United Ireland?

Pithythefool

We can barely, just about say "Christian" values, but that's on the downward trend.

Women and men, nope. Abortion, not a chance. Marriage, nil points. Political direction, nah. "nationalism", don't think so. Etc

Paddys day.....even that's creeping toward an international event.

GAA is good, think most people like it or not too bothered by it. Don't think theres many against it anyway.

Cup o' cha, definitely.

So many serious divisions across the country, and very little on the plus side.

So what can/do we all unite under anymore? Have we all become apathetic zombies belonging to micro-groups?

MilesMorales1

Your OP doesn't make any sense OP.

Pithythefool

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Your OP doesn't make any sense OP.

Maybe another way of saying "what IS Ireland?" these days...?

Bejubby

Yes clannish bastids

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Berserker

Pithythefool wrote: »

GAA is good, think most people like it or not too bothered by it. Don't think theres many against it anyway.

Really, plenty of people wouldn't be too keen on them. Ever heard of the 'Grab All Association'?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Pithythefool

Berserker wrote: »

Really, plenty of people wouldn't be too keen on them. Ever heard of the 'Grab All Association'?

Never heard that before! So maybe that's another to scratch from the list.

So what, universally speaking, do irish people unite under anymore?

I get this sense, from a lot of countries, not just here, that there is very little in the way of true national identity.

On the otherhand all I keep hearing about are divisions and one small group versus another another.

The more divided we are, the less power we have. Same with companies, they tend to group together and become larger in order to become more powerful. On the flipside, they want their customers to be as divided as possible as it robs them of their collective power to negotiate better terms for themselves. A power transfer.

Are we just being gobbled up via globalisation?

donegaLroad

Change the education system in the north to promote integration and harmony.

An alien invasion might help unite the 'Island of Ireland' if we had a common enemy who was threatening to end our existence.. Irish version of War of the World's.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Welcome to the new reality, where increased connectivity through social media is decreasing social connectivity and allowing micro groups to form and chat in echo chambers with little dissent.

Merry Christmas, OP.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

We can barely, just about say "Christian" values, but that's on the downward trend.

Women and men, nope. Abortion, not a chance. Marriage, nil points. Political direction, nah. "nationalism", don't think so. Etc

Paddys day.....even that's creeping toward an international event.

GAA is good, think most people like it or not too bothered by it. Don't think theres many against it anyway.

Cup o' cha, definitely.

So many serious divisions across the country, and very little on the plus side.

So what can/do we all unite under anymore? Have we all become apathetic zombies belonging to micro-groups?

No reason why you can't have a public holiday in only parts of a country - Germans do it all the time.

Now sure what you mean by "apathetic zombies belonging to micro-groups" - there's nothing apathetic or zombie- like about finding like-minded people who share your interests but not your nationality. One would even say it's a far greater ideal.

Pithythefool

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Welcome to the new reality, where increased connectivity through social media is decreasing social connectivity and allowing micro groups to form and chat in echo chambers with little dissent.

Merry Christmas, OP.

Sounds like bliss, everyone retreating to their own personal "country" of the bedroom....:rolleyes:

United we stand, divided we fall, I suppose. And another chestnut, if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for everything.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

donegaLroad wrote: »

Change the education system in the north to promote integration and harmony.

An alien invasion might help unite the 'Island of Ireland' if we had a common enemy who was threatening to end our existence.. Irish version of War of the World's.

Yeah, but you'd also have to change the education system in the south to drop the fetish-like idea of compulsory Irish.

Pithythefool

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No reason why you can't have a public holiday in only parts of a country - Germans do it all the time.

Now sure what you mean by "apathetic zombies belonging to micro-groups" - there's nothing apathetic or zombie- like about finding like-minded people who share your interests but not your nationality. One would even say it's a far greater ideal.

Well have a look at the last post I made below. It all sounds ideal, but while certain countries are succumbing to this ideal of non-nationality, there are other countries that are the complete opposite, ready to take full advantage of that apathy.

If you don't look after or care so much for your own "stuff", you can be guaranteed that somebody else will yoink it right out from underneath you!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

Well have a look at the last post I made below. It all sounds ideal, but while certain countries are succumbing to this ideal of non-nationality, there are other countries that are the complete opposite, ready to take full advantage of that apathy.

If you don't look after or care so much for your own "stuff", you can be guaranteed that somebody else will yoink it right out from underneath you!

If you mean this one, it doesn't answer my question.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Never heard that before! So maybe that's another to scratch from the list.

So what, universally speaking, do irish people unite under anymore?

I get this sense, from a lot of countries, not just here, that there is very little in the way of true national identity.

On the otherhand all I keep hearing about are divisions and one small group versus another another.

The more divided we are, the less power we have. Same with companies, they tend to group together and become larger in order to become more powerful. On the flipside, they want their customers to be as divided as possible as it robs them of their collective power to negotiate better terms for themselves. A power transfer.

Are we just being gobbled up via globalisation?

"Apathetic zombie-like" was the phrase you used. What is apathetic or zombie-like about uniting under an interest that is not nationality-defining?

Or, to put it another way, the art I create and the ideas I have and share with other artists from other nationalities are passionate, not apathetic; and energetic and inspirational, not zombie-like. And they are far more engaging and fulfilling than anything than a simple word on a passport.

If anything, a nationality, to me, is a stiffling zombie-like apathy. I am not a number and I am not a nationality!

diomed

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Your OP doesn't make any sense OP.

It is rap.

10000maniacs

Up to 1:00 today we were heading for a united Ireland. But the DUP have since sunk that.
How did Theresa May think the DUP were ever going to go with single market and customs union rules?

Pithythefool

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you mean this one, it doesn't answer my question.



"Apathetic zombie-like" was the phrase you used. What is apathetic or zombie-like about uniting under an interest that is not nationality-defining?

Or, to put it another way, the art I create and the ideas I have and share with other artists from other nationalities are passionate, not apathetic; and energetic and inspirational, not zombie-like. And they are far more engaging and fulfilling than anything than a simple word on a passport.

If anything, a nationality, to me, is a stiffling zombie-like apathy. I am not a number and I am not a nationality!

No, it was a different post.

Anyway, what I find zombie-like is disregarding your own home and its traditions and way of life etc, in exchange for things that are not OF your own home.

Let me put it in an analogy. There are 10 people living in a village, all with an equal share of everything, their own little hut, own little job, own little income.....everything they need, all equally divided.

One day, 5 of them decide "hey, we don't need to really own all this stuff, sure we can share between all of us. It'll be great, you can take food from me when you need it, I'll take food from you when you need it. Fantastic".

The problem with this idealism is that the 5 sharing people put more stock in each other rather than the big picture. So while they are having a great time with one another, the other 5 members of the village just take ownership of the whole freaking lot. Now there is nothing left to share.

Long story short.....idealism requires everyone, all at the same time, to buy into something. Otherwise its like Christmas for the more shrewd, cunning ones.

That's why I see that kind of thing as apathy, and zombie-like. As I said above, divided we fall. If you don't look after your own country, in all various regards, then someone else most definitely will, and you wont be left with a pot to do the proverbial in afterwards.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

10000maniacs wrote: »

Up to 1:00 today we were heading for a united Ireland. But the DUP have since sunk that.
How did Theresa May think the DUP were ever going to go with single market and customs union rules?

I doubt she did. But it was that, another election, or a Labour-led government.

Some (wo)men just want to watc hthe world burn, as Alfred once said.

A Little Pony

10000maniacs wrote: »

Up to 1:00 today we were heading for a united Ireland. But the DUP have since sunk that.
How did Theresa May think the DUP were ever going to go with single market and customs union rules?

She obviously doesn't know what she is doing. As I have said before it will be a no deal unless the UK as a whole stays in the single market and customs union because no one part of the UK being in and others not is going to work.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Pithythefool wrote: »

No, it was a different post.

Anyway, what I find zombie-like is disregarding your own home and its traditions and way of life etc, in exchange for things that are not OF your own home.

Let me put it in an analogy. There are 10 people living in a village, all with an equal share of everything, their own little hut, own little job, own little income.....everything they need, all equally divided.

One day, 5 of them decide "hey, we don't need to really own all this stuff, sure we can share between all of us. It'll be great, you can take food from me when you need it, I'll take food from you when you need it. Fantastic".

The problem with this idealism is that the 5 sharing people put more stock in each other rather than the big picture. So while they are having a great time with one another, the other 5 members of the village just take ownership of the whole freaking lot. Now there is nothing left to share.

Long story short.....idealism requires everyone, all at the same time, to buy into something. Otherwise its like Christmas for the more shrewd, cunning ones.

That's why I see that kind of thing as apathy, and zombie-like. As I said above, divided we fall. If you don't look after your own country, in all various regards, then someone else most definitely will, and you wont be left with a pot to do the proverbial in afterwards.

That seems to paint a picture of a very bad, oppressive, dictatorial and restrictive society.
The greatest thing I have seem in my 70+ years is countries with diversity of opinion, culture, interests, religions, and ethos. Thankfully Ireland have moved towards some of that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

No, it was a different post.

Anyway, what I find zombie-like is disregarding your own home and its traditions and way of life etc, in exchange for things that are not OF your own home.

Let me put it in an analogy. There are 10 people living in a village, all with an equal share of everything, their own little hut, own little job, own little income.....everything they need, all equally divided.

One day, 5 of them decide "hey, we don't need to really own all this stuff, sure we can share between all of us. It'll be great, you can take food from me when you need it, I'll take food from you when you need it. Fantastic".

Up until here, you describe exactly what I have - it's just not based on nationality.

The problem with this idealism is that the 5 sharing people put more stock in each other rather than the big picture. So while they are having a great time with one another, the other 5 members of the village just take ownership of the whole freaking lot. Now there is nothing left to share.

This is the bit where you lose me. I can see it happening if you use nationality as your concept, but not when you use a different common interest.

The difference is this: when people come together with a common interest, that is what brought them, together. They have made the decision to belong.

With nationality, there is no uniting factor. People are thrown together whether they like it or not. They have NOT made the decision to belong.

And THAT is the key factor you are missing.

Long story short.....idealism requires everyone, all at the same time, to buy into something. Otherwise its like Christmas for the more shrewd, cunning ones.

That's why I see that kind of thing as apathy, and zombie-like. As I said above, divided we fall. If you don't look after your own country, in all various regards, then someone else most definitely will, and you wont be left with a pot to do the proverbial in afterwards.

Also: again not highlighted. Even with the five people taking over everything, there is no explanation of the terms.

Pithythefool

Adrienne Prickly Mars wrote: »

That seems to paint a picture of a very bad, oppressive, dictatorial and restrictive society.
The greatest thing I have seem in my 70+ years is countries with diversity of opinion, culture, interests, religions, and ethos. Thankfully Ireland have moved towards some of that.

If your culture is based on every culture.....that's the exact same as having no culture.

And as I said above, if everyone bought into this idealistic thought process at the EXACT same time, to the EXACT same degree, we wouldn't have any problems.

Its like one person taking all the money out of their account and distributing it to every person they meet along the way. But you wouldn't do that and expect other people to reciprocate, right?

No, what will happen in that hypothetical is that you'll end up broke in no time, while others who weren't stupid enough to do it end up better off with your money.

Replace "money" with "culture", "identity", "country", whatever. its the same principle.

It can all be boiled down to idealism versus reality. One is hypothetical and built on goodwill and fanciful notions, the other is what actually happens in real life.

You posted in my thread on muslim population growth (the thread that was brushed off into a dead-end on the site, what a shocker). Do you think muslims (generally speaking) are going to set up shop in Europe with your same idealistic notions? We're going to find out, and I'll hazard a guess that they generally see us as soft-headed eejits ripe for taking advantage of. And I don't blame them for it, no more than I'd blame someone for taking your money if you threw it in their face. It's people like you that bear the burden of cultural appropriation/decimation, whatever way you want to phrase it.

Theres no balance anymore. Theres nothing wrong with different nations/groups getting along together. There is a serious problem when one side bends over backwards for the other while the other does nothing to reciprocate. All take, no give.

Berserker

10000maniacs wrote: »

Up to 1:00 today we were heading for a united Ireland. But the DUP have since sunk that.

What makes you say that on both counts?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Pithythefool wrote: »

If your culture is based on every culture.....that's the exact same as having no culture.

And as I said above, if everyone bought into this idealistic thought process at the EXACT same time, to the EXACT same degree, we wouldn't have any problems.

Its like one person taking all the money out of their account and distributing it to every person they meet along the way. But you wouldn't do that and expect other people to reciprocate, right?

No, what will happen in that hypothetical is that you'll end up broke in no time, while others who weren't stupid enough to do it end up better off with your money.

Replace "money" with "culture", "identity", "country", whatever. its the same principle.

It can all be boiled down to idealism versus reality. One is hypothetical and built on goodwill and fanciful notions, the other is what actually happens in real life.

You posted in my thread on muslim population growth (the thread that was brushed off into a dead-end on the site, what a shocker). Do you think muslims (generally speaking) are going to set up shop in Europe with your same idealistic notions? We're going to find out, and I'll hazard a guess that they generally see us as soft-headed eejits ripe for taking advantage of. And I don't blame them for it, no more than I'd blame someone for taking your money if you threw it in their face. It's people like you that bear the burden of cultural appropriation/decimation, whatever way you want to phrase it.

Theres no balance anymore. Theres nothing wrong with different nations/groups getting along together. There is a serious problem when one side bends over backwards for the other while the other does nothing to reciprocate. All take, no give.

None of that makes an iota of sense.

As for Muslims, I'm not getting into another immigration bashing thread. Suffice to say, in the other thread you had two groups - Europeans and Muslims. One a geographic group and the other a religion. Many Europeans are Muslims too. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.
You want a national vision that is restrictive, oppressive, stunted, stagnant, and obviously favouring one designated national religion. Good luck with that.

I'm out, as this is a road to nowhere.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

If your culture is based on every culture.....that's the exact same as having no culture.

And as I said above, if everyone bought into this idealistic thought process at the EXACT same time, to the EXACT same degree, we wouldn't have any problems.

Its like one person taking all the money out of their account and distributing it to every person they meet along the way. But you wouldn't do that and expect other people to reciprocate, right?

No, what will happen in that hypothetical is that you'll end up broke in no time, while others who weren't stupid enough to do it end up better off with your money.

Replace "money" with "culture", "identity", "country", whatever. its the same principle.

It can all be boiled down to idealism versus reality. One is hypothetical and built on goodwill and fanciful notions, the other is what actually happens in real life.

Massively false premise: you're confusing giving away (the money) with sharing (the culture). I can share my culture or ideas and still retain them for myself.

You're digging yourself into an even bigger hole here, by actually proving that nationality does exactly what you are saying is negative about sub-cultures and vice versa.

Pithythefool

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Up until here, you describe exactly what I have - it's just not based on nationality.



This is the bit where you lose me. I can see it happening if you use nationality as your concept, but not when you use a different common interest.

The difference is this: when people come together with a common interest, that is what brought them, together. They have made the decision to belong.

With nationality, there is no uniting factor. People are thrown together whether they like it or not. They have NOT made the decision to belong.

And THAT is the key factor you are missing.



Also: again not highlighted. Even with the five people taking over everything, there is no explanation of the terms.

Shooting off in too any directions here. I'm not saying that people cant have hobbies or interests, or that they cant share them with different people. Nothing like that at all.

I'm talking about the trade-off. From what I observe, when it comes to culture (lets keep it simple, just culture), it is a case of absorbing everyone elses at the expense of our own.

If it was reciprocated, if you could say, for example, that the average Russian or Saudi Arabian was actionably allowing/promoting Irish culture to take hold in their countries.......there'd be nothing to talk about! Fair is fair, that would be balance.

But its a one way street. And that, self-evidently, is NOT fair or balanced.

Long story short.....don't lose sight of your own country, lest you wake up one day and its no longer your country anymore.

You mentioned something about "terms", well you can no more negotiate the terms of getting money you don't own from a bank than you can negotiate terms of a majority culture. You either have it or you don't, there will be no-one to complain to about it, and no-one that will listen.

Atoms for Peace

10000maniacs wrote: »

Up to 1:00 today we were heading for a united Ireland. But the DUP have since sunk that.
How did Theresa May think the DUP were ever going to go with single market and customs union rules?

Because the NI economy will go down the tubes unless they get a deal to maintain open trade to their biggest market.

Berserker

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Because the NI economy will go down the tubes unless they get a deal to maintain open trade to their biggest market.

What NI economy are you on about? The place is held together by the ATM that is London. Also, not sure how a failed NI economy would mean a UI. The RoI is an economic basket case in itself.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

Shooting off in too any directions here. I'm not saying that people cant have hobbies or interests, or that they cant share them with different people. Nothing like that at all.

Yes you are.

Pithythefool wrote: »

Have we all become apathetic zombies belonging to micro-groups?

I'm talking about the trade-off. From what I observe, when it comes to culture (lets keep it simple, just culture), it is a case of absorbing everyone elses at the expense of our own.

If it was reciprocated, if you could say, for example, that the average Russian or Saudi Arabian was actionably allowing/promoting Irish culture to take hold in their countries.......there'd be nothing to talk about! Fair is fair, that would be balance.

But its a one way street. And that, self-evidently, is NOT fair or balanced.

Long story short.....don't lose sight of your own country, lest you wake up one day and its no longer your country anymore.

You mentioned something about "terms", well you can no more negotiate the terms of getting money you don't own from a bank than you can negotiate terms of a majority culture. You either have it or you don't, there will be no-one to complain to about it, and no-one that will listen.

You've shifted a bit here. Initally you were against the idea of "micro-groups" (I prefer the term sub-cultures), now you're accepting them. This if fine.

But the idea that nationality is of any relevance is bogus. It's not. It doesn't serve any purpose.

Not sure you understand the concept of "terms". I never mentioned terms (as in conditions) - I simply proved your money-analogy to false, so this isn't really up for debate.

Pithythefool

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Massively false premise: you're confusing giving away (the money) with sharing (the culture). I can share my culture or ideas and still retain them for myself.

You're digging yourself into an even bigger hole here, by actually proving that nationality does exactly what you are saying is negative about sub-cultures and vice versa.

In writing, yes, you are correct it wouldn't be a great premise. But that's not the reality of the actual world, from what I see anecdotally, and socially empirically.

I've mentioned muslimsa couple times here. They just happen to be easily understood references in the current climate. Take for example large parts of Birmingham in the UK.

You can very well say that the british "shared" their culture with muslim culture. It has resulted, in reality, in very large parts of that city becoming muslim only, run on muslim ideals, even laws etc etc. In other words, the "sharing" has resulted in the british having less, and those communities having more.

Can you pick a similar example from a muslim country, where significant parts of their cities have been culturally appropriated by the brits? (you could argue history here, but the present is always more important). Even where you do have large-ish amounts of Europeans working and living in those countries, they have a tendency to be literally walled off into "camps".

That's all I'm getting at, the complete imbalance.

Probably pointless to say it, but I'd happily replace "muslim" with "American" in my criticisms, its just unfortunately a much clearer analogy.

Pithythefool

Adrienne Prickly Mars wrote: »

None of that makes an iota of sense.

As for Muslims, I'm not getting into another immigration bashing thread. Suffice to say, in the other thread you had two groups - Europeans and Muslims. One a geographic group and the other a religion. Many Europeans are Muslims too. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.
You want a national vision that is restrictive, oppressive, stunted, stagnant, and obviously favouring one designated national religion. Good luck with that.

I'm out, as this is a road to nowhere.

You see that's what people like you do. Heres a rough road-map for you.

1) Pop into any thread/conversation, instantly armed against any detail or nuance.

2) Drop your idealism into thread, state some esoteric stuff like "isn't love nice!"

3) No matter what is said to you in reply, you wont be able to "understand it"

4) Drop a "racist" motivated comment, and declare you have noting to say before leaving the conversation.

Heres a quicker version for you....you don't have anything to say, you don't want to talk facts, you "feel" great about certain things.......why don't you just don't bother. It wastes everyone's time.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

In writing, yes, you are correct it wouldn't be a great premise. But that's not the reality of the actual world, from what I see anecdotally, and socially empirically.

I've mentioned muslimsa couple times here. They just happen to be easily understood references in the current climate. Take for example large parts of Birmingham in the UK.

You can very well say that the british "shared" their culture with muslim culture. It has resulted, in reality, in very large parts of that city becoming muslim only, run on muslim ideals, even laws etc etc. In other words, the "sharing" has resulted in the british having less, and those communities having more.

Can you pick a similar example from a muslim country, where significant parts of their cities have been culturally appropriated by the brits? (you could argue history here, but the present is always more important). Even where you do have large-ish amounts of Europeans working and living in those countries, they have a tendency to be literally walled off into "camps".

That's all I'm getting at, the complete imbalance.

Probably pointless to say it, but I'd happily replace "muslim" with "American" in my criticisms, its just unfortunately a much clearer analogy.

I think you should dispence with the analogies altogether, to be fair. You're not very good at it, if I'm to be honest - sorry!

Muslims aren't a country and American culture or lack thereof is not relevant to your thread title.

Nationality and culture are not the same thing. Sub-cultures are cultures. And far more accurate of the term.

JCX BXC

What is this thread?

Genuinely cannot get my head around it, it seems like some random ramblings in a bar?

Pithythefool

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I think you should dispence with the analogies altogether, to be fair. You're not very good at it, if I'm to be honest - sorry!

Muslims aren't a country and American culture or lack thereof is not relevant to your thread title.

Sub-cultures are cultures. And far more accurate of the term.

But what do you have to say about my example, what you can say cultural sharing has resulted in Birmingham?

Or even more to the point, do you think its balanced?

I cant break it down any simpler than that. Is cultural "sharing, as you put it, balanced in your opinion?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

But what do you have to say about my example, what you can say cultural sharing has resulted in Birmingham?

Or even more to the point, do you think its balanced?

I don't have any thing to say. I didn't read it because it's not relevant to the opening post I read. Suggest you start a second thread about it?

I cant break it down any simpler than that. Is cultural "sharing, as you put it, balanced in your opinion?

Culture is sharing of ideas, customs and interests. Different cultures will share on different levels.

Pithythefool

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I don't have any thing to say. I didn't read it because it's not relevant to the opening post I read. Suggest you start a second thread about it?



Culture is sharing of ideas, customs and interests. Different cultures will share on different levels.

Look, if someone has defeated me in an argument, or I have to concede a point, fair enough, I'll do it. But this is the internet, so very little like that actually happens.

What I'm reading (and I could be wrong) is that yes....you DO agree that cultural "sharing" is imbalanced. Theres nothing wrong with just admitting that instead of trying to hide it in some sidewards talk.

You say that cultural sharing is imbalanced.

So how about this then, do you think it is a PROBLEM that it is imbalanced?

(or another way to put it, do you think its wrong if one person is always giving more while another is always taking more?)

Jut keeping it simple.

DanMurphy

Pithythefool wrote: »

If your culture is based on every culture.....that's the exact same as having no culture.

And as I said above, if everyone bought into this idealistic thought process at the EXACT same time, to the EXACT same degree, we wouldn't have any problems.

Its like one person taking all the money out of their account and distributing it to every person they meet along the way. But you wouldn't do that and expect other people to reciprocate, right?

No, what will happen in that hypothetical is that you'll end up broke in no time, while others who weren't stupid enough to do it end up better off with your money.

Replace "money" with "culture", "identity", "country", whatever. its the same principle.

It can all be boiled down to idealism versus reality. One is hypothetical and built on goodwill and fanciful notions, the other is what actually happens in real life.

You posted in my thread on muslim population growth (the thread that was brushed off into a dead-end on the site, what a shocker). Do you think muslims (generally speaking) are going to set up shop in Europe with your same idealistic notions? We're going to find out, and I'll hazard a guess that they generally see us as soft-headed eejits ripe for taking advantage of. And I don't blame them for it, no more than I'd blame someone for taking your money if you threw it in their face. It's people like you that bear the burden of cultural appropriation/decimation, whatever way you want to phrase it.

Theres no balance anymore. Theres nothing wrong with different nations/groups getting along together. There is a serious problem when one side bends over backwards for the other while the other does nothing to reciprocate. All take, no give.

Well said that man.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

Look, if someone has defeated me in an argument, or I have to concede a point, fair enough, I'll do it. But this is the internet, so very little like that actually happens.

What I'm reading (and I could be wrong) is that yes....you DO agree that cultural "sharing" is imbalanced. Theres nothing wrong with just admitting that instead of trying to hide it in some sidewards talk.

You say that cultural sharing is imbalanced.

So how about this then, do you think it is a PROBLEM that it is imbalanced?

(or another way to put it, do you think its wrong if one person is always giving more while another is always taking more?)

Jut keeping it simple.

This would be a lot simpler if you stayed on topic and asked relevant questions. Based on my intial point that cultures based on common interests are more binding and beneficial than nationality then my answers would be:

Yes, culture is based on sharing. Yes, I'd imagine that it's imbalanced as people get involved to different levels. I've never said anything to the contrary.

Do I think it's a problem that it's imbalanced? No. As I said - people indulge in cultures to different levels and are interested at different levels.

Do I think it's wrong that one person is always giving while another is always taking? Not at all. Experienced people will always give more and gladly so. New people will always take more which is to be expected and encouraged.

A Little Pony

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

10000maniacs wrote: »

Up to 1:00 today we were heading for a united Ireland. But the DUP have since sunk that.
How did Theresa May think the DUP were ever going to go with single market and customs union rules?

Because the NI economy will go down the tubes unless they get a deal to maintain open trade to their biggest market.

It didn't fail because of the SM or CU issue.

Pithythefool

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

This would be a lot simpler if you stayed on topic and asked relevant questions. Based on my intial point that cultures based on common interests are more binding and beneficial than nationality then my answers would be:

Yes, culture is based on sharing. Yes, I'd imagine that it's imbalanced as people get involved to different levels. I've never said anything to the contrary.

Do I think it's a problem that it's imbalanced? No. As I said - people indulge in cultures to different levels and are interested at different levels.

Do I think it's wrong that one person is always giving while another is always taking? Not at all. Experienced people will always give more and gladly so. New people will always take more which is to be expected and encouraged.

Well at least we boiled it down and have some common understanding.

The reality that we both agree upon is that cultural sharing is indeed imbalanced. Personally, I think it is severely imbalanced to the point of hilarity.

Our interpretation of the reality is different. You don't see any problem with imbalance, or one person taking all the time versus another person giving all the time. I think its completely whacked out. So on that we differ!

At least we talked through to some common understanding, unlike some.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

Well at least we boiled it down and have some common understanding.

The reality that we both agree upon is that cultural sharing is indeed imbalanced. Personally, I think it is severely imbalanced to the point of hilarity.

Our interpretation of the reality is different. You don't see any problem with imbalance, or one person taking all the time versus another person giving all the time. I think its completely whacked out. So on that we differ!

At least we talked through to some common understanding, unlike some.

It enhances and helps the sharing and learning experience and enriches everyone's experience. Surprised you'd be against this.

A nationality is far more akin to a culture like Islam in that people are born into it, generally speaking, limiting. Peole are expected to follow rules and conform.

Whereas cultures founded around common interests (or "micro-groups" as you called them) where people join of their own volition are far more open and enriching (and not "apathy" and "zombie-like" as you put it).

Pithythefool

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It enhances and helps the sharing and learning experience and enriches everyone's experience. Surprised you'd be against this.

I just cant agree with that, not wholesale anyway.

Seeing as I used it already, the example of Birmingham is not anywhere close to enriching anyone but the people who have settled there and essentially (whether through their own prejudices, English prejudices or both at the same time) gained a pre-made city in which they largely continue their own beliefs unchanged.

As I said before, compared to the camps that Europeans are walled into when working in their respective countries......that's not enriching.

The problem comes completely from the imbalance. We agreed on that, we just don't interpret the RESULT of it the same way.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

I just cant agree with that, not wholesale anyway.

Seeing as I used it already, the example of Birmingham is not anywhere close to enriching anyone but the people who have settled there and essentially (whether through their own prejudices, English prejudices or both at the same time) gained a pre-made city in which they largely continue their own beliefs unchanged.

As I said before, compared to the camps that Europeans are walled into when working in their respective countries......that's not enriching.

The problem comes completely from the imbalance. We agreed on that, we just don't interpret the RESULT of it the same way.

Your definition of culture and nationality are very similar. See the two paragraphs in my post above yours for my responce to this (admittedly, I added as them as you were posting, so apologies about that)

EDIT
Added from above:
A nationality is far more akin to a culture like Islam in that people are born into it, generally speaking, limiting. Peole are expected to follow rules and conform.

Whereas cultures founded around common interests (or "micro-groups" as you called them) where people join of their own volition are far more open and enriching (and not "apathy" and "zombie-like" as you put it).

Pithythefool

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Your definition of culture and nationality are very similar. See the two paragraphs in my post above yours for my responce to this (admittedly, I added as them as you were posting, so apologies about that)

I agree with what you say. Its not that I think people should be walled off from each other.

I suppose its a matter of mutual respect, or just mutuality in general. Its good to share, it is enriching culturally. But it still comes down to the same sticking point for me, the imbalance of it.

If as many europeans were moving to asia as vice-versa, then its not such a big deal. But you wont find any place in asia such as Birmingham, where it is street upon street of, say, German shops, german people, under effectually german law, where you wont really see any Asian people. It sounds mad when you put it that way, very hard to imagine that happening.

But that IS what is happening here. There comes a point where being treated unfairly rises to the fore. And I think its very evident across large parts of Europe, that people are completely unhappy with this situation. And the more it happens, naturally, the less tolerant and content people will become.

Its so bloody basic of a problem, and so visible, that ignoring it is downright dangerous.

To go off on a slight tangent, if these population changes continue, what do you think the reaction would be if Irelands population becomes 40% non-irish? What about 50%? Surely its not hard to imagine a drastic reaction to such a thing.

America is a perfect example of this already in motion. The majority population is going down while immigration is going up. Trump is the tip of the iceberg of the retaliation against the imbalance. Can you actually imagine a realistic scenario where this all blows over?

This imbalance is not a good thing, for anyone, anywhere.

My solution, in a nutshell, is that all our efforts should be placed on COOPERATION, not (obviously) unwanted INTEGRATION. And besides that, the more of a certain demographic moves to an area, the less integration even means, such as Birmingham. Theres nothing to integrate into if everyone around you is the same.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

I agree with what you say. Its not that I think people should be walled off from each other.

I suppose its a matter of mutual respect, or just mutuality in general. Its good to share, it is enriching culturally. But it still comes down to the same sticking point for me, the imbalance of it.

If as many europeans were moving to asia as vice-versa, then its not such a big deal. But you wont find any place in asia such as Birmingham, where it is street upon street of, say, German shops, german people, under effectually german law, where you wont really see any Asian people. It sounds mad when you put it that way, very hard to imagine that happening.

But that IS what is happening here. There comes a point where being treated unfairly rises to the fore. And I think its very evident across large parts of Europe, that people are completely unhappy with this situation. And the more it happens, naturally, the less tolerant and content people will become.

Its so bloody basic of a problem, and so visible, that ignoring it is downright dangerous.

To go off on a slight tangent, if these population changes continue, what do you think the reaction would be if Irelands population becomes 40% non-irish? What about 50%? Surely its not hard to imagine a drastic reaction to such a thing.

America is a perfect example of this already in motion. The majority population is going down while immigration is going up. Trump is the tip of the iceberg of the retaliation against the imbalance. Can you actually imagine a realistic scenario where this all blows over?

This imbalance is not a good thing, for anyone, anywhere.

My solution, in a nutshell, is that all our efforts should be placed on COOPERATION, not (obviously) unwanted INTEGRATION. And besides that, the more of a certain demographic moves to an area, the less integration even means, such as Birmingham. Theres nothing to integrate into if everyone around you is the same.

That's not even close to what you were talking about in your opening post, or the challenge I made about the last paragraph in said post.

Islamic culture actually highlights the ideals you were trying to promote when you say "So what can/do we all unite under anymore?" in the same way a nationality or valued set of traditions would.

Pithythefool

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's not even lose to what you were talking about in your opening post, or the challenge I made about the last paragraph in said post.

That last post of mine was a natural extension of what we were both talking about.

It has gone a bit off the original post, but its more closely related than you think. I started the thread talking about what defines us as a people. Simple enough. Then I was talking about why its important to recognise out own culture....an then (naturally enough) it got to comparisons between our culture and others, and the effect of the one on the other, one overtaking the other etc.

More or less!

But as I said above anyway, current trends wont last. And any of the benefits of sharing cultures will ultimately be thrown out of the window with the bad.

There are big problems here, and nobody wants to admit it, never mind do anything about it. Sleep-walking into some eventual big show down at the OK corral!

Maybe the thread is finished at this point, but if it makes you feel any better, this isn't JUST hypothetical. We are both going to find out eventually, I'd wager sooner than later!

Pithythefool

Pithythefool wrote: »

Well have a look at the last post I made below. It all sounds ideal, but while certain countries are succumbing to this ideal of non-nationality, there are other countries that are the complete opposite, ready to take full advantage of that apathy.

Which countries?

Pithythefool

Deleted User wrote: »

Which countries?

Well I made a thread on tis earlier, then it was sent to a different section. I think it would highlight a lot of countries for you. Its an interesting bit of research, definitely gets you thinking.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057816458

Sweden is a standout example.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pithythefool wrote: »

That last post of mine was a natural extension of what we were both talking about.

It has gone a bit off the original post, but its more closely related than you think. I started the thread talking about what defines us as a people. Simple enough. Then I was talking about why its important to recognise out own culture....an then (naturally enough) it got to comparisons between our culture and others, and the effect of the one on the other, one overtaking the other etc.

More or less!

But as I said above anyway, current trends wont last. And any of the benefits of sharing cultures will ultimately be thrown out of the window with the bad.

There are big problems here, and nobody wants to admit it, never mind do anything about it. Sleep-walking into some eventual big show down at the OK corral!

Maybe the thread is finished at this point, but if it makes you feel any better, this isn't JUST hypothetical. We are both going to find out eventually, I'd wager sooner than later!

The definition of culture is what's changing: people are choosing the cultures they belong to rather than accepting the cultures they're born into and promoting the idea that being defined by your nationality (or religion, or other circumstances of birth) is pretty meaningless.

The imbalance you speak of is that traditionally middle eastern cultures are less inclined to do this, whereas western cultures are more inclined.

Rather than try and encourage those cultures to branch out and integrate, people are trying to stigmatise them as being insular. Thus, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Your approach seems to be to want to promote a similar insularity within western culture in order to combat this, and I don't see how this works. It just promotes a "them against us" mentality.

The reason (I feel) that you decry the micro groups/sub-cultures is because this is a massive obstacle to your plan. These are groups of people who don't sign up to your theory and it for what it is: antagonistic and repressive. But, in a free society, these groups are stronger than you are and, I'm sorry to say it, more intelligent.

As such, your only retort is to call them names like "apathetic zombies". And maybe you know these terms are bull****, maybe you actually even believe them to be true, but the reality is that these groups have far more culture, vibrance and life to them than a restrictive nationally-imposed culture will ever have. And the reason for that is simple:

They choose who they are. They choose what they do. It inspires them. And inspired people are always going to grow more.

Pithythefool

Pithythefool wrote: »

Well I made a thread on tis earlier, then it was sent to a different section. I think it would highlight a lot of countries for you. Its an interesting bit of research, definitely gets you thinking.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057816458

Sweden is a standout example.

but while certain countries are succumbing to this ideal of non-nationality

Your research simply relates to the spread of Islam and Islamic population growth in Europe. Nothing to do with "succumbing to this ideal of non-nationality"... Misleading statement.