Why does the Left hate so much?

Wibbs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The next time a woman resembling Thatcherite policies ends up on my ballot, I absolutely will. She's definitely one of my political heroes. I struggle to find any candidate who represents the economic policies I'd like to see. They could be a disabled moderate muslim woman, if they offered to cut taxes on small businesses and 'high earners' (by Irish standards which is 50-150k) I'd give them my first preference in a heartbeat.

Jaysus I wouldn't E and I'd fit the tax parts above. I prefer to consider the wider society rather than just myself and Thatcher most certainly didn't. Gave two hoots for those that fell by the wayside. Then again a libertarian I am most certainly not. I consider that more a sociopathy than a politic or an economic policy.

Sadly the only diversity offered on the ballot is from parties that I'd never vote for anyway.

I'd be with you there though.

WrenBoy

KiKi III wrote: »

Of course not. That would not be democracy. That would be very dangerous.

What I’m suggesting: Encouraging people from all walks of life to run for office is very healthy for democracy.

I agree 100% no one should have any barriers put up against them due to race/religion or sexual orientation if they want to get involved in politics.
I worry when I hear these terms we should encourage x people to do y though. From my experience it usual means instead of breaking down barriers for everyone it means helping one group at the expense of another.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination and can never be positive.

Edit I think KM said it for me better above, more or less.

Wibbs

km991148 wrote: »

These efforts to eliminate discrimination are just that - efforts to eliminate discrimination at all levels - education, chances further down the food chain etc

+1 an equality of opportunity not of outcome.

osarusan

breezy1985 wrote: »

Why? Do people start threads? With questions?they already think they know the answer to?

TBF to the OP, although their thread title was so general, they were referring to one specific incident involving Malala supporting a conservative candidate in a student election at Oxford.



The link in the OP didn't work for me at least, but I did fine a Daily Mail article with a column of screenshots of twitter vitriol towards her. Some did appear to come from 'the left' in that it was anti-conservative, the rest (the majority, I would guess, of what I saw) appeared to be from Muslims, mostly women I thought, and I'm not well up on how left or right that demographic tends to be. Maybe they think she's a bit 'uppity' these days.

km991148

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I never said any of these things were an attack on men.

I know you never went that far - you were the last in a themes of posts - I was generalising too

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But we had a society in the 50s where women were at 0 and men were at 4 in terms of supports, now women are at 7 and men are still at 4, Id like to see a strategy where both can get to 10, no party offers this, the moderate ones are putting women to 10 but leaving men at 4, the hard left putting women to 10 and moving men to 2.

I'm not entirely sure all that holds at those levels especially "putting men down to 2". But generally that was my point - in some areas men are suffering badly - in some areas women are. More should be done across the board.


To take it back to the start tho - slightly ironically - 'the left'* (generally) are the ones who would be for more funding of all these support services.


*Extreme nutters excepted

breezy1985

osarusan wrote: »

TBF to the OP, although their thread title was so general, they were referring to one specific incident involving Malala supporting a conservative candidate in a student election at Oxford.



The link in the OP didn't work for me at least, but I did fine a Daily Mail article with a column of screenshots of twitter vitriol towards her. Some did appear to come from 'the left' in that it was anti-conservative, the rest (the majority, I would guess, of what I saw) appeared to be from Muslims, mostly women I thought, and I'm not well up on how left or right that demographic tends to be. Maybe they think she's a bit 'uppity' these days.

The Daily Mail. Must be true then I suppose

gozunda

Danno wrote: »

The white straight male is a hate magnet for the left, and anyone who isn't white but dares align their support for the white straight male is labelled as a traitor to their race and has their intelligence sharply brought into question. All from the "tolerance, diversity and inclusion" brigade. And that's before any of the Christian/Jewish religion is brought up, then it becomes frenzied.

This. For a working example see the greta thread. Anyone daring to offer an opinion on antics or the content of any of her speeches are accused of being white / fat / bald / male / misogynists. Bizarely by people who largely seem to fit that profile. The screamings and hissy fits are to be seen to be believed

km991148

breezy1985 wrote: »

The Daily Mail. Must be true then I suppose

It was the UK Times I mainly seen for the lead article and the daily mail second.

The echo link had an extra '(' an the only political angle is someone calling the MP a 'Tory cnut' - even a conservative might use that term!


But for the main article - ye - two hard right newspapers that trade on selling fear and propaganda. Surprise surprise from the outlaw..

Abel Ruiz

KiKi III wrote: »

On a side note, the immediate move to personal abuse from the likes of Abel Ruiz is one of the things that actively discouraged women from participating in public life.

Laughable.
Seems like youre just making up an excuse, and trying to encourage a mod to pop in. Toddles.

km991148

gozunda wrote: »

This. For a working example see the greta thread. Anyone daring to offer an opinion on antics or the content of any of her speeches are accused of being white / fat / bald / male / misogynists. Bizarely by peoole who largely seem to fit that profile. The screamings and hissy fits are to be seen to be believed

Must check that thread out - see how this assumption you propose holds out.

Any examples to start me off?

KiKi III

gozunda wrote: »

This. For a working example see the greta thread. Anyone daring to offer an opinion on antics or the content of any of her speeches are accused of being white / fat / bald / male / misogynists. Bizarely by peoole who largely seem to fit that profile. The screamings and hissy fits are to be seen to be believed

I rarely see posts criticising the content of Greta’s speeches. I regularly see adult men attack this teenage girls’ appearance, accent, autism, accuse her her of being a puppet etc etc etc

And then people wonder why more women don’t get involved in politics.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Must check that thread out - see how this assumption you propose holds out.

Any examples to start me off?

Actually - forget it - just looked tat the last page alone - playground stuff...

No winners there!

Reverse, reverse, reverse, beep beep beep...

KiKi III

WrenBoy wrote: »

I agree 100% no one should have any barriers put up against them due to race/religion or sexual orientation if they want to get involved in politics.
I worry when I hear these terms we should encourage x people to do y though. From my experience it usual means instead of breaking down barriers for everyone it means helping one group at the expense of another.
"Positive discrimination" is still discrimination and can never be positive.

Edit I think KM said it for me better above, more or less.

The fact that I said “we should encourage people from all walks of life to run for office” and you (among others) immediately jumped to the conclusion that I meant positive discrimination and gender quotas is a real part of the problem.

Hold back on the assumptions, maybe.

breezy1985

KiKi III wrote: »

I rarely see posts criticising the content of Greta’s speeches. I regularly see adult men attack this teenage girls’ appearance, accent, autism, accuse her her of being a puppet etc etc etc

And then people wonder why more women don’t get involved in politics.

Some people pretend to have her best interests by moaning about her gap year. Probably the same people who pretend their anti lockdown because they suddenly care about mental health. Or when the Iona institute were anti gay marriage because they suddenly cared about the children

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

Actually, I responded to someone claiming white men are experiencing a serious, coordinated discrimination campaign with a statistic that shows white men are still very much in control of our institutions

The problem with that though is the idea that men in those positions care about the men below them. That, as a gender, there is a unified purpose with the "boys club" to help all men, regardless of their circumstances. However, there is not, and never has been such a system. In all countries, while men were at the top of society, other men were at the extreme bottom. In many cases, women received the right to vote before that of the average lower class male... or receive other rights before that of men, when it was other men making the decisions.

The point the other poster made, though, has some merit. Women do make up roughly half of the population, and have had equal rights to determine political success of candidates for decades now. The lack of women in political office is as much the choice of women as it is men. There just isn't the interest by women to enter politics in Ireland. It's not based on discrimination, it's based on choice/interest, which has been shown by the demands for quotas to push women into positions rather than allow it to happen naturally.

gozunda

KiKi III wrote: »

I rarely see posts criticising the content of Greta’s speeches. I regularly see adult men attack this teenage girls’ appearance, accent, autism, accuse her her of being a puppet etc etc etc. And then people wonder why more women don’t get involved in politics.

Nope incorrect. . The majority of posters there have posted about what the whole 'greta et al' thing is about and much wider issues. That type of post you highlight makes up a tiny number of such posts

One of the most notable groupings seem be made of screamings accusing all and sundry of being white / male / fat / bald / misogynist.

And on that note . How exactly do you "see" "adult men" accuse her of being anything? - when you have no idea who posts what other than your own bias? Own goal there?

And yes anyone involved in politics is at some stage going to be criticised - as are public figures. Plenty of women involved in politics tbf - Are they being voted into working governments by the electorate made up equally of men and women? - thats the question.

WrenBoy

KiKi III wrote: »

The fact that I said “we should encourage people from all walks of life to run for office” and you (among others) immediately jumped to the conclusion that I meant positive discrimination and gender quotas is a real part of the problem.

Hold back on the assumptions, maybe.

I only go by what I see has been standard operating procedure for the last couple of years. "To encourage" for many seems to mean clear the way and erect barriers for others. Im for equality of opportunity not outcome.

KiKi III

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The problem with that though is the idea that men in those positions care about the men below them. That, as a gender, there is a unified purpose with the "boys club" to help all men, regardless of their circumstances. However, there is not, and never has been such a system. In all countries, while men were at the top of society, other men were at the extreme bottom. In many cases, women received the right to vote before that of the average lower class male... or receive other rights before that of men, when it was other men making the decisions.

The point the other poster made, though, has some merit. Women do make up roughly half of the population, and have had equal rights to determine political success of candidates for decades now. The lack of women in political office is as much the choice of women as it is men. There just isn't the interest by women to enter politics in Ireland. It's not based on discrimination, it's based on choice/interest, which has been shown by the demands for quotas to push women into positions rather than allow it to happen naturally.

There just isn’t the interest is a massive cop out. Even if it were true (it’s not - the Repeal campaign was mostly ran and won by women, the #marref campaign had many also), would you not wonder why that is?

Women are hugely capable and interested. But they’re not running in Dail elections in huge numbers. Given the abuse I get on here for expressing uncontroversial opinions in an uncontroversial way (see page 2 of the thread for an example) I fully understand why a woman would be reluctant to put herself through that.

As for your old boys club point - all the more reason to break it up with more women and working class folk. Yiz are making my point for me.

km991148

Lots of love going on in this thread - people trying to understand each other. Left and right!

Thread title needs changed.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

There just isn’t the interest is a massive cop out. Even if it were true (it’s not - the Repeal campaign was mostly ran and won by women, the #marref campaign had many also), would you not wonder why that is?

You've just shown it yourself. They have particular interest in single issues/movements but have less interest in a career in politics.

Women are hugely capable and interested.

I never said they weren't.

But they’re not running in Dail elections in huge numbers. Given the abuse I get on here for expressing uncontroversial opinions in an uncontroversial way (see page 2 of the thread for an example) I fully understand why a woman would be reluctant to put herself through that.

Nah. That doesn't hold much water with me. You tend to post to feminist related threads, pushing a very female focused narrative. Which is fine.. but you do realise that posters will remember your past behavior, posting style, etc? Posters will assume that you're pushing the same focus you have on other threads, just as posters will assume the same about me. It's not about your gender. And.. I don't see what you got as "abuse"... that seems overly sensitive to me, considering the forum we're choosing to post on.

Politics is a dirty messy nasty career focus. I have no interest in joining it, because I feel that everyone who does so becomes corrupt, as it's a career of giving/receiving favors. Perhaps those women feel the same as I do. Or any number of reasons why such a career is unappealing.. Like I have zero interest in being a care worker. It's not related to my gender... it's related to me as an individual.

Ever consider that people put too much emphasis on gender, now that we have laws against gender discrimination?

As for your old boys club point - all the more reason to break it up with more women and working class folk. Yiz are making my point for me.

My point was that such a club doesn't exist to represent the whole gender. Those males on the top couldn't give a flying F about the male gender as a whole...

In any case, people are still individuals. The actions/choices of those who came before didn't happen because of their particular gender, but because of who they were, their backgrounds, and motivations. Dumbing that down to gender is ridiculous. It might have had some bearing a hundred years ago when society was far more controlled, and social mobility was far more restricted, but those days are long gone.

Putting women into power isn't going to be any different, except for how they, as individuals, behave.

BTW. Just for my own part, the gender of someone never factors into who I vote for. I genuinely don't care whether it's a man or a woman. It's their policies and what I know about them (how they've done their job previously), that matters. So... more women running for office? Sure. I don't mind in the slightest... (as long as they're running on a level playing field. Which is why I despise quota systems)

EmmetSpiceland

Abel Ruiz wrote: »

Laughable.
Seems like youre just making up an excuse, and trying to encourage a mod to pop in. Toddles.

Would be “nice” if one did, A.

gozunda

KiKi III wrote: »

...Given the abuse I get on here for expressing uncontroversial opinions in an uncontroversial way (see page 2 of the thread for an example) I fully understand why a woman would be reluctant to put herself through that....
.

KiKi. Welcome to boards. You dont have to be any gender on here to get abuse for "expressing uncontroversial opinions in an uncontroversial way" or otherwise.

I get dogs abuse for similar as do many others. Is it nice? No its not. But it happens. Some of the most vicious abuse seems to come from the permantly outraged against just about anyone who dares hold a contrary opinion to them.

EmmetSpiceland

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Would be “nice” if one did, A.

The white knight has rode in once more.

Eric Cartman

KiKi III wrote: »

There just isn’t the interest is a massive cop out. Even if it were true (it’s not - the Repeal campaign was mostly ran and won by women, the #marref campaign had many also), would you not wonder why that is?

Women are hugely capable and interested. But they’re not running in Dail elections in huge numbers. Given the abuse I get on here for expressing uncontroversial opinions in an uncontroversial way (see page 2 of the thread for an example) I fully understand why a woman would be reluctant to put herself through that.

As for your old boys club point - all the more reason to break it up with more women and working class folk. Yiz are making my point for me.

single issue referendums etc.. will always draw more from those impacted (the repeal referendum being distinctly more a womens issue) well that and men were told repeatedly to keep opinions to themselves by many of the far left we discuss here in the thread...

but politics in general is not single issue, you have to deal with voters on a variety of topics and a lot of those topics (defence, economics, commerce and trade, infrastructure, agriculture, planning etc... don't draw any passion from most people, but of the few interested in fighting their corner on a lot of those topics most seem to be men.

When you look at newcomer candidates in the last few elections, Gary Gannon had a variety of policies, dealt with issues which hit a broad spectrum of society, quoted his community work in broad sections. It was all appealing to a lot of people on a wide spectrum . As much as I'm not a fan of their policies, the same could be said for Hazel Chu. Then you take Rita Harold who's only experience was shouting through a megaphone at repeal rallies, wore the repeal jumper in her photo and every one of her policies were purely targeted to advancing the standing of young women. The same could be said about the national party and their candidates , limited appeal, single issues, not well rounded.

A lot of female candidates that do try and fail are because they fight on issues that hit them or their interests and don't form the wide, diverse policy strategy needed to appeal to enough voters to get elected.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

KiKi III wrote: »

Hmmm.

I see far more threads and users on this site bashing the far left than the far right.

And when the far left get up in arms it’s usually about things like a man being asphyxiated by a cop in the street or a domestic terrorist plot to kidnap a US governor... things that would upset most people.

And here are the right getting upset about... Malala is criticised over a student election.

The upbraiding Malala got on social media was ridiculous though. Why was her support of a friend something people felt entitled to criticise?

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The upbraiding Malala got on social media was ridiculous though. Why was her support of a friend something people felt entitled to criticise?

You do know its 2020? The last few years has been full of people (regardless of background) hiding behind keyboards and spouting sh!te.

Unless your loaded question (that you already knew the answer to) was rhetorical?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

km991148 wrote: »

You do know its 2020? The last few years of people (regardless of background) like to hide behind keyboards and spout sh!te.

Unless your loaded question (that you already knew the answer to) was rhetorical?

It’s funny that you could write a post like that and accuse my post of being loaded.

You’re all over the place here. Could you be more succinct?

My question wasn’t rhetorical. Why did she deserve criticism for supporting a friend? People’s politics differ. Maybe she’s Tory. She owes nobody an explanation.

Mr Meanor

Possible answer in a roundabout way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1xgXJ5_Q34

One eyed Jack

randd1 wrote: »

The same reason those on the far right do the exact same thing; they're hypocritical morons with a one eyed view of the world where anything that doesn't fit into that view is a danger.

They're two cheeks of the same arse, and yet all they produce between them is shi*e.

I resemble that remark! :mad:

km991148

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s funny that you could write a post like that and accuse my post of being loaded.

You’re all over the place here. Could you be more succinct?

My question wasn’t rhetorical. Why did she deserve criticism for supporting a friend? People’s politics differ. Maybe she’s Tory. She owes nobody an explanation.

Ah sorry, I just misread you then. I was talking about the entitlement and the generalisations implied in the the thread title. All I meant really was.. people feel entitled to criticise whatever and whenever because that's just what happens all the time...

It's just the way it works these days.
In this specific instance, who the fcuk knows! :pac: