PopePalpatine wrote: » Neither of those parties are in government, which comprises the centre-right Poroshenko Bloc and the nationalist People's Front as the junior partner
marienbad wrote: » It is not the SJW warriors (as ye like to call any one that disagrees with ye ) running around shouting Sieg Heil
osmiumartist wrote: » Howld on there a minute. You're telling us the People's Front, a breakaway from the Fatherland (I kid you not) party aren't neo-nazis? Mmmmk...
osmiumartist wrote: » No, they're starting riots to get Clinton into power so she can continue backing jihadi stone age lunatics from Libya to Afghanistan. So much better to be shooting women for showing their face and throwing gay men off towers than have 10 guys doing seig heils at a rally where half of the attendees are journalists.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » That's a keeper.
osmiumartist wrote: » Maybe. Anything of substance to add?
marienbad wrote: » What do you propose instead of ''empowering minorities '' ?
marienbad wrote: » Gerrymandering as we had in Northern Ireland for 60 years and happening in some states in the USA right now ? Bring back slavery , fire up those oven , babymakers get back in the home where ye belong ? What ? It is not the SJW warriors (as ye like to call any one that disagrees with ye ) running around shouting Sieg Heil
AnGaelach wrote: » Meritocracy. Opposition to "progressive" ideas doesn't necessitate supporting regression. I can call both sides out on being the idiots that they are.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Being against progression and against regression means everybody stays where they are. That's unfair and boring.
osmiumartist wrote: » They're pointless phrases. It's the functional equivalent of saying you like what you like because you like it.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » You're right. But I didn't want to point it out to him as baldly as that.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » There is much merit in what you say but I think it's not confined to feminism. Polarisation mitigates progression towards an equitable society.
marienbad wrote: » Are you saying we haven't made progress towards a more accepting society ?
Widdershins wrote: » Progress, to me, has always meant positive change. What self proclaimed progressives talk about lately is rarely positive and is often a case of change for the sake of change, and trying to fix what isn't broken, or fix things in a way that only makes other peoples lives worse.
osmiumartist wrote: » You obviously didn't want to upset yourself either.
Count Dooku wrote: » Sometimes it is safer to take a break rather than rush unprepared society for new ideas There are more important things to do, for example improving economy But for SJW it is very boring, because it requires hard work
marienbad wrote: The last government managed to improve the economy (however imperfectly), also managed to fcuk-up Irish water - and still brought forward the SSM referendum !
marienbad wrote: » Can you give a few examples ?
AnGaelach wrote: » I think we call that Conservative.:o
Widdershins wrote: » Gender Quotas!
marienbad wrote: » Are you speaking just about gender quotas or all quota systems ? really ? The employment of catholics in NI or the employment of people of colour in the USA , for instance ? are you seriously contending that change would have come about naturally ? Can you give any other examples of all these progressives you talk about with their ''self proclaimed progressives talk about lately is rarely positive and is often a case of change for the sake of change, and trying to fix what isn't broken, or fix things in a way that only makes other peoples lives worse.''
Widdershins wrote: » When there is an appropriate method of instigating change, use it. Never at the expense of the better candidate or anyone else. Fairness comes before change. Change is not a goal in itself.
marienbad wrote: » 'Change is not a goal in itself' is not what is being talked about , you said it yourself ''Fairness comes before change'' Was the following fair ? the system of little of no catholics in Queens or the Police service in NI, no people of colour in any other than menial jobs in the USA , or married women in the Irish Finance dept ? And remember the need for change in all the above investigated ad nauseam and were resisted for decades and often with violence . Our own government even fought the then EEC all the way on the married women issue right to the bitter end. When those systems created using your mantra of ''Never at the expense of the better candidate '' You can't be seriously disputing any of this . So again I ask what are all these changes your progressive friends are demanding that are so annoying ?
Widdershins wrote: » It's *not* annoying to demand change where a need for improvement has been identified. A long as it's done in a considered and fair way!
oscarBravo wrote: » Jesus. Sorry, women and minorities, we can't address your problems because of a lack of resources. Yes, I know, it's not about resources, but people won't shut up about resources anyway, so you're just going to have to keep having problems, because some people are stubbornly wedded to the idea that everything is a zero-sum game. I honestly can't get my head around such a pig-headed determination to miss the point of the illustration that people resort to counting frigging boxes - even after they're told it's not about resources.
