I'm rarely intemperate here, though there have been a few times I feel I've crossed the line and my toes are on it now, so I'm going to disengage. I have no respect for the opinions you've given, but I can, at least, respect you and hope that someday we can have a meaningful, honest discussion.
-
Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup. -
Everything you both say – and the bits I edited for brevity – I agree with. History goes in cycles and MAGA is really a reborn version of the American Party – the Know Nothings of the 1850s. But while its influence was short lived (though not its legacy) and confined to America, MAGA has seeped into global discourse, and it’s an ideology that revels in brashness, undermining of civility and revelling in ignorance. How can rationality counter tactical, bad-faith irrationality? Answers on a postcard, please.Hello, hello? What's going on? What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!
- E Tattsyrup.Comment
-
What are the reactions of posters here, to the reaction of a lot of Lefties in America and indeed else-where to the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk ?
Aren't these nasty Lefties actually showing their true colours ?
There is, no way normal civilised people would react in this manner, to such a horrific assassination of a man in-front of his wife and children ? !Comment
-
Bit late to the party here, but there's some interesting points here that are worth discussing I think (certainly more so than the nonsense Communist stuff)
I think liberalism in general is good, but there's a definite sense that it can go too far and be harmful. I think if you go back 250 years, life was hard and tenuous. Conservatism I would say arose out of a recognition that some things kept you alive more often that not, and those things were good. With the Industrial Revolution, we suddenly had a huge number of options available to us - conservatism became the voice that said "People can't go more than 20 mph or they'll get turned inside out", whereas liberalism said "No, let's invent trains". Conservatism said women at work was bad and gay people were bad, and liberalism said there was no real reason for that.
But now we have too much, and liberalism is reflecting that. We think men can compete in women's sports and that's fair and inclusive. We people who pay criminal organisations to put them on a plane or a boat to another country and "lose" their documents along the way should be welcomed. Liberalism is now becoming the side that has no real reason to it. I think society requires a balance required there, and I think that balance is reason, and a vision of the future. Are there things we want to preserve, for example? Will liberalism harm them? (Women's rights could be an example here)
I think that's a very one-sided argument - very typical of general discussion on immigration. There's plenty of other issues with it. For one, it creates huge issues for developing countries - so when 90% of Jamaican college graduates emigrate, that has a huge impact in terms of holding back Jamaica's development. African countries are facing big problems developing healthcare because when they train doctors, western countries poach them - and so Africans die for lack of adequate healthcare. Indian IT firms have a similar problem with losing key IT staff, again holding back their economy. As Eastern Europe depopulates, the very borders of Europe are likely to be more destabilised - that should be obvious from things happening right now with Russia.
Are these things we welcome?
It was Newton who said "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction", and that's true here as well, yet everybody ignores that opposite reaction. Which is strange - we should be very familiar with the devastating effects of brain drain from our own history.
Another big issue is carbon impact. Emigration/immigration has a very big carbon footprint. A return flight from, say, Ireland to India generates in the region of 3.5 tonnes CO2e. To meet carbon targets, the average individual should be reducing to 4 tonnes CO2e per year, and reducing further from there. (Ireland to Australia is closer to 7 tonnes CO2e). Most Indians I know will fly home at least once a year - and of course they would, to visit family and friends. It stands to reason that a society where an increasing number of people generate an entire year's worth of carbon emissions just visiting relatives is a deeply unsustainable one, and one where climate change is not only not going to be addressed, but is going to accelerate.
I think we need a lot more balanced- and unselfish - discussion about the wider impacts of immigration/emigration. I feel the way we look at it now is very colonialist - we view the developing world's resources as things we can help ourselves to. Raw materials in the olden days, labour now - same story, different resource.
I think your examples here may be biased towards people who have adopted to a culture - and while that deserves to be called out, I think care needs to be taken to put it in an overall context. Is it a majority of people who do that? Did it only work in a world where Irish people were in a 95% majority here, and not (as will be the case in the next 20-25 years) a minority here? How will the GAA manage in the future where the vast, vast majority of people who play (95%+ I think I saw in one article) are ethnic Irish? Is there a level of immigration that can integrate and a level beyond which it becomes a deluge? Is conservative Islam Irish culture? Yet it's growing across Western Europe with no signs that it's interested in integrating. The fact that the most common boy's name in England the last couple of years has been Mohammed I think should be a real concern.
I think the question of "What is Irish culture?" is one of those questions that can be hard to pin down in words so it sounds great, but everyone knows instinctively what the answer is. "What is life?" is a similar one - there's no agreed definition, yet we know what it is. Others will say "What is a woman?", which can be hard to define too once you get into technicalities around intersex of women who've had hysterectomies and so on - yet we all know what it is.
After the moon landing in 1969, the head of NASA - asked about the role of the new EU in the space race - passed a comment along the lines that it would be a shame if it did away with "that great breadth of diversity that is Europe's gift to the world". We're very rapidly getting rid of it now, I feel - everywhere is turning the same. Is that a good thing? Or is cultural diversity worth preserving?
I think the idea of the gender pension pay gap is one of the most bizarre things that modern society has gotten itself offended by. What does it matter if a husband retires with a bigger pension pot than his wife (or indeed, vice versa?) Are husband/wife not a team, after all - or partners, if you will? Do you zealously guard your pension pot and let your partner have none of it? If you got divorced, would it not be split equally?
The idea that mortgages mean that both parents have to work, while true in a lot of cases, says more about the societal failings of Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael in terms of actively ramping up house prices than anything else. It benefits so few people, yet we all seem to think it's great. It's bizarre.
Anyways, a long post to generate some debate! There's lots of stuff I didn't pick on, largely because I broadly agree with what you've said. That doesn't make for interesting debate though!Comment
-
There has been outright condemnation! There have also been trolls too, but not within Democrat leadership or mainstream. The trolls have also been condemned. Political violence is not acceptable. The impression im getting is that people are selectively seeing only the trolls and everythig gets trolled by some be it on the rght or left.
Actually Candace 0wens, kind of entertaining for all the wrong reasons, right wing podcaster is saying that Kirk was threatened in recent weeks by his own as he was about to start criticising Israel, she claims Netanyahu even contacted him. She is suggesting his death was perpetrated by a pro-Israel camp to silence him. Do I believe it, certainly not, is it possible? its not absolutely impossible. But if people on the right decide to choose her as their 'news' source and an example of right wing opinion across the board then he was assassinated by his own.Comment
-
There is not a single Democrat politician that has done anything other than condemn the killing. I have not seen a single person other than social media trolls say anything other than the killing was wrong and should never happen in a civilized society. Now the same could not be said for Republican politicians who openly mocked the death of Melissa Hortman, her husband and their dog. (look up Senator Mike Lees response)Last edited by Razors left peg; 16/09/2025, 9:19 PM.Its really not that complicated!!!Comment
-
It is rich for people on the right in America to get on their high horses about the reaction to the death of this fella,everyone has seen what large parts of the Republican Party have said about the ongoing genocide in Gaza,that is thousands of people being systematically massacred by a ally of there’s,give me a break with pontificating about reactions to tragedy’s…..Irish by birth ,Harps by the grace of god.Comment
-
Good that you are honest ~ But when you go down that road, of being selective about who you agree with getting killed, then you do need to see where you are, and what brought you here.
Because , when one group of people, say / think, that it is fine to kill this group or other ~ Then other people will decide that is is perfectly ok to reciprocate ! !Comment
Comment