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

RobbieTheRobber

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm feeling a very strong sense of Irony about your and Robbies posts if that's what you consider debating to be. Would this be an example of double standards? Where you hold others up to a standard that you're not prepared to follow yourself?

Nice ad hominem Klaz!

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

To paraphrase jmayo, Mike you deflect more than a mirror!

Have not failed to answer a relevant question on this thread/forum!

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

That's quite simply nonsense.
So if to use your own godwinned example a literal nazi came to boards and started debating how the Jewish people are the human equivalent of vermin and should be exterminated.
You believe the best course of action would be to have a nice chat about that, rather than call them out on their racism?

I'd honestly believe the best course of action would be to chat about it and ask them why they came to that conclusion and debate their reasoning.

Shouting other opinions down without being able to tackle the crux of their beliefs is not productive.

In your hypothetical scenario, it doesn't allow for any nuance, so yes it would be right to call out someone advocating for extermination of a group of people as being racist. Thankfully, that is very rarely how conversations go.

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I thought the point of a discussion forum was for an exchange of views, often differing points of view and discussing them.
If you are looking for my views to mirror yours then you are not looking for discussion. In fact it sounds like what you want is an echo chamber. Were you say something and others reassure you it is right Dunne.

So do you want to have a discussion or do you want to stifle debate?

I definitely don't want an echo chamber my friend. In fact, you already know that my opinions often go against the accepted narratives.

But at least I answer questions and don't beat around the bush like you have been doing for the last while.

To be honest Robbie, if your views mirrored mine, I would begin to question my views.

I just mentioned that nobody is waiting with baited breath for your answer. That's hardly stifling conversation.

Kaybaykwah

I still think immigration to Ireland has been beneficial. It makes the country more varied and open to the world. The Irish when I lived there seemed pretty attuned to cosmopolitan ideals, but the lack of friction with outsiders was the only missing piece of the equation. If we are going to dismiss the café slash restaurant culture that happened since the nineties, we might as well do the same for the Irish dance and other stuff in the countries of the diaspora.

I don't think the capacity for in migration is unlimited. Ireland is not Canada, which, if not obvious to all, should be much more populated than it is.

As far as cultural differences within the host country, they have existed for like, ever. France is not only divided culturally from immigration, it has been a hodge podge of cultures for like the proverbial, ever. In the nineteenth century, a myriad of languages in the provinces were wiped out by the central republican powers.

France is an interesting case of liberal and conservative opponents in a constant tug of war to establish their respective vision of order and progress in very extreme shifts of power.


Modern Ireland's success is the result of affirming policies that would propel the country out of the religious, and provincial spheres and into international relevance. The increase of in-migration from zero to the tens of thousands has certainly had a copy paste aspect to it in terms of the anglospheric bias of multicultural environments. It has for the most part given Ireland a competitive advantage with British cities in offering diversity, as opposed to non diversity, which in my view, was untenable in the long run. The Irish in my view crave diversity, and the pull to other shores will remain, but the increased diversity can help the country's vibrancy.

Kaybaykwah

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

France is not only divided culturally from immigration, it has been a hodge podge of cultures for like the proverbial, ever.

Is this not an argument against multiculturalism?
It's only the 50s-60s France started the multiculturalism.

French cities have lost a lot of their unique provincial identity - culture. Now theyre becoming copies of each other.
Rural France still retains some semblance of their identity.

RobbieTheRobber

TomTomTim wrote: »

Not all "discussion" is equal. There are very few pro immigration posters who post in good faith. The vast majority of their posts, surround the attempt to reach the same conclusion time and time again, a conclusion that always concludes in some form of "exposing bigotry" or "racism". That's not debate. Even if every poster here was a Hitler loving racist, the onus should still be on the other side to argue against their points soundly, and not look to label alone. The moral character of individuals has little to do with the quality of their arguments. I could be the worst human in the world, with the soundest reason in the world.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd honestly believe the best course of action would be to chat about it and ask them why they came to that conclusion and debate their reasoning.

Shouting other opinions down without being able to tackle the crux of their beliefs is not productive.

In your hypothetical scenario, it doesn't allow for any nuance, so yes it would be right to call out someone advocating for extermination of a group of people as being racist. Thankfully, that is very rarely how conversations go.

Tut tut Dunne, not my hypothetical scenario!
TomTomTim's hypothetical scenario.

gw80

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

I still think immigration to Ireland has been beneficial. It makes the country more varied and open to the world. The Irish when I lived there seemed pretty attuned to cosmopolitan ideals, but the lack of friction with outsiders was the only missing piece of the equation. If we are going to dismiss the café slash restaurant culture that happened since the nineties, we might as well do the same for the Irish dance and other stuff in the countries of the diaspora.

I don't think the capacity for in migration is unlimited. Ireland is not Canada, which, if not obvious to all, should be much more populated than it is.

As far as cultural differences within the host country, they have existed for like, ever. France is not only divided culturally from immigration, it has been a hodge podge of cultures for like the proverbial, ever. In the nineteenth century, a myriad of languages in the provinces were wiped out by the central republican powers.

France is an interesting case of liberal and conservative opponents in a constant tug of war to establish their respective vision of order and progress in very extreme shifts of power.


Modern Ireland's success is the result of affirming policies that would propel the country out of the religious, and provincial spheres and into international relevance. The increase of in-migration from zero to the tens of thousands has certainly had a copy paste aspect to it in terms of the anglospheric bias of multicultural environments. It has for the most part given Ireland a competitive advantage with British cities in offering diversity, as opposed to non diversity, which in my view, was untenable in the long run. The Irish in my view crave diversity, and the pull to other shores will remain, but the increased diversity can help the country's vibrancy.

"Varied and open to the world" what does that even mean?, and what are the benefits from it.

Madeleine Birchfield

It is probably easier to assimilate immigrants into Irish culture and society than it is to assimilate recalcitrant Ulster unionists, with their stubborn British identity, Orange Orders, 12 July bonfires, fleg burnings, and paramilitary organisations, into Irish culture and society.

Kaybaykwah

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Is this not an argument against multiculturalism?
It's only the 50s-60s France started the multiculturalism.

French cities have lost a lot of their unique provincial identity - culture. Now theyre becoming copies of each other.
Rural France still retains some semblance of their identity.

Yes, if I had that motive, I could probably argue against multi on that aspect, but I don't. The French have an essentially republican, assimilationist policy toward immigration. Heck, up until 1993, it was a hard task for any immigrant to give their child a non-European sounding First name, the government had since the time of Napoleon imposed francization of foreigners' children on its soil.

Kaybaykwah

Kaybaykwah wrote:

France is not only divided culturally from immigration, it has been a hodge podge of cultures for like the proverbial, ever.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Is this not an argument against multiculturalism?
It's only the 50s-60s France started the multiculturalism.

French cities have lost a lot of their unique provincial identity - culture. Now theyre becoming copies of each other.
Rural France still retains some semblance of their identity.

It's the approach to multiculturalism by including similar cultural groups as evidence of it's success, as opposed to only considering foreign/alien cultures. Since most of the arguments here on this thread against multiculturalism, have no problem with Europeans/westerners living in Ireland or such.

France has long been rather divided along cultural lines. It's not that long ago since Burgundy was a substantial nation in it's own right, the same for Brittany, or when Normandy was a mix of French and English cultural groups. Parts of France have held very close allegiances to former states or Duchy boundaries, rather than to the idea of "France". Although, the French do tend to have strong notions about their nationalism, in being French.

The same can be said about most of Europe. Germany consisted of over twenty different states at one point, all with their own unique although similar cultural backgrounds and histories. (The Paradox games are a great way to learn about them btw)

It's a way of confusing the topic in question. Sure, we've always had multiculturalism, so what's so bad about it now? The logic applied seeks to ignore/dismiss the conflict with vastly different cultures, like that of the M.East or Africa. Even though, when you actually consider culture in Europe, most of them were tied together with tight bonds of marriage, and cultural exchange either through the Hapsburgs, or through the imitation of French or even Russian culture, as a sign of power/superiority. There were connections between the various cultural groups in Europe, built up through warfare, politics, intermarriage, and religion... which is lacking when it comes to non-European cultures coming here now. And what happened in the past with foreign cultures beyond European? Conquest and indoctrination.. by everyone involved, whether that was the Europeans, or the foreign cultural group

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Tut tut Dunne, not my hypothetical scenario!
TomTomTim's hypothetical scenario.

Still nothing resembling a conversation from you though.

Ok

Kaybaykwah

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the approach to multiculturalism by including similar cultural groups as evidence of it's success, as opposed to only considering foreign/alien cultures. Since most of the arguments here on this thread against multiculturalism, have no problem with Europeans/westerners living in Ireland or such.

France has long been rather divided along cultural lines. It's not that long ago since Burgundy was a substantial nation in it's own right, the same for Brittany, or when Normandy was a mix of French and English cultural groups. Parts of France have held very close allegiances to former states or Duchy boundaries, rather than to the idea of "France". Although, the French do tend to have strong notions about their nationalism, in being French.

The same can be said about most of Europe. Germany consisted of over twenty different states at one point, all with their own unique although similar cultural backgrounds and histories. (The Paradox games are a great way to learn about them btw)

It's a way of confusing the topic in question. Sure, we've always had multiculturalism, so what's so bad about it now? The logic applied seeks to ignore/dismiss the conflict with vastly different cultures, like that of the M.East or Africa. Even though, when you actually consider culture in Europe, most of them were tied together with tight bonds of marriage, and cultural exchange either through the Hapsburgs, or through the imitation of French or even Russian culture, as a sign of power/superiority. There were connections between the various cultural groups in Europe, built up through warfare, politics, intermarriage, and religion... which is lacking when it comes to non-European cultures coming here now.

Yes, here we enter the human element, whereby no amount of goodwill or sustained strategic partnerships can fend off the plundering of Nations by others. Europe, once considered the vast repository of culture, the bulwark
set to push back the ill effects of the uncivilized, sucked most of its resources on self destruction for two world wars.


European lumimary Nations didn't need to import problematic elements from other continents to wreak havoc on themselves.

Kaybaykwah

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Yes, here we enter the human element, whereby no amount of goodwill or sustained strategic partnerships can fend off the plundering of Nations by others.

It's worked for hundreds of years by many civilisations in the past, usually failing due to internal change (or lack thereof). All systems fail or become corrupt over time.

Europe, once considered the vast repository of culture, the bulwark
set to push back the ill effects of the uncivilized, sucked most of its resources on self destruction for two world wars.

And still remains one of the strongest repositories of culture and other elements. I get the feeling that you haven't traveled much, and seen/heard firsthand how other nationalities view Europe.. it's certainly not as a self-destructive continent.

European lumimary Nations didn't need to import problematic elements from other continents to wreak havoc on themselves.

So what? No. Seriously. The Qing Dynasty was failing long before the Europeans and Americans came along. The same for the Japanese Shogunate. Or any of the great civilisations throughout history. That's humanity. Everything that is built, falls eventually. Sometimes from external threats, but usually, the groundwork was laid long beforehand by various internal problems.

So, what's your point? As far as I can see, you're just shooting blindly into the dark and hoping you'll hit something interesting.

In any case, I still haven't seen anything from you which deals with the criticism directed towards multiculturalism on this thread, or the questions that Wibbs posted up earlier.

RobbieTheRobber

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Still nothing resembling a conversation from you though.

Ok

WTF does this mean?

Dunne a conversation is a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.

How would you expect me to produce a conversation on my own?

Kaybaykwah

Deleted User wrote: »

It's worked for hundreds of years by many civilisations in the past, usually failing due to internal change (or lack thereof). All systems fail or become corrupt over time.



And still remains one of the strongest repositories of culture and other elements. I get the feeling that you haven't traveled much, and seen/heard firsthand how other nationalities view Europe.. it's certainly not as a self-destructive continent.



So what? No. Seriously. The Qing Dynasty was failing long before the Europeans and Americans came along. The same for the Japanese Shogunate. Or any of the great civilisations throughout history. That's humanity. Everything that is built, falls eventually. Sometimes from external threats, but usually, the groundwork was laid long beforehand by various internal problems.

So, what's your point? As far as I can see, you're just shooting blindly into the dark and hoping you'll hit something interesting.

In any case, I still haven't seen anything from you which deals with the criticism directed towards multiculturalism on this thread, or the questions that Wibbs posted up earlier.

Everything I said answers those questions to a degree. I don't get tbis fastidiousness over details. People aren't sheep, and I entertain the thought that maybe, some of us can get along, regardless of the country of our birth, our mother tongue and other matters, that to some are dismissed as divisive. I am convinced that Ireland is a better place than it was 40 years ago because the Irish, whatever their origin, are better able to withstand hardships, more nimble and wealthier.

RobbieTheRobber

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

WTF does this mean?

Dunne a conversation is a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.

How would you expect me to produce a conversation on my own?

For clarity, what I meant was you are not engaging in a normal discourse and are avoiding answering questions posed to you.

You know this though.

RobbieTheRobber

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For clarity, what I meant was you are not engaging in a normal discourse and are avoiding answering questions posed to you.

You know this though.

More ad hominems.
Is insulting me normal discourse dunne, present quotes of me ignoring questions or stop insulting me.

RobbieTheRobber

What are the advantages of a multicultural state,
in particular where in concerns movements of peoples
and
cultures that differ more obviously to the native cultures?

I'm not really sure what you're asking here wibbs but from your other posts to me it is obvious you don't want to engage in a back and forward discussion. So I will answer the question presented.

What are the advantages of a multicultural state.

By being a multicultural state, the primary advantage granted is that the state is open to people of other cultures coming to live and work there.
So surely this would be advantageous in assisting the state as being seen as attractive to immigrants with particular skills the state is lacking.
In the case of Ireland I believe this is particularly the case with medical professionals.


I'm not understanding the rest of the question. What do you mean with particular regard to movement of people. Surely a multicultural state that is open to people of other cultures coming to live and work would be open to the movement of people. Although as this is hypothetical and not being asked about a specific country we can't answer that as maybe your hypothetical country doesn't allow freedom to leave after they move to the multicultural state.

As for the last part again I'm not sure what you mean by differ to the native population. Differ in what way primary language, skin colour, religion?
I mean they differ very obviously from the native population by virtue of the fact they are from another place.
I see no major disadvantages or advantages just because a person is different. The devil would be in the detail of the difference.

For example if the difference is language and the imported members of the State do not speak the same language as the host, then this can present issues with integration due to issues around communication only if they do not speak the the same language as the host state in addition to their own language.
If it is skin colour I see no advantage or disadvantage.

You will never give an answer that Wibbs is happy with, because he dismisses any positives that people have. He has dismissed the fact that people like having different cultures in their locality, because he doesn't see any positives in that. Food, music, fashion, different languages and traditions, brought from different cultures? Not important, therefore they don't count.
They are not important, in his mind, therefore cannot be a positive.
Thankfully most people don't feel like that.

Wibbs

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I'm not really sure what you're asking here wibbs but from your other posts to me it is obvious you don't want to engage in a back and forward discussion. So I will answer the question presented.

Finally... Though leading with confusion over the question primed for more deflection.

What are the advantages of a multicultural state.

By being a multicultural state, the primary advantage granted is that the state is open to people of other cultures coming to live and work there.
So surely this would be advantageous in assisting the state as being seen as attractive to immigrants with particular skills the state is lacking.
In the case of Ireland I believe this is particularly the case with medical professionals.

The "doctors and engineers" gambit. OK there is merit to this alright and good luck in finding anyone on this thread disagreeing with it in broad terms(though it can be argued why considering the free movemet within the EU and areas within the EU of high unemployment, why there wasn't the drive to headhunt internally). We also see similar in areas like IT. However these are people that were headhunted from overseas and came to Ireland legally and with qualifications and jobs waiting. Though we had an extra EU influx because of our birthright loophole since closed, few of whom were "doctors and engineers" and the vast majority of whom today are rejected for entry, the rest of Europe had and continues to see an influx from outside the EU who most certainly weren't and aren't in the vast majority of cases. Qualified people with desirable skills pretty much by definition don't need to traipse across borders on foot or by boat.

As for the last part again I'm not sure what you mean by differ to the native population. Differ in what way primary language, skin colour, religion?
I mean they differ very obviously from the native population by virtue of the fact they are from another place.
I see no major disadvantages or advantages just because a person is different. The devil would be in the detail of the difference.

For example if the difference is language and the imported members of the State do not speak the same language as the host, then this can present issues with integration due to issues around communication only if they do not speak the the same language as the host state in addition to their own language.
If it is skin colour I see no advantage or disadvantage.

Well we could go down the road of cultural incompatibilities and the problems that causes in both the host nation and in the imported cultures, but then we'd be bound up in knots around "cultural relativism" and would get nowhere. You've already been pointed to a mainstream government owned TV station's piece on how a suburb of Paris has become threatening to native French "outsiders" and women, French and non French, but you dismissed that. As usual. As for skin colour being somehow neutral, maybe try asking a Black person in White western Europe about that.

bubblypop wrote: »

You will never give an answer that Wibbs is happy with, because he dismisses any positives that people have. He has dismissed the fact that people like having different cultures in their locality, because he doesn't see any positives in that. Food, music, fashion, different languages and traditions, brought from different cultures? Not important, therefore they don't count.
They are not important, in his mind, therefore cannot be a positive.
Thankfully most people don't feel like that.

And exoticism rears its head, yet again. That and the "nothing to see here" angle.

As for answers sought. When I posed this question: Is 2020's Irish culture objectively better for more people than 1940's Irish culture, when being Gay was illegal and a "sin", where women had fewer rights, no divorce, no SSM, no abortion rights? Yes or no.

If yes then you would judge 1940's Irish culture as being lesser, inferior even and 2020's Irish culture as being superior. So where does your cultural relativism come into play? How does "race" come into it.

Your "answer" avoided the point like the plague. You couldn't bring yourself to admit that by the metrics listed Ireland is objectively a superior culture for more people today than it was back then. And it has precisely nada to do with "race". Instead you came back with some oddball avoidance tactic that perhaps 1940's Irish people wouldn't agree their culture was inferior, while they were throwing "unmarried mothers" into homes, marital rape, backstreet abortions and Gay people living in fear. Of course if you did admit even a little that 1940's Irish culture had its problems and 2020's Irish culture is the better for addressing them, that would put your cultural relativism to bed and would mean more difficult questions about cultures today would come into play.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

And exoticism rears its head, yet again. That and the "nothing to see here" angle.

As for answers sought. When I posed this question: Is 2020's Irish culture objectively better for more people than 1940's Irish culture, when being Gay was illegal and a "sin", where women had fewer rights, no divorce, no SSM, no abortion rights? Yes or no.

If yes then you would judge 1940's Irish culture as being lesser, inferior even and 2020's Irish culture as being superior. So where does your cultural relativism come into play? How does "race" come into it.

Your "answer" avoided the point like the plague. You couldn't bring yourself to admit that by the metrics listed Ireland is objectively a superior culture for more people today than it was back then. And it has precisely nada to do with "race". Instead you came back with some oddball avoidance tactic that perhaps 1940's Irish people wouldn't agree their culture was inferior, while they were throwing "unmarried mothers" into homes, marital rape, backstreet abortions and Gay people living in fear. Of course if you did admit even a little that 1940's Irish culture had its problems and 2020's Irish culture is the better for addressing them, that would put your cultural relativism to bed and would mean more difficult questions about cultures today would come into play.

Making things up again Wibbs, I'm getting used to this.
I don't believe we have a superior culture now, to that of 1940s. I do believe that Ireland now, for most people, is a better place to live then Ireland of the 40s.
It doesn't have anything to do with our culture being different to theirs, because I don't believe that those things you listed were part of the culture of Ireland, they are not Irish culture.
They were part of the society, because of the hold the Catholic church had here, but they are not Irish culture.

RobbieTheRobber

Wibbs wrote: »

Finally... Though leading with confusion over the question primed for more deflection.
The "doctors and engineers" gambit. OK there is merit to this alright and good luck in finding anyone on this thread disagreeing with it in broad terms(though it can be argued why considering the free movemet within the EU and areas within the EU of high unemployment, why there wasn't the drive to headhunt internally). We also see similar in areas like IT. However these are people that were headhunted from overseas and came to Ireland legally and with qualifications and jobs waiting. Though we had an extra EU influx because of our birthright loophole since closed, few of whom were "doctors and engineers" and the vast majority of whom today are rejected for entry, the rest of Europe had and continues to see an influx from outside the EU who most certainly weren't and aren't in the vast majority of cases. Qualified people with desirable skills pretty much by definition don't need to traipse across borders on foot or by boat.

Finally! :D:D:D
I mean you have taken longer to reply to a yes or no question of mine but alright wibbs clearly no intention to try and annoy in your posting style towards me.

So on this thread you have decried that there are no positives to multiculturalism. Now In answer to your question I present one and not one from your prescribed list of banned positives of multiculturalism ( I notice bubblypop is replying to you on that issue). But now you deflect and say oh everyone knows that one. So there is positives right?

Multiculturalism is not a states immigration policy, it is not racism in that state it not is HR practises it is;

Definition(s)
A policy that endorses the principle of cultural diversity and supports the right of different cultural and ethnic groups to retain distinctive cultural identities ensuring their equitable access to society, encompassing constitutional principles and commonly shared values prevailing in the society.

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/glossary_search/multiculturalism_en

Wibbs wrote: »

Well we could go down the road of cultural incompatibilities and the problems that causes in both the host nation and in the imported cultures, but then we'd be bound up in knots around "cultural relativism" and would get nowhere. You've already been pointed to a mainstream government owned TV station's piece on how a suburb of Paris has become threatening to native French "outsiders" and women, French and non French, but you dismissed that. As usual. As for skin colour being somehow neutral, maybe try asking a Black person in White western Europe about that.

Is racism a constituent part of multiculturalism?
I must have missed that in your definition of multiculturalism.

Of for secular Jesus's sake, what is so important in your France 24 YouTube video. What is the big gotcha point I'm not seeing in this video.

Is it that France is so bad with the foreigners that the national racist party of France won no districts in their recent elections?
There is such disapproval by French citizens of multicultural politic that they, what just accepted the status quo in their most recent visit to the polls?

A single video on a news channel is not in itself much evidence of anything.

Gearoid88

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9720253/amp/Manhunt-four-men-kidnap-pregnant-woman-25-rape-hours-long-ordeal-Greece.html

Pregnant woman in Greece raped by Afghan, then seeks help from gang of Pakistanis who take turns raping her.

"Undocumented migrants"

Wibbs

bubblypop wrote: »

Making things up again Wibbs, I'm getting used to this.

Please point out where I am making things up. You're fond of levelling that accusation, though you're not alone in this. It seems to be one of the standard ripostes of the multiculturalist side of the debate. I can(and have) directly quoted what you posted as a response to my question. Here it is again:

bubblypop wrote: »

This is the same thing as judging other cultures. You are judging 1940s Ireland by 2020s standards. You believe culture now to be superior. Perhaps the people living then would not agree.

Just because people have personal preferences to the culture they wish to live in, that does not make them superior.
I would not wish to live in an African tribe, for example, that type of life and culture does not interest me and I would not like to live like that. Does that make their culture inferior? No, it just wouldn't suit me.

I don't believe we have a superior culture now, to that of 1940s. I do believe that Ireland now, for most people, is a better place to live then Ireland of the 40s.
It doesn't have anything to do with our culture being different to theirs, because I don't believe that those things you listed were part of the culture of Ireland, they are not Irish culture.
They were part of the society, because of the hold the Catholic church had here, but they are not Irish culture.

That's a handy get out of gaol free clause you have there. It wasn't really Irish culture. Then what pray tell was it? You do realise society is in large part culture? Society definition:an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
[emphasis mine]

Culture definition linky: The customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (such as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time.

You noted the Catholic Church influence. Religion is a part of culture and can be a large part depending on the culture in question. For most of human history it was the defining part of culture. Christianity and Catholicism in particular has had for good and ill a huge cultural influence over the vast majority of the history of Ireland and her people since the early medieval. That in turn influenced our "customary beliefs and social forms". It was particularly in play after the British left and the Vatican was welcomed in. And it was welcomed in a big way and by most of the population. This informed Irish cultural attitudes on the place of women, Gays, sexual freedoms, Choice and so on. It couldn't be any more of our culture if it tried. Never mind that one of the single biggest reason for progressive changes in Irish law, attitudes and culture came along directly in tandem with the waning influence of the same church. Those changes simply couldn't have happened in the 1940's, Irish culture would struggle to comprehend such changes, never mind enact them.

That you would dismiss that so readily and claim it wasn't Irish culture frankly beggars belief. Saying Catholicism wasn't a huge part and influence on Irish culture would be akin to saying Islam isn't a huge part and influence on Saudi Arabian culture. AKA a complete nonsense.

I believe that the church had a stronghold on this country. They took over when the Brits left, courtesy of invitation by some extreme religious members of government.
People didn't have the choice.
The church didn't just give up its hold on Irish society, people eventually fought back after being on the receiving end of systematic abuse and being 'ruled' by the church.

'Never mind that one of the single biggest reason for progressive changes in Irish law, attitudes and culture came along directly in tandem with the waning influence of the same church.'
And why did the influence of the church wane? Because people forced it.

RobbieTheRobber

Wibbs wrote: »

That you would dismiss that so readily and claim it wasn't Irish culture frankly beggars belief. Saying Catholicism wasn't a huge part and influence on Irish culture would be akin to saying Islam isn't a huge part and influence on Saudi Arabian culture. AKA a complete nonsense.

Indeed and how long ago since that catholic influence began to wane in Ireland?
Would you say the Ireland of today is still heavily influenced by Catholicism?

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

And why did the influence of the church wane? Because people forced it.

That's usually how culture changes.

Wibbs

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Finally! :D:D:D
I mean you have taken longer to reply to a yes or no question of mine but alright wibbs clearly no intention to try and annoy in your posting style towards me.

I do wish some would climb down from their self erected crosses.

So on this thread you have decried that there are no positives to multiculturalism. Now In answer to your question I present one and not one from your prescribed list of banned positives of multiculturalism ( I notice bubblypop is replying to you on that issue). But now you deflect and say oh everyone knows that one. So there is positives right?

The "migrants are all doctors and engineers" is a meme on both sides of this. However the number of such people coming here and across Europe are a tiny number and percentage of non EU migration. One does not find a "Little Kabul" or "Little Lagos" or whatever made up by their members. And is it wholly a positive? That's up for debate too. EG why can we produce doctors say in large enough numbers, but many of whom leave for other western nations like Australia because wages and working conditions are better? Do doctors coming from outside Europe become part of a "brain drain" in their own nations? How many stay in their new countries and for how long and how many return back to their home countries? It's not quite so simple.

Multiculturalism is not a states immigration policy, it is not racism in that state it not is HR practises it is;

I have zero idea what you're trying to say here or what point you're trying to make.

Is racism a constituent part of multiculturalism?
I must have missed that in your definition of multiculturalism.

Actually I have repeatedly stated that racism is a constituent part and one of the major disadvantages of multiculturalism. It's pretty much a given and from both the hosts and the incoming people. The risk of that increases by how different in "race" and culture the incoming people are. IE all things being equal a White Polish person living in Ireland will face less of it than a Black Ugandan. This is even more stark across the generations. Those most like the native population fit in more and fit in more quickly over time. This cane be observed anywhere one looks in any multicultural nation you care to mention. Again point out one such nation where those of African origin are not as likely to be on the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder compared to those of native or European origin.

Is it that France is so bad with the foreigners that the national racist party of France won no districts in their recent elections?
There is such disapproval by French citizens of multicultural politic that they, what just accepted the status quo in their most recent visit to the polls?

A single video on a news channel is not in itself much evidence of anything.

The national racist party of France got more votes than the left party. Nearly double and the overall winner was a centre right party. Hardly a resounding victory for the left or multiculturalism. In Ireland that has become so much more progressive over the last 25 years, who voted in Choice, SSM, the biggest landslide vote was shutting down the birthright loophole. And that was at the time when we were high on the celtic tiger.

RobbieTheRobber

Wibbs wrote: »

I do wish some would climb down from their self erected crosses.

The "migrants are all doctors and engineers" is a meme on both sides of this. However the number of such people coming here and across Europe are a tiny number and percentage of non EU migration. One does not find a "Little Kabul" or "Little Lagos" or whatever made up by their members. And is it wholly a positive? That's up for debate too. EG why can we produce doctors say in large enough numbers, but many of whom leave for other western nations like Australia because wages and working conditions are better? Do doctors coming from outside Europe become part of a "brain drain" in their own nations? How many stay in their new countries and for how long and how many return back to their home countries? It's not quite so simple.

I have zero idea what you're trying to say here or what point you're trying to make.

Actually I have repeatedly stated that racism is a constituent part and one of the major disadvantages of multiculturalism. It's pretty much a given and from both the hosts and the incoming people. The risk of that increases by how different in "race" and culture the incoming people are. IE all things being equal a White Polish person living in Ireland will face less of it than a Black Ugandan. This is even more stark across the generations. Those most like the native population fit in more and fit in more quickly over time. This cane be observed anywhere one looks in any multicultural nation you care to mention. Again point out one such nation where those of African origin are not as likely to be on the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder compared to those of native or European origin.

The national racist party of France got more votes than the left party. Nearly double and the overall winner was a centre right party. Hardly a resounding victory for the left or multiculturalism. In Ireland that has become so much more progressive over the last 25 years, who voted in Choice, SSM, the biggest landslide vote was shutting down the birthright loophole. And that was at the time when we were high on the celtic tiger.

Back to this mix and matching of definitions of what multiculturalism is and isn't. I asked you to agree a definition earlier in the thread in advance of answering the question and you were dismissive.

Now you say racism is part of multiculturalism really can you provide me a single source other than yourself than says racism is a constituent part of multiculturalism?

Then you go for the referendum rehash. This is not multiculturalism. The impact of the original amendment might be felt in that Irish society became more multicultural as a result but the referendum and resulting change is not a part of multiculturalism.
I can be pro the amendment made in 2004 and pro multiculturalism and in support of controlled immigration into the state.

Multiculturalism is not restricted to open borders and can exist in states with controlled immigration. Is Australia not a multicultural society?

Culture
Australian culture is as broad and varied as the country's landscape. Australia is multicultural and multiracial and this is reflected in the country's food, lifestyle and cultural practices and experience.

Australia has an important heritage from its indigenous people, which plays a defining role in the cultural landscape.

This diversity of influences creates a cultural environment in Australia that is lively, energised, innovative and outward looking.

https://info.australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country