General political discussion

TylerIE

Meesared wrote: »

Seymour Crawford was my neighbour at home :mad:

LOL so you could relate to it being quite a conservative area!

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Labour probably. I don't support them anymore though because I've become a little bit more fiscally conservative, though I still support their social policies. If only there was a party that was both socially progressive and economically right-wing, I'd totally join it. But there isn't. The PD's used to be both socially progressive & fiscally conservative until they became joined at the hip with Fianna Fáil - well that's what I heard anyway.

Lol we should start a new political party! I have a few friends with the same mindset too

Killer Pigeon

TylerIE wrote: »

Lol we should start a new political party! I have a few friends with the same mindset too

Yes. Not a huge amount of people will vote for Labour because of their economic and fiscal stance, that has been a major downer for the progression of LGBT rights in this country, in my opinion. People are too worried about the economy at the minute to care about minorities in society, which is unfortunate.

Annasopra

To me though and i know this going going off topic so if you think it's completely inappropriate or off topic then report it you can't have social justice without economic justice. Financial resources are a major source of inequality and if the rich get to conserve their own sources of finance at the expense of the poor the economic injustice is completely wrong. This has an extra added effect for minorities. Minorities in general such as immigrants, disabled, T (less so LGB although glen/nexus 1995 research does show it), travellers are living more in poverty than the general population. So in my view liberal non redistribute economic policies just simply create huge economic and social inequalities and injustices. Austerity is a prime example - cutting social welfare rates from the most poor and most at risk and most vulnerable parts of society is incredibly destructive of huge swathes of society. To me liberal economics destroys lives and we can see this clearly in the current crisis.

Azure_sky

I agree totally. Capitalism has failed us yet we vote for another capitalist party. That never made sense to me. People should watch Capitalism: A love story. It's on the internet...

Meesared

Cant stand Michael Moore...

bitter_lemon

mango salsa wrote: »

To me though and i know this going going off topic so if you think it's completely inappropriate or off topic then report it you can't have social justice without economic justice. Financial resources are a major source of inequality and if the rich get to conserve their own sources of finance at the expense of the poor the economic injustice is completely wrong. This has an extra added effect for minorities. Minorities in general such as immigrants, disabled, T (less so LGB although glen/nexus 1995 research does show it), travellers are living more in poverty than the general population. So in my view liberal non redistribute economic policies just simply create huge economic and social inequalities and injustices. Austerity is a prime example - cutting social welfare rates from the most poor and most at risk and most vulnerable parts of society is incredibly destructive of huge swathes of society. To me liberal economics destroys lives and we can see this clearly in the current crisis.

as a moderator you should report yourself!
are you for real? have you ever seen a traveller wedding or funeral? there is no money spared with their horse drawn carraiges and flamboyant attire and their brand new expensive cars.

if we didn't let as much immigrants into the country we wouldn't be in this state. i have no problem with people coming in working like the irish did in many countries. but this is a welfare wonderland.

cut the dole! stop studying and being an eternal student and get out there and experience life.

and to have people getting a sex change on the medical card is ludicrous. i am sick and tired for paying my huge taxes for this ****.

i rarely come on here anymore because you all live in la la land.

Meesared

bitter_lemon wrote: »

as a moderator you should report yourself!
are you for real? have you ever seen a traveller wedding or funeral? there is no money spared with their horse drawn carraiges and flamboyant attire and their brand new expensive cars.

if we didn't let as much immigrants into the country we wouldn't be in this state. i have no problem with people coming in working like the irish did in many countries. but this is a welfare wonderland.

cut the dole! stop studying and being an eternal student and get out there and experience life.

and to have people getting a sex change on the medical card is ludicrous. i am sick and tired for paying my huge taxes for this ****.

i rarely come on here anymore because you all live in la la land.

Or perhaps because youre a troll?

TylerIE

bitter_lemon wrote: »

if we didn't let as much immigrants into the country we wouldn't be in this state. i have no problem with people coming in working like the irish did in many countries. but this is a welfare wonderland.

Immigrants cannot be blamed for the situation the country is in. I dont have the figures to hand but IIRC they certainly havnt claimd dozens of billions of welfare in the last few years?

I see the need to check that those claiming are actually resident etc

cut the dole! stop studying and being an eternal student and get out there and experience life.

To some extent I agree. I get a bit sickened at people who are eternally studying abstract subjects or fas type courses, in between checking what allowances they can get the following year.

Jobseekers Benefit Im not so sure, its earned by those who have worked. Jobseekers allowance should be revisited for those who are eternally on it. Those who have genuine medical grounds for not working should get invalidity of course.

Im not saying "Cut the dole" Im just saying all benefits should be examined to ensure those getting them need them and are eligible. Photo ID cards should be used for collecting payments and signing on. There should be strong penalties for those who are caught defrauding the system, and IMHO automatic disqualification from all benefits for x years. Surprisingly (Shockingly perhaps) Labour is going some-way down this road.

and to have people getting a sex change on the medical card is ludicrous. i am sick and tired for paying my huge taxes for this ****.

Would you rather pay huge taxes for the medical consequences of not getting the surgery? Depression, loss of contribution to society, etc. I know a small number of trans individuals. They contribute greatly to society. One of them, her income taxes in one year alone would pay for the surgery for another person. Giving trans individuals access to the surgery allows them to contribute to society fully, and from my limited exposure, post-op trans individuals are only too happy to go out and contribute to society as they get to enjoy their correct gender.

i rarely come on here anymore because you all live in la la land.

You rarely come on the board or the LGBT forum?

G.K.

bitter_lemon wrote: »

and to have people getting a sex change on the medical card is ludicrous. i am sick and tired for paying my huge taxes for this ****.

Should cancer treatment be on the medical card? Should heart surgery be on the medical card?

rainbow kirby

bitter_lemon wrote: »

and to have people getting a sex change on the medical card is ludicrous. i am sick and tired for paying my huge taxes for this ****.

That thread has been done and locked. Don't bring it up again out of context.

Also, lay off the personal attacks on mango salsa.

Annasopra

I separated this from the trans thread as it was getting too generalised and off topic

Annasopra

Meesared wrote: »

Or perhaps because youre a troll?

Please report posts in future

Killer Pigeon

mango salsa wrote: »

To me though and i know this going going off topic so if you think it's completely inappropriate or off topic then report it you can't have social justice without economic justice. Financial resources are a major source of inequality and if the rich get to conserve their own sources of finance at the expense of the poor the economic injustice is completely wrong. This has an extra added effect for minorities. Minorities in general such as immigrants, disabled, T (less so LGB although glen/nexus 1995 research does show it), travellers are living more in poverty than the general population. So in my view liberal non redistribute economic policies just simply create huge economic and social inequalities and injustices. Austerity is a prime example - cutting social welfare rates from the most poor and most at risk and most vulnerable parts of society is incredibly destructive of huge swathes of society. To me liberal economics destroys lives and we can see this clearly in the current crisis.

I do not agree with you and I doubt I could persuade you, in particular (as you say you have connections to Labour), to view capitalism and liberal economics in a different light within the space of a short debate here. I think that socialists love to use the argument against the so-called "rich" to justify their ideas against capitalism. This is all to forward the Utopian ideal of a classless society. The idea of a classless society is utter nonsense and you will find that classes would never be nonexistent in realistic socialist society. Human nature pervades all.

Also, I don't understand your logic when it comes to total economic justice and social justice being intertwined. How did capitalism hinder the progression of LGBT rights? Perhaps you're confusing right-wing economics with socially right-wing policies. How has capitalism even hindered the rights of other minorities such as travelers, the sick, the disabled or immigrants? I'd love a clearer elaboration on how this is so.

Your analogy of austerity measures is thoroughly emotion driven. Cutting the social welfare (at least the dole), lowering the minimum wage AND lowering taxes would (a) allow businesses to develop and provide jobs for those who are unemployed and (b) could potentially create more tax revenue (yes!!) because people will stop avoiding paying tax and people will be prepared to work harder. Also, the funny thing is, a lot a these austerity measures had their roots in the failings of leftist Keynesian monetarist policies.

I also think that socialists love to confuse corporatism with free-market capitalism. It's a load of nonsense. Corporatism is state supported capitalism, true capitalism is separation of the economy from the state (for the most part). The closest thing to a free-market society in recent history was probably in the US near the end of the 19th century; you can't say it has failed. Corporatism has failed however.

Azure_sky

Right wing economics are anti positive discrimination and thus covertly hinder minority rights.

Really, if a black female to male transsexual and a white cis guy both applied for the same job who do you think would have the advantage before a word was spoken or before anyone looked at there C.V.s?

It's simple. When you're at the bottom of the social ladder you vote left wing. When you're at the top you vote right wing. When the Irish first came to the U.S. they were discriminated against so they all voted Democrat. Now Irish people are not discriminated against so you see lots of Irish American Republicans, like Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity.

It's the same with the political divide in the LGBT community. Being gay is no longer considered the social deviance it once was so gays don't suffer discrimination anywhere near the extent they once did, so they can get good jobs and are socially left wing but economically right wing.

While transsexuals are probably the lowest in the social ladder in this country so in general they are both socially and economically left wing. When transsexuals become more accepted by society they will most likely become less left wing-like the Irish Americans and the gays.

Politics is pretty easy to understand once you understand human nature.

Killer Pigeon

Azure_sky wrote: »

Right wing economics are anti positive discrimination and thus covertly hinder minority rights.

Really, if a black female to male transsexual and a white cis guy both applied for the same job who do you think would have the advantage before a word was spoken or before anyone looked at there C.V.s?

You're just assuming there that an employer will take race and gender identity into consideration. However, it is at the employers discretion though. He/she has the right to choose who he/she employs as he/she owns the business. The employer should have the right to discriminate in the selection process for a job. What other way would you have it? Should we introduce genders and race quotas? They're just or even more discriminatory.

Azure_sky wrote: »

It's simple. When you're at the bottom of the social ladder you vote left wing. When you're at the top you vote right wing.

This commonly is the case but not always so.

Azure_sky wrote: »

When the Irish first came to the U.S. they were discriminated against so they all voted Democrat.

No they didn't. There has been a polar shift in the Democratic Party's policies over the past 100 years. Once they were considered more conservative than the Republican Party (in an social sense).

Azure_sky wrote: »

Now Irish people are not discriminated against so you see lots of Irish American Republicans, like Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity.

This was due to the self-determination of the Irish community in America. I don't believe it was to do with a shift to the left in US's economic policy. It could have been attributed to an altering the general social mindset in the US.

Azure_sky wrote: »

It's the same with the political divide in the LGBT community. Being gay is no longer considered the social deviance it once was so gays don't suffer discrimination anywhere near the extent they once did, so they can get good jobs and are socially left wing but economically right wing.

That an over generalisation. LGBT people have come from all socioeconomic backgrounds. I don't know if there has been any studies done, but I think it's obvious that there would be an even distribution of LGBT people across all classes. We can therefore factor out socioeconomic backgrounds of the LGBT community when trying to determine how or what contributed to them gaining their rights. It was general determination and awareness (I believe, I could be wrong) that contributed to social progress in that regard. Again, nothing to do with capitalism.

Azure_sky wrote: »

While transsexuals are probably the lowest in the social ladder in this country so in general they are both socially and economically left wing. When transsexuals become more accepted by society they will most likely become less left wing-like the Irish Americans and the gays.

I don't understand why they have to be economically left-wing though. How is that going to contribute to their freedom? Transexuals, like all LGBT, would come from across the socioeconomic spectrum, so, in hindsight, I don't understand why they should tend to either the fiscal left or right.

Azure_sky

I'm not going to get into a debate via quote dissection so I'll just leave it at this.

"Our analysis of the available research suggests that between 20 percent and 40 percent of all homeless youth identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). 4

Given that between 3 percent and 5 percent of the U.S. population identifies as lesbian, gay or bisexual, it is clear that LGBT youth experience homelessness at a disproportionate rate. ..."

"Transgender youth are disproportionately represented in the homeless population. More generally, some reports indicate that one in five transgender individuals need or are at risk of needing homeless shelter assistance. However, most shelters are segregated by birth sex, regardless of the individual's gender identity, and homeless transgender youth are even ostracized by some agencies that serve their LGB peers." 5

http://www.religioustolerance.org/transsexu4.htm


Now, to deal with your response.




You're just assuming there that an employer will take race and gender identity into consideration.

It's a fact that transsexuals are highly likely to be discriminated against in the areas of employment. Race is still an issue but not as much as it once was.


The employer should have the right to discriminate in the selection process for a job.

How so? Should publicans and shop owners have the right to discriminate who they sell there goods to? Should the state have the right to make homosexuality illegal? There was hell raised on this forum when the Old Oak did that to gays recently. Another example is here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056393436

Should we introduce genders and race quotas? They're just or even more discriminatory.

Yes. They even up the playing field to compensate for bigotry. The only people who seem to be against positive discrimination are the people who don't need it.

No they didn't. There has been a polar shift in the Democratic Party's policies over the past 100 years. Once they were considered more conservative than the Republican Party (in an social sense).

Yes they did.

Tammany Hall, also known as the Society of St. Tammany, the Sons of St. Tammany, or the Columbian Order, was a New York political organization founded in 1786 and incorporated on May 12, 1789 as the Tammany Society. It was the Democratic Party political machine that played a major role in controlling New York City politics and helping immigrants, most notably the Irish, rise up in American politics from the 1790s to the 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall

This was due to the self-determination of the Irish community in America. I don't believe it was to do with a shift to the left in US's economic policy. It could have been attributed to an altering the general social mindset in the US.

I think you have misinterpreted my point. When JFK was running for President there were fears that he would be loyal to Rome above the U.S.
When the Irish first came to America they were portrayed by the WASP media as ape like. Since then things have changed massively. Irish Americans are up at the top of the chain so they want to be economically conservative as they want to conserve the status quo.

That an over generalisation. LGBT people have come from all socioeconomic backgrounds. I don't know if there has been any studies done, but I think it's obvious that there would be an even distribution of LGBT people across all classes. We can therefore factor out socioeconomic backgrounds of the LGBT community when trying to determine how or what contributed to them gaining their rights. It was general determination and awareness (I believe, I could be wrong) that contributed to social progress in that regard. Again, nothing to do with capitalism

It's quite simple. Gays are more socially accepted than transsexuals. That's pretty obvious. If you're more socially accepted you're less likely to be discriminated against and thus less likely to be economically left wing as you'll have a better chance of a career. Yes LGBT people come from all economic backgrounds but once they "come out" social status comes into play. Don't forget that parents disowning and even disinheriting transsexuals is very common also. I know it can still happen to gays but it's less likely to happen.

With no employment or financial support from ones family then a transsexual literally could not survive in a economic libertarian society. Why do you think transsexual porn in the U.S. is so common? It's the only means of support for many of them.

I don't understand why they have to be economically left-wing though. How is that going to contribute to their freedom? Transexuals, like all LGBT, would come from across the socioeconomic spectrum, so, in hindsight, I don't understand why they should tend to either the fiscal left or right.

Because if you're discriminated against in employment then you want positive discrimination and social safety nets to survive, so you're economically left wing. If you're not discriminated against then you don't need such things and you want to make even more money so you're economically right wing in general.

Annasopra

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

That an over generalisation. LGBT people have come from all socioeconomic backgrounds. I don't know if there has been any studies done, but I think it's obvious that there would be an even distribution of LGBT people across all classes. We can therefore factor out socioeconomic backgrounds of the LGBT community when trying to determine how or what contributed to them gaining their rights. It was general determination and awareness (I believe, I could be wrong) that contributed to social progress in that regard. Again, nothing to do with capitalism.

Don't agree with this at all. The glen/nexus research from 1995 (and i know this is out of date) showed that LGB people were living in poverty because they were LGB. You simply cannot rule out socioeconomic factors as having an effect on peoples rights. LGB activist groups struggled for decades to be funded until Atlantic Philanthropist came along. Increases in external funding meant increases in abilities to campaign.

KnifeWRENCH

I once went to a talk in UCC that David Norris was giving about LGBT issues. When he had spoken he had to leave and they brought out other speakers. One speaker was from LGBTNoise and one was from the Law Department in UCC who was giving a talk about intersex people. Their talks were pretty interesting.

However the other two speakers barely even scratched the surface of LGBT issues and instead used their time to soapbox about their own political beliefs. It was like having Das Kapital shouted at you from a podium. I had to sit there and listen to the evils of capitalism and how Ireland is supposedly just as misogynistic as it was in the days before suffrage. It was, quite honestly, a painful experience.

When it comes to social issues and civil rights and stuff I am very much left wing. But economically you can put me at centre-right. These left wing LGBT speakers I mentioned earlier had a huge chip on their shoulder about rich people, and I reckon more than one poster on this thread does too. Some people are rich because they work bloody hard and deserve it. Not every rich and successful person is a heterosexual white male who has had everything handed to them on a plate, despite what some particularly bitter people (the likes of which I sometimes see on this forum) would love to believe.

I'm not the best at articulating myself when it comes to politics so I'll just say that I pretty much agree with everything Killer Pigeon has said on this thread.

Annasopra

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Not every rich and successful person is a heterosexual white male who has had everything handed to them on a plate, despite what some particularly bitter people (the likes of which I sometimes see on this forum) would love to believe.

I've never seen that claimed on this forum. In general I do believe that non minorities such as White Heterosexual Able Bodied Males are privileged in life because of those characteristics and identities - That does not mean that I believe every White Heterosexual Able Bodied Male is rich and successful or that everyone who does not fit into those identities is poor and downtrodden and a victim but they are less advantaged in life because of social hierarchies.


Separate mod comment

Also please don't label people on this forum as bitter just because you disagree with them

bitter_lemon

Meesared wrote: »

Or perhaps because youre a troll?

just because i have different views than others and am not here to curry favours does not make me a troll.

Annasopra

bitter_lemon wrote: »

just because i have different views than others and am not here to curry favours does not make me a troll.

Mod comment

If you have a problem with a post then please report it

KnifeWRENCH

mango salsa wrote: »

In general I do believe that non minorities such as White Heterosexual Able Bodied Males are privileged in life because of those characteristics and identities

I have to say I really hate this attitude. White heterosexual able bodied male may not have to worry about sexuality, racism or misogyny but who's to say he doesn't have a whole mass of other problems that me or you don't have to deal with? Sometimes it feels like there's a competition of who gets to be the most discriminated against. And I'm talking about LGBT people in general here, not this forum in particular.

That does not mean that I believe every White Heterosexual Able Bodied Male is rich and successful

Well no, I don't think anyone actually believes that.

or that everyone who does not fit into those identities is poor and downtrodden and a victim but they are less advantaged in life because of social hierarchies.

I suppose this may be true if you speak in the most general terms possible but there are alwas exceptions to the rule, which is why I dislike generalisation (in general. :pac:)

I would think a gay black woman from a wealthy background is much more advantaged in life than a straight white man from a poor background.

Separate mod comment

Also please don't label people on this forum as bitter just because you disagree with them

I was gonna reply to this but it would just drag the thread off-topic, which is not my intention.

TylerIE

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Not every rich and successful person is a heterosexual white male who has had everything handed to them on a plate, despite what some particularly bitter people (the likes of which I sometimes see on this forum) would love to believe.

I agree broadly.

mango salsa wrote: »

In general I do believe that non minorities such as White Heterosexual Able Bodied Males are privileged in life because of those characteristics and identities -

I also agree broadly, perhaps privileged is a strong word, but they have a head start.

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I have to say I really hate this attitude. White heterosexual able bodied male may not have to worry about sexuality, racism or misogyny but who's to say he doesn't have a whole mass of other problems that me or you don't have to deal with?

Anybody could have these other problems. For the member of a minority it can be the straw that broke the camels back....



Maybe Im straying off topic (ironic when Im credited with starting the topic) but surely KnifeWRENCH the person from the minority group could equally have extra issues or problems that are only exacerbated when their sexuality comes into it.

Take two white able-bodied guys who come from low income families. One is gay the other isnt. Who has the extra hurdle to overcome?

Take two more white guys from low income families. One has serious ongoing mental health issues (member of a minority group), the other doesnt. Who has the extra hurdle?

Take two more white guys who are in college. Both have a parent with the same serious illness. One is gay the other isnt. Which of them has two burdens to face?

Take two able bodied hetrosexual males. Both have Leaving Certificates. One is from Dublin City Centre, average area. The other is a member of the travelling community. Which of them has additional hurdles?

KnifeWRENCH

TylerIE wrote: »

Maybe Im straying off topic (ironic when Im credited with starting the topic) but surely KnifeWRENCH the person from the minority group could equally have extra issues or problems that are only exacerbated when their sexuality comes into it.

Take two white able-bodied guys who come from low income families. One is gay the other isnt. Who has the extra hurdle to overcome?

Take two more white guys from low income families. One has serious ongoing mental health issues (member of a minority group), the other doesnt. Who has the extra hurdle?

Take two more white guys who are in college. Both have a parent with the same serious illness. One is gay the other isnt. Which of them has two burdens to face?

Take two able bodied hetrosexual males. Both have Leaving Certificates. One is from Dublin City Centre, average area. The other is a member of the travelling community. Which of them has additional hurdles?

I understand what you're saying here but situations like you described above were not what I was referring to. I was referring more to situations where a gay/transgender person is automatically assumed to have bigger obstacles than a straight person, regardless of any other factors.

Quick example: Take two able-bodied white men. One is gay, one is straight. Gay guy comes from a loving family and well-off background, straight guy comes from a broken home in a socio-economically disadvantaged area. Now some people will tell you the gay guy has the tougher hand in life simply because he's gay. And it's this attitude that irritates me.

All other factors being equal, then yeah it's generally more difficult to be gay or in another minority. I never argued against that. And personally I think the group with mental health issues you mentioned is by far the toughest to be in though, regardless of what orientation, gender or race you are. I've been there and it has been a much bigger obstacle in my life than my sexuality.

....this has very little to do with politics, I do apologise. I swear I'm not trying to intentionally drag this thread off-topic.

Annasopra

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

I have to say I really hate this attitude. White heterosexual able bodied male may not have to worry about sexuality, racism or misogyny but who's to say he doesn't have a whole mass of other problems that me or you don't have to deal with? Sometimes it feels like there's a competition of who gets to be the most discriminated against. And I'm talking about LGBT people in general here, not this forum in particular.

It's not an attitude - It is a reaction because of particular discrimination and victimisation against minorities and women - the reality is that people are disadvantaged because they are women or a minority and they are advantaged in life because they are part of certain groups such as white, heterosexual, able bodied middle class males.

I suppose this may be true if you speak in the most general terms possible but there are alwas exceptions to the rule, which is why I dislike generalisation

There is no suppose about it - Women earn less than men, The cost of living with a disability is an extra cost, disabled people find it harder to take up employment, the Glen/Nexus 1995 research shows a causation between being being gay and poverty. There is reams and reams of data and research on this

KnifeWRENCH

There is no suppose about it - Women earn less than men,

A lot of well educated women tend to go for comparatively low-paying jobs like education or nursing, so those statistics can (to some degree) be explained. Now I'm not saying that sexism and misogyny don't exist in business, or that women are exactly equal to men in terms of pay, but oftentimes there are more men in higher paid jobs simply because more men apply for these jobs than women do.

To reintroduce a political aspect and be somewhat on-topic, I completely disagree with gender quotas. I think they are an insult to both sexes; when a woman gets a job she should be able to say that she got it on merit and not feel like she's there just to fill up some "token female" role, while a man should not potentially lose out on a job that he is perfectly qualified for because of so-called "positive discrimination".

The cost of living with a disability is an extra cost, disabled people find it harder to take up employment,

I don't disagree with that, I never mentioned disabled people. Someone born with a physical or mental disability is certainly disadvantaged.

the Glen/Nexus 1995 research shows a causation between being being gay and poverty.

A lot has changed since 1995. I'd be interested to see how the results would be if the survey was done today. My guess would be that that causation is not as strong as it was back then.

There is reams and reams of data and research on this

Look, I'm not saying that some people born into some minority groups are not disadvantaged. I'm not saying that people don't experience homophobia or transphobia or racism etc.

The point I was trying to make was that just because someone is born as a straight white male doesn't mean their life is a walk in the park and that they never have to face obstacles of their own. The line "every day is a straight pride parade" gets trotted out every so often and it just makes me cringe because it implies that just because you're straight you automatically have a cushy life. That's the attitude that bothers me.

And once again, I apologise for being off-topic, I'm not sure how political discussion led to this exactly.