Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Still Waters No Longer Running, Derp.

1356781

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Jebus, that was faptastic for him to write, no doubt. What a prize A twit.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I was reading that, googled Katy French to jog my memory (usually don't give two ****s about these people), only remember the name now, couldn't be arsed researching her further. Confused as **** reading Waters article. Back to the shuttle for me.:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The last thing I remember seeing Katy French in a newspaper for before she died was the time she 'accidentally' flashed her gash while exiting a limo (as celebrities do). How come that didn't make the eulogy?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Galvasean wrote: »
    The last thing I remember seeing Katy French in a newspaper for before she died was the time she 'accidentally' flashed her gash while exiting a limo (as celebrities do). How come that didn't make the eulogy?

    That was for a private essay, I'm sure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,072 ✭✭✭ironingbored


    Attacking phantoms is not brave, Taoiseach
    JOHN WATERS
    THERE WAS nothing particularly “courageous” about Enda Kenny’s speech. It might have been brave 30 or 40 years ago, when the swishing soutanes and swinging thuribles did indeed rule the roost.

    But not now, when the rulers are the secular-atheists and pseudo-rationalists who foist their nihilistic formulas on our children, while pretending that John Charles McQuaid is still breathing down their necks from Drumcondra.

    The speech played that odd trick with time that has become the hallmark of much contemporary politics and commentary: purporting to confront some immense power in the present while challenging only phantoms. Anyone with the slightest grasp of reality knows the Irish Catholic hierarchy is a sorry sight, terrified of standing up to the new ascendancy, and that the Vatican is all but irrelevant to the running of the Irish church. But let us not let the facts cramp our style.

    Some elements of Enda’s speech were welcome, mainly because the position of Taoiseach has been devoid of rigour and inspiration for so long. It was, fundamentally, a catch-up speech, compensating for the silence and equivocation that has characterised Irish politics down the years, with the crozier and Christ treated as synonymous. Its main strength was its sense of an exasperated venting, which may do some good. The Vatican does not comprehend the extent and nature of the crisis in contemporary Irish culture, and has been guided by the worst possible advice. Now, perhaps, it has awoken to the smell of coffee.

    Some elements of the speech were reprehensible, especially the attack on Pope Benedict, which indicated gross ignorance, perhaps even malice. It is a sad day when the Taoiseach seems to have been trawling the internet for quotes – any quotes, regardless of context – to undermine the spiritual leader of the vast majority of his own people. I merely record this as a passing observation, having long understood that, in these matters, the truth is irrelevant.

    Everyone associated with the Taoiseach’s speech knew that this unjust and dishonest attack would pass largely unchallenged, for who now cares to defend the Pope? Much has been made of the Taoiseach’s references to the fact of his own Catholicism. But, no more than his predecessors who bent the knee to Rome, Kenny did not outline what Catholicism means for him, speaking as if he regards the church mainly as a social force, to be dealt with according to the prevailing political climate. He seems to think of the church in the way shareholders regard their company’s board. He did not resort to throwing eggs, but it seemed a close call.

    From rumblings otherwise, it seems he is now ad idem with the atheist ayatollahs of the Labour Party, preparing not merely to remove the right of Irish Catholic children to a Catholic education, but, in proposing laws to override the confessional seal, to attack the confidentiality which is at the core of pastoral relationships.

    Ostensibly, Kenny was addressing the Dáil, but his words were directed at the invisible new regime, which has the power to make or break him as Taoiseach. He knows that he is in office on sufferance and that the regime, operating through the soft tissue of the Labour Party, will pull the plug the moment his all-hat-and-no-cattle Government shows signs of outliving its usefulness. Government politicians know they must take every opportunity to do the regime’s bidding, accumulating brownie points for the lean days to come. Sticking it to the Catholic Church is guaranteed to meet with the regime’s approval.

    It would be delusional to imagine that we have left behind us the kind of Ireland in which those holding public office were answerable to forces or interests behind the scenes. Nowadays, power does not vest itself in soutanes, but operates over dinner tables and putting greens, making its imperatives known and reinforcing its world view through a media culture as malleable and compliant as in the allegedly dark days of the 1950s.

    Power nowadays can be tracked in the cruder levels of public sentiment, drawing close those whose interests correspond to the objectives of the regime and banishing those deemed to represent some outmoded form of authority.

    The moral content of this culture is overwhelmingly a matter of posture. Facts alone do not matter, but must be considered within the ecology of victimhood, which decides everything in advance. The truth is another planet. By claiming to represent the children of the nation, you acquire licence to say or do what you please.

    But there are many ways of abusing children. You can sit them in desks and subject them to the knowing nonsense of cynics who steal their hope and joy so as to demonstrate repugnance of some derelict or decomposed authority. You can sell them false versions of freedom to make yourself rich. You can fill their heads with nihilism and wonder why they attempt to obliterate themselves with chemicals.

    But, not to worry: the wreckage of present-day swishing and swinging can be left for the next generation, just as we now belatedly deal with the consequences of the sins and abuses of a time from which we are separated by time and the collateral innocence it has conferred on us.

    (Bold is mine)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    will be primed to live a life in the box built by man, governed by statutes and economics and approved thinking, closed off from most of the vast possibilities of existence, his hope deflated, her desire stunted, a citizen of a dictatorship of pseudo-pluralism, quasi-equality, reduced reason and, ultimately, nothingness.
    As opposed to living a religious life where they live in a box built by man, governed by statutes and economics and approved religious thinking, closed off from the vast possibilities of existence, his hope deflated, her desire stunted, a citizen of a dictatorship of pseudo pluralism, quasi-equality, reduced reason and, ultimately, nothingness?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    That Waters article was discussed previously here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Comparing a secular education to child abuse... Ranting & Raving is thataway John --->


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,557 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    CiaranMT wrote: »
    Comparing a secular education to child abuse... Ranting & Raving is thataway John --->
    But secularism = Stalinism, didn't you know that? :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Dades wrote: »
    But secularism = Stalinism, didn't you know that? :pac:

    And nihilism...

    big_lebowski_nihilists.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Nodin wrote: »
    I'd say Chewie would be a better writer though.
    feelpablo wrote: »
    Properly understood, religion enables the opening up of the child’s natural understanding of his/her own structure and relationship with the totality of reality.

    Among the many ingredients missing from this prescription is the nurturing of the subjectivity of the child in the mysteriousness of reality.

    When is his great work of fiction going to be published :rolleyes:
    In the old days, it would have taken a chimp with a typewriter a long time to come up with such wonderful quotes.
    But now, using the amazing Random Postmodernist Bull$hit Generator*, John Waters can produce a newspaper article two or three times a week.


    * warning; read the notes at the bottom of the page before reading the essays


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    There are a number of questions that I've never really gained a satisfactory answer to over the years (not including requests for sex.....though then again....) and one of the ones brought to mind on a semi-regular basis is this -How the fuck does one become a "Journalist"?

    Is it, like the Church, some series of bizzarre rites and rituals involving being promoted by a hierarchy who claim to be "inspired" by the abstract, unquantifiable and ineffable forces of the universe? Because as a lad, my elders and betters gave me the distinct impression it was to do with writing ability, and for that reason, I ruled it out as a possible career choice or avenue of study. "Sure I'd be no good at that" sez I. And here I am, decades later, looking every now and again at a few of the pieces of work flung out by not only Mr Waters but certain other members of the elect band.....


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    UL run a journalism course now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    CiaranMT wrote: »
    UL run a journalism course now.

    I'm pretty sure some boardsie explained previously how journalism bach's were merely "teaching" journalists how to avoid lawsuits.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,092 ✭✭✭CiaranMT


    Malty_T wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure some boardsie explained previously how journalism bach's were merely "teaching" journalists how to avoid lawsuits.

    And a shorthand alphabet, in an age of recorders and netbooks... No wonder my friend dropped out :pac:


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Waters got hisself pwn'd this morning on TheJournal:

    http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-%E2%80%98the-macchiatos-certainly-came-home-to-roost-that-day%E2%80%99/
    On 31 May 2006 RTE broadcasted a ninety-minute documentary entitled That Was Then, This is Now, elements of which perfectly captured the zeitgeist. It consisted of nine personal reflections on Ireland and the changes the country underwent from 1986 to 2006. The contributors included John Waters, Áine Lawlor, Emily Hourican, Luke Clancy and Mary Robinson.

    In a wonderful display of ignorance and self-deception, Waters laid out in nine short minutes his complete inability to understand the world around him, to see the forces which shape the world he inhabits. His contribution started with an older, wiser Waters looking at a clip of himself on The Late Late Show in 1986 – a clip where he’s telling the audience that we should repudiate the national debt. Older Waters rubbed his face and made wide with his eyes. ‘We were banjaxed’ he says. ‘We really were! Remarkable really. Twenty years. From banjaxed to [pause for effect]… bonanza.’

    Waters tried to explain to the audience that, back then, we had emigration. The country was broke. We were governed in the interests of bankers. He’s like Rutger Hauer in Bladerunner, telling us how in 1986 he saw IMF attack-ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. He watched dole queues glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments are now lost in time, like tears in rain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    He was writing about Norris in yesterday's Daily Fail. Didn't read it as I was too engrossed by the letters page where someone took the time to write that a Godless society leads to Stalin's gulags and Hitler killing 6 million Jews (do religious folk still believe Hitler was an atheist... really?). The same letter concluded by saying child abuse is bad but not as bad as mass murder.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Galvasean wrote: »
    He was writing about Norris in yesterday's Daily Fail. Didn't read it as I was too engrossed by the letters page where someone took the time to write that a Godless society leads to Stalin's gulags and Hitler killing 6 million Jews (do religious folk still believe Hitler was an atheist... really?). The same letter concluded by saying child abuse is bad but not as bad as mass murder.

    theyre our only two options? shít!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    I write like that too, it's called advanced retro analysis which presupposes the reader to have a basic knowledge of the various strands in the article.

    It's probably not a good newspaper article, but it's fine as a government report.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    Galvasean wrote: »
    (do religious folk still believe Hitler was an atheist... really?).

    Does anyone still think that's relevant?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    Undergod wrote: »
    Does anyone still think that's relevant?

    It's a common misconception, Hitler was a Catholic and had Vatican approval for his actions. I'd have to go look it up, but I'm not bother to, but I think he had a fight with the Vat and he wanted to marry his partner ~ so I think he remained a Catholic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    But my point is it's irrelevant. So what if Hitler was Catholic? The man's religion is of no importance. If you could prove conclusively he was an atheist or a christian, it doesn't really change anything cause his actions were not really motivated by religious belief; similarly if it turned out Stalin was secretly a Christian, or Idi Amin was actually an atheist, it wouldn't prove anything about either religious belief or atheism.

    I always kinda reckoned Hitler primarily saw religion as a tool to be used- this would imply non-belief to me. I think there are quotes on record where he admired the militancy that Islam can have, and I think I remember reading that there was evidence the Nazis tried to create a sort of Hitler-cult, with schoolchildren being encouraged to pray to the Fuehrer. As with all aspects of life in fascist Germany, religion was supposed to be under the control of the state, and obviously this doesn't sit well with loyalty to Rome, and would make me doubt that Hitler was particularly catholic.

    But I consider this to be academic, interesting only in and of itself, and like I say, I don't think it really changes anything.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Undergod wrote: »
    But my point is it's irrelevant. So what if Hitler was Catholic? The man's religion is of no importance.
    It's important when debating with people who believe that Hitler was an atheist, and that his atheism caused him to behave as he did.

    If an atheist points out that atheism implies no ethical code, religious people usually say something like "well, if you've no absolute morals, then Hitler is what you get". When an atheist then points out that Hitler was born and raised a catholic, was never excommunicated and frequently referred to "doing the lord's work", you then get the "one bad apple" or "the system is perfect" response.

    The Hitler Gambit is a means of showing how crap religious argumentation is, but then again, if religious people were any good at following trains of logic, they'd hardly be religious then, would they?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    I getcha. I guess I just feel it's a topic that's up for debate, and there are plenty of examples of christian atrocities, so I hadn't really thought necesary to engage in too deeply.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Undergod wrote: »
    I guess I just feel it's a topic that's up for debate, and there are plenty of examples of christian atrocities, so I hadn't really thought necesary to engage in too deeply.
    Yeah, the point I made about is what Galvasean was referring to -- how Hitler is used as a (very crappy) example of what happens when atheists run countries.

    Rather than saying anything about Hitler himself as a guy: personally, I've no idea whether he thought of himself as catholic. Probably he didn't. But whether he did or not isn't really all that relevant. What's not in doubt is that he used, with a wild abandon, the kind of psychological tricks that religions typically use to achieve and sustain mass indoctrination and mass action. And he was certainly bouyed along by a strong sense of antisemitism that had existed in Germany for a long time before he got his grubby hands on it. Luther's notorious "On the Jews and Their Lies" is worth reading in this context.

    And the Bavarian catholic 'Center Party', under the leadership of the catholic priest Ludwig Kass, provided the Reichstag votes the Nazis needed to give Hitler the dictatorial powers he wanted. And the Nazi's signed a deal, known as the Reichskonkordat, with the Vatican in 1933/34 in order to guarantee continued privilege within the Nazi state (the Reichskonkordat still governs the relationship between the modern German state and the Vatican). And the Nazi state was ~95% christian in 1939.

    And so on and so on!

    'round here, we stick to godwin's rule -- the first person to bring up Hitler during a debate, in a broad hand-wavey sense, loses the argument by default :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,552 ✭✭✭roosh


    the first emboldened statement probably refers to the fact that spirituality involves the investigation of the nature of self and reality, with religion having it's roots in spiritual investigation.

    the rest seem to represent the milestones on his slippery slope fallacy


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    robindch wrote: »
    The Hitler Gambit is a means of showing how crap religious argumentation is, but then again, if religious people were any good at following trains of logic, they'd hardly be religious then, would they?

    if-you-could-reason-wth-religious-people-there-would-be-no-religious-people-house-500x375+mcs.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Undergod wrote: »
    I getcha. I guess I just feel it's a topic that's up for debate, and there are plenty of examples of christian atrocities, so I hadn't really thought necesary to engage in too deeply.

    I'm with you in that. delving into the motives of someone like Hitler is an interesting topic of discussion, but it becomes pointless tit for tat when people try and say things like "Hitler was X, therefore X is bad!"


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Here are Watery John's latest ravings. Granted it's only in the Irish Catholic, but even still, his biliousness seems to have reached new heights:

    http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/unseemly-and-seemly-unstoppable-rush-zeroism-john-waters
    At the weekend I spoke in Rimini at a gathering of nearly 6,000 students from Catholic universities all over Italy. Aged between late-teens and (a few) mid-twenties, they were members of the Catholic movement Comunione e Liberazione, which was founded in 1954, following an intuition by Fr Luigi Giussani that Italian Catholics did not really understand what Christianity is.

    For me as an Irish parent, it was a deeply affecting experience to be among them for the three days of their annual spiritual exercises, to witness their intensity and sincerity, their conversations and questions, their desire to understand what is true and to accompany one another in their searching for it. I spoke late on Saturday evening -- 10pm -- at the end of a long day for the students and was once again astonished by the quality of their attention and engagement.

    That morning, I had sat in the front row of the auditorium at 9am watching a young man with the voice of an angel warming up his vocal cords, while another young man sat behind him and supported him on an acoustic guitar. Behind me were 6,000 empty seats waiting for the doors to open. When the two young men finished their rehearsal, the screen over the stage sparked into life and, accompanied by the voice of Maria Callas, began showing images of Antoni Gaudi's unearthly cathedral, the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.

    Distracted, I lost myself in the emotions the music and pictures were evoking in me. When the screen went dead, perhaps ten, 15 minutes later, I came again to an awareness of my surroundings and, looking around, found that the 6,000 seats had filled up with young people. In total silence, they had filed into the auditorium and were now behind me waiting for the day to begin. It would be a mistake to assume these young people to be inordinately pious or submissive. To be truthful, I have never met a collection of young people so intensely engaged with everything -- music, life, politics, fashion, art, sport, literature, history, science, economics, social life -- or so prepared to question everything. They talk, laugh, kiss, smoke, drink and dance at least as much and as well as other young people.

    At lunchtime on Sunday, as the event was winding down, a group of the students produced a satire of the weekend's proceedings, including a merciless ribbing of my contribution. They are as sharp, as fun loving and as open as any kids I've ever met, but they live in a parallel universe, in which the greatest questions and possibilities are open on the table all the time.

    Reality

    The theme for the weekend's reflections was typical of the great educative genius that was Fr Giussani: 'The Inexorable Positivity of Reality', which the students sought to compare and contrast with the bleak, reductionist positivism presented to them as reality by a culture that recognises nothing that cannot be weighed or measured. The closeness in sound and appearance of the two words, and the total lack of correspondence in their meanings, had been among the main themes of my contribution.

    In Ireland, it is impossible to imagine such a gathering. Had I been waiting to speak to a meeting of Catholics in this country, the chances are that everyone in the audience would have been aged 50 or more. But the age-profile would have been just the beginning of the divergence. Also to be noted is the likely enormity of the disparity of expectation and understanding concerning the terms and limits of a discussion about the meaning and context of Christianity.

    And, had this been Ireland, I too would have been operating from a different mental disposition, rummaging around my head for words to bridge the gap between the inevitable expectations of an agenda rooted in piety and moralism and a desire to get, as quickly as possible to what for most Irish Catholics would be an incongruous consideration of the totally human and the totally real. For these young people, such leaps are axiomatic, inevitable. Indeed, they are not leaps at all, but simply the obvious train of thinking that arises naturally out of the education they are receiving.

    To be among such people is to realise how much we have really lost here in this pygmy republic with its smug sense of progress and sophistication arising from its continuing repudiation of a culture 1,500 years old. To observe and listen to these youngsters is to mourn for our own, cheated of their inheritance of a civilisation that would, if properly presented to them, equip them for the total journey to an infinite destination.

    In Ireland today, what is called education is a puny and strangled thing. It prepares the young to rattle around in a reduced and airless culture, in which meanings and possibilities have been plundered of their depth and human resonance. It sets out to groom the young to insert chips into circuit boards, or regurgitate the formula for a potency drug, but not to know what reality truly is.

    It makes ready our children for living in the bunker described so eloquently by Pope Benedict XVI at his speech in the Bundestag in Berlin, a couple of months ago -- a bunker constructed of words and thoughts, but with no windows ''in which we ourselves provide lighting and atmospheric conditions, being no longer willing to obtain either from God's wide world''. And yet, he went on, ''we cannot hide from ourselves the fact that even in this artificial world, we are still covertly drawing upon God's raw materials, which we refashion into our own products''.

    We, the parents of this allegedly Christian but now almost completely bunkered country, are forced to stand idly by as an avowedly atheist education minister in a stupid Government dismantles the birthright of our children. Indeed, we are obliged, in deference to the dominant imperatives of 'tolerance' and 'pluralism' to celebrate this destruction.

    Led in conversation by a media lacking the faintest grasp of the consequences of its own vapid anti-religious agendas, we shrug and swallow as we are lectured in the necessity to replace our culture with something presumed to be at once both 'pluralist' and 'secular', a contradiction-in-terms that should leave any sentient person breathless. The 'secular' dispensation that has suddenly taken over, proposes that religion and education be uncoupled -- but without any prior acknowledgment or understanding of the place faith plays in the imparting of knowledge or the understanding of reality.

    Rúairi Quinn patronises the Catholicism he appears determined to destroy, emphasising the importance of ''religious education'' -- as though this was something other than a tautology, as though there existed some other kind of education rather than the total kind. Of course, the concept of a secular education is an oxymoron.

    Propaganda

    Education is preparation for life in its profundity, or it is nothing but ideological propaganda. It is strange to note the inversion that has occurred here, whereby the reduction to secularism is seen as the leap of progress, and this, it has to be admitted, arises in part from the reduction of Christianity which preceded it. But a true education involves a synthesis of tradition and freedom. It takes the child from the imagined moment of human origin to the hypothesised point of destination, enabling him to stretch out his total humanity in the expanse of human desiring and hoping.

    It is clear that human beings function to their optimum when given some working model of the whole of reality, which is to say a worldview that is predicated on the infinite, absolute and eternal possibilities of existence. Religion offers a hypothesis that is contingent and yet total, and for this reason enables other forms of knowledge to be placed in a workable perspective. Minus these understandings, so-called ''religious education'' becomes no more than the objectification of religious experience, which in the culture of the bunker reads as ''a history of superstition''.

    There is no 'neutral' way of imparting knowledge. All teaching carries with it a worldview. The problem is that, with a 'secular' education, the worldview comes mainly hidden in the silences, lacunae and elisions of a programme that seeks to produce citizens, consumers and functionaries rather than mature beings animated with affection and curiosity for a life lived in the totality of human possibility. At the moment, we are allowing those we have seemingly delegated to reconstruct our culture to raise up a new Ireland in which future children will be prepared for work and citizenship, while having their humanity moulded by a disingenuous pluralism, presented and presumed as neutral.

    But, really, this neutrality is a slithery dogma that steals from our children the fundamental means to understand themselves. This so-called pluralism is really zeroism -- the eradication of the greater part of our children's humanity, consigning them to the blank space ringed by its defining big fat zero. Driven by half-wit politicians, aided and abetted by neurotic, spite-filled journalists, and indifferent to the ineffectual protestations of Catholic clerics, this process is unfolding before our eyes. We have nothing reliable to compare it with, no means of monitoring the outcomes and no understandings by which we might seek to challenge it before it becomes too late. Perhaps it already is.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Arcus Arrow


    Can anyone help me translate the parts in bold. I'm really struggling. :confused:


    They all translate into the same thing: John Waters is a confused dipstick who dwells in foggy phrases to cover up that fact.


Advertisement