Posts by Danyl Mclauchlan
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And before you had time to illustrate how your blog post indiscretion differed from Danielle’s tweet indiscretion
Awkwardly unflouncing, just for you: I don't think it was indiscreet, just funny in a weird way that someone I don't think I've ever engaged with before tonight is crowing about 'fucking with me', which is why I assumed the twitter account was a dummy. If it's not then I honestly have no idea what she's talking about.
That comment by Caleb you linked to earlier is easy to justify on the grounds that it's completely hilarious. Like I said, if Danielle's tweets about me entertain her somehow, she should go wild. But I don't think it's unusual for me to find it all a bit odd.
-
So once again, it’s Not About You.
Reading through the rest of your twitter feed it does seem to be about me, at least more so than it should be for someone who plays such a minor role in your life. But knock yourself out, I guess. Ditto for this thread, which Emma insists is totally not about me, but is an expanded version of a comment she made a few days ago which is . . . about me. It all seems pretty childish. (That's me 'flouncing off' by the way'.)
-
This is weird. This link, emailed to me by another PAS regular is a to a twitter feed called dimsie, maintained by Danielle, who I know is a regular here but I don't think I've ever debated with on any subject, which has entries like:
Dear Danyl: you are incredibly easy to fuck with, just at the moment. Could you stop that, because I have no self-control?
I guess I am easy to fuck with, if you set up a twitter feed which is - I assume, but really who the fuck knows, named after my blog - and post oblique messages about me on it, and if by 'fuck with' you mean bemuse me by how much of your emotional energy you spend on me even though I'm a random stranger on the internet.
-
I think we all got played. If you wanted to distract AND get votes for Damien O'Conner then you couldn't have done that better.
This wasn't a cunning plan. O'Connor won't win his seat, and in the next electorate selection he'll be challenged by a union candidate and lose. His political career is over.
-
Richard wrote:
Thanks for that - but honestly, is that it? Makes it sound like gays are some sort of endangered species then... whereas in my experience, friends and family who just happen to be gay, also happen to be pretty tough nuts. Maybe that's because of past persecution and society, or even present - but surely merely mentioning a subset of society is hardly offensive
Maybe someone gay wants to speak to this, but generally members of disempowered groups struggle for political representation, so it's not terribly fair if - when they recieve it - members of more privileged groups throw temper tantrums and accuse them of malign conspiracies.
Emma wrote:
In any case, no, you haven't missed the "Damien O'Connor is a bigot" thread, because there wasn't one. So you're defending him against an argument nobody was making.
In your original post you refer to O'Connor as a homophobe and several other commentators have spoken to this, so your snappy little comment seems - to me - like yet another example of a PAS regular being pointlessly poisonous.
-
Of the two people I had in mind when I wrote this - neither of them Danyl - no, actually . . .
-
Did I miss the whole "Damien O'Connor is a bigot" thread? Sorry if so but he didn't actually say anything offensive to my mind, unless the words "gays" and "unionists" lumped together are somehow too rude to be said out loud... I just do not get why anyone got at all jumpy about this.
In general, if a group in society has a history of being persecuted and demonised - like gay people - you need to be really careful about the way you criticise them, or even if criticism is justified, lest you be seen, rightly or wrongly as perpetuating the persecution.
-
Your scarf it was apricot?
Once you get past the cliché of that song, it is actually a pretty good song.
Speaking to the substance of the post, the underlying contention is that there are two classes of internet commentator who have different opinions to those of the author: 'tinks' and 'trolls', who are either stupid or evil respectively.
My experience debating people on the internet is that these groups are in the minority, and that people disagree with me either (a) because I've said something inaccurate and they know more about the subject than I and want to set me straight, or (b) the subject under discussion allows for a plurality of different but valid opinions.
-
Gee, I felt like I should strategically dip my hat below one eye while I read this post.
-
I wonder if this will be the round-about resolution to the war on drugs: synthetic analoges that replicate the effects of traditional drugs but can't be banned in a more process oriented, policy-based political culture.