B0jangles wrote: » It's like they compulsively check to see there is any personal benefit to themselves if an accomodation is made to help someone gain access to something would otherwise be closed off to them, and if there isn't they scream that it's NOT FAIR.
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » Do we really need all these posts to determine a hate crime? In this case it wasn't. Good night
Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: » I remember someone actually saying that they got ridiculed for being a Liverpool fc supporter in a discussion like this. What makes them so uncomfortable with the notion that people with certain unusual life affecting differences/disabilities deserve some dignity?
Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: » For me the issue is with people being more bothered about the words a rag paper put in a headline than what happened to Sinead - to the extent of minimising it. Is misuse of the term "hate crime" really so worth getting bothered by?
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » It's always interesting how many people on the right or perhaps the alt-right are only consumed by linguistics when it involves a socio-political debate.. "I can't be homophobic because I don't fear the gays" In this case, an act of hate is referring to the act of having contempt for a person's rights and their dignity. Whether you show such contempt because of a dislike for them, or sheer apathy towards another human being's feelings, to be so contemptuous is a hateful act.
Trump Is Right wrote: » So what? Some drunk chaps picked you up, and now you're part of that ever growing group in society that thinks they are victims...!? FFS! :rolleyes: Some people really need to toughen themselves up and stop being so quick to play the victim card... it's embarrassing. We are creating a nation of weaklings and softies! :P Previous generations would have laughed most of this stuff off and got on with their life... now it's some kind of big scandal. Please... Grow a pair!! :pac:
feargale wrote: » Have you ever heard of good manners?
rusty cole wrote: » She's trying to make a name for herself
rusty cole wrote: » yes we have and that's about all it is, bad manners by 16 year olds. She's trying to make a name for herself, I don't care if she's short or not. She's all over the press crying about it, boo hoo. it's not a hate crime.It's also not a crime to leap frog anyone against their will or without permission end of story. She wasn't violated as though she's trying to insinuate.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » try and think before you post. seriously.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Her condition is indeed a disability. I wonder how many of the big lads with the little jokes have been invited to Davos to hang out with Christine Lagarde, Will I Am, Oprah and more?https://extra.ie/2019/01/26/entertainment/celebrity/irish-activist-sinead-burke-tells-davos-disabled-people-need-platforms
Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: » I don't know if it was a hate crime either but wording is not as big a deal as what was done to the woman, and what she has to put up with constantly. No it wasn't. He got banned.
Teddy Daniels wrote: » Oh there’s no card on the post can you link the ban?
rusty cole wrote: » yes we have and that's about all it is, bad manners by 16 year olds. She's trying to make a name for herself, I don't care if she's short or not. She's all over the press crying about it, boo hoo. it's not a hate crime. It's also not a crime to leap frog anyone against their will or without permission end of story. She wasn't violated as though she's trying to insinuate.
Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: » https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109916593&postcount=108
Teddy Daniels wrote: » Is it ?
Teddy Daniels wrote: » Little people are not disabled.
seamus wrote: » Lots of tiny penises in this thread threatened that anyone other than a straight white man would have a voice in the media. Sad.
Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: » It's a lot more than bad manners and you know it. Is she "all over the press" or is it this one article? Only the spindo said it was a hate crime. She was of course violated. She was humiliated just because of her diminutive stature, and unable to defend herself. This is just one example of what she has to deal with on a regular basis due to having dwarfism. Why do you have a problem with her highlighting it? What is it that you find so objectionable? It's a weird thing to be so hostile about.
seamus wrote: Lots of tiny penises in this thread threatened that anyone other than a straight white man would have a voice in the media.
rusty cole wrote: » yea right, up there with Brexit.. terror now it is!
Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: » I don't get this stuff either. You're a straight white man aren't you? How do you know what size the other men's penises are? That's dumb-ass Joe.ie, not Sinead. I just don't understand why you are so angry towards her and so determined to downplay what she has to put up with, and so lacking in empathy. Yeah there is a large number of idiots who get offended by practically nothing, but she is not one of them - having dwarfism and having to deal with constant humiliation (this was only one such incident) and highlighting this, is not offence over nothing. And a person who doesn't have dwarfism saying it's no big deal - well their point of view doesn't mean sh1t. Just because there are all these really easily offended and triggered eejits out there, doesn't mean it's necessary to be harsh and indifferent even towards those who have genuine grievances.
rusty cole wrote: » OK Hermann Rorschach lets put this to bed. Angry at her?? eh no. Angry at the outcry and hate crime ****e? yes?. For the record If I was standing there, I'd have easily stood up for her, it's a lousy thing to do. I almost slapped a guy for telling a begger to Fook off and get a life once, so I'm not Hitler! it's simply not a hate crime. ok, we're settled on this now.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Just wondering if any of the big lads with the little jokes got invited to the Met Gala with Gaga and Soairse and Harry and Jared and got to write about it in Vogue?https://www.thejournal.ie/sinead-burke-met-gala-4623675-May2019/ No? That's a shocker.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » We're really not.