nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

John Connors is a bit of a wanker

[Deleted User]

That’s it, really.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Summer In the City wrote: »

Haha, we've been here before. Fool me once...

Simple question. Why do 95% of people seem to have overwhelmingly bad or negative experiences when it comes to members of the Travelling community. Straight answer will suffice if you’re up to it.

end of the road

Omackeral wrote: »

I’d love an actual straight answer tbh from EOTR or Summer in the City or Grayson. Why do the overwhelming majority of people you speak to and read about have negative dealings with Traveller people?

how would i know. i wasn't there.

Summer In the City

Omackeral wrote: »

I’d love an actual straight answer tbh from EOTR or Summer in the City or Grayson. Why do the overwhelming majority of people you speak to and read about have negative dealings with Traveller people?

The majority of people I'm friends with in Ireland certainly do not have a blanket problem with all travellers. I grew up between 2 halting sites and never had an ounce of trouble.

The only place I had any problems was working in shops when I was younger. Even here though there was the same problem with settled people.

Has John Connors been convicted of a crime? If not this thread is pure bigotry.

Gravelly

end of the road wrote: »

how would i know. i wasn't there.

I was only lookin for me lost dog boss.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

how would i know. i wasn't there.

That doesn’t make sense. Why do most people, say on here for example (a place you frequent as much as myself), have mostly negative things to say about Traveller folks.

[Deleted User]

Summer In the City wrote: »

Has John Connors been convicted of a crime? If not this thread is pure bigotry.

Racist racist racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!

No, the thread simply said he’s a bit of a wanker. He is. He says wanker things. He defends indefensible things. That gradually evolved into discussing those things. Nowhere did I say he himself was a criminal. You’re simply tripping up over yourself to be play the aul R Card.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

God forbid actual facts and statistics get in the way of being Right On. Travellers aren't Black. They look like any other White Irish person. They're not singled out by an obvious visual difference, so there's that. Ask a Black person who is living in a racist society what the difference would mean if they didn't stand out. As for "Jews"? Well let's go back to Nazi Germany, as you seem hellbent on conflating the Irish experience with that. Nice and emotive BTW *slow handclap*. In Nazi Germany and the lead up to it Jewish people were not over represented among the criminal class or prisoners. Indeed they were so integrated into German society that the Nazis had to invent blood laws among other nonsense to tease out who was a "Jew" and who wasn't. If Jews had been only 1% of the population but 11% of the prison population their propaganda would have written itself. But they weren't and it didn't.

So yeah, try again. Try and explain the disparity between the background Irish population, try to explain why so many Travellers availed of the various leg ups down the years and became, well... contributing Irish people, yet a percentage didn't and perverted their own culture into what we all too often see today as anti social and criminal behaviour.

On a similar topic there was a one in TCD a while back and I think they said she was the first traveller to get a degree there. I know she wasn't. There was another time someone got a Masters and it was "news" but again, I know one traveller with Ph.D and a few others with a Masters, some of them now lecture in 3rd level. Now myself and themselves would disagree a lot about travellers (it's nice being able to label oneself, gives ya a lot more leeway :P ) but it's amazing the difference decent parents, cop-on and not expecting the world to change completely for you can make outcomes so different.

As for John Connors he's buying the success=intelligence fallacy along with his followers.

Summer In the City

Omackeral wrote: »

Racist racist racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!

No, the thread simply said he’s a bit of a wanker. He is. He says wanker things. He defends indefensible things. That gradually evolved into discussing those things. Nowhere did I say he himself was a criminal. You’re simply tripping up over yourself to be play the aul R Card.

I'm not. I didn't play the race card. Do I think you're a bigot? What do you think?

wexie

Omackeral wrote: »

Racist racist racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!

No, the thread simply said he’s a bit of a wanker. He is. He says wanker things. He defends indefensible things. That gradually evolved into discussing those things. Nowhere did I say he himself was a criminal. You’re simply tripping up over yourself to be play the aul R Card.

But have you not noticed it's perfectly A okay to call Joe Blogs (the-white-heterosexual-non-ethnic-minority-member-one) a wanker for being a wanker....

Yet when you call a <insert cause célèbre of the day> a wanker it's automatically only ever and always because they are <insert cause célèbre of the day> and not just cause they're a wanker?

Making you, by default, a racist, bigot, homophobe, islamophobe, misogynist or whatever else?

Summer In the City

wexie wrote: »

But have you not noticed it's perfectly A okay to call Joe Blogs (the-white-heterosexual-non-ethnice-minority-member-one) a wanker for being a wanker....

Yet when you call a <insert cause célèbre of the day> a wanker it's automatically only ever and always because they are <insert cause célèbre of the day> and not just cause they're a wanker?

Making you, by default, a racist, bigot, homophobe, islamophobe, misogynist or whatever else?

There's no problem with calling anyone a wanker if you leave it at that. It becomes problematic when you quantify it with race, sex, creed, sexuality etc... Then it's bigotry.

wexie

Summer In the City wrote: »

There's no problem with calling anyone a wanker if you leave it at that. It becomes problematic when you quantify it with race, sex, creed, sexuality etc... Then it's bigotry.

No it's not, it is when you say they are a wanker BECAUSE of race,sex,creed,sexuality...

Not when you say so and so is a wanker and also happens to be....yada yada yada.

Of course then you can argue over whether or not they are actually a wanker. Which is very much a personal opinion I guess.

But I haven't seen ANYBODY here say 'John Connors is a wanker BECAUSE he is a Traveller' only 'John Connors is a wanker AND a Traveller'

Have you?

Tipsy McSwagger

Summer In the City wrote: »

The majority of people I'm friends with in Ireland certainly do not have a blanket problem with all travellers. I grew up between 2 halting sites and never had an ounce of trouble.

The only place I had any problems was working in shops when I was younger. Even here though there was the same problem with settled people.

Has John Connors been convicted of a crime? If not this thread is pure bigotry.

Stop lying

Summer In the City

wexie wrote: »

No it's not, it is when you say they are a wanker BECAUSE of race,sex,creed,sexuality...

Not when you say so and so is a wanker and also happens to be....yada yada yada.

Of course then you can argue over whether or not they are actually a wanker. Which is very much a personal opinion I guess.

But I haven't seen ANYBODY here say 'John Connors is a wanker BECAUSE he is a Traveller' only 'John Connors is a wanker AND a Traveller'

Have you?

I've seen travellers getting a hard time because people think John Connors is a wanker in this thread.

Let's say lots of foreigners think Conor McGregor is a wanker. It's an absolutely fine opinion to have. It crosses a line then when they start abusing the Irish as thick paddy's and leprechauns purely because he's Irish.

Mutant z

Just a bit of one frankly i think he is the whole hog of absolute **** his defence of those scum who looted that LIDL store a while back confirms it.

[Deleted User]

Summer In the City wrote: »

I've seen travellers getting a hard time because people think John Connors is a wanker in this thread.

Yeah I went out and accosted one on my lunch because of John Connors.

Mutant z

Just listening to his percieved victim status is enough for me to get out the sicķ bucket what is it with this everything is somebody elses fault crap he comes out with.

wexie

Summer In the City wrote: »

I've seen travellers getting a hard time because people think John Connors is a wanker in this thread.

Well you're right I wouldn't agree with that at all. I happen to live next door to travellers and wouldn't dream of giving them a hard time because John Connors is a wanker. I give them a hard time because they are bad and inconsiderate neighbours.

Summer In the City wrote: »

Let's say lots of foreigners think Connor McGregor is a wanker. It's an absolutely fine opinion to have.

Can't argue with that

Summer In the City wrote: »

It crosses a line then when they start abusing thick paddy's and leprechauns purely because he's Irish.

And wouldn't agree with that at all either. I tend to judge people on their own actions and behaviours, as should everyone else as far as I'm concerned.

I also have issues though with it not being okay to call a 'wanker' a 'wanker' because they somehow happen to have a different race, creed or religion.

I don't really care who you love, shag or worship, if I call you a wanker it's because you've done something to make me think you're a wanker*

(*or because I happen to know you're a compulsive masturbator)

Summer In the City

wexie wrote: »

And wouldn't agree with that at all either. I tend to judge people on their own actions and behaviours, as should everyone else as far as I'm concerned.

I agree, my issue with this thread is that it's become another traveller bashing thread. If it was just a thread about John Connors being a wanker I would have no problem.

wexie wrote: »

I also have issues though with it not being okay to call a 'wanker' a 'wanker' because they somehow happen to have a different race, creed or religion.

I don't think anyone has said that.

blue note

Can you really blame travellers for having a chip on their shoulder towards the settled community? Put yourself in their shoes, your first real interaction with the rest of the world will be in school. And from the day you go into the school you can be guaranteed other parents will actively try to discourage friendships between their children and you. It will be the same in any sports clubs you join. You might be taken in - but will you really be welcomed? I don't think so, not like a non-traveller.

As you grow up if there's a dispute between you and another kid (who stole the ball or whatever) you definitely won't be believed 50% of the time. You'll see your parents be discriminated against in various ways. And if you flick onto something like boards you'll see that people basically don't like you and don't want to have anything to do with you. People here are talking about crime rates in the travelling community and using that as justification to, for example, refuse to accept a traveller funeral in your hotel or pub. But think of the law abiding 20 something year old trying to book a funeral reception for their father or mother and being told every place is booked out. Do you really think that you wouldn't have a chip on your shoulder as a result of all of that and so much more?

And on the crime rates and social welfare fraud - do we really think they have a fair shot at earning money legally? If a traveller and a settled person both go for a job as a barman, all other things equal the non-traveller will be chosen 99% of the time. Same for just about any job. If society treats you like that, are you really going to feel bad about cheating the system? I wouldn't.

CrankyHaus

Hamza Fancy Tarantula wrote: »

Other than that, he's a bit of a wanker on twitter but from mates who know him through boxing Conor's is supposed to be sound enough.

I got the same impression from a friend who acted with him. Twitter and low level celebrity can bring out the worst in a person.

[Deleted User]

And on the crime rates and social welfare fraud - do we really think they have a fair shot at earning money legally? If a traveller and a settled person both go for a job as a barman, all other things equal the non-traveller will be chosen 99% of the time. Same for just about any job. If society treats you like that, are you really going to feel bad about cheating the system? I wouldn't.

Yes, "they" do have the chance. I have a job and qualifications, it's handily enough done.

There's not enough momentum for change within the traveller community. There is some but it'll need outside help and enough inside for it to make any difference. Unfortunately the softly-softly approach doesn't really work and the stronger approach is labelled racism.

blue note

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, "they" do have the chance. I have a job and qualifications, it's handily enough done.

There's not enough momentum for change within the traveller community. There is some but it'll need outside help and enough inside for it to make any difference. Unfortunately the softly-softly approach doesn't really work and the stronger approach is labelled racism.

I said a fair chance. As in two people of equal ability going for the same role - do they have a 50% chance of getting a job? No, they don't. It's dramatically lower I would say. If they want to be tax paying, respected members of society they have to do much more than the vast majority of the country.

Agent Smith

I find him Rather Annoying tbh

georgina toadbum

He's an absolutely woeful actor. Same type of character in everything he does. If he wants to stop people stereotyping travellers he should stop taking up traveller acting jobs. I can't see him being cast as anything else, though.

mynamejeff

blue note wrote: »

Can you really blame travellers for having a chip on their shoulder towards the settled community? Put yourself in their shoes, your first real interaction with the rest of the world will be in school. And from the day you go into the school you can be guaranteed other parents will actively try to discourage friendships between their children and you. It will be the same in any sports clubs you join. You might be taken in - but will you really be welcomed? I don't think so, not like a non-traveller.

As you grow up if there's a dispute between you and another kid (who stole the ball or whatever) you definitely won't be believed 50% of the time. You'll see your parents be discriminated against in various ways. And if you flick onto something like boards you'll see that people basically don't like you and don't want to have anything to do with you. People here are talking about crime rates in the travelling community and using that as justification to, for example, refuse to accept a traveller funeral in your hotel or pub. But think of the law abiding 20 something year old trying to book a funeral reception for their father or mother and being told every place is booked out. Do you really think that you wouldn't have a chip on your shoulder as a result of all of that and so much more?

And on the crime rates and social welfare fraud - do we really think they have a fair shot at earning money legally? If a traveller and a settled person both go for a job as a barman, all other things equal the non-traveller will be chosen 99% of the time. Same for just about any job. If society treats you like that, are you really going to feel bad about cheating the system? I wouldn't.

seems like your not really familiar with the issue

Where i live there are , well "settled " traveler families who have been in the community going on the 3 rd or 4th generation , the kids go to school the young lads play sports hurling football boxing mostly. they are accepted as any one , but still not one of the extended family ill use as an example has a job , every single one is on SW ,there are education grants galore but no interest in working. the young lads who play sport are tea mates same as every one but faster to take offence and become involved in rows , which generally end up involving whole family and allegations of racism , (never happens with re non irish kids who play )

the older adults of this family are constantly hawking dodgy crap around the club and one at least appear at in the court list each month involved in some form of crime , new vans and cars abound of course .

Id would consider many travelers friends but that doesn't mean they are not thieves and cheats ..
In your post you make it sound like there is no help or support and that is not true , theres loads , more than for settled community.

your either a blatant apologist or do not understand the issue correctly

whisky_galore

blue note wrote: »

I said a fair chance. As in two people of equal ability going for the same role - do they have a 50% chance of getting a job? No, they don't. It's dramatically lower I would say. If they want to be tax paying, respected members of society they have to do much more than the vast majority of the country.

They never changed with the times. Very few kids got 2nd level education at one time, most everyone had holes in their trousers and maybe not enough food on the table. Travellers then were tolerated, they did casual labour, mending pots and pans, selling horses etc. Then with technology the pot repairs and farm horses were no longer needed, but they didn't adapt or progress like everyone else.

Faction fights; kicking the crap out of one another was once a feature of mainstream Irish culture, so was superstition, arranged marriages, intolerance of homosexuals, suspicion of outsiders, etc.
The settled community have moved on and bettered themselves, the travellers have not, still living in a degraded version of their past culture.

_Dara_

Summer In the City wrote: »

Has John Connors been convicted of a crime? If not this thread is pure bigotry.

I wasn't aware you had to be convicted of a crime for people to think you're a gob****e.

He said in a tweet, a public tweet, that Lidl were "cunts who were robbing us every day". That statement says a lot. This is a discount retailer. They charge incredibly low prices for good quality goods (their entry in the Irish market has been a godsend for low income families who can now get a decent trolley of groceries for a low price). In what way are they robbing people? It's very telling of his mindset that he thinks companies are "cunts" for asking for money in exchange for goods. And this particular company doesn't charge very much.

This isn't bigotry. This is his own words landing him in hot water.

[Deleted User]

Summer In the City wrote: »

There's no problem with calling anyone a wanker if you leave it at that. It becomes problematic when you quantify it with race, sex, creed, sexuality etc... Then it's bigotry.

I did just that. The OP is literally three words long. You see, the discussion evolved and it was said that he defends the actions of scummy elements of society (he does, did and will continue to) and the uncomfortable truth is that plenty of those actions are those of Travellers. That's just the fact. You keep crying bigotry or speaking in riddles all you want and when you want to pop your head out of the sand and actually add something of merit, truth or substance, I'm all ears.

Rubber_Soul

Omackeral wrote: »

And then there's stuff like this, where he can't just answer a question without having a go at the settled community.

****e actor and a ****e person, but his point here is why does he have to give his thoughts on every bad thing other travellers do? And why isn't that logic extended to the settled community? I don't see many settled actors getting asked their thoughts on other settled people's crimes.

His argument falls down when he puts himself forward as an advocate for the travelling community though.

[Deleted User]

Rubber_Soul wrote: »

****e actor and a ****e person, but his point here is why does he have to give his thoughts on every bad thing other travellers do?

His argument falls down when he puts himself forward as an advocate for the travelling community though.

Brings it on himself. See here;