So...Ok then...How do we talk about it? (Irish Presidential Election Result)

26000 Elephants

oscarBravo wrote: »

I doubt it - certainly not if the person doing the persuasion gives you the tiniest foothold of an excuse to dismiss everything they say out of hand on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Of course you do. Your own (very obvious) anger issues have blinded you from seeing any point of view but your own hysterical hard line one.

What makes me laugh is how much you try to elevate yourself above the more extreme right-wingers on here, little realsiing that you have more in common with them than you do with the majority of people who have more moderate views. Same anger, vitriol and intolerance: just directed in the opposite direction.

26000 Elephants

blanch152 wrote: »

(1) Criminality is endemically entrenched within the Traveller community.
(2) Traveller culture is deeply homophobic
(3) Traveller culture is deeply misogynistic and in some ways as hostile to women as Muslim culture is.
(4) Traveller culture has little regard for the property rights of the settled community
(5) The criteria used for ethnicity have little scientific rationale and could be applied to many other groups including Aran Islanders

1. Some shocking stats: 0.6% of population, but 15% of prison population. For women, its 1 in 5. Similar figures for other disadvantaged groups around the world ( aborigines in Australia have even higher figures). Anyone care to put forward a reason for this in the Irish context?

2 & 3 are related issues: a patriarchy that is protected by ethnic status!

4. Many non travellers have disregard for property, so I wont lay that at their door, but the this relates to point 1 as well.

5. The whole ethnicity thing strikes me as crystalising the differences between travellers and non-travellers. I thought we were all striving for equality and inclusion?

oscarBravo

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Of course you do. Your own (very obvious) anger issues have blinded you from seeing any point of view but your own hysterical hard line one.

Yes, because I'm the one who completely dismissed an entire opinion piece based solely on the fact that the uppity woman who wrote it dared to say something that offended a fragile male ego.

What makes me laugh is how much you try to elevate yourself above the more extreme right-wingers on here, little realsiing that you have more in common with them than you do with the majority of people who have more moderate views. Same anger, vitriol and intolerance: just directed in the opposite direction.

Cheers for the psychoanalysis. Care to offer any constructive suggestions on how we can improve relations between the settled and travelling communities?

26000 Elephants wrote: »

1. Some shocking stats: 0.6% of population, but 15% of prison population. For women, its 1 in 5. Similar figures for other disadvantaged groups around the world ( aborigines in Australia have even higher figures). Anyone care to put forward a reason for this in the Irish context?

2 & 3 are related issues: a patriarchy that is protected by ethnic status!

4. Many non travellers have disregard for property, so I wont lay that at their door, but the this relates to point 1 as well.

5. The whole ethnicity thing strikes me as crystalising the differences between travellers and non-travellers. I thought we were all striving for equality and inclusion?

I guess not. Continued bitching about them it is, so. I'm sure it will suddenly become a constructive approach. Any day now.

26000 Elephants

oscarBravo wrote: »

solely on the fact that the uppity woman who wrote it

Not really, he had a lot more to say about it that that: You choose the cop out of making it all about the sex of the author.

Cheers for the psychoanalysis. Care to offer any constructive suggestions on how we can improve relations between the settled and travelling communities?

You could start by engaging in the discussion, and stop derailing things with your oppression complex.

I guess not. Continued bitching about them it is, so. I'm sure it will suddenly become a constructive approach. Any day now.

Like I said, defaulting to "cop out" mode again.

blanch152

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, because I'm the one who completely dismissed an entire opinion piece based solely on the fact that the uppity woman who wrote it dared to say something that offended a fragile male ego. Cheers for the psychoanalysis. Care to offer any constructive suggestions on how we can improve relations between the settled and travelling communities?




I guess not. Continued bitching about them it is, so. I'm sure it will suddenly become a constructive approach. Any day now.

Apart from their culture of criminality and entrenched homophobic and misogynist practices, I don't have any major issue with travellers. Similarly, apart from FGM and a culture of dependency, I don't have any major issue with Africans either. Apart from their homophobic and misogynist policies, I don't have any major issue with unionists.

Unlike you, I don't give free passes to any group.

So if you want to improve relations between the settled and traveller community, root out the homophobic and misogynist culture as well as the practice of criminality.

oscarBravo

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Not really, he had a lot more to say about it that that: You choose the cop out of making it all about the sex of the author.

No, he didn't. He took offense to one line, and dismissed the entire article on that basis.

You could start by engaging in the discussion, and stop derailing things with your oppression complex.

"No, I have no constructive suggestions to offer."

Like I said, defaulting to "cop out" mode again.

As opposed to your reams of constructive input?

blanch152 wrote: »

Unlike you, I don't give free passes to any group.

Perhaps you could quote the posts of mine where I've given a "free pass" to travellers?

So if you want to improve relations between the settled and traveller community, root out the homophobic and misogynist culture as well as the practice of criminality.

Who, me? How do I do that?

Tell me how

blanch152 wrote: »

Apart from their culture of criminality and entrenched homophobic and misogynist practices, I don't have any major issue with travellers. Similarly, apart from FGM and a culture of dependency, I don't have any major issue with Africans either. Apart from their homophobic and misogynist policies, I don't have any major issue with unionists.

Unlike you, I don't give free passes to any group.

So if you want to improve relations between the settled and traveller community, root out the homophobic and misogynist culture as well as the practice of criminality.

I think you are looking at it quite simplistically. I pointed out previously about common attitudes within the broader Irish culture which could have been consider homophobic until quite recently and moreso in the case of mysogyny where many still claim it exists but even if they are not entirely true in 2018, it is not that long ago when it could not really have been disputed.

Likewise in relation to FGM and a culture of dependency I don't know that such practices are so widely carried that they could be considered indicative of an entire community of several hundreds of million people.

Eric Cartman

oscarBravo wrote: »

She said: "Affluent white men expressing disdain for minorities and poorer people is not new." This is objectively true.

But its a generalisation of an entire group, which I thought was bad.

Blaming rich white men in news articles is just a dog whistle to drum up likes and shares these days.

Proportionally racism, sexism and the subjugation of women and homophobia is much worse among travellers, muslims, africans and asians than it is for 'afluent white males' .

The left has invented a weird dichotomy where everyone who supports Casey/Trump/Farage is similtaniously an uneducated hick bitching they cant get a job because of 'de foreigners' and at the same time the most educated afluent echelons of our society systematically opressing everyone else. Its speaking out both sides of the mouth to basically just say 'boo white men'

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The left has invented a weird dichotomy where everyone who supports Casey/Trump/Farage is similtaniously an uneducated hick bitching they cant get a job because of 'de foreigners' and at the same time the most educated afluent echelons of our society systematically opressing everyone else. Its speaking out both sides of the mouth to basically just say 'boo white men'

It's 3 o'clock on Sunday morning, typos are excusable, but this is kinda funny.

Midlife

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But its a generalisation of an entire group, which I thought was bad.

He said...

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Proportionally racism, sexism and the subjugation of women and homophobia is much worse among travellers, muslims, africans and asians than it is for 'afluent white males'.

...right before generalising about 4 billion people


I doget what you mean though. Just thought it was funnny.

Midlife

Matt Barrett wrote: »

There is a move to put members of the public into groups and popular divisive political entities thrive on bringing one side on board by pointing at another. That's all Casey did IMO. It's low gutter level populism.

This.

Casey was struggling with votes so he went for identity politics. This was what Steve Bannon championed about Trump, and is why Trump is perfectly happy to be so divisive and do things like today to kick California while it's in a crisis.

i.e. - they won't vote for him so who gives a crap about them, start a row and get people picking sides.

I don't think it's even worth discussing the traveller problem (both sides of it) under such circumstances.

I hope the public around the world wise up to this populist strategy. It's got nothing to do with progress and development. it's simply a strategy to tear a country/society roughly in half with the aim that you wind up with the slightly bigger half.

Ireland does not need this.

Casey can go **** himself.

FrancieBrady

Midlife wrote: »

This.

Casey was struggling with votes so he went for identity politics. This was what Steve Bannon championed about Trump, and is why Trump is perfectly happy to be so divisive and do things like today to kick California while it's in a crisis.

i.e. - they won't vote for him so who gives a crap about them, start a row and get people picking sides.

I don't think it's even worth discussing the traveller problem (both sides of it) under such circumstances.

I hope the public around the world wise up to this populist strategy. It's got nothing to do with progress and development. it's simply a strategy to tear a country/society roughly in half with the aim that you wind up with the slightly bigger half.

Ireland does not need this.

Casey can go **** himself.

That is the inestimable damage he did. Rather than open up debate, he has just allowed the extremes to shout the loudest. And to get their insults in.

It is happening all over these threads and some don't even realise how bigoted and prejudiced it is.

oscarBravo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The left has invented a weird dichotomy where everyone who supports Casey/Trump/Farage is similtaniously an uneducated hick bitching they cant get a job because of 'de foreigners' and at the same time the most educated afluent echelons of our society systematically opressing everyone else.

Nope. You just invented that dichotomy from whole cloth, because there's certainly not the faintest trace of it in the article I cited. Congratulations on adding a straw man fallacy to the thread.

Tell me how

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the inestimable damage he did. Rather than open up debate, he has just allowed the extremes to shout the loudest. And to get their insults in.

It is happening all over these threads and some don't even realise how bigoted and prejudiced it is.

That is the problem. If you judge some to be bigoted and prejudiced in their views you might say that such views should not be aired publicly.

If you then remove said views or stop them being made public in the first place, you are accused of denying free speech. This only leads to that group appealing to more and more as they can accuse the establishment of trying to control the narrative so as to protect themselves.

One thing we know for sure is that those making the posts which you (or someone else) might deem to be bigoted do not feel that that is a fair judgement on their position.

So what right do you (or me or anyone else) have to say that they should be silenced?

The morning after the presidential election was very interesting. I follow Colm Parkinson and Fintan O'Toole on Twitter. At one point, both had tweets on my screen in the one shot. The tweets were diametrically opposite views on what Casey's result meant. Both had a several hundred likes. Whose view is correct?

FrancieBrady

Tell me how wrote: »

That is the problem. If you judge some to be bigoted and prejudiced in their views you might say that such views should not be aired publicly.

If you then remove said views or stop them being made public in the first place, you are accused of denying free speech. This only leads to that group appealing to more and more as they can accuse the establishment of trying to control the narrative so as to protect themselves.

One thing we know for sure is that those making the posts which you (or someone else) might deem to be bigoted do not feel that that is a fair judgement on their position.

So what right do you (or me or anyone else) have to say that they should be silenced?

The morning after the presidential election was very interesting. I follow Colm Parkinson and Fintan O'Toole on Twitter. At one point, both had tweets on my screen in the one shot. The tweets were diametrically opposite views on what Casey's result meant. Both had a several hundred likes. Whose view is correct?

Prejudice and biased comment should never be given oxygen because it is generally useless in any constructive debate.

No problem with opposing views, which is not the same thing at all.

Tell me how

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Prejudice and biased comment should never be given oxygen because it is generally useless in any constructive debate.

No problem with opposing views, which is not the same thing at all.

Well, who is to say that your view of what is prejudiced and biased is correct?

FrancieBrady

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, who is to say that your view of what is prejudiced and biased is correct?

Comments such as 'travellers are basically people who camp on other people's land' is prejudiced and biased in anybody's language I would have thought. For other examples see the very shouty and vitriolic thread in AH.

That is the only 'extreme' being heard now since Casey.

Tell me how

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Comments such as 'travellers are basically people who camp on other people's land' is prejudiced and biased in anybody's language I would have thought. For other examples see the very shouty and vitriolic thread in AH.

That is the only 'extreme' being heard now since Casey.

Exactly. That is your opinion (as is your right).
But many disagree with you and are entitled to their opinion.

What I would like is a willingness to defend respective positions beyond just saying "I am right and you are wrong" which we get most often.

Let Peter ( or anyone else) be asked for examples to defend his comments and Pavee Point to hear his examples and then counter them. Publicly.

Eric Cartman

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. You just invented that dichotomy from whole cloth, because there's certainly not the faintest trace of it in the article I cited. Congratulations on adding a straw man fallacy to the thread.

No , it exists. Have a look at any scenario that goes on , the EDL/BNP/Pegida marches, all working class people, stormfront / white supremacists etc.. all working class uneducated people, most of the hate you rally against all comes from working class people and working class areas, whens the last time a gay kid in dalkey was killed, because we all know the last time it happened in tallaght.

That author and your assumption that this is affluent white men subjugating anyone or spreading hate is false, its the uneducated working class perpetuating it .

FrancieBrady

Tell me how wrote: »

Exactly. That is your opinion (as is your right).
But many disagree with you and are entitled to their opinion.

What I would like is a willingness to defend respective positions beyond just saying "I am right and you are wrong" which we get most often.

Let Peter ( or anyone else) be asked for examples to defend his comments and Pavee Point to hear his examples and then counter them. Publicly.

The statement I quoted is wrong. And always will be. There is no defence or discussion on it.
It is made from a prejudiced position and is worthless to any debate, therefore should not be given any oxygen.

His, SEMS gives travellers extra rights was also debunked and he couldn't defend it publicly either.

Tell me how

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The statement I quoted is wrong. And always will be. There is no defence or discussion on it.
It is made from a prejudiced position and is worthless to any debate, therefore should not be given any oxygen.

His, SEMS gives travellers extra rights was also debunked and he couldn't defend it publicly either.

I'll leave it at this. The part in bold is your subjective opinion.
One which others will disagree with.

To continue refusing to allow them to express why you think it is true will only lead them to eventually ignore you, and speak to others and point at you and say that you are quelling free speech and not listening to anyone who disagrees with you.

As more start to pay attention, and look at you and see you doing this, their numbers start to grow. Eventually they will get to 51%. We've seen this before.

FrancieBrady

Tell me how wrote: »

I'll leave it at this. The part in bold is your subjective opinion.
One which others will disagree with.

To continue refusing to allow them to express why you think it is true will only lead them to eventually ignore you, and speak to others and point at you and say that you are quelling free speech and not listening to anyone who disagrees with you.

As more start to pay attention, and look at you and see you doing this, their numbers start to grow. Eventually they will get to 51%. We've seen this before.

I'm sorry.
Saying that 'travellers are basically people who camp on other people's land' is wrong and always will be.
It is not an 'opinion', it adds nothing to a 'debate' and was said to enflame.

That isn't allowed here (trolling) and should never be acceptable publicly.

Again, I have nothing against the expression of opposing views.

oscarBravo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

That author and your assumption that this is affluent white men subjugating anyone or spreading hate is false...

I guess it was too much to expect that anyone would read the article and discuss the actual points she made.

Eric Cartman

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess it was too much to expect that anyone would read the article and discuss the actual points she made.

I was discussing that singular point that the author made and you backed up by calling it 'objectively true' I refuted that and youve completely deflected from that

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm sorry.
Saying that 'travellers are basically people who camp on other people's land' is wrong and always will be

Well, if they are travelers, where do they camp? Their own land? So it is a fact in a way, as they camp on other peoples land, usually land owned by the council.

It is not an 'opinion', it adds nothing to a 'debate' and was said to enflame.

It is either an opinion or a fact. You may disagree with both, buts it has to be one, and it could be both.

That isn't allowed here (trolling) and should never be acceptable publicly.

Again, I have nothing against the expression of opposing views

.

Unless of course, one thinks that those views enflame the situation, then, of course, people should not be allowed to air them.

During the French 'Reign of Terror', The Committee of Public Safety was an executive body which was created to protect France from external and internal enemies, the latter by killing anyone that stood in their way of aspiring to the revolutionary goals. You would have done well for yourself if you were around that time.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Well, if they are travelers, where do they camp? Their own land? So it is a fact in a way, as they camp on other peoples land, usually land owned by the council.




It is either an opinion or a fact. You may disagree with both, buts it has to be one, and it could be both.



.

Unless of course, one thinks that those views enflame the situation, then, of course, people should not be allowed to air them.

.

Spectacularly missing (I suspect, willfully missing) the import of 'are basically people who...'

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Spectacularly missing (I suspect, willfully missing) the import of 'are basically people who...'

You are free to elaborate your key point if you want, if of course if you have one.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

You are free to elaborate your key point if you want, if of course if you have one.

Done and dusted earlier.

Casey, by generalising was just enflaming the debate. He has set back reasonable rational debate around these issues by doing so.

jm08

markodaly wrote: »

Well, if they are travelers, where do they camp? Their own land? So it is a fact in a way, as they camp on other peoples land, usually land owned by the council.

Traditionally, Travellers moved around the country and camped on the side of the road which is not possible now. They used to sell their wares, repaired stuff and did seasonal work on farms. The farmers usually let them use a field for their horses. Traditionally, settled people would look out for them giving them food, money, firing etc.

Its too dangerous now to camp on the side of the road and they can't get the farm work they used to get. Bearing in mind that the families down in Tipperary have been in the same spot for 40 years suggests that the housing they were getting was a long time coming.

Thats a long time to be waiting to be housed properly.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Done and dusted earlier.

Casey, by generalising was just enflaming the debate. He has set back reasonable rational debate around these issues by doing so.

Was there ever a debate though, because anytime anything contentious is brought up there is always the accusation by a cohort that we should not talk about it, or at least not talk about it that way.

A reasonable and rational debate is usually code for ignoring the discussion altogether.