The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

osmiumartist

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Neither of those parties are in government, which comprises the centre-right Poroshenko Bloc and the nationalist People's Front as the junior partner

Howld on there a minute. You're telling us the People's Front, a breakaway from the Fatherland (I kid you not) party aren't neo-nazis? Mmmmk...

osmiumartist

marienbad wrote: »

It is not the SJW warriors (as ye like to call any one that disagrees with ye ) running around shouting Sieg Heil

No, they're starting riots to get Clinton into power so she can continue backing jihadi stone age lunatics from Libya to Afghanistan. So much better to be shooting women for showing their face and throwing gay men off towers than have 10 guys doing seig heils at a rally where half of the attendees are journalists.

PopePalpatine

osmiumartist wrote: »

Howld on there a minute. You're telling us the People's Front, a breakaway from the Fatherland (I kid you not) party aren't neo-nazis? Mmmmk...

You might want to brush up on your knowledge of the Fatherland party there.

osmiumartist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
Some more beauts the US has the hots for. Cool logo guys!
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/US-lifts-ban-on-funding-neo-Nazi-Ukrainian-militia-441884

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

No, they're starting riots to get Clinton into power so she can continue backing jihadi stone age lunatics from Libya to Afghanistan. So much better to be shooting women for showing their face and throwing gay men off towers than have 10 guys doing seig heils at a rally where half of the attendees are journalists.

That's a keeper.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's a keeper.

Maybe. Anything of substance to add?

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

Maybe. Anything of substance to add?

No. It's a thing of beauty, a joy forever.

AnGaelach

marienbad wrote: »

What do you propose instead of ''empowering minorities '' ?

Meritocracy.

marienbad wrote: »

Gerrymandering as we had in Northern Ireland for 60 years and happening in some states in the USA right now ? Bring back slavery , fire up those oven , babymakers get back in the home where ye belong ? What ?

It is not the SJW warriors (as ye like to call any one that disagrees with ye ) running around shouting Sieg Heil

Opposition to "progressive" ideas doesn't necessitate supporting regression. I can call both sides out on being the idiots that they are.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

Meritocracy.



Opposition to "progressive" ideas doesn't necessitate supporting regression. I can call both sides out on being the idiots that they are.

Being against progression and against regression means everybody stays where they are. That's unfair and boring.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Being against progression and against regression means everybody stays where they are. That's unfair and boring.

They're pointless phrases. It's the functional equivalent of saying you like what you like because you like it.

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

They're pointless phrases. It's the functional equivalent of saying you like what you like because you like it.

You're right. But I didn't want to point it out to him as baldly as that.

Widdershins

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Being against progression and against regression means everybody stays where they are. That's unfair and boring.

Progress, to me, has always meant positive change. What self proclaimed progressives talk about lately is rarely positive and is often a case of change for the sake of change, and trying to fix what isn't broken, or fix things in a way that only makes other peoples lives worse.

Count Dooku

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Being against progression and against regression means everybody stays where they are. That's unfair and boring.

Sometimes it is safer to take a break rather than rush unprepared society for new ideas
There are more important things to do, for example improving economy
But for SJW it is very boring, because it requires hard work

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You're right. But I didn't want to point it out to him as baldly as that.

You obviously didn't want to upset yourself either.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is much merit in what you say but I think it's not confined to feminism. Polarisation mitigates progression towards an equitable society.

Oh, and since you got a thanks for agreeing the phrase was pointless...

marienbad wrote: »

Are you saying we haven't made progress towards a more accepting society ?

Professor Moriarty

Widdershins wrote: »

Progress, to me, has always meant positive change. What self proclaimed progressives talk about lately is rarely positive and is often a case of change for the sake of change, and trying to fix what isn't broken, or fix things in a way that only makes other peoples lives worse.

I agree. Lasting change happens when you bring the extremes in from the edges. Within that parameter, there must a constant push for change wherever change should happen. The goal should always be parity of esteem and opportunity between human beings.

Professor Moriarty

osmiumartist wrote: »

You obviously didn't want to upset yourself either.

You're right again. Inner peace is where it's at.

AnGaelach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Being against progression and against regression means everybody stays where they are. That's unfair and boring.

I think we call that Conservative.:o

marienbad

Widdershins wrote: »

Progress, to me, has always meant positive change. What self proclaimed progressives talk about lately is rarely positive and is often a case of change for the sake of change, and trying to fix what isn't broken, or fix things in a way that only makes other peoples lives worse.

Can you give a few examples ?

marienbad

Count Dooku wrote: »

Sometimes it is safer to take a break rather than rush unprepared society for new ideas
There are more important things to do, for example improving economy
But for SJW it is very boring, because it requires hard work

Believe it or not we can always do more than one thing at time , if we couldn't we would still be back in the stone age .

The last government managed to improve the economy (however imperfectly), also managed to fcuk-up Irish water - and still brought forward the SSM referendum !

Wanderer78

marienbad wrote:

The last government managed to improve the economy (however imperfectly), also managed to fcuk-up Irish water - and still brought forward the SSM referendum !

Our 'economy' certainly is better than what it was but is society actually better because of it?

Widdershins

marienbad wrote: »

Can you give a few examples ?

Gender Quotas!

Widdershins

AnGaelach wrote: »

I think we call that Conservative.:o

To be fair I don't think conservatives just let things stagnate, but change comes about gradually, and maybe too slowly for some of us, but I think it's too forced and arbitrary when instigated by people at the other end of the political spectrum.

marienbad

Widdershins wrote: »

Gender Quotas!

Are you speaking just about gender quotas or all quota systems ? really ?

The employment of catholics in NI or the employment of people of colour in the USA , for instance ? are you seriously contending that change would have come about naturally ?

Can you give any other examples of all these progressives you talk about with their

''self proclaimed progressives talk about lately is rarely positive and is often a case of change for the sake of change, and trying to fix what isn't broken, or fix things in a way that only makes other peoples lives worse.''

Widdershins

marienbad wrote: »

Are you speaking just about gender quotas or all quota systems ? really ?

The employment of catholics in NI or the employment of people of colour in the USA , for instance ? are you seriously contending that change would have come about naturally ?

Can you give any other examples of all these progressives you talk about with their

''self proclaimed progressives talk about lately is rarely positive and is often a case of change for the sake of change, and trying to fix what isn't broken, or fix things in a way that only makes other peoples lives worse.''

When there is an appropriate method of instigating change, use it.
Never at the expense of the better candidate or anyone else.
Fairness comes before change. Change is not a goal in itself.

marienbad

Widdershins wrote: »

When there is an appropriate method of instigating change, use it.
Never at the expense of the better candidate or anyone else.
Fairness comes before change. Change is not a goal in itself.

'Change is not a goal in itself' is not what is being talked about , you said it yourself ''Fairness comes before change''

Was the following fair ? the system of little of no catholics in Queens or the Police service in NI, no people of colour in any other than menial jobs in the USA , or married women in the Irish Finance dept ?

And remember the need for change in all the above investigated ad nauseam and were resisted for decades and often with violence . Our own government even fought the then EEC all the way on the married women issue right to the bitter end.

When those systems created using your mantra of ''Never at the expense of the better candidate ''

You can't be seriously disputing any of this . So again I ask what are all these changes your progressive friends are demanding that are so annoying ?

Widdershins

marienbad wrote: »

'Change is not a goal in itself' is not what is being talked about , you said it yourself ''Fairness comes before change''

Was the following fair ? the system of little of no catholics in Queens or the Police service in NI, no people of colour in any other than menial jobs in the USA , or married women in the Irish Finance dept ?

And remember the need for change in all the above investigated ad nauseam and were resisted for decades and often with violence . Our own government even fought the then EEC all the way on the married women issue right to the bitter end.

When those systems created using your mantra of ''Never at the expense of the better candidate ''

You can't be seriously disputing any of this . So again I ask what are all these changes your progressive friends are demanding that are so annoying ?

It's *not* annoying to demand change where a need for improvement has been identified.

A long as it's done in a considered and fair way!

marienbad

Widdershins wrote: »

It's *not* annoying to demand change where a need for improvement has been identified.

A long as it's done in a considered and fair way!

Until you give a specific examples widdershins I don't see how we can progress the discussion . It comes across like you just don't like all the clamour and noise .

I assume I am correct in saying you don't disagree with the examples I have given about catholics in NI etc , but if you got back to those times you can get people arguing they were justified - the usual bs , catholics were not loyal , rome blah blah. And even now over in the American Election thread we have a poster arguing in defence of gerrymandering.

So every you say sound fair and reasonable but without specific examples it is quite meaningless .

And by the way it is not just a one way street , I would be concerned at the lack of young men going into primary education or into child care and the operation of the family courts and so on .

Sand

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jesus. Sorry, women and minorities, we can't address your problems because of a lack of resources. Yes, I know, it's not about resources, but people won't shut up about resources anyway, so you're just going to have to keep having problems, because some people are stubbornly wedded to the idea that everything is a zero-sum game.

I honestly can't get my head around such a pig-headed determination to miss the point of the illustration that people resort to counting frigging boxes - even after they're told it's not about resources.

Oscar, what you're not getting is that its a terrible metaphor. People pointing out that it offers no useful lesson or guide are trying to help you develop your views. You should be thankful people are willing to take some time to help you, not be needlessly aggressive.

Yourself isit

marienbad wrote: »

'Change is not a goal in itself' is not what is being talked about , you said it yourself ''Fairness comes before change''

Was the following fair ? the system of little of no catholics in Queens or the Police service in NI, no people of colour in any other than menial jobs in the USA , or married women in the Irish Finance dept ?

And remember the need for change in all the above investigated ad nauseam and were resisted for decades and often with violence . Our own government even fought the then EEC all the way on the married women issue right to the bitter end.

When those systems created using your mantra of ''Never at the expense of the better candidate ''

You can't be seriously disputing any of this . So again I ask what are all these changes your progressive friends are demanding that are so annoying ?

That forms of feminism was OK. It wasn't affirmative action but opposition to legal discrimination against women (or catholics) . Now you want legal discrimination for upper middle class women against men. (Nobody cares about gender ratios in non elite jobs).

Yourself isit

Why aren't we discussing reverse discrimination by class?