College Trubine article on Travellers

mloc

Vainglory wrote:

If the article had replaced "travellers" with "black people" or even the "n" word, would it still be inoffensive and "just satire"?

That has to be the stupidist, most naive argument I have ever read in my life.

The colour of someone's skin has absolutely nothing to do with thier way of life, and is not a choice people make. Being a traveller is a choice. They are not a separate race, or from a different country. They're simply Irish people who choose to live in caravans, following a totally outdated tradition of travelling the roads in a country that has (thanks be to god) largely moved on from such medievil bulls*it. And yes, they might have thier own way of life. But its still a choice they make.

You simply can't compare it to actually being a different race or colour.

GuffFromSwine

mloc wrote:

That has to be the stupidist, most naive argument I have ever read in my life.

The colour of someone's skin has absolutely nothing to do with thier way of life, and is not a choice people make. Being a traveller is a choice. They are not a separate race, or from a different country. They're simply Irish people who choose to live in caravans, following a totally outdated tradition of travelling the roads in a country that has (thanks be to god) largely moved on from such medievil bulls*it. And yes, they might have thier own way of life. But its still a choice they make.

You simply can't compare it to actually being a different race or colour.

To be perfectly honest, I think you're being over-simplistic and have shown a serious ignorance of the central issue here. The traveller people of Ireland do not in fact consider themselves to be simply Irish people who live on the move. They enthusiastically maintain (with good reason) that they are in fact a seperate culture, distinguishable not only by their lifestyle but by other obvious factors such as their own language and heritage which shares many characteristics with other itinerant dialects and cultures. In fact, I would say a majority of travellers would consider their individuality to be as obvious and as deserving of attention as any simple difference in skin colour. try and not be so black and white (excuse the pun) in your analysis yeah?

cast_iron

mloc wrote:

That has to be the stupidist, most naive argument I have ever read in my life.

The colour of someone's skin has absolutely nothing to do with thier way of life, and is not a choice people make. Being a traveller is a choice. They are not a separate race, or from a different country. They're simply Irish people who choose to live in caravans, following a totally outdated tradition of travelling the roads in a country that has (thanks be to god) largely moved on from such medievil bulls*it. And yes, they might have thier own way of life. But its still a choice they make.

You simply can't compare it to actually being a different race or colour.

Whatever about stupid and naive, that's just an ignorant load of rubbish.

You chose to live in a house (I'm guessing). Why? Because it's all you've ever known and what your parents have taught you........choice had little to do with your upbringing (again I'm guessing this applies to most people here).

humbert

The only things that strike me about it is that it's not remotely funny and it doesn't go far enough to be easily dismissible as satire. It reads more like a sarcastic attack on travellers than satire. Though to be honest it doesn't bother me.

panda100

was it written in the turbine?Surely you dont read that if your easilt offended. Am heading down to Rathkeale now so will ask some of the lads wether they think it offensive

Vainglory

The Turbine is not usually offensive, it's usually funny. Like satire is supposed to be, when it's done properly.

Chakar

Apparently Vainglory has brought an emergency motion before the Council on this issue for which the link can be found at

http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=1414

If I was still a class rep I would probably vote against the first motion but in favour of the second and third ones.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

pretty*monster wrote:

We-el, the principle target of the article appears to be the politically correct brigade (incidentally that fact makes the out-cry in this thread deliciously ironic).

The articles execution could have been a little better and perhaps there are more culturally sensitive ways to mock equality legislation (is that an oxymoron?).

That is a very valid point. One must look at who this satire is actually aimed at. The principal sujects may be travellers but to all intents and purposes it is aimed at the militant advocates of political correctness, some of who seem to be posting on this very thread.

Sangre

Anyone have a link to the article?

mloc

GuffFromSwine wrote:

They enthusiastically maintain (with good reason) that they are in fact a seperate culture, distinguishable not only by their lifestyle but by other obvious factors such as their own language and heritage which shares many characteristics with other itinerant dialects and cultures. In fact, I would say a majority of travellers would consider their individuality to be as obvious and as deserving of attention as any simple difference in skin colour. try and not be so black and white (excuse the pun) in your analysis yeah?

The vital difference here, of course, is that while travellers are satisfied maintaining their parasitic so called culture and maintaining a facade of so called individuality, people who are of different races from all over the world manage to come to ireland and integrate, becoming a useful part of our society.

Vainglory

I've already posted it, it's on the first page of the thread.

(The article, I mean.)

FionnMatthew

With respect,

Vainglory wrote:

If the article had replaced "travellers" with "black people" or even the "n" word, would it still be inoffensive and "just satire"?

And if not, why not?

Because the article isn't just taking a cheap shot at travellers. The article is inexpertly written, and hence of equivocal power, but it does have a point, and as such, can be considered satirical, albeit clumsily so.

What I mean will become evident in response to GuffFromSwine's points.

GuffFromSwine wrote:

The main issue I have with this article is the fact that its bold for the sake of being bold rather than the author seeing any actual target which deserves attack,

I don't think it's bold for the sake of being bold. I think there IS a target which the author is attacking here, it's just unclear because it was badly executed.

The target here is people who abuse the provisions of equalitarian philosophy in order to exercise a margin of control or power over others. In the hands of some people, belonging to a minority group in the modern age is the ideal way of getting away with unacceptable things one wouldn't otherwise be allowed to do.

It's a criticism of the fact that some people use a philosophy that is supposed to protect individuals from generalisations, in order to discriminate and alienate other individuals. In this way, structures in place to protect individual freedoms are misused and reversed, and become structures of control in the inverse direction.

GuffFromSwine wrote:

good satire traditionally targets cosy established elites

And I think this does that, in a limited way. When political correctness goes so far as to relativise ethics; when we are deprived of a moral framework by which to say 'this or that action is immoral, regardless of cultural background', THEN the minority group becomes an elite of sorts; a group that doesn't have to abide by any ethical norms, because they can always rely on political correctness to defend their actions on the basis of cultural difference.

This should never happen. Cultural difference cannot excuse every action, especially when the actions supposedly defended by political correctness impinge on the freedoms of the people who do abide by cultural norms. That is a case of an equalitarian philosophy making individuals in an cultural minority disproportianately more powerful than individuals belonging to a cultural majority; a philosophy that is intended to protect individuals that discriminates against individuals.

This is what's being gotten at in this article, albeit very confusedly.

This is why what you've said here isn't strictly fair:

Vainglory wrote:

This is all so great.

I look forward to a rapturous reception tomorrow, when I bring out my freesheet newspaper around campus entitled "Fluck N***ers and Spicks and their thieving ways".

It'll have "It's satire, stupid!" at the top though, so that's alright.

Next issue - Personal attacks on UCD students.

But it's satire, right? Huzzah for Free Speech!!

The content of the article in question is a good bit more sophisticated than any of the articles you've mentioned there. However, those articles COULD equally BE satire, if they pointed at the same phenomenon: misuse of equalitarian philosophy to justify the worst kind of action. This phenomenon is visible in most minority groups - defense of black-supremacist hate crimes on the basis of cultural difference, pseudo-feminist oppression of ALL men on what amount to VERY sexist generalisations, etc.

Despite our tolerance for cultural difference, we should be able to say 'this is wrong and should be stopped', when, for eg., someone is abducted and beheaded in a ritual sacrifice. Political correctness cannot and should not be ever misused to enforce a regimen of immunity from criticism for anti-social acts. The individual, of whatever affiliation, should never be harmed, whether by cultural prejudices or politically correct relativism.

So the article IS identifying a target, and that target DOES deserve criticism. It IS satirical. It's just badly written, and contains some sentences that ARE cheap shots, eg. the traveller nicknames, etc. I think we should be more annoyed at the quality of the writing than the 'prejudicial' content. This is a University, after all.

Vainglory

I think we can philosophise all we want about the quasi-intellectual undertones of the piece, but the bottom line for me is that some traveller kid thinking about coming to college definitely wouldn't take it that way. And I think we can all agree on that.

And we're all in favour of increased access, right?

I think I could even write a better satirical piece that makes the same point as you suggest the traveller piece did, but without the cheap shots and without the inevitable offence caused. And if I didn't have two essays due on Friday, I probably would.

EDIT: And as I've said to the Editor of the Tribune myself, I don't think he's a racist or that the person who wrote it is a racist. I just think it was a hell bad decision to publish the article in that form and as such some sort of an apology should be forthcoming.

FionnMatthew

Chakar wrote:

Apparently Vainglory has brought an emergency motion before the Council on this issue for which the link can be found at

http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=1414

If I was still a class rep I would probably vote against the first motion but in favour of the second and third ones.

I just read that.

I very strongly believe that this is a disproportionate response to the article. I very strongly and respectfully think that this motion should, if possible, be withdrawn.

The sentences quoted in the motion are in fact satirical, in a very strong sense of the word. I refer to my previous post on this topic as an argument in favour of this.

I think a distinction should be made when reading the article between, on the one hand, the satirical point of the article, which is a point that I think is valid to make, and which I've outlined in detail above, and, on the other hand, the quite objectionable cheap shots that bear no conceptual relation to the satirical content of the article, eg. 'Shane "Toad" McGinty...John "Frog" Ward'.

The question, therefore, isn't whether or not council should recognise that the article transgresses the boundaries of what is acceptable as satire, but is instead a critical question, about stylistic choices that were made within the article itself, that compromised the predominant message of the article.

This isn't a matter for council. It's a matter for unofficial public discussion, and correspondence with the editorial staff of the Tribune itself. Going to council over it is to invoke a protective structure without due cause, and thus, to abuse the ideals on which it is founded.

It is to cry 'wolf', when there is only an unruly squirrel.

In respect of this, I think bringing this motion before council is inadvisable, in that it is inflammatory in the extreme. Jane, if you're reading, your motion is not in service of an equalitarian ideal; it only stands to harm the standing of those of us who hold each and every individual to be equal.

It would be far more beneficial to all concerned to continue in discussing this in the way that we have.

I strongly suggest that this motion be discontinued, if that is within the realm of possibility, before serious harm is done to the freedom of our publications to engage in (what this article isn't) well-written, timely satire, when such is needed.

Vainglory

FionnMatthew wrote:

I just read that.

I very strongly believe that this is a disproportionate response to the article. I very strongly and respectfully think that this motion should, if possible, be withdrawn.

The sentences quoted in the motion are in fact satirical, in a very strong sense of the word. I refer to my previous post on this topic as an argument in favour of this.

I think a distinction should be made when reading the article between, on the one hand, the satirical point of the article, which is a point that I think is valid to make, and which I've outlined in detail above, and, on the other hand, the quite objectionable cheap shots that bear no conceptual relation to the satirical content of the article, eg. 'Shane "Toad" McGinty...John "Frog" Ward'.

The question, therefore, isn't whether or not council should recognise that the article transgresses the boundaries of what is acceptable as satire, but is instead a critical question, about stylistic choices that were made within the article itself, that compromised the predominant message of the article.

This isn't a matter for council. It's a matter for unofficial public discussion, and correspondence with the editorial staff of the Tribune itself. Going to council over it is to invoke a protective structure without due cause, and thus, to abuse the ideals on which it is founded.

It is to cry 'wolf', when there is only an unruly squirrel.

In respect of this, I think bringing this motion before council is inadvisable, in that it is inflammatory in the extreme. Jane, if you're reading, your motion is not in service of an equalitarian ideal; it only stands to harm the standing of those of us who hold each and every individual to be equal.

It would be far more beneficial to all concerned to continue in discussing this in the way that we have.

I strongly suggest that this motion be discontinued, if that is within the realm of possibility, before serious harm is done to the freedom of our publications to engage in (what this article isn't) well-written, timely satire, when such is needed.

I have no desire to prevent our publications from engaging in well-written, timely satire - which you've agreed that this article isn't. As I've conveyed to the editor, if there is an apology for the poor taste in which much of the travellers article was written, then the motion will be withdrawn and will go no further.

Steibhin

Ok, just to make a few things clear. No one is suggesting that the Tribune have no right to publish such articles, rather that is was a very bad decision to do so. There is a big distinction there.

This article, I feel, goes beyond satire to becoming an attack on the travelling community. It is basically a rasict joke. A really bad and quite vile rasict joke.

Maybe 'race' is a problematic word here, but we are talking about an easily identifiable group within or society who do enjoy similar rights to those of ethic minorities.

I do feel this goes beyond acceptable standards in journalism.

RuggieBear

Jesus.

I'm so glad I'm out of college and don't have to suffer the utter wankology that is college politics and its over-active participants.

Spectator#1

Vainglory wrote:

I think we can philosophise all we want about the quasi-intellectual undertones of the piece, but the bottom line for me is that some traveller kid thinking about coming to college definitely wouldn't take it that way. And I think we can all agree on that.

That doesn't mean that the article shouldn't have been published or that an apology should be issued.

Also, I would question the value of attending college at all if you're going to sneer at the kind of level-headed and reasoned abilities of discussion and thought that it imbues us with and in which FionnMatthew and a couple of others on this thread have been attempting to engage. It's relevant, it's fair, and it's necessary. What's the point of arguing that everybody should be able to go to college if you think that the rationality and intellectual abilities it encourages are worthless?

As soon as you stop 'philosophising' about 'quasi-intellectual' discourse - as you so disparagingly refer to it - you're into the kind of stupid, relativistic censorship that this article is targeting, and in which you're wallowing at the moment by solely considering how some people might take the article.

And it's not an undertone in the article, it's explicit if you ask me.

As I said in my post on page two, there are elements to that article that are distasteful and perhaps they should be recognised and even apologised for, but just focussing on them in order to cause a fuss in council about it is - quite literally - being wilfully stupid.

And we're all in favour of increased access, right?

Provided everybody abides by the laws and rules in place in UCD and doesn't try to transgress them on the basis of irrational, inethical or illegal customs: yes.

I think I could even write a better satirical piece that makes the same point as you suggest the traveller piece did, but without the cheap shots and without the inevitable offence caused. And if I didn't have two essays due on Friday, I probably would.

Fine, then you even distinguished the meaning from it's content. So why are you being so hysterical about it? As you said here:

EDIT: And as I've said to the Editor of the Tribune myself, I don't think he's a racist or that the person who wrote it is a racist. I just think it was a hell bad decision to publish the article in that form and as such some sort of an apology should be forthcoming.

...you've already talked to the editor, you realise there was no malicious intent. Why are you trying to threaten them with - hopeless - political pressure when you could just be discussing it with them?

If all you wanted was an apology, I would suggest you continued to make that case to the editor of the Tribune, who I know for a fact would definitely be able to see your point.

FionnMatthew

Vainglory wrote:

As I've conveyed to the editor, if there is an apology for the poor taste in which much of the travellers article was written, then the motion will be withdrawn and will go no further.

Don't you see that by forcing the Tribune to apologise for the article, under threat of being compelled to do so by the SU, you are evacuating any genuine apology the Tribune might make of any meaning.

An apology from the Tribune, which I consider quite likely, means an awful lot more if you haven't strong-armed its editorial committee into issuing it.

You are using PC structures to force a vacuous apology. It won't mean anything if the Tribune is forced to write a bunch of words apologising for the article to the travelling community.

If I were you, I'd withdraw the motion, and have a lot more faith in the likelihood that the Tribune will apologise. This is a matter of public discourse eventually finding a level, and working itself out - you'll do everybody an injustice by taking away their free will in the matter.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Perhaps the Militant PC Brigade should go out and campaign against and eradicate the deep rooted seperation that travellers and settled folk as opposed to trying to censor an article which is merely arising as a result of the division and the opinions of such.

FionnMatthew

Vainglory wrote:

I think we can philosophise all we want about the quasi-intellectual undertones of the piece,

I find that sentence, frankly, scary, since the ideals on which you are pressing this motion (eg. equality of freedom from derogatory cultural generalisation) are, at basis, intellectualised ideals.

I think we can (and should) philosophise a bit more about the piece, and then see where it leaves us. We might find ourselves without the need to compel people to apologise when we haven't brought them to a good understanding of exactly why they should.

What you're after is the appearance of an apology, not the genuine article. The genuine article can only be arrived at by refraining from coercion.

Vainglory wrote:

but the bottom line for me is that some traveller kid thinking about coming to college definitely wouldn't take it that way. And I think we can all agree on that.

I don't know about that. In keeping with the principle of charity, I'm not prepared to assume that a hypothetical young traveller would lack the intellectual capability to read the article and come to some level of critical understanding of what's wrong with it, rather than just misinterpreting it as a racial slur.

I'm not prepared to subsribe to the bias that 'travellers are too stupid to understand this article in a sophisticated way'.

Sangre

If this was an attempt to satire the PC brigade it was poorly done. Not merely in its attempt at humour but in the way they were trying to get their satirical message across.

Essentially on a first glance the point I took from the article was A) travellers are criminals and the PC brigade want to allow this behaviour. At no point did I think the article was ridiculing the reality of . Obviously I can see the offence VG takes from this article but her attempts to 'put out this fire' are only serving to stoke it by pushing this poor satire further into the public domain.

Edit; since I havent read this thread in full heres a retroactive warning. Any biggoted comments will result in a ban.

FionnMatthew

Vainglory. With what I assume will be your permission, I'd like to reproduce here the Pavee Point comment that you PM'd me as a point of discussion here.

Assistant Director of Pavee Point, Martin Collins wrote:

Pavee Point unreservedly condemns the racist nature of the article "Travelling Community Afforded Basic Human Rights" published in The Tribune UCD College Newspaper 06 th March 2007. The article in question reproduces racist stereotypes of Travellers and is quite damaging to the Traveller community as a whole at a time when we are meant to be promoting tolerance and respect for cultural diversity especially within our educational institutions.

Would the article be deemed acceptable for publication if the word Traveller/Travelling community was replaced with that of another ethnic group? One sincerely doubts it, and rightly so. It appears however that publishing such material about Travellers is perfectly acceptable. Implicit in this is the denial of Travellers' experience of racism and an assumption that Traveller students are not present in the college or Travellers will not be reading the article.

We would expect more from a publication in an institute of higher learning such as UCD with its commitment to "widening participation and to the creation of a socially inclusive, equal opportunities learning environment for all students at the University". The publication of articles of this nature in a college newspaper would seem to contradict UCD's principles of equality and inclusion. We are seeking a formal apology from the paper in question and would call on the President to also seek an apology from the paper and make a strong statement condemning the article to ensure that a University paper is not used in the future to promote racism and intolerance.

Yours Sincerely
Martin Collins
Assistant Director
Pavee Point Travellers Centre

I actually believe this letter represents a very unnuanced understanding of the article in question. (Please take note that I am disagreeing with Mr. Collins, not with any larger body of people, or only with any larger body of people isofar as Mr. Collins claims to speak FOR a larger body of people.)






1. "Pavee Point unreservedly condemns the racist nature of the article "Travelling Community Afforded Basic Human Rights" published in The Tribune UCD College Newspaper 06 th March 2007."


Talking about anything "unreservedly" in this kind of matter is inadviseable. Categorical statements are notorious for keeping people blind to the nuance of a discussion, nuances which it is my strongly held belief are quite necessary to a good understanding.




2. "The article in question reproduces racist stereotypes of Travellers and is quite damaging to the Traveller community"


This statement is unwilling to recognise the context in which those racist stereotypes are construed. One could quite easily defend the invocation of stereotypes in this article in that the presence of people in the traveller community who do conform to such stereotypes are, in part, responsible for those same stereotypes, and thus, are responsible for the widespread derogation of the traveller community through stereotype.

This is a call for an application of critical thought within the Travelling community, and of the differentiation between people who are genuinely marginalised and people who use equalitarian provisions for their own immoral ends, and to the detriment of the travelling community. Rather than being damaging to the travelling community, this article could be seen as (inexpertly) supporting the right of most travellers to be free from the cultural stereotypes imposed on them by a small minority of undesireables.

The article, in fact, takes as given that 'all travellers should have the same rights as us'. What is satirised in the article is that 'travellers should have rights that we don't just because they are marginalised'.




3. "...as a whole at a time when we are meant to be promoting tolerance and respect for cultural diversity especially within our educational institutions."


I'd be anxious to stipulate that tolerance and respect are very important virtues, and we should be promoting them. We should not however be promoting them at the expense of critical judgement. Tolerance for other people's customs isn't tolerance for any custom at all, specifically unjust customs.

Based on point 2, I think a very good argument can be made for the fact that this article is already based on assumptions that are light-years ahead of what Mr. Collins is calling for here. Not only is it assumed in the article that tolerance and respect are virtues, but critical judgement is being put into play in service of those goals.

(But there are some ill-advised oversights, not in the general article itself, but in the particular names given to members of the travelling community in it. The Pavee Point letter is calling for an apology for the wrong thing. THAT the article was written is, I think, a good thing. THAT IT WAS WRITTEN BADLY and hence, a bit equivocal as to its meaning, THAT is what the apology shoud demand. See end.)




4. "Would the article be deemed acceptable for publication if the word Traveller/Travelling community was replaced with that of another ethnic group? One sincerely doubts it, and rightly so."


Yes. I think it would. I think the point being made here translates to a point being made about any cultural minority in which a smaller minority of that group take advantage of a politically correct reluctance to criticise in order to commit immoral acts, thereby enforcing the stigma that those equalitarian institutions were originally set up to erode.

For instance, if the article was about an extreme feminist's right to unjustly bully and discriminate against men, it would be similarly construeable as satire. I think it represents a worrying lapse of subtlety on Mr. Collins' part that he does not seem to recognise this.




5. "It appears however that publishing such material about Travellers is perfectly acceptable."


That is not a foregone conclusion. It is, at this juncture, particularly premature to conclude that it is 'perfectly acceptable'. Whether or not it is acceptable remains to be seen, and I'd advise that judgement on this matter is reserved until the next publication of the Tribune, in which any retractions that are to be made will be made.




6. "Implicit in this is the denial of Travellers' experience of racism and an assumption that Traveller students are not present in the college or Travellers will not be reading the article."


That is expressly NOT implicit in the article. What IS implicit in the article is a recognition of the every travellers' right to equal rights. There is an explicit rejection of the idea that, by virtue of belonging to a minority, a traveller should have a superior complement of rights to the average person, so that a traveller can commit crimes against another person without fear of correction.

A worrying possibility is that Mr. Collins is unwilling to recognise the true implicit content of the article, since ANY publicity for traveller rights is considered GOOD publicity. But I wouldn't care to push that idea, since I don't have any evidence that Mr. Collins is putting political concerns ahead of the ethos to which he purports to be devoted.




7. "We would expect more from a publication in an institute of higher learning such as UCD with its commitment to "widening participation and to the creation of a socially inclusive, equal opportunities learning environment for all students at the University"."


It seems to me unlikely that Mr. Colllins does expect more from the Tribune, seeing as there is actually more there, and he didn't spot it. That he would expect so little of the College Tribune that he could read the article in question as a simple, straighforward piece of racist literature is disappointing in someone who is representing a body of people (ie. the travelling community) who are so deserving of proper, sophisticated representation.




8. "The publication of articles of this nature in a college newspaper would seem to contradict UCD's principles of equality and inclusion."


This is to assume that the Tribune does intend to subscribe to UCD's corporate rhetoric, independent of the question of whether it should intend to do so.




9. "We are seeking a formal apology from the paper in question and would call on the President to also seek an apology from the paper and make a strong statement condemning the article to ensure that a University paper is not used in the future to promote racism and intolerance."


The Tribune should never be a mouthpiece for racism. I contend that it wasn't in this article, at least not unequivocally.

On the issue of intolerance I have more to say. In the case where the intolerance promoted in a College newspaper is of the kind of behaviour of which one should be intolerant, and of the kind of unsophisticated, politically correct philosophy that is tolerant to that degree, then I am not sure I have such an objection.

If I have one, my only objection would be as to whether the College Tribune should push any agenda at all. But, if it must, (and I'm sure many would agree that in a satire page the lines about what journalism should be doing are blurred anyway) I would prefer the Tribune were intolerant of things of which one should and can be intolerant, such as any person at all, including any traveller at all engaging in illegal or antisocial acts.

That we can make that distinction is testament to the fact that we attend an institution for academic and intellectual excellence, with fair-minded goals. It's a fineness of thought that I believe the travelling community deserves in its representative figures, and which I believe is lacking in Mr. Collins, at least insofar as he has demonstrated in his letter.




I'd make a tentative call for a retraction of this letter by Pavee Point, and a resubmission of the complaint in a form that more accurately reflects the flaws in the Tribune article, for which an apology would be appropriate

Vainglory

Apologies if I am appearing dismissive in my replies but it is merely because I have very little time to spend replying to the thread.

There was never any intention of "compelling" the Tribune to apologise. The motion says that the President of the Union should ask for an apology. If they don't want to then I suppose that's their business - but I think it would be bad form considering some of the comments in the article which we've all agreed here were in poor taste.

I have also asked for an apology but have thus far received no response so I'm not sure how far your protestations of the Tribune being reasonable in all this really go.

My comment about a 15 year old traveller kid not taking it as a satirical attack on the PC brigade was not because they were a member of the travelling community as such, but rather because of their age and also to some extent, their already ingrained suspicion about coming to college precisely because they think they will be subject to the sort of ridicule elements of this article encourages. The basis I have for this is my own experience with travellers. As far as I can see they would be naturally inclined to take it the other way.

If the Tribune are as willing to make an apology as you think they are I don't see any reason why they can't tell me that before 6pm tonight so I can withdraw the motion and we can all go home happy.

FionnMatthew

Hi. Thanks for the reply.

Vainglory wrote:

their already ingrained suspicion about coming to college precisely because they think they will be subject to the sort of ridicule elements of this article encourages....As far as I can see they would be naturally inclined to take it the other way.

So the freedom of the College Tribune to satirise (albeit inexpertly) what is, in fact, a critical issue in need of satirisation, should be contrained out of respect for (what you perceive to be) the prejudices of young travellers?

; that, supposedly, they believe, incorrectly, that everyone in UCD will be indisposed towards them.

; and that, in lieu of this, the Tribune should not be free to satirise something legitimately, on the basis that (what you perceive to be) young travellers' prejudices might encourage them to misinterpret the article as a racial slur against them.

The whole point of political correctness is to ensure that one person's prejudices don't impede on the legitimate freedoms of another.

Vainglory wrote:

If the Tribune are as willing to make an apology as you think they are I don't see any reason why they can't tell me that before 6pm tonight so I can withdraw the motion and we can all go home happy.

Why don't you withdraw the motion and wait and see? That way, any apology they do issue will be more genuine, and the result of the acheivement of understanding and agreement brought about by discussion.

If, as you suspect, the apology is not forthcoming in the next issue, you can submit another, more specific, motion, calling for an apology for the elements of the article which we have agreed here ARE indefensible by recourse to satire.

I don't see why you have to leave it hanging over the Tribune as a threat. Give the matter a chance to sort itself out first. Then take measures.

Confucius wrote:

If the people are governed by laws and punishment is used to maintain order, they will try to avoid the punishment but have no sense of shame.

If they are governed by virtue and rules of propriety are used to maintain order, they will have a sense of shame and will become good as well.

GuffFromSwine

FionnMatthew wrote:

This phenomenon is visible in most minority groups - defense of black-supremacist hate crimes on the basis of cultural difference, pseudo-feminist oppression of ALL men on what amount to VERY sexist generalisations, etc.

FionnMatthew, I think you make a very good point here and i agree that that sort of carry-on is almost as reprehensible as that which precedes it. However, as I see it this is not the issue here. The issue here is identifying these activities, which are doubtlessly practiced by some, with the entire travelling community and making no ironic qualification for that.

after reading the article in question a few more times, I do agree that heavy PC-policing is a target here, and rightly so. However, the article is so contrived that the emphasis afforded to this 'target' is more or less the same as the emphasis afforded to the other perceived 'target', the travelling community, and there are no mechanisms in place to aid the reader in distinguishing between the two. This makes the actual targetof the article (assuming it is PC culture) nigh-on indistinguishable from the comic foil (the blunt statements regarding the travelling community). This is more what i ment when i said there was no target per se. There is no irony to qualify the statements relating to travellers as being other than pointed and offensive.

In my first post I said that this piece would not be out of place in a neo-nazi rag, and i stand by that. The Tribune, however is not a skinhead rag and therefore equating the printing of this article to printing racist propaganda is unfair. Equally trying to defend this on the basis that its satire is a bit thick if you ask me, because insofar as it attempts to be satire, it fails. We need look noo further than the discourse in this thread to establish that. The Tribune should own up to have made a very bad call in printing this piece and apologise. As i've said before, this is a byproduct of the tribune trying to be all things to all men. Also the unfortuante fact is that most popular satire these days seems to prefer to make up targets (see the spanner etc.) rather than attack actual issues (of which there are no shortage). This has resulted in it becoming dry, uninteresting mental masturbation (Im so funny! Im so subversive! Im so original! aeeeuuggghhhh!!!). This seeks only to propogate the existence of satire rather than its use for anything consequential.

Also, to those attacking VainGlory for being condescending in suggesting that adolescent travellers would be offended by this, I think you're being very arrogant in assuming that they wouldnt. As she has stated, one of the main fears they have is not being accepted socially. If you entered somewhere you already had misgivings about and saw a paper claiming 'verbose white middle class kids all love to snort coke and talk waffle about philosophy and do nothing else',I'm sure you wouldn't be too ready to laugh about it. I assume none of us are into eugenics, and theres no quibble over the cerebral abilities of the average 15 year old traveller. Of course they'd be offended, its essentially confirming their worst fears.

Vainglory

Motion withdrawn.

The_Minister

FionnMatthew, if you want, you can come to council tonight and speak against the motion. I will give you my speaking rights.


EDIT: Motion Withdrawn by proposer. Pity, would have been a good scrap.

FionnMatthew

The_Minister wrote:

FionnMatthew, if you want, you can come to council tonight and speak against the motion. I will give you my speaking rights.

I'm very grateful for that. However, I'm sure it's not necessary given that Vainglory says the motion has been withdrawn.

Besides that, I wouldn't be able to attend tonight: despite my obvious interest in the matter, there are demands on my time that I can't renege on.

Vainglory wrote:

Motion withdrawn.

I commend that decision. I think it's the right thing to do. In the event that no apology is forthcoming in the near future, with regard to the elements of the article that, for want of skill, were actually offensive, I would fully support you in making a similar motion at the next consecutive council.

mloc

shouldn't have been in the satire section, imho.