MilesMorales1 wrote: » Your OP doesn't make any sense OP.
Pithythefool wrote: » GAA is good, think most people like it or not too bothered by it. Don't think theres many against it anyway.
Berserker wrote: » Really, plenty of people wouldn't be too keen on them. Ever heard of the 'Grab All Association'?
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. EtcPaddys 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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
10000maniacs wrote: » Up to 1:00 today we were heading for a united Ireland. But the DUP have since sunk that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
