Gemma O'Doherty - Part 2 - Read OP for mod warning (06/01)

beakerjoe

Sardonicat wrote: »

You cannot force someone to be assessed. Even if she is assessed and deemed to be completely delusional, she cannot be compelled to engage in treatment of any kind unless she is a danger to herself and/or others. That's the reality. We have no idea what her family have or havent done to her her help. This is not their fault. In this instance you cant force the horse to drink.

I know the reality is what it is, Im saying she needs to be evaluated.

Its clear she needs it.

ancapailldorcha

Lurleen wrote: »

Why not?

Occam's razor. Simplest explanation is that she's just a petty, hateful, stunted bigot. There's no shortage of these people. She's showing no signs of being mentally ill. If I read an opinion to the contrary from an expert, I'll revise my stance but for now, she's just another troll to me.

beakerjoe

pixelburp wrote: »

Again though, that's not your call and allowing the State to intervene under the guise of knowing best for people's health is a slippery slope - and one with an already tragic precedent in this country.

Gemma O'Doherty might be mentally ill, maybe she's delusional. Dangerously paranoid. I suspect she is, born from losing her husband.

But we just can't know this with any certainty, no matter how repugnant we all find her views. And perhaps it speaks to our own desperation here - that we want her to be ill 'cos we couldn't countenance the idea that an apparently well-educated woman would simply come to these conclusions intellectually.

I know.

Its just my opinion. From my experience with working with people with mental illness, its just my opinion that she needs help, and I agree I believe that the death of a loved one has certainly broke her.

I feel sorry for her. Rather than call her names etc, she needs help. That much is clear from my POV.

And yes, we cant know for sure from our POV, tahts why i believe she needs to be assessed closely by an expert.

humberklog

If concerns about her mental health are based on her her behaviour and opinions I'd say she's been far too consistent over long period of time for that to be too much a worry.

On the other hand I have seen that hair loss pattern twice in women and both times they were on high dosage of anti-depressants.

Then again I'm bald and have been sticking spoons to the top of my head since getting Vaxed.

ancapailldorcha

beakerjoe wrote: »

I feel sorry for her. Rather than call her names etc, she needs help. That much is clear from my POV.

People get death threats and intimidated by trash like her. The mental illness narrative gets abused too much by people trying to shirk responsibility.

She'll not get one iota of sympathy from me either way. Plenty of people with mental illness don't go around risking people's health and stirring up hatred.

beakerjoe

eviltwin wrote: »

What makes you think she's unwell?

Even if she is and got treatment there is no reason to think she would no longer hold the views she does.

Her erratic behavior, she appears unhinged and aggressively paranoid.

Yes she may not be ill and I may be wrong, but I feel she needs to be assessed to confirm that.

beakerjoe

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

People get death threats and intimidated by trash like her. The mental illness narrative gets abused too much by people trying to shirk responsibility.

She'll not get one iota of sympathy from me either way. Plenty of people with mental illness don't go around risking people's health and stirring up hatred.

Plenty of people dont do what she does and are ill, that doesn't mean she isnt ill.

Does her behavior really seem its from someone who is stable in reality?

ancapailldorcha

beakerjoe wrote: »

Plenty of people dont do what she does and are ill, that doesn't mean she isnt ill.

Does her behavior really seem its from someone who is stable in reality?

You're going to have to make a convincing argument for this. It's not on me to prove she isn't ill. She's just another hatemonger and I see no indication that there's anything else to it.

Im happy to consider her both ill and consciously malicious

Everyone enabling her financially and with her platform bears culpability too but she is imo quite capable of knowingly wreaking havoc

beakerjoe

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're going to have to make a convincing argument for this. It's not on me to prove she isn't be ill. She's just another hatemonger and I see no indication that there's anything else to it.

Its not on me to prove shes not ill.

I believe she is ill, thats it. Neither of us can say for sure unless she got assessed, which doesn't appear to be happening.

beakerjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

Im happy to consider her both ill and consciously malicious

Everyone enabling her financially and with her platform bears culpability too but she is imo quite capable of knowingly wreaking havoc

No reason to say shes not both. Im not disputing that shes not racist or hatemongering. Its clear she is.

I just think shes mentally unwell.

ancapailldorcha

beakerjoe wrote: »

Its not on me to prove shes not ill.

I believe she is ill, thats it. Neither of us can say for sure unless she got assessed, which doesn't appear to be happening.

Nor should it. If she wants, she can request it but we don't need yet another waste of taxpayer money over her.

pleasant Co.

beakerjoe wrote: »

Its not on me to prove shes not ill.

I believe she is ill, thats it. Neither of us can say for sure unless she got assessed, which doesn't appear to be happening.

How would you know one way or the other what private medical treatment was on going or not?

Seth Brundle

pleasant Co. wrote: »

How would you know one way or the other what private medical treatment was on going or not?

From data released after the HSE hack!
It wasn't the Russians - it was a government conspiracy in order to reveal her health history!

Sardonicat

Onion Bahji wrote: »

Pretty sure she believes it all.

So am I. But that doesnt stop the cynics playing along for their own agenda. It's sad.

Sardonicat

beakerjoe wrote: »

I know the reality is what it is, Im saying she needs to be evaluated.

Its clear she needs it.

For all we know she has been. That won't compel her to have treatment.

pixelburp

Don't be mean to the racist, conspiracy theory bigot 'cos she MIGHT be mentally ill?

Like, I get the sentiment that we shouldn't throw stones at the best of times, and we're all trying to be cognisant of Mental Health issues; but there's a critical mass of vitriol here that becomes a little harder to blink away.

holly8

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I particularly liked this one

https://twitter.com/MagdaDavitt77/status/1404585835991814149

tweet gone ... what was it?

beakerjoe

pleasant Co. wrote: »

How would you know one way or the other what private medical treatment was on going or not?

I dont. Like everyone else here its my opinion. How do you not get that

ohnonotgmail

holly8 wrote: »

tweet gone ... what was it?

it was a reference to Waters fathering one of her children unintentionally.

holly8

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it was a reference to Waters fathering one of her children unintentionally.

thanks ... lol, I can only imagine!!

ancapailldorcha

She has children? Seriously?

sporina

I watched her interview with Fr. PJ Hughes and its fascinating to watch - she realllllllly believes what she says.. like you can see it in the way she speaks - its bizzare.. I almost feel sorry for her.. I dunno if she is evil - I sincerely think she is totally delusional - like, she thinks she is right and we are all idiots.
But she is cunning and sly - she was trying to put words in the priest's mouth.... but he wasn't having it..

Man, if i was a Psychiatrist I would lovvvveeee to talk to her.. even informally.. (in my next life I wanna be a psychologist {criminal psychologist pref})

But yeah, as others have said, unless she is a threat to herself or others, no intervention Psych wise can be imposed.

ohnonotgmail

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

She has children? Seriously?

4 of them.

ancapailldorcha

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

4 of them.

I feel quite for them having that as a mother.

Seth Brundle

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I feel quite for them having that as a mother.

Whatever about Sinead as a mother, I'd sympathise more about having your man as the father!

ClosedAccountFuzzy

If you think about it though and just forget about the individuals for a moment, it’s one of the negatives of social media.

If you went back even to the early 2000s someone who had that kind of ideology could walk up and down streets with placards and they’d be almost definitely ignored.

Nowadays they’ve an ability to find or even build international echo chambers, and access to considerable support and even finances through them.

Social media brings people together on topics, which is often fantastically positive and can be very beneficial. I can think of loads of great things that have happened because of it.

However, just as it can be positive, it can also find that 0.001% who buy into some utterly bonkers or very destructive conspiracy theories etc. In a very large anglophone or even global population, that’s a very large number of people. It’s just an amplifier abs a concentrator. It has no idea of what it’s amplifying or concentrating.

When you bring them to together, they can create some quite serious chaos.

You’re seeing that with all of these fringe, extreme groups and they’re drawing their scale and finances from a much larger international, mostly US audience.

It’s quite frightening is that in surveys about 35% of GOP supporters in the US now believe aspects of Qanon conspiracies etc.

I honestly don’t think this stuff has very much traction in Ireland, but even if it’s say 200 people in a population of 4.9 million, it’s going to look loud and can cause a lot of problems, particularly where it’s a hate filled ideology that targets vulnerable groups.

In a way we are both paying it too much attention and giving it the oxygen of publicity and also not taking the risks of what it can spin up nearly seriously enough.

I think though we’re only starting to get to grips with what these phenomena are.

ancapailldorcha

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Whatever about Sinead as a mother, I'd sympathise more about having your man as the father!

Sinead? I thought it was Gemma who had four children.

walshb

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Whatever about Sinead as a mother, I'd sympathise more about having your man as the father!

Rock and a hard place, that!

The Nal

Notmything wrote: »

What is scary is the number of individuals on twitter who seem to support her and her beliefs.

Fortunately when push comes to shove she has very little support. The same dozen or so weirdos, as proven by her pathetic election results/attempts, the 5 or 6 basket cases who sat outside Google for weeks - homeless people, people who think they're Vikings etc.

She, like a lot of people, doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between online and real life.