Irish Traveller culture to be promoted through school curriculum: Posted on BBC website!
Comments
-
Having far too many children whom you cannot give a decent life to, whom you cannot support financially, and who will end up in the same desperate circumstances... is a horrible situation. Leaving school to get married at 16 or 17 because of what your folks want... is a horrible situation.
And that's all I said.
Nowhere whatsoever did I say - or even hint - that I want the state to impose a limit to how many children any family has, or a limit to the age of marriage. Nowhere. I expect an apology for your trolling bullsh1t. I am so sick of the way some people just misrepresent and lie constantly here, with impunity. I've really had it.
Now, back to reality - as we all know, education and contraception have helped families from all walks of life greatly, in reducing the misery of having too many mouths to feed, and not enough to feed them with. And it of course means a girl (that's all she is) doesn't have years and years of the serious medical condition of pregnancy upon pregnancy ahead of her. The late country singer Loretta Lynn made a point of raising awareness of the pill for very poor Appalachian women (like herself) - and good for her. When travellers embrace it too, as well as education, it will improve things for them. But right now, everyone sane and decent knows it's appalling for kids to be living in cramped squalour without enough to eat, and not going to school. Obviously.
1 -
The farmer up the road from my friend who got beaten by travellers and might have complained about it... cry of victimhood is what that is.
2 -
Would you just give it a rest about "hatred"? Who's hating? People are talking about the disproportionate levels of problems in traveller society (violence, theft, intimidation, illegal dumping, unsanitary conditions, domestic violence, scams, taking children out of school too early, child marriage, "grabbing", animal cruelty), some of which have affected them personally also - you yourself keep acknowledging these are serious problems - and that's it. What is the non stop reference to hatred about? And as you said yourself, you mean "culture" in the wider sense, so yes of course there are numerous bad elements to traveller culture in that case. You are saying that observation is hate. It's absurd. Just arguing for the sake of arguing, and getting to throw out accusations of hatred repeatedly, which is fun I'm sure.
Post edited by [Deleted User] on6 -
What's anti traveller about observations, T?
3 -
Not sure where you got the notion that school children should be confronted with the reality of Travellers in the negative sense.
I got it from an earlier post of yours in this very thread. To be now saying that you’re not sure where I got the notion is simply being disingenuous.
Cool 👍
1 -
Advertisement
-
I think it's a great idea.
I was never taught about traveler culture, and I still have no idea what it is.
1 -
What positives do Travellers provide for society?
13 -
Nowhere whatsoever did I say - or even hint - that I want the state to impose a limit to how many children any family has, or a limit to the age of marriage. Nowhere. I expect an apology for your trolling bullsh1t. I am so sick of the way some people just misrepresent and lie constantly here, with impunity. I've really had it.
Tell you straight up now you’re not getting any apology for anything, because I took your post in good faith when you suggested that travellers have to meet half-way and the two main points you made about travellers family sizes and marriage if they expect to be given support from the State. Because that’s where I expect any support should come from. I don’t expect it would come from ordinary people. That’s why I interpreted what you were saying as a quid-pro-quo that would apply to travellers specifically, and the only way to do that would be through social policies in relation to travellers specifically.
Now back to reality - travellers would simply have no interest in your ideas. They are still entitled to be supported by the State no matter if they’d one child or twenty children, no matter if they were married at 16 or 60, because they are entitled to the same State supports depending on their circumstances as people who aren’t travellers.
The kind of support that comes with terms and conditions attached which would mean that travellers would have to forego their traditions, values and beliefs in accordance with your beliefs and values and so on is exactly why I invoked the idea of “taking the soup” earlier. I figured you were familiar with the expression and where it comes from and why what you’re suggesting is supposed to work in theory, it would be an unmitigated disaster in reality for travellers. It’s not meeting them halfway, you’re giving up nothing, and expecting them to give up their way of life, because you know they’re over a barrel, precisely because they live in squalor and filth and are poorly educated and all the rest of it -
https://www.theirishpotatofamine.com/blogs/blog-1/souperism-the-achill-mission-colony
That Loretta Lynn thought the pill was a good thing is great for her, wonderful, happy for her, but it means nothing to people who have no interest in the pill and don’t want it, and don’t want to be forced to limit the size of their families or the amount of children they wish to have. Completely different circumstances, and what they want, and what they need, is support, in the same manner as the many millions of families who struggle in poverty for whom neither the pill nor your ideas of education are of any practical use whatsoever.
Yes everyone who’s any way sane and/or decent has their own ideas and opinions about how other people should live their lives according to that person’s standards. They’re sane and decent, sure how could they ever be wrong? Well when they fail to consider that the people they’re referring to don’t share their perspective and actually envision a different kind of support that wouldn’t deprive them of their values and beliefs and freedoms, support like adequate housing and so on, like the really, really most basic needs, food and shelter, that sort of thing, then ideas like birth control which they don’t want in the first place are simply unnecessary. As things stand local authorities aren’t even bothered their arse fulfilling their obligations, let alone actually constructing adequate facilities and housing for travellers. They can’t claim the money isn’t there, it is, they just don’t want to draw down the funds -
0 -
Everyone knows it's appalling for girls and women to be having to go through the serious medical condition of pregnancy over and over for years and years. Everyone knows it's appalling for children to have to grow up in cramped crowded squalour without enough to eat. Nobody wants this life. But some have to live it because of lack of education and lack of access to contraception.
Only liars who enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, and who enjoy sneering at people they argue with, will pretend that people want to live this miserable life.
3 -
For all your complaints of other posters engaging in misrepresentation, the above post is a doozy. Would you argue that your friends neighbour being beaten up by travellers entitles them to make broad, sweeping negative generalisations about travellers as a group then based on the behaviour of the group of travellers who beat them up, or would you recognise that it’s an irrational claim based solely upon their own subjective perception and experience?
Cos I know which one I’d be leaning more towards if anyone were making broad generalisations about a whole group in society based upon their own subjective perceptions and experiences of a minority of that group. I’m keenly aware that there are a minority of travellers whose behaviour people use in portraying all travellers as being incapable of anything else, but surely a more informed perspective is one which can only be informed from experience of the group as a whole, and understanding that the scumbag behaviour of some isn’t because they’re travellers, it’s because they’re scumbags.
Scumbags exist in every walk of life, not just among travellers. It’s the behaviour is needed to be addressed, then address the behaviour rather than engaging in association fallacies and turning a blind eye to favourable groups while zeroing in on the scumbag behaviour of a minority and extrapolating that out as though it’s representative of the majority, when in reality it most certainly isn’t.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Representation signalling shouldn't steer school curriculum.
2 -
You just argue for the sake of arguing. You are contrarian for the laugh. There's a term for that.
You said people talking about their experiences at the hands of travellers was people crying victimhood. That's all you said - you said nothing further to qualify it. In order to argue for the sake of arguing you belittled people's experiences.
People aren't saying all travellers are violent - people are saying that there is a disproportionately high level of violence in traveller society.
And of course you didn't apologise for the trolling shyte you just threw out there to smear me for your own amusement. Doubling down is obviously your go-to.
13 -
Let me draw a simple analogy for you.
Suppose we had a thread about Roy Keane and some people would only talk about the times he was sent off.
That was their 'observations'
They wouldn't discuss any other players who'd been sent off a lot. They wouldn't talk about him as a person, his achievements, struggles, sense of self. They wouldn't talk about his role in the team, style of play, instructions from managers.
None of it.
Would you think that was a fair and balanced conversation about Roy Keane?
I'd find it hard to believe people wouldn't be aware of those other aspects. I think it would be quite reasonable to conclude those people really had in in for Roy Keane and depending on the tone of their comments, that they hated him.
1 -
I've re read my posts on this thread to make sure and I didn't say that.
I did make more than one point in some of those posts which may have caused you some confusion. I'll attempt to clarify things in a manner you're comfortable with if it's causing that much confusion for you.
Glazers Out!
1 -
-
Not an apt comparison since Keane is first and foremost remembered for his footballing achievements.
Better comparison imo - African Americans. Some people - racists - do only focus on gang/thug culture, rather than music (blues, jazz, soul, R&B, Motown, funk, disco, non violent/misogynistic hip hop and rap), dance, literature, art, film and sport.
What are the equivalents for travellers? And I know there are travellers who aren't violent and criminal.
Post edited by [Deleted User] on1 -
No that’s not what I said. It was blatantly obvious who I was referring to when I said they were crying victimhood, the people who thought of themselves as the REAL victims who were being oppressed and all the rest of it, the people who come out with all sorts of crap about travellers and then claim they can’t say anything.
They can say what they like, they’re just not entitled to have their claims of facts based upon manipulating statistics for example, to go unchallenged. I didn’t belittle anyone’s experiences, I belittled their claims of victimisation, because they are having a laugh, knowing full well that they’re coming out with crap, because they’re not stupid. I wouldn’t belittle anyone I thought was stupid, because that would be pointless, they’re unlikely ever to have any great influence over Irish society any time soon. There just wouldn’t be any point.
You can as you wish engage in all sorts of weasel wording, but what you’re saying amounts to the same thing - people making broad generalisations about travellers, it’s exactly like the priest was doing in his condemnation of the Jews in the example I gave earlier - make out like people are aware of all their tricks, maybe people know their tricks better than he does, giving them a false sense of superior judgement and knowledge, building on their already held prejudices against outsiders while reinforcing the ingroup mentality. I mean, if you want to talk about gaslighting, that’s what it means. It doesn’t mean people who have a different view to yours pointing out the flaws in your argument.
I’m not doubling down in the sense you’re trying to make out because I wasn’t trolling you in the first place, and just as I’ve said that I realise I’m handing you an opportunity to continue to call me a contrarian troll and all the rest of it. Have at it like if you must, rather than address any of the points I made in my previous post in response to your continuing to hammer home the idea that travellers must embrace birth control… as though liberal lefties haven’t been pushing that one on traveller women for the last 30 odd years and ignoring their saying “no!” Why do you think I knew well what was going to happen when those posters who encouraged a traveller girl to do an AMA that it wasn’t going to go the way they imagined? Because like I said of the traveller woman earlier who knows all the services are available, they’re just not the kinds of support services that traveller women themselves say they need to support themselves and their families.
Then you pull Loretta Lynn out of nowhere and hold her up as the poster woman for birth control. What’s that supposed to mean to anyone who doesn’t want to use birth control? That’s not arguing for the sake of arguing, it’s your attempt to condemn anyone who doesn’t share your beliefs. I already get where you’re coming from, I also get where traveller women are coming from. I didn’t have to invoke Alveda King as an example because Alveda King is just one woman, and in no way representative of all women any more than Loretta Lynn is. I don’t need to rely on fallacious arguments from authority. I might if I were in conversation with a traveller and we were both agreed on the fact that God is the Ultimate moral authority, but if I’m in conversation with a traveller and they’re an atheist, we’re not going to agree on an objective moral authority. I’ve been fortunate enough that I’ve never met a traveller yet who was atheist, because then I’d be screwed, because I’ve nothing to base my argument on as there is no objective moral authority.
If I were to double down, I’d STILL say you’re a liberal leftie who reminds me of the Principal in my sons primary school, and I’d mean it in a complimentary way, not just because I don’t have any beef with liberal lefties even though they operate from a completely different set of values and beliefs than I do, but because frankly well I’ve always admired the fact that you’ll call out bullshìt where you see it. I don’t agree with your ideas most of the time (like I said, you operate off a whole different fundamental set of beliefs and values), but I’ll hold my tongue because it’s more important that people who don’t have the same opportunities I do to be heard are listened to, rather than actually being gaslighted, a term that’s all too often thrown about online when anyone doesn’t share their opinions. The thing about actual gaslighting and what makes it so pernicious is that if someone were actually being gaslighted - they wouldn’t know it! It’s what makes a perpetrators job that much easier when their victims are already susceptible to believing they’re inferior or unworthy in some way, sometimes in a whole culmination of ways.
0 -
What weasel wording?
You just keep throwing smears and insults out.
Nobody wants to be having babies from 17 to 43, whom they can't feed. Traveller women are prevented from accessing contraception, due to lack of education and the patriarchal nature of their society. They of course would prefer not to be living that life.
I understand them being very anti abortion but simply nobody wants the struggle of loads of children they can't feed. I mean you yourself have already acknowledged the life they're doomed to. To decide I wanted this IMPOSED on them though, was the most bizarre leap. And I doubt its legitimacy - I think you just said it to antagonise me because you didn't like me disagreeing with you. It was very frustrating to read. I think however a message from someone similar (like Loretta Lynn to the mountain women of the Eastern US - hence my mentioning of her; crikey, it's not that terrible) could be a positive step.
You call me liberal leftie, other geniuses call me right-wing (admittedly the most disingenuous posters here, who'd pretend to agree with child abuse if they deemed it necessary to look liberal) which is a good indication that I'm neither.
People can see *attempts* to gaslight them. And I know the word is misused, but I don't misuse it. It means a number of things but one attempt to gaslight is to twist what someone says until an alternative reality is generated, and to browbeat them into submission.
2 -
I've re read my posts on this thread to make sure and I didn't say that.
You can't even keep your own story straight! You said you're not sure where I got the notion that school children should be confronted with the reality of Travellers in the negative sense. I said I got it from an earlier post of yours in the thread. You're now saying you re read your posts on this thread to make sure and you didn't say that, but I never said in the first place that you had literally said that. A notion is an idea, it's not a direct citation. Your comment I was referring to is this -
I'm all for talking about traveller culture in schools but I'm not for sugar coating the realities of Travellers either.
Your post didn't cause me any confusion, I understood exactly what you meant then, and it was quite clear from your subsequent posts in the thread exactly what you meant. That already happens in schools that children aren't shielded from what teachers and other parents believe are the realities of travellers from their perspective. Traveller children certainly aren't shielded from it, and children who aren't travellers are encouraged to view the presence of traveller children in their school as a disruptive influence that are an obstruction to their learning because they observe how adults interact with the children, and they observe how children interact with children. That you think you're not going to sugar coat anything is nothing compared to the shít that traveller children actually have to put up with while attending school.
It's why I didn't suggest you or anyone else expressing similar sentiments were actually far right, it's because in your efforts not to sugar coat, you STILL couldn't come up with anything original that hasn't already been thought of by far-right groups in reference to ethnic minorities in other European countries. That's why it sounds familiar and repetitive, because similar sentiments have been expressed in coded language to refer to all sorts of groups which far right types try to portray as a threat to society. The far-left aren't even at the races, their attempts are shít, because any retort is nothing more than water off a ducks back.
See what I mean?
0 -
The weasel wording I was referring to as amounting to the same thing is this -
People aren't saying all travellers are violent - people are saying that there is a disproportionately high level of violence in traveller society.
Traveller women most certainly are not prevented from accessing contraception, it’s practically thrown at them from every angle, from their GP to family planning clinics to social services to groups like Pavee Point, etc, because they’re not listening to women who say what they need in terms of support is childcare supports! It was a point reiterated again at the Governments announcement of free contraceptives -
While the health measures for women have been welcomed, the National Women's Council of Ireland has expressed disappointment over Budget 2022.
It says there is no "clear transformative investment", to tackle structural inequalities experienced by women.
Women had already entered the pandemic from an unequal place, according to Director Orla O'Connor and the social and economic consequences of the crisis have been disproportionately borne by women.
She described as "disappointing and a missed opportunity" that the Government "does not commit to the development of a public childcare model".
https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/1012/1253318-contraception-women-health/
I DO acknowledge the life they’re doomed to, because of the lack of support for the life they wish to lead, one which doesn’t correspond to feminist ideals for women and girls.
It wasn’t a bizarre leap because what was previously being discussed was that any support should be contingent upon travellers having to compromise their beliefs, and meet halfway, it’s why I mentioned the idea of “taking the soup”, because that appeared to be what you were suggesting. That would be imposing your beliefs on them, and I understand you’d mean it in such a way as you see it for their own benefit, that’s why I mentioned Margaret Sanger and the way she thought was the best way to address poverty in the black population - it surely must be obvious that the idea hasn’t worked out as intended? Black people still have large families, AND they avail of abortion at higher rates, but they still refuse contraception! I don’t want you just to take my word for it -
https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-black-women
I didn’t say it to antagonise you, I said it to demonstrate that the reality is not matched by the theory. The theory makes perfect sense from a liberal point of view, because it’s concerned with individual autonomy. It makes no sense from a conservative point of view, because conservative perspective is more concerned with collective responsibility, and caring for family, and particularly among traveller women, there’s a whole set of ideas which plays an enormous influence in their way of thinking. I completely understand where you’re coming from with the idea of influential role models, but again I think you’re thinking of the kind of role models you would want, not the kind of role model that other women who don’t share your perspective would want to relate to. It’d be a positive step for feminism, unquestionably. Whether or not it would have any real effect on the daily lives of women, well, that’s the bigger question, one that can only be answered by women themselves. I don’t imagine you would appreciate their answers if you think I’m just being contrarian and dishonest, I’d much rather they tell you themselves. At least then you’d know for certain.
I call you a liberal leftie because of your political and social beliefs are those of a liberal leftist persuasion. I don’t call you a liberal leftie to insult you, which is what people who call you right-wing purposely set out to do from the outset, because anyone who doesn’t share their views they use right-wing as a pejorative slur. I’m not ashamed of being a right-leaning conservative, because I know what people who use it as a pejorative slur intend to convey by its use. They don’t care for what any of these terms actually mean, or the underlying principles and fundamental beliefs, values or concepts which give them meaning. They just seek to insult, and calling you the opposite of what you believe about yourself to be true to get a rise out of you is pretty standard practice. It’s not gaslighting, it’s just stupid.
What you’re quantifying as gaslighting, isn’t. Gaslighting is entirely the opposite of browbeating their victims into submission. It’s making a person question their own sense of reality, Gaslighting makes the victim do all the work themselves by undermining their thought processes at the most fundamental level by manipulation -
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in their victim’s mind. Typically, gaslighters are seeking to gain power and control over the other person, by distorting reality and forcing them to question their own judgment and intuition.
https://www.newportinstitute.com/resources/mental-health/what_is_gaslighting_abuse/
By the way you’re using it, you can deploy it against anyone who doesn’t share your opinions to portray yourself as a victim of abuse, being committed against you by the person who doesn’t share your opinion or views or disagrees with you. Of course you’re going to say you’re not misusing the term. It means that I have to accept your accusation that I’m being dishonest, and under those constraints an accusation of gaslighting can go both ways. I wouldn’t though, because from my perspective it’s up there with accusing someone of child abuse when they aren’t raising their children in accordance with the standards the accuser believes children should be raised.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Hilarious.
The sentence you quoted is literally an example of me saying two things.
I'm all for talking about traveller culture in schools but I'm not for sugar coating the realities of Travellers either.
In the first part of the sentence I say I'm all for talking about traveller culture is schools. Then I say I'm not for sugar coating the realities of Travellers.
From this you got that I want "the reality of Travellers" to be part of of the curriculum.
Try harder, and I mean try harder at every part of what you're doing, reading comprehension, construction of your argument your tone. Because you're utterly failing on all fronts.
Glazers Out!
2 -
Travellers who pursue education, even secondary, are considered outside of the group, ones who have jobs are often viewed with contempt, as having no neck to make real money.
8 -
@[Deleted User] you say you don't hate travelers but you'll go so far as to appoint yourself the worlds art critic to dismiss their cultural efforts.
I think you should go have a look in the mirror. Is that really the type of person you want to be?
Post edited by MegamanBoo on1 -
“I know you are but what am I” has been pretty much the level of your argument to any sort of pointing out what you’re at, and true to form yet again on this occasion. I’ll leave you to it, sure I’m only causing division by not engaging in exchanging experiences of the realities of travellers 🙄
0 -
Here's a reminder of our laws on hate speech.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_hate_speech.html
Here's a guideline from the EU via the Irish Network against racism on what can constitute hate speech.
Content expressing insulting overgeneralising statements about certain groups/individuals belonging or perceived to belong to such groups
Regardless of what you might think of him Arnie's video on hate speech is worth a watch. He talks about his dad's antisemitism and the damage it did to him as a person.
I think it's important to remember when you post online it's a public conversation.
Are you in a good place yourself? Are you drinking? Would you say the things you're saying in front of a child, or somebody from that community?
Post edited by MegamanBoo on0 -
The ring leader of our new generation of anti social behaviour scumbags is a Teenage traveller in our town & is causing havoc. His Father is gone to jail again.
but this young fella (only 16 or 17) is breaking windows on people’s cars, Causing anti social behaviour, robbing from shops and going into pubs & chippers causing trouble for the staff.
What options do people have because the guards can’t do anything.
Monkey see, monkey do.
8 -
Plenty of kids and families like that, that aren't travelers.
What's it got to do with traveler culture?
0 -
What do you mean the guards can’t do anything? From what you’re describing, there’s plenty the guards can and should be doing! 😳
1 -
Like what? Arrest him?
he’s back out in no time and no lessons learnt.
3 -
Advertisement
-
yeah That is true.
but there’s plenty of people who never go that direction also.
Traveller children tend to go the wrong direction unfortunately.
1
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
