Originally Posted by gulliverfoyle:
“im with voltaire”
“im with voltaire”
you want to give her the electric chair?
Lucy Hawking responds to Katie Hopkins - not respectfully, but politely
2 of 2
Originally Posted by gulliverfoyle:
“im with voltaire”
“im with voltaire”
He never actually said it... and even if he did I'm not going to die protecting her right to talk bollocks.
I'm sure it was annoying to read those comments, but Katie Hopkins just says things for attention.
So it's better to roll your eyes and move on without paying her any heed.
So it's better to roll your eyes and move on without paying her any heed.
I'd applaud the article and obviously can't blame her for writing it but she's basically giving Hopkins exactly what she wants.
Yet more attention.
The more attention she is given the more she will bang on with her 'outspoken' views and baiting insults. Because the longer she can string out her 15 minutes the more money she makes.
When all the people responding to her realise this and stop doing so. She will disappear.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be something that will happen anytime soon. She's extremely good at getting people's backs up. Which is of course. Her sole aim.
Yet more attention.
The more attention she is given the more she will bang on with her 'outspoken' views and baiting insults. Because the longer she can string out her 15 minutes the more money she makes.
When all the people responding to her realise this and stop doing so. She will disappear.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be something that will happen anytime soon. She's extremely good at getting people's backs up. Which is of course. Her sole aim.
Originally Posted by Lyceum:
“I'd applaud the article and obviously can't blame her for writing it but she's basically giving Hopkins exactly what she wants.
Yet more attention.
The more attention she is given the more she will bang on with her 'outspoken' views and baiting insults. Because the longer she can string out her 15 minutes the more money she makes.
When all the people responding to her realise this and stop doing so. She will disappear.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be something that will happen anytime soon. She's extremely good at getting people's backs up. Which is of course. Her sole aim.”
“I'd applaud the article and obviously can't blame her for writing it but she's basically giving Hopkins exactly what she wants.
Yet more attention.
The more attention she is given the more she will bang on with her 'outspoken' views and baiting insults. Because the longer she can string out her 15 minutes the more money she makes.
When all the people responding to her realise this and stop doing so. She will disappear.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be something that will happen anytime soon. She's extremely good at getting people's backs up. Which is of course. Her sole aim.”
The risk there is that until she disappears she has a free and open platform to make her thoughts known and no one is even going to attempt to refute her claims or make rebuttals because it's "giving Hopkins exactly what she wants" and she might not disappear for years.
Originally Posted by Mesostim:
“The risk there is that until she disappears she has a free and open platform to make her thoughts known and no one is even going to attempt to refute her claims or make rebuttals because it's "giving Hopkins exactly what she wants" and she might not disappear for years.”
“The risk there is that until she disappears she has a free and open platform to make her thoughts known and no one is even going to attempt to refute her claims or make rebuttals because it's "giving Hopkins exactly what she wants" and she might not disappear for years.”
No as I said I completely understand why she has responded and why other respond.
It's just a sad fact that in responding Hopkins gets yet more attention and the more attention she gets the more she spouts of to get attention. The longer she will be around.
She's just a sad attention seeking troll. And it saddens me that she's given a platform to use to upset and insult people the way she does.
Although it is amusing that she insults disabled people, Stephen Hawkins, does more for this world before breakfast than Hopkins could dream of doing in her lifetime.
Originally Posted by Mesostim:
“He never actually said it... and even if he did I'm not going to die protecting her right to talk bollocks.”
“He never actually said it... and even if he did I'm not going to die protecting her right to talk bollocks.”
im a atheist so i think the god botherers ideologys are complete bollox
however i dont think they should be shut down or not be able to spout there cobblers
Katie Hopkins is a genius. Who else but herself could go through army training without giving any hint of her epilepsy till the army doctor 'uncovered' it on the very last day and subsequently kicked her out? Who else could get then through sharing the bedroom in The Apprentice without giving the slightest hint of her condition? AND 'I'm A Celebrity'? AND Celeb BB?
Why it's almost as if she read up on the condition to use as a fall-back when people started asking her awkward questions...
Why it's almost as if she read up on the condition to use as a fall-back when people started asking her awkward questions...
Originally Posted by kaybee15:
“Katie Hopkins is a genius. Who else but herself could go through army training without giving any hint of her epilepsy till the army doctor 'uncovered' it on the very last day and subsequently kicked her out? Who else could get then through sharing the bedroom in The Apprentice without giving the slightest hint of her condition? AND 'I'm A Celebrity'? AND Celeb BB?
Why it's almost as if she read up on the condition to use as a fall-back when people started asking her awkward questions...”
“Katie Hopkins is a genius. Who else but herself could go through army training without giving any hint of her epilepsy till the army doctor 'uncovered' it on the very last day and subsequently kicked her out? Who else could get then through sharing the bedroom in The Apprentice without giving the slightest hint of her condition? AND 'I'm A Celebrity'? AND Celeb BB?
Why it's almost as if she read up on the condition to use as a fall-back when people started asking her awkward questions...”
I'm in no way defending the troll Hopkins and have zero idea if she has epilepsy or not. Given her persona is be inclined to agree she's made the whole thing up.
But it is a controllable illness. My mother developed epilepsy in 1985 after a brain hemorrhage. She had seizures regularly for the next 10 years whilst they tried various combinations of epilepsy treatments. Until 1994 at which point they found the right combination for her and she didn't have another seizure until the week she died in 2012. That's 18 years with zero signs of epilepsy showing itself. No casual observer would realise she was in fact epileptic. She had various other medical issues that developed but her epilepsy was controlled perfectly once they found the correct combination of medications for her. I assume the same could be true for Hopkins although as I said, I'm more inclined to believe your first assessment of her making it all up as a fall back.
Don't forget, even if she is a Psychopath/sociopath, it isn't classed as a mental illness or disability.
That's why she shouldn't get a free pass, because a personality disorder can actually be controlled unlike mental illness/disability.
That's why she shouldn't get a free pass, because a personality disorder can actually be controlled unlike mental illness/disability.
Originally Posted by Lyceum:
“I'm in no way defending the troll Hopkins and have zero idea if she has epilepsy or not. Given her persona is be inclined to agree she's made the whole thing up.
But it is a controllable illness. My mother developed epilepsy in 1985 after a brain hemorrhage. She had seizures regularly for the next 10 years whilst they tried various combinations of epilepsy treatments. Until 1994 at which point they found the right combination for her and she didn't have another seizure until the week she died in 2012. That's 18 years with zero signs of epilepsy showing itself. No casual observer would realise she was in fact epileptic. She had various other medical issues that developed but her epilepsy was controlled perfectly once they found the correct combination of medications for her. I assume the same could be true for Hopkins although as I said, I'm more inclined to believe your first assessment of her making it all up as a fall back.”
“I'm in no way defending the troll Hopkins and have zero idea if she has epilepsy or not. Given her persona is be inclined to agree she's made the whole thing up.
But it is a controllable illness. My mother developed epilepsy in 1985 after a brain hemorrhage. She had seizures regularly for the next 10 years whilst they tried various combinations of epilepsy treatments. Until 1994 at which point they found the right combination for her and she didn't have another seizure until the week she died in 2012. That's 18 years with zero signs of epilepsy showing itself. No casual observer would realise she was in fact epileptic. She had various other medical issues that developed but her epilepsy was controlled perfectly once they found the correct combination of medications for her. I assume the same could be true for Hopkins although as I said, I'm more inclined to believe your first assessment of her making it all up as a fall back.”
I'm glad your mother found some respite from her condition, Lyceum. It's important to realise that epilepsy CAN be controlled given patience - and often a smidge of luck, too.
Hopkins on the one hand claims her episodes have been so severe she's dislocated her arms up to thirty times in a month. Yet, she also claims she managed to keep her epilepsy a secret from friends, family, BB housemates etc. It's pretty much impossible to do both, and is simply another example of her willingness to say absolutely ANYTHING to keep her name in the papers. She is not disabled in any way whatsoever, she is simply an amoral ****.
Originally Posted by acid rain:
“Even if Katie was a sociopath it shouldn't result in sympathy. I'll explain why...
It's been proven that people with personality disorders such as Psychopaths/Sociopaths do know right from wrong, they just don't care.
So you see Katie does know right from wrong she just chooses to ignore societies niceties to get ahead in life. She knows saying controversial things will get her attention and to her that out weighs everything.”
“Even if Katie was a sociopath it shouldn't result in sympathy. I'll explain why...
It's been proven that people with personality disorders such as Psychopaths/Sociopaths do know right from wrong, they just don't care.
So you see Katie does know right from wrong she just chooses to ignore societies niceties to get ahead in life. She knows saying controversial things will get her attention and to her that out weighs everything.”
This.
She could very well be a functioning psychopath (around 1% of the population are IIRC).
Does this give me any sympathy for her?
No.
Originally Posted by Lyceum:
“I'd applaud the article and obviously can't blame her for writing it but she's basically giving Hopkins exactly what she wants.
Yet more attention.
The more attention she is given the more she will bang on with her 'outspoken' views and baiting insults. Because the longer she can string out her 15 minutes the more money she makes.
When all the people responding to her realise this and stop doing so. She will disappear.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be something that will happen anytime soon. She's extremely good at getting people's backs up. Which is of course. Her sole aim.”
“I'd applaud the article and obviously can't blame her for writing it but she's basically giving Hopkins exactly what she wants.
Yet more attention.
The more attention she is given the more she will bang on with her 'outspoken' views and baiting insults. Because the longer she can string out her 15 minutes the more money she makes.
When all the people responding to her realise this and stop doing so. She will disappear.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be something that will happen anytime soon. She's extremely good at getting people's backs up. Which is of course. Her sole aim.”
On the other hand, she has unwittingly or not given people a chance to discuss various social issues beyond her initial comments.
Would Lucy have written that open letter, sparking threads like this one, if it wasn't for Hopkins's inane comments?
Originally Posted by Takae:
“On the other hand, she has unwittingly or not given people a chance to discuss various social issues beyond her initial comments.
Would Lucy have written that open letter, sparking threads like this one, if it wasn't for Hopkins's inane comments?”
“On the other hand, she has unwittingly or not given people a chance to discuss various social issues beyond her initial comments.
Would Lucy have written that open letter, sparking threads like this one, if it wasn't for Hopkins's inane comments?”
That's a valid point and by starting the thread I'm doing, I suppose, exactly what she wants.
I'm loathe to want to shut her up, because it goes against everything I believe in. Much trouble has been gotten into recently by suggesting that the 'No' side to the marriage equality debate in Ireland are entitled to express their opinion without having 'VILE HOMOPHOBE' screamed at them. I am disdainful of their arguments, but that doesn't mean I don't think they should be allowed to proffer them. My argument is that society will never - ever - open the eyes and minds of these people by screaming insults at them.
This Hopkins individual, however, is just a bad 'un, in my view. I find it infuriating that she's found a niche for herself as a paragon of free speech. She makes a mockery of something I feel strongly about.
2 of 2
