All your polling needs right here...

jmcc

Member
Nov 27, 2018
1,022
618
So the purpose of opinion polling is not necessarily the selling of papers and/or advertising.
Parties have to advertise too. Got to keep the press release recyclers fed. All the better if the party polls indicate that some opposition party is not doing well.

You can see how the different media organisations react when their favourite party has a bad poll. They also have to know if the other parties or polls are inaccurate about support levels. Today's RedC poll shows FF and FG losing badly in the 18-34 year old demographic (with the usual high MoE disclaimer) and that seems to be upsetting a lot of FF/FG types. Labour is only at 3% in that demographic but I suppose its supporters are used to that by now. SF 's support range is rather consistent and that's beginning to worry FF and FG to the extent that Simon Harris is calling for an election pact for DBS.

When it comes to the media commissioned opinion polls, they are commissioned in order to sell copies and advertising. Like Astrology, they provide some entertainment.
 

Franzoni

Member
Nov 28, 2018
4,040
5,248
When you have FF in charge of the housing portfolio and the minister is telling people in the 18-34 bracket that 450k is affordable as a first time buyer and 400k for a flat and that's before we get into the outrageous levels of rent you can see why people in that age bracket might be looking for alternatives....

Also as a parent i'm hardly likely to vote for parties who want to crucify my kids with a mortgage with no end in sight that they can aspire to have paid off after 20-25 years if lucky to be able to buy in the first place.............

Personally i wouldn't be surprised to see both parties with less than 50 TD's combined the way things are going at the next election..........
 

Napper

Member
Dec 4, 2018
354
144
When you have FF in charge of the housing portfolio and the minister is telling people in the 18-34 bracket that 450k is affordable as a first time buyer and 400k for a flat and that's before we get into the outrageous levels of rent you can see why people in that age bracket might be looking for alternatives....

Also as a parent i'm hardly likely to vote for parties who want to crucify my kids with a mortgage with no end in sight that they can aspire to have paid off after 20-25 years if lucky to be able to buy in the first place.............

Personally i wouldn't be surprised to see both parties with less than 50 TD's combined the way things are going at the next election..........
Can we please have a FF breakdown like the dup
 

Franzoni

Member
Nov 28, 2018
4,040
5,248
Can we please have a FF breakdown like the dup
It won't be long now with the way they are falling in the polls.........it will kick off soon enough when Martins stint behind the wheel is over and he has to give the keys to Varadker.....
 

seanof

Member
Nov 27, 2018
2,473
2,405
Can we please have a FF breakdown like the dup
It's looking particularly bad for FF in Connacht Ulster. Well deserved too. I imagine MacSharry helped significantly in this, fair play to him.
 
Last edited:

jmcc

Member
Nov 27, 2018
1,022
618
It won't be long now with the way they are falling in the polls.........it will kick off soon enough when Martins stint behind the wheel is over and he has to give the keys to Varadker.....
It may kick off a bit earlier than that. Not sure if the DBS election will be the trigger but FFers probably blame Martin for FF's decline in the opinion polls. The hospital pass to O'Callaghan with a candidate on which no Social Media checks appear to have been done will end up making Martin look like a chump.
 

ainm_eile^2

Member
Jul 30, 2020
208
191
What the media is trying to do is the predict the outcome of a very complex system based on extremely limited data. It may give an indication of support for the parties at a national level but the seats are contested at a constituency level. These small 1K samples, unless they are run at constituency level , do not accurately capture local activity.

With STV, even relatively small changes in support at a national level can have massive effects. The 2002 GE and FG is one of the best examples of this. FG had 54 seats before the GE and 31 afterwards. It lost approximately 42.6% of its seats. The change in support was only 5.4%. The reverse of that would be FF's gain in 2016. It had 21 seats before the GE but 44 after it. That's approximately a 52.3% seat gain but the the increase in support was only 6.9%. SF's gain was more impressive. It had 14 seats before and and 23 after. That's a gain of 9 seats or 64.3% on an increase of 3.9%. in support.

Using percentages can be misleading when a party is small but there are so many variables in a GE that national polls may only be a guideline to the situation that existed before the GE. The danger is in using these national opinion polls to guess the outcome of local elections without any data on the constituencies. A party's support in an GE, or national opinion poll, may not directly translate into seats won or lost. FG's 2002 result of 31 seats only gave it 18.8% of the seats on 22.5% of the vote. FF won 49.1% of the seats on 41.5% of the vote. (I think it is referred to as the "election bonus".)

The TL;DR version is this: opinion poll percentages do not equal seats.
So what is happening here is that you're basically noting that the relationship between FPVs and actual seats is a non-linear mapping. This means the predicting the number of percentage of Dail seats from a sample is what you might call a 'second quadrant' problem where the underlying distribution is well-behaved but the relationship between the distribution and the final outcome is somewhat complex.

Usually what statisticians would do here is try to employ the 'Delta Method' - approximate the payoff function by a straight line in a neighbourhood around the mean. The idea is that the population and sample mean will end up close enough that they'll both end up in the neighbourhood over which the straight line approximation is valid. Since a linear mapping of a normally distributed random quantity is itself is normally distributed and so on, this means you can extend the stuff you study in first year statistics to the case where the payoff is a differentiable function of the population mean. The Strong Law of Large Numbers means that the sample average and population average will end up close enough together that you can get away with using secondary school-level calculus like this if your sample is big enough. You just need to make your sample big enough that the linear approximation holds.

Of course, the relationship between FPVs and percentage of seats won isn't a differentiable mapping. In such situation, if you can't get differentiability, you can try to construct other linear approximations, or bound the payoff function with a pair of linear functions. This requires a decent understanding of both Statistics and Real Analysis, but it's doable. At the bottom is one I whipped together using some of FG's recent election results (the red point is the joint sample average). This works because STV in Ireland is fairly proportional.

Of course the weakness here is that the bounding lines do mean you can't really predict FG's seat share, but it's still a confidence interval that's well behaved for statistical purpose atleast!!!!. Even if it's ridiculously wide. E.g if FG's vote is between 22% and 28% with 95% confidence for example, the system of approximations below gives a 95% confidence interval for the percentage of seats FG would get as being between 13.7% and 40.7%. This is a perfectly correct confidence interval for FG; don't forget that - FF got around 12% of seats in 2011 for example, and have won absolute majorities before, even if it tells us little. I'm pretty certain after the next election I can quote this post and tell everyone that I called it right using some pretty slick statistical tricks.

So you're probably right that STV and loads of 3-seaters makes predicting the number of seats hard, but predicting FPVs is much easier. But my original post only talked about FPVs. You can probably reduce the effects of the non-linearity by trying to estimate the FPVs for individual constituencies and increasing the sample size accordingly, but you'd have to do all kinds of multivariate wizardry as well in this case.

 
Last edited:

Derryman

Member
Feb 17, 2019
5,917
6,482
Derry
So what is happening here is that you're basically noting that the relationship between FPVs and actual seats is a non-linear mapping. This means the predicting the number of percentage of Dail seats from a sample is what you might call a 'second quadrant' problem where the underlying distribution is well-behaved but the relationship between the distribution and the final outcome is somewhat complex.

Usually what statisticians would do here is try to employ the 'Delta Method' - approximate the payoff function by a straight line in a neighbourhood around the mean. The idea is that the population and sample mean will end up close enough that they'll both end up in the neighbourhood over which the straight line approximation is valid. Since a linear mapping of a normally distributed random quantity is itself is normally distributed and so on, this means you can extend the stuff you study in first year statistics to the case where the payoff is a differentiable function of the population mean. The Strong Law of Large Numbers means that the sample average and population average will end up close enough together that you can get away with using secondary school-level calculus like this if your sample is big enough. You just need to make your sample big enough that the linear approximation holds.

Of course, the relationship between FPVs and percentage of seats won isn't a differentiable mapping. In such situation, if you can't get differentiability, you can try to construct other linear approximations, or bound the payoff function with a pair of linear functions. This requires a decent understanding of both Statistics and Real Analysis, but it's doable. At the bottom is one I whipped together using some of FG's recent election results (the red point is the joint sample average). This works because STV in Ireland is fairly proportional.

Of course the weakness here is that the bounding lines do mean you can't really predict FG's seat share, but it's still a confidence interval that's well behaved for statistical purpose atleast!!!!. Even if it's ridiculously wide. E.g if FG's vote is between 22% and 28% with 95% confidence for example, the system of approximations below gives a 95% confidence interval for the percentage of seats FG would get as being between 13.7% and 40.7%. This is a perfectly correct confidence interval for FG; don't forget that - FF got around 12% of seats in 2011 for example, and have won absolute majorities before, even if it tells us little. I'm pretty certain after the next election I can quote this post and tell everyone that I called it right using some pretty slick statistical tricks.

So you're probably right that STV and loads of 3-seaters makes predicting the number of seats hard, but predicting FPVs is much easier. But my original post only talked about FPVs. You can probably reduce the effects of the non-linearity by trying to estimate the FPVs for individual constituencies and increasing the sample size accordingly, but you'd have to do all kinds of multivariate wizardry as well in this case.

Yep yep yep, I was just about to say that myself.
 

hollandia

Literally knows shit
Staff member
Moderator
Member
So what is happening here is that you're basically noting that the relationship between FPVs and actual seats is a non-linear mapping. This means the predicting the number of percentage of Dail seats from a sample is what you might call a 'second quadrant' problem where the underlying distribution is well-behaved but the relationship between the distribution and the final outcome is somewhat complex.

Usually what statisticians would do here is try to employ the 'Delta Method' - approximate the payoff function by a straight line in a neighbourhood around the mean. The idea is that the population and sample mean will end up close enough that they'll both end up in the neighbourhood over which the straight line approximation is valid. Since a linear mapping of a normally distributed random quantity is itself is normally distributed and so on, this means you can extend the stuff you study in first year statistics to the case where the payoff is a differentiable function of the population mean. The Strong Law of Large Numbers means that the sample average and population average will end up close enough together that you can get away with using secondary school-level calculus like this if your sample is big enough. You just need to make your sample big enough that the linear approximation holds.

Of course, the relationship between FPVs and percentage of seats won isn't a differentiable mapping. In such situation, if you can't get differentiability, you can try to construct other linear approximations, or bound the payoff function with a pair of linear functions. This requires a decent understanding of both Statistics and Real Analysis, but it's doable. At the bottom is one I whipped together using some of FG's recent election results (the red point is the joint sample average). This works because STV in Ireland is fairly proportional.

Of course the weakness here is that the bounding lines do mean you can't really predict FG's seat share, but it's still a confidence interval that's well behaved for statistical purpose atleast!!!!. Even if it's ridiculously wide. E.g if FG's vote is between 22% and 28% with 95% confidence for example, the system of approximations below gives a 95% confidence interval for the percentage of seats FG would get as being between 13.7% and 40.7%. This is a perfectly correct confidence interval for FG; don't forget that - FF got around 12% of seats in 2011 for example, and have won absolute majorities before, even if it tells us little. I'm pretty certain after the next election I can quote this post and tell everyone that I called it right using some pretty slick statistical tricks.

So you're probably right that STV and loads of 3-seaters makes predicting the number of seats hard, but predicting FPVs is much easier. But my original post only talked about FPVs. You can probably reduce the effects of the non-linearity by trying to estimate the FPVs for individual constituencies and increasing the sample size accordingly, but you'd have to do all kinds of multivariate wizardry as well in this case.

Tbf, not even that level of detail is required. That assumes that polling takes a purely statistical approach.

In reality, statistics cannot predict a party running a complete bell-end, parties running the wrong number of candidates and it cannot predict transfer patterns.

All a pollster can do is make inferences based on constituency history, and relative strength in an area.

For shits and giggles I ran my model this morning for the FPV in the last election against actual seats, and I found that they big three underperformed against their theoretical seat scores by about 4 to 5 seats, while the minor parties overperformed. In retrospect this can be put down to SF not running enough candidates (benefitting SPBP, SDs and to a lesser extent the greens), while FG and FF ran far too many candidates (a function of likely having too many incumbents - which benefitted a lot of independents).

Party strategy cannot be statistically analysed.
 

ainm_eile^2

Member
Jul 30, 2020
208
191
Tbf, not even that level of detail is required. That assumes that polling takes a purely statistical approach.

In reality, statistics cannot predict a party running a complete bell-end, parties running the wrong number of candidates and it cannot predict transfer patterns.

All a pollster can do is make inferences based on constituency history, and relative strength in an area.

For shits and giggles I ran my model this morning for the FPV in the last election against actual seats, and I found that they big three underperformed against their theoretical seat scores by about 4 to 5 seats, while the minor parties overperformed. In retrospect this can be put down to SF not running enough candidates (benefitting SPBP, SDs and to a lesser extent the greens), while FG and FF ran far too many candidates (a function of likely having too many incumbents - which benefitted a lot of independents).

Party strategy cannot be statistically analysed.
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

More seriously, your point about local party organisations doing foolishness etc. can probably be taken into account by adding a binomial-based, normal-based, or Poisson-based prediction interval somewhere (on top of everything else!).
 
Last edited:

hollandia

Literally knows shit
Staff member
Moderator
Member
More seriously, your point about local party organisations doing foolishness etc. can probably be taken into account by adding a binomial-based, normal-based, or Poisson-based prediction interval somewhere (on top of everything else!).
Some sort of idiocy factor? I propose the following symbology:

f⬆ (constant, known as Hollandia's Ratio, defined as the number of unadulterated idiots per party divided by number of candidates times privilege squared)

Also inversely proportional to the amount of money spent by that party's spin unit (clampit factor)
 

hollandia

Literally knows shit
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Interesting resource here for those of you with the time an inclination to sort through 25 years of polling data to see just how the political landscape has changed in Ireland.


 

ruserious

Member
Dec 4, 2018
5,138
4,881
Two polls out this morning captured below.

 

Shaadi

Member
Feb 16, 2019
2,299
2,548
Two polls out this morning captured below.

Adding the 2 FF figures together and dividing by 2 gives you 17%. Both polls have some eyebrow raising figures.

Red C's 4% for Aontú seems very high for a Party that is Peadar Tóibín and a few councillors, although it's possible that some Aontú candidates are making serious inroads in particular constituencies..

B&A's 1% -3 for the SDs is a figure that isn't remotely credible for a party with 6 sitting TDs.

Both polls though give a low combined figure for the Government parties. FF-FG-Greens on 43% in the Red C and 50% in the B&A.
 

soccop

Pavlov rings my bell.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
8,961
8,641
Temporally dislocated.
Isn't the oldest problem with polls that they don't account properly for the personal vote. Thos SD TDs get a big chunk of their votes on a personal basis. My sister lives in C. Murphy's constituency and she reckons loads of people know nothing of the SDs but vote for her personally.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,639
6,190
I would imagine that 30% would get you in the order of 60 seats. Where are the rest going to come from?
Looking at the above, it’s either

SF + FF

or

SF + everyone else bar FFFG

The Greens again are an awkward issue - from their last and current government performances, their name is mud, but the do hold a significant (if not huge) number of seats, and, in terms of general ideaology on paper, they should be more broadly compatible with SF than many others.
 
Last edited:

soccop

Pavlov rings my bell.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
8,961
8,641
Temporally dislocated.
Looming at the above, it’s either

SF + FF

or

SF + everyone else bar FFFG

The Greens again are an awkward issue - from their last and government performances, their name is mud, but the do hold a significant (if not huge) number of seats, and, in terms to of general ideaology on paper, they should be more broadly compatible with SF than many others.
FF would need a new leader.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,639
6,190
FF would need a new leader.
Yep, but they need a new leader anyway. It just comes down to whether the new leader would be pro- or anti- SF coalition.
 

midlander12

Member
Dec 4, 2018
3,089
2,108
Looking at the above, it’s either

SF + FF

or

SF + everyone else bar FFFG

The Greens again are an awkward issue - from their last and current government performances, their name is mud, but the do hold a significant (if not huge) number of seats, and, in terms of general ideaology on paper, they should be more broadly compatible with SF than many others.
Unless you're expecting a change of govt BEFORE the next election, the Greens will be irrelevant as they will lose most if not all of their seats. They also apparently failed to establish any rapport with SF at the talks held after the 2020 poll, though serious those talks were is open to question.

It looks to me that it will be SF plus FF, albeit a more 'rural' FF led by McGrath, Cowen the Younger, O Cuiv, McGuinness & Co. How that will fly is anyone's guess. I cannot see SF being too attracted by a 'bits and pieces' all-left edifice even if it could be made to add up to 80 or even 85.
 

Statsman

The nice one, or so it seemed.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
9,617
10,380
A quiet retirement home
Ireland thinks have a slightly different interpretation. Same numbers for SF and FG but FF down on 14% and labour having a slight Bacik bounce on 7%

Some very odd trends in the age and provincial breakdowns.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,639
6,190
Unless you're expecting a change of govt BEFORE the next election, the Greens will be irrelevant as they will lose most if not all of their seats. They also apparently failed to establish any rapport with SF at the talks held after the 2020 poll, though serious those talks were is open to question.

It looks to me that it will be SF plus FF, albeit a more 'rural' FF led by McGrath, Cowen the Younger, O Cuiv, McGuinness & Co. How that will fly is anyone's guess. I cannot see SF being too attracted by a 'bits and pieces' all-left edifice even if it could be made to add up to 80 or even 85.
In the mid- to long- term, I DON’T think they’ll lose most of the seats, or rather, they might lose them but will then regain them.

The were a junior partner before, They performed terribly in that government . And yet,,not a long time later, they’re back in government.

I don’t think theYrerns will be wiped off the political table m, and I don’t think they’ll ever fall as hard as Labour or FF, for two reasons:

1) Irrespective of how awfully Green TDs perform Green issues are important to a lot of people, and people will vote for the issues rather than the candidates.

2) following on from number one, the Greens are a party that people, especially relatively young, relatively middle class people, who have no interest or knowledge about the ins- and outs- of Irish politics will give a vote to, because “green is good”. It’s an easy vote because it’s feel morally responsible but doesn’t require any effort or research whatsoever on the part of the voter. And there’s a significant number of the Irish electorate that for into this category.

A large chunk of Ireland really isn’t that interested in politics, and probably have no awareness of the Green Party having had a negative effect on their pockets - financial crises, housing crisis, they are not things hat they connect to the greens.
 
Last edited:

hollandia

Literally knows shit
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Some very odd trends in the age and provincial breakdowns.
I think that may be down to much smaller sample sizes. If we assume for the regional breakdown that it's an approximate 4 way split, that would have a sample size of 250, and an MOE of roughly 6.3%
If it's population based pro-rata (as it should be) then the MOE for Connacht-Ulster would be even larger.

There's not a lot to be gained from those breakdowns on a granular level (SF jumping 13% in one of the subsets is clearly nonsense, unless it's rectifiying them previously being undersold), but long term trends would definitely be OK.
 

midlander12

Member
Dec 4, 2018
3,089
2,108
In the mid- to long- term, I DON’T think they’ll lose most of the seats, or rather, they might lose them but will then regain them.

The were a junior partner before, They performed terribly in that government . And yet,,not a long time later, they’re back in government.

I don’t think theYrerns will be wiped off the political table m, and I don’t think they’ll ever fall as hard as Labour or FF, for two reasons:

1) Irrespective of how awfully Green TDs perform Green issues are important to a lot of people, and people will vote for the issues rather than the candidates.

2) following on from number one, the Greens are a party that people, especially relatively young, relatively middle class people, who have no interest or knowledge about the ins- and outs- of Irish politics will give a vote to, because “green is good”. It’s an easy vote because it’s feel morally responsible but doesn’t require any effort or research whatsoever on the part of the voter. And there’s a significant number of the Irish electorate that for into this category.

A large chunk of Ireland really isn’t that interested in politics, and probably have no awareness of the Green Party having had a negative effect on their pockets - financial crises, housing crisis, they are not things hat they connect to the greens.
I was talking about the next election and how SF are likely to form a govt thereafter. I firmly believe they will lose most of their seats next time out, and indeed some of those they won in 2020 are providential in a manner similar to how the PD's used to pick up a few seats when FG were weak, as in 1992 and 2002. Perhaps by the time the following election comes in 2028 or whenever (if human society as we understand it still exists at that stage), people will forgotten yet again that they were once/twice in govt and were hopeless, twice.
 

hollandia

Literally knows shit
Staff member
Moderator
Member
I was talking about the next election and how SF are likely to form a govt thereafter. I firmly believe they will lose most of their seats next time out, and indeed some of those they won in 2020 are providential in a manner similar to how the PD's used to pick up a few seats when FG were weak, as in 1992 and 2002. Perhaps by the time the following election comes in 2028 or whenever (if human society as we understand it still exists at that stage), people will forgotten yet again that they were once/twice in govt and were hopeless, twice.
Next time out, they will face opposition on the green side from An Rabhartas Glas, who seem to have taken quite a bit of the backroom team from Green HQ, most of whom left in protest against the choice to form a government with FF and FG. There also appears to be a very toxic atmosphere in the party at the moment in respect of policy (such as the Green whip, Nessa Hourigan managing to lose the whip a few weeks into government, and the very serious backbiting that went on around Hazel Chu's solo run for the Seanad).
I'm not convinced they'll survive another pummeling from the electorate.
 

jmcc

Member
Nov 27, 2018
1,022
618
Next time out, they will face opposition on the green side from An Rabhartas Glas, who seem to have taken quite a bit of the backroom team from Green HQ, most of whom left in protest against the choice to form a government with FF and FG.
They seem to be "issues" types rather than Greens. They would probably have joined Labour if it hadn't imploded. In some respects, it is a replay of the Fis Nua split when some rather Leftist Greens left to form a new party. The mistake that a lot of people make is in comparing the Irish Greens to the continental Greens. The Irish Greens have quite a different profile (middle class and above) and would be more to the Right of politics. The continental Greens would be more Leftist. The typical Green voter isn't quite the "issues" type either and there is a hardcore ideological streak that isn't present in some other parties. ARG's greatest existential threat is Labour gaining a few percentage points and the queen bee of "issues" politics has just been elected for Labour.
 

Statsman

The nice one, or so it seemed.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
9,617
10,380
A quiet retirement home
Next time out, they will face opposition on the green side from An Rabhartas Glas, who seem to have taken quite a bit of the backroom team from Green HQ, most of whom left in protest against the choice to form a government with FF and FG. There also appears to be a very toxic atmosphere in the party at the moment in respect of policy (such as the Green whip, Nessa Hourigan managing to lose the whip a few weeks into government, and the very serious backbiting that went on around Hazel Chu's solo run for the Seanad).
I'm not convinced they'll survive another pummeling from the electorate.
Fis Renua are unlikely to win many seats, though.
 

hollandia

Literally knows shit
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Fis Renua are unlikely to win many seats, though.
I don't know that they will, but they have the potential to stop the greens from winning by splitting their vote. GP manifesto pre election was not wildly different to that of SF, SDs or Labour, and the readiness with which they snubbed most of it for power I'm sure has teed off a lot of people who voted for them as well as their apparatchiks.
 

Statsman

The nice one, or so it seemed.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
9,617
10,380
A quiet retirement home
This accidental racism really isn't all that accidental. It's the very essence of white privilege to claim that you are being discriminated against when that discrimination has nothing to do with your colour or ethnicity.

It's the very essence of antisemitism to claim that whatever minor inconvenience you happen to have to endure is commensurate with the holocaust, it is, in fact, a kind of denialism; 'shure the Shoah wasn't that bad really, look what I have to put up with.'

It's the very essence of being anti Muslim to brandish terms like fatwa with no understanding of what it means, just an aggrieved sense that whatever it is it isn't a patch on your own immeasurable suffering.

It's not accidental, it's the fruit of a mindset that assumes the centrality of white, christian values as being all that really matter.
 

hollandia

Literally knows shit
Staff member
Moderator
Member
This accidental racism really isn't all that accidental. It's the very essence of white privilege to claim that you are being discriminated against when that discrimination has nothing to do with your colour or ethnicity.

It's the very essence of antisemitism to claim that whatever minor inconvenience you happen to have to endure is commensurate with the holocaust, it is, in fact, a kind of denialism; 'shure the Shoah wasn't that bad really, look what I have to put up with.'

It's the very essence of being anti Muslim to brandish terms like fatwa with no understanding of what it means, just an aggrieved sense that whatever it is it isn't a patch on your own immeasurable suffering.

It's not accidental, it's the fruit of a mindset that assumes the centrality of white, christian values as being all that really matter.
There's more than an element of truth in that.

Still, it has worked in the past for people, and as we all know, Irish political reps are often the last to get with the program.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,639
6,190
This accidental racism really isn't all that accidental. It's the very essence of white privilege to claim that you are being discriminated against when that discrimination has nothing to do with your colour or ethnicity.

It's the very essence of antisemitism to claim that whatever minor inconvenience you happen to have to endure is commensurate with the holocaust, it is, in fact, a kind of denialism; 'shure the Shoah wasn't that bad really, look what I have to put up with.'

It's the very essence of being anti Muslim to brandish terms like fatwa with no understanding of what it means, just an aggrieved sense that whatever it is it isn't a patch on your own immeasurable suffering.

It's not accidental, it's the fruit of a mindset that assumes the centrality of white, christian values as being all that really matter.
It's not accidental, it's ignorant, in the proper meaning of the word. It's ignorance in that it is a lack of awareness that the historical experiences of Holocaust or a Fatwa are fundamentally different to your own personal experience.

To be fair, comparing, say, living with lockdown restrictions in the UK with living through the bombings of the Second World War in London is rooted in this same ignorance. And we see this ignorance a lot in public political statements and more and more of it the days.
 

Statsman

The nice one, or so it seemed.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
9,617
10,380
A quiet retirement home
This accidental racism really isn't all that accidental. It's the very essence of white privilege to claim that you are being discriminated against when that discrimination has nothing to do with your colour or ethnicity.

It's the very essence of antisemitism to claim that whatever minor inconvenience you happen to have to endure is commensurate with the holocaust, it is, in fact, a kind of denialism; 'shure the Shoah wasn't that bad really, look what I have to put up with.'

It's the very essence of being anti Muslim to brandish terms like fatwa with no understanding of what it means, just an aggrieved sense that whatever it is it isn't a patch on your own immeasurable suffering.

It's not accidental, it's the fruit of a mindset that assumes the centrality of white, christian values as being all that really matter.
There's also the Islam = Fascism element.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,639
6,190
All established Abrahamic faiths have extreme right wing branches. The adherents on the whole do not hold such views.
Most majority religions (the most common religion in a country) tend to be like Catholicism in Ireland - they might seem to dominate the culture (and sometimes do in terms of politics) but most often it's a case of a relatively small amount of fundamentalists and a huge amount of "al a carte" believers.

I've met a hell of a lot of Muslims in continental Europe who consider themselves believers but really don't have any issues with having a beer or taking a selfie of themselves. Generally, the larger the congregation, the more relaxed the majority of the congregation are with regards the stricter rules of that religion.
 
Top Bottom