The term "Non National"

RainyDay said:
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to be provoked into denials by your posts.
Click to expand...

That response doesnt make any sense. Its the kind of attitude which I earlier perceived as intellectual snobbery. Theres obviously a class system at work now with two classes of people. One class understands Rainydays' policies (perhaps with the benefit of some explanation) and the other class doesnt. This is what I find disappointing.

RainyDay said:
Why would you assume that the 'guests' are applying for citizenship?
Click to expand...


Why would you assume I would assume anything ? I assume nothing which is why I have repeatedly asked you questions for clarification which you refuse to answer.
 
This just playing word games now. You are repeatedly trying to put words and opinions into my mouth. Whenever you feel like having a sensible discussion on this (or other topics), let me know and I'll rejoin the thread.
 
RainyDay said:
This just playing word games now.
Click to expand...

Such as misleading others into answering a question you already fully know the answer to ?

RainyDay said:
You are repeatedly trying to put words and opinions into my mouth.
Click to expand...

Thats a good trick any reasonable person would find physically impossible.

As I got the impression you were withholding some information by refusing to answer questions, I am trying to draw your own opinions into your post by asking you questions which I find totally reasonable in any forum or arena of discussion. Thats all I have done. Otherwise who am I talking with and whats the point of a poster supposedly expressing strong beliefs about something but misrepresenting himself at the same time ?
I'll give you an example. I noticed from some threads that you have an interest in politics. Why would anyone vote for a candidate who was shifty and refused to answer questions about his/her policies ?



I'll rejoin the thread
Click to expand...

Its' your thread. Thankyou and take care.
 
ClubMan said:
For the record I consider the term "non-national" to be meaningless and habitual lazy shorthand (in this country in various circles) for "non Irish national".
Click to expand...
Well that settles it so. Actually, on reading it again, it's contradictory.
RainyDay said:
I find that term [PC brigade] offensive.
Click to expand...
What about 'various circles' Rainy, is that offensive too?
 
How about "person"? Unless it's actually of vital importance to know that the person in question is not Irish?
 
extopia said:
How about "person"? Unless it's actually of vital importance to know that the person in question is not Irish?
Click to expand...

That was one of my points earlier. I totally agree with you here extopia.
 
michaelm said:
Well that settles it so. Actually, on reading it again, it's contradictory.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should have said "... lazy shorthand presumably intended to mean something like non Irish national"? Hope that clarifies matters for you.
 
extopia said:
How about "person"? Unless it's actually of vital importance to know that the person in question is not Irish?
Click to expand...

This seems a bit unrealistic in a pious lets-link-hands-across-the-borders kind of way. The sentiment is right but it would very much go against human nature. In any news report about a crime, people will be curious to know the age, gender, social status and country of origin of those involved. The paper that started printing reports like this:

Would probably lose business to the paper printing reports like this:

 
ClubMan said:
Maybe I should have said "... lazy shorthand presumably intended to mean something like non Irish national"? Hope that clarifies matters for you.
Click to expand...

Interestingly the term "non-national" is defined in the Irish Statute book, specifically in relation to the Employment Permits Act of 2003, but possibly elsewhere as well.

“non-national” means a person who is not a citizen of the State.
Click to expand...
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0007/print.html#sec1

This seems different to the context in which it should be applied as argued by many on this thread and my own previous understanding of how the term was employed.
 
extopia said:
Really? What is that analysis based on exactly?
Click to expand...

Do you want to read a thesis or do you want to apply some common sense?

Businesses having been reporting the "news" for hundreds of years. Presumably, as some thrived and others failed, their ability to report the details of the items of interest to the public has been honed to a fine degree.

I am not aware of any news outlet that systemically decides to omit all information relating to the nationality/sex/age of the people about whom they are reporting.

Funny that the idea of doing so should be supported by a poster ranting about the "PC brigade".
 
room305 said:
Interestingly the term "non-national" is defined in the Irish Statute book, specifically in relation to the Employment Permits Act of 2003, but possibly elsewhere as well.
Click to expand...
That is interesting alright! Thanks for that.
 
room305 said:
Do you want to read a thesis or do you want to apply some common sense?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes - I would indeed like to see something more than "anecdotal evidence" to support your claim.

Businesses having been reporting the "news" for hundreds of years. Presumably, as some thrived and others failed, their ability to report the details of the items of interest to the public has been honed to a fine degree.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly. Sensationalism sells more papers. The tabloids have thrived at the expense of good reporting. Is that a good thing?

I am not aware of any news outlet that systemically decides to omit all information relating to the nationality/sex/age of the people about whom they are reporting.
Click to expand...

How about the New York Times?

Multiculturalism is new in Ireland, but other societies have drawn on their longer experience to evolve codes of practice that seek to reduce biased language. If you can find it online, check out the New York Times Style Guide, or the Chicago Manual of Style. The Guardian follows similar practices, as do many good news organisations worldwide. These guides generally recommend the ommission of spurious details about age/sex/race/country of origin/sexual orientation etc.


Funny that the idea of doing so should be supported by a poster ranting about the "PC brigade".
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't understand that part. ;-)
 
room305 said:
Funny that the idea of doing so should be supported by a poster ranting about the "PC brigade".
Click to expand...

You have some good ideas. However I'd be careful that accusing someone of ranting could distract from the real issues.
 
room305 said:
Interestingly the term "non-national" is defined in the Irish Statute book, specifically in relation to the Employment Permits Act of 2003, but possibly elsewhere as well.
Click to expand...
Which raises the possibility that it may not in fact be a 'meaningless' term; Who'd have thought.
 
Well for insight into how other countries work - here Im officially referred to as a "Ausländerin", meaning foreigner. As are all expats (Ausländer | Ausländerin). As far as Im aware people dont really take offence at the term. I am a foreigner.
 
extopia said:
Actually, yes - I would indeed like to see something more than "anecdotal evidence" to support your claim.
Click to expand...

Em, you're the one proposing a radical departure in how the news is reported. Why would the onus fall on me to prove whether this is likely to succeed or not?

extopia said:
Undoubtedly. Sensationalism sells more papers. The tabloids have thrived at the expense of good reporting. Is that a good thing?
Click to expand...

I never suggested it was good, bad or indifferent, merely that the way the news is currently reported is a sustainable business model. It is not yet known whether reporting the news but deliberately omitting all details relating to a person's race/age/gender/nationality is or not.

extopia said:
How about the New York Times?
Click to expand...

Are you saying the New York Times practises a deliberate policy of reporting news without reference to any individual's nationality?


Okay, but what term do they use when they don't consider the person's country of origin to be a "spurious" detail? Remember, I'm arguing that "non-national" is a ridiculous term to use to describe foreign nationals - primarily because it is inaccurate. However, it is impractical to imagine we can just omit such details entirely. A fact you now seem to be acknowledging.
 

More insight into how other countries work. In spain I am officially an "extranjera" (foreigner). My ID card has a huge "E" for extranjera on it. I dont mind - since I'm not spanish, I am a foreigner here.
 
What about a poll?
I would always prefer 'foreigner' in ordinary speech /writing - I don't see any need to use legalese unless it is within a legal context. On the other hand the term 'non-national' may just be a fad that is 'rolling out' nationwide.....there are enough of these faddish terms. It'll go out of fashion eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register