This probably hits hard if you failed history in high school. Hitler was a far-Right fascist whose party was named the National Socialist German Workers' Party to attract working-class voters. Then he banned the Social Democratic and Communist parties, and sent socialists and communists to concentration camps.

Why are the far right so obsessed with pushing this lie.

Fascism is a leftist ideology State control of everything

If you truly believe teaching kids about consent in low stake situations is pointless and "anti-family" And that everything was fine just doing what we've always done Why do we have a history of family members abusing children? You can disagree with the methods of improving things but do you really think the old way was grand if kids still got abused?

Please explain why teaching children consent and bodily autonomy is a bad thing. Explain why (grand)parents should be exempt from getting consent from their children?

A lot of Irish men making it obvious on this site that they are uncomfortable with the idea of children being taught the capacity and confidence to say when they don't want to be touched to an adult. Frankly very weird behaviour.

Imagine this counterfactual: A child is made to hug family members at every gathering Sometimes they like hugs, sometimes they don't But when they say no, the adults laugh it off and make them give a hug anyway The child now internalises that their protests are meaningless And family members can just grab them whenever and they just have to accept it So imagine, god forbid, what happens if a family member tells the child about giving a "secret hug" If the child is used to their words being ignored, are they now more or less likely to say no and protest?

NEW - Irish government runs an advert discouraging grandparents from hugging their grandchildren without consent.

Scaled to population, Ireland’s foreign-born population has grown among the fastest in Europe since 2000 (UN DESA). That’s what a small open economy with EU free movement looks like. The problem is that we never built the housing to match the growth.

Some highlights from the debate on a "non-binary" gender recognition Bill, in which Solidarity TD Ruth Coppinger tells the Dáil about ancient Mesopotamian genders other than male and female which can be seen in the art of primitive civilisations in history.

"You reduce crime by eliminating poverty." This is one of the greatest intellectual confusions of our century. It sounds compassionate. It feels obvious. And the moment you actually test it, it falls apart. Let's look at the data. First, the correlation is real. Nobody serious denies that poorer areas have more crime. In Sweden, kids from the poorest 20% of families are about 7 times more likely to be convicted of a violent crime than kids from the richest 20%. But correlation is not causation. So Swedish researchers did something brilliant: they compared siblings. Same parents, same home, same upbringing, but different family income at different points in their childhood, because parents' income moves over time. Result, on more than 500,000 children (Sariaslan et al., British Journal of Psychiatry, 2014): once you account for what's shared inside the family, the effect of income on violent crime goes from 7x to nothing. The hazard ratio drops to 0.95. No effect. Finland ran the same test on 650,000 people. Same result: the income-crime link disappears when you compare siblings. What predicts crime isn't the bank balance. It's what travels inside families. Second test: what happens when poverty spikes for everyone at once? 2008. US unemployment doubled from 5% to nearly 10%. 15% of Americans officially poor. If poverty creates crime, crime should have exploded. Instead it fell. Year after year. Robbery, the most "economic" crime of all, dropped 10% in 2010 alone. Criminologists literally said they were stumped. Same story in the Great Depression: 25% unemployment, and crime went down in many cities. Third test: take families out of poverty and see. The US government ran a randomized lottery called Moving to Opportunity. Thousands of families in public housing got vouchers to move to low-poverty neighborhoods. For boys, violent arrests dropped at first, property crime arrests went up, and over time the effects faded. New zip code. Same behavior. Fourth: the claim that police don't matter. This one is just false. Chalfin et al. (American Economic Review: Insights, 2022): each additional police officer prevents about 0.1 homicides. And per capita, the lives saved are twice as many among Black victims as among white victims. The people who suffer most from "police don't matter" are the poorest neighborhoods. So what does predict crime? The Dunedin study followed 1,000 children from birth to age 32. Self-control measured between ages 3 and 11 predicted adult criminal convictions, even after controlling for social class and IQ (Moffitt et al., PNAS, 2011). Cognitive ability matters too: across 700,000 Swedish men, lower cognitive scores at 18 track with violent convictions, and the link barely moves when you control for childhood socioeconomic status (Frisell et al., 2012). And here's the part nobody quotes: in Dunedin, kids whose self-control improved over time did better than predicted. Behavior can change. Which means responsibility is real. Why does this matter? Because "poverty creates crime" isn't just wrong. It's toxic. It turns criminals into victims. The man who robbed you becomes a symptom of "the system," and you, the real victim, become a footnote in someone else's narrative. It merges two completely different things. "You're poor, we'll help you" is one policy. "You're poor and you committed a crime, so we'll excuse you" is another. Fusing them insults the millions of poor people who work, raise their kids, and never hurt anyone. The vast majority of poor people are not criminals. That alone kills the theory. It removes responsibility. Build a political system on "your circumstances made you do it" and you destroy the one thing that actually changes behavior: the certainty that you own your choices. Every excuse the state manufactures is an incentive. And it feeds the state forever. If every crime is a social failure, every crime justifies a new program, a new budget, a new agency. Crime becomes the business model of bureaucracy. The alternative is simple and old. A lighter state that protects instead of explains. The same rules for everyone, from the projects or from a gated community. Certain, swift punishment for anyone who commits a crime. And never, ever telling someone their crime was written in their social condition. Treating someone as responsible is respecting them. Excusing someone because they're poor is the most condescending thing you can do to them.