Spat Thread

ThisRegard

rom wrote: »

Dublin city, why would anyone want to live their by choice rather than necessity?

You're just upset because the undisputed king of culchies only got permission for 3 of his concerts.

Krusty_Clown

HelenAnne wrote: »

And for the record, I don't like the word 'knacker' either, in any context (except maybe 'horse renderer', but it's not often used in that context these days ).

All very well made points. Isn't there just the smallest risk that we are becoming 'over-the-top' politically correct though? If we forever hold our tongue because we live in fear of offending (or displeasing) just one person then the reality is that we can say nothing. We cannot make films, write songs or publish books, because at least one person, will always be offended.

The use of the word 'knacker' is a good example. It was a term I grew up with to describe (as Wikipedia puts it (among other definitions)) those who engage in anti-social behaviour. The word never had any association or connotation related to the travelling community. That connection simply didn't exist. I'll be frank, 'tinkers' was the derogatory term of choice, in my youth. So should I refrain from using the word (to describe those who engage in anti-social behaviour), because for a brief period in time, some people chose to change the meaning to refer to those from the travelling community? As you said yourself, it's fine to use the term when referring to 'horse rendering', so why can I not use the term in relation to some other non-traveller interpretation?

The other side of the argument is 'the gift of the gab'. Gentle teasing is ingrained in Irish culture, and it's as much part of our heritage as the Irish language. This material used in this teasing (slagging), will pretty much always cross the invisible 'offensive' line, but it never matters, because in verbal form, it us completely understood that it is in jest (a form of verbal sparring) and that in fact, while the subject matter may be offensive, no actual offence is intended. In written form, unfortunately, the material takes on a life of its own. Without context, tone or delivery, it is only interpreted correctly, by those who wish to interpret it correctly. Those who seek to take offence will find a means to do so. I realize that there's a fine line between slagging, bullying and racism, but certainly, Ireland will become a poorer place if we lose our culture of verbal jousting; if we have to stop slagging each other for fear that an independent third-party may take offence.

tunguska

theboyblunder wrote: »

Maybe a list could be provided - approved terms we could use when slagging each other?

Obviously this wouldnt be fully satisfactory because the degenerates would still be thinking the other things, but it would be a start until the denunciations and show trials could get organised.

Im sure theres a way to tap directly into peoples thoughts so that we can make sure they're to everybodys liking or acceptable. Maybe something involving a drill and a tin foil hat.......

HelenAnne

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

if we have to stop slagging each other for fear that an independent third-party may take offence.

I don't think you (not just you, people in general) have to stop at all - there just has to be space for the independent offended third party mentioned above to reply / rebut / argue. Which there is, both in free-speech Ireland in general, and on boards, so happy days .

cianc

Murph_D wrote: »

I agree 100% with the above, which is exactly in line with my own thinking on this.

+1, thanks for posting this HeleneAnne.

It also annoys me the way "offended/offensive" is used to belittle people's objections to this sort of stuff. Making the offense the subject of the debate completely misses the point.
People being upset is not the problem. People being upset is a symptom of the actual problem: casual {take-your-pick}ism that reinforces some ****ty social norm that limits the lives of real people, e.g.: the above video

Pacing Mule

T runner wrote: »

As long as that rule applies to everyone. The below sustained attempts to trivialize legitimate concerns about widespread sexism and racism on this forum can hardly be described as "letting it go" can it? (welcome BTW!)

It's meant to be a light hearted spat thread FFS. My mentioning of my beard is neither sexist nor racist nor is it a sustained attempt to trivialise anything. Seriously please take the debate to the serious thread started for it. You are less likely to be offended there or misconstrue other posters intentions.

rom

RayCun wrote: »

To paraphrase Churchill - Dublin is the worst place in Ireland, except for all the places that aren't Dublin

"It's a big con job. We have sold the myth of Dublin as a sexy place incredibly well; because it is a dreary little dump most of the time." Roddy Doyle

At least its not Limerick. :pac:

T runner

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

All very well made points. Isn't there just the smallest risk that we are becoming 'over-the-top' politically correct though? If we forever hold our tongue because we live in fear of offending (or displeasing) just one person then the reality is that we can say nothing. We cannot make films, write songs or publish books, because at least one person, will always be offended.

Hi Krusty. I don't think you are comparing like with like. You are talking about Arts: films, songs, books etc which benefit from artistic license and expression .
This is a live internet for: "the discussion of Athletics (track and field at local, national and International levels), Running (road, cross country, mountain at all distances) and Triathlon / Multisport (Duathlon, Quadrathon)"
It has more in common with other fora and public discussion. There have to be rules about conduct in such for a so that the main purpose of the forum is achieved. No personal abuse is one.

The rules regarding racism, gender, homophobia etc are more or less these: (pinched from Humanities charter)

"Engaging in racism, sexism, etc.: Do not attack or disparage individuals or groups on the basis of characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or membership of the travelling community."

That's pretty clearcut and reasonable. Whether it is said in jest or not, intended is not is irrelevant.

So should I refrain from using the word (to describe those who engage in anti-social behaviour), because for a brief period in time, some people chose to change the meaning to refer to those from the travelling community?

Using it in the definitive (horse) context is fine obviously.

Traveller's would see little difference in the use of it in the other 2 contexts. This is because the use of "knacker" to disparage travelers is an extension of the use of the term to describe perceived urban "scumbags" or those from a low social class.
You could argue that its a grey area I guess. But would using it in that context here be that important to you?.. knowing that it would make members of the travelling community who might wish to use/wish to use the site feel unwelcome? I think you'd drop it willingly.
You'll agree though that many of the posts here are quite clearcut: A recent youtube clip about a traveler cart race with comments on this thread springs to mind.

The other side of the argument is 'the gift of the gab'. Gentle teasing is ingrained in Irish culture, and it's as much part of our heritage as the Irish language. This material used in this teasing (slagging), will pretty much always cross the invisible 'offensive' line, Those who seek to take offence will find a means to do so.

I don't agree. Generally the comment is either disparaging to an individual or group based as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or membership of the travelling community...or it is not disparaging. There will be a relatively small grey area.

Calling someone homo, black, woman, knacker etc in order to mock is disparaging to people from these groups. People from these groups should be free to discuss AR here without having to tolerate this.

I realize that there's a fine line between slagging, bullying and racism, but certainly, Ireland will become a poorer place if we lose our culture of verbal jousting; if we have to stop slagging each other for fear that an independent third-party may take offence.

(In Fairness, having the AR forum be a welcoming place for people to discuss AR, will have absolutely no effect on our culture of verbal jousting.)

Guidelines on what constitutes acceptable behavior are not just there to protect people who might be offended. Rather they are there for people who might also be affected, I would say.

The disparaging traveller post I mentioned might affect:

-Offend members of the traveller community. Might mean they don't join or leave the forum.
-People who find racism unpleasant are more likely to leave or contribute less.
-The guys who are likely to post this muck, will be encouraged to keep it going.
-anyone who holds a bigoted opinion of travellers will have his/her opinion validated and re-inforced.
-In general, It reinforces the existing anti-traveller culture here on Boards AR

adrian522

This thread has gone way past the point of ridiculousness now.

notsofast

T runner wrote: »

The disparaging traveller post I mentioned might affect:

-Offend members of the traveller community. Might mean they don't join or leave the forum.
-People who find racism unpleasant are more likely to leave or contribute less.
-The guys who are likely to post this muck, will be encouraged to keep it going.
-anyone who holds a bigoted opinion of travellers will have his/her opinion validated and re-inforced.
-In general, It reinforces the existing anti-traveller culture here on Boards AR

Could be wrong.... but I would imagine that you could count on the fingers of one hand the members of the travelling community that chose A/R as their sporting interest or are users of this forum.

I am genuinely really surprised at the last assertion above. Don't think i have EVER seen anything that could be construed as "anti-traveller" on here. Sure you're not getting mixed up with The Journal?

T runner

notsofast wrote: »

Could be wrong.... but I would imagine that you could count on the fingers of one hand the members of the travelling community that chose A/R as their sporting interest or are users of this forum.

I don't get your point here. Are you implying that because they are low in numbers the protections that other groups get (in theory) shouldn't apply to them?

I am genuinely really surprised at the last assertion above. Don't think i have EVER seen anything that could be construed as "anti-traveller" on here. Sure you're not getting mixed up with The Journal?

Didn't you look at the post I linked? If you were a member here who was a traveller would you be OK with that? Would you feel welcome?

Ososlo

notsofast wrote: »

I am genuinely really surprised at the last assertion above. Don't think i have EVER seen anything that could be construed as "anti-traveller" on here. Sure you're not getting mixed up with The Journal?

Not sure about that. It might not be a daily occurence but I have come across many gross negative generalisations about members of the travelling community on the forum.

pconn062

adrian522 wrote: »

This thread has gone way past the point of ridiculousness now.

Agreed, while the original purpose of the thread was light-hearted banter it has gone way beyond that point now and I don't think the A/R forum is the place for discussions of traveller rights, sexism, racism etc when more appropriate forums exist, so I'm going to lock it now. If anyone has any issues, PM me.