Sean Moncrieff - Newstalk

kunst nugget

quintana76 wrote: »

I dont think Hook is taken as seriously as Moncrieff etc. He gets away with his views as he can dismissed as on old buffer. A rugby club bore.
There's a bit of ' he would say that, wouldn't he'
Then again, any contrast to the concensus is always welcome.

And Moncrieff gets dismissed as a woolly liberal so it's swings and roundabouts…

Tbf to Moncrieff's views are usually confined to his replies to certain messages rather than the polemics that Hook is prone to.

quintana76

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Paper never refused ink but audiences have quite regularly rejected a newspaper. Magill is a classic example of a trailblazing innovative publication, which ventilated opinion of the 'radical' left as well as the conservatives, and it simply didn't sell.

Vincent Browne is in the process of resurrecting it, but I suspect that particular Lazarus is bound to his grave.


Yes, I agree with you to an extent; that is why I say the media, and its obvious biases, do indeed 'frame' the news, and nudge public opinion in one particular direction.

But where I disagree with you is in your apparent perception of the Irish audience as being, basically, a passive vessel, willing to take on whatever is put upon them.



I think a lot of people have reservations about the current, 'liberal' and monotonic nature of the Irish media landscape, myself included. But whilst it our media *clearly* doesn't reflect the attitudes & opinions of the audience, it isn't too far off. Certainly, it doesn't seem to deviate enough from public opinion for there to be commercial space for a new, viable media outlet.

I suspect we both come from very different ideological outlooks, but clearly neither of us are entirely happy with the current media landscape in this country. But I accept that my opinions are not the opinions of the majority, and in this changing Ireland, conservatives must begin to accept that their opinions do not enjoy the mainstream support they once did.

I have never heard a single radio host, or even an interviewee, say they are supportive of 'open borders'; that is to say, free and universal access to migration.

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I listen to radio for most of the day, and I've never heard this. Do you have any specific examples?
I found Moncrieff hard to bear at first, and i agree that he does seem to sneer at opinions that he doesn't share. It can be frustrating to listen to.

Even though I wouldn't share his political outlook, I find his opinions worthwhile insofar as they challenge my own opinions. But yes, it would be worthwhile if he was a little less overbearing with the mic, and allowed more of a two-way exchange of ideas.

Then again, you could say they same thing of George Hook...

TYRANT. See my last message as there are comments added to your block of text.
Didn't show up as separate. Don't know what I did wrong.

hullaballoo

quintana76 wrote: »

TYRANT. See my last message as there are comments added to your block of text.
Didn't show up as separate. Don't know what I did wrong.

You have to separate the text out by adding [noparse]

tags as follows:

At the end of the part you want to comment on, close the quote with

[/noparse]

At the beginning of the next part you want to comment on, open the quote with

Every section must begin with [noparse]

and end with

[/noparse]

e.g. [noparse]

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Things ATNM! said.

[/noparse] gives you:

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Things ATNM! said.

jooksavage

quintana76 wrote: »

I dont think Hook is taken as seriously as Moncrieff etc. He gets away with his views as he can dismissed as on old buffer. A rugby club bore.
There's a bit of ' he would say that, wouldn't he'
Then again, any contrast to the concensus is always welcome.

Why wouldn't he be taken as seriously as Moncrieff? Does he "get away with his views" because he's a harmless old fool or because his views actually speak to your own politics on some level? I don't know. But why is Moncrieff being held to a different standard? Thousands of words are expended here condemining Moncrieff's liberal bias whereas Hook's agenda-peddling gets welcomed as a "contrast to the census" (presumably including the time he started wondering aloud if vaccinations were bad armed with nothing more than anecdotal junk science).

quintana76

hullaballoo wrote: »

You have to separate the text out by adding [noparse][/noparse]

At the beginning of the next part you want to comment on, open the quote with

Every section must begin with [noparse][/noparse]

e.g. [noparse][/noparse] gives you:

Thank for the help.

quintana76

jooksavage wrote: »

Why wouldn't he be taken as seriously as Moncrieff? Does he "get away with his views" because he's a harmless old fool or because his views actually speak to your own politics on some level? I don't know. But why is Moncrieff being held to a different standard? Thousands of words are expended here condemining Moncrieff's liberal bias whereas Hook's agenda-peddling gets welcomed as a "contrast to the census" (presumably including the time he started wondering aloud if vaccinations were bad armed with nothing more than anecdotal junk science).

What I am saying is that his detractors can and do use the 'old buffer' cliché to write off his views as irrelevant.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not.

quintana76

quintana76 wrote: »

What I am saying is that his detractors can and do use the 'old buffer' cliché to write off his views as irrelevant.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not.

'Old duffer'

Richard Hillman

Today's opening monologue

1. A police shooting in America. He had to get in his amazement that the victim wasn't black.

2. Scoffing over Christians in Alabama supporting Trump.

3. A Clip of Gordon Ramsey not liking Hawaiian Pizza. Ended with Moncrieff going a bit deranged and saying something along the lines of Ramsey is a closed minded conservative that needs a kick up the arse.


Completely and utterly unnecessary.

quintana76

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Today's opening monologue

1. A police shooting in America. He had to get in his amazement that the victim wasn't black.

2. Scoffing over Christians in Alabama supporting Trump.

3. A Clip of Gordon Ramsey not liking Hawaiian Pizza. Ended with Moncrieff going a bit deranged and saying something along the lines of Ramsey is a closed minded conservative that needs a kick up the arse.


Completely and utterly unnecessary.

Today on Moncrcrieff Shona Murray mentioned a neo-Nazi festival in Germany attended by 500.
No mention of the rapes at a festival in Schorndorf by Afghans during the same weekend.
No correlation between the two expressed.

Some 'genius' phoned in to say ' i'll bet they are all young white males' at the nazi event.
It was also a young white male who sent the text. (I blame the education system)

That person thinks the reason they are neo-nazis is because they are young white males.
It is just them being their true selves, showing their true colours. They are all Nazis at heart.
The theory goes that this inherent tendency must be thwarted by the other (victim) identities in society at all costs, and by all means necessary.

Thé reason being that white males are the only group that are not victims but eternal oppressors.
Everyone other group is innocent and an eternal victim.

Believe it or not this is the standard view in most (especially) US 3rd level colleges.

Sadly post-modernist thinking has twisted society to such as extent that it leads to this caller hating his own identity.

I wonder what's Sean's views. I strongly suspect I know.

styron

quintana76 wrote: »

No mention of the rapes at a festival in Schorndorf by Afghans during the same weekend.

https://www.thelocal.de/20170717/police-shocked-by-violence-as-youth-riot-at-small-town-fair

Even The Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4703386/Riots-German-festival-Iraqi-sexually-harassing-women.html

Always a good day when a 'low information' racist giddily outs himself.

Snake Plisken

Anyone hear the show today when talking about the horses did anyone bring up about Sean's beloved traveller culture and their terrible treatment of Horses?

nicedryturf

quintana76 wrote: »

Sadly post-modernist thinking has twisted society to such as extent that it leads to this caller hating his own identity.

Someone call the wambulance for white people

jooksavage

quintana76 wrote: »

I wonder what's Sean's views. I strongly suspect I know.

Well go on then, don't leave us in suspense.

quintana76

nicedryturf wrote: »

Someone call the wambulance for white people

Just saying! Bit weird someone disliking their own identity so much.
I was only expressing a political theory that is very popular on American campus's concerning the white male, not white people.

nicedryturf

quintana76 wrote: »

Just saying! Bit weird someone disliking their own identity so much.
I was only expressing a political theory that is very popular on American campus's concerning the white male, not white people.

So the texter went out on a limb to presume a Nazi rally comprised mostly of white males? And you found this offensive because.... turns out it was mostly attended by black gay jewish women?

quintana76

nicedryturf wrote: »

So the texter went out on a limb to presume a Nazi rally comprised mostly of white males? And you found this offensive because.... turns out it was mostly attended by black gay jewish women?

No. I highlighted it because it was a stupid and unnecessary comment.
Who else is it going to be? Tibetans, Vietnamese, Solomon Islanders?
Maybe gay pastifarian nuns.

nicedryturf

quintana76 wrote: »

No. I highlighted it because it was a stupid and unnecessary comment.
Who else is it going to be? Tibetans, Vietnamese, Solomon Islanders?
Maybe gay pastifarian nuns.

Bit superfluous alright. But not as silly as getting bent out of shape because some random texter has failed to demonstrate tearful pride for their own race. That's the kind of stuff that inevitably leads to hysterical claims of white genocide.

quintana76

nicedryturf wrote: »

Bit superfluous alright. But not as silly as getting bent out of shape because some random texter has failed to demonstrate tearful pride for their own race. That's the kind of stuff that inevitably leads to hysterical claims of white genocide.

Good try! I never mentioned race except in relation to identity.
That was in the context of the 'identity wars' going on on in US universities at the moment.
If you follow the logic of that philosophy his statement fits right in.

Otherwise it is a stupid, unnecessary statement.
In reality it was probably just an impulsive, throwaway comment which I am spending too much time talking about.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Today's opening monologue

1. A police shooting in America. He had to get in his amazement that the victim wasn't black.

2. Scoffing over Christians in Alabama supporting Trump.

3. A Clip of Gordon Ramsey not liking Hawaiian Pizza. Ended with Moncrieff going a bit deranged and saying something along the lines of Ramsey is a closed minded conservative that needs a kick up the arse.


Completely and utterly unnecessary.

Race Baiting should have no place on Irish radio.

Stop stoking tensions Sean.

Maybe research a few facts.

kunst nugget

In his opening monologue today, he brought up the fact that Harry Styles has four nipples. I bet he only brought it up to embarrass him because Harry is a WHITE MALE!

And then he did a bit about Sharon Shannon getting cows grooving to her music. Of course, if it was a WHITE MALE who was playing he wouldn't brought it up.

quintana76

kunst nugget wrote: »

In his opening monologue today, he brought up the fact that Harry Styles has four nipples. I bet he only brought it up to embarrass him because Harry is a WHITE MALE!

And then he did a bit about Sharon Shannon getting cows grooving to her music. Of course, if it was a WHITE MALE who was playing he wouldn't brought it up.

Good way of parodying how ridiculous a level that the debate has sunk to in the (so called) culture wars

styron

quintana76 wrote: »

Good way of parodying how ridiculous a level that the debate has sunk to in the (so called) culture wars

Complaining of a shows's alleged liberal bias and intolerance while casually fabricating rape charges against Afghan refugees and a pretext for a neo-Nazi festivals ... that really should be primo parody material, but sadly isn't.

davef1000

What in tarnation has happened to this thread.

Ol' Donie

davef1000 wrote: »

What in tarnation has happened to this thread.

The same thing that has happened to several threads round here recently.

quintana76

Ol' Donie wrote: »

The same thing that has happened to several threads round here recently.

Someone hasn't been listening.

quintana76

quintana76 wrote: »

Someone hasn't been listening.

...to the spirit of the thread.

quintana76

Ol' Donie wrote: »

The same thing that has happened to several threads round here recently.

I blame Sean.

kunst nugget

quintana76 wrote: »

I blame Sean.

Why? Has he been contributing to the thread?

quintana76

kunst nugget wrote: »

Why? Has he been contributing to the thread?

He is with us all, in spirit. The great man is our inspiration. He is the godhead.

ballsymchugh

quintana76 wrote: »

He is with us all, in spirit. The great man is our inspiration. He is the godhead.

funnily enough, back in the day when he had the guests at the start of the show, he had Peter McVerry in one day for a grand straight forward chat. someone texted in to say it was great to hear an atheist and a religious person having a straight forward honest conversation, to which Sean replied "i didn't know you were an atheist Peter".

i don't think i've ever heard him speak on the fundamentals of religious belief, often on the dogma and rules etc, but never about whether he believes in God/Jehovah/Allah/Tom Cruise