Hate Speech Public Consultation

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Belgium is a far younger country that the USA. And nobody defined themselves as Belgian until the 19th century. It had no self image whatsoever before this point.

More proof of your bloodyminded ignorance. The Belgae were referenced as far back as the classical world for god's sake. They're a "younger country" because they gained independence in the 19th century. Italy is a "far younger country than the USA" too, does this mean Italians don't define themselves as such. How about Greeks? French? Indians? Germans? Turks? Czechs? A goodly chunk of African nations with it. That's like saying "Ireland is a far younger country than the USA", because we only gained our independence in the 1920's. Did that somehow make us English or British until then?

Then again you claimed that DeValera wrote the Irish constitution so it's not the first example of your wide gaps in knowledge and dumbing down to support your politic. Oh you and the UN speaker make well matched bedfellows indeed.

Of course you completely avoided the main point(quelle surprise) which is that using America as an example of becoming a local from citizenship is a very different cultural and philosophical matter.

WrenBoy

alastair wrote: »

None so blind...

alastair wrote: »

Yeah - that means precisely nothing.

Kind of what I was going for, seeing as you're just throwing out clichés now and not actually saying anything yourself.

yoke

I would argue that America is just as valid a country as any other, eg. Ireland or England. If you claim that America is somehow “different” and not really a country, with its own culture and societal norms etc. then where do you draw the line? Is Brazil a country? India? China? Etc.

If you argue that America is not a country but Ireland is, then might I ask when did Ireland become a country? If it was before the time of Brian Boru, then surely the vikings are foreigners and shouldn’t be paid for using our tax money, etc etc. Is there some criteria whereby a country becomes “legit”?

All countries have a history of change, often via migration, and often by invasion. I think a lot of people read about stuff in history books and historical articles and form some rose-tinted nostalgic view of a theoretical past which never existed

Wibbs

yoke wrote: »

I would argue that America is just as valid a country as any other, eg. Ireland or England. If you claim that America is somehow “different” and not really a country, with its own culture and societal norms etc. then where do you draw the line? Is Brazil a country? India? China? Etc.

When you're discussing multiculturalism, immigration and people becoming[insert country here] the line is simple. As I pointed out America is a nation of immigration. I was like that from the start and continues to be. It was set up to bring colonists in. That's the point. It's got nada to do with rose tinted views of history. Using it as a comparison to this country is daft as they are fundamentally different on this score. Never mind that even though America was set up to be an immigrant nation and "multicultural" the ethnic divisions have always been in play and are still in play today.

Ulysses Gaze

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

That may be the way you choose to remember it but it was solidarity for freedom of speech. And for the right for journalists and ordinary people to express themselves freely.

Most of the worlds media and politicians said as much at the time.

Except none had the balls to reprint the cartoons on their front pages which would really have made a statement.

Wibbs

PS

yoke wrote: »

If you argue that America is not a country but Ireland is,

Nobody would make such a stupid argument and I didn't. I did say:


The singular problem with using America as an example(outside of its deep divisions along ethnicity and wealth) is that it's an ex colony. You touch on it yourself Y with your 99%. It was and is defined by and founded upon immigration. "American" itself equals Immigrant, or from an immigrant background, which Americans are only to happy to list if pressed. Unless you're of a native background and "America" rolled over them like a tank. So of course you can become American, becoming American defines the culture, history and belonging of that label. Even those who see themselves as coming across on the Mayflower arrived from somewhere else. And this all happened in the last few centuries with it. Nations and their self image and culture like Belgium or Sweden or Ireland are very different on that fundamental point.

A very different argument.

WrenBoy

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Except none had the balls to reprint the cartoons on their front pages which would really have made a statement.

Indeed, That really was a victory for those supremacists who want to impose their restrictions on free speech on everyone. Media companies are run by people and those people were afraid (with very good reason) that their employees would be murdered so I have sympathy but I believe a bigger principal was at stake and ultimately fear won out on that occasion.

Those fanatics would be delighted to see these hate speech laws coming in.

yoke

Wibbs wrote: »

When you're discussing multiculturalism, immigration and people becoming[insert country here] the line is simple. As I pointed out America is a nation of immigration. I was like that from the start and continues to be. It was set up to bring colonists in. That's the point. It's got nada to do with rose tinted views of history. Using it as a comparison to this country is daft as they are fundamentally different on this score. Never mind that even though America was set up to be an immigrant nation and "multicultural" the ethnic divisions have always been in play and are still in play today.

America was never “multicultural” if you use the dictionary definition of multiculturalism given earlier - black people didn’t have equal rights in law until about 50 yrs ago. The cities are “multicultural” now but the southern states/countryside isn’t. It’s a deeply divided country due to its deeply divided past.

I’ll try a different approach to see if you can see my viewpoint - let’s ignore America/Brazil/“the new world” countries for now.

Given that you accepted earlier that Vikings had a genetic impact on Ireland, will you also accept that the English/Anglo-Saxons had a genetic impact on Ireland (especially near “the pale”)?

Assuming you accept the above, when did Ireland become a country, in your opinion? What made it into a country?

Wibbs

yoke wrote: »

America was never “multicultural” if you use the dictionary definition of multiculturalism given earlier - black people didn’t have equal rights in law until about 50 yrs ago. The cities are “multicultural” now but the southern states/countryside isn’t. It’s a deeply divided country due to its deeply divided past.

I’ll try a different approach to see if you can see my viewpoint - let’s ignore America/Brazil/“the new world” countries for now.

Given that you accepted earlier that Vikings had a genetic impact on Ireland, will you also accept that the English/Anglo-Saxons had a genetic impact on Ireland (especially near “the pale”)?

Assuming you accept the above, when did Ireland become a country, in your opinion? What made it into a country?

You're avoiding my point about America and other colonies that are entirely based on immigration, where citizenship is far more closely aligned with belonging.

For me to gain a US passport and claiming I'm now an American is very different compared to me getting a Sudanese passport and claiming I'm Sudanese.

Though you do note that America is not a good example of multiculturalism. Where is? Where is social and economic status not linked to ethnicity, especially with those ethnic minorities that can't "pass" for locals? Oh there are many reasons for this and one of the biggest is yep racism. No doubt about that and I warrant we would agree there. The difference between my position and yours is yours is much more based on wishful thinking that this can change, when thousands of years of evidence and evidence around us today shows... well, not so much.

Again, Ireland is not a country based on either immigration or multiculturalism. Where the latter did exist it resulted in centuries of strife, with some still reaching down to today. The impacts you reference about Ireland were invasions and acts of colonialism. In one case the Plantations, the attempt was made to colonise and centuries later many, if not most see themselves as British over Irish.

Think on our own existing ethnic group, Travellers. How are they regarded by wider society and how do they regard wider society? Suspicion at best, outright hostility at worst. On both sides. And they are Irish, follow the same religion as the majority(or the majority used to) and look like anyone else here. Do you really think people who look so obviously "different" will fare well?

Let's go back to the definition of ethnicity: a large group of people who have the same national, racial, or cultural origins, or the state of belonging to such a group. If I gained a Sudanese passport the only part of the above that might attach itself to my claim to be Sudanese would the "the state of belonging to such a group" and tenuously and on paper at that. By every other metric I would not be Sudanese. Put it another way; I don't have a Sudanese passport, I'm Irish. You'd have no issue with me claiming I'm not from Sudan. However I get a piece of paper and suddenly that changes? Or is this more of the self identification is reality view that's currently in vogue in a few areas?

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

More proof of your bloodyminded ignorance. The Belgae were referenced as far back as the classical world for god's sake. They're a "younger country" because they gained independence in the 19th century. Italy is a "far younger country than the USA" too, does this mean Italians don't define themselves as such. How about Greeks? French? Indians? Germans? Turks? Czechs? A goodly chunk of African nations with it. That's like saying "Ireland is a far younger country than the USA", because we only gained our independence in the 1920's. Did that somehow make us English or British until then?

Then again you claimed that DeValera wrote the Irish constitution so it's not the first example of your wide gaps in knowledge and dumbing down to support your politic. Oh you and the UN speaker make well matched bedfellows indeed.

Of course you completely avoided the main point(quelle surprise) which is that using America as an example of becoming a local from citizenship is a very different cultural and philosophical matter.

DeValera did write the constitution, he was intimately involved in the first draft himself, personally, and he -singularly - appointed and provided the heads for his personal team, independent of any Dail oversight.

And no - there were no Belgians before Belgium - it’s a grab bag of regional people with different heritages. It’s still a country devoid of much national identity.

Irish Guitarist

Here's a story about a woman who threatened to kill a shop worker. The headline is "go back to your own country" because apparently that phrase is more shocking than threatening to kill someone.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/go-back-to-your-own-country-dole-queue-woman-in-racist-rant-at-shop-worker-court-hears-38787888.html

This woman has 212 previous convictions, many of which are for violent crimes. As far as I'm concerned the real story is why she's not behind bars, not 'racism'. I'm sure she's threatened plenty of other people but because there was no racial insults involved in those incidents it's not newsworthy.

Instead of worrying about 'hate speech' and 'racism' criminals need to be punished for their actions regardless of the colour or religion of either the perpetrator or the victim. This news story is supposedly shocking and she's the biggest bitch in Ireland, but we're supposed to feel sorry for an Egyptian scumbag who stabs a Japanese man to death because it wasn't his fault.

pjohnson

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Here's a story about a woman who threatened to kill a shop worker. The headline is "go back to your own country" because apparently that phrase is more shocking than threatening to kill someone.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/go-back-to-your-own-country-dole-queue-woman-in-racist-rant-at-shop-worker-court-hears-38787888.html

This woman has 212 previous convictions, many of which are for violent crimes. As far as I'm concerned the real story is why she's not behind bars, not 'racism'. I'm sure she's threatened plenty of other people but because there was no racial insults involved in those incidents it's not newsworthy.

Instead of worrying about 'hate speech' and 'racism' criminals need to be punished for their actions regardless of the colour or religion of either the perpetrator or the victim. This news story is supposedly shocking and she's the biggest bitch in Ireland, but we're supposed to feel sorry for an Egyptian scumbag who stabs a Japanese man to death because it wasn't his fault.

Ooooh this would make a great thread.

Would it end up being dole bashing OR immigrant bashing.

Dick_Swiveller

Dick_Swiveller wrote: »

Actually, I feel like becoming Japanese. I might pop over, stay a few years, gain citizenship and call myself Japanese. I'll be just as Japanese as those whose families have lived there for thousands of years. Forget about their rich cultural heritage, social cohesion, identity.

And if any Japanese person objects I'll call them a racist!

Sounds like a plan!

That's spot on but we could go further.

I've lived in China for over a decade now, and I could get citizenship here (extremely difficult but possible). I could live here the remainder of my life here, be married, speak the language and local dialects, eat Chinese food, behave identical to them, follow their traditional customs, etc.., and I'll always be a foreigner.

China has roughly 56 distinct ethnic groups that are considered to be Chinese (I can never remember the exact number). Unless you look "Chinese" and behave as Chinese people do, there's no realistic entry into that club.

Western nations just pretend that there is an entry for migrants, but realistically, that only happens for those who look similar to the native people. There are Italians in my hometown who have been there for three generations. They're referred to as "the Italians" by most people I know, because they're still quite different (in mannerisms) from Irish people. Sure, they've integrated somewhat, but... not completely, and there hasn't been intermarriage so they still look different.

yoke

Wibbs wrote: »

You're avoiding my point about America and other colonies that are entirely based on immigration, where citizenship is far more closely aligned with belonging.

I’m not avoiding your point, I just don’t agree with you and I don’t see the point in belabouring it.
I don’t see the huge difference between countries like the USA, which in the past used immigration to bolster their ranks and economic output, but now have formed their own unique society and culture (and no longer seem to want immigration), and countries like England.

The area now known as “England” was invaded by the Anglo-Saxons and a couple of hundred years later, the resistance of these Anglo-Saxons vs the Danish Viking invaders resulted in the birth of what we now call England, which it seems was actually more like an empire than a kingdom since it was made up of smaller kingdoms, and it was not “homogenous”, containing a mix of Anglo-Saxons, old Britons, and whoever else lived there at the time in the various kingdoms that needed to unite out of necessity to overthrow the Danes. It’s not like there was ”Jolly Old England which always existed” and “just got run over by the Danes for a while”.
Ireland has a similarly tumultuous history and any date picked as the “start date” of Ireland is arbitrary, in my opinion. There was never a “homogenous, united population with the same culture and society, living in harmony until The Foreigners arrived”.

For me to gain a US passport and claiming I'm now an American is very different compared to me getting a Sudanese passport and claiming I'm Sudanese.

I just don’t see this. The only thing I can think of is that yes, if Sudan is racist and won’t accept you as Sudanese despite having a Sudanese passport, just cos you’re white, then you won’t feel Sudanese. But just cos the Sudanese are racist (If they are), doesn’t mean that we should be racist too. If the Sudanese have massive government corruption, should we have that too?

Though you do note that America is not a good example of multiculturalism. Where is? Where is social and economic status not linked to ethnicity, especially with those ethnic minorities that can't "pass" for locals?

Pretty much any country you have mentioned as a “success” story - ie. Ireland, England, etc. has had to deal with foreigners and all the successful ones have integrated them into their kingdom, even changing the appearance of the natives in a lot of cases. Blonde hair is a very visible example of a scandinavian trait that has made its way into what’s considered an “acceptable as a proper Irish” person - it was a foreign trait as far as old Ireland was concerned, but now something like 5% of Irish people have it and no one would say “you’re not proper Irish cos you’re a natural blonde”. Right now sallow skin is not considered an Irish trait, but is it a big deal if in the future you get the odd Irishman who looks like Phil Lynott? I don’t see any problem with that, as long as they contribute to society like any other person.

Oh there are many reasons for this and one of the biggest is yep racism. No doubt about that and I warrant we would agree there. The difference between my position and yours is yours is much more based on wishful thinking that this can change, when thousands of years of evidence and evidence around us today shows... well, not so much.

In your eyes, my views are wishful thinking. I doubt we are going to agree on this one as I don’t see the thousands of years of evidence you claim is around us.

Hell, we’re descended from Neanderthals. We are the hybrid species which contains the bastard children of Neanderthals (it was always male neanderthal and female human, for the surviving DNA found in humans), and the original Neanderthals have died out. Surely if “we“ were so tribal, ”we” would have thrown out the half-Neanderthal children?


Someone in the past might have said it was wishful thinking to believe that countries who hated each other like France and Germany would voluntarily form a union, or that Britain and Ireland would resolve Northern Ireland via the Good Friday agreement, etc.

Again, Ireland is not a country based on either immigration or multiculturalism.

Again, this is neither here nor there. You may as well say that “Ireland is not a country based on separation of church and state” or “Ireland is not a country based on computers, we didn’t have computers in 1920 and by god we will not allow computers now!”.

Have you decided yet what date the Irish kingdom officially came into existence, and who was in it? 🙂 The reason I’m bringing this up again is because I’m hoping that you will agree with me that the whole concept of a closed-off unchanging state is dodgy at best.

yoke

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's spot on but we could go further.

I've lived in China for over a decade now, and I could get citizenship here (extremely difficult but possible). I could live here the remainder of my life here, be married, speak the language and local dialects, eat Chinese food, behave identical to them, follow their traditional customs, etc.., and I'll always be a foreigner. [...]

So a lot of the Chinese are racist and won’t let you into their society. Might I suggest that the present-day Chinese society of the type you find in China, an authoritarian regime, might not be the best ideal society to strive to live in.

Perhaps that’s partly why so many Chinese people end up leaving China, because it’s ****e for them there

sk8erboii

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's spot on but we could go further.

I've lived in China for over a decade now, and I could get citizenship here (extremely difficult but possible). I could live here the remainder of my life here, be married, speak the language and local dialects, eat Chinese food, behave identical to them, follow their traditional customs, etc.., and I'll always be a foreigner.

China has roughly 56 distinct ethnic groups that are considered to be Chinese (I can never remember the exact number). Unless you look "Chinese" and behave as Chinese people do, there's no realistic entry into that club.

Western nations just pretend that there is an entry for migrants, but realistically, that only happens for those who look similar to the native people. There are Italians in my hometown who have been there for three generations. They're referred to as "the Italians" by most people I know, because they're still quite different (in mannerisms) from Irish people. Sure, they've integrated somewhat, but... not completely, and there hasn't been intermarriage so they still look different.

Whoa... so the contemporary analog of Nazi Germany is an intolerant hellhole... whoa...

yoke

yoke wrote: »

So a lot of the Chinese are racist and won’t let you into their society.

estimated 1.4 billion people. So, yes, many are indeed racist... many are not. I'e encountered racism in China. I've encountered it in many countries, including western nations.

It's not racism. It's about integration and acceptance. This is the problem with posters these days. Everything is dumbed down to racism, bigotry, etc. You do realise the world, and life is far more complicated than that?

Might I suggest that the present-day Chinese society of the type you find in China, an authoritarian regime, might not be the best ideal society to strive to live in.

Might I suggest that you research, and learn about Chinese society before confusing it with it's political structure? It's not as if Irish society reflects Irish politics. :rolleyes:

Perhaps that’s partly why so many Chinese people end up leaving China, because it’s ****e for them there

Most Chinese people don't leave China. Even taking into account simply those with the ability and means to leave, the greater number remain in China, and return after living abroad. Just as the majority of Chinese people abroad tend to keep to their traditions, beliefs, and don't criticise the Beijing government much. Most Chinese people left for economic reasons. You do realise that China was an extremely poor country for a very long time?

You haven't a clue. And I thought racists were generally the ignorant ones.

sk8erboii wrote: »

Whoa... so the contemporary analog of Nazi Germany is an intolerant hellhole... whoa...

Huh? You're associating China with Nazi Germany? Since I made no mention of Nazi Germany, or any aspect of that culture/behavior, or even that China is intolerant or a hellhole.

Cop the fcuk on. Respond to what I write. You want to write unrelated BS, don't quote me and use my post as a platform. Bloody hell.

Gynoid

I dont know about anyone else but having read of the apt comparison between now and 40000 years ago when dying Neanderthals were screwing a few of the mere 10s of 1000s of modern humans that existed on earth, and the again apt comparison between now and thousands of years ago when invading hoardes moved through the sparsely populated lands, I am now prepared to ignore the nation building, cultural advancements and advanced thought systems that since ensued and let go into an amorphous globalist dream of corporate servitude where we are all united, one people on earth, by our love of cheap tech, constantly buying stuff and access to ubiquitous porn. Yip. Eeeeee.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Western nations just pretend that there is an entry for migrants, but realistically, that only happens for those who look similar to the native people.

You must bring this news to Leo Varadkar.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

You must bring this news to Leo Varadkar.

He's ignored plenty of criticism of his policies towards migration, doubt he cares what I think in the slightest.

LostinBlanch

Deleted User wrote: »

Huh? You're associating China with Nazi Germany? Since I made no mention of Nazi Germany, or any aspect of that culture/behavior, or even that China is intolerant or a hellhole.

Cop the fcuk on. Respond to what I write. You want to write unrelated BS, don't quote me and use my post as a platform. Bloody hell.

Right out of the Cathy Newman school of debate. So what you're saying is . . . . . . . .[insert words into mouth here]

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

He's ignored plenty of criticism of his policies towards migration, doubt he cares what I think in the slightest.

Not really my point, but there you go.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Not really my point, but there you go.

Then make your point clearer? :P

ArrBee

Deleted User wrote: »

Then make your point clearer? :P

Why start now?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Then make your point clearer? :P

To be clear - your premise is a nonsense. The guy who leads the government is the son of an immigrant, who looks different, and who was popular enough as a local GP that it boosted his son's initial political run. The Dublin local elections candidate with the biggest surplus of first preferences is Hazel Chu, again the daughter of immigrants who look different. 'Looking different' means precious little to most people; Varadkar, or Chu, are not going to be booted out or re-elected on the basis of their ethnicity, but on their record as politicians. The minority of race-obsessed gimps who do have an issue with their ethnicity are just that - a minority.

Wibbs

yoke wrote: »

I’m not avoiding your point, I just don’t agree with you and I don’t see the point in belabouring it.

Indeed, we're coming from different angles on this.

I don’t see the huge difference between countries like the USA, which in the past used immigration to bolster their ranks and economic output, but now have formed their own unique society and culture (and no longer seem to want immigration), and countries like England.

And this sums much of it up.

I just don’t see this. The only thing I can think of is that yes, if Sudan is racist and won’t accept you as Sudanese despite having a Sudanese passport, just cos you’re white, then you won’t feel Sudanese.

Because I wouldn't be. One day I'm Irish born and bred, the next I'm Sudanese because of a passport? Now that is magic.

Pretty much any country you have mentioned as a “success” story - ie. Ireland, England, etc. has had to deal with foreigners and all the successful ones have integrated them into their kingdom, even changing the appearance of the natives in a lot of cases. Blonde hair is a very visible example of a scandinavian trait that has made its way into what’s considered an “acceptable as a proper Irish” person - it was a foreign trait as far as old Ireland was concerned, but now something like 5% of Irish people have it and no one would say “you’re not proper Irish cos you’re a natural blonde”. Right now sallow skin is not considered an Irish trait, but is it a big deal if in the future you get the odd Irishman who looks like Phil Lynott? I don’t see any problem with that, as long as they contribute to society like any other person.

In your eyes, my views are wishful thinking. I doubt we are going to agree on this one as I don’t see the thousands of years of evidence you claim is around us.

As I have pointed out the vast majority of "foreign traits" in modern populations came on the back of bloody invasion and colonisation. We hardly want that as a feature of society again. And as I have also pointed out visit any "multicultural melting pot" on the planet and the social and economic trends remain the same. Just because the mayor of London is a Brown Sunni Muslim, doesn't mean Brown Sunni Muslims in London aren't targets of racism and socioeconomic exclusion. There are reasons why some see the English/British as the "other" and the "enemy" to the point of planning and carrying out murderous attacks. Similar stuff is seen in Sweden, Germany, France, Spain. If the major of London were an Afro Caribbean that would be starker again. Multicultural society apologists have a habit of pointing out the Black success story(so long as they stay in their lane, often an athletic one, or dance minstrel dance), while ignoring the communities they came, nay escaped from, in the sink estates and slums made up of their fellows.

Hell, we’re descended from Neanderthals. We are the hybrid species which contains the bastard children of Neanderthals (it was always male neanderthal and female human, for the surviving DNA found in humans), and the original Neanderthals have died out. Surely if “we“ were so tribal, ”we” would have thrown out the half-Neanderthal children?

Well African folks aren't(don't tell Alistair) and not exactly a great example. For a start we know almost nothing of the dynamics of that time. What we do know is that the mixture we see today happened rarely enough and at different times and places(the male/female split is as likely down to their Y chromosome carrying too many defects in male hybrids to survive in us. Hell you could argue that mixed boys were killed and girls left alone as they're seen as more valuable in tribal societies). We do know that their hundreds of thousands of years of existence and culture was swamped and died out not so long after we show up(as did every other archaic human) until the last of them looked across the plains of the mediterranean at the campfires of those who displaced them. Oh and there are a couple of examples were neandertals show wounds from projectile weapons, which they didn't have. Indeed our monoculture and cohesiveness in numbers was one of our killer apps. If there were ever a good example of Them versus Us in history that one has some legs.

Someone in the past might have said it was wishful thinking to believe that countries who hated each other like France and Germany would voluntarily form a union, or that Britain and Ireland would resolve Northern Ireland via the Good Friday agreement, etc.

Which were drawn up precisely in the hope of staving off long standing historical flashpoints and ethnic conflicts and given they're only in play for a few decades the jury is still out on whether they will ultimately prove successful. Britain, one nation you left out of the list has already left one union and tribalism was a large chunk of that and Northern Ireland is hardly "resolved".

Again, this is neither here nor there. You may as well say that “Ireland is not a country based on separation of church and state” or “Ireland is not a country based on computers, we didn’t have computers in 1920 and by god we will not allow computers now!”.

But we have always had tribalism and ethnic strife. It is one of the more striking constants of humanity from the very start and all around us today. Try and find any time in human history when there wasn't a war, or ethnic strife going on somewhere. Good luck with that. There is remarkably little around you in your life today that didn't have its origins in, or was improved by tribalism and war. Including the very computers you reference. Next time you find your way somewhere using your phone, that's military tech. And it ain't swords into ploughshares either as the same signal that tells you where the nearest coffee shop is also puts missiles through the windows of homes to kill brown people in sandy places with oil under them.

Have you decided yet what date the Irish kingdom officially came into existence, and who was in it? �� The reason I’m bringing this up again is because I’m hoping that you will agree with me that the whole concept of a closed-off unchanging state is dodgy at best.

No, you appear to believe in we're all one humanity without borders and strife is unnatural and can be removed from our humanity through cultural means. I don't and see more shades of grey within that too. The Ireland of the last few centuries has been pretty homogeneous, was "Ireland" and where it wasn't... oh look, ethnic strife. And that was between people who were almost identical in damn near every way. Good luck if you can tell a Protestant from a Catholic by sight and yet. But apparently shipping in quite different ethnicities and backgrounds that do stand out will be grand. This time. Hasn't been for the UK, France, Holland, Sweden, Germany etc. Hell it's not being exactly a sterling success in nations built on multiculturalism. Ask a Black or Hispanic American. Whose more likely to be found in the favelas of Brazil, Black, Hispanic or White? Hell, they started out as and were called "Bairro Africanos"(sp?). Look at Syria. "Sure dey're all Arabs like" and yet they seem to able to see and act upon the differences. Ethnic strife has been a near constant on the continent of Africa and one big reason was European colonists creating countries on maps that suited them, but didn't reflect the ethnic affiliations and feelings of belonging of the Africans themselves. "Shure dey're all Black". They were forced into a "multiculturalism" at the point of the White man's gun and it didn't work there either.

TL;DR? (and I'm not surprised to be fair) multiculturalism is a fine idea, a lovely dream, but the waking reality is quite at odds with that dream and I can't see that changing any time soon.

sk8erboii

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Huh? You're associating China with Nazi Germany? Since I made no mention of Nazi Germany, or any aspect of that culture/behavior, or even that China is intolerant or a hellhole.

Cop the fcuk on. Respond to what I write. You want to write unrelated BS, don't quote me and use my post as a platform. Bloody hell.

Mate im a lot smarter than you that I can guarantee. Before you make another screeching low IQ post I suggest you read what I wrote. This isnt about your posts being a platform because I guarantee that Nobody gives a flying f*ck about your posts. Quiet down the egotism.

China is the modern day equivalent of Nazi Germany. Why were you expecting tolerance? China is the modern day equivalent of Nazi Germany. Quantitative data from people much smarter than you have said this. Their Political, social and economic policies are nearly one to one.


Your posts are garbage, so dont think im in anyway using them as a platform. im pointing out the stupidity in expecting tolerance from a country that has state sponsored organ harvesting of religious minorities

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China


Please PLEASE PLEASE Go to university and get formal education. Emotional egotistical posts like yours appeal to the lowest, bottom of the barrell types that follow the likes of Gemma O Doherty and Grealish

sk8erboii

sk8erboii wrote: »

Mate im a lot smarter than you that I can guarantee. Before you make another screeching low IQ post I suggest you read what I wrote. This isnt about your posts being a platform because I guarantee that Nobody gives a flying f*ck about your posts. Quiet down the egotism.

Good lord, the fact that you need to state your intelligence is greater than another's on a bulletin board does kinda suggest your lack. Still, I haven't claimed anything about your intelligence, or previously about my own.

So, we're off to another great start with unrelated rubbish.

China is the modern day equivalent of Nazi Germany. Why were you expecting tolerance? China is the modern day equivalent of Nazi Germany. Quantitative data from people much smarter than you have said this. Their Political, social and economic policies are nearly one to one.

Pure drivel... but sure, pass the links to these experts with their Quantitative data and I'll take a look.

Your posts are garbage, so dont think im in anyway using them as a platform. im pointing out the stupidity in expecting tolerance from a country that has state sponsored organ harvesting of religious minorities

Once again, unrelated to my post. Did I state that China was a wonderful country? Did I point out and deny anything about it? Nope? Gosh. Imagine that!

I'm wondering if you understand what unrelated means....?

Please PLEASE PLEASE Go to university and get formal education. Emotional egotistical posts like yours appeal to the lowest, bottom of the barrell types that follow the likes of Gemma O Doherty and Grealish

Hmm... I have a Bachelor in Finance, a Honors degree in Finance, a MBA, and a Bachelor degree in Psychology. I'm also studying at the moment for my PHD (since I'm a university lecturer in Business Management). So... I'm guessing that's not enough education...? And where exactly was my post emotional and egotistical? If anything you're the one displaying signs of both. :pac:

You do realise that you've introduced points unrelated to my post, and then insulted me? You might want to reel in the aggression, and start considering the value of your own contributions... perhaps also take a moment to reread what I posted, and take a moment off your pedestal of moral outrage.

Utterly bizarre the manner of posts here sometimes.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

To be clear - your premise is a nonsense. The guy who leads the government is the son of an immigrant, who looks different, and who was popular enough as a local GP that it boosted his son's initial political run. The Dublin local elections candidate with the biggest surplus of first preferences is Hazel Chu, again the daughter of immigrants who look different. 'Looking different' means precious little to most people; Varadkar, or Chu, are not going to be booted out or re-elected on the basis of their ethnicity, but on their record as politicians. The minority of race-obsessed gimps who do have an issue with their ethnicity are just that - a minority.

Indeed, but even there we see trends in other nations more deeply into multiculturalism. We're only at the start point too. But let's look at the UK and the minorities who get voted in. Run down the list and something jumps out. The majority are British Indian/Pakistani. The Black British are a minority and strongly follow the make up of their constituents. The pale gimps seem OK enough with voting for Brown folks, not so much for Black. In France, Germany and Holland ethnic minorities are further under-represented in politics. France's government announced that they made great strides of late and that great stride was reaching 6% of political representation of minorities across all arms of government from council members up to parliament.

sk8erboii

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Good lord, the fact that you need to state your intelligence is greater than another's on a bulletin board does kinda suggest your lack. Still, I haven't claimed anything about your intelligence, or previously about my own.

So, we're off to another great start with unrelated rubbish.



Pure drivel... but sure, pass the links to these experts with their Quantitative data and I'll take a look.



Once again, unrelated to my post. Did I state that China was a wonderful country? Did I point out and deny anything about it? Nope? Gosh. Imagine that!

I'm wondering if you understand what unrelated means....?



Hmm... I have a Bachelor in Finance, a Honors degree in Finance, a MBA, and a Bachelor degree in Psychology. I'm also studying at the moment for my PHD (since I'm a university lecturer in Business Management). So... I'm guessing that's not enough education...? And where exactly was my post emotional and egotistical? If anything you're the one displaying signs of both. :pac:

You do realise that you've introduced points unrelated to my post, and then insulted me? You might want to reel in the aggression, and start considering the value of your own contributions... perhaps also take a moment to reread what I posted, and take a moment off your pedestal of moral outrage.

Utterly bizarre the manner of posts here sometimes.

Yes I believe you’re a quadruple PHD majoring in geopolitics the same way i believe Tiananmen square never happened.

Just stop. Come out with your modules and university. So I can see your credentials.

“Pedestal of Moral outrage” yep 100% PHD lol