Your extrapolation is well off the mark there, a chara
isn't this where people come to 'whinge about sinn fein", so if the thread has gone quiet that must mean there is nothing about SF to whinge about
seems youre in here whinging about no-one else whinging about sinn fein
if you need a whinge fix, I suggest heading over to the zappone thread, or the ffg thread, lots of opportunity to vent your spleen on it, from were I am sat, it looks like the current govt are providing plenty of material for people to whinge about
id say that post didn't go exactly as you thought it might lol
Very quiet in here lately, almost like there's not much to whinge about
I'd be of the opinion that SF have been about as much use as a chocolate teapot through the pandemic and the most positive thing I could say about them is that at least during the early stages of the first lockdown when we were all scrambling around trying to work out what the hell was happening globally, they kept their mouths shut for a short while.
That being said, Government policy often does go against medical advice and indeed sometimes that medical advice has been ultra conservative, 'worst case scenario' based advice. One expects the Government to take medical advice onboard, but not to be blindly led by it at the expense of everything else. On lockdowns alone for example, NPHET are purely concerned with public health, anything outside the scope of public health does not factor into their advice. The government have to consider, for example the economic impact of those recommendations and find a balance which means that the negative impacts on the economy (which itself has a human cost) don't overshadow the benefits of just blindly following the purely medical advice.
Disagreeing with precisely how the government found that balance doesn't make one anti-Science, nor does it mean one is ignoring medical advice any more than it makes one economically illiterate to believe that they should've followed the medical advice more thoroughly.
Well, exactly. That is my point.
It is only an 'opinion' if it isn't party policy. Kinda basic understanding of politics is it not?
I just googled randomly here and came up with FG's Brian Hayes (remember him!) as a front bench TD getting himself and his party in bother when he expressed his lovely opinion that immigrant schoolchildren should be segregated until they learnt English.
Now I would have voted for FG when Brian made his opinion known because I KNEW that wasn't party policy. Loads of examples like this across the political sphere in Ireland and elsewhere.
'Opinions' as they say Mark, 'are like a******s, everyone has one'.
So unless you can show that it is party policy, it's a big 'meh' from me.
Letting unvax kids into pubs/restsuramts is going againest medical advice🤔
Obvious infersion here,yous also believe the government should resign over it?
Sure, anti-science and anti-vaxx nonsense is just SF and others giving their opinion.
The opposition don't 'act' Mark, they give an opinion as part of their mandate, the government 'act' and this government went against the medical advice and many suffered and died. Facts again.
Ah right, going against medical advice is just 'differing' opinions.
Just like anti-vaxxers have 'differing' opinions. You are like a broken record on the subject and stern defence of all things SF.
She was complaining about discrimination which is the very definition of 'woke'.
'alert to racial or social discrimination'
No need to worry about your uwawakened state since wokeness doesn't apply in this case. Conway Walsh's comparison would have been stupid and ridiculous 10, 20, or 30 years ago before you, I or the OED had heard of wokeness. Ditto Mattie McGrath.
At least she apologised.
So not much of a 'problem' created so.
I would see 'wokeism' as an over exaggeration of the offence caused by remarks like this. In that sense, I am not very 'woke'.
I think people who indulge in wokeism are not very genuine.
The "problem" is, as I posted previously, that "Conway Walsh's comment displays a lack of historical perspective and a lack of proportionality. (As did Mattie McGrath's "mark of the beast" comment)".
You were asked if she was right to offer the ridiculous comparison she made. Reasonably enough, you said no. If you had left it at that I wouldn't have posted on this issue. However you equivocated by the dismissive "So what" and the equally dismissive (and in this case inaccurate) reference to wokeness.
What 'problem'?
She made an inappropriate comparison and apologised for it. Saying 'she shouldn't have said it and asking the simple 'so what' question was compared defending somebody 'saying the Nazi's were right' a few posts ago, would you see a problem in blanch's high moral ground over exaggeration
Thanks for the interesting link. It's irrelevant unless by claiming to be "not very woke" you are admitting to being not "well informed" and perhaps didn't know who Rosa Parks was. And even those not particularly "alert to racial or social discrimination" are likely aware of the desegregation movement of the 50's and 60's and its place in the history of slavery and its consequences.
"So what?" you ask. Conway Walsh's remark sought to equate a temporary public health measure temporaily restricting a leisure activity with one important step in a centuries long struggle for basic human rights. I don't think you have to be woke to see a problem.
It deosnt matter when it applies to his side....like the man defenda open corruption to the hilt
But loses his cool are people comparied segregating unvax and vaxinated people to rosa parks and apoligised (because its a poor comparison)....wee bit insincere imo,
SHe shouldn't have said it. It was wrong...that is why she shouldn't have said it.
You are a gas, if somewhat dangerous, man for creating stances for people and then ranting about them.
I introduced two politicians who have said stuff they shouldn't have to see where you think this fits. But I see once again that you are going to run and run from questions again
He said she shouldnt have said it.....kind of splitting hairs theres between saying she was wrong?
Maybe she should resign??
There you are again, you can't just say that she was wrong. You have to say "so what", you have to introduce Leo to the discussion.
I think I have already said she shouldn't have said it.
Misrepresenting/lying again?
I'm asking you to place this on the order of crimes against humanity by asking 'so what?'
Is it as bad as Enda telling an 'N' joke. Leo demeaning those on benefits. Where does it fit?
Have at it.
So then show us were SF's anti-science policy is.
Having a different opinion to NPHET is not to be 'anti-science'...if that is the case there are a lot of anti-science parties in Ireland FF FG and the Greens to be exact.
That isn't what I said, but you twist away as always.
Any answer to the 'So what?' bit?
I'm sure you can climb up onto some high moral ground about it.
So whatever a councillor or member says in a party, that then can be taken for the party's policy?
Who knew!
Given the definition that you have posted - alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice - I wouldn't be proudly shouting from the rooftops that you are not very woke.
I would have guessed that anyway from some of your clumsy suggestions as to how to respond to the unionist culture in the North.
Yes, it is. They have consistently called for the pubs to be reopened in the face of all scientific advice. It is playing to the gallery at its worst.
They also exploit the Irish nod-and-wink culture, we can't openly say 9/11 was a conspiracy or that vaccines are bad for you, but look at what some of our representatives let slip.
View OED entry
#staywoke. In the last few years, the injunction to ‘stay woke’ in the face of racial discrimination or social injustice has ensured that woke, an originally African-American variant of woken or awake, has received wide currency and considerable attention. Woke was among the candidates for Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year in 2016, when its development and usage were explored by Nicole Holliday for the OxfordWords Blog. The OED is currently seeking any contextual evidence (i.e. not from a glossary or definition) of woke meaning ‘well informed’ or ‘alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice’ that dates from earlier than 2008.
Plenty of differing opinions in all parties aa we know.
Is anti-science SF party policy=nope
Absolutely nothing to do with being woke. Conway Walsh's comment displays a lack of historical perspective and a lack of proportionality. (As did Mattie McGrath's "mark of the beast" comment).
That's great Francie.
SF cant spout all the anti-science nonsense it wants, and sure it's grand because they are not in government to enact any of their witch doctor nonsense. So the question then is, why support them? Clearly, you support their anti-science stance on things.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
