How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

bodice ripper · 15-02-2015 01:40AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

You haven't got a strategic bone in your body

Maybe I just don't agree with your reading of the situation, Sun Tzu. You mustn't be the PR master you think yourself to be.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 01:40AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your suggestions of only using acceptable gays is actually quite damaging

Explain.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 01:41AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Maybe I just don't agree with your reading of the situation, Sun Tzu. You mustn't be the PR master you think yourself to be.

You've already admitted that you don't care about changing people's opinions.

Zen65 · 15-02-2015 01:42AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Based on nothing.

Perhaps based on 50+ years of experience living in this country, running (non-political) campaigns, and studying the human psyche. Though honestly any PR executive would point out the inherent truth in it.

This month in the USA commentators have described how Sarah Palin's political career has come to an end. Because she's a witless, bigoted fool? No, oddly enough. Her career is considered to be over because she was photographed holding a banner which said "F*** you Michael Moore". It seems the GOP could no longer support her now that she has shown public anger and foul language, costing her the endearment of so many of the US right-wing voters.

You should not underestimate the fickleness of the voting public.

BTW - I appreciate that one might erroneously misconstrue an attempt on my part to cause offence to the 'yes' campaigners by comparing them to Sarah Palin, but I assure no I mean no offence and would never suggest that the 'yes' campaigners bear any resemblance to Ms Palin.

marienbad · 15-02-2015 01:42AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

You're saying that trying to predict what will sway swing voters is a waste of time. But the only motivation to predict what will sway swing voters is to use it to sway their votes. In effect saying there's no point in doing anything to sway swing voters, as the first step in that process is to figure out what makes them tick. What you said was stupid.

You're not left with much wiggle room here.

No that is not what I am saying , but there is little I can do if you have weak comprehension skills. Try reading it again , what is stupid is what you think I said.

K4t · 15-02-2015 01:44AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

You haven't got a strategic bone in your body

This. It is abundantly clear that a lot of posters here are emotionally invested in this referendum and debate, and are failing to see that this is an emotional issue on both sides and above all a political issue which requires objective reasoning. Walshy93 is discussing political strategy for winning this referendum, and sometimes that involves pandering to the moderates and those leaning towards the other side.

Lyaiera · 15-02-2015 01:46AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Explain.

Because it erases representation of gay people. By only showing "acceptable" gay people it means a lot of people lose out on someone they can identify with. It seeks to normalise one part of a group while ostracising another.

bodice ripper · 15-02-2015 01:47AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

You've already admitted that you don't care about changing people's opinions.

I care about mobilising the yes vote.

There haven't even been any undecided or no vote posts in pages at this point. Just talk about what constitutes acceptable gayness in the current climate.

Zen65 · 15-02-2015 01:48AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Maybe I just don't agree with your reading of the situation, Sun Tzu. You mustn't be the PR master you think yourself to be.

Since you appear to be a fan of The Art of War, you may enjoy this by Sun Tzu:

Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
Sun Tzu

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 02:06AM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Because it erases representation of gay people. By only showing "acceptable" gay people it means a lot of people lose out on someone they can identify with. It seeks to normalise one part of a group while ostracising another.

It doesn't erase gay people. It just controls the image that is projected. I don't think the IT was trying to do gay people any favours with their cover.

K4t · 15-02-2015 02:06AM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Because it erases representation of gay people. By only showing "acceptable" gay people it means a lot of people lose out on someone they can identify with. It seeks to normalise one part of a group while ostracising another.

Ugh, you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with "acceptable" GAY people as with acceptable PEOPLE.

You can interview a gay person no matter what he looks like or is wearing for a job and not know he is gay right? But interview a guy for a job with a goatee, a nose piercing and visible tattoos and immediately your eyes make initial judgements, and in the case of lots of people, their minds make final judgements, often negatively, based on those things. They do not have a clue the person is gay!

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 02:08AM

marienbad wrote: »

No that is not what I am saying , but there is little I can do if you have weak comprehension skills. Try reading it again , what is stupid is what you think I said.

Here's what you said.

People DO understand the concept of swing voters , and you hit the nail on the head - they can be influenced by the most trivial of things , so in fact it is an impossibility to predict or even comprehend what will piss them off and therefore it is an utter waste of time trying to do so

Here's how I interpret it.

People DO understand the concept of swing voters , and you hit the nail on the head - they can be influenced by the most trivial of things , so in fact it is an impossibility to predict or even comprehend what will piss them off and therefore it is an utter waste of time trying to do so

Except it is possible to predict. That's what politicians do all the time.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 02:11AM

If I was a political strategist for the No side I would probably put out a load of quasi-pro-ssm material whilst simultaneously hitting all the nerves of conservative Ireland.

To the Yes side: Here's a lovely gay couple. Aren't we tolerant!

To the No side: Here's a gay couple with neck tattoos and piercings. You see? They're not like you at all! What kind of father has neck tattoos?

To a lot of people neither of those men would look like father material even if they were pictured on their own.

marienbad · 15-02-2015 02:13AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Here's what you said.

Here's how I interpret it.

People DO understand the concept of swing voters , and you hit the nail on the head - they can be influenced by the most trivial of things , so in fact it is an impossibility to predict or even comprehend what will piss them off and therefore it is an utter waste of time trying to do so

Correct, now what you extrapolated from that is incorrect, quite stupid in fact.

K4t · 15-02-2015 02:14AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

It doesn't erase gay people. It just controls the image that is projected. I don't think the IT was trying to do gay people any favours with their cover.

But surely the very discussion that is taking place here and the opposition you are facing in this thread would suggest otherwise. Most people here think it was the right thing to do by using that photo. Your speculation concerning the strategic effects of using the photo I agree and are logical, but you're assumption about the IT's reason for using the photo had some kind of ulterior motive is less reason and logic than conspiracy..

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 02:19AM

marienbad wrote: »

Correct, now what you extrapolated from that is incorrect, quite stupid in fact.

I extrapolated that you don't think it's worth spending time figuring out how to sway swing voters. Explain how that's wrong. I'm getting tired of your evasiveness.

marienbad · 15-02-2015 02:22AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

I extrapolated that you don't think it's worth spending time figuring out how to sway swing voters. Explain how that's wrong. I'm getting tired of your evasiveness.

My original post couldn't be clearer, so work it out for yourself , and as for evasiveness, not my style, but now at least you might understand how your continued rudeness goes down,

Lyaiera · 15-02-2015 02:23AM

K4t wrote: »

Ugh, you're missing the point. It has nothing to do with "acceptable" GAY people as with acceptable PEOPLE.

You can interview a gay person no matter what he looks like or is wearing for a job and not know he is gay right? But interview a guy for a job with a goatee, a nose piercing and visible tattoos and immediately your eyes make initial judgements, and in the case of lots of people, their minds make final judgements, often negatively, based on those things. They do not have a clue the person is gay!

I actually agree with you. I think the Irish Times has been very disingenuous with their representation of gay people, in a lot of their articles. However I also think that there's danger in not representing the diversity of gay people. It's like the, "Not all gay people are camp and screamy!" Throwing anyone who is camp under the bus for appearance sake when there's nothing wrong with being camp.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 02:23AM

K4t wrote: »

But surely the very discussion that is taking place here and the opposition you are facing in this thread would suggest otherwise. Most people here think it was the right thing to do by using that photo. Your speculation concerning the strategic effects of using the photo I agree and are logical, but you're assumption about the IT's reason for using the photo had some kind of ulterior motive is less reason and logic than conspiracy..

Not exactly. A single editorial decision wouldn't constitute a conspiracy. But if they actually wanted to represent them as "one of us" I think they'd have gone for someone more traditional looking. That's if that was their goal. Maybe they didn't put much thought into it. Maybe that couple was the only gay couple that responded to the invitation.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 02:26AM

marienbad wrote: »

My original post couldn't be clearer, so work it out for yourself , and as for evasiveness, not my style, but now at least you might understand how your continued rudeness goes down,

What I've extrapolated is basically a euphemism of what you said.

marienbad · 15-02-2015 02:27AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

What I've extrapolated is basically a euphemism of what you said.

Not even close . You need to go to the back of the class:)

osarusan · 15-02-2015 02:29AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

You've already admitted that you don't care about changing people's opinions.

I don't think that will be important at all in this referendum.

The number of people who 'would' vote yes if they voted will be a huge majority over those who 'would' vote no.

The issue for the Yes side is making sure they get those who 'would' vote yes into those who 'will vote' yes.

Energising and mobilisng the Yes vote will make sure the referendum is won, without needing to pander to anybody or change anybody's mind.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 02:30AM

marienbad wrote: »

Not even close . You need to go to the back of the class:)

You called yourself stupid without realising it, so I don't expect you to admit it. We'll move on, genius.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 02:31AM

osarusan wrote: »

I don't think that will be important at all in this referendum.

The number of people who 'would' vote yes if they voted will be a huge majority over those who 'would' vote no.

The issue for the Yes side is making sure they get those who 'would' vote yes into those who 'will vote' yes.

Energising and mobilisng the Yes vote will make sure the referendum is won, without needing to pander to anybody or change anybody's mind.

You need to take into account the fact that people are likely to support the most tolerant socially acceptable view when polled. Even if they feel otherwise when it comes to a secret ballot.

marienbad · 15-02-2015 02:32AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

You called yourself stupid without realising it, so I don't expect you to admit it. We'll move on, genius.

Still don't get it do you,

Annasopra · 15-02-2015 02:32AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

You called yourself stupid without realising it, so I don't expect you to admit it. We'll move on, genius.

And again you comtinue in a patronising, rude and dismissive posting style.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 02:34AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And again you comtinue in a patronising, rude and dismissive posting style.

Oh ffs I'm sick of your moaning. I've been patronised and dismissed plenty I'm not complaining.

osarusan · 15-02-2015 02:34AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

You need to take into account the fact that people are likely to support the most tolerant socially acceptable view when polled. Even if they feel otherwise when it comes to a secret ballot.

My post did take that into account. If everybody in the country voted according to how they felt, Yes would win easily.

The job of the Yes side is to get those who would vote Yes to actually go and vote Yes.

walshyn93 · 15-02-2015 02:35AM

marienbad wrote: »

Still don't get it do you,

Explain it then. If there is something to explain you'll do it. If there's not you'll act like there is to save face.

K4t · 15-02-2015 02:36AM

walshyn93 wrote: »

Not exactly. A single editorial decision wouldn't constitute a conspiracy. But if they actually wanted to represent them as "one of us" I think they'd have gone for someone more traditional looking. That's if that was their goal. Maybe they didn't put much thought into it. Maybe that couple was the only gay couple that responded to the invitation.

Fair enough, though I think it's more a case of them thinking more like those arguing with you in this thread, and not political strategizing as you are attempting to do.

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments