riffmongous wrote: » Ah come off it, of course you have to talk to people differently. Do you think farmers don't treat people differently when there is a farming discussion outside the farming forum? Do doctors talk the same way to patients that they would to other doctors? You can still treat people as equals without treating them equally in every sense, and that's what she was actually saying, treat them normally, don't try to be all high and migthy and try to relate and talk to them instead
"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.
MrMusician18 wrote: » To be honest I think you've hit the nail on the head there. There are some posters here who would find fault with anything the greens do. Tailoring your language to your audience is something that politicians do. For example George Washingtons inauguration speech was to fellow senators and congressmen and the language is of college graduate level. Obama's and Trump's inauguration speech was at a third/fourth grade level.
riffmongous wrote: » It's plain as day, I don't think half of them even read the article or tried to understand what she was saying, before looking to get offended and piling on.
listermint wrote: » Wait should we all be living in cold caves now ? Ffs I've no time for the green party. But retrofitting your own home so that is comfortable to live in and has low running cost into old age is smart. Anyone who thinks it's not needs to get off mad conspiracy forums on Facebook. Nonsense
Eric Cartman wrote: » Standard dublin centric academic elitism, goes hand in hand with socialist politics “we have degrees, we know whats best for you”
emaherx wrote: » I read ever word, and it was fairly insulting BS. Please explain why rural dwellers would be less likely to understand these very common words?
seligehgit wrote: » What a patronising post.:rolleyes: Read it in full and there's no lack of clarity in what she meant.
riffmongous wrote: » Because many people just plain aren't interested in it. It's not that they can't understand it, I'm sure most can, but do they want to, not necessarily. No different to urban voters, only that's not what they were talking about, it was a debate on how to win votes in rural areas. Look if a Green Party activist called to the door, who do you think the average rural person would be more open to talking to: a) the stranger banging on about biodiversity, sustainability, Kyoto or the Protocol, Paris agreement and the ECCP or b) the person they recognise from the local matches and tidy towns who is interested in talking about why there was less/more swallows around this year and how bad the weather was this summer
emaherx wrote: » She explicitly said rural people, if most people are of that attitude why single out rural dwellers and say they wouldn't understand these new big words? What if they had singled out a Dublin district in the same way? It was poor and people are right to be insulted. They are a green party looking for a green vote and they are afraid to discuss biodiversity with rural people that's bizarre if nothing else.
meeeeh wrote: » I live in rural area. My neighbours are relatively big farmers, business owners, doctors, teachers, engineers, pharmacists, accountants and similar. I don't think telling us that we don't understand big words will solve their problem.
riffmongous wrote: » Why did you thank a post saying 'imagine saying that in an interview' then, if you read everything
seligehgit wrote: » We'll just have to agree to disagree.:)
Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: » Really now? I really wonder if this lady has entered rural Ireland in the recent decade. New stuff? We're living in the middle of the country, not in a manicured estate with the odd tree and barely a native plant to be seen. We see every day in the news how communities are reported as letting small areas return to nature and their delight as they sow imported flowering plants to encourage bees and wildlife and how they should be applauded and lauded for their foresight and green credentials. Yet in their own back gardens is a diversity wilderness and their front lawn paved over. Yet I have miles of hedgerows, and more added since I took over, with acres of brambles, honeysuckle, alders, whitethorn, blackthorn and countless other species along with the fauna, native fauna at that, living on it. And that's without counting and mentioning the multiple species of native and non native birds of pasture and prey and I'm the one messing up the planet? The truth is that their terms of reference are so far removed from reality that they aren't able to comprehend our reality. And that convention just shone a very bright light on that reality. They have no intention in engaging with 'others' on equal terms because they don't see us as equals. We're just ignoramuses who cannot appreciate their faultlessness and brilliance. And that's just a simple fact that will be reflected in the next, hopefully soon, election.
riffmongous wrote: » Because it was debate on rural people, explicitly
riffmongous wrote: » She's from and lives in rural county Clare so I'd say she has some idea. Fair play on your biodiversity work, but it looks like you've made up your mind on every green party member without knowing much about the people themselves
TomTomTim wrote: » If it was said about the African community riffmongous would be on this thread full of outrage, screaming about racism and discrimination.
emaherx wrote: » All the more shame on her, how she thinks of her neighbors.
I knocked on every door in Clare over the last few years and I’ve seen how people’s eyes glaze over if you talk to them about a biodiversity crisis or a UN report but if you say to people ‘we’re losing our birds and our bees and insects’ they’ll say yeah that’s a real problem It’s the same if you talk to people about an ESRI report or an economic index vs if you tell them about how you lived in fuel poverty as a single mother and so you know why they are fearful of Green policies & why they're worried they won't be able to put diesel in their car It’s not about talking down to anyone, as that headline suggested, it’s about making sure you’re not talking AT people. That was my advice. It’s about listening and cutting to the chase of why these issues matter. I expressed that badly yesterday and I’m sorry.
Yamanoto wrote: » Perhaps that was true back in the day, but the younger wing of the party (including those who vehemently opposed entry into coalition government) are cultural Marxists and SJW's, who's policies are a world away from insulating your attic, taxing carbon and brewing up some elderflower wine.
riffmongous wrote: » Like I've being saying ad nauseum, I don't think that's what she meant. I had a look at her twitter and she explains it herself therehttps://twitter.com/RoisinGarvey?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor To me, it makes sense. I'll leave it there
Grant Grumpy Pecan wrote: » Any apology for rural people? Most rural people understand the Green party manifestos well and that's exactly why they tend not to vote for that party. The Greens should focus more on staying awake in the Dail than making sweeping statements regarding rural people.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
