51 thoughts on “Wednesday’s Papers

  1. Nigel

    I see the global existential crisis of climate change managed to make front pages for, um, one day. Good job.

      1. des

        These are a good idea, they remove particulates from the air, particulates caused by Eamonn Ryan’s planet saving diesel vehicles.
        Oh the Irony!

        1. ce

          At scale a good idea but a couple in the city centre? And admittedly, it’s a good test case and a bit of public education on new technology. And given that’s the only environmental story on the Irish front pages a day after a token day of climate panic media/virtual signalling, it’s a little sad.

          But, I think the money could be better spent within the city on other things such as cycle lines, actual trees, river clean up etc… I could be totally wrong – if anybody including yourself has some knowledge in this area would genuinely like to hear it… forgive my earlier cynicism…

          In any event, we won’t be seeing anything on the front pages or extensive coverage about the national herd, crap public transport in most areas of the country, or the good news stories about developments in Cork and Limerick for off-shore wind and hydrogen storages etc…

          1. Nigel

            This has a fierce bang of high-tech disruption strategies – those trees have been cleaning the air and making streets pleasant places to be for free for too long, time some techbro monetised it.

      1. Nigel

        Massive heat wave moving up from Africa and into Europe. Hottest temperature in Tunisia since 1943.

          1. Nigel

            That sounds WAY to high for Ireland. Way too high for even the hotter parts of Europe. I’m thinking there are a lot of faulty readings on that whole chart – that is, readings that were recorded, but which were probably faulty because of instruments or observation. More up to date sources say the previous European record was 48.5 in 1999, which may have just been broken.

    1. Fergalito

      An overdose of adrenaline following his time making tea in the safety of the officer’s mess during the Falklands war.

  2. Gabby

    Korma Sutra: Spices used in South Asian cuisine can enhance the sex drive. If a food company puts packets of suitably spiced rice crispies on the market, our breakfasts will go snap, crackle and ziiiing.

    1. Janet, dreams of an alternate universe

      speaking of which, I tried making home made paneer last night couldn’t believe how easy it was…knocks the beejessus out of the plastic you buy in the shops

      1. Ian - oG

        Oh yum, you might need to give us more details on that Janet! A dedicated post perhaps? Love me some paneer and agree about the shop bought stuff.

        1. Janet, dreams of an alternate universe

          nah not a bit, I’ll email the recipe in, I had the rest for breakfast, really moist

    1. Junkface

      Students are being so bubble wrapped and infantilized mentally, that they will be completely unable to deal with the real world. This has now gone beyond ridiculous, beyond Orwells 1984 in many ways. Rewriting books to reflect the acceptable ideology is exactly what Winston’s job was in 1984. We are here!

      1. Nigel

        She’s choosing to rewrite the book herself after criticism to make herself look good. It’s a ridiculous, contemptuous, arrogant response, and nothing whatsoever to do with students or 1984.

        1. Junkface

          “After criticism” is the key piece of info. Self censorship in writers is not a positive move. It stifles creativity, and free speech. We also need diversity of thought, even if something is offensive we can learn lessons from it. Diversity of thought and freedom of speech are essential in democracies and yes, broadly, the rules and forbidden ideas are getting closer to 1984 every day. If someone like Yeonmi Park, the North Korean defector, spots it immediately and challenges this way of thinking in Columbia university (when she attended), because its getting very close to the ideology used to control and terrorize people in North Korea, then we have a problem. It starts in western universities, then spills into the corporate world, then everywhere else. Which is what we are going through now,

          1. Nigel

            Utter nonsense. What diversity of thought was represented by what was criticised, exactly? What role does your reactionary hysteria play in supressing and even erasing criticism? Nothing in your comment remotely relates to the substance of the criticism but is full-on scaremongering as if it represents a terrible threat. Whatever diversity of thought you claim to venerate it does not seem to include the thoughts of her critics. I wonder why. As for her rewriting the memoir it’s a ridiculous act that no-one asked for. Whitewashing.

          2. Junkface

            Utter nonsense and denial is something you do Nigel, especially on this topic. Its your blind spot. There are tonnes of writers and intellectuals, some former university professors, who confirm that this is happening. Jonathan Haidt wrote articles and books about it, there are many black writers who also reject this ‘forbidden books’ way of thinking.
            Is the criticism of the book mentioned above also taking into account the context of the story? What about a book like “To kill a Mockingbird”, why is this book suddenly “problematic” for this generation of college and school kids? Context is important when talking about historically themed literature. People learn about commonplace ideas and sense of justice in a historical era.

            Also, it’s not fear mongering, evidence of hysteria regarding words, language, violence, wanting segregation, safe space, pronouns, are all in abundance online, on news sites and in articles. It’s creeping authoritarianism from the left, and its just as dangerous as authoritarianism from the right. This goes against the values of the Enlightenment and democracy.

            Jonathan Haidt wrote about this 6 years ago, warning what would happen. We are here now, all over the world, not just in the USA.
            https://twitter.com/JonHaidt/status/1425409292438577159

          3. Nigel

            Wow. Not a single soitary word about the substance of the criticism. Just a lot of guff about how the criticism will inevitably lead to tyranny. Utterly amazing that you’re talking about fobidden books in the context of, essentially, forbidding criticsm. No books have been forbidden, but according to you, some forms of criticism have to be forbidden. Exactly what forms will come as a surprise to no-one, certainly not the critics of this particular book.

            Yeah, somone’s failing to cope with words and ideas all right, but it ain’t the kids or the critics.

          4. Junkface

            Here’s an example of the madness in USA colleges, where students get a professor fired for quoting a racist word from a Mark Twain anti-slavery novel.

            https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/professor-fired-n-word-mark-twain

            The children are running the institutions using the same snitching culture as used in Maoist China by the Red guard. They’re report anything they find unsafe, offensive to their ideology/religion without context, which is ridiculous and farcical.
            Do we want this in European universities and colleges?

          5. Junkface

            And I never said criticism should be silenced. You made that up. I said criticism should not lead to rewriting books, essentially writers self censoring because of todays academic climate of intolerance of any ideas that go against the popular new ideology/religion.

          6. Nigel

            What the hell do those incidents have to do with this? Absolutely nothing. How many more incidents from an entirely different continent are you going to invoke without once dealing with the actual incident under discussion?

            ‘Maoist China.’ My God listen to yourself. The ‘children’ do not own or control or run the universities. How representative of ‘the children’ are these stories, anyway? Even at face value these acts seem to represent the rejection of an orthodoxy, yet as someone who claims to value free speech and ideas, you are bizarrely threatened and terrified by their speech and ideas.

            You haven’t mentioned the criticism at all, you’ve just monstered scare-stories about inevitable tyranny arising from particular forms of criticism. If you don’t think the criticism is going to lead to the horrors of Maoist China, why did you bring it up? Since you did bring it up, at length, without ever ever ever mentioning any of the substantive elements of the criticism, I’m curious as to what should be done, other than that the critics should censor themselves, silence themselves, because if just speaking out can bring about an authoritarian dictatrorship, what else are they supposed to do?

            The author chose to rewrite the book rather than deal with the criticism. A book, by the way, that has already been in print for years. Even her critics think that rewriting the book is dumb and cowardly and self-serving.

          7. Junkface

            If you can’t grasp the concept of writers feeling that they must rewrite books that were criticized, otherwise they might get cancelled, or have their careers destroyed, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

            From my first comment I stated that this type of action will not help young students form a realistic view of the world. with all of its flaws. Then I mentioned the wider context of the western world and democratic values being stifled in colleges. Ireland is a democratic country that shares values and principles with the USA and UK. I believe that free speech must be an absolute in a democratic world.

          8. Nigel

            1. This has NOTHING to do with students or colleges.
            2. NOBODY asked or wanted or even expected her to rewrite the book.
            3. People have a right to criticise books without being accused of stifling democratic values. If you are going to make that accusation, surely it’s incumbent on you to show how the criticism does that. You still, after several comments on the subject, have comepletely avoided adressing the actual criticism.
            4. Everything you have said here has been an attack on the exercise of free speech. Just one particular form of speech from a particular source.

          9. Junkface

            Jesus Christ man!

            I never said silence critics. You did! I already mentioned that! Criticize everything! Discuss and debate everything! You know, the way colleges have always done. The way Sunday papers have always done. The people who criticized this book have a right to do that, of course! This is the way the western world has operated in academia. The critics said that the book was racist and contained racist tropes, so discuss it, what was the context? Was this the writer’s experience? Maybe they could have had an open debate about it?

            Like I said above. Writers feel under more pressure now than ever to make sure they ARE NOT CANCELLED. This includes a fear that they might need to self censor, which is what this writer has done.

            Where did I attack free speech? I never did. You made that up.

          10. Nigel

            ‘Maybe they could have had an open debate about it?’

            There was, in fact, an open debate about it. Quite a lot of debate. Some surprisiing people showed their entire backsides in the process. The writer is not self-censoring, she is essentially attempting a cover-up, although by default the implication is that her critics are correct.

            So,

            1. You don’t actually know what you’re talking about.
            2. You still treated it as the end of civilisation and freedom as we know it.

            If you’re going to go treating certain types of criticism from certain types of people as the end of civilsation and freedom as we know it, even if they are correct, all the while ignoring their actual criticism and the actual debate, then I can’t see how you are doing anything other than trying to silence them. Silencing people is not what freedom of speech champions do, or so I’ve heard, though the opposite usually turns out to be the case.

          11. Junkface

            I already explained it all Nigel, the wider context, which is self censorship due to cultural pressure. an Orwell award winner, ironically rewriting their own book with self censorship.

            You do this with a lot of commenters on here, if there is a disagreement. You say things that they never said. Then you repeat the things they never said.

            “If you’re going to go treating certain types of criticism from certain types of people as the end of civilsation and freedom as we know it.” – Nigel

            No. I said censorship, letting students dictate to Universities rather than the other way around is a major problem. We are dealing with a new ideology/religion and it goes against the principals of democracy, it has more in common with the cultural revolutions of China and North Korea. In other words authoritarianism.

          12. Nigel

            ‘which is self censorship due to cultural pressure.’

            Which is on her, not on her critics. Which is, furthermore, an admission that her critics are right.

            ‘Then you repeat the things they never said.’

            I make counter-arguments about the implications and effects and faults of their arguments. You know. Debating the ideas. You like it when ideas are debated, supposedly.

            ‘I said censorship, letting students dictate to Universities rather than the other way around is a major problem.’

            First of all, that’s not cenorship. Second of all, I don’t think that’s actually happening. Third of all, you are linking these students and these critics together, calling them authoritarian and anti-democratic. You’re not debating their ideas or their words, you’re just attacking them as ‘Maoist.’ How can you possibly claim not to be trying to shut them down and shut them up when all you do is screech this hysterical nonsense at them or about them?

          13. ce

            Sorry I said anything now….

            The book is crap:

            Woman made a career from ’empowering’ her disadvantaged students… that ’empowering’ seems to be working out pretty good in Brexit-land…

            Picador publish a memoir – it’s crap, nobody at Picador read it or suggested the language be edited… great job… Conversation in the Picador office was like – “Nice Lady writes about poor children, especially about non-white poor children… publish good for our brand/virtue signalling”

            Guardian review of the original – only very lightly touched on some of the language used – normally they be woking the crap out of something like that… so what happened there?

            Orwell Prize (and she was on the honours list too?) gets granted… looks like they didn’t read it either and the judges had a similar conversation to the one at Picador

            Internet gives out about a crap book, with some pretty daft problematic descriptions of children… Picador defend the author (they must still have not have read the book…)

            Internet continues outrage in epic proportions (not so worried about the planet burning, the criminal government that is the Torries in the UK etc… etc… but hey we’re all exhausted with the government…)

            Then Picador and author apologies… and the Orwell folks… great courage of convictions there folks… protect the BRAND… protect the BRAND…

            Author will rewrite the book… which is funny, in a Charlie brooker kind of way, because the book won the Orwell prize… that is simply funny… nothing like a bit of self-denunciation…

            Winston would be proud!

            This is part of the reason why Trump and Brexit happen… onward!!!

          14. Junkface

            You did it again Nigel!

            You either deliberately misread things, or get the wrong end of the stick a lot. I said censorship was one problem, and students dictating to universities was another. And it is.

            “I make counter-arguments about the implications and effects and faults of their arguments. You know. Debating the ideas. You like it when ideas are debated, supposedly.”
            – No, you lie about what someone said. Then you repeat the lie or make a jump ahead in logic that was never mentioned, it happened in your head. That is not debating, that is being a bad faith actor in a an argument.

          15. Nigel

            ‘And it is.’

            No. It isn’t. Not in the way you’re claiming. Not remotely.

            ‘– No, you lie about what someone said’

            I make my own arguments in response that what you said. That’s not lying. That’s debating. But I’m starting to see why some non-white people criticising a white writer causes you to jump to accusations of Maoism and authoritarianism. You don’t actually know what debating is.

            ‘This is part of the reason why Trump and Brexit happen… onward!!!’

            Non-white and autistic people not being able to criticise a white womans ‘beloved’ book without a storm erupting and accusations of Maoism and authoritarianism getting thrown around might not be the same idiocy that gave us Brexit and Trump, but there’s overlap, sure.

          16. Junkface

            @CE
            Ha ha! Thanks for the update on the publishers and the sequence of events around the book.

          17. Junkface

            Jesus Nigel, you need help. In what universe is lying about what somebody said, making up a fake quote, a part of debating? If you were a journalist, you would be sued for printing that kind of thing.

            My mention of Maoist and North Korean style censorship developing in Columbia university (and many others) in the US, was a recollection of what Yeonmi Park said last week on her interview with Joe Rogan. Not hysterical considering her experience. If you read anything properly to begin with you would understand that point. Do you understand how a North Korean defector might think that?

          18. Junkface

            “But I’m starting to see why some non-white people criticising a white writer causes you to jump to accusations of Maoism and authoritarianism. You don’t actually know what debating is.”

            – Now you are insinuating that anybody who thought it was ironic that the writer rewrote her book while self censoring, because of what critics said about it, is a racist. You are the first person to mention skin colour.

            This is wokeism 101, I don’t like your argument, you’re a racist. You know nothing about me personally, or anyone else on here to insinuate they are racists. Again, all in your head. You cannot debate, or accept other points of view. You are a big intolerant baby.

          19. Nigel

            I haven’t lied abiut anything or made anything up. You insist on linking the crticism of this book to Maoism, North Korea, authoritarianism, to completely unrelated people and incidents, pure scaremongering nonsense, then denying that you’re doing it, and then going straight on and doing it again. MY argument is that this overblown sensationalism is purely for the purpose of shutting down or drowning out the voices of particular groups of people, such as the critics of this book. I don’t think that’s what YOU want, I just think you’re too blind to see it, but that’s what’s happening just the same. Normally I give you credit for being smart and reasonable, but you have a massive blind spot when it comes to this nasty culture war foolishness.

          20. Nigel

            ‘Now you are insinuating that anybody who thought it was ironic that the writer rewrote her book while self censoring,’

            Ironic? You acted like she’d been sent to a re-education camp and democracy had been murdered and freedom of speech set on fire.

            ‘You are the first person to mention skin colour.’

            You do realise, given the substance of the criticism that we’re supposed to be talking about, that that’s a bit weird, right? It’s not feckin radioactive, why act as if it is?

            ‘I don’t like your argument, you’re a racist.’

            Well why DID some non-white people criticising a white writer make you jump to accusations of Maoism and authoritarianism? If the writer agrees that her language is racist and ‘self-censors’ why is that bad (granting that literally nobody asked or wanted her to do that)? Why is your take-away from this, mistifyingly, that ‘children’ are crushing freedom of speech, somehow, not that publishing appears to have a massive blind spot when it comes to racism, and does not react well to criticism about it?

    1. ce

      Everything climate-wise is pretty awful – The Siberian fires are definitely the worst thing happening, pretty bleak

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie