Fair enough on the first part, Downcow.
As for the bar for sectarianism; set that bar low enough and accusations of sectarianism become meaningless as any criticism (no matter how justified) becomes interpreted as sectarian. I'd lean towards a little more rigour than a 1st degree search for any keywords that could be connected to which, 'side' the subject is on and deciding that it is prejudicial if I could tick that box.
To be clear, I'd consider the two examples you gave to be unpleasant and mean-spirited comments (much like I already stated that I find the '10 year old/Newsletter reader' comment smug and distasteful), I'd also consider the statements to be inaccurate.....but making a mean spirited and untrue accusation doesn't mean it is a sectarian statement.
When is the bar low enough for you, Downcow? Am I being sectarian if I make a broad strokes comment about people who support the UVF or the Real IRA? What if I make a comment about the incompatibility of Young Earth beliefs (as held by the Free Presbyterian church) with modern science? Indeed, would any criticism whatsoever of the GAA be verboten lest one be accused of sectarianism?!
Absolutely. Before reading your last paragraph I had intended confirming that I was not regarding you as hypocritical (I actually never suggested you were - I gave you a test and you passed it with flying colours).
you and me simply have a different bar for sectarianism. If I said ‘Irish News readers were little uneducated bigots’, I would understand I was being sectarian, or if I said The ‘GAA wearing young people in the holylands are wee nasty intolerant scumbags’ I would reckon I was being sectarian. But clearly not in your definition.
i propose we agree to differ on this one. I’ll keep my bar high on this one as it is the scourge of our society
I responded directly to the statement you made, Downcow. I can't see why the statement, "His bosses at Queen's tell him to write it so it can be understood by a 10 year old and/or Belfast Newsletter reader” is sectarian prejudice, I've explained why I don't think it is sectarian prejudice and I've pointed out how if you replaced it with an equal statement about the Irish News (or any other newspaper), I still wouldn't think it was sectarian prejudice.
I can address the other quotes you raised separately when you can acknowledge that the post I responded to was clearly wrong and withdraw your suggestions of hypocrisy as you said you would when you said
If you feel that is not sectarian then I will accept what you are saying - otherwise you are being hypocritical
Take another look Everything I posted was entirely relevant. The other part of the post was the context ie the post that was being responded to by the queens stuff. So I entirely understand that if you had not seen it in its context you may have regarded it as rather benign
What sort of reasonable newspaper would publish a letter from someone like John Taylor....written to pat someone like Jim Allister on the back.
The letters section is a thinly veiled way of getting around even the bare minimum of journalistic standards and to provide a direct platform free from any contradictory voices (even the Nolan show doesn't try to stoop that low) for the gutter end of political Loyalism.
And yes, Downcow, I'd be posting similar sentiments if The Irish News were filling their letters section with Gerry Adams back patting some a*sehole from Éirígí week in and week out, before the nonsense sectarian accusations come out again.
More unsupported nonsense and unfiltered bile supported and spread by The Newsletter. They really should encourage some of these old bigots to leave the stage.
Lord Kilclooney: The protocol process towards a united Ireland needs the strongest possible rejection from the UUP-DUP | Belfast News Letter
It is not sectarianism to criticise stupidity and the lack of ability to think for yourself on either side. Which is what the original comment about the Queens professors did.
Why don’t you tell us what sectarianism means in the NI context Francis?. You are great at telling us what it is not
I was referring to the last of those statements, Downcow; the "His bosses at Queens"...one.
Reading it above, with Irish News substituted in, under no circumstances would I find that in any way sectarian. I'd read it as a sleight on those who read the Irish News, not Nationalism at large, much in the same way many would make similar comments on the Daily Express or Daily Mail (neither publication known for the towering intellects and unbiased natures of their readerships) without thinking it is suddenly a comment on all British people.
Your other two quotes are entirely irrelevant to the topic we're discussing; your post which stated
You've obviously realised when you've substituted The Irish News in there that it clearly isn't an example of sectarian prejudice as you stated and tried to hamfistedly introduce two other quotes into the discussion to cover your blushes and avoid backtracking.
Nobody is denying that the Irish News is nationalist leaning downcow. Are you setting up misrepresentations to argue against them too?
And Fionn is right, anyone who knows what they are talking about knows the Newsletter is read by an ever diminishing tiny subset of Unionism (circulation slipping below 10,000 shortly and talk of closure) the belligerent rump of Unionism. They are being mocked not because of their Unionism. Quite frankly the comment is directed at their perceived stupidity and lack of the ability to think independently.
It is not therefore sectarian, attacking all of Unionism as stupid and lacking the ability to think would be. Get your terms correct, you devalue them if you go shouting it at everything.
Now you are joining in Francis ridiculous stuff.
the obvious counter example would be the Irish News
I have changed newsletter to Irish news and unionism to nationalist If you feel that is not sectarian then I will accept what you are saying - otherwise you are being hypocritical
“The Irish News again perpetuating and promoting Nationalist arrogance and mythmaking”
”Nationalism is all over the coherence shop again”
”His bosses at Queen's tell him to write it so it can be understood by a 10 year old and/or Irish News reader.”
One would imagine that it was a criticism of a particular (and rather small) subsect of the Unionist community rather than a comment about Unionists in general.
It suggests that such people exist in the Unionist community (indeed, it would be shocking if they didn't as they exist in every community) and (rather distastefully and smugly in my opinion) insults their intellect. Extrapolation would be doing an awful lot of heavy lifting to presume this is a sectarian statement about the entire Unionist community rather than just a shorthand example of a Useful Idiot.
Would it be sectarian to make a comment on traits likely held by the average An Phoblacht reader? Are you arguing that one couldn't point out likely differences between an average Daily Mail, Guardian and Financial Times reader?
To use an obviously extreme example, if one was a subscriber to a KKK newsletter, it would hardly be racist to assume certain things about that person, nor would your criticisms of that person be a comment on the entire white population. Being clear, this is not to draw comparison between the KKK and the Newsletter readership.
It is very relevant to the topic. If the British government reinstall the land border, they run the risk of reigniting attacks and violence by the IRA. Frost and Johnson are too stupid to realize that. I mean, look at them. Do they appear intelligent men to you?
Therefore the NIP is the least worst option.
The British are completely out of their depth, up against the threat of IRA violence on one hand and against the EU's legal options on the other.
I am guessing you are not from Northern Ireland, with such a naive view of the IRAs (and UFFs) contribution to NI. Sounds like a Noraid position in the 80s. I don’t think you would even find an IRA sectarian murderer or rapist who would hold that view today, and most of them avoid accepting the reality of the trauma they caused to 1000s of innocent children while achieving zero and actually holding back, in Northern Ireland, the western world move to civil rights.
but we are off topic so I will let you rant on this line and leave you to it.
The statement was nothing to do with criticism of a newspaper. The statement was suggesting that the entire readership of a newspaper had the understanding of 10 year-olds. You have just told us that the readership is unionist. If you can’t join the dots like most other posters on here then I am not going to waste my time playing your games.
Yep. you're 100% right. In the view of the IRA, fantastic progress was made as a result of their campaign. For the first time, the minority Catholics had a voice in policing, housing, education, their destiny, etc and no longer beholden to the British state. The British caved and peace in the North was established. Why on earth would anyone value sausages over that peace?
Why do you think the IRA mission was unification? It's well accepted the initial role of the IRA was to protect Catholics from violence perpetuated by the British Army, an Army who were initially welcomed by Catholics.
I'm not here to educate you.
If YOU think something is sectarian YOU need to do the explaining.
Criticism of a Unionist newspaper is not sectarian.
...says the person who was happy that loyalist terrorists were threatening violence because of legislation passed by British government (although stupidly they were blaming the Irish government and EU for this)
Maybe you could stretch to tell us what it is rather than what it is not?
Criticising a Unionist newspaper is not 'sectarian'.
The IRA surrendered, accepted the right of ni to exist, the right of the people of ni to self determination, they took up their seats in a British devolved institution in Stormont, they joined the policing board, etc, etc, etc
they gave up everything they claimed to be murdering men women and children for
shame on them, the destruction they caused to lives and all they done was put back any chance of uniting the peoples of Ireland for generations
your post is quite simply a disgrace to all their victims of torture, child abuse, rape and murder in Ireland and beyond
Maybe you will tell us what you think it means ??
It does seems the UK has a very short memory when it comes to the North and the IRA to be stirring the pot now again against the NIP.
They'd be well reminded that the IRA struck the very heart of the Government coming within minutes of killing Thatcher. The Britsh Army was made up of frightened schoolboys who were unable to travel by ground in parts off South Amargh and came home in bits if lucky to come home at all. The IRA caused chaos across cities in the UK.
The NIP seems like the better alternative than risking all the above again for the Brits.
Varadkar was dead right to be showing old photos of the carnage caused by the IRA at border posts during the negotiations.
^^^ Reveals yet again that he hasn't a clue what 'sectarianism' means.
Well if you can’t see why this statement “His bosses at Queen's tell him to write it so it can be understood by a 10 year old and/or Belfast Newsletter reader” is sectarian prejudice, then it’s you has the problem. Not me.
.He spends the majority of his time shining a torchlight into the dark places in his own community eg RHI. I don’t know any commentator of a nationalist which does the same.
I feel his honesty and challenge of his own community is a breath of fresh air
Not liking sectarian sh1te is not the same as being sectarian.
Head and shoulders above most other political editors is just shorthand for, 'he tells me stuff I want to hear about how them Taigs are responsible for all the ills of the world'.
I wouldn't have minded if he chose to defend an actual solid journalist like Alex Kane, though I suspect Alex is a bit too reasonable and understanding of opinions he may not share himself for certain Newsletter regulars though.....whiff of Lundy about him.
Edna Longley described "The News Letter is the ghost of a dead [unionist] establishment.''
When articles by Jim Allister take pride of place you'd have to agree.
Shure you are downcow. 😁😁
You haven't explained why Jim thinks Unionism own the Ministry for Agriculture.
You also must think people are stupid....I think it's this arrogance that has you in a cul de sac tbh.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a1d0f49d56f52d3cfb2145c5b8cbe5a.svg)
