Just to add with a bit more seriousness, Casey has definitely succeeded in highlighting what are seriously problematic aspects of the ideology that underpins both intersectionalism and identity politics to which all mainstream poiticos current appear to subscribe.
What I mean by that is that the ideologies themselves promote (pretty succesfully) the idea that group membership is more important than any idividual identity a person carves out for themselves. It was adopted by many on the left as a means of attacking what were viewed as pre-existing hierarchies such that, in the US initially and across the rest of the wesetrn world subsequently, the white male was elevated to oppressor status across the board. Within this paradigm any conflict/difference of opinion between a member of the white male category and a member of another group lower down the perceived social hierarchy, was/is in actuality a power conflict between the broader groupings…and this applies to every interaction involving all persons (not just white males) as according to the same ideology everyone (as part of a group) exists somewhere along the spectrum of hierarchy/victimhood. This proved quite useful for them when punching upward so to speak, and would be very much part of the playbook that groups such as Pavee Point would have employed over the past few years with a view to playing up the victim aspect associated with the Traveller identity.
However, problems arise when, as in the case of travellers, members of the group engage in serious criminality (as an example), especially of the sort that violently targets vulnerable people. Its quite clear that Travellers are disproportionately involved in such crimes and your defence of ‘not all travellers’ rings somewhat hollow when you have been, to that point, playing the blanket identity aspect in the opposite direction claiming victim status or associating everyone of a particular gender or race with blanket responsibility for historical crimes etc. In other words, if all white males are somehow responsible (on some level) for slavery, then all travellers are resposible (on some level) from rural burglaries.
Casey has, perhaps unwittingly, highlighted this this broader development in his comments related to Travellers. However, its not limited to them. Remember, during the 1980s when the conflict in the North was at its height? The reasonable perspective that we were all conditioned to accept was that some Brits were bad ie SAS/Loyalist Death Squads etc but quite clearly, the majority of English/British people are not like that. The message was always to pull back from such extremism because of where it inevitably leads. However, nowadays, in keeping with the broader fixation on identity politics such moderation appears to be in retreat. The following appeared in the New York Times last week, written presumably by a middle class Irish woman seeking to use Brexit as a means to hop on board the identity victim train under a headline “I didnt hate the English - until now”
nytimes.com/2018/10/18/opin … rexit.html
Casey’s comments, whether intentionally or not, appeal to an individuality that appears to have been lacking of late ie that everyone is equal before the law and that membership of a group is less important than your actions as an individual. Thats supposed to be the basic premise of post-enlightenment western thought. Im guessing that at least some people who are supporting him understand this instinctively and oppose the politics of identity on the same basis. Hes simply been the one to articulate something that many people feel, but for whom there has as of yet been zero political or mainstream cultural representation. Thats reason enough to give him a vote in what is an otherwise meaningless vanity contest.