Two-thirds of people say Ireland is too politically correct

joe40

I can agree the buzzwords can be a bit ott, and I don't agree with some of the more outlandish notions, but the real world, the actual reality of peoples lives hasn't changed that much.
There have of course been some changes but I think overall these have been positive and to the benefit of both genders.

Junkyard Tom

The hypnotised-by-social-media masses squabbling with each other over trivial shit while the 1% make a killing. We're fucked.

Kivaro

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The hypnotised-by-social-media masses squabbling with each other over trivial shit while the 1% make a killing. We're fucked.

Imagine Aliens looking down on this shoite.
They'd say: "Well, this planet will be an easy one to colonise".

We'd probably be characterised by them as "on the extreme low end on the intelligence scale", along with the Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts of Traal.

El_Duderino 09

joe40 wrote: »

Maleness is not in the dock. Maleness is not under threat. Young lads are able to be as masculine nowadays as they were in the 80s when I was a teen.
People are creating and exaggerating problems that don't exist.

There's no point telling some men that. They're married to the notion that they're the victims of progress. Most people don't know anything about the gender wars nonsense because it doesn't exist in the real world. It's an Internet phenomenon where they get to role play being victims.

The only times I hear the words "toxic masculinity" is on these threads and it's never said in earnest by a PC gone mad lefties. Almost always said in the context above.

Mebuntu

Somewhere in the thread someone asked "what is political correctness?". I heard the perfect example on Morning Ireland on RTE this morning. The expression "Man Hours" has been used for yonks in word and print and everyone knows what it means. On the programme Dobbo used the expression and then, quickly realising he could be accused of "offending" women, added in "Woman Hours".

That's PC nonsense to a tee.

El_Duderino 09

Mebuntu wrote: »

Somewhere in the thread someone asked "what is political correctness?". I heard the perfect example on Morning Ireland on RTE this morning. The expression "Man Hours" has been used for yonks in word and print and everyone knows what it means. On the programme Dobbo used the expression and then, quickly realising he could be accused of "offending" women, added in "Woman Hours".

That's PC nonsense to a tee.

OK. Given it's a perfect example, how harmful is it in your opinion?

Seathrun66

Margaret Flabby Trash wrote: »

The New York Times published an editorial just two days ago calling for European-style universal health care in the United States.

It's also left-liberal in its stances on the other issues you cited. It has resoundingly criticized pretty much every one of Trump's policies.

To say it doesn't have a liberal or left status is nonsensical.

That is clearly not an editorial.

begbysback

When making a statement such as “two thirds of people say”, this implies “all” people have been asked a question and have responded.

100% of people said that Liverpool are better than Barcelona, all 6 people watching the match last night were asked and responded.

Seathrun66

Dick phelan wrote: »

What annoys me is that Irish media adopts the same lines of thought as US media, We don't have anything like the same history or cultural points. How could we have white privilege for example when we had almost no black people until maybe the last two decades. It's all a bunch of journalist who imagine themselves sitting in some big office in NYC or Washington when actually your sitting in the office of some regional Irish newspaper. Fcuk off with your identify politics and 3rd wave feminism your from Sligo not California you "woke" cnut.

But hey, who's selling this idea? There's nothing telling you that you're a bad guy if you're white and male in Ireland. There's plenty telling you to be decent to others if you are. Two years ago I returned to Ireland after three decades away and it's a much changed place. A more mixed place. And despite the recession and the issues with housing and health it seems to be a happier place.

Seathrun66

Seanachai wrote: »

I'd say working to middle class white guys have a lot to be angry about and it's justified anger. There's a narrative being propagated that we've somehow had it sweet for centuries and now it's time to tip the scales.

With a few exceptions my male (and female) ancestors were on the down side of advantage for centuries. The same white families that screwed the minorities, screwed us too. We didn't own any slave ships, although we certainly had the pleasure of trips in their cabins.

I couldn't blame any sane person for despising the EU (not Europe) and wanting to get away from them, even it meant they were less well off in the short term. Asides from a minority of hateful people, the brexit and nationalist movements of Europe are not made up of people who hate other cultures.

The nonsense that Channel 4 spreads about Britain becoming dangerous and inhospitable for immigrants is pure hysteria.

I see a surge in nationalism as opposed to racism, although there are racists for sure in the nationalist movements, they are a minority. Being against open borders and mass immigration is not racist.

A lie. It's based on police figures.

Open borders (within the EU) resulted in a £20 billion surplus to the UK coffers from 2001 to 2014. That's when taxes were assessed and any benefits taken away. That continues there. As it does in Ireland. Without the tax contributions of immigrants both economies are in free fall.

Seathrun66

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed and even being male - white for the bonus points - has become "toxic". It's less and less about aspects of masculinity being toxic, but masculinity itself. Hell the WHO and the American Psychological Association have essentially branded it a disorder. No wonder a fair few men and women are thinking what utter scutter is this?

No, they haven't. Careful what you read.

El_Duderino 09

Seathrun66 wrote: »

But hey, who's selling this idea? There's nothing telling you that you're a bad guy if you're white and male in Ireland. There's plenty telling you to be decent to others if you are. Two years ago I returned to Ireland after three decades away and it's a much changed place. A more mixed place. And despite the recession and the issues with housing and health it seems to be a happier place.

That's an interesting perspective. The last three decades have seen a lot of change.

I don't worry about my masculinity from one end of the week to the other. I go to work, be a husband, go for pints, watch the rugby on TV and live in the stadium, have the craic with the lads and lasses and act the maggot on nights out (within the scope of being monogamous). Nobody tells me to reign in my masculinity.

There are some blokes in my work who are known to be creepy. One was promoted to get him out of the environment he was in because he was making so many people uncomfortable with his greasy antics (bad behaviour from my employer IMO). This week I've been asked to travel for work with a team which happens to be all women except me. I get to be as masculine as I like without anyone accusing me of anything.

If people keep telling you your behaviour is a problem then it's worth considering if they're right.

Seathrun66

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's an interesting perspective. The last three decades have seen a lot of change.

I don't worry about my masculinity from one end of the week to the other. I go to work, be a husband, go for pints, watch the rugby on TV and live in the stadium, have the craic with the lads and lasses and act the maggot on nights out (within the scope of being monogamous). Nobody tells me to reign in my masculinity.

There are some blokes in my work who are known to be creepy. One was promoted to get him out of the environment he was in because he was making so many people uncomfortable with his greasy antics (bad behaviour from my employer IMO). This week I've been asked to travel for work with a team which happens to be all women except me. I get to be as masculine as I like without anyone accusing me of anything.

If people keep telling you your behaviour is a problem then it's worth considering if they're right.

Same here, never had any hassle in different workplaces in the UK or Ireland nor observed people being asked to rein in any male behaviour.

It's just a distraction. A successful one. It's taken the focus off the people who caused the last recession and those who may cause another.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's no point telling some men that. They're married to the notion that they're the victims of progress.

A male "feminist" accusing any group of playing the victimhood card? The Hard Neck meter has slammed into the red and the Irony meter has exploded.

El_Duderino 09

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Same here, never had any hassle in different workplaces in the UK or Ireland nor observed people being asked to rein in any male behaviour.

It's just a distraction. A successful one. It's taken the focus off the people who caused the last recession and those who may cause another.

A very successful distraction. For example I think it should be a massive talking point that the unions are losing so many members and losing the ability to bargain. Young people in particular are losing out big time and they will grow up never knowing that their parents had genuine career progression. Zero hour contracts and the Gig Economy with no benefits of being an employee are seen as a good thing for some reason.

But you won't hear discussion of any of that at a Jordan Peterson sermon. Be upset about the myth of toxic masculinity. If people don't like you and you can't get a date it's because you're too much of a man for all these snowflakes. It's an appealing message to some people.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

A male "feminist" accusing any group of playing the victimhood card? The Hard Neck meter has slammed into the red and the Irony meter has exploded.

Yeah its funny that you would spot that since your posts are filled with victimhood. It's interesting that intersectionality has made it all the way to the men's victimhood movement. Just look at the time some spend whinging about, White, Male, Heterosexual and middle class victimhood, you'd swear they subscribed to intersectionality theory.

I'm sure you've completely ignored this point, but I don't portray myself as a victim. Your claim that WHO and the American Psychological Association have essentially branded masculinity a disorder was a pretty special touch. Poor you.

Seanachai

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The hypnotised-by-social-media masses squabbling with each other over trivial shit while the 1% make a killing. We're fucked.

A lot of it is hysterical people obsessing over trivial things, so far it's mostly confined to the USA. It is affecting public discourse though and there is a worrying enthusiasm for censorship and a revelling in journalists and other public figures being destroyed.

It used to be that the lefties were very distrustful of the establishment, now they seem to be relying on it to be their surrogate parents.

El_Duderino 09

Seanachai wrote: »

A lot of it is hysterical people obsessing over trivial things, so far it's mostly confined to the USA. It is affecting public discourse though and there is a worrying enthusiasm for censorship and a revelling in journalists and other public figures being destroyed.

It used to be that the lefties were very distrustful of the establishment, now they seem to be relying on it to be their surrogate parents.

Ah, that's a bit of a lopsided interpretation. Some of the things we all appreciate are lefty ideas and were put in place by government. Free education might be the single most progressive achievement the country ever made. It was bloody expensive and I' sure there was all kinds of opposition to it at the time. My uncle was telling me about it recently and he sad the conservative opposition was largely based on the idea that everyone shouldn't be educated because education was only for some people - the right people.

He astonished me by saying that he remembers the opposition being that "people might get notions above their station". And that opposition persisted after education became free because it was an expensive investment in the future. Getting notions above your station is literally the whole basis of social mobility.

Nowadays we still have better education in areas with the right kind of people and relatively crappy education in poorer areas. And wanting to invest in education particularly in areas with less good schools is still seen as a lefty looney idea.

The government "establishment" as you called it, is the only organisation that can achieve a massive boost in education so poorer areas get the same high standard of education as wealthier areas.

Is wanting better education in areas that need it an example of PC gone mad, I wonder

Seanachai

Seathrun66 wrote: »

A lie. It's based on police figures.

Open borders (within the EU) resulted in a £20 billion surplus to the UK coffers from 2001 to 2014. That's when taxes were assessed and any benefits taken away. That continues there. As it does in Ireland. Without the tax contributions of immigrants both economies are in free fall.

You mean the reports of 'hatecrime' as opposed to actual verifiable crimes? It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There is no more greater threat from organised racists\fascists than there was twenty years ago.

It's a fantasy for the likes of antifa and other weekend warriors to feel like they're engaged in a war protecting their communities from an imaginary fascist\racist threat.

Every country needs immigration, for economic reasons and also just for social reasons. We need skilled immigration though, great, the tax-take is up, does that translate into real-world benefits for working people? I get the feeling that our tax take could increase exponentially and we'll still have people on trolleys and non-existent social housing.

Governments don't care if they create a permanent underclass, the political class and their peers in business win either way.

Wibbs

Seanachai wrote: »

It used to be that the lefties were very distrustful of the establishment, now they seem to be relying on it to be their surrogate parents.

Mainly because it's become more establishment. On the surface. Plus there exists a very general divide and difference between the "left" and the "right" as they are portrayed today, particularly American politics that's sadly being exported beyond those shores. The gender/race/identity politics nonsense is almost entirely US in origin. The left is more collectiveness, the group and a certain blank statism as far as people go and the state should impose that, the right is more about the individual, much more of the I'm alright Jack, nature trumps nurture and the state should be minimal. The extreme of that would be forms of libertarianism. Though both "right" and "left" will use the state when they see the need. Instinctively I'd be far more about the community and would be "left" in a few areas, but would be more on the less top down state stuff and vey much against correct think. Mainly because it's never "correct" for long.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He astonished me by saying that he remembers the opposition being that "people might get notions above their station". And that opposition persisted after education became free because it was an expensive investment in the future. Getting notions above your station is literally the whole basis of social mobility.

Your uncle astonishes me too as he must be over a century old to recall that debate about free education in Ireland.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

Your uncle astonishes me too as he must be over a century old to recall that debate about free education in Ireland.

LOL. Free education came in in the mid 60s. I know I seem to cause this knee jerk reaction in you, but you don't need to go so far beyond reason to oppose everything I say.

Seanachai

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah, that's a bit of a lopsided interpretation. Some of the things we all appreciate are lefty ideas and were put in place by government. Free education might be the single most progressive achievement the country ever made. It was bloody expensive and I' sure there was all kinds of opposition to it at the time. My uncle was telling me about it recently and he sad the conservative opposition was largely based on the idea that everyone shouldn't be educated because education was only for some people - the right people.

He astonished me by saying that he remembers the opposition being that "people might get notions above their station". And that opposition persisted after education became free because it was an expensive investment in the future. Getting notions above your station is literally the whole basis of social mobility.

Nowadays we still have better education in areas with the right kind of people and relatively crappy education in poorer areas. And wanting to invest in education particularly in areas with less good schools is still seen as a lefty looney idea.

The government "establishment" as you called it, is the only organisation that can achieve a massive boost in education so poorer areas get the same high standard of education as wealthier areas.

Is wanting better education in areas that need it an example of PC gone mad, I wonder

The old left brought in some good reforms in healthcare and education, I'm not a big fan of this guy, but he did a good doc on how social mobility has decreased since he went to college.

Everybody should have equal access to education and equality of opportunity in general. I don't consider that a loony-lefty idea but you will still have the old boys network and their sons to deal with.

Wibbs

Seathrun66 wrote: »

No, they haven't. Careful what you read.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Your claim that WHO and the American Psychological Association have essentially branded masculinity a disorder was a pretty special touch.

OK let's have an oul look at said organisation's take on the matter in their own words.

We'll gloss over the "feminist" stuff about "privilege" "androcentrism" and the "patriarchy"(which rarely gets explained BTW) stuff steeped in 90's college campus "progressiveness" ideology but go straight into it:

Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful

The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful.

To mark out those traits as on the whole negative and harmful is idiocy driven by ideology, in particular the aforementioned 90's college campus "progressiveness" and "feminism". Yes such traits like any traits can be harmful, but like any traits they can also be positive and helpful. The very world you inhabit and the comfortable world it is with it, was largely forged on the back of stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and yes even aggression of "traditional masculinity".

Now when you dig into the actual guidelines of this body(pdf format) the bias becomes even clearer. EG while they quite rightly dig into male on male violence and intimidation they completely ignore any role women may play in this. The feminism mantra of women are always victims of men in play and even when men are acknowledged as victims it's still men's and/or the patriarchy's fault.

In essence the editorial and the guidelines are a fleshed out version of that rubberbandits simpleton's call that men need feminism.

Lux23

Two thirds of Irish people are too bleeding sensitive.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

LOL. Free education came in in the mid 60s. I know I seem to cause this knee jerk reaction in you, but you don't need to go so far beyond reason to oppose everything I say.

The national school system of primary education was in place in Ireland from the mid 1800's, it was free secondary education that came out in the 1960's.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

OK let's have an oul look at said organisation's take on the matter in their own words.

We'll gloss over the "feminist" stuff about "privilege" "androcentrism" and the "patriarchy"(which rarely gets explained BTW) stuff steeped in 90's college campus "progressiveness" ideology but go straight into it:

Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful

The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful.

To mark out those traits as on the whole negative and harmful is idiocy driven by ideology, in particular the aforementioned 90's college campus "progressiveness" and "feminism". Yes such traits like any traits can be harmful, but like any traits they can also be positive and helpful. The very world you inhabit and the comfortable world it is with it, was largely forged on the back of stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and yes even aggression of "traditional masculinity".

Now when you dig into the actual guidelines of this body(pdf format) the bias becomes even clearer. EG while they quite rightly dig into male on male violence and intimidation they completely ignore any role women may play in this. The feminism mantra of women are always victims of men in play and even when men are acknowledged as victims it's still men's and/or the patriarchy's fault.

In essence the editorial and the guidelines are a fleshed out version of that rubberbandits simpleton's call that men need feminism.

I'd say excessive stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression would be on the whole negative. But they're not the only important traits of masculinity let alone the only traits of masculinity. They might be the only traits of masculinity which trend to result in problems when they're out of proportion. Aggression doesn't really have a place in the office but it does have a place on a sports/battle field.

The example you raised where men are victims of violence is not really up for debate. Men as a group tend to be both the main victims and perpetrators of violence. Would you prefer that they pretend women are statistically likely to perpetrate an act of violence as men? Your problem seems to be that they back up the point they make about aggression being on the whole negative.

The world is built on lots of things that I wouldn't support. NASA built on the German rocket scientists work. Lots of medicine comes from work carried out in unethical experiments. I won't shun those advancements but I would oppose doing more of the same to get new gains.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

The national school system of primary education was in place in Ireland from the mid 1800's, it was free secondary education that came out in the 1960's.

Sure. That's what I was talking about. So my uncle doesn't need to be over a century old. Does he?

Seathrun66

Seanachai wrote: »

A lot of it is hysterical people obsessing over trivial things, so far it's mostly confined to the USA. It is affecting public discourse though and there is a worrying enthusiasm for censorship and a revelling in journalists and other public figures being destroyed.

It used to be that the lefties were very distrustful of the establishment, now they seem to be relying on it to be their surrogate parents.

I fully agree with your first paragraph. And much of what you say in the second one but it's far from all lefties, more the case of some academics, some undergraduates and those with an axe to grind.

Seathrun66

Seanachai wrote: »

You mean the reports of 'hatecrime' as opposed to actual verifiable crimes? It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There is no more greater threat from organised racists\fascists than there was twenty years ago.

It's a fantasy for the likes of antifa and other weekend warriors to feel like they're engaged in a war protecting their communities from an imaginary fascist\racist threat.

Every country needs immigration, for economic reasons and also just for social reasons. We need skilled immigration though, great, the tax-take is up, does that translate into real-world benefits for working people? I get the feeling that our tax take could increase exponentially and we'll still have people on trolleys and non-existent social housing.

Governments don't care if they create a permanent underclass, the political class and their peers in business win either way.

Recorded hate crimes doubled in 2018 following Brexit and the 2017 terrorist attacks. Official UK police figures.

Seanachai

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah its funny that you would spot that since your posts are filled with victimhood. It's interesting that intersectionality has made it all the way to the men's victimhood movement. Just look at the time some spend whinging about, White, Male, Heterosexual and middle class victimhood, you'd swear they subscribed to intersectionality theory.

I'm sure you've completely ignored this point, but I don't portray myself as a victim. Your claim that WHO and the American Psychological Association have essentially branded masculinity a disorder was a pretty special touch. Poor you.

The hysterical types are throwing the snowflake charge back at men concerned about the toxic masculinity label, to make it seem like they are also acting out fragility and neurosis.

There's a world of a difference between genuine concern and caution and victim-hood, victim-hood is a position of powerlessness and neurosis. Having foresight and recognising that there may be a social agenda to ostracise you is very lucid and prudent. The toughest people on the planet are alert to threats.

Seathrun66

Wibbs wrote: »

Your uncle astonishes me too as he must be over a century old to recall that debate about free education in Ireland.

Brought in by Donagh O'Malley in September 1966.

Wibbs

Seathrun66 wrote: »

I fully agree with your first paragraph. And much of what you say in the second one but it's far from all lefties, more the case of some academics, some undergraduates and those with an axe to grind.

Aye and not just "lefties", but a fair few on the "right" as well. Again mostly US based, but sadly more and more of it is being exported overseas. I mean you had Irish people on social media crapping on about "Cucks" and how they were supporting Trump and "MAGA" on top of the other muppets going on about triggers and patriarchy and all that nonsense.

Seathrun66

Wibbs wrote: »

OK let's have an oul look at said organisation's take on the matter in their own words.

We'll gloss over the "feminist" stuff about "privilege" "androcentrism" and the "patriarchy"(which rarely gets explained BTW) stuff steeped in 90's college campus "progressiveness" ideology but go straight into it:

Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful

The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful.

To mark out those traits as on the whole negative and harmful is idiocy driven by ideology, in particular the aforementioned 90's college campus "progressiveness" and "feminism". Yes such traits like any traits can be harmful, but like any traits they can also be positive and helpful. The very world you inhabit and the comfortable world it is with it, was largely forged on the back of stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and yes even aggression of "traditional masculinity".

Now when you dig into the actual guidelines of this body(pdf format) the bias becomes even clearer. EG while they quite rightly dig into male on male violence and intimidation they completely ignore any role women may play in this. The feminism mantra of women are always victims of men in play and even when men are acknowledged as victims it's still men's and/or the patriarchy's fault.

In essence the editorial and the guidelines are a fleshed out version of that rubberbandits simpleton's call that men need feminism.

So, in summary, the WHO haven't 'essentially branded toxic masculinity a disorder'.

Wibbs

I'd mostly agree with you S save for this part:

Seanachai wrote: »

victim-hood is a position of powerlessness and neurosis.

Victimhood and what naturally follows from it; the oppressed/oppressor narrative can be an extremely powerful political tool. Pretty much every single oppressive regime of any stripe and leaning have used it and used it to gain power. They colour their constituents as the oppressed and mark out groups as the oppressor, the ones they can blame. Pick any regime(and many if not all politics) at random S and you'll see it in play every single time. The more radical the politic or philosophy the more stark the oppressed/oppressor lines are drawn. The only thing that changes is the particular oppressed/oppressor labels and targets.

Wibbs

Seathrun66 wrote: »

So, in summary, the WHO haven't 'essentially branded toxic masculinity a disorder'.

That was the APA, the WHO say the same. Both have stated in black and white they consider traditional masculinity to be psychologically harmful, along with a load of other guff from the third wave feminist cookbook.

Yet even though many more women present with mental illnesses like depression and anxiety and self harm than men and many more are on meds for it I have never seen a single example from any mainstream body, certainly not national and international ones, that even suggests that "traditional femininity" could be psychologically harmful. It would be just as much nonsense if they did and if anyone did I'd be immediately thinking what ideological ballsology are they pushing here. Indeed all too often when the mental illnesses of women are looked at it's blamed on societal expectations and those are almost always framed in the "patriarchy".

Seanachai

Seathrun66 wrote: »

Recorded hate crimes doubled in 2018 following Brexit and the 2017 terrorist attacks. Official UK police figures.

They've changed the definition on what constitutes a hate-crime, almost any bad experience will now be labelled as hate. The media and certain politicians are making out as if the streets have become a battleground and minorities are under attack.

'Already, two infamous post-Brexit ‘incidents’ have been debunked. It was widely claimed, for instance, that an attack on a tapas bar in Lewisham, south London, was a hate crime; actually, police say it was a burglary. A photo of four boneheads in Newcastle holding a banner saying ‘Stop Immigration, Start Repatriation’ was widely shared as evidence of xenophobia. But Geordies have pointed out that those idiots have been holding up that banner every weekend for ages, long before Brexit'

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/truth-behind-brexit-hate-crime-spike/

El_Duderino 09

Seanachai wrote: »

The hysterical types are throwing the snowflake charge back at men concerned about the toxic masculinity label, to make it seem like they are also acting out fragility and neurosis.

There's a world of a difference between genuine concern and caution and victim-hood, victim-hood is a position of powerlessness and neurosis. Having foresight and recognising that there may be a social agenda to ostracise you is very lucid and prudent. The toughest people on the planet are alert to threats.

And no doubt White, heterosexual, middle class, men are the latter and "they" are the former with all their intersectional victimhood. There are genuine issues on both sides. Only a real fool would think they have the monopoly on genuine issues while t'other side are just whinging about nothing.

Seathrun66

Wibbs wrote: »

That was the APA, the WHO say the same. Both have stated in black and white they consider traditional masculinity to be psychologically harmful, along with a load of other guff from the third wave feminist cookbook.

Yet even though many more women present with mental illnesses like depression and anxiety and self harm than men and many more are on meds for it I have never seen a single example from any mainstream body, certainly not national and international ones, that even suggests that "traditional femininity" could be psychologically harmful. It would be just as much nonsense if they did and if anyone did I'd be immediately thinking what ideological ballsology are they pushing here. Indeed all too often when the mental illnesses of women are looked at it's blamed on societal expectations and those are almost always framed in the "patriarchy".

So, again, in summary, the WHO haven't 'essentially branded toxic masculinity a disorder'.

Junkyard Tom

Seanachai wrote: »

It used to be that the lefties were very distrustful of the establishment, now they seem to be relying on it to be their surrogate parents.

See when I read the term 'lefties' I immediately think 'oh no, one of them' - the word is essentially meaningless at this point. Lefty/leftie used to mean pro-worker/unions, support for state ownership of industry, preventing/reversing the upward distribution of wealth, good public services etc. Now leftie means... whatever the **** its user wants it to.

Nobelium

Lux23 wrote: »

Two thirds of Irish people are too bleeding sensitive.

Nothing to do with "sensitive" whatsoever - People are tired of the insidious spin lies and bulshyte of identity politics.

kowloon

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Now leftie means... whatever the **** its user wants it to.

There's so many of them on this site now, not to mention everywhere else. Just throwing about buzzwords because they're angry and can't articulate it. It's not all one sided either. It's just easy to pigeon-hole everyone in to one of two lazy stereotypes. Luckily, neither of them is all that common out in the wild, it's more confined to the internet, where the loudest get heard and American politics aren't confined to American borders.

ogsjw

Nobelium wrote: »

Nothing to do with "sensitive" whatsoever - People are tired of the insidious spin lies and bulshyte of identity politics.

Nah pretty sure people are far more tired of radicalized right nonsense, like when they murder people. If you look at referendum results, they have almost universally swung progressive and not bigoted, ignorant, radicalized right....

Hal3000

We have gone way out the top with this PC horses*it. Trying recommending that violent criminals should be harshly sentenced in this country and wait and see the responses you get here... One beaut was that "we need to understand crime firstly" !!! Christ, if anyone decided to invade us we'd be in serious trouble..

Nobelium

ogsjw wrote: »

Nah pretty sure people are far more tired of radicalized right nonsense, like when they murder people. If you look at referendum results, they have almost universally swung progressive and not bigoted, ignorant, radicalized right....

left / right - more identity politics nonsense, start thinking for yourself instead
what people from the so called political "right" have murdered anyone in Ireland ?
but if you want to do left or right, the SinnFein/Saoradh on the left have done plenty of murdering

El_Duderino 09

ogsjw wrote: »

Nah pretty sure people are far more tired of radicalized right nonsense, like when they murder people. If you look at referendum results, they have almost universally swung progressive and not bigoted, ignorant, radicalized right....

That’s true. They’re upset about the rate of change (gay marriage etc) but I’d bet they’d be upset about the rate of change no matter how slow it was.

And the thing that really bugs me is that they will oppose change at every turn and then when the change happens they’ll be fine with it. My FIL doesn’t remember ever being opposed to gay rights. I remember how much his attitude has changed but he doesn’t.

Some people just don’t like change.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Quote from google:

Political Correctness;

the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

Being correct (stating facts), and being politically correct are often quite the opposite.

A disproportionate number of Travellers are in prison. They make up 0.1% of the total population but 10% (Make) and 22% (Female) of the prison population. If I were to say "Travellers engage in more crime than settled people" wouldn't be politically correct, even if it is factually accurate.

PC = Nonsense, and it has nothing to do with being a díck or not.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ogsjw wrote: »

Nobelium wrote: »

Nothing to do with "sensitive" whatsoever - People are tired of the insidious spin lies and bulshyte of identity politics.

Nah pretty sure people are far more tired of radicalized right nonsense, like when they murder people. If you look at referendum results, they have almost universally swung progressive and not bigoted, ignorant, radicalized right....

While I agree with Nobelium to an extent, I think people are tired of radical everything bull**** at this point.

Left/right makes no difference. The more moderate you are the more level headed and reasonable you are - it's only as you move away from the center you get the self-important label-obsessed nutjobs.

El_Duderino 09

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

While I agree with Nobelium to an extent, I think people are tired of radical everything bull**** at this point.

Left/right makes no difference. The more moderate you are the more level headed and reasonable you are - it's only as you move away from the center you get the self-important label-obsessed nutjobs.

People don't seem tired of it at all. It sells loads of clicks. People seem to love it. I'd say half the clicks on articles about perceived PC gone mad are by people who enjoy being wound up by it. I know I do it. I click on Express articles and Fox News so often that Goole News thinks I'm an avid reader.

Franz Von Peppercorn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s true. They’re upset about the rate of change (gay marriage etc) but I’d bet they’d be upset about the rate of change no matter how slow it was.

And the thing that really bugs me is that they will oppose change at every turn and then when the change happens they’ll be fine with it. My FIL doesn’t remember ever being opposed to gay rights. I remember how much his attitude has changed but he doesn’t.

Some people just don’t like change.

Somewhat simplistic. Some far right leaders in Europe - like Pim Fortuyn are or were gay. Some of the alt right in the US are gay, much of the intellectual leadership of the alt right in the US is fairly liberal on gay marriage like Dave Rubin, also gay.

The real divisions are on the left and free speech, immigration, opposition to ideas of whiteness and white privilege. Opposition to Islam too, particularly in Europe.