Alright squire

Spider Web

pearcider wrote: »

Well I thought it was hilarious. To take that article seriously you'd have to be one of these types who gets offended at everything. It's muppets like that who will lead us all into an Orwellian nightmare in the near future.

No you really wouldn't. It was serious so what's wrong with taking it seriously? You're saying someone who is Irish and doesn't appreciate insults thrown at them (no need to get hysterical, i agree, but nothing wrong with just objecting to it) is the type who gets offended at everything - that's just a wilfully dishonest thing to say.

The only muppets who'll lead us into an Orwellian nightmare are people who force Stalinist communism on us. "Orwellian" is a very misused term.

Spider Web

Emperor Qianlong wrote: »

Is your self esteem so low that you refuse to take offence to an article that is deliberately written to offend your entire nation?
Maybe we should start taking more offence to this type of stuff, been going on for long enough. As someone mentioned if it were aimed at any other group it would be considered criminal.

You remind me of the Irish lads back in the day who used to tell the Irish jokes. Completely unaware they were designed to make them look like ignorant paddys.

To be fair to pearcider, I don't see an issue with them not taking offence - if they don't feel offended, that's fair enough, they don't feel offended.

What's out of line by them though is to make out that those who object to it are super sensitive and want to quash freedom of speech. Nonsensical leap. I note the defence of freedom of speech only in one direction too (critics of the article are also just exercising their freedom of speech). I also agree it's one thing not to be offended, but for an Irish person to *praise* the article... strange at best. But not surprising.

pearcider

Emperor Qianlong wrote: »

Is your self esteem so low that you refuse to take offence to an article that is deliberately written to offend your entire nation?
Maybe we should start taking more offence to this type of stuff, been going on for long enough. As someone mentioned if it were aimed at any other group it would be considered criminal.

You remind me of the Irish lads back in the day who used to tell the Irish jokes. Completely unaware they were designed to make them look like ignorant paddys.

Yes my self esteem is so low

I actually doubt if the article was aimed at some other nation it would get suppressed too but yes that would bother me too. No nation should be immune to criticism especially when it's hilariously over the top. God you're so precious.

Are you talking about the paddy Irish man jokes etc. like to be fair some of them are pretty funny it's all in the telling!

Spider Web

I'd say it would definitely be suppressed if aimed at certain other nations... that's if it got the go-ahead to be published at all.

Yeah Paddy Irishman jokes can be funny - because they're jokes, this isn't.

I just dislike when people slate entire nations and the way some are fair game. E.g. the U.S. Constant reference to 300 million people as stupid is what's stupid. Constructive criticism and mindless insults are not the same thing.

An Claidheamh

pearcider wrote: »

It's not about bending over and being put down. It's about having the self confidence to take a good slagging and not having it affect you in the slightest. I take issue with the fact the article has now been censored and I can't show it to other people. It's just another attack on freedom of speech by these so called liberals (who not unlike the communists of the late 19th century are actually control freaks) who control the media in the western world.

Barrage of insults? Please. It was a funny and welll written article. Get over it.

You need to grow up Pearcider.

Liberals? Communists? Orwellian?

This was an (breathtakingly) ignorant hate mongerer who believes that Ireland, Éire, should be "loyal" to Britain.

He is a deluded British supremacist.

In my experience those that defend anti-Irish British people are usually, themselves afraid of the British racists, via an inferiority complex and indeed actually criticise Irish xenophobia.

Also, in my experience the British "banter brigade" get very upset and aggressive when someone makes jokes about them or supports the team they're playing against.


A lot of credit must go to Philip Boucher Hayes @boucherhayes, who contacted this sites British only sponsors about them.


By the way, other "writers" on that site supported this "Browne" person if he actually exists.

It's a small British nationalist operation that site, just like stormfront, they caused too much problems in our country in the past, they need to be put in their place, not defended.

An Claidheamh

An Claidheamh wrote: »

It's a small British nationalist operation that site, just like stormfront, they caused too much problems in our country in the past, they need to be put in their place, not defended.

Is it just like Stormfront? Thought that was a seriously racist site, didn't realise it contained much lighter chiding.

Arra, no matter how much people insist I should be outraged, I can't get too upset about poking fun at Varadkar, our weather, boarded up mansions in Rathkeale and the fondness for vulgar houses by developer types. I'd be annoyed if they reached for certain tropes, like the old Punch caricatures of us as stupid savages.

pearcider

To call it "hate mongering" is so ott and to be honest disingenuous. God almighty it was a funny article. If it was written in the 1840s I might see your point. But hate mongering on the poor old Irish one of the richest nations on earth? Give me a break. Make no mistake, this type of censorship will lead to worse things. We are on the abyss of the end of western civilisation and the free expression it relies upon.

Samaris

Mind you, there's really no winning with these debates.


Offended? - Ugh, get over yourselves, thin-skinned pansies!
Not offended enough? - Is your self-esteem so low that you find this okay?
Take it as having some elements of truth to it? - Self-hating Irishman! And probably a west Brit.
Snark that he didn't manage to pick up on actually accusable things - What sort of Irish person feels that something like this wasn't insulting enough?!
Take it as a load of bollocks to be slagged off - actually, been okay with this, but probably just because no-one's noticed enough to come up with a good accusation. It would probably be "not taking insult to one's nation strongly enough" though.
Amused and thought it was well-written - Passive Irish!

We really don't need to be insulted from outside, we're pretty darn good at insulting ourselves mostly!

Spider Web

pearcider wrote: »

Make no mistake, this type of censorship will lead to worse things. We are on the abyss of the end of western civilisation and the free expression it relies upon.

What? What western government is suppressing what people say? Criticism of western governments on social media is relentless - the Irish and British governments would be blamed for anything short of the weather. And despite what some say, there is endless freedom to poke fun at the US president. A publication pulling an article because people being highly critical of it is damaging to their image and thus ad revenue *is not suppression of freedom of speech*.

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

Mind you, there's really no winning with these debates.

Offended? - Ugh, get over yourselves, thin-skinned pansies!
Not offended enough? - Is your self-esteem so low that you find this okay?
Take it as having some elements of truth to it? - Self-hating Irishman! And probably a west Brit.
Snark that he didn't manage to pick up on actually accusable things - What sort of Irish person feels that something like this wasn't insulting enough?!
Take it as a load of bollocks to be slagged off - actually, been okay with this, but probably just because no-one's noticed enough to come up with a good accusation. It would probably be "not taking insult to one's nation strongly enough" though.
Amused and thought it was well-written - Passive Irish!

We really don't need to be insulted from outside, we're pretty darn good at insulting ourselves mostly!

Fair point. Tbh when I first read it, I thought hmmmmmm. So no real issue with anyone who continues to think of it like that. The author was certainly pushing the envelope.

And, as you suggest, whether one objects to it contents or not, I thought it was well written.

osarusan

Samaris wrote: »

Mind you, there's really no winning with these debates.


Offended? - Ugh, get over yourselves, thin-skinned pansies!
Not offended enough? - Is your self-esteem so low that you find this okay?
Take it as having some elements of truth to it? - Self-hating Irishman! And probably a west Brit.
Snark that he didn't manage to pick up on actually accusable things - What sort of Irish person feels that something like this wasn't insulting enough?!
Take it as a load of bollocks to be slagged off - actually, been okay with this, but probably just because no-one's noticed enough to come up with a good accusation. It would probably be "not taking insult to one's nation strongly enough" though.
Amused and thought it was well-written - Passive Irish!

Indeed.

Everybody is offended but me.

Emperor Qianlong

If that article had been written about Jewish people, the Israelis would have Mossad in after the author

Emperor Qianlong

Emperor Qianlong wrote: »

If that article had been written about Jewish people, the Israelis would have Mossad in after the author

Ach, doubt they would. There is a large percentage of the Israeli population who wouldn't rush to the trenches if someone said "your weather is awful hot and your Prime Minister is a moron".

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ach, doubt they would. There is a large percentage of the Israeli population who wouldn't rush to the trenches if someone said "your weather is awful hot and your Prime Minister is a moron".

There was a slight suggestion of 'your country shouldn't exist' which might have been less favourably received.

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

There was a slight suggestion of 'your country shouldn't exist' which might have been less favourably received.

Missed that, but just scanned it. Could you point to the paragraph or line that said that? Thanks.

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Missed that, but just scanned it. Could you point to the paragraph or line that said that? Thanks.

It's been deleted now but there were at least three clear suggestions that it's not a real country, on top of using an inappropriate name throughout.

riffmongous

I have to say I loved the last paragraph, the whole 'they'll come crawling back and we'll reject them' thing, pathetic and delusional, like a dumped 14 year old

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

Missed that, but just scanned it. Could you point to the paragraph or line that said that? Thanks.

There was this

Eire’s history is basically British – before that it was a bunch of warring families and a corrupt church involved in an incessant spiral of gob****eing and slaying – certainly not a nation.

Avatar MIA

pickarooney wrote: »

It's been deleted now but there were at least three clear suggestions that it's not a real country, on top of using an inappropriate name throughout.

Keeping to the Israeli parallel, it would have been suggesting Israel, get some sense and show loyalty to the Arab world and rejoin Palestine and the Muslim world. Yeah, any day now...

Samaris

There is an important context issue though. Israel are still feeling under constant threat and there is a credible chance of their country being wiped out by one surrounding countries without a certain amount of heavy weaponry and general paranoia - also some fairly divisive internal issues about whether dropping bombs on civilians is really a decent thing to be doing. Also, the whole Holocaust issue within living memory is enough to leave a nation just a tad on edge already without assholes writing nasty screeds implying that they shouldn't exist and are worthless. Jewish people over Europe have enough experience of the start of whispering campaigns and media mudflinging and what it can lead to that being aggravated by it would be rather understandable. (It's a bit awkward to treat "Israel" and "Jewish people" in the same paragraph as the two aren't really the same thing, so hope that made sense)

Whereas for us, this guy is some eejit writing for a rag that no-one had heard of before yesterday in the UK. Nothing he could possibly say, up to and including advocating another Famine, has the remotest possibility of causing any actual harm. There is very little anti-Irish sentiment out there to feed upon. No-one cares. Now, if it was sixty plus years ago, when there was still real anti-Irish sentiment against a country that could barely support itself, where such vile bull**** could cause real harm to people,(particularly Irish immigrants to the UK), with the Famine and all the resentment around it still in living or close-to-living memory, oh, you can bet I'd be pissed off.

So why I might look down on it for kicking down - i.e. picking a target that could conceivably come to harm by it, - when it's just kicking wildly I'm really not that worried. It says very little for him, but that's his problem.

For what it's worth, my partner is more on the aggravated side about it, so I do see that point on it too. Objectively, it was a pretty ****ty thing to write. But yes, I would be more -angry- if it was written about people for whom it could conceivably cause actual harm or fear rather than if it's directed at a people who cannot possibly be materially harmed by it.

Avatar MIA

What you say about Israel is true, Samaris.

However, don't forget our country is divided with British rule in a fifth of the island, and for him then to say the rest should get their act together and rejoin the UK, it's not without provocation.

dd972

What makes me laugh about 'Middle England' or 'The Shires' to those less acqauinted with the culture over the water is the arrogance and highfalutin notions it has of itself and Daily Telegraph bedrocks like Surrey or Hampshire, compared to the sorts of places you can see on the continental mainland like The South of France, Munich, Vienna, Strasbourg, Paris, etc, these places are both dull as ditchwater and absolute sh!te.

Samaris

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What you say about Israel is true, Samaris.

However, don't forget our country is divided with British rule in a fifth of the island, and for him then to say the rest should get their act together and rejoin the UK, it's not without provocation.

That is true, and there is historical context. But there is still no way that Ireland is going to rejoin the UK, nor any reasonably foreseeable chance of anything awful enough to make it likely happening.

Nah, I have no issue with people thinking it was an outrageous bit of trolling in a magazine that should have known better. It was nasty-minded, spiteful, somewhat nonsensical and insulting. Since it didn't really have a point or actually go anywhere, it is hard to see it as anything but provocation for provocation's sake and I don't think much of him as a writer or a person for it.

However, for me, the target one picks for one's nonsense is important. I'll be a lot more inclined to get angry at kicking down at someone who could be injured over kicking wildly at someone who can't be touched. They have every right to be annoyed that someone's kicking at all, though!

Nekarsulm

Samaris wrote: »

I am amused how he gives out about the Irish dairy but then lauds Northern Irish dairy products. Is the difference in the political affiliation of the cows?

How little he knows. The local Co Op here in Cavan had the contract to make the butter for all HM's Prisons.

Samaris

https://countrysquire.co.uk/2017/08/12/outrage-merchants-hit-csm/

And they're back and swinging! Honestly, the language and petulance in that editorial is very telling. I did actually think that Country Squire Magazine was a small but generally reputable outlet that had a lunatic day, but it's looking rather more like a minor clickbait website.

But the whole defensive, self-righteous spiel about fighting racists and how anyone that dislikes what they have to say should "grow up" while conveniently ignoring that the article was just plain bigoted (as well as ridiculous) and implying that they are fighting some noble battle against the forces of censorship and outrage is just laughable.

These guys are clickbait artists. The quality of writing is lousy and it wasn't a great deal better in the Browne article. He had some funny moments, but reread it and note how it doesn't go anywhere, it doesn't prove any points - it doesn't really make any points to prove - it is factually inaccurate (Britain is not our largest export partner, it's not even our largest EU partner, and it's not 50%) in the few lines that don't rely on diddly-aye stereotypes. It's just lazy.

As for the Editor's comment, it was a page and a half of Noble Oppressed Victim Whining. If you publish provocation for provocation's sake claiming free speech and "saying what no-one else will say" (could that be because other people aren't assholes?), you don't get to be taken seriously in whinging when people retort.

Avatar MIA

Can they do anything right. The Irish Times Hyperlink links to the Irish Post (as of writing).

It's only on the go since Nov '17. To be honest,

Click Bait 1 - 0 Journalism

tea and coffee

I won't quote Samaris' post above, but in reference to it. On one hand they defend Jim and his/ their right to write, yet he resigned (was asked to leave).
Seems strange.

gctest50

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Can they do anything right. The Irish Times Hyperlink links to the Irish Post (as of writing).

It's only on the go since Nov '17. To be honest,

Click Bait 1 - 0 Journalism

That oul proofreading does be quare tricky at times you see

Samaris

tea and coffee wrote: »

I won't quote Samaris' post above, but in reference to it. On one hand they defend Jim and his/ their right to write, yet he resigned (was asked to leave).
Seems strange.

Felt like they went into panic mode and took down the article/ (requested/accepted) Browne's resignation, but after sleeping on it and some mental puffing up into a state of aggrieved victimhood, they're going for petulant belligerence.

Honestly, I have read a very similar screed more times than I can conveniently remember. It's built on a template!

- We're sorry for what we did.
- But people get soooo wound up at simple plain speaking...
- And OUTRAGE MERCHANTS came to get us!
- This is so unfair.
- FREE SPEECH!
- How dare you get bolshy about our free speech!
- (Shut up, I get free speech, you might have the right to reply but...waaaah, your responses mean I have to defend my free speech and that's not fair!)
- Well, SOME people with a SENSE OF HUMOUR liked it so OBVIOUSLY there was nothing wrong...
- Quote from helpful screed.
- Noble Oppressed Victimhood, fighting against Racism (good job there guys, good job) and Outrage.
- We will CONTINUE to RUFFLE FEATHERS and PROD BUTTOCK.
- Mean "journalists" were horrible to us. Dig at journalists for paying attention.
- Oh, sorry if you were offended.
- Nyeh.
- /Enter

The article really wasn't worth the amount of wailing. Either they get why it was an idiotic and offensive article or they don't. If they do, then they should apologise, remove it and shut up for a bit. If they don't, they shouldn't have gone into panic mode. Removing it and then playing the oppressed victim of PC oppression is forum-grade internet warrior nonsense.

Katgurl

I am very confused. If Country Squire is in full support of the original article, why was the writer asked to tender his resignation?