You've been looking in the wrong direction, the dangers are coming from the Left - read OP

Compulsory Purchase Order? Yep, still a thing, I don’t think they’ve ever been used to purchase land owned by the Church though. The State appears to prefer to pay the Church rent instead for the use of their property -

https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2022/03/state-rent-school-buildings/

It’s a mere drop in the ocean though, as the States been dragging generations of parents through the ditches for decades over schooling and education. That’s why I don’t think it’s likely we’ll see change to the degree I think you’re thinking of - because children don’t vote, and by the time they’re adults, their priorities have changed dramatically.

Hacker group purporting to identify as “gay furries,” hacks agencies of at least 6 states that have infringed on access to gender affirming care:

Interesting take on a Barcelona FC pride post on Instgram - they lost 400,000 followers.

https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/14nsy1w/mundo_deportivo_fc_barcelona_lost_440_000/

Most of the responces appear to be of the "good riddance" and "****'em' nature. Reassuring to know football's extending it's anti-racism mesage to all forms of phobia.

Freguently athiest, oddly enough.

I wouldn’t say there was anything odd about it at all tbh, but I understand why you’d say ‘twas odd in fairness 😁

Personally I just wouldn’t conflate atheism with Leftist politics, or social and political movements which have nothing to do with atheism. Atheists are just as likely to be opposed to homosexuality, gender equality, etc, the whole gamut, as Christians, Muslims, etc. Wasn’t so long ago “Elevatorgate” was a thing, and PZ Myers was blasted for trying to use social justice as a means to promote atheism (he wasn’t the originator of atheism plus, just one of the more well-known names associated with the movement, which went nowhere) -

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/2deyuo/what_happened_to_pz_myers/

That didn’t do enough to damage the ‘New Atheism’ movement; responsibility for that nail in the coffin lies with Richard Dawkins and his ‘Dear Muslima’ dickhead behaviour -

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/06/28/dawkins-and-dear-muslima/

The New Atheism movement died a death, and out of the murky depths of the ‘manosphere’ emerged slimy pricks like Carl Benjamin and the whole weirdness of the ‘NoFap’ movement, eventually congealing in ‘Gamergate’, from which Milo Yiannopoulos emerged, and went on the attack against all things Progressive Left, referring to themselves as Classic Liberals and Conservatives (they were neither, but that hardly matters!).

Am I surprised there are atheists who refer to themselves as Leftists, who are opposed to anything they perceive to be associated with Progressivism, like Pride? No, I’m not really. Ignorance doesn’t lend itself to having to think too hard about anything which conflicts with a person’s world views.

Their arguments fall apart under the mildest of scrutiny because they don’t expect to have to justify their bigotry and therefore haven’t thought about it much, if at all.

The underlying reasons for it are influenced by culture, the justification for those reasons comes easier to people who can claim their reasons are based upon their religious beliefs. Atheists who don’t have that tend to fall back on their understanding of biology that they picked up from a secondary school textbook.

It’s easier for them to justify their bigotry when they can make fallacious appeals to the majority and that sort of thing, and call it common sense, but their arguments are no more logical or based on reason and rational thinking than the idiot who uses the argument that it’s because it’s written in a book, that they didn’t write.

The difference between phobias and bigotry is that phobias are irrational thoughts which have no foundation in reality; bigotry is an expression of those thoughts, which have no foundation in reality. It’s why we saw from the example you gave of the backlash against the Barcelona football club flying the Pride flag that not only did they lose 400k followers from Instagram in two days, but those people tried to encourage other people to do the same. That’s bigotry, that’s not just a phobia. People generally tend to keep their phobias to themselves. It’s their actions which demonstrate bigotry in demanding that other people should conform to their beliefs, or values, or standards. In reality, or when put in its appropriate perspective - 300k followers out of 122million is nothing.

https://www.barcablaugranes.com/platform/amp/2023/6/30/23778701/fc-barcelona-loses-300000-instagram-followers-following-lgbt-pride-post

This thread was only ever started as a rabble-rousing counterpoint to the thread claiming dangers coming from the right. The OP didn’t actually put any thought into their opening post other than to yet again appeal to the majority (or at least what to them appears to be a majority, from their subjective perspective), here -

Ordinary tax paying people on the right wish to conserve the social order and would have no truck with revolutionary lunacy. Yet, when we look at the left. who have the ear of the media, we realise that revolution and overthrow of our established order is exactly what they want.

Similarly, you’ll find justifications along the lines of ‘maintaining the social order’ as mere window dressing for their bigotry, like the first comment on the article above -

This agenda is against the natural order of mankind! It's out to tear down humanity! Shame, shame, shame on the Barcelona FC organization for imposing this degenerate agenda on the club fans!

They don’t even have extremist crap from Twitter, they don’t need it, they rely on the idea that their view is the rightful one, that is shared by the majority. Anything else just doesn’t make sense and is thereby irrational, from their perspective.

Take for instance the idea of Veganism as an ethical philosophy. Alex O’ Connor makes an interesting argument for Veganism by framing it in terms of our responsibility towards animals by our membership of a ‘moral community’. He went from producing content exploring theology and philosophy to going full-on into espousing the ethical principles of Veganism and why we should all be Vegan.

His conversation with Matt Dillahunty (well-known atheist skeptic within those circles) was a demonstration of what I explained earlier was the phenomenon of people who haven’t given much thought to justifying their bigotry because it never occurs to them that they have to, which leaves them somewhat ill-prepared to do so when they find themselves in that position, as Matt did, and performed poorly as a result, floundering for an argument and clutching at straws such as the idea that animals would go extinct if we didn’t breed them to eat them, or the impact on the agriculture industry, etc -

(this is only a clip from the two-hour conversation)

Alex has since walked back on his position somewhat, due to personal health issues, and has been roundly criticised by the same people who platformed and parroted his ideas in the first place. Personally I think that’s unfair to him, because it’s not as though he was knowingly attempting to mislead and misrepresent himself in order to gain validation and support from people who follow a Vegan philosophy (one which I don’t follow myself, but I understand why other people do, and I would never discourage anyone from doing so as I understand the benefits to humanity in doing so).

https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/110vaiq/alex_oconnor_no_longer_vegan/#:~:text=He%20has%20started%20to%20consume,further%20details%20at%20some%20point.

The same cannot be said of those who attempt to argue that people should be wary of danger coming from the left, as nothing more than a mere counterpart to the idea that there is any danger coming from the right. They don’t even believe it themselves, which is exactly why their arguments are so poor - they’re an insincere attempt to induce fear and indulge prejudice in other people, which manifests itself as bigotry.

When I say that bigotry is the expression of those irrational thoughts, I mean that it’s a physical manifestation of the irrational thought, the behaviour which follows as a result of the irrational thought, be it in their attitudes or their actions towards other individuals or groups of people on the basis of their irrational beliefs.

That’s distinct from those people who try to justify their bigotry with having read that they should behave in this manner towards others because they read it in a book, or they were told by someone else that it was a moral imperative to treat other people as they do based upon what they’d been told about those people.

It’s distinct again from people who fuel other people’s prejudices and bigotry for their own personal or political gain, who don’t actually genuinely hold those beliefs themselves, but they know other people do. Grifters are a good example of that sort of behaviour, encouraging other people to express their bigotry as the right thing to do, in pursuit of the truth and reality and all the rest of it.

In reality it’s just an excuse to be a dickhead.

Ironically enough, the conclusion of the thread isn’t contingent upon either your declaration, or your rejection of the premise of my argument.

Puberty blockers are not reversible.

Lot of assumptions there regarding the governments political stance (neither party in the coalition is left-wing - they're both center-right) but that's probably based on persepctive. If you're further right than the parties, then chances are you'll see them as left, but that doesn't mean they actually are. The positive thing is that both far left and far right are both fringe elements in this country and therefore pretty benign. But - again - that's the far element.

I'm still yet to see a credible thread from the left that isn't extremist. The tax and nationalisation points you raise are vague at best and it's this vagueness that makes me think you're clutching at straws, so again: I've been in this thread a long time and no one's presented credible non fear-based concrete evidence of a threat, and I kind of feel that, if said threat existed, someone would have done so by now.

Real danger comes from the polarisation of people within a country. It is getting to the point that even small left views get labelled far left and small right views get labelled far right.

As long as we continue to see people as belonging to either one tribes we rup ourselves apart.

Very rarely are people 100% either left or right. There is a lot of commonality between people... just the Internet highlights the worst in people and presents it as the normal, that and people use it in place of a social life, so have little real world experience.

The Internet, like any great tool can be used for good or for bad, it is all about how we use it.

Fair point, my apologies, but uness Sinn Fein get in, I don't see them getting in without an overall majority which is never going to happen. The others are too small to threaten. People before Profit is not a threat. Barrett is definitely not a threat.

It's scarmongering.

Being in parliament does not make them being in government and just because there's no far-right presence doesn't mean they're a threat.

It honestly just sounds like you're scared of anything left-wing at this point, hence the accusation of scaremongering.

Well come on now, you’ve managed to propose Schrödingers Leftists in all fairness given this was your earlier assessment of the Left -

That's the problem with the left, all moral crusades and paranoid nonsense and no real actionable ideas that benefit anyone.

You’re then expecting anyone should be concerned about the Left. If you’re not, why should anyone else care?

Seems like they’re incapable of doing anything, let alone declaring a truce from infighting amongst themselves long enough to form a Government. Gino Kenny is taken about as seriously as Paul Murphy or Mary Lou McDonald. The idea of a credible threat from the Left is laughable 😁