De Wednesday Papers

at

irishtimes

 

-1examiner
exam2
XsmF9B5
C299-t-XcAAw83A
C2-BJMCXgAA9ArR
C29syCbWgAIPJOvC297jJoXAAIhMOQ
C29vI0yXcAIZclaC2-MnM-WIAAbuLG
C296SwHXgAMb4ZE

MORE to folly

109 thoughts on “De Wednesday Papers

      1. Clampers Outside!

        In fairness, at least Bernie Sanders came out and said well done. I don’t expect the hysterical left wing numpties to follow their uncrowned king. Fair play Bernie!

        Then there’s this story among many other good news stories for the US…
        http://fortune.com/2017/01/17/donald-trump-hyundai-auto-investment/
        “The Hyundai Motor Group said it plans to lift U.S. investment by 50% to $3.1 billion over five years and may build a new U.S. plant – the latest auto firm to announce fresh spending after President-elect Donald Trump threatened to tax imports.”

        Needs no comment that :)

        1. Nigel

          Are you still not a Trump supporter by the way? Castigating people for not praising him (how North Korean of you) and pushing a pro-Trump story suggests the facade of neutrality’s slipped.

          1. Clampers Outside!

            Nope.

            You’re incapable of seeing that people can do some good, and you can still disagree with other aspects of their character or their other decisions. I don’t view the world in a B&W way like you do.

          2. Nigel

            So relentlessly negative about Clinton and the March, bending over backwards to eat Trump’s spinning and lies. I’m glad you’re so dead set against double standards.

        2. Happy Molloy

          Right wing autocrats often lead to a boom economy history has shown.

          Tends to be their foreign policy that leads to their downfall! With a good smattering of bigotry thrown in.

          1. Nigel

            Well, i mean, it isn’t as if the last right-wing government in the US didn’t lead to BOTH a global economic crash and a cascading series of conflicts embroiling the entire Middle East and North Africa triggering the worst refugee crisis n human history, so I’m not sure there’s even that hope.

        3. Listrade

          “Chung Jin-haeng, president of the group, denied that the plan was driven by pressure from Trump ”

          Oh. I see what happens when you’re selective in quotes.

          I’d image companies do suddenly develop investment plans in a matter of weeks rather than months especially of that value. I imagine it is possible the precise 3.1bn was put together just after the election and not planned for a considerable time long before any campaign. It is irrelevant that they were seeing a growing demand for their cars, which has seen them ramp up investment in the US since 2002 ($1.7bn between 2002 and 2004 on one plant alone).

          The great thing about “assembled” in the US is you can just get robots to do most of the work, but still have the lower cost base of manufacturing the parts elsewhere. Those robots need jobs too.

          You’d be a fool and a communist to suggest that this investment had been in the works as part of an overall investment since 2002 and that the only connection to Trump would be how he has name specific companies (erroneously) and caused significant share drops for them. In no way at all having any possible implications for ethics or insider trading, I’m sure none of his friends or cronies with holdings in those companies offloaded any before his tweets. I’m also sure this wasn’t good politicking from Hyundai to prevent being called out and announcing something they already had planned.

          But yeah, Trump Ra Ra Ra.

    1. Listrade

      Trump also signs executive order that finalises a pipeline that will directly benefit two companies Trump has holdings in, not to mention untold environmental damage. What’s another Flint Michigan, that’s old news anyway. And the right of field is silent, the not-alt-right-honest-just-anti-Hillary-some-of-my-best-friends-have-sock-puppet-troll-accounts-on-twitter-with-a-black-person-avatar are silent. Bernie wasn’t, but we’ll just focus on TPP and TTIP.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        One step at a time. I never said he was going to be brilliant, you assume I did because you’re pissed off your war mongering killer is out of the picture.

        What’s wrong with celebrating the good bits that would never have happened under your choice, eh?

        Suck it up.

        1. Nigel

          Your commitment to defeating the towering evil that was Clinton rings hollow when you remain silent in the face of Trump’s actions.

          Counting down to the day when he allies with Putin and Assad and joins in the merry slaughter ongoing in Syria. And I don’t think it’s likely because he’s a Russian stooge, I think it’s likely because he’s a towering idiot, and the Republicans won’t stop him. (The Pentagon might. God almighty, I can’t believe I’m hoping the Pentagon will check him.)

          1. Clampers Outside!

            ” rings hollow when you remain silent in the face of Trump’s actions. ”

            I am commenting on his actions. The pipeline signing is terrible, I already said so. Now he’s done some good, so, fair play.

        2. mildred st. meadowlark

          Seriously Clampers, when has Listrade crowed over something as petty as that?

          The only one I see doing that here is you.

          1. Clampers Outside!

            Opps…

            Listrade… I do declare I have a mistaken identity. I’m sure I saw ‘LW’ there. My bad,

            Thanks Mildred, I stand corrected.

            Listrade is one of the finest commenters on here.

          2. Clampers Outside!

            No… wait…. he did…. here …. what do you call this but petty…..

            “not-alt-right-honest-just-anti-Hillary-some-of-my-best-friends-have-sock-puppet-troll-accounts-on-twitter-with-a-black-person-avatar are silent.”

            And I responded in kind.

            I retract my apology, thanks.

          3. mildred st. meadowlark

            Ah right.

            By all means continue your petty crowing then. I’m sorry, but I won’t be reading, because, frankly, it’s nauseating stuff. And I honestly thought you were better than that.

          1. Listrade

            Ah right. When you said “your war mongering killer” I thought was a direct reference to who I preferred, which was Bernie.

            I guess it’s only the left who are guilty of quick assumptions though. Just for qualification, I was anti-Trump, just like your claim being anti-Hillary doesn’t make you pro-Trump try and give weight to that argument by giving the same benefit of the doubt to others…oh and not constantly posting pro-Trump.

            In terms of giving credit where it’s due, the Hyundai deal owes more to Bush than anyone else seeing as the initial and biggest investment happened under his term. Then some credit to Obama as no matter what people say he did increase jobs, by quite a lot, which has meant to more cars being bought and lead to a plan to increase investment.

          2. Nigel

            Why? I’m not the one still fighting the election. You are literally the only one who brings Clinton up. Clinton’s gone, out of it. You got what you wanted, and now you’re trying desperately hard to be happy about it.

          3. Nigel

            Lis – I was and am anti-Trump, but I wasn’t pro-Bernie, largely because I assumed he didn’t have a chance and was resigned to Clinton getting the nomination. I regret that, because he did much better than I expected – not that my support would have meant anything, obviously.

          4. Listrade

            I hear you Nigel. When he lost, I was behind HC on an anti-Trump agenda. I don’t think I was ever pro-HC, at least not on here other than speaking out on that run of Alt-Right news sources against HC we saw.

    2. Nigel

      You’re hardly in a position to be commenting on what others are supposedly not commenting on. Trump and the hard right are in power and hard at work, and you’re LOLing at the ‘hard left’ and siping at the women’s march? While for everything else… tumbleweeds…

      Obviously you can comment on what you like, but having a go at others for what they supposedly do or do not comment on? Glass house, Clampers.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        Plse Nigel, TPP and TTIP were HUGE concerns of everyone on the left.

        This is HUGE news for them. They’d be literally out shouting it out how great they were if they had done it.

        Suck it up.

        Sniping at the women’s march… seriously? Nigel go google women’s march Iran 1979. That’s a women’s march, then compare their march against the hijab and the liberal muppets, men and women, who wore American flags as hijabs at this so called women’s march…. I know which march I’d applaud, and I know which one I will not applaud. And it’s not the Soros puppet march… with Askhley Judd sporting a $50,000 pearl necklace while decrying inequality GUFFFFFAWWWWW! Or these three muppets telling us that Trump is degrading…. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C25hJL8UsAA6ZYC.jpg

        Get off the bus!

        1. Nigel

          That whole paragraph there is riddled with stupid – as if the difference between being forced to wear something and having the freedom to choose to wear something wasn’t meaningful. You don’t have to applaud anything. You don’t have to comment on anything. But you do comment and you do applaud – you think women wearing hajibs and Ashley Judd’s pearls are more important than, say, the defunding of Planned Parenthood and the the order for the Dakota Pipeline and the muzzling of federal scientists. You think if you laugh and guffaw loud enough, joining in with all the other laughers and guffawers, you’ll drown out the voices opposing those things.

          And you still castigate others for not talking about stuff while you relentlessly focus on trivialities of which you have an embarrassingly poor understanding. Demanding that people praise Trump. This is clownish.

          1. Neil is a gum

            Have to say I agree with you Nigel on this.
            While I do understand the point Clampers is making its quite poorly expressed. But hey it’s a blog site. Don’t be getting up on your bully pulpit.

          2. Listrade

            “”Freedom to choose” Sarsour campaigns against the criminalisation in Sharia Law, which is a common law system for settling disputes as well as a religious code for how a Muslim lives their lives. Much like other religions that commonly settle minor disputes among a congregation through mediation with a local religious leader and also impose lifestyle codes, some of which are also contradictory to progressive values.”

            Fixed it for you, wouldn’t want you to fall for misinformation to promote an agenda.

          3. Clampers Outside!

            ” Demanding that people praise Trump.”

            I did no such thing. All that is needed is an acknowledgement that it’s a good thing. To do that, it does not even need to be said that Trump signed it.

            A simple “woohoo no more TPP or TTIP” would do. … but no… not even that….. just tumbleweed….

            that was my point.

            Stop saying I said sh** I didn’t.

          4. Nigel

            You were schooled on that Sharia thing already, weren’t you? Open to facts and nuance and not seeing the world in black and white are we? What a joke.

          5. Nigel

            ‘All that is needed is an acknowledgement that it’s a good thing.’

            No. All that’s needed is some sense of what he’s going to do instead, until then there’s nothing but fear and uncertainty and lots and lots of lies.

          6. Clampers Outside!

            Plse Nigel… make a full sentence, explain your accusations… “schooled” in what?

            Schooled because I make an effort to look for information… what, what are you on about?

          7. Clampers Outside!

            ” No. All that’s needed is some sense of what he’s going to do instead, until then there’s nothing but fear and uncertainty and lots and lots of lies.”

            OK Nigel… OK…. the guy who is most likely to de-escalate the eight wars the US is involved in is the guy that scares you…

            I don’t know what to say….. you’ve really bought into this “Trump is a Nazi” narrative, haven’t you.

            You need to stay off the net.

          8. Listrade

            Thank you, the sudden interest in what feminism should be by r/Donald has been an embarrassment. The whole alt-right has spent years denigrating feminism and now all of a sudden decides it can dictate the terms of feminism after a very successful and peaceful march.

          9. Nigel

            Information like that story you posted above? Like when you said Slate magazine are pedophile apologists? And the Sharia thing? Not being able to tell the difference between having the freedom to chose to wear something and follow religious rules and being forced to do so? Yeah, you’re a reliable source of information all right.

          10. Nigel

            ‘the guy who is most likely to de-escalate the eight wars the US is involved in is the guy that scares you… ‘

            Actually what’s most scary is that supposedly rational thinking people with eyes and ears and brains think things like this, or are unembarrassed to claim that they do.. The whole ‘eradicating ISIS off the face of the earth’ rhetoric gives you hope for a de-escalation of conflict, does it? The hell is wrong with you?

          11. Nigel

            I do need to get off the net, though. This cheerful obtuse indifference in the face of wickedness is, at the risk of sounding like a snowflake, triggering my depression. Later.

          12. mildred st. meadowlark

            Have a hot chocolate and go frolic with a dog in a park, or on a beach.

            Guaranteed happiness.

          13. Clampers Outside!

            @Listrade…
            I’m not sure if you are aiming at me… with that feminism bit.
            My interest is not sudden. It runs for over ten years. Originally from my experience within the area of domestic abuse and domestic violence and how feminism warped research to demonise men so that feminism could make money from DV services for their movement, rather than use the money to understand the whole picture. Instead they used it to push the idea that only men are perpetrators because of the ‘patriarchy’.

            Good news is that Canada, Australia, USA, UK and soon here there are movements against this ideology that has damaged research in the area of DV and set understanding of it back decades.

            You’d do well watching this to understand the damage feminism has done in DV intervention…
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtOsEkY_UHc&t=851s

          14. Listrade

            @clampers, no it wasn’t directed at you. I always direct any issue with something you said right at you.

            Yup I’m aware of DV, I’m aware of the issues. One specific issue is blaming the whole of feminism for a failure of successive (largely male) governments to tackle DV in its entirety. Or the largely make gardai to take cases seriously when men are attacked or the largely male courts to impose appropriate sentences. All of which is the entire fault of the entire feminist movement.

            Men were demonised and for political purposes. And it worked. It lead to action, it lead to funding, it lead to legislation, it lead to homes and help. For women.

            Men’s advocacy groups use this as a reason for why it’s the fault of THE ENTIRE FEMINIST MOVEMENT, because “where’s the homes for men?” Well, instead of peeing and moaning on r/redpill, get out and do the hard advocacy for DV on men! That’s what the early pioneers for women did, why should they do your work for you? The MRA are happier and prefer to just blame THE ENTIRE FEMMINIST MOVEMENT than do their own policy work, get their own donations and funding for homes, run a home.

          15. Nigel

            I shall take the hound for a trot through the woods and go write a story about fairies and butterflies. Just…need…to.shut…computer…down…

          16. Clampers Outside!

            @Listrade… “Fixed it for you”

            No, you didn’t. Thanks. Look up some more on that Sarsour…

            Then look up Sharia Law and what it is. It is incompatible with western civilisation. Simple as. It is not complicated. She campaigns for it.

            If you are trying to say she is campaigning for changes within Sharia Law…. well, that’s not possible because Sharia Law is, as is most of Islam, down to ” interpretation “.
            Hence the varying types of Imams, some peaceful, some not, interpret Sharia Law differently. There is no central code of practice that one might find in say, The Vatican. There are different Imams from different schools and each makes their interpretation.
            She can campaign all she likes, but that is nothing more than a platitude, as she cannot change each Imams interpretation, and she would be well aware of that.

          17. Listrade

            @clampers you’re tying yourself up in knots. I know what Sharia Law is, I wouldn’t have commented otherwise. She isn’t campaigning for it, she is campaigning against it being criminalised.

            You speak out against Sharia Law as if it were one single code, then state how it is interpreted differently so it isn’t really one thing…Which is entirely the point! Some interpretations are more lenient and more liberal, they aren’t the demonised interpretations that are presented.

            Her campaigns are entirely consistent with her feminism. It is her choice to wear what she wants and to have a faith and a faith that isn’t criminalised. Not to have an Iman on the Supreme Court.

            As pointed out, the exact same mechanism is in place for numerous religions all with differing levels of tolerance, yet they aren’t criminal in 22 states.

          18. Clampers Outside!

            @Listrade “a failure of successive (largely male) governments to tackle DV in its entirety. ”

            What research were they relying on? Who produced it? That’s your answer to that quandary of a pickle.

            “get out and do the hard advocacy”
            It costs £50,000 a year just to run an emergency phone line in the UK. There are many reasons why it hasn’t got off the ground but if you watch this and wait for the audience engagement at the end there are many reasons given by a young man for the problems in setting up shelters and getting funding.

            Within this video you will hear of the initiatives that men’s advocacy groups have done. Such as The Men’s Initiative in the US, namely New York, where men’s rights activists campaigned to get more black male teachers into schools to help young black boys do better as they have no male role models and a teacher ratio of 85:15 majority white/female. This is also being replicated in another initiative in London where young inner city white boys are the most in need.

            There are initiatives, they are not as established as women’s who have had fifty sixty years of getting organized and have actively discouraged men’s initiatives by saying we don’t need them that feminist groups can provide. Which they cannot.
            the idea that men’s groups do not work towards on the ground activities is a myth created by feminism to demonise the men’s movement.

            I do hope that there won’t be the standard…
            ‘on they did a little job’ *slow clap*
            ….smart arse reply to this, because that is how posts such as this has been received on here in the past. I do hope.

            Video is from The Battle Of Ideas from last Oct 2016 in the UK.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDUfsIcV_IU

          19. Listrade

            Any public policy advocacy is a struggle, it wasn’t easy for the female DV groups to get through what they did. It will also be a struggle for the legitimate MRAs. But the biggest issue I have in supporting many of these groups is their willingness to attack and blame feminism as a whole.

            I know not all MRA groups are on the internet blaming women and sharing tips on picking up girls in bars. I know some are doing genuine work for good without negativity. But you see what happens when you focus on a few small groups who are negative and use that to dismiss and criticise an entire movement? Yeah, that.

            Most discussions I’ve had (and this is no different) on support for male DV victims start with statements against feminism and not in evidence based policy.

            They don’t see the irony in accusing feminism of keeping them unheard and lost and yet rolling their eyes at accusations of the patriarchy at work. Yes some feminists have demonised men, some. The large ground work of female DV support was done with evidence though, not blame. It was a long hard process. But they did it.

            I just want one discussion on male DV that isn’t about how feminism is to blame.

            Maybe next time huh.

          20. Clampers Outside!

            Side note: Our own John Waters is in this vid…. I’ve never been a fan. But he is speaking in an area that he has knowledge in.

            He gets attacked by an audience member at one point in a sickening manner, and fair play to Mr Waters in how he handles it.

          21. Listrade

            @clampers on Sharia Law, ok let’s say you misrepresent her position in Sharia Law as if it were a single entity. You don’t go out your way to explain which interpretation of the Law she advocates. This is the tactic of the Daily Mail in presenting Sharia Law as a single thing.

          22. Clampers Outside!

            Fair points Listrade, I don’t agree with all of it, but there ya go. I do agree that men’s movements finger pointing all the time at feminism, does not help.

            But I disagree that doing so is a total waste. Some amount must be done, especially when today, for example, that feminist speakers invited to the recent SAFEIreland summit in Nov 2016 on domestic violence – a conference supposed to be specifically about DV – can be heard and seen literally shouting during the conference “Fu** The Patriarchy” to great applause. The patriarchy is a theory. Nothing more. But that’s just the raucous side.
            Then there’s the campaigning side, campaigning against the use of statistics on male victims of DV and describing such statistics as “unhelpful” and “dangerous”. This was Karen Ingala Smith, who spoke at the conference to great applause. This IS misandry, nothing more. And to do so under the guise of domestic violence prevention is quite literally despicable.

            I have no problem with mens groups pointing fingers at this kind of feminist misandry. And that is what it is.

          23. Listrade

            @clampers the patriarchy is as tangible and specific as “feminism”. It isn’t a cabal of white men dictating policy and oppression, more a male dominated status quo. Most of the status quo isn’t deliberate, it’s just a sticking to tradition or how they got the job. E.g Google’s recruitment policy was for clones of sergey and larry. It wasn’t deliberately restrictive, but you had to have attended Montessori (an expensive privileged in US) and done computer engineering in an Ivy League school. Then pass all the obnoxious tests they put you through. Well those schools aren’t that inclusive. They require some privileged to go to, so that excludes many. With or without the problems in selection of students and whether sexism, classism or racism exists there. Then like puppets with no imagination, the rest of the tech industry replicated and copied Google. But that unknowing (giving benefit of the doubt) exclusivity is part of the problem. It isn’t just the overt oppression.

            It’s about listening, not attacking, not whataboutery. The whole “not all men” meme wasn’t saying all men are rapists, it was a reaction to the fact that women couldn’t discuss their own experiences of assault, sexism, rape or violence without a man jumping into the conversation and saying “not all men”. It wasn’t an attack, just satire and a call to listen.

            You’ve criticised BLM. Same there. They aren’t saying unarmed white people aren’t shot by the police, they aren’t saying people with mental health issues aren’t wrongly shot by police, they’re focus is on a single issue that affects them. They feel that a higher proportion of unarmed black men are killed and it is because racism (overt or unconscious). The all lives matter crowd jump in with their hash tags and don’t listen to people’s experiences because they don’t want to hear. On this site you have lumped in the whole BLM movement with the evils of the left. It’s one single issue advocacy movement. Some in BLM are extreme, but you have disparaged a whole movement.

            So maybe there isn’t an overall defining patriarchy. But there isn’t one overall “feminism” body or “BLM” or “MRA” or left or right. Some in all those groups are extreme individuals on their own power trips who will say extreme things to get attention. They don’t represent anyone but themselves in ideology or their words. So ignore them and listen more to people’s experience.

            You do seem to have your heart in the right place, I’m pretty sure if we listed all the things we wanted for the world and care about, we’d have largely similar lists. It’s just hard to agree when you use the same tactics of blame and broad judgements you accuse others of.

            The things these groups are fighting for aren’t personal attacks on you. A few might make it personal, but stick to listening to the majority. Listen without whataboutery.

          24. Clampers Outside!

            My point on Sharia Law is that it does not matter what interpretation Sarsour advocates for. And she knows this. She cannot speak for all Imams or all variants of Islam. Sharia Law is literally “interpretation” of god’s law by the preachers / Imams. Islam as it is preached depends on each ‘scholar’ each Imam.

            She cannot say that she advocates for all of them because each have their own interpretation, that is how it is intended to be. This is not a Daily Mail tactic, this is the way Islam works through the interpretations of each Imam.

          25. Listrade

            @clampers Sharia Law – does she specifically state she is advocating for everyone or is it campaigning on the principle of religious freedom and freedom from persecution (I.e. The actual criminalising of Sharia Law in 22 states which is at the whole heart if this)?

            Careful of assumptions and accusations remember. Being anti-criminalisation is not the same as pushing for or advocating for wholesale acceptance of an ideology.

            I am against the criminalisation of drugs, however, I don’t believe that we should be able to buy heroin with a packet of chicaktees at the shop.

            The problem there is that no one advocating for decriminalisation of drugs is calling for heroin and meth to be at the checkout next to chewing gum, it just sounds good to debase a reasonable and rational point with an extreme bit of hyperbole.

          26. Clampers Outside!

            Sharia Law existing alongside law of the land does not work. It’s been tried in the UK and it’s not working because of how it is open to interpretation, and when allowed, it is among its practitioners seen to supercede any law of the land. Sharia Law is incompatible with western law and values.

            Remember to that Sharia Law, such as enforcing the hijab, are not from the prophecy but are interpretations. Banning Sharia Law does not inhibit ones religious practices as per the book, it inhibits the ‘interpretations’.
            Maybe my language is is too blockish… so if you’ll forgive my borrowing a quote from wikipedia… “There are two primary sources of sharia: the Quran and the Hadiths (opinions and life example of Muhammad).[7] For topics and issues not directly addressed in these primary sources, sharia is derived.”

            “derived” – That’s not hyperbole.

            Now if you want to talk about what is actually in the original hadiths and “opinions” of Muhammed…. we’ll need a whole day on that :) And there are some warped ideas in there, that are incompatible.

          27. Listrade

            But it doesn’t exist as a legal system, it isn’t running alongside anything! No matter what the interpretation.

            There are Christian groups where civil matters are settled via a priest. Why are they allowed to exist alongside existing law? These same groups helped cover up child abuse.

            We either ban all religious codes and their many interpretations and “courts” (because there are many) or none.

            They all mostly settle neighbour disputes, but all delve into uncomfortable areas that doesn’t sit with national law. Be it child abuse or forcing homosexuals to attend correction classes.

          28. Clampers Outside!

            ” Any public policy advocacy is a struggle, it wasn’t easy for the female DV groups to get through what they did ”

            Maybe you should look up the founder of the first refuge ion the world and writer of the first book on DV… Erin Pizzey. Feminists attempted to kill her, her pet, burn down her home, and drove her out of the UK because she wanted to work with women and men…. A genuine movement for equality would not have done those things. But feminism and the feminists of the time in the UK did. That’s an historical fact.

          29. Listrade

            There you go again. It never ends. All feminists, the whole feminist movement. There is genuinely no hope when you just want to attack a whole group. There is no discussion to be had when you won’t shift from whataboutery or debasing a whole disparate group.

          30. Clampers Outside!

            @Lstrade reply to 1.39 comment

            “feminism”. It isn’t a cabal of white men dictating policy and oppression – I know.
            Tell the feminists who speak about the patriarchy like it were a hard nosed tangible fact and use it as an excuse for everything they dislike.

            “It’s about listening, not attacking, not whataboutery.” – The problem there is that feminism believes it has the answers to what are mens problems. This is wholly and utterly wrong. One cannot apply as ‘feminist lens’ and completely ignore biology, which feminism does. Pointing this out is not an attack. Pointing out the theory of patriarchy, is incapable of seeing the views of anything other than its’ own ideological view point is not an attack, it’s an inevitable fact of that view point and theory.
            Not all men, is a bit like this… Feminism uses the patriarchy theory to berate men, and every now and again it stops berating them and says ‘are you OK, we can help, not all men are like this’ and then goes back to berating them. Its a cop out, nothing more.
            Una Mullally applied this in classic fashion some months back when she berating men, she stuck into the top of her piece that when she says “all men” she means “all the bad men” and then went on a rant against “all men”…. childish, intellectually dishonest nonsense is all that can be described as.

            I’m not getting in to the BLM thing right now… this has enough tangents for one day. I hope that’s OK with you. Another day.

            “You do seem to have your heart in the right place, I’m pretty sure if we listed all the things we wanted for the world and care about, we’d have largely similar lists.” I second that Listrade :)

            “It’s just hard to agree when you use the same tactics of blame and broad judgements you accuse others of.” I beg to differ…

            ” The things these groups are fighting for aren’t personal attacks on you.” – I know that. But remember, it was feminism who pursued the idea of politicising the personal and introducing subjectivity to aspects of law. That’s about the person. Also, another discussion for another day.

            “A few might make it personal, but stick to listening to the majority.” – the majority… are ya sure you want to listen to the masses of ill informed? Or did I misread what you mean there… I think I have.

            “Listen without whataboutery” – more often than not, I steer away. But I do use it when its thrown at me… Nigel being a class A example. But at least he and I do try to remain tough but hospitable to each other, which is more than cen be said of those that laveled all sorts of c*ap in my direction.

            I hear ya. I gotta leave it at that for now.

            Also, the timeline in the thread is getting very mixed up. Its been good Listrade.

            namaste

          31. Clampers Outside!

            ” whataboutery or debasing a whole disparate group”

            I didn’t, I specifically said the feminists of that time, the 60s, and specifically with reference to DV practices.

            I think this confusion is due to the mixing up of our posts which are not in any proper order, unfortunately.

            Again… we’ll have to move on…. or restart else where… but I’m wanted elsewhere right now.

    3. ReproBertie

      Putin’s been speaking out against TTIP since long before the US election so it’s no surprise that his puppet would scrap it.

  1. Sido

    ” Debated in secret”/secure democrcy . We’ve all seen the Flanagan take Screw the lot of them. They’re all bought,.

    1. Malta

      Our old friend badatmemes has regularly suggested that people commenting on the papers should identify the paper and they story they are referring to. Your comment is a prime example. What are you talking about? Is it a comment about a particular story? Is it a reply to Clampers?

  2. Murtles

    Love the front of all the papers in the shop this morning about the Irish lotto win :-
    The Irish Times – €88.5m
    The Irish Examiner – €88m
    The Irish Sun – €88m
    Not shown here
    The Irish Daily Star – €90m (in the biggest font possible).
    Is this the fake news Donnie T was talking about? Are The Star going to add the extra €1.5m to the pot to justify their headline. I would mind but they have €88.5m in the first line of the report so why jack it up? Grrrrrr.
    P.S. If the winner of said lotto jackpot would like to sue for this outrage, I studied law (online…..just now….) and will set up lawsuit…….for a small retainer fee of course…..

          1. Starina

            yeah yeah, bualadh bos Clampers, #notallwhitepeople, etc. you keep being outraged over things that I haven’t said, if that’s what makes you happy.

        1. Daisy Chainsaw

          Wacko had no biological input into any of his children and his dermatologist is rumoured to be the father. He bought them from the woman he married so he could have children.

    1. Spaghetti Hoop

      Christ, what a question.

      Firstly, bi-racial children can be 100% of either their biological mother or father’s skin-colour.
      Even if Jackson was not biologically responsible, he was her legal father – same goes for the other two. In fact, it would be insulting to question any person on their race compared to that of their parents’.We have had adoption and artificial insemination for many years now and the accepted consensus when it comes to parentage is how you are a parent, your legal standing as a parent, irregardless of your role in the conception.

        1. Spaghetti Hoop

          ….scanning….
          Neil’s attention span: zero
          Statement: affirmative
          ‘gum’ reference: unexplained
          Credentials: male
          Hobbies: commenting
          Music Preferences: 1980s
          Porn Preference: Normal
          Weak Points: race

          1. Neil is a gum

            Point taken lol.
            But how did you know my “porn preference”?!!
            Uncanny.
            I just can’t stop loving you Hoop

  3. Increasing Displacement

    Trump eh?

    We all knew he wasn’t pro-environment so the pipeline isn’t a surprise even if you didn’t know he had investments in companies that would benefit from their construction.
    But scrapping the trade deals is sweet.

    Lets see what next negative thing he’ll pass at the same time as a positive thing.

    So far he’s the best president of the United States ever.

  4. Kenny Plank

    Trump is a Twit. Dangerous one too. But he has little to fear if it’s the likes of Kathy Sheridan of the Irish Times doing the protesting or cheerleading about same.

    Check that single white female gentrification privilege at the door.

Comments are closed.