Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
So...Ok then...How do we talk about it? (Irish Presidential Election Result)
Comments
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Peter Caseys claims seem to be on a couple of points:
1) suggesting that Travellers should not be classed as an ethnic minority.
Perhaps this is due to a misunderstanding of what ethnic means, but it doesnt necessarily mean racial differences. It can also be based on cultural differences. While on an absurd reading anything could be a cultural group e.g. drinking culture, musical tastes etc, I dont think its realistic to suggest that Travellers dont have a different cultural heritage to settled people.
Ok, tell that to Pavee Point and the Travellers who accuse Casey of racism. Along with the media do-goooders.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »I'm inclined to agree. As I said previously, if both sides think that they are in the right position, why aren't they willing for their claims to be challenged and explored so the evidence will show them to be correct.
Both sides should welcome the opportunity to defend their position.
I agree. Without sides laying out facts, preferably shorn of handwringing about the fear of being suppressed/oppressed/arrested for telling the truth etc., it will just go in circles. (By the way, I've seen people on both sides lay down their points sensibly and rationally so I'm not pointing at them. But enough with the victimised majority stuff from a few loud ones.)
A factual debate. Are we not fed up of American-style politics?0 -
jace_da_face wrote: »Ok, tell that to Pavee Point and the Travellers who accuse Casey of racism. Along with the media do-goooders.
I think it is a bit pedantic to be suggesting they are not explicitly accurate in using the term racist when they feel that their entire community is being targeted on mass.
I know that this is not even what Peter Casey said, but I think it is what many of his supporters understood to be his meaning and many feel it is true.
Also 'media do-gooders' is fanning the flames in the same way you probably wouldn't like to be identified as a 'right wing-nut'.0 -
Rhineshark wrote: »I agree. Without sides laying out facts, preferably shorn of handwringing about the fear of being suppressed/oppressed/arrested for telling the truth etc., it will just go in circles. (By the way, I've seen people on both sides lay down their points sensibly and rationally so I'm not pointing at them. But enough with the victimised majority stuff from a few loud ones.)
A factual debate. Are we not fed up of American-style politics?
this is quickly becoming a global phenomenon now unfortunately0 -
Wanderer78 wrote: »this is quickly becoming a global phenomenon now unfortunately
Aye and it needs to be be called out for the malignant cancer it is and a different way firmly taken.0 -
Advertisement
-
Rhineshark wrote: »A factual debate. Are we not fed up of American-style politics?Wanderer78 wrote: »this is quickly becoming a global phenomenon now unfortunately
That is the fear. I'm hoping that as a relatively small country, we will continue to be able to see through bluff and bravado and to analyse claims.
We haven't yet been subjected to the American style of candidate TV advertisements but we do need to recognize that it is important to partake in these debates and to vote to ensure we don't become disenfranchised and suggest something ridiculous like lets not vote as often.0 -
Wanderer78 wrote: »patience, casey may have just opened the flood gates
Yeah the smart money is on Justin Barrett for taoiseach.:rolleyes:0 -
Rhineshark wrote: »Aye and it needs to be be called out for the malignant cancer it is and a different way firmly taken.
A malignant cancer on public discourse is exactly what that sort of language is designed to be. Democracy can only thrive when public discourse is informed and reasoned. Fascism can only thrive when public discourse is dumbed down and debased into a tribal shouting match, creating the conditions for Shock Doctrine. This has been the aim of the right since at least the 1980s when Rupert Murdoch publicly sneered at intellectualism and Ronald Reagan abolished the US's Fairness Doctrine, which transformed US talk radio into a race to the bottom. The internet has amplified this war-like strategy to deafening levels.
In the interests of actual fairness - not false balance, which much of the traditional media misguidedly practises, it should be acknowledged that this debasing of public debate has overwhelmingly come from one "side".0 -
hill16bhoy wrote: »In the interests of actual fairness - not false balance, which much of the traditional media misguidedly practises, it should be acknowledged that this debasing of public debate has overwhelmingly come from one "side".
That's kinda like republicans in the US arguing that the democrats were originally in favour of slavery.
Irrespective to the origins, I think both sides (at the extremes) are party to trying to shutdown any view which opposes theirs.
It is interesting to see some prominent left wing commentators blaming the media for fanning the flames of Casey's comments by discussing them. But if a topic they supported was not covered they would claim that they were being silenced.
I disagree with the forum in which Peter Casey made his comments. But he made them and it has had a national public impact. This does need to be discussed.0 -
It's a very simple formula.
The public are pissed off, but won't stray far from FF/FG. So the idea is to repackage or divert so they can vote for more of them same with a clear conscience while feeling like they are making a point. Casey fed into this.
I know people who voted Casey as a protest vote against the political establishment. Many of these people will likely continue to support the likes of Fine Gael.
The idea is, any issues anyone has politically or socially, can be blamed on either the policies of politicians and parties who never sat in government, or by turning the public against itself. Case in point; tough to pay your mortgage? Look at them dole spongers living it up. Can't make rent? Do you see those people getting free houses? Rar rar rar? Travelers.
Casey simply doubled down on Varadkar's 'people who like to get up early'. Varadkar is too sharp to go after a group made an ethnic minority.
Travelers have been an issue for a long time. In the winter we talk about the homeless, in the summer the Travelers.
The idea that people suffering in this time of economic growth, housing, health, homeless crises are concerning themselves with Travelers, is very sad.
Casey is threatening to run for Fianna Fail. Imagine being so annoyed with current FF/FG government policies that you vote Fianna Fail to show them all?
Voting Casey for many was the keep the Seanad 'protest' vote, to show everyone IMO. The traveler thing sweetened the deal. The new gimmick of 'the entitlement culture' is people who are doing okay or better not wanting you to look at them or people doing poorly looking for a scapegoat so they can continue to vote for FF/FG with a somewhat clear conscience.
'I can't make rent, I'm barely breaking even month by month, it's about time somebody spoke up about Travelers' :rolleyes:
It's quiet simple, the entitlement culture is only as good or bad as government policies allow it. Blaming people for availing of things, they are entitled to is how the entire thing works. If you don't like some of these things go talk to your politicians rather than rewarding them with more votes while giving out about Travelers.
Thankfully we still have many decent people, hence Michael D. Higgins is President.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tell me how wrote: »That's kinda like republicans in the US arguing that the democrats were originally in favour of slavery.
Irrespective to the origins, I think both sides (at the extremes) are party to trying to shutdown any view which opposes theirs.
It is interesting to see some prominent left wing commentators blaming the media for fanning the flames of Casey's comments by discussing them. But if a topic they supported was not covered they would claim that they were being silenced.
I disagree with the forum in which Peter Casey made his comments. But he made them and it has had a national public impact. This does need to be discussed.
Right-wing propaganda is incredibly difficult to defend against. It was so in the 1930s and that remains the case today. It utilises a simplistic form of language and has developed its own extensive repertoire of cliches and tropes which are designed to grab immediate attention and stoke irrational fear and anger. With the way technology has developed and the way people's attention spans have disintegrated, this immediate attention grabbing strategy is perfectly suited to finding favour and popularity in today's media environment. It has no problem with lies, in fact lies are the vehicle it likes to use. It plucks these lies from anywhere and everywhere so anybody debating with those lies can't respond immediately, because they have to be fact checked. Once these lies are out there, they set the agenda.
It also utilises a logical trap. If you attempt to debate and outpoint those who hold such views, you fall into the trap of tacitly acknowledging their "legitimacy", which only encourages them. If you ignore them due to their stupidity, they claim they are being "silenced". It's a conundrum which anybody who isn't part of the far right hasn't yet been able to square, and I'm not sure it is squareable.
In its previous incarnation it took took World War II to completely discredit such narratives of vilification, at least in Western Europe, for two or three generations. However this incarnation of the far right is unlikely to go invading Poland or Russia any time soon, it's far more atomised and diversified, which will make it harder to stop in the long run.
In some ways Ireland's best defence against such far right narratives is that Britain has fallen under the spell of those narratives. There still exists a deep rooted feeling in the mainstream Irish psyche that we threw off the colonial shackles and were/are different from the British. For most of this state's history, this resulted in negative outcomes, ie. we painted ourselves as God-fearing, conservative, rural and insular in opposition to Britain's "Godless", liberal, industrial society. But as much of Britain has retreated into fear-mongering, conservatism and insularity, the mainstream Irish psyche has moved in the opposite direction, almost in direct opposition to that.0 -
However, people do seem to have a fear of being attacked or robbed in rural areas, primarily by Travellers. I recall a couple of cases myself, including that guy who was tried for shooting one as he ran away.
Are there any stats? I mean, obviously we hear about the Traveller ones because it's a descriptor. "Settled gang terrorised neighbourhood" is never going to be a headline. But it would be good to know how much it *is* a problem vs how much we hear of it as a problem because they are one of our relatively few minorities that will be described as such in reports.
Secondly, is there evidence that Traveller crimes don't get prosecuted?
Thirdly, how much is it being fed from the housing crisis? Would there have been as much aggro about the group in Tipp not wanting to move into those houses (and saying they were happy for them to go to other families) if so many people weren't furious at our small wealthy country being apparently unable to house it's population?
I am fairly isolated and don't have a TV so it appears I did miss some of the background to why the Traveller thing picked up so much traction.0 -
Rhineshark wrote: »However, people do seem to have a fear of being attacked or robbed in rural areas, primarily by Travellers. I recall a couple of cases myself, including that guy who was tried for shooting one as he ran away.
Are there any stats? I mean, obviously we hear about the Traveller ones because it's a descriptor. "Settled gang terrorised neighbourhood" is never going to be a headline. But it would be good to know how much it *is* a problem vs how much we hear of it as a problem because they are one of our relatively few minorities that will be described as such in reports.
Secondly, is there evidence that Traveller crimes don't get prosecuted?
Thirdly, how much is it being fed from the housing crisis? Would there have been as much aggro about the group in Tipp not wanting to move into those houses (and saying they were happy for them to go to other families) if so many people weren't furious at our small wealthy country being apparently unable to house it's population?
I am fairly isolated and don't have a TV so it appears I did miss some of the background to why the Traveller thing picked up so much traction.
Concerns are valid. If it could be dismissed Casey wouldn't have used it. Like Leo, there are likely people who don't like to get up early. How much these groups weigh on an economy doing great by all accounts against the policies squeezing the middle, is another debate and not one the likes of Casey or Leo would be interested in.0 -
Rhineshark wrote: »Secondly, is there evidence that Traveller crimes don't get prosecuted?
On the contrary:...figures suggest Traveller men are between five and 11 times more likely than other men to be imprisoned, while Traveller women face a risk of imprisonment as much as 18 to 22 times higher than that of the general
population.0 -
hill16bhoy wrote: »The problem with people like Casey is that they are agent provocateurs and propagandists, preaching a deliberately simplistic, vilificatory narrative. Such a narrative is specifically designed to divide and conquer and clear the way for a corporatist, illiberal takeover. To what extent Casey himself genuinely buys into this, whether he is a true believer or a mere opportunist, is open to debate and only he himself really knows the answer to that. But he has opened a bit of a Pandora's Box as regards the future of public discourse and politics here.
Right-wing propaganda is incredibly difficult to defend against. It was so in the 1930s and that remains the case today. It utilises a simplistic form of language and has developed its own extensive repertoire of cliches and tropes which are designed to grab immediate attention and stoke irrational fear and anger. With the way technology has developed and the way people's attention spans have disintegrated, this immediate attention grabbing strategy is perfectly suited to finding favour and popularity in today's media environment. It has no problem with lies, in fact lies are the vehicle it likes to use. It plucks these lies from anywhere and everywhere so anybody debating with those lies can't respond immediately, because they have to be fact checked. Once these lies are out there, they set the agenda.
It also utilises a logical trap. If you attempt to debate and outpoint those who hold such views, you fall into the trap of tacitly acknowledging their "legitimacy", which only encourages them. If you ignore them due to their stupidity, they claim they are being "silenced". It's a conundrum which anybody who isn't part of the far right hasn't yet been able to square, and I'm not sure it is squareable.
In its previous incarnation it took took World War II to completely discredit such narratives of vilification, at least in Western Europe, for two or three generations. However this incarnation of the far right is unlikely to go invading Poland or Russia any time soon, it's far more atomised and diversified, which will make it harder to stop in the long run.
In some ways Ireland's best defence against such far right narratives is that Britain has fallen under the spell of those narratives. There still exists a deep rooted feeling in the mainstream Irish psyche that we threw off the colonial shackles and were/are different from the British. For most of this state's history, this resulted in negative outcomes, ie. we painted ourselves as God-fearing, conservative, rural and insular in opposition to Britain's "Godless", liberal, industrial society. But as much of Britain has retreated into fear-mongering, conservatism and insularity, the mainstream Irish psyche has moved in the opposite direction, almost in direct opposition to that.
Ya...anyone who doesn't subscribe to left wing (or catholic/right wing/socialist/fasist) propaganda should be ostrasized in media and politics immediately for the betterment of society.
How about a balanced media that defends itself against institutional/regional and political influences, is that too much to ask.
You sound like the clergy back in the 60s!0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »On the contrary: (From "Travellers in the Irish Prison System", published by the IPRT in 2014.)
This is partly what I am talking about. I would like to see a report such as this debated by those that feel travellers are unfairly treated versus those that feel they are treated too favourably.
I haven't read the whole report but the conclusions and recommendations are interesting.This is highlighted in a survey of attitudes among the Irish public towards Travellers, which found that 18.2% said they would deny Travellers citizenship, just over 60% would not welcome a Traveller into their family through kinship and 79.4% said they would be reluctant to buy a house next door to a Traveller (Mac Gréil, 2010).
Also interesting is the suggestion in one of the findings.identify proactive steps to ensure that Travellers have equal and culturally appropriate access to education while in prison, including literacy
education
I am curious what culturally appropriate access to education would entail.0 -
hill16bhoy wrote: »But as much of Britain has retreated into fear-mongering, conservatism and insularity, the mainstream Irish psyche has moved in the opposite direction, almost in direct opposition to that.
We can't ignore how Britain has ended up in this way (as we perceive it).
I think that telling anyone that a conservative and insular view is backward only strengthens their sense that they are being ignored and viewed in a condescending manner.
I think it is too simplistic to suggest (not that you are doing so) that all non-overtly liberal views equate to ultra conservatism. We need to be able to discuss and explain as opposed to discuss and shout down.0 -
That's the thing though. Have we gone far liberally? Apart from gay rights and Travelers being given ethnic status, has the mechanics of government or society changed in any way other than to become more monitised? Which I wouldn't equate with PC elites or what have you.
If anything society has become less socialist and more capitalist. As people feel the squeeze the elites need a scapegoat? There are issues many have with Travelers. I don't see the connection to politics on any grand scale. If all the Travelers disappeared tomorrow do we think our lot would differ?0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I don't see the connection to politics on any grand scale. If all the Travelers disappeared tomorrow do we think our lot would differ?
While their numbers are quite small in terms of the total population, they are used as a reference in a number of topics in which they are perceived by many to be treated more favourably than the general population (perceived is the key word there).
Social Welfare system, housing, theft and burglary, road vehicle taxation. They are often referenced in conversations on these topics which are political so I think they do and will continue to find themselves being discussed in political ways.
Which, I imagine, must be difficult for them.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13683
hill16bhoy wrote: »It also utilises a logical trap. If you attempt to debate and outpoint those who hold such views, you fall into the trap of tacitly acknowledging their "legitimacy", which only encourages them.
I'm not sure there is any benefit to deeming certain opinions legitimate and illegitimate. If someone honestly believes something, and you disagree with that opinion, engage with it in open debate and prove it wrong. I don't think anyone who has tackled honestly held but factually unsustainable prejudices has ever encouraged another person to persist in those views.
However, I can see how ignoring them, or instantly branding them as racist, fascist etc when they might not actually be so, is something that will encourage them.
So I disagree that there is a logical trap in debating other people's views. There are some people who, no matter how well you point out the flaws in their arguments, will never listen to you, but that doesn't mean that everyone you have that argument with won't listen to you.0 -
Advertisement
-
johnnyskeleton wrote: »I'm not sure there is any benefit to deeming certain opinions legitimate and illegitimate. If someone honestly believes something, and you disagree with that opinion, engage with it in open debate and prove it wrong. I don't think anyone who has tackled honestly held but factually unsustainable prejudices has ever encouraged another person to persist in those views.
However, I can see how ignoring them, or instantly branding them as racist, fascist etc when they might not actually be so, is something that will encourage them.
So I disagree that there is a logical trap in debating other people's views. There are some people who, no matter how well you point out the flaws in their arguments, will never listen to you, but that doesn't mean that everyone you have that argument with won't listen to you.
This is a mistake that a lot of the reality-based community make. The far right is not there to debate. The far right considers itself to be at war, and truth has no place in its strategy. Truth is the enemy.
The US currently has a regime which has driven a steamroller over the very notion of objective truth. This is a position the Republican party has been moving towards for decades.
Most of the right-wing US media is just fine with that because it isn't there to uncover truth, it's there to push a partisan, staunchly pro-corporate position.
That's part of the reason Trumpists love Russia. They see what sort of power you can wield if you dispense with the notion of truth.
Brexit is the same - facts are totally irrelevant to proponents of it, and debating with proponents of it is futile. Whatever happens, they will always resort to blaming the EU as a psychological coping technique rather than admit they were wrong.
Rinse and repeat with Bolsonaro, Duterte, Le Pen, Salvini, AFD etc.
Rinse and repeat with climate change denialists, anti-vaxxers, those who shout "Soros" at every turn, Holocaust denialists etc.
What is happening now carries exactly the same principle as the 1930s. Fascists were not amenable to debate then, and they are not now.
Peter Casey vilified the entire Traveller community in generalised terms. He called the Taoiseach "an Indian". He made anti-semitic comments.
His entire modus operandi in this campaign was about appealing to base hatred and whipping up such. That is not a position that can be reasoned with.0 -
Rather than be outraged should the political parties take some responsibility, at least privately, for Casey getting a sizable vote?
With so little difference between the parties maybe Casey is what is needed to drive some robust discussion on how we manage and spend tax payers money.
I for one am very disappointed that Varadkar fooled many of us by saying he represented those that get up early in the morning i.e tax payers.0 -
Braelyn Itchy Globe wrote: »Rather than be outraged should the political parties take some responsibility, at least privately, for Casey getting a sizable vote?
With so little difference between the parties maybe Casey is what is needed to drive some robust discussion on how we manage and spend tax payers money.
I for one am very disappointed that Varadkar fooled many of us by saying he represented those that get up early in the morning i.e tax payers.
Perhaps indirectly, if a new centre-right party is established, but it would doubtless require agents with more political experience.0 -
He's being offered the leadership of Renua:0
-
Hmm wonder if he will be thick enough to take them up on it. From what he has been saying through the campaign I'm not too sure if they'd align with him socially0
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »That's the thing though. Have we gone far liberally? Apart from gay rights and Travelers being given ethnic status, has the mechanics of government or society changed in any way other than to become more monitised? Which I wouldn't equate with PC elites or what have you.
If anything society has become less socialist and more capitalist. As people feel the squeeze the elites need a scapegoat? There are issues many have with Travelers. I don't see the connection to politics on any grand scale. If all the Travelers disappeared tomorrow do we think our lot would differ?
Am I alone in not understanding what this post is all about. I have read it three times now and it makes less sense each time I read it. What have gay rights and Travellers got to do in the same sentence, other than Traveller culture being deeply homophobic?0 -
blanch152 wrote:Am I alone in not understanding what this post is all about. I have read it three times now and it makes less sense each time I read it. What have gay rights and Travellers got to do in the same sentence, other than Traveller culture being deeply homophobic?
I understood it to broadly mean Ireland still isn't really liberal, we haven't changed that much, elites are only using travellers to distract from their shenanigans/failures which is wrong as travellers shouldn't be discussed as a political topic.
I think that's the gist, maybe Matt will clarify.0 -
Braelyn Itchy Globe wrote: »Rather than be outraged should the political parties take some responsibility, at least privately, for Casey getting a sizable vote?
With so little difference between the parties maybe Casey is what is needed to drive some robust discussion on how we manage and spend tax payers money.
I for one am very disappointed that Varadkar fooled many of us by saying he represented those that get up early in the morning i.e tax payers.
I think it should have been clear from the start that that was just rhetoric. Given the nature of their arrangement with FF and the fact FG face no substantial challenge on the right, they were always going to get dragged to the left on policy, irrespective of Varadkar's own beliefs and instincts.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »I think it is a bit pedantic to be suggesting they are not explicitly accurate in using the term racist when they feel that their entire community is being targeted on mass.
I know that this is not even what Peter Casey said, but I think it is what many of his supporters understood to be his meaning and many feel it is true.
Also 'media do-gooders' is fanning the flames in the same way you probably wouldn't like to be identified as a 'right wing-nut'.
Well I’m certainly no right wing nut. I sit comfortably on the left somewhere. But it is interesting that Casey’s criticism of certain aspects of the traveller community is being called right wing.
I am merely responding to a previous post that points out that being an ethnic minority is not necessarily due to race but to culture. As though in the case of the Travellers race does not apply but it is their culture that defines them as an ethnic group. An so it seems completely illogical that Casey could be accused of racism.
I am also accusing the media in general of being disingenuous in the coverage of the issues. The media speak only in terms of Travellers being a marginalized group who are discriminated against. They are only represented as victims and can never be criticized themselves.0 -
Advertisement
-
Think SF risk alienating much of its base with the Corporate HR speak that Liadh had.0
Advertisement