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

marieholmfan

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Cyclists who thinks the world revolves around them and the shines out of their a**e and will accept zero responsibility for ANY bad cyclists behaviour.

Yet can happily parrot anti car statistics that came from the same place as they thought the sun did in response.

It's purely Pavlovian at this point.

Muggers with guns have TECHNICALLY killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists. Does that mean we excuse ISIS and let them do whatever they want while we demonise muggers ??? Idiotic point of view at best.

What's this we business. Are you now or have you ever been an American?

PlaneSpeeking

marieholmfan wrote: »

What's this we business. Are you now or have you ever been an American?

Huh ? What a wierd technicality to jump on!!!!

Okay - read YANKS instead of WE.

Clearly the use of the abstract, societal "we" is lacking in your vocabulary.

keffiyeh

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Huh ? What a wierd technicality to jump on!!!!

Okay - read YANKS instead of WE.

Clearly the use of the abstract, societal "we" is lacking in your vocabulary.

As the poster above said; we live in Ireland's society, not American's.

What a toxic poster you are. Spreading nothing but hate and extremism. While having a go at others like me for trying to spread moderation and rationality. Tut Tut.

PlaneSpeeking

keffiyeh wrote: »

As the poster above said; we live in Ireland's society, not American's.

What a toxic poster you are. Spreading nothing but hate and extremism. While having a go at others like me for trying to spread moderation and rationality. Tut Tut.

Still waiting on the proof for the slur you cast at me.

keffiyeh

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Still waiting on the proof for the slur you cast at me.

Posted it two days ago.

PlaneSpeeking

keffiyeh wrote: »

Posted it two days ago.

You did not.

Thread - post number - or be silent.

ohnonotgmail

keffiyeh wrote: »

Posted it two days ago.

can you link to the post?

marieholmfan

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Huh ? What a wierd technicality to jump on!!!!

Okay - read YANKS instead of WE.

Clearly the use of the abstract, societal "we" is lacking in your vocabulary.

They're foreigners and we haven't done anything about ISIS full stop and we aren't going to. Ye have your society and we have ours. I certainly don't want to live in an American style society.

keffiyeh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you link to the post?

Someone talking to you?

If you think I'm trawling through posts to please dumbass trolls you have another thing coming.

I posted two links. A page defining it and even a story from the last few days where it happened on a company's Twitter account and caused a bit of internet drama. Missed the post? Your problem.

ohnonotgmail

keffiyeh wrote: »

Someone talking to you?

If you think I'm trawling through posts to please dumbass trolls you have another thing coming.

I posted two links. A page defining it and even a story from the last few days where it happened on a company's Twitter account and caused a bit of internet drama. Missed the post? Your problem.

you haven't posted on this thread for two weeks until today. Perhaps you have your accounts mixed up?

keffiyeh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you only made the allegation a day ago yet you claim that you posted links 2 days ago. I really do think you have your accounts mixed up.

Then that would require a separate account posting the exact same links, and yet you managed to miss both?

Or, I just don't give a **** how long it was and I'm not a sad act tracking people's posts.

Think before you troll.

freshpopcorn

Mod Note Stop with the bickering and keep thing on topic.

Kivaro

And that's a publicly acceptable opinion.

weldoninhio

JeffKenna wrote: »

Just used a tool called google which shows a few different sources stating the €14m. I'm not sure why you would claim the €14m couldn't be further from the truth, he signed on a Bosman in 2004...rumored to have got a substantial signing on fee and was on £25,000 a week thereafter.

Rumoured. There’s your first mistake. He signed on a Bosman, that’s true, but he wouldn’t have gotten a huge signing on fee.

£25k a week for how long? 2 years, with one of them in the Championship with Leeds?

That comes to £2.4m

Was that in a contract WORTH £25k a week, or a flat rate of £25k, with none of it linked to appearances, win bonuses, trophies won, staying injury free??

How much tax was paid on the £25k a week??

weldoninhio

JeffKenna wrote: »

Just used a tool called google which shows a few different sources stating the €14m. I'm not sure why you would claim the €14m couldn't be further from the truth, he signed on a Bosman in 2004...rumored to have got a substantial signing on fee and was on £25,000 a week thereafter.

[Deleted User]

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Cyclists who thinks the world revolves around them and the shines out of their a**e and will accept zero responsibility for ANY bad cyclists behaviour.

Yet can happily parrot anti car statistics that came from the same place as they thought the sun did in response.

It's purely Pavlovian at this point.

Muggers with guns have TECHNICALLY killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists. Does that mean we excuse ISIS and let them do whatever they want while we demonise muggers ??? Idiotic point of view at best.

Why do you think cyclists as a group, or individual cyclists should be taking responsibility for the behaviour of some cyclists?

Do you, as a motorist, take responsibility for the motorists who killed 3 or 4 people on the road this week?

KevinCavan

That maybe there is some sense to the traditional role of the woman being a homemaker. I have seen numerous women who work, have babies and then long to be st home with their babies. It’s like women’s liberation has led to it being unacceptable for women to not work and this leads to internal conflict in women when they have children.

sbsquarepants

I don't think it's necessarily a female thing. I work and I have kids - there's no question in my mind where I'd rather spend the bulk of my time.
I work solely out of necessity, not desire!

weldoninhio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why do you think cyclists as a group, or individual cyclists should be taking responsibility for the behaviour of some cyclists?

Do you, as a motorist, take responsibility for the motorists who killed 3 or 4 people on the road this week?

Until stats come out to let us know how the cyclists die in RTAs we could just as easily assume it was the cyclists fault as the drivers.

PlaneSpeeking

weldoninhio wrote: »

Until stats come out to let us know how the cyclists die in RTAs we could just as easily assume it was the cyclists fault as the drivers.

Hear hear!

Chris_Heilong

KevinCavan wrote: »

That maybe there is some sense to the traditional role of the woman being a homemaker. I have seen numerous women who work, have babies and then long to be st home with their babies. It’s like women’s liberation has led to it being unacceptable for women to not work and this leads to internal conflict in women when they have children.

I think women should not be put into positions of power which involve social structor or running a country, because of their maternal instincts they will treat the down trodden/minority/fringe groups as poor/defenceless children/puppies that need to be looked after regardless of the consequences. This is a main factor in Merkel opening the door to all those refugees that came flooding into Europe, you should not make decisions based on emotion but on logic, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I am sure in many other positions women make great leaders, this is very new territory it is something we have not had during human history until recently.

Hotblack Desiato

Assigning groupthink to women (or men) on the basis of their gender is just incredibly sexist and dumb.

Maggie Thatcher was an actual mother but you didn't see much in the way of "maternal instinct" in her policies, did you?

[Deleted User]

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

KevinCavan wrote: »

That maybe there is some sense to the traditional role of the woman being a homemaker. I have seen numerous women who work, have babies and then long to be st home with their babies. It’s like women’s liberation has led to it being unacceptable for women to not work and this leads to internal conflict in women when they have children.

I think women should not be put into positions of power which involve social structor or running a country, because of their maternal instincts they will treat the down trodden/minority/fringe groups as poor/defenceless children/puppies that need to be looked after regardless of the consequences. This is a main factor in Merkel opening the door to all those refugees that came flooding into Europe, you should not make decisions based on emotion but on logic, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I am sure in many other positions women make great leaders, this is very new territory it is something we have not had during human history until recently.

Have you met Marie LePen? Or Sarah Palin? Or Lucinda from Renua? Or yer wan from the Irish Nationalist Party?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Assigning groupthink to women (or men) on the basis of their gender is just incredibly sexist and dumb.

Maggie Thatcher was an actual mother but you didn't see much in the way of "maternal instinct" in her policies, did you?

There will always be outliers and exceptions to the rule.

Undividual

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

KevinCavan wrote: »

That maybe there is some sense to the traditional role of the woman being a homemaker. I have seen numerous women who work, have babies and then long to be st home with their babies. It’s like women’s liberation has led to it being unacceptable for women to not work and this leads to internal conflict in women when they have children.

I think women should not be put into positions of power which involve social structor or running a country, because of their maternal instincts they will treat the down trodden/minority/fringe groups as poor/defenceless children/puppies that need to be looked after regardless of the consequences. This is a main factor in Merkel opening the door to all those refugees that came flooding into Europe, you should not make decisions based on emotion but on logic, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I am sure in many other positions women make great leaders, this is very new territory it is something we have not had during human history until recently.

Have you met Marie LePen? Or Sarah Palin? Or Lucinda from Renua? Or yer wan from the Irish Nationalist Party?

Or Justin Trudeau?

[Deleted User]

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Hear hear!

So you got around to jumping on this bandwagon, but you didn't have time to answer my question about why you apply collective responsibility to cyclists?

weldoninhio wrote: »

Until stats come out to let us know how the cyclists die in RTAs we could just as easily assume it was the cyclists fault as the drivers.

They're not RTAs. They are RTCs. Collisions, not accidents. Gardai call them collisions. RSA call them collisions. Let's not let people off the hook with this accident nonsense.

But on the substantive question, your assumption would not be a sound assumption. Here's why:

First of all, cyclist deaths are a very small part of the overall road deaths - about 5%. About 75% of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists or passengers. So you're not really going to find a credible way to blame cyclists or pedestrians for those. Another 20% are pedestrians killed by motorists and about 5% are cyclists.

So even if you were to assume that ALL cyclist deaths were the fault of the cyclists (which they're not) that still leaves 95% of road deaths at the hands of motorists. The cyclist numbers aren't significant in the overall picture.

And then let's look at the cyclist deaths themselves. These cases are generally very well reported, though possibly 2-3 years in arrears. They show up in court cases and coroner's inquests. They are also included in the RSA analyses of road deaths. So the causes are well known, and by and large, it is motorists at fault.

There were a handful of cases where cyclists were at fault. I'm thinking of the drunk guy who cycled onto the M1, the club cyclist who came off into a ditch during a steep descent in Wicklow, and the guy who cycled into the back of the car that parked to ask him directions in Cork. There's probably a couple more that I've missed, but the numbers are tiny. The remaining cases show cyclists killed by motorists.

This matches the international trend where research into cyclist/motorist collisions are generally the cause of the motorist. Research in London showed up about 70% motorist fault, Adelaide was about 80% motorist fault, Vancouver was 92% motorist fault.

But isn't it strange how some people are so desperate to blame victims?

HappyAsLarE

Women cherry pick professions that suit them. No labouring, climbing cranes, working sites.

Irish Kings

I know the current Irish state authorities are the ones responsible for administering justice for victims and dealing with the criminal Irish Bishops who conspired to cover up crimes.

[Deleted User]

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Women cherry pick professions that suit them. No labouring, climbing cranes, working sites.

And? Why is this an unacceptable opinion? I would have thought a woman climbing a crane would be more unacceptable!

Hector Bellend

There's an aussie bird that drinks in my local and she has a truly splendid arse on her.

Apparently it's unacceptable to compliment a girls arse these days.