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

irishblessing

TomTomTim wrote: »

The irony. You've just ignored my points about what happens when they become a majority. You're not even worth humoring to be fair.

Inform yourself first and then you wouldn't have to ask obvious questions with obvious answers or ridiculous hypotheticals.

You're very aggressive, have you been out for some fresh air lately?

Rodney Bathgate

irishblessing wrote: »

From this statement, it is also clear you need to spend some time learning about the definition and meaning of the word racism.

White people, generally speaking, can be victims of racial prejudice, bias, bigotry, racial stereotyping, assault, harassment, etc. I hope that clears it up for you. I know change is hard people, but it shouldn't be this difficult to simply look into a word definition. :rolleyes:

I think you need to stop trolling

TomTomTim

irishblessing wrote: »

From this statement, it is also clear you need to spend some time learning about the definition and meaning of the word racism.

White people, generally speaking, can be victims of racial prejudice, bias, bigotry, racial stereotyping, assault, harassment, etc. I hope that clears it up for you. I know change is hard people, but it shouldn't be this difficult to simply look into a word definition. :rolleyes:

If said discrimination is of a racial nature, then it is racist. The only time discrimination is not racist is when it is not racial. Nothing you say makes sense, there's zero consistency. I honestly don't know how people like you live such hypocrisy, I'm certainly not able to.

irishblessing

TomTomTim wrote: »

If said discrimination is of a racial nature, then it is racist. The only time discrimination is not racist is when it is not racial. Nothing you say makes sense, there's zero consistency. I honestly don't know how people like you live such hypocrisy, I'm certainly not able to.

No. Wrong.

It would make more sense to you if you spent any time whatsoever looking into it, instead of simply re-stating your incorrectly held beliefs. But you don't want to be "wrong" or put in the time or put any work in to really understanding this. Or some combination thereof. I know, change is hard. But we can do hard things.

Mules

irishblessing wrote: »

Omg. So humour me by reading and considering what I've actually said. You do actually need to engage with me properly if you're going to "humour me." But I doubt that's what you really mean. You don't want to really hear it out, read the article I posted, or do any research yourself first to properly consider it. you just want to attack and stay firm in your own biases. Waste of my time.

Minorities cannot be racist. You clearly haven't spent 5 seconds to inform yourself of the definition of racism.

And here is the crux of the fear of many of you on this thread: what if minorities become a majority into power and then we white people are treated like them! Lol!!

Here's the oxford dictionaries definition of racism; btw it says nothing about minorities having an inability to be racist.

'The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins. More widely, the devaluation of various traits of character or intelligence as ‘typical’ of particular peoples. The category of race may itself be challenged, as implying an inference from trivial superficial differences of appearance to allegedly significant underlying differences of nature; increasingly evolutionary evidence suggests that the dispersal of one original people into different geographical locations is a relatively recent and genetically insignificant matter.'

From: racism in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy »

Rodney Bathgate

irishblessing wrote: »

Says the poster suddenly injecting him/herself into the conversation without any real contribution? :rolleyes:

Don’t see any “real contribution” from you, other than your posts being complete sh1te.

irishblessing

Mules wrote: »

Here's the oxford dictionaries definition of racism; btw it says nothing about minorities having an inability to be racist.

'The inability or refusal to recognize the rights, needs, dignity, or value of people of particular races or geographical origins. More widely, the devaluation of various traits of character or intelligence as ‘typical’ of particular peoples. The category of race may itself be challenged, as implying an inference from trivial superficial differences of appearance to allegedly significant underlying differences of nature; increasingly evolutionary evidence suggests that the dispersal of one original people into different geographical locations is a relatively recent and genetically insignificant matter.'

From: racism in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy »

That is a very simplistic definition of racism.

Taking this definition at its word, then, would suggest that it is possible for a person of any race to experience racism if someone treats them badly for this reason – even white people. But this definition of racism leaves out one crucial element: The power structures that uphold and perpetuate racism. Racism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists within a hierarchical structure with power at its core.

If an ethnic minority person treats a white person badly because of inherent prejudice against white people, that is wrong and completely unacceptable, but the wider ramifications are likely to be less significant than if it were the other way around.
If a white person treats an ethnic minority badly because of the colour of their skin, not only is it morally wrong, it can also have serious and dangerous implications for the life and prospects of that person.

Prejudice against white people might make individuals feel bad, but prejudice against ethnic minorities can lead to structural, systemic and lasting disadvantages (in education, healthcare, disproportionate policing, career prospects, among other areas), and this is what makes it racism.

White people would only experience racism if the existing power structures enabled prejudice against them to cause this kind of widespread negative impact – as it does for people of colour. But that’s not how society currently works.

Wibbs

irishblessing wrote: »

incorrectly held beliefs.

and some wonder why this kinda thing sounds almost like a religious credo in nature.

Now I do take your point that one can define a particular kind of prejudice based on ethnicity and skin colour when it involves social and politic power and lack thereof alone and define that as racism and you do agree that prejudice based on ethnicity and skin colour has no colour, so we're down to definitions. Which is grand. I can run with that.

Where I do have a problem is again down to the oppressor/oppressed narrative which is a) forever fixed as far as the labelling goes, b) is overly simplistic c) doesn't get us anywhere d) increases division and e) promotes further stereotypes on all sides. This applies to race, gender, sexuality and every damn ism you care to mention on all sides.

Modern "feminism" is a good example where the oppressor/oppressed narrative has ended up disappearing up its own fundament. When one can objectively show by nearly every metric(sexual assault being the outlier) that outside of a tiny minority of those at the very top one gender has better supports and outcomes in society(and yes I can easily list them with citations), yet it's still fervently believed that the reverse is true, to the point of shouting heresy if this belief is even slightly prodded by questions.

Then again another factor in human nature is to avoid hard questions and the need for easy answers and multiculturalism is yet another one of those "acceptable truths" we've built up and quite recently(and mostly for good reasons) that doesn't seem to bear much by way of enquiry beyond the surface.

Wibbs

irishblessing wrote: »

If an ethnic minority person treats a white person badly because of inherent prejudice against white people, that is wrong and completely unacceptable, but the wider ramifications are likely to be less significant than if it were the other way around.
If a white person treats an ethnic minority badly because of the colour of their skin, not only is it morally wrong, it can also have serious and dangerous implications for the life and prospects of that person.

Ok and point taken, but let's look at a more current angle in the corporate world where the increase of HR and US college canvas identity politics has taken sway in many.

Who is more likely to get disciplined or sacked and how is more likely to be believed in this scenario? Man accuses woman of a gender prejudiced remark in the workplace. Woman accuses man of a gender prejudiced remark* in the workplace. White man accuses Black man of prejudice, Black man accuses White man of prejudice. If you're speaking of power structures they're not nearly so simplistic. There can be a lot of playing to the current crowd and those in power being fine with it so long as it doesn't affect the bottom line.





*NB I didn't say "sexist" because according to the same identity politic definitions women aren't capable of same(unless towards another woman and still the "patriarchy" is likely at fault)

Justin Credible Darts

irishblessing wrote: »

Prejudice against white people might make individuals feel bad, but prejudice against ethnic minorities can lead to structural, systemic and lasting disadvantages (in education, healthcare, disproportionate policing, career prospects, among other areas), and this is what makes it racism.

bullsh1t.....racism is racism. If you are non white who treat people wrong because of their color, you are still a racist.

CtevenSrowder

irishblessing wrote: »

It is amazing indeed. People are so familiar with the term racist, that they use it synonymously with the words prejudice or racial prejudice, bias, stereotyping, bigotry, etc. However, they're not the same.

White people can indeed face stereotypical assumptions based on their skin colour and hence encounter racial prejudice. But this cannot be called racism in western societies, because of the inherent systemic imbalance of power between those with lighter skin colour and people of colour.

Here is the definition of racism:

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

It has absolute **** all to do with power, or power imbalances in the way you are trying to make out, and everything to do with prejudice (particularly the negative kind), which you have just laughably tried to claim it doesn't. I mean, it's literally in the definition of the word. And any power imbalances, should they exist, does not negate that a white person can be a victim of racism in Europe anyhow.

Here, if you would prefer, is the Merriam-Webster definition:

a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice

irishblessing wrote: »

Racial prejudice can affect people on an individual level, but it would not have the same effect on a larger social and cultural level because it is only when stereotypes are bolstered by power, such as through a eurocentric model of thinking, that it creates systemic and structural racism and oppression that people of colour have encountered throughout history.

'People of colour' can be European too, and as such have a 'eurocentric model of thinking', whatever it is exactly you mean by that. Why is it people such as yourself are so obsessed with race? People self-colonising their own minds with American progressive **** seemingly continues unabated. What a way to play down the effect of racism on an individual level btw. It's hard to know if your opinion on this matter matches those of the far-right or far-left, though their opinions on race overlap more than either would like to admit.

irishblessing wrote: »

Some of you need to spend some time educating yourselves in this matter and it shows.

And the usual pitiful refrain of 'educate' yourself. Racism is quite simply defined (see above), it's you who needs the education as you quite clearly are unaware of what it is.

Mules

irishblessing wrote: »

That is a very simplistic definition of racism.

Taking this definition at its word, then, would suggest that it is possible for a person of any race to experience racism if someone treats them badly for this reason – even white people. But this definition of racism leaves out one crucial element: The power structures that uphold and perpetuate racism. Racism doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists within a hierarchical structure with power at its core.

If an ethnic minority person treats a white person badly because of inherent prejudice against white people, that is wrong and completely unacceptable, but the wider ramifications are likely to be less significant than if it were the other way around.
If a white person treats an ethnic minority badly because of the colour of their skin, not only is it morally wrong, it can also have serious and dangerous implications for the life and prospects of that person.

Prejudice against white people might make individuals feel bad, but prejudice against ethnic minorities can lead to structural, systemic and lasting disadvantages (in education, healthcare, disproportionate policing, career prospects, among other areas), and this is what makes it racism.

White people would only experience racism if the existing power structures enabled prejudice against them to cause this kind of widespread negative impact – as it does for people of colour. But that’s not how society currently works.

I figured you'd know better than the dictionary :rolleyes:

jelem

RyanthePirate wrote: »

I would like to see a Boards.ie Consensus.

Economists agree that immigration has a net positive on the economy and this immigration is surely a wonderful thing for the county.

Agree/Disagree?

yep low pay is benefit for profiteers so a good economist whom wants kudos will print a positive.

Hamachi

irishblessing wrote: »

I bet your head would explode if I told you I have a son who supports feminism!

No doubt you’ve done a fine job inculcating the nonsensical values you’ve espoused on this thread.

I’m sure he relishes listening to his mother bleating about white males perpetuating Eurocentric power structures and banging on about unidirectional racism.

I’ve met people like you before. The irony is that your comfortable existence is usually subsidized by or entirely supported by the much maligned white male in your life.

TomTomTim

Mules wrote: »

I figured you'd know better than the dictionary :rolleyes:

We honestly shouldn't rely on dictionary sites for definitions anymore, as they are constantly being changed to placate the mob. One of them recently added "offensive" to the term sexual preference during the hearing for Trump's new judge just so the ever outraged could justify their outrage.

McHardcore

TomTomTim wrote: »

We honestly shouldn't rely on dictionary sites for definitions anymore, as they are constantly being changed to placate the mob. One of them recently added "offensive" to the term sexual preference during the hearing for Trump's new judge just so the ever outraged could justify their outrage.

We shouldn't use dictionaries now? This is the post-truth nonsense that people are attempting to push over here from the States. Have you a better source than reclaimthenet.org?

Justin Credible Darts

why is it when something is deemed offensive these days people cry non stop.


All my life, and no doubt our parents and their parents before them saw, read, and heard things that were offensive but never bitched as much as people today.

Years ago there was slavery, women not allowed vote, blatant discrimination and countless other things were really offensive.....

Nowdays we have supposed grown adults scouring the internet...yes the internet, looking for what a stranger said in order to get offended., so they can cry to someone in order to feel important and appear woke.

I find it offensive the sh1t politicians get away with
I find it offensive what the bankers got away with it....where is the mob crowd to do anything about that.

maybe because I am white, and a tax payer and dont fit in to some minority group, my opinion is less valued.

McHardcore

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

why is it when something is deemed offensive these days people cry non stop.

Like how so many in this thread find the term "racist" offensive.

Justin Credible Darts

McHardcore wrote: »

Like how so many in this thread find the term "racist" offensive.

not anymore.
The term has been bandied about so much at so many people without a shred of proof that people are now feeling pity for those bandying it about.


In fact those going around calling people racist without proof only serve to show how they have nothing else to back up their illogical notions and have to resort to those tactics and show themselves up.

McHardcore

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

not anymore.
The term has been bandied about so much at so many people without a shred of proof that people are now feeling pity for those bandying it about.


In fact those going around calling people racist without proof only serve to show how they have nothing else to back up their illogical notions and have to resort to those tactics and show themselves up.

You may want to scroll up to where posters were attempting to re-write the dictionary definition of "racist" as they found the original meaning too offensive.

imme

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Japan is not cosmopolitan for a main reason a difficult language to learn, same with Chinese. Plus there are not lot of countries who speak Japanese.
Like English, French, German for example.

Cameroon and countries similar will get cosmopolitan once the standard of living improves compared to Western Countries.
Might take 200 or 300 years who knows. But eventually poorer parts of the world will close the gap. As they become more urbanised and technically advanced.

I have no problem with 100,000 French, Spanish, German, Dutch, English, Scottish, Polish, Latvian, Swedish etc living in this country. As that is what the Irish people voted for in EU referendums.

Makes me wonder what you are afraid of?

Japanese is difficult to learn so nobody goes there?
Great logic.

Hungarian, Swedish, Korean are all difficult if you want to take that track.

The difficulty of the language has nothing to do with the level of cosmopolitanness of Japan.
It has to do with the Japanese, there is a historical reason for this.

Japan does business with most countries of the world, they are suiting themselves in allowing 2, 000, 000 Indonesians and 1,500,000 Filipinos move to Japan p. a. or however would to if they could.

Cameroon will be nipping at everyone's heals within 200-300 years, I don't see that.

McHardcore

McHardcore wrote: »

Like how so many in this thread find the term "racist" offensive.

Honestly, the only time I find "racist"/"racism" to be offensive is when it's used in order to further some political/social agenda.

It should be something more than that, based on an ideal as to what we don't want in the world. Not something that people can apply with a series of double standards, and justifications to exempt <insert group> from equal judgment.

People these days are far too focused on gender, race, whatever... and not enough on equal treatment for everyone irrespective of their race, gender, whatever. Everything needs to have qualifiers, and sub-sections to further cloud the issue.

I swear equality has just become a buzzword, which people throw around, but have no real desire to reach (and maintain).

eleventh

irishblessing wrote: »

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?

If you're going by yourself, fine. If you're going with family, kids, or to start a family there, you are bringing kids to the situation, expecting them to go to school there, settle there and call it home. (People have explained this in detail earlier in the thread). It is unrealistic. It's an unfair burden to place on kids. If I had children I couldn't imagine bringing them to live in such a foreign culture no matter how much I might like the idea of living there, and expect them to go through all the inevitable difficulties around their difference, identity etc. (If you want to talk trauma, look into that). The kids won't blend in. It's a cruel and thoughtless thing to do. Media campaigns and virtue signalling won't change it, except on some surface level. I think they make things worse even, constantly drawing attention to it, using the 'r' word at every opportunity.

When it comes down to it, people gravitate to and prefer people similar to themselves: marriage, close friendships, neighbours etc.

At the end of the day you want an all white Ireland because anything else scares you.

What kind of Ireland do you want in terms of race/colour ?

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.

I'd agree with the sentiment, but we can't assume that our idea of right/wrong around how others should be treated should translate to the rest of people and society.
People are very tribal. It's mainly in young people where we see the issues play out. Even without race, it's always this age-group where problems are most visible, things are worked out in gangs, street-fights etc. Race adds another layer, increasing social unrest, making things worse for everyone.

... I can admit to the privileges I have had and not look down my nose at others for not being able to achieve the same when they're not even able to play the game let alone be born on 3rd base.

There's a lot of money behind moving people to Ireland, as well as providing for them when they get here. Would it not be better spent building homes for people in their own country? It would cost a lot less than ends up being spent on migration, education, etc etc.

If people holding the purse strings really wanted to help they'd be doing it in a way that helps people stay in their homeland; not to have to uproot from their culture, family, community.

zimmermania

eleventh wrote: »

If you're going by yourself, fine. If you're going with family, kids, or to start a family there, you are bringing kids to the situation, expecting them to go to school there, settle there and call it home. (People have explained this in detail earlier in the thread). It is unrealistic. It's an unfair burden to place on kids. If I had children I couldn't imagine bringing them to live in such a foreign culture no matter how much I might like the idea of living there, and expect them to go through all the inevitable difficulties around their difference, identity etc. (If you want to talk trauma, look into that). The kids won't blend in. It's a cruel and thoughtless thing to do. Media campaigns and virtue signalling won't change it, except on some surface level. I think they make things worse even, constantly drawing attention to it, using the 'r' word at every opportunity.

When it comes down to it, people gravitate to and prefer people similar to themselves: marriage, close friendships, neighbours etc.

What kind of Ireland do you want in terms of race/colour ?

I'd agree with the sentiment, but we can't assume that our idea of right/wrong around how others should be treated should translate to the rest of people and society.
People are very tribal. It's mainly in young people where we see the issues play out. Even without race, it's always this age-group where problems are most visible, things are worked out in gangs, street-fights etc. Race adds another layer, increasing social unrest, making things worse for everyone.

There's a lot of money behind moving people to Ireland, as well as providing for them when they get here. Would it not be better spent building homes for people in their own country? It would cost a lot less than ends up being spent on migration, education, etc etc.

If people holding the purse strings really wanted to help they'd be doing it in a way that helps people stay in their homeland; not to have to uproot from their culture, family, community.

What a great idea,lets lobby all those countries where irish ppl live and urge them to repatriate all the irish and keep their countries for natives.

eleventh

Wibbs wrote: »

That's incredibly unlikely ever to happen, though you do hear this often enough. Outside of colonies like the US, Canada and others in the new world I can't think of one White multicultural nation where the natives are a minority. *edit* it may happen with urban centres like we see the trend with London, as diversity is almost entirely urban in nature.

I can't see how it won't happen with current trends. We are below replacement rate and non-Europeans pouring in at an alarming rate considering their much higher reproduction and with extended families having rights to join them. There's a never-ending stream of them and no signs of it slowing, whether in recession or not. We're a tiny island. We'll be overwhelmed within the next couple of decades at current rates, even faster than UK. It's very sad, but that's the direction it's going.

eleventh

zimmermania wrote: »

What a great idea,lets lobby all those countries where irish ppl live and urge them to repatriate all the irish and keep their countries for natives.

If the Irish diaspora were incentivised to return, it would make a lot more sense than people with no connection to here coming here to live in large numbers.

eleventh

eleventh wrote: »

I can't see how it won't happen with current trends. We are below replacement rate and non-Europeans pouring in at an alarming rate considering their much higher reproduction and with extended families having rights to join them. There's a never-ending stream of them and no signs of it slowing, whether in recession or not. We're a tiny island. We'll be overwhelmed within the next couple of decades at current rates, even faster than UK. It's very sad, but that's the direction it's going.

We're not below the replacement rate. Ireland has a plus birth rate, and normal migration (non-EU skilled labor or EU citizens) can easily add to the top if needed.

And no... we're not going to be overwhelmed any time soon, even should every migrant/foreign born, produce four or five kids each. Definitely not within a few decades... although it could be possible between one to two centuries...

Arthur Daley

Irish could be minority ethnic group here by 2050 - professor
Sat, Mar 19, 2005, 00:00
John Downes


Ireland's native population could be in a minority by the middle of this century, the president of Dublin City University (DCU) will claim today. But large-scale immigration is still essential if we are to remain prosperous, Prof Ferdinand von Prondzynski will say.

Unpublished UK-based research, which he does not identify, has indicated that by 2050, Ireland's population will consist of a multicultural and multiethnic mix in which the indigenous Irish will form a minority.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-could-be-minority-ethnic-group-here-by-2050-professor-1.424517

zimmermania

eleventh wrote: »

If the Irish diaspora were incentivised to return, it would make a lot more sense than people with no connection to here coming here to live in large numbers.

Just as we did.

eleventh

Deleted User wrote: »

...and normal migration (non-EU skilled labor or EU citizens) can easily add to the top if needed. .

I don't agree with race-mixing as a policy. It happens and it's fine when it happens, but as a policy which we see being pursued in government advertising etc (I think that was mentioned earlier in thread or could have been another thread...) it's wrong. In multicultural societies, even where cultures stay together away from each other, there is still an amount of race-mixing. If you're in a school/college or area where it's about 50/50 Irish(or European) vs non-European, there's going to be relationships and children coming out of that.