@Teresa Ryan: Actually, quite a significant amount.

@Liz O’Neill: how much? €€€

@Kevin Costello: it’s irrelevant for the reasons I’ve outlined to podge

@Kevin Costello: apparently nobody who’s leaving the country could possibly be in this 99%. There’s definitely in the 1% as the only reason people leave a country is to flee oppression and people never cease opportunities for more prosperous lives.

@Podge: that’s not what I said, and your reinterpretation of what I said is an indication of the irrationality that you say is a necessary component of a phobia.

@Deirdre O’Byrne: so some of those leaving do want sharia law implemented?

@Deirdre O’Byrne: Ok. I can see you guys message chat.
It’s kind of hard keeping track because of comments getting deleted (ridiculous btw).

The retorts Podge has made to you are pretty much what I would be saying to you too.

I think you were accusing/suggesting that I was Islamophobic…. It’s kind of disingenuous to make remarks like that about me…

Do you know that the Manchester Bomber was rescued by the Royal Navy off the coast of Libya and repaired the UK’s hospitality by blowing himself up along with 22 other people.

Now because of what’s happened this past week many countries are allowing Afghans in without passports. How can you properly vet people coming into a country without doing the necessary checks.

@Podge: If you suggest otherwise you get silenced…

@Kevin Costello: how do you do the humane thing if you require impossible-to-achieve background checks?

You want all Afghanis to be treated like the worst of them? Can you *imagine* what life would be like if the world treated the Irish like the worst of us?

You want complete safety? It’s impossible. Fact is you could die this evening crossing the road to get milk at the shops. Get over it.

We all do the best we can, while at the same time trying to ensure we aren’t being pr!cks about it. Being pr!cks makes us *less safe*. Ask the friends and family of the bomber you mentioned if the actions of that bomber made their lives better and safer…

@Deirdre O’Byrne: Ok, I get your point.

We have to do the right thing and let as many in as we can and protect them. Some extremists might slip through the cracks but people die every day, you could get hit by a car crossing the road. Don’t be a pr£ck.
Got it.

Sorry, but I’m not willing to allow an acceptable number of people be killed without proper checks in place.

The Paris attack terrorists were migrants who took advantage of the 2015 migrant crisis to get into Europe.

Numerous other atrocities have occurred since then It just so happens that I lived in Nice France the same year that Tunisian migrant ran over and killed 84 people.
I had actually left France at the time he did that but the Prominade where he committed that act, I lived close by there and would often hang out there.

@Kevin Costello: you are not willing to allow an acceptable number of people to be killed?! Admirable. Now how many innocent Afghanis killed by the taliban is acceptable? Or are they not people?

@Deirdre O’Byrne: Looking out for the safety and future of this countries citizens would be an admirable quality I guess.
We’ll agree to disagree on that point I guess…

No they shouldn’t be left there to die.

Plenty of safe zones between Ireland and Afghanistan that would be easier for them to assimilate into.
I’d support Ireland helping to fund neighbouring countries who take in these refugees.

@Kevin Costello: which countries would those be?

FYI believing that Irish lives are more worthy of protection because they are Irish is, I believe, called “racism”.

@Deirdre O’Byrne: You could try any of the neighbouring countries it shares a border with. Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Turkmenistan but not China for obvious reasons.

Nope it’s not racist. The Irish government’s priority is to look after the interests of its citizens before that of others.

You can already see that Emmanuel Macon of France is not letting in any. Angela Merkel is after coming out too and has said that the mistakes from 2015 must not be repeated.

So, does that mean that they’re being racist too?

@Kevin Costello: not only does it mean they are being racist, it also means they are being derelict in their duty towards their citizens. Treating Afghanis like that can only end up hurting the French/German people.

@Deirdre O’Byrne: I’m sorry but you’re just wrong.

I’m sure your heart’s in the right place but your not living in the real world.

I’ve lived in Nice France that has a huge Muslim population and there was so many incidents that happened every couple days with North African migrants and their descendants. You just didn’t hear about it on the international news.

Sexual harassment of woman is so common you could see it every day walking down the street. Big no no for woman to walk home alone at dark. Huge problems as well in the school system…

I’ve also been to Malaysia which is a moderate Muslim majority country and discrimination against minority groups is actually allowed in their legal system.

Again…your good hearted but you need more experience on this topic

@Kevin Costello: well that’s odd, because everyone who has ever harassed me has been an Irish male. I guess we need to rid this country of Irish men, then.

@Deirdre O’Byrne: Well, import the afghan ones then and they’ll harass you. Problem sorted. And this way, you won’t be a racist

@Deirdre O’Byrne: … join the fight against any serious threat to the freedoms I enjoy …

I wish we could edit comments!!!

@Deirdre O’Byrne: I don’t know why you think the Taliban needs every single person to build their state. If they enjoy widespread support for what they’re trying to achieve that’s simply not true. And people might be fans of sharia but at the same time not be die-hard enough to stay and actually be a part of the implementation. But they can support it none the less.

On the second point I am afraid of that religion taking a solid hold here as I think it leads to terrorism and culture wars. And as a phobia is an irrational fear and this can be demonstrated throughout the world I don’t think it’s an irrational fear and therefore I wouldn’t agree it’s a phobia.

The gains made by Catholicism were centuries ago, but we were a very Catholic country up until very recently. So if it took hundreds of years to defeat the hold that religion had on us why do you think it wouldn’t take the same for another religion?

I think Islam has a better chance for a few reasons. First of all people are terrified to criticise it and label any attempt to do so as Islamophobia. We constantly have people claiming that it’s not really Islam when anything bad associated with the religion occurs. We just don’t have this for Christianity and they’re an active enemy to many in our society. Secondly I think we’re a culture in decline that lacks conviction. Across the West I think we lack unity and an underlying morality. We’re increasingly just a collection of individuals with widely varying views who lack purpose and spirituality. I think it’s why people are polarising politically and why people are trying to replace the spiritual holes they have with all sorts of poor replacements. So I think we’re creating a vacuum for an religion that’s largely immune to media/general criticism and that’s offering purpose and has extreme conviction in itself to ride over our half hearted society.

And regarding the default what I’m trying to say is that Western liberalism isn’t the default of humanity. The default is authoritarianism, violence, and adherence to dogma. We’re living in a tiny snapshot of human existence and I think we shouldn’t let that cloud of views of human nature.

@Deirdre O’Byrne: also I think Islam has a better chance as people are afraid to criticise it in the same way as Christianity. You can say what you want about pretty much any religion, except for one. There’s only one whose followers will kill you if you criticise it. As far as I know no other religion is calling for the death penalty for blasphemy or apostasy. I think this will make it much more immune to valid criticism as it spreads.

@Podge: the scenes at Kabul airport indicate that support for sharia isn’t as strong as you seem to think. There are always problems with surveys, especially when the surveys are conducted in conservative societies where peer pressure is strong. These problems are well known by people who conduct surveys, and if they are truthful with you they will tell you it’s very difficult / near impossible to mitigate the effects.

And you also seem to think that mass economic migration only starts when the airport is taken over by those who will go to lengths to stop that migration. If I wanted to migrate for economic reasons, I would have done so long before the writing was on the wall regarding regime change.

You mention cultural wars. We already have a cultural war here in Ireland between liberalism and conservatism, and liberalism is largely winning. Why do you think that will suddenly change with the introduction of islam? What is that they bring to the table that our own conservatives don’t? You say your fears aren’t irrational, yet when I try and get specifics like that from you, you have nothing.

So once again what, specifically, will islam bring that will end up being so attractive to the Irish?

Yes Ireland was quite catholic up until recently. Why do you think those recent changes are so fragile? If you have recent memory about how and why to reign in religion why do you think islam will be able to succeed where centuries of catholicism failed? Specifics, please.

One specific you mention is the fear of criticising islam. Again there is a word for that – islamophobia. I follow one of the main imams of Ireland on twitter, and he isn’t for a second afraid to criticise the excesses of islam. Just like there are priests who criticise christianity’s misogyny, homophobia and transphobia.

As for what is and isn’t islam and your risible comment that christianity doesn’t have the same. Christianity has supported slavery, crusades, the death penalty, and many other sins. Christianity today supports overpopulation, women’s subjugation, and homophobia and transphobia, to name just a few. And the fact that christianity no longer does slavery etc is evidence that your theory about the default of humanity is wrong, as is the fact that christianity’s homophobia and transphobia doesn’t hold as much sway as it used to.

So your vision is that Irish people, without Christianity, are ready to embrace whatever religion comes to our shores next, and just throw away the freedoms that we currently enjoy, because people don’t actually like freedom or something? Maybe calling you islamophobic isn’t quite it – misanthropy sounds like it’s more accurate.

@Deirdre O’Byrne: I just think you’re viewing it very black and white in thinking that the people leaving now definitely don’t support sharia. It’s very possible they do but they disagree with or fear the Taliban for other reasons. And there were many people leaving Afghanistan prior to all this. And no doubt more were considering it. How do we know those people aren’t mixed up with those fleeing the Taliban?

I don’t know why you’re saying I have nothing. I’ve laid out in detail why I think Islam is different than our current Christian conservatism and why I think they stand a better chance at over-coming the liberal view. This was all in my comment two comments ago.
Regarding my fears being irrational though I would point to many other counties like France, Sweden, Germany, etc where I believe division is leading to a more dangerous and less cohesive society. Again it’s not irrational when there are real world examples.

Yes Christianity did these things in the past. That’s why I said that there’s no other religion is calling for… meaning no other religion today is acting like this.

Once again…you’re taking a small snapshot of the entirety of human history and using that to explain away the state of humanity for all other time periods.

I wouldn’t say Irish people are ready to accept whatever religion comes to our shores next. But what I would say is that I believe the lack of faith in our country leaves a vacuum of aimlessness and lack of purpose. And I do believe that people will desperately search for this purpose elsewhere, and if there’s a new religion being introduced I think many will be susceptible to it.

I hope this answers all your questions because I’ve really be trying to answer everything but you seem to be ignoring it and asking me to write it all out again.

@Podge: You’re fairly mistaken there. You can’t say whatever you want about Christianity, nor can you print it. Not here, and not in the UK, where most books are printed. It does have an established legal protection.

Next, I see no harm in acknowledging the good that many people do, whether they’re genuine or felt they “had to because of my religion”. It all counts, especially in an era when fellow human beings are having to flee & leave everything familiar behind. Of course there will be nostalgia. Ask any Irish American. You won’t hear a realistic account of the bad times in Ireland either. Emigrants need some positivity to sustain them. I feel that’s oppressive for the next generation who can be welcomed as the Vikings were. They’re joining us and will settle here & become Irish.

@Fiona Fitzgerald: really? I thought we got rid of blasphemy laws even though they were never used. Do you have a recent example of a book that someone tried to get published but it was censored, or someone who said something about Christianity who was taken to court and punished for saying this?
That’s no problem. If they want to join us and become Irish. The issue is people who don’t want this. Who want to colonise and remain in their own little bubbles where things are exactly like the place they left. Where they want to implement the same laws. And where distain for wider society grows. This didn’t happen with the Irish in America, they were open to assimilation. It’s happening for cultures that aren’t as compatible with the culture of the countries they move to.

@Podge: OK – let’s get into the weeds. I’m going to start with the 5th sentence of your 4th paragraph (“Secondly I think we’re a culture in decline that lacks conviction”) as I’ve addressed everything prior to that.

A culture that lacks conviction, unity and morality? That’s not the society I see, though the difference between you and I may be that I have a lived experience of a morality outside of religion. You don’t need religion to have a morality. And as for unity – since when were we united? Ireland has always had homosexuals, transgender people, roma, and other groups who were never accepted by the mainstream. If anything I see an Ireland that is more united now than it ever has been in my lifetime.

Purpose and spirituality? Most people’s primary purpose is raising their children, and I haven’t seen any change in that. As for spirituality – as an atheist my lived experience is that spirituality isn’t necessary for a happy, fulfilling or moral life.

And I’m still waiting for specifics about what experience of “authoritarianism, violence, and adherence to dogma” will prove to be so attractive to the Irish.

Now you seem to say that we shouldn’t let any Afghans in unless we can be sure that none support sharia. Finding out if they support sharia is, of course, impossible. So what you are saying is that we should treat all Afghans like we would treat the worst of them. Now can you imagine what life for the Irish would be like if the rest of the world treated us like the worst of us?

You seem to want complete safety. It doesn’t exist. Fact is you could die going to the shops for milk this evening. Get over it.

Yes there are worrying divisions appearing in other countries, where bad actors are exploiting xenophobia and islamophobia for political gain, and unfortunately successfully so. And yes there is nothing to say that Irish people are immune to that kind of political exploitation. What I’m trying to do here is to help immunise *you* against that kind of exploitation.

You also gloss over what I said christianity is doing *today*. Is that because you don’t see the problem with the misogyny, homophobia and transphobia of today’s church? If so then you may have more in common with the taliban than you care to admit.

And I’m not taking a snapshot of human history – I’m taking account of the general trend of that history. And that trend arcs towards freedom.

Finally – a vacuum of aimlessness and lack of purpose (which I don’t believe exists) – which we will decide is best addressed by giving up our freedoms?! By replacing one oppressive religious regime with another?! Seriously – maybe it’s not misanthropy, but a shocking and horrific lack of faith in Irish people, that ails you.

@Deirdre O’Byrne: Yes I think it’s very hard to hard a morality without a religion. Because without religion what’s good and bad can be defined by individuals and are equally as valid. I think that’s why we’re seeing things like political correctness being treated as proxy-religions where there’s it’s not so much logic and more of a belief system that you can blaspheme against.

I don’t think Ireland always had roma people? To be honest I’d have to check but I don’t think they were the first settlers of this country. But from the standpoint of LGBT+ there’s more acceptance, but that doesn’t mean that there’s more unity throughout society as a whole or more social cohesion.

Regarding what’s attractive to people about authoritarianism, violence, and dogma I think it’s meaning (joining a cause) and also supposed certainty in a chaotic world. I think that’s why people have joined extremist movements throughout history.

Nope I never said we shouldn’t let in any. What I am saying is that we have to accept that there are potential dangers in doing so and not let in so many that these problems become too great. I think some migration is fine but if you have too much too quick it leads to serious problems. That’s all.

It’s true that complete safety doesn’t exist. But that doesn’t mean we make a bunch of decisions that endanger people more and write it off because the world isn’t safe. We should be striving for the safety of those in our society as best we can without impacting the freedoms of others as best we can. It’s about achieving this balance.

I think you’ve naïve to think that it’s only due to bad actors in other countries that these divisions are taking place. I’m much more cynical and believe that a divided society had less social cohesion and less trust. I think it’s a utopian view that’s not supported by reality. The more unified and homogeneous a country the more peaceful it is (I can find a study for this if you like).

I’m not glossing over what’s Christianity is doing today. I just don’t see why it’s relevant to what we’re discussing. But if you want to get into it I think that the views of Christians align a lot closer to Western liberalism than Islam’s.

Overall you seem to be very optimistic about human nature. It’s not just Irish people I’m singling out here, it’s all people. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said ““The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either – but right through every human heart – and through all human hearts.” and I do truly believe this. I don’t think Irish people are immune.

@Podge: it’s quite interesting that you believe people cannot have morality without religion while conceding that moral failings of the church have been reigned in by such people.

And yes my right and wrong can be decided by me, but I won’t survive if I start to believe murder is right, or being an a-hole is right, or any number of other fundamentally unacceptable behaviours in our society are right. So in that sense, no-one can decide what’s right and wrong – it’s a collective effort, which evolves through time.

Political correctness? Newsflash – our collective effort to draw up a morality has decided that the free-for-all name-calling, bullying and wanton demeaning is wrong. Those who decry political correctness have lost the argument to preserve those “rights”. Get over it.

I suspect you are right that the first settlers didn’t include roma. So? Does that mean we should kick out all those who have a surname like Smith? All the west Brits? How far back does your family need to go before you can call yourself “Irish”? 1,000 years? 2,000 years? 10,000 years? I don’t know how long the O’Byrne’s date back, but I’m pretty sure we weren’t amongst the first either. May I stay here???

And who gets to decide????? Who gets to define what “Irish” is????? And why???? Now – *that’s* oppression!!!!

Yes joining causes can be problematic, if not dangerous. Unfortunately I know what I’m talking about. So – I’ve learned to be satisfied, and to value myself, without the crutch of a cause. I’d recommend it.

And it is contradictory to say you can find certainty in a chaotic world. If you think you’ve found it, you’ve actually just put your head in the sand and started shouting “la la la la” to yourself.

And I can now spot a fundamental difference between you and I. You say we should strive for the safety of those in our society. I say we should strive for the safety of those on our planet. I do not believe I am more deserving of safety simply because I’m Irish. Frankly I find such an idea racist and repugnant.

The more unified and homogeneous a country it is the more peaceful it is? Maybe. But it is also inhumanly repressive to those who, by virtue of being LGBT or whatever, don’t fit in with that homogeneity, and to those who would like to experiment and expand their horizons beyond that homogeneity. In short, it leads to stunted societal growth – of the kind we saw in the homogeneous catholic Ireland. You want to return to that kind of homogeneity??? Or a different kind??? Like the kind the taliban are trying to generate, perhaps?????

In short, homogeneity is an enemy of freedom.

I’d tend to agree with you that the problem is human hearts. Which is why I’m opening mine to the suffering of innocent Afghanis at this terrible time. Closing my heart would almost certainly serve the evil Solzhenitsyn wrote of.

@Deirdre O’Byrne: I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there. We as individuals and then as society at large determine morality. So if Afghanistan as a society decide that subjugation of women or LGBT+ people is moral then does that make it moral as it’s been decided through consensus?

When I say political correctness I’m not speaking of name calling or bullying people. I’m talking about speaking certain things in relation to ideologies, religions, cultures.

Nope I never said kick them out. I’m not sure how far back you have to go to be considered Irish. I’d say there’s two elements to it, a genetic one and a cultural one. I have a foreign girlfriend, she’ll never be Irish from one point of view, but from the cultural point of view she can be. It’s like if I move to a native American community, no matter how long I stay there I don’t think I’m 100% native American because there’s a lineage there. I’ll accept that the lines of where this begins and how it’s defined can get very messy very fast.

Definitely agree with you about the certainty in a chaotic world. I think many people think they find it in extreme ideologies and then become very violent against anyone outside of the ideology as it threatens their desire for certainty.

Regarding safety I think we have control over our own society and that’s difficult enough to manage. I think other people are deserving of safety just as much as me but I think it’s not for us to impose our views on them, dictate to them, and invade them to provide this safety for them. I think that’s ideological colonialism and it’s more racist than me saying we shouldn’t try to fix the entire world.

I think we should be trying to strike a balance when it comes to homogeneity. I think too much can be stifling but too little can be chaotic. I’m not anti-everything and want to return to 1950s Ireland. But I do think we should proceed with our heads screwed on. Just diversity is good in certain amounts doesn’t mean it’s good to strive for 100% diversity in everything. I think too many people think in black and white terms here when discussing this and claim something is either totally good or totally bad.

@Podge: since when was there such a societal consensus in Afghanistan? What has *actually* happened over there is a bunch of religious nuts are imposing their warped view of morality on innocent Afghanis at the point of a gun.

And once again – we’ve decided as a society over here that “speaking certain things in relation to ideologies, religions, cultures” in a way that demeans or dehumanises (which is where the cry of “political correctness” comes from) is wrong. And once again get over it.

Regarding ethnicity – what is the relevance, then, of your statement that you don’t think roma were amongst the first settlers of the country??? I’m confused.

I agree that it’s usually a very bad idea to impose our ideas on others. But that has *nothing* to do with the discussion at hand, which is about people coming here.

Finally regarding diversity – which elements of (benign) diversity do you think people should not be free to express in Ireland?

@Podge: you believe that the freedom to express diversity should be curtailed in the name of homogeneity. You are far far more like the taliban than I think you are ever prepared to admit.

As for diversity and chaos. Is Ireland more chaotic now that same sex marriage is legal? Now that LGBT rights and women’s rights are far more recognised than ever before? Which of the hard won rights of the past while have increased “chaos”???

@Deirdre O’Byrne: you seem to know a lot about Afghanistan. But that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is your view of morality is consensus. So therefore anything can be moral if it’s the general consensus.

I don’t think we’ve agreed that as a society. I think a vocal minority has imposed that on us. I think if you were to poll the public there would be a sizable portion, if not a majority who think political correctness has gone to far. So i won’t just get over it. Challenging it is part of the checks and balances we have via free speech.

There’s no relevance regarding roma. I was sinply replying to your comment that they’ve always been in Ireland or a part of Ireland.

@Deirdre O’Byrne: I never said people shouldn’t be able to express their diversity in Ireland. All I said was the more diversity there is the less social cohesion and a more dangerous ajd fractured society. For example if some people think it’s ok for fully grown men to marry 12 year olds while others think that’s wrong it will create divisions in society. I never offered a solution to it because I am also very pro freedom.

I wouldn’t say that some of those rights have cause more chaos. To he honest it’s the fact that people are disagreeing with each other so much on such things that is the chaos. I think what’s causing chaos is the march of the ideologs which are driving a lot of social change who even though they are a minority have become very vocal.

@Podge: either you don’t know what the word “consensus” means, or you are trolling. I suspect the latter.

But in case it’s the former, a consensus is a general agreement. Therefore a single person’s view cannot be a consensus. And a societal consensus cannot be reached by a “vocal minority”, or any other minority for that matter.

You seem to think that your views represent that consensus. I’m sorry but you are simply wrong about that. Recent referenda have shown just how hungry the Irish are for social progress.

As for roma – I said “Ireland” always had roma, and “Ireland” in its current incarnation dates from the early part of the last century.

And thank you for finally providing a concrete example of what you are talking about when you mentioned the consensus regarding 12 year olds marrying.

Now are there any other expressions of personal freedom you would prohibit in the name of safety?

May I quote Franklin – “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”.

Finally thanks also for acknowledging that your argument that diversity leads to chaos is nonsense. You now seem to be saying that it’s social change that is *actually* causing the chaos. Now – what social changes that are being widely called for would you prohibit in the name of safety?

@Podge: oh – sorry – did I misunderstand you? Is it that the problem is minority ideologs who are being vocal? Which minorities should have their voices – their right to free speech – removed?

Good grief if that’s what you are saying, then you are just as bad as the taliban.

@Deirdre O’Byrne: I feel like you’re dancing around my question. If there’s a consensus for something does it make that moral? People can be held to the moral standards of minorities though. Apparently you believe that’s happening in Afghanistan and I’m suspicious it’s happening in the West in some ways.
Ok maybe there’s been roma since the founding of the state, I’m not sure. But to me Ireland isn’t just the state. It’s the culture and heritage and people.
When I say that I suspect the consensus would hold the view that some things have gone too far I obviously don’t mean the referendum we’ve voted on. But I might be wrong in my views and maybe I’m in a bubble but then it’s important to come on here and plead my case (when comments don’t get deleted).

@Deirdre O’Byrne: it’s all about balance I suppose. We’d have to go on a case by case basis to be honest but I think protecting kids would be top of the list. Other than that things like drink driving.
It depends. I think there are a lot of views and changes happening quickly which can be chaotic. And I think importing people with even more diverse views will only add to this.

I nevet said I’d prohibit anything. I’m not sure why you keep saying that. What I would do is appeal to people and make my case (again when my comments are getting deleted).

@Deirdre O’Byrne: yes you are misunderstanding me. I’m not saying remove people’s right to speak. I’m saying that I belive there’s a narrative set by certain people who have the opportunity to have their voices pushed while others hold back their views for fear of reprisal. And before you say it I’m not talking about some crazy fringe views, I’m talking about views that up until 15 years ago were deemed common sense.

@Podge: if there is a consensus for something does that make it moral? There are three answers I can give to that question.

1. of course not! There are plenty of people in Ireland who find our same-sex marriage laws immoral. However the consensus is that it is moral. That, however, is irrelevant to the people who hold it immoral.

2. it depends on who you ask.

3. irrelevant – morality is something that society’s understand of is constantly evolving. I present Ireland’s understanding of same-sex marriage as an example of same.

You say that “people can be held to the moral standards of minorities”, which means you know damn well that there is no universal morality. There are some things (like murder) that all minorities (and majorities) hold immoral, but there is no one set of morality where all people agree on the morality of all issues.

You keep coming back to a chaos created by minorities. What is a concrete example of that chaos in today’s Ireland?

Finally you mention something that was “common sense” 15 years ago. I think I might know what you are talking about, though it was a lot more than 15 years ago! In the 70s and 80s it was common sense that homosexuality was immoral, evil, and a danger to children. It was something that everyone knew to be true – even psychologists and psychiatrists. There were laws passed designed to protect children from homosexuals (like what we are seeing Hungary do today).

So what happened to that common sense? It turns out that it wasn’t common sense – it was raw, naked, and systemic homophobia dressed up as common sense.

As I keep saying, our understanding keeps evolving. It must have been *terrifying* for anyone who didn’t keep up with that understanding when homosexuality began to be accepted. And *that*, I believe, may be the “chaos” you are talking about. It’s not “chaos”, it’s terror brought about by not keeping up with current understanding and knowledge, and/or naked systemic phobias.

@Podge: actually, can you imagine what it would have been like for a person left with the socially-sanctioned homophobic attitudes of the 70s and 80s, finding themselves in the 90s and 2000s, and suddenly whenever they try and hold an honest discussion about the dangers of letting gay men near children they are (quite correctly) called homophobic and have their twitter account suspended.

They would no doubt start screaming and shouting about free speech, and about political correctness gone mad. They would decry that the right to hold honest discussions about the dangers and evils of homosexuality had been revoked, cancelled, and censored.

I see Graham Linehan’s twitter account has been suspended. A *perfect* illustration of this phenomenon. And of course there are plenty of people supporting him – people left with the misunderstandings and/or transphobia of yesteryear. Of course in our modern era, the excuse of “misunderstanding” no longer really exists – any “misunderstanding” is wanton, and therefore is probably driven by transphobia.

@Deirdre O’Byrne: ok so morality if morality isn’t formed by consensus then where does the definition of morality come from? Would it be a belief system perhaps? And yes I do believe that there’s a universal morality but that’s based on a belief system and God. And before you talk about people imposing their beliefs on others I have no doubt you do the same. Without that belief anything can be moral based on the person interpreting it. On a side note though I’d say that not everything believes murder is wrong, the vast majority do but there are certainly those who don’t.

You keep trying to pin down things when I’m talking about big concepts. To be honest I don’t think Ireland is so chaotic compared to many of our European counterparts but I think we’re following them down that road. When I talk about chaos I’m talking about people’s lack of purpose and meaning in their lives and their disconnect from society around them. As I said before I think it manifests itself in different ways which is what makes me believe it’s happening. It’s a spiritual chaos.

I never mentioned homosexuality nor was I pointing to it. I think it’s important to take things on a case by case basis. Too many people are either progressives or conservatives without looking at the specific issue. Some issues are worth progressing too while others are not. But you do touch on an interesting point about the cancelling of people from the new public squares (social media). This is a big part of why I believe people are being silenced and consent manufactured. If people are afraid to say what they believe to be true for fear of reprisal then they simply won’t say it. And what we’re left with then is a large section of people who believe something to be true but who think there’s only a very small number of people who believe the same thing. It’s a form of undemocratic consensus building and far from liberal.

@Podge: the definition(s) comes from the dictionary. I won’t insult you by quoting them, but suffice it to say that none of the definitions indicate that universality is intrinsic to morality.

Your belief system says that there is a universal morality. Well, the very *dictionary* disagrees with you. So be it.

Your morality comes from God? Which one? There are *thousands* (and the difference between you and I is that I believe in only one fewer god than you). Not a very good basis on which to hang a universal morality.

I’ll assume the God of Catholicism. So you believe homosexuality is an abomination, that slavery is acceptable, that stoning is the correct punishment for adultery, that it is morally unacceptable to wear clothes of mixed fabrics or to have tattoos? Or do you? Sounds like you don’t accept your own universal morality!!!

As for imposing beliefs. It’s called “the law”. Since I am not in any way professionally involved in the law, I do not, in fact, impose any beliefs on anyone else. I have the strictures of the law applied to me, as do you. Most of those strictures are good in my opinion, some don’t suit me, and some I most definitely would like to see changed as they create pain and suffering. Thankfully there is a path for me to create that change. That path depends on me using my voice to create a consensus (remember that word?). That consensus *should* eventually create the required change in the law. It’s a slow and imperfect system, but it’s what we got. Get over it.

Good grief I’m still not out of your first paragraph.

Yes anything can be moral depending on the person interpreting it. As you point out, some people interpret morality as permitting murder. Thank you for illustrating the point. I do not subscribe to that morality, and I dare say you don’t either. But the world doesn’t revolve around us, and neither does it revolve around our morality.

I keep trying to pin down this “chaos” thing because you keep moving it. It’s now morphed into a spiritual thing!!!!!!! Good call – if you kept up the charade by moving it to pretty much anything but “spiritual” I’d have to follow you. But with “spiritual” literally anything goes.

I was, actually, pretty sure that you weren’t talking about homosexuality, but I thought it a good proxy for what you are actually talking about because you understand *something* of the history of social discourse around homosexuality.

Cancelling comes *after* consensus has been generated, not *before*. Twitter has seen where the consensus is – there is more money to be made from those who would close their twitter account because it’s a cesspit of homophobia than from those who would close their twitter account because they cannot discuss the dangers of homosexuals and children. Or transgender people and bathrooms. Or muslims and terrorism. Or police and black people. The consensus came first – the cancelling followed.

And just because the cancelled believe there are only a very few people who believe the same as they do doesn’t mean they are in the majority. Twitter is massively motivated to cater for the majority, and that is *precisely* what they are doing. We are in the unfortunate phase of the 80s where the majority of people understand homosexuality isn’t an abomination or dangerous, but a significant minority still believe it is, and spout what is actually disgusting homophobic bile about homosexuals and children etc in an attempt to “discuss the issue”. The rest of society is reeling and gagging from what they are seeing, and so “cancelling” comes along. And that cancelling is actually motivated to protect vulnerable homosexuals from this crap, though I dare say it’s also motivated by a deep shame that the people doing the cancelling have that they themselves, until quite recently, also spewed disgusting homophobic bile, or at least condoned it.

“Undemocratic consensus building”? So we are back to the definition of “consensus”. And this time I *will* quote the dictionary (again!). A consensus is a general agreement. A *general* agreement. Not a minority one. And since democracy is based on majority rule, a consensus is, by definition, democratic.

You lost the argument. Let me say that again in a (probably vain) attempt to get it to sink in. You lost the argument. You are in the minority. Let me say that again in a (probably vain) attempt to get it to sink in. You lost the argument. Your attempts to “discuss the issues” is actually disgusting whatever-phobic bile that make the rest of us gag and want to vomit, and *that* is why you are being cancelled. We simply don’t want to hear that disgusting bile. We aren’t interested. We’ve moved on.

Get over it. Or not. All the same to us, as long as you keep it to yourself.