College Trubine article on Travellers

Steibhin

Am I the only one a bit taken aback by today's Turbine article on Travellers?

Aside from it lack of humour its actually quite offensive. I know its only satire and you shouldn't take these things to seriously etc etc. But I feel it was a very cheap shot at an already marginalized group. Good satire should be able to pick on strong establishment targets within society and bring them down a peg or two through the use of humour. But picking on travelers, gays, immigrants or other minority groups its just childish.

The tribune themselves were very quick to condemn Youth Defensive for their attempt at satire last semester ('A cheap shot from cheap people') but at least Youth Defense didn't pick as soft a target as the Traveling community.

I expect there may be trouble over this.

hullaballoo

Comedy is comedy is comedy.

People slag off all sorts of already marginalised groups in comedy all the time and no one has a problem with it.

I know this is a cliché comment; but this is political correctness gone mad.

Steibhin

At what point does 'comedy' end and offensiveness begin? Just because it is classed as a satire piece do you have the right to to publish rasict and inflamatory remarks?

Todays article cut fat too close to the bone for my liking. If this article was filed somewhere else in the newspaper would it be any less offensive?
Lines like:

"Terrorizing old men is part of our culture"
and
"John 'Frog' Ward was unavailable for comment"

are extremely childish and downright offensive.

Like I say the Tribune took a hard line on Youth Defense when they published some satire that wasn't to their liking. Its a real shame they published this article. They must be really stuck to fill that page.

Red Alert

I agree with hullaballoo. Look at us, we're becoming so obsessed with not offending anybody that lexicon has become unwieldy.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Steibhin wrote:

Good satire should be able to pick on strong establishment targets within society and bring them down a peg or two through the use of humour. But picking on travelers, gays, immigrants or other minority groups its just childish.

Now come on, nothing can be sacred when it comes to satire, one has to treat all groups equally, otherwise your just discriminating.

If publications were to specifically avoid satirizing against minorities, they would just be discriminating against everyone else.

RuggieBear

Steibhin wrote:

but at least Youth Defense didn't pick as soft a target as the Traveling community.

I expect there may be trouble over this.

Are you calling the travellers soft....?

hullaballoo

Youth Defence published something that infringed copyright. It also wasn't funny.

Maybe you don't see this, but the Turbine is there to take the piss out of tabloid rags, not offend people. I mean, it's entirely fictitious and obviously in jest. On the other hand, the pamphlet that Youth Defence published was an underhanded shot at the Observer. It didn't even offend the Tribune, so the line they took was neutral: that Youth Defence were cowards. They never even acknowledged that it was them.

Having read the Travellers article, I do see that some people might be offended, but that's the nature of satire. I can't see my way clear to condoning the limitation of free speech in this regard.

Steibhin

Red Alert wrote:

I agree with hullaballoo. Look at us, we're becoming so obsessed with not offending anybody that lexicon has become unwieldy.

So it is okay to offend a group of people in the name of 'comedy'? To what extent can we take that? Rasict jokes? (which this is, a long winded not very funny rasict joke). A few weeks ago there was a controversy about a homophobic comment on CTN, which was far milder and less deliberate than what appeared today in the College Tribune.

Out of curiosity have either you of hullaballo actually read the article yet?

Vainglory

If the article had replaced "travellers" with "black people" or even the "n" word, would it still be inoffensive and "just satire"?

And if not, why not?

When I was Education Officer I brought out a group of travelling children to UCD during Access Week to try and encourage traveller participation in third level education, which as I'm sure you all know is extremely low. What if this had been the week that they came out, and they picked up one of those newspapers? What would I have said when they asked me what was going on? Sorry kids, it's just satire...but please consider working your balls off to get into college?

I think it's one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen in UCD.

Vainglory

FYI...

Turbine wrote:

Travelling Community Afforded Basic Rights

Emergency legislation is to be rushed through the Dail this week in order to ensure that the fundamental rights of the travelling community are upheld.

The legislation declares that travellers "cannot be held responsible for the ramifications of their actions. This includes terrorising old men, dumping loads of rubbish wherever they want and taking things out of shops without paying for them."

A spokesperson for the government told the Turbine, “The legislation is there to stop the discrimination that exists as a serious undercurrent in Irish society today. If travelers want to go around abusing people, then they should be perfectly entitled to do so. The Irish today are quite a racist society and border on infringing traveler rights at times.”

"One member of the travelling community, Shane "Toad" McGinty, spoke of his joy after hearing of the legislation. "It's about time. We're sick of people telling us what to do. Terrorising old men is part of our culture" he continued. "We've been doing it for hundreds of years, who are the settled folk to tell us what we should be doing with out time? It's part of our heritage and that's a heritage we’re proud of.”

A spokesperson for the Irish Equality Authority spoke at a randomly organized rally about the legislation, and declared, “It is the awareness of the values and lifestyles of the travelling community and their children that makes mutual respect and understanding possible. We are here to stamp out the racism that has taken a stranglehold on travellers who want to do what they want, when they want, because they should be allowed to do so.”

When it was explained at the rally that the legislation was in fact already (definitely) going through the Dáil, the crowd quickly dispersed with murmers of “You can’t beat a good protest” to be heard, along with “****e, what are we going to do with ourselves now.”

John ‘Frog’ Ward was unavailable for comment at the time of going to print.

Red Alert

But does anyone want to live in a 1984-esque world when you can't make a lexically accurate statement purely in aid of description for fear of offending people.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Vainglory wrote:

When I was Education Officer I brought out a group of travelling children to UCD during Access Week to try and encourage traveller participation in third level education, which as I'm sure you all know is extremely low. What if this had been the week that they came out, and they picked up one of those newspapers? What would I have said when they asked me what was going on? Sorry kids, it's just satire...but please consider working your balls off to get into college?

You wouldn't have to say anything. If they were mature, they would accept it as satire, if not, that's not anyone's problem only themselves.

Steibhin

Vainglory wrote:

What if this had been the week that they came out, and they picked up one of those newspapers? What would I have said when they asked me what was going on? Sorry kids, it's just satire...but please consider working your balls off to get into college?

Thats exactly what I was thinking. What traveler children would think if they was this article and level of prejustice within a 3rd level institute.

Vainglory

Red Alert wrote:

But does anyone want to live in a 1984-esque world when you can't make a lexically accurate statement purely in aid of description for fear of offending people.

You consider that article lexically accurate, and purely in aid of description?

Vainglory

sean_keevey wrote:

You wouldn't have to say anything. If they were mature, they would accept it as satire, if not, that's not anyone's problem only themselves.

They were 15 years old and already sceptical about the idea of coming to college because of the chance that they wouldn't be accepted socially.

I really cannot believe this ****.

Esmereldina

Vainglory wrote:

They were 15 years old and already sceptical about the idea of coming to college because of the chance that they wouldn't be accepted socially.

I really cannot believe this ****.

Initially I would have agreed with the first few posters who said that satire is satire and in a healthy democratic society should be allowed to target anyone in the name of humour and political freedom etc. After reading the article though, I have to agree that it is in extremely bad taste. The censorship road is always a dangerous one to go down though...

Boston

Steibhin wrote:

Out of curiosity have either you of hullaballo actually read the article yet?

Did you actually read hullaballo's post where he said he had read it. It's the one above yours.

Bunch Of D4 snobs the lot of yea. Remember Kids, it's satire.

GuffFromSwine

Hmmm...I think satire has a responsibility to treat all targets equally and therefore, in principle, nothing should be off limits. However, good satire traditionally targets cosy established elites and seeks to assault flawed pre-conceptions, both along non-racial lines. The tone of and language in this piece wouldn’t be out of place in a skinhead magazine. I would consider myself a satirist and therefore I’m as eager as anyone not to have the PC-police breathing down your neck every time you call a spade a spade but the tribune has overstepped the line here. There’s not a satirist in the world who would call this anything but accidental racism at best. It ceases to be satire when a: its not funny, and b: it becomes a pointed assault using language and stereotypes in a way which doesn’t make clear that this sort of language and these sort of stereotypes are themselves the target.

If anything, this is another example of the general downward trend in the quality of the Tribune’s output. If they can’t do a satire page, don’t bother. I’ve talked to people who edit the paper and I write for it myself and I know it’s always the last thing to be done. The tribune’s tone is confused, it doesn’t know whether it wants to be your mate or a serious paper, and the ‘turbine’ is a perfect example of this. This piece is trying to take a swipe at PC culture but its so confused it comes accross as racist.

The only redeeming feature of this article is the fact that it wasn’t intended to be racist. I’m not advocating censorship, just sensible editing. A combination of the language used and the lack of humour has made it seem racist and the sooner the tribune recognise this and rescind it the better or else they’re going to have a major issue on their hands, I’ve talked to a few other regular contributors to the paper and theres an element seriously considering not writing for it again until there’s an apology. That’s only on a production level. Can you imagine the s**tstorm the SU and labour youth will rain down on them? They won’t have a friend-or advertiser-in the world if they’re not careful.

Red Alert

I haven't read the article yet.

GuffFromSwine

RuggieBear wrote:

Are you calling the travellers soft....?

Haha

scop

Its genius. Nobody really cares about how offensive it is. I mean its cool if you do, but please don't expect us all to break down and cry at the sight of the poor helpless chaps of the travelling community being mocked (I live nearby some. They are believe it or not well able to exist without you rushing to their aid, and like most humans can take a ribbing. They even give it back! Shocking. ).

Mind better get the satire in quick before the PC strangle on language takes root for good.

Steibhin

Boston wrote:

Did you actually read hullaballo's post where he said he had read it. It's the one above yours.

We posted at the same time. But now its clear that Hullaballo did defend the article without reading it first. As did Red Alert. Hullaballo admitted having read the article that he could see how some could take offense.

Bunch Of D4 snobs the lot of yea. Remember Kids, it's satire.

Its very bad and very offensive satire.

Incidently, I am from Tuam, Co Galway. A fair distance away from D4 and a place where traveller issues are to the forefront. Believe me I am no bleeding heart liberal. This article goes to far however.

GuffFromSwine

scop wrote:

Its genius. Nobody really cares about how offensive it is. I mean its cool if you do, but please don't expect us all to break down and cry at the sight of the poor helpless chaps of the travelling community being mocked (I live nearby some. They are believe it or not well able to exist without you rushing to their aid, and like most humans can take a ribbing. They even give it back! Shocking. ).

Mind better get the satire in quick before the PC strangle on language takes root for good.

Fair enough, I think we've all acknowledged that we can make up our own minds on whether this is funny or not,but the issue is whether a newspaper which is purportedly representative of the student body should printing stuff this flawed

scop

GuffFromSwine wrote:

Fair enough, I think we've all acknowledged that we can make up our own minds on whether this is funny or not,but the issue is whether a newspaper which is purportedly representative of the student body should printing stuff this flawed

I see your point. The Tribute, IMO, is a fairly weak paper, and the Turbine is by far its weakest section. Personally I am not sure the papers are there to represent the student body as such. Unlike the Observer I don't think the Tribune is associated with the SU or anything. I just worry about meddling in what gets printed. I'm for openness in newspapers whether it offends or not especially when it comes to satire which can prick some sacred cows from time to time. The way I would look at it is that the article was perhaps tasteless. However, it has us talking about the issue. If it was a fairly standard piece on travellers rights etc nobody would read it. Sad but true.

Plus one can always register their complaint by sending in a letter to the paper, and see how they react.

Vainglory

This is all so great.

I look forward to a rapturous reception tomorrow, when I bring out my freesheet newspaper around campus entitled "Fluck N***ers and Spicks and their thieving ways".

It'll have "It's satire, stupid!" at the top though, so that's alright.

Next issue - Personal attacks on UCD students.

But it's satire, right? Huzzah for Free Speech!!

Jonny Arson

Jesus, the one time travellers get afforded basic rights and people are still complaining! :rolleyes:

Keep up the good work Turbine, hopefully the next headline article will target filthy thieving Northside scumbags

pretty*monster

We-el, the principle target of the article appears to be the politically correct brigade (incidentally that fact makes the out-cry in this thread deliciously ironic).

The articles execution could have been a little better and perhaps there are more culturally sensitive ways to mock equality legislation (is that an oxymoron?).

Spectator#1

Steibhin wrote:

Aside from it lack of humour its actually quite offensive. I know its only satire and you shouldn't take these things to seriously etc etc. But I feel it was a very cheap shot at an already marginalized group. Good satire should be able to pick on strong establishment targets within society and bring them down a peg or two through the use of humour. But picking on travelers, gays, immigrants or other minority groups its just childish.

I can see how you might have been offended by it. It's not quite a fair satirical take. Usually when satire goes out of its way to be offensive like this article it's making a comment on the ridiculousness of that viewpoint and people that hold it. This one has more than a few cheap stereotypes in it, fair enough.

I'd still say you could read it as a farcical take on the relativistic downside of multi-culturalism though. I mean, minority groups do tend to get away with seriously anti-social behaviour sometimes out of deference to their customs, not just travellers, of course (and so maybe the article was picking on a minority) but the point still stands.

Rather than blame someone for taking the piss like that; if I was a traveller, I'd be more annoyed at the members of my community who were carrying on in such a way as to prolong stupid stereotypes like that. And before anyone goes mad here, I have had more than enough experiences with travellers to know that some of them do behave like caricatures of a type - the same way every community does. Not all of them do, by any means, but some, and that’s enough.

I think you could relate it to just being Irish, I get embarrassed and ashamed every time I hear this whole 'I hate the British' thing, or the 'everyone loves the Irish' or 'Irish people are deadly at drinking'. I'd see the point if I was to read an article that aped that, exaggerated it, whatever, there is a basis for it in reality, albeit a tenuous one.

I know that no-one actually thinks that every Irish person is endowed with those characteristics, exclusively or otherwise, it’s just a type.

The tribune themselves were very quick to condemn Youth Defensive for their attempt at satire last semester ('A cheap shot from cheap people') but at least Youth Defense didn't pick as soft a target as the Traveling community.

You're making a severe category mistake if you're putting what YD wrote in the same classification as that Turbine article.

That Youth Defense publication was, quite simply, not satire. It was a rather poor revenge-motivated publicity stunt. Satire isn't about revenge, satire isn't about false impersonation, satire isn't about the propogation of militaristically enforced pseudo-ideological positions.

Satire has to be written on an ironic register – it has to entertain the fact that it is undermining itself, and again, and again. It is this duplicitous operation that makes it difficult to tie down in terms of intention and causes upset. That YD paper was a thinly veiled, poorly written, slap on the back for anti-abortionists while simultaneously attacking pro-abortionists and, bizarrely, a newspaper that had nothing substantively to do with anything except the fact that they reported on an event that related to YD in a tenuous way.

The Tribune was right to condemn what YD did.

So, no, that doesn’t make them hypocrites, unless, by ‘hypocrites’ you mean ‘heroes’!

Vainglory, I can see your point, that would have been an awkward situation with those children. You could definitely raise objections at the tone of the article or question the tastefulness of the messages it puts across but I don't think it's a cut-and-dried affair in terms of whether it passes for satire or not.

Personally, they probably should have avoided victimising the travelling community because they are poorly represented in college and you run the risk of looking snide, but I honestly don’t think that’s the spirit it was intended in or the only way of reading it.

cast_iron

Just because Travellers my be considered a marginalised section of society doesn't mean they should be immune from satire. Yes, if a traveller should happen to read the article, they may be offended.

But, to make a comparison, if a culchie or a D4 head was to read an article made in similar jest to this one, then would there be such an out-cry? Should there be? As one of the above, I have taken no offence to either (there has been plenty of satire written previously at the expense of both).

Simply put, satire, by definition, implies insult. If you can't understand that, then read something else - it's obviously something close to your own heart, which is not where satire is intended to hit.

Vainglory

Vainglory wrote:

They were 15 years old and already sceptical about the idea of coming to college because of the chance that they wouldn't be accepted socially.

I really cannot believe this ****.

But like,It's their own fault.They make the conscious decision not to go to college.They quit early.Why should we persuade them otherwise?They can can go on to make a lot more money than most of us(even if it is dubious what they make ther money on).

GuffFromSwine

I think a fair few people posting on this thread have something of a warped view on satire. Being a big bould fella and saying this most controversial things possible does not constitute being satirical, I'd say thats just being provocative and unnecessarily macho. The main issue I have with this article is the fact that its bold for the sake of being bold rather than the author seeing any actual target which deserves attack, probably a byproduct of this section being somehing of an afterhought for the tribune staff.
This combines with the general half-arsed tone of the tribune (not to mention the lack of ironic reference in the peice itself) to create a tone which would popularly be perceived as being racist.

As for the people blindly sticking up for the turbine on the grounds that its satire, I'd question whether you might find a satirical piece which is in fact worthy of your support rather than latching on to this blatant piece of pseudo-satire/journalism which unfortunately seems to be the next best thing.

For me, the main problem here is the fact that the tribune itself is so poorly edited that something as questionable as this would be allowed to slip through the cracks purely on its 'satirical' merit. The paper cannot be all things to all people, but unfortunatley everyone seems to have read 'the slate' and therefore believes they have a satirical mind. Honestly, satire is the hardest thng to write because your tone has to be phony and ambivilant yet clearly mocking, and this piece falls flat on its face here. the best option would be for the tribune to publicly say 'we made a mistake, we're student media and therefore novices. mistakes are there to be learned from'...i'd be more willing to tackle this issue if they stuck to their guns on ignorant journalistic principle. I think spectator#1 hit a lot of the issues here on the head.

mloc

Vainglory wrote:

If the article had replaced "travellers" with "black people" or even the "n" word, would it still be inoffensive and "just satire"?

That has to be the stupidist, most naive argument I have ever read in my life.

The colour of someone's skin has absolutely nothing to do with thier way of life, and is not a choice people make. Being a traveller is a choice. They are not a separate race, or from a different country. They're simply Irish people who choose to live in caravans, following a totally outdated tradition of travelling the roads in a country that has (thanks be to god) largely moved on from such medievil bulls*it. And yes, they might have thier own way of life. But its still a choice they make.

You simply can't compare it to actually being a different race or colour.

GuffFromSwine

mloc wrote:

That has to be the stupidist, most naive argument I have ever read in my life.

The colour of someone's skin has absolutely nothing to do with thier way of life, and is not a choice people make. Being a traveller is a choice. They are not a separate race, or from a different country. They're simply Irish people who choose to live in caravans, following a totally outdated tradition of travelling the roads in a country that has (thanks be to god) largely moved on from such medievil bulls*it. And yes, they might have thier own way of life. But its still a choice they make.

You simply can't compare it to actually being a different race or colour.

To be perfectly honest, I think you're being over-simplistic and have shown a serious ignorance of the central issue here. The traveller people of Ireland do not in fact consider themselves to be simply Irish people who live on the move. They enthusiastically maintain (with good reason) that they are in fact a seperate culture, distinguishable not only by their lifestyle but by other obvious factors such as their own language and heritage which shares many characteristics with other itinerant dialects and cultures. In fact, I would say a majority of travellers would consider their individuality to be as obvious and as deserving of attention as any simple difference in skin colour. try and not be so black and white (excuse the pun) in your analysis yeah?

cast_iron

mloc wrote:

That has to be the stupidist, most naive argument I have ever read in my life.

The colour of someone's skin has absolutely nothing to do with thier way of life, and is not a choice people make. Being a traveller is a choice. They are not a separate race, or from a different country. They're simply Irish people who choose to live in caravans, following a totally outdated tradition of travelling the roads in a country that has (thanks be to god) largely moved on from such medievil bulls*it. And yes, they might have thier own way of life. But its still a choice they make.

You simply can't compare it to actually being a different race or colour.

Whatever about stupid and naive, that's just an ignorant load of rubbish.

You chose to live in a house (I'm guessing). Why? Because it's all you've ever known and what your parents have taught you........choice had little to do with your upbringing (again I'm guessing this applies to most people here).

humbert

The only things that strike me about it is that it's not remotely funny and it doesn't go far enough to be easily dismissible as satire. It reads more like a sarcastic attack on travellers than satire. Though to be honest it doesn't bother me.

panda100

was it written in the turbine?Surely you dont read that if your easilt offended. Am heading down to Rathkeale now so will ask some of the lads wether they think it offensive

Vainglory

The Turbine is not usually offensive, it's usually funny. Like satire is supposed to be, when it's done properly.

Chakar

Apparently Vainglory has brought an emergency motion before the Council on this issue for which the link can be found at

http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=1414

If I was still a class rep I would probably vote against the first motion but in favour of the second and third ones.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

pretty*monster wrote:

We-el, the principle target of the article appears to be the politically correct brigade (incidentally that fact makes the out-cry in this thread deliciously ironic).

The articles execution could have been a little better and perhaps there are more culturally sensitive ways to mock equality legislation (is that an oxymoron?).

That is a very valid point. One must look at who this satire is actually aimed at. The principal sujects may be travellers but to all intents and purposes it is aimed at the militant advocates of political correctness, some of who seem to be posting on this very thread.

Sangre

Anyone have a link to the article?

mloc

GuffFromSwine wrote:

They enthusiastically maintain (with good reason) that they are in fact a seperate culture, distinguishable not only by their lifestyle but by other obvious factors such as their own language and heritage which shares many characteristics with other itinerant dialects and cultures. In fact, I would say a majority of travellers would consider their individuality to be as obvious and as deserving of attention as any simple difference in skin colour. try and not be so black and white (excuse the pun) in your analysis yeah?

The vital difference here, of course, is that while travellers are satisfied maintaining their parasitic so called culture and maintaining a facade of so called individuality, people who are of different races from all over the world manage to come to ireland and integrate, becoming a useful part of our society.

Vainglory

I've already posted it, it's on the first page of the thread.

(The article, I mean.)

FionnMatthew

With respect,

Vainglory wrote:

If the article had replaced "travellers" with "black people" or even the "n" word, would it still be inoffensive and "just satire"?

And if not, why not?

Because the article isn't just taking a cheap shot at travellers. The article is inexpertly written, and hence of equivocal power, but it does have a point, and as such, can be considered satirical, albeit clumsily so.

What I mean will become evident in response to GuffFromSwine's points.

GuffFromSwine wrote:

The main issue I have with this article is the fact that its bold for the sake of being bold rather than the author seeing any actual target which deserves attack,

I don't think it's bold for the sake of being bold. I think there IS a target which the author is attacking here, it's just unclear because it was badly executed.

The target here is people who abuse the provisions of equalitarian philosophy in order to exercise a margin of control or power over others. In the hands of some people, belonging to a minority group in the modern age is the ideal way of getting away with unacceptable things one wouldn't otherwise be allowed to do.

It's a criticism of the fact that some people use a philosophy that is supposed to protect individuals from generalisations, in order to discriminate and alienate other individuals. In this way, structures in place to protect individual freedoms are misused and reversed, and become structures of control in the inverse direction.

GuffFromSwine wrote:

good satire traditionally targets cosy established elites

And I think this does that, in a limited way. When political correctness goes so far as to relativise ethics; when we are deprived of a moral framework by which to say 'this or that action is immoral, regardless of cultural background', THEN the minority group becomes an elite of sorts; a group that doesn't have to abide by any ethical norms, because they can always rely on political correctness to defend their actions on the basis of cultural difference.

This should never happen. Cultural difference cannot excuse every action, especially when the actions supposedly defended by political correctness impinge on the freedoms of the people who do abide by cultural norms. That is a case of an equalitarian philosophy making individuals in an cultural minority disproportianately more powerful than individuals belonging to a cultural majority; a philosophy that is intended to protect individuals that discriminates against individuals.

This is what's being gotten at in this article, albeit very confusedly.

This is why what you've said here isn't strictly fair:

Vainglory wrote:

This is all so great.

I look forward to a rapturous reception tomorrow, when I bring out my freesheet newspaper around campus entitled "Fluck N***ers and Spicks and their thieving ways".

It'll have "It's satire, stupid!" at the top though, so that's alright.

Next issue - Personal attacks on UCD students.

But it's satire, right? Huzzah for Free Speech!!

The content of the article in question is a good bit more sophisticated than any of the articles you've mentioned there. However, those articles COULD equally BE satire, if they pointed at the same phenomenon: misuse of equalitarian philosophy to justify the worst kind of action. This phenomenon is visible in most minority groups - defense of black-supremacist hate crimes on the basis of cultural difference, pseudo-feminist oppression of ALL men on what amount to VERY sexist generalisations, etc.

Despite our tolerance for cultural difference, we should be able to say 'this is wrong and should be stopped', when, for eg., someone is abducted and beheaded in a ritual sacrifice. Political correctness cannot and should not be ever misused to enforce a regimen of immunity from criticism for anti-social acts. The individual, of whatever affiliation, should never be harmed, whether by cultural prejudices or politically correct relativism.

So the article IS identifying a target, and that target DOES deserve criticism. It IS satirical. It's just badly written, and contains some sentences that ARE cheap shots, eg. the traveller nicknames, etc. I think we should be more annoyed at the quality of the writing than the 'prejudicial' content. This is a University, after all.

Vainglory

I think we can philosophise all we want about the quasi-intellectual undertones of the piece, but the bottom line for me is that some traveller kid thinking about coming to college definitely wouldn't take it that way. And I think we can all agree on that.

And we're all in favour of increased access, right?

I think I could even write a better satirical piece that makes the same point as you suggest the traveller piece did, but without the cheap shots and without the inevitable offence caused. And if I didn't have two essays due on Friday, I probably would.

EDIT: And as I've said to the Editor of the Tribune myself, I don't think he's a racist or that the person who wrote it is a racist. I just think it was a hell bad decision to publish the article in that form and as such some sort of an apology should be forthcoming.

FionnMatthew

Chakar wrote:

Apparently Vainglory has brought an emergency motion before the Council on this issue for which the link can be found at

http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=1414

If I was still a class rep I would probably vote against the first motion but in favour of the second and third ones.

I just read that.

I very strongly believe that this is a disproportionate response to the article. I very strongly and respectfully think that this motion should, if possible, be withdrawn.

The sentences quoted in the motion are in fact satirical, in a very strong sense of the word. I refer to my previous post on this topic as an argument in favour of this.

I think a distinction should be made when reading the article between, on the one hand, the satirical point of the article, which is a point that I think is valid to make, and which I've outlined in detail above, and, on the other hand, the quite objectionable cheap shots that bear no conceptual relation to the satirical content of the article, eg. 'Shane "Toad" McGinty...John "Frog" Ward'.

The question, therefore, isn't whether or not council should recognise that the article transgresses the boundaries of what is acceptable as satire, but is instead a critical question, about stylistic choices that were made within the article itself, that compromised the predominant message of the article.

This isn't a matter for council. It's a matter for unofficial public discussion, and correspondence with the editorial staff of the Tribune itself. Going to council over it is to invoke a protective structure without due cause, and thus, to abuse the ideals on which it is founded.

It is to cry 'wolf', when there is only an unruly squirrel.

In respect of this, I think bringing this motion before council is inadvisable, in that it is inflammatory in the extreme. Jane, if you're reading, your motion is not in service of an equalitarian ideal; it only stands to harm the standing of those of us who hold each and every individual to be equal.

It would be far more beneficial to all concerned to continue in discussing this in the way that we have.

I strongly suggest that this motion be discontinued, if that is within the realm of possibility, before serious harm is done to the freedom of our publications to engage in (what this article isn't) well-written, timely satire, when such is needed.

Vainglory

FionnMatthew wrote:

I just read that.

I very strongly believe that this is a disproportionate response to the article. I very strongly and respectfully think that this motion should, if possible, be withdrawn.

The sentences quoted in the motion are in fact satirical, in a very strong sense of the word. I refer to my previous post on this topic as an argument in favour of this.

I think a distinction should be made when reading the article between, on the one hand, the satirical point of the article, which is a point that I think is valid to make, and which I've outlined in detail above, and, on the other hand, the quite objectionable cheap shots that bear no conceptual relation to the satirical content of the article, eg. 'Shane "Toad" McGinty...John "Frog" Ward'.

The question, therefore, isn't whether or not council should recognise that the article transgresses the boundaries of what is acceptable as satire, but is instead a critical question, about stylistic choices that were made within the article itself, that compromised the predominant message of the article.

This isn't a matter for council. It's a matter for unofficial public discussion, and correspondence with the editorial staff of the Tribune itself. Going to council over it is to invoke a protective structure without due cause, and thus, to abuse the ideals on which it is founded.

It is to cry 'wolf', when there is only an unruly squirrel.

In respect of this, I think bringing this motion before council is inadvisable, in that it is inflammatory in the extreme. Jane, if you're reading, your motion is not in service of an equalitarian ideal; it only stands to harm the standing of those of us who hold each and every individual to be equal.

It would be far more beneficial to all concerned to continue in discussing this in the way that we have.

I strongly suggest that this motion be discontinued, if that is within the realm of possibility, before serious harm is done to the freedom of our publications to engage in (what this article isn't) well-written, timely satire, when such is needed.

I have no desire to prevent our publications from engaging in well-written, timely satire - which you've agreed that this article isn't. As I've conveyed to the editor, if there is an apology for the poor taste in which much of the travellers article was written, then the motion will be withdrawn and will go no further.

Steibhin

Ok, just to make a few things clear. No one is suggesting that the Tribune have no right to publish such articles, rather that is was a very bad decision to do so. There is a big distinction there.

This article, I feel, goes beyond satire to becoming an attack on the travelling community. It is basically a rasict joke. A really bad and quite vile rasict joke.

Maybe 'race' is a problematic word here, but we are talking about an easily identifiable group within or society who do enjoy similar rights to those of ethic minorities.

I do feel this goes beyond acceptable standards in journalism.

RuggieBear

Jesus.

I'm so glad I'm out of college and don't have to suffer the utter wankology that is college politics and its over-active participants.

Spectator#1

Vainglory wrote:

I think we can philosophise all we want about the quasi-intellectual undertones of the piece, but the bottom line for me is that some traveller kid thinking about coming to college definitely wouldn't take it that way. And I think we can all agree on that.

That doesn't mean that the article shouldn't have been published or that an apology should be issued.

Also, I would question the value of attending college at all if you're going to sneer at the kind of level-headed and reasoned abilities of discussion and thought that it imbues us with and in which FionnMatthew and a couple of others on this thread have been attempting to engage. It's relevant, it's fair, and it's necessary. What's the point of arguing that everybody should be able to go to college if you think that the rationality and intellectual abilities it encourages are worthless?

As soon as you stop 'philosophising' about 'quasi-intellectual' discourse - as you so disparagingly refer to it - you're into the kind of stupid, relativistic censorship that this article is targeting, and in which you're wallowing at the moment by solely considering how some people might take the article.

And it's not an undertone in the article, it's explicit if you ask me.

As I said in my post on page two, there are elements to that article that are distasteful and perhaps they should be recognised and even apologised for, but just focussing on them in order to cause a fuss in council about it is - quite literally - being wilfully stupid.

And we're all in favour of increased access, right?

Provided everybody abides by the laws and rules in place in UCD and doesn't try to transgress them on the basis of irrational, inethical or illegal customs: yes.

I think I could even write a better satirical piece that makes the same point as you suggest the traveller piece did, but without the cheap shots and without the inevitable offence caused. And if I didn't have two essays due on Friday, I probably would.

Fine, then you even distinguished the meaning from it's content. So why are you being so hysterical about it? As you said here:

EDIT: And as I've said to the Editor of the Tribune myself, I don't think he's a racist or that the person who wrote it is a racist. I just think it was a hell bad decision to publish the article in that form and as such some sort of an apology should be forthcoming.

...you've already talked to the editor, you realise there was no malicious intent. Why are you trying to threaten them with - hopeless - political pressure when you could just be discussing it with them?

If all you wanted was an apology, I would suggest you continued to make that case to the editor of the Tribune, who I know for a fact would definitely be able to see your point.

FionnMatthew

Vainglory wrote:

As I've conveyed to the editor, if there is an apology for the poor taste in which much of the travellers article was written, then the motion will be withdrawn and will go no further.

Don't you see that by forcing the Tribune to apologise for the article, under threat of being compelled to do so by the SU, you are evacuating any genuine apology the Tribune might make of any meaning.

An apology from the Tribune, which I consider quite likely, means an awful lot more if you haven't strong-armed its editorial committee into issuing it.

You are using PC structures to force a vacuous apology. It won't mean anything if the Tribune is forced to write a bunch of words apologising for the article to the travelling community.

If I were you, I'd withdraw the motion, and have a lot more faith in the likelihood that the Tribune will apologise. This is a matter of public discourse eventually finding a level, and working itself out - you'll do everybody an injustice by taking away their free will in the matter.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Perhaps the Militant PC Brigade should go out and campaign against and eradicate the deep rooted seperation that travellers and settled folk as opposed to trying to censor an article which is merely arising as a result of the division and the opinions of such.