What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

Justin Credible Darts

jmayo wrote: »

They haven't changed.
Were you around for the Politics Cafe where one particular mod, now ex mod I think, always argued for one side and was slapping out bans and infractions on anyone that dare argue with them.
It was in no small measure why the forum went with a subscription system and why it fell apart.
And yet they got away with calling into question the bona fides of a garda whistleblower.

Or go over to old Politics forum and see how discussion about how certain politicians were dressed in t-shirts in the Dail was deemed not political enough of a topic.
Then anyone that was questioning of the EU was immediately hunted down and chastised, more often than not by the mods.

its no different today.


look at the trump threads.


The threads about trans women and you will see people on there bandying about terms calling people racist, homophobe etc, and no mod stopping it.
but call one of them people stupid and the mods will ban you for being personal.


Even though calling someone a racist or transphobe without a single shred of evidence, is to me a personal attack.

macpaccrack

jmayo wrote: »

Beware Biko.
How many times has it now be referenced around here about how you are a mod (although elsewhere) and thus how you can't possibly have these views?

I'm not following. Are you implying Biko holds similar views too?

Why do so many mods on Boards.ie hold these views? Or is it a coincidence Biko and Wibbs are friends and both hold such extreme views?

I mean Wibbs said there should only be white people in white countries. That is not a right wing talking point or a controversial stance. That is out and out neo nazi racism right there being spouted by a Boards.ie Moderator on a Boards.ie public message board.

jmayo

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

its no different today.


look at the trump threads.


The threads about trans women and you will see people on there bandying about terms calling people racist, homophobe etc, and no mod stopping it.
but call one of them people stupid and the mods will ban you for being personal.


Even though calling someone a racist or transphobe without a single shred of evidence, is to me a personal attack.

A lot of those words are now meaningless because they are bandied about so often.

It is like you have morons claiming Ireland has a rape culture when in comparison to some countries we are imminently safe for women.
Funnily enough they never comment on these other countries, probably because of their location or their populations.

As for the phobic shyte, it reached a new low when Martina Navratilova was hounded out for being transphobic because she dared say that transwomen should not compete against women as it was unfair.
And she had been a lifelong campaigner for LGB rights and had helped revolutionise womens top sport.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

Were you around for the Politics Cafe where one particular mod, now ex mod I think, always argued for one side and was slapping out bans and infractions on anyone that dare argue with them.
It was in no small measure why the forum went with a subscription system and why it fell apart.

I never posted there. I don't post much in these type threads. I like to read them to keep informed. Posters here are more truthful than 'reliable news sources' imo

Justin Credible Darts

jmayo wrote: »

A lot of those words are now meaningless because they are bandied about so often.

It is like you have morons claiming Ireland has a rape culture when in comparison to some countries we are imminently safe for women.
Funnily enough they never comment on these other countries, probably because of their location or their populations.

As for the phobic shyte, it reached a new low when Martina Navratilova was hounded out for being transphobic because she dared say that transwomen should not compete against women as it was unfair.
And she had been a lifelong campaigner for LGB rights and had helped revolutionise womens top sport.

My issue is I dont care if a person is black white or blue, short or tall, male female, trans etc etc.The rules should be applied equally to all.


Calling someone a racist or bigot or homophone or whatever, is to me is a personal attack.
If people are banned for calling people stupid, or for telling people to fu(k off, then they should be banned for calling people vile names without evidence....riules need to be applied equally.



Then this site is own by the journal.ie.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

No issues eh? No ghettoisation kicking off, Black folks with the same rates of unemployment as Whites(of any origin)? In just two decades.

And yes media and travel has increased the speed of exposure to different cultures, yet the vast majority tend to stick quite closely to their "own" and one could argue that the spread of media means fewer reasons to directly import culture on the backs of people.

And while societies evolve, human nature takes much longer. We have general acceptance in Ireland of Gay folks, the right to choose etc, yet these have been in play at various times in various places trhoughout history. They didn't land in a spaceship out of nowhere. However faultlines along ethnic or colour or culture are a near cast iron given throughout history. Vanishingly few multicultural societies have functioned like the way we hope. Pretty much none and not for long. Or have you missed the BLM protests across the multicultural West? Clearly it's all just peachy for Black and Brown people in this diversity utopia you speak of.

If you want to conflate the issue regarding BLM in the US, given the history of that country in relation to the treatment of black people with the organic and natural integration and movement of people happening worldwide, you go ahead, I'm not going down that rabbit hole on this thread. I will say though that a propensity for racism should not be a reason to argue against trying to overcome it.

You could argue with your premise, that no society has functioned the way we hope (who is 'we' in this context I wonder) given every society has elements of violence, poverty, disparity in opportunities, unemployment, access to healthcare etc irrespective of the component parts.
And, as we know, when someone starts talking about trying to fix these problems, there's often resistance also. We're a funny bunch, us humans.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

TomTomTim wrote: »

Whatever about their posting in this thread, they were supporting political violence in another thread. All my cards are for insulting people, yet others are allowed to support political violence without penalty?

I reported it a few hours ago. Let’s wait and see.

_Kaiser_

Report on RTE News just now highlighting the story of a woman from the Philippines who arrived 12 years ago to earn money to help her family back home and overstayed her visa. Now does childcare and fears deportation - but not enough to brazenly tell her tale on the national news.

But then why would she? Rather than deport her, there's calls to regularise her, and others like her, status instead :rolleyes:

Wibbs

macpaccrack wrote: »

I mean Wibbs said there should only be white people in white countries. That is not a right wing talking point or a controversial stance. That is out and out neo nazi racism right there being spouted by a Boards.ie Moderator on a Boards.ie public message board.

When arguments(if they exist at all) fail... Misrepresent, nay lie, appeal to outrage and authority and pearl clutching and the hope of closure of any discussion. I suppose the rise of the echo chambers has enabled this. Contrary arguments no matter how measured are seen as heresy and appeals for pyres to church leaders follow.

macpaccrack wrote: »

Not least for those migrants who don't fit the existing society in colour or culture. Guilty as charged.''

Dress it up all you want but non-white people shouldn't be in white countries. The sentence of yours above says everything about your stance.

You want a pure, aryan state.

Nope, you're deliberately trying to slant things because your argument is.. well non existent. After your clumsy you need to ring the samaritans angle fell flat on its arse and yet again you can't debate any point in good faith or with any cogency you now go all out and go the "racist!!!" and "nazi!!" route. Hardly a shock at this stage as this is the level of intelligent - and I use the term advisedly - debate you can muster. You're not the first on the thread to try it, it's almost like an instruction manual at this stage.

Now, to the "quote" above for those not wishing to go back and read, here it is in full: questioning another accepted truth of multiculturalism that is demonstrably negative in so many ways, not least for those migrants who don't fit the existing society in colour or culture. Guilty as charged.

Many many times I have pointed out that this drive for this multicultural politic is often felt most keenly in the negatives for those coming into a society, especially those who don't fit in so easily. A White Dutchman in Ireland is going to find it far easier to assimilate than a Black Nigerian(and if the colour bit triggers, the same could be said in reverse). This goes triple for any children they have. This is basic bloody common sense. Again why is it BLM in predominantly White nations and not WLM? Because sadly the former needs to be near constantly pointed out, even many decades later.

But of course you don't want to hear this. The joke is you're the same as those you say you oppose, simplistic and jingoistic running on your second hand opinions, never questioning the credo, only attacking when it doesn't suit your personal narrative. If anyone is the "fascist"* here, it's not me.




*In the current Twatterati sense.

Sand

Tell me how wrote: »

If you want to conflate the issue regarding BLM in the US, given the history of that country in relation to the treatment of black people with the organic and natural integration and movement of people happening worldwide, you go ahead, I'm not going down that rabbit hole on this thread.

The US is interesting though to see how your policy will end up. African and Europeans have been living together side by side for 400 years. And yet the ethnic division persists. So the argument that time will bring people together doesn't appear to be true.

Of course, the retort is that the US has a history of slavery. But the same ethnic divisions are emerging (or are well entrenched) in the UK, France, Germany, Sweden etc and so on with the same broad patterns occurring even where slavery was not practiced. Everywhere ethnic groups share territory, ethnic division exists. So why should ethnic division be pursued as a policy goal? What's gained?

Wibbs

Tell me how wrote: »

If you want to conflate the issue regarding BLM in the US, given the history of that country in relation to the treatment of black people with the organic and natural integration and movement of people happening worldwide, you go ahead, I'm not going down that rabbit hole on this thread. I will say though that a propensity for racism should not be a reason to argue against trying to overcome it.

Racism, rather the Them/Us narrative is endemic to human societies since we came out of the trees and into the grasslands. There isn't a single period or place in human history where it hasn't been in play. And not just in the US. BLM struck a deep chord in nations across the multicultural west, adapted into the local issues people of colour face.

You could argue with your premise, that no society has functioned the way we hope (who is 'we' in this context I wonder)

We. Humans. People. Doesn't matter where or when you look, or the level of melanin in the skin we see the same issues time and time again.

given every society has elements of violence, poverty, disparity in opportunities, unemployment, access to healthcare etc irrespective of the component parts.

Indeed and multiculturalism adds another flavour to all of those. That is part of the argument against it. Society A has problems, let's not import more, when we can avoid it. And again this drive for multiculturalism is entirely aimed at western predominantly White nations. You never hear of this politic being applied to non predominantly White nations. They're all apparently grand without these positives. Nobody walks down a street in Rwanda and thinks Hmmm it's OK I suppose, but what it really needs to be better as a society is more European and Asian faces. How does that work?

And, as we know, when someone starts talking about trying to fix these problems, there's often resistance also. We're a funny bunch, us humans

Yes and a consistent bunch with it.

Mules

Tell me how wrote: »

But it is going away at a rate which could be referred to as high speed in comparison to general societal shifts throughout human history to this point.

Ease of travel, opportunities to study and work abroad, constant movement for vacation, entertainment and tourism purposes means more and more interaction and integration amongst different cultures. Media alone in particular has served to break down barriers; movies, music and the internet has exposed people to different cultures at hyper speeds compared to the past.

In Ireland in 2002, 5.8% of the resident population were non irish, in 2019, that had risen to 12.7%. With no issues as a consequence of this influx of people. Multiculturalism is already happening Successfully. Societies evolve, they always have done it's just now happening faster than before.

The non Irish is actually over 17%, according to the last census. The 12.7% figure is of non eu nationals. EU countries no longer count other eu peoples as immigrants. If you look at 'foreign born' statistics you will see the 17%

Wibbs

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Report on RTE News just now highlighting the story of a woman from the Philippines who arrived 12 years ago to earn money to help her family back home and overstayed her visa. Now does childcare and fears deportation - but not enough to brazenly tell her tale on the national news.

But then why would she? Rather than deport her, there's calls to regularise her, and others like her, status instead :rolleyes:

TBH in cases like hers I'd generally be in favour of amnesty. The woman has worked her for 12 years, she wasn't on the dole and was providing a service.

iebamm2580

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH in cases like hers I'd generally be in favour of amnesty. The woman has worked her for 12 years, she wasn't on the dole and was providing a service.

Exactly no harm in people coming here who work and want to work.

dominatinMC

It's great to just drop in here from time-to-time to see Wibbs calmly destroying everyone and deconstructing their arguments (however vague and ambiguous they are) with logic and rationale.

dominatinMC

dominatinMC wrote: »

It's great to just drop in here from time-to-time to see Wibbs calmly destroying everyone and deconstructing their arguments (however vague and ambiguous they are) with logic and rationale.

Same here.

He's top of the premier league up against Kettering Town.

macpaccrack

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, you're deliberately trying to slant things because your argument is.. well non existent. After your clumsy you need to ring the samaritans angle fell flat on its arse and yet again you can't debate any point in good faith or with any cogency you now go all out and go the "racist!!!" and "nazi!!" route. Hardly a shock at this stage as this is the level of intelligent - and I use the term advisedly - debate you can muster. You're not the first on the thread to try it, it's almost like an instruction manual at this stage.

Making statements like non white people can't assimilate is a racist statement. You make these sort of statements regularly. Maybe you are regularly accused of being racist because you make racist comments like the one I've quoted in my previous post

Wibbs wrote: »

Now, to the "quote" above for those not wishing to go back and read, here it is in full: questioning another accepted truth of multiculturalism that is demonstrably negative in so many ways, not least for those migrants who don't fit the existing society in colour or culture. Guilty as charged.

Many many times I have pointed out that this drive for this multicultural politic is often felt most keenly in the negatives for those coming into a society, especially those who don't fit in so easily. A White Dutchman in Ireland is going to find it far easier to assimilate than a Black Nigerian(and if the colour bit triggers, the same could be said in reverse). This goes triple for any children they have. This is basic bloody common sense. Again why is it BLM in predominantly White nations and not WLM? Because sadly the former needs to be near constantly pointed out, even many decades later.

So that is not colour at all but culture. So a black Dutchman would be the same as a white Dutchman assimilating to Ireland but you didn't say that did you? You said migrants that don't fit the existing COLOUR.

Now you're backtracking trying to make your argument sound more reasonable because you've said something so racist for the all the world to see.

Wibbs wrote: »

But of course you don't want to hear this. The joke is you're the same as those you say you oppose, simplistic and jingoistic running on your second hand opinions, never questioning the credo, only attacking when it doesn't suit your personal narrative. If anyone is the "fascist"* here, it's not me.




*In the current Twatterati sense.

Wibbs its pretty easy for people to cut through your waffle in your posts and find the real meaning. You can use all the language in the world to dress it up but at the end of the day you think white countries should only be white people. Now if I asked you to respond to the question of if you believe in racial purity in countries then you would do some wishy washy long, evasive response but you'd agree wouldn't you?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

But it is going away at a rate which could be referred to as high speed in comparison to general societal shifts throughout human history to this point.

Ease of travel, opportunities to study and work abroad, constant movement for vacation, entertainment and tourism purposes means more and more interaction and integration amongst different cultures. Media alone in particular has served to break down barriers; movies, music and the internet has exposed people to different cultures at hyper speeds compared to the past.

In Ireland in 2002, 5.8% of the resident population were non irish, in 2019, that had risen to 12.7%. With no issues as a consequence of this influx of people. Multiculturalism is already happening Successfully. Societies evolve, they always have done it's just now happening faster than before.

Except, that those mediums don't do much to educate/inform people of other cultures. You get to see a shallow surface of the culture, and typically, unless someone has a huge interest already in that foreign culture, they're going to forget anything they've seen within three hours of watching the movie, documentary, etc.

As for travel, most Irish travel within Europe, or other western nations, such as Australia or America. Very few, in comparison to the overall population, are heading off to explore the hinterlands of Zimbabwe. Which bears out with most Westerners, who might take a year in a single non-western region, but there's little actual exploration of other cultures in their natural habitat.

I love the approach posters take on multiculturalism. They'll include all the European cultures as sign of integration and multiculturalism, and calmly ignore that there is little actual exposure to non-western cultures, beyond the most shallow of experiences. Even with Europeans, how many Irish people will have spent time inhaling Austrian culture, being able to tell the distinct differences between German, or Swiss cultural habits which might be similar, but not actually the same.

There is such a shallow take on culture, as a way to promote multiculturalism exists. Unless you're simply talking about the most shallow expressions of culture, or the presence of foreign people (as a representation that the culture exists), there's little in the way of integration or even encouragement to share other cultures.

I don't get this idea that multiculturalism is happening, and successfully too.. The only sign of that is having foreigners here... don't you see the weakness of the multiculturalism debate?

To what extent has multiculturalism succeeded, when it involves those of non-western origins?

macpaccrack

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed and multiculturalism adds another flavour to all of those. That is part of the argument against it. Society A has problems, let's not import more, when we can avoid it. And again this drive for multiculturalism is entirely aimed at western predominantly White nations. You never hear of this politic being applied to non predominantly White nations. They're all apparently grand without these positives. Nobody walks down a street in Rwanda and thinks Hmmm it's OK I suppose, but what it really needs to be better as a society is more European and Asian faces. How does that work?

Yes and a consistent bunch with it.

Yes they do Wibbs. Countries like Kenya pride themselves on their diversified influence. In fact you are probably completely unaware of this as you only talk in WN talking points but tons of countries in Africa are trying to get overseas residents

Sand

Sand wrote: »

The US is interesting though to see how your policy will end up. African and Europeans have been living together side by side for 400 years. And yet the ethnic division persists. So the argument that time will bring people together doesn't appear to be true.

Of course, the retort is that the US has a history of slavery. But the same ethnic divisions are emerging (or are well entrenched) in the UK, France, Germany, Sweden etc and so on with the same broad patterns occurring even where slavery was not practiced. Everywhere ethnic groups share territory, ethnic division exists. So why should ethnic division be pursued as a policy goal? What's gained?

With the US, you can avoid the excuse/deflection of slavery, and point to Hispanics or Pacific Islanders, who also have failed to integrate and tend to gravitate towards Ghettos. The US has plenty of ethnic groups which can be referenced to show a failed system of multiculturalism... but then, as you said, so too do other countries.

Justin Credible Darts

I dont care if they are black white or blue, I dont think we should be taking in vast numbers of people crippling the economy.

Everyone should be vetted, anyone with a criminal record, not allowed enter .
Anyone that breaks the law, be deported home after their sentence.

Why should people come here, jump housing lists, and cripple the system I pay in to ?

The Irish government have a duty and responsibility to look after their own people first, the same people who put them in power.

Yellow_Fern

macpaccrack wrote: »

Yes they do Wibbs. Countries like Kenya pride themselves on their diversified influence. In fact you are probably completely unaware of this as you only talk in WN talking points but tons of countries in Africa are trying to get overseas residents

Being proud of your history is not the same as seeking massive future changes. Many African countries are looking for investment, business and education links, not sure any are looking for mass migration. Please show me if I am wrong. By no means am I an expert on Kenya but I did have a short contract there.

_Kaiser_

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH in cases like hers I'd generally be in favour of amnesty. The woman has worked her for 12 years, she wasn't on the dole and was providing a service.

It's generally pretty rare I disagree with you W, but on this I have to.

She knowingly overstayed her visa and has been working here in a sector that I doubt requires her specific skillset. Why didn't she apply through the legal avenues for residency?

Once you start making exceptions (I'm sure there's a lot of similar people working here) where do you draw the line?

We have plenty of legal means to come, work and reside here. Use them.

macpaccrack

macpaccrack wrote: »

Yes they do Wibbs. Countries like Kenya pride themselves on their diversified influence. In fact you are probably completely unaware of this as you only talk in WN talking points but tons of countries in Africa are trying to get overseas residents

Why pick Kenya? A five minute search showed plenty of problems that Kenya has, both along the lines of ethnic groups, and multiculturalism.

"The classic view of Kenyan politics as an ethnic census runs something like this. First, power is secured by, and used to the advantage of, the president’s own ethnic group. This generate a “winner-takes-all” logic.

Second, the knowledge that losing power means losing access to resources increases the stakes of political competition and hence the purported drive to stick together along ethnic lines.

Third, heated and controversial elections increase the divisions within Kenyan society, further strengthening ethnic identities.

Parts of this story are certainly true. Successive governments have tended to favour their own. Voting patterns, too, reveal clear ethnic patterns, and the last three elections have been extremely divisive. But the reality is more complicated.

Politicians can’t simply rely on the support of co-ethnics. Many ethnic groups actually split their vote between two or more candidates. This means that politicians must persuade voters to support them. In doing this, they often face stiff competition both from within and without their own ethnic group. As a result, they have to demonstrate that they are willing to fight for their community, have a good track record on development, and can be trusted."

This is a country with serious problems with ethnic identity, and inter-ethnic violence.. You might want to do some research on the countries you choose to hold up as shining examples.

_Kaiser_

iebamm2580 wrote: »

Exactly no harm in people coming here who work and want to work.

As long as they arrive here legally, with needed skills to offer, then absolutely.

Chancing yer arm in the back of a container, as a "refugee", or overstaying your visa and hoping you will fall off the radar... not so much!

jmreire

macpaccrack wrote: »

Yes they do Wibbs. Countries like Kenya pride themselves on their diversified influence. In fact you are probably completely unaware of this as you only talk in WN talking points but tons of countries in Africa are trying to get overseas residents

Just a quick question for you macpaccrack, if you don't mind... how many years have you spent living abroad, ( and by this I mean actually living in them, as against holidays or short, say less than 3 mths duration ) and in what Country's?. Would give more weight to your arguments if you were speaking from personal experience.

Wibbs

macpaccrack wrote: »

Making statements like non white people can't assimilate is a racist statement. You make these sort of statements regularly. Maybe you are regularly accused of being racist because you make racist comments like the one I've quoted in my previous post

No, it is a factual statement. I know these seem to hurt your thinking organ but... Anybody and I mean anybody who comes out with the notion that colour doesn't matter when it comes to an easier path into fitting into a society that is of a different colour majority is a damned fool.

Hey, since you're all revved up by colour(both vocal racists and vocal anti racists seem strange bedfellows in this obsession) let's look elsewhere. Is the statement "being Catholic in 1970's Ulster was of no bar to assimilating into the majority Ulster culture" correct? No, of course it's not, again only a bloody fool would claim it is. Yet they're the same "race" and colour.

For the craic go ask any Black French/Dutch/German/American/etc person did their colour make a difference in how their life was lived and get back to me. For all your right on I hate nazis protestations you seem to have bugger all clue how the real world actually works for people of colour.

So that is not colour at all but culture. So a black Dutchman would be the same as a white Dutchman assimilating to Ireland but you didn't say that did you? You said migrants that don't fit the existing COLOUR.

Now you're backtracking trying to make your argument sound more reasonable because you've said something so racist for the all the world to see.

Yep I said that and stand by it. Again I know this hurts the oul brainbox, but the real world isn't colour blind. Hell, you aren't. You're positively obsessed by it.

Wibbs its pretty easy for people to cut through your waffle in your posts and find the real meaning.

Only you and a handful of others seem to find the "real meanings" you've already conjured up in your fevered imaginations because you have no actual debate points to make. This is yet another tactic of the pro side. Claim an unseen mass of people nodding in agreement with you, yet the same mass appears strangely silent and not able to back up the position. Of those who have posted on this thread I can think of only two who tried to in good faith, a welcome change.

You can use all the language in the world to dress it up but at the end of the day you think white countries should only be white people. Now if I asked you to respond to the question of if you believe in racial purity in countries then you would do some wishy washy long, evasive response but you'd agree wouldn't you?

Jesus if you were any more transparent and flexible you'd be clingfilm, but less useful.

Race is an outdated concept, so one can't discuss "purity" with a straight face. Difference, whether that be cultural or colour increases divisions within societies. Societies have divisions enough. Multiculturalism adds to them. Hell we've already had the farce over a few French Egyptian revival statues outside a Dublin hotel because they represented slaves(they didn't) wound up by a few uninformed and ignorant shouting heads on twitter. But hey we get exotic people and foods apparently. Do you think Black countries should be majority Black? Asian countries majority Asian?

Justin Credible Darts

macpaccrack wrote: »

Wibbs its pretty easy for people to cut through your waffle in your posts and find the real meaning.

Who are these people ?
Are they real people or figments of your vivid imagination ?


I have seen no on here "cut through" this so called waffle

Wibbs is the Ronnie O'Sullivan of Boards. A class apart

Am in awe reading his posts. His knowledge is only surpassed by his articulacy (had to look that one up to verify it's an actual word :P).

The calibre of individual that should be presenting "Liveline". Not many legends can, or indeed would be willing to speak for and empathise with the common man/woman as he can.

Hope he doesn't change when he's in charge of the Country :pac: . Perhaps Klaz could be his 'right hand man' so as to keep him level headed, and not corrupted by vested interests

Wibbs

Speaking of fevered imaginings...

I missed this bit in the laugh track that was this post:

macpaccrack wrote: »

You started hanging around those PUA forums that became cesspools for alt right ideals and you were radicalised.

For all his/hers slightly creepy trawling of my past they missed the part where after initially figuring let's debate them into oblivion(which doesn't work with the fervent. QV...) I was one of the ones originally responsible for the blanket nope, eff off with that nonsense, exposing it for the nonsense it is* and regularly banning and deleting PUA stuff from Personal Issues and elsewhere, which was then extended to a blanket ban on PUA stuff on the rest of Boards.ie. In the last month alone I've banned and deleted at least six reregs spouting that guff and reported the same number. It's like whack-a-mole. But yeah apparently I was radicalised. :rolleyes: Though kudos for not spelling it with a zed.








*the only "positive" I've said about that end of the interwebs is that unlike the MGTOW muppets who seem to be either poor fcukers who opted out because they were never given the chance to opt in or guys with failed marriages because of their own failings or they married wagons who paint the world and women as being wrong, the PUA guys go, no the problem is you so you need to fix it, which is good advice. And here's how. The here's how is the big problem. The bigger problem is a chunk of a generation of men who will listen to such bollocks