Politcally Incorrect

endacl

satanta99 wrote: »

D'oh I think I clicked Yes by accident!

Phew! I thought there were 17 dribbling idiots with internet access. Only 16. That's not so bad.

endacl

eagle eye wrote: »

Cyclists should have to do a theory test and a cycling test to ensure they are capable of cycling on public roads. They should have to have third party insurance at a minimum to cycle on public roads.

That's not politically incorrect. That's just stupid.

namloc1980

endacl wrote: »

That's not politically incorrect. That's just stupid.

"Look Mammy, Santy got me third party insurance for Christmas!!!!"

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sure thing- white Europeans didn't try to take over the world, introduce white only policies in conquered lands, engage in genocide, start not one but 2 World Wars...
But we haven't done anything recently to deserve criticism.. :rolleyes:

Why would I feel guilty for that? That's funny. Somebody asked me if I ever felt guilty for being white, what an odd question I thought, then again, they were insane.

eagle eye wrote: »

Cyclists should have to do a theory test and a cycling test to ensure they are capable of cycling on public roads. They should have to have third party insurance at a minimum to cycle on public roads.

Why not go a step further and suggest that cars are for single use only. Sharing should be banned. It's an equally stupid comment

Zulu

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But as regards this thread:
I made a point.

A really crap point.

I clarified my point.

Well, tried to back peddle really.

I clarified my clarification.

Not really.

I'm done with that now.

Super. It was a super sh1t point, and I'm glad you've seen the sense in walking away from it.

beer enigma

I take umbridge that this poll infringes my right to a fair vote on the basis that there is no option 3. Atari

CHealy

Paul Lee wrote: »

Yes, anyone with a viewpoint you disagree with is a loonie. Just a way to try and shut people up.

I hear this all day and it gets boring.

Well done though. Brave warrior you.

Sorry about that Paul bud, I was watching videos from the anti-fascist action crowd and learned my ways from them.

Side note - Those AFA lads are hilarious, they are the very definition of the thing they claim to be so rigorously against.

Bannasidhe

Zulu wrote: »

A really crap point.
Well, tried to back peddle really.
Not really.
Super. It was a super sh1t point, and I'm glad you've seen the sense in walking away from it.

Sorry - I can't hear you all the way over here in the good ol Yooo-Essss-Aaaaa where I sip my skinnymocchafrappo Startrekbucks.

Blitzkrieger

Argue about sensitive issues with strangers in a pub? I'm not sure if the setting is the best idea.

I know you said light hearted, but a moderated, alcohol free format might be a better idea.

I can't do Thursdays anyway, so best of luck with it. Hope to bump into you for a drink sometime over Christmas.

Blitzkrieger

I feel like I'm feeding a troll, but I'll bite...

TL;DR is that sometimes I sort of agree, but of course all these issues are complex.

eagle eye wrote: »

I think all rapists and paedophiles should be castrated.

Who's a rapist? That undercover policeman who had consensual sex with activists who were unaware of his true identity and are now accusing him of rape? Is everyone who told a porky or two before sleeping with someone a rapist?

Who's a paedophile? A few months ago I found out a causal acquaintance is a registered sex offender. 19 years ago when he was 20 years old, he got hammered and left a pub with a 16 year old. Should we cut his nuts off?

Maybe we could have a scale of punishments to fit the crime?

eagle eye wrote: »

I think that no money should be given to people on long term social welfare. They should get what they need to survive, like food and clothes etc. No money though because that can be spent on drink, cigarettes, drugs and\or gambling.

There's talk in the UK atm about regulating gambling so people with low incomes can't waste their money. Regulating how people choose to spend their money is a dangerous road to go down.

eagle eye wrote: »

Cyclists should have to do a theory test and a cycling test to ensure they are capable of cycling on public roads. They should have to have third party insurance at a minimum to cycle on public roads.

This should sort of be self-regulating - enlightened self interest should make cyclists capable of looking after themselves on publics roads. The environmental, physical and social benefits of cycling are huge, so we should probably do more to make our towns and cities safer for cyclists.

eagle eye wrote: »

Travellers should not get any more money from the state because they have an ethnic standing.

Frequently I think travellers are taking the piss - why would they get money/benefits based on having an ethnic standing? Shouldn't we be an equal society, regardless of ethnicity? An acre of land plus stables? Go **** yourself......

eagle eye wrote: »

Any non-national who is on social welfare for more than 24 months should be turfed out of the country.

What about the nationals who are on welfare for more than 24 months? I feel like your worry is more about welfare cheats than who is cheating, but maybe I'm wrong; maybe it's just xenophobia. I think there of course should be action against welfare cheats, but you'll get far more bang for your buck chasing after tax cheats. Get a million here and there from the super wealthy (not saying they're all tax cheats), a billion here and there from all the multi national corporations (not saying they're all tax cheats), and pretty soon you'll be talking real money.

flo8s967qjh0nd

What is the point of this thread? The poll is entirely unrelated to the OP.

In my experience, "political correctness gone mad" is a commonly used cloak of convenience for people who hold stupid, outdated and often racist/xenophobic views and want to shout about them without being told to sit down and shut up. There is no problem with free speech in Ireland. You are quite welcome to say whatever you want. The rest of us also have the right to tell you to stop being so stupid.

Honestly, this thread is a flaming dumpster fire waiting to happen.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

A lot of **** is unrealted to the opening post. There are people talking about pedophiles, murderers, cyclists and fascists, got heaven's sake.

mackeminexile

Supporting free speech does not equate to supporting or agreeing with everyone. It's being used as a tool in the media and other places to stir up division and hatred. Whenever I hear idiots say "I say what I'm thinking, take it how you like" it is always by someone who can't/doesn't want to engage their brain before speaking.

mackeminexile

if they hold a second referendum it's the definition of freedom and democracy, considering the first one isn't legally binding and only advisory. Also the terms of the referendum certainly didn't include the true nature of leave or remain and the brexiteers have been found to have broken the law in numerous ways, not the least being the links that are now being explored between Arron Banks (leave.eu financier), Steve Bannon and Russia.

I think we should be allowed to marry our cousins

j8wk2feszrnpao

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think we should be allowed to marry our cousins

What does your cousin think?

endacl

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think we should be allowed to marry our cousins

You are.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/getting_married/legal_prerequisites_for_marriage.html

Go nuts.

Gimme A Pound

Freedom of speech (not free speech) gets misunderstood greatly. It does not mean people can publish or broadcast or record absolutely anything at all that they feel like - and it never did. There seems to be this notion that there was a time when it was the case, but there never was. Censorship of books and film was far more prevalent in times past, so in that sense there is more freedom now.

Some people also use the "freedom of speech" line just in relation to what they agree with - not for all views. And some think it's a licence to act the dickhead.

Also, private companies don't have to allow freedom of speech - only state bodies do.

However, it is true that there is a stifling of what people can say in public now, because it might cause offence. Even if it is the truth, well supported/researched, and presented in respectful language. Such as saying that particular communities or cultures have certain negative traits... unless they're groups who are fair game. E.g. we Irish have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. We certainly do. It's a fact so I see no issue with it being said.

Publish something negative about other groups though, and you risk your job.

This kind of stifling led to the flourishing of the sex abuse rings in the UK.

And the press, while privately owned, should be reporting what is really happening, but it too is stifled.

You don't have to be a racist to see the problem here. It's part of what's leading to an increase in support for right-wing ideology also.

In my opinion, all views, once phrased respectfully and without hateful language and in appropriate settings and well researched, should be aired instead of driving them to the fringes where the malcontents can embrace them. As is happening now.

Then these ideas can be debated, refuted, whatever - by folk also exercising freedom of speech.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ana Quaint Garter wrote: »

However, it is true that there is a stifling of what people can say in public now, because it might cause offence. Even if it is the truth, well supported/researched, and presented in respectful language. Such as saying that particular communities or cultures have certain negative traits... unless they're groups who are fair game. E.g. we Irish have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. We certainly do. It's a fact so I see no issue with it being said.

Here, I disagree with you. If you're worried about causing offense, you're effectively censoring yourself. No one else is doing it to you. I personally couldn't give a flying **** who gets offended. It's their choice, not mine. I often find people who claim to be censored know their viewpoint is flawed and are using this as a cop-out.

As regards the bit in bold, that's a careful one.
Example: "All travelers are thieves" is bigoted. "Most travelers are thieves" - well, maybe. But people think that they can back this up by pointing to the occasional news story or anecdote...! Eh no. In order to be statistically correct, you need to know 1) the exact traveler population; and 2) what percentage of that number have actually stolen things. "Travellers are more likely to steal than settled people" would be a safer remark.

Gimme A Pound

If you *publish* those points of view though. You could be risking your job.

And yes I do mean people being respectful about it and using language like that which you suggested is fairer.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ana Quaint Garter wrote: »

If you *publish* those points of view though. You could be risking your job.

True - and I'd agree with you - but ultimately you hit the nail on the head when you said "private companies don't have to give you freedom of speech".

The problem with losing your job is: is the company losing customers? If you have no problem with something controversial that your employee says - even if you don't agree with it - what do you do if your customers DO have a problem and decide to take their business elsewhere?

The simple solution is to put a clause in the contract and make sure the employee is aware when signing it. They are then aware of the consequences and choose to accept said consequences.

fash

Paul Lee wrote: »

Voting twice in a referendum is the very essence of totalitarianism.

We have very different definitions of totalitarianism...
My definition involves no voting - I submit that my definition is correct.

Paul Lee wrote: »

Remember Lisbon 2? We were told "There will be no EU Army. Don't be stupid conspiracy nuts. Now go and vote for Lisbon properly this time!" So we did....

Who is this "we"?
It sounds like you listen to whatever people tell you as opposed to investigating matters yourself.
Why should I value the opinion of someone who merely does what they are told?
It suggests you still just follow what you are told - but this time told by a different group.



quote="Paul Lee;108677513"]You do know that there are calls for a second Brexit referendum, right? Call that freedom? What dictionary are you using?[/quote]
Both the freedom to call for a second referendum and the freedom to choose again /decide differently certainly falls within the definition of freedom - and I personally tend to use the Oxford English dictionary where needing to discuss definitions.

Paul Lee

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Of course. What you're saying is complete bull**** - for reasons I've already stated - but you still have the right to say it. You ARE saying it.

Now, you said you came in here expecting debate: care to counter the points I made or elaborate on the content of the youtube videos you linked to?

OK, Mary Boyle disappeared. Where is justice for her? Dig a little bit and you'll find out what suppression of free speech is like. It could be permanent suppression as in the case of some unfortunate people.

Same with the Ian Bailey case. Go down to West Cork and see how well received you'll be by certain members of the Force. I haven't experienced it myself but I'm inclined to believe Gemma O'Doherty before I'd believe politicians in a mainstream party.

I can give you examples of my own experience too (involving a State appointed solicitor.) but I don't want to create a conflict of interest.

Does that answer your question?

I don't think you need to be so belligerent. What's the point of it? It doesn't bother me too much, just that it's a silly waste of energy and it's kind of irritating.

SusieBlue

The Mary Boyle case is a lot more complex & sinister than simply being about free speech. I think the whole country knows whose responsible for it at this stage.

Paul Lee

fash wrote: »

We have very different definitions of totalitarianism...
My definition involves no voting - I submit that my definition is correct.



Who is this "we"?
It sounds like you listen to whatever people tell you as opposed to investigating matters yourself.
Why should I value the opinion of someone who merely does what they are told?
It suggests you still just follow what you are told - but this time told by a different group.



quote="Paul Lee;108677513"]You do know that there are calls for a second Brexit referendum, right? Call that freedom? What dictionary are you using?

Both the freedom to call for a second referendum and the freedom to choose again /decide differently certainly falls within the definition of freedom - and I personally tend to use the Oxford English dictionary where needing to discuss definitions.[/QUOTE]

At least in a "proper" no-vote totalitarian state the dictators are being honest. The sneaky [insert choice term]s in the EU pretend that it's OK to have a "free" election. Sure Saddam Hussein had elections for ef sake. Now in fairness he used to get 90% but at least they didn't have to go through the humiliation or waste of time going through the motions again to come up with the "right" answer.

Please answer the following two questions.

Why is it that some elections in Europe only have to be run once, others twice?

Which group of people decides that an election has to be run for the second time? Who are these people? What authority do they have? Can I apply for membership to this committee? No, on second thought I wouldn't give myself that kind of power because that would be an abuse of power.

Paul Lee

SusieBlue wrote: »

The Mary Boyle case is a lot more complex & sinister than simply being about free speech. I think the whole country knows whose responsible for it at this stage.

I agree there are a lot more things involved than free speech alone.

There's also massive deceit and denial of access to justice etc. But this conversation is about PCness and free speech.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Paul Lee wrote: »

OK, Mary Boyle disappeared. Where is justice for her? Dig a little bit and you'll find out what suppression of free speech is like. It could be permanent suppression as in the case of some unfortunate people.

Same with the Ian Bailey case. Go down to West Cork and see how well received you'll be by certain members of the Force. I haven't experienced it myself but I'm inclined to believe Gemma O'Doherty before I'd believe politicians in a mainstream party.

I can give you examples of my own experience too (involving a State appointed solicitor.) but I don't want to create a conflict of interest.

Does that answer your question?

No, not even close.

You still haven't told me the connection between your point of view and the youtube clips. It's not up to me to "dig a little bit" - it's up to you to put forward your own point. The fact that you haven't indicates you're either too lazy to, or not capable of it.

Nor have you explained the connection between these cases and a lack of freedom of speech. Or PCness, as you call it. Now, just to be clear, I'm NOT calling bull**** on this one: I'm just saying you haven't explained the connection; which, again as the person who brought it up, is your task, not mine.

I don't think you need to be so belligerent. What's the point of it? It doesn't bother me too much, just that it's a silly waste of energy and it's kind of irritating.

Calling you out on bull**** is not belligetent. You either accept it or counter. You have so far declined to counter.

fash

Paul Lee wrote: »

At least in a "proper" no-vote totalitarian state the dictators are being honest. The sneaky [insert choice term]s in the EU pretend that it's OK to have a "free" election. Sure Saddam Hussein had elections for ef sake. Now in fairness he used to get 90% but at least they didn't have to go through the humiliation or waste of time going through the motions again to come up with the "right" answer.

Please answer the following two questions.

Why is it that some elections in Europe only have to be run once, others twice?

Elections are run whenever the term for MEPs runs out- what do you mean by twice?

Paul Lee wrote: »

Which group of people decides that an election has to be run for the second time?


Who are these people? What authority do they have? Can I apply for membership to this committee? No, on second thought I wouldn't give myself that kind of power because that would be an abuse of power.

They are set out in the EU treaties.
Can't make out what "abuse of power" is supposed to mean. There is a separation of powers, everything subject to ECJ and the Irish Supreme Court and Irish constitution and the ECHR gives other rights etc. etc.

Paul Lee

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, not even close.

You still haven't told me the connection between your point of view and the youtube clips. It's not up to me to "dig a little bit" - it's up to you to put forward your own point. The fact that you haven't indicates you're either too lazy to, or not capable of it.

Nor have you explained the connection between these cases and a lack of freedom of speech. Or PCness, as you call it. Now, just to be clear, I'm NOT calling bull**** on this one: I'm just saying you haven't explained the connection; which, again as the person who brought it up, is your task, not mine.



Calling you out on bull**** is not belligetent. You either accept it or counter. You have so far declined to counter.

Ah jaysus. I did answer your questions. And I can't counter being called out on BS- rhetoric not debate.

Look, thanks for your time. Have a great day.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Paul Lee wrote: »

Ah jaysus. I did answer your questions. And I can't counter being called out on BS- rhetoric not debate.

Look, thanks for your time. Have a great day.

No, you didn't and we both know that. Well, should - I've pointed it out to you twice now.

If you come into a debate forum saying you want to debate, then be prepared for debate.