Things the PC brigade don't want to hear or admit

Potential-Monke

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There isn't an excuse. If you're doing it, you're a racist, or a bigot, go ahead and choose whichever word you'd prefer for yourself.

Well, they're not a race so can't be racist. They're an ethnic minority, so not sure what the term is for that. And bigotry is "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself". I couldn't care less about their beliefs, so i'm not a bigot either. And it's not an intolerance, it's a dislike, that's different.

And I said that there possibly are 'good' travellers, I just haven't met any. You know what's also a fact? I don't trust them. I have no reason to, because I've seen first hand what they are capable of (9 years as a Garda).

Either way, my opinion on it doesn't matter. The issues they face they have to deal with themselves. Sort out their internal issues, and then maybe the general populace would be more accepting of them. Right now, I have no reason to trust a traveller.

Can I not have an opinion? I've never preached to get people to agree with my view, I've only ever given my opinion based on personal and professional experience over 10 years. I don't expect anyone else to have the same opinion, although it seems the vast majority do. We all can't be wrong.

vriesmays

Lowest IQ In the world is Africa - must be all the white settlers diluting the gene pool.

HorrorScope

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Don't forget the other common denominator here - You.

If you have a problem with every one, maybe it's time to question whether you are the problem.

Reminds me of a guy I worked with who was convinced he was being bullied by maybe half-a-dozen dozen people in work, and this pattern had been arising in his previous employments too -- he was genuinely convinced he was a lifelong victim.

It hadn't occurred to him that he was widely disliked for his abrasive, obtuse, belligerent personality, and it was that which caused trouble to follow him around from job to job.

The same phenomenon is regularly seen on this website, with a small number of extremely hostile people repeatedly having run-ins with mods and other posters, and insisting they are victims of bullying/injustice. Bizarre.

I didn’t ask travellers to steal my dog from the front garden.

I didn’t ask travellers to break in to my shed and steal power tools while the house was unattended.

My grandmother didn’t ask travellers to rob her of 6k for a non existent job.

I didn’t ask travellers to come to my door and intimidate me one night because I’d asked one of the ***** earlier in the day to move his hiace from in front my of driveway.

I didn’t ask to get in a fight with 3 travellers one night who jumped on my back and sucker punched me, because I’d asked one of their younger crotch droppings to stop kicking a ball off my house.

My interactions with them were as civil could be, so explain how I’m somehow the one agitating these ****ers? The people here singing the praises of this brilliant “culture” are ****ing spoofers.

Montage of Feck

The PlayStation 5 will be more powerful than a PC.

Bonniedog

bubblypop wrote: »

There are no 'African gangs '
There are, no doubt, gangs of young lads hanging around getting into trouble, same as there has been in Ireland for generations.

There's been African gangs in Ireland for generations!

Jayus, you learn something new every day.


What prompted their recent decision to become more visible, in your opinion?

Potential-Monke

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Well, they're not a race so can't be racist. They're an ethnic minority, so not sure what the term is for that. And bigotry is "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself". I couldn't care less about their beliefs, so i'm not a bigot either. And it's not an intolerance, it's a dislike, that's different.

Racism also applies to individuals of different ethnic or geographic origins, you're using a literalist interpretation which is the semantic equivalent of clutching at straws. See also, bigot.


BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

HorrorScope

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Racism also applies to individuals of different ethnic or geographic origins you're using a literalist interpretation which is the semantic equivalent of clutching at straws. See also, bigot.

No it doesn’t, it has a clear set definition depending on race (hint: that’s why it’s called race-ism). Talk about clutching at straws :rolleyes:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

the beer revolu

I'm not a racist, I'm a bigot!

Gregor Samsa

HorrorScope wrote: »

No it doesn’t, it has a clear set definition depending on race (hint: that’s why it’s called race-ism). Talk about clutching at straws :rolleyes:

This feeble denial of racism Is where the real straw clutching lies:

https://www.upworthy.com/pulling-out-the-dictionary-definition-of-racism-is-a-surefire-sign-that-you-dont-understand-racism

Omackeral

HorrorScope wrote: »

because I’d asked one of their younger crotch droppings to stop kicking a ball off my house.

Potential-Monke

Wait, so Traveller is a race but Irish is not? I'm beginning to think racism is now defined by a persons personal take on it...

BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I never said I hate them, or i'm intolerant to them. I dislike them. I'm willing to have my opinion changed, but only travellers changing can change my opinion, because all their issues are put back on people like me and never internally.

Call me/think of me what you will, couldn't care less. I've more important things to be thinking about, such as adhering to the law. I'm out.

HorrorScope

phutyle wrote: »

This feeble denial of racism Is where the real straw clutching lies:

https://www.upworthy.com/pulling-out-the-dictionary-definition-of-racism-is-a-surefire-sign-that-you-dont-understand-racism

Equating a set definition of racism, with an open ended disorder like anxiety...I hope nobody got paid for that desperate ****pile of words.

Woke Hogan

"I'm not a racist because the dictionary says so" isn't as convincing as "I'm not a racist because I don't hold any racist views."

HorrorScope

Woke Hogan wrote: »

"I'm not a racist because the dictionary says so" isn't as convincing as "I'm not a racist because I don't hold any racist views."

Before you go throwing around the racism tag like it’s going out of fashion, please explain how racism works in relation to Irish travellers a.k.a caucasian and normal Irish (also caucasian). The mental gymnastics should be amusing at the least

Bonniedog

Someone in UCD decided that travellers were an ethnic group, and then proceeded to persuade travellers who make a living out of being travellers that persuading other travellers that they were an ethnic group would generate a sort of mini economy around traveller ethnicity.

No actual traveller had ever claimed to be a part of a separate ethnic group prior to this.

You have to hand it to them. It was a good plan.

Now it is racist to claim that travellers are not a group which is distinct from the rest of the Irish people.

30 years ago it was racist to claim that travellers were a group distinct from the rest of the Irish people.

You probably need to be a lecturer in social "science" to understand how that came to be.

HorrorScope

HorrorScope wrote: »

Before you go throwing around the racism tag like it’s going out of fashion, please explain how racism works in relation to Irish travellers a.k.a caucasian and normal Irish (also caucasian). The mental gymnastics should be amusing at the least

There's no substantive difference in the behaviour of the culprit.

Expressing discrimination and prejudice against a person based on their race is no less acceptable than expressing discrimination and/ or prejudice against a person based on their ethnicity.

So what substantive point are you making here, that discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is somehow more acceptable? Or has this debate suddenly awoken in you a dormant interest in linguistics?

The word 'racist has evolved as race theory has evolved. Social scientists have largely moved away from archaic racial theories of 100 years ago, and it's now accepted that classifications as to race are largely arbitrary and difficult to delineate (not only does race exist along a continuum, but why should we choose to classify people based on skin pigmentation as opposed to, say, the shape of the ear-lobe or their eye-colour?)

With this in mind, the term racist has evolved and doesn't necessarily refer to 'race' in that traditional sense.

But I'm sure many of us are happy to ignore this and use the word bigot, instead.

the beer revolu

I don't ever recall having to claim that I am not a racist.

Andreas77

This has reminded me of several ex-friends who always made remark when criticism of antisemitism was made that Jews are not actually a "race". I have disassociated from same due to peer pressure and differences of opinion.

Bonniedog

Tyrant -

If race is a "social construct" as you seem to imply, then why all the bother to go and create a new ethnicity!

You are contradicting yourself.

And if race is a "social construct" then why are American blacks and Latinos given quotas in universities while American Asians and Jews are denied places because they are "over-represented"?

discrimination based on race might be lefti flavour of the month now, but it has a bad history. Jews seem to have managed to be on the wrong end of both!

HorrorScope

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There's no substantive difference in the behaviour of the culprit.

Expressing discrimination and prejudice against a person based on their race is no less acceptable than expressing discrimination and/ or prejudice against a person based on their ethnicity.

So what substantive point are you making here, that discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is somehow more acceptable? Or has this debate suddenly awoken in you a dormant interest in linguistics?

The word 'racist has evolved as race theory has evolved. Social scientists have largely moved away from archaic racial theories of 100 years ago, and it's now accepted that classifications as to race are largely arbitrary and difficult to delineate (not only does race exist along a continuum, but why should we choose to classify people based on skin pigmentation as opposed to, say, the shape of the ear-lobe or their eye-colour?)

With this in mind, the term racist has evolved and doesn't necessarily refer to 'race' in that traditional sense.

But I'm sure many of us are happy to ignore this and use the word bigot, instead.

You can twist and turn it as much as you want with your woke lens, it does not change the fact that racism is exclusively race. If it involved ethnicity it would prob be callled ethnicism wouldn’t it? It doesn’t - therefore whatever you interpret it to mean is your own definition.

And if you want to call me a “bigot” in relation to travellers I’m absolutely fine with that. **** them.

Signore Fancy Pants

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Individual Travellers who haven't ever done a thing wrong should be tainted by the wider perception of the Travelling community then, is what you're saying. You know, there are two words I'm thinking of that describe that point of view, they both start with "R."

The snowflake brigade really are out in force in this discussion. They just can't hear or admit it when someone who's not afraid to cut through the bull**** tells it like it is. :D:D

Sigh.

The using of buzzwords in efforts to discredit other opinions is a sure sign of someone who cant handle another point of view. Unless they are invested somehow.

Constantly hiding behind buzzwords, what are you like! :pac: A true internet warrior.

Its not racist or bigotry to factually highlight the way some travellers negatively interact with some "settled people". Id hazard that some peoples negative opinions of travellers are from first hand experience with them.

I do wholeheartedly agree that not all travellers are bad, of course they are not and it would be absurd to think so. I dont agree that they should all be lumped into the one pile but what have they done to change the perception? I have no first hand evidence of it.

Additionally, I dont believe "Settled people" are the problem nor are they the ones who need to make the effort. Travellers have had a negative effect on my life, not the other way around and I wont bow down to the PC Brigade incase Im called "racist" or a "bigot". Call me what you want, its a byproduct of traveller exposure.

I will change my attitude to travellers once I have a good experience with them, until then, I will look at them in the context of what I know them as, thieves, conmen, intimidators and chancers....and thats not my doing, its theirs.

If you ask me would I choose to live next to a squeeky clean traveller with a flawless reputation who has successfully integrated into wider society? Id say yes. Would I choose to live next to a troublesome traveller, id say no....same goes for "settled people".

Now, continue on with your "snowflake" retorts and your "cutting through the bull****" rhetoric, its boring at this stage. Adieu, le petit hommes.

joe40

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There's no substantive difference in the behaviour of the culprit.

Expressing discrimination and prejudice against a person based on their race is no less acceptable than expressing discrimination and/ or prejudice against a person based on their ethnicity.

So what substantive point are you making here, that discriminating on the basis of ethnicity is somehow more acceptable? Or has this debate suddenly awoken in you a dormant interest in linguistics?

The word 'racist has evolved as race theory has evolved. Social scientists have largely moved away from archaic racial theories of 100 years ago, and it's now accepted that classifications as to race are largely arbitrary and difficult to delineate (not only does race exist along a continuum, but why should we choose to classify people based on skin pigmentation as opposed to, say, the shape of the ear-lobe or their eye-colour?)

With this in mind, the term racist has evolved and doesn't necessarily refer to 'race' in that traditional sense.

But I'm sure many of us are happy to ignore this and use the word bigot, instead.

Yeah I would agree with that the term racism is largely a misnomer, there is only one race in our species. So racism is probably more accurately just discrimination for any number of reasons.

In terms of travellers, I'm pretty much a fully paid up member of the PC brigade, but there is an awful lot to be critical of in relation to traveller culture.
Animal rights issues, domestic abuse, extreme patriarchy, not sending kids to school. These are all things disproportionately present in traveller culture compared to settled population.
These are things which leaders in the travelling community need to be tackling and I just don't see enough evidence of this.
I have nothing against individual travellers, and there are difficulties that they face but some problems also need to be solved from within.
Engagement with education would be a good start.

Gregor Samsa

HorrorScope wrote: »

You can twist and turn it as much as you want with your woke lens, it does not change the fact that racism is exclusively race. If it involved ethnicity it would prob be callled ethnicism wouldn’t it?

But racism isn’t exclusively race. That’s the point. We didn’t need to invent a new word for being bigoted against a different ethnicity, it because we already had on that covers it just fine.

Other than that, your argument basically is “I’m so offended! You’re calling me the wrong kind of bigot.”

jim salter

I'm only aware of one race = the human race.

Funny thing about travelers and the recognition of their "unique ethnic identity" is that it was just that recognition. There is no amendment in law.

In 2017 an article stated : "A report recommending recognition was brought to Cabinet on Tuesday by Minister of State with Responsibility for Equality David Stanton. It stressed recognition of Traveller ethnicity would neither confer new rights on the community nor mean any extra costs. No objections were raised at Cabinet." this does not seem to be the reality of the situation.

Regarding travelers - I do not accept that they contribute to Irish society in a positive way and any negatives are not contributions.

Jimmy Garlic

Travellers are no more a distinct ethnic group than people from Roscommon. They are a bunch of Irish family's with typically Irish family names who decided to hit the road a few hundred years back and only ride each other from that point forward.

Bonniedog

Bonniedog wrote: »

Someone in UCD decided that travellers were an ethnic group, and then proceeded to persuade travellers who make a living out of being travellers that persuading other travellers that they were an ethnic group would generate a sort of mini economy around traveller ethnicity.

No actual traveller had ever claimed to be a part of a separate ethnic group prior to this.

You have to hand it to them. It was a good plan.

Now it is racist to claim that travellers are not a group which is distinct from the rest of the Irish people.

30 years ago it was racist to claim that travellers were a group distinct from the rest of the Irish people.

You probably need to be a lecturer in social "science" to understand how that came to be.

Travellers and the settled population have, for generations, treated one another as 'the other', and have often tended to be suspicious of one another to say the least. Intermarriage with members of the travelling community, for all but the poorest and most marginalised of the 'settled community', has traditionally been a social stigma. The idea of the travelling community as being fundamentally different is a very longstanding perception, although these days most of us are able to appreciate that travellers are our equals as human beings, deserving of dignity and respect.

With contemporary developments in genetic science, it has been shown that the travellers have been a distinct genetic population since the 1650s, around the time of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.

https://www.rcsi.ie/index.jsp?p=164&n=2790&a=10364

Bonniedog wrote: »

Tyrant -

If race is a "social construct" as you seem to imply, then why all the bother to go and create a new ethnicity!

The fact that race is an incoherent and arbitrary human construction doesn't de-legitimise the experience of people who are at the receiving end of abuse because of that construction.

That's the only useful reason for still referring to race and ethnicity -- to observe and record abuses of power by dominant groups in society towards minorities. Being 'black' or 'a traveller' isn't really a useful designation which is capable of predicting something about an individual -- it's only useful at an aggregate level to observe wider social trends based on our perceptions of race or ethnicity.

And if you want to call me a “bigot” in relation to travellers I’m absolutely fine with that. **** them.

Very well.

You are a bigot. Excuse me if I continue to remind you of this, but at least you're fine with it.

jackofalltrades

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

With this in mind, the term racist has evolved and doesn't necessarily refer to 'race' in that traditional sense.

It's evolved in the minds of a small minority you realise they've a potent word on their hands that can stop all debate and want to attach it to other situations to have the same effect.
I've even seen someone on this website trying to get other posters to agree that racism should now include discrimination against people with disabilities.
The definition of an ethnic group is incredibly vague and could conceivably applied to many more groups in this country.
Careful when you make a northsider joke, don't want to be a racist.

It's like everyone being labelled a Nazi and a Fascist these days.
The word loses it's meaning and you end up with the stage where we are at with the word "literally".

And no ideally we shouldn't prejudge people, but try explaining that to people who have had repeated negative(often violent) experiences with travellers.
What would you say to publicans who close their doors when a traveller funeral occurs?
Should they put their morals before the safety of their staff and the continuance of their business?

Jimmy Garlic

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Travellers and the settled population have, for generations, treated one another as 'the other', and have often tended to be suspicious of one another to say the least. Intermarriage with members of the travelling community, for all but the poorest and most marginalised of the 'settled community', has traditionally been a social stigma. The idea of the travelling community as being fundamentally different is a very longstanding perception, although these days most of us are able to appreciate that travellers are our equals as human beings, deserving of dignity and respect.

With contemporary developments in genetic science, it has been shown that the travellers have been a distinct genetic population since the 1650s, around the time of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.

https://www.rcsi.ie/index.jsp?p=164&n=2790&a=10364


The fact that race is an incoherent and arbitrary human construction doesn't de-legitimise the experience of people who are at the receiving end of abuse because of that construction.

That's the only useful reason for still referring to race and ethnicity -- to observe and record abuses of power by dominant groups in society towards minorities. Being 'black' or 'a traveller' isn't really a useful designation which is capable of predicting something about an individual -- it's only useful at an aggregate level to observe wider social trends based on our perceptions of race or ethnicity.

Very well.

You are a bigot. Excuse me if I continue to remind you of this, but at least you're fine with it.

Are people from the Aran islands a distinct ethnic group too so? By that logic they would be. What about people from Navan? A race of their own surely. Where do you draw the line with the ethnic subdivision?

Gregor Samsa

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Travellers are no more a distinct ethnic group than people from Roscommon. They are a bunch of Irish family's with typically Irish family names who decided to hit the road a few hundred years back and only ride each other from that point forward.

And yet unlike people from Roscommon, they have a very distinct culture from settled people. They speak differently, they have a distinct physical appearance. You can easily identify a traveller and distinguish them from settled people.

The ironic thing is that the bigots who claim they’re not a different ethnicity are the ones most obsessed with identifying them and critiquing their culture.

Jimmy Garlic

phutyle wrote: »

And yet unlike people from Roscommon, they have a very distinct culture from settled people. They speak differently, they have a distinct physical appearance. You can easily identify a traveller and distinguish them from settled people.

The ironic thing is that the bigots who claim they’re not a different ethnicity are the ones most obsessed with identifying them and critiquing their culture.

People from Donegal speak differently hi. That doesn't make one a different ethnicity. Neither does being a part of a subculture.