Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

AtomicHorror

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

You tell me. I don't actually know the story. That's what I asked

Better idea- get into a habit of reading a story yourself, before presenting a straw man version of it.

randd1

Wesser wrote: »

can someone explain to me what gemmas issue is with this ad. she doesnt like that lidl have featured a multiracial family. is that it. is it just that Gemma is a racist or is there something more complex i am missing here.

She's a xenophobe. Actually, I think the best term to describe her is Ethnic Irish Supremacist.

Doesn't like anything foreign does Gemma. Anything that isn't white, catholic Irish in origin is evil trying turn our country into a secular communist plutocracy, or some crap like that.

So yeah, she's a good old, warped, crazy arsed, litigation threatening "if you call me a racist" racist.

She's also a complete coward who refuses to even engage with anybody who dares question her and backs down fairly lively when someone threatens to counter-sue her for defamation

Critiqued

I agree with Gemma in this instance. Why did they have to lie about the chaps name? Could they not find an Irish man with an Irish name. Or is this a diversity ad?

Stark

davedanon wrote: »

No, his name is Mathis. The ad was part of a series involving 'The Ryans', ie the girl in the ad's parents. Her partner/husband is named Mathis. He was born in Liverpool.

alastair wrote: »

The family is called the Ryan’s. He is the partner of the daughter.

I'm honestly surprised that certain heads didn't explode at the use of maternal surname to describe the family unit. Guess their brains are still overheating over the skin colour issue so they haven't had a chance to move on to it yet.

Edit: Spoke just too soon, here we go:

Critiqued wrote:

I agree with Gemma in this instance. Why did they have to lie about the chaps name? Could they not find an Irish man with an Irish name. Or is this a diversity ad?

They didn't lie. The mother's surname is Ryan.

Overheal

Critiqued wrote: »

I agree with Gemma in this instance. Why did they have to lie about the chaps name? Could they not find an Irish man with an Irish name. Or is this a diversity ad?

Not using the real last name of real people you use in advertising seems like a pretty safe practice in general.

AtomicHorror

randd1 wrote: »

She's a xenophobe. Actually, I think the best term to describe her is Ethnic Irish Supremacist.

Doesn't like anything foreign does Gemma. Anything that isn't white, catholic Irish in origin is evil trying turn our country into a secular communist plutocracy, or some crap like that.

So yeah, she's a good old, warped, crazy arsed, litigation threatening "if you call me a racist" racist.

She's also a complete coward who refuses to even engage with anybody who dares question her and backs down fairly lively when someone threatens to counter-sue her for defamation

Also, happy to threaten legal action on a random middle-class couple with a young child, or random people on the street. Not so keen on suing a German multinational, despite them also publicly calling her a racist.

A mean-spirited little bully, in short.

Critiqued

Overheal wrote: »

Not using the real last name of real people you use in advertising seems like a pretty safe practice in general.

But in this case the real name was used for everyone except one person.

Overheal

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Also, happy to threaten legal action on a random middle-class couple with a young child, or random people on the street. Not so keen on suing a German multinational, despite them also publicly calling her a racist.

A mean-spirited little bully, in short.

Not Lidl not the Times but a family who did the ad for extra cash on hand. She’s vile.

Stark

Overheal wrote: »

Not using the real last name of real people you use in advertising seems like a pretty safe practice in general.

Probably shouldn't say it for that reason, but seems the cat is out of the bag already and they are already receiving harassment from Gemma's loyal followers. Ryan is the real surname of the mother in the ad.

AtomicHorror

Critiqued wrote: »

I agree with Gemma in this instance. Why did they have to lie about the chaps name? Could they not find an Irish man with an Irish name. Or is this a diversity ad?

How did they lie? My partner does not share my surname, but my family is known by my surname. Are we lying because we chose to use that name collectively?

Critiqued wrote: »

But in this case the real name was used for everyone except one person.

Should the advert have said "The Ryan-and-Mathis Family"?

Critiqued

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How did they lie? My partner does not share my surname, but my family is known by my surname. Are we lying because we chose to use that name collectively?

Should the advert have said "The Ryan-and-Mathis Family"?

Nor do my partner and I share a surname but it would be pretty weird for people to refer to us the (wifes name) family. My kids have my name.

Overheal

Ah okay so no fib at all in the Ad.

Stark

Critiqued wrote: »

Nor do my partner and I share a surname but it would be pretty weird for people to refer to us the (wifes name) family. My kids have my name.

It's different from the norm but nothing wrong with using the maternal name instead of the paternal name. Plenty of families where the kids take the mother's name. Harassing people on the other hand, that is wrong...

A generation ago, your own family would have been criticised for your wife not taking your name but times move on.

AtomicHorror

Critiqued wrote: »

Nor do my partner and I share a surname but it would be pretty weird for people to refer to us the (wifes name) family. My kids have my name.

That's surely your choice though. If you chose the "weird" option, that would no more be a lie, than ignoring your wife's name when collectively referring to your family.

So by all means call it unusual or weird, but it's not a lie.

ohnonotgmail

Critiqued wrote: »

Nor do my partner and I share a surname but it would be pretty weird for people to refer to us the (wifes name) family. My kids have my name.

I may be wrong this but i believe i have read that he is stepfather to the kids so the kids have her name. But irrespective of the family dynamics there was no reason to go on a racist rant.

randd1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I may be wrong this but i believe i have read that he is stepfather to the kids so the kids have her name. But irrespective of the family dynamics there was no reason to go on a racist rant.

There is if you're a racist. As Gemma has shown herself to be.

ohnonotgmail

randd1 wrote: »

There is if you're a racist. As Gemma has shown herself to be.

That is a very fair point and i stand corrected.

boombang

I don't know if anybody has posted the article already. What horrible stuff. I hope this buries GOD.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/couple-in-ad-campaign-left-shaking-and-fearful-after-online-abuse-1.4031549

The Nal

Awful really. Imagine being so bored that you go ranting about a supermarket print ad and use it as a stick to bash your country. Astonishing really.

Then, imagine being so stupid that you agree with this person and go bleating online defending her. Absolutely pathetic. Feeble minded cretins.

AtomicHorror

boombang wrote: »

I don't know if anybody has posted the article already. What horrible stuff. I hope this buries GOD.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/couple-in-ad-campaign-left-shaking-and-fearful-after-online-abuse-1.4031549

Unfortunately, as long as social is free and internet is cheap, we are likely to be stuck with her. We may have to colonize Mars and leave her behind to be rid of her.

I think it's worth it.

Annasopra

Wesser wrote: »

can someone explain to me what gemmas issue is with this ad. she doesnt like that lidl have featured a multiracial family. is that it. is it just that Gemma is a racist or is there something more complex i am missing here.

She doesnt like lidl because
A She is a racist and they had a Black Man in the ad
B She is a far right nationalist and doesnt lidl cause its German

NickNickleby

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

What is about seeing inter-racial couples (especially when it's the woman who's white and even more so again if she's attractive) that gets certain people so hot under the collar?

Oh, there are certainly people out there who get particularly upset at having our pretty white women stolen by some black guy.


As for the tweet, I think Gemma O'D was probably having a go at the morketing types who use various tropes to appeal to their audience, and she assumed the 'Ryan Family' was a contrived setup to make the ad more inclusive. It back-fired when it turns out they are a real mixed race couple.

So, bear with me on this....
G O'D (great initials by the way) has a lash at the store/morketing guys - if the family was in truth a fiction, then there might be a question to be asked. BUT, they didn't have to invent this family, because there are many families like the Ryans in Ireland. So, she accused them of a fiction and got it wrong. The fact that its racial makes it controversial. But, I'm going with the 'attacking the fiction' argument for now - I know nothing about this woman and I only came into this thread after reading the times article this morning.

What I think is truly awful, is that it seems the tweets that attached to G O'Ds tweet were particularly vile and nasty, and were not about the perceived contrived nature of the ad, but rather were attacking black people who have the temerity to live here and, horror of horrors, to start a family with one of our women. Hopefully it was confined to a handful of spiteful ignorant people, although I can imagine reading these ugly posts would be very upsetting for the people at whom they're aimed - and that's not just the Ryans is it?

I would like to think that Ms Ryan and Mr Mathis can (and do) go about their business without encountering this crap in real life. I have never witnessed a racist jibe directed towards anyone and I've worked in a place with many different nationalities/races, my local shopping centre would have middle eastern, black and asian families doing their shopping there. And mixed, just like the Ryans.

I truly believe that Irish people on the whole, are not racist. I also suspect that those who attack non white people are as likely to attack anyone at all, and the pretext for doing so is simply a justification in their own thuggish minds for their thuggish behaviour. They're not specifically racist or homophobic or anti-Brit or whatever, they're simply anti-social thugs.


This is why I don't like Twitter. It kills me when RTE News reports about some "storm" on twitter.......I did a course up in DCU a few years back, and Twitter was being discussed as a contender for being a mainstream news source. All the young ones on the course were oohing and ahhing at this, and I asked "how can you seriously suggest that the equivalent of a wall full of graffiti can be considered as a reliable source of information?" . I was told that all forms of media are good, and like the rest Twitter will eventually bed down. Not by the tutor I might add.

irishgrover

NickNickleby wrote: »

Oh, there are certainly people out there who get particularly upset at having our pretty white women stolen by some black guy.


As for the tweet, I think Gemma O'D was probably having a go at the morketing types who use various tropes to appeal to their audience, and she assumed the 'Ryan Family' was a contrived setup to make the ad more inclusive. It back-fired when it turns out they are a real mixed race couple.

So, bear with me on this....
G O'D (great initials by the way) has a lash at the store/morketing guys - if the family was in truth a fiction, then there might be a question to be asked. BUT, they didn't have to invent this family, because there are many families like the Ryans in Ireland. So, she accused them of a fiction and got it wrong. The fact that its racial makes it controversial. But, I'm going with the 'attacking the fiction' argument for now - I know nothing about this woman and I only came into this thread after reading the times article this morning.

What I think is truly awful, is that it seems the tweets that attached to G O'Ds tweet were particularly vile and nasty, and were not about the perceived contrived nature of the ad, but rather were attacking black people who have the temerity to live here and, horror of horrors, to start a family with one of our women. Hopefully it was confined to a handful of spiteful ignorant people, although I can imagine reading these ugly posts would be very upsetting for the people at whom they're aimed - and that's not just the Ryans is it?

I would like to think that Ms Ryan and Mr Mathis can (and do) go about their business without encountering this crap in real life. I have never witnessed a racist jibe directed towards anyone and I've worked in a place with many different nationalities/races, my local shopping centre would have middle eastern, black and asian families doing their shopping there. And mixed, just like the Ryans.

I truly believe that Irish people on the whole, are not racist. I also suspect that those who attack non white people are as likely to attack anyone at all, and the pretext for doing so is simply a justification in their own thuggish minds for their thuggish behaviour. They're not specifically racist or homophobic or anti-Brit or whatever, they're simply anti-social thugs.


This is why I don't like Twitter. It kills me when RTE News reports about some "storm" on twitter.......I did a course up in DCU a few years back, and Twitter was being discussed as a contender for being a mainstream news source. All the young ones on the course were oohing and ahhing at this, and I asked "how can you seriously suggest that the equivalent of a wall full of graffiti can be considered as a reliable source of information?" . I was told that all forms of media are good, and like the rest Twitter will eventually bed down. Not by the tutor I might add.

I think the main spine of your assumption is incorrect.
Gemma is very clearly a racist agitator and a coward. She is a piece of **** and knowns expactly what she is doing and why she is doing it. She is not attacking Moirketing types, she is attacking people who are not white and christian. She may used various guises to "legitimise" her approach and make people "think" that mabye she is really attacking "politically correct moirketing", but she is not. She is just a bog standard racist c*nt.

Eric Cartman

padd b1975 wrote: »

So why exactly were they referred to as 'The Ryans'?

Because diversity in advertising doesnt extend to names as people dont like names that dont sound familiar, the ‘savings’ were also based on an extended family where her parents are named ryan, the modified the ad to make you think a couple were saving that much not an extended family.

Its poor form advertising, lidl should never have ran it, it misrepresents the savings.

But the chances of his second name being ryan were very low and now thats verified

Odhinn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

She doesnt like lidl because
A She is a racist and they had a Black Man in the ad
B She is a far right nationalist and doesnt lidl cause its German

..and she thinks it pushes a "globalist" agenda, whatever that might mean/include.

Gregor Samsa

Critiqued wrote: »

But in this case the real name was used for everyone except one person.

I’m obviously changing the actual names here, but me, my wife and my kids all have different surnames.

I’m Samsa, my wife is Macintosh, and the kids are Samsa Macintosh.

If we were to appear on a similar poster and described as “the X family”, where X is either Samsa, Macintosh or Samsa Macintosh, it would be incorrect for at least one of us. There’s no correct way to refer to us as “the X family”.

But it wouldn’t matter a shíte. Who cares what name they or we are described as collectively. It’s a complete and utter non-issue. Unless one is the kind of lunatic who’s worried that brown people are being made to look “normal” by giving them names not traditionally associated with brown people, which she seems to be.

Brussels Sprout

NickNickleby wrote: »

Oh, there are certainly people out there who get particularly upset at having our pretty white women stolen by some black guy.

incels?

Sir Oxman

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

incels?

And tubby barstoolers.

Eric Cartman

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

incels?

always found the word quite funny, incel has become a weird insult almost exclusively used by people who are getting none against others who are getting none, its like a giant jerk circle of unappealing people calling each other out for being unappealing.

Boom_Bap

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I’m obviously changing the actual names here, but me, my wife and my kids all have different surnames.

I’m Samsa, my wife is Macintosh, and the kids are Samsa Macintosh.

If we were to appear on a similar poster and described as “the X family”, where X is either Samsa, Macintosh or Samsa Macintosh, it would be incorrect for at least one of us. There’s no correct way to refer to us as “the X family”.

But it wouldn’t matter a shíte. Who cares what name they or we are described as collectively. It’s a complete and utter non-issue. Unless one is the kind of lunatic who’s worried that brown people are being made to look “normal” by giving them names not traditionally associated with brown people, which she seems to be.

Funnily enough, the Samsa Macintosh X is the next operating system from Apple.


I'm joking I'm joking! :pac::pac: