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

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

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.

Can you show any evidence of this 'cohort' saying 'we should not talk about it'?

There is a 'storm in a teacup' element to this. We have a country full of issues, and most of them are in their rightful place in terms of priority.
That these issues aren't front and centre reflects their importance in the day to day life of the nation.

The so called 'protest' vote results, reflect that too, with 10% of the total electorate making it a protest.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you show any evidence of this 'cohort' saying 'we should not talk about it'?

Well RBB is on record saying that Casey should not be given a platform on the Late Late Show. Other presidential candidates have decried the airtime Casey got as he had the gall to raise the issue. We have an article posted earlier saying just as much about this 'white' man, so yes, there is plenty of evidence.

There is a 'storm in a teacup' element to this. We have a country full of issues, and most of them are in their rightful place in terms of priority.
That these issues aren't front and centre reflects their importance in the day to day life of the nation.

There are always issues but I get that you feel very uncomfortable even discussing this. There is a 'Nothing to see here' vibe from your posts.

Ironically, we would not have this election were it not for the ego of Sinn Fein putting forward a candidate. Yet, she could only attract 1/3 of Sinn Fein voters with more day to day Sinn Fein voters casting a vote for Casey. Bad miscalculation from MLD.

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Well RBB is on record saying that Casey should not be given a platform on the Late Late Show. Other presidential candidates have decried the airtime Casey got as he had the gall to raise the issue. We have an article posted earlier saying just as much about this 'white' man, so yes, there is plenty of evidence.

Those are just opinions, there is no evidence they are heeded. Casey appeared on the LLS.

There are always issues but I get that you feel very uncomfortable even discussing this. There is a 'Nothing to see here' vibe from your posts.

Not a bit. I recognise there are issues in the traveller community.

markodaly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those are just opinions, there is no evidence they are heeded. Casey appeared on the LLS.

Yes, they are opinions, but your question was not that about heeding these opinions, it was "Can you show any evidence of this 'cohort' saying 'we should not talk about it'".

I presented you with such evidence.

You're welcome.

Not a bit. I recognise there are issues in the traveller community.

What exact issues are these?

FrancieBrady

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, they are opinions, but your question was not that about heeding these opinions, it was "Can you show any evidence of this 'cohort' saying 'we should not talk about it'".

I presented you with such evidence.

You're welcome.

You were 'reasoning' that this cohort were responsible for there 'never being a debate'

They objected to Casey going on LLS...Casey went on LLS.

Try again.

What exact issues are these?

Criminality within the traveller community. Their part in relations with the settled community. Education and interaction again.
All aired before here on the site.

Eric Cartman

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.

But there was no 'reasonable, rational debate' until Casey in the media and political circles it was John Connors and Pavee Point calling people racists and screaming discrimination about anyone who dared say travellers were less than perfect.

James Brown

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?

But it's your duty to point and call out those spreading ignorance and hate IMO. If they can shout it, it's only fair it can be countered by decency, a decency that allows them a voice despite claims to the contrary. The Alt-Right are the ones whinging about being marginalised and censored anytime they get criticised. That's the Right wing trick of blaming others for doing what they live on.

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

But it's your duty to point and call out those spreading ignorance and hate IMO. If they can shout it, it's only fair it can be countered by decency, a decency that allows them a voice despite claims to the contrary. The Alt-Right are the ones whinging about being marginalised and censored anytime they get criticised. That's the Right wing trick of blaming others for doing what they live on.

Agree. When it is clear that what they are saying is motivated by hate. But in this case, Casey words were not unequivocally hateful. Maybe ignorant but you don't overcome ignorance through silencing someone if there is evidence that many feel there was some merit to their words.

I've said here that I feel Casey was manipulating a sentiment within areas of the population to his advantage but in its basest terms, his words should we countered with evidence, not simply calling on him or others to be silent.

This latter approach will lead the 23% to feel they are being dictated to whereas presenting evidence might reduce their number to a much smaller amount, or, show that further investigation is warranted.

Look at Trump and Brexit. Proponents of both used as part of their argument the fact that they were being dictated to. Some will never be happy but many just want to feel their concerns have been considered.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

I fully respect your belief that people who make such untruths should be censored:rolleyes:. I have a similar list of untruths:

"Ireland unfree shall never be at peace"

"The British came in and stole our lands"

"The Irish language is the key part of our culture"

All of these are manifestly untrue (the second one bigoted) and should be banned alongside your list.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Criminality within the traveller community. Their part in relations with the settled community. Education and interaction again.
All aired before here on the site.

You don't see a problem with the misogynistic culture of travellers? Or the ingrained homophobia?

Tell me how

blanch152 wrote: »

You don't see a problem with the misogynistic culture of travellers? Or the ingrained homophobia?

Martin 'Beans' Ward is a gay traveller. He was accepted by his family when he came out.
Would he say homophobia is ingrained within the culture?

There may still be an issue (broadly speaking) but there was too in the wider Irish society until maybe 20 years ago.

Similarly, I understand many traveller families are matriarchal in structure (possibly due to absence of male lead originally) but does it not at least say that misogyny is not deeply ingrained?

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

Agree. When it is clear that what they are saying is motivated by hate. But in this case, Casey words were not unequivocally hateful. Maybe ignorant but you don't overcome ignorance through silencing someone if there is evidence that many feel there was some merit to their words.

I've said here that I feel Casey was manipulating a sentiment within areas of the population to his advantage but in its basest terms, his words should we countered with evidence, not simply calling on him or others to be silent.

This latter approach will lead the 23% to feel they are being dictated to whereas presenting evidence might reduce their number to a much smaller amount, or, show that further investigation is warranted.

Look at Trump and Brexit. Proponents of both used as part of their argument the fact that they were being dictated to. Some will never be happy but many just want to feel their concerns have been considered.

Never said 'silence'.
Was responding to the idea that by calling them out for what they are it was trying to censor or silence them. Are we to put limits on this 'open debate' by not calling out the racist element?
You have to call this kind of ignorant hate out. Casey brings the danger of normalising such hate like we see on this thread talking about entire groups in the negative. That's racism. It should be called out. That's not silencing them less their moral values get the better of them.

The Trump/Brexit thing is a great example. You've right wing bigots warning you that if you try argue back at them, (they say silence/censor, yet they are heard and control media consortiums) you'll get stuck with these right wing bigots. It's a gimmick. It basically says let the ignorant hate speech go uncontested or else. Well, no. Countering racists and bigots is not silencing it's calling out the hate. There are some fine examples on this thread of such talk. We should not let hate speech be part of any discourse without calling it what it is. If that makes that person spouting it uncomfortable, it should.

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Never said 'silence'.
Was responding to the idea that by calling them out for what they are it was trying to censor or silence them. Are we to put limits on this 'open debate' by not calling out the racist element?
You have to call this kind of ignorant hate out. Casey brings the danger of normalising such hate like we see on this thread talking about entire groups in the negative. That's racism. It should be called out. That's not silencing them less their moral values get the better of them.

The Trump/Brexit thing is a great example. You've right wing bigots warning you that if you try argue back at them, (they say silence/censor, yet they are heard and control media consortiums) you'll get stuck with these right wing bigots. It's a gimmick. It basically says let the ignorant hate speech go uncontested or else. Well, no. Countering racists and bigots is not silencing it's calling out the hate. There are some fine examples on this thread of such talk. We should not let hate speech be part of any discourse without calling it what it is. If that makes that person spouting it uncomfortable, it should.

I think its semantics to suggest telling someone what they are saying is hateful and they shouldn't say it but that you aren't trying to silence them.

As per the title of the thread, how do we discuss it? What environment? Who is present? How do we get to a place where neither side can claim that we haven't had a discussion?

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

I think its semantics to suggest telling someone what they are saying is hateful and they shouldn't say it but that you aren't trying to silence them.

As per the title of the thread, how do we discuss it? What environment? Who is present? How do we get to a place where neither side can claim that we haven't had a discussion?

Get john connors, a rep from pavee point and some other traveller representative ( not margaret cash) to sit down at a table with a representative from the IFA , one from the gardai and one from the LVA or IBEC or somebody .

Have the travelling community and pavee point agree that the problems theyve caused their own community are real and that elements of their culture are toxic and have them explain what they'll do and what supports they need (not monetary supports or social housing) to reform their own community with a targetted outcome. Revisit in 10 years , if they havent achieved a 70% school completion rate and reduced the number of younger travellers entering the criminal justice system by half and are atleast 70% tax compliant then sanctions take place.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Get john connors, a rep from pavee point and some other traveller representative ( not margaret cash) to sit down at a table with a representative from the IFA , one from the gardai and one from the LVA or IBEC or somebody .

Have the travelling community and pavee point agree that the problems theyve caused their own community are real and that elements of their culture are toxic and have them explain what they'll do and what supports they need (not monetary supports or social housing) to reform their own community with a targetted outcome. Revisit in 10 years , if they havent achieved a 70% school completion rate and reduced the number of younger travellers entering the criminal justice system by half and are atleast 70% tax compliant then sanctions take place.

I think that is going too far and presuming that travellers are responsible for all crimes which members of these groups experience.

How about we start with reports from the Gardai and the Irish Courts system which give data on total crimes and proven responsibilities for them.

blanch152

Tell me how wrote: »

Martin 'Beans' Ward is a gay traveller. He was accepted by his family when he came out.
Would he say homophobia is ingrained within the culture?

There may still be an issue (broadly speaking) but there was too in the wider Irish society until maybe 20 years ago.

Similarly, I understand many traveller families are matriarchal in structure (possibly due to absence of male lead originally) but does it not at least say that misogyny is not deeply ingrained?

Well, if traveller culture is 20 years behind wider Irish society, then yes, homophobia is deeply engrained.

If you think denying education to girls over 12, marrying them off at 15/16 to extended family members, disproportionate numbers in womens' refuges and having them work in the home isn't an indication of a misogynistic culture, well I don't know what to say.

Tell me how

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, if traveller culture is 20 years behind wider Irish society, then yes, homophobia is deeply engrained.

If you think denying education to girls over 12, marrying them off at 15/16 to extended family members, disproportionate numbers in womens' refuges and having them work in the home isn't an indication of a misogynistic culture, well I don't know what to say.

On the homophobia angle, my point on the similarities with Irish culture just show that we can say we are perfect. Have you any thoughts on Beans Ward being accepted when he came out?

On the misogyny element, I think you've given examples of extreme practices bit I'm not sure if it can be said if this is a common practice within the culture.

Travellers education rates are poor but is this not the same for male and female?

On the numbers in refuge centres. If this is true, that they are disproportionate to wider society, then, this is something which I think Pavee point should be asked as to their opinion on and then investigate potential causes.

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

I think its semantics to suggest telling someone what they are saying is hateful and they shouldn't say it but that you aren't trying to silence them.

As per the title of the thread, how do we discuss it? What environment? Who is present? How do we get to a place where neither side can claim that we haven't had a discussion?

If somebody says something racist, it should be called out. Racism is not a good thing. That's accepted, therefore you can tell a person their speech is racist as part of an ongoing discourse. It they are accepting of that they need look internally because racism isn't legal or acceptable. People need to be made aware that society is not going to take such sentiments lightly. Otherwise we get into dangerous territory which could lead to the Blueshirts and their like making a come back thinking it's okay to treat others, entire groups, poorly. That's were it leads. The Tiki torch bearing white supremacists are a symptom of normalising such hate. What's the point in having a supposed open discussion if you can't criticise comments for what they are for fear of marginalising or upsetting the willfully ignorant?
I think this kind of environment is as good as any. If racists don't like being called out and are too upset to continue, that's unfortunate but their call.

Tell me how wrote: »

I think that is going too far and presuming that travellers are responsible for all crimes which members of these groups experience.

How about we start with reports from the Gardai and the Irish Courts system which give data on total crimes and proven responsibilities for them.

You have to take socio-economics into account. Poor people don't commit more crimes because of their DNA. Wealthy people don't commit more white collar crimes because of their DNA either. This is the kind of 'logic' the ignorant 'all travelers' rant infers.

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If somebody says something racist, it should be called out. Racism is not a good thing. That's accepted, therefore you can tell a person their speech is racist as part of an ongoing discourse. It they are accepting of that they need look internally because racism isn't legal or acceptable. People need to be made aware that society is not going to take such sentiments lightly. Otherwise we get into dangerous territory which could lead to the Blueshirts and their like making a come back thinking it's okay to treat others, entire groups, poorly. That's were it leads. The Tiki torch bearing white supremacists are a symptom of normalising such hate. What's the point in having a supposed open discussion if you can't criticise comments for what they are for fear of marginalising or upsetting the willfully ignorant?
I think this kind of environment is as good as any. If racists don't like being called out and are too upset to continue, that's unfortunate but their call.

I think Peter Casey was dog-whistling. He manipulated the audience to gain votes from those who heard what they wanted to hear.

But I don't think he said something racist. Can you post a link to a statement he made which be considered to be racist.

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You have to take socio-economics into account. Poor people don't commit more crimes because of their DNA. Wealthy people don't commit more white collar crimes because of their DNA either. This is the kind of 'logic' the ignorant 'all travelers' rant infers.

Quite possibly.

But let's prepare and present the evidence from reputable sources and then explore root causes.

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

I think Peter Casey was dog-whistling. He manipulated the audience to gain votes from those who heard what they wanted to hear.

But I don't think he said something racist. Can you post a link to a statement he made which be considered to be racist.

Anyone posting 'all travelers...'. Casey helped normalise it with his PR tricks.

Tell me how wrote: »

Quite possibly.

But let's prepare and present the evidence from reputable sources and then explore root causes.

More than quite possibly, otherwise the suggestion is that it is DNA. That's were the wheels come off.
If Travelers are not due ethnic status because they are like us it flies into the face of any ignorant 'all Travelers' rant. If someone can produce a rule book that Travelers adhere to and criminality is a belief they feel is their culture, we can take it from there. Otherwise we are merely saying poor or disenfranchised people tend to veer more towards criminality, which I would guess is the case. It's when we start compartmentalising groups within society in the negative, and treating them based on such, that's were we get real problems.

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

Hmmm

OK, give me a statement where he used "All travellers" so we can judge the context.

That in itself does not imply racism. I could say "All travellers experience prejudice" would that be a racist statement?

I said anyone who does.

No. It would be a generalisation.
Are you taking the p*** now for amusement?

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Anyone posting 'all travelers...'. Casey helped normalise it with his PR tricks.



More than quite possibly, otherwise the suggestion is that it is DNA. That's were the wheels come off.

Hmmm

OK, give me a statement where he used "All travellers" so we can judge the context.

That in itself does not imply racism. I could say "All travellers experience prejudice" would that be a racist statement?

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

I think that is going too far and presuming that travellers are responsible for all crimes which members of these groups experience.

How about we start with reports from the Gardai and the Irish Courts system which give data on total crimes and proven responsibilities for them.

Well they are 1/100 of irish society and make up 1/5 the prison population , thats a big one there.

Instead of campaigns for settled people to accept travellers, its about time pavee point and people like john connors used the respect they have in these communities to create awareness and tell them to take responsibility for their actions and education and the toxic elements of their culture, the push towards traveller integration in modern irish society has to come from within their community, theres literally no point in settled people pontificating to them , they wont listen. Pillars of their own need to take charge on this to drag them into the 21st century.

On the re-occuring martin beanz ward posts, well done , 1 traveller family accepted a gay traveller, this shouldnt be news , homophobia is much more prevelant in traveller culture and yet again is an issue that they need to resolve from inside their community

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You don't see a problem with the misogynistic culture of travellers? Or the ingrained homophobia?

No, it isn't a huge issue for me as I haven't experienced it or seen it anymore than it exists in settled culture.

This site could be seen as misogynistic for instance. Even the politics forum, where comments on the appearance of female politicians seem to be acceptable. Just because she is a woman that seems acceptable to some.

Have you any studies, data on this in the traveller community?

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well they are 1/100 of irish society and make up 1/5 the prison population , thats a big one there.

Instead of campaigns for settled people to accept travellers, its about time pavee point and people like john connors used the respect they have in these communities to create awareness and tell them to take responsibility for their actions and education and the toxic elements of their culture, the push towards traveller integration in modern irish society has to come from within their community, theres literally no point in settled people pontificating to them , they wont listen. Pillars of their own need to take charge on this to drag them into the 21st century.

On the re-occuring martin beanz ward posts, well done , 1 traveller family accepted a gay traveller, this shouldnt be news , homophobia is much more prevelant in traveller culture and yet again is an issue that they need to resolve from inside their community

That's true of Catholics and Protestants. The difference being Catholics and Protestants are in unison, (or accepting) on this matter where the 'evidence' against the Traveling community is anecdotal, or do you have stats?
Can I ask what the goal is here? If we all agree Travelers are bad people do we start putting barbed wire around the halting sites? What's the aim?

Eric Cartman

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, it isn't a huge issue for me as I haven't experienced it or seen it anymore than it exists in settled culture.

This site could be seen as misogynistic for instance. Even the politics forum, where comments on the appearance of female politicians seem to be acceptable. Just because she is a woman that seems acceptable to some.

Have you any studies, data on this in the traveller community?

How many non traveller fathers do you know of who pull their daughters out of school at 12 and come to a financial arrangement to marry them off to another family at 15-16 ?

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's true of Catholics and Protestants. The difference being Catholics and Protestants are in unison, (or accepting) on this matter where the 'evidence' against the Traveling community is anecdotal, or do you have stats?
Can I ask what the goal is here? If we all agree Travelers are bad people do we start putting barbed wire around the halting sites? What's the aim?

Well heres atleast one traveller lad who feels its a big problem and much worse for acceptance than the settled community.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/i-didnt-want-to-live-anymore-travellers-torment-before-coming-out-as-gay-35078122.html

The goal here is to bring down the censored wall that travellers have created that prevents their toxic culture being called out in the media, a wall john connors, pavee point etc.. try to maintain. Im trying to change peoples minds into thinking that this can be doscussed in the open and that its from within the traveller community that the change has to be made.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well heres atleast one traveller lad who feels its a big problem and much worse for acceptance than the settled community.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/i-didnt-want-to-live-anymore-travellers-torment-before-coming-out-as-gay-35078122.html

The goal here is to bring down the censored wall that travellers have created that prevents their toxic culture being called out in the media, a wall john connors, pavee point etc.. try to maintain. Im trying to change peoples minds into thinking that this can be doscussed in the open and that its from within the traveller community that the change has to be made.

I would suggest with decades upon decades of Travelers being bad mouthed, there's not much for arguing the negative opinion hasn't and isn't, (Casey) being heard. The idea we should put every Traveler in the same basket is a loser. Discussing it is fair enough, but I still don't get what results are being sought. Is it for RTE and the like to broadcast 'Travelers are terrible people' and then we'll all go about our business?

FrancieBrady

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How many non traveller fathers do you know of who pull their daughters out of school at 12 and come to a financial arrangement to marry them off to another family at 15-16 ?

I don't know the incidence of that in the traveller community or how much it is changing.

I know plenty of 'fathers' in the settled community who would be misogynistic in various ways though.