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

Background

[Deleted User]

I was listing to Paul Murphy verses Brian Hayes on RTE radio that morning.

It was the usual ...the EC can print money....class war and so on, anyway Brian Hayes mentioned Paul Murphy's 'privileged' background although I doubt growing up in south Dublin and going UCD counts as privilege back ground in the global sense

Should someone background matter as regards to their political views?, should it be part of the debate at all?.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jimgoose

People are entitled to hold whatever political views be playsin' 'em, regardless of background. This is simply a sign of a functioning mind. Personally Murphy gets on my nerves, but that's probably just me. What gets on my nerves more is this undercurrent of an idea that because a person has a certain background, that person "should" hold a certain political view, and so forth.

BTW, UCD is only a generation or so from the campfire. Had he gone to Trin now then, well, that'd be different chief! :pac:

anncoates

I've a bit of time for the likes of Murphy and Barrett because I think at least they do genuinely try and see society at the micro level: in terms of people and what not even if it's naive at times.

It is kind of cruelly amusing though, when middle-class Trotskyists and Shinners talk about the 'working class' like some inert, homogeneous mass that you can predict with accuracy and use for your own ends ("the people of XYZ are angry and aren't going to take much more" etc) while hastily glossing over the embarrassing non right-on bits (social and otherwise) that don't concur with their received, sacred notions of what constitutes the Real Proletariat.

[Deleted User]

Joan Burton brought up Murphy's background after the harrowing ordeal of being locked in her car for two hours and seeing parallels with the rise of fascism in Europe in the early part of the 20th century.

A politician from a privileged background should only look after the interests of the privileged.

jimgoose

anncoates wrote: »

...the embarrassing non right-on bits (social and otherwise) that don't concur with their received, sacred notions of what constitutes the Real Proletariat.

Yes, there's generally great mileage in the cruelly oppressed proletarian masses, aside from the odd asshole who won't act the Victim properly. :pac::pac::pac:

Dog of Tears

mariaalice wrote: »

although I doubt growing up in south Dublin and going UCD counts as privilege back ground in the global sense

In the global sense it counts as almost unimaginable privilege.

jimgoose

Dog of Tears wrote: »

In the global sense it counts as almost unimaginable privilege.

This is so, but being hugely privileged relative to a blind lesbian with one leg living in a mud village in Zimbabwe isn't much use to you in Terenure! :pac:

[Deleted User]

Dog of Tears wrote: »

In the global sense it counts as almost unimaginable privilege.

Touché

I could have phrased that better but he is hardly the sultan of Brunei.

ancapailldorcha

mariaalice wrote: »

I was listing to Paul Murphy verses Brian Hayes on RTE radio that morning.

It was the usual ...the EC can print money....class war and so on, anyway Brian Hayes mentioned Paul Murphy's 'privileged' background although I doubt growing up in south Dublin and going UCD counts as privilege back ground in the global sense

Should someone background matter as regards to their political views?, should it be part of the debate at all?.

I don't think it should. Noone is innately "good" or "bad" based on their background. Someone from a working class background who amasses a fortune and pressures governments into reducing their tax burden is no better than someone from a wealthy background who does the same. Someone with wealth and power who tries to make the world better should be applauded. Said wealth and power simply increases their chances of success.

Egginacup

mariaalice wrote: »

I was listing to Paul Murphy verses Brian Hayes on RTE radio that morning.

It was the usual ...the EC can print money....class war and so on, anyway Brian Hayes mentioned Paul Murphy's 'privileged' background although I doubt growing up in south Dublin and going UCD counts as privilege back ground in the global sense

Should someone background matter as regards to their political views?, should it be part of the debate at all?.

Well if you're someone who's never had to do a day's work in your life and come out with statements like "the poor are poor because they're lazy" or some such sh1t, then your background of privilege just shows you to be a hypocrite whose opinion is meaningless.

RobYourBuilder

mariaalice wrote: »

although I doubt growing up in south Dublin and going UCD counts as privilege back ground in the global sense

It most certainly does. It's an upbringing the majority of the worlds population could only dream of.

[Deleted User]

Egginacup wrote: »

Well if you're someone who's never had to do a day's work in your life and come out with statements like "the poor are poor because they're lazy" or some such sh1t, then your background of privilege just shows you to be a hypocrite whose opinion is meaningless.

You don't have to come from a privileged background to make stamens like that...that's more lazy ignorance that anything else.

In fact I would wager that a lot of the anti welfare thread and replies you get on AH come from people who have been on welfare or are getting of welfare themselves and are convinced its all bleeding heart liberals from middle class background who support a welfare state.

Saipanne

mariaalice wrote: »

I doubt growing up in south Dublin and going UCD counts as privilege back ground in the global sense.

Yes, it does.

RobYourBuilder

mariaalice wrote: »

In fact I would wager that a lot of the anti welfare thread and replies you get on AH come from people who have been on welfare or are getting of welfare themselves and are convinced its all bleeding heart liberals from middle class background who support a welfare state.

So you reckon that those who are anti welfare are actually on welfare themselves? Why would someone be anti welfare if it was their sole means of income? That makes no sense.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think it should. Noone is innately "good" or "bad" based on their background. Someone from a working class background who amasses a fortune and pressures governments into reducing their tax burden is no better than someone from a wealthy background who does the same. Someone with wealth and power who tries to make the world better should be applauded. Said wealth and power simply increases their chances of success.

It's how they gain the wealth/power that matters - in some cases, that makes them a part of the problem, and then they engage in 'reputational laundering' afterwards, by trying to use money/philantrophy to boost their reputation (using money that may have been gained, through means which should permanently tarnish their reputation).

[Deleted User]

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

So you reckon that those who are anti welfare are actually on welfare themselves? Why would someone be anti welfare if it was their sole means of income? That makes no sense.

Because you get a lot of the... my neighbour is on lone parent type threads and its not fair, from ops who say we are really struggling living on unemployment benefit.

I am making the point that its not always the rich and privileged who give our and blame the poor for being poor.

jimgoose

mariaalice wrote: »

Because you get a lot of the... my neighbour is on lone parent type threads and its not fair, from ops who say we are really struggling living on unemployment benefit.

I am making the point that its not always the rich and privileged who give our and blame the poor for being poor.

In my experience it is very rarely the wealthy and powerful that you hear giving out about some poor sod soldiering away on welfare, but the guy a couple of doors up having conniptions because he thinks someone might have a fiver more than him. We Irish are notorious for it.

[Deleted User]

Saipanne wrote: »

Yes, it does.

So does that have any bearing on becoming a member of the socialist workers party.

I suppose a more interesting question is how he can so completely reject his own background. That's more of a psychological question though.

Saipanne

mariaalice wrote: »

So does that have any bearing on becoming a member of the socialist workers party.

It shouldn't. Though its interesting when one grows fat, eating the fruits of a tree, all while pissing on its roots.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

mariaalice wrote: »

I was listing to Paul Murphy verses Brian Hayes on RTE radio that morning.

It was the usual ...the EC can print money....class war and so on, anyway Brian Hayes mentioned Paul Murphy's 'privileged' background although I doubt growing up in south Dublin and going UCD counts as privilege back ground in the global sense

Should someone background matter as regards to their political views?, should it be part of the debate at all?.

It's a type of strawman argument called the Association Fallacy: instead of attacking the points being made, Hayes attacks an element associated with the person making them and implies there's a connection when there isn't.

I quote Russell Brand:
"Some people say I'm a hypocrite because I've got money now. When I was poor and I complained about inequality people said I was bitter, now I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want inequality on the agenda"

(Inceidently, saying it's RUssell Brand and therefore he's talking ****e, is the exact same thing)

FTA69

anncoates wrote: »

I've a bit of time for the likes of Murphy and Barrett because I think at least they do genuinely try and see society at the micro level: in terms of people and what not even if it's naive at times.

It is kind of cruelly amusing though, when middle-class Trotskyists and Shinners talk about the 'working class' like some inert, homogeneous mass that you can predict with accuracy and use for your own ends ("the people of XYZ are angry and aren't going to take much more" etc) while hastily glossing over the embarrassing non right-on bits (social and otherwise) that don't concur with their received, sacred notions of what constitutes the Real Proletariat.

Sinn Féin are generally of a working class character though, even most of their new and "respectable" faces are from a pretty ordinary background.

Venus In Furs

I think it's a good thing when people from a middle-class/upper-middle-class background have a social conscience and an interest in equality and social justice, and an understanding of the way society is nuanced and we're not all born into the same circumstances and by extension, opportunities.
Better than being a Ross O'Carroll-Kelly.

What I don't agree with though, is lecturing from middle-class/privileged people on living a "middle-class life", when they have been able to avail of the advantages afforded by same. It's silly to be so self loathing too. I'm middle-class and I have no time for snobbery and totally appreciate what I have, but I'm not gonna apologise for it either.

jonnny68

it would be the easy way out for people like Boyd Barret and Murphy to become politicians who toe the party line like pretty much everyone in FG /FF / Lab and much of SF too and live a comfortable hassle free existence, unconcerned about anything or anyone who is less fortunate than they are but they don't, and for that i admire them, they are genuinely into what they do and what they believe and i couldn't care less what affluent area of leafy South Dublin they are from, they stand up for what is right, they are not parasites, corrupt or yes men,and whilst i might not agree with all their policies, I'd much sooner have people like this in power than the current lot who are the worst of all time.

mynamejeff

Why did Paul Murphy run in Tallaght rather than in the area he him self was from ?

i seem to recall the portrayed himself as a working class hero who was battling against the elite before his backroung was investigated by the press?

Agricola

Attacking the background of someone like this is just a means of political tarnishing. It's Murphy's arguements that need to be addressed not his parent's income bracket or his education details. You wouldn't see other politicians attacking a TD from the travelling community based on their background / education.

Not gone on the guy though, he has a smug head on him. Whiff of the professional student activist who has a calendar full of rallies marked off in his college backpack.

SaveOurLyric

jimgoose wrote: »

This is so, but being hugely privileged relative to a blind lesbian with one leg living in a mud village in Zimbabwe isn't much use to you in Terenure! :pac:

Really ?
If you asked them, how many people in Terenure do you think would agree with you that having two legs, not living in a mud village in Zimbabwe, being able to see, and being hugely privileged, doesnt sound like much use ? And that they may as well be an underprivileged blind lesbian with one leg living in a mud village in Zimbabwe ?

catallus

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Really ?
If you asked them, how many people in Terenure do you think would agree with you that having two legs, not living in a mud village in Zimbabwe, being able to see, and being hugely privileged, doesnt sound like much use ? And that they may as well be an underprivileged blind lesbian with one leg living in a mud village in Zimbabwe ?

+1, i think.

Littlekittylou

The appeal to motive fallacy "Yeah, but why does he hold that position?" . It's a tough one to evaluate. It is important in asessing character or who you want to vote for. But not really in understanding their ideas. Yet it does give you the character of an institution or political party somewhat. Eton produces more conservatives.Whether it's a mere correlation or vested self interest does not alter the validity or invalidity of the argument. Some Etonians are liberals.

Attitudes and feelings are drawn from personal experience. Observations and valid conclusions are not.

Generally the appeal to motive fallacy also pulls at the Argumentum Ad Mentum fallacy too, when the media pulls at fears or paranoia. When far lefties want people to think there is a far right wing conspiracy and all of Irish society is corrupt. It tends to pull at the fear that all of us will work for a vested self interest and likes to try and put these self interests against each other. The American media often paints republicans as the rich trying to protect their assets the Irish media does the same. The other side of the coin is this, the numerous stories of dole scroungers and the idea of the tax payer getting screwed. This is the presentation of an ideology by pulling on the strings of paranoia.

My degree was in philosophy. I had an idea I might go on to study law at some point. But some of the things we were most concerned with were tautology in prepositional logic vrs rhetorical tautology in speech. Solving prepositional logical formulas which should be tautologies is very very different from reading a rhetorical speech from some great bigwig and writing up an essay on it. And further more using the same methodology used for calculating determinant of a matrix whose non-zero elements are two sub-matrices on its diagonal to argue politics or other topics is yet another. But it's what philosophy is partly about. But it's not rhetorical tautology or circular reasoning. Hayes mentioning Murphy's background might be considered suppositional reasoning.

But politics is not just about logic or ideology it is also about character. And we do judge that on behaviors, the feelings people give us and yes their backgrounds. We ask questions such as what have they overcome? What are their values? Are they honest without being naive? Are the intelligent? We may not ask this as much as if we were going to befriend them but it's usually important and politicians understand this.

The appeal to motive is often used against Mick Wallace, Clare Daily and Ming Flanagan too, but in a different way. They hold their views because they are crack pots. The same with UKIP or the BNP. 'They hold their views on asylum because they are racist. ' That is the same type of suppositional fallacy. It might be based on a different premise to someone's background but the incorrect ladder of inference is there.

I was watching a Primetime episode on the fur trade in Ireland. And on the panel was a man who farmed mink (he has been banned since from farming fur after investigation). He validated his position by shouting that Claire Daily was an extremist saying that she must want to ban beef because she wanted to ban , in her words 'a high price luxury item namely fur made from animals'. He claimed his position on farming high anxiety low yielding animals like mink when most of the product is discarded was not extreme because 'I have a vegetarian daughter at home'.

There is a difference between using judgement (which is not logic but useful) and making wild correlations.

Truth is important. Ask yourself about the person or body pushing out the facts. Have they a vested interest in them? Is there another side? Can I get more independent verification? This ARE valid questions. But the judgement of the person asking them is also crucial. There's always time to make sure you're believing the right thing. Social media and the net is terrible for this As the updates in my feed here get ever more political and charged with emotion, I've seen things that I know not to be true, facts spun as though they were true and truth framed out of context to represent an agenda.Otherwise you might find yourself in an apocalyptic cult, dying of measles with only a tinfoil hat and a shortwave radio to keep you company.

Poor people can be right wingers, Rich people can be lefties. But we all bring different experiences to the table.

If you don't understand your politicians background there is a huge part of your politician you don't understand.

In this case it was petty of Hayes to bring up Murphy's background.

But there are certain characteristics that are generally considered universally good. Honor , Honesty , respect , kindness etc. Generally speaking whenever there is a scandal in our politics it's lack of these that is the source.

The media is bound by the strength of it's peers and how well it can take critical evaluation and reviews. Look at fox!

todders

jimgoose wrote: »

This is so, but being hugely privileged relative to a blind lesbian with one leg living in a mud village in Zimbabwe isn't much use to you in Terenure! :pac:

On the contrary, I'm rather envious of lesbians

P. Breathnach

Back to the question posed by OP: I heard that radio discussion, and I thought that Hayes alluding to Murphy's background was bad form - particularly when he repeated it just in case some of us missed it first time.

On reflection, I am less sure that Hayes was unjustified. Murphy's politics are the politics of social class. He presents himself as a warrior of the working class.

my teapot is orange

His background is irrelevant, but the fact that it's regularly brought up shouldn't surprise anyone as political parties will do anything to take swipes at the other side.

The whole "privileged background" debate is just lazy copying of the debates that go on in the UK that aren't as pertinent in Ireland as we have a much flatter class system.

There usually just ain't that much difference between any of us and where there is it doesn't matter much.