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

Hamachi

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

True, but the more education a person has it is likely they would be more tolerant.
Naturally there are exceptions.
But it is just fact of life.

Or the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to provide an answer that is palatable to their interlocutor.

One thing education does imbue is a filter. The ability to apply a socially acceptable veneer to what lies beneath.

Most ‘educated’ people aren’t going to reveal their true opinions on a controversial subject like immigration to some randomer. They reserve those opinions for family, close friends, and the ballot box.

gormdubhgorm

Hamachi wrote: »

Or the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to provide an answer that is palatable to their interlocutor.

One thing education does imbue is a filter. The ability to apply a socially acceptable veneer to what lies beneath.

Most ‘educated’ people aren’t going to reveal their true opinions on a controversial subject like immigration to some randomer. They reserve those opinions for family, close friends, and the ballot box.

There could be some of that to it. But when I see studies such as this American one

EDUCATION AND ANTI-IMMIGRATION ATTITUDES:EVIDENCE FROM COMPULSORY SCHOOLING REFORMS ACROSS WESTERN EUROPE 2017


https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jmarshall/files/education_and_anti-immigration_attitudes_0.pdf

It does nothing to alter my view.

Plus then an articulate "Enoch Powell" type lights the spark to those disenchanted masses = chaos. Where the working class fears are manipulated by a charismatic well spoken leader, from the upper middle class.
Maybe a future Irish figurehead will be from Dún Laoghaire who knows?

Trouser Snake

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

True, but the more education a person has it is likely they would be more tolerant.
Naturally there are exceptions.
But it is just fact of life.

If that's your conception of education, consider yourself ignorant. What an entitled view you have. How so many posters have entertained you down this thread is bewildering.
Fact of life? Brilliant.

Hamachi

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It does nothing to alter my view.

Plus then an articulate "Enoch Powell" type lights the spark to those disenchanted masses = chaos. Where the working class fears are manipulated by a charismatic well spoken leader, from the upper middle class.
Maybe a future Irish figurehead will be from Dún Laoghaire who knows?

Ok. You’re entitled to that entrenched view. You’ve clearly made up your mind. I won’t try to change it. If you are interested, I suggest you read Robert Putnam’s research in ‘Bowling Alone’, in which he documents how the bonds of social capital are depleted in diverse settings.

Those with the financial means (aka the middle class) flee to more homogenous areas, whereas those with less financial resources (presumably the ‘working class’) are stuck in their community that is no longer recognizable and where social cohesion has been utterly eroded. Did you ever consider that this might explain why these folks may be a little disgruntled by wholesale demographic change vs. the middle class, who continue espouse their idealistic rhetoric, from the comfort of their homogenous boltholes?

As for your Enoch Powell comment, the best solution is that Ireland pursues a policy of controlled, high caliber migration that’s of net benefit to this country. This eliminates the need for charismatic demagogues or Irish versions of the national front, who might stir unrest amongst your much maligned ‘working class’.

Hamachi

Trouser Snake wrote: »

If that's your conception of education, consider yourself ignorant. What an entitled view you have. How so many posters have entertained you down this thread is bewildering.
Fact of life? Brilliant.

I know. I think of my own parents who are decidedly ‘working class’ and how much they struggled throughout their lives to ensure that my siblings and I have opportunities they could only dream about.

It makes me slightly ill responding to that poster. The only way to try combat that level of ignorance is to engage.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

True, but the more education a person has it is likely they would be more tolerant.
Naturally there are exceptions.
But it is just fact of life.

Ahh yes, because educated people never engaged in genocide, the dehumanisation of whole groups of people, racism, classism, or.. Naturally, there are exceptions? For someone who likes to refer to history, you seem to have a rather shallow appreciation of it, unless it fits your narrative.

Fact of life? Rubbish.

stefanovich

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I wrote on here a few days ago about a woman I knew who once complained about foreigners coming here and taking all the jobs.
The same woman had 2 lazy offspring on the dole.

It’s usually well to do upper middle class families that are pro multiculturalism. It’s all theoretical for them. They do not need to compete for accommodation and jobs with the new arrivals. They also get to look down on the “stupid racist” working class.

Mad_maxx

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

True, but the more education a person has it is likely they would be more tolerant.
Naturally there are exceptions.
But it is just fact of life.

depends what kind of tolerance you are referring to

immigration tends to effect white collar professionals a whole lot less than blue collar folks who find they are now competing for everything from employment ( downward pressure on wages ) to housing ( house prices rising ) to public services ( healthcare demand )

those are bread and butter issue , if the immigrants were snow white swedes moving to ballyfermot rather than blackrock , its the same thing

Mad_maxx

stefanovich wrote: »

It’s usually well to do upper middle class families that are pro multiculturalism. It’s all theoretical for them. They do not need to compete for accommodation and jobs with the new arrivals. They also get to look down on the “stupid racist” working class.

absolutely and that particular uber smug demographic are particularly concentrated in the media class , one of the reasons the likes of RTE love to eulogize about either DP or travellers is its a way of showing their contempt for middle ireland , its a way of being anti mainstream without getting ones hands dirty

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

It’s usually well to do upper middle class families that are pro multiculturalism. It’s all theoretical for them. They do not need to compete for accommodation and jobs with the new arrivals. They also get to look down on the “stupid racist” working class.

are they? I don't believe that it can be attributed to a particular class, especially something as vague as "upper" middle class. Social media has no limitations based on income or education. Most working class people will have access to a smartphone, and the internet... and since very few people list their true (and detailed) background information online, assigning class to people would be guesswork.

By pushing the class angle, posters encourage division, and a divided people are easily defeated/ignored. In Ireland, due to the availability of education, financial supports, etc.. there's little grounds for the pushing of a class system (in modern times), except for some romantic notion that you're not part of one group (the one you complain about), or possibly maybe, those at the extreme ends. The rich and the poor. This talk about class is more of a comparison with America, where social mobility is far more difficult than in Ireland.

The "Middle" in Ireland would be aware of the effects of multiculturalism, because they can see the migrants we have currently. The Romanians (and others) begging in the streets, the occasional African who is caught for stealing in their local area, the Africans with no jobs but can afford a car to drive around. And they can see the rising budgets, the decline in health services, etc.

The truth is that it's only those on the bottom (on governmental supplements) that need to truly need to worry about immigrants from a employment angle.. but the rest of the population get to worry about the increased taxation, the decline of services, or the giving of residential property in their area (similar to the traveller situation).

Individuals of all backgrounds get interested in crusades. Feminism isn't limited to "class" and that set the foundation for the wide range of crusaders who want to champion a cause for minority groups. As that is where our society has 'evolved' towards... crusaders who feel a virtuous/righteous return on their efforts.

So... I think it's dangerous to push this class angle about those who support multiculturalism, because it will encourage division based on very vague parameters. Just as importing multiculturalism (which has failed elsewhere) is dangerous, so too, is encouraging this "identity politics" that creates divisions, and weakens the overall society.

Wibbs

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No I despise the hypocrisy.
As many in the working class are against the foreigners and so on. Yet barring a few notable exceptions they let thier own culture withier away.

OK, so we've established you have two bees in your bonnet; The native Irish "working class" and the Irish language. I'd add in an obsession with class bordering on the British as another buzzer in your bonnet.

Worse because you should know better.

I can read actual statistics in multicultural nations across Europe. I can see the social schisms that occur in every single example. So indeed I do know better.

You didn't answer my question and decided to pose a question of your own instead. It seems you just like to pontificate but not respond mostly

Your lack of self awareness is truly staggering. Your pros of multiculturalism are based on personal feelings, a gra for the "exotic" and that's about it, with pretty much zero by way of actual real world examples. I have listed the cons a few times and have added links and stats and real world examples. Something that appears to be a trial for you. Though not you alone.

Yet again answer me this; please point me to a single example of a multicultural European(or anywhere really) nation where those of darker skin aren't more likely clustered in the welfare class. Just one will do. You've acknowledged how certain groups do well, yet avoid like the plague the many more numerous who don't. And you accuse others of being dissonant?

A condescending flippant response. Nothing new there.

No. My actual experience and one shared by a huge percentage, if not the majority of Irish people as far as the Irish language is concerned. If it weren't the majority experience then it wouldn't be a tiny minority who are fluent in the language. Fewer than the number of native Polish speakers living here.

I suppose you would be unwilling to articulate how you can view Irish as a 'foreign' language yet be apposed to multiculturalism?
Because by it's very nature you have let yourself see your own Irish culture as 'foreign'.
Which is precisely my point about it such a stance does not make sense.
If you view an important tenet of Irish culture as 'foreign' why be so anti multiculturalism?

Because - and I hate to break it to you - the Irish language isn't seen as an important part of Irish culture, at least not important enough to actually learn and use it. Now I know you're bogged down by the use of "foreign" with regard to the language and running with that by way of some torturous connection to multiculturalism, but if it isn't a "foreign" language for the majority, why do we have to learn the very basics of it? French people don't have to be taught to speak French, Germans don't have to be taught to speak German. If you kept a Dutch child out of school for the first ten years of their lives they would still be able to speak Dutch. Yet even with primary and secondary shcooling in the language the majority of Irish people can just about muster a cupla focal or permission to use the toilet. Clearly our first language...

Though mea culpa for following you down your gaeilgeoir rabbit hole.

Makes zero sense to me.

You should copy that to your clipboard for ease of use in future.

suicide_circus

Hamachi wrote: »

Or the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to provide an answer that is palatable to their interlocutor.

One thing education does imbue is a filter. The ability to apply a socially acceptable veneer to what lies beneath.

Most ‘educated’ people aren’t going to reveal their true opinions on a controversial subject like immigration to some randomer. They reserve those opinions for family, close friends, and the ballot box.

This. A thousand times this.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

So... I think it's dangerous to push this class angle about those who support multiculturalism, because it will encourage division based on very vague parameters. Just as importing multiculturalism (which has failed elsewhere) is dangerous, so too, is encouraging this "identity politics" that creates divisions, and weakens the overall society.

I think its fair enough to say that all Irish peoples don't want multiculturalism regardless of class, but there is still differences in their reaction to it. The wealthier flee it in their droves, the poorer cant afford to. The wealthier, better educated people understand the elite driven narrative that "diversity is strength" so are better at hiding it, giving the right answers to surveys and so on. They don't support it, but they know they need to be seen to appear to.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

I think its fair enough to say that all Irish peoples don't want multiculturalism regardless of class, but there is still differences in their reaction to it. The wealthier flee it in their droves, the poorer cant afford to.

I dunno about that. How are the wealthier managing to flee from it?

I suspect very few people are managing to push it away from them entirely. There are very few examples of self-sufficient communities where the populace can choose who gets to live, or "exist" there. I would imagine that everyone gets to see the effects of multiculturalism, including the wealthy, and while they can compensate better (due to higher incomes), they're still going to be using many of the same services as the rest of us.

I know a few families who would be considered very wealthy in Ireland. The problem is that most of their wealth is tied up with property and/or the ownership/running of a business. In terms of day to day living, apart from having a nicer house, they're still paying out for the same services the rest of us avail of.

The wealthier, better educated people understand the elite driven narrative that "diversity is strength" so are better at hiding it, giving the right answers to surveys and so on. They don't support it, but they know they need to be seen to appear to.

I'm not sure about that. How many surveys have you participated in over the years? How many research panels on any part of the topic? I know I haven't been part of any, nor has anyone within my circle of friends/family (we talk about this stuff). I'm somewhat skeptical about the effectiveness of surveys and research panels because (in my experience from marketing), the researchers/organisers can handpick their participants, or at the very least, know the area to pick randomers from. It's different with the EU commission, since they already have a huge scope to choose from, but many other organisations, including Irish ones, I get the feeling that there's a bias in their results.

Wealthier people will likely be the same as the rest of us. Careful. We've all grown up seeing people being torn to shreds for not completely accepting feminism, gay rights, etc. Few will want to sacrifice themselves on the altar of multiculturalism, and racism.

irishblessing

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet again answer me this; please point me to a single example of a multicultural European(or anywhere really) nation where those of darker skin aren't more likely clustered in the welfare class. Just one will do.

And why do you think those of darker skin are more likely clustered in the welfare class in European societies.

Wibbs

irishblessing wrote: »

And why do you think those of darker skin are more likely clustered in the welfare class in European societies.

Racism, a culture of low expectations in both the migrant and native populations, poverty traps, religion, cultural differences in attitudes to education and/or the raising of kids, the inability even many generations in to "pass" for local*, which can in turn feed into the differences even racism going the other way. There are a lot of reasons, some complex, some simple, but clustered they tend to be.











*you can see this in the US after slavery was abolished(in theory...)when African Americans took umbrage at Irish Americans, newly minted and there for longer because they were competing for the same low end jobs, but the Irish could pass for the White Anglo Saxon far more easily than them, the Chinese, or Italians, Greeks etc.

Justin Credible Darts

What people forget is plenty of non white people are actually Irish, born and reared here.
If those people dont like the idea of this country taking in numbers of people the country really cannot afford, are they going to be labelled racist too ?

It seems this lie has been conjured up people are opposing people based on their color, which it has never been about but the vast numbers that is economically crippling the country.

The Irish government, voted in by the Irish people have a responsibility and duty to look after the very same Irish people who voted them in , in the first place.

irishblessing

Wibbs wrote: »

Racism, a culture of low expectations in both the migrant and native populations, poverty traps, religion, cultural differences in attitudes to education and/or the raising of kids, the inability even many generations in to "pass" for local*, which can in turn feed into the differences even racism going the other way. There are a lot of reasons, some complex, some simple, but clustered they tend to be.


*you can see this in the US after slavery was abolished(in theory...)when African Americans took umbrage at Irish Americans, newly minted and there for longer because they were competing for the same low end jobs, but the Irish could pass for the White Anglo Saxon far more easily than them, the Chinese, or Italians, Greeks etc.

Racism and bias would be very difficult to overcome. Many (most) are probably living with untreated trauma, as well. A lack of generational wealth. Are your examples in any particular order of importance, out of curiosity? There is no such thing as reverse racism from a black person in a white dominant society. Racism is about who holds the positions of power and control. I think you mean prejudice or bias or perhaps discrimination.

irishblessing

irishblessing wrote: »

Racism and bias would be very difficult to overcome. Many (most) are probably living with untreated trauma, as well. A lack of generational wealth. Are your examples in any particular order of importance, out of curiosity? There is no such thing as reverse racism from a black person in a white dominant society. Racism is about who holds the positions of power and control. I think you mean prejudice or bias or perhaps discrimination.

Well, there you go with bias, and spouting the African American perception of what racism entails.

Of course, there can be reverse racism, even where a Black person doesn't hold a position of power, because a Black person can feel irrational fear/hatred/disgust of other racial groups, including white people. The power difference is an excuse to justify the racism that is commonplace within African American societies... We saw the same with feminists claiming that women couldn't be sexist towards men... for similar reasons. And yet, they could, and have been sexist, because reverse sexism, is sexism. As is reverse racism... it's still racism.

As for generational wealth, it's variable. They're coming from poorer economies, and as such, their wealth isn't comparable with ours, since they're entering a richer society. That's their choice, and nothing for us to feel guilt over, nor should we feel the need to accommodate them over it. If they moved to a nation with a comparable society to theirs, then, perhaps they would have a degree of generational wealth, but let's be fair here. That's going to be entirely individualistic and dependent on their own circumstances. I know a Ethiopian family here as Asylum seekers, who own two successful businesses which are still operating in their own country. The range of assets a migrant or refugee might bring with them is broad.. from nothing to quite a lot.

And untreated trauma.. Many more are just economic migrants moving away. If they were solely war refugees, they would have stopped at the first friendly border, that was willing to take them in... that they would come as far as Ireland, suggests strongly that they're seeking prosperous nations to start in. Sure, some will have untreated trauma, but as with genuine Asylum claims, they're likely to be a minority.As with most people, if you go looking to find trauma, you'll find trauma from some experiences in their lives.

irishblessing

irishblessing wrote: »

And why do you think those of darker skin are more likely clustered in the welfare class in European societies.

I'd say that culture (theirs and the host nation), lack of education/skills, language acquisition and the desire to come together as ethnic group (community focus). And seriously poor planning on the behalf of the migrants themselves.

Education in most non-western countries is below European standards due to lack of investment and corruption. The purchase of qualifications is commonplace in many areas such as in Africa. Accessibility to education itself is often related to caste or social/economic status, so there's often a large gap between what people could get anyway if they wanted to attend university. As such a large percentage of migrants can only obtain low-skilled employment. Which is fine in larger countries which maintain a manufacturing base, or have the population to have a large services sector, but those jobs tend to be low paid and unreliable... temporary contracts and few legal protections, which often means that the migrants are working on a cash basis, which further weakens their position for advancement beyond the lowest of jobs.

Language acquisition is a major issue. English is commonly taught but the standard of what's taught is questionable. Educational institutions whether private or public tend to focus on writing since that's the easiest to teach and examine.. with oral use falling far behind. Take China for example. Most people will learn English for as many as 8 years before entering University, and few of them will be able to hold a conversation longer than two minutes that doesn't involve the most basic of expressions. It's similar to the way Irish people deal with the Irish language... they learn it, and then forget it once the exams are finished. In Africa, French is often taught more often than English, and while oral ability is much higher than compared with English, it's considered classical French as opposed to the French that people actually speak.. so there's a gap in practical application. In many cases, migrants will go to Germany because they have the strongest economy, and the best reputation for migrant acceptance, but German is a notoriously difficult language to acquire to any kind of professional standard.

Culture is a problem because often the perceptions of what is "hard work" differ. While Asians are typically accepting of 50+ hours in work, Africans would expect something far less, and the efficiently of African workers is considered to be lower than other cultural groups. Hence the stereotypes of laziness which tend to be thrown around, which is racist, but it's based on many Africans who arrived before... the problem is that national groups tend to acquire reputations based on those who came before them, and such reputations stick, until the individual manages to disprove it... for themselves. It'll still apply to others of their national group. Take Nigerians for example.. who have acquired a reputation for scams and deceit.. It hardly means that all Nigerians are this way, but it will still be applied to them as a national group. The Romanians have a similar problem.

In practical terms, Black people tend to end up at the bottom, because they're poorly educated on arrival, lacking in language skills, often have primitive customs/expectations, and won't have done proper preparation before arrival. Knowing which countries can realistically provide employment to them.

Take Italy for example. Many migrants went there expecting a place to live and work... but Italy has had severe issues with unemployment for years. Where would migrants end up, except at the bottom? Or Ireland, which had a thriving economy, but essentially a false economy, with artificial success... a limited population, a highly skilled economy, with limited places of employment for those with low skills. Where would black people end up naturally? At the bottom... because they, typically, don't have the education/experience to work even at mid-level roles.

In any situation, where you have someone from a third world nation coming to a first world nation, there is going to be a huge learning curve, in order to become employable, beyond the most basic of employment. Skilled/highly educated people can name their jobs and typically can arrange them before they arrive, but those without those skills, are basically screwed. After three decades of being part of the EU, even traditionally qualification free jobs (such as construction, and others) often now have basic certification requirements or a need for apprenticeship experience, along with official referrals. Many low skilled jobs actually have barriers towards those who have zero experience in that role, in the bid to regulate more industries, and increase the quality of work done (and so raise prices)

Which is why multiculturalism is so terribly flawed. Without a strong host economy, capable of providing a decade (or more) of financial support, while also educating them, most migrants from poorer nations will have serious problems establishing themselves with lives that are comparable to the native population. Assuming we're not wanting them to be comparable to the poorest section of the native population.. which I get the feeling that the pro-multiculturalism crowd seem to want, because then they can champion their needs even further, with others pay for it.

irishblessing

@Klaz, have ya got a cliff notes version of that book, ha ha

irishblessing

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, there you go with bias, and spouting the African American perception of what racism entails.

Of course, there can be reverse racism, even where a Black person doesn't hold a position of power, because a Black person can feel irrational fear/hatred/disgust of other racial groups, including white people. The power difference is an excuse to justify the racism that is commonplace within African American societies... We saw the same with feminists claiming that women couldn't be sexist towards men... for similar reasons. And yet, they could, and have been sexist, because reverse sexism, is sexism. As is reverse racism... it's still racism.

As for generational wealth, it's variable. They're coming from poorer economies, and as such, their wealth isn't comparable with ours, since they're entering a richer society. That's their choice, and nothing for us to feel guilt over, nor should we feel the need to accommodate them over it. If they moved to a nation with a comparable society to theirs, then, perhaps they would have a degree of generational wealth, but let's be fair here. That's going to be entirely individualistic and dependent on their own circumstances. I know a Ethiopian family here as Asylum seekers, who own two successful businesses which are still operating in their own country. The range of assets a migrant or refugee might bring with them is broad.. from nothing to quite a lot.

And untreated trauma.. Many more are just economic migrants moving away. If they were solely war refugees, they would have stopped at the first friendly border, that was willing to take them in... that they would come as far as Ireland, suggests strongly that they're seeking prosperous nations to start in. Sure, some will have untreated trauma, but as with genuine Asylum claims, they're likely to be a minority.As with most people, if you go looking to find trauma, you'll find trauma from some experiences in their lives.

Do explain what that bolded part actually means. Don't pull in feminism and try to muddy the waters. It has no relevance here.
It's not the "African American perception," its the informed one.

You're wrong. This may help you understand what I'm getting at.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/09/can-white-people-experience-racism-12340542/

As for generational wealth and the lack thereof, it was simply listed as a reason why a certain group of people can be more likely clustered in poverty. No one told you you should feel guilty about it, you sound triggered. There is such a thing though as societies becoming more equitable for all it's citizens and immigrants and that is generally a good thing.

For someone whom I am guessing has never been an economic nor war refugee it's strange you claim to know what they would or wouldn't do and the reasons why. Your lack of empathy and judgement of others is showing. If I were in there shoes, I'd imagine I would go where I have the best possibility of me and my family surviving and thriving. Where maybe I know someone or a few people who can help. You wouldn't?

Wibbs

irishblessing wrote: »

Do explain what that bolded part actually means. Don't pull in feminism and try to muddy the waters. It has no relevance here.

Actually it does Irishblessing, but the "ism" doesn't really matter, it's the overall framing of group politics that has become the mainstream view in the last decade or so, though has long been a theme in appealing to whatever group you're trying to appeal to and use. It's the oppressed/oppressor narrative wheeled out to explain/excuse/berate pretty much everywhere and from every demographic you care to mention, just some get more airtime and are more mainstream than others and they're all looking for attention for their particular narrative and point blank refuse to regard, never mind acknowledge any other, save for when they reckon they can co-opt them for more attention.

Though simplistic and though I usually wheel this out for most of what passes for modern "feminism" this works for every single group with a well engineered gripe you care to mention:

[insert oppressed group here] are always agentless victims and [insert oppressor group here] are always to blame.

It works for the "left", the "right", gender, sexuality, class, race, economics, whatever identity politic you're having yourself. Hell, the actual Nazis were pulling this in German beer cellars 90 years ago. Try it out for yourself.

Now every group you care to mention does have some legitimate wrongs that need righting, and some most certainly more than others, but rather than going the let's acknowledge we all have our own crosses to bear and need to fix those issues and work this out as a wider society it inexorably falls back on the simplistic and divisive, because attention is usually more important than fixing the wrongs. It's certainly more important in the interwebs age where attention is the main currency. Never mind that those main flag wavers and mouthpieces of all stripes don't actually want things to be fixed, because they'd be out of a job and purpose and excuse and they'll never be satisfied because of that.

It's also handy as a way to frame, dismiss and silence questions, particularly the knotty ones, because the [insert Opressed group here] is always the correct and "informed" narrative. IE:

It's not the "African American perception," its the informed one.

You're wrong. This may help you understand what I'm getting at.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/09/can-white-people-experience-racism-12340542/

As for generational wealth and the lack thereof, it was simply listed as a reason why a certain group of people can be more likely clustered in poverty. No one told you you should feel guilty about it, you sound triggered. There is such a thing though as societies becoming more equitable for all it's citizens and immigrants and that is generally a good thing.

Pulling the "triggered" angle is combative and dismissive. I've used it myself in that vein and was quite aware why I as. And equitable is a moving target in many ways. The vast majority of societies, no matter how insane they seem to us today reckoned they were great, even equitable, with some improvement needed of course, but all had more than one demographic for which it wasn't so great.

For someone whom I am guessing has never been an economic nor war refugee it's strange you claim to know what they would or wouldn't do and the reasons why.

Actually of all posters on this thread that particular poster is more aware and has experience of what you listed.

Your lack of empathy and judgement of others is showing. If I were in there shoes, I'd imagine I would go where I have the best possibility of me and my family surviving and thriving. Where maybe I know someone or a few people who can help. You wouldn't?

Indeed, but that doesn't really explain why multiculturalism as a concept is the positive we all appear to think it is. Myself included for the most part. Or at least it was. This thread has been an eye opener for me. My initial position was it was a general positive as a concept, but hasn't been handled well in many places and we don't want to import that here. The list or lack of of tangible positives from folks on the pro side and the long list of tangible negatives from the con side, not least for many migrant demographics themselves and seeing that any questioning this "accepted truth" is too often met with direct attack and insult has reduced that confidence significantly.

Hamachi

@Wibbs, great post and nice de-construction of the disingenuous ‘triggered’ and ‘lack of empathy’ angle.

irishblessing

You're trying to reduce the real experience of people here to a narrative, Wibbs, and that just isn't going to fly. But it is pretty fly (and typical) for a male white guy, lol.

You and klaz make up for a lack of truth by being overly and unnecessarily verbose.

At the end of the day you want an all white Ireland because anything else scares you. Identity politics = yourself. It's also handy as a way to frame, dismiss and silence questions, especially clear in the tactic to be overly verbose with word salad so that what, it's overwhelming for the person on the other side of the debate and will maybe just give up? It's a pattern here going back 248 pages.

So you admit to being combative and dismissive yourself... yeah, it's obvious. Some people really are triggered and use that word as a mirror to others. So you speak for yourself in admitting to being combative and dismissive. Its your m.o.

Out of interest, could you list the things that could have been handled better that would change your mind on multiculturalism? And who's failings is it down to, government, the Irish or refugees/immigrants?

You talk about lists of positives. I think this is a very detached and may I say inhumane way of looking at human crisis and poverty and lack of resources. We all have more in common than not; we all want to live our one best, safest, happiest life. We're more alike than we are different. People have always moved around to follow resources and long before there were political borders. Now, often times powerful countries interfere in and exploit other countries to the detriment of their people and then shun their human need to try and find a better life.

TomTomTim

irishblessing wrote: »

You're trying to reduce the real experience of people here to a narrative, Wibbs, and that just isn't going to fly. But it is pretty fly (and typical) for a male white guy, lol.

As always, self awareness level: zero

Mules

irishblessing wrote: »

You're trying to reduce the real experience of people here to a narrative, Wibbs, and that just isn't going to fly. But it is pretty fly (and typical) for a male white guy, lol.

You and klaz make up for a lack of truth by being overly and unnecessarily verbose.

At the end of the day you want an all white Ireland because anything else scares you. Identity politics = yourself. It's also handy as a way to frame, dismiss and silence questions, especially clear in the tactic to be overly verbose with word salad so that what, it's overwhelming for the person on the other side of the debate and will maybe just give up? It's a pattern here going back 248 pages.

So you admit to being combative and dismissive yourself... yeah, it's obvious. Some people really are triggered and use that word as a mirror to others. So you speak for yourself in admitting to being combative and dismissive. Its your m.o.

Out of interest, could you list the things that could have been handled better that would change your mind on multiculturalism? And who's failings is it down to, government, the Irish or refugees/immigrants?
This isn't America. You sound ridiculous talking about
You talk about lists of positives. I think this is a very detached and may I say inhumane way of looking at human crisis and poverty and lack of resources. We all have more in common than not; we all want to live our one best, safest, happiest life. We're more alike than we are different. People have always moved around to follow resources and long before there were political borders. Now, often times powerful countries interfere in and exploit other countries to the detriment of their people and then shun their human need to try and find a better life.

This is an Irish forum, you sound ridiculous talking about white males, like someone in an American university sociology department.

irishblessing

irishblessing wrote: »

Do explain what that bolded part actually means.

I actually did. You're showing a bias from exempting black people from displaying/performing racism against white people... and then seeking to justify it. Most racists have reasons/justifications for why their racism should be allowed. (nope, I'm not calling you a racist)

Don't pull in feminism and try to muddy the waters. It has no relevance here.

Feminism is the most successful rights movement in history. Most other movements (black rights, minority rights, etc) are based on the same principles since we tend to mimic what is successful. The victim mentality is very much part of feminism, as it is with the Black rights movement, because victims cannot be held accountable for what they do, due to others having power over them. A vague enemy that can be wheeled out whenever their opinions face objections.

The American version of racism, through it's experience with the African American situation is heavily influenced by the victim narrative.

It's not the "African American perception," its the informed one.

You've just shown that there are different interpretations... whereas I tend to apply the same aspects of racism to everyone regardless of race, gender etc. Racism doesn't need exclusion clauses. It needs to be applied equally. And giving me an opinion piece, does nothing to prove that I am wrong.

If a Black person behaves in a racist way, then they're being racist. If one calls a white person insulting terms based on their race, then they're being racist. That's a simple example.. but it hold true. You seek to promote a viewpoint that is not based on equality for all races.

As for generational wealth and the lack thereof, it was simply listed as a reason why a certain group of people can be more likely clustered in poverty. No one told you you should feel guilty about it, you sound triggered. There is such a thing though as societies becoming more equitable for all it's citizens and immigrants and that is generally a good thing.

I'm not in the least bit triggered, and your use of the term, and following sentence is a deflection.

For someone whom I am guessing has never been an economic nor war refugee it's strange you claim to know what they would or wouldn't do and the reasons why.

I have lived in Asia, and spent extensive time in Africa, working as a volunteer (both the UN and NGO), just as I've worked as a volunteer here in Ireland (local council) helping Travellers and... migrants to learn English and also teaching professional courses for the skilling up of migrants. So... I suspect I have as much awareness as you do, if not more.

The interesting thing is your need to seek to discredit me and my opinions. Perhaps you should think about that....:rolleyes:

Your lack of empathy and judgement of others is showing.

Of course it is... because we're discussing macro topics, which should be done in an unemotional manner. When posters become emotional over topics, they lose perspective, and fail to address the real issues.

In any case, this is simply more of the triggered nonsense. Deflecting and seeking to discredit. But then, I've noticed a trend recently of posters who, when facing opposition, will stop debating, and instead, move to targeting the other poster themselves. Perhaps stick to the topic at hand, and leave the moral superiority at the door?

If I were in there shoes, I'd imagine I would go where I have the best possibility of me and my family surviving and thriving. Where maybe I know someone or a few people who can help. You wouldn't?

I went to Russia because English was useful, as was my management experience. Working as a contractor, I was able to earn salaries much higher than the average Russian, so I wasn't reliant on the local economy or living standards. Then I moved to Australia, lived there for almost two years, working as a manager. After that, I moved to Japan, where I didn't want to be a manager due to the work culture, and became a teacher instead (private school, good money). Worked long enough to acquire experience, and then, due to the overall costs with living there (comparable to Ireland in many ways), I moved to S.Korea, where I worked as a Marketing executive, for 6? months. Then I moved to China, where having English was a major plus, and worked as a management consultant, a teacher, and finally becoming a lecturer at university.

That's not everything I've done since the "Banking Crash" but it does show most of the main points. I moved to where I could obtain work, which would generate the income needed for my living costs, but also pay my mortgage in Ireland, while also being able to pass money to my parents.

I researched, and choose nations where my skills were in demand. Where being a native English speaker, opened doors to other types of employment or carried a side benefit. I knew nobody in Russia when I went there. Nor any of the other countries where I moved to... (apart from light networking due to job searches).

So... I do have experience. But then, I also migrated legally, getting visas, and not expecting any handouts from other countries.

TomTomTim

Mules wrote: »

This is an Irish forum, you sound ridiculous talking about white males, like someone in an American university sociology department.

You can thank Reddit and Twitter for this nonsense. We honestly might as well be Americans at this stage.

irishblessing

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually did. You're showing a bias from exempting black people from displaying/performing racism against white people... and then seeking to justify it. Most racists have reasons/justifications for why their racism should be allowed. (nope, I'm not calling you a racist)



Feminism is the most successful rights movement in history. Most other movements (black rights, minority rights, etc) are based on the same principles since we tend to mimic what is successful. The victim mentality is very much part of feminism, as it is with the Black rights movement, because victims cannot be held accountable for what they do, due to others having power over them. A vague enemy that can be wheeled out whenever their opinions face objections.

The American version of racism, through it's experience with the African American situation is heavily influenced by the victim narrative.



You've just shown that there are different interpretations... whereas I tend to apply the same aspects of racism to everyone regardless of race, gender etc. Racism doesn't need exclusion clauses. It needs to be applied equally. And giving me an opinion piece, does nothing to prove that I am wrong.

If a Black person behaves in a racist way, then they're being racist. If one calls a white person insulting terms based on their race, then they're being racist. That's a simple example.. but it hold true. You seek to promote a viewpoint that is not based on equality for all races.



I'm not in the least bit triggered, and your use of the term, and following sentence is a deflection.



I have lived in Asia, and spent extensive time in Africa, working as a volunteer (both the UN and NGO), just as I've worked as a volunteer here in Ireland (local council) helping Travellers and... migrants to learn English and also teaching professional courses for the skilling up of migrants. So... I suspect I have as much awareness as you do, if not more.

The interesting thing is your need to seek to discredit me and my opinions. Perhaps you should think about that....:rolleyes:



Of course it is... because we're discussing macro topics, which should be done in an unemotional manner. When posters become emotional over topics, they lose perspective, and fail to address the real issues.

In any case, this is simply more of the triggered nonsense. Deflecting and seeking to discredit. But then, I've noticed a trend recently of posters who, when facing opposition, will stop debating, and instead, move to targeting the other poster themselves. Perhaps stick to the topic at hand, and leave the moral superiority at the door?



I went to Russia because English was useful, as was my management experience. Working as a contractor, I was able to earn salaries much higher than the average Russian, so I wasn't reliant on the local economy or living standards. Then I moved to Australia, lived there for almost two years, working as a manager. After that, I moved to Japan, where I didn't want to be a manager due to the work culture, and became a teacher instead (private school, good money). Worked long enough to acquire experience, and then, due to the overall costs with living there (comparable to Ireland in many ways), I moved to S.Korea, where I worked as a Marketing executive, for 6? months. Then I moved to China, where having English was a major plus, and worked as a management consultant, a teacher, and finally becoming a lecturer at university.

That's not everything I've done since the "Banking Crash" but it does show most of the main points. I moved to where I could obtain work, which would generate the income needed for my living costs, but also pay my mortgage in Ireland, while also being able to pass money to my parents.

I researched, and choose nations where my skills were in demand. Where being a native English speaker, opened doors to other types of employment or carried a side benefit. I knew nobody in Russia when I went there. Nor any of the other countries where I moved to... (apart from light networking due to job searches).

So... I do have experience. But then, I also migrated legally, getting visas, and not expecting any handouts from other countries.

Overly verbose, word salad, verbal diarrhoea; take your pick. In effort to try and overwhelm the person on the other side of the debate with sheer content.

I rest my case.

Oh and you mention skills? Pray tell how you acquired those skills and were able to enter a workforce at all- the support and infrastructure was there so you are privileged and then compare that to others' plight when in fact you were born on third base thinking you hit a homerun.

I bet you didn't read the article I posted. It's pretty clear you still do not understand the power structures of racism and why reverse racism is not a real thing. It's not an American thing or experience (very odd point to try and make), it's a western world thing and also, my article was from the UK.