The new generation,are rebelling the last generation..

Silentcorner

KiKi III wrote: »

You’re right, I don’t. That’s why it would be great if you could provide some examples. Which institution have tanked as a result of embracing feminism or diversity?

BBC (which is unaffected by the ad revenue shift) is in a terrible state.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/29/bbc-announces-450-jobs-will-go-in-newsroom-shake-up

The online media outlets that have driven this culture are all in different stages of decline. (Buzzfeed being the latest)

I have already mentioned the Labour Party which will need at least 10 years to rebuild, the Lib Dems were nearly eradicated altogether as a direct result of electing a completely deluded feminist leader who believed sh'd be the next Prime Minister....she lost her seat!!!

I don't need to mention the state of the Democratic Party in the US....a crass reality tv star was elected before an experienced feminist....a party who's best option for the coming election is a 78 year old with a questionable grasp on reality.

These are the media and political parties that we can see...the companies that have embraced it will see the same result, Gillette had to write down $8bn dollars and have probably lost a lot more than that for publishing an advert produced by a feminist!!

That's before we start counting the Hollywood flops that are starting to mount in numbers....

JL555

mdudy wrote: »

Do you think it's acceptable for a sign to make fun of 'mentally disabled people'?

Never-mind, you probably do, given your homophobia in other posts. Yikes.

Wow, we've got a live one here.

I would say your post sums up perfectly the hysterical nonsense that will hopefully one day soon be fizzled out of this world.

ps, The OP didn't say it was acceptable to make fun of 'mentally disabled people' as you put. It's just that the OP gets the meaning of satire.

maestroamado

Deleted User wrote: »

Up the Burren..

Could this be "a banner wind up?"

Junkyard Tom

Silentcorner wrote: »

If you don't believe me, check out the fate of The Lib Dems and the Labour Party in the UK....

Look at the fate of the people there - now they have a bunch of incompetent morons running their country, up to 50,000 dead from a virus they saw coming, and they're facing crashing out of the EU.

But you go ahead and enjoy the 'victory' the British people have inflicted upon themselves.

mc25

Silentcorner wrote: »

BBC (which is unaffected by the ad revenue shift) is in a terrible state.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/29/bbc-announces-450-jobs-will-go-in-newsroom-shake-up

The online media outlets that have driven this culture are all in different stages of decline. (Buzzfeed being the latest)

I have already mentioned the Labour Party which will need at least 10 years to rebuild, the Lib Dems were nearly eradicated altogether as a direct result of electing a completely deluded feminist leader who believed sh'd be the next Prime Minister....she lost her seat!!!

I don't need to mention the state of the Democratic Party in the US....a crass reality tv star was elected before an experienced feminist....a party who's best option for the coming election is a 78 year old with a questionable grasp on reality.

These are the media and political parties that we can see...the companies that have embraced it will see the same result, Gillette had to write down $8bn dollars and have probably lost a lot more than that for publishing an advert produced by a feminist!!

That's before we start counting the Hollywood flops that are starting to mount in numbers....

Are there any Irish-specific examples? Would be interesting to know

Silentcorner

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Look at the fate of the people there - now they have a bunch of incompetent morons running their country, up to 50,000 dead from a virus they saw coming, and they're facing crashing out of the EU.

But you go ahead and enjoy the 'victory' the British people have inflicted upon themselves.

Why are taking my opinion so personally....I'm not British, it's no "victory" for me!!!

Maybe if the Labour Party, instead of introducing female only list system for the last 10 years or so actually focused on the constituents they were supposed to represent instead of getting bogged down in anti semitism and a bizarre split between feminists over whether a person born with a penis is a woman, they may have done better...instead they got the worst electoral result in over 60 years.

the purple tin

It is impossible to have a reasonable conversation about this stuff.

This thread is proof, it always descends into tit-for-tat nonsense and the original topic gets forgotten.

Danzy

The Tories will be in till 2028 anyway.

That's Labour's doing but they'll take it out on the voter, especially their working class base, for not acknowledging their genius and good intentions.

Warbeastrior

There's a lot of stuff that I hope will stay stamped out like genuine discrimination but the PC brigade has gone too far. Cancel culture is absolutely sickening. People delighted to tear down individuals for one mistake is just wrong.

mariaalice

Silentcorner wrote: »

Why are taking my opinion so personally....I'm not British, it's no "victory" for me!!!

Maybe if the Labour Party, instead of introducing female only list system for the last 10 years or so actually focused on the constituents they were supposed to represent instead of getting bogged down in anti semitism and a bizarre split between feminists over whether a person born with a penis is a woman, they may have done better...instead they got the worst electoral result in over 60 years.

Its all going to be grand, feminism is not taking over the world, things always swing back and forth from one extreme to another, we do not have the same legally based right based culuter as the US, although you do get attempts at it via the EU courts.

The UK Labour party leader Keir Starmer is popular the party is going to be fine.

Trump is a fad

mdudy

JL555 wrote: »

Wow, we've got a live one here.

I would say your post sums up perfectly the hysterical nonsense that will hopefully one day soon be fizzled out of this world.

ps, The OP didn't say it was acceptable to make fun of 'mentally disabled people' as you put. It's just that the OP gets the meaning of satire.

I never said they did - that's why it's a question.

MoonUnit75

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Look at the fate of the people there - now they have a bunch of incompetent morons running their country, up to 50,000 dead from a virus they saw coming, and they're facing crashing out of the EU.

But you go ahead and enjoy the 'victory' the British people have inflicted upon themselves.

Exactly, but you are missing the point. People in general preferred this shambolic conservative leadership to the divisive, intersectional, quasi-religious ideological bull that you see in left wing Twitter bubbles. That tells you all you need to know about the response to the regressive left when it meets the mainstream.

People in general prefer a unifying force that treats the country as one ‘people’ not as exponentially expanding sets of identities which rapidly undermine social cohesion.

KiKi III

Silentcorner wrote: »

BBC (which is unaffected by the ad revenue shift) is in a terrible state.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/29/bbc-announces-450-jobs-will-go-in-newsroom-shake-up

The online media outlets that have driven this culture are all in different stages of decline. (Buzzfeed being the latest)

I have already mentioned the Labour Party which will need at least 10 years to rebuild, the Lib Dems were nearly eradicated altogether as a direct result of electing a completely deluded feminist leader who believed sh'd be the next Prime Minister....she lost her seat!!!

I don't need to mention the state of the Democratic Party in the US....a crass reality tv star was elected before an experienced feminist....a party who's best option for the coming election is a 78 year old with a questionable grasp on reality.

These are the media and political parties that we can see...the companies that have embraced it will see the same result, Gillette had to write down $8bn dollars and have probably lost a lot more than that for publishing an advert produced by a feminist!!

That's before we start counting the Hollywood flops that are starting to mount in numbers....

Really poor examples. BuzzFeed is failing because it has an unsustainable revenue model, not because of its ideology.

The media generally is in a sorry state, because people no longer feel they should have to pay for news, but liberal newspapers like the New York Times have a future because people feel like they’re worth the price of a subscription https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/05/the-new-york-times-success-with-digital-subscriptions-is-accelerating-not-slowing-down/

It’s far too overly simplistic to suggest that Hilary’s loss represents a backlash against feminism as a whole. How then would we explain the popularity of Elizabeth Warren or AOC?

Similarly, Jeremy Corbyn was a horrendous leader and brought about the collapse of the Labour Party largely due to his lack of any coherent Brexit strategy. It had F all to do with feminism or diversity.

You’re choosing to see macro-trends through a tiny lens because it suits your own politics to see it that way.

RandomName2

Silentcorner wrote: »

All the Gender Deconstruction and Feminist codswallop that the establishment has been ramming down our throats.

That backlash will be evident in the next 5 years as the cost of both of these ideologies trickles down through society.

If you don't believe me, check out the fate of The Lib Dems and the Labour Party in the UK....we are typically a few years behind in these matters (like we were in abortion and marriage equality)

I'm not sure if UK politics are a good measure. Brexit, lingering fallout from the last time the Liberal Democrats were in government, and disunity within Labour would all have been more important in my opinion in relation to the last election than some sort of zeitgeist.

Nevertheless I do think that the atmosphere has changed a bit, and for the better, over the last few years. There's less talk about banning speakers in universities, of widespread censorship based upon people's ideological persuasions, of safe-spaces and microaggressions.

I'd say Trump's election had something to do with that. All the censorship and aggressive domination of media and academia didn't stop the world's most backward demagogue from being elected. Maybe self-styled liberals realized that forcing people to shut-up is liable to be self-defeating.

The Simpsons must have found it ironic, being firmly left-wing in their political persuasion, being attacked by the same people they they would have identified with. I'm hoping that the trend of 'remake that movie with the Bechdel Test applied' and 'the trouble with Apu' are the death rattles of a pretty unpleasant chapter in Western culture.

KiKi III

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm not sure if UK politics are a good measure. Brexit, lingering fallout from the last time the Liberal Democrats were in government, and disunity within Labour would all have been more important in my opinion in relation to the last election than some sort of zeitgeist.

Nevertheless I do think that the atmosphere has changed a bit, and for the better, over the last few years. There's less talk about banning speakers in universities, of widespread censorship based upon people's ideological persuasions, of safe-spaces and microaggressions.

I'd say Trump's election had something to do with that. All the censorship and aggressive domination of media and academia didn't stop the world's most backward demagogue from being elected. Maybe self-styled liberals realized that forcing people to shut-up is liable to be self-defeating.

The Simpsons must have found it ironic, being firmly left-wing in their political persuasion, being attacked by the same people they they would have identified with. I'm hoping that the trend of 'remake that movie with the Bechdel Test applied' and 'the trouble with Apu' are the death rattles of a pretty unpleasant chapter in Western culture.

I don’t think any movies should be remade with the Bechdel Test, but it’s such an incredibly low bar that it’s pretty shocking that a movie made these days would fail to meet it.

Literally all it means is that at some point in a 90+ minute movie there’s dialogue between two female characters that’s not about a man.

dePeatrick

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

'Snowflake', 'SJW', 'PC gone mad', 'feminazis', 'Virtue Signalling'.

The nomenclature of the terminally dim.

I guess that makes me terminally dim, that's not very pc of you to say so is it?

mdudy

RandomName2 wrote: »

Nevertheless I do think that the atmosphere has changed a bit, and for the better, over the last few years. There's less talk about banning speakers in universities, of widespread censorship based upon people's ideological persuasions, of safe-spaces and microaggressions.

I'd say Trump's election had something to do with that. All the censorship and aggressive domination of media and academia didn't stop the world's most backward demagogue from being elected. Maybe self-styled liberals realized that forcing people to shut-up is liable to be self-defeating.

I dunno where you are able to deduce that from - many UK universities have had recent instances of no/de-platforming. In March Amber Rudd was disinvited to Oxford while already on the train there.

Fr Tod Umptious

KiKi III wrote: »

Really poor examples. BuzzFeed is failing because it has an unsustainable revenue model, not because of its ideology.

The media generally is in a sorry state, because people no longer feel they should have to pay for news, but liberal newspapers like the New York Times have a future because people feel like they’re worth the price of a subscription https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/05/the-new-york-times-success-with-digital-subscriptions-is-accelerating-not-slowing-down/

It’s far too overly simplistic to suggest that Hilary’s loss represents a backlash against feminism as a whole. How then would we explain the popularity of Elizabeth Warren or AOC?

Similarly, Jeremy Corbyn was a horrendous leader and brought about the collapse of the Labour Party largely due to his lack of any coherent Brexit strategy. It had F all to do with feminism or diversity.

You’re choosing to see macro-trends through a tiny lens because it suits your own politics to see it that way.

It could be explained by the evidence that the two mentioned are popular within a relatively small demographic and not as popular universally.

Warren is a senator for Massachusetts.
One of the most liberal leaning and Democrat represented states in America.
It's a state that only twice in the last 50 years have voted Republican in a general election, and both times it was Regan.

Warren's poor showing in the primaries show how she is not that popular outside the "bubble" of MA.

There is less evidence about AOC as she is very new to national politics, but like Warren she comes from a very liberal constituency.

Her district has only had two Republican representatives in 100 years.

The lowest % a Democrat got in a general election in that district was 70% in 2000.

She has yet to be tested on the national stage, but like Warren just because they are popular locally does not mean that they will be popular nationally.

TheIrishGrover

EVERY generation thinks the next generation are overly sensitive, lazy, unmotivated, entitled, intolerant and complainers.

EVERY generation starts out thinking the previous generation are old-fashioned, prejudiced, ruined it for them, intolerant (Funny both think that about the other).

I'm sure the first generation of cavemen looked at the next and thought: Ungrateful little sh*t. Things were tougher in my day: Mammoths were bigger. I had to make my own club. Cavemen were cavemen in my day. I think our species is doomed.

And the next generation was: The previous generation are just savages: Clubbing everything. I'm sick of this cave but all the other ones are taken. Can't we have something other than Mammoths? Don't they know there is more than hunting and killing?

KiKi III

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

EVERY generation thinks the next generation are overly sensitive, lazy, unmotivated, entitled, intolerant and complainers.

EVERY generation starts out thinking the previous generation are old-fashioned, prejudiced, ruined it for them, intolerant (Funny both think that about the other).

I'm sure the first generation of cavemen looked at the next and thought: Ungrateful little sh*t. Things were tougher in my day: Mammoths were bigger. I had to make my own club. Cavemen were cavemen in my day. I think our species is doomed.

And the next generation was: The previous generation are just savages: Clubbing everything. I'm sick of this cave but all the other ones are taken. Can't we have something other than Mammoths? Don't they know there is more than hunting and killing?

Very true. The next generation will probably look at how we treated the homeless or those in Direct Provision the way we look at industrial schools.

Clarence Boddiker

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

EVERY generation thinks the next generation are overly sensitive, lazy, unmotivated, entitled, intolerant and complainers.

I dunno, from the looks of it the younger generation are looking at the older generation as entitled, overly sensitive, unmotivated, intolerant and complainers.

I'm always very impressed by the younger generation compared to their millennial counterparts.

FVP3

FVP3 wrote: »

i am not convinced that the post milenial generation is in fact pro free speech.

40% of [US] Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

Worse in Germany -> if you scroll down.

This survey was from 5 years ago.

I'd agree with that... younger generations just seem interested in removing the old taboos and replacing them with new categories that shouldn't be talked about (unless it agrees with the mainstream attitude). Introduction of ideas like unconscious bias, and other ways to box people into certain categories which can safely be ignored, suggests that there is still a lot of intolerance around about others opinions (whether voiced or not)

mariaalice wrote: »

How to deal with the issue of free speech as a guise for something else?

Homophobia dressed up as concern for families or even repressed homosexuality in themselves manifesting its self as hatred of gay people.

A dislike or hatred of travelers repackaged as concern about crime.

There are load of examples like that.

Sure, there are loads of examples because these days you have to be 110% accepting... without any personal reservations on the topic. Any opinion that isn't completely accepting/supportive is seen as being racist/ (or whatever negative term). It's a matter of enforcing absolutes.

Your example of crime and travellers is a perfect example of this. I have no issue with travellers in themselves, as individuals. I have issues with the State supporting a culture that is so obviously detrimental to their own people. As such, I'd be termed a racist because I don't fully (and unreservedly) accept Traveller culture and believe it should be protected.

Warbeastrior

Warbeastrior wrote: »

There's a lot of stuff that I hope will stay stamped out like genuine discrimination but the PC brigade has gone too far. Cancel culture is absolutely sickening. People delighted to tear down individuals for one mistake is just wrong.

I'd throw in "reverse" discrimination of race or gender as being another one. The way that double standards are promoted these days is pretty shocking. They're so blatantly obvious but they're accepted/tolerated/ignored.

Would love to see a genuine move towards equality rather than elevating one group over another to score points.

CtevenSrowder

KiKi III wrote: »

Very true. The next generation will probably look at how we treated the homeless or those in Direct Provision the way we look at industrial schools.

I severely doubt it. Anyone with any iota of sense will realise the way people in Direct Provision or the homeless are treated in modern Ireland is aeons apart from how those in industrial schools were treated.

CrankyHaus

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure, there are loads of examples because these days you have to be 110% accepting... without any personal reservations on the topic. Any opinion that isn't completely accepting/supportive is seen as being racist/ (or whatever negative term). It's a matter of enforcing absolutes.

This is an American importation. Essentially anyone disagreeing with, or even questioning, a position is tarred as racist, homophobic, sexist, or some other term to intimidate them into silence.



The consequences of being tarred as such are not minor either, as people can be socially or professionally shunned and even lose their livelihood or be barred from advancement in their career.


It's part of a broader process of reducing every opposing opinion to the worst possible form of itself. Both the US right and left are guilty of this: anyone questioning mass immigration is a Nazi, and Nazis should be punched in the face; anyone supporting women's or minorities' rights is a cultural marxist and an existential threat to everything you hold dear.



In both cases these opposing views are not to be debated with, much less considered on their own merits, but destroyed, along with whoever may hold them, or even be suspected of holding them.



The result is to keep everyone at each others throats over relatively minor differences. The factory worker in Arkansas and the nurse in NYC are no longer working people sharing common aims but sworn enemies, divided by contrived splits over race, gender and culture. Meanwhile the 1% is laughing all the way to the bank and sending "charitable" endowments to the bodies, think-tanks and universities that perpetutate these divides from both the left and right.



The only saving grace in Ireland is that we're behind the curve on this and, outside of fringe weirdos, we haven't really gotten the Right Wing version of it yet.

Silentcorner

KiKi III wrote: »

Really poor examples. BuzzFeed is failing because it has an unsustainable revenue model, not because of its ideology.

The media generally is in a sorry state, because people no longer feel they should have to pay for news, but liberal newspapers like the New York Times have a future because people feel like they’re worth the price of a subscription https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/05/the-new-york-times-success-with-digital-subscriptions-is-accelerating-not-slowing-down/

It’s far too overly simplistic to suggest that Hilary’s loss represents a backlash against feminism as a whole. How then would we explain the popularity of Elizabeth Warren or AOC?

Similarly, Jeremy Corbyn was a horrendous leader and brought about the collapse of the Labour Party largely due to his lack of any coherent Brexit strategy. It had F all to do with feminism or diversity.

You’re choosing to see macro-trends through a tiny lens because it suits your own politics to see it that way.

Thanks, you have just described Identity Politics, which you subscribe to, in a nutshell.

You asked for examples, I gave you household names that we all have visibility on....

The Labour Party is in danger of splitting between groups of feminists, all entrenched in different strands of Identity Politics...the quality of the most recent leadership candidates was pretty appalling, so yes, between their female only list systems and Identity Politics it has come at a huge cost for the Labour Party...

We don't even need to look at the UK, despite the undemocratic gender quotas being imposed on Irish political parties we are not seeing any increase in the amount of women we elect....we are just about to get 12 female Senators (Taoiseach's nominees) because they all have vaginas and failed to get elected...you can imagine the quality of those politicians.

KiKi III

Silentcorner wrote: »

Thanks, you have just described Identity Politics, which you subscribe to, in a nutshell.

You asked for examples, I gave you household names that we all have visibility on....

The Labour Party is in danger of splitting between groups of feminists, all entrenched in different strands of Identity Politics...the quality of the most recent leadership candidates was pretty appalling, so yes, between their female only list systems and Identity Politics it has come at a huge cost for the Labour Party...

We don't even need to look at the UK, despite the undemocratic gender quotas being imposed on Irish political parties we are not seeing any increase in the amount of women we elect....we are just about to get 12 female Senators (Taoiseach's nominees) because they all have vaginas and failed to get elected...you can imagine the quality of those politicians.

So to your mind Brexit, the defining issue of the last five years in the UK had nothing to do with it? Corbyn’s inability to look beyond his personal euroskepticism to effectively lead the opposition to it wasn’t a factor? It was all about feminism... right so.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

So to your mind Brexit, the defining issue of the last five years in the UK had nothing to do with it? Corbyn’s inability to look beyond his personal euroskepticism to effectively lead the opposition to it wasn’t a factor? It was all about feminism... right so.

Brexit, Trump and the rise of the newish right are all pretty much a consequence of the left pushing things too far in regards to the whole identity politics sh1te..

KiKi III

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Brexit, Trump and the rise of the newish right are all pretty much a consequence of the left pushing things too far in regards to the whole identity politics sh1te..

That’s a ridiculous over-simplification. The Brits have been euroskeptic from day one, long before the term identity politics even existed.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

That’s a ridiculous over-simplification. The Brits have been euroskeptic from day one, long before the term identity politics even existed.

Genius is making complex ideas simple, not making simple ideas complex.