors-grainne-seoige-36806092.html

Pretty much everyone is assumed to get married and have kids someday. It's considered the default.

But a woman who doesn't achieve this is treated VERY differently than a man. I routinely hear single, childless women talked about pityingly, as if they're terribly tragic figures. Almost never hear the same about men unless they've no family and few friends.

I think some men on this thread are incapable of seeing different treatment. Such as the sexual harrassment debate earlier. They assume because they were groped once that they have the same experience as women. That was proved to be false.

Now because someone says to man occasionally "when will you be walking down the isle" or "when you're a father you'll understand" they falsely assume they have the same experience of this as women.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I reckon I should get a free book or something for figuring out who she was..

Congratulations. Your copy of "Misogyny for Dummies" is on its way.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

As I've said I've no issue with there being a thread on a public figure's views.

I have a problem with the majority of the posts being saddos obsessing over what little personal info they can glean from stalking her Twitter account.

I'm happy to continue being the top contributor to this thread and keep pointing out the saddos.

Starting with your post which sadly is completely intellectually deficient. I mean you can't tell the difference between someone objecting to a thread existing and someone objecting to certain posts within a thread.

Woohoo 1 more post to add to my score.

What an utterly pathetic response, although I must have got under your skin with the harsh truth.

Let me jog your failing memory. I had pointed out to you that the thread was dying with few posts being added periodically, until a burst of life fuelled by posters like yourself, riling people up. If you only you'd stop and just let it fizzle out naturally. Now we have stats to back up my hypothesis with you being bizarrely the top poster, in a numerical sense of course.

You also got pretty snippy about people questioning Lon's mental health, as low and a personal attack. Yet here you are questioning my intelligence because you don't like me pointing out simple stats to you. Well done, you've become 'one of us'.

py2006

LLMMLL wrote: »

This thread is filled with guys taking offense. I guess that means the guys in this thread are not normal?

I doubt that. But are they not entitled to if they want to be?

Or is it only women that should be offended by a man?

suicide_circus

Putting the Miss back in misandry

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Congratulations. Your copy of "Misogyny for Dummies" is on its way.

harsh..

DavidLyons_

Deleted User wrote: »

professore wrote: »

Just had a horrible thought - LLMMLL looks vaguely similar to Louise O'Neill...

I called her out on it earlier..it's definitely her..

To be fair, LLMMLL did point out that O'Neill doesn't engage in debate.

LLMMLL, on the other hand, is more willing than anyone else to engage in debate - on this particular thread anyway.

DavidLyons_

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

To be fair, LLMMLL did point out that O'Neill doesn't engage in debate.

LLMMLL, on the other hand, is more willing than anyone else to engage in debate - on this particular thread anyway.

That's what she wants you to think..

Grayson

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

It wasn't Muireann o' connell, was it? She who replaced Al Porter? She was talking, before, about how she's no intention of having children-and how women are 'expected' to have kids. And she didn't know it was expected.

Okay, she's older than me-but I can remember many women and girls, ages 20 to 40+ being all like 'ah, sure when you have kids...' etc to me, and while it is flattering, fer sure, I've no intention of having children. That's sort of a pre-supposed thing, tbh. It's not gender exclusive. It's just...a thing, tbh.

I have a sneaking suspicion Louise O' Neill, if she had a kid, would raise her kid as gender neutral-if he was a boy, and female if a girl. Then be horribly disappointed if her son was the absolutely straightest of men, and her daughter was the girliest of girls, and also straight.
She'd be praying for a gay kid, honestly.

Grainne Seoige noted that nobody at RTE is 'reinventing the wheel' with women news anchors. She uses the example of TG4, where there were two women anchors, herself included, who were helming the news. And that was the 90s.

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/rte-isnt-reinventing-the-wheel-with-female-anchors-grainne-seoige-36806092.html

Grainne Seoige also described it as a great step forward for the country. How come you left that bit out.

As for the bit about Louise O'Neill having a kid. Dude, that's messed up. What is wrong with you?

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

As I've said I've no issue with there being a thread on a public figure's views. I’m

I have a problem with the majority of the posts being saddos obsessing over what little personal info they can glean from stalking her Twitter account.

I'm happy to continue being the top contributor to this thread and keep pointing out the saddos.

Starting with your post which sadly is completely intellectually deficient. I mean you can't tell the difference between someone objecting to a thread existing and someone objecting to certain posts within a thread.

Woohoo 1 more post to add to my score.

If the thread is full of nothing but obsessed saddos... and you’re the top poster in that thread full of obsessed saddos... doesn’t that make you the most obsessed saddo?

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

What an utterly pathetic response, although I must have got under your skin with the harsh truth.

Let me jog your failing memory. I had pointed out to you that the thread was dying with few posts being added periodically, until a burst of life fuelled by posters like yourself, riling people up. If you only you'd stop and just let it fizzle out naturally. Now we have stats to back up my hypothesis with you being bizarrely the top poster, in a numerical sense of course.

You also got pretty snippy about people questioning Lon's mental health, as low and a personal attack. Yet here you are questioning my intelligence because you don't like me pointing out simple stats to you. Well done, you've become 'one of us'.

Even if there were periodically few posts in don't believe those should go unchallenged.

I'm happy for the thread to be active with the low intelligence posts being called.out than for it to be a low activity cesspool.

And stop pretending your own posts aren't aggressive with your "hilarious" and "priceless".

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

As for her being dangerous... I don't consider her to be dangerous. I do consider her message/agenda to be short-sighted and dangerous simply because she will bear no responsibility for those followers of hers who do actually believe in her message of Misandry.

So she's not dangerous but she is dangerous. Nice to see you're being clear.