Alright squire

osarusan

Samaris wrote: »

Mind you, there's really no winning with these debates.


Offended? - Ugh, get over yourselves, thin-skinned pansies!
Not offended enough? - Is your self-esteem so low that you find this okay?
Take it as having some elements of truth to it? - Self-hating Irishman! And probably a west Brit.
Snark that he didn't manage to pick up on actually accusable things - What sort of Irish person feels that something like this wasn't insulting enough?!
Take it as a load of bollocks to be slagged off - actually, been okay with this, but probably just because no-one's noticed enough to come up with a good accusation. It would probably be "not taking insult to one's nation strongly enough" though.
Amused and thought it was well-written - Passive Irish!

Indeed.

Everybody is offended but me.

Emperor Qianlong

If that article had been written about Jewish people, the Israelis would have Mossad in after the author

Emperor Qianlong

Emperor Qianlong wrote: »

If that article had been written about Jewish people, the Israelis would have Mossad in after the author

Ach, doubt they would. There is a large percentage of the Israeli population who wouldn't rush to the trenches if someone said "your weather is awful hot and your Prime Minister is a moron".

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ach, doubt they would. There is a large percentage of the Israeli population who wouldn't rush to the trenches if someone said "your weather is awful hot and your Prime Minister is a moron".

There was a slight suggestion of 'your country shouldn't exist' which might have been less favourably received.

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

There was a slight suggestion of 'your country shouldn't exist' which might have been less favourably received.

Missed that, but just scanned it. Could you point to the paragraph or line that said that? Thanks.

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Missed that, but just scanned it. Could you point to the paragraph or line that said that? Thanks.

It's been deleted now but there were at least three clear suggestions that it's not a real country, on top of using an inappropriate name throughout.

riffmongous

I have to say I loved the last paragraph, the whole 'they'll come crawling back and we'll reject them' thing, pathetic and delusional, like a dumped 14 year old

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

Missed that, but just scanned it. Could you point to the paragraph or line that said that? Thanks.

There was this

Eire’s history is basically British – before that it was a bunch of warring families and a corrupt church involved in an incessant spiral of gob****eing and slaying – certainly not a nation.

Avatar MIA

pickarooney wrote: »

It's been deleted now but there were at least three clear suggestions that it's not a real country, on top of using an inappropriate name throughout.

Keeping to the Israeli parallel, it would have been suggesting Israel, get some sense and show loyalty to the Arab world and rejoin Palestine and the Muslim world. Yeah, any day now...

Samaris

There is an important context issue though. Israel are still feeling under constant threat and there is a credible chance of their country being wiped out by one surrounding countries without a certain amount of heavy weaponry and general paranoia - also some fairly divisive internal issues about whether dropping bombs on civilians is really a decent thing to be doing. Also, the whole Holocaust issue within living memory is enough to leave a nation just a tad on edge already without assholes writing nasty screeds implying that they shouldn't exist and are worthless. Jewish people over Europe have enough experience of the start of whispering campaigns and media mudflinging and what it can lead to that being aggravated by it would be rather understandable. (It's a bit awkward to treat "Israel" and "Jewish people" in the same paragraph as the two aren't really the same thing, so hope that made sense)

Whereas for us, this guy is some eejit writing for a rag that no-one had heard of before yesterday in the UK. Nothing he could possibly say, up to and including advocating another Famine, has the remotest possibility of causing any actual harm. There is very little anti-Irish sentiment out there to feed upon. No-one cares. Now, if it was sixty plus years ago, when there was still real anti-Irish sentiment against a country that could barely support itself, where such vile bull**** could cause real harm to people,(particularly Irish immigrants to the UK), with the Famine and all the resentment around it still in living or close-to-living memory, oh, you can bet I'd be pissed off.

So why I might look down on it for kicking down - i.e. picking a target that could conceivably come to harm by it, - when it's just kicking wildly I'm really not that worried. It says very little for him, but that's his problem.

For what it's worth, my partner is more on the aggravated side about it, so I do see that point on it too. Objectively, it was a pretty ****ty thing to write. But yes, I would be more -angry- if it was written about people for whom it could conceivably cause actual harm or fear rather than if it's directed at a people who cannot possibly be materially harmed by it.

Avatar MIA

What you say about Israel is true, Samaris.

However, don't forget our country is divided with British rule in a fifth of the island, and for him then to say the rest should get their act together and rejoin the UK, it's not without provocation.

dd972

What makes me laugh about 'Middle England' or 'The Shires' to those less acqauinted with the culture over the water is the arrogance and highfalutin notions it has of itself and Daily Telegraph bedrocks like Surrey or Hampshire, compared to the sorts of places you can see on the continental mainland like The South of France, Munich, Vienna, Strasbourg, Paris, etc, these places are both dull as ditchwater and absolute sh!te.

Samaris

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What you say about Israel is true, Samaris.

However, don't forget our country is divided with British rule in a fifth of the island, and for him then to say the rest should get their act together and rejoin the UK, it's not without provocation.

That is true, and there is historical context. But there is still no way that Ireland is going to rejoin the UK, nor any reasonably foreseeable chance of anything awful enough to make it likely happening.

Nah, I have no issue with people thinking it was an outrageous bit of trolling in a magazine that should have known better. It was nasty-minded, spiteful, somewhat nonsensical and insulting. Since it didn't really have a point or actually go anywhere, it is hard to see it as anything but provocation for provocation's sake and I don't think much of him as a writer or a person for it.

However, for me, the target one picks for one's nonsense is important. I'll be a lot more inclined to get angry at kicking down at someone who could be injured over kicking wildly at someone who can't be touched. They have every right to be annoyed that someone's kicking at all, though!

Nekarsulm

Samaris wrote: »

I am amused how he gives out about the Irish dairy but then lauds Northern Irish dairy products. Is the difference in the political affiliation of the cows?

How little he knows. The local Co Op here in Cavan had the contract to make the butter for all HM's Prisons.

Samaris

https://countrysquire.co.uk/2017/08/12/outrage-merchants-hit-csm/

And they're back and swinging! Honestly, the language and petulance in that editorial is very telling. I did actually think that Country Squire Magazine was a small but generally reputable outlet that had a lunatic day, but it's looking rather more like a minor clickbait website.

But the whole defensive, self-righteous spiel about fighting racists and how anyone that dislikes what they have to say should "grow up" while conveniently ignoring that the article was just plain bigoted (as well as ridiculous) and implying that they are fighting some noble battle against the forces of censorship and outrage is just laughable.

These guys are clickbait artists. The quality of writing is lousy and it wasn't a great deal better in the Browne article. He had some funny moments, but reread it and note how it doesn't go anywhere, it doesn't prove any points - it doesn't really make any points to prove - it is factually inaccurate (Britain is not our largest export partner, it's not even our largest EU partner, and it's not 50%) in the few lines that don't rely on diddly-aye stereotypes. It's just lazy.

As for the Editor's comment, it was a page and a half of Noble Oppressed Victim Whining. If you publish provocation for provocation's sake claiming free speech and "saying what no-one else will say" (could that be because other people aren't assholes?), you don't get to be taken seriously in whinging when people retort.

Avatar MIA

Can they do anything right. The Irish Times Hyperlink links to the Irish Post (as of writing).

It's only on the go since Nov '17. To be honest,

Click Bait 1 - 0 Journalism

tea and coffee

I won't quote Samaris' post above, but in reference to it. On one hand they defend Jim and his/ their right to write, yet he resigned (was asked to leave).
Seems strange.

gctest50

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Can they do anything right. The Irish Times Hyperlink links to the Irish Post (as of writing).

It's only on the go since Nov '17. To be honest,

Click Bait 1 - 0 Journalism

That oul proofreading does be quare tricky at times you see

Samaris

tea and coffee wrote: »

I won't quote Samaris' post above, but in reference to it. On one hand they defend Jim and his/ their right to write, yet he resigned (was asked to leave).
Seems strange.

Felt like they went into panic mode and took down the article/ (requested/accepted) Browne's resignation, but after sleeping on it and some mental puffing up into a state of aggrieved victimhood, they're going for petulant belligerence.

Honestly, I have read a very similar screed more times than I can conveniently remember. It's built on a template!

- We're sorry for what we did.
- But people get soooo wound up at simple plain speaking...
- And OUTRAGE MERCHANTS came to get us!
- This is so unfair.
- FREE SPEECH!
- How dare you get bolshy about our free speech!
- (Shut up, I get free speech, you might have the right to reply but...waaaah, your responses mean I have to defend my free speech and that's not fair!)
- Well, SOME people with a SENSE OF HUMOUR liked it so OBVIOUSLY there was nothing wrong...
- Quote from helpful screed.
- Noble Oppressed Victimhood, fighting against Racism (good job there guys, good job) and Outrage.
- We will CONTINUE to RUFFLE FEATHERS and PROD BUTTOCK.
- Mean "journalists" were horrible to us. Dig at journalists for paying attention.
- Oh, sorry if you were offended.
- Nyeh.
- /Enter

The article really wasn't worth the amount of wailing. Either they get why it was an idiotic and offensive article or they don't. If they do, then they should apologise, remove it and shut up for a bit. If they don't, they shouldn't have gone into panic mode. Removing it and then playing the oppressed victim of PC oppression is forum-grade internet warrior nonsense.

Katgurl

I am very confused. If Country Squire is in full support of the original article, why was the writer asked to tender his resignation?

Avatar MIA

gctest50 wrote: »

That oul proofreading does be quare tricky at times you see

I was more than half asleep writing that, and not putting myself forward as a journalist.

Avatar MIA

A decent rebuttal, however I still don't think the British can be racist against Irish, considering we're not different races.

https://afootintwoplaces.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/dear-jim-browne-here-is-why-youre-so-wrong-about-eire/

steddyeddy

Avatar MIA wrote: »

A decent rebuttal, however I still don't think the British can be racist against Irish, considering we're not different races.

https://afootintwoplaces.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/dear-jim-browne-here-is-why-youre-so-wrong-about-eire/

Pedentry. It's discrimination against an ethnic group. Besides there's no scientifically defined race.

Avatar MIA

steddyeddy wrote: »

Pedentry. It's discrimination against an ethnic group. Besides there's no scientifically defined race.

Yeah, I was going to use the word pedant myself - but still think we're as close to the British as to make no difference, so think it's a lazy word.

steddyeddy

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Yeah, I was going to use the word pedant myself - but still think we're as close to the British as to make no difference, so think it's a lazy word.

I disagree. I live in England and think we're very different peoples. I find the British to be a lot more reserved TBH.

Donald Trump

What's that you say Mr. Dinosaur? You want to delete your article from the interwebs so that nobody can ever see it again? What a great idea.

Looks like you might never have heard of the  wayback machine

Avatar MIA

steddyeddy wrote: »

I find the British to be a lot more reserved TBH.

You mean better able to moderate their alcohol intake ?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Did the author himself remove the article?

If the magazine did it then they're hypocritical cowards. All their bleeting on about the importance of free speech and diversity of thought.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Did the author himself remove the article?

If the magazine did it then they're hypocritical cowards. All their bleating on about the importance of free speech and diversity of thought.

vicwatson

Avatar MIA wrote: »

A decent rebuttal, however I still don't think the British can be racist against Irish, considering we're not different races.

https://afootintwoplaces.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/dear-jim-browne-here-is-why-youre-so-wrong-about-eire/

Xenophobic maybe

kylith

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Did the author himself remove the article?

If the magazine did it then they're hypocritical cowards. All their bleating on about the importance of free speech and diversity of thought.

Any right to free speech refers only to the government not arresting you for saying something they don't like.

He has the free speech right to say anything he likes.
We have the free speech right to say that we dont' like it.
His employer has the right to not want to be associated with bigoted drivel.

Avatar MIA

vicwatson wrote: »

Xenophobic maybe

Was thinking that, but couldn't think of a term specific to a certain nationality. Although, I'd not be amazed if he was Xenophobic in general :rolleyes:

DEFTLEFTHAND

kylith wrote: »

Any right to free speech refers only to the government not arresting you for saying something they don't like.

He has the free speech right to say anything he likes.
We have the free speech right to say that we dont' like it.
His employer has the right to not want to be associated with bigoted drivel.

His employer declared themselves to be a bastion of free speech when the initial backlash to the article hit.