How do you feel about "Do-Gooders"?

end of the road

gctest50 wrote: »

She refused to follow the pilots orders "until the man was off the plane"

That's terrorism

Someone should have knocked her out.

no, it's not terrorism. and no, someone shouldn't have asalted her, and correctly, they didn't.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If he stays and when he commits an offence, she should be jailed also.

she shouldn't and she won't be. there is nothing to jail her for in that situation. only he would be responsible in that situation for commiting an offence if he was to do so.

TomSweeney wrote: »

This idiot is putting peoples lives at risk, the nutcase should have been taken off the plane herself.

in what way is she putting people's lives at risk?

Thoughtform wrote: »

No, just those ones which impact people who have nothing to do with it.

that's probably the majority of protests.

Omackeral

Grayson wrote: »

He didn't say attention whore. He said attention seeking whore. The latter implies someone who is a whore and is attention seeking.

I can practically here the barrel being scraped from here. I'd say it's unbelievable but it's really not.

Technocentral

marieholmfan wrote: »

I strongly prefer them to 'do badders'

Yep, give me do gooders any day over racist scum!

Omackeral

dav3 wrote: »

That's how I read it also.

Of course it is.

dav3 wrote: »

I've heard 'attention whore' being used. Mostly by 12 year olds on the internet.

Yeah, you should probably stop talking to 12 year olds on the internet there.

Omackeral

dav3 wrote: »

Now, is there anybody out there that has any examples of 'do-gooders' and what they've done in Ireland that we can all get outraged over?

Sure, I'll give you an example. There's no shortage of people coming up to see convicted murderers in jail. They call themselves ''friends'' and they wouldn't give a hoot about the victims of the killers, this is their calling. They send them in money and everything. They sneer at the staff for having the audacity to search them on the way in and get moody if something that's prohibited is stopped from coming in. Aren't those Prison Staff awful for not letting Johnny get his DVD in. The poor mite must be bored in there. I'd call the likes of them do-gooders in a pejorative sense. I have time for actual people who do good but these folks, not so much.

dav3

Omackeral wrote: »

Of course it is.



Yeah, you should probably stop talking to 12 year olds on the internet there.

You see, you can do it. Although I know it probably takes an enormous amount of effort on your part to come up with something like that, so good for you.

You just need to lighten up and stop being such a do-gooder.

dav3

Omackeral wrote: »

Sure, I'll give you an example. There's no shortage of people coming up to see convicted murderers in jail. They call themselves ''friends'' and they wouldn't give a hoot about the victims of the killers, this is their calling. They send them in money and everything. They sneer at the staff for having the audacity to search them on the way in and get moody if something that's prohibited is stopped from coming in. Aren't those Prison Staff awful for not letting Johnny get his DVD in. The poor mite must be bored in there. I'd call the likes of them do-gooders in a pejorative sense. I have time for actual people who do good but these folks, not so much.

That's more hearsay than anything. Without providing any evidence like the OP, are we just to believe your wild and crazy imagination?

Omackeral

dav3 wrote: »

That's more hearsay than anything. Without providing any evidence like the OP, are we just to believe your wild and crazy imagination?

Believe whatever you want. I work in a prison and see it first hand.

PlaneSpeeking

Omackeral wrote: »

I work in a prison and see it first hand.

Not over here of course but:

https://www.ok.co.uk/celebrity-feature/1427184/charles-bronson-wife-paula-williamson-coronation-street-actress-hollyoaks

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5719327/Ferne-McCann-takes-daughter-Sunday-six-months-visit-acid-attacker-ex-Arthur-Collins-prison.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4095468/The-29-year-old-former-fianc-e-killer-Charles-Manson-cares-deeply-fears-health-thwarted-attempt-visit-hospital.html

Plus so many others so visit lifers both here and in UK, and abroad.

Bat crap mental the lot of them.

TeaBagMania

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

Total BS, that nun was way too hot to be real

emo72

Jeez if there's one thing I know about EOTR is that he is a stickler for the law of the land and correct procedure being followed. Surprised he is throwing all that away, with correct procedure in Swedish courts being followed, and obviously a judge would have sanctioned the deportation. Why not support his deportation?

KevinCavan

I’ll bet she has a wooden toothbrush.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

she was not an ideal candidate for being tazered. she wasn't a threat to herself or to others.



or perhapse, they still go by the ideal that an asylum case not being valid is a perfectly good reason for deportation.



nothing to charge her for. it would be a waste of tax payers money to do so when there are actual criminals for which the resources need to be used to deal with. i believe she was removed from the plane, that's enough.



stunts have been used throughout history in the aim of political activism. they are clever and often are the tools of people who genuinely care. in this case, the incident was taken seriously and the appropriate action was taken based on the situation at play.

yes she was
yes it is
yes there is, no it wouldnt, no it isnt
no they arent, no they arent, no it wasnt


have missed 'debating' with u bud

end of the road

emo72 wrote: »

Jeez if there's one thing I know about EOTR is that he is a stickler for the law of the land and correct procedure being followed. Surprised he is throwing all that away, with correct procedure in Swedish courts being followed, and obviously a judge would have sanctioned the deportation. Why not support his deportation?

i can support both. i can support the deportation, and i can support someone exercising their right to protest that deportation, if i wish to do so. i support the later, and i haven't researched the former given this topic is about the lady's protest against the deportation rather then the deportation itself.

riffmongous

Omackeral wrote: »

Here's a Google of the term for you Grayson. You seem to need it... unless you're being deliberately deflective or obtuse.

Why didn't you Google attention seeking whore, like he actually said?

Omackeral

riffmongous wrote: »

Why didn't you Google attention seeking whore, like he actually said?

There you go Captain Pedantic. Pretty much the exact same result.

riffmongous

Omackeral wrote: »

There you go Captain Pedantic. Pretty much the exact same result.

And you can see how that's different right? And then look at the 2nd result there?

Captain Obvious

Omackeral wrote: »

There you go Captain Pedantic. Pretty much the exact same result.

First definition is

someone who will do anything to get attention; namely whore herself out, sleep around, cry for no reason, dance like a slut

I don't agree with what she did but I don't think that is a reasonable description of her.

Yeah_Right

end of the road wrote: »

i can support both. i can support the deportation, and i can support someone exercising their right to protest that deportation, if i wish to do so. i support the later, and i haven't researched the former given this topic is about the lady's protest against the deportation rather then the deportation itself.

Didn't you call for the Gards to do a few baton charges if people protested at the proposed Garth Brooks concerts? Or was that someone else?

Hitman3000

Yeah_Right wrote:

Didn't you call for the Gards to do a few baton charges if people protested at the proposed Garth Brooks concerts? Or was that someone else?

Greater men than you have sought an answer to that question....alas none forth coming nor will there ever be. On a side note it was pointed out that women and children were involved in the protests.

Yer Da sells Avon

There's a subtle difference between an "attention whore" and an "attention-seeking whore". The first describes someone who seeks attention. The second describes yore ma a whore who seeks attention. The first one couldn't reasonably be considered a gendered insult. The second one could be.

However, I'd be inclined to give that poster the benefit of the doubt and think of it more as a Freudian slip than a deliberate gendered slur.

Omackeral

riffmongous wrote: »

And you can see how that's different right? And then look at the 2nd result there?

That's why I said ''pretty much''. There's one anomaly as far as I can see from Urban Dictionary. The rest of them take it to mean the same as attention whore. So the vast majority see them as the same where as one tiny fraction makes the differentiation. I'd take that as a decent guideline that the poster who said it, and most of the readers here, would equate one with the other.

Hapax Legomenon

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

There's a subtle difference between an "attention whore" and an "attention-seeking whore". The first describes someone who seeks attention. The second describes yore ma a whore who seeks attention. The first one couldn't reasonably be considered a gendered insult. The second one could be.

However, I'd be inclined to give that poster the benefit of the doubt and think of it more as a Freudian slip than a deliberate gendered slur.

actually think thats fair tbh

now back on topic

this student is a moron

Omackeral

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

There's a subtle difference between an "attention whore" and an "attention-seeking whore". The first describes someone who seeks attention. The second describes yore ma a whore who seeks attention. The first one couldn't reasonably be considered a gendered insult. The second one could be.

However, I'd be inclined to give that poster the benefit of the doubt and think of it more as a Freudian slip than a deliberate gendered slur.

A google of both terms throws up pretty much identical hits. I'd say they're pretty much synonymous unless they're being spouted by some sexist with an axe to grind or something. Always a possibility of course but most people seem to equate the two.

gormdubhgorm

deco nate wrote: »

Without knowing Wtf was going on, I say no!
Sorry but it's bull****.
She knew f all. But jumped up. Nope!

Wannabe youtube hero/Internet fame.

I enjoyed the tears bit personally it is if he called upon the tears on command.

Top notch stuff there.

StinkyMunkey

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

There's a subtle difference between an "attention whore" and an "attention-seeking whore". The first describes someone who seeks attention. The second describes yore ma a whore who seeks attention. The first one couldn't reasonably be considered a gendered insult. The second one could be.

However, I'd be inclined to give that poster the benefit of the doubt and think of it more as a Freudian slip than a deliberate gendered slur.

I disagree, "attention whore" or attention seeking whore" are effectively the same thing depending on context.

This girl pulled her stunt to draw attention to herself, which is attention seeking, which makes her an attention whore, or as I like to say attention seeking whore. If you look at what I posted, it's clear I don't approve of her actions.

You right that it was not intended as a gendered specific insult. Man or woman, I would have used the same description.

PlaneSpeeking

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I enjoyed the tears bit personally it is if he called upon the tears on command.

Top notch stuff there.

Google "Lily Allen Calais Jungle".

That's top notch social media wailing there. This one's an amateur - but she does have potential I feel!

riffmongous

Omackeral wrote: »

That's why I said ''pretty much''. There's one anomaly as far as I can see from Urban Dictionary. The rest of them take it to mean the same as attention whore. So the vast majority see them as the same where as one tiny fraction makes the differentiation. I'd take that as a decent guideline that the poster who said it, and most of the readers here, would equate one with the other.

It's not an anomaly as much as it is the only actual result for the full phrase and not just attention whore. The cheek of you trying to call someone else dishonest earlier

DickSwiveller Returns

riffmongous wrote: »

It's not an anomaly as much as it is the only actual result for the full phrase and not just attention whore. The cheek of you trying to call someone else dishonest earlier

And now see good reader how the discussion has been diverted from the attention whore in the video to a tedious, lengthy discussion on the word 'whore'.

PlaneSpeeking

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

And now see good reader how the discussion has been diverted from the attention whore in the video to a tedious, lengthy discussion on the word 'whore'.

Several of my students went on a sl*t walk (don't know if that word is okay, so asterisking it!).

Should I tell them they can't use that word as someone finds it offensive ???

riffmongous

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Apologies for not acknowledging hoor fantastic work with refugees, that doesn't change the fact what she did was being an attention seeking whore. As I've already stated, there are better ways to help refugees.

Tell you what, I'll let you tazer me, if I can tazer you, dibs on going first.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I disagree, "attention whore" or attention seeking whore" are effectively the same thing depending on context.

This girl pulled her stunt to draw attention to herself, which is attention seeking, which makes her an attention whore, or as I like to say attention seeking whore. If you look at what I posted, it's clear I don't approve of her actions.

You right that it was not intended as a gendered specific insult. Man or woman, I would have used the same description.

Yeah yeah sure

StinkyMunkey

riffmongous wrote: »

It's not an anomaly as much as it is the only actual result for the full phrase and not just attention whore. The cheek of you trying to call someone else dishonest earlier

Incorrect, my meaning was clear and a poster chose to cherry pick one word to deliberately misconstrue the exact meaning of what I meant, I would find this dishonest. I explained this, but said poster insisted on ignoring the fact and continuined to post totally disregarding my explanation, again I'd find this dishonest.

Another poster pointed this out, which is anything but dishonest. Your comment telling them the "cheek of your" is totally unwarranted and just reinforces the fact it's ok to totally disregard an explanation when someone clarifies exactly what they meant.

Omackeral

riffmongous wrote: »

It's not an anomaly as much as it is the only actual result for the full phrase and not just attention whore. The cheek of you trying to call someone else dishonest earlier

And why is there only one result? It's because it's hardly used in the vernacular at all. Why is literally every link bar one bringing you to definitions and usages of attention whore? Because they're synonymous for the most part, significantly so. Most people will see that. Call me dishonest all you want, if you google both terms, you'll see that they nearly match up exactly.

Besides, the caveat is surely this; calling her a whore in this context makes no sense whatsoever unless you've a weird hatred of random women and like to label them as promiscuous. Why would the poster even go there? Makes no sense.

Omackeral

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

And now see good reader how the discussion has been diverted from the attention whore in the video to a tedious, lengthy discussion on the word 'whore'.

Oh fcuk, you're right. I get swindled I tell you. Swindled.

StinkyMunkey

riffmongous wrote: »

Yeah yeah sure

Granted the first one was a thinly veiled dig.

But the only thing your adding to this is a dismissive attitude.

riffmongous

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

And now see good reader how the discussion has been diverted from the attention whore in the video to a tedious, lengthy discussion on the word 'whore'.

And here we see good reader some thanks whoring, missing out on the irony of course

Omackeral

riffmongous wrote: »

And here we see good reader some thanks whoring, missing out on the irony of course

Hey, he's a whore looking for thanks, not a thanks whore. Get it right.

riffmongous

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Incorrect, my meaning was clear and a poster chose to cherry pick one word to deliberately misconstrue the exact meaning of what I meant, I would find this dishonest. I explained this, but said poster insisted on ignoring the fact and continuined to post totally disregarding my explanation, again I'd find this dishonest.

Another poster pointed this out, which is anything but dishonest. Your comment telling them the "cheek of your" is totally unwarranted and just reinforces the fact it's ok to totally disregard an explanation when someone clarifies exactly what they meant.

But you expect us to believe you, when you went on and did it again

StinkyMunkey

riffmongous wrote: »

But you expect us to believe you, when you went on and did it again

Don't get me wrong, if I thought she was a whore I'd just plain say it, from what I've seen of her I'd describe her as a fcukwit and selfish Cnut, but A whore isn't what I intended to call her, and only someone looking to generate faux outrage could misconture my true meaning even after I explained my true meaning.

Yer Da sells Avon

Omackeral wrote: »

Hey, he's a whore looking for thanks, not a thanks whore. Get it right.

And definitely not a thanks-seeking whore.

Pherekydes

I'm always amused that the term 'do-gooder' is used as a pejorative. :rolleyes:

mynamejeff

end of the road wrote: »

she was not an ideal candidate for being tazered. she wasn't a threat to herself or to others.



.

yes she was

The Backwards Man

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm always amused that the term 'do-gooder' is used as a pejorative. :rolleyes:

Says a lot more about the people using it than those they are trying to target, but I suppose it keeps their wee minds occupied.

Hitman3000

Pherekydes wrote:

I'm always amused that the term 'do-gooder' is used as a pejorative.

Social Justice Warrior. Better?

Yer Da sells Avon

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Social Justice Warrior. Better?

Using 'social justice' as a pejorative is another one...

Hitman3000

Hapax Legomenon wrote:

Using 'social justice' as a pejorative is another one...

I didn't use it as a pejorative though. It's a matter of interpretation.

hatrickpatrick

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Social Justice Warrior. Better?

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Using 'social justice' as a pejorative is another one...

To be fair, "Social Justice" in that context is meant ironically, as in "Nice Guy" when it's capitalised. In other words, straight-up regular assholes / w@nkers / cnuts / whatever your preferred term is, but with added self-righteousness that their particular douchebaggery is ok, because they're on the "right" side.

In other words, those who hold double standards. It's no different to when extreme right wingers claim that as long as a war crime, police brutality, abuse of surveillance or human rights etc is done by the "goodies" in a conflict, it's not as bad as if it was done by the "baddies".

I think we can all probably agree that those who hold double standards are the worst type of person, hence why Social Justice Warrior and Nice Guy are pejorative terms when they're capitalised. It's to allude to people who act like scumbags, but claim that because they're on the right "side" in the argument, it's ok for them to act like scumbags.

A good example of SJW-think is the whole "I can say 'kill all men' and it's not sexist, because I'm an oppressed woman and men are privileged. So hate speech against them isn't morally wrong".

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bahar-mustafa-charged-with-sending-malicious-message-after-tweeting-kill-all-white-men-a6683241.html

Ms Mustafa explained that she could not be guilty of sexism or racism against white men "because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."

gormdubhgorm

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Google "Lily Allen Calais Jungle".

That's top notch social media wailing there. This one's an amateur - but she does have potential I feel!

All I can say is :eek:

There seems to be no thought about any of the other issues related to it.

gormdubhgorm

This fella has a good take on the whole offence thing:

Keepaneye

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Using 'social justice' as a pejorative is another one...

Or alt-right. Or incel.