Hate crime nonsense

Annasopra

TomTomTim wrote: »

Points like this are somewhat dishonest, because there's two different approaches to "Irishness". Genetically, an African is not an Irish person. It's an absolute statement of fact. Culturally though, they can be Irish. It's a very new, and modern view, that says that cultures have nothing to do with ethnic groups. It's literally a product of the last 5 years or so. So in my view the former is a statement of fact without any malice, whereas if I said that they can't be culturally Irish, then you could argue that there's an element of hatred. To some people, there's no distinction, both statements are hateful, even though they are very different.

Ah ok so Paul McGrath and Phil Lynott are African. :pac::pac::pac: And you're trying to say my point is dishonest :pac::pac::pac:

Eric Cartman

Annasopra wrote: »

Ah ok so Paul McGrath and Phil Lynott are African. :pac::pac::pac: And you're trying to say my point is dishonest :pac::pac::pac:

they're both half Irish. As user bubblypop has made the point loads of times, just being born in a country doesn't make you native to there. Two African parents having a kid here doesn't make that kid Irish, the same as two Irish parents having a kid in Egypt doesn't make the kid Egyptian.

Annasopra

bubblypop wrote: »

There are black Irish people born in Ireland to an Irish parent.
So nothing to do with your 'culturally ' irish.

Its an absolute nonsense point. There are people who are black and Irish. Genetics are not the sole determinant of a persons nationality.

Annasopra

Eric Cartman wrote: »

they're both half Irish. As user bubblypop has made the point loads of times, just being born in a country doesn't make you native to there. Two African parents having a kid here doesn't make that kid Irish, the same as two Irish parents having a kid in Egypt doesn't make the kid Egyptian.

A persons nationality is not determined by their genetics. This is more about coded white supremacy to say to black people that they cant be Irish which is completely untrue.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

they're both half Irish. As user bubblypop has made the point loads of times, just being born in a country doesn't make you native to there. Two African parents having a kid here doesn't make that kid Irish, the same as two Irish parents having a kid in Egypt doesn't make the kid Egyptian.

But one parent being Irish makes that child automatically irish.
Any child born here to foreign parents, can become an Irish citizen, when they have children, those children are automatically Irish. So there are plenty of black irish. And that's not even counting those that are Irish in all but name.

Eric Cartman

Annasopra wrote: »

A persons nationality is not determined by their genetics. This is more about coded white supremacy to say to black people that they cant be Irish which is completely untrue.

nobody ever said black people can't be Irish. But if neither of your parents are Irish , you are not Irish, if one of your parents is Irish you're half Irish. Nothing to do with colour.

One eyed Jack

TomTomTim wrote: »

Points like this are somewhat dishonest, because there's two different approaches to "Irishness". Genetically, an African is not an Irish person. It's an absolute statement of fact. Culturally though, they can be Irish. It's a very new, and modern view, that says that cultures have nothing to do with ethnic groups. It's literally a product of the last 5 years or so. So in my view the former is a statement of fact without any malice, whereas if I said that they can't be culturally Irish, then you could argue that there's an element of hatred. To some people, there's no distinction, both statements are hateful, even though they are very different.

No it’s not. It’s wooly nonsense that attempts to associate biology with politics? A person’s genetics or ancestry has no bearing on their nationality, or vice versa.

How far back do you think you can go with your idea before you run into trouble explaining dark skinned Irish people?


First Irish populations had dark skin similar to Cheddar Man, DNA research suggests

Early Irish people were dark skinned with blue eyes – documentary


It’s a statement made in complete ignorance is what it is, nothing factual in it whatsoever, never mind malice or hatred. It doesn’t even get to that level before it can be dismissed as nonsense.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

nobody ever said black people can't be Irish. But if neither of your parents are Irish , you are not Irish, if one of your parents is Irish you're half Irish. Nothing to do with colour.

Nobody is half anything.
If parents are two different nationalities then their child will be both. (If their country has that rule obvs)
Nobody can be half a nationality

gw80

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it’s not. It’s wooly nonsense that attempts to associate biology with politics? A person’s genetics or ancestry has no bearing on their nationality, or vice versa.

How far back do you think you can go with your idea before you run into trouble explaining dark skinned Irish people?


First Irish populations had dark skin similar to Cheddar Man, DNA research suggests

Early Irish people were dark skinned with blue eyes – documentary


It’s a statement made in complete ignorance is what it is, nothing factual in it whatsoever, never mind malice or hatred. It doesn’t even get to that level before it can be dismissed as nonsense.

I believe cheddar man was debunked,

gw80

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it’s not. It’s wooly nonsense that attempts to associate biology with politics? A person’s genetics or ancestry has no bearing on their nationality, or vice versa.

How far back do you think you can go with your idea before you run into trouble explaining dark skinned Irish people?


First Irish populations had dark skin similar to Cheddar Man, DNA research suggests

Early Irish people were dark skinned with blue eyes – documentary


It’s a statement made in complete ignorance is what it is, nothing factual in it whatsoever, never mind malice or hatred. It doesn’t even get to that level before it can be dismissed as nonsense.

Sorry but you put up two links to say irish people were dark skinned and one is from the irish times and the other is from the journal, I'll pass thanks,
Considering in almost the first sentence it refers to cheddar man and irish people being "likely" to be the same,

Eric Cartman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it’s not. It’s wooly nonsense that attempts to associate biology with politics? A person’s genetics or ancestry has no bearing on their nationality, or vice versa.

How far back do you think you can go with your idea before you run into trouble explaining dark skinned Irish people?


First Irish populations had dark skin similar to Cheddar Man, DNA research suggests

Early Irish people were dark skinned with blue eyes – documentary


It’s a statement made in complete ignorance is what it is, nothing factual in it whatsoever, never mind malice or hatred. It doesn’t even get to that level before it can be dismissed as nonsense.

Absolute crap written by people with an agenda.

One eyed Jack

gw80 wrote: »

I believe cheddar man was debunked,

gw80 wrote: »

Sorry but you put up two links to say irish people were dark skinned and one is from the irish times and the other is from the journal, I'll pass thanks,
Considering in almost the first sentence it refers to cheddar man and irish people being "likely" to be the same,

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Absolute crap written by people with an agenda.

It’s obviously written by people with an agenda, otherwise what’s the point? That’s like me saying that Tom’s post was written with an agenda, or your posts were written with an agenda, hell my own posts are written with an agenda - to dismiss the nonsense notion that biology has anything to do with nationality.

Tom suggested it was scientific fact, it isn’t. I asked Tom how far back does he want to go before he runs into trouble trying to explain the idea of dark skinned Irish people, which is what scientists and archaeologists have suggested our genetic ancestors of that era would have looked like. I guess they weren’t big on taking selfies unfortunately :pac:


EDIT: There was good reason for my asking Tom how far back do they want to go before they run into trouble trying to explain dark skinned Irish people (or more specifically their idea that Irish people aren’t genetically African) -


Rethinking our human origins in Africa

Annasopra

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Absolute crap written by people with an agenda.

Theres also a bit of a white supremicast agenda going on in this thread basically saying that nationality is defined by skin colour and that you can only be Irish if you are white

JimmyVik

Annasopra wrote: »

Theres also a bit of a white supremicast agenda going on in this thread basically saying that nationality is defined by skin colour and that you can only be Irish if you are white

You have to have freckles and turn beetroot red if you go out in the sun without sunblock to be irish

Sleepy

Haven't read through the entire thread but isn't this ultimately likely to backfire? It seems to me at least that it's much harder to convict someone of a hate crime where you have to prove that the crime was motivated by a particular attribute of the victim than to simply convict someone of the crime they've committed?

Annasopra

Sleepy wrote: »

Haven't read through the entire thread but isn't this ultimately likely to backfire? It seems to me at least that it's much harder to convict someone of a hate crime where you have to prove that the crime was motivated by a particular attribute of the victim than to simply convict someone of the crime they've committed?

Not really.

If someone is stabbed while being racially abused then the new law will look at the stabbing and the racial abuse. If they cant prove the racial abuse then the attacker would still probably be likely be convicted with the stabbing assault. Minister McEntee has already addressed that.

The Raging Bile Duct

gw80 wrote: »

I believe cheddar man was debunked,

Still up in the air. Can't believe I'm linking a Daily Mail article but there's a lot of far right, white supremacist organisations with articles about Cheddar Man being debunked.

Geneticist Susan Walsh at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, says we simply don't know his skin colour.

While her computer model shows being black is his 'probable profile', DNA testing is not advanced enough to say for certain.

The 10,000-year-old bones of the ancient Briton were unearthed in Somerset in 1903, and have puzzled scientists ever since.

A team of experts, including Professor Walsh, recently created a computer model that tries to predict a person's skin pigmentation, hair and eye colour, purely from their genes.

The test focused on 36 points of comparison in 16 genes, which are all linked to skin colour.

Dr Walsh and her colleagues analysed genetic data taken from more than 1,400 people.

They were mainly from Europe and the US, but also included people from Africa and Papua New Guinea.

Part of this data was used to train their model on how to recognise skin colour by looking at links with the 36 genetic markers.

The rest of the data was used to test how well the model could predict skin colour from DNA alone.

The model came up with 'black' or 'dark black' skin for Cheddar Man based on his DNA.

Speaking to New Scientist, she said: 'It’s not a simple statement of "this person was dark-skinned".

'It is his most probable profile, based on current research.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5453665/Was-Cheddar-man-white-all.html

Eric Cartman

Annasopra wrote: »

Theres also a bit of a white supremicast agenda going on in this thread basically saying that nationality is defined by skin colour and that you can only be Irish if you are white

Nobody saying that at all

Sue de Nimes

Annasopra wrote: »

Not really.

If someone is stabbed while being racially abused then the new law will look at the stabbing and the racial abuse. If they cant prove the racial abuse then the attacker would still probably be likely be convicted with the stabbing assault. Minister McEntee has already addressed that.

If someone is stabbed because they are black, is that worse than being stabbed because "someone didn't like the look of you"?

Bad news Mr Murphy, you aren't ever going to walk again, but at least you weren't attacked over the colour of your skin!

Annasopra

Sue de Nimes wrote: »

If someone is stabbed because they are black, is that worse than being stabbed because "someone didn't like the look of you"?

Yes. If someone is stabbed because they are black then they are targeted because of the colour of their skin.

Annasopra

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nobody saying that at all

Skirting around the edges of directly saying for sure. Definitely indirectly saying it.

jrosen

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Youd be naive not to, it's rife in many multinationals, including mine.

Big in the MN my husband works for too.

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

Theres also a bit of a white supremicast agenda going on in this thread basically saying that nationality is defined by skin colour and that you can only be Irish if you are white

It actually says a lot when a poster seems to be actively annoyed at geneticist's findings.... Why does it upset them so much?

Annasopra

Annasopra wrote: »

Yes. If someone is stabbed because they are black then they are targeted because of the colour of their skin.

If someone doesn't like the look of you, they are targeting your appearance.

What makes it worse?

gw80

Annasopra wrote: »

Theres also a bit of a white supremicast agenda going on in this thread basically saying that nationality is defined by skin colour and that you can only be Irish if you are white

Yes, I definitely feel like I stuck a blow for the white man today, hahaha, would you give over,

RandomName2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it’s not. It’s wooly nonsense that attempts to associate biology with politics? A person’s genetics or ancestry has no bearing on their nationality, or vice versa.

From the first line in Wikipedia

A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, history, ethnicity, or a common culture, and, in many cases, a shared territory. A nation is more overtly political than an ethnic group;[1][2]

This isn't exactly a controversial opinion.

Are you honestly saying that Poland tends to be ethnically and culturally Polish is merely coincidental? Repeat argument with roughly 180 countries.

One eyed Jack

RandomName2 wrote: »

From the first line in Wikipedia

A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, history, ethnicity, or a common culture, and, in many cases, a shared territory. A nation is more overtly political than an ethnic group;[1][2]

This isn't exactly a controversial opinion.

Are you honestly saying that Poland tends to be ethnically and culturally Polish is merely coincidental? Repeat argument with roughly 180 countries.

I thought I was explicitly clear in what I was saying? Nationality has nothing to do with biology, and vice versa.

That’s not a controversial opinion either.

Tom was trying to make out there are two different approaches to nationality, and suggesting that one of those approaches had something to do with biology, the other with politics. I simply refuted the idea of their first approach based upon the idea that it is apparently scientific fact.

Hitler had similar ideas.

Tell me how

Gucciblues wrote: »

The grey squirrel is considered an invasive species in many parts of the world. In the UK it was introduced over a century ago, but it's still classified as invasive. They are separate and distinguishable from the native red squirrel.

It isn't possible for grey squirrels to become red squirrels. The next best thing is to change the very definition of the red squirrel, reduce it, attack it, make it meaningless. Then any squirrel can be the native squirrel, because the definition has changed.

Not a great deal for the red squirrel though, is it?

There's a similar thought pattern behind many crazy things these days. Certain vested interests/lunatics can't cope with reality so they attempt to change reality itself. It's a very strange phenomenon, alternately hilarious and sad.

It'll age like milk.

Check out Darwins theory of evolution. It will blow your mind.

But I do get your point about certain lunatics not being able to cope with reality.

Tell me how

Gucciblues wrote: »

There's nothing mind-blowing about the acceptance of reality.

As for the lunatics you so readily identified with, from a Darwinist point of view, its quite the phenomena to see a miniscule group of easily differentiated organisms attempt to dictate to a vastly outnumbering population that could readily destroy them.

Like a million slaves and one guy with a whip. It doesn't take long to recognise the power differential and the results of that outcome.

Reality is that since day dot, humans have travelled and migrated and interacted with those within the species even though people on both sides not exactly identical in appearance in terms of skin colour. Or language, or culture, or history etc. While initially it was accompanied with fear and violence, as societies progressed they realised that they had more to gain from interacting peacefully than with violence.

And it will continue to happen irrespective of some peoples desire that it didn't.

Why don't you focus on enriching whatever culture it is you wish to instead of being fearful that not everyone is limiting their own experiences as you are.

RandomName2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I thought I was explicitly clear in what I was saying? Nationality has nothing to do with biology, and vice versa.

That’s not a controversial opinion either.

Tom was trying to make out there are two different approaches to nationality, and suggesting that one of those approaches had something to do with biology, the other with politics. I simply refuted the idea of their first approach based upon the idea that it is apparently scientific fact.

I hadn't read the post you replied to carefully.

Essentially there's two ways to define nationality, either through ethnicity or legal definition.

Anyone can be a Saudi national. Only ethnically Saudi people can be ethnically Saudi though.

Most countries are defined by common nationality. This is particularly important in modern democracies (as opposed to empires). Because democracies are, by definition, the dictatorship of the majority, having countries being relatively nationally homogeneous works well, in a way that we can clearly see wasn't present across the border. There's a reason why people say that Palestinians should have their own country instead of saying they should just be considered Israeli.

The way to safeguard large, distinct minorities in large countries was to either support bids by them to form their own countries (as has happened throughout Europe). In this sense nationalism and politics is inseparable. Of course integration and assimilation of minorities also plays a very important part.

The rejection of both these approaches to instead protect minorities by policing people's opinions seems well meaning but flawed. While such an approach may aid integration, it is more likely to stifle debate while simultaneously having no effect on the behavior of scummy people who already don't care about the law.