nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Publicly unacceptable opinions

Undividual

I posted on the recent referendum and probably deserved a lot of the flak I got for my posts. I was trying to work things out in my head so I don't mind any of that tbh. It did make me think however about unacceptable opinions to voice in public. I've seen other posters get labeled (perhaps correctly) as racist/bigoted etc for discussing some issues online, but to me the problem is that they cant be discussed in real life, as in bad ideas/logic should be challenged openly.

Below are some of my unpalatable opinions:

1) I'm afraid of the effects of Islam on the West (less about terrorism than segregated societies/Sharia law/child grooming gangs etc) and our governments willingness to accept more refugees from Muslim countries. To clarify, I dont believe this will be a problem for Ireland in the next ten years. I have Muslim family members who have assimilated (obviously) to Irish culture, but I feel the discussion in Ireland about the specific difficulties in assimilating Islam are not really broached. I realize it is probably not logical to worry at this point, as we haven't had a terrorist attack in Ireland or any scandal with Muslims here.

2) It really annoys me that the problems between the settled community and the traveller community are never adequately addressed. There are a lot of liberal minded people who would rather defend supposedly oppressed minorities than treat them as fallible humans. I remember a Slavoj Zizek interview where he asked a liberal "Should they live beside you?" The answer obviously wasn't yes. I don't mind segregation up to a point, but what does it say about the settled community's values that the illiteracy rate among travelers is so high? Is it not the duty of the state to try to give every child the same chance at life, regardless?

3) As I get older, I find that I respect women less than men. In general I find men to be more stoic about their situations. I find more women than men to have unrealistic expectations, particularly about relationships. What I would call the feminization of society (therapy culture, obsession with the abolition of traditional gender roles etc) has created a generation of men who are undoubtedly good fathers, though I worry what kind of men these men will raise. A woman in her late 50s recently said to me that she was alone and that no one called in to her. I asked her why she didn't just leave the house. She said "And go where?" If a man said that to me, I would probably laugh in his face.

4) I prefer gay men to lesbians (settle down). I have a lesbian family member who has been overly aggressive towards me in the past, in a way that I don't think she would have been with my female relatives. I do understand that as a lesbian, men must seem like a mixture of nuisances, competitors and outright pests, so it doesn't bother me that much, but it's a pain to be treated differently for what you are rather than who you are (upon re-reading, I realize this may sound ironic). I find most gay men I've met to be funny and easy to talk to, even if less than I thought (hoped) were attracted to me.

And yes, I am Hitler.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PlaneSpeeking

CowGoesMoo100 wrote: »

I was being sarcastic referring to a line at the beginning of their most famous song. Don't ask how I know that...

Oh God it's flooding back!!!!!!!!

whisky_galore

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If you're crossing Abbey St in front of the Grand Central and have a green man - if a cyclist hares towards you, you should be allowed to defend yourself as he us breaking the law and you are not.

How are you going to do that, pray tell?

dr.fuzzenstein

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I actually agree that golf is a horribly wasteful sport. I would prefer if it didn't exist and the land could be put to good use. And people in the likes of Arizona wouldn't then be using scarce water to keep their stupid golf courses green.

Well, they attract the type of tourist Ireland wants. Fly in, rent a car, straight off to the hotel, golf every day, tourist shops, pub lunch and maybe stop at the side of the road, take a few pictures to show how "scenic" and "full of unspoilt nature" Ireland is.
Because the other type of tourist will stay in B&Bs, want to hike through the countryside (Jesus, can't be having that, countryside is for livestock not tourists trampeling through!), buy sandwiches and otherwise are skinflints and tightwads.
They can kindly fcuk off, since they don't spend any money anyway.
That's why Ireland builds Tourist Centers, where tourists can look at pictures of scenic Ireland in a safe and controlled environmemt and look! There's a cafe and giftshop!

ohnonotgmail

whisky_galore wrote: »

How are you going to do that, pray tell?

a swift kick to their front wheel?

PlaneSpeeking

whisky_galore wrote: »

How are you going to do that, pray tell?

Well I have limited mobility due to an injury/condition so running out of the way is not an option.

PlaneSpeeking

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a swift kick to their front wheel?

Not sure I could manage that tbh!

Yer Da sells Avon

A golf course near me closed down recently. There's something very beautiful about a former playground for silly-trousered folk slowly returning to nature.

MonkeyTennis

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

A golf course near me closed down recently. There's something very beautiful about a former playground for silly-trousered folk slowly returning to nature.

Pics?

sbsquarepants

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

A golf course near me closed down recently. There's something very beautiful about a former playground for silly-trousered folk slowly returning to nature.

I can stand golf, but I love golf trousers!

dr.fuzzenstein

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I can stand golf, but I love golf trousers!

It's an excuse for middle aged white men to dress like black pimps.

sbsquarepants

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's an excuse for middle aged white men to dress like black pimps.

I just don't know why they have to ruin then by hitting a stupid little ball around a field. I'd be all for it if we could just put on our nice trousers and go take care of bidness

PlaneSpeeking

sbsquarepants wrote: »

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's an excuse for middle aged white men to dress like black pimps.

I just don't know why they have to ruin then by hitting a stupid little ball around a field. I'd be all for it if we could just put on our nice trousers and go take care of bidness

Yo GangSTAH!!!!

(I might have done that wrong!!)

[Deleted User]

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If you're crossing Abbey St in front of the Grand Central and have a green man - if a cyclist hares towards you, you should be allowed to defend yourself as he us breaking the law and you are not.

I find big shoulders help, though you've mentioned a mobility difficulty, so this may not suit you. Making it difficult for them to get through is the objective, either by becoming the obstacle yourself or distracting them or whatever.

Have you any tips on how to deal with the one or two or three cars/buses/trucks that go through the red light when you're waiting with a child to cross?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5VGuJvOVk

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a swift kick to their front wheel?

Probably not a great idea - it's not a solid surface, so it will probably drag your foot with it, and take you off balance as a result.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No the junkies are completely innocent, it's those pesky well to do professional types sneaking into shít hole estates and tricking the little angels into taking gear by telling them it's health food I'd say.:eek:

Addiction stems from poor choices considerably more often than it does from wise choices - that should be fairly clear to us all, no?
I'm no statistician, but I'd be fairly certain there is a direct relationship between poor decisions and poor outcomes.

Have you noticed the direct relationship being being poor, and poor decisions/outcomes? Do you reckon this is entirely coincidental?

Taytoland

Everything I say is seen as unacceptable, so yeah.

Gwynplaine

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If you're crossing Abbey St in front of the Grand Central and have a green man - if a cyclist hares towards you, you should be allowed to defend yourself as he us breaking the law and you are not.

A flying clothesline, Ultimate Warrior style.
I fukcing hate cyclists.

Hotblack Desiato

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If you're crossing Abbey St in front of the Grand Central and have a green man - if a cyclist hares towards you, you should be allowed to defend yourself as he us breaking the law and you are not.

Jam a rolled up umbrella into the spokes, job done. Next!

Hotblack Desiato

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, they attract the type of tourist Ireland wants. Fly in, rent a car, straight off to the hotel, golf every day, tourist shops, pub lunch and maybe stop at the side of the road, take a few pictures to show how "scenic" and "full of unspoilt nature" Ireland is.

that's fine off in some boghole somewhere, but not within the M50.

[Deleted User]

Gwynplaine wrote: »

I fukcing hate cyclists.

Because?

dr.fuzzenstein

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

that's fine off in some boghole somewhere, but not within the M50.

Not that different, fly in and then hotel, shop, restaurant, pub, repeat every day with the Guinness Store House thrown in there somewhere and the Book of Kells.

Undividual

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Undividual wrote: »

So could someone decide that football stadiums, cinemas or restaurants are redundant also?

If they're not making efficient use of the site they're on, then yes.

But playing football, going to the cinema or eating out use far less land and are not activities which are dying on their arse.

Heavy property taxes are needed to ensure that properties in important urban locations are used efficiently, or else sold to someone else who will. This is what they do in that bastion of communism, the USA.

What gives anyone the right to tell someone else what should be done with their property?

According to the constitution, private property can be seized in the interests of the common good on payment of compensation. Prime development sites in Dublin city are far too important to be wasted on a few old duffers hitting golf balls around.

Seems quite totalitarian to me. I believe Ireland has had enough of the social welfare mindset. Although the constitution may outline that, I doubt the original intention was so rich people could no longer play golf. More likely it was to allow the government to purchase land to build roads and railways.

Regardless of that, there is plenty of room in Dublin to build housing. To specify re-appropriation as a potential solution to the housing crisis opens up more problems than it solves. By that logic, anyone living in a house with a big garden where apartments could be built would be eligible for appropriation. Imagine the urban sprawl that this would involve in addition to the general lack of morality involved in punishing people (landowners) who have done nothing wrong.

I'd prefer to see a government actually give de-centralization a genuine attempt. No need for half of Ireland to be living in 3 or 4 counties.

Billgirlylegs

Gwynplaine wrote: »

A flying clothesline, Ultimate Warrior style.
I fukcing hate cyclists.

When did this opinion become publicly unacceptable?

sbsquarepants

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you noticed the direct relationship being being poor, and poor decisions/outcomes? Do you reckon this is entirely coincidental?

You think rich people don't become addicts?

Your honour, I wish to enter into the record the case of one Mr. Carlos Irwin Estevev, aka Charlie Sheen.

If it was down to being poor how would that be the case. Bad decisions are bad decisions, rich or poor makes no difference.

Undividual

Gwynplaine wrote: »

I fukcing hate cyclists.

As a knight of the road, your hatred only feeds us.

Once fossil fuels are phased out, we will unite and form our own political party.

BIKE POWER! BIKE POWER!

Shenshen

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You think rich people don't become addicts?

Your honour, I wish to enter into the record the case of one Mr. Carlos Irwin Estevev, aka Charlie Sheen.

If it was down to being poor how would that be the case. Bad decisions are bad decisions, rich or poor makes no difference.

Rich people have more of a net to fall into, so they can make more bad decisions without it instantly ruining their lives, I think.

Poor people will feel the effect of a bad decision more immediately, and much more painfully.

[Deleted User]

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You think rich people don't become addicts?

Your honour, I wish to enter into the record the case of one Mr. Carlos Irwin Estevev, aka Charlie Sheen.

If it was down to being poor how would that be the case. Bad decisions are bad decisions, rich or poor makes no difference.

Eh no, if I wanted to say that 'rich people don't become addicts', I'm well capable of saying that myself. It really doesn't help any kind of sensible discussion if you go making up stuff that I didn't say just so you can argue with it.

But when you have a sec, please do explain your theory about why heroin blights poor parts of cities in a much more significant way than rich parts of cities all over the world?

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

When did this opinion become publicly unacceptable?

It's a good question. Let's put aside the petty small-mindedness of choose to hate somebody simply based on their choice of mode of transport on any given day, and the sheer impracticality of trying to work out whether you still hate the cyclist on the day he takes the bus or the car just for a moment.

So why is it publically acceptable to say that you hate this one particular group. Is it the last remaining group that it's safe to hate? Are the haters the people that would otherwise have been hating on jews, or blacks or gays but get a bit frustrated at this 'pc gone mad' world when you can't proclaim how much you hate people any more, so they pick on cyclists instead?

sbsquarepants

Shenshen wrote: »

Rich people have more of a net to fall into, so they can make more bad decisions without it instantly ruining their lives, I think.

Poor people will feel the effect of a bad decision more immediately, and much more painfully.

I agree entirely, but that's a separate issue really. At the end of the day it's still the poor decision that's to blame for their troubles, not the fact that they're poor. You can poor and disadvantaged and still not end up strung out on meth. You can rich with every privilege in the world and still end up addicted.

Poverty might make things worse - but then poverty tends to make everything worse. There aren't too many problems that can be alleviated by just being that little bit poorer!

sbsquarepants

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh no, if I wanted to say that 'rich people don't become addicts', I'm well capable of saying that myself. It really doesn't help any kind of sensible discussion if you go making up stuff that I didn't say just so you can argue with it.

You said there was a direct relationship between being poor and making bad decisions, I'm merely pointing out that's not necessarily the case. Charlie was born rich and then went on to earn money that Ronaldo could only dream of - yet went completely off the rails.

Ronaldo on the other hand actually was born poor, into a family of addicts and is probably as clean living as they come.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But when you have a sec, please do explain your theory about why heroin blights poor parts of cities in a much more significant way than rich parts of cities all over the world?

I don't know. Escapism? Availability? Affordability? Peer pressure?

What's your theory?

It's basically the opposite for cocaine - much more prevalent in more well to do areas. Why?

ohnonotgmail

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh no, if I wanted to say that 'rich people don't become addicts', I'm well capable of saying that myself. It really doesn't help any kind of sensible discussion if you go making up stuff that I didn't say just so you can argue with it.

But when you have a sec, please do explain your theory about why heroin blights poor parts of cities in a much more significant way than rich parts of cities all over the world?

It is certainly more visible in poorer parts of cities. It is much easier to hide heroin addiction when you dont have to steal the money for your next fix.

dermo888

Skangers are a scourge and must be eliminated.

sbsquarepants

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is certainly more visible in poorer parts of cities. It is much easier to hide heroin addiction when you dont have to steal the money for your next fix.

I think this is most likely the answer - money hides and offers a security net for a whole load of things. If you are rich and an addict - you can just buy drugs, if you're poor and an addict your first problem is you need to get money to buy drugs, very often by stealing or begging.

Your not any less of an addict by virtue of being rich, but you're certainly less of a visible nuisance.