Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Liberals who aren't liberal

24567…11

Comments

  • #52
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    This is regressive leftism OP not liberalism.

    I know it's confusing because regressive leftists will often refer to themselves as liberals but believe me they're not.

    Classical Liberalism is a completely different thing and it's entirely unfair to paint it with the crazy brush. It would be like comparing your average run of the mill conservative to a neo Nazi.


  • #53
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭nthclare


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    1/ None of that happened.
    2/ None of the things you described would be assigned to those who are called SJW's.
    3/ None of that happened.

    You finally caught up with me :)


  • #54
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭nthclare


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You ok Hun?

    Sounds like you might have some post-break up issues to work through.
    Maybe you should talk to someone.
    Not me. I can't be doing with that kind of supportive sh*te.

    Lol, well why are you concerned about my post-break up issues ?

    I never would have thought you thought I'd want to talk to you about my post break up "issues"

    Thanks for your contradictory support :)


  • #55
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭nthclare


    randd1 wrote: »
    Was she at least good looking?

    6"2 36 Inch legs size 10 and flaming red hair..


  • #56
    The Pheasant2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,699 ✭✭✭The Pheasant2


    I am willing to agree the importation of identity politics from the States is toxic and damaging to our society - when people (idiots) try to apply it here while failing to recognise we've an entirely different cultural context to that ****hole across the Atlantic, with nowhere near the same levels of social conflict/tensions.
    Effectively creating issues and division where none exist.
    Hearing someone going on about "White people" in IRELAND never fails to elicit a roll of the eyes from me - it's like "You're from rural Kilkenny, you're also as white as they come, what the fúck is your actual point?"


  • #57
    ArchXStanton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭ArchXStanton


    nthclare wrote: »
    I had a girlfriend who was a liberal, she was a pain in the arse to be honest.

    Condoned Islamic extremists, condoned her son going around with rotten teeth from smoking dubes and taking speed.
    Didn't see anything wrong with it, condoned him treating his wife like crap....he was married at 20 ran out of it by 25
    His wife had enough of his drinking and drug's, it was all her fault


    She was a typical SJW

    I found out after herself and her SJW friends decided to strip naked lie in a field and do a bush out protest when President Bush came to Ireland....
    So they got their bush out and fed two bird's with the one scone bllsht

    Bunch of crusty snowflakes...

    They're all bullies those sjw's

    I know a one like this, sjw/virtue signaller extraordinaire, funniest was there a while ago when she put up a post about men's day and about men's mental health... Given the way she's treated men in the past, I'm sure they could trace there mental health issues back to her, always posting life quotes that she certainly doesn't live by


  • #58
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭nthclare


    ArchXStanton wrote: »
    I know a one like this, sjw/virtue signaller extraordinaire, funniest was there a while ago when she put up a post about men's day and about men's mental health... Given the way she's treated men in the past, I'm sure they could trace there mental health issues back to her, always posting life quotes that she certainly doesn't live by

    Oh I know the types, there's a bikini model I know of who's always embroiled in that shoite.
    She's a professional surfer based in Lahinch/London/Cornwall always fighting for people's rights, but in reality she seems very narcisstic...

    Keeping execs in the friend zone, while she's monkey branching up all the time....


  • #59
    The Pheasant2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,699 ✭✭✭The Pheasant2


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    But they couldn't just respect Jenner's wishes?

    They get to decide which pronoun to use according to their own wishes?

    Not very liberal.

    I don't agree with misgendering people who want to be called a certain pronoun; but yes, by definition these people would get to decide what pronoun to use - it's freedom of speech, a central pillar of liberalism, which you appear to be somewhat confused on the definition of.


  • #60
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    randd1 wrote: »
    They could easily respect Jenner's wishes. They could call him by whatever pronoun they choose to either, again I wouldn't be able to speak for another individual.

    I was just saying a genuine liberal wouldn't care either way.

    And I'm saying a genuine liberal would respect Jenner's wishes and not continue to use a male pronoun as you do.

    Personally, I have no time for Jenner. I think she is vapid, shallow, and believes her own PR but I respect her right to be called by the pronoun she identifies with.

    See what I did there?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    The Pheasant2 wrote: »
    I don't agree with misgendering people who want to be called a certain pronoun; but yes, by definition these people would get to decide what pronoun to use - it's freedom of speech, a central pillar of liberalism, which you appear to be somewhat confused on the definition of.

    Disrespect is not a central pillar of liberalism.
    No matter how anyone wants to dress it up as "freedom of speech" - by that token we all have a right under "freedom of speech" to refer to anyone in any terms we like regardless of how offensive this might be.


  • #62
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,688 ✭✭✭storker


    sk8erboii wrote: »
    ‘Wtf? Why dont these supposed liberals agree with my intolerant worldviews! Dont they see their hypocrisy in preaching interdependence while silencing me, someone who espouses tribalism? Im literally being oppressed cause they dont agree with me. HEEEELP’

    Why are ‘conservatives’ actually just manchildren with persecution complexes?

    I think you've just proved the OP's point.


  • #63
    sk8erboii
    Site Banned Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭sk8erboii


    storker wrote: »
    I think you've just proved the OP's point.

    Mate no ones beheading conservatives for speaking out their opinions


  • #64
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    nthclare wrote: »
    Lol, well why are you concerned about my post-break up issues ?

    I never would have thought you thought I'd want to talk to you about my post break up "issues"

    Thanks for your contradictory support :)

    Got a memo from Lefty HQ that we have to show support.
    That's as good as I get. :P


  • #65
    The Pheasant2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,699 ✭✭✭The Pheasant2


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Disrespect is not a central pillar of liberalism.
    No matter how anyone wants to dress it up as "freedom of speech" - by that token we all have a right under "freedom of speech" to refer to anyone in any terms we like regardless of how offensive this might be.

    Yep...that's what freedom of speech is - just because we have the right to be as offensive as we want doesn't require that the right be exercised in that manner.
    In fact, it's a good way of separating the arseholes from good people.


  • #66
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,688 ✭✭✭storker


    sk8erboii wrote: »
    Mate no ones beheading conservatives for speaking out their opinions

    I didn't see the word "beheading" in the OP. What I did see was " intolerant of those who dont share their own world outlook. " to which your follow-up was a dismissive, ad-hominem hand-wave, instead of actually engaging in an actual discussion. Granted, this doesn't do anything to actually interfere with his freedom of speech, but it does fit the lazy habit of mocking, insulting or demonising that has unfortunately become of feature of "contributions" by the hard-of-thinking on both sides of the divide, and consequently leads to posts like the OPs.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭nthclare


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Got a memo from Lefty HQ that we have to show support.
    That's as good as I get. :P

    Ahhh hon, I appreciate it...

    Tell them all in lefties hq I'm on the dark side still ;)


  • #68
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    On a serious note, Popper's paradox of tolerance is always worthy of consideration:
    Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.


  • #69
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,935 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    There is no freedom of speech in Ireland.

    There is. But people are also free to challenge your views. If what you are saying is broadly accepted, then more will support your argument than are against it.

    I'm sick of hearing that the 'liberal media' have an agenda. The media most often seems to be owned by individuals who could hardly be considered as liberals. Rupert Murdoch, Denis O'Brien etc.


  • #70
    CPTM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭CPTM


    Mutant z wrote: »
    There seems to be a trend of those who claim to be liberal but are completely intolerant of those who dont share their own world outlook. They are liberal as long as you agree with them but if anyone so much as strays from their own group think they are attacked, slandered and censored. Why are so many self proclaimed liberals in favour of tighter censorship laws and clamping down on freedom of speech, which is an essence of a true liberal society. Surely being liberal means supporting free speech whether you agree with it or not. The fact is liberalism is about supporting free speech and expression and opposing censorship which is the exact opposite to what so many who claim to be on the liberal spectrum have proposed. It seems liberalism has been hijacked by SJWs and college students, in favour of identity politics which is anything but liberal. Its time real liberals stood up and defended the true liberal values of freedom of speech and democracy.

    I agree, and this came to mind recently when I watched an interview of the extremely conservative and Catholic Jacob Rees-Morg who was grilled about his views of gay marriage and abortion. The seemingly "liberal" interviewers had very little patience for his personal views, eventhough he said he very openly tolerated others having abortions or gay relationships. At the end he made the good point that conservatives tend to be a lot more tolerating of the views of a liberal in parliament than vice versa. He was trying to make the point that his views would never be popular enough to pass laws in his country and that's perfectly fine with him. However they treated him like a dictator who, if elected, would single handedly change laws without consulting the population or their representatives.

    I would count myself as a liberal, who believes that anyone should do anything they want so long as there's no negative impact on others. It frustrates me when I see liberals trying to change conservatives instead of accepting their views and the fact they are in a minority.

    Note: The irony is not lost on me, and how me and the OP are intolerant of a certain part of society's intolerance towards others.

    Not sure if links can paste from my phone.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WE6WC_BVZ4Q&t=4s


  • #71
    sk8erboii
    Site Banned Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭sk8erboii


    storker wrote: »
    I didn't see the word "beheading" in the OP. What I did see was " intolerant of those who dont share their own world outlook. " to which your follow-up was a dismissive, ad-hominem hand-wave, instead of actually engaging in an actual discussion. Granted, this doesn't do anything to actually interfere with his freedom of speech, but it does fit the lazy habit of mocking, insulting or demonising that has unfortunately become of feature of "contributions" by the hard-of-thinking on both sides of the divide, and consequently leads to posts like the OPs.

    Liberals in nazi germany: executed
    Liberals in saudi: dismembered
    Liberals in USSR: disappears

    Conservatives in Ireland: gets told to cop on

    ‘WTF BRO IM SO OPPRESSED’


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    tigger123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,521 ✭✭✭tigger123


    Mutant z wrote: »
    There seems to be a trend of those who claim to be liberal but are completely intolerant of those who dont share their own world outlook. They are liberal as long as you agree with them but if anyone so much as strays from their own group think they are attacked, slandered and censored. Why are so many self proclaimed liberals in favour of tighter censorship laws and clamping down on freedom of speech, which is an essence of a true liberal society. Surely being liberal means supporting free speech whether you agree with it or not. The fact is liberalism is about supporting free speech and expression and opposing censorship which is the exact opposite to what so many who claim to be on the liberal spectrum have proposed. It seems liberalism has been hijacked by SJWs and college students, in favour of identity politics which is anything but liberal. Its time real liberals stood up and defended the true liberal values of freedom of speech and democracy.

    This translates to "Why won't you tolerate my intolerance?!"


  • #73
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,902 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    nullzero wrote: »
    Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »
    It wouldn't go well. What does that have to do with having liberal views in Ireland?

    Whoosh, the whole point went right over your head.
    Correct. That's why I asked the question. Spell it out for me. Nobody else seems inclined to.


  • #74
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,419 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    tigger123 wrote: »
    This translates to "Why won't you tolerate my intolerance?!"

    You tell 'em, get back in line, no divergent opinions allowed.

    Glazers Out!



  • #75
    sk8erboii
    Site Banned Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭sk8erboii


    nullzero wrote: »
    You tell 'em, get back in line, no divergent opinions allowed.

    Mate they are allowed. We’re allowed to tell them to f*ck off too


  • #76
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,627 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    There is no freedom of speech in Ireland.

    Paradox :D

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #77
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,902 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    nullzero wrote: »
    tigger123 wrote: »
    This translates to "Why won't you tolerate my intolerance?!"

    You tell 'em, get back in line, no divergent opinions allowed.
    This is exactly the problem: you interpret anyone dissenting from or calling into question your viewpoint as someone magically disallowing you from having that viewpoint at all. In other words, you don't like people disagreeing with you. And yet you claim to be in favour of free speech.


  • #78
    randd1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,993 ✭✭✭randd1


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    And I'm saying a genuine liberal would respect Jenner's wishes and not continue to use a male pronoun as you do.

    Personally, I have no time for Jenner. I think she is vapid, shallow, and believes her own PR but I respect her right to be called by the pronoun she identifies with.

    See what I did there?

    I did, well done.

    And a true liberal might respect Jenner's wishes. Or depending on their view on biology, might not. Or might be call him as he wishes in his presence, but not so outside his presence.

    Again, I wouldn't know. But I suspect a genuine liberal would probably just go along with whatever they see fit.


  • #79
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,419 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »
    This is exactly the problem: you interpret anyone dissenting from or calling into question your viewpoint as someone magically disallowing you from having that viewpoint at all. In other words, you don't like people disagreeing with you. And yet you claim to be in favour of free speech.

    What?
    I was being sarcastic just so we're on the same page (always pays to be safe), and yes tolerating other people's intolerance is part of free speech.
    The post I quoted was an attempt to shut down the discussion by taking the perceived moral high ground.

    Glazers Out!



  • #80
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    Should Anjem Choudary have "free speech"?

    Should Anjem Choudary be invited onto, say, the Sean O'Rourke show on RTE Radio as a guest, or other similar programmes?

    Should The Irish Times carry a weekly column by Anjem Choudary entitled, let's say, "The Islamist View"?

    For, you know, "balance" and all that?


  • #81
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    The OP has a point about people pro claiming to be liberal but are intolerant towards people who hold different political views to theirs.

    Take Tucker Carlson for example recently a mob were protesting outside his house chanting " we know where you live ", now they are trying to get his show taken off tv with online campaigns to pressure sponsors back out of his show. To me this is no different to the religious right trying to censor things they didn,t like in the past- my view is if you don,t like something just don,t watch it, its that simple.

    Regarding Tucker Carlson again can anyone point out any recent examples of right wing groups protesting outside tv hosts houses or trying to get shows taken off tv ?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    randd1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,993 ✭✭✭randd1


    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    Should Anjem Choudary have "free speech"?
    Yes, he should. And whatever nonsense he spouts should be debated and debunked accordingly.
    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    Should Anjem Choudary be invited onto, say, the Sean O'Rourke show on RTE Radio as a guest, or other similar programmes?
    He probably shouldn't, as it would probably affect ratings. But if the programme decided to go ahead with him, then that's their decision.
    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    Should The Irish Times carry a weekly column by Anjem Choudary entitled, let's say, "The Islamist View"?
    As above.


  • #83
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    Should Anjem Choudary have "free speech"?

    Should Anjem Choudary be invited onto, say, the Sean O'Rourke show on RTE Radio as a guest, or other similar programmes?

    Should The Irish Times carry a weekly column by Anjem Choudary entitled, let's say, "The Islamist View"?

    For, you know, "balance" and all that?

    Some info for thought, after the Charlie Hebdo shooting Anjem Choudary appeared on Rtes prime time via satellite, there was no calls from left wing groups saying Rte should no platform him or anything like that.

    Compare that in contrast to Katie Hopkins appearing on the late late show in late 2016, there was an online campaign from left wing groups to try pressure Rte to cancel her appearance on the late late show, but these left wing groups had nothing to say when Anjem Choudary was invited onto an Rte programme.


  • #84
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,902 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    The OP has a point about people pro claiming to be liberal but are intolerant towards people who hold different political views to theirs.

    Take Tucker Carlson for example recently a mob were protesting outside his house chanting " we know where you live ", now they are trying to get his show taken off tv with online campaigns to pressure sponsors back out of his show. To me this is no different to the religious right trying to censor things they didn,t like in the past- my view is if you don,t like something just don,t watch it, its that simple.

    Regarding Tucker Carlson again can anyone point out any recent examples of right wing groups protesting outside tv hosts houses or trying to get shows taken off tv ?
    Can you remember the last time left wing groups tried to pipe bomb Fox?


  • #85
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    The OP has a point about people pro claiming to be liberal but are intolerant towards people who hold different political views to theirs.

    Take Tucker Carlson for example recently a mob were protesting outside his house chanting we know where you live, now they are trying to get his show taken off tv with online campaigns to pressure sponsors back out of his show. To me this is no different to the religious right trying to censor things they didn,t like in the past- my view is if you don,t like something just don,t watch it, its that simple.

    Regarding Tucker Carlson again can anyone point out any recent examples of right wing groups protesting outside tv hosts houses or trying to get shows taken off tv ?

    Had to Google who the F Tucker Carlson is...

    A conservative US TV pundit apparently.

    I'm not sure what the situation in a country as deeply divided at the U.S currently is has to do with the completely different society that exists in Ireland but do heavily armed right wing people holding protests count?
    Or how about killing people by driving a car through a crowd?
    Or how about the right-wing conservative One Million Moms threatening to boycott JC Penny's for using Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson?


  • #86
    nullzero
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,419 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    Some info for thought, after the Charlie Hebdo shooting Anjem Choudary appeared on Rtes prime time via satellite, there was no calls from left wing groups saying Rte should no platform him or anything like that.

    Compare that in contrast to Katie Hopkins appearing on the late late show in late 2016, there was an online campaign from left wing groups to try pressure Rte to cancel her appearance on the late late show, but these left wing groups had nothing to say when Anjem Choudary was invited onto an Rte programme.

    Choudary and Hopkins are both cretins, but it's valuable to know just how much of a pair of cretins they are, let them speak. Choudarys buddy Terry Kelly got a platform as well, proved himself to be a plonker on a colossal scale which was borne out when he was taken out from above whilst trying to carry out a suicide attack.

    Glazers Out!



  • #87
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,935 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    The OP has a point about people pro claiming to be liberal but are intolerant towards people who hold different political views to theirs.

    Take Tucker Carlson for example recently a mob were protesting outside his house chanting " we know where you live ", now they are trying to get his show taken off tv with online campaigns to pressure sponsors back out of his show. To me this is no different to the religious right trying to censor things they didn,t like in the past- my view is if you don,t like something just don,t watch it, its that simple.

    Regarding Tucker Carlson again can anyone point out any recent examples of right wing groups protesting outside tv hosts houses or trying to get shows taken off tv ?

    They don't need to. They just have Trump ban them from the White House.


  • #88
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    randd1 wrote: »
    Yes, he should. And whatever nonsense he spouts should be debated and debunked accordingly.
    You see, you're labouring under the misapprehension that Anjem Choudary is "debating" at all.

    He isn't.

    He can't be out-debated with facts, because he isn't there to debate. He's there only to spew Islamist propaganda and hate speech and gain notoriety for himself and his vile, highly dangerous, extremist views.

    Exactly the same as the white supremacist far right.

    Platforming people such as Choudary or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon doesn't lead to debate.

    It leads to the publicising, legitimisation and the virus-like spread of highly dangerous extremism.

    You've given a classic example of "false balance" there.

    This holds that any "opinion", no matter how idiotic, dangerous, hate-filled or nonsensical, should be accorded equal legitimacy to reality based worldviews.

    That is a recipe for mass bloodshed.


  • #89
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    The ironic and mind numbingly boring thing is how bigots, casual racists and Tories, try to put everyone who calls them out or makes them uncomfortable into a box, Liberal/snowflake or what have you and then complain about being called a bigot or racist when they are pinching a girls arse or giving out about immigrants.
    If you're not being a dick, chances are you won't be called one. Or is the real concern some know they are and are worried they'll need change their behaviour?
    The spooked Tories or republicans are the biggest whingers of all, "why can't I be racist anymore if I believe my racism is based on facts? And don't call it racism. What's wrong with treating others like they are beneath you if you think they are?".


  • #90
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    Oh, and as regards "free speech", why were two recent and very legitimate threads that I started, which both lampooned the far right but had very serious points at the heart of them, shut down within half an hour?

    While far right posters are given seemingly free rein to spew all the pathetic racial and sectarian hatred they want here?

    As a both a leftist and a liberal, where's my free speech?!

    On this forum, it seems it's far right extremists who get free speech, not others.

    Inverted reality, how are ya.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057936650

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057939625


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    storker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,688 ✭✭✭storker


    sk8erboii wrote: »
    Liberals in nazi germany: executed
    Liberals in saudi: dismembered
    Liberals in USSR: disappears

    Conservatives in Ireland: gets told to cop on

    ‘WTF BRO IM SO OPPRESSED’

    Tip: try reading what was said, before responding to what wasn't... :rolleyes:


  • #92
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    Some info for thought, after the Charlie Hebdo shooting Anjem Choudary appeared on Rtes prime time via satellite, there was no calls from left wing groups saying Rte should no platform him or anything like that.

    Compare that in contrast to Katie Hopkins appearing on the late late show in late 2016, there was an online campaign from left wing groups to try pressure Rte to cancel her appearance on the late late show, but these left wing groups had nothing to say when Anjem Choudary was invited onto an Rte programme.

    Right wing people can be decent too. I wouldn't give 'dem liberals' all the credit. She's basically an attention whore and it was beneath, or should have been, the national broadcaster to have such a transparent scaremongering for her own gain bint on our televisions.
    Did you call to complain about the other lad yourself? Are you trying to say you would have been stopped?


  • #93
    randd1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,993 ✭✭✭randd1


    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    You see, you're labouring under the misapprehension that Anjem Choudary is "debating" at all.

    He isn't.

    He can't be out-debated with facts, because he isn't there to debate. He's there only to spew Islamist propaganda and hate speech and gain notoriety for himself and his vile, highly dangerous, extremist views.

    Exactly the same as the white supremacist far right.

    Platforming people such as Choudary or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon doesn't lead to debate.

    It leads to the publicising, legitimisation and the virus-like spread of highly dangerous extremism.

    You've given a classic example of "false balance" there.

    This holds that any "opinion", no matter how idiotic, dangerous, hate-filled or nonsensical, should be accorded equal legitimacy to reality based worldviews.

    That is a recipe for mass bloodshed.
    The fact that they're spewing their hate simply shows them for what they are; hateful bigots and dangerous ones at that.

    And debunking their views as outdated and dangerous and bigoted goes far more to telling reasonable people what these idiots are than simply banning them and giving them notoriety, or worse, a cause.

    Better the devil you know than the one you don't, even if it mean listening to and dismantling his crap.


  • #94
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,627 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    Some info for thought, after the Charlie Hebdo shooting Anjem Choudary appeared on Rtes prime time via satellite, there was no calls from left wing groups saying Rte should no platform him or anything like that.

    Compare that in contrast to Katie Hopkins appearing on the late late show in late 2016, there was an online campaign from left wing groups to try pressure Rte to cancel her appearance on the late late show, but these left wing groups had nothing to say when Anjem Choudary was invited onto an Rte programme.

    But that IS free speech, like it or not. It's inconsistent, borderline hypocritical and not well-thought out, but then there's no law saying that free speech should be well researched and balanced. it's not very liberal, but then that's the point the OP makes.

    They are perfectly within their right to make those stances, and RTE are perfectly within their right to ignore them or accept them as they see fit. Every side's had a say. No one is denying anyone free speech here.

    The point at which I draw the line is when violence is condoned, threatened or actioned.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #95
    PCeeeee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭PCeeeee


    hill16bhoy wrote: »
    You see, you're labouring under the misapprehension that Anjem Choudary is "debating" at all.

    He isn't.

    He can't be out-debated with facts, because he isn't there to debate. He's there only to spew Islamist propaganda and hate speech and gain notoriety for himself and his vile, highly dangerous, extremist views.

    Exactly the same as the white supremacist far right.

    Platforming people such as Choudary or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon doesn't lead to debate.

    It leads to the publicising, legitimisation and the virus-like spread of highly dangerous extremism.

    You've given a classic example of "false balance" there.

    This holds that any "opinion", no matter how idiotic, dangerous, hate-filled or nonsensical, should be accorded equal legitimacy to reality based worldviews.

    That is a recipe for mass bloodshed.

    Who decides who can have a 'platform' and who can't?


  • #96
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,627 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    PCeeeee wrote: »
    Who decides who can have a 'platform' and who can't?

    Owner of the platform, obviously.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Advertisement
  • #97
    sk8erboii
    Site Banned Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭sk8erboii


    storker wrote: »
    Tip: try reading what was said, before responding to what wasn't... :rolleyes:

    Mate its literally just manchildren whinging that not everybody agrees with them. Its pitiful


  • #98
    TomSweeney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    Look at the case in Morocco where two women were killed in a jihadi attack.
    "Liberals" are trying to shut down the story, over on reddit they have deleted threads giving basic safety advice to women travelling to Morocco - sickening.
    These people call themselves feminists but are happy to see women murdered so long as the perps aren't the evil white western man.

    Deleting this safety info is potentially putting others in danger that travel there.
    These same morons would have their pussy hats on and wailing at the sky dementedly when Trump was elected.

    Indeed, we live in strange times when "liberal" is anything but.


  • #99
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Mutant z wrote: »
    There seems to be a trend of those who claim to be liberal but are completely intolerant of those who dont share their own world outlook. They are liberal as long as you agree with them but if anyone so much as strays from their own group think they are attacked, slandered and censored. Why are so many self proclaimed liberals in favour of tighter censorship laws and clamping down on freedom of speech, which is an essence of a true liberal society. Surely being liberal means supporting free speech whether you agree with it or not. The fact is liberalism is about supporting free speech and expression and opposing censorship which is the exact opposite to what so many who claim to be on the liberal spectrum have proposed. It seems liberalism has been hijacked by SJWs and college students, in favour of identity politics which is anything but liberal. Its time real liberals stood up and defended the true liberal values of freedom of speech and democracy.

    They're not Liberals. They're Communists/Marxists pretending to be Liberals. Conservatives are much more liberal [smaller Govt. As little govt intrusion as possible]


  • #100
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭hill16bhoy


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    Look at the case in Morocco where two women were killed in a jihadi attack.
    "Liberals" are trying to shut down the story, over on reddit they have deleted threads giving basic safety advice to women travelling to Morocco - sickening.
    These people call themselves feminists but are happy to see women murdered so long as the perps aren't the evil white western man.

    Deleting this safety info is potentially putting others in danger that travel there.
    These same morons would have their pussy hats on and wailing at the sky dementedly when Trump was elected.

    Indeed, we live in strange times when "liberal" is anything but.
    The problem with your little imagined narrative is that the story has been widely reported in the international media.

    And thus your narrative falls completely flat on its face.

    Who would have guessed that that would happen?!


  • #101
    PCeeeee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭PCeeeee


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Owner of the platform, obviously.

    I'm afraid that's not obvious to me at all. And the question was not for you.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement