|
|
Post by earl on May 27, 2008 12:28:55 GMT
We've seen it occur on this site, other sites and with unionist politicians (the DUP's original anti-agreement stance and the TUV).
So what is it that exists within the PUL community that makes talking to nationalists/republicans so hard and often undesirable?
Surely, the very thing that unionists should be doing to try and further secure the union is to listen to those outside of their community, if only to help formulate new ideas in how to extend the shrinking unionist family.
So why is it that republicans/nationalists are, in general (and at the incredible risk of sounding completely sectarian, but that's not my intention. Just calling this as I see it right or wrong) more likely to seek out and continue discourse with the unionist community?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 27, 2008 19:02:57 GMT
We've seen it occur on this site, other sites and with unionist politicians (the DUP's original anti-agreement stance and the TUV). So what is it that exists within the PUL community that makes talking to nationalists/republicans so hard and often undesirable? Surely, the very thing that unionists should be doing to try and further secure the union is to listen to those outside of their community, if only to help formulate new ideas in how to extend the shrinking unionist family. So why is it that republicans/nationalists are, in general (and at the incredible risk of sounding completely sectarian, but that's not my intention. Just calling this as I see it right or wrong) more likely to seek out and continue discourse with the unionist community? Funnily enough I agree with you, your side are more ready to talk, as a matter of fact it's hard to shut them up. As long as everyone is prepared to talk about the things they want to talk about. If you try to talk about the things that unionists/loyalists want to talk about it will be dragged of topic with issues that have absolutely nothing whatever in connection with the original topic. For instance, if we are prepared to talk about what nationalists/republicans believe was their beef over the British we can talk all day. Try to talk about victims (Silence) or loyalists were the cause of more victims than republicans is what it becomes. And the British army and RUC caused victims etc. etc. That is why we are losing unionists, because what they say is not being taken seriously. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the reason republicans gave for thirty years of murdering people, because no one was addressing the issues they wanted addressed. They didn't just take a hissy fit and go away, they killed people. See that's how it's done, now someone will come back at me about that and your thread will be lost. It happens on every issue nationalists/republicans feel uncomfortable with. The only person to ask a serious question of loyalists on here was AFD, in "Paramilitaries in loyalist areas". He got an answer from the only three unionists left here, but it wasn't one he was expecting. "We hate them as much as you do". Then he made unfounded accusations against my community, and said things about his own that I don't believe. But everyone on the nationalist side of the fence jumped on WASP, rather than discuss the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by collina on May 27, 2008 20:45:54 GMT
We've seen it occur on this site, other sites and with unionist politicians (the DUP's original anti-agreement stance and the TUV). So what is it that exists within the PUL community that makes talking to nationalists/republicans so hard and often undesirable? Surely, the very thing that unionists should be doing to try and further secure the union is to listen to those outside of their community, if only to help formulate new ideas in how to extend the shrinking unionist family. So why is it that republicans/nationalists are, in general (and at the incredible risk of sounding completely sectarian, but that's not my intention. Just calling this as I see it right or wrong) more likely to seek out and continue discourse with the unionist community? I think there a various reasons. Some of the "no surrender brigade" just won't debate with a Republican/Nationalist/Catholic because it tantamount to explaining themselves. Some just don't want to associate in any way with with people they don't trust. There also tends to be two (often incompatible) debating techniques. The traditional Republican/Nationalist tactic of bogging the topic down by demanding citation is met by the Unionist/Loyalist distrust of mainstream media and historical records ("facts", you can prove anything with facts" they growl). I'm often shocked at the number of sensible loyalists who believe that the BBC is run by the Vatican. I think however, the main reason is confidence. Deep down your average PUL member knows nobody cares about him. Every other year at Cannes, a film about Irish Republicanism wins some sort of award. Nobody is making films about Loyalism. It's just too complicated. Too difficult to explain to an audience with a romantic view of Ireland. I think the inherent problem for the PUL cummunity is that its position is just too damn complicated. Its easy to tangle them up- "So if someone is from Wales is a Welshman and British , is not a Brit from Northern Ireland also Irish?", gets them arguing amongst themselves. They can't agree on Religion, Country or Political ideology, whereas the Nationalist/Republican community are a pretty homogeneous bunch. Its easy to team up in a debate with the PUL, cause division, isolate debaters and pck them off. THE PUL know this and with some exceptions avoid getting involved with the enemy for that very reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 27, 2008 21:27:28 GMT
We've seen it occur on this site, other sites and with unionist politicians (the DUP's original anti-agreement stance and the TUV). So what is it that exists within the PUL community that makes talking to nationalists/republicans so hard and often undesirable? Surely, the very thing that unionists should be doing to try and further secure the union is to listen to those outside of their community, if only to help formulate new ideas in how to extend the shrinking unionist family. So why is it that republicans/nationalists are, in general (and at the incredible risk of sounding completely sectarian, but that's not my intention. Just calling this as I see it right or wrong) more likely to seek out and continue discourse with the unionist community? I think there a various reasons. Some of the "no surrender brigade" just won't debate with a Republican/Nationalist/Catholic because it tantamount to explaining themselves. Some just don't want to associate in any way with with people they don't trust. There also tends to be two (often incompatible) debating techniques. The traditional Republican/Nationalist tactic of bogging the topic down by demanding citation is met by the Unionist/Loyalist distrust of mainstream media and historical records ("facts", you can prove anything with facts" they growl). I'm often shocked at the number of sensible loyalists who believe that the BBC is run by the Vatican. I think however, the main reason is confidence. Deep down your average PUL member knows nobody cares about him. Every other year at Cannes, a film about Irish Republicanism wins some sort of award. Nobody is making films about Loyalism. It's just too complicated. Too difficult to explain to an audience with a romantic view of Ireland. I think the inherent problem for the PUL cummunity is that its position is just too damn complicated. Its easy to tangle them up- "So if someone is from Wales is a Welshman and British , is not a Brit from Northern Ireland also Irish?", gets them arguing amongst themselves. They can't agree on Religion, Country or Political ideology, whereas the Nationalist/Republican community are a pretty homogeneous bunch. Its easy to team up in a debate with the PUL, cause division, isolate debaters and pck them off. THE PUL know this and with some exceptions avoid getting involved with the enemy for that very reason. I'm not even going to grace your post with an answer, the last few lines says it all. "Its easy to team up in a debate with the PUL, cause division, isolate debaters and pck them off." To you and some other nationalists, that all it is about. Well is it any wonder anyone intent on serious debate soons gets sick of you and your ilk? |
|
|
|
Post by collina on May 27, 2008 21:36:12 GMT
I think there a various reasons. Some of the "no surrender brigade" just won't debate with a Republican/Nationalist/Catholic because it tantamount to explaining themselves. Some just don't want to associate in any way with with people they don't trust. There also tends to be two (often incompatible) debating techniques. The traditional Republican/Nationalist tactic of bogging the topic down by demanding citation is met by the Unionist/Loyalist distrust of mainstream media and historical records ("facts", you can prove anything with facts" they growl). I'm often shocked at the number of sensible loyalists who believe that the BBC is run by the Vatican. I think however, the main reason is confidence. Deep down your average PUL member knows nobody cares about him. Every other year at Cannes, a film about Irish Republicanism wins some sort of award. Nobody is making films about Loyalism. It's just too complicated. Too difficult to explain to an audience with a romantic view of Ireland. I think the inherent problem for the PUL cummunity is that its position is just too damn complicated. Its easy to tangle them up- "So if someone is from Wales is a Welshman and British , is not a Brit from Northern Ireland also Irish?", gets them arguing amongst themselves. They can't agree on Religion, Country or Political ideology, whereas the Nationalist/Republican community are a pretty homogeneous bunch. Its easy to team up in a debate with the PUL, cause division, isolate debaters and pck them off. THE PUL know this and with some exceptions avoid getting involved with the enemy for that very reason. I'm not even going to grace your post with an answer, the last few lines says it all. "Its easy to team up in a debate with the PUL, cause division, isolate debaters and pck them off." To you and some other nationalists, that all it is about. Well is it any wonder anyone intent on serious debate soons gets sick of you and your ilk? I beg your pardon ?? Where did I say I advocated such behaviour? I do not agree with that sort of thing. I was simply stating a fact as I see it. I would be very grateful if you could explain why you thought so, or any evidence to show I done so in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 27, 2008 21:38:03 GMT
Read your post again and tell me you don't agree with it. And the answer to your question is yes plenty.
Oh and by the way the reason we debate with each other about whether or not we are Irish is because we are there to debate. Not back each other up no matter what, if I think a unionist is wrong I will tell him so, but you and the other nationalists/republicans on here stick together no matter what the debaate is about. So who is it that is being honest in that situation? You have been reading to much into the ira green card which tells memebers to "divide the enemy, belittle and embarrass them". Well you learn your lesson well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 27, 2008 21:50:39 GMT
Here bilky, glass houses and all that. We tried to have a chat about the Irish language in the Chit Chat section and that was soon hijacked. I don't mind though, I was intrigued by what you had to say. I'm more then happy to have a reasonable debate with anyone. But if someone says something or makes an accusation then I'd like to see where it came from. If somebody states that they have a position on something and then it changes on the next thrend then I'm going to pull them up on it. It's not being nasty it's just how a debate works in the real world. In the Assembly and in any Parliament you have to be able to substantiate what you say. You can't run soley on emotion. I debated in the Irish language thread and stuck to the thread, I continually said I thought it was rude to speak to anyone in a language you knew they didn't understand. And I stand by that, where exactly was that off thread. The thread was well named "Using the Irish language" |
|
|
|
Post by collina on May 28, 2008 8:13:18 GMT
You have been reading to much into the ira green card which tells memebers to "divide the enemy, belittle and embarrass them". Well you learn your lesson well. Are you sayong I am a member of the IRA or someway associated with them? Thats a particularily sick fantasy. I have no idea what the IRA greencard says. I have never made any posts on here or anywhere else in support of the IRA. I do not support the IRA. I have never supported tha IRA. I merely called the situation as I saw it. Unionism and Loyalism is split a million different ways from within. A small child could tell you what tactics to use against that. Nevermind the IRA greencard. What a silly man you are. Typical paranoia from a unionist. Coward for making an assertion like that from behind your keyboard. PLease show me the "plenty of posts" you say I have made. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 28, 2008 9:30:45 GMT
Ok lads take it back a bit. Let's not get heated at this early stage. When things get heated, logic goes out the window and emotion takes over.
Bilk, I'd have to agree with Collina. I'm only calling it as I see it. Unionists are generally mistrusting of the media and accepted historical sources. And TBH, I wouldn't fully blame them, as if the shoe was on the other foot (and it once was around the turn of the last century), I'd feel the same. Now I do feel that in certain quarters, especially amongst working class Protestants, a lack of confidence when tackling certain subjects, like history. There are other places, like slugger where there would be more middle-class unionists at work, and they would debate in a totally different manner, with more confidence, so I'm not trying to tar the entire PUL community with the same brush. I think it would be fair to say that if you were on a republican forum, you'd see members there from working class backgrounds who may also lack confidence, so I'm not saying that this only exists within the PUL community either.
And collina is correct in how the differing views on identity can be divisive amongst yourselves, and I'm not basing this off anything on this forum. I've seen it elsewhere.
This perceived weakness is the republicans perceived strength in unity of identity. And if we look at how the republican identity of Irishness grew throughout history, and especially in NI through the last 90 years, we can see in certain places a hijacking of shared identity to polarize both sides. Now hardline unionists were more than willing to go along with this, as a separating of Irishness from Britishness occurred amongst members of their community. Both communities began to define themselves as 'not the other'.
Now, please do not take it that I'm saying that unionists are confused. I am not. I'm stating that this polarization was probably more organized on the republican side, as they were the ones trying to restore and in some cases, create a new national identity, separate from Britain. The vacuum left within the unionist identity by this polarisation was not filled in an organised manner, and different people chose different interpretations on their identity, leading to a lack of hegemony.
As regards topics getting dragged all over the place, I've yet to be on a forum where it doesn't happen, and with such a wide spectrum of views on show here, these tangents tend to be wider and more often than most. I think you will find that those tangents will more often than not go the way of the majority. On this site, it's nationalists/republicans, but I remember it being the opposite on LU when it first started up. If the balance was even here, the tangents would be less one sided.
As regards unionists being taken seriously, I think you will find that there are certain members on here whose contributions are not only sought after, they're essential. Those who can debate, give an honest answer and are consistent are taken seriously. Others who change their views per topic, offer only negative comments and answer posts with words like 'bollox', without saying why in a logical manner, are not taken seriously. This is down to individuals, and not what side of the fence you are on.
We have been accused of all being the same, and singing off the same hymn sheet in the past. That is incorrect as setanta has pointed out. It is probably more accurate to state that we are all reading different versions of the same story and have all made our own minds up about it. The hegemony I described earlier makes it that our views would differ less from each others than those within the PUL community.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 28, 2008 12:24:21 GMT
You have been reading to much into the ira green card which tells memebers to "divide the enemy, belittle and embarrass them". Well you learn your lesson well. Are you sayong I am a member of the IRA or someway associated with them? Thats a particularily sick fantasy. I have no idea what the IRA greencard says. I have never made any posts on here or anywhere else in support of the IRA. I do not support the IRA. I have never supported tha IRA. I merely called the situation as I saw it. Unionism and Loyalism is split a million different ways from within. A small child could tell you what tactics to use against that. Nevermind the IRA greencard. What a silly man you are. Typical paranoia from a unionist. Coward for making an assertion like that from behind your keyboard. PLease show me the "plenty of posts" you say I have made. You are the one with paranoia mate, I never said you were a member of any organisation, all I did was refer the their green card that is, in my view, so much of what some nationalists on here do. And that is a typical response from you, name calling is what you do to all unionists, Try anwering what I say and not giving your view on me, if I were to do that on you it would take me all day. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry on May 28, 2008 12:31:23 GMT
Whether you believe it or not Republicans don't like much of the truth when it makes them look bad. Facts are in demand until those facts shed bad light on the republican machine. When this happens we get excuses or see the blame passed on somewhere else. Some Unionists just get fed up with the Republican spin. All the white as snow speeches calling everyone this and that without any admittance of their own part in the grand scale of things. I don't really try anymore. I know what i know and i know what i feel. Thats why i don't really get upset as much now. I accept the Republican flaws. It isn't your fault. It is in your genes. You have been taught to deny everything from the day you were born  |
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 28, 2008 12:46:55 GMT
I think the same accusation is true for your side also, and most other people on this planet. I mean, how much of the negative aspects of the British Empire are taught in British schools? Facts are in demand, because trying to debate opinion is pointless. I never realised that unionists took offence to republicans defending themselves. It's not like unionists aren't doing the same, yet no republicans throw their toys out of the pram and take offence when a unionist defends himself or his community. You might get fed up with republican spin, we get fed up with being told that we are all a bunch of terrorist lovers who are brainwashed by the Catholic church. And our side is not the only one who thinks they are white as snow. The way some unionists go on, you'd think that a Protestant never held a gun in anger ever and that everything was rosey until the PIRA showed up. Despite the unionist flaws, you still won't see any of us running away from a debate.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on May 28, 2008 12:53:22 GMT
Ok lads take it back a bit. Let's not get heated at this early stage. When things get heated, logic goes out the window and emotion takes over. Bilk, I'd have to agree with Collina. I'm only calling it as I see it. Unionists are generally mistrusting of the media and accepted historical sources. And TBH, I wouldn't fully blame them, as if the shoe was on the other foot (and it once was around the turn of the last century), I'd feel the same. Now I do feel that in certain quarters, especially amongst working class Protestants, a lack of confidence when tackling certain subjects, like history. There are other places, like slugger where there would be more middle-class unionists at work, and they would debate in a totally different manner, with more confidence, so I'm not trying to tar the entire PUL community with the same brush. I think it would be fair to say that if you were on a republican forum, you'd see members there from working class backgrounds who may also lack confidence, so I'm not saying that this only exists within the PUL community either. And collina is correct in how the differing views on identity can be divisive amongst yourselves, and I'm not basing this off anything on this forum. I've seen it elsewhere. This perceived weakness is the republicans perceived strength in unity of identity. And if we look at how the republican identity of Irishness grew throughout history, and especially in NI through the last 90 years, we can see in certain places a hijacking of shared identity to polarize both sides. Now hardline unionists were more than willing to go along with this, as a separating of Irishness from Britishness occurred amongst members of their community. Both communities began to define themselves as 'not the other'. Now, please do not take it that I'm saying that unionists are confused. I am not. I'm stating that this polarization was probably more organized on the republican side, as they were the ones trying to restore and in some cases, create a new national identity, separate from Britain. The vacuum left within the unionist identity by this polarisation was not filled in an organised manner, and different people chose different interpretations on their identity, leading to a lack of hegemony. As regards topics getting dragged all over the place, I've yet to be on a forum where it doesn't happen, and with such a wide spectrum of views on show here, these tangents tend to be wider and more often than most. I think you will find that those tangents will more often than not go the way of the majority. On this site, it's nationalists/republicans, but I remember it being the opposite on LU when it first started up. If the balance was even here, the tangents would be less one sided. As regards unionists being taken seriously, I think you will find that there are certain members on here whose contributions are not only sought after, they're essential. Those who can debate, give an honest answer and are consistent are taken seriously. Others who change their views per topic, offer only negative comments and answer posts with words like 'bollox', without saying why in a logical manner, are not taken seriously. This is down to individuals, and not what side of the fence you are on. We have been accused of all being the same, and singing off the same hymn sheet in the past. That is incorrect as setanta has pointed out. It is probably more accurate to state that we are all reading different versions of the same story and have all made our own minds up about it. The hegemony I described earlier makes it that our views would differ less from each others than those within the PUL community. You ask me for my view on why unionists were leaving and I gave it. I don't want your views to differ less from each other, all I want is honesty. You can't all think, and I must say I have never met a nationalist who doesn't, that everything that ever happened to the Irish was the fault of the British, now that would be mass paranoia. Yet that's how it seems when we debate politics on here. And the only thing you (nationalists/republicans) differ on are side issues such as left/right. When you get to the really difficult parts of debate such as the IRA/UVF you all sing from the same hymn sheet. If you all believe that what the IRA did was ok then there is no hope for this or any other forum which tries to bring people from both communities together. You make arguments in defense of them and what they did. I have heard you and I have heard others. I will never make an excuse for the murdering bastards in the loyalist paramilitaries who went out and killed innocent people. There is no excuse for what they did, the killing of innocents with bombs and henious crimes against my community never gave them the right to inflict the same deaths on the nationalist community. And the famine, the political neglect of the working classes, the putting one church before another centuries ago, none of these things gives anyone a right to go forth and murder innocents. I have heard you decry the lawful forces of this land for what they did to paramilitaries. They fought fire with fire on both sets of murdering bastards, they used one against the other and they treated both the same. But in the blinkered view of nationalists that was not so. It is coming out in the wash now who set up certain people to die, it was the double agents in all the paramilitaries loyalist and republican. I here a lot of talk about collusion between the RUC/UDR/MI5/6 with loyalists. Who were these double agents on the republican side colluding with? Who were they setting up to die? You will never hear me decry the lawful forces of this land, anything they did in my community which I think was uncalled for, I blame the people responsible, the murdering bastards withing my community who brought it about. That is just one example where you all sing from the same hymn sheet. |
|
|
|
Post by earl on May 28, 2008 13:23:24 GMT
I have to say, I'm pretty taken aback and offended by what you just said Bilk. Generalisations are very dangerous and is one of the main ingredients of fueling sectarianism. I challenge you to find one quote from me on this forum where I defend the IRA and the murder of innocent people.
And we are the only poor brainwashed fools that are blinkered, while the PUL has the divine God given light to see clearly into the dark! Pure poppycock. Your as blinkered as you accuse me of. I'll admit to being biased on a lot of subjects, as you are too.
Collusion is evil, no matter if it were the UVF or the IRA. If the British, as is starting to come to light had undercover operatives active on both sides, then how many innocent lives were lost, as they played God? You might retort as to how many were saved, but we would both be pulling figures from our arseholes. They fought fire with fire and innocent people got killed, so it's all down to whichever blinkered perspective appeals to you.
Of course you won't decry the lawful forces of the land, as we don't decry the Gardaí. What point are you trying to make? That we a re all a bunch of terrorist lovers brianwashed into our blinkered views of the Catholic church?
Wind yer neck in Bilk. We all sing of the same hymn sheet? I want you to categorically state that you believe myself, Collina and republic are IRA lovers who defend the IRA.
Such generalisations are very unbecoming of you Bilk. I'd given you far more credit than that, but it would seem that low blows are not beyond the best of us.
|
|
Louisiana Lady
Junior Member
The light of a new day can clear away the shadows of yesterday
Posts: 98
|
Post by Louisiana Lady on May 28, 2008 17:25:47 GMT
Everyone knows as an outsider I can't possibly understand all the conflict going here and therefore it is impossible for me to get involved in any kind of sensible debate. So shut me up if you wish, but reading through this thread I just saw a statement that jumped out at me that seems to completely contrary to the purpose of "The Way Forward" and therefore seems to be the root of the problem here.
That one sentence was........"the same accusation is true for your side also"
My understanding of TWF was to move forward together and that meant to be moving in the same direction and not having "sides".
|
|
