Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

Oymyakon

My unpopular opinion is that I think that the government are doing an alright job, all things considered.

Banana Republic 1

Rugby is just 30 lads on a field the same size as a school boys soccer pitch bursting themselves off each each other.

Gentlemanne

beerguts wrote: »

There should be mandatory sterilisation of adults over the age of 25 with convictions of serious violent crimes. Also the welfare system should be refocused to give more benifits to people who take the option to sterilise themselves to ensure they don't create more dependents on the state. A cap on welfare receipts after 2 children.

Do you think the Irish government specifically should do this and what do you think the international response to us would be to us, as a 21st century developed nation, to be practicing eugenics?

WrenBoy

Tea is a ****e drink

Your Face

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Rugby is just 30 lads on a field the same size as a school boys soccer pitch bursting themselves off each each other.

Ya, its class alright.

The_Dark_Lord

Francis Bacon is the most overrated painter of the modern era. He was the Vincent Price of painting. The paintings themselves are just exercises in theatrical shock tactics. Admittedly, some of the early popes are good and so are some of the small triptychs. But for the majority of his work, once you get past the initial dazzle, there's not much substance. I recently listened to the audio book version of Michael Peppiatt's memoir, 'Francis Bacon In Your Blood' and in it Bacon just comes off as a bitchy, self-indulgent queen, hamming it up with repetitive monologues on the futility of life. All the while splashing the cash on his army of dependent sycophants. His one-time friend, who he is often compared to, Lucian Freud- is a better painter. Certainly a more honest one.

cms88

WesternZulu wrote: »

By unpopular opinion is that gaelic football is a better sport than hurling. I have voiced this numerous times but apparently it's sacrilege. It seems in Ireland you are allowed to have any favourite sport of your choosing but no one will accept that you believe football is better than hurling.

I think hurling is a fine sport too but I just think it's too easy to score and prefer the more tactical aspects of gaelic football.

I fully admit that football is going through a particularly dull period at the moment though.

When people talk about the skill of hurling etc they're thinking about a game that hasn't been played in 10 years. Modern hurling at the top level isn't that good to watch as people think.

It's much like Rugby in that no one in the media will dare say a word against it.

soiseztomabel

Those lads who got reefed off the Dart deserved it,

Mad_maxx

WesternZulu wrote: »

By unpopular opinion is that gaelic football is a better sport than hurling. I have voiced this numerous times but apparently it's sacrilege. It seems in Ireland you are allowed to have any favourite sport of your choosing but no one will accept that you believe football is better than hurling.

I think hurling is a fine sport too but I just think it's too easy to score and prefer the more tactical aspects of gaelic football.

I fully admit that football is going through a particularly dull period at the moment though.

fully agree

hurling has a sort of contrived celtic mysticism vibe built up around it whereby many who know nothing about it , rush to gush over it in order to appear more pure in their irishness

the ball moves too fast to concentrate on it too , its not suitable for TV

beerguts

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Do you think the Irish government specifically should do this and what do you think the international response to us would be to us, as a 21st century developed nation, to be practicing eugenics?

We would be universally condemned. There is no doubting that and it is an extreme approach. However I have well founded fears for the viability of the state in the long term due to increase in the no hoper welfare addicts ((travellers and 3rd World immigrants) and the stagnating number of babies born to productive people.
I do believe there needs to be a hard stop in the increase of those populations I listed above. You will probably pick any amount of holes in my logic and give me a spiel about how more government action as in programs and policies to reduce poverty will make them productive but I haven't seen anything they have done so far work and I have great doubts giving more resources to them will change that.

Antares35

beerguts wrote: »

We would be universally condemned. There is no doubting that and it is an extreme approach. However I have well founded fears for the viability of the state in the long term due to increase in the no hoper welfare addicts ((travellers and 3rd World immigrants) and the stagnating number of babies born to productive people.
I do believe there needs to be a hard stop in the increase of those populations I listed above. You will probably pick any amount of holes in my logic and give me a spiel about how more government action as in programs and policies to reduce poverty will make them productive but I haven't seen anything they have done so far work and I have great doubts giving more resources to them will change that.

They'll stop the pension before they ever interfere with child benefit. I'm convinced there wont be a pension by the time we get there, or the qualifying age will be 95. Possibly mandatory euthanasia, with a tax if you want to stay alive They'll call it something even more stupid than USC, like GYC "golden years contribution".

randd1

We allow too many bleeding hearts arguments to influence how we run our society rather than common sense and the notion of personal responsibility, and it's going to cause us serious problems with the emerging welfare class, and in many cases already is (generational traveller crime families for example).

There should a complete overhaul of our social welfare payment structures to try and discourage the emerging welfare class who want everything for nothing and contribute nothing in return. The Dole should be a four tier dole system. And there should be a cap on children's allowance too. Rent should be limited too. There's no way people who refuse to work or have no interest in working or contributing to society should be better off than a couple who have to put in 80-120 hours a week between them for the same thing, as well as paying the taxes to support the welfare class, which unfortunately for many, is the case.

The Dole

Dole Tier 1 - People actively looking for work and who have paid into the central fund get €250 a week. This lasts 3-9 months depending on what you've contributed previously, but no more than 9 months.

Dole Tier 2 - People who are unemployed who's Tier 1 benefits have run out or long term unemployed but really want to work (eg older lads without papers, middle aged women with grown children, people who've lost jobs in the previous 6 months and have struggled to find other work). They get €250 a week, but have to make themselves available for CE work programme schemes (temporary jobs such as admin in hospitals and other public sectors, cleaning streets, manual work (working on roads, council buildings, maintaining public green areas), council work, office work to alleviate work loads) for 2 days a week in order to receive the full €250. This would also contribute to their work record with full references as well as giving them the other 3 days to find work.

Dole Tier 3 - After 9 months, if you've not found work and refuse to engage in the CE scheme programme, you drop to €175 a week for 9 months.

Dole Tier 4 - After 18 months of no working or no engaging with the work schemes, you drop to receiving €100 a week.

Children's Allowance

1st Child - Full payment, which is €150. Payment is means tested against household income and ranges from €150 to €50 in €10 increments.

2nd Child - Full payment, which is €150. Payment is means tested against household income and ranges from €150 to €50 in €10 increments.

3rd Child - Reduced payment, which is €80. Payment is means tested against household income and ranges from €80 to €0 in €10 increments.

4th Child and Further Children - No further Child Benefit.

Social Housing

- Rent to be capped at €650 a month, and is to be means tested against the household income.

- Refusal of social housing means you are placed at the bottom of the list for future consideration.


Also, anyone wracking up serious convictions would also see themselves losing many of their benefits, severely if needs be. For example, someone on the dole caught with their 5th drugs conviction would see their dole cut in half.

Social welfare is there to get you out of a hole, not fund a lifestyle.

Antares35

randd1 wrote: »

We allow too many bleeding hearts arguments to influence how we run our society rather than common sense and the notion of personal responsibility, and it's going to cause us serious problems with the emerging welfare class, and in many cases already is (generational traveller crime families for example).

There should a complete overhaul of our social welfare payment structures to try and discourage the emerging welfare class who want everything for nothing and contribute nothing in return. The Dole should be a four tier dole system. And there should be a cap on children's allowance too. Rent should be limited too. There's no way people who refuse to work or have no interest in working or contributing to society should be better off than a couple who have to put in 80-120 hours a week between them for the same thing, as well as paying the taxes to support the welfare class, which unfortunately for many, is the case.

The Dole

Dole Tier 1 - People actively looking for work and who have paid into the central fund get €250 a week. This lasts 3-9 months depending on what you've contributed previously, but no more than 9 months.

Dole Tier 2 - People who are unemployed who's Tier 1 benefits have run out or long term unemployed but really want to work (eg older lads without papers, middle aged women with grown children, people who've lost jobs in the previous 6 months and have struggled to find other work). They get €250 a week, but have to make themselves available for CE work programme schemes (temporary jobs such as admin in hospitals and other public sectors, cleaning streets, manual work (working on roads, council buildings, maintaining public green areas), council work, office work to alleviate work loads) for 2 days a week in order to receive the full €250. This would also contribute to their work record with full references as well as giving them the other 3 days to find work.

Dole Tier 3 - After 9 months, if you've not found work and refuse to engage in the CE scheme programme, you drop to €175 a week for 9 months.

Dole Tier 4 - After 18 months of no working or no engaging with the work schemes, you drop to receiving €100 a week.

Children's Allowance

1st Child - Full payment, which is €150. Payment is means tested against household income and ranges from €150 to €50 in €10 increments.

2nd Child - Full payment, which is €150. Payment is means tested against household income and ranges from €150 to €50 in €10 increments.

3rd Child - Reduced payment, which is €80. Payment is means tested against household income and ranges from €80 to €0 in €10 increments.

4th Child and Further Children - No further Child Benefit.

Social Housing

- Rent to be capped at €650 a month, and is to be means tested against the household income.

- Refusal of social housing means you are placed at the bottom of the list for future consideration.


Also, anyone wracking up serious convictions would also see themselves losing many of their benefits, severely if needs be. For example, someone on the dole caught with their 5th drugs conviction would see their dole cut in half.

Social welfare is there to get you out of a hole, not fund a lifestyle.

I agree with you that someone who refuses to work should not have a better lifestyle than someone who works full time, but if you were to means test children's allowance that would further the divide between the two, because working couples likely wouldn't qualify for it, and those who don't work, would. So, you'd just be taking even more off the taxpaying couple because they'd be down 140 a month.

bocaman

That there should be a united Ireland and anyone who doesn't like it can leave.

randd1

Antares35 wrote: »

I agree with you that someone who refuses to work should not have a better lifestyle than someone who works full time, but if you were to means test children's allowance that would further the divide between the two, because working couples likely wouldn't qualify for it, and those who don't work, would. So, you'd just be taking even more off the taxpaying couple because they'd be down 140 a month.

The means test would be based incrementally at a fair level above the average household income.

For example, a household earning less than €100k would get the full payment of €150. €100-105K would get you €140, €105-110K would get you €130 all the way down to those earning €145-€150 earning €50 per child.

castletownman

cms88 wrote: »

When people talk about the skill of hurling etc they're thinking about a game that hasn't been played in 10 years. Modern hurling at the top level isn't that good to watch as people think.

It's much like Rugby in that no one in the media will dare say a word against it.

They talk about how skillful hurling is, when in reality 90% of those aren't used or are practical in a game. I know you still have wizards like Cian Lynch and Richie Hogan around, the game has morphed into a possession-based, athleticism dependent sport. Even TJ Reid would be regarded as the best player in the game today, but he would be completely robotic and have the fundamentals down to a fine art- would be nothing off-the-cuff from him at all.

It's like those fellas that are unreal at flicks and tricks and keepy-uppys in soccer, but wouldn't last two minutes in an actual game.

My unpopular opinion: Jennifer Aniston is over-rated in terms of looks. Combined with her persona, I don't find her attractive at all. Total Karen.

thebronze14

castletownman wrote: »

They talk about how skillful hurling is, when in reality 90% of those aren't used or are practical in a game. I know you still have wizards like Cian Lynch and Richie Hogan around, the game has morphed into a possession-based, athleticism dependent sport. Even TJ Reid would be regarded as the best player in the game today, but he would be completely robotic and have the fundamentals down to a fine art- would be nothing off-the-cuff from him at all.

It's like those fellas that are unreal at flicks and tricks and keepy-uppys in soccer, but wouldn't last two minutes in an actual game.

My unpopular opinion: Jennifer Aniston is over-rated in terms of looks. Combined with her persona, I don't find her attractive at all. Total Karen.

Never got the Jennifer Aniston hype at all...Courtney Cox was far hotter

Eric Cartman

randd1 wrote: »

We allow too many bleeding hearts arguments to influence how we run our society rather than common sense and the notion of personal responsibility, and it's going to cause us serious problems with the emerging welfare class, and in many cases already is (generational traveller crime families for example).

There should a complete overhaul of our social welfare payment structures to try and discourage the emerging welfare class who want everything for nothing and contribute nothing in return. The Dole should be a four tier dole system. And there should be a cap on children's allowance too. Rent should be limited too. There's no way people who refuse to work or have no interest in working or contributing to society should be better off than a couple who have to put in 80-120 hours a week between them for the same thing, as well as paying the taxes to support the welfare class, which unfortunately for many, is the case.

The Dole

Dole Tier 1 - People actively looking for work and who have paid into the central fund get €250 a week. This lasts 3-9 months depending on what you've contributed previously, but no more than 9 months.

Dole Tier 2 - People who are unemployed who's Tier 1 benefits have run out or long term unemployed but really want to work (eg older lads without papers, middle aged women with grown children, people who've lost jobs in the previous 6 months and have struggled to find other work). They get €250 a week, but have to make themselves available for CE work programme schemes (temporary jobs such as admin in hospitals and other public sectors, cleaning streets, manual work (working on roads, council buildings, maintaining public green areas), council work, office work to alleviate work loads) for 2 days a week in order to receive the full €250. This would also contribute to their work record with full references as well as giving them the other 3 days to find work.

Dole Tier 3 - After 9 months, if you've not found work and refuse to engage in the CE scheme programme, you drop to €175 a week for 9 months.

Dole Tier 4 - After 18 months of no working or no engaging with the work schemes, you drop to receiving €100 a week.

Children's Allowance

1st Child - Full payment, which is €150. Payment is means tested against household income and ranges from €150 to €50 in €10 increments.

2nd Child - Full payment, which is €150. Payment is means tested against household income and ranges from €150 to €50 in €10 increments.

3rd Child - Reduced payment, which is €80. Payment is means tested against household income and ranges from €80 to €0 in €10 increments.

4th Child and Further Children - No further Child Benefit.

Social Housing

- Rent to be capped at €650 a month, and is to be means tested against the household income.

- Refusal of social housing means you are placed at the bottom of the list for future consideration.


Also, anyone wracking up serious convictions would also see themselves losing many of their benefits, severely if needs be. For example, someone on the dole caught with their 5th drugs conviction would see their dole cut in half.

Social welfare is there to get you out of a hole, not fund a lifestyle.

Id agree with you except I think child benefit should only be a tax credit. We do not need a single more child in this country born into a welfare house. Not a single one.

I'm obviously very outdated and old fashioned here. Having to sit through a radio show today where a guest was on ranting. Effectively, she was out for a night in a hotel bar, hotel took objection to her outfit, and told her to cover up, citing that there were kids around and outfit was inappropriate.

This is her outfit (clickable).


My opinion (apparently the unpopular one) is that the hotel were dead right. In the course of her interview she used all the buzz words (body shaming, slut shaming, etc.) and also went on to say she's a teacher and she'd never dress like that in front of a room of kids (yet it's okay in front of kids in a hotel?).

Other than looking tacky and desperate for attention, I got annoyed with the radio host agreeing with everything she said and not questioning anything, except also admitting it was a 'revealing' top.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm obviously very outdated and old fashioned here. Having to sit through a radio show today where a guest was on ranting. Effectively, she was out for a night in a hotel bar, hotel took objection to her outfit, and told her to cover up, citing that there were kids around and outfit was inappropriate.

This is her outfit (clickable).


My opinion (apparently the unpopular one) is that the hotel were dead right. In the course of her interview she used all the buzz words (body shaming, slut shaming, etc.) and also went on to say she's a teacher and she'd never dress like that in front of a room of kids (yet it's okay in front of kids in a hotel?).

Other than looking tacky and desperate for attention, I got annoyed with the radio host agreeing with everything she said and not questioning anything, except also admitting it was a 'revealing' top.

that outfit is just all wrong. even ignoring the top it fits very badly in a certain area. she should have got it in her size.

99nsr125

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm obviously very outdated and old fashioned here. Having to sit through a radio show today where a guest was on ranting. Effectively, she was out for a night in a hotel bar, hotel took objection to her outfit, and told her to cover up, citing that there were kids around and outfit was inappropriate.

This is her outfit (clickable).
.

Oh ffs

Thank god she's not my daughters teacher

castletownman

99nsr125 wrote: »

Oh ffs

Thank god she's not my daughters teacher

Its absolutely ridiculous and I worry how the world has become.

Like being a teacher, if she saw one of her students dressed like that on a night out, would she not be mortified? Or so long as your breast-feeding, is it all okay? I bet she'd be the first to complain on the same platform if there was any 'toxic masculinity' on display.

Attention seeking nonsense.

Antares35

castletownman wrote: »

Its absolutely ridiculous and I worry how the world has become.

Like being a teacher, if she saw one of her students dressed like that on a night out, would she not be mortified? Or so long as your breast-feeding, is it all okay? I bet she'd be the first to complain on the same platform if there was any 'toxic masculinity' on display.

Attention seeking nonsense.

I was actually going to make the point about breastfeeding but I didn't want to bring the wrath of the nipple nazis on me! Presumably if she'd a baby latched on and someone complained, it would have been upgraded to "mom shaming" although I think breastfeeding women tend to probably show less flesh when feeding!

Which leads naturally to my unpopular opinion. I know so many women who were (IMO rightly) supportive of repeal on the basis of a woman's autonomy and freedom of choice etc yet many of those women are also very dogmatic about breastfeeding.

My opinion is that these positions cannot be reconciled and are in fact, diametrically opposed. You either support a woman's choice about how she exercises her reproductive system or you don't. To me, feeding your baby is an extension of that. Little point supporting women in choice when you're going to castigate them for how they feed their baby.

Antares35

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm obviously very outdated and old fashioned here. Having to sit through a radio show today where a guest was on ranting. Effectively, she was out for a night in a hotel bar, hotel took objection to her outfit, and told her to cover up, citing that there were kids around and outfit was inappropriate.

This is her outfit (clickable).


My opinion (apparently the unpopular one) is that the hotel were dead right. In the course of her interview she used all the buzz words (body shaming, slut shaming, etc.) and also went on to say she's a teacher and she'd never dress like that in front of a room of kids (yet it's okay in front of kids in a hotel?).

Other than looking tacky and desperate for attention, I got annoyed with the radio host agreeing with everything she said and not questioning anything, except also admitting it was a 'revealing' top.

Plus all the kids have seen it now since she decided to go public about the whole thing!:D

newcavanman

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm obviously very outdated and old fashioned here. Having to sit through a radio show today where a guest was on ranting. Effectively, she was out for a night in a hotel bar, hotel took objection to her outfit, and told her to cover up, citing that there were kids around and outfit was inappropriate.

This is her outfit (clickable).


My opinion (apparently the unpopular one) is that the hotel were dead right. In the course of her interview she used all the buzz words (body shaming, slut shaming, etc.) and also went on to say she's a teacher and she'd never dress like that in front of a room of kids (yet it's okay in front of kids in a hotel?).

Other than looking tacky and desperate for attention, I got annoyed with the radio host agreeing with everything she said and not questioning anything, except also admitting it was a 'revealing' top.

What other response would you expect from a very very poor broadcaster like Clara Kelly? Most modern broadcasters, it seems to me, won't have a serious go at an interviewee like this girl, but will instead indulge her whinging and moaning. Obviously they are excited at apparently getting a scoop and managing to fill a few more minutes of airtime on an overly long show

whisky_galore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm obviously very outdated and old fashioned here. Having to sit through a radio show today where a guest was on ranting. Effectively, she was out for a night in a hotel bar, hotel took objection to her outfit, and told her to cover up, citing that there were kids around and outfit was inappropriate.

This is her outfit (clickable).


My opinion (apparently the unpopular one) is that the hotel were dead right. In the course of her interview she used all the buzz words (body shaming, slut shaming, etc.) and also went on to say she's a teacher and she'd never dress like that in front of a room of kids (yet it's okay in front of kids in a hotel?).

Other than looking tacky and desperate for attention, I got annoyed with the radio host agreeing with everything she said and not questioning anything, except also admitting it was a 'revealing' top.

The getup is only fit for the boudoir, or some fantasy cosplay convention, not a meal in a flipping hotel.

Of course you can't question the suitability of ridiculous clothing thanks to the offenderatti.
Every month there's some gobshïte running crying to the papers after being turfed out of Lidl or a flight for forgetting to wear most of their clothes.

freshpopcorn

Antares35 wrote: »

Plus all the kids have seen it now since she decided to go public about the whole thing!:D

If she is a teacher I hope they really take the p*sd out of her in January!

newcavanman

newcavanman wrote: »

What other response would you expect from a very very poor broadcaster like Clara Kelly?

Been annoying myself trying to think who it was, but it wasn't a woman, it was a man interviewing her. Think it might have been that Niall Boylan fella, but I could be wrong.

newcavanman

Deleted User wrote: »

Been annoying myself trying to think who it was, but it wasn't a woman, it was a man interviewing her. Think it might have been that Niall Boylan fella, but I could be wrong.

She may have been on Niall Boylan show, but it was definitely the moany doctor from Greystones who interviewed her on Newsstand Breakfast

joseywhales

But I don't understand, breasts are nice, I can see her breasts, why is that a problem?

She's no supermodel but I'll take the distraction. Why would that offend me?