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

Kivaro

Hamachi wrote: »

How does the alleged egocentricity of another poster support the argument that multiculturalism is the right path forward for Ireland?

It doesn't.
But it is the modus operandi of people who cannot adequately support their side of the debate.

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

English is our native language? Careful there... Did you really just refer to our violent history as "multiculturalism?" You're not worth the time to debate, that's insane.

Well I hate to break it you and this has come up more than once on this thread where a few people have stated that the history of humanity is one of multiculturalism, while neglecting to mention, or being ignorant of the fact that in the vast majority of cases it was on the back of conquest and invasion.

These tangents are all yours as you are the one bringing them up from a place of entitled ego.

You were the one who brought up the Irish language and its relationship to the Irish people and their native status. You were the one who went well off piste bringing up communion money and fashion parades, as some sort of counter to other religions and their cultures(who do the same thing anyway). Granted I got dragged along with you so mea culpa there.

Arthur Daley

There are clever people from Nigeria. There are fast runners from Nigeria. Stop press. Who knew.

They could just as easily have created the app or run the race in Nigeria. Nigeria is a resource rich place.

Tokyo

Stateofyou wrote: »

This guy fancies himself as the keeper of Truths (even trademarks it) and deliberately throws in more complicated words to try and appear smarter than you are and you don't think you're coming from a place of ego at all. :rolleyes::pac:

Mod: Learn how to play nice with others. Take two days off to reconsider your posting style and learn how to not personalise things.

Marcos

Hamachi wrote: »

This thread has deviated so wildly off course that it’s becoming ridiculous.

Is it possible to argue the merits and de-merits of the multicultural model for Ireland and other European societies, without launching personal attacks on another poster?

This level of spite and vitriol isn’t really conducive to an exchange of ideas..

That's if you believe certain parties actually want an honest exchange of ideas, to, you know, hammer out ideas and find some common ground in order to find a workable solution to any possible problems.

Or maybe, they zealously preach their sermons and expect everyone else immediately sees the truth of their arguments that they immediately publicly seek forgiveness and drop their previously "problematic" arguments and fall into line. It's easy to imagine this kind of thinking being prevalent in Dev's ultra Catholic Ireland of the 30's and 40's. The only difference is their gospel is not Catholic now. Indeed they may even be insulted at such a comparison Or they could even be representing some vested interests in this argument, look at the huge budgets NGOs have to promote immigration and multiculturalism now. Do you think that they won't fight to keep their gravy train going? When was the last time you heard of any NGO saying they have enough and giving money back?

But if others consist with their "problematic" arguments i.e. ones that they can't answer then dragging discussions wildly off course, or attacking posters who make arguments they can't answer. Are they bad actors in this scenario? Well, people can make up their own minds.

MontgomeryClift

This thread in a nutshell: Someone new enters and tries to argue that we could all live happily together if it wasn't for the vile racists stirring up hate. Wibbs and a few regulars then explain how it's not that simple. They give a potted history of multiculturalism, inter-group conflict, and basically explain how the world works, and the new person goes away.

Eric Cartman

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

This thread in a nutshell: Someone new enters and tries to argue that we could all live happily together if it wasn't for the vile racists stirring up hate. Wibbs and a few regulars then explain how it's not that simple. They give a potted history of multiculturalism, inter-group conflict, and basically explain how the world works, and the new person goes away.

You forgot one part before go away... they male an empassioned post about this forum being taken iver by the ‘alt right’ or blatant racism being posted, when challeneged on pointing out the racism then they leave.

And do ye know what , If we can get one idealistic college student to eventually go ‘do ye know what there isnt an upside to multiculturalism, in going to stop voting for those perpetuating this danger’ its all worth it.

briany

There has to be something more to governments letting in a load of potentially bogus asylum claims than wanting the world to hold hands and sing kumbaya. If a government is looking to slash its budget, it seems like slashing the provisions for asylum seekers would be an easy place to start. And if this thread is reflective of the broad view in Ireland, then it would be an electoral boost as well.

But those making asylum seekers a real part of their manifesto are probably more toward the National Party end of things, i.e. a bunch of chancers looking to capitalise on fear in a narrow range of issues.

Cordell

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

This thread in a nutshell: Someone new enters and tries to argue that we could all live happily together apart if it wasn't for the vile racists stirring up hate.

There, fyp. We can live together only if we share the same values, and multiculturalism implies that this is not a requirement. With that, we can only coexist, but not live together.

Dyr

Arthur Daley wrote: »

There are clever people from Nigeria. There are fast runners from Nigeria. Stop press. Who knew.

They could just as easily have created the app or run the race in Nigeria. Nigeria is a resource rich place.

Nigerians who legally emigrate to the states do very well for themselves.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

briany wrote: »

There has to be something more to governments letting in a load of potentially bogus asylum claims than wanting the world to hold hands and sing kumbaya. If a government is looking to slash its budget, it seems like slashing the provisions for asylum seekers would be an easy place to start. And if this thread is reflective of the broad view in Ireland, then it would be an electoral boost as well.

But those making asylum seekers a real part of their manifesto are probably more toward the National Party end of things, i.e. a bunch of chancers looking to capitalise on fear in a narrow range of issues.

I'd like to agree with you on this but any politician that comes out and speaks the truth on these bogus asylum seekers and our over generous welfare system for them will be labelled "alt right", "nazi" and have their career ruined before it starts by the media. Peter Casey would be a good example of this on his thoughts on travellers, for sure he did well in that election but for any new party/politician to come out and say those things is career suicide.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

This thread in a nutshell: Someone new enters and tries to argue that we could all live happily together if it wasn't for the vile racists stirring up hate. Wibbs and a few regulars then explain how it's not that simple. They give a potted history of multiculturalism, inter-group conflict, and basically explain how the world works, and the new person goes away.

In all fairness they're up against Wibbs who just destroys these people for fun.

Arthur Daley

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I'd like to agree with you on this but any politician that comes out and speaks the truth on these bogus asylum seekers and our over generous welfare system for them will be labelled "alt right", "nazi" and have their career ruined before it starts by the media. Peter Casey would be a good example of this on his thoughts on travellers, for sure he did well in that election but for any new party/politician to come out and say those things is career suicide.

How can it be career suicide if it's what the majority want to see? These looney left viewpoints are not new. Various socialists have stood on the platform of open borders, welfare for all for decades now. They poll nowhere.

We have such a breakdown in the democratic and political process that these people actually believe they now run the shop. The sad thing is that the casual majority of people are too easily convinced via a bombardment from RTE and Black Lives Matter etc that they are actually helpless to assert themselves.:(

Who keeps the lights on? Who pays the bills? That's where the power lies.

jmreire

Hunky Monster wrote: »

In all fairness they're up against Wibbs who just destroys these people for fun.

And rightly so.........I'd like to see a few of the pro -multiculturalists go and live in these Country's where we are getting our Asylum seekers from, and live the multicultural life there first before becoming a cheer leader for it here.

Hunky Monster

Hunky Monster wrote: »

In all fairness they're up against Wibbs who just destroys these people for fun.

I think that particular posters posts are just patronising rubbish.
Like just he is some kind of authority on everything & everyone else is wrong.
He's OK in other threads usually.

Wibbs

I thought my ears were burning...

bubblypop wrote: »

I think that particular posters posts are just patronising rubbish.
Like just he is some kind of authority on everything & everyone else is wrong.
He's OK in other threads usually.

The ones where you agree with me presumably.

Hey, if you want to argue the patronising rubbish raised and disprove anything anyone has been saying, nobody is stopping you, or anyone else for that matter and you've all the time in the world to do so. And like has been said by more than a few in this thread, if multiculturalism is such a given benefit for all concerned and self evidently the right way to go about things it should be fierce easy to do so. Though it seems it's not so easy at all and a lot easier to point out the negatives and with current and historical examples to boot. Never mind that when questions are put and appear not to be answerable, too often the argument, or lack thereof goes to the schoolyard level.

Actually tbh I've been surprised how vague and insubstantial the positives appear to be considering it has such seeming support among many for it. I did think I'd be more swayed than I have been. On other subjects I've been swayed, have even had a reverse of my starting position, but not in this case. If anything it's been reinforced.

dominatinMC

Wibbs wrote: »

I thought my ears were burning...

The ones where you agree with me presumably.

Hey, if you want to argue the patronising rubbish raised and disprove anything anyone has been saying, nobody is stopping you, or anyone else for that matter and you've all the time in the world to do so. And like has been said by more than a few in this thread, if multiculturalism is such a given benefit for all concerned and self evidently the right way to go about things it should be fierce easy to do so. Though it seems it's not so easy at all and a lot easier to point out the negatives and with current and historical examples to boot. Never mind that when questions are put and appear not to be answerable, too often the argument, or lack thereof goes to the schoolyard level.

Actually tbh I've been surprised how vague and insubstantial the positives appear to be considering it has such seeming support among many for it. I did think I'd be more swayed than I have been. On other subjects I've been swayed, have even had a reverse of my starting position, but not in this case. If anything it's been reinforced.

Support from a vocal minority I'd imagine. The middle ground don't really know what they're supporting, just following the status quo on Twitter, Instagram, etc.

Stateofyou

Hunky Monster wrote: »

In all fairness they're up against Wibbs who just destroys these people for fun.

Who's destroyed? :pac: This is what schoolyard level actually looks like.

Wibbs

Bambi wrote: »

Nigerians who legally emigrate to the states do very well for themselves.

They do and quite a few do well here too. Medicine an obvious one here for all sorts of folks from all over the world, as a lot of our newly minted doctors are all too quick to leg it to Australia and the like. The legally part is the thing. I have no issue with legal migration. There are upsides to measured and small in number legal and skilled migration to a nation, but the modern credo of "multiculturalism" that essentially says it's all good no matter the source or the numbers involved, with a large side order of White European cultures alone are in such dire need of diversity and only of a certain kind and a denial of the obvious problems other nations face because of this politic are the problems I have with it.

briany

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I'd like to agree with you on this but any politician that comes out and speaks the truth on these bogus asylum seekers and our over generous welfare system for them will be labelled "alt right", "nazi" and have their career ruined before it starts by the media. Peter Casey would be a good example of this on his thoughts on travellers, for sure he did well in that election but for any new party/politician to come out and say those things is career suicide.

Peter Casey is a good example of what I mean - he was running for president of Ireland and going on about Travellers. He was getting some publicity because of his focus on a narrow range of issues. That's not to mention that the President of Ireland is supposed to be above day to day politics, and certainly should be above leveraging a prejudice. It's just not what that office is about.

Wibbs

dominatinMC wrote: »

Support from a vocal minority I'd imagine. The middle ground don't really know what they're supporting, just following the status quo on Twitter, Instagram, etc.

To be fair that's what most of us tend to do anyway on all sorts of societal matters and I'd be as guilty of that as anyone. Well unless it touches us directly it's generally out of sight out of mind and we prefer to hand over the thinking and doing to others.

In multiculturalism and certainly on the negative sides of it, for the most part it's largely so far bypassing suburban and rural middle Ireland, which would make up a fair percentage of the voting bloc. Even so when the vote for changing our constitution and closing the birth passport loophole was put to the people it passed with a large majority. And consider this it was a larger majority than the divorce, right to choose and same sex marriage votes. So it seems quite the percentage of Irish people have thought about it and didn't like it enough to vote to change it.

Ten of Swords

Stateofyou, banned from CA for ignoring 2 day threadban

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

There, fyp. We can live together only if we share the same values, and multiculturalism implies that this is not a requirement. With that, we can only coexist, but not live together.

Not exactly. If our values are respected then we can live together. The problem is that strong belief or pride in western culture/history has been promoted as a negative. The idea of white people being nationalistic, and proud of their heritage is associated with being right wing, and therefore, something to be pushed down hard. Naturally, when Black people are seen to be proud of their history/culture, that's perfectly acceptable.

The point is that nations where the native population has pride in their accomplishments, they'll be more accepting of other cultures, because there won't be any possibility of that host culture being diminished. When people accept that Western/European culture was highly successful, in comparison to others, then, migrants won't be constantly seeking to import their own values, because they themselves, will respect the success of western values. That was the case in the past.

The issue is that these days other people look at Western nations and see how divided we are, and it's easy for them to push for change. This need to be "fair" to everyone in every situation makes western nations weak to resist the agendas of those who wish to take advantage.

It's a shame, since I do believe that multiculturalism could work out fine, if there was the right environment in place, with careful planning to integrate migrants into that environment.

Japan is a good example, as is China. Both have strong dominant cultures, with a population who is intent on keeping that culture dominant. Elements of foreign culture is embraced, especially by the young, but the home grown culture remains the core of all values. I've lived in both countries, and out of all the countries I've been to, they've been the most stable from a social perspective. While racism does exist, it's obvious and mostly avoidable if people are aware... but then, every country I've ever been in, there exists a wide range of racism, although with the West, we are somehow expected to achieve an environment without it, even though, nowhere has actually managed it. There are so many expectations being assigned to western nations, that simply don't exist elsewhere, which is a fine target, but the way it's being sought is weakening our ability to deal with migrants and their importation of their own values which are often the opposite of ours.

Basically, western values need to be respected. By both ourselves and by migrants. That really should be contained within any contract/agreement made by any migrant on entry to Europe.

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

Not exactly. If our values are respected then we can live together. The problem is that strong belief or pride in western culture/history has been promoted as a negative. The idea of white people being nationalistic, and proud of their heritage is associated with being right wing, and therefore, something to be pushed down hard. Naturally, when Black people are seen to be proud of their history/culture, that's perfectly acceptable.

There's no such thing as a pan-western/white culture, IMO. There's Irish culture, British culture, Spanish culture, German culture and so on. People love to celebrate St. Patrick's day around the world because it's all about merriment, singing, dancing and drinking. Not much problem with that western culture. But St. George's day not so much because English history and culture features/celebrates a lot of going around the world, invading places, slaughtering the natives and taking all their stuff, which it turns out wasn't really cool.

In the same sense, there's not really such thing as a pan-African/black culture. There's Kenyan culture, Nigerian culture, Moroccan culture etc, and they don't necessarily feel some broad kinship among themselves. And in fact, it's questionable whether those even truly exist in some cases as African countries are borders drawn up by the European nations who carved up the continent among themselves and doesn't always reflect the distribution of the ethnic groups living there.

As for black people in the states, well there's certainly a black culture there, but the reason that it's called 'black culture' is because those people were whipped away from their homelands between 500 and 200 years ago, or so, and therefore being black/African and suffering the lasting effects of slavery and oppression was all they had to go on in establishing a sense of commonality, not knowing which part of Africa or which tribe their ancestors had emanated out of.

briany

briany wrote: »

There's no such thing as a pan-western/white culture, IMO. There's Irish culture, British culture, Spanish culture, German culture and so on.

There's two levels to culture. The first, which you point out regarding specific national/geographical cultures relating to festivals, food, etc. The second, though, is IMO more important because it defines the primary differences with cultures from other continents. The second cultural perspective relates to our values.

Due to shared history, the spread of Christianity, and everything that happened due to Christianity, forms certain foundational perspectives on values. The value of a human life. The need to protect children. The rights of women. The duty of society to provide for the weakest members of our society. and so on. (yes, it wasn't just Christianity that caused these things to arise.. it's just an example. We could talk of democracy, or liberalism, or any number of concepts/events which shaped the West)

These are perspectives that, very often, you won't find in non-western nations, or the importance of them will be of lesser importance. So, there is a broad culture that comes from western nations which is shared. It's why the league of Nation, or the UN came into being, and sought to provide Human rights across the world. That didn't come from Africa, or Asia, because the importance of these things only came about from western progresses in thought and social conscience.

People love to celebrate St. Patrick's day around the world because it's all about merriment, singing, dancing and drinking. Not much problem with that western culture. But St. George's day not so much because English history and culture features/celebrates a lot of going around the world, invading places, slaughtering the natives and taking all their stuff, which it turns out wasn't really cool.

And yet, a large percentage of the world speaks English, which remains one of the most important languages, and you'll find legal systems based very much on English law. You can find many aspects of British culture throughout the world...

In the same sense, there's not really such thing as a pan-African/black culture. There's Kenyan culture, Nigerian culture, Moroccan culture etc, and they don't necessarily feel some broad kinship among themselves. And in fact, it's questionable whether those even truly exist in some cases as African countries are borders drawn up by the European nations who carved up the continent among themselves and doesn't always reflect the distribution of the ethnic groups living there.

Probably because they've never formed into a unified bloc of any kind, to exert any influence beyond their own localized areas. Kinda hard to unify when your neighbors are attacking you, or you stop every dew decades to have a civil war or commit a genocide.

Still.. nice play on passing all responsibility away from Africans and placing it on European nations. You wouldn't happen to include the Persians, the Ottomans, Marmaluks, etc in all of that, considering they were involved in Africa before the Europeans managed anything. Hell, how about considering all the African tribal nations that were there, who were happily slaughtering/enslaving each other, before the Europeans arrived.

I don't get this rush to ignore the realities of history by placing all responsibility for African failures on Europeans, when there are far more factors at play.

As for black people in the states, well there's certainly a black culture there, but the reason that it's called 'black culture' is because those people were whipped away from their homelands between 500 and 200 years ago, or so, and therefore being black/African and suffering the lasting effects of slavery and oppression was all they had to go on in establishing a sense of commonality, not knowing which part of Africa or which tribe their ancestors had emanated out of.

There's African American culture, and then there's Black culture. They're not necessarily the same thing. And... I'm not jumping down that rabbit hole. America and American issues can stay in another thread. We have enough BLM, or related threads already.

2u2me

Wibbs wrote: »

I thought my ears were burning...

The ones where you agree with me presumably.

Hey, if you want to argue the patronising rubbish raised and disprove anything anyone has been saying, nobody is stopping you, or anyone else for that matter and you've all the time in the world to do so. And like has been said by more than a few in this thread, if multiculturalism is such a given benefit for all concerned and self evidently the right way to go about things it should be fierce easy to do so. Though it seems it's not so easy at all and a lot easier to point out the negatives and with current and historical examples to boot. Never mind that when questions are put and appear not to be answerable, too often the argument, or lack thereof goes to the schoolyard level.

Actually tbh I've been surprised how vague and insubstantial the positives appear to be considering it has such seeming support among many for it. I did think I'd be more swayed than I have been. On other subjects I've been swayed, have even had a reverse of my starting position, but not in this case. If anything it's been reinforced.

I'm another that usually love to read your posts in other threads, not so much in this one. I popped up early in the thread to dispute what I saw as rubbish with you and it ended in a very fruitless conversation.

We couldn't get past the definition of 'mix'. You set an impossible standard that no country that has ever mixed is now successful, when you don't apply the same standard to more monoculture socieities, they too have not worked in this impossible standard.

Another point of interest I think brought up(not by me but none the less I believe was a good point) was that we all would be interested in helping genuine asylum seekers, some people just extend this to mean economic migrants also even if they don't admit it. They also largely aren't of much value and as we see in Myanmar with the Rohingya it can turn around to bite you in the ass also.

I largely agree with you and others though about how disgusting this multicultural tag line is pushed by the wokes, how anyone who disagrees is a racist etc.. etc... we should be free to discuss it.

But the idea that people have never mixed successfully is laughable.

jmreire

briany wrote: »

Peter Casey is a good example of what I mean - he was running for president of Ireland and going on about Travellers. He was getting some publicity because of his focus on a narrow range of issues. That's not to mention that the President of Ireland is supposed to be above day to day politics, and certainly should be above leveraging a prejudice. It's just not what that office is about.

Very true Briany, nonetheless, more than 330'000 people voted for him and given the relative short time he had campaigning, that was a remarkable turnout. Had his campaign lasted longer, who know's how it would have ended? He got that kind of turnout because he was articulating what many people think, even at the expense of ignoring what a President should act and behave like. or the broader issue's.They were more interested in what he had to say about the Travelers.

Tell me how

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

This thread in a nutshell: Someone new enters and tries to argue that we could all live happily together if it wasn't for the vile racists stirring up hate. Wibbs and a few regulars then explain how it's not that simple. They give a potted history of multiculturalism, inter-group conflict, and basically explain how the world works, and the new person goes away.

Or, numerous different people come in and give examples of how multiculturalism has had largely positive impacts on many countries and then there is a back and forth where it becomes clear the arguments against are , 'we don't want to consider that type of engagement between different cultures' and we don't want to acknowledge that a lot of the issues which are blamed on different cultures are practised just as much by people born and raised in the country and after a while the poster decides to leave them with no interest in considering reality to look around at each other and say 'sure everyone agrees'.

Many involved in this probably think Peter Casey did win the Presidential election since that was the last time I saw such a mindset on a thread here which conflicted with reality.

weldoninhio

Stateofyou wrote: »

Calm down. You seem to be disproportionately triggered.
Point me to where you took a stand against it.

Why don’t you bring multiculturalism to Africa if it creates such a utopia?? Why hoard it for whitey in Europe?? I’ll chip in for a ticket to Lagos for you. I’m sure others would too.

Wibbs

2u2me wrote: »

I
We couldn't get past the definition of 'mix'. You set an impossible standard that no country that has ever mixed is now successful, when you don't apply the same standard to more monoculture socieities, they too have not worked in this impossible standard.

Not quite 2u, I have been quite happy to acknowledge no society is perfect, that more monocultural nations very much have their own issues, but that more multicultural nations quite simply have more added on top of existing problems and the more different the minority populations are to the majority the more problems occur and they're generational ones which seem to be pretty intractable.