Things the PC brigade don't want to hear or admit

One eyed Jack

kunst nugget wrote: »

And who defined the moral code in this country? Seriously, when your neighbour Pat was telling you that Mary was a slut and a fallen woman that brought shame on her family for getting pregnant outside of marriage, he wasn't licking it off the ground.

You seem to be throwing words into sentences in the hope that they'll make some sort of point...

I told you already who defined the moral code in this country - the upper classes who had the wealth and education to be able to enforce their moral codes on those who they deemed to be absent of morals. Generally they associated being poor with lacking morals, much the same as is done today. How Margaret Cash was treated is a prime example of how far some people like to think Irish society has progressed, but in reality it hasn’t at all.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How am I out of order? The thread is about things that the politically correct brigade don’t want to hear, and here was a poster expressing all the politically correct sorts of opinions (contradictory and all as they were), and they ask what they would be described as?

It’s probably what they wanted to hear though now I think about it.

the poster expressed a range of views that are only contradictory/hypocritical *if you insist on an ideology framework*

the thread title has nothing to do with it and youre letting yourself down a bit here imo

Stop moaning ffs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I told you already who defined the moral code in this country - the upper classes who had the wealth and education to be able to enforce their moral codes on those who they deemed to be absent of morals. Generally they associated being poor with lacking morals, much the same as is done today. How Margaret Cash was treated is a prime example of how far some people like to think Irish society has progressed, but in reality it hasn’t at all.

You earlier said referendums don’t amount to a hill of beans and don’t affect So why have them? Two of the biggest shifts in our society affecting half the population in one case and equality for all the lgbtq among us would fall lie to your nonsense.

Can’t take you seriously at this stage.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How am I out of order? The thread is about things that the politically correct brigade don’t want to hear, and here was a poster expressing all the politically correct sorts of opinions (contradictory and all as they were), and they ask what they would be described as?

It’s probably what they wanted to hear though now I think about it.

The only supposed contradiction was one where he said that parents shouldn’t teach religion, bit the state should stay out of their affairs. The first was a hope that religion would naturally or organically die out as parents stopped teaching it and the latter was therefore not a contradiction.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

the poster expressed a range of views that are only contradictory/hypocritical *if you insist on an ideology framework*

the thread title has nothing to do with it and youre letting yourself down a bit here imo

They asked how would they be defined based upon their views, and I told them how I would define them. I’d define them as progressive - everything centres around them.

One eyed Jack

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

You earlier said referendums don’t amount to a hill of beans and don’t affect So why have them? Two of the biggest shifts in our society affecting half the population in one case and equality for all the lgbtq among us would fall lie to your nonsense.

Can’t take you seriously at this stage.

Because constitutional changes require a referendum. That’s all. They don’t change how people interact with each other and there has been no great shift in how society generally views either abortion or gay marriage as a result of these referendums. The change in the law permits people to do things they weren’t permitted to do before. It doesn’t change people’s attitudes towards those people or their behaviour in much the same way as recognising travellers as an ethnic group didn’t do a whole lot for them either.

kunst nugget

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because constitutional changes require a referendum. That’s all. They don’t change how people interact with each other and there has been no great shift in how society generally views either abortion or gay marriage as a result of these referendums. The change in the law permits people to do things they weren’t permitted to do before. It doesn’t change people’s attitudes towards those people or their behaviour in much the same way as recognising travellers as an ethnic group didn’t do a whole lot for them either.

That's a silly comparison .Recognising travellers as an ethnic group didn't go before a referendum process and so wasn't debated and discussed with equal weight being given to both sides of the debate in the media before being voted on. Marriage Equality and the Abortion referendum both went through this process and abortion had already been shot down a generation before. These votes weren't going to suddenly change the way we live our lives but they do show the shift in attitudes in our society over the last couple of decades. Just because your attitudes to these topics hasn't shifted doesn't mean that applies to the wider society.

One eyed Jack

kunst nugget wrote: »

That's a silly comparison .Recognising travellers as an ethnic group didn't go before a referendum process and so wasn't debated and discussed with equal weight being given to both sides of the debate in the media before being voted on. Marriage Equality and the Abortion referendum bought went through this process and abortion had already been shot down a generation before. These votes weren't going to suddenly change the way we live our lives but they do show the shift in attitudes in our society over the last couple of decades. Just because your attitudes to these topics hasn't shifted doesn't mean that applies to the wider society.

I’m saying there hasn’t been a shift. The most vocal opposition to the RCC for example has always been here on Boards, and it certainly doesn’t reflect wider society. The outcomes of any referendum I would say, don’t reflect wider society, and the legislation that politicians eventually get around to bringing into law some 20 years later after yet another pointless referendum, won’t change attitudes in society towards abortion. It hasn’t changed attitudes to people who have abortions in any other country, why would you imagine Ireland could be so uniquely progressive?

It’s not me is projecting my views onto wider society at all.

kunst nugget

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m saying there hasn’t been a shift. The most vocal opposition to the RCC for example has always been here on Boards, and it certainly doesn’t reflect wider society. The outcomes of any referendum I would say, don’t reflect wider society, and the legislation that politicians eventually get around to bringing into law some 20 years later after yet another pointless referendum, won’t change attitudes in society towards abortion. It hasn’t changed attitudes to people who have abortions in any other country, why would you imagine Ireland could be so uniquely progressive?

It’s not me is projecting my views onto wider society at all.

Eight Amendment Vote, 1983: Yes - 66.9% No - 33.1%

Thirty-Sixth Amendment Vote, 2018: Yes - 66.4% No - 33.4%

Are you honestly going to tell me there wasn't a shift in societal attitudes in the 35 years between those two votes?

Stop moaning ffs

‘The most vocal opposition to the RCC for example has always been here on Boards, and it certainly doesn’t reflect wider society.’

Still laughing at this. Completely deluded or just so ensconced in a bubble and doesn’t actually take part in Irish society.

One eyed Jack

kunst nugget wrote: »

Eight Amendment Vote, 1983: Yes - 66.9% No - 33.1%

Thirty-Sixth Amendment Vote, 2018: Yes - 66.4% No - 33.4%

Are you honestly going to tell me there wasn't a shift in societal attitudes in the 35 years between those two votes?

There hasn’t been a shift in societal attitudes towards abortion in the 35 years between those two votes. I’m not doing an FYP there or anything. I’m clarifying exactly what I’m saying so there’s no confusion. It wasn’t the RCC who made laws condemning undesirables to the poorhouses. It was the upper class of politicians at the time who decided that they weren’t fit for civilised society. That’s the way it’s always been - politicians have done what the people have wanted them to do. People’s desperation to signal how virtuous they were was exploited by the religious orders. It was easy to manipulate people who wanted to be seen to do the right thing to comply with what felt right to them - condemnation of the immoral undesirables.

Pretty much the same craic as people go on with today. Plenty of people support a woman being permitted the right to choose, while at the same time they still condemn women for having the temerity to bear children they can’t afford. The difference between then and now is that nowadays those families are accommodated in what are euphemistically called “family hubs” as opposed to laundries.

One eyed Jack

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

‘The most vocal opposition to the RCC for example has always been here on Boards, and it certainly doesn’t reflect wider society.’

Still laughing at this. Completely deluded or just so ensconced in a bubble and doesn’t actually take part in Irish society.

Right, so long as you think Irish society doesn’t consist of numerous organisations in which the religious orders are involved like education providers, health providers, housing providers, spiritual and community groups, sporting organisations etc...

The tiny minority opposed to the involvement of the RCC in Irish society do not represent Irish society any more than the tiny minority who are opposed to other religions, represent Irish society. They’re free to claim they do of course.

Baggly

Mod

As massive craic as this thread is, it is

-no craic
-far far far away from the OP
-no craic.

This is AH lads. Get back on topic and become more lighthearted, or we will close or move the thread.

99problems1

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I wouldnt mind it. Dole at 16, education is for chumps, then when I do realise its worth I can get reserved places on some softy softy course like Social care. Housing I jump to the head of the queue, dont need no deposit or anything because its the councils problem. When it doesnt suit me I can wreck the gaff and get a new one. All that stuff stupid settled people dont like "grabbing", "boxing", "child marriages", dropping out of education, respecting the law? Well you see Boss that's me culture....... and if you dont like it then you are a RACIST!!!

Thats a class lifestyle.

Also you get regular sex!

99problems1

My input:

America was an absolute mess and had loads of mass shootings with everyones favourite president Barry Obama. No one remember BLM being created during his term?

Ulysses Gaze

99problems1 wrote: »

My input:

America was an absolute mess and had loads of mass shootings with everyones favourite president Barry Obama. No one remember BLM being created during his term?

No-one mentions the fact that Barry also deported more illegal immigrants then any other president in US history up to that point either.

Bonniedog

99problems1 wrote: »

My input:

America was an absolute mess and had loads of mass shootings with everyones favourite president Barry Obama. No one remember BLM being created during his term?

Most dangerous run down parts of States are Democrat run cities. Many of them "sanctuary cities."

Chicago is almost as bad as NY in the early 1990s. Almost a murder every day. A few weeks ago two black women were shot dead when mounting a protest against the gangs who have parts of the city in terror. Not a word from the "anti fa" BLM types, Occasio Cortez or the sinister woman who has presided over a once peaceful city in Milwaukee being taken over by Somalian scum whose main victims are long time black residents. and she is leftie hero.

ArnoldJRimmer

99problems1 wrote: »

My input:

America was an absolute mess and had loads of mass shootings with everyones favourite president Barry Obama. No one remember BLM being created during his term?

Like every US president, and any prominent politician globally, not everything he did was right, and in some cases, just very bad. But people seem to forget that for most of his reign was hamstring by the Republicans who ran both houses and blocked him at every turn simply because he was a Democrat. Obama often spoke out against mass shootings, but couldn't do anything about it. Just look at the difficulties he ran into trying to introduce basic healthcare, something people in Ireland view as a basic human right

Mad_maxx

One eyed Jack wrote: »

kunst nugget wrote: »

And who defined the moral code in this country? Seriously, when your neighbour Pat was telling you that Mary was a slut and a fallen woman that brought shame on her family for getting pregnant outside of marriage, he wasn't licking it off the ground.

You seem to be throwing words into sentences in the hope that they'll make some sort of point...

I told you already who defined the moral code in this country - the upper classes who had the wealth and education to be able to enforce their moral codes on those who they deemed to be absent of morals. Generally they associated being poor with lacking morals, much the same as is done today. How Margaret Cash was treated is a prime example of how far some people like to think Irish society has progressed, but in reality it hasn’t at all.

The media portrayed Mrs cash as a hero, as did several left wing politicians

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

One eyed Jack wrote: »

kunst nugget wrote: »

And who defined the moral code in this country? Seriously, when your neighbour Pat was telling you that Mary was a slut and a fallen woman that brought shame on her family for getting pregnant outside of marriage, he wasn't licking it off the ground.

You seem to be throwing words into sentences in the hope that they'll make some sort of point...

I told you already who defined the moral code in this country - the upper classes who had the wealth and education to be able to enforce their moral codes on those who they deemed to be absent of morals. Generally they associated being poor with lacking morals, much the same as is done today. How Margaret Cash was treated is a prime example of how far some people like to think Irish society has progressed, but in reality it hasn’t at all.

The media portrayed Mrs cash as a hero, as did several left wing politicians, regular people saw her for the welfare drawing lifer she is

One eyed Jack

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The media portrayed Mrs cash as a hero, as did several left wing politicians, regular people saw her for the welfare drawing lifer she is

I was talking about her portrayal here on Boards though, among regular folk. It was no different to the same attitudes perpetuated against social undesirables 10, 15, 20, 100 years ago. There’s been no social shift, and that’s what I think politically correct types don’t want to hear. It’s easier use a organisation like the RCC as a scapegoat to explain people’s cnutish behaviour then. However as it turns out - some people are just born that way.

OMM 0000

Did any of you see the recent study by Cornell University:

Racial Bias in Hate Speech and Abusive Language Detection Datasets

In other words:

Which racial group is the most racist?

The result:

Black people are substantially more racist than white people.

Why is no one on the left talking about this?

Mad_maxx

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The media portrayed Mrs cash as a hero, as did several left wing politicians, regular people saw her for the welfare drawing lifer she is

I was talking about her portrayal here on Boards though, among regular folk. It was no different to the same attitudes perpetuated against social undesirables 10, 15, 20, 100 years ago. There’s been no social shift, and that’s what I think politically correct types don’t want to hear. It’s easier use a organisation like the RCC as a scapegoat to explain people’s cnutish behaviour then. However as it turns out - some people are just born that way.

She's a professional scrounger, stop painting her as entitled to admiration, face your guns on where they should be, not on the middle Ireland tax payer supporting this parasite

Il Fascista

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Did any of you see the recent study by Cornell University:

Racial Bias in Hate Speech and Abusive Language Detection Datasets

In other words:

Which racial group is the most racist?

The result:

Black people are substantially more racist than white people.

Why is no one on the left talking about this?

I'm surprised that anyone finds this surprising. If you say X group committing racism is the worst thing in the world, and say Y group committing racism is justified; then such an outcome should be obvious and inevitable.

Mad_maxx

Mad_maxx wrote: »

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The media portrayed Mrs cash as a hero, as did several left wing politicians, regular people saw her for the welfare drawing lifer she is

I was talking about her portrayal here on Boards though, among regular folk. It was no different to the same attitudes perpetuated against social undesirables 10, 15, 20, 100 years ago. There’s been no social shift, and that’s what I think politically correct types don’t want to hear. It’s easier use a organisation like the RCC as a scapegoat to explain people’s cnutish behaviour then. However as it turns out - some people are just born that way.

She's a professional scrounger, stop painting her as entitled to admiration, face your guns on where they should be, not on the middle Ireland tax payer supporting this parasite, she signified the grotesque entitlement culture so prevelent on this country

The only thing equally grotesque is listening to the faux D4 socialists ( that includes you) lecturing middle Ireland about how Mrs cash is a victim who needs more of their tax euros

Mad_maxx

PS, what clown changed the platform - layout of the site, it's horrendous

Sardonicat

@Jack
I hear you're a socialist now, Father (!)

One eyed Jack

Mad_maxx wrote: »

She's a professional scrounger, stop painting her as entitled to admiration, face your guns on where they should be, not on the middle Ireland tax payer supporting this parasite, she signified the grotesque entitlement culture so prevelent on this country

The only thing equally grotesque is listening to the faux D4 socialists ( that includes you) lecturing middle Ireland about how Mrs cash is a victim who needs more of their tax euros

I’m not painting Ms. Cash as anything. It was the way she was portrayed here on Boards is what I was commenting on, using her as an example of the way attitudes towards undesirables hasn’t actually changed, and where once people had an excuse for it, now they have none.

Btw if you want to know what a faux socialist looks like, you won’t do much better than Peter Casey, the millionaire businessman who in order to further his own political ambitions, tapped into the resentment and begrudery felt among some people in Irish society towards people they view as social undesirables. It’s the very definition of political correctness!

Bonniedog

I don't think Casey would consider himself to be a socialist!

Bit of a chancer. In Hot Press interview after the Presidential election he said he was in favour of mass immigration, abortion and gay marriage.

In the euros in May when he realised his new image was getting nowhere he just mentioned immigration off hand and the reaction of the luuvies howling him down was enough to get him a big vote.

He is not a nationalist, but has gulled people into voting for him by cleverly provoking the totalising left.

You'd don't make a lot of money by being stupid I suppose.

One eyed Jack

Bonniedog wrote: »

I don't think Casey would consider himself to be a socialist!

Bit of a chancer. In Hot Press interview after the Presidential election he said he was in favour of mass immigration, abortion and gay marriage.

In the euros in May when he realised his new image was getting nowhere he just mentioned immigration off hand and the reaction of the luuvies howling him down was enough to get him a big vote.

He is not a nationalist, but has gulled people into voting for him by cleverly provoking the totalising left.

You'd don't make a lot of money by being stupid I suppose.

I don’t think he’d consider himself to be socialist either, he expresses socialist philosophy when it’s politically convenient for him, or as you suggest when he sees an opportunity to make money off the backs of the idiots who thought of him as representing “the ordinary middle class people of Ireland” :pac: