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

the mcgintys from down home all look alike and talk the same

are the mcgintys a subculture now

should they apply for it

Mad_maxx

Appears the smuggeratti have emptied the room with their relentless hectoring of anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Irish Times and rte meme on this topic

Worked well with Peter casey last October

Irish Guitarist

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

I'm willing to bet that if the American writer of that article ever encountered a traveller they'd have absolutely no clue how they were any different to any other white Irish person with white privilege and would be baffled at your definition of racism.

wakka12

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This thread is mind-numbing.

People actually defending discrimination of travellers because employers have had bad experiences -- this is exactly how racists speak everywhere in the world. You don't get a free pass from being a racist because a lot of people agree with your degenerate opinions.

Im sure you mean well but all that is is just words. Would you put your money where your mouth is and take on the liability of hiring a traveller in your own business for instance? Would you take that chance on your livelihood just to try to be nice? Its easy to have an opinion on this when thats not a reality for you, that youre not losing out at all by saying travellers should be hired and embraced with open arms, given the history of the travelling community and their actions its completely understandable that most employers wouldnt want to have the reputation of their business potentially damaged by hiring a traveller

Bonniedog

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Appears the smuggeratti have emptied the room with their relentless hectoring of anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Irish Times and rte meme on this topic

Worked well with Peter casey last October

Not dissimilar to their glorification of the Green woman from Mayo in the Europeans.

She was the brave girl who destroyed Casey, except Casey actually came ahead of her in the election

Times and RTE are caricatures these days. Relentless luuvie propaganda that bears little or no relation to the country as it is.

Mad_maxx

wakka12 wrote: »

Im sure you mean well but its just words. Would you put your money where your mouth is and take on the liability of hiring a traveller in your own business for instance? Would you take that chance on your livelihood just to try to be nice?

He doesn't have to do anything, political correctness is about sounding good on the aprooved causes, doing good is an optional afterthought

Blueshoe

Lefty type males are usually weaker than right thinking males.
Also more prone to infection and experience rejection from the opposite sex more often.

Do tend to be more book smart but their weaknesses and timidness hold them back in comparison.

Mad_maxx

Bonniedog wrote: »

Not dissimilar to their glorification of the Green woman from Mayo in the Europeans.

She was the brave girl who destroyed Casey, except Casey actually came ahead of her in the election

Times and RTE are caricatures these days. Relentless luuvie propaganda that bears little or no relation to the country as it is.

Neither have the slightest interest in listening to the average Irish person, signalling to the rest of their tribe is their only priority

Check out twitter and observe how they all line up on the same side of every current topic any given week from Sean Moncrief to Jennifer o connell , Philip boucher Hayes is a particularly insufferable wankbag, referred to himself as a priveleged white man last week while assuring his tribe he was rock solid behind greta sourface on her yacht journey across the Atlantic

When Jordan Peterson was in Dublin last year, he was first to express his disapproval

Bunch of D4 bubble dwelling phonies talking to each other and nobody else

Mad_maxx

Conservatives tend to be happier than liberals, less angry too

Bonniedog

Bouchier Hayes used to pretty much praise loyalist paramilitaries back in the day. Because that was then the deefur cool thing, poppies and what have you. Although you can bet your ar$e the Bouchier Hayes were too cute to be charging at Germans!

He'd definitely be of the Kent Brockman welcoming our ant overlords if they ever arrived.

Insufferable count. And that's being kind to him.

the-island-man

A lot being said about the integration of travellers, what does that actually mean?

Very hard to integrate a community when most of that community tend to live in caravans among each other.

There's a reason the state allocates a few houses in estates to social housing and does not build or support one big housing estate full of social housing. It's because they're more likely to turn into ghetto's.

So what is the vision? To have a housing estate with a few parking spaces tacked on the end for caravans? Because I'm sure their children would get treated the same as everyone else's!

Mad_maxx

Bonniedog wrote: »

Bouchier Hayes used to pretty much praise loyalist paramilitaries back in the day. Because that was then the deefur cool thing, poppies and what have you. Although you can bet your ar$e the Bouchier Hayes were too cute to be charging at Germans!

He'd definitely be of the Kent Brockman welcoming our ant overlords if they ever arrived.

Insufferable count. And that's being kind to him.

Even his puffy face is annoying

EmmetSpiceland

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Conservatives tend to be happier than liberals, less angry too

You don’t strike me as a particularly “happy” chap, M. In fact, you come across as, not only, angry but furious.

You posted about eight times in a row last night, on this very thread. Gave the impression of someone who was not a very “happy” bunny.

I can only assume you had to give the screen a big wiping down from all the spittle and crisp “bits” that must have built up from the impotent rage being released through all the angry exclamations.

Perhaps you’re a “liberal” after all, maybe you should chill out a bit so you can get back to being a good conservative.

InTheShadows

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This thread is mind-numbing.

People actually defending discrimination of travellers because employers have had bad experiences -- this is exactly how racists speak everywhere in the world. You don't get a free pass from being a racist because a lot of people agree with your degenerate opinions.

Nonsense. Opinions of travellers are based on facts and people's life experience of them, its fcuk all to do with racism.

wakka12

wakka12 wrote: »

Im sure you mean well but all that is is just words. Would you put your money where your mouth is and take on the liability of hiring a traveller in your own business for instance? Would you take that chance on your livelihood just to try to be nice?

Of course these are just words. This is an Internet forum. I am not trying to prove whether or not I have ever lifted my finger in support of travellers -- in fact, let's assume for a moment that I haven't done anything. Where does this line of argument lead us? It leads us to an appeal to hypocrisy, which is a logical fallacy, which can have no bearing on the validity of a proposition.

Even if I were an out-and-out hypocrite who actively hated travellers, my points about the definition of bigotry and the individual value of each human being would stand on their own merits.

So it's not clear what you're getting at in asking this question. If I recount an anecdote, you'll (perhaps, reasonably) discount it as an anecdote, just like I disregard anecdotes in this thread myself.

The point here should be to arrive at certain immutable truths, such as the dignity of the person and the right to live free from discrimination. Those rights are almost absolute.

Blueshoe

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course these are just words. This is an Internet forum. I am not trying to prove whether or not I have ever lifted my finger in support of travellers -- in fact, let's assume for a moment that I haven't done anything. Where does this line of argument lead us? It leads us to an appeal to hypocrisy, which is a logical fallacy, which can have no bearing on the validity of a proposition.

Even if I were an out-and-out hypocrite who actively hated travellers, my points about the definition of bigotry and the individual value of each human being would stand on their own merits.

So it's not clear what you're getting at in asking this question. If I recount an anecdote, you'll (perhaps, reasonably) discount it as an anecdote, just like I disregard anecdotes in this thread myself.

The point here should be to arrive at certain immutable truths, such as the dignity of the person and the right to live free from discrimination. Those rights are almost absolute.

The right to live off the state and never be under any pressure to contribute.

Woke Hogan

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Appears the smuggeratti have emptied the room with their relentless hectoring of anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Irish Times and rte meme on this topic

Worked well with Peter casey last October

Ha ha ha. I doubt you would be objecting if this discussion was carpet bombed by the usual thoughtless Traveller bashing.

Instead the suggestion of nuance is introduced to the Traveller Question and all of the right wing snowflakes are blubbering because they’re being “hectored” and the “Liberals” aren’t nice enough to them. It really is hilarious.

Blueshoe

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Ha ha ha. I doubt you would be objecting if this discussion was carpet bombed by the usual thoughtless Traveller bashing.

Instead the suggestion of nuance is introduced to the Traveller Question and all of the right wing snowflakes are blubbering because they’re being “hectored” and the “Liberals” aren’t nice enough to them. It really is hilarious.

Do you spend your days flicking between CNN and fox news.

Littlehorny

the-island-man wrote: »

A lot being said about the integration of travellers, what does that actually mean?

Very hard to integrate a community when most of that community tend to live in caravans among each other.

There's a reason the state allocates a few houses in estates to social housing and does not build or support one big housing estate full of social housing. It's because they're more likely to turn into ghetto's.

So what is the vision? To have a housing estate with a few parking spaces tacked on the end for caravans? Because I'm sure their children would get treated the same as everyone else's!

I think I read somewhere a while back that 87% of travellers are settled travellers so the term traveller shouldn't really be given to them.

d8491prj5boyvg

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course these are just words. This is an Internet forum. I am not trying to prove whether or not I have ever lifted my finger in support of travellers -- in fact, let's assume for a moment that I haven't done anything. Where does this line of argument lead us? It leads us to an appeal to hypocrisy, which is a logical fallacy, which can have no bearing on the validity of a proposition.

Even if I were an out-and-out hypocrite who actively hated travellers, my points about the definition of bigotry and the individual value of each human being would stand on their own merits.

So it's not clear what you're getting at in asking this question. If I recount an anecdote, you'll (perhaps, reasonably) discount it as an anecdote, just like I disregard anecdotes in this thread myself.

The point here should be to arrive at certain immutable truths, such as the dignity of the person and the right to live free from discrimination. Those rights are almost absolute.

I think the question "would you hire a traveller" is misleading. It really means would you hire a stranger and all you know about them is that they are a traveller. Of course the answer is no; the stats show a hire proportion are criminals so your risk is higher.

But that's not reality. You have a good idea if a person is good before a hire. Would you hire a good worker who happens to be a traveller? Yes.

seamus

wakka12 wrote: »

Im sure you mean well but all that is is just words. Would you put your money where your mouth is and take on the liability of hiring a traveller in your own business for instance?

Why wouldn't you though? Don't you have a hiring process? Don't you interview people?

If a traveller gets through the interview process and proves he's competent like anyone else, you would turn him down because he's a traveller?

Says more about you than about travellers tbh.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Conservatives tend to be happier than liberals, less angry too

Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

Tchaikovsky

From my observations, and personal experience to an extent, people who discriminate or look down on those they perceive to be 'lesser' than them are not happy with their lives.

the beer revolu

Do people really think that bigotry is somehow divided by class?
There seems to be a perception that so called middle class and upper class people aren't bigots. In my observation discrimination against travelers crosses all sections of society.

I genuinely don't know what class I'd qualify as, anyway.

jmayo

I notice the recurring debate about hiring travellers.

But can I ask what actual jobs could most of them now do ?

They do not have any trades and most have limited education.

Also a large number of them would be totally unsuitable for customer interaction as
a) if they sounded anything like a lot of travellers, the reputation garnered over decades by their fellow travellers would be totally off putting to customers
b) in my experience a sizable number of travellers tend to have feck all people skills and are liable to fly off the handle given any criticism.

the beer revolu

jmayo wrote: »

I notice the recurring debate about hiring travellers.

But can I ask what actual jobs could most of them now do ?

They do not have any trades and most have limited education.

Also a large number of them would be totally unsuitable for customer interaction as
a) if they sounded anything like a lot of travellers, the reputation garnered over decades by their fellow travellers would be totally off putting to customers
b) in my experience a sizable number of travellers tend to have feck all people skills and are liable to fly off the handle given any criticism.

I know a supermarket that has hired two (that I know of) travellers as general workers, including public facing and cash duties. One of these women has a degree in fine art and is a seriously good painter. I have met these people.
I'd hire either of them without hesitation.

the-island-man

Littlehorny wrote: »

I think I read somewhere a while back that 87% of travellers are settled travellers so the term traveller shouldn't really be given to them.

Not much weight in that if you can't reference something! Also what does the term settled mean? Someone could be deemed settled if they are living in the same halting site for years.

As long as Caravans are accepted as a long term viable option for accomodation they will always be discriminated against. It's also what fuels discrimination when they appear to be allowed to live their lives in a way that a person not from the travelling community would not get away with.

Jimmy Garlic

Littlehorny wrote: »

I think I read somewhere a while back that 87% of travellers are settled travellers so the term traveller shouldn't really be given to them.

Precisely. The most stationary nomads on the planet. Just like the word Tinker (not a racist word beardos) went out of use because they don't fix or make buckets and other metal objects anymore.

Littlehorny

Littlehorny wrote: »

I think I read somewhere a while back that 87% of travellers are settled travellers so the term traveller shouldn't really be given to them.

Lots of travellers don't refer to themselves as travellers, they use words like mincéir(í) instead.

The term isn't "given to them", they can call themselves whatever they like.

blanch152

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You're completely missing the point. It's been pointed out so many times by different posters, that it must be deliberate.

There is a disproportionately high incidence of criminality in the traveller community. That is a fact, just like it's a fact that traveller males are 6 - 7 times more likely to die by suicide than the wider population.

We all know the statistics. There are similar si tats in the USA when it comes to black and Hispanic prisoners showing-up disproportionately in their prison stats.

It would be bigoted to discriminate a black person on that basis, in employment or in any other area of social interaction, and the very same goes for individual travellers. They are individual human beings, you cannot claim that it's reasonable to discriminate based on previous experiences of other individuals in that group. That's the most identifiable hallmark of a racist.

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.

On the other hand, if you are a large employer, and you have a policy of not employing people with a criminal record, you are likely to have a lower proportion of traveller employees compared to the population in general.

Are you indirectly discriminating as a result? It is an interesting question.

nkl12xtw5goz70

blanch152 wrote: »

On the other hand, if you are a large employer, and you have a policy of not employing people with a criminal record, you are likely to have a lower proportion of traveller employees compared to the population in general.

Are you indirectly discriminating as a result? It is an interesting question.

If you don't want to hire Travellers, just have a third-level qualification as a job requirement.

Even requiring a Leaving Cert would rule out the vast majority.