The Late Late Show 03-11-17

glenfieldman

Just going to the flicks

DeadHand

This episode highlights the chasm between RTE and the general public who are forced to fund their propaganda efforts.

The pro-Halawi crowd are notable by their silence after his disastrous, transperantly dishonest appearance on the LLS. Even Tubridy's sympathetic approach could not save him from looking every inch the liar he is.

Of course, a few of the more ardent virtue signallers are struggling against the triumph of reason but they've larely been reduced to screaming "racist" at anything that moves in the futile hope of browbeating people back into line.

Good to see the capacity for independent, critical thought remains among the majority despite the flaccid nature of our submissive media and the bullying of arrogant, censorious creeps here and elsewhere.

More importantly, hopefully this episode will result in a harsh light being shone into Clonskeagh by the braver elements of our fourth estate and our security forces in light of the associations revealed by Ibrahim's Jihadic adventure.

In light of recent events in London, Barcelona and New York it's crucial that they do so.

Arghus

The Talking Bread wrote: »

To what extent, in your opinion, can one criticise the protagonist in this case before being halted in their their tracks by the good old racism card.

Talking Bread, I know you addressed your post to RayM, but as someone who had more sympathy, generally, for his point of view, rather than the other side - I just want to give my two cents.

I know you to be a reasonable and articulate poster - in the soccer forum, at least - so all I'm trying to do here is give my point of view. I don't want to really get engaged in a long drawn out forum war about all of this.

Anyways...

Absolutely I think you can have questions - serious questions - about the Halawa case, without being called a racist or an Islamaphobe. There's clearly numerous aspects of the story that deserve greater scrutiny. And - truth be told - while I didn't want to rush to judgement on the guy last night there were certain answers he gave that felt decidedly rehearsed, and I think the truth was caressed on more than one, or even two, occasions - and not for the first time. I don't think that everyone skeptical of his version of events is automatically a racist, not at all.

BUT

There was a sizable minority of people posting on this thread last night who expressed what I would view to be openly racist opinions about him and about his case/story/narrative - most of these have by now been erased from all sight, but they were here.

They were short, pithy, hostile, and very familiar - go back to your own country, jihadi, suicide bomber, etc,etc: You know what I'm talking about. The open hostility and undisguised anger that you can read in those kind of remarks aren't the product of an attempt on the part of the poster to get to an actual objective truth about the situation: but rather the result of easy conclusions, about a complex issue, that are drawn in large part from prior assumptions and prejudices. And, undeniably, some of this is rooted in racism. And you can call this type of knuckle dragging nonsense out, without meaning that everyone is a racist.

And there's a lot of easy assumptions going about. I've talked fairly causally, in work or whatever, with about let's say 9-10 people about the Halawa case - It's not an example with a huge sample size, but I think it's indicative of some things - and most of them have said something like "ah yeah, but he's a terrorist" or "he's probably one of those suicide bombers" and then when I've queried why exactly they've come to that conclusion, most admit they don't know much about it and they are just going on snippets of news they've heard, other conversations or, often, just nothing at all. But they still come out with the "terrorist" stuff, at least at first. I know a lot of it is just joking, but it's still casual racism. It's easy assumptions about something that's genuinely more nuanced than that.

But it's important to give the impression that you have an view, right. That you've reached a verdict - even in casual conversation. And even more so in the environment of boards - whose oxygen is fast and loose opinions. And this drives me occasionally crazy around here - that a large amount of what makes up the content on Boards is just easy, casual, flippant assumptions. Hey, I've been guilty of it too. But I like to think, that I like to think - and occasionally after thinking I can honestly admit, that when it comes to some to complex events: that I haven't got a fucking clue.

But here's the thing: when it comes to the Halawa case - none of us do really. All we can assemble is an approximation of the truth, cobbled together from various sources - some are inaccurate, some are accurate, some are biased, some attempt objectivity.

Here's a question - Have you ever had complete, cast-iron, first-hand, intimate knowledge of a situation that became something you read about in the papers? Even the local papers? If you have, then you've probably noticed how even at a very close proximity to the events in question it's impossible for things to be reported with 100% accuracy. Even when there's no agenda in play - certain bits of information fall by the wayside, things get simplified or left out, etc ,etc. Now imagine stories that have to travel across countries, continents, numerous different people and agencies - who all bring their own biases and spin to the information - I wonder how much distortion and noise gets added to the signal along the way. Quite a lot. For that reason I refuse to believe that anyone posting here has a true understanding of the situation in Eygpt, especially as it was four years ago - no matter what side of the political spectrum they are coming from. We are too far removed.

That's not to say that you can't at least try - that you can't get close to knowing what went down over there and what is still going down as we speak, but let's be realistic. I found this part of your post interesting, in how it pertains to this -

This "case" has been going on 4 years, and gathered sustained media presence for the last 2 years in particular, so most people on forums such as this would have a vague idea at least of what the nature of the "case" is so they have fair reason to cast personal judgment, for right or wrong on the topic and it has well passed by the racism stage after 4 years

To cast personal judgement(aside). Now, with all genuine respect - and you are a poster I like - I think that's a naive way of looking at it. You should go over to After Hours and have a look at the Halawa thread. In it, you will find people from both sides of the argument, who can quote you articles, facts, sources - you name it - until they are blue in the face - and the more they profess to know, the more entrenched their position is. The more "knowledge" they have, the more unyielding they are in the face of ambiguity or nuance. Largely, no one is there to have their beliefs challenged, god forbid changed!, or to engage in robust argument - mainly it's an exercise in shouting at other people to tell them how wrong they are. Increasingly on boards, in regards to hot topic issues, personal judgement precedes objectivity. And a great deal of people who have debated this case here are motivated to having their biases reinforced, not challenged. And that's boards in many ways - a place where you go to offensively defend your point of view, not to see whether it bears scrutiny or not. A lot, if not the outright majority, of posters on this thread last night had their mind completely made up about Ibrahim Halawa last night before he even opened his mouth - and a few of them - not all - were racists.

Now, before I get derisively labelled with whatever acronym is deemed appropriate, I fully acknowledge that there's a fair proportion on the liberal side of the fence who are afraid to ask some difficult questions and face uncomfortable truths relevant to this case, but let's not pretend that bigotry doesn't exist and often drives people to hasty conclusions - and some were on full display right here.

RayM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Covering yourself by saying that "most people on here are racist" when the criticism of that bizarre PR exercise last night started so as not to directly call someone out but gather yourself a few "likes" is immature, lazy and frankly pathetic.

I've no interest whatsoever in partaking in lengthy arguments, but if I was interested in gathering "likes" I'd have gone down the racist route like almost every other f*cker. I'll admit, I probably haven't followed the case with anywhere near the forensic levels of detail and cynicism as others appear to have (no idea what motivated them to do so...). But I didn't see a PR exercise or a liar last night - I saw a 21 year old Irishman who was the victim of a huge human rights abuse, deprived of his liberty for four years, not knowing whether he'd ever get home or not. And on this forum, I saw a lot of people going out of their way to pick holes in his story and making sh*tty remarks about his nationality, his sisters, his weight, etc. Now these people are either racists, or they just have f*ck all empathy, full-stop. Pretty grim either way, tbh.

The Talking Bread

Thanks for replying Arghus

Very good post! Some excellent points, most of which I agree, but, as I said, it was really only the whole seemingly generalised racist accusations that the poster threw around on the thread last night which I thought were out of sort.
If you want to cast judgment, entering a thread and throwing the word racist out, when the topic at hand is extremely sensitive, direct it at the posts that you take issue with. Such is the nature of these forums there are going to be a few who take personal issue with such condemnation.

The poster knew that he would incite a reaction from some of those who don't wish to be labelled as such just because they have an opinion on the matter.

He generalised to a large extent and, as I said, it was lazy, immature and pathetic.

It's extremely provocative post designed to garner a thread derailment.

bob50

walshb wrote: »

I just need to challenge this...he’s a sh1t interviewer..no ifs or buts..

Hi thanks

Couldnt agree more abosulute phony interviewer

bob50

DeadHand wrote: »

This episode highlights the chasm between RTE and the general public who are forced to fund their propaganda efforts.

The pro-Halawi crowd are notable by their silence after his disastrous, transperantly dishonest appearance on the LLS. Even Tubridy's sympathetic approach could not save him from looking every inch the liar he is.

Of course, a few of the more ardent virtue signallers are struggling against the triumph of reason but they've larely been reduced to screaming "racist" at anything that moves in the futile hope of browbeating people back into line.

Good to see the capacity for independent, critical thought remains among the majority despite the flaccid nature of our submissive media and the bullying of arrogant, censorious creeps here and elsewhere.

More importantly, hopefully this episode will result in a harsh light being shone into Clonskeagh by the braver elements of our fourth estate and our security forces in light of the associations revealed by Ibrahim's Jihadic adventure.

In light of recent events in London, Barcelona and New York it's crucial that they do so.

Many thanks for your great post

nagdefy

I have been vaguely aware of the Ibrahim Halawa case over the last 4 years, the various trial dates being postponed and so on. However i never took the time to study the case in any great detail.

I missed most of the interview last night but read back over the comments here and watched the interview on player just now. I'll respond without any hint of racism on how the young man presented himself..

In my opinion he spoke well and his countenance didn't display any overt dishonesty. However i do feel his statement about being a 17 year old political novice is irreconcilable with his leadership behaviour at the political protests in Egypt. It feels like large parts of the narrative are missing.

How and ever, this young man has spent 4 years incarcerated, i hope he isn't permanently scarred by his experience and i wish him health and happiness. Perhaps my view is coloured by something i discovered recently while working on my family tree. I had a granduncle who i was always told died of the flu epidemic in 1918. It turned out that as a 17 year old he joined the IRA at the start of the War of Independence. He was beaten to death by the RIC and his body was dumped on our farm. The point being young men do foolish, or sometimes one could argue patriotic in their minds, things and allowance has to be made for that.

As stated earlier i really don't have enough info on this particular case but just my thoughts on the interview last night.

deco nate

Arghus wrote: »

Talking Bread, I know you addressed your post to RayM, but as someone who had more sympathy, generally, for his point of view, rather than the other side - I just want to give my two cents.

I know you to be a reasonable and articulate poster - in the soccer forum, at least - so all I'm trying to do here is give my point of view. I don't want to really get engaged in a long drawn out forum war about all of this.

Anyways...

Absolutely I think you can have questions - serious questions - about the Halawa case, without being called a racist or an Islamaphobe. There's clearly numerous aspects of the story that deserve greater scrutiny. And - truth be told - while I didn't want to rush to judgement on the guy last night there were certain answers he gave that felt decidedly rehearsed, and I think the truth was caressed on more than one, or even two, occasions - and not for the first time. I don't think that everyone skeptical of his version of events is automatically a racist, not at all.

BUT

There was a sizable minority of people posting on this thread last night who expressed what I would view to be openly racist opinions about him and about his case/story/narrative - most of these have by now been erased from all sight, but they were here.

They were short, pithy, hostile, and very familiar - go back to your own country, jihadi, suicide bomber, etc,etc: You know what I'm talking about. The open hostility and undisguised anger that you can read in those kind of remarks aren't the product of an attempt on the part of the poster to get to an actual objective truth about the situation: but rather the result of easy conclusions, about a complex issue, that are drawn in large part from prior assumptions and prejudices. And, undeniably, some of this is rooted in racism. And you can call this type of knuckle dragging nonsense out, without meaning that everyone is a racist.

And there's a lot of easy assumptions going about. I've talked fairly causally, in work or whatever, with about let's say 9-10 people about the Halawa case - It's not an example with a huge sample size, but I think it's indicative of some things - and most of them have said something like "ah yeah, but he's a terrorist" or "he's probably one of those suicide bombers" and then when I've queried why exactly they've come to that conclusion, most admit they don't know much about it and they are just going on snippets of news they've heard, other conversations or, often, just nothing at all. But they still come out with the "terrorist" stuff, at least at first. I know a lot of it is just joking, but it's still casual racism. It's easy assumptions about something that's genuinely more nuanced than that.

But it's important to give the impression that you have an view, right. That you've reached a verdict - even in casual conversation. And even more so in the environment of boards - whose oxygen is fast and loose opinions. And this drives me occasionally crazy around here - that a large amount of what makes up the content on Boards is just easy, casual, flippant assumptions. Hey, I've been guilty of it too. But I like to think, that I like to think - and occasionally after thinking I can honestly admit, that when it comes to some to complex events: that I haven't got a fucking clue.

But here's the thing: when it comes to the Halawa case - none of us do really. All we can assemble is an approximation of the truth, cobbled together from various sources - some are inaccurate, some are accurate, some are biased, some attempt objectivity.

Here's a question - Have you ever had complete, cast-iron, first-hand, intimate knowledge of a situation that became something you read about in the papers? Even the local papers? If you have, then you've probably noticed how even at a very close proximity to the events in question it's impossible for things to be reported with 100% accuracy. Even when there's no agenda in play - certain bits of information fall by the wayside, things get simplified or left out, etc ,etc. Now imagine stories that have to travel across countries, continents, numerous different people and agencies - who all bring their own biases and spin to the information - I wonder how much distortion and noise gets added to the signal along the way. Quite a lot. For that reason I refuse to believe that anyone posting here has a true understanding of the situation in Eygpt, especially as it was four years ago - no matter what side of the political spectrum they are coming from. We are too far removed.

That's not to say that you can't at least try - that you can't get close to knowing what went down over there and what is still going down as we speak, but let's be realistic. I found this part of your post interesting, in how it pertains to this -



To cast personal judgement(aside). Now, with all genuine respect - and you are a poster I like - I think that's a naive way of looking at it. You should go over to After Hours and have a look at the Halawa thread. In it, you will find people from both sides of the argument, who can quote you articles, facts, sources - you name it - until they are blue in the face - and the more they profess to know, the more entrenched their position is. The more "knowledge" they have, the more unyielding they are in the face of ambiguity or nuance. Largely, no one is there to have their beliefs challenged, god forbid changed!, or to engage in robust argument - mainly it's an exercise in shouting at other people to tell them how wrong they are. Increasingly on boards, in regards to hot topic issues, personal judgement precedes objectivity. And a great deal of people who have debated this case here are motivated to having their biases reinforced, not challenged. And that's boards in many ways - a place where you go to offensively defend your point of view, not to see whether it bears scrutiny or not. A lot, if not the outright majority, of posters on this thread last night had their mind completely made up about Ibrahim Halawa last night before he even opened his mouth - and a few of them - not all - were racists.

Now, before I get derisively labelled with whatever acronym is deemed appropriate, I fully acknowledge that there's a fair proportion on the liberal side of the fence who are afraid to ask some difficult questions and face uncomfortable truths relevant to this case, but let's not pretend that bigotry doesn't exist and often drives people to hasty conclusions - and some were on full display right here.

Thanks for you're input Ibrahim

deco nate

nagdefy wrote: »

I have been vaguely aware of the Ibrahim Halawa case over the last 4 years, the various trial dates being postponed and so on. However i never took the time to study the case in any great detail.

I missed most of the interview last night but read back over the comments here and watched the interview on player just now. I'll respond without any hint of racism on how the young man presented himself..

In my opinion he spoke well and his countenance didn't display any overt dishonesty. However i do feel his statement about being a 17 year old political novice is irreconcilable with his leadership behaviour at the political protests in Egypt. It feels like large parts of the narrative are missing.

How and ever, this young man has spent 4 years incarcerated, i hope he isn't permanently scarred by his experience and i wish him health and happiness. Perhaps my view is coloured by something i discovered recently while working on my family tree. I had a granduncle who i was always told died of the flu epidemic in 1918. It turned out that as a 17 year old he joined the IRA at the start of the War of Independence. He was beaten to death by the RIC and his body was dumped on our farm. The point being young men do foolish, or sometimes one could argue patriotic in their minds, things and allowance has to be made for that.

As stated earlier i really don't have enough info on this particular case but just my thoughts on the interview last night.

This is a very strangely worded post?.

nagdefy

deco nate wrote: »

This is a very strangely worded post?.

In what way? I've been writing in this manner all my life and got an A1 in English in my Leaving Cert:D

'Strangely worded' without any examples..

nagdefy

deco nate wrote: »

Thanks for you're input Ibrahim

Ah i see. 'Thank you for you're input Ibrahim.' My post is only 'strangely worded' because you don't agree with it. Well at least my post isn't lacking in basic grammar. Many of us can see both sides of the argument and don't come down strongly on one side or the other.

You give a glib little reply to Arghus who is having a reasoned debate with The Talking Bread. Both posters expressing their point well.

Brian Scan

deco nate wrote: »

Thanks for you're input Ibrahim

What an idiotic post.

mattser

Brian Scan wrote: »

What an idiotic post.

What an idiotic thread. Fight, love in, fight................I'll see myself out.

DeadHand

RayM wrote: »

I'll admit, I probably haven't followed the case with anywhere near the forensic levels of detail and cynicism as others appear to have.

"I know very little about the case but I am certain everyone who disagrees with me is racist".

Islamism is important because it's an ideology inspiring massive and regular bloodshed in the world today- even outside of areas traditionally dominated by Islam.

Soon, this violence may well take root in Ireland as it has in almost every country with a significant Muslim minority

That is why this young man with deep Islamist links is interesting to people.

The issue is the man's ideology.

His race is irrelevant: a non-issue only introduced by the diminishing pro-Halawi crowd in an attempt to stifle a debate they are losing comprehensively.

Ah yes, another LLS thread in the TELEVISION FORUM that never fails to disappoint.

Think it's time for more puppies- here's one standing up, with spears & things :eek::eek::eek:



Here's a more happy Puppy:

Ash.J.Williams

DeadHand wrote: »

"I know very little about the case but I am certain everyone who disagrees with me is racist".

Islamism is important because it's an ideology inspiring massive and regular bloodshed in the world today- even outside of areas traditionally dominated by Islam.

Soon, this violence may well take root in Ireland as it has in almost every country with a significant Muslim minority

That is why this young man with deep Islamist links is interesting to people.

The issue is the man's ideology.

His race is irrelevant: a non-issue only introduced by the diminishing pro-Halawi crowd in an attempt to stifle a debate they are losing comprehensively.

So you're saying Ibrahim is essentially the biggest threat to our national security even though isis are here?

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

So you're saying Ibrahim is essentially the biggest threat to our national security even though isis are here?

I like puppies, like this one- do you?

Mr E

The LLS is over for this week. See you next week, folks.