Green Party questioning Travellers intelligence?

riffmongous

seligehgit wrote: »

What a patronising post.:rolleyes:

Read it in full and there's no lack of clarity in what she meant.

Why did you thank a post saying 'imagine saying that in an interview' then, if you read everything

osarusan

The Greens have a real ability to damage themselves in the stupid ways they communicate reasonable ideas.

emaherx

riffmongous wrote: »

Because many people just plain aren't interested in it. It's not that they can't understand it, I'm sure most can, but do they want to, not necessarily. No different to urban voters, only that's not what they were talking about, it was a debate on how to win votes in rural areas.

Look if a Green Party activist called to the door, who do you think the average rural person would be more open to talking to:

a) the stranger banging on about biodiversity, sustainability, Kyoto or the Protocol, Paris agreement and the ECCP

or b) the person they recognise from the local matches and tidy towns who is interested in talking about why there was less/more swallows around this year and how bad the weather was this summer

She explicitly said rural people, if most people are of that attitude why single out rural dwellers and say they wouldn't understand these new big words? What if they had singled out a Dublin district in the same way? It was poor and people are right to be insulted.

They are a green party looking for a green vote and they are afraid to discuss biodiversity with rural people that's bizarre if nothing else.

riffmongous

emaherx wrote: »

She explicitly said rural people, if most people are of that attitude why single out rural dwellers and say they wouldn't understand these new big words? What if they had singled out a Dublin district in the same way? It was poor and people are right to be insulted.

They are a green party looking for a green vote and they are afraid to discuss biodiversity with rural people that's bizarre if nothing else.

Because it was debate on rural people, explicitly

StackSteevens

meeeeh wrote: »

I live in rural area. My neighbours are relatively big farmers, business owners, doctors, teachers, engineers, pharmacists, accountants and similar. I don't think telling us that we don't understand big words will solve their problem.

As do I.

And, with the exception of some blow-ins (a West Cork norm, alas - Ian Bailey doesn't live too far away!), most of my neighbours left school at 16 and work on the land or in manual jobs. Farmers, foresters, builders, labourers, shop assistants, hospitality sector workers (until Covid), mechanics, trawlermen, shellfish processing, housewives (none of your trendy homemakers around here!) a bookmaker - plus we've got a real butcher who kills his own cattle and pigs!

Fortunately, we also have a local national school teacher who is able to read and write so helps us to fill in all those complicated forms we need to claim grants and welfare payments. I'm sure that, if we asked her nicely, she'd probably be willing to help us simple peasants decypher a Green Party election leaflet!

seligehgit

riffmongous wrote: »

Why did you thank a post saying 'imagine saying that in an interview' then, if you read everything

We'll just have to agree to disagree.:)

riffmongous

seligehgit wrote: »

We'll just have to agree to disagree.:)

Fair enough

AllForIt

Being of rural background myself I can say country dwellers do have an aversion to 'big words' and similarly the way words are pronounced including names and surnames. Back in the early 90's my mum would tut tut whenever she heard any politician or newsreader use the word 'infrastructure' which to be fair was used to excess back then as we got out act together as a country.

At first I didn't know what her problem was, I wondered did she not know what it meant and maybe I should explain it her that it literally meant fixing the potholes, better roads, something that they were always complaining about. But now that I look back at it it was more that to them it qualified as a 'big word'. It's this idea of using fancy language as if the reason behind it is to impress or signal you'r social superiority. In my locality back then middle-class people would be called 'big nobs' often, for having air's and graces, when they were just behaving like middle-class people do.

However I don't think rural people are like that as much anymore, even my parents. Things have changed a lot.

TomTomTim

emaherx wrote: »

She explicitly said rural people, if most people are of that attitude why single out rural dwellers and say they wouldn't understand these new big words? What if they had singled out a Dublin district in the same way? It was poor and people are right to be insulted.

They are a green party looking for a green vote and they are afraid to discuss biodiversity with rural people that's bizarre if nothing else.

If it was said about the African community riffmongous would be on this thread full of outrage, screaming about racism and discrimination.

riffmongous

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

Really now?

I really wonder if this lady has entered rural Ireland in the recent decade. New stuff? We're living in the middle of the country, not in a manicured estate with the odd tree and barely a native plant to be seen.

We see every day in the news how communities are reported as letting small areas return to nature and their delight as they sow imported flowering plants to encourage bees and wildlife and how they should be applauded and lauded for their foresight and green credentials. Yet in their own back gardens is a diversity wilderness and their front lawn paved over.

Yet I have miles of hedgerows, and more added since I took over, with acres of brambles, honeysuckle, alders, whitethorn, blackthorn and countless other species along with the fauna, native fauna at that, living on it. And that's without counting and mentioning the multiple species of native and non native birds of pasture and prey and I'm the one messing up the planet?

The truth is that their terms of reference are so far removed from reality that they aren't able to comprehend our reality. And that convention just shone a very bright light on that reality. They have no intention in engaging with 'others' on equal terms because they don't see us as equals. We're just ignoramuses who cannot appreciate their faultlessness and brilliance. And that's just a simple fact that will be reflected in the next, hopefully soon, election.

She's from and lives in rural county Clare so I'd say she has some idea.

Fair play on your biodiversity work, but it looks like you've made up your mind on every green party member without knowing much about the people themselves

emaherx

riffmongous wrote: »

Because it was debate on rural people, explicitly

Regardless very strange choice of words.
Don't say biodiversity instead talk about cows, birds, flowers etc.

You say most people aren't interested in such things which is probably true, but people interested in cows, birds or flowers would be the people who would most likely be interested in biodiversity so dumbing down language for these people because they are rural dwellers is very strange. Insert any other group of people into her sentence and there would be 10 times as much outrage.

emaherx

riffmongous wrote: »

She's from and lives in rural county Clare so I'd say she has some idea.

Fair play on your biodiversity work, but it looks like you've made up your mind on every green party member without knowing much about the people themselves

All the more shame on her, how she thinks of her neighbors.

riffmongous

TomTomTim wrote: »

If it was said about the African community riffmongous would be on this thread full of outrage, screaming about racism and discrimination.

Sure you couldn't even read the article properly, complaining earlier about how they singled out rural people for this when it was a debate on the GP in rural areas. There is an irony there, considering what you claim her point was

riffmongous

emaherx wrote: »

All the more shame on her, how she thinks of her neighbors.

Like I've being saying ad nauseum, I don't think that's what she meant. I had a look at her twitter and she explains it herself there

https://twitter.com/RoisinGarvey?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I knocked on every door in Clare over the last few years and I’ve seen how people’s eyes glaze over if you talk to them about a biodiversity crisis or a UN report but if you say to people ‘we’re losing our birds and our bees and insects’ they’ll say yeah that’s a real problem

It’s the same if you talk to people about an ESRI report or an economic index vs if you tell them about how you lived in fuel poverty as a single mother and so you know why they are fearful of Green policies & why they're worried they won't be able to put diesel in their car

It’s not about talking down to anyone, as that headline suggested, it’s about making sure you’re not talking AT people. That was my advice. It’s about listening and cutting to the chase of why these issues matter.

I expressed that badly yesterday and I’m sorry.

To me, it makes sense. I'll leave it there

Mad_maxx

Yamanoto wrote: »

Perhaps that was true back in the day, but the younger wing of the party (including those who vehemently opposed entry into coalition government) are cultural Marxists and SJW's, who's policies are a world away from insulating your attic, taxing carbon and brewing up some elderflower wine.

the saoirse mchugh wing

emaherx

riffmongous wrote: »

Like I've being saying ad nauseum, I don't think that's what she meant. I had a look at her twitter and she explains it herself there

https://twitter.com/RoisinGarvey?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor




To me, it makes sense. I'll leave it there

It makes no sense, if it was a Dublin conference you wouldn't say you need to speak simple words for Dublin people.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Any apology for rural people?

Most rural people understand the Green party manifestos well and that's exactly why they tend not to vote for that party.

The Greens should focus more on staying awake in the Dail than making sweeping statements regarding rural people.

Bishop of hope

Grant Grumpy Pecan wrote: »

Any apology for rural people?

Most rural people understand the Green party manifestos well and that's exactly why they tend not to vote for that party.

The Greens should focus more on staying awake in the Dail than making sweeping statements regarding rural people.

Green types tend to be arsey holey types, of people and look down their noses on plain ways of life.
How dare we live a life not to their standards type of people.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Country people aren't as thick as she makes out. Only about 15 minutes where I grew up a company was started 50 years ago in a field where the head office was a portakabin, tiny operation. They have an unwritten rule where their CEO is always from the county. It's now public traded with a market cap of just under €20bn with plants in most continents. As a comparison the current market cap of Ryanair is "just" under €13bn. Definitely a case of country lads done well.

The company is Kerry Group. Doubt many of their shareholders are Green party supporters. :-)

Fred Cryton

How sweet.

The Greens think the rural folk don't vote for them because they just don't understand those big words.

Perhaps their policies of taxing private transportation to the hilt and their war against the agri-food sector has something to do with it.

I suppose we all have to a have a bit of self delusion to get through life.

Thelonious Monk

There is a biodiversity crisis in Ireland though, it's a bit of a mess. The pollution ag is doing to our waterways is getting worse and it's largely ignored. When scientists bring it up it just seems to be attacked by the Irish Farmers Journal etc as being rubbish spouted from people who haven't a clue.
When you see the damage being done by farmers it seems to me that they don't understand the word biodiversity.
I know all the farmers on boards.ie are different though and their farms are brimming with trees and wildflowers and all kinds of life, but that's not the norm on farms.

jackboy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

There is a biodiversity crisis in Ireland though, it's a bit of a mess. The pollution ag is doing to our waterways is getting worse and it largely ignored. When scientists bring it up it just seems to be attacked by the Irish Farmers Journal etc as being rubbish spouted from people who haven't a clue.
When you see the damage being done by farmers it seems to me that they don't understand the word biodiversity.
I know all the farmers on boards.ie are different though and their farms are brimming with trees and wildflowers and all kinds of life, but that's not the norm on farms.

What you are saying is true for a lot of the large industrial scale farms. Some of the smaller farmers who are making no money do much better than that.

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

There is a biodiversity crisis in Ireland though, it's a bit of a mess. The pollution ag is doing to our waterways is getting worse and it's largely ignored. When scientists bring it up it just seems to be attacked by the Irish Farmers Journal etc as being rubbish spouted from people who haven't a clue.
When you see the damage being done by farmers it seems to me that they don't understand the word biodiversity.
I know all the farmers on boards.ie are different though and their farms are brimming with trees and wildflowers and all kinds of life, but that's not the norm on farms.

You really should join the green party.
I assume your food grows on the north side of rocks?

Thelonious Monk

emaherx wrote: »

You really should join the green party.
I assume your food grows on the north side of rocks?

I wont eat beef and dairy, but anyway the beef and dairy produced in Ireland is nearly all for other countries so most of them aren't feeding us anyway.

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I wont eat beef and dairy, but anyway the beef and dairy produced in Ireland is nearly all for other countries so most of them aren't feeding us anyway.

No but you have a strange obsession with making up facts and figures about the beef and dairy industry on boards.ie which for a start has little to nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

smellyoldboot

Use the Kang and Konos approach; No big words for one set of idiots, and the other set of idiots we will teach big words like "biodiversity" so they can sound like pricks down the microbrewery (pub).

ampleforth

Piehead wrote: »

This seems outrageous and discriminatory[/url]

People who do not use certain words just don't use them, so what is so bad about it? If I talk Spanish to you, will you be able to reply? If no, does that make you stupid? I do not think so...

RandomViewer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

There is a biodiversity crisis in Ireland though, it's a bit of a mess. The pollution ag is doing to our waterways is getting worse and it's largely ignored. When scientists bring it up it just seems to be attacked by the Irish Farmers Journal etc as being rubbish spouted from people who haven't a clue.
When you see the damage being done by farmers it seems to me that they don't understand the word biodiversity.
I know all the farmers on boards.ie are different though and their farms are brimming with trees and wildflowers and all kinds of life, but that's not the norm on farms.

Have you actually seen evidence of this or are you relying on Eamonn Ryan s imagination, large cultivation of farmland dropped massively since the nineties, A bit of silage here and there seems to be the height of it . Compare that with the seventies when every arable field had a crop in it and every hillside was white with sheep,

Deebles McBeebles

I just hope she explained how to communicate with farmers using cow sh*te and various whistles. Its all they know.

jackboy

RandomViewer wrote: »

Have you actually seen evidence of this or are you relying on Eamonn Ryan s imagination, large cultivation of farmland dropped massively since the nineties, A bit of silage here and there seems to be the height of it . Compare that with the seventies when every arable field had a crop in it and every hillside was white with sheep,

The country is full of slatted sheds now which have turned out to be a disaster for the environment. Also, large scale conifer plantations are another disaster.

Gruffalux

jackboy wrote: »

The country is full of slatted sheds now which have turned out to be a disaster for the environment. Also, large scale conifer plantations are another disaster.

But surely Microsoft and all the other multinationals invested in carbon sequestration in Irish conifer plantations to save Mother Earth from climate change could not be soo mean...

Parabellum9

The Greens are such a ****stain of a party it baffles me how anybody voted for them. Cretins of the highest order but they obviously appeal to cosseted clowns who cycle to work or live within well defined transport links.

Can’t stand listening to these pricks or anything they have to say and the fact we are wasting 1 million a day for the next year on cycling infrastructure (which sleepy Ryan felt the need to boast about) makes me sick. Much better uses for 365 million than giving the lycra **** more road space to act the bollix on.

Thelonious Monk

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Can’t stand listening to these pricks or anything they have to say and the fact we are wasting 1 million a day for the next year on cycling infrastructure (which sleepy Ryan felt the need to boast about) makes me sick. Much better uses for 365 million than giving the lycra **** more road space to act the bollix on.

Great news today if they actually invest that much in walking and cycling. Finally we're trying to move away from private car dominance. Really glad it's annoying you too if you're going to talk about people who use bikes in that way too.

Parabellum9

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Great news today if they actually invest that much in walking and cycling. Finally we're trying to move away from private car dominance. Really glad it's annoying you too if you're going to talk about people who use bikes in that way too.

Disgusting waste of money, there’s much better uses of 365 million at present than cycling. And I stand by what I say about cyclists, the more I see them the more it’s obvious none of them have the first clue about using the roads, they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near them. Maybe when they have to take a test and be insured etc like all other road users they can be accepted.

Thelonious Monk

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Disgusting waste of money, there’s much better uses of 365 million at present than cycling. And I stand by what I say about cyclists, the more I see them the more it’s obvious none of them have the first clue about using the roads, they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near them. Maybe when they have to take a test and be insured etc like all other road users they can be accepted.

If you feel that way about cyclists, you must really hate motorists who cause 2 or 3 deaths on the road every week and are constantly breaking the rules of the road and parking illegally.
Anyway it's a good investment, leads to a cleaner and healthier country.

Parabellum9

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

If you feel that way about cyclists, you must really hate motorists who cause 2 or 3 deaths on the road every week.
Anyway it's a good investment, leads to a cleaner and healthier country.

Nope because motorists are required by law to understand the rules of the road and also pay insurance and tax for the pleasure of using them.

Thelonious Monk

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Nope because motorists are required by law to understand the rules of the road and also pay insurance and tax for the pleasure of using them.

They don't understand the rules of the road though from what I can see

Parabellum9

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

They don't understand the rules of the road though from what I can see

Oh but they do because there are penalties for those that break them. It seems however that any prick can get on a bicycle and do whatever the **** they want, putting themselves and motorists in danger and not a single eyelid gets batted.

Thelonious Monk

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Oh but they do because there are penalties for those that break them. It seems however that any prick can get on a bicycle and do whatever the **** they want, putting themselves and motorists in danger and not a single eyelid gets batted.

I wonder why nearly everyone speeds, if they understand the rules of the road? Can you show me an example of one time where a cyclist harmed a motorist?
You really are living up to the stereotype of the entitled car driver.

Parabellum9

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I wonder why nearly everyone speeds, if they understand the rules of the road? Can you show me an example of one time where a cyclist harmed a motorist?
You really are living up to the stereotype of the entitled car driver.

Cyclist behaviour can cause accidents, particularly those who break red lights as if they can’t see them - traffic has to break suddenly and then you can imagine what happens next. Don’t pretend they are some sort of angelic transport class on the roads, the majority are dangerous and haven’t a ****ing clue about road usage.

Thelonious Monk

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Cyclist behaviour can cause accidents, particularly those who break red lights as if they can’t see them - traffic has to break suddenly and then you can imagine what happens next. Don’t pretend they are some sort of angelic transport class on the roads, the majority are dangerous and haven’t a ****ing clue about road usage.

How are they dangerous if they're not harming anyone? What accidents are they causing, can you show me specific examples?

Parabellum9

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

How are they dangerous if they're not harming anyone? What accidents are they causing, can you show me specific examples?

Fender benders aren’t likely to make the headlines but you know that already. I’ll give you 2 examples I’ve personally witnessed- this week at a red light, I watched 4 cyclists one after the other continue straight through it across an open lane of traffic. One car (which had right of way due to it being a green light for them) had to jam the brakes to avoid hitting one of them who was dawdling past the exit illegally. A few months ago, I had a cyclist collide with my car as he ran a red light at same intersection for which I had a green, and slammed head first in to the driver side of my car. He was lucky he didn’t do any damage to my vehicle, and got away with just a red face instead of an ass kicking.

Thelonious Monk

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Fender benders aren’t likely to make the headlines but you know that already. I’ll give you 2 examples I’ve personally witnessed- this week at a red light, I watched 4 cyclists one after the other continue straight through it across an open lane of traffic. One car (which had right of way due to it being a green light for them) had to jam the brakes to avoid hitting one of them who was dawdling past the exit illegally. A few months ago, I had a cyclist collide with my car as he ran a red light at same intersection for which I had a green, and slammed head first in to the driver side of my car. He was lucky he didn’t do any damage to my vehicle, and got away with just a red face instead of an ass kicking.

ok well someone had to brake, and a guy didn't damage your car. Hardly newsworthy or a big deal is it?
Wow and you would have kicked his ass? You're a tough guy too.
You're just giving me examples of them being harmless really.
Anyway, you hate cyclists, I'm not going to change your mind on this, so good night to you.

freshpopcorn

I think we now know why Eamonn Ryan keeps on falling asleep in the Dail. It's all those big words he has to remember it must be wearing him out!

RoversCeltic

RandomViewer wrote: »

Have you actually seen evidence of this or are you relying on Eamonn Ryan s imagination, large cultivation of farmland dropped massively since the nineties, A bit of silage here and there seems to be the height of it . Compare that with the seventies when every arable field had a crop in it and every hillside was white with sheep,

We import 3.47m tonnes (mt) of animal feed from South America

RoversCeltic

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Disgusting waste of money, there’s much better uses of 365 million at present than cycling. And I stand by what I say about cyclists, the more I see them the more it’s obvious none of them have the first clue about using the roads, they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near them. Maybe when they have to take a test and be insured etc like all other road users they can be accepted.

the 365m is not just for cycling

Parabellum9

RoversCeltic wrote: »

the 365m is not just for cycling

Yes it’s for “walking” as well- how much will it cost to send a free umbrella to every house in the country?

Thelonious Monk

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Yes it’s for “walking” as well- how much will it cost to send a free umbrella to every house in the country?

so do you think all adults should be encouraged to get a car and drive everywhere?

John_Rambo

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

so do you think all adults should be encouraged to get a car and drive everywhere?

Fair play to you for not using the term motorised vehicle.

swarlb

Parabellum9 wrote: »

Nope because motorists are required by law to understand the rules of the road and also pay insurance and tax for the pleasure of using them.

Let's say for argument sake, that cyclists had to do a test, get a license and pay insurance and tax, would your view of cyclists be any different than it is now.