Gruffalux wrote: » You don't think country people know what the words sustainable or biodiversity means? You think they might vibe better with people canvassing on their doorstep saying "Arrah muckie, you wouldn't be seeing much of the wee robins about the heads of cattle these days, wisha" ?
colm_mcm wrote: » I know what those words mean, and the concept - Id have no idea about the nuts and bolts of either. I’d be totally disengaged if a canvasser started spouting those words unless they could relate them to my day to day life. Much as in the same way if FG started talking about “recovery” a few years ago without actually explaining how that would be done, and how it would affect me and my area.
Fighting Tao wrote: » Hmm. She was explaining to others how to communicate with certain groups. How would you have phrased it?
jackboy wrote: » She didn’t say or imply that. You are twisting her words. Using words like biodiversity and sustainability is just waffle. If talking to a landowner just come out and tell them the things they can do to help wildlife thrive and protect the environment. As they know the land better than anyone they can likely teach just as much as they can learn.
Everlong1 wrote: » I can't speak with any authority about our rural cousins even though my parents were culchies. However I was born and raised in Dublin and learned on my first day in the school playground that this country is full of knuckle draggers who regard anyone using words with more than one syllable with suspicion at best and hostility at worst. A lot of Irish people pride themselves on being "down to earth" and having "no airs and graces". I worked with one of these lovely individuals once who used to rant about "fuc*ing intellectuals" and their big words. These are the type of people who think Brendan O'Carroll is comedy gold. You can call Senator Garvey patronising but what she said sounded like simple common sense to me. The only thing she did wrong was to be a bit blunt and tell it like it is.
Fuascailteoir wrote: » No your message was just incorrectly applied in this instance. She basically implied that travellers and rural people are too thick and ignorant to understand the big phrases that urban dwellers use so they need to dumb down the message. If you can't see how that is an issue then maybe look again
Amirani wrote: » They're subjectively loaded words, they don't mean the same thing to everyone.
Gruffalux wrote: » Puts me in mind of a story I will probably never be able to find the source of again. A person in court told the judge "he came in through the window, yer honour, and done a sh1te on me dinner". Ah, simpler times when one could still freely enter others houses.
Fuascailteoir wrote: » Well then her communication of her ideas on how to communicate with rural people and travellers is not exactly going to endear the party to the target audience. They can't help scoring own goals whenever they do anything.
Omackeral wrote: » Sh1te in the bucket is positively Joycean.
Madeoface wrote: » All the footage of the traveller infighting and feuding in Mullingar and Drogheda etc doesn't show a proficiency in the language to be fair.
riffmongous wrote: » Nothing wrong with that tbh.
Madeoface wrote: » All the footage of the traveller infighting and feuding in Mullingar and Drogheda etc doesn't show a proficiency in the language to be fair. Has the OP some insight that simplicity is not the way to go with this cohort or is the OP's view they are all reading Albert Camus in the evening or arguing about the merits of the EU's carbon tax policy? Why the greens want to communicate with this insular lot at all shows how naïve and too 'right on' they are.
screamer wrote: » I agree the younger Green Party members would have us all running around in Aran jumpers, walking to work barefoot or subsistence living off the vegetable patch, chicken and goat in the back garden. They are totally out of touch with reality. As for what this one said, saying you have to use little words when dealing with travellers and country folk is very very patronising and insulting, and just shows that she needs a good lesson in communications herself.
"If you start engaging with people and you're using - even the word sustainable or biodiversity - this is vocabulary that's new stuff and we shouldn't assume that people understand what they are. "Let's talk about the flowers, talk about the cattle. Talk about the robin, the sparrow… "I think colloquialism is important and I think simple vocabulary includes everybody. "It's not your job to show off that you know cool terms when you’re canvassing. It's to show that you can relate to everybody," she said.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I'm pretty sure it's the patronising manner they've done out with this is where people take exception. Bunch of arrogant pseudo-intellectuals
Odhinn wrote: » And not just towards travellers
Fighting Tao wrote: » People get their knickers in a twist so easily these days. Communication is only effective if the receiver understands the message. For example, there is no point in an IT expert using technical jargon to those who don’t understand. They have to change words and rephrase into such a manner to assist the message transmission. It is up to the message sender to ensure that the receiver can understand. From all I see here, that is what is going on.