Hate Speech Public Consultation

alastair

peddlelies wrote: »

Meanwhile, in actual reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

Speaking to a meeting of young members of her Christian Democratic Union party, Merkel said the idea of people from different cultural backgrounds living happily "side by side" did not work.

"This [multicultural] approach has failed, utterly failed," Merkel told the meeting in Potsdam, west of Berlin, yesterday.

Jaysus - you get that this is very old news, and that Merkel has been a massive advocate for immigration in the subsequent ten years? From not ten years ago - but this year:

"Diversity, including through immigration, has been here in the heart of Europe for centuries. ... We have learned how immigration has changed our country, and how it will continue to change our country, and we have learned that our country must be a country of immigration, as well as of integration."

https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-marks-german-constitution-anniversary-by-celebrating-diversity/a-48735713

That 'actual reality' enough for you?

Bobblehats

alastair wrote: »

There's the nub of it.

If Fionnuala O’Flaherty rocks up to Japan and claims citizenship do you suddenly view her as japanese? There’s your nub.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Your personal blinkers don’t stop the reality of people opting to become Irish, or Spanish, every year. And fair play for citizens opting to stake a claim in civil society. Your bizarre demand for deference is rather telling.

That you read "deference" is even more telling. And they don't become Irish, or Spanish, they gain citizenship, quite different things, or do you disagree with the dictionary definition of ethnicity?

yoke wrote: »

If she claimed she wasn’t Irish then she’d be accused of not wanting to integrate. If she accepts that she’s now Irish, she draws the ire of people like Wibbs who think she has a brass neck for claiming she’s Irish, and believe she should live as some sort of second class citizen for ever.

Where did I state anyone should live as a second class citizen? I have no issues around citizenship and the rights and privileges and responsibilities of same, I do have an issue where someone magically changes ethnicity and to even question this credo is "racist" and "hate speech".

You are an authoritarian Wibbs, and I’m guessing that’s just the way you were brought up so I’m not going to be able to change that.

Ironic considering I'm arguing against any moves in our legal structures that shut down ideas we don't want to hear on the back of vested interests and yes well meaning that can give rise to authoritarianism.

“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing” - you quite often try to state that something is fact when it is far from it. You present the topic as if it’s something you know about when in fact you have no clue (in true authoritarian fashion), and usually rely on the fact that it’s rare someone would actually take the time to post something to show you up on your lack of knowledge. I’m guessing you actually know f*ck all about hair genetics since you made a factual mistake which no one very familiar with the topic would make about eumelanin and pheomelanin - even the article on Wikipedia clarifies that “A small amount of brown eumelanin in the absence of other pigments causes yellow (blond) hair”

Your quote “pheomelanin(blond/red) was already here(eumelanin is involved in dark hair), so blonds were likely enough without our Norse visitors” shows a complete lack of understanding of how genetics plays into this protein production and I can’t be arsed engaging with you further on this topic as you will likely just try to shout me down rather than considering what I’m saying and thinking about it objectively and studying the subject yourself for the sake of knowledge rather than confirmation bias for your already existing views on a topic. It shouldn’t be about “you vs me”, it should be about what’s correct and what’s not correct.

1) that was off the top of my head and mea culpa, but you had to run to wikipedia.

2) I have no confirmation bias towards blond or any other colour of hair, regardless of which population movement introduced it.

3) I saw no links to back up your assertion that the Viking invasions introduced blond hair to the Irish population. Plus it's a bit of a non point as far as the current debate on multiculturalism goes. Like I say they were invaders and colonists.

4) Not you Y I grant you, but Alastair kicked this stuff off with talk about human population genetics from a position of complete and utter ignorance while peddling the outdated blank slate nonsense of "race" as a social construct. This particular politic has the real horn for this social constructionism theory and nigh on everything can become one if they turn thier beady eye towards it, ethnicity, physical gender, even art and beauty, you name it. It walks to one side of the nature/nurture debate and digs its heels in for dear life. Like I noted earlier this follows politics too, so your "Left" tend to be hardliner nurture types, your "Right" hard line nature types. It has an interesting political history actually Y, going back to Darwinism, which later on led to seemingly opposite political theories as communism and fascism, later still the nurture line ultimately gave rise to the postmodern view of reality, which itself has been often taken on board wholesale by some and applied to many things it has little business being applied to.

"Race" as a blunt instrument(and often an extremely negative one) description is outdated, but human population genetics isn't and broadly does follow the outdated labels. On the genetic and historical genetic movement front, Africans look like Africans, Europeans look like Europeans, Asians look like Asians and so on, with finer points emerging depending on geography and overlap around the edges. There is indeed no Irish(or any other) Gene, but there would be a suite of genes that if you found in an individual would point to Western European, likely northwestern and more likely Irish than German, and none would be found in say a native Korean, or Hawaiian and vice versa.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

That you read "deference" is even more telling. And they don't become Irish, or Spanish, they gain citizenship, quite different things, or do you disagree with the dictionary definition of ethnicity?

They become Irish. That you're not prepared to accept this fact is your issue, not mine. Irish citizenship, Irish nationality, Irish residency, Irish taxpayer - all the attributes of being Irish. As for the markers of ethnicity you're so fond of - well she's Christian (seemingly what you believe the Irish are), Speaks english (seemingly also the marker of Irishness for you), and is engaged in Irish culture, so it sounds like there's something else going on that makes you feel she should know her place.

Wibbs

Bobblehats wrote: »

If Fionnuala O’Flaherty rocks up to Japan and claims citizenship do you suddenly view her as japanese? There’s your nub.

Apparently he does, or claims he does. That the passport is all, but I strongly suspect she'd not be quite so Japanese. Diversity in the current multicultural politic is far less about pale faces adding diversity to less pale places. Europeans apparently require this diversity to function and be better people and cultures. If ten thousand Germans showed up in Kampala I suspect a different take would in play, especially if it was claimed they were improving the country by their presence and claiming to speak on its behalf holding their Ugandan passports aloft. They wouldn't be and the history of that continent illustrates it pretty damned well.

For fun and interest I googled pic'd the Ugandan passport and it's a cool looking one. Amazing country too and one I can see doing well. Anyway the first hit brought me to this article on the UK Observer's page. This Ugandan chap details his travails with having a Ugandan passport with a full UK resident's visa and travelling within the EU(pre Brexit) and how he decided to get a British passport for ease of travel. In doing so he worries about this:

I have come to the painful and hard decision of ditching my Ugandan passport for the British one. And though a passport is all but an official document issued by governments for purposes of identification and ease of travel, by taking on British citizenry I somehow feel like I am watering down my ‘Ugandaness.’

NB his take on what a passport is all but.

His final thoughts are this:

In all this, acquiring a British passport does not stop me being Ugandan. The Uganda government may think otherwise, but the fact is I will always remain a Ugandan, whether I hold a Ugandan passport or not.

Dead right Sir. He gets it. Or he's labouring under some deluded "social construct". :rolleyes:

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

They become Irish. That you're not prepared to accept this fact is your issue, not mine. Irish citizenship, Irish nationality, Irish residency, Irish taxpayer - all the attributes of being Irish. As for the markers of ethnicity you're so fond of - well she's Christian (seemingly what you believe the Irish are), Speaks english (seemingly also the marker of Irishness for you), and is engaged in Irish culture, so it sounds like there's something else going on that makes you feel she shut know her place.

You do seem to know more about her than the rest of us can relay. But nope, nice try, it isn't "cos she is Black". If she were pale of face Spanish, French, German, English, Russian, Polish, I would say the exact same thing and hold the exact same view.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Alastair kicked this stuff off with talk about human population genetics from a position of complete and utter ignorance while peddling the outdated blank slate nonsense of "race" as a social construct.

Nothing outdated about it. It's the scientific consensus

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1319325?seq=1

Scientists generally do not recognize races as biologically meaningful. Yet scientists, including me, discuss race and describe the racial composition of our samples. To be clear, I am not advocating that we ignore race. In fact, there are many dangers in ignoring race as a social topic. Race is “real”. But race is socially real, not biologically real.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ie/blog/without-prejudice/201612/race-social-construction

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

You do seem to know more about her than the rest of us can relay. But nope, nice try, it isn't "cos she is Black". If she were pale of face Spanish, French, German, English, Russian, Polish, I would say the exact same thing and hold the exact same view.

Sure you would:

Again I note that when this "I'm Irish and you better believe it, or else you're a Wacist!!!" stuff comes up, it's almost always from darker skinned folks and usually Africans, you don't hear it nearly so much from lighter skinned Poles, Italians, Spaniards, Russians, Czechs, Latvians et al, even folks from the Middle East and China, no matter how long they've lived here or what passport they carry.

peddlelies

alastair wrote: »

https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-marks-german-constitution-anniversary-by-celebrating-diversity/a-48735713

That 'actual reality' enough for you?

Angela can say what she wants now, she's gone in a couple of years. Her quotes from previous years when she was relying on votes tell a totally different story. The facts are firmly on my side, take Germany as one example. I don't expect much of a reply after you vanished in a puff of smoke from the the politics forum after you labeled people idiots for saying Clinton might lose the election, Madame President avatar and all if I recall.

I'm not anti-immigrant but I know there are problems associated with large scale immigration from certain cultures because there are things called facts. When countries have to ban live outdoor world cup viewings or segregate concerts you no longer deny such problems, that is unless you are a disingenuous ideologue, which you're not of course. We should be allowed to talk freely about such problems now and in the future without fear or intimidation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/14/angela-merkel-multiculturalism-is-a-sham/?utm_term=.1d8df4666e63

The speech that followed, however, may have surprised supporters of her policies: "Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie,’ ” or a sham, she said, before adding that Germany may be reaching its limits in terms of accepting more refugees.

https://www.thelocal.de/20150108/mus...eel-threatened

The Bertelsman Foundation think tank survey looked at the perception of Islam in Germany from the eyes of Muslims and non-Muslims. Of the non-Muslims surveyed, 57 percent thought that Islam was threatening or very threatening to German society.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-refugee-crime

"Conducted by Christian Pfeiffer, Dirk Baier and Soeren Kliem of the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, the government-commissioned study uses material from Germany's fourth-most-populous state, Lower Saxony, home to Volkswagen. About 750,000 of its 8 million residents don't have German citizenship, and, according to official data for the end of 2016, about 170,000 of them had applied for asylum. That's also the fourth-highest number in Germany. The researchers asked for data that specifically concerned asylum applicants, both successful and unsuccessful, who had arrived in 2015 and 2016. The state police -- in keeping with the unspoken taboo -- hadn't published such statistics, but they obliged the research team. It turned out the asylum seekers had reversed the decreasing violent crime trend in Lower Saxony.

While such crime went down by 21.9 percent between 2007 and 2014, it was up again by 10.4 percent by the end of 2016. Some 83 percent of the cases were solved -- and 92.1 percent of the increase was attributable to the newcomers."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10/leaked-document-says-2000-men-allegedly-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve/

On NYE rapes

“There is a connection between the emergence of this phenomenon and the rapid migration in 2015. We have to presume that many of those crimes will never be fully investigated Holger Münch, president of the German Federal Crime Police Office, told Sueddeutsche Zeitung, The Post reported."


https://www.dw.com/en/germany-terror...ort/a-41065442

"German federal prosecutors have opened up more than 900 terrorism-related cases so far this year, including 800 related to radical Islamists, according to a report published in the German language nespaper Welt am Sonntag on Sunday.

https://www.dw.com/en/jewish-council...ing/a-39805727

"A small-scale study released by the American Jewish Committee earlier this week appeared to show an increase in anti-Semitism in Berlin's schools. Researchers interviewed 27 teachers from 21 schools in the German capital, with staff reporting they had noted a clear rise in the number of incidents.

Central Council President Schuster told the Bild am Sonntag that his organization had also observed this phenomenon "for some years unfortunately."

"The word 'Jew' is used as a term of abuse in schools and on the sports field," he said. "It's quite widespread - we're not talking about a few individual cases."

He added that levels of anti-Semitism were particularly high among Muslim students, and that there was a need for Islamic associations and schools to do more to counteract this kind of prejudice."

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Where did I state anyone should live as a second class citizen? I have no issues around citizenship and the rights and privileges and responsibilities of same, I do have an issue where someone magically changes ethnicity and to even question this credo is "racist" and "hate speech".

It's you who's hung up on this whole ethnicity malarky, so the whole 'magically changes ethnicity' thing is your straw man. It's also you who questioned this woman's right to speak on behalf of Irish civil society, in a forum that have no difficulty with acknowledging her Irishness.

alastair

peddlelies wrote: »

Her quotes from previous years when she was relying on votes tell a totally different story.

A notion at odds with her advocating for (unusually an accurate term for a change) mass immigration at a time when it was likely to cost her party support.

sabat

yoke wrote: »

If she claimed she wasn’t Irish then she’d be accused of not wanting to integrate. If she accepts that she’s now Irish, she draws the ire of people like Wibbs who think she has a brass neck for claiming she’s Irish,

That's a subtle attempt to portray anyone who doesn't get with the programme as some kind of fringe extremist when in reality, if you (plural) got out of your NGO, social studies, twitter echo-chamber bubble, you'd find that it's probably the opinion of 95% of Irish people. It's so ridiculous it's like a comedy sketch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jnw6ZpHGjNQ

And this is before we even get to what she actually said, which is factually and historically UNTRUE. It's like she copied and pasted the wikipedia entry for a completely different place into her speech. We're into "We've always been at war with Eastasia" territory with this kind of nonsense.

Here's the video again for anyone trying to follow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahhrWAUG-Vk

Bobblehats

alastair wrote: »

They become Irish. That you're not prepared to accept this fact is your issue, not mine. Irish citizenship, Irish nationality, Irish residency, Irish taxpayer - all the attributes of being Irish. As for the markers of ethnicity you're so fond of - well she's Christian (seemingly what you believe the Irish are), Speaks english (seemingly also the marker of Irishness for you), and is engaged in Irish culture, so it sounds like there's something else going on that makes you feel she should know her place.

People don’t just become irish it’s in the genes. I’m not having that; even when they become so ‘embedded’ here as to hijack our names along with a sizeable chunk of our DNA they will not noticeably be irish. It is rather that ‘we’ will be all the more non-descript

I say noticeably because irish is not a distinct thing. We were already ‘diverse’, I myself can taken for some sort of mexican italian if it wasn’t for the more unique distinctive traits here which tend to be across the eyes. Our diversity, is a diversity unique only to us as a remote island relatively untainted for how long. Africans are distinct.

Distinctly african, and if anyone needs diversity then take it to allll the cookie cutter mono-brown countries because we don’t wanna know. ok? This isn’t hate these are hard truthes. Let whatever happen, happen but only on the more isolated cases of love and on the meantime don’t force anything; nor anyone on us.

RandomName2

alastair wrote: »

No, it would do no such thing. Not sure quite how you would make the mistake of believing otherwise.

You are going to have to do more to defend the hypothesis that someone's statement (in this case yours) about racial identity, that could prove offensive to different groups, would not qualify for prosecution under proposed hate speech legislation.

alastair wrote: »

Sorry that you’re alarmed at the mention of racists in an article on the social construct of the notion of race versus the science.

I'm alarmed that someone, who is attempting to obtain a doctorate in genetics , is prepared to use bias confirmation in relation to cherry-picked scientific articles, solely in the pursuit of a political goal. She calmly states that peoples' personalities are not a consequence of genetics, but rather, environment. This is a really, really controversial thing to say. It's like saying 'dark matter is actually mini black-holes' in the world of physics (i.e. something that is predominantly conjecture). Her backing up her main thesis with the assertion says that there's no difference between humans and chimps should make anybody question her competence. Anybody who cares about science over politics that is. Granted it's just a blog, but it's got Harvard's name attached to it, and it has people like yourself using it as a basis for arguments, so it's legitimate to call it out for its crud science.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Nothing outdated about it. It's the scientific consensus

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1319325?seq=1
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ie/blog/without-prejudice/201612/race-social-construction

You do realise you're quoting from American sources, sources which quite understandably and rightfully have been busy distancing themselves from their hideous past regarding "race". They're extremely twitchy about the subject. If you read more of the papers on this subject you will note they tend to use analogues for the old outdated "race" characteristics, because they broadly fit. The last linked psychologist even said this. Never mind that even discussing population genetics in a colony like the US is often on a hiding to nothing. A large proportion of African Americans have European genes, often because African women were often used as glorified sex toys by their slave owners or simply raped because they were socially worthless to the society. Never mind that American culture is obsessed with their "old country" origins when compared to other cultures, including most other colonies. "Race" in America is a social construct alright and a knotty ongoing one.

This does not disagree with the overall population genetics of native folks around the world, which do tend to overlap the old outdated ideas of "race". Certainly more than they don't. As I pointed out, on the archaic DNA front alone it is a fact that native Europeans and native Africans will not show Denisovan DNA in their genes, Asians have them and Neandertals in theirs and Africans have neither. If someone is a native to those three regions to find out which region they hail from you wouldn't need to look at minor stuff like skin or hair colour*, but simply look for those two archaic admixtures and the mix will tell you where someone hails from originally with a fair degree of accuracy.

alastair wrote: »

Sure you would:

I would, but that doesn't suit your slant and it would mean you'd have to come up with a better argument beyond social constructs, pieces of paper defining ethnicity and nationhood and shouting "racist!!".

My point is we don't seem to have the opportunity to do so. Public NGO images of "diversity" feature far more dark people than light. Ditto for cries of "racism!!". I'm also quite sure that the majority of non mouthpieces of any hue, Black, White, Yellow, whatever you're having yourself living in this country wouldn't claim with a straight face to actually be Irish, just because of a harp on their passport.

Plus I have already said and more than once across different posts that I would consider it a nonsense to call myself Spanish or French just because I was able to get a Spanish or French passport. Last time I looked I was lacking in melanin.





*Native Europeans have the widest range of hair(and eye) colours and textures out of the world's populations, yet are far less diverse than either Asians and especially Africans, so these traits are not indicative of diversity.

peddlelies

alastair wrote: »

A notion at odds with her advocating for (unusually an accurate term for a change) mass immigration at a time when it was likely to cost her party support.

Second cop out reply trying to shift focus from the cultural and societal problems I linked due to immigration in Germany.

We'll never agree so I'll leave it at this, we should be allowed to discuss issues like race, culture, gender, religion freely and without intimidation as long as violence is never directed at any one person or group.

Anyone advocating for censorship or controlled speech, which is what a "hate speech law" will do are against honest debate and would rather stifle discussion and rub it in your face than admit defeat.

I'm not going to live in some make believe dystopia where some overweight hairy man can enter weightlifting as a Woman and dominate and nobody is allowed to question it, that's where this thing is going and you, and others like you know it. Godspeed, mainstream delusion and intimidation while gloating in it.

Wibbs

sabat wrote: »

Here's the video again for anyone trying to follow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahhrWAUG-Vk

Actually it might be a better plan to give that woman at the start an Irish passport and ask her to head up the Why the fcuk does this tiny country have so many vested interest NGO's sucking at the public teat Committee(someone translate that As Gaelige pronto).

Wibbs

Anyway, I'm away on a job. Late in the day alright, but sure someone has to work around here to keep the tax taps open.

RandomName2

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

There are over 19,500 of these groups in Ireland and they fleece the taxpayer for over 5.5 billion a year.

WTF. EVERY YEAR!?! If you'd asked me I'd have guessed maybe 200 NGOs getting maybe €20-40 million. Tops. €55000000? This is actually mind blowing. Hey, they could build 2 children's hospitals, each year, and not reach this amount. This is utterly crazy.

This is the thing we should be discussing. How do we get rid of 99% of these? Rally4change gets public funding?! Are you actually serious? :mad:

This needs a thread of its own.

This needs legislation. Seriously. What the hell.

Dick_Swiveller

yoke wrote: »

If she claimed she wasn’t Irish then she’d be accused of not wanting to integrate. If she accepts that she’s now Irish, she draws the ire of people like Wibbs who think she has a brass neck for claiming she’s Irish, and believe she should live as some sort of second class citizen for ever.

You are an authoritarian Wibbs, and I’m guessing that’s just the way you were brought up so I’m not going to be able to change that.
“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing” - you quite often try to state that something is fact when it is far from it. You present the topic as if it’s something you know about when in fact you have no clue (in true authoritarian fashion), and usually rely on the fact that it’s rare someone would actually take the time to post something to show you up on your lack of knowledge. I’m guessing you actually know f*ck all about hair genetics since you made a factual mistake which no one very familiar with the topic would make about eumelanin and pheomelanin - even the article on Wikipedia clarifies that “A small amount of brown eumelanin in the absence of other pigments causes yellow (blond) hair”

Your quote “pheomelanin(blond/red) was already here(eumelanin is involved in dark hair), so blonds were likely enough without our Norse visitors” shows a complete lack of understanding of how genetics plays into this protein production and I can’t be arsed engaging with you further on this topic as you will likely just try to shout me down rather than considering what I’m saying and thinking about it objectively and studying the subject yourself for the sake of knowledge rather than confirmation bias for your already existing views on a topic. It shouldn’t be about “you vs me”, it should be about what’s correct and what’s not correct.

Good luck!

Of course she wouldn't be Irish. The only people who think an African can become Irish are dumb liberals who have lost all sense of proportion. If you went over to Nigeria tomorrow and announced that you were suddenly Nigerian you would be laughed out of the country. And rightly so.

alastair

Bobblehats wrote: »

People don’t just become irish it’s in the genes. I’m not having that; even when they become so ‘embedded’ here as to hijack our names along with a sizeable chunk of our DNA they will not noticeably be irish. It is rather that ‘we’ will be all the more non-descript

I say noticeably because irish is not a distinct thing. We were already ‘diverse’, I myself can taken for some sort of mexican italian if it wasn’t for the more unique distinctive traits here which tend to be across the eyes. Our diversity, is a diversity unique only to us as a remote island relatively untainted for how long. Africans are distinct.

Distinctly african, and if anyone needs diversity then take it to allll the cookie cutter mono-brown countries because we don’t wanna know. ok? This isn’t hate these are hard truthes. Let whatever happen, happen but only on the more isolated cases of love and on the meantime don’t force anything; nor anyone on us.

I’m at a loss. 🤷🏻*♂️

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

You are going to have to do more to defend the hypothesis that someone's statement (in this case yours) about racial identity, that could prove offensive to different groups, would not qualify for prosecution under proposed hate speech legislation.




I'm alarmed that someone, who is attempting to obtain a doctorate in genetics , is prepared to use bias confirmation in relation to cherry-picked scientific articles, solely in the pursuit of a political goal. She calmly states that peoples' personalities are not a consequence of genetics, but rather, environment. This is a really, really controversial thing to say. It's like saying 'dark matter is actually mini black-holes' in the world of physics (i.e. something that is predominantly conjecture). Her backing up her main thesis with the assertion says that there's no difference between humans and chimps should make anybody question her competence. Anybody who cares about science over politics that is. Granted it's just a blog, but it's got Harvard's name attached to it, and it has people like yourself using it as a basis for arguments, so it's legitimate to call it out for its crud science.

Nothing cherry picked about it. Race isn’t anything scientists have any time for. Scientifically it’s a non event. And she says nothing about personality or chimps, so not sure where you’re getting any of that from.

Bobblehats

alastair wrote: »

I’m at a loss. ����*♂️

But you don’t have to be; alistair that’s my point

how to break it down. I believe in the face of diversity true love can conquer and keep the pretenders at bay.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

You do realise you're quoting from American sources, sources which quite understandably and rightfully have been busy distancing themselves from their hideous past regarding "race". They're extremely twitchy about the subject. If you read more of the papers on this subject you will note they tend to use analogues for the old outdated "race" characteristics, because they broadly fit. The last linked psychologist even said this. Never mind that even discussing population genetics in a colony like the US is often on a hiding to nothing. A large proportion of African Americans have European genes, often because African women were often used as glorified sex toys by their slave owners or simply raped because they were socially worthless to the society. Never mind that American culture is obsessed with their "old country" origins when compared to other cultures, including most other colonies. "Race" in America is a social construct alright and a knotty ongoing one.

This does not disagree with the overall population genetics of native folks around the world, which do tend to overlap the old outdated ideas of "race". Certainly more than they don't. As I pointed out, on the archaic DNA front alone it is a fact that native Europeans and native Africans will not show Denisovan DNA in their genes, Asians have them and Neandertals in theirs and Africans have neither. If someone is a native to those three regions to find out which region they hail from you wouldn't need to look at minor stuff like skin or hair colour*, but simply look for those two archaic admixtures and the mix will tell you where someone hails from originally with a fair degree of accuracy.

I would, but that doesn't suit your slant and it would mean you'd have to come up with a better argument beyond social constructs, pieces of paper defining ethnicity and nationhood and shouting "racist!!".

My point is we don't seem to have the opportunity to do so. Public NGO images of "diversity" feature far more dark people than light. Ditto for cries of "racism!!". I'm also quite sure that the majority of non mouthpieces of any hue, Black, White, Yellow, whatever you're having yourself living in this country wouldn't claim with a straight face to actually be Irish, just because of a harp on their passport.

Plus I have already said and more than once across different posts that I would consider it a nonsense to call myself Spanish or French just because I was able to get a Spanish or French passport. Last time I looked I was lacking in melanin.

Yeah - you’ve made it clear you hold the darkies most responsible for the crime of not letting you tell them what nationality they are. Clearly they don’t know their place in your personally-defined pecking order. Shouldn’t you have included your usual ‘magical’ reference in here too?

Oh, and the science isn’t ‘American’. But keep digging.

alastair

peddlelies wrote: »

Second cop out reply trying to shift focus from the cultural and societal problems I linked due to immigration in Germany.

We'll never agree so I'll leave it at this, we should be allowed to discuss issues like race, culture, gender, religion freely and without intimidation as long as violence is never directed at any one person or group.

Anyone advocating for censorship or controlled speech, which is what a "hate speech law" will do are against honest debate and would rather stifle discussion and rub it in your face than admit defeat.

I'm not going to live in some make believe dystopia where some overweight hairy man can enter weightlifting as a Woman and dominate and nobody is allowed to question it, that's where this thing is going and you, and others like you know it. Godspeed, mainstream delusion and intimidation while gloating in it.

Quite the journey of straw man arguments and determination to miss the point you’ve taken. Bon voyage.

alastair

RandomName2 wrote: »

WTF. EVERY YEAR!?! If you'd asked me I'd have guessed maybe 200 NGOs getting maybe €20-40 million. Tops. €55000000? This is actually mind blowing. Hey, they could build 2 children's hospitals, each year, and not reach this amount. This is utterly crazy.

This is the thing we should be discussing. How do we get rid of 99% of these? Rally4change gets public funding?! Are you actually serious? :mad:

This needs a thread of its own.

This needs legislation. Seriously. What the hell.

Jaysus. One more time: Do you think that the €17bn going into the Health budget is all going into nurses and doctor’s pockets? Then why do you think NGO’s handling a budget are any different? NGO’s are contracted to undertake provision of services for the State, and handle the expenditure of funds on behalf of the State. It’s money for services that the taxpayer covers one way or another.

alastair

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

Of course she wouldn't be Irish. The only people who think an African can become Irish are dumb liberals who have lost all sense of proportion. If you went over to Nigeria tomorrow and announced that you were suddenly Nigerian you would be laughed out of the country. And rightly so.

https://www.immigration.gov.ng/
Same essential process that this woman went through to become Irish. No magic required, and not particularly a laughing matter.

alastair

Bobblehats wrote: »

But you don’t have to be; alistair that’s my point

how to break it down. I believe in the face of diversity true love can conquer and keep the pretenders at bay.

Best of luck to you in whatever you’re going through.

Bobblehats

alastair wrote: »

Best of luck to you in whatever you’re going through.

With you? Through the motions. You are just as easily dismissed

Dick_Swiveller

alastair wrote: »

https://www.immigration.gov.ng/
Same essential process that this woman went through to become Irish. No magic required, and not particularly a laughing matter.

She's not Irish - and never can be. Any sane person realises this.