The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/deeply-divided-northern-ireland-education-system-unsustainable-and-unaffordable-40228130.html

Very interesting article about the dreadful education system in the North. One snippet caught the eye, as it could be used nearly about every SF policy

"Sinn Fein continue to be somewhat ambivalent despite their public pronouncements about removing selection"

i.e. say the right thing in public but do nothing about it.

wicklowstevo

https://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2021/03/22/republican-fundamentalists-vow-to-decapitate-cartoonist-depicting-prophet-mcdonald/?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-whispersnews&utm_content=later-15563377&utm_medium=social&utm_source=instagram

careful now cartoons have feeling too :-)

James Brown

In keeping with the logic here abouts, I'd like to congratulate MLMD and MON on this. Good job Sinn Fein.

NI records lowest number of new Covid cases in six months

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I have been absolutely clear on my view of the Indo's comments, but as this is the SF thread, it is very relevant to point out the venial sin nature of the cartoon compared to the mortal sin nature of events such as the permanent mural depicting Arlene Foster as a witch, Paddy Holohan's exercises in feminism, the hounding of Mairia Cahill, Johnny Mythen's "burn at the stake" incendiary comments and the many many more examples of SF misogyny from Aine Adams to Jean McConville.

The only one hounding Maria Cahill and Jean McConville is your good self.

Cahill was raised in relation to dissidents and FG's lack of respect for the GFA. You used her as a victim to be dragged out for another point scoring exercise like all the woman is is a victim. Same for McConville. It's shameful IMO.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is 'look over there' excusing and diluting and moving a conversation on AFTER criticising the comments.

Have a look at blanch's first line on this topic and markodaly's refusal to call out the Indo.

I have been absolutely clear on my view of the Indo's comments, but as this is the SF thread, it is very relevant to point out the venial sin nature of the cartoon compared to the mortal sin nature of events such as the permanent mural depicting Arlene Foster as a witch, Paddy Holohan's exercises in feminism, the hounding of Mairia Cahill, Johnny Mythen's "burn at the stake" incendiary comments and the many many more examples of SF misogyny from Aine Adams to Jean McConville.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Just pointing out that you can't really accuse someone of doing a classic 'look over there', when you are so prone to doing it yourself.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh gave some good advice of a similar nature today.

There is 'look over there' excusing and diluting and moving a conversation on AFTER criticising the comments.

Have a look at blanch's first line on this topic and markodaly's refusal to call out the Indo.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Once again I become the subject of the thread.

I had from my first comment said his comments were stupid.

Just pointing out that you can't really accuse someone of doing a classic 'look over there', when you are so prone to doing it yourself.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh gave some good advice of a similar nature today.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Yes, you were perfectly clear. Your concern was that he was a liability for SF, not for the comments he actually made.

And then you tried to deflect by posting 2 articles, one 10 years old, about what 2 other councillors once did ('look over there', as you aptly call it)

Once again I become the subject of the thread.

I had from my first comment said his comments were stupid.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Would this post be an example of a classic 'look over there' post whilst also trying to excuse behaviour by saying the problem wasn't the person that said the words, but the people who brought attention to it?

IMHO, an excellent example of the problem that was identified by Francie.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Could I have been any clearer?

Although he is a liability and the SHinners should get rid

Yes, you were perfectly clear. Your concern was that he was a liability for SF, not for the comments he actually made.

And then you tried to deflect by posting 2 articles, one 10 years old, about what 2 other councillors once did ('look over there', as you aptly call it)

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Would this post be an example of a classic 'look over there' post whilst also trying to excuse behaviour by saying the problem wasn't the person that said the words, but the people who brought attention to it?

Could I have been any clearer?

Although he is a liability and the SHinners should get rid

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D:D You are doing the classic 'look over there' and using tropes, like 'SF controlled areas' in order to dilute what the Indo did.

Would this post be an example of a classic 'look over there' post whilst also trying to excuse behaviour by saying the problem wasn't the person that said the words, but the people who brought attention to it?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The problem with Holohan is not so much himself(Although he is a liability and the SHinners should get rid) but the selective attention to him on social media, and the 'quality' of our councillor stock in the country in general. A 'councillor' in this country of any party is liable to do or say anything.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-20175093.html

https://www.pbp.ie/calls-for-public-apology-over-fascist-comments-from-fine-gael/

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody is excusing the Indo, let's be clear.

:D:D You are doing the classic 'look over there' and using tropes, like 'SF controlled areas' in order to dilute what the Indo did.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Paddy Holohan has been dealt with exhaustively here. What he did, does not excuse the Indo.

Using the misogyny of others to excuse somebody else's or to dilute it is just wrong headed and deflectionary. And that is what is happening here.

Nobody is excusing the Indo, let's be clear. I haven't heard anyone say otherwise, albeit the cartoon is at the milder end of misogyny compared to say, a permanent wall mural depicting Arlene Foster as a witch, or Paddy Holohan.

What is being said is that Sinn Fein and their supporters and apologists are being disgustingly hypocritical on the issue of misogyny. That is both factual and fair comment.

Deleted User wrote: »

Francie seems to think this is the independent editorial team thread, only wants them discussed in here it seems

But watch the usuals howl 'whataboutery' when you dare mention sf in the rabid govt criticism thread

Both ways, as always

Thats not even to get into the realm of difference between the press behaving one way and it being therefore ok for a political party to do so

Thats not even to get into the actual comparisons of the behaviour being utterly invalid

Thats not even to get into the constant disavowal of online sf supporters and their behaviour

Sher sf have nothing to do with anything anyone does- never did!

They only want to lead the country, but nothing is ever anything got to do with them.

Unreal tbh.

Paddy Holohan has been dealt with exhaustively here. What he did, does not excuse the Indo.

Using the misogyny of others to excuse somebody else's or to dilute it is just wrong headed and deflectionary. And that is what is happening here.

[Deleted User]

Francie seems to think this is the independent editorial team thread, only wants them discussed in here it seems

But watch the usuals howl 'whataboutery' when you dare mention sf in the rabid govt criticism thread

Both ways, as always

Thats not even to get into the realm of difference between the press behaving one way and it being therefore ok for a political party to do so

Thats not even to get into the actual comparisons of the behaviour being utterly invalid

Thats not even to get into the constant disavowal of online sf supporters and their behaviour

Sher sf have nothing to do with anything anyone does- never did!

They only want to lead the country, but nothing is ever anything got to do with them.

Unreal tbh.

blanch152 wrote: »

If you still don't think that Holohan's comments were homophobic, your outrage on the cartoon is even more hysterically hypocritical than I thought. I had hoped that the intervening months had seen a Damascene conversion to tolerance, but that hope is forlorn. Let us remind ourselves of some of the commentary on Holohan's homophobia which attracted international attention and brought shame on the country:

https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/cahirodoherty/paddy-holohans-comments-mountain-to-climb

http://www.sin.ie/2020/02/18/paddy-holohans-comments-show-the-ugly-side-of-nationalism/

https://news.sky.com/story/paddy-holohan-ex-mma-fighter-and-sinn-fein-councillor-apologises-for-leo-varadkar-remarks-11910387

Yet Francie is almost alone in thinking there was nothing homophobic about the comments.

STILL ignoring that there is more than me and SF concerned about a National newspaper publishing this in 2021.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I still don't think his comment was homophobic.
I do think he was misogynistic.

All his comments were stupid and clumsy and inappropriate and were called such from my first comment on the matter. And I praised SF for their quick response in sanctioning him.

Now, any sanction for the editorial team at the Indo or are you ok with their misogyny?

If you still don't think that Holohan's comments were homophobic, your outrage on the cartoon is even more hysterically hypocritical than I thought. I had hoped that the intervening months had seen a Damascene conversion to tolerance, but that hope is forlorn. Let us remind ourselves of some of the commentary on Holohan's homophobia which attracted international attention and brought shame on the country:

https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/cahirodoherty/paddy-holohans-comments-mountain-to-climb

http://www.sin.ie/2020/02/18/paddy-holohans-comments-show-the-ugly-side-of-nationalism/

https://news.sky.com/story/paddy-holohan-ex-mma-fighter-and-sinn-fein-councillor-apologises-for-leo-varadkar-remarks-11910387

Yet Francie is almost alone in thinking there was nothing homophobic about the comments.

markodaly wrote: »

I did but alas, there was no answer.

I guess that his homophobic or xenophobic comments that were directed at Leo may have something more to do with it than anything else.

Ok, you clearly don't think the Indo did anything wrong here.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not going there again. Re-read the thread. Holohan is dealt with and gone...something I think is a good thing for all.

I did but alas, there was no answer.

I guess that his homophobic or xenophobic comments that were directed at Leo may have something more to do with it than anything else.

markodaly wrote: »

Oh the irony.
Again, why were the comments misogynistic yet not homophobic or xenophobic?

I dont understand the logic at play here.

Not going there again. Re-read the thread. Holohan is dealt with and gone...something I think is a good thing for all.

Can you answer the question now?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Even after the Women's Council of Ireland called out the Indo, you won't answer the question but want to deflect?

Oh the irony.
Again, why were the comments misogynistic yet not homophobic or xenophobic?

I dont understand the logic at play here.

markodaly wrote: »

Even after a gay person said, his comment was homophobic?
What makes you think you know more about the subject than a gay person?

Why do you believe his comments were misogynistic yet NOT homophobic.

Even after the Women's Council of Ireland called out the Indo, you won't answer the question but want to deflect?

What sanction do you think should be given to the editorial team at the Indo or are you ok with this depiction?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, I said it was a clumsy and stupid way to make the point but wasn't homophobic. My opinion freely given. I also said if he was being homophobic he had to go.

Even after a gay person said, his comment was homophobic?
What makes you think you know more about the subject than a gay person?

Why do you believe his comments were misogynistic yet NOT homophobic.

markodaly wrote: »

Ah ok, he was refferring to Leo not being 'a family man' is just for the craic, nevermind about his 'Indian blood'...

We had some gay people on that very thread state that his comments were homophobic, yet you still maintain the 'He didnt do wrong' line. You are loyal I must say.

Chickens, roost and all that... that thread has not aged well at all for some.

https://www.boards.ie/mobile/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058046008

Yes, I said it was a clumsy and stupid way to make the point but wasn't homophobic. My opinion freely given. I also said if he was being homophobic he had to go.

There's a chicken waiting for your answer to this question:

What sanction do you think should be given to the editorial team at the Indo or are you ok with this depiction?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I still don't think his comment was homophobic.
I do think he was misogynistic.

Ah ok, he was refferring to Leo not being 'a family man' is just for the craic, nevermind about his 'Indian blood'...

We had some gay people on that very thread state that his comments were homophobic, yet you still maintain the 'He didnt do wrong' line. You are loyal I must say.

Chickens, roost and all that... that thread has not aged well at all for some.

https://www.boards.ie/mobile/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058046008

Jinglejangle69

markodaly wrote: »

Pretty much. There wasnt a 'Were are sorry for past comments', it was a call to arms for those to clean up their past online, not their act.

Says it all about SF to be honest, if you can excuse and whatabout murder of children, all for the cause, then calling a woman to be burned at the stake is small fry, no pun intended.

Jaysus Aongus, HQ will be scrambling!!

Brendan Bendar

markodaly wrote: »

You said they were stupid, but never said they were homophobic, xenophobic or misogynististic.

In fact you went on at length to defend him against those type of comments from others.

The chickens are coming home to roost now ,Mark.

markodaly wrote: »

You said they were stupid, but never said they were homophobic, xenophobic or misogynististic.

In fact you went on at length to defend him against those type of comments from others.

I still don't think his comment was homophobic.
I do think he was misogynistic.

All his comments were stupid and clumsy and inappropriate and were called such from my first comment on the matter. And I praised SF for their quick response in sanctioning him.

Now, any sanction for the editorial team at the Indo or are you ok with their misogyny?