Kevin Myers, jew've just been erased

strandroad

suicide_circus wrote: »

that's all just a matter of taste though, isnt it? Not your cup of tea, mine neither but he should be able to write it without people sh1tting the bed.

And he still could, on his blog. Doesn't mean that he needed to be paid for such quality of thought, that's up to the employer and their quality control.

suicide_circus

strandroad wrote: »

And he still could, on his blog. Doesn't mean that he needed to be paid for such quality of thought, that's up to the employer and their quality control.

true. lets hope you got a good few bob from the judgement. people disliked him for years, he was an enemy to republicans and the progressive left so they took their chance

paleoperson

Do you ever get the feeling that you're just a contrairian suicide circus?

Going to bat for Kevin Myers of all people.

Are you a fan of his or are you just stirring?

KaneToad

Just read the article in question. Found it interesting, didn't previously know the literal meaning of holocaust.

There isn't a shred of anti-Semitism in that article. There is plenty of Myers style soap boxing - which, I guess, his employer wanted him to produce.

Edit: I'm not a fan of his, lest the accusations start to fly!

paleoperson

KaneToad wrote: »

Just read the article in question. Found it interesting, didn't previously know the literal meaning of holocaust.

There isn't a shred of anti-Semitism in that article. There is plenty of Myers style soap boxing - which, I guess, his employer wanted him to produce.

He wasn't called an anti-semite.

suicide_circus

paleoperson wrote: »

Do you ever get the feeling that you're just a contrairian suicide circus?

Going to bat for Kevin Myers of all people.

Are you a fan of his or are you just stirring?

i'm going to bat for the ability of journalists to write controversial pieces and use esoteric or off-colour metaphors without a lynch mob appearing.

KaneToad

paleoperson wrote: »

He wasn't called an anti-semite.

I realise that. He was called a Holocaust denier. He took exception. He went to court. He won.

He thought he was writing a clever/edgy article by denying the holocaust (small h), whereas RTE were too eager to call him a Holocaust denier (big H).

RTE should have known better and afforded Myers the attention that he deserves.. i.e. very little.

TheRepentent

paleoperson wrote: »

Shut up.

I sometimes can't believe how dumb some people online are, like I try to be reasonable and have patience and get this ****ing ****.

You'd rub a Buddha up the wrong way.

As Siddhārtha Gautama said 2000 years ago

Don't be a dick

paleoperson

paleoperson wrote: »

Jesus what kind of world do we live in?! He literally said:

There was no Holocaust: Kevin Myers

As the title of an opinion article in a national paper less than ten years ago.

https://archive.is/20170730122019/http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/there-was-no-holocaust-kevin-myers-28473646.html

He even said in the text:



The man is a Holocaust denier.

The world's gone crazy. Did RTE not have a solicitor that pointed that out?

Do you understand the language the article is written in? It looks like you don't. He does not deny Jews were exterminate, but they were not holocaust. Like when you say decimated and think is a lot

Raconteuse

suicide_circus wrote: »

i'm going to bat for the ability of journalists to write controversial pieces and use esoteric or off-colour metaphors without a lynch mob appearing.

I definitely wouldn't bat for journalists to be provocative for the craic - trolling is childish. An angry reaction is exactly what they're looking for so I wouldn't feel like they've been hard done by if they get it. I'd prefer if they didn't get it though.

I see what Kev was saying too - that the word "holocaust" is incorrect, not that the atrocities in question didn't happen. Totally just done to be controversial for the laugh though - it's hardly a matter of importance. A man in late middle age desperate for attention - pitiful.

suicide_circus

Raconteuse wrote: »

I definitely wouldn't bat for journalists to be provocative for the craic - trolling is childish. An angry reaction is exactly what they're looking for so I wouldn't feel like they've been hard done by if they get it. I'd prefer if they didn't get it though.

I see what Kev was saying too - that the word "holocaust" is incorrect, not that the atrocities in question didn't happen. Totally just done to be controversial for the laugh though - it's hardly a matter of importance. A man in late middle age desperate for attention - pitiful.

he did what he was paid to do. and he was read by millions of people over the years. not to everyone's taste of course.

paleoperson

KaneToad wrote: »

I realise that. He was called a Holocaust denier. He took exception. He went to court. He won.

He thought he was writing a clever/edgy article by denying the holocaust (small h), whereas RTE were too eager to call him a Holocaust denier (big H).

RTE should have known better and afforded Myers the attention that he deserves.. i.e. very little.

I don't see why, it's a perfectly accurate way to describe him. It's not like Myers is a private citizen and has no ability to defend himself. Myers is a public person who made his living being inflammatory, the suit should have been thrown out the moment it was filed.

It's not even like the "bastards" controversy, where he apologized profusely for it. He doesn't even mention the article, ie. he's trying to hide it from the public.

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you understand the language the article is written in? It looks like you don't. He does not deny Jews were exterminate, but they were not holocaust. Like when you say decimated and think is a lot

We're in agreement then - he's a Holocaust denier, the lawsuit had no merit and should have been thrown out. Where's your problem?

KaneToad

paleoperson wrote: »

Myers is a public person who made his living being inflammatory, the suit should have been thrown out the moment it was filed...

I agree with the first part of your statement.
I disagree with the second. More importantly, the judge also disagrees...

paleoperson

paleoperson wrote: »

I don't see why, it's a perfectly accurate way to describe him. It's not like Myers is a private citizen and has no ability to defend himself. Myers is a public person who made his living being inflammatory, the suit should have been thrown out the moment it was filed.

It's not even like the "bastards" controversy, where he apologized profusely for it. He doesn't even mention the article, ie. he's trying to hide it from the public.



We're in agreement then - he's a Holocaust denier, the lawsuit had no merit and should have been thrown out. Where's your problem?

I have no problem, but you have attitude and incoherence. He says they were not all burned. Do you say other?

Raconteuse

suicide_circus wrote: »

he did what he was paid to do. and he was read by millions of people over the years. not to everyone's taste of course.

Opinions that challenge and evoke critical thinking without the purveyor being fired/harassed - yes please.

Writing stuff that's for no purpose other than to cause controversy/shock - growing up is needed.

suicide_circus

Raconteuse wrote: »

Opinions that challenge and evoke critical thinking without the purveyor being fired/harassed - yes please.

Writing stuff that's for no purpose other than to cause controversy/shock - growing up is needed.

I'll risk the latter to guarantee the former.

paleoperson

suicide_circus wrote: »

I'll risk the latter to guarantee the former.

Then why the hell are you in favour of RTE being sued for this?

Yellow_Fern

Meyers is a loss. He was brilliant voice.

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Meyers is a loss. He was brilliant voice.

He was in his hide. By the end, a token provocateur starved of attention. Good riddance.

KaneToad

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Meyers is a loss. He was brilliant voice.

He was definitely a voice. Brilliant would be pushing it. I don't think we're any poorer due to his absence...

Some stories, both historical and recent are considered to be beyond scrutiny or criticism. The narrative is not allowed be questioned and the powers that be will always see to it that no deviation from the/ir "facts", if new evidence is unearthed to the contrary, shall be brooked or tolerated.
So I say fair play to Kevin Myers for at least sticking his head above the parapet.

Quantum Erasure

Deleted User wrote: »

He was in his hide. By the end, a token provocateur starved of attention. Good riddance.

better than some here, anyway

Arghus

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

better than some here, anyway

Better than some randomers on the Internet?

The bar for being a worthwhile journalist has been lowered quite a bit there.

Raconteuse

He used to be a great journalist covering Northern Ireland, in fairness. And fair play to him for acknowledging the toxicity of loyalist culture, unlike the rest of the unionism fanboys/girls at the Indo.

But he has only been saying things for shock value in recent years - the print equivalent of a shock jock.

People are pretending that he has been writing thought provoking material to challenge the accepted narratives. He hasn't though. I'd applaud that. All he's been doing is behaving as a controversialist - it is not the same thing as what people are claiming he's doing.

Arghus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Some stories, both historical and recent are considered to be beyond scrutiny or criticism. The narrative is not allowed be questioned and the powers that be will always see to it that no deviation from the/ir "facts", if new evidence is unearthed to the contrary, shall be brooked or tolerated.
So I say fair play to Kevin Myers for at least sticking his head above the parapet.

There's questioning sacred truths and scrutinising accepted "facts", but then there's self serving and attention seeking provocation, dressed up as a bad faith defence of the virtues of free speech - with no acknowledgement of the implicit dangers in obscuring and downplaying historical events as part of an exercise in semantics.

And as a piece of writing that article sucks.

tdf7187

In a war between a savage and a civilised man, I stand with the civilised man.